Back
COMING SOON: The Lyin' King (or David King and the Deformation Deception) In a recent article commentary on James White and his "dialogue" with a fictional Catholic apologist, I wrote the following:This one comment, which constituted less than 1% of the entire article, has become somewhat of an obsession over at Eric Svendsen's NTRMin web forum, and in the apologetics circles he runs in (no pun intended). Within days (hours?) of writing this article, David King posted his demands via the forum that I substantiate this claim and reveal my source. Svendsen went so far as to call me a "liar," pending revelation of my source's identity."I see you have not read Goode or Whitaker or Salmon or Webster and King" I said, smiling. "Yes, I surely am. But I think it better if we begin with the biblical issue first. You said the doctrine is unbiblical, correct?""Yes, it is unbiblical. But before we get into that, is that the same Webster and King whose historical research assistant recently converted to Catholicism and revealed that neither Webster nor King even know Latin? Well, that's another issue, I guess, so let's go back to the part about sola scriptura being unbiblical.... Having been sworn to secrecy regarding the name of my source, I refused to reveal anything, much in the same way that I refuse now to violate NTRMin's privacy policy, which prohibits me from cutting and pasting the actual words of David King regarding this issue into this article. Perhaps Mr. King would be willing to supply his posts to CAI, verbatim, in the interests of fairness? Probably not. For my refusal to violate my sworn silence, I was banned from Svendsen's forum, which, in all fairness to the boys at NTRMin, is probably better for them. After all, since I can't read or post in that forum, then I am unable to return there now and reveal what I'm about to reveal in a few days. But I digress. That very same day, I received an email from none other than James White himself, requesting documentation or some other form of evidence to substantiate my remark above. Having admitted to me that he had not even read the rest of my article, it seemed clear that White had also fallen prey to this same one-sentence-obsession that had consumed King and Svendsen. White even hinted ("threatened" is probably too strong of a word) that he was going to dedicate an upcoming episode of his radio program, The Dividing Line, to this very issue, supposedly to expose another in a long line of examples of Deceitful Catholic Apologetics. Again, I refused to reveal anything more than I was allowed to reveal. Which brings me to today, when my source finally agreed to do an interview regarding his involvement on the Webster/King project. Coming up, this Sunday evening, my source will tell all. And what a story it is. In the meantime, I offer you this little edited snippet of a conversation that I had with my source this morning, just to whet your appetite. Oh, and Mr. King? I think you owe me an apology.
J. Michael: You're a difficult man to get a hold of these days! Mr. X: I am always doing something unfortunately. J. Michael: I know what you mean. Can I ask a few preliminary questions now, to give our readers an idea of what's coming this Sunday? Mr. X: Sure can. J. Michael: Ok. Did you work directly with William Webster, or David King? Or both? Mr. X: I worked mostly though David King. I met with David King often. J. Michael: Interesting. He has denied having worked with any kind of a research assistant. Mr. X: Interesting... J. Michael: How extensive was your involvement, in your opinion? Mr. X: I would be given a list of books to find, I would find them, read certain areas, etc. I did some editing work. I also funded an extensive amount of this project too. J. Michael: How many hours would you say you put in per week? Mr. X: Twenty or more. J. Michael: For how many weeks/months? Mr. X: I'd say about 7 months. Actually, I would say I worked on the book for almost a year because I sent Scott Windsor, Steven Ray and a few others around 200 pages of quotes that I put together. J. Michael: Yet Mr. King denies having any assistance of this nature. Was your conversion to Catholicism somewhat related to your work on the project? Mr. X: After listening to what they were saying I started thinking... then listening to Scott Windsor on The Dividing Line and an Internet debate between he and Dr. White were a driving force. J. Michael: Any idea why Mr. King would be denying any assistance on your part? Mr. X: Maybe because he was the first person I told I was converting? J. Michael: Can you prove that you were, indeed, involved with this project? Mr. X: If you would like a copy of cashed checks that I sent William Webster and David King, I can send you the bank copies... I sent two $5,000 checks, and many other checks in the sum of several thousand dollars each. J. Michael: Can your work as a research assistant be substantiated? Mr. X: I have documents all over my hard drive, discussions in IRC where we discussed where we were placing what, etc. J. Michael: Very interesting... Mr. X: I probably sent about $18,000 to these two. I thought it was funny how King and Webster said Webster would be the primary source.... but after all was said and done with, Webster was quoted in a newsletter from Reformation Press as having paid every penny of the $26,000 out of his pocket. I also have receipts from Colgate Divinity where I did my daily research. J. Michael: Now, in the course of this research, King and Webster must have come across several patristic citations that refuted their thesis, correct? Mr. X: I remember a conference call in which King told Webster that the translations from Emroy university did not say what they wanted them to say, and Webster came back with, "use elipses and change a few words - if we are caught, we will blame it on Emroy University." J. Michael: I'm speechless. Mr. X: There were 3 other people on the line when he said that. J. Michael: Who were they? Mr. X: One has a radio show out of NY, his name escapes me at the moment... Dr. White was often on his show... J. Michael: Andy Andersen? Mr. X: Yes, that's the name. Mr. X: Mr. Pierce from Alpha and Omega was also on the line, as well as another person who was working on Webster's side. We were discussing promoting the book, etc. J. Michael: And what was A&O's involvement? Was James White in on the project? Mr. X: He wrote a forward, and threw a few quotes or thoughts in along the way, but not much else. This book was basically written in Internet chatrooms. J. Michael: Keep in mind that King denies having any research help, and he told me it was "impossible" that Webster might be using someone he didn't know about. So he denied having any help at all. Mr. X: No, King knew everything, and he also had help from Colin Smith, who did spell checking, grammar, and actually wrote a few arguments in the book. Smith also took out the "bad words." J. Michael: "Bad words"? Mr. X: Yes, we used that as a term... when there were words that didn't agree with what we said, we would either change them or take them out or add elipses. J. Michael: And those were the "bad words"? Mr. X: Yes. J. Michael: Before we wrap up, can you talk about King's use of Latin in this project? Mr. X: I can tell you he does not know Latin... J. Michael: Yes, he's admitted to that. Mr. X: He has said he reads and tries to figure it out with a Catholic Latin Missal. J. Michael: Are you saying he attempted a few translations himself? Mr. X: Yes, he did. The rest, he relied on Emroy University, and that is when Webster said "we will change what they say."
That's all for now. Stay tuned this Sunday for a full-length interview...
Jacob Michael |