Is the King James the Best Version? (White vs D.A. Waite)

We're going to take a quick break, we'll be right back with Dr. D .A. Waite and James White debating on the

King James Controversy. And welcome back, you are listening to In Defense of the

Faith, a local live calling program designed to equip the saints and uplift Jesus Christ. We are normally opened up for live calls, but tonight we are going to have a special debate on the

King James Controversy with Dr. D .A. Waite and James White. And so we are going to open up our lines for calls at about 10 .05,

where you can ask them both questions, but up until that point they will just debate each other. But before we do that, we were told to read a letter from TexMars having to do with this controversy.

Larry, are you on the line? I sure am, Dale. Okay, we have our very own Larry Wessels via telephone line, and why don't you tell us what you got and quickly read the letter.

Yes, I invited TexMars to debate James White in person, and this is his reply.

Now this is a debate on the Gale Ripplinger book or what? Oh yes,

I invited TexMars to debate James White on the Gale Ripplinger book,

New Age Bible version, and he sent this reply in the mail. I got it in the mailbox yesterday and wanted it read on the radio show tonight.

So here is what TexMars has to say. He has written many books and is director of Living Truth Ministries.

Many people may be aware of him. TexMars says, I believe in debating to reach the lost, the

New Agers, cultists, etc. Thus in the past I have debated Satan worshippers and witches in Seattle, New Age psychics in Miami, homosexuals in New York, and even

Lord Maitreya's forerunner, Benjamin Crim, here in Austin. But the word of God, the

King James Bible, is not up for debate. Regrettably, many fine and sincere

Christians use the false new versions because they are unaware of the facts supporting the King James.

They are unaware too of the hideous omissions and perversions of the New International Version, New American Standard Version, Revised Standard Version, etc.

But Mr. James White is not one of the misinformed. He intentionally maligns the truth.

Mr. White claims to be a Christian, but he eagerly defiles the Holy Bible. I will be pleased to debate

Muslims, witches, Satanists, Scientologists, or Atheists, but I do not wish to give a heretic the forum to blaspheme

God's precious biblical truth. And that's what TexMars has to say.

Okay. Well, thank you and I'll be listening. Alright, thanks Larry. Bye -bye. Alright, obviously we don't agree with TexMars' statement, but that's where he stands.

And with that, let me bring on Dr. D .A. Waite. Hi, Dr. Waite, are you there? Yes. Alright, how are you doing this evening?

Okay, who is this? This is Dale Deloney. You're the moderator? I believe so, yes.

Dale Deloney. D -E -L -O -N -E -Y.

Okay. And anyway, what we're going to do is give you opening statements, we'll give you each opening statements of three or four minutes, and you may start, and then we're going to just have an open forum all the way to ten to five, and then open it up for phone calls.

At the end of the debate, we will allow both of you to give your addresses and phone numbers.

Okay. Okay? Alright. We've both agreed that we each have the same number of minutes and seconds to answer each question so that there's fairness, and we will be able to speak without interrupting one another.

Certainly. And you can begin now. My turn? Yes, sir. You can begin with your opening statement.

Alright. You want me to take about three minutes? Yes, sir. Okay. The opening statement that we have to make would be that I'm the author of a book, we call it

Defending the King James Bible, and we believe that the King James Bible has a fourfold superiority over all other versions in the

English language. We believe it has a fourfold superiority, namely, it has superior texts of Hebrew and Greek, and we believe it has superior translators that translated it.

We believe it has superior technique of translation, and we believe it has superior theology. We believe it's

God's Word kept intact in English, and we have outlined these points in our book, and I believe that these other versions, we believe, have a fourfold inferiority, whether that be...

Now, I'm speaking basically and specifically of the versions that Bible -believing

Christians are using today. I'm not involved with the ones that the liberals are using.

We could include those, because those also are true, as far as the Revised Standard Version, New English Version, and so on.

But we're centering in, especially, on the ones that the King James people formerly used, and now they're using these other new versions, such as the

New American Standard Version, such as the New International Version, the New King James Version, and the

New Berkeley Version. Those are the four that we cite in our book, and we believe that they're inferior on texts of Hebrew.

They do not use strictly the Masoretic traditional Hebrew text. They say so in their prefaces.

They use other things to correct the Hebrew. They do not use the received Greek text, the

Textus Receptus, on which the King James Bible is founded, but they use the critical text based by Nassau Island 26th edition, or the 4th edition or 3rd edition

United Bible Societies, otherwise known as the Westcott and Hort text. They were the architects, basically, following manuscripts

B and Aleph, the Vatican and Sinai. So that's, we believe, inferior as to manuscripts.

Then we believe that they're inferior translators. We do not believe that our present man can hold a candle to our

King James Bible men and their erudition and their spiritual insight and, especially, their equipment for knowledge of the

Hebrew and cognate languages, the Greek and cognate languages. The translation technique, we believe, is inferior in these other versions, which they use either in a greater or lesser extent, the dynamic equivalency, which adds to the words of God, subtracts from the words of God, and changes them.

And then they're inferior in theology, many errors in theological statements that are found.

We have over 158 of those in our book. There are really over 356 doctrinal passages.

So these are the four reasons for superiority of the King James and inferiority of these other versions. That's my three minutes.

Hey, that's really good timing, Dr. Waite. Now, so you're not going so far as to say that these other versions are of the devil or anything like that?

Are you quite in that camp? No, I think that the other versions of the scriptures,

I believe that they're made by men probably of integrity and fine abilities and so on, but I do not believe that they're as accurate as our

King James. But what their motivations are, I think some of the publishers now, I think their motivations are the dollar sign.

What are the motivations of the translators, though? I can't read their hearts and their minds, so I wouldn't know.

I was just wanting to know if you're in that extreme part of the camp. All right, James, your opening statement.

Well, I appreciate Dr. Waite being with us this evening, especially knowing how late it is back on his part of the nation.

I believe that the King James -only controversy is based upon normally a misplaced allegiance to a 17th century translation that certainly

God has blessed tremendously, and if anyone wishes to use that translation today, I certainly don't have any problem with that.

But I do not believe that the King James version is the most accurate version for today, and I do not believe that especially the textus receptus called the received text that underlies the

King James version is the best Greek text that can be utilized today by any stretch of the imagination.

I am concerned when the King James version becomes a point of contention within churches, when churches are split over the issue of whether one uses a 17th century translation done by Anglicans or whether one uses a 20th century translation done by interdenominational scholars.

I am very concerned when that becomes an issue of fellowship in the church and when that then causes churches to no longer be able to, for example, send out missionaries because people have left the church, etc.,

etc. I see this as a non -issue in the sense that I do not believe there is any conspiracy involved in new translations to attempt to hide or deny cardinal doctrines of the

Christian faith, such as the deity of Christ or the physical resurrection of Christ or the virgin birth or any of these other issues.

I believe that Christians should avail themselves of all the information that is available to them, that they should be aware of textual variation within the

Greek manuscripts, and that they should have a freedom to examine all that information.

And I think that it would be best suited by comparing a number of different translations, including the KJV. But taking a position that the

KJV, I think, is the best, I think, is somewhat untenable in light of mistranslations within the text itself and other things that have come to light that even the

King James Version translators didn't know about, such as the Granville -Sharp Constructions at Titus 2 .13

and 2 Peter 1 .1. So I think these are issues that we need to discuss and to bring out.

Okay, thank you for that. Well, now that we have the opening statements, let's just have an open forum and dialogue.

And I guess, of course, each person can clearly state their point, and hopefully there will be no filibustering, but we'll have a gentlemanly debate.

And who wants to start? Well, I want to thank Dr. Waite for sending me his book,

Defending the King James Bible. I've had the opportunity of looking through it, and I just did want to ask him, in light of what he said about other translations, on page 125 of your book, you made the statement that,

I'll just read it here, I believe the New King James Version is probably the most dangerous of the new versions on the present market today.

And then just below that, you also said in bold print, the diabolical nature of the New King James Version shows itself in their printing all the various readings of the

Greek text in the footnotes. They print all sides and take their stand in favor of none of them. By so doing, they confuse the readers.

And I was just wondering, I carry a New King James Version, and in fact, the primary reason that I do so is because the

New King James does provide the textual footnotes, it does let the reader know, because it's based upon the textus receptus, obviously the reading of the

TR is found in the Bible itself, and then they give you what's called the majority reading, and then the

NU reading, the Nestle All -United Bible Society reading. You seem to feel that they shouldn't give you that information, and my first real question was, why would you feel they shouldn't give that type of information in the footnotes?

Okay, I'll take about the same time that you took to ask it, to answer it, Mr. White. I think that the information that they give in the footnotes is very misleading to the new

Christians, as well as to the older Christians. In the top of their text, they claim to use the textus receptus reading.

In the bottom, they have a smorgasbord, the veritable cafeteria of other possible readings.

As you said, very honestly, either the NU, Nestle United Bible Society, or the M, the majority text readings.

And so, when a pastor is preaching from the upper top, and says, for instance, that the last 12 verses of Mark are genuine,

Mark 16, 9 -20, and then in the footnotes, there is a caution that certain manuscripts omit these portions, there is a decided bifurcation of loyalty, either to the upper part or to the lower part.

So I believe that's a serious situation. I believe the Nestle, or rather the

New King James, for instance, in the edition that I have, page 12 -35, they say it was the policy, let me just get that exact quotation here, bear with me a second.

It was the editor's conviction the use of footnotes would encourage further inquiry by readers.

They recognized that it was easier for the average reader to delete something that he felt was not properly a part of the text than to insert a word, phrase, or phrase, which had been left out by the reviser.

So I believe that their motivation is to try to make people technical critics, and I don't believe that that's a part or necessary in the word of God.

And of course we could go on, my time is up on this portion, but I could go on and say that I've done a study on the

New King James and found that there are over 2 ,000 examples of addition to the words of God, subtraction from the words of God, or changing the words of God, and I think that is a very serious thing as well.

Maybe not as much as the New International, not as much as the New American Standard, that's 6 ,000 and 4 ,000 respectively, but it is in the wrong direction.

I'm sure that took me two minutes. Well, Dr. Wade, I hope you won't cut your response short just out of a sense of making sure it's absolutely the same amount of time.

