James White vs Sam Gipp Videos.

Let me state that I would probably sit at the shallow end of the KJVO mob, and I have a few issues with Sam Gipp's videos, but they are minor.

However, I have just come across James White's "Criticism videos" of Sam Gipp's Big Deal about the KJV videos.

I have to say though, that James White's attempt to discredit the videos is amazing in it's rambling, misleading, and rabbit trail following nature.

In the first instance, in videos one he spends a fair bit of time basically just saying that anyone who is KJVO is wrong because they are wrong. The first five minutes he says nothing about the video, but simply attacks the position with unsubstantiated broad statements.

At one point he makes the point that the "other" line of texts has the "oldest manuscripts", but gives no support for that. Having done a little research on this particular subject, I know that there is actually no evidence of the age of either codex Vaticanus, nor of Codex Siniaticus. They were "old" when found, but one was found in the 1500's (Vaticanus) and the other was not heard of or referenced in any way before 1761.
So these apparently "oldest and best" manuscripts can not be positively identified as any other than "old" when discovered in the 1500's or the 1800's (Tischendorf found it in 1844, it was possibly referred to in some writing in 1761. These facts came from the official websites of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. The point of this is that his own claim to "oldest manuscripts" is based heavily on assumption and guesses.

Secondly, James White criticises Dr. Gipp for talking about "Two Bibles", which Dr. Gipp goes on to explain in his video, and which is a simplistic representation, but Later in video one of James White he actually agrees that the KJV and NKJV are from one stream and all the others are from the other stream - so he then uses that two stream argument against the KJV while he critises the use of it FOR the KJV.
He makes big about Gipp using the name "Critical text" as though it is a bad thing, but Dr. Gipp is using it as an identifier - I don't think Dr. Gipp was using the word "Critical" in the way that James White suggests - maybe I have missed something there....... (He mentions once that the "Name" "should tell you something", and then moves straight on - this is a minor line given, not a major point as White presents it.

White makes a huge point about the "Textus Receptus" which he says didn't even exist in that form until 1633 (I think that was the date he said), and he makes big about the point that the TR that he was holding was translated into Greek from English that had been translated From Greek. So what? What has anything written after the translation process was long completed got to do with the translation into English of the KJV? This is a huge Rabbit Trail - or is that red herring - that White includes for the sake of presenting a FALSE disparagement of the Textus Receptus. This is in my opinion, simply DISHONEST. When Sam Gipp talks of the TR, he is talking of the Manuscript Group that the translators used in the work of the KJV, not the Greek complied text done after that work was finished. And James White KNOWS THIS - this is why it is dishonest.

Further to that James White also compares the production of the KJV to the production of the Quran, again presenting the information in a way that is clearly dishonest. He makes the point that there was a single version of the Quran that was imposed upon Muslims, and likens that to the KJVO matter.
This is dishonest for the fact that James White mentioned that it was pressed upon people by a single man, and there is no way to know which version was actually the true one. This ignores the facts that the KJV was not forced onto anyone, and it was translated by the greatest and most skillful group of
translators ever assembled. So yes, there may be one version of the Quran which was forced upon people and compiled by one man, but that has nothing to do with a Bible that was translated by more than 50 of the greatest translators ever assembled, and provided - not proscribed - for use by anyone who wanted to use it. That Bible - the KJV - became the most popular Bible version by far, not by force, but by love of the Word of God, and by recognition of the caliber of the work.
For James White to correlate the KJV with Quran in this way is dishonest in it's representation, and demeaning to the Word of God.

What James White's video does do is it shows his great intellect - in quoting so many (often irrelevant) facts, psuedo facts, and people of the past, he shows a great knowledge of quotations and displays his probably amazing memory. It also shows that he is not above twisting and misrepresenting facts and people in his quest to attack something which is not as far out of field as he desperately wants it to be.

There is a simple point of logic that shows that the existence of a true Bible must be found in a single edition or nowhere: When two things claim to be the perfect Word of God but they say different things, then at least one of them must be wrong. They could BOTH be wrong.
But they cannot BOTH BE RIGHT.
If you believe that the Bible is the true, preserved, inerrant Word of God then it must exist in one, and ONLY IN ONE version today. Which one is actually irrelevant to this point. But if we have God's Perfect Word today, then it must be in One version, not many, because every version says things different - some of them very differently.
If however you think that we don't have God's Perfect Word today, then go ahead, hold hands with James White and YOU try to figure out which parts of God's Word are actually God's Word.

As for me, I will believe God when He says that He Inspired the Word of God and will preserve it.
Mat 5:18  For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

2Ti 3:16  All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17  That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Let me just ask this question: Why would God give His Word in such a special way and for such a  special purpose, and then let it disappear into the haze of history?

God has not replaced Israel.

Gotta add some to my last post about God not having cast aside Israel.

I come up against people who are replacement theologists from time to time, and it is almost ridiculous when they say they are not, but then talk about the church being Israel.

In the first place, it shows that they have a faulty understanding of what a church is in the Bible, because the obvious question to ask is "Which church is Israel now?"

But it is not funny when these people say they are not one thing, but then teach what they say they are not.

For when someone actually says something like "Israel AKA the church", there can be no doubt what they are teaching, and it is simply not biblical.

It is like the Calvinist who comes and says they are not a Calvinist but then start arguing about Calvin's five points.
If someone is trying to deceive then OF COURSE they are going to deny it when someone calls them on it.

