March 14, 2006

The desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona, this is

The Dividing Line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us, yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence.

Our host is Dr. James White, director of Alpha Omega Ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church.

This is a live program and we invite your participation. If you'd like to talk with Dr. White, call now at 602 -973 -4602 or toll free across the

United States. It's 1 -877 -753 -3341. And now with today's topic, here is

James White. Hey, good morning. Welcome to The Dividing Line, back from Auburn, Alabama.

I think that's the first time I've ever been to Alabama. Nice place, nice place, nice Walmart. That was quite the experience.

It's good to be down there and great to meet with the saints down there. But immediately as soon as I got back, all sorts of interesting stuff on the web.

If you have looked at the blog, you know that there is the Debunking Christianity blog site and I have made some comments concerning various things that have been posted there.

And then the Puritan board, which I went ahead and logged onto this morning so I can leave some notes there.

And the conversation has sort of been a roller coaster there. It started off not overly good. You know, you've got some folks and pretty nasty and that's fairly normal.

As I travel around, I talk with folks. They say, who's the nastiest to you personally in the groups that you work with?

Is it the Muslims, the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, the Oneness Pentecostals, Roman Catholics?

You know, who is it? And I say, well, you know, you've got a spectrum in each one. You've got some pretty nasty

Roman Catholics, Art Sippo comes to mind, for example. And you've got some nasty

Mormons, but you've got some nice Mormons, too. You've got some nice Roman Catholics and so on and so forth. But consistently, the nastiest people are people who defend the

King James Version of the Bible. It's just my experience. People ask me, what's your experience been as far as the nastiest people to you?

And I'm just answering the question honestly. The nastiest people, the people who call my integrity into question, my honesty into question, my education into question, my brains into question, my spirituality, my

Christianity. It's always people who use the King James Version of the Bible and say everybody else should, too, or at least there's all sorts of spectrums.

And I, you know, in 1995, I actually wrote it in 1994, into 1995,

I wrote a book and I went through the various types of folks and you have TR -only folks and you've got King James -only folks and you've got

TR -preferred people and they all take different perspectives. But the fact of the matter is, when you dig right down to it, a lot of these folks simply do not wish in any way, shape, or form to allow for the possibility that there are better translations and, in fact, better versions than the

King James Version of the Bible. So anyway, I made some comments about the

Kamiohonium and I made the statement that in my thinking, as I'm looking at people who disagree with my viewpoint on textual critical issues,

I can look at people who support Byzantine priority and I disagree, but they are rational individuals who are examining the facts and they share with me a commitment that is,

I want to know what was written originally. I don't want to insert my tradition in the place of what was written under the inspiration of the

Holy Spirit of God. I want to know what John wrote. I want to know what Luke wrote.

I am not nearly as concerned about what a scribe a thousand years or twelve hundred years or fifteen hundred years later thought.

I am not nearly as concerned about what a translator thought. I'm not nearly as concerned about what a theologian thought.

Many generations, centuries, or even a millennia removed from the actual writing of Scripture.

And I can look at those individuals and I can say, OK, you know, we disagree. We can talk about it or not or whatever, but I can understand that.

I can accept that. I draw the line at the Kamiohonium. Now, for those who haven't been reading the blog,

Kamiohonium, 1 John 5, 7, the King James Version of the Bible. There are three that bear witness, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit in these three are one.

That text is a later edition. If it is not a later edition, we have no idea what the

New Testament originally read. None. Can't defend it. Can't look anybody in the eye and say, well, actually, you know, without basically embracing the idea that God re -inspired the

Bible in the days of Erasmus or the King James translators, that's the only way.

You have to abandon all historical defense of the text if you're going to say it's original.

You just have to abandon it. And that's what I said. I said, look, once you start trying to defend that, the only reason you're defending that is your tradition.

That's the only reason. You have a tradition, you have a theological position, and it may come from all sorts of perspectives, but it's your tradition.

Don't try to say it's not. It's your tradition. That's what you're defending. And in essence, you are making that the standard for what the scriptures should read.

Now, of course, that causes a major problem. If you believe in sola scriptura, you can't do that. You can't make your tradition the standard of what the scriptures should read.

The scriptures have to be able to be the standard by which your tradition is based. And so I made that statement and it kicked off an entire discussion on the

Puritan board. And like I said, initially there were some commentaries by, for example, a friend of Ted Liedis.

And if anybody wants to read the Ted Liedis story, or at least how it started, go to the

King James Only page on our website and read away. It's huge. Even Greg Bonson was involved with that one.

That was so long ago. And that file there is something Ted Liedis even asked me to remove at one point, not because he changed his viewpoint at all, and not because he was willing to apologize for anything he said either.

So anyway, you can go read it for yourself. You know, it took place in public. It's not something that was done behind closed doors or anything like that.

You can read it for yourself. And one of Ted Liedis' friends, followers, had some things to say.

But then, like I said, it was a roller coaster. It started getting better. And the conversation started to improve.

And I've been interacting with it because everybody has been, in essence, saying, you know,

I'm enjoying that series on the Kami Ohanian. It's reminding me of some stuff that I read in the book and I've read in other books, but I've forgotten about it.

And it's sort of shedding some light on some of the things you've been saying in regards to Shabir Ali and the comments he makes about the transmission of the text of scripture and, of course,

Bart Ehrman. And we've been listening to that stuff. It fits in with all of that stuff. And some of them might say, yeah, but these folks are

Calvinists. Yeah, I've known for a long time that there are reformed churches that will not have me in the back door or the front door or a side door because I dared write the book on the

King James Only Controversy. There are Calvinists who just, you know, despite the fact that I take on Norman Geisser and Dave Hunt and all the rest of these people, doesn't matter.

You're using the wrong text. And that's how committed they are to that. I've known that for a long time. Nothing I can do about that because, folks, if you're going to be an apologist, you have to be consistent.

