Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
The Real Issue with TR Onlyism
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 окт 2020
- James did a lengthy review of the debate we did this weekend with Dr. Jeffrey Riddle on the Critical Text vs. TR Only positions (Part 1 • Dr. Jeff Riddle vs. Dr... / • Dr. Jeff Riddle vs. Dr... Part2) and attempted to clarify his motivations for addressing this topic in light of the accusations and attacks that have come his way since then.
All Dividing Line Highlights' video productions and credit belong to Alpha and Omega Ministries®. If this video interested you, please visit aomin.org/ or www.sermonaudio.com/go/336785
For James White's political content, click here:
www.bitchute.com/channel/0u0P...
Brother, thank you for your consistent work in this area and for sharing.
Romans 16:17
“Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.”
Thankyou Dr. White for your work, I do not have any education to speak of, I am a Christian that wants to know God and for God to speak to me through his word.
Which word? The ever-changing word in constantly changing modern translations?
Thank you 🌹
Presupposing that there are errors in the apographs implies that the autographs are unrecoverable.
Hi Dr. White, I hear you say that the reformers didn't have the other text but John Calvin and John Gill in their commentaries referred to these manuscripts of John 8:3 and stated these verses belonged in the bible. John Gill Stated: "This history of the woman taken in adultery, is wanting in the Alexandrian copy, and in other ancient copies; nor is it in Nonnus, Chrysostom, and Theophylact; nor in any of the editions of the Syriac version, until it was restored by De Dieu, from a copy of Archbishop Usher's; but was in the Arabic and Ethiopic versions, and in the Harmonies of Tatian and Ammonius; the former of which lived about the year 160, and so within 60 years, or thereabouts, of the death of the Evangelist John, and the other about the year 230; it was also in Stephens's sixteen ancient Greek copies, and in all Beza's seventeen, excepting one; nor need the authenticness of it be doubted of; Eusebius (e) says, it is in the Gospel according to the Hebrews; nor should its authority be called in question."
Preach! The men of the Reformation were aware of the disputed nature of these texts and yet they still defended them. James likes to say they would change their positions if they were alive today and had access to our information. I'm not convinced of that.
@@tiptupjr.9073Brother Jimmy has been eating too much rare rabbit.
Excellent quote!
We had/have KJV only, now TR only… What is next…Erasmus only? Oh wait…he was a Roman Catholic (but not really according to the KJV extremists)🙄.
So…does that mean that these types will eventually become Roman Catholic? Circular “reasoning” makes me dizzy and nauseous.
KJV only for English, but TR only for Greek NT
Erasmus was declared a heretic and anathematized by Rome based on his textual work. Wonder why James never talks about this.
Thankfully God preserved His word for us in English so we don't have to know and understand Greek and Hebrew. Its a supernatural thing that only God knows all the details about snd and He wants us to trust His words.
I've binged-listened to James White on RUclips, hours of debate and lecture, and I don't sense the Holy Spirit at work or getting the credit for preservation from James White.
What I notice from listening to White is a focus all wrapped up in the physical, intellectual aspects of the topic of manuscripts and preservation, a man who refuses to answer questions at times, a message lost in doubt and not enough details that truly represent the TR side thereby belittling it.
I see a man who loves the printed page and leather binding... Not a man who has a faith that depends on the living words of the author (God).
I would like to hear your salvation testimony, Dr. White. Would you share it here or direct me to a video where you have already shared it? Thanks in advance.
Wow. Good thing you speak English. That way you can get God's true word, huh?
@@robertknight3354 God's choosing... Preserved in Hebrew (even though they lived in Egypt and Babylonia), Greek, English.... Major world languages for their time in the history of God's people. Then it can be translated into others.
@@TracyZdelar Making no sense. Please address the issue.
Your assertion is that only a person fluent in English can grasp God's word.
@@robertknight3354 not at all. That is not my assertion. I suggest you do some Bible study and some study of history on how these two issues connect and show how God has worked this out. It's not a secret.
@@TracyZdelar No I would prefer you engage us all here. Rather than assuming what I have or have not studied.
Please clarify your original comment in light of what I said in challenging it.
So I don't have to know English? Which version then if I am living in north korea?
