In this initial debate review, Dr. Ross provides his thoughts on how the debate went and responds to James White’s claims about the debate in his Dividing Line program of February 21, 2023, c. minutes 5-18; the video is entitled “Road Trip Dividing Line: Gay Mirage, Mass, Biblicism,” and comments on the debate start at the following time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vR4do1nfFr4&t=517s .

Part #2:

Watch the debate review part #2 on Rumble

Watch the debate review part #2 on YouTube

In this second debate review, and the first review video after the debate itself went live, Dr. Ross provides some further background and general thoughts on the debate. He then points out that James White, in his opening presentation, did not present an exegetical case for the type of textual criticism performed by the Nestle – Aland / United Bible Society Greek Text and adopted by the Legacy Standard Bible. Likewise, in James R. White, The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations? (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2009), the teaching on preservation of passages such as: Deuteronomy 4:2; 8:3; 12:32; 29:29; Psalm 119:89; Proverbs 30:5-6; Isaiah 59:21; Matthew 4:4; 5:18-19; Luke 16:17; John 10:35; 12:48; 17:8 & Revelation 22:18-19 is completely ignored. James White does not obtain his textual critical position and conclusions from Scriptural exegesis.

In response to James White’s claim that the King James Version translators would support the LSB over the KJB, Thomas Ross demonstrates:

1.) James provides zero evidence that the KJV translators would want to remove the canonical ending and all resurrection appearances from Mark’s Gospel, so that the Good News according to Mark ends with the women running away and saying nothing because they were continually afraid, based on the slimmest MS evidence.

2.) James provides zero evidence that the KJV translators would want to introduce many readings that deny the inerrancy of Scripture into their translation (Matthew 1:7; 10; Mark 1:2; 5:1; 6:22; Luke 3:33; 8:26 23:45; 1 Corinthians 5:1).

3.) James provides zero evidence that the KJV translators preferred a Textus Rejectus that was not used by God’s people and churches to the Textus Receptus received by the churches that they actually used.

4.) James provides zero evidence that the KJV translators would want to reject the reading in all Hebrew MSS and erase God’s covenant Name, “Jehovah,” from Scripture and replace it with something else.

5.) James provides zero evidence that the KJV translators would have been fine radically altering the model prayer in Matthew 6:9-13 & Luke 11:2-4 or that they would have rejected their knowledge of the Greek NT and LXX to mistranslate “deliver us from evil” as “deliver us from the evil one.”

6.) James provides zero evidence that the KJV translators would want to eliminate “hell” from the Old Testament, eliminate the distinction between singular and plural pronouns (thee/ye), etc.

7.) James provides zero evidence that the KJV translators would have accepted a Hebrew and Greek text made by people who universally rejected the inerrancy of Scripture and included high Roman Catholic figures who submitted to the Council of Trent and whom the translators would have viewed as in league with the Papal Antichrist.

8.) James’s claim about what the KJV translators would have done (were they alive today) is actually an example of what David Hackett Fisher’s Historians’ Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought (New York: Harper & Row, 1970) calls the “fallacy of fictional questions” (pgs. 15ff.). However, if we must indulge in historical fallacies, it is much more probable that they would all have rejected the LSB, the more high Anglican KJV translators embracing a position like that of Burgon and Scrivener and the more Puritan KJV translators embracing a position like that of Edward F. Hills.

Dr. Ross then points out from the writings of the head King James Version translator, Lancelot Andrewes, that James White’s claims about the translators are specious. Lancelot Andrewes embraced Textus Receptus readings such as 1 Timothy 3:16; John 5:3-4 & 1 John 5:7, and the model prayer in Matthew 6:9-13 & Luke 11:2-4, without any doubt about them whatsoever. Andrewes believed in the preservation of Scripture, writing: “Heaven and earth shall pass, but not one jot of this … law of God.” Dr. Andrewes denied that the LXX was the authority over the Hebrew Scriptures for New Testament Apostles like Matthew. As a strong Protestant, he believed that the Pope was the Antichrist and would not have rejected the Protestant Bible.

Part #3:

Watch the debate review part #3 on Rumble

Watch the debate review part #3 on YouTube

In this third debate review Dr. Ross continues his examination of James White’s argument that the prefatory material in the KJV proves that the KJV translators (were they alive today) would favor modern Bible versions translated from the Nestle-Aland Textus Rejectus. Dr. White argued:

“[T]he Legacy Standard Bible is superior to the King James Version and I believe very, very, firmly the King James translators would be on my side in this debate; I believe that they would definitely support the thesis that I am putting forward … I wish to point out a startling reality. I believe firmly that the King James translators would be completely on my side in the debate today.” (10:00-12:00). He reiterated at the end of the debate that the perfect preservationist, Textus Receptus-based King James Only viewpoint defended by Thomas Ross was wrong. The “King James translators would never adopt the perspective that has been presented this evening” (2:50:00-2:51:00).

Similarly, James White’s The King James Only Controversy argues: “one of the most eloquent arguments against KJV Onlyism is provided, ironically enough, by the translators themselves … from the preface to the 1611 KJV” (pgs. 117-118).

Should we believe that the King James Version translators would be “very, very firmly” against their own Textus Receptus-based translation, instead adopting the Nestle-Aland text while viewing the translation philosophy and choices of the Legacy Standard Bible as so superior that they would be “completely” on James White’s side in the debate? What evidence did James White give in the debate for these astonishing affirmations? He did NOT quote or reference any writing, disputation, sermon, or other primary source from any specific King James translator, either in the debate or in his book, The King James Only Controversy. Not only are no writings of any KJV translator quoted anywhere in the hundreds of pages of his book, but not even one book by any KJV translator appears in his bibliography. James White has indicated in writing on multiple occasions that he only spent a few months writing his King James Only Controversy, so perhaps the great haste with which his book was written explains his failure to interact seriously, or even interact at all, with the writings of the KJV translators before making his claims about what they would believe were they alive today. It is unfortunate, however, that in the decades since The King James Only Controversy was published that James White has not taken the time to make sure that what he is claiming is historically accurate, and that even in this debate he continued to make claims about the King James translators that are simply highly problematic.

What evidence did James give for his “very, very fir[m]” belief that the KJV translators would be “completely” on his side in the debate? Both in the debate, and in his King James Only Controversy, the only source that is cited in order to prove James’ astonishing claim about the KJV translators is the prefatory material to the KJV. So what can we learn from the preface to the KJV—does it prove White’s claim that the KJV translators would reject their own Greek text and English translation today to adopt a Greek and English text that attacks inerrancy, the resurrection appearances in Mark, etc.?

The 1611 King James Versions’ Epistle Dedicatory, however, completely contradicts the claims of James White. The translators said that their English Bible was better than all other English versions. They referred to the KJV as “one more exact Translation,” a more accurate version than the previous Bibles in English. Having their better translation was not a matter of indifference, but one of great “importance.” They thought their version was better, and that it was important that everyone recognize and act on that fact. So do KJV-Only advocates think today—they agree completely with what the KJV translators say in the Epistle Dedicatory on this issue.

James White himself concedes the incredible scholarship of the KJV translators in his King James Only Controversy. He wrote:

“The men who worked on the AV translation nearly four hundred years ago were great scholars. No one can possibly dispute this. … [T]he great scholars who labored upon the AV … by and large the group encompassed some of the finest scholars the world has ever seen.” (pgs. 115, 278, 334).