And I'm applying the exact same standards in this field that I do in any other field. And I've got to I've got to be true to what

I understand the truth to be and to be consistent in those areas. And so, yeah, I've known that I've known that all along. And so people have found this conversation to be good.

And so we're talking with with Calvinists about this. And I'm being consistent. If I'm going to say, Bart Ehrman, you're wrong here, here and here.

You're overblowing it here. You're imbalanced here. How can I not do this? This is the thing that, you know, people say such a mean

Calvinist because he takes on Christians. In other words, because I refute Dave Hunt or I point out years ago that the

Godmakers 2 film was bad, you know, and I dare to say that certain evangelicals are wrong about their saying, oh, you're you you're terrible.

I mean, no, I'm being consistent. If I'm going to point at a Mormon and say you're wrong to do this and an evangelical over here is doing the exact same thing.

He's playing fast and loose with the facts. I've got to be consistent, folks. That's just all there is to it.

And if you're not consistent, then you're not honoring the truth. That's all there is to that, too. That's that's just the way it is.

So anyway, it started to get better. And I was just buying some stuff last night. And then a fellow by the name of Michael Dries, I'm assuming that's his last name is

D -R -I -E -S could be Dries, I suppose, with certain foreign pronunciations from Folsom, California, has started to really jump in big time.

And I have invited him to call 877 -753 -3341. I think if if I were to post something on the

Puritan board and say such and such a leader, such and such an elder in the church is misleading people, likening them, saying saying the things

I'm going to be writing, I'm going to be quoting here. If I quoted those things and that person said, I challenge you to back up what you're saying,

I would have no choice but to do so. I mean, I might not be available immediately like that.

And I might have to say, well, tell you what, is there another time we could do so? I can fit it in my schedule, et cetera, et cetera. But if someone if I was in Michael's position and I had said the things about me that he said about me,

I I would have no choice. It would just be a simple matter of integrity that I would have to back up what

I was saying. That's that's all there is to it. I don't know if that's going to happen from what's been posted just this morning on the board.

I don't know if that's going to happen, but the invitations open, the phone lines are open and available. And I have well over 20 years of documented evidence of my ability to interact fairly with callers on this program.

And no one can say otherwise without providing evidence. And and I've not seen any evidence offered.

Now, the first thing that struck my mind is, is as Michael began commenting, he was asking, how are

Ruckman and Ripplinger heretics? Evidently, he doesn't have a copy of one of Ruckman's books that Peter Ruckman sent to me.

It's a book on promoting racism with all sorts of Ruckman's own drawn pictures of black people as monkeys and things like that.

And it's extremely racist. And in the front of it, it's he even scrawled in his own signature. Here's some more evidence of my heresy.

Jimmy was a Jimmy boy. I'd have to reach up there and track it down and look at it. Forget what it was. But there's another one of his very dismissive things.

If you've read, seen the scans, for example, the letters that I had sent to him a number of years ago, back in the 90s and seen the way that he responds, so on and so forth.

To it's fairly obvious, but especially the issue about Ripplinger, you know, someone took the time later on to provide, for example, her acrostic algebra.

I wanted to play a portion of my one time that Gail Ripplinger actually exposed herself to cross -examination.

She never, ever did it again. She now now is sends you the questions you can ask her.

It has to be very scripted. She will never expose herself to being torn apart the way that she was by simple, logical questioning.

When I, quote unquote, debated her in 1994 and she just she fell apart.

She just just collapsed. She could not answer meaningful questions. It was clear she was extremely ignorant of background issues, didn't understand anything about theology.

And what I want to do is play the section where I asked her about acrostic algebra, where she said that, you know, when

I asked her, she had inconsistently used the name of the

New American Standard Bible. She had called it the NESV and the NESB. But the only way she could make her acrostic algebra, where you take the

NIV and NESV and add them together and you subtract out the AV and ends up with sin. And this is a proof that they're evil.

And she had to use the V instead of the NESB. And. When I asked her, well, why throughout the entire book did you use

NESB, but in this one place use NESV? Well, that's what the Lord calls it. That's what the

Lord calls it. I mean, she just I mean, she claimed direct divine revelation, you know.

I mean, this is the kind of stuff and to find Calvinist. I mean, she identifies the five points of Calvinist as a satanic pentagram and and the satanic hiss of the

S. And it's just to find divine reform folks that don't just run screaming for the hills at that kind of stuff really does make me chuckle a little bit.

But I did want to I haven't played this particular clip in a long, long time. And so I did dig it up because I knew

I had it. I'd had it on my hard drive someplace. So for for just to help

Michael Dries understand where Gail Riplinger is coming from, I would like you to hear this from Southwest Radio Bible School, I think is what it's called.

This is listen to what the guy asks her and then listen to her response.

Here is Gail Riplinger. Well, now, one of the things that I guess some of our listeners have been wondering about,

Gail, is when did the new versions first appear in America? Are these brand new things that just came about in the last 20 or 30 years?

Well, you know, the Titanic traveled to America from England in 1912. This was the same year as the corrupt

American standard version. And coincidentally, it was a man named Murdoch who threw the famous Titanic in the reverse, causing it to sink.

The scientists have just discovered that, of course, it wasn't a big gasp, but as previously thought, it sunk the

Titanic with six small flips. And today's NIV has sent out 64 ,000 words and 16 verses.

Now, back in 1912, the New American Standard Bible had Timothy Dwight of the Infamous Skull and Bones Society as a committee member.

I have an educated guess about why the Titanic sunk and why the NIV will eventually sink in the lake of fire.

The Titanic was from something called the White Star Line, owned by J .P. Morgan. And the term

White Star is a codename for Lucifer. If someone needs to document this, they could at least look at Matthew Winstrap by Paul Henson.

It includes a prayer to Lucifer, which states, Thou of the unholy trinity, help us, whose star is white, blot out the red stars.

Now, they are praying that Lucifer will take the place of our precious, blissing savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.

