Response to Southwest Radio Church on King James Controversy, Part 1 (Dr. Waite)

2 Timothy 2:15 and the Call to Rightly Divide the Word

2 Timothy 2 15 be diligent to present yourself approved to God. A worker who.

Does not need to be ashamed rightly dividing the word of truth Alpha and.

Omega ministries presents the dividing line radio broadcast. The Apostle Peter commanded all Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us. Yet to give this answer with gentleness and reverence.

Your host is dr. James White director of Alpha and Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. If you'd like to talk with dr. white you can call now by dialing 602 -274 -1360 that's 602 -274 -1360 or if you're out of the Metro Phoenix dialing area it's 1 -888 -550 -1360 that's 1 -888 -550 -1360.

And now with today's topic here's James White. Good afternoon and welcome to the.

Dividing line. My name is James White. Well I was sitting at my desk working on a book. I think my publisher will be glad to hear that. I yes am working on a book entitled the God who justifies. When the phone rang and my good friend Simon Escobedo was on the phone.

He said James are you listening to the radio and I said no and he said well there's a program on another station there in the valley that and they're attacking you. They're talking about your King James book.

Well it had been a while since that particular radio station and it's not KPXQ aired yet another King James only attack upon me one of the last ones they had done a number of years ago was a wonderfully titled the public spanking of James White.

Yes King James only folks do tend to like to use very acerbic terminology when they address this particular issue. And so I turned on the radio and lo and behold what do I hear. But the Southwest Radio Church Noah Hutchings and who do they have on Dr. Spargemino is interviewing D .A. Waite.

Now those of you who are familiar with our website know that one of the King James only debates that we have available on the website is the radio debate done in 1994 with Dr. Waite and in fact I would invite anyone to go to the website go to our website follow the links to straightgate .com.

Listen to the debate with Dr. Waite. I believe that anyone who is familiar with the issues and familiar with how debate goes knows that that debate did not go very well for Dr. Waite. He was challenged on many issues where he was not able to provide any type of meaningful substantiation for what he was saying.

Well Dr. Waite is on and actually they were doing a number of programs on my book they had already had Dr. Theodore Liedtis on. And again if you go to our website you will discover a number of articles and one article a very long article is a online debate that was done.

It wasn't a formal debate but a debate that was done between myself and Dr. Liedtis and a number of other people that is most interesting here the Southwest radio Bible Church is presenting a man who does not even believe in inerrancy who believes in all sorts of things that the Southwest folks would not believe in.

But as long as he promotes the King James even if for very different reasons and they would promote it then he is presented. But this program was with Dr. Waite and Dr. Waite did two programs and what we're going to do is we're going to respond to those programs beginning this week here on the dividing line and since my name and my book was used then we'll give you exactly what they themselves said fair usage doctrine and we will let them make the statements and then I will respond now I would love to have Dr. Waite in the program.

I really would. I invited Dr. Waite in the program last year I sent emails to the Bible for today every single one of them was consistently ignored. Dr. Waite will not respond to the challenges that we have sent to him as of this date and so if you're saying well it's unfair to address this issue.

I wasn't invited to be on the Southwest radio church programs I would gladly be on let it be known I would most gladly be on with with both Dr. Spargemino and Dr. Waite if they'd like to have us on Dr. DiVietro if they'd like to be on that would be one funder.

That'd be fine I'd be wonderful. We invited Dr. Waite was invited to be on the John Ankerberg series we did back in 95 96 but he declined that as well. And so in the spirit that says well if you have the truth you don't have to hide that truth.

We'd like to respond to the assertions made by DA Waite on this national program and then when people contact us we can refer them to these audio files and they can listen to them for themselves and understand that there's another side that in fact one side is open to dialogue that's the other side that is not and I think that says a lot about the relative strengths of both.

The Opening Radio Clip and the Book Under Attack

Now it is interesting to listen to what Noah Hutchings says right at the beginning of the program because I personally think this is very very encouraging listen to what he has to say taking a look at this.

Book by dr. white because most of those who have changed to newer versions are justified their stand on the newer version. Take this book by dr. white as a.

Reference. Now I think the fact that they have to address this book at all demonstrates how effective it has been. But that seems to be an admission at least from my perspective that the book has had a tremendous impact upon the King James only controversy upon the King James only community.