A circumstantial case for the Comma of John: In 484 A.D. the bishop of Carthage with 400 bishops quoted the comma to an Arian Vandal king. Being the bishop of Carthage, he would have had access to the Scriptures of Cyprian, and he probably had a Vulgate, maybe a first edition. Also, Gregory Nazianzus wrote on the grammar, and he had a student named Jerome. Seems strong evidence to me. Blessings.
These comments are the climax of logical, sincere and humle thought .
James White should be a charismatic. He thinks hollering makes his view the correct one.
@@cranmer1959 I don't think he really could care less whether or not what he says against the Bible is the truth; instead, I think his objective is to apply his theatrics toward getting his audience to believe that what he says against the Bible is the truth. His goal is to sell his merchandise.
That's part of it. He's selling books and Bible translations and debate tickets. He probably gets royalties for the NASB and the Legacy Bible.@@25dollarbill24
Ask yourself why are we questioning God's word after 400 years of acceptance? Has God really said? He said He would preserve it. Are you calling God a liar?
He’s not questioning Gods word, he’s questioning why the KJV (or textus receptus) is the only autographs of the original writings.
So God’s word is 400 years old because that’s when the KJV was written?
@@CharlesSeraphDrums hahaha exactly
I think one of the reasons Dr. White is so passionate about this is he grew up in the IFB and likely saw, firsthand, the damage KJV Onlyism has done. So, when he sees TR Onlyism amongst Reformed people who really ought to know better, he sees right through it for the idolatry it can be and often is.
So because he rebelled and has made it his life mission to promote Biblical criticism, we are to trust him?
Hebrews 4:12-13 KJV:
12) "For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a DISCERNER of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
13) "Neither is there any creature that is not manifested in HIS sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do."
White loves to go to the Greek, so in verse 12, when the word of God declares to be a discerner of men's thoughts and intents, then a quick study of the word reveals that it equates to "critic" which is what White is (a Bible critic), when in reality, the Bible critiques us! Exact opposite and entirely opposed to the truth of God's word.
Notice in verse 13, where it declares that there is no creature that is not manifest in his sight. Who is the "his"? It is the Bible and NOT some critic who does not condemn, but rather utilizes and promotes Westcott & Hort; two self professing lovers of Rome and haters of orthodox Christianity and the very atonement of Christ. We have no need to search the Greek when God provided His preserved word. Just my opinion and I mean no harm towards you, but I absolutely do not support James White and I pray that he somehow, some way repents and stops this madness. God bless
@@flman9684 You really didn't listen to the video.
@johnscotland3124 My comment was a response to a comment and not necessarily the video. I did watch the video, and I am not promoting TRonly at all. I am KJVO, and you can't be both.
I was trying to point out the common error amongst Christians of allowing personal experiences to influence their thoughts. James White moves as far away from his "early days" as possible and loves to make videos where he smooth talks his listeners into dismissing things like the pre-tribulation rapture, dispensationalism and most importantly, the exclusive use of the King James Bible as the final authority.
It is a sad day when one man can write books and make videos defending the Holy Bible and be deemed a cult leader and another can write a book and make videos that point out the "errors" in the Bible and be looked upon as some sort of knight in shining armour. James White is no friend of mine because he attacks that book and those who defend that book. I am no language expert, but I know that biblios means book and that makes White a Bible critic. I choose the Bible to be my final authority. Call me a cultist if that is one's definition of the term.
@@flman9684 Do you suppose that the Holy Spirit incorrectly inspired the kjv translators on the name of the apostle Jacob? The kjv translators used James instead of the correct transilteration of Jacob.
@johnscotland3124 you do understand that those two names are basically synonymous, right? It is simply a language transfer. I am no expert in these matters, but even the Geneva Bible used James, so if you're asserting that King James had that done, as some do, then I would have to ask; why does the Geneva do the same?
There is absolutely no way to argue against your assessment of this !!
Men in my own church have and are in the process of believing this TR position.
Could you please speak to the argument that it’s the non believing academy that is at issue , this is a topic in my local 1689 church.
Does anyone know the resource(s) I can read to study which textual variants the apostles used from the Septuagint? I'd be interested to learn about that. Thanks and blessings.
