Response to Southwestern on King James Controversy, Part 5 (Letus / Riplinger)

Be diligent to present yourself approved to God a worker who does not need to be ashamed rightly dividing the word of truth. Alpha and Omega ministries presents the dividing line radio broadcast. The Apostle Peter commanded all Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us.

Yet to give this answer with gentleness and reverence. Your host is dr. James White director of Alpha and Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. If you'd like to talk with dr. White, you can call now by dialing 602 274 1360.

That's 602 274 1360 or if you're out of the Metro Phoenix dialing area, it's one eight eight eight five five zero thirteen sixty. That's one triple eight five five zero thirteen sixty. And now with today's topic.

Here's James White.

Southwest Radio Church, Gail Riplinger, and the King James Only Controversy

Well, I shouldn't have done it. I knew I shouldn't have done it, but I did it anyways. What do I mean well as We've been providing a response to the Southwest Radio Church series on King James only ism and I do appreciate those of you who've dropped us messages letting us know how much you've appreciated the programs letting us know that it has been helpful to you to Hear a response and to hear the interaction and just as we did a lengthy section last a lengthy series last summer Responding to Norman Geisler's chosen but free this summer We're doing a series in response to the King James only controversy and the Southwest Radio Church attack on my book.

I got an email from someone who's been listening to the program and They mentioned that they went to the Southwest Radio Church website to listen to the programs we were responding to and lo and behold they happened to run across a Series of programs done with Gail Ripplinger and these aired January 11th and 12th of 1999.

I Shouldn't have done it. I know I shouldn't have done it, but I went and listened to them and I know we're responding to dr. Liedis right now, but as I've pointed out Theodore Liedis Recognizes that Gail Ripplinger is not even on the same planet that he's on when it comes to the issue of the King James Version of the Bible.

I'm sure in Theodore Liedis's perspective Gail Ripplinger is an absolute embarrassment. But here you have the vice president of Southwest Radio Church interviewing Gail Ripplinger for two days. Now I'm gonna play a couple sections of this and I don't know how much I need to say in response to what you're about to hear I play it again to show the hypocrisy of the attacks on my book.

Why do I say hypocrisy? Because if you're going to respond to a book a you should respond to what actually says but be to make it appear as The Southwest Radio Church tried to make it appear that dr. Liedis and dr. Waite are on the same page Was simply dishonest because they're not.

Secondly, I Think there is an element of hypocrisy on dr. Liedis's part to even be on the Southwest Radio Church programs Without making it very clear. Who he's talking about when he talks about? Those representatives and defenders the King James Version of the Bible that are an embarrassment that are irresponsible.

Now we know he means people like Gail Ripplinger, but given that he's attacked the Dean Burgon Society Why not say DA Waite as well? Let's be honest with when we're on these radio programs if they were to call me up and say hey.

Would you like to be on our program? I would say yes as long as I can say anything that I need to say and I can point out That The the double standards that have been used on your program as long as I can point out that you know The Southwest Radio Church promoted the y2k thing.

They had Grant Jeffries on they did all this stuff. Promoting what what was it really a fraud and a hoax and all the rest of stuff if I was willing to say those things Able to say those things and fine.

I'll be on and I'll present my position. Dr. Liedis doesn't do that. So I shouldn't have done it. But when I started listening To what Gail Ripplinger said on the Southwest Radio Church and the fact that the announcer the person doing the interview the host Said nothing about what you're about to hear.

It was amazing. And so I had to bring this material to you I I had some people in our chat room listen to this and see if if maybe I was missing something maybe if there was just Something that I didn't understand and they all agreed with me.

It was some of the most amazing stuff they've ever heard. What am I referring to? Well Just to give you an idea of the spectrum that the Southwest Radio Church has presented in defense the King James Version of the Bible.

Here in this first section Gail Ripplinger explains I think the relationship of the American Standard Version the NIV Rupert Murdoch and the sinking of The Titanic at least I think that's what she's saying.