Part #4:

Watch the debate review part #4 on Rumble

Watch the debate review part #4 on YouTube

Part four of the debate review video series by Thomas Ross continues to examine James White’s first argument in this King James Only debate, namely, that (if they were alive today) the King James Version translators would prefer the Legacy Standard Bible to the King James Bible. In both the live debate and his book The King James Only Controversy, James White claimed that the “Translators to the Reader” prefatory material in the KJV proved that the KJV translators would prefer modern Bible versions based on the Nestle-Aland Textus Rejectus to their own translation based on the Textus Receptus.

Video #3 examined the Epistle Dedicatory of the KJV; in video #4 “The Translators to the Reader” comes under examination. This is the only material that James White references in The King James Only Controversy. No written material by Dr. White qualifies his astonishing claim that the KJV translators would prefer modern Textus Rejectus-based modern versions to their own translation by admitting that the KJV translators claimed that their version was better than all other English versions in the Epistle Dedicatory. James White has never acknowledged this fact in any of his written material, his KJV debates, his KJV interviews, or (to Thomas Ross’ knowledge) his Dividing Line programs. It is completely unacknowledged in his published writings and in his KJV debates.

So does the Translators to the Reader section contradict the claims in the Epistle Dedicatory? Does the Translators to the Reader section say something like: “It doesn’t matter what Greek text the Bible is translated from; it is great if in a church service if twenty people they have twenty different Bible versions, some literal, some non-literal, with different verses included and excluded and different doctrines taught or not taught in passages from Mark 16:9-20 to 1 Timothy 3:16 to the Model Prayer in Matthew 6 and Luke 11”? No-certainly not!

The Translators to the Reader section of the KJV introductory material makes statements about the inspiration and preservation of Scripture that are consistent with the Bibliology of verbal, plenary inspiration and preservation of the KJV-only and Confessional Bibliology movements, but are not consistent with the anti-inspiration and anti-preservation views that brought us the Nestle-Aland Greek text.

The KJV translators viewed the Scriptures that were available to them, in their hands to study and to use, as “perfect,” indeed, “so full and so perfect.” That is, the perfection of Scripture was not limited to long-lost autographs, but the texts that they themselves could love and reverently obey, the available texts of Scripture, were “perfect.” Being “perfect” is a present quality of Scripture—what was available and in use was “perfect.” What was “so perfect” was the available text that they were to study themselves, and which past ages had studied—the available, in-use text was perfect, according to the KJV translators. This is a statement of the preservation of Scripture that would delight Christians who are KJV-only or who support Confessional Bibliology but would not be especially appreciated by very large percentages of advocates of modern versions.

The preface to the KJV also specifies that John 5:39 in the KJV, an important doctrinal text, correctly contains the imperative “search” the Scriptures rather than (as in the LSB, NIV, NKJV, NASB, ESV, NRSV) the indicative “You search.”

In summary, the KJV translators affirm the verbal, plenary inspiration and preservation of Scripture—the Bibliology of King James Onlyism and of Confessional Bibliology, rejected by the system of belief that gave us the modern Nestle-Aland Greek text and the English versions based upon it. Believing Scripture on its own inspiration and preservation leads by good and necessary consequence to the superiority of the Textus Receptus to the modern Nestle-Aland text. The “Translators to the Reader” also favors English translational choices in passages such as John 5:39 that are supported by the context and are found in other Reformation-era Bibles but are rejected by modern English versions. Thus, the KJV translators would favor their own translational choices, also found in other Reformation-era Bibles, to translational choices found in modern English versions. The KJV translators would view their original language base and translational choices as superior to those of modern versions.

Part #5:

Watch the debate review part #5 on Rumble

Watch the debate review part #5 on YouTube

Part five in the series of debate review videos by Thomas Ross continues to examine Dr. James White’s argument from the “Translators to the Reader” in the James White / Thomas Ross King James Version Only debate. This video examines the “Translators to the Reader” in relation to creationism. The King James Version is a superior Bible for those committed to the Biblical truth of creationism and a young earth.

The KJV translators’ confident certainty in a young earth and in creation rather than evolution are good and necessary consequences that flow from their literal interpretation of Genesis. Hence, the KJV translators (correctly) believed that Hebrew was the first language and the language spoken by Adam and before Babel, a view held by few translators of the Old Testament today. One’s view of the translation of the Old Testament is seriously impacted if he thinks Hebrew is a late product of a long process of evolution from other languages or if he thinks it was the first language spoken, the language of Adam and Eve, with other languages developing from Hebrew. Thus, the “Translators to the Reader” refers to “Hebrew the ancientest … tongue.” The KJV translators believed Hebrew was the original language spoken by Adam and Eve and by all men before the Tower of Babel.

As not only Baptist separatist scholars, but also evangelical, non-KJV-Only, non-separatist scholars with the Institute for Creation Research and Answers in Genesis have pointed out, the KJV is stronger on creationism; every one of the KJV translators was a young earth creationist, as was every editor of every edition of the Textus Receptus. In contrast, modern versions are influenced by the evolutionary lies that pervade modern culture. Consider, for example, the testimony of Dr. Henry Morris, who is widely recognized as a key founder of the modern creation science movement, and was the president of ICR (the Institute for Creation Research). Dr. Morris wrote (in part):

“In this day of rapid change, when many Christians have suddenly started using one of the many modern English translations of the Bible (NASB, NIV, NEB, NRSV, NKJV, etc.), abandoning the long-used King James Version read and loved by English-speaking people of all ages and walks of life for over ten generations, it may be appropriate to review a few of the reasons why many creationists, including this writer, still prefer to use the latter. … One reason is that all the fifty or more translators who developed the King James Bible were godly men who believed strongly in the inerrancy and full authority of Scripture and who, therefore, believed in the literal historicity of Genesis, with its record of six-day Creation and the worldwide flood. This has not been true of many who have been involved in producing the modern versions. … The two men most responsible for modern alterations in the New Testament text were B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, whose Greek New Testament text has largely replaced the traditional Textus Receptus in modern seminaries, especially as revised and updated by the Germans Eberhard Nestle and Kurt Aland. All of these men were evolutionists. … Westcott and Hort were also the most influential members of the English revision committee that produced the English Revised Version of the Bible, published in 1881. … In any case, one of the serious problems with almost all modern English translations is that they rely heavily on Hebrew and Greek manuscripts of the Bible developed by liberals, rationalists, and evolutionists, none of whom believed in the verbal inspiration of the Bible. Are we to believe that God would entrust the preservation of His eternal Word to men such as these? Would He not more likely have used devout scholars who believed in the absolute inerrancy and authority of the Bible? I believe, therefore, after studying, teaching, and loving the Bible for over 55 years, that Christians – especially creationists! – need to hang on to their old King James Bibles as long as they live. God has uniquely blessed it [the KJV] … more than He has through all the rest of the versions put together. The King James Bible is the most beautiful, the most powerful, and (I strongly believe) the most reliable of any that we have or ever will have, until Christ returns. … Many other Bible-believing creationist Christians also prefer to use the King James … I, as well as many others, will continue to use the time- tested King James Bible in our writing and speaking.”

