James White vs. Will Kinney

Will Kinney may not be a household name, but  those who have debated the King James Only issue on the Internet are very likely to have come across Kinney’s articles one way or another. I have personally exchanged arguments with him in the past. I do think he has a better handle of some of the issues than many drive-by commentators on the web (so much so that on a message board, a bunch of folks I’ve debated could not respond to my arguments so one member of the message board threatened to “get Will Kinney over here” to refute me, and the exchange began), but he does not hold back from the typical ad-hominem attacks of many extreme KJV Onlysists. His tone unfortunately takes away from the force of any of his legitimate arguments.

Anyway, in typical KJVO fashion, Kinney has gone on the attack against James White (who has possibly been attacked more by fellow Christians holding to the KJVO view than he has by Muslims and atheists) complete with insults and wide-eyed accusations. One video in which he does this is here, and you can follow related links to others:

On a recent episode of the Dividing Line, White responds to some charges:

Will Kinney calls into the program about 15 minutes in, and the two argue for about 12 minutes. The exchange is rather annoying, as both men are talking past each other and basically saying, “No, you answer the question” back and forth. Kinney is bold; James white is bold. Kinney is on the attack and White does not seem as though he will let these insults fly without response. Knowing Kinney’s pattern, he will not let this go. So unless James White, out of frustration, decides not to pursue the matter any further, I would expect a drawn-out back-and-forth over the next few weeks or so.

 

Advertisements

96 thoughts on “James White vs. Will Kinney

  1. Bob Hayton August 10, 2011 / 8:00 am

    Thanks, Damien. I’ll have to tune in and hear the exchange, I need some entertainment… 🙂

  2. Tony Brown August 10, 2011 / 10:35 am

    “His tone unfortunately takes away from the force of any of his legitimate arguments.”

    So his arguments are more true if he says them w/ a smile? You have to wonder if the apostle Paul were alive in this Laodicean age if some of you “Christians” would even listen to him: seeing he was “rude of speech.” But now I understand why Obama got elected; i guess smiling while lying makes all the difference.

    • Damien T Garofalo August 10, 2011 / 10:39 am

      LOL! I love satire. Thanks 🙂

  3. Kent Brandenburg August 10, 2011 / 1:55 pm

    Damien,

    Hi. Good to see you. I took your recommendation and started to listen at 15 (I think it’s after 16 for those reading, but no problem). I don’t know Kinney, and I haven’t read his material (this is not out of disrespect to him, just haven’t), but it was interesting and fun to have someone like him call into White’s show. I know people will think I’m biased, but it is White who will not answer the question. He is asked a point blank, outright question that is an important one. Very important to all of us with regards to the inerrancy and authority of Scripture. And he does not answer it. Instead he says, I think our audience all knows that you know the answer to that question. Really? Would that be an acceptable answer from anyone? Would that be acceptable for me to answer that way? Of course not. No way, ever. The question is important in the debate because of foundational presuppositions. White can’t say there is an inerrant Word of God and then when asked where it IS, say “the originals.” That purposefully avoids answering the question. I know why he doesn’t want to answer it. He doesn’t want to say, “We don’t have an inerrant Word of God.” He doesn’t want to say that, even though that is what he believes. If he is not ashamed of that belief, he should just say it. People should hold him to honesty. Now you and others might attack mine and even Kinney’s honesty, sort of like the Democrats attacked W. Bush’s honesty after their guy, Clinton, had his attacked. But let’s please put that aside for a moment and be honest here. You can’t say “IS inerrant” and then believe that “IS” means the originals. That is not honest. This is not an attempt to call White a liar. I don’t want to do that. But we will never go anywhere in a debate if in his very first answer, he can’t be honest.

    I’m not trying to be ad hominem here. This is what I am hearing, attempting to be objective. I know since I’ve commented that this thread could easily explode with people attacking me. I do expect it. And I mean “me,” not what I’ve written. What are your thoughts Damien just about what I’m saying, nothing else.

    • Damien T Garofalo August 10, 2011 / 2:49 pm

      two comments in a row with political references!

      Anyway, hello brother Kent. I have no desire to attack you personally (I don’t think I ever have), and I do hope, along with you, that whatever exchange ensues does not result in ad hominem from either side.

      About your thoughts: I agree. Neither man answered the question, and certainly James White is not excused. It does help to understand that there was obvious understanding that Kinney was using his standard ‘gotcha’ Q&A tactic which he uses on message boards. Perhaps White was familiar with this. Furthermore, White has indeed tried to explain his take on inerrancy and it’s obvious Kinney wouldn’t accept his definition. Now, knowing this underlies the conversation helps, but certainly doesn’t give precedent to not answer the question. I wonder if Kinney would allow White to elaborate on inerrancy, I guess we will never know.

      You know, the benefit of having guys like us (conservative believers who subscribe to inerrancy yet are not KJVO) questioned like this is that it caused us to look deeper into the issue. And I think you are successful in pointing out a disparity in the way the answers are typically given. Non-KJVO conservatives need to be more forthright that our definition of inerrancy is different than the KJVO one; furthermore we need to be more clear that the inerrancy we apply to the originals is not the same as the inerrancy we apply to the current stream of translations. The Chicago Statement gets to this, but perhaps doesn’t elaborate far enough.

    • Bill Brown August 11, 2011 / 5:37 pm

      Well just when the entertainment couldn’t get any weirder, we get Kent Brandenburg weighing in on the side of Will Kinney all-the-while insisting he is “objective.” A few points in response:

      KENT:
      I don’t know Kinney, and I haven’t read his material (this is not out of disrespect to him, just haven’t), but it was interesting and fun to have someone like him call into White’s show.

      BILL:

      It sure was. Nobody is as a good a witness against KJV Onlyism as irrationality.

      KENT:
      I know people will think I’m biased, but it is White who will not answer the question.

      BILL:

      Kent,

      How many people have you told you’re gay?

      Now let’s just start with that question. Answer it. Don’t respond to me otherwise or I’ll just bulldog it like you are with James White.

      How many people have you told you’re gay?

      (Now for the record, I know Kent is not gay, and is a unquestionably a brother. But if he’s going to play the Will Kinney game then so am I).

      I expect your answer should you choose to reply.

      KENT:
      He is asked a point blank, outright question that is an important one. Very important to all of us with regards to the inerrancy and authority of Scripture. And he does not answer it.

      BILL:

      I think everyone on this board disagrees with you regarding that statement, at least of those who have posted. I happen to think that White should -at the very least – have quoted the relevant portions of his book to that subject or perhaps other comments he has made elsewhere. But let’s not pretend he didn’t answer the question. In point of fact, he turned the question back on Will Kinney, who failed to answer White’s EXACT SAME QUESTION in return – which KJV? Cambrdige edition? Oxford? Which?

      Therefore, it is amusing to watch you proclaim your objectivity on the subject when one can simply read your words and wonder how you could have missed one of the most obvious points in the discussion.

      KENT:
      Instead he says, I think our audience all knows that you know the answer to that question. Really? Would that be an acceptable answer from anyone? Would that be acceptable for me to answer that way? Of course not. No way, ever. The question is important in the debate because of foundational presuppositions.

      BILL:
      And your presuppostion is “God preserved His Word in English.” You have NO FOUNDATION for that assumption – none whatsoever, and I would argue you don’t even have a Scriptural grounds for a verbally preserved Bible anyway – not on the basis of a Bible passage or collection of passages. If one begins a scientific discussion with, “Let’s presuppose the earth is flat” then all the evidence in the world will never overturn that assumption. But the claim is still bogus.

      KENT:
      White can’t say there is an inerrant Word of God and then when asked where it IS, say “the originals.” That purposefully avoids answering the question. I know why he doesn’t want to answer it.

      BILL:

      Kent you just admitted with what you said that he answered it. You didn’t like the answer, but he answered it.

      KENT:
      He doesn’t want to say, “We don’t have an inerrant Word of God.” He doesn’t want to say that, even though that is what he believes.

      BILL:

      Kent, on the other hand, has a Word of God where Jesus was killed before He was put on the cross, the personality of the Holy Spirit is denied, and Christ has a beginning. What an inerrant Word that is!!

      KENT:
      If he is not ashamed of that belief, he should just say it. People should hold him to honesty. Now you and others might attack mine and even Kinney’s honesty, sort of like the Democrats attacked W. Bush’s honesty after their guy, Clinton, had his attacked.

      BILL:

      Your reference to politics couldn’t be more irrelevant if you drove an irrelevant truck into an irrelevant warehouse.

      KENT:
      But let’s please put that aside for a moment and be honest here. You can’t say “IS inerrant” and then believe that “IS” means the originals.

      BILL:

      Why not? Did those originals somehow become errant?

      KENT:
      That is not honest. This is not an attempt to call White a liar. I don’t want to do that. But we will never go anywhere in a debate if in his very first answer, he can’t be honest.

      BILL:

      Kent, you’re talking in circles. “I don’t want to call him a a liar, but he can’t be honest.”

      This kind of double talk will get you to Congress, but it won’t resolve the issue here.

    • Damien T Garofalo August 11, 2011 / 9:43 pm

      Whoa. Bill, please tone down the personal attacks.

      I wasn’t involved a few months back when things seemed to blow up around here and I haven’t posted in a while but as a contributor I still have the responsibility to help keep things civil; I think some of your comments are out of line, bro.

  4. Kent Brandenburg August 10, 2011 / 2:17 pm

    Damien,

    I finished listening/watching. And it is clear why any KJVO person would not want to appear on his show. He doesn’t answer and he doesn’t let you answer. He says Kinney is not rational. After he gets off the phone, he mocks him for the next several minutes, screaming into the mic. Maybe you guys don’t see this. Cultic? Mormons are not twisted in their thinking like this? His answer tries to channel KJVO into a Moslem model. Even if Kinney was this, White dosn’t demonstrate it.

    Kinney asked one question. Not answered. A rational person does know this. Kinney is asked one question, and he answers it with the seemingly contradictory footnote in White’s book. I heard White’s retort to that answer, but then when Kinney tried to follow-up, White just kept talking over him, ended the conversation, and then insulted Kinney for the next 5-10 minutes.

    What White sounds like would be very easy to ad hominem. Very. He is low hanging fruit, he is a high lob. So if anyone WANTED to do that, it would be easy. But I think people just want to have a normal discussion and he makes it almost impossible. You would have to debate him in a format where there were rules and an unbiased moderator. Period. Without that, it would never work.

