Video: Modern Textual Criticism and Acts 8:37 with James White

In my previous video on whether or not a Bible version should be a preference, I quoted from James White’s book, The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations. This prompted White to post a video response to me, in which he goes over the textual issues of Acts 8:37.

Here is my reply.

At first, I considered ignoring it, but, I realized there is an excellent illustration here. In my response I dissect White’s attempt at waiving off the importance of this passage and the methodology employed by modern textual critics to excise (or excuse the excising of) verses from the Bible.

In the end, we see that his approach to the Bible and to his own critical materials is arbitrary and devoid of belief.

Minor update/comment: Throughout this video I refer to James White as “Dr. White.” I was unaware at the time of recording that Mr. White does not have a doctorate from an accredited institution. Frankly I don’t find that issue important, but, it was probably incorrect to continually refer to him as Dr. White in this video.

Also, the Byzantine text he shows is simply the Robinson/Peirpoint Majority text. It is not a text anybody ever used in any church anywhere; it is a contrived text form that just shows “majority” Greek mss. readings. He brings it into the display as if it adds something to the discussion, but, it has already been accepted that Acts 8.37 is a minority Greek mss. reading. It’s just more flash and no substance. I didn’t want to get too bogged down responding to every little detail but that one probably should have had more discussion because people are asking about it.

49 thoughts on “Video: Modern Textual Criticism and Acts 8:37 with James White”

  1. Thanks for sowing this and once again exposing James White as the egomaniac bible corrector at the cost of souls for his monetary gain and fame. Preference is in fact his way of picking a particular translation. And yes, Mr. White has attacked the King James Bible at every chance he can and those who call it as the Infallible inerrant word of God. It is so sad to realize how this man can even respond to you knowing we have his own words in print and you-tube videos, which condemn him. great job Brother and thanks for loving God’s word the Authorizing King James Bible as you do. Bro. Jim “Who’s Your Final Authority/” Pro. 3:5-6

  2. Brandon,

    Great defense of the KJV. I have White’s 2nd Edition and his arguments are both weak and convoluted. While I don’t have time to learn the Greek, I know that God has raised up individuals such as yourself to present the truth of His Word. May God continue to bless and increase your ministry.


  3. Great! James White should have gave up a long time ago. James White is most certainly anti-KJB! Has he ever written a 271 page book attacking any other “Bible” (I use the word loosely)??? He hasn’t, he is against ONE Book, the Holy King James Authorized version.

    I have read J.W.’s first edition book….it was terrible. He flat out lied on the manuscript evidence for 1 John 5:7. The manuscript evidence for 1 John 5:7 that all the modern versions attack is found in manuscripts #61, #88, #629, and Codex Ravianus. The verse was also quoted by a Spanish bishop named Cyprian in 250 A.D. and several others before 385 A.D.

    I also have “The Scholarship Only Controversy” where J.W. was exposed as a liar in the way of manuscript evidence among other things. You have to wonder about these people that only talk about their debates that they have been in and how there is no perfect Bible.

    Next time y’all come in contact with a big non-KJB believer ask them what doctrines you have a watered down version of or are missing because you have only used the “archaic, late manuscript based King James Version”. They don’t have anything. However, the KJB does “have it all in there”!

    Keep it up Brother! -Hoss

    1. Hi Bro. Good post.. Amen and Amen
      I have watched Mr. White in some of his debates especially ones with Roman Catholic Apologist. One debate caught my interest, it was on the “Trinity and Sola Scriptura”. Mr. White if he believed that the King James Bible is the perfect word of God with no exceptions he would have carried that debate because he would have had for one of his proof text “i John 5:7″… but he couldn’t use that in his defense of the trinity , nor could he use it for Sola Scriptura against Romes teachings. God Bless Bro. Jim Pro. 3:5-6

  4. Once again I have been informed and encouraged. Thanks for your response to the response. I have only read excerpts of Dr. White’s book but that was enough to tell me he was not being honest.
    Although I not read or understand Greek, whether ancient or modern, I don’t see that I really need to if really believe what I claim to believe. The KJB is God’s word for English speaking people. That includes those of us who are not lettered in some higher education institution.
    I love Webster’s 1823 edition of the English language. Of course a more modern edition is needed to keep up with more modern terms, which is helpful to get across to modern day folks.
    I say thanks again, and once I again I love your Sword Searcher Bible Study too.