You remember, Lucifer himself said in Isaiah 14, I will be like the most high.

Now, back at the turn of the century, Madame Blavatsky in her newspaper, Lucifer, said on its cover, quote,

I, Jesus, am the bright and morning star, Lucifer. She was saying that Jesus and Lucifer were the same person.

Of course, this isn't true. But her followers in the transactions of the First Annual Congress of the

Theosophical Society way back at the turn of the century said, quote, I believe it is through the churches and not through the

Theosophical Society that theosophy must and should come to large bodies of people in the

West. The work of destructive criticism has paved the way, sweeping away certain passages which grate on the ears.

The phrase washed in the blood is one. Now, the phrase washed in the blood has been taken out of the

American Standard Version, and it's still out in Colossians 114 and out 40 times in the

NIV and 23 times in the New King James Bible. There's a principle in social psychology called cognitive dissonance and change in attitude.

They recommend bringing the person into initial exposure to a message which is only slightly different from the receiver's beliefs.

This is exactly what they've done with the Bible version. They get progressively worse. Now, in the NIV today, we have exactly what

Madame Blavatsky's newspaper said. We have Jesus Christ as Lucifer in Isaiah 14, 12.

The King James correctly translates Isaiah 14, 12. The Colossians are fallen from heaven,

O Lucifer, son of the morning. Lucifer is the fallen angel. Jesus Christ is never fallen.

He is the son of God. God manifests in the flesh. However, the NIV says in Isaiah 14, 12,

Colossians fallen from heaven, morning star. So they're saying that the star and Lucifer are the same thing.

Now, in 2 Peter 1, 19, the NIV also calls Jesus Christ the morning star, says the day star.

But for centuries, way back to the turn of the century, once again, the Catholic Latin Vulgate said in Latin, Lucifer, or Iator, in 2

Peter 1, 19. Etcetera, etcetera. It goes on and on and on and on.

If you didn't catch it, the six small slits and 64 ,000 and 616 was supposed to add up to 666.

She didn't go ahead and bring that out real well, but maybe because she was reading it and it would have been bold or something in the reading.

I don't know. But that's that's Gail Ripplinger. And what can you say?

I just I just remind folks that many, many moons ago, over a decade ago now, every time that I wrote something about Gail Ripplinger in the

King James only controversy, I sent it to her and asked for her response and interaction so that I would accurately represent her.

Eventually, what she started to do is she would turn off her fax machine as soon as she saw it was for me. So I couldn't send that to her.

But she did write to Bethany House publisher numerous publishers numerous times and threatened to sue if they published the book.

Yeah, that's that's the kind of dialogue you get from these folks. I try to give her every opportunity of correcting any misapprehensions

I have, anything else. And that's kind of response you get. And has she been invited to debate the issue publicly many, many, many, many, many times?

Yes, of course. Along with Peter Ruckman and D .A. Waite and others. Will they do so? No, of course not.

So there's there's Gail Ripplinger. I and B to B to B.

It's always very interesting to listen to that one. So anyways, there's a little information about about good old

Gail. Now, here, then, Mr.

Dries, in responding to that, says she's not a Calvinist, but she's hardly Roman Catholic. Actually, she's. How you even describe her theology, she

I wish, again, I could play the encounter that we had because she didn't understand the relationship of the spirit to the doctrine of the

Trinity. She has Trinitarian issues. I mean, Mr. Dries, you just need to be careful about Gail Ripplinger.

She's way out there anyways. Then he says, you say she believes the

Greek manuscripts are corrected by 1611, but really what she believes in the role of the Holy Spirit in giving us the word of God. Sir, no, you don't want this gal.

You really don't. She's she's way out there and she sees the Great Reformation translations as that word of God.

I do, too. Now I stop and say, well, which ones? And what about the differences between them and how do we determine the differences between them?

And what do you do with the fact that that the King James draws heavily from the works of Desiderius Erasmus, who is a

Roman Catholic priest who believed in the doctrine of transubstantiation? Now, I say you just look at his work and you go on from there.

But later on, you're going to attack me and Westcott and Hort and the next paragraph. And if you don't like Westcott and Hort because of elements, their theology, then you should really, really, really not like Erasmus.

And it's this level of constant inconsistency. Inability to apply the same standards to your position, you apply to somebody else is that to me should make this whole perspective reprehensible to reformed people.

It really should. If we're being consistent, isn't that what we keep telling people when we talk to people and we take them to John six and we take them to John eight and we take them to John 10 and we take them to Romans chapter nine and we go to Ephesians chapter one and they start using hermeneutical methodologies that are meant to protect their free will ism.

Don't we stop them and say, wait, you have to be consistent. You can't use one set of hermeneutics to demonstrate the deity of Christ and then a completely different set of hermeneutics to try to sneak free will ism into John six forty four.

That's what we tell them. Well, if we're going to be consistent, then we have to live in light of what we tell other people to do.

And so when you use one standard to defend the TR or one standard to defend the

King James and a completely different standard for everybody else, I'm sorry, but you're convicting yourself of utter and gross inconsistency and you are wrong.

That's all there is to it. And if you think otherwise, eight, seven, seven, seven, five, three, three, three, four, one is the number.

He goes, when I hear a James White talking down to me like I'm some confused child, I've never done that.

I am saying that you're a person holding to tradition and you're doing so inconsistently. I will say that right off the bat, you're you're you're holding to tradition.

There it is. Let's discuss it. Telling me he and other scholars know better. That's checking the phone lines are all working.

I am telling me that he and other scholars know better and that all the deletions and changes in the better newly discovered manuscripts are actually

God's word. And again, changes, deletions makes what the standard. These, quote, unquote, newly discovered manuscripts only increase our confidence in the text of the

New Testament and increase our confidence in God's preservation of the text over time, not the other way around, only by using your traditions as your standards.

Can you come up with this kind of language are actually God's word. All this Christian can do is grin and try to set them straight, which doesn't get very far and then just leave them be.

