GETTING SUCKED IN? Ask the right questions to get the right answers.

by Terry 145 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Perry
    The 30,000 branches of Christianity exist for the very reason that they cannot come to an agreement among themselves on the definitions of these Christian concepts, and they don't appear to be even slightly embarassed by it.

    Sorry Superpunk,

    I thought you were just parroting the WT line. I just wanted to make clear that there is really only one doctrine that truly defines Christianity... the New Covenant.

    Terry and had a lively discussion on ancient manuscripts here:

    I also have a website with the basic theme that the KJV is superior to most:

  • superpunk

    I also have a website with the basic theme that the KJV is superior to most:

    We've moved from "authoritative" to "superior to most" in under an hour.

  • Terry

    Has anybody read the book THE KING JAMES ONLY CONTROVERSY?

    The King James Only Controversy by James R. White
    Written by Jeremy Cagle

    James R. White, an elder at Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church and Director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, has written several apologetic books, including Is the Mormon My Brother, The Roman Catholic Controversy, and What’s With the Dudes at the Door. ...

    White demonstrates his opposition in clear scholastic point–by–point refutation. He moves from discussing those who hold exclusively to the KJV (chapter 1) to the logical fallacies behind their arguments (chapter 2) to the formation of the Old and New Testaments (chapters 3 and 4) to the publications of the King James Only camp (chapter 5) to the translation differences between the King James Version and other translations of the Bible (chapter 6) to the differences in the texts used in the various English translations of the Bible (chapter 7). In short, White does not leave any stone unturned in regards to this issue. His Bibliography even contains a Greek Word Index (pp. 277–278).

    The most interesting chapter for me personally was Chapter 5, entitled “The King James Only Camp.” In this chapter, White takes the time to discuss the writings of those who promote King James Onlyism. One example he cites is a book published in 1993 by G. A. Riplinger called New Age Versions. New Age Versions seeks to show the inaccuracies in the NIV, NASB, NKJV, NRSV, NAB, REB, RSV, CEV, TEV, GNB, The Living Bible, the New Jerusalem Bible, and the New Century Bible; and to promote the latest research concerning the King James Version. Before showing the misquotations in New Age Versions, White quotes the back cover (p. 96), which says,

    This book is the result of an exhaustive six year collation of new bible versions, their underlying Greek manuscripts, editions, and editors. It objectively and methodically documents the hidden alliance between new versions and the New Age Movement’s One World Religion.

    Each page opens a door exposing new version editors – in agreement with Luciferians, occultists, and New Age philosophy – in mental institutions, séance parlors, prison cells, and court rooms for heresy trials – and most shocking of all – denying that salvation is through faith in Jesus Christ.

    It is absolutely staggering that any “scholar” would claim that the NIV, NASB, NKJV, NRSV, etc. were edited by those “in agreement with Luciferians.” James White does a superb job of showing the absurdity of such a claim (pp. 96–104).

    The vast majority of the writer’s time is spent discussing and debunking the scholastic fallacies that the King James Only Camp embraces, such as the belief that the Textus Receptus has been supernaturally preserved from error or that it was inspired by the Holy Spirit (pp.2, 33, 42–48, 53–60). (See footnote) Another fallacy he mentions is the thinking that the modern translations offer an altogether different meaning from that given in the original King James Version. As White himself explains,

    It has already been noted that there is often more than one correct way to translate certain Greek and Hebrew words and phrases into English. But when KJV Only believers set the KJV up as the only correct translation, they view any other translation, even if it is perfectly valid and proper given the Greek and Hebrew constructions, as a “change” (to use the nicer term), or a “perversion” (to use the more common term). In the vast majority of instances, the differences are not vital to an understanding of the passage (p. 129).

    The King James Only Controversy contains excellent material for scholars and those who are interested in ‘digging in deep.’ White’s use of charts and graphs would be helpful to someone who has a good understanding of Greek and the formation of the canon. Although he does cover some basic principles for the revision of Scripture (chapter 4) and the way in which the Bible was written and put together (chapter 3) for the purpose of aiding those who do not have training in the field of biblical scholarship, this book is definitely written on the scholarly level.

