Last week’s televised debate between James White and Jack Moorman is now available to watch on demand. I was able to watch it this weekend and was really impressed with White, I thought he won the debate hands down.
White could have also pointed out that other languages beside Greek provide support for many Alexandrian readings, and only limited support for Byzantine readings. Also, the dearth of Greek study in general prior to the Renaissance helped ensure the Byzantine Text (being secreted into Europe with the onslaught of the Muslims against Byzantium) would be the primary text available for Erasmus and his like in the early period of recovering the Greek New Testament text.
I also thought Moorman should have had a better answer handy on the Revelation 16:5 point, which was repeatedly stressed. White did dodge some bullets, but the format makes it hard to address everything carefully.
Care to share your thoughts on the debate? Or did you (like me), miss it the first time round? Give it a watch and then chime in here (or if you’re brave, join the fray at KJVOnlyDebate.com).
For those who don’t know, while I’m evaluating the Majority Text position, currently I still am persuaded by the general tenor of the arguments for the modern Greek text behind modern versions, as shared by White and others. I believe our modern text can be refined and should be, but for the most part it is better than the Textus Receptus which preceded it. That’s my personal opinion and not necessarily the opinion of most of my fellow bloggers over at KJVOnlyDebate.com.
~cross posted from my KJVOnlyDebate.com site.
The problem with debates is that they tend to find favour with those who would strike a chord as we lean to our own understanding and it could well end up being a popularity contest.Some of Paul,some of Apollos!I personally would not discuss this question in the arena of a Television debate. This simply being the wrong platform to present the thrust and parry of technicalities. Regardless of the polish of James White,I would not fancy his chances as a Chess Player for he did not traverse the issue of “Mount Impassable” as portrayed by Jack Moorman. Our Bible much more than indicates its preservation and common horse sense tell us things that are different are not the same. The question therefore is, if God has promised to preserve his word, then where is it? Without a doubt God has blessed for 400 years,the AV through the medium of the English language and the British Empire where it once held to “Heavens Command” of taking the Gospel to the World.Knowing the fruit of that body of Scripture, how am I to now embrace a modern bible based on the supposedly superior Alexandrian Text, clearly displaying signifcant departures from the Received Text and going so far as leaving out redemption “through his blood.” The answer to the often vexed question will never be settled by working through all the tecnicalities,but by answering in your mind which Bible has withstood the test of time, and which English Bible has God most certainly blessed.
Ian,
I certainly agree that a TV debate is not the place for the best dialogue on this topic. It was interesting to watch nonetheless. I contend that we need to expect to find the Word of God in the form and way that its preservation is implied in the Bible. That is, in copies and translations that aren’t perfectly equal but nonetheless still have authority. That is how the Apostles and Jesus treated the LXX. You mention “common horse sense tell us things that are different are not the same”. I wonder if you’d be willing to take the time to read a brief article (2-3 pages) I wrote on exactly that issue. It’s entitled “Let the Minutiae Speak: The place of genealogies, numbers, and parallel passages in the King James only debate”. If it’s easier, the article is available as a .pdf here.
Thanks for dropping by and sharing your thoughts of the debate.
In Christ,
Bob Hayton
Ian –
What makes you think that God would preserve His Word in English?
English is not Greek, nor Hebrew. As you know, things that are different are not the same. A word written in Greek cannot be preserved in English.
It would seem that your argument essentially boils down to tradition.
To say that God cannot preserve his word in English is not astute. English is the world language today and that did not surprise God. Why would he not give his preserved word in English as the 2 main missionary countries of the last 400 years have been the US and Great Britian. Also, remember that God created all languages and can have them translated into any language He so desires. There are several instances of inspired translations in the Bible. Jospeh spoke to his brothers through an interpreter (that means he didn’t speak to them in Hebrew as the OT originals were in (with some Aramaic)), and God spoke to Saul (Paul) in the Hebrew tongue (not Greek as the NT originals were in).