I hope we can just have a regular conversation here and do so in such ways to get all the information out.

But you just said that changing God's words, that you use the

King James as the standard for determining what God's words are, and you said you don't feel that people should be being textual critics, basically, by having the information that the

New King James prints at the bottom of the page. Let me ask you, though, if a person just has a

KJV that has no textual notes, or if they have the Textus Receptus that is printed by the Trinitarian Bible Society, which also does not give any textual notes, doesn't that limit them to having to believe whatever the

TR says, even when there are places in the Textus Receptus that are plainly in error due to the rush that Desiderius Erasmus was in to get his

Greek text into print? Aren't we, in point of fact, telling people that they have to believe whatever

Desiderius Erasmus said? Wouldn't it be better to let them have the information and make a decision for themselves?

Well, Mr. White, just let me say, first of all, I don't believe that the ground of the comparison was that adding, subtracting, or changing, as in some of the

New King James, over 2 ,000 places in my book, number 1442, wasn't based upon the

King James. When I read through, word by word, the New King James and compared it,

I did compare it first of all with the King James to see if there was an upset here and there, but I always went back to the original

Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek to check and to see which was the closer of the two, so that's the first thing

I would say. I don't also believe that there's errors in the

Textus Receptus because of haste. I don't believe Erasmus was the only one, of course, who was the pilot and the source of what we call the traditional text.

Dean John William Burgon has written five books on textual matters, which we've published and reprinted in our

Bible for today, and Dean Burgon feels that the traditional text, I agree with him, goes all the way back to the writings of Paul and Peter and James and John, and we have confidence in that.

I was brought up on the Westcott and Hort text myself from Dallas Seminary. That was the text I was given to learn my

Greek in, and for 21 years I was that way. The last 22 years, or 23,

I've been reading and studying and I've come to a different conclusion. But Erasmus' text was not the only

Textus Receptus or traditional text at that time. As you know, there was certainly the

Complotensian Polyglot of Cardinal Jimenez, who came out really first to print, or rather to finish, but not to publish, and of course you have the

Elsevier brothers and of course the visa in 1598, which is the form of the King James.

So there are others. I don't think we have to be shut up to any Erasmian quote -unquote errors.

Well, the TR that you're talking about, I'm assuming it's the same one published by the

Trinitarian Bible Society? Yes, sir. Okay. Does that not still to this day, for example, contain

Erasmus' translations into Greek Vulgate at the end of Revelation, as well as some of the importations that he made, like in Acts 8, from the

Latin Vulgate into the Greek text without Greek textual support? Isn't that still a part of that particular edition that is printed by the

Trinitarian Bible Society? Well, in answer to that, Mr. White, the

Erasmus' last six verses, for instance, of Revelation, which he had no manuscript in the

Greek, so the story goes, using the Latin, I compared, for instance, the critical text that was used by the

Revised Standard Version, and I looked at it word by word and read it from that and read it from the text of Receptus that underlies the

King James, and I didn't find more than two or three words that were out of place or different.

And so I believe Erasmus was not the only one. I think he did a pretty good job of translating it.

I think Acts 8, I think that that's got legitimate standards and standing with many other texts and early

Church Fathers' quotations. But you will admit that there are words like orthronos at Revelation 22 -16 that basically he made up as he translated into the

Greek and they're still a part of the TR. You wouldn't defend them as being God's words, would you?

Well, Mr. Wyatt, I go by faith in what God has preserved for us through the years, and as was accepted by the

Church, we have over 37 historical links in our book, as you notice, down through the centuries, and also that which is accumulated and proved by the evidence that is before us.

Over 99 % of the texts that we have, 5 ,210, go along with that text, basically, that underlies the

King James Bible. And I believe that's what God has preserved for us. Well, yeah,

I would agree, if you're talking about the majority text, that that certainly has deep historical roots.

But the specific readings of the Textus Receptus, such as the one I just gave you, Revelation 22 -16 or 22 -18 or 22 -19 or Revelation 17 -4,

Revelation 14 -1, especially the Book of Revelation, there are a number of problems where there is no Greek manuscript support, and none of those readings existed prior to 15 -16.

The Church had never seen orthronos at Revelation 22 -16 prior to 15 -16.

So I don't understand how it could be said that the Church accepted these things when the

Church had never seen these readings in the first 1 ,500 years of its existence. Well, I don't think that our discussion should center around one or two

Greek words. I believe that the thrust of the text that underlies the King James Bible is the text that the early

Church copied and recopied, and the text that underlies these false versions, these versions that are not based upon proper text, is a text of the 4th century, they claim, 350 -375

A .D., and that text, basically the Egyptian text doctored by heretics,

Egyptian texts, really, Be and Aleph, those two particularly that they almost worship, those texts were never copied and recopied by the

Church. There are a measly 45 Greek documents, and that's as far as it goes, Be and Aleph and 43 others, and they have kept themselves buried until Westcott and Horton and some of the others unburied them and said,

Aha! These are the texts that the Bible and the New Testament should be based on. And we believe that that is serious because the early

Church realized that there were forgeries and falsities and errors abounding in those two Egyptian texts, and they never copied and recopied them.

Well, Dr. Waits, certainly you're aware of miniscules that exist long after the time of the Egyptian texts that still maintain the

Alexandrian readings like 1739, 1881 and others, but I don't agree that these texts were quote -unquote doctored by heretics or things like that.

I certainly see no evidence of that when I examine the texts themselves. I notice that in your book you do feel that there are a lot of theological issues that are impacted by the textual readings that we choose.

You, for example, noted when the modern text will say

Jesus and the King James says Lord Jesus, that you feel that this is, in fact, an attack or a denigration of his deity.

Am I correctly representing what you said in your book on that? Yes, I believe, Mr. White.

I think that when these Docetists or these Arians or these

Egyptians, all of whom were unorthodox in the area of Egypt, even according to some scholars on the other side, when they came to these places they often removed the lordship, especially the

Lord Jesus Christ. That was foreign to the Gnostics. And so as far as the doctoring of the verses there,

Dean Burgon in his book called Causes of Corruption of the Early Manuscripts lists on Chapter 13 quite a few of these heretics, the

Gnostics, the Ebionites, Martians, Thacians, Thessalonians, Valentinians, Corinthians, Heraclians, Theodotus, the

Manichaeans, Manus. All of these, in fact, they said the greatest heretics and the greatest corrections in corruption occurred within the first hundred years after the

Scripture was made. But, sir, can you actually historically demonstrate that any of these heretics had anything whatsoever to do with what you would identify as the

Alexandrian Manuscripts? Well, I don't know by name. All I know is these men that were writing their own

Gospels, certainly that's a change of the Word of God. Martian, for instance,

A .D. 150, wrote his own Gospel and mutilated shamefully the Scriptures.

Thacian and his diatessaron tried to weave the four Gospels into one and thus polluted it.

Thessalides, he was a heresiarch, a lead heretic, wrote the Gospel of Thessalides, A .D. 134, and Valentinus, A .D.

140, wrote his own Gospel. These, I can't pin down that this man or that man, for instance, took away the word

Thos, God, in 1 Timothy 3 .16, but that certainly is a heretical reading and it's certainly not a reading that ought to be accepted by the texts that we have.

God manifest in the flesh, not simply He appeared in the body. Well, sir, I would happen to agree with you that the best reading of 1

Timothy 3 .16 is Thos personally, but I don't see that there is any theological reason to assert that some scribe who saw

Hos there, which is the other reading, was somehow a heretic. But I don't think I really got an answer to what

I was saying earlier, and that is, while we all agree that there were heretics in the early church,

I ask where you can demonstrate that these heretics had anything to do with the writing of the manuscripts that are vilified by King James Only advocates.

In fact, the first one you mentioned, Martian, you also mentioned Valentinus. They both flourished in Rome, not

Alexandria, Egypt, and hence could not one, if we're just citing names, assert that maybe that's why the

Byzantine text does not contain a reference to the deity of Christ in John 1 .18? I mean, could we not utilize that type of an argumentation?

I mean, I wouldn't, but it would seem that if you're going to use that type of argumentation, it has to go both directions, doesn't it?

Well, as far as 1 John 1 .18, I believe it is inimical to the deity of Christ, the reading that the only begotten

God, to have God the only begotten, I believe, is a travesty and a heresy and theological perversion.

I believe the only begotten Son is the proper reading. I believe it's the proper doctrine. And I think that what you said about those heretics in Rome, whether they're in Rome or where they are, they had an influence in the early church in some of these versions.

For instance, if you take 1 John 4, and verse 3, 1

John 4 and verse 3, every spirit that confesses not that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God.

This is the spirit of Antichrist. The words Christ has come in the flesh is left out of Aleph, or rather,

B. There's no Aleph here in this portion. And I believe this is a great heresy. They do not want to believe that Jesus Christ, perfect God, perfect man, has come in the flesh, incarnate.

And I believe that's the essence of 1 Timothy 3 .16 as well. And you just mentioned 1

John 4 .3. If I just might turn our reader's attention to that, you just indicated that that phrase is not found in modern translations, and you're right, and you consider that heretical.

Isn't it significant, though, you indicated these manuscripts did not want to believe this.

Why, then, do they all include it in verse 2, the verse immediately before the one that you read, which in all the modern translations speaks of the one confessing that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God?

Isn't it much more logical to understand that the reason that the

Byzantine manuscripts have this same phrase twice was due to scribal error and not the other way around?

And isn't it clear, no matter which direction you go on that, that since all the manuscripts of 1

John 4 .2 contain that phrase, there obviously was not some sort of conspiracy to attempt to deny the wonderful truth that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh.

Well, in 1 John 4 .2, by this know ye the

Spirit of God, every spirit that confesses Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confess is not of God.

I believe that wherever there is wrong doctrine, wherever there is heresy,

I believe it should be included, whether it's twice, whether it's once. I don't believe that we say that we can take out any portion of that which is solid and straight.

I didn't name the versions that did remove Christ has come in the flesh, but the New American Standard Version is one, and certainly

New King James and the footnotes. I believe that we should take, for instance, another example of heresy and theological error, for instance, in John 7 .8,

where the Lord Jesus is made out to be a liar by Olive and by the New American Standard Version.