Part #6:

Watch the debate review part #6 on Rumble

Watch the debate review part #6 on YouTube

Part six in this series of debate review videos reviews James White’s claim that the King James Version translators would prefer modern versions to the King James Bible in in relation to what the “Translators to the Reader” says about the LXX or Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate.

The statements in the KJV’s “The Translators to the Reader” concerning the LXX fit exactly with what Thomas Ross said about the Septuagint in the debate, and exactly contradict James White’s claims. Dr. White claimed that “the King James translators would be completely on my side in the debate” (10:00-12:00). However:

1.) The KJV preface argues, from Apostolic practice, for not altering or amending even translations that have serious issues, based on the examples of the Holy Ghost and the Apostles. According to the KJV translators, even if modern translators know more about the Hebrew and Greek words for various flowers and rocks than did the KJV translators, the conclusion that Christians should give up the KJV for the LSB would not follow.

2.) James White had argued in the debate that the New Testament rejects the testimony of the Hebrew text in passages such as Hebrews 8:9 and Hebrews 10:5 to follow the LXX against the Hebrew text, contradicting Christ’s promise of Matthew 5:18. The allegation of White that the New Testament quotes the LXX even when the Septuagint mistranslates the Hebrew is important enough for a separate debate review video. Note at this point, however, that the KJV translators and the preface to the KJV took exactly the same position as Thomas Ross, and specifically repudiate what White argued. The KJV preface said that the Apostles had the Hebrew text as their final authority and rejected the LXX to follow the Hebrew whenever the two differed. So how does this fact work with Brother White’s astonishing claim that the KJV translators would be “completely” on his side in our debate, based on the KJV preface?

The KJV “Translators to the Reader” notes: “The translation of the Seventy dissenteth from the Original in many places, neither doth it come near it for perspicuity, gravity, majesty[.] …They [the LXX translators] did many things well, as learned men; but yet as men they stumbled and fell, one while through oversight, another while through ignorance; yea, sometimes they may be noted to add to the original, and sometimes to take from it: WHICH MADE THE APOSTLES TO LEAVE THEM MANY TIMES, WHEN THEY LEFT THE HEBREW, and to deliver the sense thereof according to the truth of the word, as the Spirit gave them utterance.”

Is there any reason to deny that the Apostles used the LXX when it was accurate? There is no reason believers in perfect preservation should deny this. But note that the KJV translators took the same position as Thomas Ross and KJV-Only perfect preservationists on this issue—they recognized that the Apostles could have quoted the LXX when it was an accurate translation of the Hebrew, but whenever the LXX differed from the Hebrew, Hebrew was always the authority. The Apostles never quoted the LXX when it mistranslated the Hebrew. That is what Scripture teaches in Matthew 5:18, it is what the KJV translators believed as documented in the preface, and it is what Dr. Ross argued for in the debate, while Dr. White argued for exactly the opposite, and by thinking he had a “gotcha” moment on me, gave reason to question whether he had ever seriously grappled with the case against what he was arguing.

Discussing the multiplicity of ancient Latin translations-when Latin was actually a vernacular language-the KJV translators said the vernacular “translations were too many to be all good, for they were infinite.” Does that not sound exactly like the situation with modern English Bible versions? Are there not far more modern English Bible versions today than there were Latin translations in Augustine’s day? Exactly what James White defends is condemned by the KJV translators. According to the KJV translators, it is possible to have “translations … too many” in one language. Of course, this also fits perfectly with their expressed intention for the KJV to be THE church Bible, the only Bible used in church, and the Bible which would supersede all others in English as the best English version.

Also, the Latin Vulgate is considerably closer to the Textus Receptus than it is to the modern Nestle-Aland text (inaccurate claims by the Seventh Day Adventist cultist Benjamin Wilkinson to the contrary notwithstanding). The Latin Vulgate contains Mark 16:9-20; John 7:53-8:11; Acts 8:37 & 1 John 5:7. Houghton’s standard introduction to the Latin New Testament, by Oxford University Press, states: “[T]he Vulgate … [is] clos[e] to the later standard (koine or Byzantine text) … It was once thought that Jerome’s Greek text was similar to Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, but this is no longer the case.”

Part #7:

Watch the debate review part #7 on Rumble

Watch the debate review part #7 on YouTube

Earlier debate review videos have examined what the Dedicatory Epistle said about the KJV in relation to earlier English Bibles. What does the “Translators to the Reader” says about the Authorized Version in comparison to earlier English Bibles? Were the King James Version translators King James Only? Find out in this debate review, part 7, of the debate between Dr. White and Dr. Ross on: “The Legacy Standard Bible, as a representative of modern English translations based upon the UBS/NA text, is superior to the KJV, as a representative of TR-based Bible translations”!

It is important to keep in mind the historical context here. At this point in the preface the translators are disagreeing with Roman Catholics who thought it was better to not translate the Bible at all, but leave it only in Latin. The KJV translators were thankful for the earlier Textus Receptus-based English Bibles, such as the Tyndale, the Geneva, the Bishops’ Bible, and so forth. There are very few advocates of KJV-Onlyism or Confessional Bibliology who would not agree completely with these sentiments. They then stated:

Yet for all that, as nothing is begun and perfected at the same time, and the latter thoughts are thought to be the wiser: so, if we building upon their foundation that went before us, and being holpen by their labours, do ENDEAVOUR TO MAKE THAT BETTER WHICH THEY LEFT SO GOOD; no man, we are sure, hath cause to mislike us; they, we persuade ourselves, if they were alive, would thank us.

Note that the KJV translators say that they are very thankful for earlier English versions, but that, building upon their foundation, the KJV is “better.” Saying that the KJV is “better” than the other English versions, even other Textus-Receptus based Bibles, is very, very different from James White’s argument that the KJV preface shows that the KJV translators would have been fine with Textus Rejectus-based English versions that change many crucial doctrinal passages and are based on a very different, unbelieving textual philosophy. What the KJV translators say about earlier English Bibles does not at all lead to James White’s conclusion.

Discussing the Latin Vulgate, they go on to say that the Vulgate is decidedly inferior to any of the English Textus Receptus based versions. So the Latin-although they were thankful the Bible was translated into that language in Jerome’s day when Latin actually was a vulgar or common tongue spoken by people in general-was “far” worse than any of the Protestant, Textus Receptus based versions. Thus, the KJV preface was very far from placing all translations on the same level, or from having a careless attitude about the purity and preservation of the underlying language text. If they viewed the KJV as the best and most accurate of all the English versions, while the worst of the purely Textus Receptus based English versions was “far” better than the Latin Vulgate, although the Vulgate was quite a literal translation of a mainly Byzantine text (with some exceptions, such as in 1 Timothy 3:16), the KJV translators would have viewed modern English version that deviate from the Textus Receptus as FAR, FAR WORSE than their own translation, FAR, FAR WORSE than the earlier English Bibles, and far worse than the Latin Vulgate. The KJV preface provides no support at all for Brother White’s contention that the KJV translators would have preferred Textus Rejectus based English versions. On the contrary, they clearly would have viewed them as indubitably and strongly inferior!

