Article: Little White Lies by Will Kinney
From Textus Receptus
(New page: "Little White Lies" In his book, The KJV Only Controversy, on page 152-153 Mr. James White actually says: "Every one of the papyrus manuscripts we have discovered has been a representati...) |
m (Protected "Article: Little White Lies by Will Kinney" [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed]) |
Revision as of 14:39, 31 July 2009
"Little White Lies"
In his book, The KJV Only Controversy, on page 152-153 Mr. James White actually says: "Every one of the papyrus manuscripts we have discovered has been a representative of the Alexandrian, not the Byzantine text type" and "The early Fathers who wrote at this time did not use the Byzantine text-type" and "the early translations of the New Testament reveals that they were done on the basis of the Alexandrian type manuscripts, not the Byzantine text-type" and "the early church fathers who wrote during the early centuries give no evidence in their citations of a familiarity with the Byzantine text-type".
These are such huge whoppers I could not believe he actually wrote this totally false information in his book. There is tons of evidence that even the early papyrus manuscripts, all of which came from Alexandria Egypt, were a mixed bag and there are many Byzantine readings found in them where they agree with the KJB readings and not the Westcott- Hort Alexandrian copies of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.
Furthermore, concerning the church Fathers, Dean John Burgon compiled over 86,000 citations and quotes of the church Fathers and found that not only did the Textus Receptus exist but it predominated.
The early versions like the Old Latin contain many Traditional Text readings not found in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus as does the Syriac Peshitta. And both of these predate Sinaiticus Vaticanus by 150 years.
Even Dr. Hort of the famed Westcott Hort text said: "The fundamental Text of late extant Greek MSS generally is beyond all question identical with the dominant Antiochian or Graeco-Syrian Text of the second half of the 4th century." (Hort, The Factor of Geneology, pg 92---as cited by Burgon, Revision Revised, pg 257).
Dean Burgon immediately comments: "We request, in passing, that the foregoing statement may be carefully noted. The Traditional Greek Text of the New Testament, ---the TEXTUS RECEPTUS, in short--is, according to Dr. Hort, `BEYOND ALL QUESTION the TEXT OF THE SECOND HALF OF THE FOURTH CENTURY.'
In other words, at the very time Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were penned, the Byzantine texts were already the predominate texts of the Christian church!
Then the "scholar in residence James White" seems to contradict himself in discussing John 1:18 where the KJB says "but the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, hath made him known". Here the NASB says "the only begotten God", which is heresy, while the NIV has three different readings depending on which NIV you happen to buy.
Here James White says: "the reading for 'the only begotten Son" (he puts it in Greek) is very great indeed. It is, obviously, the majority reading of both the manuscripts, the translations, and the Fathers (though some Fathers show familiarity with more than one reading). Then he goes on to tell us that the reading found in the NASB, NIV "command little manuscript support".
For an much fuller discussion of John 1:18, its meaning, and the multitude of conflicting modern versions renderings, see my article here: http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/Jn1-18.html
What do other equally trained and "competent scholars" have to say regarding the papyrus manuscripts, the early translations and the church fathers? The NKJV editors (which, by the way, Mr. White recommends as a "reliable translation") tell us THE EXACT OPPOSITE of what Mr. White so boldly and confidently states.
The following quotes are found in the 1982 edition of the NKJV. Keep in mind that these men are not King James Bible onlyists.
In the preface of the NKJV, which was translated by some of the same men who translated the NIV, it says on page vii "The manuscript preferences cited in many contemporary translations are due to recent reliance on a relatively few manuscripts discovered in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Dependence on these manuscripts, especially two, the Sinaitic and Vatican manuscripts, is due to the greater age of these documents.
However, in spite of their age, some scholars have reason to doubt their faithfulness to the autographs, since they often disagree with one another and show other signs of unreliability.
On the other hand, the great majority of existing manuscripts are in substantial agreement. Even though many are late, and none are earlier than the fifth century, MOST OF THEIR READINGS ARE VERIFIED BY ANCIENT PAPYRI, ANCIENT VERSIONS, AND QUOTATIONS OF THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS. This large body of manuscripts is the source of the Greek text underlying the King James Bible. It is the Greek text used by Greek-speaking churches for many centuries, presently known as the Textus Receptus, or Received Text, of the New Testament.
Then on page 1231 the NKJV editors say: "The Byzantine Text. This text was largely preserved in the area of the old Byzantine Empire, the area which is now Turkey, Bulgaria, Greece, Albania, and Yugoslavia. OVER EIGHTY-FIVE PERCENT of the extant manuscripts belong to the Byzantine text type. Also, from the oldest to the most recent manuscripts of this type, there is greater homogeneity than among the manuscripts of any other text type. The King James Version is based largely on a Byzantine type Greek text."
Here are a couple of quotes from Kurt Aland, one of the chief editors of the modern UBS, Nestle-Aland texts upon which most modern versions are based, regarding the Greek manuscript issue. Mr. Aland remarks, “…the greatest number of manuscripts, comprising the bloc of Majority text witnesses in most instances, are always the same --- they are manuscripts with a Byzantine text. The representatives of this text type are extremely homogeneous, exhibiting a high ratio of agreement among themselves (Aland, The Text of the NT, p. 323).”
