A Mega Plus (2:20) Long Dividing Line!

Alpha & Omega Ministries

Subscribe

Download

Share

00

Comments are disabled.

00:31

Greetings and welcome to The Dividing Line. My name is James White. We have two hours together today.

00:38

We have a lot to get to. I rarely put out a listing of topics, especially the day before.

00:46

But that shows you that I've been spending pretty much that entire time getting prepared for the program today.

00:54

And that's pretty unusual that we would be able to do something like that, but some very important topics to address.

00:59

Right off the top, however, Twitter, just a few moments ago,

01:06

Tim Cannon sent a picture of his new little one, little guy, didn't give me a name, but said, hoping

01:15

I could make it through the live Dividing Line, this little guy decided to enter the world for his first DL. I'm sure that's exactly why he came.

01:25

Yeah, right. And I'm sure he'll find the discussion, especially at the end of the program of textual criticism, to just be scintillating, might actually help him to sleep as it does most everybody else.

01:36

Anyway, congratulations to the Cannons there. I'm going to try to be brief.

01:43

I'm going to try to be succinct. I want to respond to this mainly, again, when you're accused of editing things and it's just a bald -faced lie, you sort of have to respond to that.

01:59

I think most Christians are now well aware of the cultic nature of a certain form of King James Onlyism.

02:08

I'm not saying all King James Onlyists are cultists, but there are cultic King James Onlyists, Sam Gipp, Peter Ruckman, Gail Riplinger, Kent Hovind.

02:16

These are examples of the cultic, impossible to reason with because they don't use reason, rationality, logic.

02:26

They are individuals who illustrate a grave danger that I first heard really enunciated.

02:35

I had seen it, but I first heard it really enunciated by Dr. Daniel Wallace.

02:42

And Dan made a statement. At first, it bugged me. At first, it bothered me just a little bit.

02:48

But it's bothered me less and less as I've seen the truthfulness of it. There are many, many people who will trade truth for certainty.

02:59

Now, many people assume that certainty and truth are the same thing. They're not. And if you are willing to trade truth for certainty, you'll never know truth.

03:12

And I am certain that Sam Gipp thinks he has certainty, but he's certain of an untruth.

03:22

I know many Muslims who are absolutely certain that the Quran is the word of God, but they are certain of an untruth.

03:31

And the last thing that we can do as followers of Christ is to confuse certainty and truth.

03:40

Because there's all sorts of people who are absolutely certain about things that don't have a clue what the truth is.

03:46

We aren't to be like that. We are not to think like that. We are not to behave like that. So, I want to respond to the 15 -page screed that was put out by Gail Ripplinger, I think it was on Friday.

04:07

Again, I'm not overly concerned about what anyone, anyone who could read

04:14

Gail Ripplinger's material and actually think that the woman is functional is not somebody who would ever support this ministry.

04:22

And it's not somebody in whose opinion I would invest any weight whatsoever. In fact, let me mention one of the greatest things

04:31

I've learned as I have passed 50 and I'm starting to leave it in the dust is the joy that comes from only giving to the opinions and criticisms of others the weight that they deserve.

04:52

And that is, I suggest to you, that when someone criticizes you, when someone expresses public opinions, you look at them and you don't look at where they went to school.

05:06

That has become completely irrelevant in our day. I mean, Bart Ehrman went to Princeton, but he didn't learn enough at Princeton to know that the

05:14

Doctrine of the Trinity includes the identification of Jesus as Yahweh, for example, and things like that. And the

05:21

Ivy League schools produce nothing but mind -numb zombies anymore.

05:28

They don't do education anymore. They do indoctrination. There's a vast difference between education and indoctrination.

05:34

You can have a degree that costs you $150 ,000 and all it means is you spent $150 ,000 to be indoctrinated.

05:44

I don't look at where they went to school. I don't look at where they live. I look at the consistency of their life, their character, and the body of work that they've produced.

05:59

Now, for scholars, I also, for some, would look at their ability to teach.

06:06

I think the ability to communicate what you have learned to people who do not have the same technical background as yourself is one of the highest indicators of a true scholar.

06:20

And there are many people who don't have any letters after their names who are true scholars because they are able to communicate extremely complex things in a way that's understandable to other people who do not have the same background that they might have in their reading.

06:33

But I don't make that a final analysis because I've met some really, you know, I had a chemistry teacher once, one of the worst teachers

06:41

I ever had, but I know he was brilliant in the subject of chemistry. So there's a limitation there.

06:46

But anyways, give to people the due weight that their character and their work and their consistency and their life has purchased for them.

