March 14, 2006

The Dividing Line Opens With Scripture and the Program’s Purpose

Webcasting around the world from 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. It's 602 nine seven three four six zero two or toll-free across the United States. It's one eight seven seven seven five three Three three four one and now with today's topic.

Here is James white.

James White Responds to Online Criticism and the King James Only Debate

And good morning. Welcome to the dividing line back from Auburn, Alabama. I think that's first time I've ever been to Alabama. Nice place. Nice place nice Walmart. That was that was quite the experience 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 on to this morning so I can leave some notes there.

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

They say who's the nastiest to you personally in the groups? Do you work with is it the the Muslims the Mormons Jehovah's Witnesses the one is Pentecostals Roman Catholics. You know, who is it? I say well, you know, you 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 some nasty Mormons, but you got some nice Mormons to you that's a nice Roman Catholics and so on so forth, but consistently the nastiest people are People who defend the King James Version of the Bible.

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 to 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 actually was wrote it in 1994 in the 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 you've got TR preferred people and they all take different perspectives.

But the fact the matter is when you 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 Kami Ohanian and I made the the the statement that in my thinking as I'm looking at people who disagree with with my viewpoint on textual critical issues I can look at people who support Byzantine priority and I I disagree but they are rational individuals who are examining that the facts and and they 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 1 ,200 years or 1 ,500 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 okay, you know, we disagree.

We can talk about it or or not or whatever, but but I can understand that I can accept that I draw the line At the Kami Ohanian now for those who haven't been reading the blog Kami Ohanian first John 5 7 the King James version of Bible.

There are three that bear witness father son spirit knees three or 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 without basically embracing the idea that God reinspired the Bible in the days of Erasmus or the King James translators.

That's the only way you you have to 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 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 soul scripture, 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 some commentaries by for example a friend of Ted Leatus and if anybody wants to Read the Ted Leatus story or at least how it started to 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 Leatus even asked me to remove at one point. Not because he had 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 one of Ted Leatus's 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 in the Kami Ohana Reminding me of some stuff that you know I read in the book and I've written other books and but I've forgotten about it and and it's sort of showing, you know shedding some light on the Some of the things you've been saying regards to Shabir Ali and the comments He makes about the transmission of text description, of course Bart Ehrman and we've been listening that stuff it fits in with all of that stuff and Some of my say yeah, but these folks are Calvinists.

Yeah, I've known for a long time that there are there are reformed churches. It 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 kind of is 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 gonna 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 a 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 Calvinist about this and I'm being consistent if I'm gonna 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's the Godmakers To film was bad, you know, and and I dare to say that certain evangelicals are wrong about they're 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 responding to stuff last night and then a fellow band name Michael dries I I'm assuming that's his last name. It's dr. IES 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 eight seven seven seven five three three three four one 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 gonna be writing I'm gonna 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, etc, etc. But if someone if I was in Michaels position and I had said the things about me that he said about me I I would have no choice.

It was just it'd be a simple matter of integrity. That I would have to back up what I was saying that's this all there is to it. I don't know if that's gonna happen from what's been posted just this morning on the board I don't know if that's gonna 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 Rippling or 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 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 I 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 so forth To.

It's fairly obvious, but especially the issue about Rippling er You know someone took the time later on to provide for example her acrostic algebra. I wanted to Play a portion of my the one time that Gail Rippling are 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 NES V and the NES B but the only way she could make her acrostic algebra where you take the NIV and NES V and add them together to subtract out The AV and ends up a sin, and this is a proof that they're evil.

And she had to use the V instead of the NES B and And When I asked her well why throughout the entire book did you use NES B, but in this one place used NES V. Well, that's what the Lord calls it. That's what the Lord calls.

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 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 Rippling 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 Rippling. Er well now one of the things that I guess some of our listeners have been wondering about Dale 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 gas but as previously thought it sunk the Titanic with six small flips and Today's NIV has cut out 64 ,000 words and 16 verses.

