Sam Gipp Attacks!

I am busily preparing this week for my debate with Dr. Bart Ehrman next week in Florida and you might be a little surprised that I would take the time to record this video in light of the things that I've got coming up, but it's sort of taking a little bit of a break and it is interesting because it's slightly related to the subject of textual criticism.

I was directed today to a video that Sam Gipp has posted. Now, for those of you who don't know who Sam Gipp is, he was on the Ankerberg program in 1995. He is a Rachmanite, a promoter of the radical form of King James only-ism.

He's the one who looked right in the camera and when John Ankerberg asked him, well, if I lived in Russia, then would I have to learn English to have the inspired and inerrant word of God? And he said, yes, God only promises us one inspired and inerrant translation at one time.

Right now, it is the King James version of the Bible. So, I had noted in regards to the Ankerberg incident with Dr. Don Wilkins, I had provided a number of videos last year sometime and then I discovered that Ankerberg had put out a digital version.

I had been using the VHS version, which is what was originally put out, which was edited and did not have the incident in it because Ankerberg said, nah, stop the tape, start over because we're right at the beginning of the program.

I've been saying the same things since I first wrote an article on this. I think it was 96, might have been even late 95 when this took place. I think it was sometime in 1996, still on the website if you go to the King James only section.

Anyway, they put out a digitized version of the eight-part King James only series and so I posted that as well because they reinserted the very incident itself. It's exactly where I said it always was.

It's exactly, it is the only incident that took place. Well, once I posted that, then Calcium Boy contacted Sam Gipp and Sam Gipp made some comments on a phone answering machine, but now he's put out his own video.

He has a completely different recollection. Now, you're going to have to determine who you are going to believe. I have had the same story on the internet since Tex Myers first raised this issue shortly after the Ankerberg series itself.

I described the event. I mentioned that as soon as it happened, not only did I say it was the beginning of the fourth program, Ankerberg had told Don Wilkins he was going to come to him. He was going to be asking him about Gail Riplinger, whole nine yards.

I mentioned I leaned over to Art Farstead after it happened and I said the King James only guy is going to make some of this and he didn't believe me, but of course I was right. Then, this digitized version comes out and everything that is shown is exactly as I had described it from the very start.

You're going to have to find out. You could trust me, who's had the same story all along and now has the video evidence of it, or you could trust Sam Gipp, who is asserting that not only am I a liar and I'm lying, but that there was some other incident.

Actually, there were two incidents, evidently, and that we'll never see the video of the other one because it's been erased. Now, how he'd know that, I can't begin to find out. That's not how you do videotaping, by the way.

I've actually worked as a professional cameraman in my younger life and I know a little something about how things were done in those days. They would reset the time sync and stuff to be able to sync up with his introduction and things like that, but they wouldn't be going back, oh, we better erase that.

The fact that they didn't erase it has now been demonstrated by the fact that in the digitized version, they have reinserted that exact incident so that you can see that. Now, the funny thing is, Gipp accuses me in this video of lying and yet what's painfully obvious in this video is that Gipp hasn't even taken the time to watch the videos I've produced or read the documentation I've provided.

He's just grossly ignorant. He has not taken the time to even look at these things and hence falsely accuses me of lying and saying things I've never said. He says, you asked White, did they stop the tape and start over again?

He'll lie and he'll say no. I've always said they did that. I've said that since the very first thing I posted on the internet on it well over a decade ago and he just doesn't know. Ruckmanites are extremely arrogant.

It's just a part of Ruckmanism and they don't think that they need to even think about what other people are saying because they're just horrible Bible correctors and since they have the truth, they don't have to listen to anybody else anyways.

And that comes out really clearly in Gipp's comments here unfortunately. So what I'm going to do is first I'll just play for you a portion of Gipp where he's just you know ripping and snorting here and then I'll cut back in and I'll provide you with what I posted a number of months ago that gives you the new digitized version as well as the VHS version.

You can see for yourself and then just ask yourself a simple question. Who am I going to trust? Now you know Gipp is going to say things like well you know white has nothing better to be doing and things like this.

You know I really do hope that someday we're going to meet in heaven and Sam Gipp's going to say to me I am so sorry. Ruckmanism really caused me to do a lot of things that were inappropriate and that'll be wonderful.

But until then there is I think something to be learned from the simple incapacity of Ruckmanites to deal with factual evidence that comes out clearly in their argumentation for King James Onlyism and their form of King James Onlyism.

But here we have an example of it in a simple thing that took place in the past and now the documentation is right there. It's video documentation. He's actually saying that the clip I'm presenting is a lie.

How does a video clip lie? Is he saying it's been changed or something? Is it just how in the world could someone make a video clip up of Don Wilkins that would just happen to match exactly what I said took place and have always said took place from the very beginning?

Hard to figure that one out, isn't it? But anyway, despite Sam Gipp's nastiness toward me, I hold no anger toward him. I literally do feel very sorry for anyone who is stuck in Ruckmanism because it can't be a happy life and it really limits what you can do as far as giving a real defense of the gospel and of the Christian faith and things like that.