When they speak positively about other translations, they are speaking about the currently extant English Bibles, every single one of which was based on the Textus Receptus, was made by people who believed in verbal inspiration, in justification by faith alone, and other crucial doctrines of Christianity, and based on a Greek text also edited by those who did the same—Stephanus and Beza. The KJV translators specifically speak of translations made by “men of our profession.” What profession was that? Verbal inspiration and preservation, as seen earlier in the KJV preface. Strong anti-Catholicism that would be indignant at someone like the Nestle-Aland editor Carlo Martini, a Roman Catholic cardinal committed to the Council of Trent, a right hand man of the Man of Sin, being on the Greek Testament editorial committee. Justification by grace alone through faith alone based on the imputed righteousness of Christ alone. “Men of our profession” would not support a Socinian or an Arian Bible, and so would rule out the Unitarian influence upon the Westcott-Hort Greek New Testament of 1881.

Part #8:

Watch the debate review part #8 on Rumble

Watch the debate review part #8 on YouTube

“The Hand of God on the KJV Translators: Special Providence in the collation of the Textus Receptus and the King James Version of the Bible” is review video #8 examining the James White – Thomas Ross debate “The Legacy Standard Bible, as a representative of modern English translations based upon the UBS/NA text, is superior to the KJV, as a representative of TR-based Bible translations.” The statements in the King James Bible’s prefatory “Translators to the Reader” on the translators’ claim that God’s special providential guidance was involved in their translation, as well as their intention that the English-speaking world be King James Only, is examined, along with the fact that the KJV translators indicated that the Roman Catholicism of their day viewed Erasmus as an “enemy,” while Protestants viewed Erasmus as a friend.

James White loves mentioning (as he did in the King James Only debate with Dr. Ross) that Erasmus was a Roman Catholic priest when he edited the first edition of the Textus Receptus in 1516, before the Reformation started. Dr. White very rarely points out that in 1516, as it was before the Reformation, 99% of people in Europe were Roman Catholics, so of course Erasmus was a Roman Catholic. Nor does James White often call Luther, Wycliffe, Huss, the Anabaptist Balthasar Hubmaier, Zwingli, or William Tyndale a Roman Catholic priest, although all were, nor does White often remind his readers that Calvin received the Roman Catholic tonsure; only Erasmus is regularly associated by White with the Catholic priesthood.

One should not be surprised that Roman Catholicism generally viewed Erasmus as an “enemy,” while Protestants viewed him as a friend, since Erasmus wrote a book called Julius Excluded From Heaven (Iulius Exclusus), a best-seller about how the Pope was excluded from heaven; he declared that “the Popes now are the vickares of Iulius Caesar, of Alexander the great, of Croesus, and of Xerxes, not of Christ nor of Peter”; and all of Erasmus’ books were put on the index of forbidden reading by the Roman Catholic religion. Nearly all of the leaders of the Reformed communities had been disciples of Erasmus, who favored a moderate middle way of reform. Truly, “Erasmus laid the egg that Luther hatched.”

James White claimed that that the KJV preface taught that “they were in no way, shape, or form, saying that the translations that came before theirs were inferior … that’s just not what they believed.” White’s claim here is exactly the opposite of what the preface actually says. The KJV translators viewed their version as a superior and the “principal” translation, not to be “excepted against.” In line with the Hampton Court Conference, the very purpose for the translation of the Authorized Version was that there should be “one uniform translation” to which the “whole Church” was to be “bound, and none other.” That is, they created the KJV with the very purpose of making the English-speaking world of that day King James Only!

The KJV translators did NOT claim that they were translating under the kind of control of the Holy Spirit possessed by the Apostles and prophets. However, they DID claim that “the good hand of the Lord” was “upon” them, referring to this language in Ezra and Nehemiah for the special providence of God. Likewise, classical Baptist and Protestant confessional statements ascribe preservation neither merely to the general providence of God—they are stronger than that—nor to a series of continual miracles—that is more than they affirm—but to the special providence of God, so that the Word is by “his singular care and Providence kept pure in all Ages” (1689 London Baptist Confession). The KJV translators employed this same language of special providence in connection with their work of translation.

God’s working in providence is NOT imperfect and does NOT necessarily involve errors. God’s “singular care and providence” are well able to guarantee His people a “pure” Word “in all ages” without a perpetual miracle. In the book of Esther the name “Jehovah” and the word “God” do not appear, but Jehovah’s preservation of His people in accordance with His covenantal promises to Abraham and Moses is a key theme. God can providentially and perfectly control, time, and orchestrate events for the preservation of His Word without any specific miracle taking place. Providential preservation does not mean imperfect preservation.

Claiming that God’s special providence, His singular care, His “good hand,” was involved in the collation of the printed Textus Receptus is expected Biblically, is affirmed confessionally, and is rational historically. Expecting that God’s good hand, His singular care and providence, were involved in the translation of what God knew would be the standard English Bible for 400 years in what was going to become the world language is not contradicted by the translators, but is, on the contrary, exactly what they themselves claimed for their own translation.

Part #9:

Watch the debate review part #9 on Rumble

Watch the debate review part #9 on YouTube

“Bible Version Debate: Are KJV Marginal Notes the Same as Modern Bible Version Textual Footnotes?” is review video #9 of the James White – Thomas Ross King James Only debate. James White had stated that he believed “very, very firmly” that the KJV translators would be “completely” on his side in the debate.

The 1611 edition of the King James Bible (Authorized Version) had marginal notes, notes reprinted in the editions of the King James Version published by the pro-Textus Receptus, anti-Textus Rejectus (Nestle-Aland) Trinitarian Bible Society and in some other editions. In the debate, James White used what he called the “many, many, many, many marginal notes the King James translators themselves provided” as justification for the marginal notes in modern Bible versions like the LSB (Legacy Standard Bible) and as an argument against the King James Only position.

Similarly, in his King James Only Controversy, James White claims that when advocates of perfect preservation attack the marginal notes in modern versions, but do not attack those in the KJV, “The inconsistency speaks volumes” (pg. 123). He wrote:

Modern Bible translations as a matter of standard practice include TEXTUAL FOOTNOTES to indicate to the reader where the Greek or Hebrew manuscripts contain variants. KJV Only advocates generally dislike such footnotes, feeling that they can confuse the reader and that they are in fact faith-destroying. If a version dares to note that a word, phrase, or verse is questionable, it will be accused of attacking the Word of God by those who define the KJV as the Word of God. Unfortunately, many AV defenders seem unaware that, as noted previously, the King James Version contained 8,422 SUCH MARGINAL READINGS and notes when first published (pg. 264).

James White provides no written primary sources—or, indeed, any documentation at all—of any defender of the KJV who denies that the 1611 edition had marginal notes, nor any proof of any kind that “many” of those who write in defense of the KJV are unaware of the marginal notes. These claims are mere undocumented assertions. He makes claims about “many” KJV defenders allegedly ignorant of the marginal notes, and cites none—he provides no sources at all to substantiate his claim.

On page 264 of his King James Only Controversy White is discussing doctrine-changing marginal notes in modern versions where facts like Jesus’s Deity and character as the Son of God are attacked, notes like the variant in 1 Timothy 3:16, where the Textus Receptus and KJV teach the Deity of Christ in 1 Timothy 3:16 but modern Bible versions based on the Nestle-Aland Textus Rejectus do not, and Mark 1:1, where the Textus Receptus and the KJV teach that the Lord Jesus is the Son of God, while modern versions based on the Textus Rejectus do not—influencing how one interprets and preaches the entire Gospel of Mark. White claims that the KJV contains “8,422 such marginal readings,” that is, these sorts of doctrine-changing “textual footnotes.” James White’s assertions are inaccurate and highly misleading.