Let's find out. Well now one of the things that I guess some of our listeners have been wondering about Gail is When did the new versions first appear in America. Are these brand-new things that just came about in the last 20 or 30 years?

Well, you know the Titanic traveled to America from England in 1912. This was the same year as the corrupt American Standard Version and coincidentally It was a man named Murdoch who threw the famous Titanic into reverse.

Causing it to sink. Now scientists have just discovered that of course it wasn't a big gash, but as previously thought that sunk the Titanic, but six small slits and Today's NIV has cut out 64 ,000 words and 16 verses.

Now back in 1912 the New American Standard Bible had Timothy Dwight of the infamous skull and bones Society. As a committee member I have an educated guess about why the Titanic sunk and why the NIV will eventually sink in the lake of fire.

The Titanic was from something called the white star line owned by JP Morgan. And the term white star is a codename for Lucifer. If someone needs to document if they could read the book mastering witchcraft by Paul Henson and includes a prayer to Lucifer.

Which states thou of the unholy Trinity help us whose star is white blot out the red star. Now they are praying that Lucifer will take the place of our precious blood-stained Savior the Lord Jesus Christ.

We remember Lucifer himself said in Isaiah 14. I will be like the most high. Now back at the turn of the century Madame Blavatsky with her newspaper Lucifer Said on its cover quote. I Jesus and the bright morning star Lucifer.

She was saying that Jesus and Lucifer were the same person. Of course this isn't true. But her followers in the transactions of the first annual Congress of the Theosophical Society way back at the turn of the century said quote I Believe it is through the churches and not through the Theosophical Society.

That theosophy must and should come to large bodies of people in the West. The work of destructive Criticism has paved the way. Sweeping away certain passages which great on the ears the phrase washed in the blood is one.

Now the phrase washed in the blood had been taken out of the American Standard Version and it's still out in Colossians 1 14 and out 40 times in the NIV and 23 times in the New King James Bible. There's a principle in social psychology called cognitive dissonance and to change an attitude.

They recommend bringing the person into initial exposure to a message. Which is only slightly different from the receivers beliefs, and this is exactly what they've done with the Bible versions. They get progressively worse now in the NIV today.

We have exactly what Madame Blavatsky's newspaper said we have Jesus Christ as Lucifer in Isaiah 1412 the King James correctly translates Isaiah 1412 as how Arthur fallen from heaven. Oh Lucifer son of the morning Lucifer is the fallen angel.

Jesus Christ has never fallen. He is the Son of God. God manifest in the flesh. However, the NIV says in Isaiah 1412. How have you fallen from heaven morning star? So they're saying that the star and Lucifer are the same thing.

Now in 2nd Peter 119 the NIV also calls Jesus Christ the morning star instead of the day star. But for centuries way back at the turn of the century once again the Catholic Latin Vulgate said in Latin Lucifer orator 2nd Peter 119 now that would translate as Lucifer rising and I it strikes me as funny that in 1990s there's an underground movie called Lucifer rising and the soundtrack was done by that rock group Led Zeppelin.

So things seem to really come around that way. You know the word for star in Hebrew is Kocab and it does not appear at all in Isaiah 1412. God uses the word star in verse 13 if you wanted to use it. He could have used it in verse 12.

In fact, God uses the word star about 30 sometimes in the Old Testament and he does not use it in Isaiah 1412 well.

How do you respond to that? Huh? What kind of rational response can be offered to that kind of? Rambling. Irrational type of thinking. I Mean, honestly, I feel sorry for Gail Rippling. I Do not feel sorry for the pastors and men who Open up their pulpit to her give her time on the radio and do not challenge her and sit there in Silence I can guarantee you the host the program didn't understand a word.

She was saying no one can. What are they doing? Are they they're afraid they fear this woman? She's called me a serial soul killer. David cloud is one of the few King James only advocates who's had the intestinal fortitude to even disagree Slightly with her and she's gone after him.