Well, I haven't seen anything, honestly, sir, that would even be considered God's word to begin to, quote, unquote, set me straight. All I'm seeing is your traditions, which

I've addressed years ago, and I'm not seeing any responses to those things. He says the sophistry of the white side of these issues betrays them.

Sophistry, I guess that's what I'm doing when you ask for consistency. That's sophistry. When you just use your traditions.

Evidently, that's just clear teaching their worldly motives do as well. Oh, yeah, I got worldly motives.

Yeah, this is I always only choose to address those issues that are going to make me popular and get me into the most doors.

Yeah, yep, yep, yep, yep, yep. That's where, again, why do people do that? I don't know what his motivations are other than he holds to a tradition.

He may be a wonderful, nice fellow, but why start the ad hominem? Why start going after me as a person?

I understand that. Why? Where does that come from? I've referred to these people as my brothers. And as far as I can tell, the man claims to believe in the

Lord Jesus Christ. So he's my brother. I have to treat him that way. I can say he's wrong and I can I can I can remonstrate with him as a brother.

But but why start this motive stuff? I'm sorry, but I believe the Holy Spirit has given us God's word, sir.

So do I. And I don't see him working through Westcott and Hort and their followers. Well, first of all, I don't use

Westcott and Hort text. So if you're talking to someone who does, you go ahead and talk to them about that. That's OK. I don't. And anyone who is so confused that they think that the

Nessie Olin text is Westcott and Hort text again has only been reading one side of the story. And I hope you'll read the rest of it and come to proper conclusions.

But if you're actually making the argument that, well, Westcott and Hort, that means all modern translators and all modern textual critics and stuff just are, quote unquote, somehow infected by these guys and their theology.

Why aren't you infected by Erasmus and his theology? Do you believe and do you accept his treatise in defense of transplantation, the mass?

Yes or no. If no, then you should put your head up and say, you know what, that argument's bad.

I abandon it. If yes, then we got a problem. I also don't think that once God's elect challenged and defeated the darkness and bonded to the

Roman beast, that it took the Holy Spirit 300 plus years to give the actual true word of God to Christians. And of course, no one does believe that.

I don't believe that. It's a misrepresentation of me, a gross misrepresentation of me to say that I do.

No one has stood up to Rome any more firmly than I have. But the fact of the matter is to think that somehow the reformers got together and they made all these textual decisions.

Given all the information is simply untrue. It's untrue.

You can't, you're just assuming that it's, it's a, it's a, it's a very common assumption. But it's, it's simply untrue.

And the fact of the matter is, if you would take the time to read how Erasmus came up with the readings that are a part of your

TR, he used the methodologies that we use. He just did not have access to the information that we have.

And if he had, the TR would read differently. That's a fact of history. You have to deal with it. And if your theology gets in the way of dealing with the facts of history, then your theology has missed the boat someplace.

Your theology starts to remind me of the Mormons trying to deal with the Book of Mormon and trying to fit the

Book of Mormon into the, into history. So where the, the, the range of the, the geography of the Book of Mormon gets smaller and smaller and smaller and smaller and smaller.

So you don't have to deal with the facts of history. Sorry, but that's the fact. That's what it is.

That's why you can't find folks who would actually take the time to, you know, interact with this kind of stuff in a meaningful fashion.

And when they do, then they obviously take a different position than, than other people do.

And so he continued on. He says, then here's, here's a big one. For White's sophistry, look at Douglas D.

Stouffer's one book stands alone. White usually rebuts any criticism, but he seems to have remained silent regarding Stouffer's book.

A search of his website anyway, a couple of months ago, came up with nothing. Never heard the book, sir. Never heard of it. It was written six years after I wrote mine.

And if you're saying that it does what all that stuff that I refuted in my book doesn't do, then great.

I ordered it this morning. Be glad to look at it. Be glad to. If he corrects me on factual issues, I'll say, great, correct it on factual issues.

But looking at the reviews didn't encourage me a whole lot because, for example, there's three chapters attacking the

New King James Version of the Bible. And something tells me there's not going to be anything in here.

And if there is stuff in here demonstrating how far off I am, why is it that you don't post it?

I don't I don't see that. Why not just give the examples where I'm factually wrong and where my arguments are inconsistent?

That's what I'd like to see. He continues on as to worldly motives. When you're on a translation committee for a modern version, you are a bit compromised when giving opinions on the general subject of the manuscripts and the authorized version.

First of all, I started to work for Lockman Foundation after I wrote the King James Version only controversies. So that doesn't exactly fit there.

And secondly, why? Why? Unless I mean, the authorized the translators of the

King James Version, the translators of the King James Version, if you'll read their introduction to the readers used the same kind of textual critical methodology that modern scholars use.

So why couldn't someone who's worked on one of those that is in line with the King James translators speak to the subject of the manuscripts and the authorized version?

What inherently precludes a fair reading? Is this actually the assertion that you have to be

King James only to address the King James in a fair way? But the translators weren't

King James only. So the translators wouldn't be able to address their own translation. It's an interesting way of putting it.

He also falls into the worldly trap of fearing the faith will sound foolish to the ears of the world. Now, folks, anyone who has a scintilla of knowledge of what

I do and the directions I take and the fact that I am uncompromising and presenting a reformed apologetic against Mormonism and all the others knows that that is simply ridiculous.

Absolutely ridiculous. And what example does it get? I .e. instead of defending the role of the Holy Spirit and having brought the word of God to Christians, which, by the way,

I believe if he had read my book, I have a whole section on this. I believe the

Holy Spirit has brought us the word of God. I preach that all the time. It's the method, sir.

The method. I don't think he did it through Erasmus. I don't think he did it through one particular geographical areas text type.

OK, I've explained over and over again, the word of God immediately goes out to all sorts of people.

Manuscripts are produced by non -professionals and they go everywhere. I've told the story of my seeing manuscript

P72 up in Denver and the handwriting style of this probably a business person or a trader who copied that off.