    Barney Bryant
    Pastor, Parkway Baptist Church
    Carthage, TX

  5. I watched your first video mate you misquoted James White. The reason James most likely refers to font size is because he is referring to the font size not style. I have to have a LARGE FONT because I have POOR EYESIGHT.

    1. There was no “misquotation” and the book says nothing of eyesight. You need to pay attention to what is actually being said here. As I pointed out, font size is not anywhere near the level of import as the actual text, and for White to insert this into the discussion betrays the fact that he believes that the Bible text itself is subject to our personal whim.

      1. Brandon all you did was caricature James White to make a point that is dishonest and lacks integrity. I once again stand firm that you misrepresented what James said because it suits your purpose to do so. It is easy to sit in your palace and have your friends applaud your defense of the KJV because it also confirms to them that you are right. What you and they don;t get is that it doesn’t make you right. There are far better, more honest ways to approach the subject such as actually addressing this to James White himself. so that he can defend himself. You approach in your screen flow was cowardly and dishonest. The fact you wont address this to James white directly shows the kind of person you are

        1. Your comment does not make sense. I thoroughly responded to the substantive issues regarding Acts 8:37 and White’s false claims about it. I responded to him the same way he responded to me — with a video.

  6. Before hearing this on the website – 2 days ago I threw White’s book in the trash! I know I made the right decision.

  7. Why would anyone use another translation when there is a perfect translation? The King James Version.

    1. Too many don’t believe there can be a perfect translation, or even a perfect Greek/Hebrew source from which to translate. Now that I am passed this White business I hope to focus more on how a believing person can come to have complete faith in God’s word despite the critics and naturalistic theories about the transmission of the text.

      1. Dear Sir;
        What you say about “focus” (well that whole note: “Too many don’t believe there can be a perfect translation, or even a perfect Greek/Hebrew source from which to translate. Now that I am passed this White business I hope to focus more on how a believing person can come to have complete faith in God’s word despite the critics and naturalistic theories about the transmission of the text.”) seems to me most telling and necessary to keep in mind. Too many have been “redirected” at the beginning of what could be a fruitful Christian endeavor for most of their life by these very issues: “Yea, hath God said,…”.
        I very much appreciate the thrust of the writings on your website, the level of expertise, the exhaustive effort involved to point people away from chasing the devils rabbits, their own hubris, to a real relationship with the LORD and His WORD and pray GOD bless.

      2. I’m eager to gear that. So far E.F Hill’s work has been the best I’ve found on be subject. Plus, he’s a fellow Westinster Theological Seminary graduate. 😉

  8. Dear Bro. Brandon, my question is why you did not address in your response to James White’s video to your last video, that the Byzantine text and the Majority text does not contain Acts 8:37? I kept hoping that you would say something about it. The TR has the verse in question. I too agree with your position on the KJB, that it alone is our ‘final authority’, but for academia purposes ‘what say ye’? Thanks for your response.

    1. I suppose I should have pointed out that White doesn’t actually regard the Byzantine text as important in his own translational preferences, and I could have pointed out that this verse is in the Greek Orthodox Byzantine text. The Byz text White showed is just the Robinson Majority Text, and it is a given that this verse is not a majority reading. Frankly the Robinson text is a text form completely novel and has never been in use anywhere in history in the form they present it.

