https://www.timefortruth.co.uk/content/pages/documents/1482770320.pdf

A short 800 page refutation of White's disparate dissimulations.

White has played down evidence, e.g. that of Rev J. A. Moorman , that conflicts with or refutes White’s notion of what is or is not scripture, e.g. with respect to John 7:53-8:11.
White has tried to excuse omission of important words and phrases such as “of the Lord Jesus Christ” e.g. in Ephesians 3:14, because similar wording is found elsewhere in the New Testament, thereby condoning the gradual weakening of major biblical doctrines.

Dr. James White wrote:
....
...The arguments put forward by Dr. Morris are thoroughly examined and, in each case, refuted, in my full-length work, The King James Only Controversy (Bethany House, 1995). However, as the questions that are raised by Dr. Morris are common, I would like to comment on them in passing.

Dr. Morris, throughout the article, falls into the trap of making the KJV the "standard" by which all others are judged. The problem is, the KJV is not the standard, and cannot be the standard. Think about it for just a moment. Were there not translations before the KJV? Of course. Wycliffe, Tyndale, the Geneva Bible, the Bishops' Bible, and so forth, all served the needs of English speaking Christians prior to 1611. So why not choose one of these as the "standard"?

...We are also told that the KJV translators were great scholars, and this is true. However, those same scholars denied the idea that the KJV was perfect, or not to be improved upon, in their introduction to readers...

It is a fact that most professing Christians today do not believe in an infallible Bible nor in the infallibility of Scripture in any language. Kinney put together a rather extensive article with various quotes and polls from present day Evangelicals which prove that this is the present state of Christianity all over the world. You may see it here if you wish. It is called “The Bible is NOT the inspired and infallible word of God.”

http://brandplucked.webs.com/thebiblenotinspired.htm

- Bible Agnostics do not know what the Bible is or where to get one.
"In fact, I found out later that the "great" Bruce Metzger himself put out a Textual Criticism book in which one of his contributors used this word. In his book titled, New Testament Textual Criticism: Its Significance for Exegesis: Essays in Honour of Bruce M. Metzger, a collection of essays by various textual critics. In an essay ..the writer concluded with these words: "In short, THE SITUATION CALLS FOR
A SCHOLARLY 'AGNOSTICISM' AND CONTINUING RESEARCH." (p. 199).
This comes straight from the mouth of a textual critic."

Agnostic - Greek
¿Latin equiv?
Ignoramous
:nod

BDM wrote:
....
One can certainly appreciate the point that many modern translations are suspect because of the heterodoxy of the translators. Still, insisting on retreat to a less than perfect translation of 1611, as all translations must be (and in fact usually using a 1769 tenth edition of that translation, which alleviates some of the earlier nine editions’ imperfections), is still retreat, not an advance for the Kingdom of God. We can continue to appreciate and use “the KJV (tenth edition)” without making it into an idol that is as detestable to God as any other idol.... [ ]

Conclusion
KJV-Onlyism runs the gambit from moderately reasonable advocates (David Cloud, E.L. Bynum, John R. Rice), to the wacked-out, stone throwers ( D.A. Waite , Jack Hyles , Samuel Gipp, Walter Bebe, ... , Peter Ruckman, ..., etc.). A couple of years ago, Gary Hudson launched a website devoted to exposing the errors of “King James Onlyism”—“ [URL=http://www.kjvonly.org/]]]The King James Only Resource Center[/URL] .” Gary has a number of articles and reports posted. This site has become a “one stop” resource center for all questions related to “King James Onlyism.”

http://www.kjvtextualtechnology.com/essay-14--kjv-older-english-is-rightly-retained.php

There are good reasons why we should never bring Bible language down to the level of man, but should bring man up to the level of Bible language. Like other languages, the English keeps degenerating, and eventually reaches the point where it's unfit for the sacred text since the manner of expression becomes unfitting to display God's Word.

