Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


James White - scholar gone loopy

Recommended Posts

http://pub76.ezboard.com/fav1611godswor ... =995.topic

Acts 10:11

James White - Bible scholar gone loopy

Normally I would not even address the minor textual issue brought up by examining Acts 10:11, but since Mr. James White makes such a big deal of it in his book The King James Only Controversy, I am compelled to address the issue.

In chapter nine of his book, which is titled "Problems in the KJV" James lists several silly objections to the language and text of the King James Bible, all of which can easily be refuted. Of course he is not "attacking" the KJB, you understand, but is merely demonstrating areas where it contains errors or is based on what he calls "inferiour texts". James White has no infallible, inspired, complete Holy Bible to recommend to anyone, but sets himself up as the voice of reason and authority in the midst of a complicated and difficult issue.

Let's get specific here and look at one such example of the "superior scholarship" proffered to us by the good doctor on page 236 of 'The KJV Controversy'.

Mr. White writes: "The KJV New Testament is not without its intriguing passages as well. For example, Peter saw a vision that is described in the AV, "And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel dscending UNTO HIM (caps mine), as it had been a great sheet KNIT (caps mine) at the four corners, and let down to the earth" - Acts 10:11. One could completely miss the point here, for the KJV has "knit" for a term that refers to the means by which the sheet was lowered, hence the NASB, "lowered by four corners to the ground."

Most people who read Mr. White's book would automatically assume that he knows what he is talking about. Afterall, James has gone to seminary, he knows Hebrew and Greek, and surely he would not print something that was not true.

Actually James White is totally in error at every point, and I am somewhat amazed that he would even put such an example in his book. He must be really hard up for examples of where the KJB supposedly dropped the ball.

First of all, Mr. White is woefully incorrect when he says the KJB has "knit" for a term that refers to the means by which the sheet was lowered. No, what has happened here is that there are two different textual readings, one followed by all Reformation Bibles including that of Luther, the Geneva Bible, the Italian Diodati, the Spanish Reina Valera, and the French Louis Segond; and another different Greek reading followed by the modern versions which have adopted the Westcott-Hort texts. How James White could miss this obvious truth is the only thing that is "intriguing".

The reading of "knit" or "bound at the four corners" is found in the vast majority of all remaining Greek texts, as well as P45 which dates to the third century and is older by at least 100 years than the reading found in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, from which the NASB, NIV, RSV were translated. So the NASB, NIV, RSV aren't even following the oldest reading here, but a very minor reading found in the notoriously corrupt, confused, and contradictory Sinaiticus-Vaticanus texts - as usual.

The Traditional Greek Texts says: "katabainon ep auton skeuoV ti wV oqonhn megalhn tessarsin arcaiV dedemenon kai kaqiemenon epi thV ghV.
While the Alexandrian text underlying the NASB, NIV, RSV has: "katabainon skeuoV tiwV oqonhn megalhn tessarsin arcaiV kaqiemenon epi thV ghV.

The glaring differences between these two different texts here is that the words for "knit" and "upon him" are in most Greek texts but are omitted by the few upon which the NASB, NIV are based. The information provided by Mr. White it completely wrong.

In his book, James White recommends three different bible versions as being "reliable" - the NKJV, NASB, and the NIV; the only one he doesn't recommend is the Authorized King James Holy Bible - Surprise!. These three versions differ from each other in hundreds of verses, and the NKJV is based on a very different Greek text (5000 words worth of differences) than that of the NIV, NASB. Yet, the NKJV which Mr. White recommends contains the same reading as that found in the KJB which he here criticizes! The NKJV says: "and saw heaven opened and an object like a great sheet BOUND AT the four corners, descending TO HIM and let down to the earth."

The NASB says: "and he beheld the sky opened up, and a certain object like a great sheet coming down, lowered by four corners to the ground." Notice that this reading entirely omits both "knit" (or bound) and "upon him".