I believe this is serious heresy against our Savior, the Lord Jesus, who loved us and gave himself for us.

Well, sir, again, if you're asserting that there is some heresy on the part of these manuscripts, when you have the phrase,

Jesus has come in the flesh, right there in verse 2, obviously if someone wanted to take that doctrine out of the

Bible, then they would take it out of the Bible, but they didn't. In John 7, what you're talking about here, again, it is not calling

Jesus a liar to take out the word yet, going up to this feast. That can be understood very plainly in other ways other than calling

Jesus Christ a liar. There would be no reason for anyone to attempt to do such a thing, but there would be a very good reason why later scribes would want to put that word yet in so they wouldn't have to explain why

Jesus put it the way that he did. Again, one can understand the situation here without resorting to some sort of theory that certain manuscripts are somehow attempting to insert heresy.

But you did just say something that intrigues me. You said that whatever is, I think you put it, fuller or more strong in solid doctrine, that that's the reading that we should go with.

Let me ask you possibly about another passage and see what your opinion on it is.

In Acts 4 .25, in the King James Version, Acts 4 .25,

we read the following, Who by the mouth of thy servant David hath said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things?

Now the New American Standard Bible at Acts 4 .25 says,

Who by the Holy Spirit, through the mouth of our father David thy servant, did say,

Why did the Gentiles rage, and the peoples devise futile things? The modern translations teach very clearly here the role of the

Holy Spirit in the inspiration of the Old Testament Scriptures. Could not a person, if they're using the same methodology and argument that I'm finding in your book, say that at this point the modern texts are superior to, in both text and translation, to the

King James at Acts 4 .25? Well, Mr. White, you've said a number of things in this last question.

Regardless of Acts 4 .25, I believe we ought to leave it the way the text of Receptus has it and the King James has it.

I'll let the readers, or rather the listeners, to decide as far as the John 7 .8,

whether Christ is made a liar or not. Here it says, Go ye up into this feast.

The Lord Jesus, in John 7 .8, was talking to his half -brothers. The feast was at Jerusalem.

And he said, I go not up yet unto this feast, for my time is not yet come, full come.

But Aleph, the Sinai manuscript, there's no B here in this area, but they remove the one word, yet.

And so does the New American Standard Version, so does the New King James in the footnotes, suggesting that we ought to take that away.

I'll leave it to the listeners' discretion to see whether or not the Lord Jesus says,

I go not up into this feast. And yet he went up afterward, and if he says,

I go not up, that would make him a liar, wouldn't it? And regardless of what you say, that you say the scribes added this or added that,

I'm pointing out their theological errors in these versions and their superiority in theology in our

King James Bible. Well, sir, the going up to the feast, if you're familiar with that situation, as I talk of the

Gospel of John over the past couple of years, I explain that, and I think it's a very logical explanation that when

Jesus says, I'm not going up because my time has not yet fully come, he's talking about the public displaying of himself to the people of Israel.

He went up, as the Book of John says, secretly and not openly. And hence there is a perfectly logical, exegetical reason for the reading that is found in the manuscripts upon which the new translations are based, and there's no evidence that they're attempting to cause

Jesus to be called a liar. But you said you feel in Acts 4 .25 that you should just stay with the

Texas Receptive. Again, why is that the case?

Do you feel that you should stick with the Texas Receptive even when it pergoes against, for example, the majority of Greek manuscripts?

And if so, why? Well, the Texas Receptive that underlies our

King James Bible is the basic text of Biza, 5th edition, 1598, and it's been, for two reasons.

It's been accepted by the church down through the centuries, and it's been attested by the evidence. And I believe the early church in the apostolic times, we list over 37 historical links with the

Texas Receptive in the early churches right down from the beginning, and I believe that that's the first reason.

The second reason is, it's been attested by the evidence over 99 % of the manuscripts that we presently have are underlying the

King James Bible. The papyrus fragments, 85 % of those go along with the

King James. The uncials, the big ones, over 97%. The cursives, over 99%.

The lectionaries, 100%. That's over 99 % of the whole manuscripts that we have.

And I believe, by faith, that we have in this Texas Receptive the word of God that the church has accepted.

If you reject the received Greek text that underlies the King James Bible, what you're saying is, the church had no real

Bible from the 4th century until 1900, 1 ,500 years of the false

Bible. I don't believe God works that way. He promised to preserve his words, I believe he did, in the

Hebrew Masoretic and the Greek Texas Receptive. But sir, you're making an error there in that I asked you when the

TR varies from the majority text, when you talk about the text going back to the early church, you're talking about the majority text, not the

TR, not the specific TR where it differs due to Erasmus' mistakes or whatever from the actual majority text.

At one point you defend the TR and at the next point you're saying what's actually the majority text, and they're not always identical to one another.

I have an entire list of readings where the TR is very different from the majority text, and so I again have to ask when, let me give you an example, maybe it'll help if I have an example for us to look at.

In 2 Timothy 2, verse 19, we have a passage where we have a quotation from, two quotations from the

Old Testament. The King James says, nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure having this seal, the Lord knoweth them that are

His, and that everyone that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity. Now, maybe you know otherwise, sir, but to my knowledge,

I have not been able to find a single Greek manuscript that says Christ in this passage. The majority text reads

Lord, all of the Nephilim, UBS, reads Lord, all the unseals, all the minuscules, all the lectionaries, they all read

Lord at this place and not Christ. And so maybe this will help us to get the question more clearly.

Why should I believe that the correct reading here should be Christ, when to my knowledge, no

Christian prior to 1516 had ever seen the reading Christ here. Everyone had thought it said

Lord. You just said, you know, if you reject the received text and you're saying the church didn't have a

Bible until the 19th century. Why should I accept the TR's reading at this point against all the Greek manuscripts? What was the verse?

2 Timothy 2 .19. 2 Timothy 2 .19. Again, the King James says, Nevertheless, the foundation of God's plan is sure having to seal the

Lord and not them that are his and let everyone that nameth name of Christ depart from iniquity.

If you'll look at the Hodges -Farstad edition of the majority text, it will indicate there that that reading is a

TR reading over against pretty much everybody else. All the other manuscripts say

Lord. My feeling is there's just an error on Erasmus' part. He was in a hurry, just like Revelation 14 once.

But it seems to me that you're saying that because the TR was used for maybe, what, 200 years from the time of Erasmus onward, 300 years, that somehow we should accept that reading even when it doesn't have any

Greek manuscripts before it. Well, let me just say a few words without getting specific on any verse.

I think it's not necessary that we go into verse by verse. Let me just say a little, think of something about the so -called majority

Greek text of Hodges and Farstad or Robinson and Pierpont. There's two majority texts, as you know, floating around, vying for power.

I guess the Hodges and Farstad is not even in print. At least, I guess it maybe has gone back recently, but it had gone out of print.

There are great defects in this so -called majority text. They did not revise the text of Receptus in the way that Dean John William Burgon suggested.

They used, basically, the footnotes of Von Soden. We have a booklet called

Defects in the so -called Majority Greek Text and also Why Reject the Majority Text. They used

Von Soden's footnotes and he only had about 414 manuscripts total and he called that the majority manuscripts.

They did not look at all 5 ,255 plus manuscripts. They had a shortcut, a quick fix type of a text.

They realized and admitted that it was not really sure. It's not anchored in rock and this is very serious indeed.

Of course, Von Soden was not a believer. He was an apostate and they followed slavishly.

Also, the majority text, although some of its leaders, Dr. Pickering, for example, he was writing that book,

Identity of the Greek New Testament, a very good book, but he was following Dean John William Burgon very strongly in that area and Burgon, as you recall, was very much against the idea of families and yet they pick up the family idea here.

He also was against the idea of intrinsic and transcriptional probability, which was

Westcott and Hort's theory completely, but yet they say if we do it right, we'll have a transcriptional or intrinsic probability and we'll use our efforts on that line.

And then the idea of families, Burgon said instead of having families for a woman taking an adultery,

John 7, 53 to 8, 11, or Revelation, we should remember that families are not true in the

Greek text. Every text is an individual. They stand or fall with very few exceptions. They're like going into a graveyard with 5 ,000 unmarked graves, for example, and nobody can say this one is related to that one or the other one because they're unmarked.

And so I find great serious defects in the so -called majority text.

They did not use all of the cursives and they did not use all of the unshows. They did not use any of the lectionaries.

They did not use any of the quotations of the church fathers. They did not use any of the early translations of the

Bible and early versions, so they're faulted for many reasons, so I don't trust the majority text.

Well, Doctor, if you don't want to get specific, though, in answering my question about 2

Timothy 2, 19 on the basis of the text, perhaps we can turn our attention for a few minutes to your assertion that the translation of the

King James is superior in all respects. There are two questions that I would like you to address, if you would, and please take time to fully do so.

I would allege that there are two very important mistranslations in the

King James version of the Bible. I would allege that Acts chapter 19 verse 2 is mistranslated.

It reads, He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him,

We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. If you could comment, sir, in light of your academic training in the subject of the

Koine Greek of the New Testament in regards to the translation of Acts chapter 19 to specifically the

Eris Paraciple Piscusan text at that particular point, I'd appreciate it. And the other issue in light of the scholarship of the

King James translators, which is acknowledged by all, is what is called the Granville -Sharp construction of Titus 2 .13

and 2 Peter 1 .1. In Titus 2 .13 we have the great God and our Savior, the great

God and Savior Jesus Christ, which in the KJV is the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ, and a similar construction of 2

Peter 1 .1, our God and Savior Jesus Christ, there being five Granville -Sharp constructions in 2

Peter of the King James properly translating the other four but not the first. If you could comment on the fact that the

Granville -Sharp construction was not yet understood at the time of the King James version translators in light of your assertions in your book, that would be very helpful.

Well, I would believe very strongly, Mr. White, that the King James Bible is much more accurate than these other versions that we call perversions.

They follow a verbal equivalence and a formal equivalence from the Hebrew into English, Greek into English, not a dynamic equivalence, which these other versions do to a greater or lesser extent.

For instance, they want to bring the very words over from Hebrew to English, the very words from Greek to English.