The first place to start would be getting a critical edition of the LXX. If your Greek is pretty good you shouldn't have any trouble. A book that deals with the theological problems that arise from this issue is called .
Dr James White reminds me of the fox that stole my chickens.
I've concluded that even if someone with a photographic memory could memorize all texts, and their families, we still wouldn't know with 100% certainty what was originally the exact autographa, not before heaven and eternity at least. I do look forward to heaven, and finally getting the perfect Word of God in written form, finally, but I do wish we knew for certainty on this side of eternity.
Dr. Riddley's position can be called: Textual Platonism. It is soo detached from history.
So which is the inspired, God-breathed words of God? History or the Bible? Last I checked historiography is ever-changing.
No. The confessional view is based on the TR as the axiom of Christianity. Axioms do not need reconstruction. God providentially preserved His inerrant autographs in the Textus Receptus.
This video unavailable on this device. ???
2 Peter 3:1
The NT writers are inspired when they quote sources.
So there's nothing wrong with the TR it's TR only is where the problem comes?
Many has been saved by the TR.
@@banzaiduck
No one has been saved by the TR.
@@billyr9162 You are correct, but you know what i mean.
@@banzaiduck
Ok.
Of course there are some problems with it
But yes the main problem is when it becomes TR only
Normal means to show His surpasing supernatural Life sustsaiining Grace
It was about 3 years ago when I come to the knowledge that there were TR, MT and CT I just knew the King James Bible after listening to Dr White and others I went to the Ct. NASB.
@isaakleillhikar8311
il y a 2 minutes
1 John 5:7 is in the historic church.
The earliest is we can see Ireneaus seems to have such a verse in his Bible when he’s unpacking the faith in summary:« Thus then there is shown forth One God, the Father, not made, invisible, creator of all things; above whom there is no other God, and after whom there is no other God. And, since God is rational, therefore by (the) Word He created the things that were made; and God is Spirit, and by (the) Spirit He adorned all things: as also the prophet Thus then there is shown forth One God, the Father, not made, invisible, creator of all things; above whom there is no other God, and after whom there is no other God. And, since God is rational,
therefore by (the) Word He created the things that were made; and God is Spirit, and by (the) Spirit He adorned all things: as also the prophet says… »
Tertullien says « One of the three, which three are one. »
Cyprian of Carthage says « I and the father are one, and againe it is writen of the father and of the son and of the spirit And these three are one. » And he has another quote.
I think the point was lost on many: How many of you are doing anything?
I keep watching more and more of your content cos it's interesting and i'm learning things i am glad to learn, although i'm an atheist. It amazes me when you tell other Christians about the textual variants yet they stick their fingers in their ears.
Exactly. We should all give up the Christian faith and believe in atheism because we don't have an inerrant text of the Bible. Brother Jimmy says so. NOT.
lol I know right! Some Christians are so devoted to tradition they can’t see objective truths right in front of them… it’s saf
Scripture is special revelation, not tradition.
@@timothyvenable3336
29:40 You are arguing just like Bart Ehrman, the former agnostic who is now an atheist. In fact, Ehrman won that debate because he made you look like the idiocy that you are falsely accusing Jeff Riddle of.
28:00 Since when is history God-breathed? You should become a papist James. Oh, wait. You're hanging out with Doug Wilson, the Federal Visionist. Maybe you'll convert to Catholicism soon?
Interesting little motif on his shirt.
Bible preservation gods word has preserved , its the King James Bible .
what bible you recommend .
StatedDifferences
a. Literal, word for word, idea for idea, paraphrase, retelling - what’s the function?
b. Eugene Nida ~ 20th c. creator of the ‘translate the idea’ ‘easy-to-understand’ priority
i. He “[took] over literal word for word translation... and smashed it”
c. Equivalence (equal) = Faithfulness to the form of the words or to a reader’s culture?