    Such a scholastic approach is where I would find a problem with White’s book. In the Introduction, White claims to be writing for anyone struggling with whether to believe in the isolated inspiration of the King James Bible. “Rather, the wish is to provide a broad response to the general claims, providing reasoned response to the concept that there is any particular translation of the Bible in English that God requires the faithful Christian to use,” (pp. VI-VII). He certainly does accomplish the stated task of the book. But while his response is broad and effective, unfortunately, his audience is limited to academics and intellectuals.

    Most church-goers who are struggling with whether to believe that the King James Bible is the only infallible word of God are not scholars. Anyone with a scholarly background could easily recognize the logical fallacies and erroneous positions the KJV Only camp presents. As such, most people who would benefit from this book (those who do not have a scholastic background) would not get past the numerous charts and the arguments from the Greek texts. It would go over a typical layperson’s head or beyond their interest. The point would be made but the reader would get lost in the process.
    James White could also be accused of over-kill in proving his points. While it is important to discuss textual differences and the absence and addition of the references to Jesus’ deity, five or so illustrations would be enough. Chapter 7 contains over 30 charts, chapter 8 contains 17, and chapter 9 contains 16! Chapter 5 on the King James Only camp has over 20 quotations. That is more than enough documentation to prove a point. An average layperson at an average church would not understand or care about the necessity of such a large amount of information.

    On the other hand, overkill can be good when driving a point home. White’s meticulous manner of providing charts about the differences between erroneous scholarship of KJV Only advocates, his presentation of the various translations contrasted with the KJV, and his discussion of the tools used by those who translated the King James Bible show that those who continue to think that the KJV is the only inerrant word of God do so against sound evidence. Such a work should be a “nail in the coffin” for anyone who teaches that the King James Bible is the only inspired Word of God.

    In closing, The King James Only Controversy is a good book to flip through and own in case this issue comes up at a nearby church. There is more than enough information here to show your people that the King James Bible, while it is a good translation, is not the only one that can be trusted for its accuracy. It is, however, a difficult book for any lay person to read.

    Footnote: The Textus Receptus is the ancient Greek manuscript that the translators of the King James Bible used. It is also known as the “Received Text.”

    Book Review by Jeremy Cagle, Pastor, Middletown Bible Church, Middletown, Illinois
  • Perry

    A Critique of James R. White's book

    By Dr. Thomas D. Holland, Th. D.

    And the article above highlights some of White's excesses just as Riplinger had a few excesses of her own. The vast majority of regular folks who prefer the KJV just believe that it clearly espouses the CLEAREST Christian doctrine. Most wouldn't mind to see an update like the one in 1769 that simply updated a few words here and there.

    However, the problem is that when that was tried with the New King James Version a lot of doctrinal changes crept habitually changing belief and disbelief into obedience and disobedience, respectively.

    So, we are stuck with the thee's and the thou's...which is really quite poetic after you get used to them anyway.

    But the basic facts underlying the TR are indisputable and the objections raised by Dean Burgeon against the minority texts are still unanswered today as they were 125 years ago.

  • Terry
    However, the problem is that when that was tried with the New King James Version a lot of doctrinal changes crept habitually changing belief and disbelief into obedience and disobedience, respectively.


    Here you've stipulated to something you've been denying for years!

    Even the most devout translators CHANGE THE TEXT!

    I rest my case Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury!

    Every time the texts are RE-translated they have unwittingly been colored by devout believers who want to CLARIFY. (Clarify=change).

    The Bible is a corruption.

    We can't UNdo the corruption.

    There are no ORIGINAL autograph texts.







    Suspiciously UNAVAILABLE for comparisons.

    We are left with our friends (devout espousers of "purity" trying to assure us) we have all we need to "understand" God and His message.