07:01

When I do that, I'm a much happier person because I look at many of the people who live their lives, it seems, sitting around watching this program just to try to find demonic facial tics or something, you know, as if that's, you know.

07:20

And I just look at their lives and I go, what? What have they done? How have they done anything?

07:28

They haven't. And so how much weight do you give their criticism? Absolutely, positively, none.

07:33

None whatsoever. So, what does clearing of the throat signify?

07:40

It signifies the fact that my voice is not in the best shape today because I...

07:47

We have not had wind for like two weeks now. This high pressure system is just so that air quality is getting lower and lower.

07:58

And I PR'd my 10K this morning. I went out and decided I was going to run a 10K faster than I'd ever run it before.

08:06

And I did by about 30, 34 seconds, I think. 34 seconds, yeah.

08:12

And as a result, I'm going to cough a few times today. That has nothing to do with Gale Ripplinger and people having their voices taken away from them.

08:19

It has to do with the fact that if you go up on South Mountain Phoenix today and look out over Phoenix you're going to go, because we get this stuff and we haven't had a weather system come through since about the 28th of January or something like that now.

08:34

And it's getting ugly. So, anyway. Let's look at what

08:39

Gale Ripplinger had to say. It is, as normal, a lengthy rant that wanders all over the landscape.

08:51

She's one of the worst writers I've ever seen. She doesn't have an editor, evidently. And she just goes over here and then, oh, about this, oh, and then over here.

09:00

And it's amazing, but obviously, here is a lady who is certain.

09:09

And she has traded all truth for absolute certainty. It is an insult -filled screed.

09:15

It is childish in its level. Gale Ripplinger has always been like this.

09:21

Her little booklet, Blind Guides, she thinks that playing with people's last name is actually a meaningful form of argumentation.

09:31

And so, white lies and every type of use of the term white in alliteration or whatever else as an insult, she'll use it.

09:41

She did that with everybody else in Blind Guides. She continues to do that. It's embarrassingly infantile, but she's an embarrassingly infantile woman.

09:53

And that's what makes it amazing. I'm thankful for people like D .A.

09:58

Waite. I'm not even sure. Could you check? Is D .A. Waite still alive? Why don't you Google D .A. Waite? I forgot to look. But at least people like D .A.

10:05

Waite recognized that Gale Ripplinger is really bad, even for King James -onlyism.

10:13

And he recognized she was dishonest. He called her out on things. There are people like that that just simply will not completely shut down all critical thinking capacity in their mind.

10:26

But you have to do that to follow Gale Ripplinger. And just reading all this stuff, which makes it ironic that toward the beginning, she quotes from Philippians 4 about thinking about good things.

10:40

Consequently, I haven't thought about James Waite for 20 years. She says, I ignored his attempts at defamation for 20 years.

10:47

As if I've been talking about Gale Ripplinger constantly for 20 years. Obviously, I haven't.

10:53

Very rarely does she come up. And again, she has recently because of Kent Hovind.

11:01

But I would point out, once again, she hasn't mentioned this part, but when I wrote the King James -only controversy, everything

11:06

I wrote about her, someone on Twitter says, yes, G .A. Waite is still amongst the living.

11:18

The reality is that when I wrote about her in the book, I sent everything

11:24

I said about her to her via fax, until she started hanging up the fax machine so she could not receive it.

11:32

Would not respond. I invited her to respond. I invited her to make any comment she wanted about what

11:38

I was saying about her in the book. She refused to have anything to do with it. And then contacted

11:45

Bethany House, from my recollection, twice. Or at least Bethany House communicated with me about it twice.

11:52

I got the impression that she had twice contacted them. And threatened to sue them if they published the book. She hasn't mentioned that part either.

11:59

So the defamation thing. Remember, this is from a woman who can barely get through a paragraph without making fun of someone's name.

12:09

This is a common sign of imbalanced people. They'll constantly accuse others of what they themselves do.

12:17

Just every other word. And then at the end of that paragraph, here's the line in parentheses.

12:23

I have collated, consulted, or edited Bible translation in Farsi, ancient and modern Greek, French, Chinese, Hebrew, Syrian, Kala, Thado, Swahili, Tolugu, Chichewa, Latin, and many other languages.

12:38

Wow. Let me tell you something. I can guarantee you she can't read a word of any of that, except maybe four words of Latin.

12:45

Can't read a word of it. It's all, this is fantasy, folks. This is pure fantasy.

12:51

If you think Gail Riplinger has facility in that many languages? Really? The interior design lady?

13:01

Okay. Cool. You go for it. We're going to discover later that I have a couple of my logic textbooks with me.

