I’m really struggling to understand James White’s theories about how a Fundamentalist can possibly support textual criticism.
Especially after this was examined by believing Christianity over 100 years ago, and soundly condemned in Torrey’s five volume set “The fundamentals.”
Seemingly unrelated question – why does Logos give away for free Shakespeare with its Bible program?
Answer – it’s related. Logos gives away Shakespeare – but it’s not the common, accepted Shakespeare. It’s the volumes that have been edited or miscopied, where alternate endings substituted by others.
I know I’m losing you all. Trust me, I have a reason here.
The contention by the textual critics is, all the flawed versions of Shakespeare are valid. The edited ones, the ones with alternate endings or passages – they’re all right in the eyes of the Textual Critic. There’s no correct rendering of “Henry XIII”, but rather, different ones.
And in their eyes, there’s no difference between two conflicting versions of Shakespeare, and flawed or heretical versions of the Bible.
The first rule – NUMBER ONE! – is that “The Bible is to be treated like any other book.”
Shakespeare’s plays were written by a man. There’s no claim to inspiration or Inerrancy.
The Bible is written by God. It is perfect, inspired, inerrant, needing no correction, accurate and preserved.
If you don’t see the difference, you’re not saved.
So – how can James White in all consciousness support this? He claims to be a man of God. He claims to believe the Bible. He claims to be saved.
Does he believe the Bible is to be treated like any other book? you can’t believe that and be saved.
If you support textual criticism, you support that contention.