Not only does the King James Bible say "descending UNTO HIM, as it had been a great sheet KNIT AT the four corners" but so also do the Tyndale New Testament, the Geneva Bible, Webster's 1833 translation, Green's MKJV, the KJV 21st Century version, and the Third Millenium Bible.
The NKJV, as well as Young's, and Darby say: "descending UNTO HIM...BOUND AT the four corners."

James White has committed another of many head-slapping blunders in his attempts to overthrow the authority of God's pure words as found in the King James Bible. He has no Final Authority but his own mind and would like very much for you to come to him and his merry Bible of the Month Club Band to find out what God REALLY said. Mr. White is better suited to the professional calling of a used car salesman. I say this in all charity, of course.

Will Kinney


Somehow I don't think I would buy a used car from him? With his 'scholarship' he'd probably sell me a Yugo.

Thanks again Will! Truly amazing how the GMO (General Message Onlyist) crowd could have faith in this guy. It's sad that many will read that book and not be aware that you have exposed the worthlessness of the 'knit' issue raised in that book. Somehow I don't think the GMO guys will care though - I guess they'll do anything they can to hype the corrupt new versions.


Two more examples of hypocrisy from Dr. White
Hi Jim, unfortunately, I think you are correct in your assessment of what the GMOs will do with this stuff.

Here are a couple more examples of the type of Scholarship James White employs.

Amos 4:4 Years or Days?

I have read James White's book, The King James Only Controversy, three or four times and have found many inconsistencies, lies and hypocrisy on his part.

Regarding Amos 4:4 Mr. White writes on page 232: "At times the KJV attempts to get around difficulties, so to speak. For example, at Amos 4:4 the KJV renders the Hebrew phrase "three days" as "three years", ostensibly so that the pasage would remain in accordance with Jewish law, which required the gathering of certain of the tithes each three years. Interestingly enough, the NIV also chose to translate the "three days" as "three years", probably for the same reason. While it may be possible that both the KJV and the NIV are correct in their understanding of this passage, the point should be made that neither is strictly translating the text. Both are engaging in a certain amount of interpretation at this point. Given the tremendously strong language that has been used by KJV Only advocates against such translations as the NIV for doing that very thing, we see here another example where the KJV itself makes the KJV Only position self-contradictory and inconsistent."

Mr. White now works for the NASB committee, so his bias is towards this particular version. However, let's look at the provable facts.

First of all not only does the KJB say "bring your sacrifices every morning, and your tithes after THREE YEARS" but so do the NIV, as pointed out by Mr.White, and the Spanish Reina Valera of 1579 and 1909, the Geneva Bible, Youngs "literal" translation, Websters 1833 translation, the Third Millenium Bible, Green's Modern KJV,the Modern Greek Version, and the 21st Century KJV. The NKJV and the NASB say every three DAYS instead of three "years".

Now it is interesting that a guy who works for the NASB translation committee, as Mr. James White does, would have the audacity to accuse the KJB of not being as literal as the NASB. The KJB does give the correct meaning of every three years because this corresponds to what is clearly taught in Deuteronomy 14:28 "At the end of three YEARS thou shalt bring forth all the tithe of thine increase the same year, and shalt lay it up within thy gates".

When we look up what the Hebrew word is we find that it is yohm. This word is usually translated as "day", but not by any means is it always so translated. We find that the KJB has translated this word 15 times as "year". Now if the NASB is more literal than the KJB, why then did the NASB translators themselves render this same Hebrew word yohm as "years" not just 15 times as the KJB, but 29 times as "years" or "yearly" - almost twice as often? The NIV likewise has it as "years" some 25 times and 65 times they have not translated it at all.

Some examples of where the NASB and KJB have yohm as years are Exodus 13:10 when speaking of the yearly Passover: "Thou shalt therefore keep this ordinance in his season from YEAR TO YEAR." (yohm to yohm)

In Numbers 9:22 the children of Israel journeyed when the cloud was taken up "whether it were two days (yohm) or a month, or a year" (yohm).

In 1 Samuel 2:19 speaking of Samuel: "Morover his mother made him a little coat, and brought it to him from YEAR TO YEAR" (yohm to yohm); see also 1:3, 21; 20:6; and 2 Samuel 14:26 speaking of Absalom: "And when he polled his head,(for it was at every YEAR'S end that he polled it) he weighed the hair of his head..." and in II Cron. 21:19 speaking of the wicked king Jehoram who the LORD smote in his bowels with an incurable disease: "And it came to pass, that in process of time, after the end of two YEARS, his bowels fell out by reason of his sickness".

Not only has the "more literal" NASB translated the word yohm as years almost twice as often as the KJB, but it also has "literally" translated this same Hebrew word as: "afternoon, age, always, battle, birthday, Chronicles, continually, course of time, daylight, each, entire, eternity, evening, ever, fate, first, forever, full, life, long, now, older, once, period, perpetually, present, recently, reigns, ripe age, short-lived, so long, some time, survived, time, usual, very old, when, while, whole and yesterday" !!! How is that for being more literal than the KJB?!

In the New Testament the NASB has also three times rendered the Greek word hemera, or day, as YEAR. See Luke 1:7,18 and 2:36.

Those King James Bible critics who mention how the NASB is more literal than the KJB, would be wise to refrain from mentioning the good Doctor White's example of Amos 4:4 as being an instance of such "getting around the difficulties, so to speak".

Will Kinney

Another example of James White's hypocrisy

In the ninth chapter, which is titled "Problems in the KJV", on page 231 Mr. White states: "Jack Lewis notes that the KJV is also well known for the large variety of ways in which it will translate the same word. Now certainly there are many times when one will wish to use synonyms to translate particular terms, and context is vitally important indetermining the actual meaning of a word, but the KJV goes beyond the bounds a number of times. For example, the Hebrew term for "word" or
"thing" is rendered by EIGHTY FOUR different English words in the KJV!

Another term, "to turn back" is rendered in one particular grammatical form by SIXTY different English words! Those who have attempted to follow the usage of a particular Hebrew or Greek term through the AV know how difficult such a task can be, and the inconsistency of the KJV in translating terms only makes the job that much harder." End of quote.

Most people who read this in Mr. White's book would think something like: "Oh, that nasty KJV. What a lousy translation it is and how unscholarly. Why would anybody want to use that?"

Most people would never take the time to verify if there is any validity to what Mr. White says here; they would just accept his "scholarly" statements as facts. The word for "word" or "thing" is # 1697 Dabar. I only counted 78 different meanings found in the KJB, but I'll give Mr. White the benefit of the doubt and let him have his 84.

James White works for the New American Standard Bible organization. He knows both Hebrew and Greek and professes to be an expert in textual matters. He either didn't check the validity of the claims of Jack Lewis, or he is deliberately misrepresenting the facts to bolster his attacks on God's preserved words in the King James Bible. In either case, his
hypocricy is inexcusable.

A simple look at the complete NASB concordance shows that the NASB has translated this single word Dabar in at least NINETY THREE very different ways while the NIV has over 200 different English meanings for this single Hebrew word.

Among the 94 different English words the NASB uses to translate this single Hebrew word are: account, act, advice, affair, agreement, amount, annals, answer, anything, asked, because, business, case, cause, charge, Chronicles, claims, commandment, compliments, concerned, conclusion,
conditions, conduct, conferred, consultation, conversation, counsel, custom, dealings, decree, deed, defect, desires, dispute, doings, duty, edict, eloquent, event, fulfillment, harm, idea, instructed, manner, matter, message, nothing, oath, obligations, one, order, parts, pertains, plan, plot, portion, promise, proposal, proven, purpose, question, ration, reason, records, regard, reports, request, required, rule, said, same thing, saying, so much, some, something, songs, speaks, speech,talk, task, theme, thing, this, thoughts, threats, thus, told, trouble, verdict, way, what, whatever, word and work.

As I said, the NIV has over twice this amount of different meanings - well over 200 - as compared to the KJB's 84.

The second word mentioned by Mr. White is "to turn back" and it is # 7725 Shub, and in this case Mr. White is correct in that the KJB does translate it some 60 different ways. However what James forgot to mention is that his favorite NASB has translated this same single Hebrew word at least 104 different ways! while the NIV again has over 200 different meanings!

This is the type of shoddy scholarship men like James White employ to discredit the truth of the King James Bible.

Will Kinney
Yet another...

Acts 5:30 "whom ye slew and hanged on a tree"

King James Holy Bible 1611

"The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew AND hanged on a TREE."

Mr. James White says on page 225 of his book The KJV Controversy: "The NKJV corrects the problem seen in the KJV rendering. Peter did not say that the Jews HAD SLAIN Jesus AND THEN HUNG (caps mine) him on a tree. Instead they put the Lord to death BY hanging Him upon the tree. It is difficult to see exactly where the KJV derived its translation, as there is no "and" in the text to separate "slew" and "hanged on a tree."

James White objects to the AV's "and" but has no problem with the insertion of "by" in the modern versions. As a matter of fact the NIV, NASB, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, all insert the little word "by". There is nothing incorrect about "adding" the word "and" when used before a participle, as is the case here. In fact, ALL bible versions do this scores of times. To see just a few of the numerous examples of this, look at the NASB adding the word "and" in Acts 2:23; 5:40; 9:37,39; Matthew 2:21; 4:9,13; 26:56 and John 19:2.

In Acts 5:30 the word "and" does not refer to a sequence of events, but to an additional description of what took place. James White reads into the passage something that is NOT there, and then criticises the KJB for something it does not do. He said: "Peter did not say that the Jews HAD SLAIN Jesus AND THEN HUNG him on a tree." He is right; but neither does the King James Bible say this.

The use of "and" in this manner is common English grammar describing events which take place simultaneously. "We watched the college football game, and had a great time, and we ate hotdogs and drank Cokes, and clapped and yelled till we were hoarse."

It is also of interest that Mr. White chose not to use the NASB, for whom he now works, in his faulty illustration. The NASB says: "whom you had put to death BY hanging Him ON A CROSS."

The NASB not only adds the word "by" which also is not in any Greek text, but more importantly it translates the word xulon, which means "tree" or "wood", as "cross". The word for cross is staupos, not xulon, and by translating it as cross instead of the proper "tree", the NASB misses the whole point of what the Holy Ghost is saying through Peter.

Deuteronomy 21:22-23 says: "And if any man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a TREE: His body shall not remain all night upon the TREE, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (FOR HE THAT IS HANGED IS ACCURSED OF GOD " (caps mine)

We then cross reference these verses with Galatians 3:13 "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a TREE."

For the Jews to hang another man on a tree was a special mark of the curse of God upon such an individual and was an additional insult upon the gravity of his crime.

Peter is saying in effect, Not only did you kill the Messiah, but you also hung Him on a TREE - marked out as an object of the special curse of God. You humiliated and debased Him to the lowest degree allowed under the law. Peter is drawing the sharp contrast between this Jesus "whom God who exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour", and the shame, degradation and calumny to which the unbelieving Jews subjected Him.

John Calvin remarks in his commentary: "Neither was your cruelty satisfied with a plain and common death; for he was hanged upon a tree."

The King James reading is by no means in error here. Mr. White, with all his professed scholarship, is simply reading something into the passage that is not there, and he misses the whole point of the significance of Christ's being hung ON A TREE.

Not only does the KJB render this verse as "whom ye slew AND hanged on a tree", but so also do Tyndale, the Geneva Bible, Cranmer, Luther (welchen ihr erwürget habt UND an das Holz gehänget), John Wesley Etheridge's translation of the Syriac Peshitta 1846 "The God of our fathers hath raised up Jeshu whom you killed and hanged on the tree", the Bishop's Bible, Webster's 1833 translation, Green's Modern KJV, the New Life Version 1997, the KJV 21st Century, and the Third Millenium Bible.

Another excellent article dealing with this verse and James White's unjust criticism see Marty Shue's comments at www.avdefense.com/acts5-30.html

Will Kinney

NEXT :lol:

Is Acts 7:20 an error in the KJB?

Acts 7:20

Authorized King James Holy Bible

"In which time Moses was born, and was EXCEEDING FAIR, and nourished up in his father's house three months."

I am continually amazed at the barrage of silly arguments raised against the authority and accuracy of the King James Bible. As for those who raise objections to the KJB text, I have yet to find one of them who actually has any Bible version they defend as being the pure, preserved, infallible words of God. Instead, "every man doeth that which is right in his own eyes" and they become their own final authority with a mystical bible that exists only in their own minds.

Such an example of ignorantly trying to "correct" the KJB is found in Acts 7:20. Years ago I was invited to debate the Bible Version issue on the radio. I wish I knew then what I know now, but in any event, one young man called in to say that the King James Bible was wrong when it said Moses was EXCEEDING fair in Acts 7:20. He said it should read as do the NKJV, NASB: "At this time Moses was born, and was well pleasing TO GOD, and he was brought up in his father's house for three months." - (the NKJV), or "was lovely in the sight OF GOD" - (NASB).

Other versions that read like the NKJV, and NASB are Tyndale, the Geneva Bible, the RSV, NRSV, ESV, ISV, Young's, and the upcoming Holman Christian Standard.

However there are also many versions that read like the KJB with "was exceeding fair". Among these are the Revised Version 1881, the American Standard Version 1901, Darby, New American Bible 1970, the Bible in Basic English 1960, Webster's 1833 translation, the KJV 21, Third Millenium Bible, John Wesley, Goodspeed 1943, Weymouth, Rotherham's Emphatic bible, the 20th Century New Testament, the Comtemporary English Version 1991, the modern Hebrew Names Bible, the World English Bible, and the New Century Version of 1988.

The NIV and the TNIV are a bit unusual in that they both say Moses "was no ordinary child", but like the KJB, they do not contain the words "of God" in their translation.

There is a simple and thoroughly biblical explanation as to why the KJB and many others translated this phrase as "exceeding fair" instead of "lovely to God". The Greek reads the same here in all texts (kai hn asteioV tw qew) so it is not a textual but rather a translational issue.

Some of the meanings of the word "God" or Elohim in Hebrew and God or Theos in Greek are "mighty, very great, exceeding, or judges". ALL bible versions at times translate Elohim as "great, mighty, or exceeding". The NIV, for example, shows the word Elohim as translated in the following manner: "God, angels, godly, idols, majestic, sacred, MIGHTY, GREAT, and VERY." The NASB also lists "God, mighty, great, judges, and rulers."

Notice how the post-Christian Greek Septuagint version renders these verses from the Old Testament, and how they employ the word "God, or Theos".

Jonah 3:3 "Now Nineveh was and EXCEEDING great city of three days' journey" - h de nineuh hn polis megalh tw qew

Genesis 23:6 "Hear us, my lord: thou art a MIGHTY prince among us" - basileus para qeou ei su en hmin

Genesis 30:8 "And Rachel said, With GREAT wrestlings have I wrestled with my sister, and I have prevailed." - kai eipen rachl sunelabeto moi o qeos

Exodus 9:28 "Intreat the LORD (for it is enough) that there be no more MIGHTY thunderings and hail" -fwnas qeou kai calazan

1 Samuel 14:15 "and the earth quaked: so it was a very GREAT trembling"- egenhqh ekstasis para kuriou

The King James Bible is NOT incorrect in Acts 7:20 by saying Moses was "exceeding fair". In fact, it makes more sense and is consistent with what we are told in Exodus 2:2. "And the woman conceived, and bare a son: and when she saw him that he was a goodly child, she hid him three months." That he was a goodly child simply means that Moses was a beautiful baby, and that is exactly what we are told again in Acts 7:20. To say, as the NKJV and NASB do, that this little baby boy of only a few weeks old was "well pleasing to God" when all he could do was cry, wiggle, eat and poop his diapers is to attribute a spiritual life to him that babies simply do not have.

Will Kinney


oK, Last one, though it's seemingly endless :!:

Acts 8:37

Acts 8:37 - completely omitted in many modern versions

In order to see the importance of this verse we need to look at the surrounding context to see that the Ethiopian eunuch asks a direct question and the vital answer to his question is missing in such versions as the NASB (some of them), the NIV, RSV, ESV, Jehovah Witness version, and most Catholic bibles.

Acts 8:36-38 "And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? (Notice the direct question: "What doth hinder me to be baptized?") The next entire verse is omitted by many modern versions.

Acts 8:37 "And Phillip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

Acts 8:38 "And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Phillip and the eunuch; and he baptized him."

Verse 37 is considered by many modern versionists to be a "minority reading" since it is not found in the majority of remaining Greek texts, nor in Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, A or C. Manuscript D is missing the whole section from Acts 8:29b through 10:14 so it is of no help.

It should be pointed out, however, that for every one "minority reading" in the KJB there are 100 minority readings to be found in versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV. There is in fact a great deal of historical and manuscript evidence for the inclusion of this entire verse, and I have no doubt that it is an important part of God's inspired word.

The evidence in favor of including this verse is quite massive. It is found in the Greek texts of Stephanus 1550, Beza, and Elzevir. It is in manuscripts E, 4, 36, 88, 97, 103, 104, 242, 257, 307, 322, 323, 385, 429, 453, 464, 467, 629, 630, 913, 945, 1522, 1739, 1765, 1877, 1891, and others.

It is also the reading found in the Old Latin manuscripts that predate anything we have in Greek, including the Old Latin texts of ar, c, e, gig, h, l, m, ph, and r. It is also in the Syriac Peshitta version of Lamsa, the Syraic Harclean, Coptic (Middle Egyptian), Armenian, and Georgian ancient versions according to Jack Moormons book "When the KJV departs from the "Majority" text".

Many church fathers who lived before anything we have in the way of Greek copies directly quote this verse, including Irenaeus 178 A.D., Tertullian 220, Cyprian 258, as well as Ambrosiaster 384, Ambrose 397, Augustine 430, and Venerable Bede of England in 735.

The entire verse stands in a multitude of Bible versions both old and new, English and foreign. It is found in Wycliffe, Tyndale, Great, Bishops, Geneva Bibles, as well as the NKJV, Young's, Webster's, Green's Modern KJV, KJV 21 and the Third Millenium Bible.

It is included in the following modern foreign language versions: the Arabic, Albanian, Bulgarian, Chinese, Dutch, Luther's German Bible and other German versions, the Danish, the Catholic Douay-Rheims, French Louis Segond, the Hatian Creole Bible, Hungarian, Italian, Latvian, Modern Hebrew Version, the Modern Greek Version used throughout the Greek speaking world, the Norwegeian, the Portuguese, Rumanian, Russian, Spanish Reina Valera, Turkish, Ukranian, and Vietnamese Bibles.

Yet here in the USA, the NIV, NASB, ESV, RSV, ISV, and Holman Christian Standard versions unite in omitting this entire verse, which results in the Ethiopian eunuch asking a question to which Phillip gives no answer.

The NASB is a bit peculiar in that the 1960 and 1972 editions read: V. 37 (see footnote). Then the verse is placed at the bottom of the page. Notice the note used - it says: "Late manuscripts insert...". Then in 1977 and again in 1995 the NASB put the verse back in the text but this time in brackets. The NIV omits the verse jumping from 36 to 38. Then in a footnote says "Some late manuscripts...." Do you see how they are fudging the truth here? A more truthful statement would be: " so read several ancient versions; many early church Fathers quote the verse, and it is included in a good number of Greek manuscripts."

The footnotes are of interest to see how they change in the versions that omit these words. The RSV and NRSV also omit the verse, but they tell us in the footnote: "OTHER ANCIENT AUTHORITIES ADD..." But then the ESV revision of the RSV omits the verse and says: "SOME MANUSCRIPTS add..." See how they downplay the evidence in favor of this reading? It should also be asked - Why then did the NASB put the verse back in the text after having omitted it for so long? Which Bible is really the inspired word of God? I and many others know, but do you?

Will Kinney


Scholars... :lol: :lol:

In His service, Craig

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   2 Members, 0 Anonymous, 37 Guests (See full list)

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

  • Create New...