These other versions feel that they can play fast and loose with this type of thing and have dynamic equivalence.

That is, they can feel they can add to God's words anytime they want to. They can subtract from God's words anytime they want to or they can change

God's words anytime that they wish. As far as the Acts 19 .2, again,

I think it would be unwise for us to get into great syntactical heuristic attacks one way or another and translations and so on.

As far as 2 Peter 1 .1 and Titus 2 .13, the Granville Sharp Rule, I believe, was strictly fully understood.

They may not have called it the Granville Sharp. At that time, obviously, it wasn't alive. But the

God and Savior Jesus Christ, as you well know, Mr. White, the word chi there in the

Greek language means not just only and, but also even, even Christ, equating them.

And so, the use of the and there is certainly not minimizing the fact that it is both the

God and Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, either in 2 Peter 1 .1 or Titus 2 .13.

But this, as I said before on the translation accuracy of the King James Bible, the

NIV boasts itself in saying we want to be accurate to the thought of the writers.

Well, the King James Bible translators wanted to get the words of the writers, the thought come by words.

Okay, Dr. Dr. Wade, I'm going to have to break in for a pause for a tape change.

Okay. And welcome back.

You are listening to In Defense of the Faith, a local live call -in program designed to equip the saints and uplift the name of Jesus Christ.

We do have open lines, and feel free to call in from after this portion of the debate.

We can line you up right now, first come, first serve, and you can ask questions on the

King James controversy for or against James White and Dr. D .A.

Waite. The number is 447 -5495 -447 -KIXL.

Dr. Wade, are you there? Yes. Okay, what we'd like to do now is just have concluding statements, and then we'll open up our phone lines for questions and answers with the audience.

Is that all right? A concluding statement, would you like? Would you say three minutes, and would you like to start?

Well, I can start if you'd like. Okay. I would simply say this, we haven't touched on everything obviously, and the whole armament of the fourfold superiority of our

King James Bible, superior texts of Hebrew and Greek, superior translators, superior technique, superior theology, we've touched on a little bit here and there.

I would just like to mention to our listeners the battleground that we're facing in the entire attack in our

New Testament area. We have the Texas Receptus with about 140 ,521 words, an average text would be 647 pages.

Westcott and Hort, back in 1881, undermined that received Greek text in 5 ,604 places.

The majority text so -called undermines the text Receptus in 1 ,800 places, not as many as 5 ,604, but those changes include some 9 ,970

Greek words by actual count. I've counted them myself. 9 ,000, that's 30 words short of 10 ,000

Greek words. Now these are Greek words that Westcott and Hort, because of their adherence and worship of Vatican and Aleph, Sinai manuscript,

Ben Aleph, those two Egyptian manuscripts that, by the way, contradict one another, over 3 ,000 times in the

Gospels alone, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, 3 ,000 places alone, because of their worship of Ben Aleph, they have perverted the historic

Greek New Testament text in 9 ,970 Greek words. Either they've added the

Greek words that shouldn't be added, they've subtracted from the Greek words that shouldn't be, or they have changed them in some way.

This is 15 words per page on the average of a Greek New Testament, that's 7 % of the words in the

New Testament. If you'd put all of their additions, subtractions, or changes, these 9 ,970 words in one place, you'd have 45 .9

pages, almost 46 pages of the Greek New And these do affect doctrine, theology.

We've got a few of them in here, we could take others, and we hope we will before the night is out. But these heretics,

Westcott and Hort, who changed these, and they were theological heretics. We have a book that we've written, The Theological Heresies of Westcott and Hort, and we give over 125 quotations of their, from their own books.

Three from Westcott, The Gospel of John, The Book of Hebrews, The Epistles of John, two from Hort, Second Peter, Revelation, and we show their heresy in various theological areas.

We also have written a book on the Westcott's clever denial of the bodily resurrection of Christ.

We analyzed two of Westcott's books, but these heretics have doctored the word of God, and we believe we should stand on the historic

Christian faith and the traditional text that underlies our King James Bible. Well, I would say in conclusion that I stand on our historic

Christian faith, and I don't need to do that with the textus receptus, which was collated by a Roman Catholic priest who made errors in the process.

I think that we have seen this evening in our conversation that there have been many assertions made, but no proof provided in regards to these various assertions that have been made.

I have brought up passage after passage, 2 Timothy 2 .19, Acts 19 .2, and these issues have not been addressed, and I think people can hear that.

Acts 19 .2 is a mistranslation in the King James text. Anyone who is familiar with the

Koine Greek is aware of the fact that you cannot translate a parsible the way the King James version did. It's an error.

It's been fixed in all the modern translations. Secondly, the Nestle -Alan text, the

UBS fourth, is not the Westcott and Hort text. Anyone who asserts it is, is in error. There are many, many, many changes between these two texts, and since they do give full readings at the bottom of the pages, a person has the ability by doing a little bit of work, a little bit of homework, to determine their readings for themselves.

I do not believe that we have heard any evidence that would really substantiate the claim that the

King James version is superior to all of the translations, either in text or in translation this evening, and I would encourage people to look up the passages that have been referenced and to ask for documentation of the assertions that are made.

I think it's extremely important that we do that because we as Christians, we need to be people of truth.

We need to love the truth, but I think we need to be very careful about limiting God's truth to a 17th century

Anglican translation of the Bible, whose New Testament was based upon the text that was initially collated by a

Roman Catholic priest who was in a hurry to get his text out before the Competentian Polyglot came out.

I don't think Erasmus would ever tell anyone to believe that everything that he wrote was somehow inspired or inherent in and of itself, and I do not believe that he would be a

King James only advocate today if he were alive. So I think the issues have been made very clear this evening.

Okay. These are the concluding statements and we are now going to open the phone lines again.

Our number is 447 -5495 -447 -K -I -XL and you can call up and talk about the

King James controversy, for or against it, and what you believe on that.

We have two experts in the field and with that, let's go to our first caller.

We have Tex Mars. Tex, are you there? I am, Dale, and it's been good to hear your voice on the radio.

Thank you. You know, I enjoy seeing your television program as well, and Wanda sends her best also.

Okay, that's right. Tex Mars used to go to our church, and what church are you going to now,

Tex? Well, we have our own group now. As you know, we live way on the other side of town, but I still have great love for Charles Bullock, the pastor there.

He's doing great things, and I just want you all to continue in your great success. Okay, and your comments to the debate here?

Yes, Dale. I just want to compliment Dr. Waite on defending

God's word, the King James Bible. Maybe he could let people know how to get his book, because I have a copy of it, and it's tremendous.

But my specific question, and one of the things that I'm heartbroken about the New Versions and what they've done to pervert

God's word, three things that are specific, maybe Dr. Waite could comment on.

Is it true, Dr. Waite, that the New Versions have totally eliminated the statements by Jesus, for example, get thee behind me,

Satan? Another one, when Jesus told us to take up the cross and follow me.

Evidently, those are missing from the New Versions, and also the New Versions What about the Lord's Prayer?

I recently read the NIV, the NAS, the two versions of the

Lord's Prayer. I found out that they were horribly gutted, and entire lines were totally missing in the

New Versions, and maybe you could comment on that. Okay. I'd be glad to comment, and of course

Mr. Waite would want to comment equally. The statement of Brother Myers, as far as the

New Versions, take up thy cross and follow me. It is eliminated in one of the Gospels in the Westcott and Hort type text, the

Nassau -Allen text, the Enoch text. It is, however, found in some of the other synoptic

Gospels, but at least in that area, that one portion, it is taken away. As far as the

Lord's Prayer, thy kingdom come, thy will be done. There are certain parts of it that are omitted, and there's no question about that either.

And as far as the other one, get thee behind me, Satan, that is left out also in that portion of the

Gospel there. And certainly we feel that the King James Bible is superior in the keeping of these areas and these portions that are in line with the truth and in line with doctrine and in line with correctness in all ways.

Well, I would like to comment on each of those in regards to get thee behind me, Satan, that is found, of course, in Matthew chapter 16, verse 23 in the

New International Version. That's a great point. I think it's a great

So there is very good reason why it is not found in many of the modern translations. I would like to ask you,

Mr. Mars, if 2 Timothy 2, 24 through 26 is indeed found in your

Bible, where it talks about how we're to address these particular issues of how we're to refute those who contradict us.

The Scripture says, And the Lord's bond servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, and if perhaps

God may grant them repentance, leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.

When I sent you information on the errors in Gale Ripplinger's book, you wrote me a letter back that began,

Don't write me again unless in sincere repentance. You are a devil, plain and simple, and I understand well why

Mrs. Ripplinger does not respond to your ridiculous assertions. Why dignify the lying claims of a servant of Satan? Would you maybe explain why you identify someone as a devil and a servant of Satan in light of 2

Timothy 2, verses 24 through 26? Because, James, you are attacking the word of God, also because what you have done, for example, is name your ministry

Alpha and Omega, and yet in Revelation 1 .1, some of the new versions take out the words

Alpha and Omega, and yet you have the audacity to give your ministry that name.

And by the way, before you ask me a question, could I answer it? Well, I just wanted to correct what you were saying.

I just wanted to correct what you had just said. You are confusing people. It is not Revelation text. I would like to answer your question,

James. Go ahead. Alright. As far as your being a researcher, I received your treatise about Gail Ripplinger's book, and I noticed you misspelled her name throughout it.

You cannot spell her name right, and all you had to do was call her up or call me or call any one of a thousand bookstores that have her name.

If we cannot trust the fact that you cannot even spell an author's name right, how can we trust any other supposed scholar like this?

And by the way, I read your 40 page missal, but it was full of errors, and I really think that you need to get down and read some books.

Dr. Waite's book, Dr. Fuller's book, Ripplinger's book, excellent books, and they are much needed by Christians today.

Well, Tex, if I could point out a few things. First of all, it is not Revelation 1 .1, it is Revelation 1 .11 that you are attempting to refer to there, and I provided you a full response to that in the letter.

Well, then tell me Sir, I'm going to answer your question, Tex, I'm going to answer your question now. Revelation 1 .11,

not Revelation 1 .1, and I explained that. Excuse me, it is Revelation 1 .11.