13:15

There are some really humorous things in here, I'll have to admit. They're tremendously humorous stuff.

13:21

I mean, her attempts at rescuing acrostic algebra. Did you know acrostic algebra is now symbolic logic?

13:28

Yeah, yeah. The Lord gave it to her, but now it's symbolic logic. It's just, oh, unbelievable.

13:35

Okay. Couple other things. She throws all this stuff out about, well, there's this website over here, and these people responded to James White.

13:47

And then there's all this stuff over here. And it's just, you know, it's everything but kitchen sink. Throw it all out there.

13:53

No serious argumentation. Just, well, this person's refuted, and he's been refuted by that person, and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

13:59

You know, the standard type of thing you're doing when you're trying to cover for yourself. Because what's she trying to cover for? What she's trying to cover for is that the recordings of our encounter in November, and interestingly enough, the sermon audio numbering, you put

14:15

November 1st on that. I did not. Some of these recordings that we have up on sermon audio,

14:23

I know the month that they were done in. So is that why you put November 1st? I don't know the exact day, so I simply chose the 1st. Yeah, all right.

14:30

November of 1993. KRDS Radio, the

14:35

Pat Shaughnessy program, P .S. on the Air. Two half -hour programs on consecutive days.

14:43

What she's trying to do is to cover for her embarrassing performance in that encounter.

14:54

Now, we have an extended list of my debates on my website. We did not list that as a debate.

15:01

It was an informal debate, as most radio programs are. But there was no formal thesis, there was no moderator, and so on and so forth.

15:08

But it could be informally described in that way, as many people describe a lot of my radio programs.

15:14

But we don't list it as one of those. She did horribly. She lost horribly. Anybody who listens to it just goes, what was that woman talking about?

15:24

And so what started all this was Kent Hovind talking to her, and she's saying, well, that never happened.

15:32

Well, he said it never happened. What do you mean it never happened? Well, actually, he just called into a radio program.

15:40

Well, no, I didn't. I was in studio. Anybody can tell. And so with all these lies,

15:46

I kept pushing back with the truth. And so finally she was forced to produce this screed, which has almost nothing to do other than to try to hide the reality of what took place in 1993.

16:00

As a part of that, she says, Peter Ruckman, Scholarship Only Controversy, 472 pages. After publication of the book,

16:06

White challenged Ruckman to a debate, and Ruckman agreed. Setting a time and place, White put on his brake light, brake is misspelled, and took flight.

16:14

His stage fright regarding the upcoming dogfight made him an outright no -show. She also tries to alliterate and do poetry very, very, very poorly.

16:23

Oh, please, Travis Berry, stop. You realize this could be on my screen from now on?

16:29

There's now a big, smiling picture of Gale Riplinger staring at me from Twitter. Isn't that amazing?

16:36

Travis Berry, I'm putting your name out there just so people can tweet you and punish you for doing that.

16:43

Anyway, as a result of this paragraph,

16:48

I posted, reposted, it's not that it hasn't been out there, but we reposted the correspondence between myself and Peter Ruckman.

17:00

Which, again, the more these people dig stuff up, once we put the facts out there, people are like, you're kidding me, really?

17:10

And the natural reaction of any thinking person to reading the

17:15

Ruckman correspondence is, that man is vile and insane, and he is.

17:22

I mean, his letters, well, we provide the scans. You know, the crude, profane things that he would write.

17:32

I mean, it really reminds me, that's what Servetus did to Calvin.

17:38

When Calvin sent him the Institutes, he sent the Institutes back with all sorts of profane stuff scribbled in the margins.

17:44

And that's what Ruckman did. And anybody who reads that, and then reads

17:50

Riplinger, knows that Riplinger is either completely ignorant, of that correspondence, which is unlikely, or just desperately, deceptively dishonest, as she is.

18:03

There's no question about that. Yeah, Ruckman also did set a time and place.

18:08

His school, April 1st. He does an April Fool's Day thing. And it's meant to mock people.

18:18

He wouldn't do it any other time. Obviously, anybody who reads it, I just suggest you read it yourself, will realize that, immediately,

18:27

Ruckman is completely out of line, and Riplinger, repeating it, after all these years, desperately dishonest.

18:37

Then she says, time answers all things, 22 years later, because of my books. Listen to this, folks. This is the delusions of grandeur that this woman has.

18:46

Remember, she's an interior designer. That's what her training's in, is an interior design.