So first I'm going to play Sam Gipp. There's a particular section and then we'll look at what I provided a few months ago and you can compare for yourself and I think all rational people just sit and shake their heads and go, there really are people that think this way.

There are. And that's why Ruckmanism should be exposed for what it really is.

Sam Gipp's Accusations and the Ankerberg Tape

The only thing I'm saying is this. Number one, White knows he's lying. Okay? He knows he's lying. If he hadn't been there, he could be ignorant, but he knows he's lying. Secondly, where did this magic clip come from?

I mean, what this thing is all about. Why doesn't John Ankerberg come out and admit that he had the guy stop the tape and tape over it? It's been 13 years. John Ankerberg, now look, I'll admit the guy lost his voice during that break, took a drink of water, got his voice back and went on with the program.

But think about this, guys. If one of us King James guys, if that question had been poised to us in some way, if we had lost our voice, I'll guarantee you John Ankerberg would not have erased the evidence.

If that would have happened to one of us, listen, it happened to one of them on that question. That is a real problem for them. It must be a problem because 13 years later, they're still running for the hills.

But the thing is this, if that had happened to one of us, John Ankerberg would have used that very instant, look, look what happened to this so-called King James guy, lost his voice. But when it happened to one of them, he covered for him.

That's okay. But I'm telling you this, James White is lying. James, you're a liar. You know you're a liar. You can shave your head and grow all the hair on your face you want so you don't look like the guy that was on the Ankerberg program.

But you know you are lying when you represent that clip on your website as the actual thing that took place. No one has what took place because it was erased. Ankerberg ought to be honest enough. James White ought to be honest enough.

Why don't one of you viewers contact White and have him say, hey White, did they stop and re-tape anything? I want him to tell you no. He'll just keep lying. Ankerberg, somebody contact John Ankerberg and say, hey, did you guys run that tape back and tape over where he lost his voice?

John Ankerberg will tell you yes. Or he will lie. And if he lies, we win. Listen, I'm done. That's my thing. I won't be back on. I don't think. I don't think. This is not my kind of thing. I've got things to.

Do. Okay, something really interesting just happened. I was just sitting here in channel and a fella came in and he said, I'm a little confused. I've been watching your videos on the Mars thing. I have the video of where Wilkins' voice gets scratchy and he says, oh, I lost my voice.

He's laughing. He takes a drink and then goes on. And I'm like, no, you don't. He says, yes, I do. And you see, all I've ever had have been the two VHS tapes from the John Ankerberg show. I think we got these, I don't know, about a year after, well, less than a year after.

This was when the Mars stuff started. We had to pay like 89 bucks for them, which back then was a lot of money. We really put it out to get this. And I gave you in the previous video I made what the fourth, how the fourth program begins.

And I noticed as I was looking at these, the first two programs, they had this nice edited opening and all this stuff. But then after that, they stopped. And that would reflect the fact that what actually happened was Ankerberg lost his major outlet shortly after this stuff took place with Christian Broadcasting.

And that was what happened in that situation. But this is all I've had all along. Well, lo and behold, what's happened is John Ankerberg has digitized this material. And in the process of digitizing, clearly because of this controversy and the claims that these people made, he went back and that stuff was still on tape.

And so what they did is they re-edited the fourth program. And I guess I could be a little upset here. To make room, they reinserted that whole thing. See, what had happened was Don Wilken wasn't talking fast enough and getting to the point fast enough.

And you'll see in the new version, which is the original version, Ankerberg's trying to get him to, so what'd you find, Don? What'd you find, Don? What results, Don? They'd cut out his need to take a drink of water.

They cut out part of his answer. And they had started farther into his answer. And then I picked up and provided more stuff. So what they did is they took me out. I'm gone. Everything I said about Ripplinger at that point is now disappeared.

And that made the room for them to do more of an introduction to the program and then include what he did. And now you can see, now we'll be able to see. It was the beginning of the fourth program, just as I said it was.

And you're able to see how everyone is laughing. How there's not panic. It's like, oh, you're like the King James. Oh, like Mars is trying to make it look like. He's laughing. He's looking over at the King James guys.

He's like, oh, I lost my voice. Isn't that funny? And you can tell he didn't actually lose his voice. You can just hear a little raspiness in his voice. He takes one drink, goes, okay, I'm ready to go.

And away we go. And so now finally, after all this time, the exact incident itself is back in the programs. And so what I'm going to do here is I'll give you that. And then I'll fade right back into the edited version.

It was on the VHS tapes that they actually aired. So you can see what the differences between two were and see that once again, all the accusations, if it is all God can manage, sorry guys, these King James only folks that really, it still amazes me that anyone, what amazes me is that the King James only guys let Tex Mars do that.

You know who should have been telling Tex Mars that he was completely out of line were the three King James only guys, not us. But of course they never did that. So first will be the digitized version, which will show you exactly what happened.

