James White was asked repeatedly in a debate with Peter Van Cleek a question
about whether or not there's any verse in the New Testament that isn't subject
to change based on new archaeological discoveries and I'll play the clip for
you in a moment so you can see exactly what I'm talking about and White
responds by claiming that it would be highly improbable basically for textual
criticism to ever yield any new evidence that would alter certain
portions of the New Testament that he thinks are settled now that was not an
actual answer to the question it was a diversion but even so what he said begs
the question how can anything in the Bible be settled according to modern
text criticism when the Nestle-Allen Greek New Testament is on its 28th
edition it kind of seems like they do want to alter the text of Scripture and
they have done it over and over and over again so it makes sense to ask the
question about whether or not so-called scholars would call into question any
verse in the Bible I mean we already know they want to chop out Mark chapter
16 verses 9 through 20 the woman taken in adultery 1st John 5 7 and other
passages the question is a valid one Van Cleek is not asking about the
probability of a new discovery being unearthed that could potentially change
any verse in Scripture he's essentially asking if hypothetically textual
critics could find evidence to change any verse in the Bible would you James
White accept that and if so is there any verse that is off limits
White can't answer a question like that honestly he says words and you'll see in
the clip he says a bunch of words as many false prophets do to distract from
the issue at hand while claiming that Van Cleek's question is asked and
answered he likes to say that asked and answered it's like is there any verse
you wouldn't be willing to change based on new manuscript discoveries and he
chooses to respond to that by basically saying well that just wouldn't happen
it's like okay that's not the question I realized that I didn't ask that see for
yourself how James White dances around this issue and refuses to simply answer
the question being presented to him by Peter Van Cleek why because he knows it
would make his position look really really bad the reality is there is no
verse that is off limits for these textual critics for people like James
White they would potentially change any verse it doesn't matter what he claims
it's obvious that based on new discoveries they would potentially
change any verse in the Bible watch how he dances around that issue in this
debate and doesn't just admit it because again he knows that it would make his
position look really really bad if he was honest about where it eventually
leads if there was evidence found about anything in any verse in the Bible if
there was sufficient old evidence papyri evidence from the second century is
there any verse that you would not change if we could find evidence for
that change the the theory the theoretical question being asked is
could we find a papyrus that contains say one chapter from Gospel of John that
would have new readings in it it's extremely unlikely that that would
happen because of the fact that we already have those very very early
papyrus manuscripts and they we know what the what the Gospel of John looked
like all the way up to possibly as early as 100 AD so would would we would we
love to have such new discoveries it would be it would be wonderful would
those in any way disrupt the message of the Gospel of John there is really no
reason to think that that could happen so again if we could find a second
century manuscript that changed the Gospel of John in some way that you
don't think it should be changed now would you be willing to change it asked
and answered I just answered that question okay so I suppose reality is
the reality is that there is an assumption a hidden assumption being
made that you could have a second century manuscript that has no copies
that have had nothing to do with the transmission of the text over time and
we have not yet encountered anything like that and so it is a it's it's a
theoretical question that's a fantasy it doesn't have anything really meaningful
to do with actually doing textual criticism so again it seems to me and
correct me if I'm wrong right tell me if I'm wrong that if we found evidence to
change a passage of Scripture for any verse in the New Testament you would be
willing not to say that you would but you would be willing to change any verse
in the New Testament based on the evidence again is that right again
you're wrong because you don't I'm with all due respect having read your book
about poking the bear I don't see that you've ever done textual criticism and
hence you are making up fantastic theoretical ideas that don't work in the
real world because we are talking about how a text has come down to us and it's
come down through multiple lines so you're talking about one line I'm
talking about multiple lines unless you can refute that it has come with the
multiple lines the rest of it really doesn't make any sense yeah so I guess
I'm just not gonna get my questions answered tonight so dr. Riddle asked you
this question before you gave a similar answer and so I guess I'm pressing you
on it again this is an opportunity someone who has a doctor's degree to
answer the question whether or not there's a single verse of the Bible that
you would not be willing to change if there were evidence to change it this is
a simple question that could be answered by someone with master's degrees 170
some mediated debates like I think that this could be something you could answer
so is that a yes or no out of respect for the audience asked and answered I
have already answered the question you are assuming things that are not in
evidence provide things are in evidence we can have meaningful conversation okay