And he didn't have the best handwriting in the world, but he loved the word of God. He wanted to have that in his church and his fellowship.

And because those manuscripts went out all over the place, there was never ever a time when the kind of editing that rabid leftist liberalism,

Islam and others say took place in regards to the New Testament could ever have happened. That's how it was protected.

That's how it was preserved. You can prove that you can demonstrate that all these people come along and say, well, reincarnation was taken out of the resurrection is put in.

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. That all of that is completely false. the

Holy Spirit did that I believe in the supernatural preservation of the text of the scriptures

I believe God has spoken and that we can know that today and if you've listened to anything that I've said in response to Bart Ehrman or to the

Muslims or the Mormons or anything else you would know that I just don't believe he did it the way you did and when we debate it you can't do anything but spin in circles all right that's the problem so he says instead of defending the role of Holy Spirit and having brought the

Word of God to Christians he states there's no way you can defend that against Muslims and other non -christians just give them the truth give them the

Word of God you can plant a seed only God can make it grow you can't argue a person into belief especially if you are using worldly philosophy or worldly scholarship in fear of sounding foolish

God's wisdom is foolishness the world give people the Word of God well that sounds so wonderful but I would love to get mr.

dries into a conversation with Shabir Ali in front of a group what are you gonna do are you just gonna sit there and say well okay you say that you say my text has been corrupted but I'm not gonna argue with you about that I you present what you think is evidence but I'm not good the

Holy Spirit has given us the Word of God and that's just all we need to do we don't I'm not gonna respond to that yes there are responses that thing and well actually and you are consistent but I'm not gonna argue that kind of stuff is that how you do apologetics is that how

Apollos greatly helped those who had believed by faith by grace in Acts 18 as he just stood there doing that kind of argumentation arguing in circles this kind of stuff only works inside the little enclave that we create for ourselves it does it can't walk outside those walls and that's wrong folks the

Reformed faith is the faith that can give the answers to the world and I'm not satisfied to sit inside our little walls and claim in some way shape or form that well you know if you just if you just you know if you just had our insights you'd understand but we're not gonna argue about it please it's it

I hope everybody can see just how utterly denigrating to the actual process of preservation that that actually is it's terrible just just unbelievable be going to the phone calls here just a second where did page two go there it is page two because it continued on with some more discussions of Ruckman and Ripplinger and someone kindly posted

Ripplinger's acrostic algebra and then we have more about this quote -unquote internal evidence which

I've fully addressed and no one wants to get around to addressing what I've said in regards to internal evidence alleged internal evidence it says that that doesn't address this is a quotation from AT Robertson but that doesn't address internal evidence nor does it have a clue about the role the

Holy Spirit preserving the Word of God let me see you mr. Robertson mr. white mr. Westcott and Horton cetera cetera or the

Holy Spirit hmm I'll go with the Holy Spirit I'd be very careful sir about connecting your circular traditions with the

Holy Spirit and claiming they're the same thing that's that's scary to me that's that that's very scary

I also appreciate working in atheist fashion looking for breaches in the wall of doctrines such as the

Holy Spirit's role in preserving the Word of God in a manner to tell me that I that if one thing can be said to be false then it's all false

I have no idea what that is I have no idea what that is I believe in the Holy Spirit's role in preserving the

Word of God evidently that that doesn't get communicable I'm a believer in a fool for God the wisdom this world will always be against the wisdom of God I believe such is that the

Holy Spirit shepherds and protects the Word of God and preserves it for God's like this foolishness to the world but to me it's not foolishness call me a fool it's not foolishness to me either sir that's not the question you're not even in the debate at this point you don't even know what the debate is if you think that's relevant to what's actually being said by anyone anyone at all then finally someone had linked to a omen org slash nab vr dot html nab

VR is in capitalized it's New Age Bible versions refuted that's my big long thing actually a booklet we ended up printing demonstrating all the silliness not all just a very small portion actually the silliness and New Age Bible versions and mr.

drys require responds to that quoting a white's website on the subject of a person who champions the received text is like quoting an atheist on the subject of the resurrection and that's what

I mentioned my blog likening mean and he has now put up two or three posts arguing that saying that he was likening me to a atheist was wrong well let me read again quoting a white's website on the subject of a person who champions received taxes like quoting an atheist in the subject of resurrection okay if received text is likened to resurrection then

I am likened to what it's a simple logic here someone's just gotten caught you know taking a rather personal shot and now doesn't want to admit it and could very well call in to demonstrate at eight seven seven seven five three three four one what he was actually saying but in other words what he's saying is

I don't there is a there is a there's something about me individually maybe spiritually or something else maybe

I'm not a believer maybe maybe doesn't believe a believer I don't know it sounds to me like what he's saying here it's sounding me like I am so completely imbalanced that I can't be any more fair to receive text and atheists is the resurrection now an atheist is in red is in rebellion against the reality of the resurrection

Lord Jesus Christ isn't ironic that I was speaking at Auburn University less than a week ago invited the scholars to come and what was

I speaking up I was presenting the truth of the resurrection the inconsistencies these folks is truly amazing anyway wouldn't you have to again if I was saying that a fellow believer was inaccurate what they're saying new age

Bible versions reviewed has been up there since what about 1995 maybe 90 actually 94 now come to think of it we published that in 1994 12 years 12 years if there's all sorts of errors in it which evidently would be what's being suggested here where is the documentation of them why has that been standing tall for 12 years just sort of wondering what what that would be like anyway there's more and it gets it only gets worse sadly in regards to mr.

