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

All right, now, you've got five minutes under your belt, you've got as much as you could in. Gail, you're still there.

Sure I am. All right, now, let's get specific. You made your case,

James, where do you want to start with Gail? Well, I think the first thing

I would probably go to is I have some very serious problems with the type of argumentation,

Gail, that you utilized in your book. For example, if you could explain to us, on page 149, you utilized something called acrostic algebra, and what you did in a passage that reminded me a little bit of the identification of Henry Kissinger as the

Antichrist two decades ago, how they'd take his name apart and add it up, so on and so forth. You took the

New American Standard Version and the New International Version, NASV and NIV, and then you somehow subtracted out

AV, and using this acrostic algebra, somehow demonstrated that supposedly the

NIV and the NASV together add up to SIN, as if this demonstrated something about the version.

So I'd like to ask you, first of all, where does acrostic algebra come from, and secondly, why it is that everywhere else in your book you refer to the

NASB, New American Standard Version, or Bible, except for this one place where you changed it to NASV.

Why the change in the two things? Okay, I'll address your first question, or just this last question of yours relating to that acrostic algebra.

Your ministry is called Alpha and Omega, right? Right. Jesus Christ is the Word of God.

Now, it's very, very likely that every single word and every single letter in the Bible has a specific meaning, and it's there for a reason, and that lots of words and things that we use today have very specific meanings.

He said, not one jot or tittle would pass from the lot till all be fulfilled. So I don't think anything is accidental, okay, and I think when we're in heaven, the dark glass that we're seeing through now, everything will be quite clear.

And the fact that when you take the letters out of, when you take the material that's in the

NIV and in the NASV out away from them, and you just have the

A -V left, what's left are the letters S -I -N. Now, I didn't expect that's something that just happened, and I think it's very purposeful because the

New Versions do allow for sin. I mean, you've got immorality instead of fornication. If you ask any college student that I'm sure you've worked with and asked them what immorality is, they'll give you a definition relating to pollution or something like that, and if you look fornication up in the dictionary, it's very clear that that's premarital sex.

And so the New Versions do, in fact, allow for sin. And so, where did

I get that from? The Lord gave that to me one night, and I was pretty surprised when I saw it. Well, then, you didn't answer the question of why throughout the book you use

NASV, but you changed it to NASV. Well, I suspect that the Lord called it the NASV.

Actually, it is the NASV, and I called it... The Lord calls it the NASV? Well, I don't know, I'm just suggesting that He gave me that formula there, and that's the only thing that I can say about that.

I think the NAS has been called all three, the NAS, the NASV, and the NASV, and so calling it one or the other.

The King James is also called the Authorized Version. I don't think that that's significant.

Well, you know, I just don't believe at all that the quote -unquote New Versions promote or allow for sin.

You say that, well, if they don't use the term fornication, they're somehow promoting sin.

Anyone who has an NIV or an NASV in their hands knows that in reading that Bible, a lot is talked about sin, and sexual sins, all kinds of sexual sins.

Okay, it says sexual sin, but it doesn't say fornication, okay? Now, if you ask someone at Kent State University, where I used to talk, what sexual sin is, they will tell you having sex with animals or having sex in a group.

They will not tell you sex before marriage, so if you say sexual immorality to a Kent State University student, they will not say fornication, they will not say premarital sex, they will not say it's good for a man not to touch a woman the way the

Bible says. Ma 'am, if I ask a lot of people what fornication means, they're going to be utterly clueless.

The point in Bible study is that if you're going to find out what the Bible says, you look into it, you allow it to define its own terms, and when you look at the meaning of these terms, what they mean is very, very plainly brought out.

You can't possibly say that the NIV and the NASV do not address the issue of sexual sin. Are you saying that they never address the issue of sexual sin?

Well, let me tell you what they do to sodomy, for example. And the whole sin of sodomy is completely omitted in the

New Versions, and that's because Dr. Virginia Molencott has come out as a lesbian on the NIV committee.

She wrote two books, is The Homosexual My Neighbor and Sensuous Spirituality, and in those books she says that the

Bible does not censor sincere homosexuals drawn to someone of the same sex.

It only censors criminal offenses like prostitution and violent gang rape. So what you have in 1

Corinthians 6 and 9 in the New Versions is that the term effeminate is taken out, and substituted in that place we have male prostitutes or homosexual offenders.

So this woman's beliefs are present right there in the NIV and the NASV. In the entire

Old Testament, the term sodomy is removed. Now we know that sodomy is the means of transmission of the

HIV virus. There are people dying of it all over the world, and unless they have a King James Bible, they're not going to know how they got that.