Monday, April 21, 2008

White light on Marrs


For some inexplicable reason, appallingist James White is re-living his visit to Marrs -- Texe Marrs, that is.

Our friend James the Exegete, has currently been offering videos on his web site, expounding on his controversy of the 1990s involving the super-duper conspiracy buff, Big Texe Marrs, and others of the "King James Only" camp. For whatever reason or excuse James has for this, it only served to jog my memory once again about James' inadequate attempt at dealing with "King James Onlyism" in his book, The King James Only Controversy.

James' primary error in his book is his complete misunderstanding and misrepresentation of Peter Ruckman, one of the leading proponents of "King James Onlyism." He misunderstands and misrepresents Ruckman on two basic matters:

(1) James erroneously alleges that Ruckman's "system of belief" asserts that "God 're-inspired' the Bible in 1611." (The King James Only Controversy, pages 4, 6). Nothing could be further from the truth, for Ruckman neither believes that any translation, including the KJV, is "inspired," nor that the original writings of the Scriptures were "inspired." He believes it was the "speaking" that was inspired, not the "writing." See our website for quotes from Ruckman in the article at --

(2) James does not comprehend what Ruckman means by the KJV's "correcting the Greek" and the alleged "mistakes" in the KJV being "advanced revelation." Ruckman actually means no more by this than what James himself practices on this matter, for James is one of the leading "correctors" of the Greek, promoting what would constitute "advanced revelation" over alleged mistakes in variant copies of Greek manuscripts and/or texts.

Ruckman and James differ only in regard to which sources are the most accurate in "correcting" the variant Greek manuscripts/texts. Ruckman believes the KJV does the best job of "correcting" the alleged mistakes of the Greek textual copies, while James apparently favors the perspective of "textual critics" such as Metzger, Aland,and other moderns (TKJVC, page 151) -- except of course where James may be inclined to believe that he himself is the more accurate "corrector" of the variant Greek texts.

Why does James keep reminding us of his inadequacies as an "apologist," which make him more of an "appallingist"?



At Tuesday, April 22, 2008 5:33:00 PM, Blogger Bob L. Ross said...


Brother James White did not appear to appreciate my comments about his re-visiting Big Texe Marrs. You can read his tirade at his blog --

I suppose the most notable "truth" in this tirade is what is not said by James -- namely, that what I wrote about his misrepresentation of Ruckman's views is not accurate. Rather than acknowledging the error of his way and getting his mind straight about Ruckman's views, James chooses to shoot paperwads at Bob Ross.

James does take some umbrage to my categorizing his own practice of "correcting" the Greek manuscripts/texts with Ruckman's view that the KJV "corrects" those same materials, but he does not dispute the fact that he has misrepresented Ruckman's views. JAMES CANNOT QUOTE A SINGLE LINE FROM RUCKMAN TO SUBSTANTIATE JAMES' ASSERTIONS ABOUT WHAT RUCKMAN BELIEVES.

That old TV commercial which said, "A mind is a terrible thing to waste" seems to have another fulfillment in the case of Brother James. He just will not tolerate being corrected when he blunders. He refused to be corrected in regard to his defense of John MacArthur on the "Sonship" issue in the 1990s, and even after MacArthur did the right thing and recanted his "incarnational sonship" view, James still insisted that he had said nothing amiss, claiming that he had never "agreed" with MacArthur!

James' most obvious attribute appears to be his "infallibility," somewhat similar to the "infallibility" of Robert Morey, another Reformed
"appallingist" who is never wrong. If these two were candidates for pope, I don't know which one might be best qualified.


Post a Comment

<< Home