    • Damien T Garofalo August 10, 2011 / 2:32 pm

      I knew the confrontation between these two was a powder keg. Though I agree more with White’s position on the issue, I do not like how he handled it. He should have demonstrated the irrationality of Kinney’s position by calmly engaging in the issues (though it should be said that he did try to answer the specific book-based charge prior to Kinney’s call). He also should not have responded to ad hominem with more ad hominem.

      I should note that I did not post this to show how great James White is or anything; I posted it because this is a KJVO blog, it’s been a while since we posted something, and I happened to stumble across a newsworthy little item that pertains to the content of said blog 🙂

  5. Kent Brandenburg August 10, 2011 / 3:06 pm

    I think it was worth posting, especially since I think that White would probably say that he hasn’t gotten a worthy KJVO opponent to go back and forth with on his show. I don’t listen to Dividing Line, but I was invited once to be on it and would not because I did not think it was the way to have a first debate with White. I would like to have an actual debate with him, with a moderator we would both agree on. He would likely see his agreement as somehow elevating me to a position worth debating. He could at least agree for the purpose of, with his superior knowledge and skill, doing away with my position once and for all.

    • Bill Brown August 13, 2011 / 6:21 am

      You keep saying this. If this is true, Kent, you already know how to contact James White. You don’t have to call during the program. The contact numbers are: (602) 973-4602 (Metro Phoenix)
      1-877-753-3341 (Toll Free).

      Please either call him and set this up or drop the “I would like to have an actual debate with him.”

  6. Walter August 10, 2011 / 5:36 pm

    As I’ve shared before I am fairly new to the area of textual criticism, but I have settled on the Majority Text Position as the one that has the best evidence, and the text that I witness to internally. It is my belief that if you have a Greek copy of something like the Robinson and Pierpont text, and you include 1 John 5:7 and Acts 8:37 then you can be assured of having the Inerrant and Infallible Word of God. Do we have two verses too many in that scenario? I’m not sure, but I would rather err in including them than excluding them.

  7. Paul Anderson August 10, 2011 / 6:45 pm

    Walter,

    I appreciate your opinions on the Majority text. This is the position that will be the one to look out for in the West especially in the near future. The position is not anything new to Eastern Orthodox Christians. With our (BGNT) Byzantine Greek New Testament edition in the plans the MT/Byz. position will Lord willing, be more accepted and disseminated.

    Sometime James White will have to address the Byzantine/MT text position and when he does we will be waiting to address and defend our own position in a scholarly and gracious manner. God bless.

    In Christ,

    Paul Anderson
    President-CSPMT
    http://www.cspmt.org

    • Bill Brown August 13, 2011 / 6:28 am

      The notion that White “will have to address the Byzantine/MT position” is simply not in contact with reality. Unless the MT position suddenly adopts a cultic “we are the sole orthodox view” or such a cultic belief, White is not going to waste his time on it. I don’t see Maurice Robinson or anybody else adopting that cultic view (and Robinson, in fact, explicitly disavows it in his Intro). Barring major discoveries, the Majority Text position will continue to be a minority position. That isn’t a criticism of anyone who holds the view, merely a statement of fact (nor does its minority status mean it is not right or closest to right).

  8. Nazaroo August 11, 2011 / 6:03 am

    Wow that was mind-numbing.

    I couldn’t find the Spirit of God anywhere in that mess.

    Kinney exaggerated White’s fudging, which in this case had some actual strength based on skeptical method and probability issues. Kinney should have backed down on the extreme name-calling, and got into the issue, apologizing if necessary. Kinney thinks himself justified in using hyperbolic and vitriolic labeling, but an outside observer would say it wasn’t necessary, and certainly not as necessary as having your facts straight, which would win over far more listeners.

    White exaggerated his own claim, but it was a less severe error than Kinney made out. But White went on in a bullying exchange which attempted to win, not by logic, (which could have had reasonable force), but by scolding and demanding, which not surprisingly was only effective in alienating those sympathetic to rational thought.

    I like some of Kinney’s games, but I also felt that he played dumb here. I just don’t believe he’s as dumb as he pretended when not acknowledging that he was over the top in calling White a liar. Stop the kidding.

    I like some of White’s logic, but I also felt he acted like an immature ass applying bullying technique. Its a form of trying to win superiority by putting down others, and shows a massive log in his eye. Just wow.

    The true objective reality behind the blow-up is this: The Greek MSS supporting the TR reading are too little and too late. It is ridiculous that they all post-date Erasmus. Given that no earlier Greek MS can be found at all, even among thousands of all ages, the best thing to do is just acknowledge this is not a Byzantine reading, not a majority reading, and in fact likely not a Greek reading at all. But White is not off the hook. The lateness of the MSS doesn’t prove the reading never existed prior to Erasmus. Ignoring substantial and even ancient Latin witnesses is as childish as Wetstein claiming that all Uncials should be ignored because they were ‘Latinized’ and corrupted. Uncials are often Latinized, and they are often corrupted, but they are still evidence to be accounted for properly. Likewise, the Latin version(s) are also heavy evidence of both early readings and popular interpretation of texts. Its unavoidable, and the 19th century Protestant critics who totally ignored the Latin were idiots.

    But what Kinney and White have certainly demonstrated beyond measure, is that textual variants aren’t half as important as good Christian behavior, which is rarer than penguins on the North pole.

    • Nazaroo August 11, 2011 / 3:52 pm

      I just want to add that its easy to critique in hindsight with unlimited time here, but far more difficult to keep your cool in the middle of a live uncontrolled argument.
      Who can say what one might do under fire? It underlines the need to keep focused on questions like, “What would Jesus do here?”, as trite as that sounds.

      But both these players have had plenty of time to use hindsight, and evaluate their own performance. And as the scripture says, if we would judge ourselves, we would avoid being judged ultimately, even if judged superficially by others.

      As James has noted, both of these guys should apologize and shake hands, and start again, maybe with a few concessions and this time with an arbitrator. Its obvious that our opinions of ourselves rarely meet our performance quotient.

      Where are the elders in this situation (speaking of Mormons..) because they should both start with public apologies and restatements of their position, properly cleaned of hubris, fudging and inaccuracy. Then they should come together with open prayer and elderly counsel, and especially supervision. This would prevent future playground scuffles of this type.

    • redgreen5 August 12, 2011 / 4:14 pm

      <Kinney should have backed down on the extreme name-calling, and got into the issue, apologizing if necessary. Kinney thinks himself justified in using hyperbolic and vitriolic labeling, but an outside observer would say it wasn’t necessary,

      But White went on in a bullying exchange which attempted to win, not by logic, (which could have had reasonable force), but by scolding and demanding, which not surprisingly was only effective in alienating those sympathetic to rational thought.

      I like some of White’s logic, but I also felt he acted like an immature ass applying bullying technique. Its a form of trying to win superiority by putting down others, and shows a massive log in his eye. Just wow.

      I’m just flabbergasted that Nazaroo can write the above, after having written this to me earlier:

      http://bibleversiondiscussionboard.yuku.com/reply/56251/When-Pigs-Fly#reply-56251

      You really are a slow learner. I think everyone in the ‘text-crit’ community is a moron. If I wanted their respect, I’d fawn up to them instead of calling them goofs. I can’t think of anything more humiliating than having someone who thinks they are a textual critic admire me. I think they are all fags.
      It would be like having some creepy guy from an 80s Disco, wearing an open shirt with a gold chain nestled in his chest hair asking me to dance.
      If I were cornered, I’d commit Hari Kiri or try to strangle the monster with his bling.
      “Everybody dance now. boom boom boom boom. ”
      Why don’t you go make friends with some wannabe priests hiding in your neighborhood, and tell me how it works out?

      As a brilliant mathematician and scientist, I have a strong belief that debating you would be like squashing a bug. Thats the reason I don’t normally engage inferiors, except to educate them.
      If you want to be shredded like a midget who accidentally fell into the UFC Octagon, but didn’t have the sense to plead for his life and climb out, then sign up over at TC-Alternate-List on Yahoo Groups, and I’ll put in an appearance and maul you like a grizzly while playing chess against against Crafty and daydreaming about Hilbert Spaces and alternate formulations of General Relativity.

    • Nazaroo August 13, 2011 / 6:32 am

      Personally, I love reading quotes by me.
      But are you going to post this everytime and everywhere I post from now on? Just curious.

      If you agree with the quote from the recent message above, say so.

      If you think there was some inconsistency between my above post and a long past one you have quoted out of context, go ahead and explain it.

      Its a bit unfair to just quote my post from long ago, without reference or link, because no one can see what you wrote to provoke the response, can they?

      In any case, you are again derailing a perfectly good discussion so that you can have a personal confrontation with me again in public over nothing.

      How about sticking to the topic, namely Kinney and White?

      I’m quite happy to introduce new people to my many hilarious and witty posts, but are you doing yourself a favor advertising for me?

      People will begin to think you’re just a sock-puppet of mine, used to promote me.

      Thanks though.

      Moderators might take so large a view of your spamming as I do however, so perhaps you should get back to the subject at hand.

      Nazaroo

  9. James Snapp, Jr. August 11, 2011 / 9:07 am

    Damien,

    Wow. White clearly won his main, small point about Rev. 15:3, which amounts to this: “My statement that ‘King of saints’ fails to have manuscript support is not a lie, because the two manuscripts that support it are not legitimate manuscripts; they are hand-made copies of a printed sixteenth-century text.” To which Will Kinney should have replied, “Ah. This is where my objection falls apart. You were talking about Greek manuscripts, as if there’s no need to have non-Greek evidence (including Cassiodorus) in the equation, and you were excluding manuscripts that were based on a printed edition of the Greek New Testament. Sorry sorry sorry for calling you a liar about that. I await your criticism of NA-27 for adopting readings from 2427, a nineteenth-century handmade copy based on a printed text, throughout the Gospel of Mark. Let’s move on to some of your other claims, like what you said about Acts 10:11. You are aware that the KJV’s rendering is due to a textual variant, not to a different translational approach, right? And you are aware that P45 disagrees with NA-27, and supports the TR reading there, right? Have you let your readers and listeners know that, in the new edition of your book?”

    And, White answered Kinney’s question, but White was evasive. He essentially said, “For my answer to that question, read my book.” Then when Kinney basically says, “I’ve read your book; I wasn’t satisfied,” and gives White an open door to go into more detail, White continued to be evasive instead! He never did enunciate how he can simultaneously say “The Bible IS the inspired, errant Word of God” and “Only the text of the autographs was the inspired text, and at the present time we do not have the text of the autographs in 100% pristine condition.” (Probably because he knows that the moment he holds up a specific Greek text and says, “This is the inspired, inerrant, Word of God,” somebody will be able to challenge him specifically about a reading in its text that White does not like. There’s just one way to avoid that potential challenge: avoid specifics!) And it seemed pretty obvious to me that White, in the process of not answering Kinney’s question, had to constantly employ his home court advantage in order to avoid having Kinney’s point-in-the-form-of-a-question dominate the discussion.