She's gone after Dave Hunt. Anyone who opposes her shit them viciously and Make fun of their last names primarily. That's that's one of her things as well but did anyone understand what she just said.

The Titanic sank and it had something to do with Rupert Murdoch and six slits in the side and 64 ,000 words and 16 verses and and and white stars and There is no way to respond to that kind of thinking because it's not thinking.

It is grab any fact no matter what its context is. Throw it together and as long as maybe some sounds are alike or maybe a words alike. We throw it together as if they're somehow connected. This is incredible stuff, but I have to play you one other cut.

Because dr. Leedus is talking about the the people who are unprepared remember I shouldn't have written this book because I'm not a specialist I mean just because I teach Greek and Hebrew and Greek exegesis and Hebrew exegesis and and I'm a critical consultant on a major translation and and had a minor in Greek and and studied this at seminary and and You know seven years worth and and have taught for many that I'm not an expert in the field like he is but Gail Rippling er has never formally studied any biblical language.

She defends her knowledge of these issues by saying that she took Latin in kindergarten and Taught English as a second language and had students from Greece in her Classes and that makes her capable of dealing with the biblical manuscript issue.

Let's keep this in mind and again remember Southwest Radio Church presents her on the same level as Theodore P Leedus isn't that fascinating in light of that? Listen to Gail Rippling er discussing.

Linguistics. You've been studying the King James Version in Particular for quite a while. What conclusions can be drawn about the authorized version or the King James Version using the tools of linguistic.

Analysis. Well Hebrews tells us that the Word of God the King James Bible is sharp and powerful. God uses just the right words to make it that way. Now one of the elements of linguistics that new version translators Completely ignore is the phonesthesia or sound Symbolism of individual letters each individual letter and its corresponding sound Contributes to the emotional effect a word has.

Advertisers are very aware of this element. It's the impression of a harsh strong product is desired. It could be called Clorox. If a soft delicate product is desired they would call it puff. Sharp and powerful words like swear words or invictus are usually used with letters that are called plosives.

Letters like P B T D K G when they are pronounced the air pressure which has been filled up in the mouth is released Explosively. Hence the KJV's use of the word damnation is much more powerful than the NIV or the New King James worth use of Condemnation.

In fact most D words in the Bible have a negative connotation. Alphabetically the Bible begins with dagger and ends with dying and listen to just a few of the words in between. Dead debt decay deceit deceit defile Delilah's delusion deprived despair destroy destitute devil devour disease dragon dung Dungeon dying.

You know our mind appears to work like a computer. Certain signals like keystrokes will bring up an area of memory. Likewise certain words or even syllables or letters will bring to the conscious mind a whole battery of conjoining word memory.

Apparently God has built into the English Bible a preconditioned negative Association with certain letters sounds and words. The so-called archaic words in the King James then like dropped or This and all or despite are stripped of their much-needed impact when they are updated by new versions.

The KJV employs many other photostatic letter qualities and communicating meaning. For instance it uses high-pitched fricative like F and F. For instance the word fornicator with its high-pitched fricative F.

And it's plosive K sound is much stronger than the NIV and the New King James use of the word immoral. Okay, when you look at the Cambridge Encyclopedia of English language They will tell you that the letter M has the sound and so the encyclopedia devotes an entire section to the negative aspects of F words.

It comments that F and words are particularly Unpleasant usually and the KJV uses these warning its readers using words like snare according to my calculations 40 more often than the NIV or the NASB to do the encyclopedia of linguistics Explains SL words Usually in English convey a downward motion, so if you look in the King James it will have Slothfulness 17 times the NIV has zero times slain 350 times the NIV only has a 50 times KJV has slack 10 times and the NIV only has it five times.

The New King James and the NIV and most new versions do a great Damage to the cause of Christ by changing servant the slave because according to the encyclopedia That's a downward position and this is alien to our sonship motives according to Ephesians 6 6.

