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

The Textual Basis of the King James Version and the Majority Text

Okay, I'm gonna 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 Texas Receptus in the New Testament.

The Texas Receptus goes back to Roman Catholic priests by New Desiderius Erasmus. Erasmus had only about 10 or 12 manuscripts from which he was working and That accounts for the errors in the Texas 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 Texas Receptus. I pointed one out yesterday that 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 at the Texas Receptus does not.

The TR is no Inspired text. In fact Erasmus in making numerous editions of it made changes. In fact made changes in 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 was disagreements amongst Erasmus and many others in regards to the production of the Texas Receptus as well. That's that's not anything That's really relevant.

The majority text differs from the TR for example and not having first John 5 7 through 8 which is considered to be a watershed by many King James people as being Example of your orthodoxy. Do you have first John 5 7 through 8 in your text.

The majority text doesn't have it a TR does not. Now she's just said that all these changes made. I wish people would take the time even if you don't buy it. To go buy a Christian bookstore and pick up the Nestle lawn text 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 when I look when I look at a passage I can I can tell you exactly what any of the manuscripts in the various Manuscripts all through the Byzantine tradition so on so forth what they read do 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 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 lawn 26 edition and They accurately executed both of those they looked at all that scripture said and they drive the theology from both of those there would.

But 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. Is your turn to get involved in the discussion. Our numbers are nine nine five ninety five.

Fifty-five and two four seven five seven three seven call now two four seven K RDS 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 nine nine five nine five five five or two four seven five seven three seven.

Judy’s Challenge: Preserved and Inerrant Scripture

We're going to start with Judy and 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 version? Yes, sir I did. Okay, really when you and when you when you saw Palmer associated with Charlie Manson and Blavatsky and Hitler and these people called Every name under the Sun and their their characters impugned and in fact they were misrepresented over and over again.

Did that cause you a problem, and I finished what I have to say first, and then I'd love to hear we can't all right. I Brought along with me some of the personal correspondence of pastor Cecil Carter a British Columbia who personally exchanged letters with Frank Logsdon with the honorary member of the Lachman Foundation and personally assisted Dewey Lachman in forming the NASB committee.

Dad, I'd like to quote if I may sure it's he's wrote here, and I'm going to take it out in excerpt. 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 believe 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, and 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. Most dangerous state of being God help us to be more cautious lest we fall into the snares of the arch-deceiver Frankston Franklin.

Logsdon now Judy who again is Franklin Logsdon. Frank Logsdon was on the NAS V.

Editorial committee and he wrote the preface to the new new American Standard Bible and he went on to spend the rest of his life Recounting 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.

First are we going to have an opportunity to respond to your explanations of the majority text versus the text as receptive.

So let him go ahead and respond. Judy, first of all, I did not attack Gail Ripplinger 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 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 and IV 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 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 produce 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 many of 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. Tell them that can we get Gail into here Gail?

Come on in and respond to what James is saying there.

Peter’s Rebuke and the Gospel Truth

I think there's a misunderstanding that if someone finds something wrong with what it could that was only two minutes After he that Jesus had got done saying blessed art thou Simon. Our Jonah for flesh and blood hath not rebuild 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. But listen Gail Gail is not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel. So Peter was wrong twice, you know, Peter took the rebuke.

Listen Gail, let me 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 people. I don't think. I think most people find Pathological research rather dry. So you really have to have them ask why would I bother reading about pathological research? Why could they read it?

You have to give them the reason first. Okay.