White did not ignore Kinney's question. He answered it. Kinney (and you, apparently) just don't like the answer. Kinney's approach is logically identical (and similarly flawed) to the common question from Moslems, "Where in the Bible did Jesus claim to be God?" Just because there is no simple, direct answer doesn't mean there is no answer.
What do you think White said in reply to his question?
The first two paragraphs below are what Will Kinney said took place in the radio program.
"The first question I asked Mr. White was “Do you believe the Bible IS the inerrant words of God?”. Mr. White then clearly said that he does believe the Bible is the inerrant words of God. But when I asked Mr. White where I can get a copy of this inerrant Bible he says he believes in, that is when he starts his usual tap dance routine.
Instead of giving me the name of this inerrant Bible he says he believes in, he starts telling us about all he has written in his book - The KJV Only Controversy - and refers to “what God gave us when He gave us the Bible.” Please notice the past tense verbs Mr. White uses here. So where exactly IS this Bible that James Whites says IS the inerrant words of God?
Well, according to Mr. White’s point of view God’s “inerrant” words are scattered all over 5000 plus remaining Greek Manuscripts that contain thousands of variant readings and it is up to us to try to figure out which ones are the right ones.
In spite of the fact that modern versions like the NASB, RSV, NIV, ESV omit some 3000 words from the New Testament text of the King James Bible, and either substitute or add another 1000 words, James tells us on page 48 of his book: "their text is NEARLY IDENTICAL to even the most Byzantine manuscript...ONE of those variant readings is indeed the original. We are called to invest our energies in discovering which one it is."
In other words, if James White is saying that the Infallible words of God exist somewhere amongst a sea of different manuscripts that conflict with each other and one says this in the present tense, then he is misleading others about something that nobody can actually find. It would be sending folks on some wild goose chase.
At another point in time: James White states,
“Codex Sinaiticus is not nearly as bad as its enemies would say…It is not infallible, nor is it demonic. It is instead a great treasure…for all time a tremendously valuable asset to our knowledge of the New Testament text. Those who say it is “corrupt” normally mean it is different in places than the traditional text that underlies the KJV. Others accuse it of being so full of errors as to be almost useless. There are indeed many corrections in the text of Aleph, but…A handwritten text that is used for 1,500 years is going to collect a few corrections along the way!”
Again, Will Kinney states:
"So when Mr. White tells us that he believes “The Bible IS the inerrant words of God” he is not referring to any specific Book in print at all. In fact, he can’t tell you where to find this hypothetical inerrant Bible he says he believes in.
If words have any real meaning at all, then James White is lying when he says he believes the Bible IS the inerrant words of God. He has no such Bible in print to give to anyone and can’t tell you where to find it.
So basically White is saying that all his chosen little needles amongst thousands of haystacks is what makes up the infallible Words of God. If this was the case, then why doesn't James print his own Bible, and name it, "the James White Version" and claim it is the infallible and inerrant words of God? This is what is silly about his position, and every other Textual Critic in the universe.