18:52

Because of my books. White's New American Standard Bible. Did you know that I own the New American Standard Bible? Wow. These folks think that I have everything to do with the

19:00

NASB. I will correct much of their misapprehensions here in a moment. White's NASB is now practically defunct, with only used copies available on Amazon .com,

19:10

and limited or damaged copies elsewhere. Lots of people, as soon as that came out, just sort of posted screenshots of all the currently available, brand new, still being published

19:22

New American Standard Bibles. What do you get? Who are you trying to convince when you lie like this?

19:29

I mean, it's just so obvious. It's face -plantingly stupid. But anyone who would follow

19:36

Riplinger... Well, Hovind. Hovind just believes whatever she says. If she said the sky was green,

19:42

Hovind would go, I never noticed, but it is. And so, when you have followers like that, then you don't have to worry about the truthfulness of what you say.

19:52

You can say the most wild and insane stuff, and your followers just go, whatever you say.

19:58

That's how it works. So, the NASB is not practically defunct.

20:05

The NASB is not nearly as popular as it once was, for one simple reason. It's a reason that has nothing, nothing to do with Gail Riplinger's pitiful few little books.

20:15

It has to do with Crossway's incredible marketing of the ESB. That is... That's the only reason.

20:23

That is the only reason. Then it says, even White himself has switched to different versions, it appears, although he worked on the 1995

20:31

NASB committee. That is not true. Uh... I...

20:38

was hired as a critical consultant by the Lachman Foundation after...

20:47

after... the... John Ankerberg series on King James Onlyism.

20:54

After. That was 1995. So, the 1995 edition was already out. And all

20:59

I was was a critical consultant. All I did was, when there were issues regarding textual critical stuff,

21:05

I could be consulted. That was it. That's all I did. Sorry. Never claimed anything other than that.

21:11

Always been very upfront about that. So, all this stuff, today, Hovind, well, last night,

21:17

I guess, Hovind posted a video accusing me of having financial stakes in the modern translations.

21:25

Do forgive me, folks. Do forgive me. But I found it somewhat ironic that a convicted felon who was in prison for years for tax evasion and financial irregularities would be accusing me of being biased when he is selling

21:45

Gale Ripplinger's screeds without even reading them. Sorry, sir.

21:53

You have no credibility. None. We continue on.

22:01

White's nose. Yeah, see, it's a Scottish nose, right there. It seems that every time

22:10

White gets near me and the KJB, his nose grows like Pinocchio. In the following,

22:15

I will document its growth inch by inch. There's so many things that I would like to say.

22:27

Number one, White will never guess who was trained at Harvard in forensic recording analysis, which

22:33

I think is her way of saying, I took a class at Harvard once. I think that's what she's saying. Because, see, if she takes a class, she's trained.

22:43

Number two, White continues to pretend I would not debate in spite of the fact that I agreed to a formal debate with White and he refused.

22:48

That's a lie, is what I will document. White ambushed me on a radio program and then pretends he debated me.

22:55

That was not an ambush. That was set up by the radio program itself and I'm pretty certain you were fully aware of that.

23:02

I can't prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt, but the facts would seem to indicate that. Number four, White edited a video using my voice and adding a nutty slide to his own creation, pretending it was my thoughts, which is nothing more than the posting of the rambling, five -minute incoherent babbling of Gail Ripplinger about the

23:24

Titanic. And I did make a mistake. I thought she was actually making a point.

23:35

And there was my error is that I actually thought that there was a point in Ripplinger's battling.

23:44

And I Gail, I'm sorry that I actually thought that there might have been a point you were making.

23:51

I recognize now there was no point at all. And there never is a point in anything you have to say.

23:59

I confess that one. Yes, sir? I can't hear you. Your microphone's not on.

24:05

I have to say that since you bring that up there, I don't think you've seen it, but there is an element of similarity here with a movie called

24:14

Planes, Trains, and Automobiles. Yeah, you probably... There's a line in there where the guy says to the other guy, here's an idea.

24:24

When you tell a story, have a point. It makes it so much more interesting for the listener.

24:31

Okay, alright. That is why Gail's stuff is not overly interesting, I guess.

24:36

Yes, okay. Number five. White quotes himself, pretending he's quoting me.

24:43

I'm not sure which he's talking about there, but I think we're going... I'm going to play some sections from the program you can tell for yourself.

24:49

White's real plight and his misrepresentation of Erasmus, the critical apparatus, and even the name of God are documented herein, which is...

24:56

She threw in a bunch of stuff at the end that had absolutely nothing to do with our program or anything else, but I guess that's what she's referring to. Then she has a section called

25:02

Forensic Analysis. Dream on. I have the original recordings sent to me by a listener who was an experienced radio engineer and radio program host.