Dries he says I've read white on this subject completely which bothers me because if he has then there's misrepresentation of what he's already what

I've already quoted today I'm a Calvinist first of all I'm very aware of white his website and his writings in the subject and I've read most all criticism of KJV only types and of rippling or in particular well then again that make that kind of claim then there's there's no there's no defense based on ignorance of the things

I've played in the things we mentioned that website in that article they are all intellectually dishonest

I guess that's me yes I've yet to come across a critique of a rippling or type that didn't indulge an orgy of fallacies and sophistry and you don't have to be someone who thinks rippling or has no chaff in her books to see or think that again why hasn't white respond to Stauffer's book be glad to do so I'm be hoping that you'll be listening when

I do so if you read Stauffer's book you'll see why he calls white to the carpet and leaves white no line of retreat well again this first time

I've even heard of it first time I've ever heard of it maybe somebody else has but I haven't even heard of it anybody who wants to state that I don't know anything about white or who want to assume

I'm anti Calvinist blah blah blah well I wasn't assuming he was anti Calvinist at all but then

I I got on and said I'll be addressing this recent series of posts likening me to an atheist attacking my character and completely ignoring the issues and just over an hour on my webcast

I gave you know please feel free to call in and mr. dry his response someone finally sort of pushed him on this on the subject and said well are you going to call in or not are you going to interact or not and his response is and we have two callers right now and so far and I let me just mention like I said some people have had good comments on this there are other people in the puritan board that have supported me there's this isn't the only perspective

I'm just focusing upon what this particular individual has said because it's easier to respond to scattergun accusations speaking than it is having to type all this stuff up but anyways he says in one of the last ones posted here what could

I say many more capable have already said well who who we can't get folks to come on this program

I mean da wait won't come on the program we tried to get leaders to come on the program he wouldn't why hasn't white dealt with Douglas Alford again answer that question

Stouffer has a THM theology a PhD in religion congratulations he's written a book who I've written 23 he's presented as material if white felt confident enough to engage the late dr.

lead us evidence by way of the patients mr. leaders that he was known for being willing to put up with just about anything the internet could throw at him why not mr.

Stauffer I'm sorry please read the document on our website as to who was patient and who is not patient okay in regards to that particular encounter

I think that's fairly obvious white knows my position no I don't he responded to me after one email

I sent him by telling me through his proxy his producer that my email address was now blocked and anything I composed was to write to read would be lost in space thank you well that would mean the very first thing sent was rather nasty is that because that's the only only time that we do that I would love to see what it was and to see it let let other people know whether it was nasty or not finally white is a demagogue on the manuscripts issues his book the subject has been torn apart by people more knowledgeable myself who sir just this one guy

Stouffer I mean I've who if that was the case why won't these people do formal debates

I'd be doing them a poor service and attempting a poor impression white needs to debate someone like Stauffer for him to be serious regarding his

Asian I mean be glad to we're always looking for folks to do this I mean watch the Ankerberg series for yourself it was it was it was not even close it really really wasn't it it's what's this oh of course then he goes after you know then he then he then he goes after me on not being a real covenantal theologian because I'm reformed

Baptist nothing overly surprising about that this has actually come in since since the beginning of the program here by the way let's see you know you have a large cadre of internet friends who direct you to anything and everything said about you and to suggest that a book that addresses you so directly the such length is something you hadn't known about I find it amazing sir

I've never heard of the book end of discussion if you if you want to prove otherwise fine otherwise please do not be an accuser of the brethren and say things you cannot document

I mean that's just I think it's the only way you should really do that there's some more stuff that comes after that that is like I said has actually been posted just simply since this program began and this needs to be said white plays this game of going on forums and blogs and challenging people to call into his internet broadcast this is not a game sir if you're going to make comments about people in a public forum my webcast gives you an off a wonderful opportunity to demonstrate the truth of what you're saying so you know he gets taken up on it one in 900 times

I certainly not issued 900 so and since more than one person is taking it up not quite because he's not serious it's not serious to have a broadcast where you can schedule any number of willing debaters and attractors who have written books and articles and perhaps even debate the subject matter in question formally before and never book them on your broadcast like who sir yet challenge people on internet forums show up who obviously would be at every disadvantage regarding having facts and memory so on so forth it's disingenuous and white does all the time it's disingenuous can you imagine this it's disingenuous for me to open myself up and allow these folks to call in and back up their personal attacks on me that's disingenuous amazing absolutely positively amazing mr.

guys I sir I mean brother I accept you as my brother I would never ever ever do to you what you're doing to me never if I'm gonna back up I've backed up everything

I've said I've read your exact words and I'm giving you the opportunity of speaking anyways let's we lost

John unfortunately John in Covington Tennessee if you'd like to call back we'll try to get to you because I've gotten down to the bottom of the second page on the webboard

I haven't refreshed now there may be more after that I don't know but I'm gonna that's enough for now I think we've made made our point but right now let's talk to Sean up in Colorado hi

Sean hi James how are you sir I'm doing all right I plan to get to the rest of your article as soon as soon as I can but like I said you were sort of the one bringing the conversation up but unfortunately the rollercoaster has gone down rather precipitously the other direction now

I actually haven't been listening to your cast over the last however long it's been going I had some other work to take care of in my computer actually doesn't want to play

RAM so I don't really know what's been said about myself nothing actually

I just simply mentioned that I've been responding to mr. dries Michael dries of Christ Community Church and I saw his comments as well and yeah that's the only reason

I addressed it was it's such a scattergun approach that it's it would take forever and a day to type out a response to everything

I don't know that would be necessarily as beneficial as responding to your much better thought -out materials which

I just started to comment on last evening and made the reference to the dispute ratio with Douglas Wilson I don't know if you'd write and I did actually see that and my words were no one on the board has yet used the

Reformation use the TR god bless the Reformation ergo we should only use the PR argument oh I know that people do make that argument oh yeah they did well

I I would like earlier with that I just was making the point that I didn't feel that your post on the subject on your board was warranted because there as of yet but nothing on the board to warrant such a thing but there has been since then mr.

drives made that exact argument I read it earlier on where he specific where he spent I think I stick to my my original statement do

I personally believe that such an argument is a backdoor of attributing infallible authority to the church and belongs more in Rome or Edmonton than in Geneva well