      1. Brandon, I would like to know more of the Orthodox Byzantine Text which has the Acts 8:37 reference in question. I have Robinson/Pierpont text, the Farstad/Hodges text, and the online access to Pickering down in Brazil’s New Majority Text but it would appear that you have information that I don’t and would love to be privy to it if you do not mind. You said that Robinson’s text is not a Majority reading and never used anywhere in history. Though I suspected this to be the case it is apparent that more information is needed if you would be so kind as to reveal your source to me that would be most welcomed.

        Pickering has the following notation in his text which does what the NIV does as does Farstad, skips the reference number 37 and passage- (sorry, the Greek does not come through):

        baptisqhnai f35 P45ÀA,B,C (88%) HF,RP,CP,NU || baptisqhnai 37 eipen de autw ei pisteueij ex olhj thj kardiaj sou exestin apokriqeij de eipen pisteuw ton uion tou qeou einai ihsoun criston (8.4%) || baptisqhnai 37 eipen de o filippoj ei pisteueij ex olhj thj kardiaj exestin apokriqeij de eipen pisteuw ton uion tou qeou einai ton ihsoun criston (0.6%) OC,TR [actually, only cursive 1883 of the 16th century is identical to OC,TR—OC is in
        small print] || four variations include eunoucoj and a 2nd autw before pisteuw (1.1%) || four further variations (1.9%) (The addition appears in eighteen slightly different forms [the name ‘Phillip’ appears in eleven MSS, or 2.3%]. Since Phillip’s house in
        Caesarea seems to have been something of a way-station for travelling Christians, he probably repeated the story hundreds of times; the information given in verse 37 is likely historically correct, but the Holy Spirit didn’t have Luke include it in the inspired account.)

        All for now; Best, Bobby

        1. The Robinson text is a majority text, which is why it lacks the verse. The Greek Orthodox NT reading on this verse is

          εἶπε δὲ ὁ Φίλιππος· εἰ πιστεύεις ἐξ ὅλης τῆς καρδίας, ἔξεστιν ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ εἶπε· πιστεύω τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ εἶναι τὸν Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν (Act 8:37 GOC)

          Unlike the Robinson/Peirpoint text, which is a contrived text based on majority count, the GOC text is actually used in churches and homes. That’s the problem with the Robinson text. It’s a majority text but they end up creating a New Testament that nobody in history ever used because it removes verses that people had in their Bibles (Latin copies, etc).

          The Byzantine text is not one single monolithic thing as White implies in his video. There are Byzantine texts that contain the verse. See which explains that the Greek Orthodox NT is considered a Byzantine text.

          1. Thanks! I will see if Amazon has it. I am currently writing a book dealing with Nestles new methodology, so, I was wondering if you have the 28th edition if we might correspond? Let me know.

          2. I suggest acquiring a copy yourself — if I understand what you are saying, you really need your own copy.

        1. I don’t know what you mean by “no valid.” It’s just a bean-counter’s text. The assumption of the majority text is that you will find the “best” readings always with the “majority” of extant manuscripts, meaning that the true text of the New Testament will never be known until there are no more “original manuscripts” to find.

  9. Hi,

    While the learned men of the Reformation era did consider the Greek manuscripts as important, they understood that a certain level of corruption had occurred, the most glaring of which were some textual omissions.

    Acts 8:37 is a beautiful example of that type of corruption, corrected by Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza, unto the Reformation Bibles, including the Geneva and AV.

    Thus the comment of Erasmus that manuscripts had lost the text through the carelessness of scribes.

    The Robinson-Pierpont is essentially a bean-counter’s collation text, of no particular relevance, except to tell us what we already knew, that the majority of Greek mss do not have the verse.