And it's not because of anything that I did. It's the simple fact that when you allow both sides to be heard when you give a response it's logical it makes sense it's historical it's biblical and that's why these individuals are attempting to respond to it.

Now I must admit at least at the beginning we had some somewhat nice words said. In fact it was interesting to hear the introduction to.

The first program let's listen in for this program and the next I will be visiting with dr. da white. We want to speak about the James white book on the King James Bible. We're going to be giving an answer to the book the King James only controversy by James white.

Now friends this book has been endorsed by a large number of evangelicals including John MacArthur Hank Hanegraaff DA Carson and several others. James white has become sort of a household name. If you take the position that we do regarding the King James Bible someone will say but have you read the James white book.

Well I've gotten calls from listeners who have said just that and I was talking a little while ago with our announcer Jerry Giltner. Jerry tells me that he has gotten the same question but have you read the James white book.

And Jerry's answer was yes. I have read the James white book. As a matter of fact I had two copies. I kept one for myself and gave one to brother Jerry and so we discussed some of the issues that mr. white raises.

So yes I have read the book. I think James white has done a lot of research and a lot of work in certain areas. I think he's very strong as a matter of fact. I recently heard him in a public debate with a Roman Catholic apologist and I think mr. white did a fine job.

But of course we have some major differences with him regarding the King James Bible. It would be very.

Interesting to know if the good doctor was referring to the recent debate with Tim Staples or if he was listening to the Bible Ants Man broadcast. I have no way of knowing but that's pretty much the end of the nice words.

Misrepresenting the Book on Preservation and Bible Versions

And in fact from this point onward anyone who has read the King James only controversy has to be absolutely amazed at what happens in listening to dr. Sparge amino and dr. wait talk the reason. And I've already had some people who've listened to this who did listen or read my book and and they go how can these people say that.

I remember where you exactly address that or said that or refuted that or whatever it might be. For example at the very beginning of the interview the first question that dr. Sparge amino asks da wait goes like.

This you know it seems to me that James White is not simply attacking the King James Bible as a translation but that at root he is really attacking to receive text and the whole idea of Bible preservation.

In fact it's hard for me to believe that a person who would support the idea of verbal plenary inspiration as mr. white does would also debunk the whole idea of the preservation of the text and he does not seem to believe that God has preserved his word now.

Such an assertion is simply untrue and anyone who has read the King James only controversy knows that I specifically addressed that very issue and I specifically debunked the assertion that I do not believe in Bible preservation and pointed out the illogic of those who would say that you have to believe in their version of Bible preservation to believe in Bible preservation at all.

And that's what we need to understand about the King James only movement that they will say that those who do not accept their reasoning do not believe in biblical preservation. And the point is that we don't believe in their version of biblical preservation.

God has preserved his word but he didn't do it in a 17th century Anglican translation or in what they call the received text whichever version that is whether that's one of the five versions of Erasmus or Stephanus or whether it's Beza or whichever of the versions you want to use.

We don't believe that God's work of preservation in essence took place in the 16th century. That is the difference between us. And so it is untrue to say that I do not believe in biblical preservation.

It is untrue to say that the book is an attack on the King James version. The book specifically says the opposite that we are not attacking the King James version. The Bible were attacking King James only ism.

And here we have the absolute vindication of exactly what I said the beginning of the book. And that is that King James only advocates think in a circle. They reason in a circle and they redefine words to fit into their argumentation.

So when you attack their position which is not a historical position this positions only been around for literally in in the decades. When you attack their position they say oh you're attacking the King James version of the Bible.

No we treat the King James version of the Bible the same way the King James translators would have. It is they who come up with this strange idea of investing into the words the King James version of the Bible some authority that its translators never believe that it had.

So the books not an attack on the King James version of the Bible. It's not an attack on the received text unless you define speaking the truth about the quote-unquote received text the TR as an attack.

And that of course is exactly what they are doing. So the very first question demonstrates that entire sections of my book the King James only controversy have been completely misunderstood by the individuals on the program and notice doctor wait does not provide much of a response to the question.

Here's what he says. That's correct. That's it. That's all he said. You're correct. Well you couldn't exactly expect a whole lot of interaction between the two. They're not going to disagree with one another on an issue like this.

Translation, Inspiration, and the Limits of Modern Versions

Well let's continue on with.