You know the high-pitched fricative F and the plosive K sound heard in the FC words in the King James. Most of which have a negative connotation. Now listen to how the NIV Disarms or make the Bible is feminine.

The KJV will have scant. The NIV has short KJV skull and IV for KJV scapegoat and IV goat KJV scurvy and IV festering sore KJV school and IV lecture hall. The KJV lump the scholar and the scribe in with all the negative FC words like scarlet scorch scorn scum scoff.

Apparently when you put all the FC words in the King James Bible together. They have a huge heap Against the solitary word of truth, which is the scriptures. You know when you compare a dictionary or Greek lexicon to get a definition.

They may have the same denotative meaning. But they will not have the same pronotative meaning for instance if you compare the word slender with the word skinny. Now SL there's that downward position again, so slender means you know someone who has less weight than someone else.

But someone who's skinny that's the SK of the invictive. That's a highly charged word calling someone skinny, but the slender would be the politically correct word. So the KJV is sharp, and it is powerful, and I believe these new versions are somewhat of feminized.

Well there you go folks.

That that that absolutely makes the case for me I mean just because God's act of inspiration took place over a thousand years before the English language came into existence and Just because the King James translators wouldn't have had the Foggiest idea what in the world Gail Rippling or just said you got to realize that makes no difference to these people.

Because the King James version is in point of fact inspired in Fact really when you think about it anything it came before the King James is irrelevant. Absolutely irrelevant. What happened before 1611 makes no difference.

Did you. Did you listen to that? Remember this is the same woman who talked about the s of the hiss of the serpent in the letter s and Identified the five points of Calvinism with the five points of a pentagram.

And this kind of thinking is Absolutely irrational absolutely irrational. And While I feel sorry for someone who actually believes it like Gail Rippling er the people I hold accountable are people like the Southwest Radio Church that give her a platform and Then sit back and say nothing at the end of this long tirade that again I can guarantee you The host didn't understand what she was saying and if the host doesn't agree with what she's saying I would say that person had a responsibility to say so.

But remember as far as the Southwest Radio Church is concerned Absolute equality here with Theodore Peletis. Why they offer her books. They offer his books. They present her as an expert in the subject.

They present him as an expert in the subject. Should they have known? That he thinks that Gail Rippling er is completely out to lunch on these things. Do they know. I don't know. I've certainly informed them of it.

But one of the interesting things that we mentioned today on the program is I've been attempting to let dr. Ledis know that we are responding to him. I think that's fair. I think it's fair that when you're going to Respond to someone and say they have erred.

That you should if you can. Let them know. So we've let dr. Wait know we've let dr. Sparge Amino know and I have written to the only email address. I have for Theodore Ledis. Well I've gotten a note back.

I got a note back at my America online account and his address is also with America online. The only address that I had that used to be listed on their web page was letus t at AOL comm capital L and a capital T and So I wrote to him.

And I let him know that we are going to be responding to him that I feel he has misrepresented me. I gave him the direct URLs to our web page. So he can listen live if he wanted to to the archives on straightgate .com.

So he could listen if he was busy during the live presentation. He could listen to it later if he wanted to. And I got a little note back from AOL and The note says that my recent message to Letus t at AOL comm was deleted.

Unread a Block has been placed against my email address. Signed staff of AOL. So dr. Leedis doesn't even want me to drop him an email letting him know that we are responding let alone. Will he then engage us in a conversation about it?

Doesn't it strike you is just a little bit strange. Gail rippling er was invited to be on many programs. I've been on to debate me. She won't. She was on with me once you can hear the results on our website.

It was ugly in Fact if you listen to the Southwest Radio Church programs with her. It's very obvious that she sent them the questions they were to ask and she was reading her answers. She cannot defend her position on the fly.

She cannot defend her position in debate. She was invited to be on the John Ankerberg program. She declined. Peter Ruckman was invited to be on the John Ankerberg program. He declined da wait was invited to be on the John Ankerberg program.