That's what I said, Revelation 1 .11, Revelation 1 .11. Actually, sir, on the front of the last letter you sent me where you sent back my facts with red lighting on, excuse me,

Tex, Tex. There has been no moderator to debate that. Are you trying to take over the debate?

No, sir. No, sir, Tex, I'm just responding to your excuse me, Tex. Well, excuse me, Tex, excuse me, I'm part of In Defensive Face, and you're,

Tex, you're going to have to let James respond now. You have to be quiet, they're going to turn you down. Sir? Dr.

Waite is the guy who's debated, not me. I'm going to let you get me in going. Okay. All the best to you, my friend.

All right, that's fine. Go ahead, Tex. I have one question for you. Are you still there, Tex? He's gone. Okay. If I could respond to that, first of all,

I sent a letter to Tex Myers explaining, responding to his letter to me.

He sent my fax back with red ink across it saying he didn't want any more of my evil trash, and interestingly enough, he just tried to say he didn't say

Revelation 1 -1. The front of the envelope has Revelation 1 -1. Right here,

I'll show it to you. Written on the front, not 1 -11. All right. Secondly, if I could finish responding to what he was saying, when he says

I attacked the Bible, no, I do not. I love God's word, I preach God's word. A couple of you in the audience and Dale were there today as I opened

God's word and spoke that word. I love God's word. I do not attack it in any way, shape, or form, but I do attack those who would attempt to limit

God's word to a 17th century Anglican translation. And that just simply is, those are the problems with what

Mr. Myers said, and you'll notice he did not respond to my citation, 2 Timothy 2, 24 through 26, to explain why he would identify someone as a servant of Satan.

That is not how Christians are to discuss this issue. I have respect for a person who can handle a discussion of this issue on a rational basis without resorting to names, but Mr.

Myers obviously is not one of those individuals who can deal with this issue. What he said about get thee behind me, take up the cross, the

Lord's prayer, in each of those things there are, we could have a good discussion on those things, but he's in error about many of the things that he said.

Dale, I wonder if I might have a few words, I've been quiet for about five minutes. Go ahead,

Dr. Wayne. Okay. In regard, without getting into what was mentioned previously, in regard to the get thee behind me,

Satan, for example, that portion of scripture, that is a scripture portion that is found, as you know, in Luke chapter 4 and verse 9, and that, verse 8 rather, excuse me.

That portion of the Lord Jesus saying, and Jesus answered, that's all right to the text, and said unto him, get thee behind me,

Satan, that's all taken out of Be and Aleph, the rest is in there. For it is written,

Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. Now, Be and Aleph, the Vatican and Sinai, false Greek texts, on which

Westcott and Hort based their text, and on which the Nestle Island, the 26 edition and other editions based their text, and Nestle, Eberhard Nestle of 1803, and Nestle, said that he picked three different texts that he chose, and he picked the

Westcott and Hort, or he picked the Trigellus, or he picked the Pschitzendorf, whichever was in the majority.

So he did use Westcott and Hort's text, but that removes, that Be and Aleph is removed there, and of course, the versions that follow this, and take away also, get thee behind me,

Satan, are as followed, the ones that the Bible -believing people use. The New International Version drops out, to get thee behind me,

Satan, and Luke 4, 8, the New American Standard Version drops it out, New Cain James Version in the footnotes, the

New Berkeley, and the others, I'm sure the liberal ones as well do that, because they follow

Be and Aleph. And the same is true, let me just, one more word, then I'll turn it back over to our questioners, in the idea of the

Lord's Prayer, in Luke 11 and verse 2, now that's not to say other places have it, but he said unto them, when ye pray, say,

Our Father, well that's so far, so good, but the word of the Lord in heaven are removed by the two

Greek texts again, Be and Aleph, followed by these new versions, the New International Version removes which are in heaven,

New American Standard, New Cain James in the footnotes, New Berkeley, and also, Hallowed be thy name, that's all right, thy kingdom come, that's all right, but thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth, at least as in heaven, that is removed as well.

Now I'm not saying, all I'm saying is, we have a theological battleground in the Cain James Bible as opposed to the new versions.

The new versions definitely have theological heresies and errors that are in them. How they got there, that's another debate, but I might get back to Acts 19 through later on, but that's just a brief answer to our questionnaire.

Well again, I think it's important that we recognize that when someone says something's been removed and they do not qualify it, that can be very deceptive, and when someone says, for example, that again, removed, the obvious assumption on people's part is that it's found nowhere in that Bible.

That's not the case, and many of these alleged omissions in the part of modern text, in reality what they are, is especially in the

Gospels, you have what's called parallel corruption. When you have a certain phrase or word that becomes familiar to people, and say, and this is very clearly seen in the

Lord's Prayer between Matthew and Luke, you have things happening to where when someone gets used to the

Matthew version, and their common sense, and their copying the Gospel of Luke, elements of the

Gospel of Luke, then it becomes very easy for them to transpose words from Matthew into Luke to make the two sound the same, and this is why the modern text do what they do at these points.

Again, there is absolutely, positively no effort on the part of any of these individuals to downgrade the deity of Christ, or the glory of God, or any of these things, because they recognize the propensity for parallel corruption between the synoptic

Gospels. People may believe that, but the question then becomes why do they believe that?

Is it not, again, going back to this, just overriding assumptions that King James is right in everything that it said, and I don't accept that.

Okay. Can I reply to that, Dale? Sure. Quickly, though. Okay, quickly. I'll give a minute to reply.

Is that all right? Okay. In the fact that the so - called new versions do not purposely have false doctrine, well, whether it's purposeful or not, all

I'm saying is the bottom line is there is false doctrine. For instance, wouldn't you say the ancient assertion of the sinfulness of Christ would be a false doctrine?

To me, that is. Be it Aleph, Vatican, and Sinai, they didn't care about his sinlessness, his impeccability.

And the New International Version, New American Standard, New Berkeley, in Luke 2 .22, that's the portion

I'm speaking of, when the days of her purification, that is Mary's, according to the law of Moses, were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem to present him to the

Lord, that is the Lord Jesus. But the new versions, that is NIV, NASV, and be it Aleph, Vatican, and Sinai, remove her purification,

Mary, and make it their purification, as if both Mary and Joseph and the Lord Jesus Christ needed purification.

This, regardless of the why of it, questions the perfection and sinlessness of Christ.

That's my one minute. I'll turn it back over to you, Dale. And just a very brief response. There is absolutely no logical reason in the world why having there would mean that Jesus was sinful, any more than Jesus being baptized by John meant he had to repent.

The notion that there was modern versions are very plain in presenting the sinlessness of Jesus Christ, and to assume because of the purification rites that that means that it's making him a sinner.

I see absolutely, positively, no logical reason to follow that at all. Let's go to Charles. Charles, welcome to the program.

Hi, Dale. Hello, gentlemen. I have lots of questions that I could ask of Dr. Waite, but I guess the simplest place to start would be, is there an essential

Christian doctrine to kill your only to the King James Version? Would you repeat that to Charles?

I didn't understand. Is there any sinful doctrine? No, is there an essential Christian Oh, an essential?

Yes. Oh, an essential doctrine? No, no. Essential. Essential. Essential doctrine? Unique. Unique to the

King James only, to the King James itself. Well, I don't know that there's any doctrine essential to the

King James itself, other than the fact that they did revere and respect the words of God, and they did follow what they believed to be the proper

Hebrew and the proper Greek text, and honored the translation, trans -lapis, transferring from Hebrew to English and Greek to English in a verbal way.

I don't know exactly what you're getting at, but... If I might,

I think what the caller is asking is, is there any doctrine that is essential to being a

Christian that is found only in the King James and not in the modern translations? Callers that...

Am I interpreting you correctly? That's hitting the nail right on the head. Okay, thank you. Well, I could say this,

Charles, in regard to the doctrine of salvation. There are so many...

You see, every one of these theological, what I believe, errors and inferiorities in these new versions that I've listed in my book,

Chapter 5, every one of these, I believe, indicates a superiority in theology of the

King James Bible. For instance, the very means of salvation. Now, the 158, and Dr.

Jack Mormon has listed actually 356 doctrinal passages where the textus receptus, or the

King James Bible Greek text, varies from the critical text, or the Westcott and Hort text, or the

Biennale of Vatican and Sinai text, the false we consider to be false Greek text. We're not saying that there's nowhere found, but for instance, in John 6, 47, this is an essential verse on how to be saved.

And if you take the New International Version of the New American Standard, and the New King James and the footnotes, following Biennale of the

Vatican and Sinai Greek manuscripts, you find a perversion of how to be saved. The Lord Jesus said,

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. And that is a simple gospel truth that all of us believe, if we're saved.

But the new versions and the Biennale omit the words, on me.

And so they read, Verily, I say unto you, He that believeth hath everlasting life. It doesn't say the object of that belief, and that's very essential to the

King James Bible. The Bible does have it accurately in that one verse. That doesn't mean to say another verse is these other verses may not have on me or some other area,

John 3, 16, for instance. But they're defective here, and I believe that we've got to point these things out.

We don't want our Bible to be defective in any verse. Okay. And my other question related to that would deal with which version of the

King James. Are you talking about the original one that included the apocryphal books?

Or are you talking about the ones that have been printed since then which don't contain the apocryphal?

Well, Mr. White, do you want to answer that first question? You ought to get equal time on that before. No, he's asking you.

If there's a comment, I'll go ahead and... I think it is important to ask you the question, which King James are we talking about here?

Okay, I'm glad to answer that. I wanted to get your comment on that first part. Sure, and I appreciate that. Thank you, sir. The King James Bible that we believe we should use is that which we have currently.

I believe it's for instance the one in the old Schofield or any of these modern King James. The one without the apocrypha, that made itself very scarce, as you know, very, very soon in the 1611

King James Bible. I did a study on the original 1611 actually translation.

Nelson put out one in the English script. I have one in my basement four volumes from the Library of Congress in the

German script, King James 1611. I have one actual count. There are only 421 changes that I could hear to the ear.

Of those, between the 1611 and the current King James Bible, only 136 were substantial changes.

That is adding an and or a but. I don't mean in spelling, I don't mean in punctuation, but I mean changes to the ear.

