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

Erasmus, the Textus Receptus, and the Comma Johanneum

Okay, we need to give you any other thing you want to say, Judy, before we go to our next caller?

Well, basically, I'd still like to hear her response to his criticism of the Texas Receptive and the majority text, because this is the main issue. All right. Okay. Erasmus, the Texas Receptive, was put on the Index of Forbidden Books by the Pope.

Erasmus wrote two other books, In Praise of Folly and Adagio. Both were rabid anti-Catholic books. At that time, he was the world's leading intellectual. And so when people say he had 11 manuscripts in front of his hand, that's hardly the case, because if you really studied his life, you'd know that he spent a fair portion of his life translating the Greek and Latin church fathers.

So he had tons and tons of information.

I have studied his life very in-depth. I've written a number of graduate papers on Erasmus, and the first edition of his New Testament was based upon that many manuscripts. He did make changes. And in fact, the whole reason that 1 John 5, 7 -8 appears in the Texas Receptive, as I'm sure you're aware, is due to the fact that he came under great fire under the first two editions.

His first and second edition of his Greek New Testament did not have that passage. Let me tell you about 1 John 5, 7 -8. Wait a minute. Now, you brought up Erasmus, and I want to point out to you that he wrote to his friend Bombasius in Rome and asked his friend Bombasius to consult what manuscript, Gail?

Which manuscript did Erasmus consult in regards to that?

He asked it, the Vatican manuscript, time after time.

Excuse me, but which one did he ask? No, he did not have it. He wanted to have access to it, but he was not able to get it. He eventually wrote to his friend Bombasius in Rome.

Well, we can tell he had it, because we've got the italicized words, and so he definitely had access to the Vatican manuscript.

He wrote to his friend... My address is 1 John 5, 7 -8. All right, let me stop you, gang. I think we're losing the audience. This is a very difficult thing to deal with, and our time is getting by. Take just a minute.

My point was that Erasmus said that if he could find one Greek manuscript that had 1 John 5, 7 -8 in it, that he would put it in the third edition. The one was written simply for the occasion, and that's why it appeared in there.

And the statement I made in regards to the number of manuscripts he had is substantiated by every source that you could look into it. All right. May I have one minute, please? Go ahead and respond, yes.

1 John 5, 7. If you don't have it the way that three masculine witnesses and three neuter nouns, and the only way it'll work is the way Erasmus has it. 1 John 5, 7 is in 170 Old Syriac, 180 Cajun, 200 Old Latin, Tertullian, 250 Libyan, 350 Athanasius, 415 Council of Carthage.

I've listed six manuscripts right there. The Three Seeds, the Vatican of Spain... Does the majority text have it, Gail? ...Jerome, 450, Volcanus, 510... Gail? ...the line of Bergeson, 750... All right, Gail.

Gail, answer his question. Does the majority text have it?

Yes or no? Well, I'm not sure what your point is. Does the majority text have it? You know which one I'm talking about. I have right here in my hand the Greek New Testament, according to the majority text.

Hodges and Forresthead.

Does it have it? Dean Bergen, in the British Museum, collated a church father. The church father supports the text as receptive 2 to 1, and 3 to 1 an important version. So we have proof that it was in the old manuscript.

We just don't have old manuscripts.

All right, let's move on now, gang. We've got to get some more callers in. Judy, thanks for your call. All right, Dave, are you there?

Scripture, Inspiration, and the King James Translation

Yeah, I sure am. All right, Dave, you're here. Come on. What's your question? Well, my question is, I don't understand why... What is this lady's name again who wrote this book? Gail Ripplinger. Gail Ripplinger.

I don't understand her argument here, being the fact that in the 1611 edition of the King James... ...said that as language changed, so would also a translation have to. You know, a new English translation would have to be lost.

Okay, the Bible said every word of God is pure. Proverbs 35. Psalm 119 says thy word is very pure. Okay, prefaces are not pure. Lexicons are not pure. And so if the word of God is to abide forever, then that's what's pure and that's perfect.

And if you look at the words of men, you know, it says in the Old Testament, "...See ye from men whose breath is in their nostrils, be ye therefore followers of God.". It's better to put trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man.

If you look at what men wrote, without the anointing of the Holy Spirit, obviously it can be wrong. And so they didn't claim to be inspired, and I think that the Holy Spirit inspired them. And so, just because they didn't claim it, just like John didn't claim to be Elijah, but Jesus Christ said he was, that doesn't mean that they weren't inspired.

I think the Greek and the Hebrew manuscripts were inspired. But the English translation is just that, it's a translation.

Okay, the Bible does not say the Greek and Hebrew are inspired and that the translations are not inspired. The definition of Scripture in the Bible, all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, 2 Timothy 3 .36, excuse me, 3 .16, Scripture is defined right around there.

It says, "...about Timothy from a child that hath known the Holy Scripture.".

All right, I'm going to have to stop you, Gail. I'm going to have to stop you, because I told our listeners they could call in today. Dave, thanks for your call. I'm sorry we have to move on, try to get as many calls in as we can.

Preservation of Scripture and the Limits of English Translations

We've got Myles back. Myles, you're on PS on the air. Oh, thank you.

This is indeed a great thought, right? The question, I'm sure, must be in many people's minds.

Most definitely, and I think that the way that he did so, in fact, I don't have near the time to do this. I'm going to have to do it very quickly. You've got a minute and a half. I believe that he did so by immediately making sure that the Word of God went forth to all nations.

Hence, you have copies of the Scripture going everywhere. No one at any time in history ever had the opportunity of gathering up all manuscripts and changing them, and hence, anyone who attempted to change the Scripture, that would stand out very plainly, as we examine what is given to us today.

So, you know, when certain cult groups, for example, say, hey, you know, the Bible's been changed over and over and over again, and it's untrustworthy and so on and so forth, that's just simply not the case.

It does not follow, however, that that means that there is one English translation that is supposedly inspired.

Well, the point that I'm making, when Christianity first appeared in 325, Stephen's text, before that we had numerous, even thousands of copies. Is that right? Yes.

Well, there was actually one that was printed before his, but it wasn't published before his. But yes, there were thousands of manuscripts. Gail, you jump in anywhere you want here. Okay.

When our caller says that it's preserved, I truly appreciate what he says, because I'm afraid that the people who go back to the Greek, you know, the Bible says the Greeks seek after wisdom, and the Jews require a sign.

But we preach Christ crucified. And I think all this going back to the Greek is kind of the Greek seek after wisdom. Of course, it was written in Greek. To preach Christ crucified is to the Greek foolishness.

And people don't want to look foolish, so they have to jump back to the Greek text. But the Bible says preach the word. Well, let me... The word, if I hit my heart.

You cannot hide the Greek in your heart. And that word was not written in English, by the way. All right, Miles, what's your question?

The question is, if a numerous amount of manuscripts, this receptive... We've got about 30 seconds. Okay. Now, the text of this receptive has been what we have now, compared to the King James Version.

Is there any substantial difference? May I answer that, please? We've got... I'm sorry.

Gail? Gail, I've got to stop you, and I'm sorry. This is terrible, but our time is gone again.