He declined. We have invited da wait to be on the program as of the date of this recording. No response to either email or US mail contact. I've already read you what dr. Sparge Amino has said in the one letter we've received and now dr. Leedis blocks one of my many email addresses on America online so he doesn't even have to get the notification that we are dealing with the.

Now, what does that tell you? I'll tell you what it tells me if I had a position that I presented to the world as absolute truth and Yet I knew that I could not defend it. Especially against the specific people.

I was criticizing. I wouldn't be able to sleep at night folks. But you see that's the wonderful thing about believing the truth is you can sleep at night. You can sleep at night because you know that what you're saying you're willing to defend and these folks can't Do it.

Why? Well, I think you've heard Why that is now going back to our response to dr. Leedis and I know we took about 23 minutes there. But I think you need to to have a context here. I Won't even go into the emails that I get from King James only advocates all the time that make what you just heard from Gail Ripplinger look logical.

The ranting and the raving and the name-calling and the hatred. It's incredible. Absolutely incredible. So that's not fair. There are good solid King James only people that would never do that. You're exactly right.

But the movement has spawned the single most nasty Radical angry people of any movement I've dealt with and folks. I'm including Roman Catholicism Mormonism Jehovah's Witnesses. In that list, it's amazing.

It's absolutely amazing. Now what's almost equally amazing them is to listen to Theodore lead us. When going back to responding to him he in essence does what he accuses me of doing that is he makes reference to uninformed King James only advocates and then he says I am equally uninformed and therefore my book is an uninformed response to uninformed people and anyone who's read my book and Then listens to what Gil Ripplinger just said has to sit there and go has has dr. Leedis even read this book.

Or is he just being desperately dishonest and putting these two together listen to what he says now.

This is probably the thing that annoys me the most so you see I have a bone to pick both with the irresponsible Advocates of the KJV who aren't as informed as they need to be and who go into print irresponsibly.

Almost equally as much as I do with James White who is just as ill-informed and ill-prepared in the subject. But finds these other advocates who publish booklets and and ill-informed books a very soft and easy target.

So what you end up having? Is someone raising the issue ever gets around to dealing with the real issues? And I think that is the thing that bothers me the most about the entire controversy, but that basically is the context of mr.

White's book it has often been said he who controls the context controls the argument and It is to dr. Leedis's advantage to make it sound as if that's the context of my book. But it isn't if you recall from last week.

He's tried to make this a Christianity today defense of the status quo it has nothing to do with that he has so far not provided a single specific from the book and Seemingly is banking on the idea that those who are going to be Listening to him are not going to read the book and find out for themselves now at this point in the response dr. Sparge Amino came back in and Mentioned that they were making available dr. Leedis's book the Ecclesiastical text and he gave the 800 number and you can call and buy dr. Leedis's book which I guess means you can call the Southwest Radio Church, and you can buy Theodore Leedis's Ecclesiastical text and while you're at it you might as well buy da Waits book promoting the Dean Burgon Society against that viewpoint presented by Theodore Leedis and and then you could buy Gail Riplinger's books, too and If you put the three of them together, I can guarantee you the greatest amount of possible confusion.

What must it be like to present all this This information from completely different perspectives. If you read all of it, you wouldn't know what to believe. It's an amazing thing to observe. Well, we're gonna be taking our break now coming back on the other side one of the more humorous incidents between dr. Sparge Amino and dr. Leedis where dr. Sparge Amino says I didn't address something and dr. Leedis has to correct him tell him that I did.

And yet even then dr. Leedis won't tell us what he really thinks about the passage under discussion. What are we talking about where you have to stay tuned to find out? We'll be right back here on the dividing line.

1 John 5:7 and the Johannine Comma

And welcome back to the dividing line, my name is James white. We continue our response to the Southwest Radio Church series on the King James only controversy and As we've said many many times we'd love to have some of these folks on the program.