I I agree but that's that unfortunately especially as I've traveled over in the

UK that's what I encounter from a lot of folks is is that kind of argumentation and so be that as it may

I guess everybody now knows that obviously you're one of the participants on on the Puritan board and I did make reference at the beginning of the program to the fact it's been a roller coaster and start off going down and then it started going up and I was specifically making reference to your contributions as one that thank you made it worthwhile to respond and to talk about it and then unfortunately let's just say some folks write a whole lot more messages than you do so anyways you're out

I try to pick my words yes well yours are do tend to be longer and let's see this one had ten points in it somewhere along yeah yeah you should see my posts on exclusive phobity let's not get into that one so all right anyways but your comments are

I'm going back over you're going

I'm looking I'm looking at your I'm looking at your list right now actually okay and if I could just mention to you the second

I was to mention was I I'm not sure why you you feel that I should spend a lot of time with John Gill I mean

I have dealt with the arguments the alleged internal arguments the alleged grammar grammatical arguments etc etc in the rather lengthy article that I posted which is my commentary from the

King James only controversy in and other things I've written I don't again if I I've tried to make this fairly clear that anyone who lived prior to 1930

Dean Bergen okay let's let's use Dean Bergen I honestly believe that if Dean Bergen followed his own textual critical methodology that he laid out that he would have had to have opted for an even more serious revision the

TR which he recognized that the TR text type needed to be revised he mentioned that he did not hold to the to the

Kama Yohanim etc etc he recognized that but I think if he had access to p66 and and p72 and p46 and the things that came out in that time period that he would have had to have called for an even greater revision of the

TR maybe not as certainly not to the point of a Nestle Allen text but he still would have if he had been consistent done that and so John Gill I considered to been a great theologian

I was I was sitting in the vestry at the Metropolitan Tabernacle within the past month looking at the original painting of him where his the scowling one yes

I was standing within two feet of it and and and was told about the the was his grandson that that said that in describing the look on his face that he must have just must have just not his term was the good doctor must have espied in Arminian passing his office was the terminologies yes and so I I greatly appreciate many of the things

I was defending Gill on Matthew 23 37 just a few just last week in regards to Charles the

Brave right here on the dividing line so but I can look at what he said about things like that and I can appreciate his exegesis but if he simply does not have access to to an entire body of manuscript evidence that I I can guarantee you

Erasmus would have jumped at the opportunity of having having access that stuff he wanted access to Sinaiticus he couldn't get it he knew of it he would have used it if he could have gotten to it but he couldn't so if a

Vaticanus I'm sorry that's a Sinaiticus Vaticanus then they I just don't see how what they said then can be put into a modern situation where they may have looked at the city at the at the date and gone you know what that's that's actually not an overly good arguments and none of them of course could have interacted with the main argument that I haven't heard anyone respond to yet and that is if you consistently apply the argumentation for the inclusion of the comma johannium then if you're consistent you're going to have to argue for a radical reformation of the textus receptus because Codex Bezae is a representation of a very odd form of the

Western text there are Latin Vulgate readings that it supports that are completely outside the the realm of the

Greek manuscript tradition that they have very small support in the Greek manuscript tradition you'd have to argue if you're consistent that those need to be a part of the inspired text as well unless you're just going to back up and say you know what

I take the TR because it was used the time the Reformation and that means God's blessings on it and that's it and if you're going to do that then there really isn't any reason to argue about these things so I just don't see why it is that the

John Gill or when people say well you know the 1689 London Confession sites the sites the you know first John 5 7 at one point

I am unaware and I have asked and if someone would like to correct me

I'm open to correction but I don't think the Westminster divines I don't think any of the men who crafted the 1689 called sessions where they specifically debated and discussed textual critical issues in regards to any particular reference that they were attaching to other sections and if I'm wrong about that I'd like to be shown the documentation are you aware of them ever doing anything like that I'm aware of them debating well actually

I was just looking at Warfield on the formation of the confession in chapter 3 but yesterday but now

I can't remember any kind of textual critical debates or arguments that entered into the assembly's proceedings trying to think do you see why that would be somewhat relevant to someone who cites

I mean you'll admit you also noticed that although yes they were they only cited that all the other individuals that I mentioned were aware of the debate they explicitly did side with the

Johannine comma or Johannine comma I recognize that the

Westminster Assembly the 1689 Baptist Assembly aren't as much of a relevancy on that point

I would just say that Calvin Beza, Henry, Poole, Gill, Dabney, all the rest being aware of that controversy would be a little bit more relevant than the others would there would you agree or do you disagree that the the textual landscape has changed greatly with the discovery of the papyri that take our knowledge of the text back almost 50 % closer to the originals than what we had what was currently available at the time of the writing of Bergen or a

Gill or Matthew Henry or any of the other people well I'll just stick with with 19th century folks

I guess let's just let's get as close to the the 19th and 20th centuries so we can get there isn't isn't there something to be said for the fact that you have to take into consideration what they took into consider they took into consideration all of the manuscript evidence that was available to them should we not do the same thing hello sure should we not do the same thing should we not take into consideration what they did

I mean they they did not cut off the manuscript evidence at 300 years before their time they were more than happy to to embrace everything that the manuscript tradition provided them so if they did that and should we not then do the same thing even if that means we have to come to a different conclusion than they did that seems fair that's all

I'm trying to argue that's all I'm trying to argue that's that's that's you know from my perspective the one question that has to be answered by anyone who's supporting the insertion of the comment is what

I mentioned before and I'm gonna ask you because we're almost at a time if you've thought about this and that is do you feel our needs to be vastly exactly yes yes changed over the fact or over the principle underlying the insertion of the comment right what would you because to my knowledge and maybe

I'm wrong please feel free to correct me I don't believe anyone that you cited address that issue because I've read their stuff

I've I'm not ignorant of what's going on here and to my knowledge they did not address that issue and so I think a modern defender needs to address the issue that to be consistent this would require a massive revision of the