  10. Augustine also cited this verse.

    11. Now why I have wished to bring this subject before you, give heed, Dearly Beloved. It was meet that God should first show that He works by the ministry of men; but afterwards by Himself, lest men should think, as Simon thought, that it was man’s gift, and not God’s. Though the disciples themselves knew this well already. For there were one hundred and twenty men collected together, when without the imposition of any hand the Holy Ghost came upon them. For who had laid hands on them at that time? And yet He came, and filled them first. After that offense of Simon, what did God do? See Him teaching, not by words but by things. That same Philip, who had baptized the men, and the Holy Ghost had not come upon them, unless the Apostles had met together and laid their hands upon them, baptized the officer, that is, the eunuch of queen Candace, who had worshipped in Jerusalem, and returning thence was reading in his chariot Isaiah the Prophet, and understood it not. Philip being admonished went up to his chariot, explained the Scripture, unfolded the faith, preached Christ. The eunuch believed on Christ, and said when they came unto a certain water, See water, who does hinder me to be baptized? Philip said to him, Do you believe in Jesus Christ? He answered, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Immediately he went down with him into the water. When the mystery and sacrament of Baptism had been accomplished, that the gift of the Holy Ghost might not be thought to be of men, there was no waiting, as in the other case, for the Apostles to come, but the Holy Ghost came immediately. Thus was Simon’s thought destroyed, lest in such a thought he might have followers. (Sermons On Selected Lessons of the New Testament, Sermon 49:

  11. Good job Brandon,
    Those that continue to undermine the authority of God’s word find a fiat authority of men’s precepts and as obvious as it is many are hindered in the faith from trusting and believing God. This is why I appreciated your ministry of bearing against those that preach another Jesus, another spirit and another gospel.
    The seriousness of this rises to magnitude we all should consider to be apart our own witness and testimony. Once we have studied to rightly divide the word of truth from these corrupt versions our ability to take of the cross with boldness is encouraged.

  12. Hi,

    This AM, I wrote up a little summary of the 3 youtube discussion history, and some of the comments.

    Brandon Staggs and James White discuss the Bible

    Feel free to link to my post, or simply modify and use the info for your own posts and emails. I believe it can be helpful for the newbie to understand the context of the 3 youtubes, and then decide how far they want to delve.

    This discussion can be very helpful for those seeking to understand the Bible issues. James White is a skilled debater (i.e. he knows all the cheap debating tricks) and AV defenders in the past have at times lost focus or allowed him to manipulate the conversation. One exception of note, the Puritanboard discussions. Plus he, and his supporters, uses the heavy mic-controlled radio show invitation as a political invitation tool. (They learn to say, after something of James White has been shown to be wrong, “well, why don’t you call him up” .. as if we are supplicants to request 30 seconds of heavy-handed radio time.)

    Without claiming to be a “textual scholar” Brandon very adeptly showed that AV defenders can share the Bible truths and drink herb tea at the same time. And that much of the attack on our Bible is of a smoke and mirrors nature.

    Psalm 119:140
    Thy word is very pure:
    therefore thy servant loveth it.

    1. Steven, thanks. White’s followers have derided me for not going on his show, as if my unwillingness to be berated by him in a live broadcast he controls is somehow more relevant to the discussion than the evidence of his Biblical ineptitude I present in the video.

    2. Hi Bro. Steve… (Shain1611) When i read your post here it was the same thought I had while watching the Brothers response to Mr. White. He kept his focus, never lost his temper, addressed the issues point by point with direct facts that where easy to follow and understand, as long one is seeking the truth instead of a bunch of hype and smoke and mirrors. As you so rightly pointed out he did this not by claiming to be a great debater or a Greek or Hebrew scholar all the while pounding on his chest, like Mr. White does.. but as one who is totally grounded on the TRUTH. One who knows the TRUTH, and simply and skillfully applied that TRUTH. The Brother did all of this without slinging one insult at Mr. White. And about the power of the radio mike, once again you hit a home run by pointing that out. Thanks Bro. and thanks to all the Brothers and Sisters in Christ Jesus who love God’s inerrant word, preserved in our King James English Bible. Amen and Amen Pro. 3:5-6 (Jim Julian) “Who’s Your Final Authority”

  13. Hi,

    This leads to the question of why ?

