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

Second 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 2 7 4 13 60. That's 602 2 7 4 1360 or if you're out of the

Metro Phoenix dialing area, it's 1 8 8 8 5 5 0 13 60 That's 1 triple 8 5 5 0 13 60 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 a 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.

Sparge Amino is interviewing da wait 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

Wait, 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. Wait, 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

Wait, he was challenged on many issues where he was not able to provide any type of meanings meaningful

Substantiation for what he was saying. Well, dr Wait is on and actually they were doing a number of programs on my book.

They had already had dr Theodore elitist 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.

Lead us 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 of 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 Wait and dr Wait did two programs and what we're gonna do is we're gonna respond to those programs at 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

Wait in the program. I really would I Invited dr. Wait in the program last year. I Sent emails to the

Bible for today Every single one of them was consistently ignored Dr.

Wait 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. Sparge me know and Dr. Wait if they'd like to have us on dr.

D Vietro If they'd like to be on that would be one funder. That'd be fine.

That'd be wonderful We invited dr. Wait 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 wait on this national program and then when people contact us we can refer them to these audiophiles and they can listen to them for themselves and Understand that there's another side that in fact one side is open to dialogue

It's the other side that is not and I think that says a lot about the relative strengths of both

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 just to buy 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 and 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 in 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 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 addressed 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 Stefano. So 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 position has 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've come up with this strange idea of investing into the words the

King James version of the Bible some Authority that its translators never believed 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 dr.

Waite 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. Well, let's continue on with some of the statements that were made

Does that sound somewhat? Contradictory. I mean he does speak about 2nd

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. Waite responds That's true.

He certainly has his blessings upon all the different versions most of them

Of course even I think even the ones by the National Council of Churches like the Revised Standard and New Revised Standard and so on He said they have no distinction.

No Dissemination between the 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 the King James nothing wrong with you, but don't just use that only

I guess that's his main thing, isn't it? Well, I have a suggestion for dr

Waite 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 minutiae 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

Waite 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

Waite doesn't know what he's talking about at this point and there really wasn't any reason for this dr Waite could have contacted me he 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 could go on a national radio program and make these statements you might want to know what you're talking about Unfortunately, dr.

Waite 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 6 & 7

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 of 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 and 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. It makes no sense. And certainly there's no application and 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 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

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. Let's do 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 that 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 that he likes

Has that particular reading but the text receptus has it also but his Westcott nor 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 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 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 2 22 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 manuscripts 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 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

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 Isis of 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 and 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 when 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 at 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 forward 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 and 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

Stephanus 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 2 7 4 13 60

We will be taking calls 602 2 7 4 13 61 triple 8 5 5 0 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 gonna 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 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 fourth edition The Nessie Allen 27th edition is not the Westcott and Hort text

That is a simple fact anyone who has studied these issues knows That the UBS fourth and the

Nessie Allen 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 olive and B And so you will find many readings in the modern texts 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 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 Allen text but he says the churches have an idea as to what was truth and because they rejected the

Biennale of type of manuscripts be an elephant 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 receptus type of manuscripts over 5210 over 99 % have survived the churches knew what was right and what was wrong

Again, this is simply wishful thinking Dr. Waite 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. Waite, okay, there is your assertion now prove it

Documented 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 two seven four thirteen sixty locally one triple eight five five zero thirteen sixty

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 that dr 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 textus receptus on the other extreme

That you will not come up with a different doctrine I can not get

King James only individuals to deal with my actual assertion Instead of what they'll always do is they'll say oh well

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 in a circle

We can determine the original readings And so the issue is the modern text do not present some different doctrinal position than does the textus 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 asks 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 where the

NIV and other modern Bible versions have heard from the textus receptus that involve doctrine now

To say that no doctrine is involved when 356 doctrinal passages are these are passes 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 if 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 textus 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

Nessie Alan 27th edition is fully in harmony with Christian truth Because this folks

I point out in 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 into 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 a King James Version inspired and inerrant now if dr.