25:14

Who do you guess that would be? Judy Penalto. I'll bet you dollars to the nuts. How about it, Gail? Is Judy the one who sent you the recordings?

25:22

Where'd she get them from? Because... Here's ours.

25:29

Yes. Let me explain to the young people in the audience.

25:35

You young kids out there. I did not have to go to a museum to get this. No, these...

25:43

My fellow elder at Phoenix Reform still uses these. In fact, prefers these to even

25:50

CDs. MP3? Never mind. Anyway, this is called a cassette tape.

26:00

This is number 456, New Age Biodiversity. This was... We used to have...

26:05

You see this yellow thing here? We used to have on the wall in Rich's garage racks wooden racks of cassette tapes.

26:20

This was one of them. Up above two... Who made those copy machines?

26:28

Huh? Tascam or something. Tascam. Anyway, were they one -to -one? Yeah. We originally had a one -to -one, and we got rid of that, and we were able to afford a one -to -three.

26:39

One -to -three. That's right. I knew it was multiple. You put this in the master, you put blanks in the other three spots, it does high -speed dubbing.

26:50

I don't remember how long it took, but it was fairly... It took a couple of minutes.

26:55

A couple of minutes for a C60, C90, whatever. We did everything in CD90. Yeah, so here's the tape that was then put into a machine,

27:05

MP3'd, and this is what's on Sermon Audio. This very cassette tape right here. We were distributing this long before there was such thing as MP3.

27:16

Long before there was such thing as Cool Edit 2000, any type of the digitizing programs that exist today.

27:26

Before the internet. Yeah, before the internet. There are copies of these things, hundreds of copies of these things, floating about in boxes all over the world, literally.

27:39

But certainly in the United States, English -speaking places. So, Rich, where did we get this?

27:49

Well, I was not with you on day one. I was working a secular job, because that's how

27:55

I had to make my living at the time. And pretty much how the ministry survived. Yeah, yeah. But day two,

28:00

I was able to be there, and as you were doing the show in the other room with Pat Shaughnessy, and someone named

28:06

G .A. Ripplinger on the phone, I was sitting in the other room with the engineers.

28:14

Afterwards, a friend of ours who worked there thought it would be a great idea to see if we couldn't afford to set up a show of your own.

28:22

Revive the dividing line, because during the 90s, we really didn't do a dividing line. We had done it back in the 80s. We'd done it in the 80s, and then early 90s, we couldn't afford to do it anymore.

28:32

And we hadn't done it on KRDS. We did it on KRDS. We had to do it on the cheapest radio stations in town, like the one that the train used to go by in the middle of the show, where it's horn.

28:42

Oh, well, and the one with the... I was afraid we were going to fall through the floor. Yeah. And that was a

28:48

KXEG? KXEG, yeah. I would sit on the other side of the door with the telephone and screen the calls and then slip a note under the door.

28:57

And this was the person on the phone. Anyway, so after the show was over, you went in to meet with the general manager, and I talked with the engineers about a problem that they were having with the station, which they were eventually fired over, because they felt as Christians they couldn't continue to do this, and kind of those corporate things that go on.

29:17

And afterwards, I was handed a tape of both programs back -to -back.

29:22

They did 60s, and we always did CD 90s. I took it home, lashed two tape recorders together, tape cassette decks, and played with my fingers the master that they'd given me, and recorded it on the other one.

29:38

And you took out the commercials? Stopping it when a commercial came up, and starting it up when the commercial ended, and was able to basically put both programs together on one side of our

29:51

CD 90s. That's pretty close, because it's like 47 minutes. Yeah, it was like 46, really squeezed in, because they always gave us a couple of minutes extra on each side.

30:01

So it was really a CD 92. That's where that came from, and then in 2003,

30:06

September of 2003, I took on the MP3 project, thought it might be a good idea, it might take hold, because this real audio stuff that we'd been doing was looking good.

30:16

And now I will say this. I had purchased this thing called a compressor, and that was in our sound studio at the time, as we were doing the dividing line.

30:27

And so that would have been part of the digitizing process of playing the tape in through the soundboard, and recording it.

30:34

So that is the extent of my grand engineering expertise. Thank you.

30:40

Alright, thank you very, very much. So, that's where it came from. Gail Ripplinger accuses us of editing this, but the edit...

30:48

She does, and she doesn't. Um... She says, am

30:53

I accusing White of altering my voice? No, as I have no idea who did it. But the distortion which occurs in my voice only often makes my responses difficult to discern.

31:04

Just wait a minute. Gail, the reason that this recording is embarrassing to you is not how your voice sounds.

