The Moorman-White Debate today in London

So I watched the debate between Jack Moorman and James White and as with just about every debate I've ever heard I end up frustrated. I suppose it's a good thing for at least allowing the basic controversy to get an airing from time to time, but it produces a garbled version of the controversy overall. Truth really doesn't stand a chance in such a format.

Now I'd like to see a transcript of the debate so I can take it apart myself. I'd also like to see a list of all the controversial points that get raised on this subject, very briefly and succinctly stated so they can be ranked in order of importance and pondered at leisure. One problem is that there are too many issues and the attention paid them is not always in proportion to their importance -- although some attempt at controlling this problem was made here at times. 90 minutes is a very short time for dealing with even the most important questions, and side issues just waste time.

Partly what's frustrating is the role allowed to the audience, in studio as well as by email. Some of them raise some of the core issues, which of course can't be given the time they deserve, but the overall effect of audience participation is bedlam. Arguments from complete ignorance and confusion are allowed to take up part of the precious 90 minutes allotted for the entire debate. Very frustrating. Perhaps it's a good thing to get an impression of just how confused people are on this subject, but a very little goes a long long way.

Most books on the subject are frustrating in a similar way because they tend to focus on the writer's particular hobbyhorse and miss the big picture -- or at least miss other people's hobbyhorse issues.

Jack Moorman started out with some very good statements about why the KJV should be regarded as the standard English Bible. They were very good, but James White didn't address them. He preferred to change the subject to specific questions about the content of various verses and texts, of course seeming to challenge Moorman by implying faults in the KJV that would discredit his position. This is mind-rattling. I have no doubt he can be answered but it becomes nearly impossible to juggle the issues in one's mind when this is the method of operation.

It's good for James White to state that the most important thing we want to get at is what the original writers said. Who can disagree? On that point Pickering states that although of course the scholarly effort is always in that direction, we can never finally know exactly what they said in every case, all we have in the end is faith in God's preservation of His word to us, and that HAS to mean the previous English versions, not the 1881 overthrow. But not enough could get discussed in such a short time to compare the two sides.

Tired and frustrated.