Gail Riplinger vs. James White, 1993, KRDS Radio Part IV

Okay, I'm going to have to stop you Gail, now that's your three minutes, let's let James respond now. Well, I'd like to point out that the

King James Version utilized what's known today as the Textus Receptus in the New Testament. The Textus Receptus goes back to a

Roman Catholic priest by the name of Desiderius Erasmus. Erasmus had only about ten or twelve manuscripts from which he was working, and that accounts for a number of the errors in the

Textus Receptus that I think anyone will admit, Erasmus certainly admitted that they were there. There are differences between what is known today as the

Majority Text, which is basically the Byzantine Text, and the Textus Receptus. I pointed one out yesterday that Gail misrepresented in her book in Revelation 14 .1,

where the Majority Text, the Modern Text, all the Greek Texts have a certain phrase there, the Textus Receptus does not.

The TR is no inspired text, in fact, Erasmus, in making numerous editions of it, made changes, and in fact, made changes on the basis of writing to Rome and asking people to look at the

Vatican manuscript that Gail attacks so vociferously in her book. She says that there are disagreements among people, there were disagreements among Erasmus and many others in regards to the production of the

Textus Receptus as well, that's not anything that's really relevant. The Majority Text differs from the

TR, for example, in not having 1 John 5, 7 -8, which is considered to be a watershed by many

King James people as being an example of your orthodoxy. Do you have 1 John 5, 7 -8 in your text?

The Majority Text doesn't have it, the TR does not. Now she's just said that all these changes are made. I wish people would take the time, even if you don't buy it, to go by a

Christian bookstore and pick up the Nestle -Lon text, the UBS now fourth edition that just came out.

Look at the text and look at the bottom of the page. Anyone who has these critical texts has all the readings in the manuscripts right there in front of them.

When I look at a passage, I can tell you exactly what any of the manuscripts in the various manuscripts, all through the

Byzantine tradition, so on and so forth, what they read due to the tremendously advanced, very, very wisely put together textual apparatus at the bottom.

And any reading that is in any of the tradition is found either in the text or in the footnotes.

So when they say change, what they mean is there used to be a word up here and now they've put in the footnotes and they've put the alternate reading up in the text.

Anyone who wants to can examine these readings and come to their own conclusions. And I want to make one point very, very clear.

If anyone utilized majority text or the Nestle -Lon 26th edition and they accurately executed both of those, they looked at all that Scripture said and they derived the theology from both of those, there would not be any difference between the theologies that are derived between those two texts at all.

All right, James, thank you. Well, ladies and gentlemen, we have a little couple of disagreements among a couple of Christians here, and that's okay to disagree.

Now we'd like to hear what you think. So the lines are open. We're going to take a quick break and then we're going to come back.

It's your turn to get involved in the discussion. Our numbers are 995 -9555 and 247 -5737.

Call now, 247 -KRDS. Get online and keep calling if the lines are busy.

We're going to take one break today, after which we'll spend the remainder of the time letting you speak to our guests.

So stay right where you are, listening to PS On The Air. I'm Pat Shaughnessy. And now, back to PS On The Air and Pat Shaughnessy.

I think, ladies and gentlemen, both our lines are full. Is that right, Bob? We've only got... Can we take any more calls?

Okay, you can still get online at 995 -9555 or 247 -5737.

We're going to start with Judy in Scottsdale. Judy, you're on PS On The Air. Good evening, Pat. Welcome to the program.

Thank you. Mr. White, I tuned in last night, as did many other members of the body of Christ, in hopes of hearing some earnest dialogue on the issue of where is the preserved and the inherent word of God.

Sir, I was sorely disappointed at your personal attack on Mrs. Ripplinger in the disguise of debate format.

But first, I'd like to say that yours was a miserable testimony to both believers and unbelievers alike, so I'm hoping to hear something scholarly supported by the word of God this evening, which you honestly failed to deliver last night.

So I'd like to begin by saying, as far as the issue of Mr. Palmer's personal character is concerned, whether he is godly or never kicked his dog or loved his mother isn't the issue here.

I agree. And that's why I have to ask you, Judy, have you read New Age Bible versions? Yes, sir. I did. OK. And when you saw

Dr. Palmer associated with Charlie Manson and Blavatsky and Hitler and these people called every name under the sun and their characters impugned, and in fact they were misrepresented over and over again, did that cause you a problem?