31:13

It's what you said. Okay? People recognize that when the nice lady on the radio got asked serious questions, she couldn't answer them.

31:27

Okay? That's the problem. This idea that her voice has been messed with is absurd.

31:35

Remember, she was on the program for two days before I was on.

31:43

Unopposed. Um... My impression has always been that Pat Shaughnessy was on her side.

31:51

That he thought she was onto something here. And, as I said before,

31:57

I called in at the end of the second day, talked to Shaughnessy after the program was over, said, you've got to have somebody on to oppose her.

32:06

He said to me, she said she never said this, that's between her and Pat Shaughnessy, but Pat Shaughnessy said to me, um...

32:15

She says no one will debate her. I said, well, I'll go on. No problem. Then, he contacted me and said she will not debate anyone who has not read her book.

32:31

So I had to go down to KRDS, pick up the book, and read the book before the next week.

32:38

So as to be able to do the program. Alright? So, the tapes were given to us by KRDS.

32:51

Did Don do those? No, the engineers did. But Don was there at the time. So we may have to...

32:58

You know, they have the fancy word we call them engineers. The board ops who were in there running the board gave it to me.

33:04

Don was actually the station engineer at the time. Don Woodard. I'm not sure if he listens to the program.

33:12

I've spoken with Don and unfortunately, like us, he has no...

33:17

Doesn't remember anything. He slept since then. Alright.

33:25

So, she makes all these absurd assertions. My response is sometimes dissolved into thin air.

33:33

Back in 1993, a host could simply use a slide switch or dial to lower my volume. Those mechanisms would allow him to cut off my voice and consequently,

33:40

I could continue talking not knowing that my answers were evaporating into thin air. Again, the issue is not what she didn't say.

33:48

It's what she did say. Now, someone on Twitter contacted her, called her, picked up the phone, called her and asked for the audio.

33:59

You know what her response was? I'll have to see if my son can digitize it from the cassette tape.

34:06

So, in other words, she hasn't even bothered to look. She hasn't even bothered to listen. I challenge,

34:13

I demand that Gayle Ripplinger produce the audio that she says demonstrates editing.

34:23

She has falsely accused me of changing and editing the tapes.

34:29

I demand that she produce those tapes immediately.

34:35

Immediately. Provide the recordings and provide the cassette tape.

34:44

Send it to... Let's agree on a disinterested third party that would be willing for you to send those tapes to them for recording and review.

34:59

How about it, Gayle? Let's see what happens about that. Here's ours. We'll send this right now to a disinterested third party.

35:09

Who's it going to be? Let's name it. You won't do it and you know why. Because what you have on those tapes and what we have on that tape are the exact same thing.

35:19

There's not any editing. Nothing's happened because what was embarrassing about your performance was that you don't know what you're talking about.

35:29

And I would like to give an example of the fact that you do not know what you're talking about.

35:37

Here is a segment of our back and forth.

35:44

As anybody can tell, your voice is just as clear and understandable as mine. Just as clear and understandable.

35:53

But let's listen to the content of what is said in this section of our encounter from November of 1993.

36:03

Oops, I better make sure this is only at 1 .0 speed or she'll get all upset.

36:08

Here we go. Well, if Edwin Palmer says that it's an error to believe that regeneration depends upon faith, then

36:15

I don't know how conservative he is. If he says the Holy Spirit did not forget the Son, then

36:21

I don't know how conservative he is. Well, first of all, those are both misrepresentations. Gross misrepresentations. And I applaud your suggestion that people go out and get the books and read them.

36:29

Now, could I point something out? We're talking over each other. And you can hear her just as clearly as you can hear me.

36:36

You can't edit that. You can't do that. I don't know how to do that.

36:42

Maybe somebody could. But that is clearly the conversation as it was taking place.

36:48

And in this section, I demonstrate, I document beyond all question, that she has grossly misrepresented

36:56

Edwin Palmer. He was talking about in the internal operations of the

37:01

Trinity, that the Father begets the Son. She took that to deny the virgin birth.

37:12

She demonstrated, which she has done thousands of times in her writings, that she has no concern about context, has no concern about accuracy of representation.

37:22

None. None at all. Completely vacuous. But in the back and forth of demonstrating that, it's clearly exactly what took place.

37:34

So Gail, produce this section right now. Digitize. It's easily done. You could do this today.

37:42

Show where this has been edited. If you can't, you're proving you are a liar.

37:49

Just that simple. Just that simple. We continue on. No, because I think they'll have a real eye -opening experience when they do.

37:57

I think they will, because both are gross miscitations, both of Dr. Palmer, and that's one of the things

38:03

I had to wonder about, is because every time I looked up the references that you gave to Mr.

