the Ankerberg show where modern version proponent lost his voice

Steven Avery

This has come up with Kent Hovind giving a summary of the events here:

More Big White Lies : James White Tries to Hide
Kent Hovind - March 15, 2016

Back in 2010, I listened to the videos, called Sam Gipp and discussed this on a contra thread. I am going to take from that thread (it is dormant and gives a virus alarm, although it never caused me a problem) to help with the issues.

Steven Avery

Fighting Fundamental Forum discussion from 2010 (you can find it by putting in any phrase, but it does give a virus alarm on my system) edited to stay on topic and avoid duplication, insults removed, stuff like that.

Color coded

Blue - my words
Ranson - contras
Green - quotes within the above


For those of you who have never heard this discussion, on Wednesday, the John Ankerberg Show and podcast started rerunning the audio of the discussion between Kenneth Barker, Don Wilkin, Dan Wallace, James White, Thomas Strouss, Sam Gipp, and Joseph Chambers about KJV-onlyism.


freesundayschool lessons
The one where KJVOs say that Barker was under a demonic spell on his vocal chords?


Actually, this is the condensed, edited version. The debate was a 4 hour length, but these 3 part segments really only have one hour total of dialogue. Ankerburg cuts 'em off too when they get going. It's unfortunate at times.


> The one where KJVOs say that Barker was under a demonic spell on his vocal chords?
Yes, it's the same session, though naturally the "demonic spell" was edited out. Texe Marrs' insane blabbering aside, the occasional frog in the throat is nothing unusual, so they just started over and removed the outtake from the final cut. The footage turned up a few years ago when Ankerberg digitized the programs and edited the outtake back in:

The "Lost" Wilkins Frog in the Throat Found!

Naturally, the KJV nuts have gone crazygonuts about this and started claiming he lost his voice twice, and Ankerberg is still hiding the most damning evidence. Bonus: James White with hair and huge glasses.


The infamous show where the translator lost his voice !!!!! Then he took a drink of water and all is good.


Steven Avery
That is definitely the way it appears in the edited version.


In the edited version the drink of water is cut out. It just shows him coughing and then cant speak. I've watched both. James White posted this on youtube and it was posted here some time ago I think. Since White has the original copies on VHS in his possession, which he showed to the camera. He has them, because well, he was there after all. No one lost their voice that day. It was a bad cough, nothing more. Saying that a translator lost his voice permanently that day is a flat out lie!!!!!


Steven Avery

Thank you for your insight, I was going (at work) by memory of the comparison I read of the edited and unedited being rather different, which I should have tried to find and reread to see if it mentions water actually being in one edition or the other or both.

If there is an essentially uncontested video of the actual event, unedited version, I would like to be pointed to it to watch. Reports tend to emphasize the perspective of the one reporting.

Here is the report, on the Ken Matteo and Av1611 sites.

Bible Scholar Loses Voice on the John Ankerberg TV Show

Shocker! Bible Scholar Loses Voice on the John Ankerberg TV Show

Without a mention of water either way.
Do you agree that Joseph Chambers said:

"The cameras should record exactly what happened here ?"

Here is the James White rebuttal of sorts, which confirms some of the essentials, while giving his perspective and emphasizing the water break (what I was going by, the differing reports). White does not deny the Chambers quote, or even the Wilkins:

"I... I've... lost... my voice!".

White is mostly involved in other issues with Texe Marrs. In fact, what happened must have been unusually severe, as James White himself was concerned:"

"I bet some KJV Only person will turn this into some story of divine intervention."

Even by his own account.
Dr. Wilkins he developed a frog in his throat, tried to cough it out, but was unsuccessful. As happens so often in taping television programs, we took a break, rolled the tape back, and started again. Dr. Wilkins drank a little water, and went right on with the second take.

And does someone actually claim (your lie !!!!!) that anyone lost their verse permanently that day ?
I've never heard of that claim. Or are you fabricating assertions to others in order to accuse.



The "actual event" is uncontested by anyone in the reality-based community. White has presented video footage. The KJV-only goofs have presented nothing. If they have better video, let them persent it. Meanwhile, no one but KJV-only goofs takes the deluded ravings of other KJV-only goofs seriously. Texe Marrs' sensationalistic rant is not a "report." He was not there.

> Do you agree that Joseph Chambers said:
"The cameras should record exactly what happened here ?"