Some of the statements that were made does that sound somewhat contradictory. I mean he does speak about second Timothy 316 all scripture is given by inspiration and is profitable and so on and so forth and yet in effect seems that Mr. White is saying that if just about anyone comes out with a Bible.

Translation. It's okay. Well of course such is not the case whatsoever. I have criticized many translations. When people ask me about translations I'll be happy to criticize especially the European translations liberal translations and things like that.

It seems that because I defended the foundation of modern practices of biblical translation that that means that from these folks's perspective that I making legitimate every possible translation that happens in the modern period such is obviously ridiculous.

You cannot derive that from a reading of my book in any way shape or form that simply isn't true. And yet dr.

Weight responds that's true. He certainly has versions most of them of course even I think even the ones by the National Council of Churches like your revised standard and new revised standard and so on.

He seems to have no distinction no dissemination between these ones and among the different versions and yet he doesn't tell which one he really prefers. He sort of hints that he prefers a new American standard new King James New International and I guess he's even apologetic.

He says well if you want to use a King James nothing wrong with you but don't just use that only. I guess that's his main thing isn't.

Well I have a suggestion for dr. weight when someone calls you up and says let's do a radio program on James White's book my suggestion is this don't rely on something that you might have read on a surface level about four years ago because I can tell you I don't remember as much about all the minutia in regards to various translations and textual issues today as I did when I was writing that particular book.

And it's sadly obvious in light of what dr. weight has said so far that he's going on old memories. And they're not very accurate memories. I have often jokingly talked about the revised standard perversion.

There are many translations in the RSV that I reject that I in fact use as examples of liberalism in translation and the way in which that can be snuck in and things like that. So quite honestly dr. weight doesn't know what he's talking about this point.

And there really wasn't any reason for this. Dr. weight could have contacted me could have asked me. He certainly knows. My email address is because he has all those unanswered emails that I was sent to him inviting us inviting him to discuss these issues.

But again if you go on a national radio program make these statements. You might want to know what you're talking about. Unfortunately dr. weight hasn't done that in this particular situation. My blessing is not on all modern translations in any way.

Shape or form. But we continue. Yes in fact I've read his comments on psalm 12 it seems to me very strongly to teach preservation verses six and seven but white and company argue that the promise pertains to all the translations and versions combined.

So allegedly the Bible never promises that there will be one preserved version but that all the versions taken together give us the preserved word of God. So that would seem to me. If the Joe down the street wants to make a version then that is also included in psalm 12 6 7 doesn't that.

Seem contradictory. It is difficult for me to understand exactly what dr. Sparge amino is referring to here. I wrote a fairly lengthy discussion of psalm 12 in response to dr. Holland and pointed out that the King James does not even provide the literal rendering of the passage and that the King James only interpretation the passage is having reference to some methodology of biblical preservation in a 17th century Anglican translation has absolutely positively no basis whatsoever in the text itself but to then go from there and say that somehow I was suggesting that the promise of preservation which refers to God's keeping his word not in any particular translation but keeping it from being manhandled and changed by men and doctrines inserted and taken out and so on so forth how that is even slightly relevant to what I said about psalm 12 I honestly cannot even begin to understand I I do not know what he's referring to.

It makes no sense. And certainly there's no application of what I have said about psalm 12 to the assertion that I'm saying that any old translation is just fine. This is simply a complete misrepresentation of my position.

Psalm 12 and the Meaning of Preservation

Now I mentioned earlier on that the debate that took place between myself and Dr. Waite on KIXL radio in Austin Texas is found on our website. Actually it's on straightgate .com but we have links to it from our website.

And I would encourage the listener to listen to that debate for yourself because in this next segment Dr. Waite makes reference to that debate and it's interesting how he describes me especially if you've listened to the.

Debate itself. Listen to this. And I debated him for two hours one time on an evening meeting. Oh about 10 -15 years ago. I don't remember exactly what it was. In fact I've got the tape share listener just to hear myself.

See what we talked about 1994. It's only six years ago and I found that he was very like an amoeba. He was an amoebic in that he would shift and move. You could not pin him down. Yeah.

That's me all right amoebic. I haven't been called amoebic in a long time nor have I ever had anyone tell me that. My problem was that you couldn't pin me down. Most of the time people are complaining that I'm too dogmatic not that you can't pin me down again.

I would simply invite the listener to go listen to the debate. If you can't access it through the internet then get the tapes from us and I think it's pretty clear who didn't want to be pinned down and who couldn't actually provide a defense of their position.