Can I finish what I have to say first? And then I'd love to hear what you have to say. All right. Go ahead, Judy, and finish your statement. I brought along with me some of the personal correspondence of Pastor Cecil Carter of British Columbia, who personally exchanged letters with Frank Logsdon, who is the honorary member of the

Lachman Foundation and personally assisted Dewey Lachman in forming the NASV committee. I'd like to quote, if I may.

It's what he wrote here, and I'm going to take it out in excerpts. I know we don't have time to read the whole thing, but Frank wrote,

I thought the Westcott and Hort was the text. You were intelligent if you believed the

Westcott and Hort. Some of the finest people in the world believe in that Greek text. They haven't gone into it, just as I hadn't gone into it.

They're just taking it for granted. And then after he was questioned numerously by his friends, he said to his wife,

Ann, I'm in trouble. I can't refuse these arguments. It's wrong. It's terribly wrong.

It's frightfully wrong. I must, under God, renounce every attachment to the new

American standard. And then he wrote, as a member of the editorial committee in the production of the

Amplified New Testament, we honestly and conscientiously felt it was a mark of intelligence to follow

Westcott and Hort. Now what you have in these books strikes terror to my heart. It proves alarmingly that being conscientiously wrong is the most dangerous state of being.

God help us to be more cautious, lest we fall into the snares of the arch deceiver,

Franklin Logsdon. Now, Judy, who again is Franklin Logsdon? Frank Logsdon was on the

NASV editorial committee, and he wrote the preface to the

New American Standard Bible. And he went on to spend the rest of his life recanting what he had done.

So here again are godly men who are in the bosom of the Lord who were sincerely wrong.

So again, that wasn't, it's not the issue, Mr. White. Godly men can be sincerely wrong.

The real issue here that I wish you to debate is the manuscripts that produced the King James Version and those of Westcott and Hort that have produced the new versions that Gail wrote about.

Well, first, are we going to have an opportunity to respond to your explanations of the majority text versus the text that's receptive?

Let him go ahead and respond, Judy. Judy, first of all, I did not attack Gail Riplinger at all.

I reviewed her book, and I pointed out that she over and over and over again miscited and misrepresented people.

And I provided documentation. I'd be glad to provide that documentation to anyone who would like to see it.

So I did not attack her at all. So I reject your assertion that I did.

Secondly, the issue of manuscripts does not become the issue of New Age Bible versions until you're over 400 pages in.

It's referenced a couple times. It's alleged that everything's based upon corrupt manuscripts. But the first over half of the book attacks

NIV and NASB for their translation and not just for the manuscripts that underlie them.

I would be glad to talk about those issues. But the problem is when you start reading New Age Bible versions, by the time you get to the discussion of manuscripts, so much misrepresentation and unfair representation of the scholars who produced the

NIV and NASB has been presented that how could you ever even begin to have a meaningful discussion of the issue of the manuscripts themselves?

Now, well, I thought, I thought, I'm not sure who said that, but let me just respond to one other thing.

These man, these New Testaments that we are talking about here, NASB and NIV are not slavish translations of the

Westcott and Hort text. Anyone is aware of that. Now let's, Pat, can we get Gail into here?

Yeah, Gail, come on in and respond to what James is saying there. I think there's a misunderstanding that if someone finds something wrong with what a

Christian believes, that you're hating that Christian, and you certainly aren't. Peter was wrong twice.

Jesus said to Peter, get thee behind me, Satan, and that was only two minutes after Jesus had gotten done saying,

Blessed art thou, Simon, Barjona, for flesh and blood hath not rebuilt it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

So we have a man saying something from Satan one minute and saying something from the Father the next. So someone like Edwin Palmer and some of these other people may be godly people, but they can be wrong.

Peter was proved to be wrong in Galatians 2 .14, where it says, He was not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel.

So Peter was wrong twice. You know, Peter took the rebuke. But listen, Gail, let me get you to respond to what he's saying about the fact that you don't even talk about the text until 400 pages into your book, and some of his comments.

I think I lose most people. So I don't think, I think most people find pathological research rather dry, and so you really have to have them ask, why would