38:08

Palmer, I discovered that you were taking him grossly out of context. First of all, when you cite his book on the Holy Spirit in regards to regeneration, you are aware,

38:16

I would imagine, what you're saying, when you call this a scandalous belief, is that the doctrine that underlies the

38:22

Presbyterian churches, Reformed Baptist churches, that was taught by the Westminster Confession of Faith, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli, and many people,

38:29

J .I. Packer, so on and so forth, is actually an unorthodox belief that is shocking to most Christians.

38:35

I don't get the idea that you understand what he's saying. I understand very well what the five points of Calvinism are.

38:40

Which you identify as a satanic pentagram in your book, which I found to be just absolutely fascinating as well.

38:46

Now, right there, once again, the rabid, irrational, indefensible, anti -Calvinism that is a part of almost all of the cult of King James -only -ism.

38:59

Sam Gipp, one of these folks, Hovind, Riplinger, right there.

39:07

You know, satanic five -point pentagram, five points of Calvinism, blah, blah, blah. But now, here's the section on the spirit and the subject of the internal operations of the

39:17

Trinity and the relationships of the divine persons. So, all the additions to NIV are not even the same.

39:50

It becomes more and more watered down as each printing comes out. Let's go back and add again. I looked up your citation of Edwin Palmer in regards to the

39:58

Holy Spirit did not beget the Son. Let me ask you, have you read the book The Holy Spirit? Of course! How do you think

40:03

I got the quotation? Well, because so many times you miscited that I honestly had to believe that there was a possibility that you were getting all your information from secondary sources.

40:11

Because if you read it, then that means that you are directly responsible for the miscitations and the gross out -of -context citations.

40:17

If you read The Holy Spirit by Palmer and the citation that you give, he is talking about the internal operations of the

40:23

Trinity, where the Father begets the Son. This has been Orthodox Christian theology for the past 2 ,000 years.

40:29

He is not in any way, shape, or form referring to the physical incarnation of the Son in that passage.

40:35

And to parallel it, as you did, Gail, to parallel it, as you did with Brigham Young, cited in the

40:41

Journal of Discourse, Volume 1, page 50, where Brigham Young is specifically referring to the denial of the virgin birth of Christ, which is a part of LDS theology, is to connect two passages that have absolutely, positively, nothing to do with one another.

40:55

And that is not what Christians should be doing if you're going to attack what Palmer said, attack it in the context in which he said it.

41:02

And the context in which he said it is historic Christian doctrine that the Father begets the Son in reference to the interrelationships of the persons in the

41:11

Trinity. When you said the Father begets the Son, it's historic Christian doctrine. Do we go by what the Bible says? Yes, we do.

41:17

The Bible says that Mary was overshadowed by the Holy Ghost. Ma 'am, we are not talking about the incarnation of Jesus Christ when

41:23

Palmer was not talking about the incarnation of Jesus Christ. That's what begotten means. Obviously, you're not familiar with the ancient discussion of the relationship of the

41:33

Father and the Son, and how the Son is the only begotten Son of the Father. I would suggest that you review...

41:39

He's the Son within the Trinity. I'm sorry? He's the Son within the Trinity. Exactly, and that's exactly what

41:45

Edmund Palmer was talking about. Was Jesus begotten by the Holy Spirit within the Trinity? I said the

41:50

Holy Spirit did not beget the Son. It's exactly... Within the doctrine of the Trinity, ma 'am, yes. I don't...

41:57

See, she's absolutely impervious to correction. Just like Hovind, just like Ruckman, just like Gip, absolutely impervious to correction.

42:07

She miscited him. She even said, finally, after I had said it

42:13

I don't know how many times, well, in the Trinity, yeah, and that's exactly what he was talking about in the section that she quoted and misapplied to the incarnation.

42:24

But, cannot be corrected, because from their perspective, if you're ever wrong about anything, you're wrong about everything.

42:33

Infallibility? Yeah, they claim it evidently for themselves. What some of these people say, or what some of these people believe, unless there's evidence of it in the

42:40

New Version. And we have to look back and say, why did you take out the only begotten Son, when the Greek there, mono, genes, you had

42:47

Greek background, you know genes means begotten. No, ma 'am, you're in error about that. The term monogenes, monos meaning only, the error that you're making is that genes comes from genos, which means to beget it, doesn't it?

43:02

It comes from genos, which means kind, which is why it means unique or one of a kind. That is the consistent usage of the phrase monogenes throughout the

43:09

New Testament. So, what do you have here? You have the real conversation as it took place, going back and forth.