    There is so much in James White’s book that is incorrect and misleading, it’s a pity that conversations like this one, orbiting Kinney’s failure to understand a footnote about the kind of evidence that supports the TR reading in Rev. 15:3, only tend to polarize rather than educate and improve.

    Yours in Christ,

    James Snapp, Jr.

  10. bibleprotector August 11, 2011 / 10:26 am

    The question “which edition is the inspired, inerrant words of God?” is easily answered. God’s Word is true. The KJB text and translation is accurate and correct. The differences in editions only amount to variations of the presentation. There is on particular edition of the KJB which is entirely correct down to the jot and tittle: the Pure Cambridge Edition. But it is wrong to imply that this (or any edition) is a different translation or was made by inspiration.

    • Richard Corniel August 11, 2011 / 1:15 pm

      Bible Protector,

      Since I don’t use the KJV does that mean I won’t get into heaven?

    • redgreen5 August 12, 2011 / 3:44 pm

      BP
      The question “which edition is the inspired, inerrant words of God?” is easily answered. God’s Word is true.

      We agree on that. Fortunately, God’s Word is found in the KJV, NKJV, NASB, ESB, and several other versions.

      The KJB text and translation is accurate and correct. The differences in editions only amount to variations of the presentation.

      Simply not true. There are long lists of discrepancies between versions that are far more than “variations of presentation”. You know this already, becuase you’ve been presented with these lists over and over again, which you hand-wave away without ever addressing.

      You also have a habit of trying to reclassify spelling mistakes, word changes, etc. as “variations of presentation” when the topic is different edidtions of the KJV. But when comparing the KJV to other man-made translations, you regard similar types of differences as mistakes or alterations of the KJV.

      There is on particular edition of the KJB which is entirely correct down to the jot and tittle: the Pure Cambridge Edition.

      Also demonstrably incorrect. As with the question of KJV versions, your favorite PCE also has inconsistencies and discrepancies.

      http://www.fundamentalforums.com/bible-versions/92003-so-let-me-see-if-ive-got-this-straight.html

    • Nazaroo August 13, 2011 / 6:35 am

      Didn’t you get the memo, Redgreen?

      The ESV is gay, and the NRSV is a Jewish trojan horse.

  11. Richard Corniel August 11, 2011 / 12:58 pm

    Damien,

    Nice to be on your blog.

    So, yea, I would simply label James’ outburst as righteous anger.

    Maybe Mr.Kinney doesn’t know that these verses are in the bible:

    Proverbs 6:16-19 

    16 There are six things which the LORD hates, Yes, seven which are an abomination to Him: 17 Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, And hands that shed innocent blood, 18 A heart that devises
    wicked plans, Feet that run rapidly to evil, 19 A
    false witness who utters lies, And one who spreads strife among brothers.

    Blessings,
    Richard

  12. Bill Brown August 12, 2011 / 12:10 am

    What specifically are you talking about? I asked Kent the same kind of loaded question he’s mad that White didn’t answer even though White DID answer the question though I state he should have gone into more detail. I also stated he double talked because he did. Otherwise I simply responded to Kent.

    But I want an answer to my question. If he’s going to play that juvenile game then he shouldn’t mind being the recipient.

    Kent is King James Onlyist. Consequently, it most certainly IS accurate to state that his Bible teaches heresy – if one applies KJVO standards.

    So Damien – I will be nice but what specificpersonal attack are you talking about? The only thing I can see that might be such is when I said “nobody” in reference to irrationality. I meant to say NOTHING rather than nobody so i i do acknowledge that as a mis-statement since I do see how someone could think I was applying it personally

    Nontheless, a few points:

    1) Kinney went after White first on a You Tube video.

    2) Kinney did not give White any chance to respond on it

    3) White allowed Kinney on his show & allowed him to ask the question anyone who has ever interacted with him knows is coming.

    4) White answered the question although not as specifically as I’d have liked.

    5) Kinney never answered the same question he demands White answer.

    6) Perhaps White should have let it go & just not responded to it.

    7) Kent Brandenburg calls White low hanging fruit and says he’d like to debate him with a moderator. If that’s true then he knows the number to call to set it up at a neutral site that isn’t White’s show.

    8) Once the call was over I think White went a little overboard. Rather than the closing rant perhaps Rich Pierce should have signaled for a break to allow White to calm down.

    • Damien T Garofalo August 12, 2011 / 11:13 pm

      Well, the problem with online dialogue is the lack of true tone, the kind you can get in a real conversation. So when things are said in jest or with sarcasm, sometimes it goes unnoticed and things are misinterpreted. I think the last time Kent was here and things blew up is a good example – I’m sure that if all those involved were talking in person over coffee, it wouldn’t have been that explosive.

      So last time brother Kent was on the blog he said he may not come back; well he decided he would, which I am totally fine with. But notice how civil he was – even to the point of being as specific as he could with his opening comment and question. He didn’t seem like he was trying to be controversial at all.

      So after the hiatus, he returns with nothing but civility and an honest opinion, but you greet him with:

      “Well just when the entertainment couldn’t get any weirder, we get Kent Brandenburg weighing in on the side of Will Kinney all-the-while insisting he is “objective.” ”

      See what I mean? Again, this is the Internet – you can be employing any number of rhetorical devices but I, as the author of the post and contributor to the blog, have a necessity, as a Christian, to try to keep the conversation civil; if I am misreading you I am sorry; however, please do your best (as will I, and as we expect everyone to) to not offend.

      I will say that you pointed at a comment Kent made that could possibly be taken the wrong way, the one about “low hanging fruit.” You say this is about White – actually when I first read it I thought he was taking about Kinney (ie his argumentation). I could be wrong – but before we accuse, I’d rather ask Kent what he meant by it.

    • Nazaroo August 13, 2011 / 6:47 am

      I watched White’s show to the end, because it was all one piece, and I felt obligated to get to know White.

      But the whole second half of the show was again, somehow trying to humiliate another ‘brother’ who is “wrong” on some obscure theological gobbledygok.

      I honestly tried to follow both White and his quoted opponent, but the soundbites were absurd. Jumping in on the topic seemed to require having read an entire (Reformed?/Calvinist?/non-Calvinist?/pre-post-amillenial-20 year dialogue) library of theological horsemanure, AND somehow be up to date on these nitpicking theological hairsplitting over-abstract expositions of rambling diahorea.

      I couldn’t make out what either person believed or disbelieved about “grace” or any other bit. The whole thing came off as intellectualization about 4 orders of magnitude too far. Do any ordinary Christians have to “believe” any of that nonsense? How many housewives, farmers, schoolboys, or even theologians could have followed White’s much ado about nothing?

      All I can say is that even Saint Paul, in his worst and most convoluted arguments is nowhere near as hard to understand as that stuff. Different kinds of “grace”? Give me a break!

      Last I checked, you didn’t have to read a dozen theology books to be saved: you just had to repent and believe a simple message from God through Jesus.

      I’m sorry but White seems to have somehow caught the demon of uber-intellectuality.

      I turned off the video, and sat there wondering what happened. Was that Christianity, or maybe Mormonism?

      Thats my second WOW.

    • Scott McClare August 13, 2011 / 9:57 am

      Hey Nazaroo, how did a “brilliant mathematician and scientist” like you fail to follow White’s argumentation?

      I don’t claim to be brilliant, I have only an undergraduate degree in English, I come from the sticks, and I haven’t read an “entire library of theological horsemanure [sic]” you seem to think is a prerequisite to following discussions of this type.

      Nonetheless, I had no problem following the “over-abstract expositions of rambling diahorea [sic]” that apparently give a “brilliant mathematician and scientist” such trouble.

      Can you, in your brilliance, possibly provide an explanation for this odd phenomenon? Perhaps hubris makes people stupid, for example.

    • Nazaroo August 13, 2011 / 2:07 pm

      Scott McClare says:
      “Hey Nazaroo, how did a “brilliant mathematician and scientist” like you fail to follow White’s argumentation?”

      I’m puzzled too. Perhaps it is because there was no mathematics or science in the entire exposition.

      Yet the mystery is not over:

      The infamous Madame Blavatsky spent enormous effort fawning over the Revised Version of 1881. At the same time she was a favorite among the English elite, who also gobbled up Mary Baker Eddy, Aleister Crowley and most ran off to join the Golden Dawn. Gerdjeiff [sic] was also considered brilliant by the philsophers and thinkers of the day, as well as the filthy rich.

      Yet I have found all of these incredibly brilliant writers impenetrable, and have had to class them all as stupid mind-numbing charlatans, out to fleece the stupid (=rich). My mathematical and scientific brilliance has apparently failed me again.

      I seem to have no problem grasping the difficult but clever indexing for the Hamiltonians in a discussion on General Relativity, or seeing the ramifications regarding the arrow of time for symmetry-breaking quantum mechanical reactions, but the simplest Calvinistic theology escapes me, in the same way that reading El Ron Hubbard‘s Dianetics takes on the appearance of Aztec cartoons.

      I apologize in advance for any misunderstanding that is bound to occur if we slip into the subtle slices of Calvinism that only Scotsmen truly appreciate.

      Nazaroo

    • Scott McClare August 13, 2011 / 2:49 pm

      “I’m puzzled too.”

      No surprise there.

      “Yet the mystery is not over”

      Ahem. Personal cluelessness on your part does not constitute a “mystery” on anyone else’s.

    • Nazaroo August 14, 2011 / 2:45 pm

      Dear Scott McClear:

      I hope then you won’t mind explaining what White was talking about, for the whole second half of the video?

      All I got out of it was that he thinks there are actually “different kinds of grace”. What does that mean, and how does it help the boy at the plough understand his Bible better?

      -eagerly awaiting illumination
      Nazaroo

    • Scott McClare August 14, 2011 / 7:23 pm

      “I hope then you won’t mind explaining what White was talking about, for the whole second half of the video?”

      *sigh* If you must rely on an undergrad hick from the boonies explain it to you . . .

      White is reviewing a debate between Phil Fernandes and Chris Comis on the Five Points of Calvinism; the specific discussion in this excerpt is over Irresistible Grace, aka Effectual Calling. White, a monergist, takes the Reformed position that people are saved by God’s soverign choice and power alone; Fernandes is an Arminian and a synergist, who believes that salvation comes through God’s power co-operating with man’s free will.

