James White . . . de ja vue
James White Repeats His Misrepresentationof Peter Ruckman on the King Jame Bible
It's sad enough that a self-proclaimed apologist is so appalling that he misrepresents the views of others whom he ostensibly is refuting in a book; but when he announces that he is going to "revise" the erroneous book, yet repeats the same misrepresentation, the latter is worse than the first.
This is the case with James White and his book, The King James Only Controversy -- Can You Trust Modern Translations? We discovered from the first edition (1995) of the book that James can't be trusted to represent the peculiar views of Peter Ruckman, and the "revised" edition of 2009 reveals that James is still in the same darkness about Ruckman as he was fifteen years ago.
On pages 27, 28 of the latest edition, James repeats the misrepresentation that Ruckman advocates a view of the KJB which holds that "God 're-inspired' the Bible in 1611, rendering it in the English language," and in a footnote (#7) he identifies Peter Ruckman as "a prime example of this perspective" (pages 27, 28).
The only prime example here is James, who gives a prime example of his ignorance of Ruckman's view about the King James Bible. We have covered this matter in time past, as follows:
>>
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 [1995], 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
>>
[Or, see Ruckman's view below].
James should have had no problem correcting his blunder made in the first edtion of his book where he misrepresented Ruckman's view, if he had simply read Ruckman's comment or even our comments about James' error. He really had no justifiable excuse for his error in the first edition (1995), and now he has failed to make a correction in his revised edition (2009).
Perhaps someone should send for the "paddy-wagon."
We know it does not appear to be in James' persona to acknowledge errors of this type, but if he doesn't do so after he has been guilty of twice misrepresenting Ruckman, 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 better described as an "appallingist."
Ruckman's view
For years, I have offered a financial reward for any one who can find where Ruckman has ever affirmed that he believed the KJV -- or any version of the Bible -- was INSPIRED.
Ruckman does not believe that any WRITER or WRITING was inspired, but he believes that it was the ORIGINAL "SPEAKING" that was "given by inspiration."
Ruckman has NEVER affirmed that any "writing" was inspired. How could a great appallingist like James White miss this fact?
Here are a few remarks from Ruckman which demonstrate the fact that Ruckman does not believe in what the "ordinary Bible believer" believes about an "inspired" Bible:
"The holy men of God who 'spake' -- NOT 'WROTE'" (Bible Believers Bulletin, 1/96, p. 12).
His view of "inspiration" is that what the prophets and apostles "spake" was "given by inspiration." Actually, Ruckman denies the "plenary, inerrant" inspiration of writing. Here is his comment:
"Such terms as 'plenary' and 'inerrancy' and the like are manufactured terms, and they were invented by the Cult" (BBB, 4/89, page 2).
In his book, Pastoral Epistles (page 270), he says:
"We do NOT refer to the AV as the 'verbally inspired, inerrant Word of God."
"Verbal' inspiration is connnected with speaking, NOT WRITING, because 'breath' is involved" (BBB, 6/92, p. 19).
As for the "inspiration" of the KJV or any other version, he says:
"Not one time did God guarantee that ONE of the translations was inspired" (BBB, 11/91, page 10)."
"And I never told anybody on the face of this earth that the King James is a word for-word translation of Greek or Hebrew" (BBB, 7/92, page 20).
On "italics," Ruckman says:
"I never told anybody on the face of this earth the italics in a King James Bible were inspired" (BBB, 7/92, page 20).
Now, if any one in this reading audience can find anywhere that Ruckman himself ever said or wrote that ANY Bible, KJV or otherwise, is the "INSPIRED Word of God," please send me the quote. I have been asking for it for several years and thus far, no one -- including Ruckman and his disciples, the so-called "Ruckman Knights" -- has sent it to me.
I will give $100 for any quotation from Ruckman himself where he ever said the Bible is "inspired."
Putting confidence in James White as an apologist is obviously the type of thing referred to in Proverbs 25:19 -- "like a broken tooth, and a foot out of joint."
posted by Bob L. Ross @ 2:27 PM
2 Comments:
Always offering money you never have to pay!
Keep up the God work, brother!
...and say "Hello" to Mike for me!
Yeah - I haven't read that book by James White, mainly because I read another book, which had him as co-author and came to the same conclusion that you did. One cannot put confidence in what he says. In my view, he blatantly and consistently misrepresents his opponents, demonstrating a greater desire to "win" an argument than to actually even understand another person's point of view. Ironically, this prevents him from truly winning debates, since he does not address many of the issues that his opponents bring up.
Post a Comment
<< Home