James White’s The King James Only Controversy goes on to assert:

One issue arising in the preface that is very relevant to the KJV Only controversy is the inclusion of alternative translations or marginal readings in the KJV. The translators defended their inclusion of these items[.] … When the very preface to the King James Version says “variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures,” the KJV Only position thereby is proven utterly ahistorical. That stance requires the translation to be something its own authors never intended it to be. (pgs. 121-122)

Modern Bible versions are full of textual notes that support heresy and corrupt Biblical doctrine. For example, in Matthew 27:49 the LSB textual note states:

Some early mss add And another took a spear and pierced His side, and there came out water and blood

This LSB note denies that Christ died by crucifixion, instead affirming the Savior was killed before the cross by a spear thrust-wicked heresy.

NONE of the 1611 KJV’s marginal notes attack any doctrine of the Christian faith. Furthermore, the KJV translators were following the following rule:

“No marginal notes at all be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek words, which cannot, without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed in the text.”

There is the greatest difference between the 1611 KJV marginal notes telling Christian readers that the Hebrew of Genesis 11:1 said “the whole earth was of one LIP, and of one speech,” and that “of one lip” is how the Hebrews would say “of one language,” and marginal notes in modern versions attacking orthodox doctrine. Around 99.5% of the KJV marginal notes are not even arguably related to textual variation, and not one marginal note in the King James Version does anything like suggest that Christ was killed by a spear thrust rather than dying by crucifixion.

Part #10:

Watch the debate review part #10 on Rumble

Watch the debate review part #10 on YouTube

Does the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible translate Hebrew and Greek words too many different ways? James White, in the James White & Thomas Ross debate on the preservation of the Bible, comparing the KJV and the LSB, made this claim, one also found in Dr. White’s book The King James Only Controversy. This video weighs and finds wanting James White’s claim.

Dr. White argued:

[T]he KJV is well known for the large variety of ways in which it will translate the same word. Certainly many times one will wish to use synonyms to translate particular terms, and context is vitally important in determining the word’s actual meaning, 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, “to turn back,” is rendered in one particular grammatical form by sixty different English words. Those who have tried to follow a particular Hebrew or Greek term’s usage through the AV know how difficult such a task can be, and the KJV’s inconsistency in translating terms only makes the job that much harder. (James R. White, The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations? pgs. 288–289)

James White’s criticism of the KJV is not serious. Students of the Hebrew language are well aware that the Hebrew word dabar, which White criticizes the KJV for translating too many different ways, is a very flexible word which appears 1,454 times in the Old Testament, according to Accordance Bible software. James provides no citation for his claim that the KJV renders dabar in 84 different ways, but immediately before this quotation he refers to Jack P. Lewis The English Bible from KJV to NIV: A History and Evaluation. Lewis makes this “eighty four” claim for dabar on page 49 of his book. Regretably, Lewis’s criticisms of the KJV contain many inaccuracies. It is unfortunate that White simply repeats Lewis’s inaccurate numbers.

Accordance documents through the word analytics in a search for [KEY H1696] that 63 different translations for dabar exist in the KJV, rather than 84—Jack Lewis is wrong, and James White’s italicized “eighty four” is wrong—and most of the time, by far, dabar is rendered “word,” while the other translations are commonly singular uses for idioms and the like. How does that 63 different translations compare with modern versions?

There are 69 different translations for dabar in the ESV, 83 different translations in the ASV, 98 different translations in the NRSV, and 173 different translations in the NET! It is unfortunate that James White appears to have simply relied on an inaccurate figure by Jack Lewis about the KJV, and then never taken the time to compare Lewis’ inaccurate 84 number with the even larger number of translations in many modern versions. (Note also that White also italicizes the claim that the verb shub, “turn,” is translated “sixty” different ways in the KJV—again, following Lewis—while he leaves completely unmentioned that, again, the ESV, ASV, NET, and NRSV all have MORE different translations for “turn” than does the KJV). If the KJV should not be used as one’s primary Bible based on James White’s argument here, how much the more must one not use the ESV, ASV, NRSV, or NET? It is unfortunate that James provides none of that context in his criticism of the KJV here. Regrettably, James’ argument here (again!) is not serious scholarship, and only sounds impressive if one is either ignorant of Hebrew or does not own a good Bible software program that enables him to compare the KJV with modern versions. The fact that Dr. White wrote The King James Only Controversy in merely a few months comes through all too clearly.

White’s claim that it is very difficult to do word studies in the KJV is also nonsense. Having a word translated more than one way is very helpful for those who do not know the Biblical languages, as they get a much better sense of the semantic domain of the original language word they are studying than if the word was just rendered woodenly with one English word the entire time.

The KJV translators explained their rationale for translating words in different ways in the Translators to the Reader: “we cannot follow a better pattern for elocution than God himself; therefore he using divers words in his holy writ, and indifferently for one thing in nature; we, if we will not be superstitious, may use the same liberty in our English versions out of Hebrew and Greek, for that copy or store that he hath given us.”

The KJV translators explained that when they used a variety of English words to translate Greek and Hebrew words they followed the practice of God in Scripture-Scripture employs synonyms. If Dr. White wishes to criticize the KJV’s usage, he will need to deal with the KJV preface’s argument that they are following the practice of God Himself in Scripture. James White ignores that argument completely; it remains unacknowledged and unrefuted.

Part #11:

Watch the debate review part #11 on Rumble

Watch the debate review part #11 on YouTube

Is the King James Version of the Bible too hard to understand? In the James White and Thomas Ross KJV vs. LSB King James Only debate Dr. James R. White claimed that the linguistic level of the Authorized, King James Bible is too difficult. He made the same claim in his book The King James Only Controversy. Furthermore, White argued that the level of English in the KJV contradicted the expressed statements in the “Translators to the Reader” about vernacular translation, so modern English versions are superior to the King James Bible. Dr. White said: ““translations should be in the common language … the idea of having a translation that is not in the language of the people … is the exact opposite of the perspective that [the KJV translators] had.” Are Dr. White’s claims valid?

The KJV’s “Translators to the Reader” indicates that they retained “old Ecclesiastical words” not commonly in use. They also said: “[W]e desire that the Scripture may SPEAK LIKE ITSELF … that it may be UNDERSTOOD even of the very vulgar.” Notice that the KJV never said that it was IN the language of the common, the “very vulgar.” It said it wanted the common people to UNDERSTAND it. The KJV rejected the Roman Catholic practice of deliberately making Scripture hard to understand. However, the KJV retained old ecclesiastical words which were not very likely to be used regularly by commoners. It avoided the obscurantism and deliberate difficulty of a Catholicism that wanted to conceal the meaning of Scripture from the people, while also retaining some language that was above the level of ordinary speech for the sake of accuracy and precision. (Consider the KJV’s use of thee, thou, thy, and thine for the Hebrew and Greek 2nd person singular personal pronouns, and ye, you, and your only for the 2nd person plural, as an instance of the KJV’s prioritizing accuracy over words in common use.) The KJV translators taught that the Bible must not be hidden in Latin, but neither must it be at the lowest level of language currently spoken. It must be understood by the commoner, but its own linguistic level is at the level of the original Hebrew and Greek text-Scripture must “speak like itself.”