Not until someone presents footage of him actually saying those words.

White gives a detailed recollection of what happened, and presents video footage of Don Wilkins' "lost voice." Sam Gipp gives a contradictory recollection of what happened, and then presents nothing in support. He then declares James White a "liar." Sam Gipp, of course, is no friend to factual accuracy.

> White does not deny the Chambers quote, or even the Wilkins:

He doesn't confirm them, either.

"I... I've... lost... my voice!".

The videotape of the non-"incident" denies this. This is Marrs' sensationalized version of what actually happened. He is trying to make Wilkins sound like he was palpably startled by a sudden inability to speak. In reality, Wilkins merely had a scratchy throat and was, at most, mildly embarrassed; he said "I've lost my voice," and chuckled (as did the rest of the panel), wet his whistle, and then continued to speak perfectly normally. Nothing happened to Don Wilkins that hasn't happened to everyone at some point or other.

> In fact, what happened must have been unusually severe, as James White himself was concerned:"
> "I bet some KJV Only person will turn this into some story of divine intervention."

No, you missed his point: it was't unusually severe, yet he said at the time that the KJV-onlyists would make a big deal out of it.As did Texe Marrs. As have many KJVers since then. And look, here you are! Guess he was right. No, but the issue is that Wilkins lost his voice at all, which many KJVers have blown way out of proportion.


Skipping post #23 (Ransom) and #26 (Steven Avery)


Steven Avery
If James White thought at the time that :
"nothing unusual happened."
Then why even take the time to speak a concern that what happened would appear unusual enough that folks would talk ? If "nothing unusual happened" -- James would not have said anything to his compatriot. Thus, unusual is confirmed. The only question is "how unusual". It definitely was unusual enough that in response to a question about losing of voice, at that very instant the person who planned to reply ... lost their voice .. and even said .. "I've lost my voice". And another was concerned that it could appear providential. Even the "sort of" rebuttal has acknowledged those facts.

And so far I tend to accept that Joseph Chambers spoke specifically that he would like the incident aired in full, although it would be interesting to see if he made a report after the fact.


James White .. some witless KJVO would actually attempt to claim that a non-KJVO debate participant's momentary "frog in the throat" was a Divine Judgement of "voice loss".


Steven Avery
If you study the videos, you will see that James White does not even relate directly to the section mentioned in the article where Wilkins speaks very awkwardly.
In the video set from Ankerberg, in response to the question from Ankerberg about losing of voice (going insane, dying prematurely) of modern version translators.
Kenneth Barker of the NIV first then Art Farstad of the NKJV give the expected answer from their own translation committees.
Then, in the tape, Don Wilkins of the NASV (Lockman Foundation) answers smugly, with a nervous chuckle and laughter in the studio:

Ankerberg (4:20 in Gipp) : Don, NASB, got anyone that's lost their voice, (Wilkins begins responding right here) gone insane, died prematurely.?

Wilkins (speaking over Ankerberg) -> "No, I've obviously not lost my voice. .. no, everybody I know is just fine."

Wilkins is not really answering the question directly, he is more concerned in explaining his problem, and this answer from Wilkins would make sense only if he had struggled to give his answer earlier (as per the first-person account) in a rather severe incident.

In 3 videos, James White never even discusses the section with the awkward answer of Wilkins. calciumboy (with an emphasis on the Wilkins answer and replays) and more completely Sam Gipp (the full section) show the edited version that was distributed. (Incidentally, looking this whole thing over, I do not agree with Sam Gipp accusing James White of lying, the issues are too complex with edited videos, flickers, and such, and the two aspects of the incident were easily confused.)

Here are the videos.

James White
The "Lost" Wilkins Frog in the Throat Found! (2/27/2008) - there may be one before this.
(section starts at 5:33 - 6:20
"we'll pick it up there when he gets his voice" - "we'll pick it up right there" & note the flickers, e.g. around 5:43..
Obvious question: did they tape over and "pick it up" without showing the full difficulty ?)

Sam Gipp, CalciumBoy, and the Ankerberg Incident (9/5/2008)
Sam Gipp Attacks! (1/12/2009)
(includes the previous one from White.. Wilkins is 15:50 in the video)

Sam Gipp
Sam Gipp on James White's "Frog Throat" video - 08/03/2008
Sam Gipp talks about "the lost voice" 2 04/02/2009
[ame=""]YouTube- Sam Gipp talks about "the lost voice" 2[/ame]
(full section 3:30 - 4:25)

Gipp would be at 4:20, with the very unusual answer of Wilkins as well as the quickness of his answer, speaking over the question of Ankerberg, as if he was prepared to explain to the audience the incident in the now-missing part.