  • Perry

    The problems are with the modern translations Terry....not the underlying mss texts. Big difference. You can declare victory if you'd like. The controversy won't go away. I've settled the issue in my mind... each should do the same.

  • Terry

    The problems are with the modern translations Terry....not the underlying mss text

    What Christian walks around with underlying texts in their bookbag?

    What Church provides underlying texts for the rows of pews where the faithful will sit and read during sermons?

    What bookstore sells a Family Underlying Text for the coffee table?

    No, Perry, your argument is self-defeating.

    Christians hold Bibles, read bibles, memorize bible passages and quote bible , rerove with bible passages and study "pure worship" using TRANSLATIONS which are tampered frauds.

    Having wonderful underlying mss doesn't help them avoid corruption in their beliefs and practices one little bit!

    THESE CORRUPTIONS were not done by dishonest men! On the contrary, the corruptions are by very faithful and well-intentioned men with a good heart committing Pious Fraud unwittingly by INJECTING their own considerable "help" by twisting the underlying texts.

    Falsum in unum falsum in totum.

    Christianity is fractured into disagreement rather than unity. I blame the translations. The underlying texts have become irrelevent to the result.

  • Terry

    Ladies and this corner in the white trunks we have James R. White and his THE KING JAMES ONLY CONTROVERSY

    in the opposite corner in the black trunks we have Thomas D. Holland and his critique of James R. White's book.

    How is such a battle possible?

    Ask yourself how truly honest men of enormous faith and integrity who believe in the same Jesus Christ and hold the same basic values can be so at odds with each other?

    The foundation of their dissonant views about Bible Translation and Truth and Error are only possible because of one fact and one fact only.

    THE ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPH UNCORRUPT TEXT of scripture has vanished from history leaving a gap that has produced a profound gulf between believers on opposite sides of "truth".

    Each side produces a momentum of HELP by translating and translating and translating. All this translating amounts to changing, shaping, interpreting and "clarifying" THEIR DEEPLY HELD DOCTRINAL BELIEFS into the newly translated texts!

    This is corruption no matter how honest-hearted their intentions!

    Christians can argue about everything because there are no original texts.

    End of story.

    Each time the one side goes "to court" against the opposite side they cannot call any eyewitnesses to the stand to testify to the Truth, the Whole Truh and Nothing but the Truth.

    They only have hear-say.

    Justice cannot rule with the absence of pure evidence and uncorrupt testimony.

    Christianity is Pious Opinionating and little else.

    Nobody Knows what anything says or "means".


  • Perry

    Terry, I play tennis with a guy who was raised really rough, was heavily involved in Satanism and God saved him from all that. We used to be competetitors online with our businesses, then he later relocated to San Antonio.

    Anyway, the mss issues are particularly relevant to me as an ex-JW. It is simply not of interest to him in the least. I've heard his powerful testimony, I know his love for the Lord, I know that he believes things that are doctrinally sound. (The only doctrine we disagreed on is Eternal Security.) He KNOWS how the Lord changed him and saved him. And, he knows where I stand, and what the Lord did for me.

    When I first started telling him about the stuff I was learning, he became really angry (temprorarily) He couldn't believe I was attacking his modern version that had lead him to Christ and away from untold misery. (this was his perception)

    So, that's where I left him. His love for the bible and God (in my opinion) sorta blinded him to the fact that the WT exploited small textual changes to elicit HUGE doctrinal changes. My experience simply wasn't his. I do not condemn him...and neither does he of me.

    Perhaps White let his own own personal experience jade facts to declare that it really doesn't matter. I believe it does matter alot...particularly to ex-Jw's. At least it did to me.

    So what?

    Why are you so interested in Christians? Isn't the thought that the universe appeared out of nothing just as interesting?

  • thetrueone

    And this why men want to cut themselves out a slice of that delicious god pie to self empowerment,

    all you need is a little aggressive daringness.

    C. T. Russell and Joesph Rutherford were men who were just that daring.

Share this