    There is a spiritual principality that desires to either:

    a) not believe there is any tangible, readable Bible that is the final authority

    b) desires to remake the Bible into their own preferred image (“here is my new version, purging out the corruption of all the other versions”)

    Today, James White is the leader of the (a) group. And thus he is a dilettante public figure for modern versions, and their main Bible position is, by necessity:

    c) contra the AV.

    Which is the one position they have to attack. If the AV is the pure word of God, then all their labors are in vain. The Version Industrial Complex folds up. “Consultants” have to find real work. Authors working with confused and conflicting versions lose their audience.

    On the other hand, if there are 1,000 debates about variants, they could care less. In fact, the more the merrier. More articles discussing which one is God’s word. More articles comparing the corruption perspective of Daniel Wallace with the corruption perspective of Bart Ehrman. More papers on arcane conjectures.

    All “scripture” is malleable to the moment.

    e.g. If you don’t like Mark’s ending and the Pericope Adulterae, simply say the 24 verses are not scripture, or that you are not sure. And set up a club with the great oxymoron, “Evangelical Textual Criticism”.

    Sidenote: Our friend Sam Shamoun (an excellent apologist) above is caught in a bit of this conundrum. e.g He finds he has to defend the corruption of 1 Timothy 3:16 at the same time he defends the powerful and majestic Bible verse “God was manifest in the flesh”. The pressures of apologetics will try to push the Christian believer to the “least common denominator” version position. Which comes down to “even if my version is corrupt here and there, it might be still good enough.” A very awkward position, and a great handle for the contra islamists. If the Christians think their versions are corrupt (and they are with the modern versions and the White mentality) the islamists know how to use that weak, tepid position quite skillfully.

    However, if the apologists (and I give Sam as a friendly example, not at all to put him on the spot, add Glenn Miller and William Lane Craig and many others) fully proclaim the pure word of God, other apologists will attack them. As James White tried, quite miserably, to attack you. If the apologist “sees” that they can and should fully proclaim the word of God as pure, they have to be ready for the flak. And it will come.

    Now, as a leader of the contra-AV movement, the (a) group, Jame White has a bit of a cult following, people who smile at his font version diversion confusions. And who, while they might be otherwise intelligent, have gotten to (a) not by any sort of sensible consistency and logic, but from the spiritual principality of enjoying choosing the word of God, being “free” and not being bound .. by God’s word read in the book.

    As a quasi-cult leader, James White can basically do no wrong. So rather than engaging the points you make, his followers say .. “listen to the voice of our master”. Maybe he had a bad hair day. So they tell you to be a supplicant, like they are, and call him up.

    The evidence of his Biblical ineptitude can thus be ignored, by the diversion ploy.

    Another example: Richard C. Pierce (President of AOM) is straining mightily to not answer simple questions and avoid the James White accountability. See the questions asked by James Snapp and myself – And the responses. At least, so far, no bans or deletes.

    And even more significantly, the real points about what Bible version we prefer and choose are bypassed. James White attempted to dodge every salient issue. The simple fact is that our Bible does matter, in a myriad of places, including Acts 8:37. And the simple fact is that not knowing what is the Bible matters. The real issue is not the bumbling of James White, no biggie there. Although to get to the issues, that is needful to be shown.

    The real issue remains — our Bible matters. Our finding and accepting the pure word of God matters. The final authority of the word of God, in our hands, matters.

    This has been a very educational and informative week for the Bible discussions. Thank you Lord Jesus for opening the eyes of many.

    Steven Avery

    1. Brother Steven, thanks for the kind words (i.e., “excellent apologist”). Just to clear up one thing, I really could care less if other apologists attack me for embracing the KJV only position so that is not the reason why I haven’t come to embrace it (at least, not yet). I just need to be convinced by God’s Spirit that the arguments and data used to prove it to be the absolutely pure word of God are based on the truth, and not the spin or emotional rhetoric of those advocating for this position. So I am still studying this issue and have at least come to the point of believing that the NASB, NKJV and KJV are the three best and most reliable translations out there. Who knows where my future studies will lead.