What type of English does the King James Version use? The KJV is not Old English like Beowulf, nor Middle English like Geoffrey Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales, but Modern English. Early Modern English, yes-but Modern English. Indeed, the translation of the King James Bible marks the beginning of Modern English, according to scholars of the English language:

Old English or Anglo-Saxon -1100
Transition Old English, or “Semi-Saxon” 1100-1200
Early Middle English, or “Early English” 1200-1300
Late Middle English 1300-1400
Early Modern English, “Tudor English” 1485-1611
Modern English 1611-onward

The crucial question: Is the English of the King James Version significantly more complex and harder to understand English than the Greek of the New Testament was to the New Testament people of God or the Hebrew of the Old Testament was to Israel? The answer: No!

The New Testament contains challenging Greek (Hebrews, Luke, Acts) as well as simple Greek (John, 1-3 John). Sometimes the New Testament contains really long sentences, such as Ephesians 1:3-14, which is all just one sentence in Greek. The Holy Ghost did not just dictate very short Greek sentences like “Jesus wept” (John 11:35) but also very long sentences, like Ephesians 1:3-14. God did not believe such sentences were too hard to understand, and both God and the Apostle Paul were happy for inspired epistles with such complex syntax to be sent to churches like that at Ephesus–congregations that were filled, not with highbrow urban elites, but with slaves, with poorly educated day laborers, with farmers, and with simple peasants who had believed on the Lord Jesus Christ. The New Testament is not written IN the language of the “very vulgar,” but is CAN be UNDERSTOOD by the common man who puts in a little effort. The common man did NOT speak in sentences like Ephesians 1:3-14, but such sentences COULD BE UNDERSTOOD with a little work.

What about the Old Testament? Parts of the Hebrew prophetic and poetical books are much more challenging Hebrew than are many of the narrative sections of the Hebrew Bible. The Old Testament also contains some very long sentences. The whole chapter, Proverbs 2, is one sentence in Hebrew! Both the Hebrew and Greek Bible contain sentences and syntactical structures that are considerably more complex than anything found in the King James Bible. There are also approximately 300 “hard” or archaic words in the King James Version, and around 3,600 “hard” words, hapax legomena, in the original language text-the KJV has less than 10% of the “hard” words in the Greek and Hebrew! If the KJV must be abandoned because it is too hard to understand, it would also be necessary to get rid of the infallible Hebrew and Greek text (were James’ argument valid, which it is not).

Part #12:

Watch the debate review part #12 on Rumble

Watch the debate review part #12 on YouTube

Dr. James White and Dr. Thomas Ross had a King James Only, perfect preservation of Scripture, or Confessional Bibliology debate on the topic: “The Legacy Standard Bible, as a representative of modern English translations based upon the UBS/NA [United Bible Society / Nestle-Aland] text, is superior to the KJV, as a representative of TR – based [Textus Receptus – based] Bible translations.” In the debate, James R. White claimed that the linguistic level of the Authorized, King James Bible is too difficult. He made the same claim in his book The King James Only Controversy. Furthermore, White argued that the level of English in the KJV contradicted the expressed statements in the “Translators to the Reader” about vernacular translation, so modern English versions are superior to the King James Bible. Dr. White said: ““translations should be in the common language … the idea of having a translation that is not in the language of the people … is the exact opposite of the perspective that [the KJV translators] had.” Indeed, White claimed: “One of the most eloquent arguments against KJV Onlyism is provided, ironically enough, by the translators themselves.” Are Dr. White’s claims valid? This twelfth debate review video completes an examination of the KJV’s Translators to the Reader, examining James White’s final claims about this source in his case against King James Onlyism.

James White quotes the preface to prove “the need for translations into other languages.” Of course, White provides no written documentation at all from any pro-Received Text, pro-KJV, or pro-confessional Bibliology source that is AGAINST translating the Bible into other languages.

James quotes the Translators to the Reader to prove that the KJV translators “use[d] … many English translations that preceded their work.” Of course, White provides no citation of any KJV-Only or Confessional Bibliology advocate who denies that the KJV built upon the good translation work of earlier English Textus Receptus-based versions.

James goes on to claim that the “The translators also had a very different view of the use of the Bible’s Greek and Hebrew texts” than do people in the KJV-Only movement. White writes: “KJV Only advocates should note Rainolds’ [a Puritan who was one of the KJV translators] own words, wherein he urged study of the Bible in Greek and Hebrew.” However, the large majority of KJV-Only Christians do NOT follow the foolishness of radicals like Mrs. Gail Riplinger who are against studying Hebrew and Greek. White never explains why what the KJV translators said here is different in any way, much less “very different,” from what the large majority of KJV-only Christians believe about the value of Hebrew and Greek. Here again, Brother White has nothing but empty assertion. Sound scholarship proves its claims, rather than merely asserting them.

White points out, concerning the KJV translators, that: “Their view that the Word of God is translatable from language to language is plainly spelled out.” Again, White provides no documentation at all of any KJV-Only group who denies that Scripture can be translated from one language to another. Denying the translatability of Scripture would be a very odd thing for a KJV-Only person to claim, since the KJV is a translation.

James White claims that the KJV translators “used the same sources and methods as modern translators, looking into the translations in other languages, consulting commentaries and the like.” The quotation Dr. White supplies from the KJV’s preface proves the totally non-controversial fact that the KJV translators looked at ancient sources, commentaries, translations, and so on. Again, James provides no source whatsoever of any KJV-defending institution or even individual that denies one should look at commentaries and the like. Where are his quotations citing leading defenders of the perfect preservation of Scripture who think that looking at a commentary is a sin? Why so many empty assertions backed by no evidence?

White argues: “[T]he KJV translators were not infallible human beings.” Of course, no advocate of perfect preservation is cited who has ever claimed that the KJV translators were “infallible human beings,” just like when White’s King James Only Controversy on page 106 talks about people who think that Beza was inspired, and on page 180-181 about people who think Jerome was inspired, and on page 96 about people who think Erasmus and Stephanus were inspired, no KJV-Only sources are provided who make these ridiculous claims, since, of course, there are no such sources.

James White stated: “I believe very, very, firmly the King James translators would be on my side in this debate … they would definitely support the thesis that I am putting forward … a startling reality … [is] that the King James translators would be completely on my side in the debate today.” What is actually a startling reality is that Dr. White makes many unsubstantiated assertions.

