James White: Liar, Deceiver! But About His Book....

It's been very difficult over the years to really show a whole lot of respect for King James only advocates. And the primary reason is they reason in circles, they use double standards, and they're willing to engage in behavior that's just simply inappropriate for Christians at all.

Certainly when we look at people like Peter Ruckman and Gail Ripplinger, that's pretty obvious, but even people like D .A. Waite, that otherwise seem to be very nice individuals, are willing to say things that are just simply completely untrue, and they will not allow themselves to be held accountable for those things.

And of course, YouTube allows all sorts of people to be irresponsible about King James-only-ism, and today I was pointed to a video, not surprisingly, by a gentleman who also posts a lot of stuff against Calvinism.

And I just want to give you an idea of the kind of vitriol and rhetoric, but I'm going to cut it up a little bit because there's one thing you need to understand about this fellow and his knowledge of my book that I'll get to sort of at the end.

So I'm going to let him say some things, play some things, I'm going to put up some commentary in the way of titling on the screen, and then we'll move from there.

The Critique of King James Onlyism

I want to talk about James Waite, who I believe is a great deceiver and a liar. For people who read his book and who are opposed to the King James Bible, opposed to the idea that it could be God's preserved word in the English language, they rely on men like James Waite, who by the way is a member of the New American Standard Committee, the same New American Standard that one of the original members of it, Frank Lawson, called a satanic deception, and exposed the deception that goes on with the manuscript that they use.

Again, you can go to my video section, and it's called The New American Standard Satan's Deception. It's in two parts. Frank Lawson preached on it. I dare anybody to listen to those videos to prove otherwise.

James Waite, who obviously has an agenda, he did a book called The King James Only Controversy. I'd comment on everything he states, but I could probably find certain things he wrote here or there and prove how silly it is.

But the one thing I wanted to address on it is a microcosm of how deceptive he is, and how much he hates the fact that God preserved his Bible. There's a section in that book where he talks about the argument that homosexuals were involved in the transition of the NIV.

And James Waite printed a letter from the founder of the NIV, Ken Barker, where he stated, this is Ken Barker stating, the guy who produced the NIV stated, and these are his words, "...it has come to my attention that false rumors are circulating in both oral and written form that the NIV is soft on sodomy, that is, homosexual sins.

The alleged reason for this is that some NIV translators and editors were homosexuals and lesbians. These charges have no basis in fact. Thus, they are simply untrue.". So, according to Ken Barker, the head of the NIV committee, there were no homosexuals, sodomites, lesbians, dykes, whatever, involved in the translation of the NIV.

And James Waite printed that letter, and offered absolutely nothing else after that. Now, Ken Barker and James Waite both have lied to you, because there were definitely homosexuals involved. One of them was named Virginia Mollenkott, who was a lesbian and a new-ager, involved in the occult.

And she wrote a letter refuting Barker's letter, and I'm going to read a piece of it. This is what she said, in her response to Ken Barker, she says, "...I worked on the NIV during the entire time it was being translated and reviewed, although I was never free to attend the summer sessions, even when I was invited to do so.

Elizabeth Elliott and I were the stylistic consultants. Our job was simply to make sure the translation would communicate clearly to modern American readers, and that the style was as smooth and understandable as possible.

I was never removed, sacked, or made redundant from my work on the NIV. If I were, my name would not have appeared on the list sent out by the IBS. It was Dr. Edwin Palmer, who lived near my college, who invited me to work on the NIV.

He had heard me speak, and respected my integrity and my knowledge. So far as I know, nobody including Dr. Palmer suspected that I was lesbian while I was working on the NIV. It was information I kept private at the time.".

Then we scroll down, and later in the letter, she says this, "...Please tell Kenneth Barker for me that although there is much controversy about homosexuality among Biblical scholars, to my knowledge, nobody denies that the Bible condemns lying about other people.