I think that came out very clearly in the debate itself. Now dr. Waite made another reference to our.

Debate as well. Here's what he said when I was debating with him. He for instance takes a verse and says now this shouldn't be there and so on and yet he claims to use the New King James which he claims that he uses and likes it and the New King James and the majority text they were reading but doesn't have it and so it's hard to pin him down just where he's coming from.

Well dr. Waite it.

Wouldn't be hard to pin me down where I'm coming from if you'd read my book. And if you'd listen to what we said on the radio program. It's really hard to respond to this kind of assertion especially recognizing again this is being put out on a national radio program.

This is this is being put out for public consumption. I do not use the majority text. I do not use the TR. Therefore the New King James version. People ask me all the time what do you think about the New King James Version of the Bible.

It is an excellent translation of an inferior text. Excellent translation of an inferior text. And I think what dr. Waite's referring to is if you go back and listen to the debate I raised a number of passages like Luke 222 or the passage in Revelation where Beza made a conjectural emendation or in Timothy where you have readings that are found in the King James Version of the Bible and in various editions of the Textus Receptus that have either no or almost no Greek manuscript support whatsoever that in essence Christians had read these texts in one certain way for over a thousand years or as many as fourteen or fifteen hundred years.

Never any other way. And yet there is this change in the compilation of the TR. And now the King James right reflects this change. I had asked him why should we accept an emendation that is made by someone such as Theodore Beza.

Why should we go with a reading that's in the TR that is not known in the Greek manuscript evidence at all. And he had no response. Listen to the debate yourself. That doesn't mean it's difficult to nail down where I'm coming from.

It means it's difficult for him to understand and respond to the documentation of the errors of his position. That doesn't make me amoeba like it makes his position incomprehensible. And for me to point out the incomprehensibility and indefensibility of his position doesn't mean that I'm the one shifting ground in any way shape or form.

Circular Reasoning, the King James Only Movement, and Textual Criticism

Then Dr. Waite.

Makes this very interesting statement. He claims his father was a Baptist GARB General Association of Regular Baptist Churches he's a Baptist minister himself. And by the way as you mentioned this book was used in different places did you realize.

It's also recommended not only from the New Evangelicals or the.

Liberals but also the fundamentalists. Well that's interesting. I don't know of any liberals who recommend it in the sense that I believe in inerrancy and I promote the inspiration of scripture. It's a very conservative book but maybe they recommend it only as an antidote to King James only.

Ism. I don't know but be that as it may. Listen to this next statement by dr. Sparge amino. It illustrates yet again the seeming either inability or unwillingness of King James only advocates to break out of the narrow spectrum of their thinking and to hear what the opposition is saying.

Listen to the misrepresent. Not only the misrepresentation of my position but the foundation that is provided by dr.

Sparge amino for his assertions but it seems that when we take the position that mr. white and a whole bunch of evangelicals have taken that rather than having confidence in the promise of the Lord Jesus Christ they now have confidence in some super group of elitist scholars who are somehow able to restore the text rather than believing in the preserved text so that shifts the whole focus from the promise of God to the wisdom of men and that makes me a.

Little bit uncomfortable as well. It should make you a little bit uncomfortable. Of course that's not my position not the position of anyone that I know of or would agree with but it is instead a straw man.

First of all no one is rejecting Jesus promise. Jesus never talked about the King James version of the Bible and it is the absolute height of is a Jesus to think that anything Jesus said points us to a 17th century Anglican translation of the Bible that no one uses anymore.

The Bible that dr. Sparge amino or dr. way uses is not the 1611 King James version. It's the 1769 Blaney revision. Even then does he use the Oxford or the Cambridge. Is it a Thomas Nelson. Is it published by someone else.

There are differences between them. You see when you start using this kind of rhetoric and it is it's just rhetoric to say all these people don't believe the promise of Jesus that is simply untrue. It's unworthy of a Christian scholar to make that kind of a statement because it's untrue.

And if he's read my book he knows that not only do I Jesus but I believe in every promise that he gave. And so to associate the promise of Jesus with his particular theory regarding biblical preservation is again a wonderful example of the circularity of King James only reasoning.

Not only that but it's a tremendous example of the error of the King James only position in ignoring its own history. The King James is the result of the textual decisions of a group of scholars. There were scholars in England.