Notice what Aland observes immediately after that – “For manuscripts with the fewest Majority readings, that is, most of the early manuscripts, exactly the opposite is true. Even the MOST CLOSELY (caps mine) related among them generally show agreement ratios of between 60 and 70 percent (Ibid, p. 323).”
Dr. Jeffrey A. Young, Ph.D, writes in his article "An Examination of Modern New Testament Text Criticism Theory and Methods" :The Peshitta (a translation into Syrian) was produced early in the second century. It is possible that this translation was in the hands of Saint John. There are 350 copies extant of this translation, and they support the traditional text. The old Latin translation that was in use when Jerome prepared the Vulgate was translated much earlier than 300 A.D. because 50 copies are still extant dated between 300 and 400 A.D. This translation is also a witness, prior to the fourth century, that testifies to the authenticity of the traditional text."
His entire article can be found here: http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/examinationof.htm
Dr. H. A. Sturz has collected lists of readings found in Papyri dated between 100 and 300 A.D. that contradict the major premise of Westcott and Hort. His first list gives 150 different readings of the traditional text, that Westcott and Hort rejected because they were found in neither ALEPH, nor B, nor D. A second list of Sturz contains 170 readings found in the traditional text that were confirmed by early Papyri, but were rejected by Westcott and Hort because they were not found in ALEPH or B but were found in D. A third list contains 80 readings found in the traditional text that were confirmed by early Papyri, but were rejected by Westcott and Hort because either ALEPH, or B, or D did not contain the reading. - The Byzantine Text-Type & New Testament Textual Criticism, H. A. Sturz, H. A. Thomas Nelson, NY 1984.
One of many examples of James White's hypocrisy - "Word" and "Turn "
In his book, The King James Only Controversy, chapter Nine, which is titled "Problems in the KJV", on page 231 "resident scholar" Mr. James 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 in determining the actual meaning of a word, but the KJV goes beyond the bounds a number of times."
He continues: "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. 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 quotes from a certain Jack Lewis here; they would just accept his "scholarly" statements as facts.
James White now 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 hypocrisy is simply inexcusable.
The Hebrew word for the English "word" or "thing" is # 1697 Dabar. I only counted 78 different meanings found in the King James Bible, but I'll give Mr. White the benefit of the doubt and let him have his 84.
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 King James Bible 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!
What makes the hypocrisy of both James White and Mr. Jack Lewis all the more astonishing, is the fact that Jack Lewis himself is one of the principal NIV translators. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
This is the type of scholarship men like James White and Jack Lewis employ to discredit the truth of the King James Bible.
A Person to Person Conversation with James White
At RealTruthAudio on the internet James White came on to discuss these matters with me. Here is his answer at this site. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/realtruthradio/message/64
I had posted: 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?"
Then James White says: "Really? They would think that? Well, that's amazing. Why they would think that is beyond me. It is again a simple statement of fact. If facts are bothersome to you, you might consider what that means. But please note: your ascription of devious purposes to me (replete with unfounded insults) is the creation of your own imagination. Some of us can tell the truth without adding conspiracies to it just to "spice things up."
My response to James: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/realtruthradio/message/69
>>>>Really? They would think that? Well, that's amazing. Why they would think that is beyond me. It is again a simple statement of fact. If facts are bothersome to you, you might consider what that means.<<<<<
James, this is exactly what I mean by hypocritical. That was exactly your intention. Why else would you quote the guy saying: "the KJV goes beyond the bounds a number of times. ... 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."
Since I pointed out that the NASB, NIV and the NKJV too all do the same thing and even much more so, why then this criticism of the KJB? What version did this guy use? If you yourself recommend the NASB, NIV, NKJV and they all are "guilty" of doing the same thing, is this not the dictionary picture of an hypocrite? These facts should be bothersome to YOU.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/realtruthradio/message/82
I again posted: 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!
Then I said: "This whole point in your book should never have been made. It is totally hypocritical and it seems your only desire was to make it sound as though the KJB is extremely inaccurate and sloppy when it comes to translational issues.
If you had said rather "The inconsistency of the NASB, NIV, NKJV in translating terms only makes the job that much harder" you would have been more accurate and would have left a very different impression on the minds of the "lay people" for whom you say you wrote the book.
This sir, is hypocritical, and to call it by any other name would not be accurate. You should have done your homework and compare the other versions you were recommending people use, like the NASB, NIV and NKJV, before you gave such a badly thoughtout slam on the KJB.
James White then responds>>>: "A "lie" is something intentionally presented. You do not know me, hence, you would have to prove, from my writings, that I am specifically attempting to spread untruths."
Will>>> Well, one example might well be your saying that the above example is not one of hypocricy.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/realtruthradio/message/106 From: "will j. kinney" Date: Sat Mar 22, 2003 9:18 am Subject: Searching for some Reality
James, why is it so hard for you to come right out and just give us a straight answer about where God's preserved, infallible words are today? By my count I have asked you three times about this, and you seem to think you have already given us an answer. You even assume I haven't read your book very closely or I wouldn't be asking this question. In reality, it is precisely because I have read your book at least 3 times that I do ask the question. You are a very slippery guy and hard to pin down on a lot of things.