Wade will say well, okay I'll agree with Dean Berg on 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 than 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 or maybe as he put it in some of his writings

There was a purification process resulting in the old Schofield edition Whatever you take if dr

Wait will not admit that there is any reading in the King James Version of the

Bible that could possibly be better Even though the King James translators certainly would admit that then what is the functional difference between his position and Peter Ruckman's?

I don't see it. I don't see it at all. Well, this is just the beginning of our response

We're gonna continue with our with playing these sections providing a response inviting dr.

Wait Stand up defend what you've said, dr. Sparge Amino defend your assertions

Let's let the people of God hear the facts Because when the facts are brought forward the truth is easily seen 602 two seven four thirteen sixty one triple eight five five zero thirteen sixty.

What do you think get online now? We only have a few minutes. We'll be right back And welcome back to dividing line, my name is

James white We have a full board of calls and we want to get them all in before the end of the hour So, please be succinct and clear.

In fact speak quickly because we only have about 12 minutes So we start with Jennifer Jennifer your question

When Christ was on earth, he didn't speak English, that's correct The English language didn't exist Translations are authentic since the original text is in Hebrew Aramaic and Greek and yes

I do believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God Okay. Thank you very much Jennifer Well, we know that simply for the reason that we are able to translate these languages

We are able to compare them with all sorts of other material that was available at the time

These are languages that we can translate into the English language accurately

I'm not sure if the question has to do with the issue of the manuscripts that we have or just simply with the issue of Translation, but the

English language is not as expressive as for example Greek or Greek is and so that's one of the reasons

That in my book the King James only controversy I recommend very highly that you compare one translation with another so that you can get a fuller

Spectrum of the meaning that is available to us and you can see how alternate translations can better convey the meaning of the original but there is there really isn't any issue

I believe in regards to Translating from one language to another there's all sorts of philosophical

Discussions that go on that become far more obtuse for most than most people can follow but just as a person today can speak

Spanish and English and can translate between the two and Sometimes has translates more than once to get the idea across in the same way

We are able to accurately translate from one language to another Let's talk with Rusty in Phoenix.

Hi, Rusty. Hi. How are you? Pretty good. Hey Dr. White are you the one I? Listened to that program by the way on Southwest Radio Church that day.

Yes And I are you the one that wrote daring to draw near? No, okay Well, I wasn't sure if it was you or not

But I was disappointed in hearing that that program and now today just by a chance.

I caught yours driving around town and my concern of my question was If if biblical translation is so difficult to figure out which one or even certain passages

Are the correct passages then? What do I need to do as a Christian to handle accurately the word of truth?

Which it says in 2nd Timothy 2 15 to give an account for the hope that is in me for certain scriptures

Because I am stuck on a certain passage in 1st John 3 It says no one who is born of God practices sin, but the word practice doesn't show up in the

NIV. I Referred to the Dallas Theological Seminary information on that and and and there's such a

Controversy on certain passages that what what do I need to do as a common? Christian and believer to be able to handle the word without taking classes and going to Bible college well, first of all

There isn't nearly as much controversy as the Southwest Radio Church would like you to believe

The King James only movement represents a very small number of people and and the fact that they will generally not

Engage in any type of meaningful defense of their position and I was hearing you saying well Yeah, in fact here on on KPXQ I've been on Marty Minto's program a number of times

They've had a King James only advocate on and and I don't think I'm in any way shape or form Misstating the case to say that those who listened all said my goodness that the man couldn't answer any question you asked of him and next

Saturday on the program I'm gonna play 12 minutes of the debate that DA Waite and I did do on the radio and and I'll I Just invite you to you know

Put an alarm on your on your watch or your palm pilot or whatever to listen in so you can See exactly what takes place but in regards to for example a passage in in first John where you're going will look

This this this phrase Practices, where does that come from? well there are a number of the the first and foremost place from the

New Testament's perspective you go to is you go to your elders and Those who have been entrusted in teaching and preaching the

Word of God and you ask them and I believe that elders if they fulfill the command of First Timothy and Titus right should be able to explain to you that the reason that the word

Continue is found in some translation is because of the tense of the

Greek verb That is that it refers to an ongoing action Now if you've talked with Dan Wallace at Dallas Seminary, which may be the person who ended up responding to your your question