A video techie might be able to look at other aspects of both sections, such as the pitch of Ankerberg's voice or the famous frame-by-frame analysis (the latter is not likely to help since the camera goes back and forth). If the incident from White was only a couple of minutes earlier, and edited and shortened by playing over, that could also explain the residual nervousness of Wilkins.

Ankerberg debate incident 01/14/2008
YouTube- Ankerberg debate incident (5:45)
Re: The "Lost" Wilkins Frog in the Throat Found! 05/06/2008

In the video from White he asserts the cough at the intro to the Gail Riplinger material is the exact incident - the only incident, White never shows the tape with the nervous talk-over-Ankerberg response by Wilkins, when discussing people who lost their voice.

Nor does White coherently discuss the anomalies in his own tape, the quotes above about "pick it up there" and the flicker. So that even if that is the incident, it looks and sounds like it had a lot of the gumption excised. There is an irony here, since on one hand White tries to give the impression that the tape is complete (exactly what happened) and backtrack not possible, yet on the other hand James White does acknowledge editing right in this very section:

"they cut out part of his (Wilkin's) answer" - 2:10 - 2:15 The Lost Wilkins Frog
"they had started farther into his answer"

So if anyone has confidence that the difficulties of Wilkin are shown in full on the tape, that seems very unlikely. We have the words within the residue section of excising, the first-person account of taping over, and the acknowledgment that this is an incomplete, edited section by James White.

The more specific claim is that the speaking difficulty was partly re-taped over, the tape was moved back, something that White claims would not have been feasible. (Sam Gipp Attacks 3:50 - 4:17) although what White says is clear as mud.

Actually this is key, since such an overwrite would lead to the quite sloppy final result shown by White (and then the whole section would tend to be omitted from the video sale version) -- while studio editing would be far more sanitized. Thus a key question is whether the equipment used did have backtrack capability. The audio clearly indicates at least two efforts to change the tape along the lines of: "we'll pick it up right there". Never discussed by White.

I looked at the three White videos on the topic, the two calciumboy videos and the two by Sam Gipp. James White avoided any discussion of the section that shows the nervousness and laughter in response to the Ankerberg question. ) With the context being the question from Ankerberg specifically about losing of voice and the unusual (even in the final version) response.

Now, is it conceivable that they were laughing (and in Wilkins case speaking nervously) about the other part of the tape shown by James White ? And that the other time earlier is why Wilkins spoke over Ankerberg ? Possibly.

Thinking this through a bit more.

Clearly the two sections are related, and it is possible that the first led to the awkwardness of the second. Yet unlikely if the James White section is complete, that would not explain the awkward Wilkins response later.

And there are many markers that it is not complete. That is why I give quotes from the White section, along with the notation of the flickering of apparent editing (backtrack). It looks to me like that section may well be the event, partially edited over, that led to the nervous response of Wilkins to the "lose their voice" question.


Steven Avery #39

Now, I have wondered lightly about this event for quite some time, as it pops up on forum discussions. So I took the time the other day to look at all the extant documentation.

Here is my summary:

1) Something unusual did happen. The Texe Marrs claim that it was providential cannot be conclusively demonstrated. Sam Gipp similarly does not make such a claim directly, although he clearly thinks it was very unusual.

2) You have to read and watch both sides to begin to get the fuller picture.

3) The tape of the frog event (which is at the beginning of the Gail Riplinger section) is likely incomplete timewise. An untaped part between the first take and the "second take" (White), meaning that there were at least two takes. What looks like 30 seconds in the tape would then be longer, like a minute or two. If this is the case there are three ways to reduce tape time:

a) stop and rollback
b) stop and wait
c) later editing

The comment attributed to Joseph Chambers strongly says (a) or (b). James White sort of says (a) was not doable with equipment in 1995. This is one interesting factual question, although (b) was doable either way.