      Moreover, I actually thought that Brian’s response was excellent and thoroughly refuted White concerning this particular argument. So I am not committed to any version or group, but do sincerely what to arrive at the truth for the glory of Christ. Hope this clarifies my position somewhat.

  14. It was helpful to see the quotations of early church fathers for Acts 8:37. This may be another problem that the NIV team will need to address in their next edition. What an oversight.

    1. The NIV follows the Critical Text. This verse has been missing from the various editions of the CT for over a hundred years. They aren’t going to put it back in in an update.

  15. Hi,


    My posts were deleted from the AOM Facebook forum, unanswered, after they had been part of the discussion and had been on the thread for a day. The post related to two assertions from the James White “Misrepresentation” video. A third question from James Snapp, about the attempt to question and doubt the Irenaeus and Cyprian references, is still on the page, unanswered. Still ostensibly being researched for discussion.

    You can now see the deleted posts here:


    The two quotes, and one additional for context

    James White – 13:20
    “this is the tell-tale sign of a variant that has come in from outside the manuscript tradition, is that you have a number of variations even within the manuscripts that contain at least the bulk of it … he (Brandon) probably does not even know those things”..:

    James White – 16:44
    “and there are all sorts of readings that this man will reject that have more ancient testimony than the one that he is promoting here”

    James White – 17:05
    “these people can not defend this stuff in debate”

    Steven Avery

  16. James White does as all modern scholars, he makes it seem as if no one can understand the Bible without his (their) brilliant minds. He acts as if the scholars from past ages were not smart enough to find the correct Hebrew and Greek texts. Maybe God kept the Bible in the hands of Godly men. That is what a true powerful God would do. God didn’t need a bunch of men who were educated beyond their mental capacities. James White probably is smarter than I am, but I don’t look down my nose at those who may not know as much as me. I have been educated in a secular university and two baptist seminaries, but that doesn’t make me any closer to Christ than the little old lady sitting on the front row with her King James in hand. It was totally unnecessary in trying to correct the Bible in the first place. I hear people saying continuously, the new versions don’t change any doctrine. If that is the case, then why did they want to turn the world upside down with all the new versions. New versions were and are not needed. A closer walk with Jesus is what people need. People are not getting closer to God with the new versions. A couple of weeks ago I heard a muslim individual talk about how could we think our Jesus is God when our Bibles don’t agree. New Versions have made people doubt Christianity. I could go on for hours about this, but I will stop. I really enjoy your website Brandon. Keep up the good work! If we can get more of this information around, then we can possibly get more people back to loving Christ. I (actually God used me) have used information like this to get 100’s back to Christ. They feel down crying when they discovered the truth!

  17. Hi,

    Well, James White and AOMin have won the discussion on their website. However, this was accomplished by deleting five posts of mine (see above) and now deleting five posts of James Snapp, documented here:

    You can now see the sanitized AOMin forum here:

    See, not even one difficult question is unanswered!

    Steven Avery

  18. I have lost all respect for anything James White says. He has never told the same story twice, and is very good at pretending he is some kind of Textual Critic, which if you listen to him enough times, you can plainly see he is NOT.

    Well done Brandon on simply pointing this out yet again about brother White.

  19. Brandon,

    I thought I’d chime in, too. I am glad that James White is working for the kingdom of God against Islam and false religions. I also think that KJV-Onlyism, as advocated by some of its most vocal proponents, is about as scientifically sustainable as geocentrism. So this is not coming from someone within your own county borders, in that respect.

    Nevertheless I must say that nothing excels the confident tone of James White and Richard Pierce in their recent statements about Acts 8:37 except its lack of justification — which was demonstrated so clearly by Mr. Pierce when, facing posts that described strong evidence that White had been reckless in his claims about patristic evidence (specifically, Irenaeus and Cyprian), he promptly ended the discussion and deleted the posts.