He should be ashamed of his attempt to rewrite history.". And also, Virginia Mollenkopf wasn't the only one involved in the NIV who was a homosexual. There was Dr. Martin Woodstra, who was the chairman of the Old Testament Committee.

He was an open flavor, that guy. He was involved in many open homosexual causes, and many of his contemporaries acknowledged that he was homosexual. But James White somehow didn't see fit to print that for his readers.

And Mark, I don't even know if you knew that, but there were two queers on the NIV Transition Committee, and James White lied to you about that. Why did he lie to you? Because he has an agenda. He's on the New American Standard Committee, and the only reason these Bibles exist is because of money.

The only reason they exist. The Bible says the love of money is the root of all evil. And James White is a deceiver and a liar. And let me tell you right now, any committee or any company that copyrights God's Word is A. not acting in accordance with the law of God, and B. has an agenda.

Period. End of story. Man has no right to copyright any of God's Word. The Bible belongs in the hands of the people. Free of charge, but because it takes money to produce the Bible, I understand there's money involved in having to get a Bible.

I'm not against it. I'm against owning the Word of God. I believe you've got to pay people for their efforts, but no, I don't have to pay any man to preach for the Bible. That means if I preach more than, say, 30 of the Bible from the NIV or the New American Standard or the new King James Bible, I have to pay these men royalties.

Hello? No, I don't, because they don't own God's Word. That's another reason why I believe the King James Bible is the inspired Word of God in the English language, because it's not copyrighted. Any man or woman can preach from this Bible, and not have to pay royalties to any man, according to the current copyright laws.

So, God is not going to have any man copyright His Bible. And again, men like James White are very deceptive in their attempts to discredit the King James-only movement, when they name men like Peter Ruckman or Gail Ripplinger.

What about a man like Dean Mergen, a 19th century Anglican bishop who compiled... who did something that no man before him or after him has ever done. He compiled all the early Church Father quotes where they quoted from the Bible.

And he proved, without a shadow of a doubt, that the first couple centuries of Church Fathers quoted from the Bible in the text that underlined the King James Bible, versus the very few from the Egyptian area that quoted from the manuscripts that underlined the numerical standard of the NIV and, to a certain extent, the New King James.

And then, as the 3rd and 4th centuries came along, more and more Fathers were quoting from the manuscripts that underlined the Roman Catholic Bibles, and less from the Textus Receptus. He proved that, without a doubt.

Misrepresentation of the NIV Evidence

But you think James White saw fit to print that?

Well, actually, I did print that, as I pointed out the citation, or at least the partial citation, right before that. I stop right there because our friend is going to make the statement that I cut out earlier, so that you would be able to listen to all this vitriol and accusations and liar, deceiver, so on and so forth.

But here's the real rub of the matter. Well, I'll let him explain it to you.

James White, who obviously has an agenda, he did a book called, The King James Only Controversy. I have not read the book. So I can't comment on everything he states, but I can probably find certain things he wrote here or there, and prove how silly it is.

But the one thing, do you think James White saw fit to print that? Again, I didn't read the book, but from all accounts, I don't think he printed it, and I don't think he wants to print it, because it'll show that he's a fool.

Why would you not believe that God will preserve His Bible, and preserve it without altering or destroying or deleting a single verse or word? Anyway, that's all I've got to say about the whole James White thing.

There you go. He didn't even read the book. Call me a liar, deceiver, say, well, I bet you he didn't publish this, didn't print this. Has no idea what he even said. Probably hasn't even listened to a debate I've done on the subject.

Circular Reasoning and the King James Only Movement

This is the kind of irrationality, circular thinking, circular reasoning, willingness to attack the brethren. What King James Only advocate has debated John Shelby Spong or Barry Lynn on homosexuality?

John Dominic Crossan, the founder of the Jesus Seminar? Who? None of them. They can't. Yet I have, but this young man will call me a liar and a deceiver, and he hasn't a clue what he's talking about. Such just shouldn't ought to be, but folks, what you just watched is the very essence of King James Onlyism.

Thanks for watching.