i. “sure words” “faithful word” “pure words” “words of eternal life” Jn 8:30
ii. 2 Tim 1:13 - “form of sound words” or “pattern of wholesome teaching” NLT
3. MaterialDifferences
a. Unstated, ignored, or unknown is the real story about NT text differences
b. Verses removed -16 verses - Matt 18:11, 23:14, Mark 15:28, Acts 8:37, 15:34, 28:29
i. ... and created - 3 John 15 ESV (#31,103), 2 Cor 13:14 CSB, Rev 12:18 NLT c. Passages bracketed for removal - John 7:53-8:11 removed by “persons of little faith”
i. Mark 16:9-20 - 99% of Greek support, 2 edited uncials and WH don’t
d. Words removed - 7% reduction in the NIV, Good Mt 19:16, word Lk 4:4, 23:42, God
Acts 7:59, Jesus 1Co 5:5
e. Popular words removed - Calvary, hell, Godhead, new testament, damnation, devil
4. DoctrinalDifferences
a. Removing infallible proofs weakens a doctrine (even if proofs remain) - Acts 1:3 ESV
b. Godhead - 1 John 5:7 clearest proof, source of conflict, a major difference
c. Fundamentals - Matt 1:25, Mark 9:44, 9:46, 10:24, Luke 2:33, Col 1:14, Acts 15:18
d. Dispensational - Rom 15:16, Gal 2:7, 6:15, Eph 3:1, 3:6, 3:9, 2 Tim 1:11, 1:12, 2:15
e. Christology - Matt 5:22 (Mk 3:5), 9:18, John 1:18, 3:13, 3:16, 3:18, 3:36, 16:10,
16:16-17, Acts 7:59, Rom 14:10, Phi 2:6-7, 1 Tim 3:16, Rev 1:11
f. Changed words- Rom 8:1b,effeminate 1Co 6:9, peddle 2Co 2:17, competent 2Ti 3:17
g. Negations - removing not makes it mean the opposite - Col 2:18, Heb 3:16
5. TheDifferencesMatter
a. The differences separate Bibles into the old Authorized and the newer translations
b. “The KJ editions are different, too!” These differences are incomparable.
c. God has inspired and preserved his words. Comparing ‘Bibles’ helps us locate it.
All these arguments about tr Mt, and ct are causing more striff within the body of Christ as God's children we need to work together and be a lamp for the lost.
I've never seen James White so "angry" or worried about!
Wow! :O
TR movement is dangerous.
why? Why is dangerous?
Do you believe in the doctrine of the preservation of God’s word?
If so, where is the true words of God?
As James White has said, I don’t know. So when somebody claims with EVIDENCE that the TR is the true words of God people like you get mad.
It is dangerous and stupid.
@@thomasglass9491 it's dangerous to say that it's the only translation.
The real issue with the critical text only mindset is that biblical inerrancy is undermined. Theoretical inerrancy in an unreconstructible original autograph is not an actual inerrancy. They are ever learning but never arrive at the truth.
25:32 You're arguing just like Bart Ehrman. And in the cross examination in your debate with Ehrman, you said that 2 Corinthians was not written by the Apostle Paul. So, apparently, you have also bought into the higher critical views of the liberal scholars, James.
I don't lean to one family of manuscripts.
When they agree 94-98.5 I am not going to make a huge deal out of it. But when I said this to this TR only guy, he³ asked me if I favored the Alexandrian manuscripts and if I was a gnostic. Really? These people quickly descend into accusation and misinformation.
Shout louder. I'm hard of hearing. And what century is the Codex Alexandrinus from, and how do you know?
"TR" Onlyists ignore the fact that there are SEVERAL editions and revision of the "TR".
Compare enough verses and the KJV will be based on ZERO Greek manuscripts.
Pause at 8:21. I used to think it was really odd that people would mis-copy Rev. 8:13. THEN I looked at the variant in Greek and saw that they were ALIKE and that it was possible to confuse the two readings.
I have shown KJV Onlyists what the Hebrew and Greek CLEARLY says- my knowledge is not the best but it is more than MOST KJV Onlyists will ever care to try to learn- and they try, like Mormons often do, to explain away logic and hold to their 400 year old tradition.
TR Onlyists are reallllllllllllly odd if they want a Majority Text and yet ignore the fact that a few verses at the end of Revelation 22 were re-translated from the LATIN Vulgate into Greek.
Pause at 19:04. Wow, so the TR is based on a MINORITY Text. Yet Onlyists are not open to facts that refutes their ideas.
Pause at 21:29. I was just thinking how KJV Onlyism seems to have a lot in common with Mormonism- in that both are often anti-logic.