A shocked John Ankerberg ordered the cameras to stop and back up, whereupon Dr. Joseph Chambers, a King James only advocate, politely protested. "The cameras should record exactly what happened here", Chambers insisted. - Texe Marrs report

Note that James White indicated that they were all prepped ahead of each session as to the questions coming forth. Thus they likely had been told about the voice question even before the Gail Riplinger session started, leading to a lot of the conflicting accounts as to the timing. And the extra shock when the very type of thing was happening. Texe Marrs gets a demerit for not having the full scenario timing right.

Any personal conclusion about the event would depend largely on this issue of timing. If the full timing was the 30 seconds shown on the extant tape by White, then it was not extremely unusual. If it was significantly longer than shown, then it is much more unusual.

The fact that Wilkins gave the response he did to the "voice" question later would tend to indicate that his problems were longer. Also the choppiness of the tape and the words we hear hear like
"we'll pick it up right here".

The argument against (c) is both the Joseph Chambers statement and the fact that a full editing would likely have taken out more, especially the Ankerberg words about "pick it up". For (a) and (b) you do not hear "stop the taping" but that could easily be a hand signal.

An interesting second research question would be simply to check with Chambers (especially) and any others as to the report.

Now some conclusions :

A) The James White presentation is extremely unreliable since he does not even discuss the markers that the tape was significantly shorter than the event. The direct report given, the minor markers like the choppiness, and most especially what we do hear :

"we'll pick it up there when he gets his voice"
"we'll pick it up right there" - (words heard on the extant tape)

Playing the tape and then glossing over, not even mentioning, such a direct indicator of shortening makes his presentation conclusions suspect. And the fact that James White himself commented to his neighbor about the providential concern is (despite the harumphs here) a strong marker that the timing was longer and the event quite unusual.

B) James White sort of makes a claim that the tape could not have been rolled back during the session (this could be researched with an audio-visual expert). (Overall, the difference between a stop and a stop and rollback is small.)

C) Sam Gipp errs in using the term liar (insinuation or direct) with James White on this, since White was showing what is left of the main event on tape, and Gipp implies otherwise. All three aspects probably happened within a few minutes.

1) Prepping about the questions, including the voice aspect (conjectured and likely)

2) The first question about Riplinger and the Wilkins frog in response.

3) The voice question with Wilkin's unusual response (after the Wilkins and Farsted responses) of nervous laughter and the room laughter, when, in response to a general historical question, Wilkin's answers first, strangely, to his own difficulties that had just occurred.

"No, I've obviously not lost my voice. .. no, everybody I know is just fine."
Laughter sounding like relief that Wilkins is with those in voice, showing that what happened was noticeable to such an extent that not only did White comment to his neighbor about potential perceived providentiality, everybody in the room had noted the event, markedly.

Sam Gipp and calciumboy get demerits for not parsing out the full issue. calciumboy gets a plus mark for showing the later question and laughter, but he should have directly related to the extant tape as well.

And for my wonderful critics who feel that this is to much effort, I want there to be at least one analysis available online for folks to look at that really looks at the extant documentation from all sides.

Tatermonkey #40
Sam Gipp Attacks!


Steven Avery #41
Wow. You did not even realize that I reported on three three James White videos above ? Post #35, seven videos in all. Amazing.
Tatermonkey, do you assert that the 30 seconds shown in the White video is the full time ? That there was no stopping of tape even though we specifically hear:

"we'll pick it up there when he gets his voice"
"we'll pick it up right there"


jbh28 #44
white shows the footage that was edited out. And, you don't stop the tape in a recording like that. It would be a nightmare to the editor if you kept starting and stopping the tape.


tatermonkey #45
The "30 seconds" shown is the time frame in question. ... What KJVO's claim to have happened, did not happen in the video as shown.


Steven Avery #46

Thank you for your opinion.
So you think that the requested action :

"we'll pick it up there when he gets his voice"
"we'll pick it up right there"

Did not occur at the time, and that the Joseph Chambers report that taping was interrupted did not occur (at least there was no interruption), and that any choppiness in the tape is usual and that the 30-second tape event was enough to cause the nervous laughter and awkward response of Wilkin's to the subsequent question.

Fair enough, thanks for your response, I really wanted to know anybodies opinion who has looked closely at the question, without assumption or presumption.

The good part of the situation now is that we have enough information to check a little more. I may go ahead and ask some of the principles. And yes, in such cases I try to bend over backwards to ask in a reasonably neutral tone.


jbh28 #48
I don't think anybody is denying that stuff got edited out. What white showed was the part that was edited out of the original video. White showed the raw footage.