I don't know He has a discussion of what he understands the present tense there to be indicating and and so on and so forth but that's the primary reason that some

Translations have that word to try to communicate something that in English when we say sins if someone sins

We are not necessarily communicating with the precise nature that the original

Greek did so We have to ask in English Well, do you mean is continuing to sin or sins once in a while or sins as a pattern of life?

exactly, you know so on and so forth and really that's that a lot of that is due to to the The English language not to what's in the original now, this is going to sound very strange to you

Because we live in in a day where someone in our in our chat room refers to evangelicalism and evangelicals as even jellyfish

Because where there's this this goofiness about evangelicals, but it was not long ago that a person would not go into the ministry without learning those languages and There was not long ago that that most denominations would not allow a person so to do

In fact, if you went out to Arizona State University and you tried to study for example Get a master's degree in the

German author Goethe There's one thing I can guarantee you will be required of you before you would ever get that degree.

What would it be? Learning German, right? You got it. And so we are English speakers

We speak and language that was written that did not even exist until 1100 years after New Testament was written

Well, I'm gonna get your book. But the question I have is do you recommend getting an interlinear?

I have like six or seven versions. I refer to them all No, I would not suggest interlinear and interlinear will do you no good at all.

I know that the people going Oh, no, I just invested 30 bucks. Yeah. Do you have a computer? No. Well that that would probably

Be a far better investment for you than anything else because there are programs today that Short of learning the language give you more information than you then then than any printed format could ever do

I mean you can buy a single program today that will give you a library of 300 books all on one screen at one time, right?

And so if you're looking that direction, I think most people probably are Contact us and I'll tell you what programs are the best.

Well, I'll tell you right now free advertisement Hermeneutics software is Bible works 4 .0 is the best

Bible program out there It gives you pretty much everything you could possibly need But that information is available to you and my hope would be that you would have a church home and elders

You could go to that could give you some guidance in that area Well, actually I did I went to the elder one of the main teacher of our fellowship and I asked and he holds to the

NIV Interpretation of that which says does not continue to practice sin Which doesn't exist without the existence of other

Greek words, which I've understood from the Dallas theological thing. I read well I'm not sure what

Dallas theological thing you're referring to Specifically it was the verse. I think it's chapter 3 9, you know,

I known who was born of God's sins He does not practice sin, right? He cannot sin because he is born of God And I'm trying to put that together with Romans 4 5 6 and 7 and 8 with understanding my position, you know

But the hard thing I'm having is these different translations are using different words And I don't know which is the right word and totally sheds a different light on the meaning

Well, I think I get to the bottom line of what the real meaning is, right? Well practices is a perfectly viable rendering of the text

Let me mention that to you just right off the bat both the New American Standard the NIV both have that and so there is there

Is reason in the form of the Greek words themselves for that word to be there you have commentaries?

It would probably explain some of this but that's really where I believe in an elder can provide you with some of that information

And at least give you the right direction or maybe a contact someone else who could But that's where you start and I just commend you for doing the work

Most people just throw up their hands and say well, I obviously can't do this Frustrated with with even with God is thinking what do

I have to do become a seminary student to be able to rightly divide the word? No, I don't think that that's the case at all

I think that you do however have to be a student of the word and it's not something that Ends at any particular point in time.

It's a lifelong thing and let me tell you something from my perspective I've done this type of work for many many years.

The reward is worth the effort. Believe me. It is I agree Okay, rusty,

I appreciate it. Thanks for calling. Thank you. Hey Sid Dennis We're gonna be taking calls in the last section next week

Please call back again next week and we will give you priority. We'll remember your name We'll give you priority and get you on first because we're out of time.

Thanks for listening We're gonna continue the response to the Southwest radio Programs next week here on the dividing line.

I don't know how long it's gonna last We're gonna keep doing it giving an answer. Thanks for being with us today on the dividing line.

God bless. See you next week The dividing line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega ministries

If you'd like to contact us call us at 602 9 7 3 0 3 1 8 or write us at PO box 3 7 1 0 6

Phoenix, Arizona 8 5 0 6 9 You can also find us on the world wide web at a o min org

That's a o m I n dot o RG where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books tapes debates and tracks