Now back in 1912 the New American Standard Bible had Timothy Dwight of 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. The term white star is a codename for Lucifer. If someone needs to document if they could would read the book mastering which grants by Paul Hinton and includes a prayer to Lucifer.

Would state thou of the unholy trinity help us whose star is white. Blot out the red star. Now there we remember Lucifer himself said in Isaiah 14. I will be like the most high. Now back at the turn of the century.

Madame Blavatsky her newspaper Lucifer Dead on its cover quote. I Jesus in the bright morning star Lucifer. She was saying that Jesus and Lucifer were the same person of course. 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. The theosophy must and should come a large bodies of people in the West. The work of destructive criticism has paved the way.

Sweeping away certain passages which great 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 1 14 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 belief, this is exactly what they've done with the Bible versions. They get progressively work now in the NIV today. We have exactly what Madame Blavatsky's newspaper said we have Jesus Christ as Lucifer in Isaiah 1412 the King James correctly translates Isaiah 1412.

The power of the fallen from heaven. Oh 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 1412 how have you fallen from heaven morning star?

So they're saying that the star and Lucifer are the same thing now in 2nd Peter 1 19. The NIV also calls Jesus Christ the morning star that the day star. But for centuries way back to turn the century once again the Catholic Latin Vulgate said in Latin Lucifer or Yator.

Etc. Etc. It goes on and on and on and 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 and it would have been bold or something getting the reading.

I don't know, but that's that's Gail Ripplinger and What can you say. I 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 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 da wait and others will they do so no of course not. So there's there's Gail Ripplinger. I Need to be to be 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 respond to that so 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 the encounter that we had.

Because she didn't understand the the relationship of the the spirit to the doctrine the Trinity she has trinitarian issues. I mean Miss 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 correct about a 1611. But really what she believes in the role of the Holy Spirit and giving us the Word of God sir. No, you you don't want this gal.

You really don't 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 as 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 6 and we take them to John 8 and we take him to John 10 and we take him to Romans chapter 9 and we go to Ephesians chapter 1 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 in a completely different set of hermeneutics to try to Sneak free will ism into John 644.

That's what we tell them. Well, if we're gonna 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 stand 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 Checking the phone lines are all working. Hey, I mean, there you go. Telling me that he and other scholars know better and that all the deletions and changes in the better newly discovered manuscripts were actually God's Word 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 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 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. Yeah, I got worldly motives. Yeah, this is um, I Always only choose to address those issues that are gonna make me popular and get me into the most doors.

Yeah. Mm-hmm. That's where it 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 these people's my brothers and as far as I can tell the man claims to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. 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 okay. I don't and anyone who is so confused that they think that the Nessie Allen taxes 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 in their theology.

Why aren't you infected by Erasmus and his theology? Do you believe and do you accept his treatise and defense of transnation the mass? Yes or no? If no, then you should put your head up and say, you know what that arguments 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 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 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. When they do then they obviously take a different position then.

Then other people do and so he continued on he says that then here's here's a big one. For White's sophistry look at Douglas D Stauffer's one book stands alone. White usually rebuts any criticism. But he seems to have remained silent regarding Stauffer'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 in 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 as 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. I don't why not just give the examples where I've actually 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 in 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 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'd 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. He also falls into the worldly trap of fearing the faith will sound foolish to the ears 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 yet ie instead of defending the role of the Holy Spirit 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.

Okay 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 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 a 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 was 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 it my text has been corrupted, but I'm not gonna argue with you about that. I you 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 it's terrible.

Just just unbelievable be going to the phone calls here. Just a second. Where did page to go? There it is page two because it continued on With some more discussions of Ruckman and Rippling er and someone kindly posted rippling is 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 a T Robertson, but that doesn't address internal evidence.

Nor does it have a clue about the role of the Holy Spirit in preserving the Word of God? Let me see you mr Robertson and mr. White mr. Westcott and the Horde, etc, etc. Oh the Holy Spirit. Hmm. I'll go with the Holy Spirit.

I 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 doctrine 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 of this world will always be against the wisdom of God.

I believe such as 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 na BVR dot html na BVR isn't 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. Dries 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.