KJV Translators wrote:
...About the need for Scripture in vulgar (common), everyday language, not some archaic language or dialect

"Indeed without translation into the vulgar tongue, the unlearned are but like children at Jacob's well (which is deep) [John 4:11 [ (NIV) "Sir," the woman said, "you have nothing to draw with and the well is deep. Where can you get this living water?] ] without a bucket or something to draw with; or as that person mentioned by Isaiah, to whom when a sealed book was delivered, with this motion, "Read this, I pray thee," he was fain to make this answer, "I cannot, for it is sealed." [Isa 29:11[ (NIV) For you this whole vision is nothing but words sealed in a scroll. And if you give the scroll to someone who can read, and say to him, "Read this, please," he will answer, "I can't; it is sealed."] ]"

"But we desire that the Scripture may speak like itself, as in the language of Canaan, that it may be understood even of the very vulgar."

https://www.tilledsoil.org/integrity-christian-apologetics-ergun-caner-case-study/

Fakers like Ergun Caner touted by Ankerberg put him in
"ignore" category

No integrity??
No time to spend.

When u doubt the Bible from the very 1st verse
U fall for Caner lies that are worse
As much as u polish your lies & rehearse
Truth died in the street & U ran down with your hearse.
💀

And, reading the statements by all the prominent people coming to Ergan’s defense at the beginning of the article just makes me sick. The evidence is so clear, yet they make statements like:

“Ankerberg said he believes Caner’s testimony is ‘completely true.’” – Christianity Today

“Having examined all these charges against Dr. Caner carefully and having looked at the related evidence, I can say without hesitation that all of the moral charges against Dr. Caner are unsubstantiated. … Dr. Caner is a man of honesty, integrity, and loyalty to Christ.” – Dr. Norman Geisler

Ankerberg ignores lies exposed long ago.

"Cease, my son, to hear the instruction that causeth to err from the words of knowledge."
Pr19:27

Daniel B. Wallace wrote:
New Age Conspiracy?

More recently, KJV only advocates have argued that the scholars who produced the WH text and those who embrace it belong to a global conspiracy. They often charge that the deity of Christ, the virgin birth, salvation by grace, etc. is destroyed by these scholars. Some say that a New Age conspiracy is behind the modern translations.

In response, just a few points should be made. First, conspiracy theories are increasing among evangelicals nowadays, and this is a troubling sign. 🚨By their nature, conspiracy theories ask the reader to be completely skeptical toward one view while adopting the other, without an examination of the evidence.🚨 (One recent book that pushes a conspiracy theory actually has thousands of factual errors and misrepresentations in it, all of which go unchallenged by those sucked in by its aura.) ...

http://www.icr.org/article/science-vs-scripture-open-response-dr-john-ankerbe/

Adds a 67th book to the Bible..."nature" with Ross as guru

http://creation.mobi/rosshovind-debate-john-ankerberg-show-october-2000-analysis-by-jonathan-sarfati

In any case, it is clear from Ankerberg’s comments when moderating the Hovind-Ross debate (with an unfair old-earth bias) that he picked up many compromise views at his seminary. And as shown by Dr. David Menton’s letter to Ankerberg in June 1992, Ankerberg was clearly an old-earther at about the time of the booklet. This letter shows the disrespectful way Ankerberg treated high-profile young-earth creationist Ph.D. scientists, who had given up much time to record programs for him, and instead he substituted the gross errors of old-earther Hugh Ross.

But Jesus didn’t say Adam and Eve were created at the beginning of the “creation period”
But once you start, rephrasing the Bible continues

https://answersingenesis.org/family/marriage/but-from-the-beginning-of-the-institution-of-marriage/

Mk10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

Dr. John Ankerberg wrote:
Okay. Ken, you have the different editors of the different Bibles sitting right next to you. They’re your buddies. But you still prefer NIV. Art still prefers New King James. Don still prefers NASB. Does that break up your fellowship?

Barker: Not at all. In fact, I think all of us should maintain Christian fellowship. As I said before we went on the air, we’re going to have to live together in heaven. We’re trusting in the same Christ. And so we need to treat each other like brothers in Christ. When it comes to splitting churches, no; I don’t think this is an important enough issue to divide a church over.

However, I do think the time has come, probably now more than ever, when every individual church needs to decide, make some kind of official decision, decide what translation it wants to use, adopt that, put it in the pews, and use it for preaching, teaching, Scripture memorization, public reading, pews, etc., just to avoid some of the confusion that I think we are experiencing.

In regard to the nature of the Received Text I have the benefit of looking back over 100 years of history since Burgon‘s day. I can see the confusion that has come from the multiplicity of Greek texts and English versions.
The One Standard was divided into two, then into three, then into four,
and there has been no end of further division.
Today there are hundreds of texts and versions, each with its own peculiar witness as to what God supposedly said. The ―Thus saith the Lord‖ of the nineteenth century has become ―the Better Manuscripts Omit This Verse‖ of the twentieth.
The Received Text was blessed and exalted by God in a way that no text of Scripture has ever been."