Part #13:

Watch the debate review part #13 on Rumble

Watch the debate review part #13 on YouTube

James White asserted that modern versions like the Legacy Standard Bible “utiliz[e] far, far more manuscript evidence than was even dreamed of by the KJV translators” while the King James Version and Textus Receptus are “based upon a handful of manuscripts.” Indeed, James R. White claimed that the LSB had “access to manuscripts a solid 1800 to 1200 years older than those used by Erasmus for … the New Testament.” These claims of Reformed evangelical apologist James White, from his King James Only debate with Thomas Ross, are examined in this debate review and in debate review video #14. James White affirmed that the Nestle-Aland Greek Textus Rejectus and modern English Bible versions such as the Legacy Standard Bible are superior to the Textus Receptus and the King James Bible because, he claimed, modern versions and the Nestle or United Bible Society (NA/UBS) Greek text is based upon and utilizes far, far more evidence than the Textus Receptus is based upon. However, the Received Text looks far more like the Greek text that is found in the large majority of Greek manuscripts than the Nestle-Aland text, which, in truth, is based upon a handful of manuscripts, such as Aleph (Sinaiticus) and B (Vaticanus), or too often upon no manuscripts at all. Were Dr. White consistent with his own argument, he would need to acknowledge that the Received Text is superior to the modern NA/UBS text, and modern English versions based on that minority text are inferior to the TR. Near the end of the debate, answering the audience question “Of the 5,000+ Greek manuscripts available, how many manuscripts is the NA28 based on?” James White answered: “The NA28 will use all of them,” even though the NA28 editors did not even look one time at the vast majority of Greek manuscripts, much less “use” “all” of them. One could easily get the very misleading impression from Dr. White’s answers that the Textus Rejectus is based upon the majority of Greek manuscripts and the Textus Receptus is a minority text, but this is a radically inaccurate presentation of the evidence The impression White is conveying here is exactly wrong, as in the overwhelming majority of cases where the KJV and the Received Text differ from modern versions and the Nestle-Aland text, the Nestle-Aland text follows a tiny minority of Greek manuscripts while the Received Text and the KJV follow the overwhelming majority. Someone who believes that we should follow “far, far more manuscript evidence” instead of “a handful of manuscripts” will necessarily view the LSB and modern versions based on the Nestle Aland Greek text as inferior to the KJV and the Textus Receptus. When White attacks the KJV and says we should follow “far, far more manuscript evidence” instead of “a handful of manuscripts,” the conclusion will necessarily follow that the KJV and the Textus Receptus are superior to the Nestle-Aland Greek text and the modern versions based upon it. White’s statement about the LSB and Nestle-Aland Greek text editors and translators having “access to manuscripts a solid 1800 to 1200 years older than those used by Erasmus for … the New Testament” is self-evidently impossible. Among other manuscripts that are now lost or unknown, Erasmus used miniscule 2, written in the 1100s AD, for his 1516 edition as well as being aware of readings in the fourth century codex Vaticanus (and refusing to place them into the printed text, since it is inferior to the Received Text manuscripts); miniscule 2817, copied in the 1000s AD, was also used. Stephanus’ 3rd edition of the Textus Receptus of 1550 demonstrates awareness of the fifth century codex D and codices 398 and 82, from the 900s AD. If modern version editors have access to manuscripts 1800 years older than the ones Stephanus or Erasmus were using or obtained readings from, then they would have access to NEW TESTAMENT manuscripts written in the days of Moses, the 15th century BC, moving back from the date of Vaticanus. If White just forgot that Erasmus and Stephanus discussed readings in manuscripts from the 300s and 400s like codices B and D, and was simply speaking about the miniscules they used, going back 1800 years before the times of codices 82 and 398 would land us around 900 B. C.—very early New Testament manuscripts, to be sure. On the lower end of James White’s assertion, if we forget about the ancient uncials the Christians of the Reformation era had access to and consider only the miniscules, going back 1,200 years before codices 82 or 398, or Erasmus’ manuscripts 2 or 2817, we would still find ourselves centuries before the times of Christ. White’s claims are simply and egregiously wrong.

Part #14:

Watch the debate review part #14 on Rumble

Watch the debate review part #14 on YouTube

Debate review #14 demonstrates that the Nestle-Aland or United Bible Society Greek text upon which the vast majority of modern English Bible versions is based (NA27 or NA 28, UBS4 or UBS5) is corrupt: it is truly a Textus Rejectus. Why? Hundreds of small segments of its text have 0% support from any extant Greek manuscripts known to exist in the world, while thousands of small sections of its Greek text do not look like any actual Greek manuscript on earth. Furthermore, in well over 10,000 variants, the Nestle-Aland critical Greek text rejects 90% or more of Greek manuscripts. By contrast, the Greek Textus Receptus or Received Text (TR), the basis for the Authorized, King James Version of the Bible (KJV / KJB / AV 1611) and other widely used Reformation-era Bibles in many languages, is based on the overwhelming majority of Greek manuscripts the overwhelming majority of the time.

The Bible teaches the providential preservation through God’s singular care and providence of every single word in the infallible original manuscripts (Matthew 4:4), the perpetual availability of those words (Isaiah 59:21), and the recognition of those canonical words by true churches (1 Timothy 3:15). The Received Text fits that model; the Nestle-Aland Textus Rejectus does not. This fact requires a TR-only, King James Only, or Confessional Bibliology approach to the preservation of the inspired Word of God.

In debate review video #14 in the James White / Thomas Ross debate “The Legacy Standard Bible, as a representative of modern English translations based upon the UBS/NA text, is superior to the KJV, as a representative of TR-based Bible translations,” every single variant in John 13 between the Textus Receptus and the Nestle-Aland Greek text is examined. Every variant between the Received Text and the modern printed Majority Text editions by Zane C. Hodges and Arthur L. Farstad’s The Greek New Testament according to the Majority Text, Maurice Robinson and William Pierpont’s The New Testament in the Original Greek: According to the Byzantine/Majority Textform, and Wilbur N. Pickering’s The Greek New Testament According to Family 35 are also examined.

In John 13 alone, the Nestle-Aland text rejects:

90% or more of Greek manuscripts 43 times

95% or more of Greek manuscripts 42times

99% of Greek manuscripts or more 28 times

99%+ of Greek manuscripts 18 times

100% of Greek manuscripts in John 13:2.

Extrapolating for the entire New Testament from John 13, the Nestle-Aland text rejects:

99% of Greek MSS c. 4,680 times

90%+ of Greek MSS c. 11,180 times.

When the Received Greek text from which the King James Version was translated varies from the Nestle-Aland Greek text from which modern Bible versions come (NIV, LSB, NASB, NRSV, ESV, NLT, etc.), the TR usually follows by far the greater number of Greek manuscripts. When they differ, the Textus Receptus receives support from:

90% of Greek manuscripts or more 42 times

95% of Greek manuscripts or more 40 times

99% of Greek manuscripts or more: 18 times

99%+ of Greek manuscripts: 11 times

Furthermore, an examination of Dr. Reuben Swanson’s New Testament Greek Manuscripts: Variant Readings Arranged in Horizontal Lines Against Codex Vaticanus: John, as well as his other volumes in this series (Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, and Galatians), shows that there are huge numbers of short sections of Greek text where no manuscript on earth reads exactly like the printed United Bible Society Textus Rejectus. For slightly larger sections of text, thousands of passages do not look like any extant manuscript. By contrast, the Received Text is identical to large numbers of Greek MSS in verse after verse, paragraph after paragraph, page after page, book after book.

Eberhard Nestle himself (of NESTLE – Aland fame) admitted: “The text of our present critical editions is a patchwork of many colours, more wonderful than the cloak of Child Roland of old. In fact, it is a text that never really existed at all.” Nestle himself, of Nestle-Aland fame, admits that the Textus Rejectus type of Greek text is a “patchwork,” “a text that NEVER REALLY EXISTED AT ALL” (Eberhard Nestle, Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, 2^nd ed., trans. & ed. William Edie & Allan Menzies [New York: G. P. Putnam, 1901], 164.)!