I could hear toward and towards. I counted that in my 421. I could hear again, well,

I can't think of the others, but I've heard several things that are very close. I could hear burnt and burned, and so I counted amongst and among, lift and lifted.

Those are included in the 421. So, I believe the King James we have in our hands today is, well, in all intents and purposes, identical.

I do have this in research form. I've given that, and I'd be glad to have anyone who wants it to write for it.

I just want to make one quick comment in regards to John 647 and the statements that were made about the belief in salvation.

If you look at John 647, where the NASB says, truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.

Again, the question that I have to ask is, is there anyone who can honestly question what is being said here?

The issue, again, is what did John write? And if the facts of the manuscripts demonstrate to us that John did not write beliefs in me, then no matter how true that may be, we don't want to add it to the

Word of God. There is no one who's going to question what is being said here, because if you look at John 6, verse 40, in the

NASB, for this is the will of my Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in him may have eternal life, and I myself will raise him up in the last day.

Believes in him. It's right there. The object of faith, the object of belief is clearly defined both before and after.

There is no ambiguity as to what belief in John 647 means. And hence, it is not a matter of, you know, corruption.

The question always has to be, what did the apostles write? And I think in this

King James, or in a sense, the Textus Receptus argument we're having right here, the question

I have to keep asking is, why should I believe that Desiderius Erasmus was somehow inspired of God to get everything exactly right when he himself denied that that was the case, which is really what

I'm being asked to believe here in regards to... Isn't that the position that there is a point of in their introduction?

Oh, yes. The King James translators themselves, just to give you an anecdote,

I mentioned to a King James only advocate recently, I said, which do you accept as the true and infallible word of God?

The 1611 version, the 1611 marginal notes where they give alternate translations, or the 1769 edition that you're using now.

And his response was, well, I've only got one King James Bible, and mine doesn't have all of the 1611 have alternate translations, so they must not have existed.

The King James translators gave alternate readings. You don't give alternate readings when you think you're inherently inspired.

You're recognizing that you are engaging in the task of translation, and that there are other possibilities for a proper way of translating something.

Dale, do you want me to reply on that? If you'd like. Okay. I would simply say this.

Though it is possible, certainly, to have alternative understanding of certain Greek words or Hebrew words, every one of which has its own meaning, every one of which has four, five, six, or seven, sometimes, nuances and separate meanings.

Yet, I believe that the King James Bible translators did select at least one of those meanings, one of those nuances from Hebrew and put it into English, or Greek and put it into English.

There may be others, and I don't fault these other versions when they use a synonym here and there for this particular word.

I'm not faulting them for that. But I do fault them when they add to God's words something that just is not in there at all, or subtract from God's words and take them out as a synonym for in the book called

Translating the Word of God. That's the primer for the translators, where they have extrinsic arguments and intrinsic arguments, and they're taught.

When they think there's a repetition, why just remove the words of God? I believe that's what I'm talking about, not synonyms at all.

Dr. Wade, this is David, and I'm in the studio in defense of faith, and I have something

I'd like to ask. I've been trying to follow this, and you've been saying, I feel, I believe, and I've been all those are very subjective.

Are you trying to tell us and our listeners that the TR is the original autograph, the

Word of God? All right. Is the TR the original autograph of the

And do you have any proof? Pardon me? And do you have any proof? Yes. I believe that the

Bible clearly teaches divine preservation of His words.

Well, sir, that's not my question. I just want to ask you, very simply, what's the difference original autographs, and do you have the proof for that, or is that something that you feel and believe, just a subjective feeling?

Well, it's both. It's something I believe, and it's also something that's backed up by fact.

First, I was backing up by saying the Bible preservation, for instance, in Matthew 5, 17, and 18, the

Lord Jesus says, not one jot or one tittle shall in any wise past shall all be fulfilled. God has promised in the

Old Testament, as well, to preserve His words for a thousand generations Psalm 105, verse 8.

The question is, where has He preserved them? In what Hebrew text? What Greek text? And, yes,

I do believe, by faith, that the textus receptus, that underlies our King James Bible, I can't prove it to anybody who doesn't want to believe it, but I believe that those words are the very words that Paul wrote,

Peter wrote, James wrote, John wrote, and so on. And I believe that the Greek New Testament that we have that underlies our

King James is that which God has preserved, word by word. And I believe that same as the Masoretic Hebrew Old Testament text,

I believe that God has preserved those words, word by word. Otherwise, I have no basis,

I have no Bible. If I take away my base, what do I have? My foundation, see? So I have to have something to believe.

I spent, as I say, the first 21 years believing Westcott and Hort was right. I've been studying the last 22 or 3, and I believe that the

Testament speaks for itself. The proof of it, as I say, it's been authorized down through the centuries by the church, by the church and accepted by these churches as being the word of God, and it's attested by the evidence.

Over 99 % of the documents that we have are based, those on which we base our King James, and I believe that those two things are certainly evidentiary.

But again, nobody can make any of us believe what we don't want to believe. Well, I do, but I'm kind of like a skeptic.

I like to have some evidence, and I do believe we have the word of God as we have the majority of the majority text and TR and the

Alexander text, and we can get the word of God from that. But what I was getting from you, and just what it was for me,

I was listening very carefully, is that you say by faith. I've never seen one scholar really say that they would say that TR is the autographs.

And so when you actually say it's the word of God, you're doing it by faith, and I just want our listeners to know that, because you're making a logical fallacy.

You're assuming something you've yet to prove, and that's what I wanted to bring up. And I've been hearing that by faith, and you're casting doubt on some people that read

NAS by saying TR is the word of God, TR is the word of God, and you have not proved that, because you cannot prove it's the original autographs.

And that's all I was saying. And so we can go to the next call, but I thank you for letting me talk to you. Well, let me just comment briefly on your last statement, sir.

I would simply say, David, that the idea of faith and belief,

I'm about to say, I'm preacher, and I must have a word of God to preach. My Lord, through 2

Timothy 4, verse 2, said, preach the word. That's the motto of Dallas Theological Seminary, my alma mater.

And I've got to know what word I'm going to preach. And I've got to have a Bible I'm going to preach. I've got to have a

Greek text, a Hebrew text, and then I've got to have an English text, or a Spanish, or a French, whatever language I am.

And so, you may say, well, no scholar says that they believe that the text receptive has been preserved down through the ages, and I don't believe particular one.

Maybe that either means I'm not a scholar, or maybe that means that I'm one that has. But regardless, I believe you cannot believe in anything.

It's all by faith. How can we really prove the Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God and Savior? See, we believe it, don't we?

Salvation is by faith. There's so much in the whole Christian faith that's by faith. We walk by faith and not by sight.

I believe we have the eyewitness reports, and we have manuscripts that they wrote down, and we have 1 ,500 that I can go to and more and more.

I can go into that, but I was just wanting to clear something up that it is by faith and not by objective evidence.

Dr. Wade, as one Baptist preacher to another, I'm the son of a Baptist preacher who was a part of the

GRB back many years ago. As one Baptist preacher to another Baptist preacher, I just want to make sure that you understand, sir, that I do believe that we have the

Word of God. I do believe that God has preserved His Word. I believe the promises of preservation that are found in Scripture.

I just hope that you can understand and respect a fellow Baptist minister who feels that God has preserved

His Word in a way different than having Desiderius Erasmus or the

Elsevier brothers or Stephanus codify His Word in what became known in 1633 as a textus receptus.

I believe that God preserved His Word by immediately having it go to all the nations all across the known world.

In fact, the manuscripts being immediately found buried in the sands all over the place so that there was never a time in the history of the church when any one man or any group of men could gather up all the copies of Scripture and make wholesale changes in them.

I believe that God preserved the text of Scripture in the same way that He determined the canon of Scripture.

He didn't have a bunch of men get together and take a vote as to what books would or would not. He led His church.

He led His people. He didn't have angels with golden indexes or anything like that. He didn't have angels.

He did it in a way that maybe to the world isn't flashy, but it was God's way of doing it. And I feel that's the way

He preserved the text. By having the text distributed all over the place immediately, there was no way that it could ever be gathered up and changed and corrupted by men.

Now, we now have to deal with textual variation, but I want to make sure everyone understands that I believe that what we have in the

Greek manuscripts today without a doubt contains everything that was written by the apostles of the

Lord Jesus Christ. We have in the Greek of everything that was said. We don't need a re -inspiration of it.

God has preserved His word. I just don't believe that we should assume that Desiderius Erasmus happened to get everything right on his first shot in trying to collate those manuscripts.

Well, David's waiting patiently for a long time, so we're going to have to go to him. Again, for our listening audience, we're having an open debate here, and you can call in at 447 -5495 -447 -KIXL.

Join us. Ask these gentlemen questions. David, you're on.

Well, thank you. I've been enjoying your program very much. Thank you. I'd like to make three observations. I'm not a

Baptist, number one. I have many, many friends who are, but they have no particular quarrel with Baptists at all.

They respect me a great deal. I'm an Anglican, and my church has provided the

Bible. You've probably been talking about, and there are some things of which have not been mentioned, but I think they're very important.

One is that most of the authorized version of the Bible, which you call the King James Version, was taken from the work of William Tyndall, as you probably know, which was done almost a hundred years before this.

Tyndall's work and Miles Coverdale. Miles Coverdale, I understand, did the first complete translation into English.

And the Bishop's Bible and the Great Bible were all consulted to come up with the authorized version in 1611.

And the Greek and the Hebrew, which was consulted at that time, was the best available.

The scholars at Cambridge, Oxford, and at Westminster, took these various versions and and added and took the latest possible

Greek and Hebrew and came up with what they thought, at that time, in the early seventeenth century, was the best that could be done.

Those of us who love the King James Version of the Bible like its marvelous cadence and its beautiful language.

It's probably the greatest monument to English prose that's ever been written. However, it has some grave deficiencies.

Since it was done, there were quite a few earlier Hebrew and Greek texts discovered, which are more primitive, go back closer to the source.

And those texts have been used since the authorized version to provide newer translations.

The great work of the nineteenth century, the English revised version of 1881, was a great improvement over the authorized version.

It eliminated a lot of inconsistencies, a lot of erroneous translations, a lot of just plagiarized absolutely missed translations than the ones that have been done since then.