That is my argument: "Which one is correct?".
if the Bible continues in the hands of textual critics:
New Corrected and Updated International Version (NCUIV) - faithful to the originals
Genesis 1:[1 In the beginning God created heaven and earth.](a)
2 And the earth was formless and empty; and there was darkness upon the face of the deep; [and the Spirit of God moved over the face of the waters.](b)
[3](c)
NEXT PAGE
Genesis 2:Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.
[2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work.](d)
FOOTNOTES
(a) Not found in the best manuscripts.
(b) Found only in manuscripts written after the Council of Nicaea.
(c) Verse added by copyists.
(d) Verse not accepted by experts.
Trust James White to get it wrong AGAIN.
Maybe you can visit our local church the next time yiu come to Lindale? Our church is in Van Tx , Grace Baptist Church
"Catalogs of manuscripts" Don't make the Bible
I believe the argument is, tradition vs evidence? Tradition being a safety blanket and evidence being something that gives some frost bite.
Show us your tats dude!
Do you believe in the doctrine of the preservation of God’s word?
If so, where is the true words of God?
As James White has said, I don’t know. So when somebody claims with EVIDENCE that the TR is the true words of God people like you get mad.
No it’s because of you claim the TR (whatever that is, because there are multiple TRs) is the only one true New Testament, you have to be consistent. Since we know that no single Greek manuscript or language version of the NT matches the scrivener TR exactly, the argument is turned back on you with the same question “where was the Word of God prior to 1611” or scriveners academic exercise in the 19th century.
@J E Bagoong “no single Greek manuscript” That’s not true but not everything needs to be Greek. What to the Bibles who used the TR before the KJV?
Where was the academic exercise of Wescott and Hort prior the 19th century?
The Dead Sea scrolls findings of the NT support the TR and they are Greek. But manuscript and evidence of the early Christians support the reading of the TR of the KJV. So, you’re wrong!
Let me ask you a question. God promise to preserve his words through generations. Where is his original words? Because according to James White and the majority of “scholars” don’t know.
@@thomasglass9491 I found a type-o in my previous post. It should read “no single Greek manuscript or language version of the NT MATCHES the scrivener TR exactly,” not “Matthew”. I assume, based on your response, that you understood the type-o to be “matches” but I wanted to clarify this, just in case it causes confusion.
Yes, that is a true statement. If you want to contradict it, please list one manuscript by name or number that matches the scrivener TR word for word prior to the creation of Erasmus’ first edition in 1516. I also mentioned no “language version,” meaning the Latin, Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, etc. manuscripts of the handwritten period 1st to mostly 15th centuries). None of them that have ever been found match the scrivener TR word for word either. The form in the 1611 kjv text simply did not exist in that specific word for word form before 1611 in any manuscript, Greek or versions language manuscript we have ever found.
The Bible’s that use the TR before the kjv? Ok. The multiple English translations (Coverdale, Tyndale, bishops, the great, etc) as well as Luthers’ German translation and others, that were printed in the 16th century used the various printed eclectic critical Greek texts of their day, i.e. the multiple editions of Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza, as well as a couple of others. These printed Greek texts (TR’s) do not agree with each other in every textual variant. Neither do they agree with the kjv in every textual variant, and by extension since scrivener created a “TR” in the 19th century based on the textual choices the kjv committee chose, none of the multiple “TRs” agree on every textual variant with scriveners text either. (By the way, scrivener’s text is only called the “TR” today. Scrivener didn’t call it that. For him it was just an academic exercise.)
The Dead Sea scrolls? It’s my understanding that sheds light on certain Old Testament issues, since those documents are dated from the 3rd century BC to the 1st AD, but I have no idea what that has to do with the TR. I promise you, nothing found in the caves of Qumran has anything to do with proving the form of the scrivener TR/kjv text of the New Testament was in that singular word for word, textual variant for textual variant form before 1611. I’m sorry, but I suspect you have heard this once or twice in a kjv only presentation and repeated it without checking it. If not, please tell me how anything found in the Dead Sea scrolls verifies the Greek TR or the kjv.