    The situation reminded me of a card-game which ended when a friend of one of the players, seeing that his friend’s hand was weak, hit the fire alarm. Afterwards the two friends cheered each other up, saying, “We win again! And we haven’t lost a game yet!” It never occurred to them that anyone else at the table might be able to teach them something.

  20. When you complained that this gentleman pointed out translation problems in the KJV in stead of just defending it I said enough with this rigmarole. KJV is indeed translated from the best texts…but to ignore translation problems it is too much. Of course you seem to believe that the KJV were directly inspired by God (well over 1600 years after God’s delivery of the “once and for all” Faith (objective.)

    1. I didn’t suggest White should defend the KJV. I have no idea where you could have inferred that. However, remember that White accused me of misrepresenting him when I said he “tears down the KJV and says they’re all [his “trusted” modern translations] okay.” What I was pointing out is that White definitely does tear down the KJV. I have read his book. He gives lip services to corrupt translations from cults, but when it comes to the big players: the KJV, NKJV, NIV, NAS, etc, the only one he singles out to criticize in his book is the KJV. This isn’t even a question! He doesn’t offer any “errors” in the NAS. In fact, he goes out of his way to defend a reading even he admits is wrong (“He” appeared in a body) in modern translations.

      As for these “translation problems” to which you allude, perhaps you could clear the air by telling all of us which translation you think improves on the KJV.

      Too bad you left the video before the 20 minute mark. You could have learned something about the duplicity employed by White and his friends when it comes to selecting “the best readings” from which to translate.

      1. I appreciate your willingness to respond. I have made my point but here I just want to make sure that I am not defending this gentleman and I am not even familiar with his writings. Blessings.

    2. Mr. Mark,

      “KJV is indeed translated from the best texts…but to ignore translation problems it is too much” I take that to mean you have texts and or specific manuscripts that you believe contain the inspired word of God perfectly preserved for us today? Could you let me know which manuscripts those are, the ones that are that contain the inspired words of God preserved according to Ps. 12:6-7, Isa. 40:8, Matt. 5:18, Matt. 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33, 1 Pet. 1:23-25, and 2 Tim. 3:15-17. Let me know, you have my contact info.

      Thanks, -Eli “Hoss” Caldwell

        1. marksil2000 said; “I use the Textus Receptus and reject WH text and theory. Blessings.” When I brought up the Acts 8:37 debacle to the deacon board, one of the deacons told me that he could “prove” to me that verse 37 was not in the “originals” because he had a Textus Receptus. I have never seen it, but REALLY? Someone can be fooled SO easily by a text book with a clever name? Did God promise to preserve His Word, or did God just give us text books that we can use to “correct” His Word? Or did men have to make the text books, because God CAN’T preserve His Word? Or maybe God is not involved at all? I have chosen to believe that the KJB is Scripture because of the obvious differences between the KJB and the new versions AND the obvious similarities between the new versions. The new versions are watered down and contain heresies and even blasphemy. All of the differences support ecumenicism. In fact, in response to the epithet; “King James Onlyism”, I made up the name “Ecumenical Multiversionism”. No one is going to trick me or educate me using a text book. Scripture does not support versions. It DOES support perfect copies and perfect translations. Scripture has one message: “Thus saith the Lord!” Versions, margin notes, text books and bible colleges have one message: “Yea, hath God said?”