You'll see Don Wilkins laughing about it, taking a drink, going, okay, I'm ready. And then you'll notice, you'll hear Ankerberg going. In fact, I'll start it where they're showing New Age Bible versions and you hear Don Wilkins cough even before Ankerberg goes to him, listen to that.

And then I'll give you the VHS version, which I put in the preceding video. That'll give you all the documentation you could ever want on this particular issue.

Follow the arrow of the dragon down. She says, it's the new case against the NIV, the new King James, and the New American Standard Bible, plus a group of the other modern translations. And I have the general editors of those Bibles right here.

And gentlemen, I'd like you to respond. And Dr. Joe Chambers is also representing Gail, so he'll kind of take your response. Don Wilkins, you're representing the New American Standard Bible. And Gail, in her book, she groups all of you together and she says that the new translations, NAS, NIV, New King James, have an occult bent to them.

They introduce New Age philosophies into the church. They spread mysticism and liberalism. And line by line, they are changing the face of Jesus Christ and Christianity. Now, the people that read this book, it appears to them that she has a mountain of documentation to back up what she has said.

What do you think about the evidence and the documentation.

In this book? Well, first of all, that book... Oh, I'm losing my voice.

Give me a little water here first here. All right, hold on. We'll pick it up there when he gets his voice. All right, you all ready? Try it out. Hi. Yeah, I think I'm all right now. All right. All right, so we'll pick it up right there.

All right, you ready? Okay, what do you think about the evidence and the documentation that she has produced? Well, let me tell you that we,.

When this book came out, the Lachman Foundation, we realized that we had to respond to it eventually, that it was getting around and people were starting to make phone calls and ask questions and things like that.

And so we spent six weeks going through it, or at least going through parts of it. I think she said she spent six years working on it. And frankly, we didn't feel like we had that kind of time to go through that.

What did you find? We found, what I personally found, is that virtually everything she says is wrong, or a misquotation, or it's a deliberate deception of people, misleading them about.

What facts there are. What do you think of her documentation? I think it's ridiculous,.

It's careless, it is full of holes. Everything I've seen in Ripplinger's book, virtually everything she says is either a misquotation or misleading of the truth. People, and I'll give you a good example.

She focuses in on, among other things, on Westcott and Hort, and these were fine men of the church, fine Christian men. What do you think about the evidence and the documentation in this book? I think it's ridiculous, it's careless, it is full of holes.

Everything I've seen in Ripplinger's book, virtually everything she says is either a misquotation or misleading of the truth, people. And I'll give you a good example. She focuses in on, among other things, on Westcott and Hort, and these were fine men of the church, fine Christian men, who together put together the text that, as it's evolved in our use of it, has become the text that most of us use, and we think it's the best manuscripts.

She says, she quotes his son, who wrote a biography about Westcott, as saying, Westcott's son writes of his father's lifelong faith in what, for lack of a better name, one must call spiritualism. And this is page 407 of the New Age.

Now, I looked at the books, I looked at the actual biographies that these, that the sons wrote for each of their fathers, and what he actually said is, what happened to this guild, he's talking about a club that his father was in, in the end, I have not discovered.

My father ceased to interest himself in these matters, not altogether, I believe, from want of faith in what, for lack of a better name, one must call spiritualism, but because he was seriously convinced that such investigations led to no good.

And what he actually said was that his father dropped out of it because, in large part, of his lack of faith in spiritualism. Ripplinger completely leaves that out and makes it say that he had a lifelong faith in spiritualism.

That's just the opposite of what was true,.

And it's a deliberate misstatement of the facts. I think we need to point out the fact that a lot of the type of complete misrepresentation we have here, I think part of the reason that we see it is not so much a specific desire maybe to twist something, but there are things in New Age Bible versions that Mrs. Ripplinger claims God gave her.

For example, on page 149, we have something called acrostic algebra, and you take the NASV and the NIV, and some, by some mathematical process, you take out the AV, and the last letters left is SIN. And this somehow is supposed to demonstrate that these modern translations have something wrong with them.

Well, I asked Mrs. Ripplinger in a radio debate, first of all, why did you call it NASV throughout the rest of your book? You called it NASB. She said, that's what God calls it. Even all through the rest of the book, she said NASB instead of NASV.

And when I asked her, where did you get acrostic algebra? Well, God gave it to me. Now, when people make claims like that, being honest and inciting from one particular place, being honest and saying, well, Westcott also happens to have, and in fact, in a passage that Dr. Gipps cites in his own book, they like to go after Westcott and say, well, see, he found this thing of Mary, and Dr. Gipp accuses him of Mariolatry.

When you read the actual passage without the little ellipses that Dr. Gipp and Gail Ripplinger both use, you discover that he talks about the superstition of the monks that they should have been out in the society.

He right afterwards finds a crucifix, and he says, I wish it had been empty. There is no Jesus upon it. He frequently spoke of the Roman superstition, so on and so forth. So by selectively editing these things, you can make these people look bad.

And remember, as long as you really believe what this says, that there is this great conspiracy, it's easier for people to go ahead and bend the facts, bend the truth, to try to promote this conspiracy.

If you read the book,.