“Manuscript and evidence of the early Christians support the reading of the TR.” again, please clarify what you mean by this and offer evidence. Obviously the vast majority of readings found in the kjv are out there somewhere in Greek manuscripts from the 1st to 15th centuries, whether they are minority readings found only in a handful of manuscripts or majority readings found in the majority of Greek manuscripts. (You do realize the kjv is not a pure majority text right? The scrivener TR departs from the majority text in at least several hundred places. One count by dr. Wallace was as high as 1838, but I’m not sure how many of those are meaningful differences capable of being translated outside of Greek, so I offer caution with that high number)
However, the kjv also has some Latin interpolations in it (places where the reading was taken straight from the Latin vulgate without Greek manuscript authority). It also has a handful or so of mistakes cause by Erasmus or Beza. These mistakes have never been found in any or most manuscripts of not just Greek, but any language.
When you put it all together I stand by my original statements that the scrivener TR or the form of the kjv in English has never been found in a textual variant for textual variant, word for word form I any manuscript of any language. It’s not even a debatable statement by anyone who has looked at the evidence.
People did textual criticism long before westcott and Hort. Origin, Jerome, Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, the team of the complutensian polyglot, John mill,
Griesbach, and on and on; too many to list really. The King James Bible is itself a product of textual criticism, just like modern bibles. I’m sorry, but anyone who denies this fact has been drinking from only one well. Erasmus, Stephanus and Beza all did textual criticism and consequently came to different textual conclusions. These varied printed eclectic critical texts are the primary basis of the translation of the NT of the kjv. If you translate from eclectic critical sources, then what you produce is an eclectic critical translation. That’s what the kjv is.
“God promised to preserve His Words throughout all generations.” Sigh. Here we go with psalm 12 I’m assuming. When I read psalm 12 in English I see the idea that God keeps His promises, specifically the promises of protection and vindication for the oppressed or slandered. I don’t see anything to do specifically with scripture or God promising there would be no textual variants. When Hebrew scholars read verse 7, overwhelmingly they say that the promise of preservation is to the people, not to the words. The whole passage is about the protection and vindication of the weak, the oppressed, the wronged, the slandered at the hands of the wicked. It’s not about the copying of scripture and the promise of no textual variation in that copying process.
The idea that a specific line of manuscripts or a series of eclectic critical texts from the 16th century (the TR’s) are the sole fulfillment of psalm 12 is absurd. That is a violation of the facts of textual history, not my opinion, but history. No Greek manuscript of the NT reads identically to any other Greek manuscript of the NT. So by what I am assuming is your interpretation of psalm 12 or your definition of preservation in general, coupled with this fact, then God failed. Again, I’ll say the plain reading of all of psalm 12 doesn’t seem to have anything to do with the scribal copying of scripture and the promise of no textual variation. But if that is the promise, then by that interpretation you have to conclude God failed, because clearly this did not happen. We can’t make up a fictional version of history and pretend that the TR has been the one Bible that has always existed because it’s more comfortable for the theological presuppositions we hold. We must seek out the truth, however uncomfortable it may be. Holding to lies and exaggerations does not honor God. Thankfully, though, that doesn’t appear to be what psalm 12 is saying at all. When I read psalm 12 I see the hope of imperfect human justice or divine “karma” in this life (you reap what you sew), but also the promise of the ultimate perfect justice and balancing of all scales on judgement day.
As far as preservation goes, the questions should be what are the facts of the manuscript tradition? How are they alike, but how do they differ? If preservation means something, what does it mean? What has been preserved from God’s perspective, or rather what is God’s version of preservation? These types of questions point us to the truth, rather than what we want to be true. The idea that there has always just been one NT in one single word form throughout all of history is a lie. It’s a comfortable lie, to be sure. It’s a lie that gets a lot of amens in the echo chambers, but a lie non the less
Yes, there needs to be one book and one book only that’s 100% accurate or we don’t have the truth.
The TR has over 1000 differences from the majority text, it’s not even the same.
The New Testament also borrows material from the Aramaic targums which are quite polluted and altered the second death in Revelation is from Jeremiah 51 in the targums
A little confused. Is Dr White saying no one should be using Bibles based on the TR? Maybe someone can help.