Here is our past correspondence regarding this question, and I confess, I must have missed where you specifically answered the question about where we can all get a copy of God's preserved words.
James >>>> Of course, you play your hand when you speak of "God's preserved words in the King James Bible." That is your starting point, and anything that does not fit with that starting point is going to be attacked and rejected. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt.
Will >>> Yes, James, that is my starting point. I readily admit that. And your position is that there never was nor is now any inspired, infallible, perfect, preserved words of God we can hold in our hands and really believe every word (Please correct me if I am wrong).
James >>> You are wrong. Anyone who has read my book knows you are wrong. Why you refuse to see the words on a page I leave to you to figure out.
Will>>> I speak of God's preserved words because I really believe God kept His promises to do so. You do not have all the preserved words of God, do you? You did not answer the main question I twice asked you. Would you care to give it a shot, or will this "play your hand" too much?
James >>> Asked and answered, and any honest person who has read the work you seek to criticize well knows it.
Will >>> Do you believe there ever was or is now an inspired, infallible, pure Bible on this earth, or is the best we can hope for a series of different bible versions which contradict each other in both texts and meanings in literally hundreds of verses, all of which claim to be the latest and best in scholarship?
James>>> I'm sorry you have not seemed to read the book you are critiquing, sir. :-) If you had, you would not even ask the question, let alone ask it in such a flawed fashion. Did you actually read the book, or were you just looking for things you could take out of context, attach to the terms "liar and hypocrite," and fire off in e-mail? It is the standard MO of KJVO's that I've been seeing for eight years now.
God gave His precious Word to us at a time when the English language did not yet exist. Obviously, then, we are faced with the issue of translation. You may not like facing those issues, and as a result, choose to irrationally grab a particular translation and make it your standard, but that does not change the reality of the situation.
Will >>> Or will you tell us we have many "reliable translations", whatever that might mean?
James>>> Yes, we have many reliable translations, from the KJV through the ASV, NASB, NIV, NKJV to the ESV. In fact, we have too many, in my opinion. I do not support the "each publishing house gets its own translation" movement that has begun over the past decade. It's worthless.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/realtruthradio/message/72 Will>>> From what I know of you, you have no inspired, infallible, complete Holy Bible. I have heard you "correct" even the NASB for whom you presently work.
James>>> Those who have read my book well know the answer to this fallacious charge. Let me retranslate your assertion into something rational: "You have no inspired, infallible English translation of the Bible, and you are even consistent enough to criticize the NASB's renderings at points." Yes, exactly. I do not believe God inspires translations, whether we are referring to the Septuagint, or Vulgate (both of which had those who defended them as inspired), or the KJV. I believe God inspired the Scriptures as they were given to us by prophets and apostles. I do not believe God then began inspiring "versions" of those Scriptures. It is the Scriptures themselves that are theopneustos, not the translations made by men.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/realtruthradio/message/110 From: James White Date: Sat Mar 22, 2003 11:18 am Subject: Re: [realtruthradio] Searching for some Reality
James>>> You wrote: This is a real question, James. I'm not trying to be funny or superficial or rhetorical. I would appreciate a straight, clear, up front answer from you so we can all see exactly where you derive your final authority from.
James>>>I wish I could believe you, sir. But you hold my book in your hand, and anyone who has, in fact, read it, knows the answer is as plain as day. I shall not play games when I have given clear and cogent replies in the book you hold in your hands.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/realtruthradio/message/111
Hi James, I would suggest in the name of being fair, you get to ask me about one verse or "error" in the KJB and then I, in turn, am allowed to ask you one. You posted a whole bunch of questions and I tried to answer some of them, but I think it is time that you address just one of the very many I also have for you, OK?
James>>>No thanks, Mr. Kinney. My position is well known. You claim to have read it.
James, I want to thank you for making your position clear on the Bible version issue. At least we can see what the "whaterist" position is. You have no final authority, no final standard but your own mind. You recommend we learn Hebrew and Greek. Of course you don't always accept the Hebrew texts, but, Hey, it couldn't hurt to learn it anyway. Even if we learned Greek, what good would that do us. According to your view, we still wouldn't know which readings were correct or how to translate them.
You recommend several versions, ASV, NASB, KJB, yada, yada, but these all differ radically from each other in both texts and meanings in hundreds of verses.
You still condemn the KJB for using 40 plus words to translate as "destroy". Have you ever searched out the other versions you recommend to see what they do?
I checked the NASB just tonight. It is a long, boring process, but I was pretty sure I would find this to be another hypocritical criticism, just like the one found in the KJV Controversy.
The NASB uses 44 different Hebrew words to come up with the words Destroy, or Destroyer, or Destroyed, just in the O.T.
I could list all the numbers if you wish, but that is very tedious. In the N.T. the NASB uses 12 different Greek words and translates them as "destroy". So, this totals out to 56 different words all translated as "destroy". I'm so glad to find out your "sound criticism" is just another unfounded case of hypocrisy - just like your book.
