Featured Sam Gipp vs. James White

Very interesting videos. I kept thinking Mr. Gipp might come up with a real argument, but it never happened. :sleep:

 

Right. I love the King James. I used it this morning. But I think all of those arguments employed by Gipp were bogus to the core.

I am not KJVO, btw- not by any means. I abhor the doctrine. But I do love the King James.

 

I especially like round three. The utter bull that these KJVOers come up with to support this madness is hilariously refuted in this round.

I think it is funny that Gipp says that it was in Egypt where the Trinity was denied and the, I mean THE, SINGLE GREATEST DEFENDER of the Trinity in history (second only to the Apostle Paul MAYBE) was Athanasias- WHO WAS FROM EGYPT!!!

That blesses me.

 

The Answer Book by Samuel C. Gipp
Why Luke would declare the ASV Bible a fraud.

QUESTION #10:
What does this statement mean? "The King James Bible was good enough for the Apostle Paul, so it's good enough for me."

ANSWER:
This statement is usually made in a sarcastic manner in order to embarrass Bible believers in their belief. The FACT is, the King James Bible WAS good enough for Paul. (See Question #11) But for now I'd like you to see that it was the only Bible that Luke would use.

http://samgipp.com/answerbook/?page=10.htm

Sam Gipp is a graduate of Ruckman's Bible institute, and a few years ago Sam Gipp's website contained an announcement that he had been awarded an honorary doctorate by Ruckman's Bible institute (http://www.ruckmanism.org/?q=node/15)

 

What's interesting is that Sam Gipp's book is what convinced me about this whole KJV Only issue. I was approached by a kjv only guy. I decided to study out the issue. When I read Sam Gipp's book, I was completely convinced that the kjv only position was terribly wrong. The biggest thing was the "facts" that were never backed up. After more study, I discovered that Sam Gipp was terribly wrong as I had figured.

 

I watched the first video and thought while watching it it was some kind of joke, waiting for something funny to happen, like there truly was a punch line coming that never came. From the very first moment I thought it was meant to be taken as comical.

I cannot believe that video is actually a serious apologetic for KJVOnlyists. Well, actually I can.

I've read Whites book on KJV Only, and only watched one of the other videos in the links given. Did he ever actually debate Gipp one on one in any of the videos?

Gipps argument is unbelievably weak but this is typical of KJVOnlyists apologetics though. Knowing how KJVOnlyists are, I could see them 'cheering' and 'amening' during Gipps video. His video had to be made for that end, as no thinker would believe his reasonings.

 

As I've mentiond before, I'm tired. I'm weary. Don't have many more days or years on this earth. I'm growing increasingly tired of what I see all around me today from "tolerate" becoming "condone" to professing Christians providing satan tons of ammunition to fire his guns.

I took the time this morning to listen to all 4 video sessions, as I'd already heard the one from Gibbs. Came away from them feeling even more weary over this "battle". More than once, this crossed my mind. Would White be as sarcastic and condesending if Jesus, visibly, had been standing beside the camerman, watching him? Did White come across as a humble teacher trying to bring the scriptures to his students?

I'm just a layman who has spent some time studing the issues addressed by these two men. I'm not an expert in anything. I have become knowledgeable enough to reject the extreme KJVO positions on many subjects under this umbrella. And, I agree with White in some of his closing arguments on the profit driven motives behind so many translations and revisions today. How many versions of the 23rd Psalm and Lord's Prayer do we need today?

Some of White's comments came across to me in the same way that some use scripture verses to "prove" their points that aren't actually proof at all, when taken in context. For example:

Matthew 7 Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
1 “Do not judge, so that you won’t be judged.

So many fail to read all of Matthew 7:1-5.

IMHO, White sometimes had a beam in his own eye while he judged the speck in Gibb's eye.

BTW, I'm not defending Gibbs, either. As, from what little I know, he made some slip ups, too. White was right to call Gibbs on his "originals" comment, for example.

I'm just tired of people calling each other liars and such when defending their positions on God's scriptures. I'm tired of "scholars" putting themselves on pedestals with THEIR expertise. I'm tired of ego instead of the Holy Spirit coming across in their rebuttals. I'm weary of hearing people on both sides of this issue degrading the glory of God in their human efforts to prove themselves to be correct.

Praise God that one day, when I'm called home, I'll learn from the Source, who's been lead by the Holy Spirit and who's let something or someone else have greater influence over them.

 

I am reading the book Invitation to the Septuagint by Moisés Silva and Karen H. Jobes. The book points out how translation issues were present then (about 300 B.C.-200A.D.). So what else is new under the sun.

Most likely men like Dr. Sam Gipp will help their movement to implode.

Dr. Sam Gipp is just another case of "repeat after me" theology. He merely repeats what he was taught.

 

I think it's Gipp. Dr. Samuel Gipp. The man has a PhD. He should be able to defend his views. He should not get into a debate with someone he can't contend with. James White is not some mean nasty guy.

But you are defending Gipp.

 

Gibbs

Someone say "Gibbs"?

 

Gipp was given an honorary doctorate.

I have had Mormons tell me I am right and continue on their same path. Deception runs deep with those who do not want to learn the truth.

 

On his website he identifies himself as Dr. Sam Gipp. This means he has a PhD. He is either a PhD or he is not a PhD. You tell me, which one?

 

Having "Dr." doesn't mean that one has a PhD.

 

it is like saying the Rev. Jesse Jackson, right? Didn't someone just give him that title, I don't think he is ordained is he? Or maybe I'm thinking of Sharpton?

 

Rev. Means they are ordained. Dr. means they have some type of doctorate. It could be honorary, as I believe Gipp's is. It could be a Phd(doctor of philosophy). It could be a Ed.D(doctor of education). It coudl be a D. Eng(doctor of engineering). There is also M.D. and D.V.M. and D.D.S.

 

You could, in secular society make an case for what you are trying to imply but in the context of believers in Christ where the highest of standards are expected there is no possible way to call yourself "Dr." and sell books and other media in the public, call yourself "Dr." and not actually be one and posess the knowledge that it implies.

You have avoided my question, is he a PhD or not a PhD, which I hope you know is generally someone who has a Doctorate in liberal arts field (Doctor of Philosophy).

 

You have already been told he does not have a PhD. And yes, in Christian circles its very popular to have a "Dr." and not have earned it. It's an honorary doctorate. Many times given to someone who has accomplished something really good, but has not taken the classes to earn the doctorate.

Yes, I know what PhD(along with other doctorate degrees) stands for as I noted above.

EDIT: According to his site, he has a Th.D, though it doesn't say where it's from.

 

It is obvious that you are fine with this, I'm not. My alma mater would give out honorary degrees to big money contributors. This does not allow them to publish materials or insist on being addressed with the title, and the recipients were not born again Christians. BTW, I have a brother who lives in Boyertown and I live in Carbon so I know what I'm talking about. This is a high control group of people. Attending Sunday services at his place with an NIV Study Bible is great loads of fun.