Bill Combs wrote:
...Burgon’s view of preservation that have become the foundational principles for KJV-only advocates. But as we have noted, Burgon did not hold to the perfection of the TR, which most of his followers now insist on. And although he decried the changes in the RV, Burgon was careful to insist that these textual changes did not result in any doctrinal differences between the KJV and the RV: “Let it be also candidly admitted that, even where (in our judgment) the Revisionists have erred, they have never had the misfortune seriously to obscure a single feature of Divine Truth” (Revision Revised, p. 232). Unfortunately, KJV-only advocates have not followed their mentor in this “judgment,” but universally insist that modern versions which fail to follow the TR are guilty of perpetuating doctrinal error, and that includes every English version of the Bible since the KJV....

https://dorightchristians.wordpress.com/2016/05/20/james-white-lies-about-peter-ruckman-and-sam-gipp/amp/

Above we have White lying about Ruckman’s &Gipp’s position on the KJV, lying about Baptists with PhDs, lying about KJVOs debating Catholics, ad nauseum… paid consultant for ver$ion$ have ve$ted intere$t ..
Love of money.
-
https://www.timefortruth.co.uk/content/pages/documents/1462113322.pdf
--
Translation or a Catholic edition 89% of the time (pp. 747-769). Are we to believe that God gave the cults the correct text and not Christians?
For the entire 818 pages proving White wrong see:
Earlier link-

For summary-

https://www.timefortruth.co.uk/content/pages/documents/1396705848.pdf

• Peter Ruckman (Scholarship Only Controversy, 472 pages). After the publication of the book, White challenged Ruckman to a debate, and Ruckman agreed, setting a time and place. White put on his break light and took flight. His stage fright regarding the upcoming dog fight, made him an outright ‘no-show’.

-- worried about Pinto type bad DBate?--

http://www.noiseofthunderradio.com/articles/2013/12/12/my-debate-with-james-white-121213.html

"After debate" summary by Pinto / of White debate"

The entire "debate " duck out by White feather is seen here

https://www.timefortruth.co.uk/content/pages/documents/1482770320.pdf

White leans heavily towards Rome&Watchtower. In spite of what James White would undoubtedly profess to the contrary, the departures from the AV1611 that White favours and which occur mostly in the NASV, NIV, also occur to a considerable extent in Catholic & Jehovah’s Witnesses’ bibles.

White levels criticisms at 241 passages of scripture as they stand in the AV1611, 252 verses in total, of which 24 verses are from the Old Testament. Of that selection, the NIV stands with the AV1611 in only 9 of the 241 passages, or in 4% of the total. However, it lines up against the AV1611 with the JR, DR, JB and NWT* in 28% of the passages, with the JB and NWT in 70% of the passages and with one or more of the JR, DR, JB, NWT in 89% of the passages that White mentions.
*DR - Douay-Rheims, Challoner’s 1749 Revision, JR - Jesuit Rheims 1582 New Testament, from the web, www.studylight.org/desk/ and probably a reproduction of the DR - it doesn’t differ, JB - Jerusalem Bible, NWT - New World Translation

https://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/themagicmarker.html

Dr. James White wrote:
... If you are familiar with Peter Ruckman and his followers you will hardly be surprised at the tenor of the following materials. If, however, you have not been exposed to his bombastic, acerbic style, you may well be taken back. Terms like “liar,” “stupid,” “wimp,” and terms I personally find to be beyond the pale of clean language, are everyday fare for Dr. Ruckman and his followers. Anything goes in attacking and demeaning those with whom he disagrees (and that’s 99.99% of the Christian world). You may at times have to read something twice just to figure out how Dr. Ruckman came up with the ideas that he did. For example, if you conclude that Dr. Ruckman said that Mr. Pierce is a “liar” simply because my book, The King James Only Controversy, was dedicated to Mr. Pierce, you are right. If you are confused about how a man can call someone else a liar without ever having met that person, without ever having read anything that person has written, or heard anything that person has ever said, join the club. That’s just how Dr. Ruckman thinks, and acts....

Qui Bono?

Jesuit Elephant in the Room

Paul told Timothy that the ‘Love of Money’ was the root of all evil, he was making an important point.
Bible$ $ell doubt$