It has improved upon the predecessors. But I think the thing that most of us have to look to is when we read the

Holy Bible, what we're looking to is inspiration, a word of God to us today.

And the word of God comes through all of these translations, if we want to hear it. There's very rare little difference in the real meaning of any essential word of any of them.

But when we look back to the authorized version of the Bible, it uses what we consider a more religious language.

Many people have commented that in referring to God, the Almighty, and His providential works, we shouldn't necessarily use the same sort of language we use in talking to human affairs.

So David, is there a certain question you'd like to address to either or both of the gentlemen? Yes, I'd like to know why we keep hearing this controversy, and I'd like one over the other, when it's quite obvious to anybody who's done any reading that textual

Biblical criticism has advanced since 1611. I guess that question would be for Dr. Waite.

Okay, thank you. Thank you for your time. Well, Mr. Waite, do you want to go ahead first, and I'll take it last if you want?

Well, since we've done it the other way, sure. We'll take it this direction. Yes, I think there have been advances.

I think there have been abuses. I think there have been I think that the Westcott and Hort went too far one direction.

The modern Greek texts, such as the Nestle All in the 26th, and now the 27th, just now coming out, have corrected many of those abuses.

I have collated a number of instances, and if anyone really is interested in taking notes, and I imagine there probably are some individuals out there that are interested in these things,

I just wanted to note real quickly, if you're taking down passages and so on and so forth, a couple of places where the modern textual

Biblical Greek texts have gone away from the Westcott and Hort text as soon as I can find them.

These are not just merely repetitions of the Westcott and Hort text. I think there have been advances.

The specific passages I was talking about would be Colossians 3 .6, 1 Peter 1 .22,

Mark 9 .42. Each of these gives you an example where the modern texts have gone toward a more

Byzantine reading, and I think that that's good. I think more of a Byzantine restored. But most definitely, modern textual criticism is so far beyond Desiderius Erasmus' attempt to collate twelve manuscripts in Basel, Switzerland, while he's hurrying to get his text down, as to boggle the mind.

And I think it is very important that we do not allow an incipient anti -intellectualism to sneak into our thinking, to where if it's modern, it must be bad.

There's two extremes to this there. There are people who think, well, if it's new, it must be improved. That's not necessarily the case.

And there are others who think, well, if it's new, it must be bad. We need to walk a line there, and I think everyone needs to be students of the word and look into these issues for themselves.

That's why I like the NKJV, including in its footnotes these various readings. It gives you data that otherwise you would have to spend a tremendous amount of time digging through Greek manuscripts to find.

And I think that's a true advantage of those textual footnotes, not a cause for confusion, but giving

Christians information they need to be responsible for God. Because I can't sit around and say, well,

Westcott and Hort told me to do it, or Desiderius Erasmus told me to do it, or King James told me to do it. That's a

Roman Catholic concept, in a sense, of putting my responsibility onto somebody else. I can't say the

Pope made me do it, or the Pope told me to do that. I, as a Protestant, and Dr. Waite is a fellow Baptist, we believe in the individual priesthood of the believer, and the responsibility of my soul before God.

And I can't put my responsibility off onto somebody else. I need to be willing to do the work and do some study on my own.

Dr. Waite. Okay. Almost three minutes. I'll try to answer that in three. The caller talked about the history of the

King James Bible, and it was fairly accurate as far as Tyndale and Coverdale and the

Bishops' Bible, the early Bibles, and of course they did translate from the Hebrew and the

Greek. They did have the three different places, as he mentioned. They did two in each of the companies of Oxford and Cambridge, and the other one.

I forget what was the other one. Anyway, they did a good job, and he says, though, that we don't need it today.

He says that everything is fine, and everybody has the same Bible, and we don't have to worry about God's Word being in every version.

Well, to the extent that there is an accord in a certain verse or a certain place, yes, we can say that that's fine.

But there are discordant notes in the modern versions, whether they're the versions that we speak of that the

Bible -believing Christians use, such as we've talked about tonight, New King James, New American Standard, New International, or whether it be some of the liberal ones, the

Revised Standard Version, New Revised Standard, New English Version, Jerusalem Bible, whatever. There are differences, vast differences.

I think we ought to face it. The second thing that Carler mentioned was the praise of the English Revised Version of 1881, where Westcott and Hort were on the committee.

They were supposed to just have a few odds and ends of sprucing up the English of the

King James Bible, but instead they introduced an entirely new Greek text. And they were working on it for 30 years, from 1851 to 1881, and far from being a great improvement on the authorized version.

Dean John William Burgon, in his book Revision Revised, 500 some pages, almost 600 pages, which we've reprinted, has an excellent analysis of this

English Revised Version of 1881. I'm glad that Carler brought it up. He takes apart, first of all, the

English Revised Version itself. He likens the English Revised Version versus the King James to a carriage that's going down a bumpy road, one that has no springs, whatever, but bump, bump, bump, bump, every bump, and the other that has beautiful springs.

Of course, the beautiful springs are not the English Revised Version. They're the springless one, and the King James is the one that has the springs.

He goes into the analysis of that English Revised Version, and he finds goes into the falseness of the

Greek text that Westcott and Hort have perpetrated upon the English -speaking world, and thirdly, in Revision Revised, he goes into the false theory behind that Greek text, and one of the things is the oldest has to be the best.

Well, the oldest doesn't have to be the best if the oldest has been corrupted by heretics and false teachers, and so I believe we have that argument that's constantly made, the oldest has to be the best.

So, I would rest my case with that. That's my three minutes, and I'll have to give it over to the other questioner.

Q. Dr. White, can I ask you a question real quick? A. Who is that? Q. This is James White. A. Oh, yes. Q. Not today.

I hope he doesn't have any other callers. Go ahead. Q. No, I just, in what you were just talking about in regards to the heretics changing manuscripts and things like that,

I asked you earlier, let me just ask you again, and maybe you didn't understand my question, but what evidence do you have that, say, manuscript

P75, to get real specific, what evidence do you have, or is it just your faith, your feeling, that that manuscript has actually been altered by heretics?

I've taught church history as a professor, and it's important to me to understand these things, and I just am not familiar with any information.

What's the route? assertion that heretics had anything to do with these things. Can you give us any specific information indicating that, like,

P75 has been altered by heretics? A. Well, I would simply say this, that we are told by the ones that are working in the

Greek textual field that, for instance, P70 -whatever it is, five or six or whatever.

Q. P75 is one of them. A. P75, and also the heretics. B, the

Aleph, the Vatican, Sinai, these other manuscripts that go along with them, are Egyptian texts. In some of our research, we've come up to people and men who have written, and I would take their word for it, that the

Egyptians who copied, the copyists that made these Egyptian texts didn't even know Greek because of the way that they ended their sentences.

They kept them. As you know, they don't have any punctuation like we have here. As far as the...

As you know, they don't have any punctuation like we have here. As far as the capital letter ones, they didn't even know

Greek. But as far as the Greek climate at that time, the professor up there in Princeton, Metzger, Dr.

Metzger, in his book, and it's quoted, by the way, in one of the books that we have, talks about the false religions in Egypt.

He goes into great detail, even though Dr. Metzger is not on my side as far as textual receptiveness. He would be on your side as far as the critical text.

But he says there is no known Orthodox Christianity in that day, those early days, in the early centuries, in the

Christian church in Egypt. And so, I just simply say, Egypt in those early centuries, those men were corrupting.

They did have different Gospels and they did have different texts. And I can't put my finger on this verse and that verse.

All I know is there are theological corruptions, some 158 as I mentioned in my book, very serious ones.

And I believe the heretics did it. That's all I can say. Dr. Wade, if they didn't know Greek, how could they change the manuscripts?

Well, they were told, if they didn't know Greek, they were told what to write, what to copy, what not to copy.

By whom? By the ones that were in charge of them. The copyists working in the copy areas were undoubtedly told, for instance, in Mark 16, 9 to 20, the last 12 verses of Mark, that should not be copied because they didn't want those copied.

However, they left, as you know, a space, a blank space in either B or Aleph, to show that really their exemplar, the one from which they were copied, did contain that passage.

But, sir, how do you know they were told this? Isn't this just supposition on your part? I mean, how can you document this?

Well, that's supposition on my part. All I know is the blank space indicates that Luke began afterwards, and so we would just simply conclude, like some of those of you who are on the other side of the fence conclude also we conclude our thoughts also.

But we have a serious difference in the Greek text that underlies our King James Bible and those that underlie these new versions, and I think theologically.

How do you explain, for instance, in 1 Corinthians 5, verse 7, where the efficacy of the

Lord Jesus Christ in His death and the substitutionary blood atonement is gone in B and Aleph, other than heresy?

I don't understand it. And the New International follows like a puppy dog, and the New American Standard, New King James footnotes,

New Berkeley, Christ our Passover is sacrificed, period. No, it's not period.

It's for us, in our place, in our stead. And if it's just sacrifice, for whom?

We're lost unless it's for us. And these are theological verities which are gone from B and Aleph.

Now, you can explain it away and say, well, they weren't heretics, they were all right, they didn't mean to, just accidentally.

All I can say is the bottom line is, in the text that you appreciate go along with B and Aleph and the whole critical text, and these new versions do have theological heresies in them.

Whatever explanation, heretics or otherwise. Well, sir, again, since all those texts all say that Christ died for us in many other places, obviously there is no conspiracy here whatsoever to somehow deny the substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ since it is taught all through B and Aleph.

You find one place in the attempt to extricate extrapolate that out, sir, that just simply isn't logical. That's not heretical.

In point of fact, it's much more logical to understand that drawing from other passages in the New Testament where you have that phrase huperhemon, in behalf of us, that it would be much more logical to understand that a later text would insert it there to harmonize it with other passages than the other way around.

Again, if you don't start with the presupposition that you're starting with, you never come to the conclusion you come to. And Phil, you're on.

Yeah, Dale, I was just going to call a hard text and walk away and I've admired some of his writings and the accusation that he made against James White just kind of is contradictory.

I know James stands in y 'all's camp and y 'all in his on theological matters, y 'all hold hand in hand with...