TR what what what does anyone say about that or have you have you seen any discussion of that or or what haven't seen any discussion of that until you brought it up on your postings on the subject okay and I think that I would agree with you that any substantial defense of TR or just insertion of the comment would have to deal with that argument okay and I'm looking forward to somebody doing so it would be unfair of me to press you on the issue other than I just want to make sure that you are hearing it because to me it seems like nobody on the board other than those who've agreed with me anyways those who disagree they're not hearing me saying that and and since I've I think you'd admit from the very beginning that's been the central core of my concern to have the central core of your concern consistently ignored in the responses makes you wonder if you're just not a really good communicator or if there's something else it's operational here you know that's very good it can be very frustrating and it can be very frustrating and this

I'll tell you Sean what what frustrates me the most about this particular situation is maybe

I'm just silly maybe I'm just being naive but it seems to me that people who are reformed in their theology have to engage in some level of meaningful exegetical interpretation to be convinced that what the sovereignty of God and salvation is true and that God has a purpose and in in what he's doing in this world and so on so forth and so I see a certain level

I assume a certain level of of logical thinking on the part of my fellow reformed believers at that point and so when we hit a subject where all of a sudden that seems to just fly out the window and all of a being told at don't worry about history with the

Muslims and they can say the Bible's corrupted all I want just give them Jesus that sounds like that sounds like you know the yeah exactly and it's like wait a minute

I'm confused here I'm just trying to be consistent I'm trying to apply the exact same kind of thinking to this issue that I apply to the demonstration of the doctrines of grace

I'm debating a an Armenian attorney here in in just about four weeks over in Sedalia Missouri and I'm gonna try to be just as consistent in my exegesis in dealing with him that when

I'm dealing with should be Raleigh at Biola in May on the subject of the New Testament I I don't know how else to do it and if if I'm wrong in doing that someone needs to explain to me why

I shouldn't be able to do it so John called back Sean and so would you mind if we we got him on real quick before you got another question though you know a fellow from Long Island by the name of Rob Wieland from years ago it's not ringing a bell but remember

I've met a lot of people on the true on Long Island so if is there a context in which

I would know it was I think it was in OPC out there at at Bilshisco's Church yes well

I've preached there and I'm gonna be preaching there again in October but the name anything he's actually out here in Colorado now as a member of my church okay all right and I spoke there on apologetics yeah he's actually writing a paper on this subject for New Geneva Theological Seminary oh good okay all right well hopefully he'll find the conversation useful all right all right thank you sir good talking all right god bless bye -bye we're gonna go a little bit long in the program just to get

John back in hi John sorry we lost you there hey dr. white how are you sir oh I'm doing well sir

I just want to tell you dr. white that you you're an inspiration to me and you're one of my real heroes in the faith

I followed your ministry for the past few months and you've really led me to the reformed theology sir well that's great thank you for that that's great

I belong to a fundamentalist Baptist Church in Tennessee and they have those in Tennessee really and as you might guess they're very strong in the use of the

King James only and having read your books especially the

King James only controversy you awaken me to the issues that were involved and I no longer only use the

King James but I still feel you know there's still resistance from people within my church of course anything besides King James even the new

King James based on the Texas Receptive right my pastor yeah he doesn't really hold a real strong allegiance just to the

King James he's more of a Texas Receptive man but he he also is very resistant to any other version being used and and the reason

I'm calling is because I wanted to you know express my solidarity with you I understand you know being a

Christian and you understand all the evidence that's involved and you know why it's okay for us to use those versions and I guess really

I have a question for you is I'm growing in this church and my pastor has asked me to teach

Sunday school and I want to be true to what what the church teaches right and I want to you know fall under authority of course right but you know

I also understand the issues involved with the King James only and should

I yeah I heard you saying I do and and my my my strong recommendation to you would be if if if until God removes from you the call to serve him in that church then use what the church requires you to use

I realized sometimes that that ends up for example for me there have been times

I've been asked to speak in context where there was a conflict because I was asked to speak for example in the prologue of John and then

I was asked only to use the King James Version of the Bible well there are there's text of very inverse 18 it's very very important there and I have to try to discuss that with people and it can be difficult but the fact of matter is we use the

New King James at my church I don't have any problem reading that when I go into a Bible study situation my folks know me and they they know that I'm going to address these issues but I certainly do not believe that it's something that a person should leave a church where they believe the

Gospels being preached clearly they're growing this is where Christ has placed them then you know did you did you say that you could use the

New King James there but are you able but are you able to use it that's all right

I understand it sounds like your work are you able to use the New King James when you speak at the church I would honestly until it becomes an issue where it's getting in the way of the gospel or something then use the

King James you can do that there will be some times I mean on certain apologetics issues where you might want to talk to the pastor and say hey you know what about the comma or something like that what do you what's your understanding about this but until it requires you to compromise your faith

I would I would I'd simply use what you're asked to use and you know folks don't generally argue with you when you say some long lines of here's the text and you know another way of saying that might be this and because pastors do that all the time

I'm sure your pastor does the same thing so that would be that would be the way you probably be able to do it okay okay

I thank you all right John thanks a lot and God bless God well thank you very much for for both

Sean and John's calls and we left the phone lines open again

I want everybody to understand as the music comes up that mr.

dries I consider you my my brother in the Lord I just really wish that there'd be a little more fairness and what you're saying and I hope you listen to what

I've provided you in response Sean I'll get to your points in my response on the blog as soon as I can but I gotta start moving in office and I've got a lot of other stuff going on and trying to catch up from being gone for a number of weeks and we're just doing the best we can and appreciate your listening thanks for listening

God bless we'll see on Thursday one has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega Ministries if you'd like to contact us call us at 602 -973 -4602 or write us at P .O.

Box 37106 Phoenix Arizona 85069 you can also find us on the world wide web at AOMIN .org

that's AOMIN .org where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books tapes debates and tracks join us again this