But you know, they're just really not too interested in having a dialogue on this subject. They'd rather just simply say that man is wrong and Just trust what we have to say about it because we don't want to discuss it one-on-one now before the break I mentioned one of the more humorous things that took place and Dr. Larry Sparge Amino starts off with a question to Theodore lead us about how one-sided white is and As we listen to this section, you'll hear that.

Dr. Leedis has to correct. Dr. Sparge Amino because seemingly He didn't read my book very well and in the process though Listen and see if he actually tells us what he thinks about an important passage.

First John 5 7 why it is terribly one-sided in a lot of his statements. He were speaking about some of the fallacious approaches that he takes and sometimes it's not what he says. But what he doesn't say and what he omits that is problematic now.

I think a good example of that is first John 5 7 and 8 those who favor the newer versions. Don't ever tell you that by omitting the Trinitarian passage in the so-called Johannine comma you end up with some serious grammatical problems.

You have a neuter participle for example being followed by a Masculine participle and there are some other problems of mismatched genders. Now white never says anything about that. Unless you think that if you believe first John 5 7 and 8 belongs in the scripture that you're some kind of an ignoramus.

Who is just worshiping? Erasmus. And you really don't know what you're talking about.

Well, he does actually Larry address that at one point in the book and he does give an answer in terms of To be there. It's actually does actually address. Well ever so briefly is what he said and.

Isn't it interesting that while I did address that subject? Dr. Sparge, you know, maybe didn't read the footnotes. Which if you've looked at the book are very important element actually end notes at the end of each chapter.

But it's interesting that when we look at the comma Johannium and we look at first John 5 7 what dr Letus goes on to say as well. You know what white does is he attacks the weakest link now? It sounds to me and maybe you all can do some interpretation with me.

And by the way, the phone lines are open at 602 2 7 4 13 60. 1 triple 8 5 5 0 13 60. That's 602 2 7 4 13 60 and 1 triple 8 5 5 0 13 60. Maybe you can read into what's being said here, but it sounds to me.

Like dr Letus is admitting that the comma Johannium first John 5 7 is the weakest link in the defense of the King James Version of the Bible and I would love to be able to ask him does he agree with? Dean Burgon that first John 5 7 should not be a part of the text of the New Testament that in fact to believe that.

It should be is to overthrow all of textual critical practice. I'd love to ask da wait that question. I'd love to ask Theodore Letus that question. But they're not here to ask and we keep asking them to be here now in this section.

He's going to call it an interesting technique on my part to Focus on the Kami Ohanian anyone who's read my book However knows that I address the Kami Ohanian simply because it's addressed by all the King James only advocates.

Listen what he has to say, but this is another interesting technique of his I suppose to be perfectly honest. All of us would have to admit that the controversy surrounding The link in the entire chain a position is well now the problem with that.

Of course is rather simple and that is I didn't distort it out of all proportion anyone who reads the book and again no Specifics were provided. Why why not open the book up and say okay? Here's here's what he said on first John chapter 5 verse 7 and Here's where he's wrong about first chapter first John chapter 5 verse 7.

Dr. Lea says well, it's not a completely Satisfying answer in regards the grammar. Why not? We're not told it's like look I'm the expert take what I have to say at face value and anyone who's read the King James only controversy knows That's not something that I did in the book at all.

Now dr. Letus goes on to say that he is annoyed with me not with my book. Annoyed with me why because he says I am Oblivious absolutely oblivious to a belief in providential preservation. Now there's one major problem with this.

I Understand what King James only advocates mean by providential preservation but The King James only advocates like dr. Sparge amino and dr. Wait don't mean by providential preservation what Theodore elitist means by providential preservation and I mentioned in my book my belief in providential preservation, which isn't what either of them believe and so since I didn't write my book against his position and since he dismisses the majority of King James only advocates as Ill-informed backwater advocates of King James only ism I'm being faulted for not writing my book against his position instead of writing against the position that is having so much more impact upon the the Church than dr. Lee says, I mean, let's remember something Gail rippling errs book has sold 130 ,000 copies.