Excuse me, could you speak up just a little louder for me to hear? Well, I know that James White holds hand in hand the same doctrines that in defense of the faith team hold to, and I was calling the book of when

Tex Marsh calls my church and he claims that James White is a devil, I mean, this is exactly what

Satan himself does. I mean, he accuses, but I mean, I want to go in gentleness here, I'm questioning

Tex Marsh's credibility when he calls in his discernment. If he doesn't know a

Christian from a non -believer, you know, he simply calls up and he accuses

James White of being a devil, and then when he calls up what church he goes to, and Tex Marsh kind of runs away from that, and then he says that he's glad of what

Charles Bullock does over at Christ Memorial Church, and glad to hear Dale and all this, you know, it just sounded kind of wishy -washy, and I want to challenge him to get back on the air and address some of these things that he ran from that James White addressed to him.

I mean, this is exactly what he does in his books. I mean, he's so...

He's a devil. He kind of reports to an extremist way. I wonder if he's tripped himself up where he doesn't know right from wrong now, and I do question exactly what

Dale asked. He said what church he'd go to. I want to know if he's a submissive servant of the

Lord Jesus Christ, if he's in a church and if he's submissive to someone. I've bought his books.

I've read some of his material, and now I'm starting to question him. My discernment bells are going off, and I want him to get back on the air and address these

I appreciate the call, Phil, and I think we certainly welcome that. Your call did remind me of something, though, and not to take away from the importance of what you just said.

I think it's extremely important to be a member of a local church. I am a member of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. I have a pastor that I'm responsible to there.

I think it's extremely important that we all do that, because it's real easy when you get into apologetics to sort of go off on your own horse and just sort of think that you're out to save the world all by yourself.

And ignore what the New Testament says about being a part of the local church. And I think that is important.

But you did remind me of something when you called in the rush when Mr. Myers was on the air.

He did say something that I didn't respond to, and that was he attacked my credibility by pointing out that I misspelled

Gail Ripplinger's name in the first draft of the paper that I wrote. What most people don't know is that the book that she wrote, she used only the name

G .A. Ripplinger. She nowhere indicated either that she was a woman or what her first name was.

The only reason I knew her name was Gail was because I was on a radio program with her and the host called her

Gail. Well, when I wrote my paper and I used her first name, I had to guess, well, how do you spell

Gail? Since she only put G .A. Ripplinger in her book, how do you spell Gail? I guessed G -A -Y -L -E. I later found out from someone who had gotten a letter from her that she spelled it

G -A -I -L, and so I made a correction in all the stuff that I had written to G -A -I -L. Now, if that's the basis for calling someone a liar and a servant of Satan, I think someone has a rather poor basis for that.

But I did want to mention one other thing in regards to Mrs. Ripplinger's book. She didn't put her first name in it, and there's a reason.

And I want to quote from the End Times and Victorious Living newsletter where she talked about why she wrote her book.

And she said, Daily during the six years needed for this investigation, the Lord miraculously brought the needed materials and resources, much like the ravens fed

Elijah. Each discovery was not the result of effort on my part, but of the directed hand of God, so much so that I hesitated to even put my name on the book.

Consequently, I used G -A -Ripplinger, which signifies to me God and Ripplinger, God as author and Ripplinger as secretary.

This is the book that Mr. Mars is defending, which I have documented is filled with numerous errors.

And here you have the author saying that she specifically did not use her first name because G -A -Ripplinger signified to her

God and Ripplinger, which is an amazing thing to me. I'm not trying to get all puffy here, but I would just like this man who

I've read his books and I admire to some extent, get back on the air and address these things.

All right, if I may reply, Dale. Thank you, Phil. Go ahead. All right.

Let me just take the amount of time up to rather than to go into the personalities,

I'm not going to get into either Mrs. Ripplinger or Mr. Mars. Well, Dr. White, we do have two other callers waiting.

In fact, we've just got caller after caller waiting and we're running out of time. Let me just respond in the same amount of time that Mr.

White took, if that's all right, by saying that one of the arguments against the

King James Bible, for example, by the New International, is that the New International is more readable. My son, in fact, is excellent research on the different readabilities of all five or six different versions.

He's taken every one of the 1189 chapters by computer plus reading ease and we find that the

King James Version is superior in many areas as far as being easier to read than the

NIV. In the 52 chapters, it's very easy, the King James. I realize the

NIV 81 chapters, easy, 548 to the King James Version 531 for the

NIV. Dr. Lee, we weren't really addressing that topic, though. We're talking about Text Mars.

Well, I realize, but I just felt that we should get equal time with whatever the other

Mr. White has talked about and I wanted to address the subject that is our theme tonight, the King James Bible versus those that...

Well, you could, if you want to address the issue, do you agree with Ripplinger's book,

New Age Bible Versions? Who is just speaking now? Mr. Dale, I'm just posing that question. Well, I don't want to get into the issue of that book.

We're talking about the issues here. But Dr. White, if I could please, this book really is...

One of the things that Mr. White and I agreed to before we began was that each of us would get an equal amount of time on every question.

He took two and a half minutes, an answer, I wanted two and a half, and that's all I was trying to plead for.

Oh, sure. I was just trying to direct the question. Yeah, but you need to stick to it. Every line of the answer can tell his question, but I believe that I should get the equal amount of time to answer as I feel wisely to answer.

Just like Mr. White has the same amount of time. Yes, sir, I agree completely. So if you'd like to address what the caller said about Gail Ripplinger's book,

I think that would be great, but I think the objection that's being raised is you're going off onto an issue that no one raised. You're going off onto a readability issue.

We're talking about the King James Bible. I believe it's important to have equal time. I don't think that the personalities, whether it's

Mr. Mars or whether it's Mrs. Ripplinger, is a part of the issue that I was here to address.

But what about the book, sir? The book is definitely representing the King James -only perspective, the

King James -only position. Certainly your ministry has taken some position on the validity of her arguments that the

NIV and the NASB are actually satanic translations that are specifically designed to bring people into a one -world government and lead them to worship

Lucifer. How does that Well, your ministry certainly has to take some stand as to whether that's true or false, doesn't it?

Well, we believe that the King James Bible is superior to these other versions. The issue as to whether or not the motivation is satanic or whether it is not is a question that nobody knows except those people who have got it themselves.

I believe it's something we cannot extrapolate. But you may have other questioners.

Go right ahead on your phones and just ask Just so I have the same amount of time that Mr. White has, that's what I'm contending for.

OK, certainly, Dr. Wright. All right, let's go to Rosalie. Rosalie, you're on. Thanks for waiting. Hello, I've got a question.

Sure. Why do most people preserve the King James Bible? OK, who would like to start on that?

Why do most people preserve the King James Bible? Rosalie, do you mean preserve or prefer in the sense of using it?

Why do they call the King James preserved? Oh, OK. Why do they call the

King James preserved? Well, Dr. White, you're the one that said it was God's word preserved in English, so I guess you should start with that one.

All right. God's word kept intact in English, we believe. I believe in preservation of the words of God, and I believe that there are two senses of preservation.

One, Rosalie, is with a capital P, you might say, and I believe that God's words have been preserved in the original

Hebrew language, which God spoke, a little bit of Aramaic, not much, and the original

Greek language. I believe capital P preservation of those words, and I believe that they're preserved in the

Masoretic text that underlies the King James and the Texas Receptors that underlies our King James Bible. But I believe that there's a small lower case word preserved that we can say concerning our

King James Bible in the sense that it preserves in the English language what has been given to us in the original

Hebrew and the original Greek language. And so I would use that in a small P preservation. It preserves the words, every word of the

Hebrew into English and the Greek into English, and in that sense it does preserve the words of God in the

English language, just like if we use those same Hebrew and Greek texts into Spanish or French or Russian, they would be preserved in those languages.

Okay, because I've been studying, and the Bible says in 2 Timothy 3 .16

that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God. And so I figured, well, if the other

Bibles have the Word of God in it, then they're inspired by Him. All right.

I would simply say, Rosalie, that in 2 Timothy 3 .16 that you're saying there, all

Scripture, which in the Greek is all that which has been written down is inspired by God or is given by inspiration of God, which is

God breathed. And I believe that God breathed out His words in the Hebrew and in the

Greek language in the first instance. And I believe that that's what is being referred to here.

And those words properly translated by the King James Bible into English, yes, into other languages, yes, and those words are translations, but the actual

God's breathing of the words, He did not breathe them out in English or Spanish or French, but He breathed them out,

I believe, in Hebrew, Little Aramaic, and in Greek. I agree with Dr. Waite that, in fact, that's why

I like the NIV translation of 2 Timothy 3 .16, Rosalie, is because that's exactly what it says.

It says all Scripture is God breathed. And I do believe that all

Scripture is God breathed and that you can find accurate translations of that Scripture in the modern translations and in the

King James. You can find God's word in these translations, and I think the argument this evening has to do with whether you can truly find it fully in, say, an

NIV or an NASB, which are different modern translations of the Bible, or whether it's just the

King James only. That's where the disagreements are arising right now, and that's what we're discussing. But I do want to make sure that you understand that someone who uses, like, the

New King James version and the New American Standard can believe, and we do believe, that God's word is fully inspired, that it is

God breathed. You can believe that and still use those translations. Well, I read

King James, and I was just kind of curious. Okay. Thank you. Well, thank you for your call,

Rosalie. Let's have conclusions. Let's have conclusions. Okay. Dr. Wade, would you like to go first, or would you like me?

Go ahead. Well, I think we have seen this evening, as we have examined, when we've been able to get to specifics, there is really no reason to believe that the

King James version is superior in all respects to all of the translations, or that the textus receptus underlies this

New Testament, is superior to all modern translations. We have seen mistranslations in the KJV that have not been addressed, and errors in the

PR that have not been addressed. And so I feel that those issues need to be addressed, and until they are,

I don't believe that a person can tell someone else that they're should utilize the King James as their only translation.

I think people should be able to utilize a number of different translations in their Bible studies. Right. That was a short one.

Forty seconds. Wow. Okay, I'll just sum up and simply say that every one of us is entitled to their own opinion, and I do not wish to force anyone to take an opinion on the

King James. I'm not sure that you can protect me for any other matter that is contrary to their will.

And so I believe I'll stop there.