The Received Text is very similar to all the three Majority Text editions in John 13:

TR differs from Wilbur Pickering: 15 letters in 6 words

TR agrees with WP in 662/668 words = 99.1% of words

TR agrees with WP in 3,008/3,023 letters = 99.5% of letters

TR differs from Hodges-Farstad: 9 letters in 3 words

TR agrees with HF in 665/668 words = 99.6% of words

TR agrees with HF in 3,014/3,023 letters = 99.7% of letters

TR differs from Robinson-Pierpont: 9 letters in 3 words

TR agrees with RP in 665/668 words = 99.6% of words

TR agrees with RP in 3,014/3,023 letters = 99.7% of letters

The printed Majority Text editions are very similar to the Received Text in John 13. Where they differ, the Textus Receptus follows the absolute majority of Greek manuscripts MORE than any of the so-called modern printed Majority Text editions.

These facts are devastating to James White’s attempt to set the Received Text against the majority of Greek manuscripts and make White’s attack on one word in Ephesians 3:9 that is a minority reading and one word in Revelation 16:5 that is a minority reading in some editions of the TR–when the text he is advocating is full of readings with 0% support, and many more with less than 1% support–monumentally inconsistent.

Debate Review Videos By Others:

There are other scholars and other individuals who have offered their assessments of the debate arguments. Please see the James White / Thomas Ross Debate Review Videos post at the What is Truth? blog here to watch these.

Debate Slides:

You can download the debate slides used by Thomas Ross in the order he employed them in his presentation by clicking here (recommended) or an earlier version not in the debate order here.

James White was offered the opportunity to have his debate slides posted here for download, but he has not agreed to make them available.

Information About the Debaters:

James White is the director of Alpha and Omega Ministries. He is Professor of Church History and Apologetics at Grace Bible Theological Seminary, and has taught Greek, Hebrew, Systematic Theology, Textual Criticism, Church History and various topics in the field of apologetics for numerous other schools. He has authored or contributed to more than twenty four books, including The King James Only Controversy, The Forgotten Trinity, The Potter’s Freedom, The God Who Justifies and What Every Christian Needs to Know About the Qur’an. He is an accomplished debater, having engaged in more than one hundred seventy-five moderated, public debates with leading proponents of Roman Catholicism, Islam, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Mormonism, as well as critics such as Bart Ehrman, John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, and John Shelby Spong. Before travel restrictions James debated in such locations as London, Sydney, as well as in mosques in Toronto and South Africa. He is a Pastor/Elder of Apologia Church in Arizona. He has been married to Kelli for more than forty years, and has two children, and five living grandchildren. Learn more about James White here.

—

Thomas Ross grew up doubting the existence of God, but through God’s grace turned to the Lord Jesus Christ in repentant faith shortly after entering college at the age of fifteen and was born again. He earned a B.A. from the University of California at Berkeley, an M. A. from Fairhaven Baptist College, an M. Div. from Great Plains Baptist Divinity School, a Th. M. from Anchor Baptist Theological Seminary, and should complete and submit his Ph. D. dissertation this year at Great Plains Baptist Divinity School. He has taught systematic theology, Greek, Hebrew, apologetics, textual criticism, and other courses with a variety of church-authorized Bible institutes, colleges, and theological seminaries in the United States and in foreign countries. Since risen Christ’s authorized institution for discipling all nations is the local, visible assembly of baptized saints (1 Timothy 3:15), Thomas Ross serves the Lord at Bethel Baptist Church of El Sobrante, CA. His church and he partner with a number of independent Baptist educational institutions to assist them in training God’s servants for kingdom work through both distance and in-person education, in addition to assisting his congregation and equipping other Bible-believing, separatist Baptist churches in preaching, teaching, and in other ways fulfilling Christ’s Great Commission through such ministries as house-to-house evangelism, literature distribution, evangelistic Bible studies, open-air preaching, and online preaching, teaching, and apologetics ministry to the glory of the Triune God (Matthew 28:19-20). Thomas Ross has engaged in public, moderated debates both in the United States and internationally with leading representatives of non-Christian worldviews and with representatives of pseudo-Christian cults and religious organizations. He loves to read and study his Greek, Hebrew, and English Bible with the intention of obeying them. He has also translated the Aramaic portions of Scripture. He has written several books. He likewise loves to see the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 3:18) as he follows the great expository preaching in his church with his Authorized, King James Version, his Greek and Hebrew Textus Receptus, and his LXX and Latin Bible. Most importantly, he is a miserable sinner whom the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the one true God, out of unmerited love and for His eternal glory, freely justified, sanctified, and adopted into His family by grace alone. Learn more about Thomas Ross here.

Debate Format:

Debate Topic: “The Legacy Standard Bible, as a representative of modern English translations based upon the UBS/NA text, is superior to the KJV, as a representative of TR-based Bible translations.”

Affirm: James White

Deny: Thomas Ross

How the time will go:

Brief introduction to the speakers and an explanation of the character of the debate.

Opening presentation: 25/25

Second presentation/rebuttal: 12/12

Cross-examination #1: 10/10

Cross-examination #2: 10/10

Third presentation/rebuttal: 8/8

Concluding statement: 5/5

Very short break to gather any additional questions from the audience

Questions from audience the rest of the time.

Miscellaneous details: Questions from the audience should be submitted during the short break or before the debate. Expressions of approval/disapproval by the audience (clapping, etc.) should be restrained until breaks between sections of the debate; the audience should stay quiet until the breaks. There will be brief breaks between the presentations. In terms of time to respond to audience questions, the person who has the question addressed to him will have one minute to answer. The other person will then have 30 seconds to respond to the question as well (if he wishes to do so). Questions should be evenly divided between the two debaters. Timekeepers(s) can make sure that everyone stays on time and remind speakers when they have 5/3/1 minutes left during the longer presentations. During the cross-examinations, the person answering questions will take no more than 30 seconds to answer a question, and the person asking the question should not take more than 30 seconds. In the first cross-examination session, Mr. Ross will ask the questions for the first 10 minutes, then Mr. White in the second eight minutes. This will be reversed in the second cross-examination (White first, then Ross). The moderator is to do things like passively make sure people stay on time, but is not to have the active role of determining the validity of arguments made or even if presenters stay on topic; the speakers can do this for themselves and point out if the other party is failing to do what he needs to do, with the audience as the judge of these matters. Presenters are allowed to use whatever visual aids, slides, etc. that they wish to assist in the presentation. Visuals employed in the debate will be in accordance with copyright regulations, etc. Both sides will be allowed to have unedited and complete video of the entire debate and permission to do whatever they wish with that material (copy, distribute, give away, sell, edit sections of, combine with other debates or other material, leave unchanged in any way, etc.) with the sole exception of any action that would seek to infringe or prevent the other party from doing what he wishes with the material. Both sides and the organizations representing them are allowed to offer for sale or give away whatever books or other material they wish to the audience attending the debate. A speaker’s time clock begins to run when he intentionally utters the first word of his presentation. A relatively brief but reasonable interval between presentations to set up visuals or other similar issues is understandable and does not constitute a use of a speaker’s time.

View the copy of the debate terms and conditions signed by the debaters and the sponsoring organization here.

More Resources on Bibliology, the Doctrine of Scripture

James White / Thomas Ross Bible Versions Debate: KJV & Textus Receptus vs. Modern Versions