It's the result of the textual decisions of the Roman Catholic priest Desiderius Erasmus. And it's gonna be fascinating we get to their their desperate attempts to get around the fact that Erasmus was a Roman Catholic priest.

But the textual decisions of Erasmus Stephanus Beza and the King James translators. There is their quote-unquote quote group of scholars. And in reality this criticism is valid against them not against us.

When I read my text I have the textual variants the bottom of the page. Dr. Waite in his book attacks the new King James Version of the Bible for even listing variant readings in the margin and I just note in passing that the King James Version was originally published had all sorts of such notes.

But be that as it may I have those textual variations I can look at them. I don't have to depend upon a group of super scholars but they do. They have to depend upon the assertions and the decisions of Erasmus Stephanus Beza and the King James translators who are long gone and the King James translators themselves in their foreword laid out the principles of textual criticism that they used and guess what the King James translators would never have agreed with what the King James only advocates say in regards to their theory of preservation.

And folks this is why they will not engage in debate. This is why they're so hesitant to allow both sides to be heard. And that is why the King James only controversy book has had the impact that it has.

Because the simple fact the matter is folks when you allow both sides to get together I can point out where every single argument the King James only side uses can be turned around and applied to their own position right now.

They say you're depending upon scholars. You've got these super scholars that recreate the text and I can just simply turn around say well if you have a problem with using textual critical principles and having groups of scholars working on it then you have the exact same problem.

Because you had Erasmus and he talks about the methodology that he utilized and you've got Stephanos and you've got Beza and you've got the King James translators. And they use the exact same kind of reasoning.

We simply today can examine the decisions that are made by those that we allegedly are quote unquote following and we don't have to follow them. If I read something in the text of my Nestle Alland 27th edition and I disagree with the committee's decision.

Hey I've got the information right there. I can check it out. They can't. They can't go back and look at what information the King James translators had and that causes the problem. Folks we'd like to hear from you 602 -274 -1360 we will be taking calls.

602 -274 -1360 1 -888 -550 -1360 are the phone numbers for you to call and get involved. We're gonna have another segment after the break where we continue doing interaction and then we'll take a few phone calls at the end of the hour.

We'll be doing the same thing next week. So get on the phone line now if you want to have an opportunity of talking about the King James only controversy we'll be right back to make these claims. When you don't have to defend these claims when you know the person interviewing you is never going to challenge you.

But that's why I challenged dr. wait to come on this program and tell us tell us where these these councils met who made these decisions. Dr. wait the simple historical fact is what you're saying is untrue.

So why say it. Because it substantiates the King James only position. And then he goes on to be specific and say that I love the Westcott and Hort text. In fact in the next section we're gonna hear he says that that I have said and I do say in my book that the modern text the United Bible Society's 4th edition the Nessie Olin 27th edition is not the Westcott and Hort text.

That is a simple fact. Anyone who has studied these issues knows that the UBS 4th and the Nessie Olin 27th reject many of the Westcott Hort readings. They take into consideration more information. In fact I said in my book the Westcott and Hort were overly enamored with Vaticanus Sinaiticus or as he calls it Oliphant B and so you will find many readings in the modern text that differ from the Westcott and Hort text.

But dr. wait for some reason doesn't want people to realize that because he vilifies Westcott and Hort so much and so listen.

To what he has to say here the Vatican and Sinai the Westcott and Hort type of manuscripts that mr. white claims to love. Although he claims that the Westcott and Hort text is no longer now acceptable which is wrong it is certainly almost identical with the United Bible Society's text or the Nessie Olin text.

But he says the churches have an idea as to what was truth and because they rejected the B and Aleph type of manuscripts B and Aleph about 43 others are the only ones that have survived through the years whereas that's less than 1 of what survived.

And yet the text of a Septus type of manuscripts over 5 ,210 over 99 have survived. The churches knew what was.

Again this is simply wishful thinking. Dr. wait cannot point to any time where the quote-unquote church sat down with knowledge of the differences in manuscripts the manuscript text types. There was never a period of time when the church has ever had as much information as we have today about the various types of manuscripts and their readings and has made such a decision.

This simply isn't true. And if we could challenge dr. wait okay there is your assertion. Now prove it document it tell us when this happened give us some information. Then we'd be able to see that this position is merely assertion and not fact.