I can Guarantee you that all of dr. Leedis's books put together have not sold 130 ,000 copies. So if I'm going to deal in something to help the church Then I'm going to deal with that which is causing the division in the strife primarily.

So to criticize me for not responding to his book and respond to this other is absolutely inane.

But listen to what he has to say. One of the things that annoys me about mr. White is his absolute obliviousness to the notion of the fact that within Protestant confessional traditions from the 16th century right up really till about the 19th century all conservative Orthodox.

To the notion that Not only was scripture inspired verbal oversight of God. I'm not sure exactly what I did there.

I'm the one that put the cuts together and it keeps cutting out the last few syllables for some strange reason but I am fully aware of that and The issue is how was by the Bible providentially preserved and I did address this.

In fact, I addressed it most fully in the section on his own mentor. Which we'll get to a little bit later on where he accuses me of misrepresenting Edward F Hills. So again, it seems that these folks are assuming No one is actually going to go out and read my book and discover that these criticisms have absolutely no Foundation whatsoever.

He says that in fact, I hold up Providential preservation to scorn and ridicule that I don't deal with Owen. I don't deal with Turreton and again These are people that the King James only advocates don't even know about.

They're not people that they're referring to. They weren't King James only advocates for that matter. It is Amazing the assertion that dr. Leedis makes here in this next section and all through his book.

Particularly when he alludes to Edward F Hills He holds our nation of providential preservation to absolute scorn as though it's an absurd a ridiculous notion. This was a foundational principle within confessional Protestantism for nearly 400 years and in fact if you'll look in the back of his index He has absolutely no References to the defenders of the doctrine of providential preservation from the 17th century like John Owen.

You won't find him in his index. You won't find Turreton back. They're one of the most prominent defenders of the doctrine of providential preservation both on the continent and look under Reformation in his book are the reformers.

He has to each which means obviously he has no intention of bringing those Eras of those issues into his into the conversation.

Well, that's because I was dealing with the King James only controversy. That's what the book is about. Dr Leedis and so again, we see that this great expert in textual issues Not only cannot give us specifics of any of the biblical passages that I was addressing any errors that were made in dealing with Manuscripts and dealing with Greek and dealing with Hebrew.

You won't find a single citation provided of specific errors. Instead what is the fundamental criticism? I didn't write a book in response to his particular ecclesiastical text theory. Now in point of fact, and I need to put this on the website we I did do a very brief written debate with a proponent of the ecclesiastical text theory in a periodical that you may have heard of called credenda agenda and There is if you go to their website, and I neglected to bring the URL with me.

But if you just do a search for credenda agenda go to their website look at there are search for my name. You'll see a back-and-forth it's called a dispute oshio between myself and I believe it was Douglas Wilson on the subject of the ecclesiastical text theory so we have addressed that but that's not what this book was about because in Comparison as far as actual impact in churches the ecclesiastical text theory is Minuscule it's it's minor in comparison to the impact that the King James only Controversy as a whole is having and so it is not a matter of ignoring those folks.

And nor is it a matter and and and again this this next cut and then we'll go to our phone lines this next cut comes from the very same type of criticism on the part of Ledis and that he says well he certainly does focus a lot on on Westcott and Hort.

Well, that's because the King James only advocates focus on Westcott and Hort. So I have to respond to the people that I'm quoting and listen carefully to how he describes. The King James only advocates that aren't presenting his position in this cut if you look at what he has to say.

Under the names of Westcott and Hort, you'll see there's a whole series of course in 19th century figures. He virtually ignores the 16th through the 18th century concentrates on the 19th and 20th century and so distorts the entire picture as though.

Really this issue is really one of some ill-informed Backwater advocate pushing the King James version and ill-informed and an emotional Russian really fringe fringe group I.

Don't know what we did I did that CD, but it is it didn't quite burn right did it fringe group now. Did you hear that ill-informed? Backwaters advocates now, you know, what's funny about this remember last week.