  21. Brandon,
    You are sincere and honestly explaining why NIV and other new bible versions. I had the same experience with new bibles. I discovered James White AOM. This group seeks to “inform” believers about the issues. The problem is that they are rationalists first and believers second. You experienced this first hand when James White equivocated about Acts 8.37 rather credit your evidences and give you a straight answer. Becoming intellectual about an issue makes one “superior”. Consulting the critical apparatus, is being closer to inspired truth. If James White AOM was really interested in building Christians he would have answered you honestly and simply. But we see his real self. He is a rationalist. He assumes that mss evidence is the ONLY way to determine the correct text. These types are snared by their own devices because the NA and UBS are propaganda for the Alexandrian text type mss (Wescott & Hort mythology). Did you know that these Alexandrian witnesses are 99% from one location in Egypt? Did you know that the Fathers NEVER (almost) quote from this text type? This is the reason why the Fathers witness is dismissed over mss used as toilet paper and found in garbage dumps. These fragments have rather undermined and corrected the false assumptions of “longer readings” being corruptions in the Western text. You are on the right track. Stay with the King James and get the Greek Tutor to help you learn Greek. The Holy Spirit will give you wisdom and keep you close to Christ. Your dialogue blessed me greatly.

  22. Brandon,
    One other thing about this type of opponent. James White and his ilk (Bart Ehrman) tend to brag on their intellectual ability when weighing textual issues. I have 3 years of Greek, but I am still learning to read the Greek NT. My Hebrew is close to zero and my Latin is below zero. But when Jerome testifies that many Greek and Latin mss contain John 7.53-8.11 (Pericope Adulterae), who can question his authority, ability, scholarship, etc.? Jerome was THERE. Jerome was establishing a standard text from the most reliable mss sources. Jerome’s scholarship is lifetimes ahead of any James White. A veritable Einstein of his time in languages, and mss assessment. We don’t have these mss now due to circumstances, but we do have Jerome’s Vulgate version of John 7.53-8.11 and Jeromes direct testimony. James White is a speck on the windshield of textual criticism history compared to Jerome. Who are we going to take as an authority? James White or Jerome? So, you don’t have to be “educated” from a seminary to know that John 7.53-8.11 is the real deal. These types just exude hubris! It is rather disgusting. But God has left us a witness. Godspeed.
    ===James Snapp’s Article with Quote: ===
    Thirty-three years earlier, in 383, Jerome had included the PA in the text of John in the Vulgate Gospels. Jerome consulted ancient Greek manuscripts when he did that. He describes his work twice: in the Preface to the Gospels, addressed to Damasus, and in Epistle 27, To Marcella, written in 384. To Damasus he wrote:
    “I therefore promise in this short Preface the four Gospels only, which are to be taken in the following order: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, as they have been revised by a comparison of the Greek manuscripts. Only early ones have been used. To avoid any great divergences from the Latin which we are accustomed to read, I have used my pen with some restraint, and while I have corrected only such passages as seemed to convey a different meaning, I have allowed the rest to remain as they are.”

  23. Sorry. Here is the quote:
    === Jerome’s Testimony in James Snapp’s Article: ===
    Jerome’s testimony regarding the PA should be stated again and again and again, in order to compensate for its remarkable [I was about to say deplorable] absence from Metzger’s comments about the PA in his Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, from the NET’s notes, and from some other lopsided commentaries. In about 417, toward the end of his career, Jerome wrote in Against the Pelagians, 2:17, “In the Gospel according to John, there is found, in many of the Greek, as well as the Latin, copies, the story of the adulteress who was accused before the Lord.” – In evangelio secundum Ioannem in multis et Graecis et Latinis codicibus invenitur de adultera muliere, quae accusata est apud Dominum. In the same composition, Jerome offers the explanation that Jesus, when he wrote in the earth, wrote down the names of the woman’s accusers, using a phrase from Jeremiah 17:13 as the lens through which to perceive this (“Those who depart from Me shall be written in the earth”).

  24. Some make the claim that Acts 8:37 does not fit the purpose of water baptism. However, careful and believing study of the AV rightly divided according to 2 Tim. 2:15 always prevails over the scholarship of man. Acts 8:37 is the perfect verse on the purpose of baptism as seen in my post

    It never ceases to amaze me how that one Book could make so many people upset. Blessings, –brother Eli “Hoss” Caldwell

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *