White to revise booksJAMES WHITE ANNOUNCES
REVISIONS OF HIS BOOKS
James White says on his blog --
"I should mention that during the next few weeks I will need to finish the new second edition of The King James Only Controversy and I am likewise going to do a second edition of The Potter's Freedom!"
I hope James will have enough sense to correct his misrepresentation of Peter Ruckman's view concerning the King James Version. As for the other book, he needs to simply dump his Reformed Hybrid Calvinism theory on "regeneration" altogether.
A few years ago, when James set out to "take on" Peter Ruckman, James was quite unprepared for doing so. He failed to realize that the very first thing one needs to understand is the stated position of the person whom he endeavors to refute. James, unfortunately, had not studied Ruckman very carefully, and evidently simply assumed what Ruckman believed about the KJV and "inspiration."
When James' book, The King James Only Controversy, made its first appearance in the distant past, we erroneously thought that it was worthy of commendation, and we promoted it. But after carefully examining what James said about Ruckman's view, we discovered that he was very seriously deficient in regard to what Ruckman teaches about the KJV, and we had to withdraw our endorsement of the book. Since we had been critical of Ruckman's views long before James made the mistake of trying to deal with Ruckman, we did not want Ruckman to associate us in any way with James White's misrepresentation.
James foolishly categorized Ruckman as believing the KJV was "RE-INSPIRED" by God in 1611 (The King James Only Controversy, pages 4, 6).
It is no marvel that Ruckman literally laughed-off James as a "fool" when Ruckman reviewed James' book! This is the furtherest thing to what Ruckman actually believes.
Ruckman, in his most "famous" booklet entitled, Why I Believe the King James Bible is the Word of God, plainly states:
"I'VE NEVER SAID THAT THE KING JAMES BIBLE WAS INSPIRED" (page 6, edition of 1988; page 7, undated reprinted edition I obtained from Ruckman in 2005).
See the following link for quotations in the "Comments" section on Sunday, April 02, 2006 as to what Ruckman actually teaches: HERE
James should now have no problem correcting his blunder about Ruckman's view, if he will simply read these comments. He really had no justifiable excuse for his error in the first edition, and if he fails to make a correction in his revised edition, we hope someone will send for the "paddy-wagon."
We know it does not seem to be in James' persona to acknowledge errors of this type, but it he doesn't do so, it will only serve to justify Ruckman's categorizing James as a "fool," and it will further demonstrate why we say that as an "apologist" James is an "appallingist."