No, he's saying that to claim it's the only true scripture is dangerous and false
There were some things that Paul referred to in the New Testament as foolish controversies and I wonder if the King James only is an argument is something that Paul would have just called a foolish controversy and refused to even comment on maybe this would be a good approach to countering their argument is to ignore it. It has already been soundly refuted over and over and over again and it is in fact foolish
In other words, you chimed in so as to tell people you are against chiming in.🤣
Dr White is channeling a bit of Luther here methinks...and I'm here for it!
I'm proud to be TR only (not KJV only). Nobody was burned at the stake for anything Alexandrian.
Which one?
I'm doing something. I'm debating inerrancy versus eclecticism.
lol James white thinks God waiting until the last 100 years to finally give the English speaking world His word?? 😂😂
The IFB would say something like that, ironically.
1926J there was a time when phones had only 4 numbers and a letter... still no proof of a god.
Sit down and be quiet O clever man. God is not on trial and you are not his judge. It is exactly the other way around. Get your arguments ready now. Gather up all your words now but all for nothing. When you stand in front of Him not only will the air in your lungs leave you but the very words you thought you would say to Him will also flee from you. Unplug the computer, put the phone down. Run and repent in a hurry or press further into your rebellion of the God you know exists.
Why does anyone listen to him?
I don’t mind TR onlyism because it allows for modern translations.
KJVO is a true problem.
Something special happened with Westcott and Hort?
If making emotional appeals proves you are right, then Jimmy is always right.
Axioms are not circular.
Double talk.
You don't have the autographs,Jimmy
Since Mr White boasts so much about his debates with athiests and Muslims, just
how many Muslims and Athiests have you won to Christ? He actually admitted at the last 1 minute 30 that his biblical scholarship arguments(lies) about the "Septuigint variances" have caused bible believers to leave the faith.
No one wins anybody to Christ.
@@billyr9162 then why does he debate and boast about his debates?
@@ahammer7000
Maybe check your own perception.
I don’t think JW spends too much time boasting about how many people he won to Christ. But I think he mentioned some Mormons converting. I think you’re coming from the David Wood perspective in the sense that you need to be tough, rough, and crude to the Muslims because “they only respect power”. I think JW critisized Wood for eating the quran but I don’t think he criticised his David Wood’s actual debates or actual doctrines Wood teaches. People probably have converted because of Wood’a apologetics but I don’t think anyone converted because he ate the quran
@@blake4590 He actually admitted that his "scholarship" showing the TR only believers that the septuigint matches the news testament quotes from the old testament has made people loose their Christian faith.
Sorry JW is the scribe Jesus warned about in luke 20:46. You who subscribe to bible criticism are just the blind being led by the blind.
Which text, Jimmy. You don't have it.
Non sequitur after non sequiturs.
Early mss can omit Mark erroneously.
Where is white's perfect bible? If he is such an expert why doesn't he tell us which English translation is perfect? Because he believes that he and his catholic scholar friends are the final authority and they reject the work of the Holy Ghost that moved millions to shed their blood and move Europe and the world out of the dark ages into the modern internet age based on the English language that the KJV finalized. He is such a great scholar but he never mentioned ever why or that Rome put the TR and the KJV on the Index of Forbidden books.
Last sentence is a lie. No such claim ever been made.
@@amichiganblackman3200 which lie?
Funny, when the KJV was first published, the English Puritans burnt them for being too Roman Catholic
@@MaD-hp9hq the Popes have had the KJV on the list of forbidden books for 400 years.. The puritans also had Roman catholic traditions like Infant baptism, so their opinion about translations is not necessarily always in step with God's written revelation.
@@ahammer7000 Infant Baptism isn't a Roman institution. The concept has been around since the early church. You are granting the Roman church a legitimacy it doesn't really have when you claim that Pedobaptism is specifically Roman. You are simply historically ignorant. Credo baptism wasn't a widespread idea until the first Great Awakening.
Presupposing liberal eclecticism is presuppositional apologetics????
Textual criticism = modernist rationalism.
Textual criticism has tens of thousands of errors. You cannot know what apostles wrote because we don't have the autographs.
Circular argument = liberal textual criticism.
Notice the 666 Mobius on his shirt?
Jimmy could get lots of other doctrines right and be wrong on eclecticism onlyism.