White light on MarrsJAMES WHITE RE-LIVES
HIS VISIT TO 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 --http://members.aol.com/pilgrimpub/unlearnd.htm
(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"?
Labels: James White