And that is again why we'd like to have a two-way conversation not just this one way. By the way folks we will take calls today. We will take calls in the last quarter hour of the program. First come first served on this subject only please 602 -274 -1360 locally 1 -888 -550 -1360.

Now's your opportunity to get online and we will take your calls your questions on this subject of the King James only controversy the last quarter hour of the program. So get online now. Now in the few minutes we have before we go to phone callers let me touch on one really important area the next area the doctor Sparge amino went into was the issue is is doctrine affected by textual variation.

And I made the assertion in the King James only controversy that if you apply the same standards of exegesis and hermeneutics to the Westcott and Hort text on one extreme and to the Texas receptus on the other extreme that you will not come up with a different doctrine.

I cannot get King James only individuals to deal with my actual assertion. Instead what they'll always do is they'll say all look at this look at a variation over here in first Timothy three or look at this one over.

I'm well aware since the book discusses these things well aware of the fact that there are textual variations that have doctrinal relevance. But no doctrine depends on a textual variation. And since we can determine if we don't just simply start with our conclusion and reason a circle we can determine the original readings.

And so the issue is the modern text do not present some different doctrinal position. Then does the Texas receptus that has been my assertion. But notice even though dr. Wade allegedly has read my book notice how he will respond to the following question from dr. Sparge amino the standard line.

Is that it really does not affect a single doctrine. No single Bible doctrine is affected by a different text. Now mr. white makes that claim. Christianity today makes that claim and many evangelicals make that claim.

Dr. wait what is your response. That no doctrine is affected now. Notice at least dr.

Sparge amino asked the right question that no doctrine is affected not that there are no doctrinally relevant variations but that no doctrine is.

Affected but listen to wait. Response. Well my response is they should look at the research done by dr. Jack Mormon. He has taken the pains to go through the entire Greek New Testament and he's come up with 356 doctrinal passages for the NIV and other modern Bible versions receptus that involve doctrine.

Now to say that no doctrine is involved when 356 doctrinal passages are. These are passages some of the passages which are lengthier that includes mark 16 9 to 20.

Many of the well these these passages involve doctrines but do does any doctrine of the faith depend upon mark 16 9 through 20. What doctrine is that. Snake handling again what is found in the King James.

Only controversy is being ignored. And if dr. wait would come on the program of dr. Sparge amino would come on the program if they would debate this out before the people of God then we could ask the question in cross-examination dr. wait show us a passage in scripture that is found in the text is receptus but not in the modern text that is the basis of an entire doctrine.

What doctrine is it. Show us the text and give us the opportunity of demonstrating that the reading in the nestle on 27th edition is fully in harmony with Christian truth. Because this folks I point out the book becomes very dangerous because it ends up being jack mormon or da wait determining what theology is and then determining the reading of text of the text of scripture on the basis of their understanding of theology.

For example they love to go after John chapter 1 verse 18 and saying well if you take the modern text that means God has a beginning because it means only begotten God. And they dismiss any possibility that the term monogamous that is used there can mean unique or one of a kind.

Now here's the important part. Therefore their interpretation of the passage becomes the determining factor as to what the passage must say. Since they do not interpret monogamous theos is meaning unique God the one who uniquely reveals the father.

Therefore the text can't say that. And even though the two earliest manuscripts papyri manuscripts of the Gospel of John say that they have to be rejected on what basis is it a basis of examining the text of being fair with the manuscripts.

No. The basis is that the 17th century Anglican translation called the King James Version says differently. And since that is our final authority then everything else must be corrected in light of that.

And this we will get to this later on because we're running out of time. But one of the things that one of the charges made against me in the second program is that I'm dishonest in throwing da wait and Peter Ruckman in the same group.

And yet here's an example of where I'm not dishonest in doing that because I do not believe that da wait would ever say that any reading of the King James Version of the Bible is an error. And that fundamentally makes the King James Version inspired and inerrant.

Now if dr. wait I'll say well okay I'll agree with Dean Bergan for example that the comma johannium should not be in the King James Version of the Bible then I'll withdraw that and say hey. And even though I did differentiate between them I'll say hey this is not a King James only person in the way that Peter Ruckman is.

But until dr. da wait has the willingness to come out and say that there are passages in the King James Version that could be translated better then in reality what is the functional difference between his view and Peter Ruckman's view that the King James Version is new revelation it was inspired between 1604 and 1611.