      “Sovereign grace,” “electing grace,” “saving grace,” and so forth are simply synonyms, describing God’s gracious use of his power to raise rebel sinners from spiritual death to spiritual life; to redeem slaves to sin and adopt them as sons. It is “irresistible,” because men dead in sin, are without power to resist it. Fernandes, on the other hand, believes that men have the free will to resist God’s grace at any time.

      As an Arminian, Fernandes also believes in the concept of “prevenient grace,” which God gives to every person. It counteracts the corrupting effects of sin and enables all men to use their free will to accept or reject the salvation offered in Christ.

      This isn’t difficult, really; it’s Systematic Theology 101, the basic difference between the Calvinist and Arminian schools of thought.

      At the end of the review, White briefly discussed Molinism. This is a philosophical position developed by a Jesuit theologian, Luis de Molina, as an attempt to reconcile the apparent tension between divine sovereignty and human free will. God, being omniscient, also possesses so-called “middle knowledge,” knowing every possible free choice made by any creature. He surveyed all possible worlds and decided to create this one,in which his desired outcome was brought about by the free-will choices of his creation.

      As I said, this isn’t difficult. It doesn’t take multiple degrees in mathematics or science or a whole library of esoteric theology books. It simply takes the willingness to sit down, listen, and think about what you are hearing – not throwing your hands up, crying sour grapes, and declaring yourself too intelligent for “obscure theologicla gobbletygook.” Frankly, for all your much-vaunted brilliance, you’re quite transparently anti-intellectual.

    • Nazaroo August 15, 2011 / 1:06 pm

      Scott: Thank you for your response.

      But pardon me if I note the incredible density of jargon in your short post:

      (1) “Irresistable Grace”, aka[?]…
      (2) “Effectual Calling”
      (3) “monergist”
      (4) “Reformed position”
      (5) “Arminian”
      (6) “synergist”
      (7) “Sovereign grace”
      (8) “electing grace”
      (9) “saving grace” (‘simply synonyms’ ?!?!!)
      (10) “prevenient grace”
      (11) “Molinism”
      (12) “omniscient”
      (13) “middle-knowledge”

      Granted you have attempted to provide two or three brief definitions on the list, and have identified 4 items as “synonyms”, there are still a half-dozen terms here that might as well be Egyptian hieroglyphs.

      Is the average Christian Bible-student or housewife really supposed to know what a monergist or Arminian is, and can it possibly matter? Seriously; you say I don’t need an esoteric library of theology books, but where else would I learn what “Molinism” is? If “developed by a Jesuit theologian, Luis de Molina” isn’t Roman Catholic obscurantism, what is?

      You talk as if all these terms are familiar friends to any educated bible student, or born-again. But I’ve been a Christian some 35 years, and read over 14,000 books and periodicals at this point, perhaps over 2,000 on the Christian religion and related topics alone, yet I couldn’t give a credible explanation of anything in your list. Call me stupid if you like, but can you honestly say that the majority of Christians could even pass a multiple-choice questionaire on those? How many books has the average Christian read in total in their entire lifetime?

      This all smacks suspiciously of Jesus’ complaint to the lawyers, who made the Way nigh-impossible for men, and yet did not lift a finger to help them.

      As physicist, I have relied upon the principle of Occam’s Razor most of my life. We don’t shy away from jargon or specialized terminology when necessary and helpful for clarity and conciseness. But we don’t multiply terms needlessly – to scientists that is what is really anti-intellectual. We constantly hone our work and clear away excess theoretical structures, and debris.

      I am patient, and willing to tolerate technical terms, jargon, mnemonics, abbreviations, and symbols. Mathematicians thrive on effective and efficient use of them.

      But you yourself have undermined and eroded your whole position, in admitting at least four of your terms are all “simply synonyms”. If so, jettison them! Don’t call me anti-intellectual, because your field is strewn with the shipwrecks of previously tragic voyages, and your ‘experts’ have been too lazy to clean up after themselves. A physics or chemistry lab is spotless, immaculate: because we know already that experiments are useless when contaminated by B.S., and all efforts are futile without strict discipline.

      When I go to a doctor, the only jargon I’m expected to know is “diagnosis”. He doesn’t show off or brow-beat me with endless medical terms: he translates it into English. “stage 4?” – “Yes: You’re dying of cancer.”
      “Will you have to amputate?” “Heck no: in two weeks it’ll fall off!”

      Christians demand the same thing of theologians. Spit it out in English man. Don’t tell me I need to know your specialty.

      “What must I do to be saved?”
      “Become a theologian and memorize all these abstract platonic concepts?”

      No. Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ,
      and you shall receive the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38)

      Even a housewife can follow truly Biblical instructions.

      Anti-intellectual? ………….no.
      Anti-intellectual barriers? …yes.

      The reason Calvinists get nowhere I suspect,
      is that they are full of yeast,
      the kind that turns the gospel inside-out,
      and makes a mockery of salvation and the call to repentance.

    • Scott McClare August 15, 2011 / 4:37 pm

      “But pardon me if I note the incredible density of jargon in your short post:”

      Pardon yourself. Stop moving the goalposts.

      You said the exchange was “gobbletygook.” So I explained it.

      If you want help with the big words, go use a dictionary like the rest of us.

      If you the sound of your own voice, buy a tape recorder. But don’t expect me to read your bloviations any farther.

      Have a nice day.

    • Nazaroo August 15, 2011 / 2:02 pm

      Lets take the first thing: “Grace”

      You listed some five different names for ‘grace’, and effectively admitted they are all just synonyms.

      (1) “Irresistable Grace”,
      (2) “Effectual Calling”
      (3) “Sovereign grace”
      (4) “electing grace”
      (5) “saving grace”
      (6) “prevenient grace”

      Is grace irresistable? I don’t know, reading scripture.
      Is grace sovereign? I don’t know.
      Is grace electing? Sometimes I suppose.
      Is grace saving? Sometimes I suppose.
      Is grace “prevenient”? Oh come on! Is that even a word?

      All that I can see here is that people have attached various adjectives, appropriate or not, to “grace”.
      So first, I don’t necessarily agree to all freely attaching of adjectives.
      Second, I don’t see any different ‘kinds’ of grace.
      All I can tell is that grace has effects, maybe. Some effects have been turned into adjectives, dubiously.
      “Effectual Calling” ? Is that part of the description of the effects of grace, or part of the definition, or another synonym? Who knows?

      All this seems like so much game-playing.

      But what I object to is the very word ‘grace’.
      I reject it utterly at this point,
      as a word far too polluted and twisted and obscurantized to hold any clear meaning, or have any instructional value.

      It should never be used again in translation. Why?
      Because theologians have so muddied it that no one knows what it is. Time to flush.

      I don’t find seven different shades of ‘grace’,
      and in fact, I don’t believe that ‘grace’ is even an English word.

      Its a left-over from the days of Roman Catholic obscurantism, and it is utterly worthless.
      It probably originally did have some simple meaning,
      but like Baptism, has become a joke.

      I can’t even listen to a song like “Amazing Grace”,
      without wincing, because it is so full of hubris,
      and meaningless sentimentality that it really is
      a masterpiece of Goebbelian propaganda/brainwashing.

      “how sweet the sound”?

      I’m a sucker for a good tune,
      but I’m aware that music is one of the most effective
      brainwashing techniques ever invented, aligning rhythms
      and alpha-wave pulses in the brain, and turning people into unthinking, malleable, hypnotized zombies.

      Its undeniable that “grace” has become a specialist ‘Christian’ technical term, as the video and your conversation demonstrates conclusively. But it is also lexically empty, unless it means nothing more than ‘mercy’.

      I suggest you replace ‘grace’ with ‘mercy’ everywhere in the NT and see what happens. Suddenly its obvious. God is merciful. Mercy is a simple word easily understood in every culture and language in the world. But “grace” on the other hand, is more Roman Catholic hokus pokus.

      Lets dump ‘grace’, and get back to the original idea of the Reformation: translating the Bible into the common tongue of every people and nation.

      I’ll look at the rest of your list shortly.

    • Nazaroo August 15, 2011 / 2:31 pm

      (3) “monergist”
      (6) “synergist”
      (11) “Molinism”

      Wow. This reminds me of one time I was with another fellow Christian bible student, and we were just talking about Jesus and reading scripture, and some guy went bananas and started calling us “modalists”.

      As a young musician, I was floored. I only had three meanings for ‘mode’ available, and that wasn’t enough. Slang, meaning something like ‘feeling groovy’; science, meaning something like the transition between solid, liquid and gas, and music, meaning “mood” caused by emphasis of one note or chord over the others in a scale.

      We walked away, but remained ordinary Christians, blinking. I just didn’t feel particularly ‘modal’. If nothing else, God has a sense of humor.

      ——————-
      (5) “Arminian”

      Here’s the kicker. I actually tried to understand this one years ago, and read a whole bunch of crap on Arminian versus (what?) Socinian? Augustinian? This is one of what must be some 2 or 3 dozen terms created by simply turning some Middle-Ages theologian’s name into a handle for whatever garbage he taught or failed to articulate to his opponent’s satisfaction.

      Its hopeless. Even to this day, whenever I read “Arminian” in a sentence, I have to think hard to try to remember if it isn’t “Arian” (they look so similar they ought to mean the same thing or something similar). And when I think of Arian, I keep confusing it with “Aryan” and think of Nazi ideology, because the media is constantly soaked with this fluff. I end up forgetting what the sentence was, and wondering why I was even reading this dreary theologian in the first place. By the time I get back to the reference, I’ve lost whatever train of thought the author was trying to chain together.

      Do I need to know what an Arminian/Arian/Socinian/Trinitarian/Aryan is to be saved?

      Thankfully no.

      In fact, I’ve come up with a rule of thumb for all my Christian friends: If the thing was invented 100 or more years after Christ, its worth diddlysquat in the Big Picture. You can ignore it entirely and simplify your Christian study.

      —————————–

    • Nazaroo August 15, 2011 / 2:42 pm

      “middle-knowledge” This has that magic ring;

      You know, the same one that “Scientology” has. If I weren’t a real scientist, I’d never know this was pure flakey double-talk Orwellian newspeak.

      Middle-knowledge: – noun, (1) special knowledge possessed by 70s college students who read all three of the Lord of the Rings trilogy by J.R.R. Tolkein. (2) knowledge acquired by prying open an oreo cookie and eating the creamy middle.

      —————————

      “Reformed position”

      (1) Any one of hundreds of positions found in the Kama Sutra, excluding the first.

      (2) A religious dogma created by a minority elitist Christian cult, as fallout from the failure of the Reformation in Europe. Also known as the “oops, lets rewrite that again” position.

      Really, are Christians not belonging to a “Reformed Church” (whatever that is) supposed to know what this means? How many books do I have to buy?

  13. Rebecca August 12, 2011 / 12:47 am

    Thanks Richard. 🙂 That’s a great verse. I am sorry to say though I think both Mr. Kinney and Mr. White were in the wrong on this one.

    My children and I are fans of The Dividing Line, and have kept up with his show for the last year and a half. I was raised a Roman Catholic, and Dr. White’s books and articles and debates were very helpful to me in leaving the RC church. But I do want to say I was so disappointed in the exchange.

    My children have the beginning of the show memorized and they sing along with the song. There’s the announcer who says that; “the Apostle Peter said we need to give an answer for the hope that is within us, but to give that answer with gentleness and reverence.” And sadly what a terrible thing to have to sit the children down to tell them why that was a really poor example of how we ought to respond Biblically to others who disagree with us. They thought that Dr White shouting “Mr. Kinney answer the question” was funny. Ugh.

    That wasn’t an example of righteous anger. Please don’t compare that to Jesus throwing the money changers from the temple. 😦 Playing the game of debating(bullying), makes you really lose credibility to your audience. I have often heard that “James White cares more about winning debates than the truth!” and up until this point I hadn’t thought so. As I was in fact very struck by what I felt was a very humble attitude from him in the Roman Catholic Controversy. Especially where he refers to the lunch he went on and how his company both did the sign of the cross after the prayer, and how that small act challenged his thinking and assertions.

    I thought that posting the video of the exchange on Youtube is a rotten idea, and then especially on his blog. As a Christian I would hate for others to watch it, as much as I hated for my children to have listened to it. It’s not something to be proud of.

    Dr. White lost some credibility when he wouldn’t answer the questions with gentleness and reverence, it certainly goes without saying that Mr. Kinney’s actions were inappropriate also (I haven’t watched his videos and don’t plan to).

    • Richard August 12, 2011 / 12:50 pm

      Rebecca,

      Would you agree that the Christian thing to do would have been to call the show first instead of making a video accusing James of lying?

      You said: ” I have often heard that “James White cares more about winning debates than the truth!”

      Yea, and Kinney cares more about promoting a bible translation than the truth.

      I am trying to understand what part of “God hates a lying tongue and it’s abomination to him” people seem to miss.

  14. Jim August 13, 2011 / 9:51 am

    I’m hesitant to comment. I found the whole show embarassing. But I have felt embarassed before when I have listened to ‘The Dividing Line’. James White is an excellent debater, but the format of debate is not one that I think is congenial to investigating the truth of an issue.

    Differing parties have to start with a basis of goodwill and this was clearly absent on both sides, so it’s not surprising that the exchange was unproductive. Kinny’s claim that White is a ‘liar’ doesn’t seem to me to be well founded. White is highly committed, but I am confident he believes what he is saying.

    On the other hand the badgering and hectoring method that White gets into when he insists that ‘You can’t answer the question’ regarding versions of the KJB I found equally destructive of communication. White was involved in the NASB Update and therefore must know that the differences between the 1977 NASB and the Update are great; there are thousands of changes. The changes in the two versions of the NASB far outweigh, in my opinion, the differences between any two editions of the KJB. I sometimes wonder if White is ultra-sensitive about this issue because the NASB is vulnerable to exactly this kind of criticism.

    It’s too bad. With a good moderator, and some Christian generosity, an exchange between two people with such strikingly different views could be productive. Perhaps in the future this might be possible.

    Jim

    • Nazaroo August 13, 2011 / 2:33 pm

      Jim said: “It’s too bad. With a good moderator, and some Christian generosity, an exchange between two people with such strikingly different views could be productive. Perhaps in the future this might be possible.”

      I have to agree with you. This sums up the situation nicely, unfortunately the exchange itself wasn’t nice.

      Nazaroo

  15. redgreen5 August 13, 2011 / 12:20 pm

    Nazaroo
    But are you going to post this everytime and everywhere I post from now on? Just curious.

    Only when I see you engaged in hypocrisy.

    It is important for the moderators and the participants to realize the character of the person they are dealing with, and the level of hypocrisy you engage in when criticizing others for behavior that you yourself excel at.

    In your post above of the debate, you said “I couldn’t find the Spirit of God anywhere in that mess.” Could you find the Spirit of God anywhere in the mess that you posted to me, Nazaroo?

    It underlines the need to keep focused on questions like, “What would Jesus do here?”, as trite as that sounds.

    Do you think that Jesus would have called text-crits “fags”, threaten to strangle them, make gay slurs, brag about alleged credentials, and then claim to be some kind of sekrit soooper genius?

    Accountability, Nazaroo – welcome to a new experience for you.

  16. redgreen5 August 13, 2011 / 12:40 pm

    Nazaroo:

    Its a bit unfair to just quote my post from long ago, without reference or link, because no one can see what you wrote to provoke the response, can they?

    Without reference or link?

    You need to read more carefully. I provided a link back to the original discussion. Anyone who wishes can review the exchange, as well as the links contained there to other similar comments you have made.

    • Nazaroo August 13, 2011 / 2:31 pm

      So you’re going to continue to ignore the current topic, and have an interesting discussion with me on…what, Again?

      People who tuned into the current post to read about the White/Kinney debate may be disappointed by your meandering…

    • redgreen5 August 13, 2011 / 6:00 pm

      Nazaroo
      But are you going to post this everytime and everywhere I post from now on? Just curious.

      Only when I see you engaged in hypocrisy.

      It is important for the moderators and the participants to realize the character of the person they are dealing with, and the level of hypocrisy you engage in when criticizing others for behavior that you yourself excel at. You prescribe behavior for others that you do not follow yourself.

      In your post above of the debate, you said “I couldn’t find the Spirit of God anywhere in that mess.” Could you find the Spirit of God anywhere in the mess that you posted to me, Nazaroo?

      It underlines the need to keep focused on questions like, “What would Jesus do here?”, as trite as that sounds.

      Do you think that Jesus would have called textual critics the names that you did, threaten to strangle them, make sexual slurs, brag about alleged credentials, and then claim to be some kind of sekrit soooper genius?

    • Nazaroo August 14, 2011 / 1:01 am

      – time for the moderators to start deleting off-topic spam once again.

    • Nazaroo August 14, 2011 / 3:45 am

      feeling a little emotional, Redgreen5?

  17. James Snapp, Jr. August 15, 2011 / 12:18 am

    In related news:

    In the revised (2009) edition of James White’s King James Only Controversy, Tischendorf’s story about how he found Codex Sinaiticus continues to be promoted. White continues to describe 43 pages of Codex Sinaiticus as “some parchment scraps,” and apparently still does not know that he is referring to pages from Codex Sinaiticus when he refers to those “parchment scraps.”

    It’s the new footnote, though, that I found interesting. In the text, White states (as if there is no doubt whatsoever about the veracity of Tischendorf’s tale), “While visiting St. Catherine’s monastery on Mount Sinai, he noticed some parchment scraps in a basket that was to be used to stoke the fires in the monastery’s oven.” To this statement, a footnote has been added: “If you’re wondering why these scraps would be in a trash can, the answer is that ancient books, be they made of papyri or vellum, decay over time. Bits of pages, the final or initial pages in a codex, were very subject to loss: they would, over time, find their way to the floor and need to be picked up or pose a real fire hazard.”

    (Eh?? Does White imagine that when the monks saw a page fallen from a manuscript, they thought, “Hmm; we’d better burn this so that it does not catch on fire,” rather than, “Hmm; we’d better sew this back into the manuscript.”??)

    Another interesting new footnote is on page 52. There, he says that D. A. Waite says that some individuals just about worship Codex Sinaiticus, “after alleging, inaccurately, that before being found Aleph was about to be burned (one will note that the steward at St. Catherine’s kept the manuscript in his cell, wrapped in a red cloth, hardly the way one treats trash).”

    Perhaps someone should call the Dividing Line and explain to James White that (a) Tischendorf’s story about the monks at St. Catherine’s burning pages of codices is not true, as J. Rendel Harris knew very well, and (b) the “parchment scraps” were pages from Codex Sinaiticus. Then he might not feel the need to fabricate explanations to account for the parchment-burning alleged by Tischendorf.

    Yours in Christ,

    James Snapp, Jr.

    • Richard Corniel August 15, 2011 / 1:31 am

      James,

      Are you calling James a liar?

      So, yea, I agree with you. You should be the one calling the dividing line before making any videos pointing out his errors. I will be waiting. Here are the numbers:

      (602) 973-4602 (Metro Phoenix)
      1-877-753-3341 (Toll Free).

  18. James Snapp, Jr. August 15, 2011 / 12:02 pm

    Richard Corniel,

    I’m saying that he made up that footnote, and that the footnote is based on misconceptions. I am not calling him a liar, because the possibility that this footnote is based on his honest but incompetent misinterpretation of the evidence seems to be a viable alternative explanation. The “scraps” were not scraps; Tischendorf described them as “a considerable number of sheets of a copy of the Old Testament,” and as “about forty-five sheets.” And the “trash can” was not a trash can; it was a basket. J. Rendel Harris visited St. Catherine’s, and was aware of the basket in question.

    I look forward to speaking with James White about this, and to sharing a variety of suggestions about how his KJO-Controversy book can be improved. But first I have a few questions:

    (A) What is the exact amount of time that we would have to discuss the contents of his KJ0-Controversy book? A 10-minute conversation? Or 20, 30, or 40 minutes? And,

    (B) To ensure a balanced discussion, would James White say, at the beginning of the discussion, that he and I both intend not to speak for more than 60 seconds at a time without giving the other person the opportunity to reply?

    (C) In the conversation, since each statement by each individual will be less than 60 seconds, will James White agree, at the beginning of the on-air discussion, to agree to refrain from interrupting me, provided that I likewise agree to refrain from interrupting him? And,

    (D) Will someone other than James White be in charge of the microphones and ensure that if either person exceeds the 60-second limit, his microphone will be cut off, the microphone-supervisor will state “Your time has expired; now it is the other person’s turn,” and the other person will be given the next 60 seconds to speak? (The microphone-supervisor would have the option of allowing a small overflow (no more than 5 seconds), to allow the completion of short sentences or phrases, so as to avoid unnecessary disruption of the conversation.) And,

    (E) If the 60-second time limit is disagreeable, would James White agree, instead, to begin the discussion by stating that we will share the time equally, and you (Richard) will keep exact track of how much time each one of us takes, and that after 10 minutes of discussion, if one person has spoken longer than the other one, then you will state the deficit-time, and the person who has spoken for less time will be given the floor for that amount of additional time (with the option to yield the time). And that this will continue to happen for as long as the conversation continues?

    Yours in Christ,

    James Snapp, Jr.

  19. Richard Corniel August 15, 2011 / 2:04 pm

    James,

    I would love to moderate. Just make sure you call tomorrow and set up arraignments. Here are the numbers again:

    (602) 973-4602 (Metro Phoenix)
    1-877-753-3341 (Toll Free).

    • James Snapp, Jr. August 16, 2011 / 1:02 am

      Richard Corniel,

      I appreciate your willingness to moderate. But what about those five questions I asked about the format?

      Yours in Christ,

      James Snapp, Jr.

  20. Richard Corniel August 15, 2011 / 3:26 pm

    Nazaroo,

    Here are the numbers don’t forget tomorrow is tuesday.

    (602) 973-4602 (Metro Phoenix)
    1-877-753-3341 (Toll Free).

    • Nazaroo August 18, 2011 / 7:51 am

      Thanks for this:
      Unfortunately, its Thursday here in Canada.
      What country is the show in?

      peace
      Nazaroo

  21. redgreen5 August 15, 2011 / 8:41 pm

    Nazaroo

    Lets take the first thing: “Grace”

    You listed some five different names for ‘grace’, and effectively admitted they are all just synonyms.

    Apparently you can’t read.

    Scott was particularly careful to explain that the first three were synonyms, being products of a Calvinist viewpoint. But then he *contrasted* two other words; one an Arminian concept and another one which was an attempt to reconcile two conflicting views.

    Hint #1: three names is not the same as five names
    Hint #2: Calvinism and Arminianism are incompatible on this point of grace;
    Hint #3: the fact that the terms are “contrasted” and “conflicting” means the grace terms listed are *not* synonymous.

    Is the average Christian Bible-student or housewife really supposed to know

    You didn’t claim to be the average student or housewife. You claimed to be some kind of super genius who could multitask biblical studies, rocket science and relativity at the same time (although no proof has ever been offered for these grandiose assertions). Apparently your abilities are far less than you claimed.

    Seriously; you say I don’t need an esoteric library of theology books, but where else would I learn what “Molinism” is?

    Intarwebs. Select the word, right click and Google search provides the answer. Wikipedia article on Molinism appears as the first result.

    Alas, howver, this does require an effort and desire to self-educate. Doubtless why you missed it.

    When I go to a doctor, the only jargon I’m expected to know is “diagnosis”.

    Easily disprovable nonsense. Doctors will also talk to you about hypertension, cholesterol, rheumatoid arthritis, Alzheimers, etc. and refer you to cardiology, gastroenterology, hematology, oncology, pediatrics, gynecology, etc. All jargon that you’re expected to know, or else to sit quietly and listen, while the doctor explains the terms to you. Hint, hint.

    This all smacks suspiciously of Jesus’ complaint to the lawyers

    Your post smacks of an attempt to hide your embarrassment that someone challenged you about your claims of brilliance, and you were found wanting and needing of instruction. Instead of just thanking Scott for the catch-up lesson, you are now pretending that it is all over-the-top theology. By tossing as much dirt into the air as possible, you hope that the audience forgets that it was your arrogance and claims of brilliance that started this, and that Scott was answering your question.

    Moving the goalposts indeed.

  22. James Snapp, Jr. August 16, 2011 / 8:44 am

    Richard Corniel,

    (Same short comment as above, repeated in hopes that it may be more obvious here.)

    I appreciate your willingness to moderate. But what about those five questions I asked about the format?

    Yours in Christ,

    James Snapp, Jr.

    • Richard Corniel August 16, 2011 / 9:05 am

      James,

      The show will be on in a few hours. For now let’s put aside the format. Call the show present your case with “gentleness and respect” and I am pretty sure everything will work out. I think we will all benefit from the exchange.

      Blessings.

  23. Jim August 16, 2011 / 9:21 am

    I am wondering if those in charge here might be willing to have a thread devoted to the function of theology. I say that because I have found interesting the discussion on this thread regarding the finely honed distinctions between various reform traditions (Arminian, Calvinist, Monergist, Different kind of grace, etc.).

    I have been wondering for some time how reformed traditions became so enmeshed in these kinds of discussions. I am afraid that much of Protestant Christian apologetics is also wrapped up in this.

    I think, though, that Nazaroo asks that right question; does anyone really need to know these kinds of systems of thought in order to be saved? In my more sour moods I wonder if this kind of rationalistic approach might actually be a barrier to entering the Kingdom.

    I am reminded of an incident in my own slow journey to Christianity that has remained meaningful to me. I have a friend who is an Orthodox Priest. He was giving a lecture on Orthodoxy years ago and I decided to attend. It was kind of ‘Orthodoxy 101’. The talk was friendly and consisted of part history, some personal material on how he became Orthodox, and a bit of theology centered on the trinity, which is central to the Orthodox tradition.

    During the question and answer period one individual began dissecting the trinity and asking sharp questions. The Priest responded, “No, no, no. It doesn’t work that way. You have to fall in love with Orthodoxy, then it all makes sense.” He said this lightly, kind of chuckling.

    That was a turning moment for me. And it has stayed with me. It’s not that I think theology is a waste of time; I actually enjoy reading it (my favorite reformation period work is Barclay’s “An Apology for the True Christian Divinity”). But I think theology is kind of like music theory. Music theory is about music; the music comes first. And theology should be about our experience of the Divine Presence rather than acting as a gateway to that Presence.

    Best wishes,

    Jim

    • Damien T Garofalo August 16, 2011 / 10:05 pm

      Jim, thanks for sharing. I agree with you concerning the role of theology. Our focus should be Christ first; everything else flows from that, including our theology.

      I’m not sure this is the best forum for theological topics outside the Bible version issue, however. As you can see from this one thread alone, tangents are unavoidable. Most contributors and commentators have their own blogs you can check out and then post over there. Don’t rule it out, though – if we can get a post about how a certain aspect of theology relates to the Bible version issue, we’ll do it (I’m sure we have in the past).

  24. James Snapp, Jr. August 16, 2011 / 12:57 pm

    Richard Corniel,

    I just got off the phone with Rich Pierce of Alpha and Omega Ministries. He said that the Dividing Line program is full today, and that James White won’t be taking calls. I did, however, convey to Rich the problem with James White’s claims about the discovery of Codex Sinaiticus.

    By the way, the Rich I spoke to did not seem to know about you.

    Yours in Christ,

    James Snapp, Jr.

  25. James Snapp, Jr. August 16, 2011 / 2:18 pm

    Richard Corniel,

    I just had a fascinating discussion with Rich Pierce, who idenitified himself as the call-screener for Dividing Line. He absolutely refused to put me on the air to engage the subject of the veracity of James White’s claims about Tischendorf’s discovery of Codex Sinaiticus (the “parchment scraps” anecdote in White’s “King James Only Controversy”).

    So everyone can drop the “You should call the Dividing Line and talk to James White; he welcomes your calls!” bit. It is a smokescreen; quite artificial.

    Yours in Christ,

    James Snapp, Jr.

    • Richard Corniel August 16, 2011 / 3:11 pm

      James,

      I am Happy that you called. Also, I don’t know the guys over at aomin personally. So,I am wondering where you got that Idea from. I am not here to take sides I just want to get to the truth. Lord willing this will all get resolved soon. I don’t want to see another “Kinney Incident”. I hope you understand where I am coming from. Just trying to keep things “Christian”.

      Blessings.

  26. James Snapp, Jr. August 16, 2011 / 5:06 pm

    Richard Corniel,

    When you said “I will be waiting” and gave me the phone numbers to Dividing Line, and said, “I would love to moderate. Just make sure you call tomorrow,” I thought it meant that you would be waiting for my call, and that you would be able to moderate in some way. Silly me!

    On this particular point, by the way, why do you say that you do not want to take sides? Do you actually think that there is any chance whatsoever that James White has described Tischendorf’s discovery of Codex Sinaiticus accurately? Do you have any doubt that the parchment pages that Tischendorf saw in the basket — the material described by White as “scraps” — were pages from Codex Sinaiticus?

    I think that I could manage a short discussion with James White without producing or provoking a “Kinney Incident,” as you put it. Unfortunately, Rich Pierce, the call-screener, seems to prefer scenarios likely to produce such incidents to boring old fact-checking discussions; when he asked if I was KJV-Only and I said “No,” he said that was a strike against me (i.e., against letting me speak with James White on Dividing Line).

    There will be another Dividing Line this coming Thursday. Perhaps if a dozen people called the show and asked why James White does not engage the claim that his description of Tischendorf’s discovery of Codex Sinaiticus gives readers the false impression that the “scraps” that Tischendorf found in the basket were not pages from Codex Sinaiticus, his zealous protectors might rethink their approach.

    Yours in Christ,

    James Snapp, Jr.

  27. Richard Corniel August 16, 2011 / 5:41 pm

    James,

    I apologize for my dry sense of humor. Also, I am not thinking anything. You are making a claim and I simply want to see it resolved. If he is found to be in error, as you say he is,lord willing, things will be made straight.

    Blessings.

    P.S. I took a look at your “how to become a Christian page”
    I believe you have things backwards. Shouldn’t one repent first before believing?

    Mark 1:15 “New American Standard Bible (©1995)
    and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”

    I have more if needed.

    • Damien T Garofalo August 16, 2011 / 10:13 pm

      Repentance and faith are two sides to the same coin. One does not have to have a particular “order” to be presenting the gospel correctly and demanding the proper response.

      In any event, this question is totally off-topic and can only lead to a another rabbit trail and needless argumentation.

  28. Maurice A. Robinson August 16, 2011 / 6:05 pm

    I concur with Mr Snapp that James White’s description (KJV Only Controversy, 2nd ed., p. 56) of the finding of “some parchement scraps” fails to identify those “scraps” as being actually 43 nearly complete leaves from the OT of the Codex Sinaiticus itself (originally published by Tischendorf as the “Codex Friberico-Augustanus”).

    Only on the next page does White begin specific mention of Codex Sinaiticus, thus leaving the impression that the “scraps” described on the previous page were something other than leaves from the same MS, Codex Sinaiticus. This oversight definitely needs to be corrected.

    For a more complete description of the history and contents of this MS, see the Codex Sinaiticus website:

    http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/codex/history.aspx

  29. Rich Pierce August 16, 2011 / 6:47 pm

    Mr. Snapp has not quite described the conversation accurately. I have a job to do to see to it that “relevant” calls are put on the air. I took the message from Mr. Snapp and gave it to Dr. White. Which is what I promised to do. This subject has nothing to do with what Dr. White has currently been covering. Mr. Snapp insisted on speaking with Dr. White on the air and I told him that I gave the message to Dr. White and that was as far as it was going to go. Beyond that I won’t be bullied into ignoring the responsibilities that go with doing my job.

  30. Richard Corniel August 16, 2011 / 7:06 pm

    Rich,

    Thanks for clearing things up. Hope to hear a response from Dr.White soon.

  31. Rich Pierce August 16, 2011 / 9:27 pm

    Richard,
    I don’t know you, nor does Dr. White. Please refrain from speaking or appearing to speak on behalf of the show or the ministry. The confusion that resulted from the impression that you left Mr. Snapp with caused a great deal of unnecessary difficulty for all of us today. The bottom line here is that I gave the the message to Dr. White and that is that. Beyond that, things here don’t look “clear” to me at all.

  32. Damien T Garofalo August 16, 2011 / 10:21 pm

    This discussion has run its course, no?

    RedGreen/Nazaroo,

    Whatever history you two have does not need to be brought here, especially on topics that do not relate to the original post. Would you mind continuing your theological/personal/who has what credentials debate to some other message board?

    James Snapp,

    You raise a very good, specific issue about Tischendorf and Sinaiticus. Perhaps this will warrant a separate post for further discussion.

    Richard C,

    Unless someone blatantly charges another with lying, it is unfair to accuse them of “calling him a liar.” Try not to stir controversy where it does not exist.

    Rich Pierce,

    Thanks for stopping by. Sorry the comments of this post spilled over into your environment. I assure you my only intent was to report an interesting little story that pertains to the topic of this blog.

    All,

    Sorry if I am coming off like I’m scolding you! I’m not. As is usually the case, the things discussed incites great passion. Thank you all for contributing to the discussion and by no means feel I am saying stop (though maybe we can rest this one and wait till the next post). Just keep it on topic and not personal. That is all. 🙂

    • Nazaroo August 18, 2011 / 7:23 am

      Dear Damien: thanks for your cordial admonition.

      I have no desire to interact with Redgreen whatever.
      But he feels a personal need to stalk me and spam my posts and comments.

      If he would stick to the subject at hand, I would be
      as grateful as you.

      To me, the subject is the White/Kinney debate.
      I only commented on the 2nd half of White’s show,
      because it was posted as a piece.

      Frankly, I think Medieval theosophy is counterproductive.
      The more sophisticated it is,
      the farther it is away from the unwashed masses,
      and it is those poor, marginalized, semi-literate blue-collar workers that the gospel is really for,
      not the rich or the powerful.

      While I don’t want to trivialize or over-simplify the true Gospel,
      Jesus managed to preach the Gospel to all of Samaria in only three days.
      So I say to all, if you can’t give me the gospel in 3 days, you haven’t got it right.

      peace
      Nazaroo

  33. Richard Corniel August 16, 2011 / 11:23 pm

    Rich,

    Mr. Snapp misunderstood what I was saying. If you scroll through the comments you would see that. I never intended to speak for or represent your ministry or make it even seem that way. I apologize for any confusion,difficulty or inconvenience. He seems to have an issue with Dr. White’s book. I was simply pointing out to him that instead of spreading “rumors” it would be better for him to call the show and handle it properly.

    Blessings.

  34. James Snapp, Jr. August 17, 2011 / 1:47 am

    Damien,

    I understand the need to move along to other things since the comments have become tangential to the initial subject. But it’s an interesting tangent!

    The conversation is over. But as a post-script, I would note that (a) most Dividing Line listeners, I suspect, would have found this subject more intriguing than the debate-material that was being covered on Dividing Line.
    (b) Although I would have preferred to speak with James White on the air, I offered to speak with him off the air; this request was not granted. And (c) Trying to persuade a call-screener that the subject-matter is worthwhile is not bullying.

    Oh: (d) The misleading nature of White’s description of Tischendorf’s initial encounter with pages from Codex Sinaiticus is not a rumor; it is demonstrable. So far, the only rumor I’ve heard is that the Dividing Line program will engage reasonable inquiries about the accuracy of certain statements made by James White; in my experience so far that rumor has turned out to be untrue.

    Yours in Christ,

    James Snapp, Jr.

    • Maurice A. Robinson August 17, 2011 / 3:18 pm

      RP: Read it for yourself people

      Indeed. One still has to wonder why those original “parchment scraps” discovered by Tischendorf were not clearly identified in The KJV Only Controversy as containing 43 leaves from the OT portion of Codex Sinaiticus, so as not to leave the misleading impression that they might have been from some other MS? It is simply a matter of accuracy and integrity to make the facts crystal-clear on this point.

    • Rich Pierce August 17, 2011 / 7:49 pm

      Dr. Robinson,
      Given that the story covers less than a page of the book, it seems to me that the answer is obvious. If not so to you, please consider that when a publisher “contracts” for a book they make sure to squeeze authors over the “word count” making every word employed precious. Since the topic here is the recounting of an important subject but not the prime focus of the work itself, well, only so much can be included.

      On the other hand, perhaps you and Mr. Snapp should team up and write “The, he didn’t tell us that there were 43 pieces and what’s up with the trashcan/basket for burning controversy”, hmm? REALLY?

      I am quite sure that had you written a book like the KJVOnly Controversy that you would have labored to over such details, but would the book have ever survived the editors knife?

      Nowhere in the brief summary of the story does Dr. White give the reader the impression that he is being thorough or exhaustive. He didn’t need to be as again this wasn’t the prime focus of the book or the chapter. What he does do is explain at the end that the story is long, involved and controversial.

      I am sure that you will disagree with my evaluation for whatever reasons that are your own. My admonition for people to “read it for yourself” was to show that Ticshendorf’s account is lengthy and summarizing it within the space of less than a page was no small task. But surely there was no cover up or attempt at hiding such details from anyone.

      Frankly, as a layman who has seen how respectful you have been to Dr. White in the past, I am disappointed with the innuendo you have employed in this charge.

      Blessings

  35. Richard Corniel August 17, 2011 / 9:58 pm

    RP,

    Maybe certain people are just a little sore Dr. White wins all his debates.
    How about putting me on the aomin roster Rich?

    Blessings

  36. Maurice A. Robinson August 17, 2011 / 11:31 pm

    RP: Frankly, as a layman who has seen how respectful you have been to Dr. White in the past, I am disappointed with the innuendo you have employed in this charge.

    There is no innuendo intended on my part (which would imply some sort of deliberate concealment or neglecting of data). I merely offered a legitimate comment that those initial 43 leaves discovered by Tischendorf properly should have been identified as being from Codex Sinaiticus — a fact the average lay reader of those pages as written would not be able to discern.

    And seriously, would an editor really demand changing a simple explanatory phrase such as “parchment scraps belonging to Codex Sinaiticus” in order for the book to get published? That scenario would seem odd on all counts (and no, I am hardly in league with Mr Snapp, as your other innuendo suggests, since we have our own sharp disagreements regarding textual issues).

    I only suggest that in any future edition the statement regarding the 43 leaves be clarified. Nothing more.

    • Rich Pierce August 18, 2011 / 9:11 am

      You said:
      “There is no innuendo intended on my part (which would imply some sort of deliberate concealment or neglecting of data).”

      Then what did you mean when you said:

      “One still has to wonder why those original “parchment scraps” discovered by Tischendorf were not clearly identified…”

      While we are “leaving impressions” it seems to me that there can be no doubt about the “impression” left by that statement. Hence, my response.

      Blessings

    • Maurice A. Robinson August 18, 2011 / 1:38 pm

      The “one has to wonder” statement was made in relation to Rich’s posting the link to the testimony of Tischendorf on this point. Assuming with reasonable certainty that Dr White was aware of such testimony, then one does “have to wonder” at the oversight involved in failing to mention the connection. That is all, and nothing devious or sinister is intended.

      I should also note that, among many other passages noted in my copy of the 2nd edition of The KJVO Controversy, this particular issue had long ago been marked as a matter that should be addressed when opportunity presented itself, whether in a review (something I have not done) or elsewhere.

    • Rich Pierce August 18, 2011 / 10:16 pm

      I seems to me that this convo is a perfect example of how speculating on “impressions” leads to misunderstandings. 🙂

  37. Bill Brown August 17, 2011 / 11:40 pm

    My goodness.

    Thread really sounded similar to the White-Kinney exchange in the middle. The Snapp-Robinson-Pierce-Corniel exchange was more interesting if provocative.

    • Nazaroo August 18, 2011 / 7:36 am

      OMG: I can’t believe people are still pussyfooting around the elephant in the room regarding Tischendorf.

      Everybody knows at this point he stole the manuscript and made up a story, tricking the monks and then later having the Czar bribe them.

      Only it didn’t work. The monks at St Catherines have always maintained that Tischendorf stole the manuscript (and fragments), and left the country with them.

      Its ludicrous at this point, 120 years after his death, to deny he was a petty-thief and fraud. The best thing the British Museum could do at this point is return it to its rightful owners; Its not worth nearly so much as they overpaid the Russians for it, again an outrageous waste of taxpayers and doners’ money.

      The hysteria at the time about ancient MSS is excusable (from 1870 to 1950), but its time to come clean on this once and for all.

      Tischendorf was a scoundrel. The Czar probably thought he was God almighty and could do whatever he wanted. And apparently the Czar’s dynasty got their come-uppance for the outrageous treatment of the holy men at the monastery.

      One demon leaves, and returns with seven more.

      The tragic, shameful sagas of European royalty knows no end.

  38. Richard Corniel August 18, 2011 / 9:02 am

    Nazaroo,

    I can give you the gospel in 3 seconds.

    Joy to the world,
    RC

  39. Richard Corniel August 18, 2011 / 1:29 pm

    Nazaroo,

    Do you have a source or is this something out of your imagination?

    • Nazaroo August 18, 2011 / 2:00 pm

      “Codex Sinaiticus, most of it taken by Dr von Tischendorf in 1859 from St. Catherine’s monastery beside Mt Sinai in Egypt– the monks say stolen –”
      http://www.theologicaleditions.com/Features/religioustexts.htm

      “J. Rendel Harris (who had visited St. Catherine’s) had no illusions: in his review of Gregory’s “Text and Canon” in the February 1908 issue of The Expositor, Harris expressed extreme skepticism (bordering on outright ridicule) of Tischendorf’s version of events pertaining to the “rescue” of Codex Sinaiticus.” – James Snapp Jr.
      http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2009/07/codex-sinaiticus-highlights-ii.html

      “While staying at St. Catherine’s monastery on Mount Sinai, he made the momentous discovery of the Codex Sinaiticus–a text dated to be from the fourth century C.E. He brought back the text with him. (According to the Mt Sinai monks, though there were bad feelings, and claims that Tischendorf had “stolen” the manuscript.)”
      http://www.entheology.org/library/winters/NEWTEST2.TXT

      “See for example D.A. Waite, Defending the King James Bible (The Bible For Today: 1993), p. 61, “They just about worship that manuscript.” This was just after alleging, inaccurately, that a was about to be burned (one will note that the steward at St. Catherine’s kept the manuscript in his cell, wrapped in a red cloth, hardly the way in which one treats trash). ”
      http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=1290

      “Under a complicated arrangement, Tischendorf was allowed to transcribe the manuscript, but did not have the time to examine it in full detail. Tischendorf wanted to take the manuscript to the west, where it could be examined more carefully.

      It is at this point that the record becomes unclear. The monks, understandably, had no great desire to give up the greatest treasure of their monastery. Tischendorf, understandably, wanted to make the manuscript more accessible (though not necessarily safer; unlike Saint Petersburg and London, Mount Sinai has not suffered a revolution or been bombed since the discovery of Aleph). In hindsight, it seems quite clear that the monks were promised better terms than they actually received (though this may be the fault of the Tsarist government rather than Tischendorf). Still, by whatever means, the manuscript wound up in Saint Petersburg, and later was sold to the British Museum. ”
      http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/ManuscriptsUncials.html

      “A story of high adventure swirls around the Codex Sinaiticus. Tischendorf was granted an audience with the pope. The czar of Russia showered him with money and financed his final mission. Despite his fame, though, a shadow hangs over the man, who some insist was a thief.

      Scattered Book, Checkered Reputation

      However, opinion on Tischendorf is as diffuse and puzzling as the ancient pages themselves. Christfried Böttrich, an expert on the New Testament at Germany’s University of Greifswald, claims that “Tischendorf was a man without blemish and above reproach.”

      But the monks at St. Catherine’s have a less flattering view. They think he stole the manuscript. “The Codex Sinaiticus Was Stolen,” was the headline of a 2000 article in the Sunday Times about a conference a British parliamentary committee held on stolen artifacts. Prince Charles, who is chairman of the St. Catherine’s Foundation, has reportedly demanded the return of the manuscripts to Egypt.”
      http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,479791,00.html

      peace
      Nazaroo

    • Nazaroo August 19, 2011 / 3:35 am

      …also ask yourself this:

      Would God’s most accurate text require a “Pink Panther”-style fraud/theft, so that (allegedly) God’s people could finally have the NT after following a faulty and inferior one for almost a thousand years in Greek and Latin too?

      Would God’s most accurate text be found in the most expensive and costly manuscript, penned for some prestigious diocese or wealthy patron, or would it be found in a more modest copy penned by a simple martyr or shepherd from Asia Minor or Antioch?

      Would God’s most accurate text be found after 1400 years by a prestigious aristocrat sponsored by the Czar of Russia, or would it be all along in the hands of God’s church, however defined?

      Just asking.

  40. James Snapp, Jr. August 19, 2011 / 10:22 am

    Damien,

    There seems to be more interest in this question about how Tischendorf found (most of) Codex Sinaiticus than there is about the initial topic, so I will offer a few more observations (and end by circling back to the initial topic!). First, at
    http://www.sinaimonastery.com/en/index.php?lid=107
    you can read the monks’ side of the story, and at
    http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/codex/history.aspx
    there is a more detailed account, including statements about the certification of the donation of the codex to the Russians.

    Also, regarding James White’s previous claims about how Codex Sinaiticus was encountered by Tischendorf, I found a statement which appears to have been written by James White in 2006 at
    http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/dr-stauffers-book-12507/ .

    And in that post, he states, “I note in the blog article posting in a few hours a glaring historical error regarding Aleph.”

    He was referring to material written by David Stauffer, which can still be found at
    http://www.learnthebible.org/bible_from_egypt_to_rome.htm . In the blog-article to which he refers, James White focused on Stauffer’s statement that Sinaiticus was “discovered in 1859 in a trash can at St. Catherine’s monastery on Mt. Sinai.”

    Stauffer’s statement is incorrect, not only because Tischendorf’s story that he found pages from Codex Sinaiticus in a basket, about to be burned, is extremely dubious, but because Tischendorf’s first encounter with pages from Codex Sinaiticus occurred in 1844, not in 1859.

    But if you read James White’s blog-entry, titled “Dr. Stauffer on Codex Sinaiticus” at http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=1290 — where he said, “Any “scholar” who can’t even get this story straight is not really worth reading” — it will become clear that James White did not perceive that the material that he refers to as “some scraps of parchment” were pages from Codex Sinaiticus. White himself states, about Tischendorf, “While visiting the monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai, he noted some scraps of parchment in a basket that was due to be used to stoke the fires in the oven of the monastery.”

    Did you see that? White said that the contents of the basket were about to be burned in the oven! And in the same blog-entry, White said, “So as you can see, Sinaiticus was not found in a trash can.” There is no need to wonder about why James White denies that Sinaiticus was found in that basket: he did not realize that the same “scraps of parchment” which, according to James White, were “due to be used to stoke the fires in the oven,” were part of Codex Sinaiticus. Obviously James White was a bit confused. He was confused when he wrote his book; he was confused when he wrote the blog-entry on March 15, 2006, and he was confused during the White-Moorman debate. And he has generously shared this confusion with his readers.

    Not only is he confused, but he is confident, and this combination seems to have given him the ability to discern “The only reason Stauffer and those like him continue to repeat this story.” What is that reason that James White has discerned? It is, according to James White, because of “Its impact upon those ignorant of history and unlikely to actually look into it for themselves.”

    I disagree. Granting that David Stauffer gave the wrong year, I think that the reason why David Stauffer said that Tischendorf found Codex Sinaiticus in a trash can is that David Stauffer believes Tischendorf’s claim that he found dismembered pages of Codex Sinaiticus in a basket, “destined for the fire.” White, in 2006, believed Tischendorf’s report, too (and earlier, when he wrote, and then revised, “The King James Only Controversy”). But James White did not perceive what David Stauffer had perceived: that the contents of the basket were pages from Codex Sinaiticus.

    Somehow James White knew, in 2006, the real reason why David Stauffer and others repeat the essence of what Tischendorf says in his composition, “Narrative of the Discovery of the Sinaitic Manuscript” (which is the opening chapter of Tischendorf’s book “When Were Our Gospels Written” which can be downloaded from Google Books for free). White does not say that their statements are the result of confusion, or haste, or a simple matter of confusing Tischendorf’s 1859 visit with his 1844 visit. No, White knows the real reason: “dishonesty.” He wrote on March 15, 2006, “But for anyone serious about the subject, such dishonesty destroys one’s credibility.”

    Is that not a charge of dishonesty? We should all wince when we hear Will Kinney accuse James White of being a liar just because Kinney did not perceive that the two manuscripts that support “King of the saints” in Rev. 15:3 are handwritten copies based on the printed TR (and should not, for that reason, be considered *legitimate* manuscript evidence, any more than manuscript 2427 ought to be.) But let it be noted that Kinney was not the first to accuse someone else of dishonesty while he himself was laboring under a misconception.

    Yours in Christ,

    James Snapp, Jr.

    • Damien T Garofalo August 19, 2011 / 3:24 pm

      Some good points made here, James. Soon, I will put up a post on this particular subject so we can delve further.

  41. Gord Berta October 8, 2011 / 9:25 pm

    James said it best of Kinney about Kinney’s ” Abject incapacity to understand human reasoning….”
    That actually by definition makes Kinney what they politically correct call mentally challenged, in reality just a moron.

  42. Will Kinney June 23, 2012 / 9:15 pm

    Hi saints. After attempting to get a word in edgewise on James White’s Dividing Line program, and not having much success at doing it, I also made a Response to James White’s Dividing Line program. He, of course, will not let me post it at his Alpha & Omega Facebook site. But in it I address the main issues James White brings up. You can either listen to it on video or see the article at my site. Here is the video site

    And here is the written article on my website.

    http://brandplucked.webs.com/jameswhitedivideline.htm

    I would hope in the name of fairness that you will consider the other side. We Bible believers are not as dumb and unreasoning as some bible agnostics would characterize us. Thank you, and God bless,

    Will Kinney

    • Damien June 23, 2012 / 10:57 pm

      You’re welcome to post these links and offer your counterpoints.

      Perhaps referring to yourself as a “Bible believer” and us as “bible agnostics” is unwise if you want your opinions to have some credibility.

  43. Will Kinney June 24, 2012 / 11:56 am

    Hi Damien. You say – “Perhaps referring to yourself as a “Bible believer” and us as “bible agnostics” is unwise if you want your opinions to have some credibility.”

    Well, what I mean by a bible agnostic is that he does not know where to find a copy of what he thinks might be the complete, inspired and 100% historically true words of God. A bible agnostic has made his own mind his final authority, subject to change at any moment. He has no tangible Bible that he can read and believe every word of from God and is absolute truth. Instead the bible agnostic believes parts of some, but all of none.

    The Bible believer – and I have only met King James Bible believers – believes that God has given us a complete and infallible Bible and would not change anything in it. So, if you think you are a Bible believer and not a Bible agnostic, then simply tell us where we can get a copy of God’s complete and 100% true words. James White won’t do it, and neither will bible agnostics. If bible agnostics don’t believe The Book, then it matters little to me that they don’t believe me.

    God bless,

    Will Kinney

    • Damien June 24, 2012 / 3:16 pm

      And your standard of “tell us where we can get a copy of God’s complete and 100% true words” is taken from what part of the Bible? It’s not there, brother. You’re inventing terms that aren’t biblical, holding people to standards that aren’t biblical, and then you want people to respect your position as though it were biblical.

  44. Will Kinney June 24, 2012 / 6:37 pm

    Hi Damien. I happen to believe the Bible itself promises that God will give us His Book, which we call The Bible. You, apparently do not.

    I answer a lot of the objections you fellas who do not believe in an infallible Bible bring up here in my article called Is King James Bible Onlyism Scriptural?

    http://brandplucked.webs.com/kjbonlyismscriptural.htm

Comments are closed.