I have a few questions for the replacement theologist though:
Which time that Israel left off following God and turned to idols was the last straw?
For there is time after time recorded in God's Word where the Children of Israel left off from following the Lord - the book of Judges alone is littered with such times.
And yet in all of that, the Lord did not forsake them.

So what was the straw that broke the camels back and caused God to utterly reject the nation that He called to be His own people?

As well as that, why is it that Paul speaks of the gentiles, the Jews, and the church, all in the same breath if the Israel is now the church?
No Israel is not the church and never will be.
Where Paul says there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek it is in the matter of salvation, not the matter of existence.

And also, in the book of Relvelation where it names the tribes from which the 144000 come - how can this be anything other than a reference to a literal Israel in the future time?

And here we come up to a critical point of thought - Replacement theologists are almost universally post or a-millenial. They reject the future context for the book of Revelation, and they MUST DO or else they have to acknowledge that God will still use Israel in the future.

Funny how all of these things fit together.
They want to take the promises that God gave to Israel for themselves, so they have to twist their theology into a pretzel to find ways to make it fit.
But like a child with a lie, they quickly realise that their decision has consequences and so the child has to lie more and more to cover their first lie - so also these men have to change more and more of Scripture to make it fit their first wish to get God's blessings for themselves.

I shake my head at the arguments that they make up - yes make up - in order to "prove" their points.

I would laugh, but they deceive some and cause some to doubt, and lead many to destruction.

Has God cast aside Israel?

Has God cast aside Israel?

There is a whole raft of people out that that have been taught that Christians replace Israel as God’s chosen people. Those who teach this do so primarily so that they can apply the rules and laws pressed upon Israel onto Christians, and so that their teachers can take the authority and position of priests. Pastors are not priests (well at least not any more than any other saved person is a priest), but that is for another time.

This teaching, which takes several different forms and names, but which is called usually “replacement theology” or sometimes “covenant theology” seeks to divorce Israel from the Lord and have the Lord remarry another bride, Christianity. They usually talk about “the church” replacing Israel, but that is an erroneous understanding of the church.

The easiest way to see whether or not this idea is true is to see if the promises given to Israel are transferable to another. With that in mind, let’s look at the first of the promises made to the nation of Israel, before they wre

Let’s set a precedent:

Gen_9:16 And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.

The “law of first mention” (which is not actually a law by the way) indicates that the first mention of something sets the primary meaning, and unless the context indicates otherwise, this primary meaning is the standard.

In Genesis 9:16 we have the first mention of an “everlasting covenant”.

I think we all understand that this particular everlasting covenant is not dependent upon this sinful and sin affected world in any way.

If it were, then we would have had at least one judgement flood since that time.

So, with the understanding that an everlasting covenant is indeed everlasting – otherwise it is not an everlasting covenant (Is that too simple a concept?), let’s look at another everlasting covenant.

Gen 17:2 And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly.

Gen 17:3 And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying,

Gen 17:4 As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations.

Gen 17:5 Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.

Gen 17:6 And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.

Gen 17:7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for aneverlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.

Gen 17:8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.

Gen 17:9 And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.

Gen 17:10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.

Gen 17:11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

Gen 17:12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

Gen 17:13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

Gen 17:14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

OK then, here we have an everlasting covenant that is given to Abram and to his children (thy seed after thee).

The sign of this covenant on the side of the people was circumcision.

Note however that as this is an everlasting covenant to Abram and to his seed after him, that the covenant is made to this group of people – IF AN INDIVIDUAL person refuses to be circumcised, then he has no part of the covenant.

That does not break the covenant for all those people but for the individual only.

Note also that there is NO OTHER CONDITION placed upon the people subject to this covenant.

Note also that this everlasting covenant is to a specific people and for a specific LAND.

This can not be an everlasting covenant if the Lord then takes it away from this particular group of people and transfers it to any other group of people, and in any case the removal of this covenant can only be upon individuals and only if they refuse to be circumcised.

This brings up two points:

1. Do the Jews still circumcise?

If the answer to that is “Yes”, then the covenant has not been taken from them, and still applies. It will always apply to the nation in any case, as the removal was only possible for individuals – hence it can be removed from an individual and still remain an EVERLASTING covenant.

 Even with circumcision, can this covenant be transferred to another people?

2. The Bible does not talk about this covenant being transferable. The possibility is never even mentioned. And if it was, there is still no provision in the making of the covenant that it can be taken away from the original subjects of the covenant.

The claim that this promise was taken from them because of disobedience is CLEARLY UNBIBLICAL. Only one form of disobedience was relevant to this covenant, and that only applied on an individual level, not a national level.

The land is the physical land that they were standing on, and it was promised under an EVERLASTING COVENANT to the actual physical seed of Abram.

To somehow make it apply in a spiritual sense to Christians today is an outrageous abuse of Scripture and an attempt to deceive by false teaching.

 This should put to rest any idea that God has fully and finally forsaken His chosen nation. The concept of an Everlasting Covenant is certain an irrefutable, and it applies clearly to the Nation of Israel. To remove it from them is to break God’s Promise.

There is of course more to it that just this one covenant, but God has not, can not, and will not remove this covenant from the nation of Israel.

I may discuss the concept further in another post at a later time.