The spring of 2002 was my first experience in apologetics. Before then, I had never known that the Christian faith could be defended. What did this experience entail? One of my friends wanted me to drive 3 hours to see this dude speak on creation/evolution. So I decided to go. This "dude" happened to be Kent Hovind. Yeah, thats right...the guy with the million dollar reward for evolution, who is now in prison. But you know what? Although he is dead wrong on a lot of things and is now in prison for not paying his taxes; if it weren't for him, there is no telling where i'd be today. I probably wouldn't be on here writing blogs on defending the faith, thats for sure!
Anyways, as I was really getting into this guy, I found myself in a very vulnerable place. I pretty much ate up everything he taught! He was very anti-Calvinistic, and so was I (geez, how things have changed!). He was a young-earther, and so was I (and still am!). He was a King James onlyist, and so was....I? That last one was a big struggle for me. It was a bit odd how Hovind found a way to mix in his King James onlyism with his young earth creationism. But he managed to do it; along with many of his other odd-ball teachings. I was very close to being sucked into this. In fact, I used to listen to Gail Riplinger lectures in awe (now, I can only listen to that woman in disgust!) and couldn't refute anything she said. I wasn't an all out King James defender, but I was close.
It wasn't until I found James White that I learned how to refute this silly mindset. And I say "silly" because thats exactly what it is! King James onlyism is poor scholarship and nothing more than an attempt to defend the King James in a way that the translators themselves would have never dreamed! Anyways, recently James White did a YouTube series refuting Kent Hovind's teachings on the King James. I found it to be extremely helpful and wanted to share it with you all.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
15 comments:
Step back and see that Kent Hovind and James White are at the same level. White only takes on the equivalent of fish in a barrel.
King James Only is a coinage of
White's and is a canard. It just so happens that the only translation available today based on the Received Text and the Masoretic Hebrew is the Authorized King James Version (the New King James Version advertises itself as such but it isn't). The Geneva is making something of a comeback for people who are beginning to see the corruptions of the Critical Text versions but can't bring themselves to read the King James which they've mocked for so long.
I'm a Calvinist (I'd be called a Reformed Baptist like White, but unlike White I understand classical Covenant Theology). White is a sophist and very dishonest when writing and speaking on the manuscript issues. He breaks every rule and uses every fallacy he attacks in his opponents when debating any other topic. He is not a good source or influence to find your way with these issues regarding the pure and whole Word of God.
ps- Riplinger shouldn't disgust you. And the term 'scholarship' is relative. Some of the dumbest people on the planet have walls covered with pieces of paper pronouncing them to be scholars. Having the discernment that can only come from the Holy Spirit, and having sanctified common-sense is worth more than any degree regarding understanding the issues of preservation and authority vis-a-vis the pure and whole Word of God.
Thanks for your comment.
There are a few things i'd like to respond to. First, why do you reject the NKJV as not being based on the TR? Furthermore, why do you reject the Geneva Bible?
Your comments on James White are very stern. But you never provided any specifics. You are welcome to your opinion, but I find no reason to view James White in the way that you do unless you provide sufficient evidence for your charges.
Riplinger disgusts me because her arguments are full of deliberate lies and dishonesty. I would very rarely make that charge against anyone, but Riplinger certainly warrants it. And as a Calvinist, i'm surprised you don't feel the same way, as i'm sure she would be just as stern against you as you are against James.
Anyways, if there's something specific in the videos I posted which shows James White to be in error, i'd appreciate your pointing it out. I would hate to have something on my blog that contains dishonesty.
White's book King James Only
Controversy is as far as you have to go to see his sophistry and dishonesty. On issues of Calvinism he is generally machine-like on-the-mark (I say just so you don't think I hold anything against him doctrinally in areas other than the Word of God).
You got the wrong impression regarding my reference to the Geneva. The Geneva is obviously a good translation from the traditional text, Hebrew and Greek. Like the AV1611 - a refinement on the Geneva - it is one of the great Reformation era translations. The NKJV on the other hand is not translated from the Masoretic Hebrew, and in the Greek, despite being based on the Received Text, it uses eclectic readings either in the text or favors them in the margins.
Accusations of Riplinger lying are always based on the flimsiest of evidence and most uncharitable of readings, including seizing upon typos in her first edition which wasn't proofread due to her illness at the time of publication. Subsequent editions were proofread. As for her not being a Calvinist, so what? She knows enough about Calvinism to know and state publically that it was Calvinists who showed the most zeal in defending the pure and whole Word of God - historically one has to say because ironically today self-identified Calvinists have given back to the Romanists what was won during the Reformation. She's well aware many of her heroes of the faith were Calvinists.
I've read White's book and haven't found anything dishonest. If you'd like to point some of these things out, please feel free.
You seem to not be a KJVonly advocate, as you consider the Geneva bible a good translation. Perhaps you are more of a TRonly? Anyways, i'd be interested to know specifically why you reject the NKJV.
I would love to point out many of Riplinger's errors in her book, but i'm out of town for the next few weeks and don't have it with me.
Hey, if the King James was good enough for the apostle Paul, it's good enough for us :).
Yeah, most of the arguments from the KJVOnly crowd are usually along the lines of "The newer trqanslations take out the word "Hell" 8,000 times!!!! They remove the name of Christ 375 times" or something similar. It may be true that the newer translations remove the i>word "Hell" but they reoplace it with the original word, such as Sheol, Hades, or Gehenna--which actually clarifies the proper doctrine of what happens after we die.
What the KJVO'ers don't understand is that the text the KJV is based on, the Textus Receptus, was cobbled together by Erasmus from six different manuscripts, with over 2,000 changes being made to the Byzantine text.
Great points! And speaking of Erasmus, it would shock many KJonlyist to know that the TR was collated by a Roman Catholic priest :-)
>Hey, if the King James was good enough for the apostle Paul, it's good enough for us :).
Google this sentence and see how often it is repeated. Proof that 90% of the opposition to the traditional text comes from hip jokesters who have just exited snake-handling communions. The other 10% being liberal scholar/theologians.
Or its proof that this sentence is as equally absurd as KJonly arguments.
Great work.
Who knows where to download XRumer 5.0 Palladium?
Help, please. All recommend this program to effectively advertise on the Internet, this is the best program!
J Smith, you say you are a Calvinist and you defend Gail Riplinger. Perhaps you are unaware that Riplinger refers to the TULIP as a 5-pointed Satanic pentagram. You may think you agree with her, although you probably have no clue that what she writes is utter rubbish concocted insider her own imagination, but she definitely doesn't agree with you. Maybe do a better job with your homework.
2 Corinthians 10:12 KJV
[12] For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise.
To be a "Calvisnist" is blatantly against the words of God!! Please show me scripture supporting TULIP.
Galatians 1:10-11 KJV
[10] For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. [11] But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
Romans 8:23 KJV
[23] And not only they , but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit , the redemption of our body.
What was "predestined" was the "adoption, to wit the redemption of the body"
The adoption is "the redemption of the body"
That's what "predestined" to be "confirmed to the image of Christ" NOT redemption of the soul and spirit.
Ephesians 1:5 KJV
[5] Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
All anyone has to do is READ "the holy scriptures".
Romans 8:29 KJV
[29] For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Jude 1:16 KJV
[16] These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words , having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.
You folks seem to have stopped "the inspiration of the Almighty" at John Calvin. That is not wise! EVERY heretick departs from a King James Bible. Not only that it is persecuted and attacked!! Why? Man worship! That's why! What a mess!
James 2:9 KJV
[9] But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
Hi guys! This blog is from eight years ago, so I’m a bit slow to comment here. But in Sept. 2015, my producer and I traveled to Oxford to study the 1602 Bishops’ Bible at the Bodleian Library that was used for about seven years through multiple stages of the KJ translation project, modifying the BB with thousands of margin notes, most of which became the text of the 1611. We found that many of the errors in the first and second 1611 versions which the KJO leaders acknowledge (but attribute to the printers) were actually the errors of the translators (and not the oft-maligned printers :). To see photos of specific examples of their marginalia that make this case, just follow the links from http://rsr.org/kjo Thanks!
That's a somewhat misleading oversimplification, as Erasmus (friend and correspondent of several Reformers) rejected some Catholic doctrine and published his text just before the Reformation.
By the time it became known as the Textual Receptus, it had been revised by real Protestants.
While we're talking about Catholicism, it should be remembered that:
1. The UBS Greek text was prepared with the agreement and sanction of the Vatican, to be an "interconfessional" text.
2. One of the Nestle'-Aland textual committee was a Jesuit - someone whose job description is basically to subvert Protestantism.
3. One of the two codices used as a basis for textual changes in the late 1800's, is held by the Vatican and only viewable by permission.
4. It is difficult, probably impossible, to find a Catholic edition of the AV.....yet Catholic editions of modern versions - some more than others - are commonplace (though to be fair, not all have official endorsement).
Post a Comment