43:19

She's fully understandable. No effort's been made to try to hide what she's saying, because I want everyone to hear what she's saying.

43:27

Because what she's saying is so absolutely easily demonstrable to be false.

43:34

Why would I make it more difficult? I want everyone to hear her with great clarity. Just to be able to see.

43:45

okay, now we move on from there. Oh, oh, no, no, wait, wait, wait.

43:55

In the free -for -all that ensued, White trampled over my responses and was rarely allowed to finish a comment or thought.

44:02

That's just not true. There was good back and forth, but that's just not true. Summarizing his technique, one person said, pardon me for talking while you're interrupting.

44:10

Now remember, here's a woman. She got two days uninterrupted.

44:16

I got five minutes to respond. And then when we have interaction, well, you're interrupting me.

44:23

The fact of the matter is, Gayle Ripley just starts talking, and if you don't stop her, she'll talk for five minutes and never even come close to answering your question, which is what the whole

44:31

Titanic thing was all about. One caller said to White, I was thoroughly disappointed at your personal attack on Mrs.

44:39

Ripplinger in this disguise of debate format. And who was that? Judy Penalto. Mrs. Ripplinger, will you tell us all what your relationship with Judy Penalto is?

44:47

Will you tell us if you had any contact with Judy Penalto between the two programs? Would you tell us if you knew that she was going to be a caller on the program?

44:54

Why don't you come out and tell us those things, Mrs. Ripplinger? It'd be nice to know. In fact, why don't you tell us, who sent you those tapes? Was it

44:59

Judy Penalto? Callers could tell it was no debate, but an ambush.

45:06

Oh, you're calling it a debate? I thought you were upset that anybody else called it a debate. It was not an ambush, by the way.

45:15

Because, as I said, now, the small possibility exists that Pat Shaughnessy simply remembered later on, oh, you know, before I had this guy on, he needs to read the book, and called me up to have me come in to get that.

45:30

In all likelihood, what happened was, he contacted Gail Ripplinger and said, I have someone who's willing to come on to talk to you about the things you're saying, and she said, well,

45:39

I won't debate anybody who hasn't read my book, and so he called me and had me come and get the book.

45:46

That's, in all probability, what took place. I've contacted Pat Shaughnessy. He's still alive, but he's very elderly.

45:52

I haven't heard back from him. Maybe I will. Maybe I won't. I don't know. We're talking about a quarter of a century ago here.

45:58

But, anyway, number two, White refused to debate. White refused my offer to debate on the Ankerberg Show in 1995.

46:05

I am about to drop the A -bomb, she says. Boy, there's lots of thoughts crossing my mind there that I'm not going to use.

46:13

John Ankerberg, host of the televised John Ankerberg show, called me and asked if I would come on his show, along with James White and the chairman and translators of the new versions,

46:21

Barker, Farrstad, Wilkins, Wallace. I agreed to be on the program, giving as my only stipulations that the exchanges be timed so that I was not unfairly given less time that I was able to set up my own camera in addition to his.

46:34

He said he would ask White and the editors and get back with me. Stopping my quotation.

46:41

I have contacted the Ankerberg show and I wrote to a producer and explained to him what's going on.

46:48

Haven't heard back from him. Some of you might know that I may not any longer be the favorite person on the

46:54

Ankerberg show because of the Cantor stuff. But I hope to still hear something. Because my recollection is that most of this setup took place at the

47:07

Christian Booksellers Association meeting in 1995. And it happened through Bethany House.

47:14

I was just asked, would you be willing to go to where was it?

47:19

Was it Nashville? I forget where it was. Would you go to where they record the program and be a part of this program?

47:28

I said, you bet. Be happy to. My book was brand new. It was making a lot of noise.

47:33

So, sure. No problem. Ankerberg never called me and said, well

47:40

Ripplinger has these demands. Anything like that. And there's no way that John Ankerberg said to her, well ask

47:47

James White. As if I was in charge. I wasn't in charge. I was just happy to be there. And I know the other guys were even less involved because Don Wilkins had flown in from Greece I think it was.

48:01

I forget where Dan had flown in from. These are busy people. People who are teaching in seminaries and stuff like that.

48:08

They're just making time because this book was making a stink and was filled with just absurdities.

48:15

So, let's take time to do it. But, I can guarantee you, if what she said to Ankerberg was, well,

48:24

I'll only be on if it's equal time. In other words, if you just give five minutes to one person, that would never be allowed because that's not what the

48:32

Ankerberg show is. Go back and look at the archives of the Ankerberg show. Go back and look at Walter Martin's debate with Mitch Pacwa.

48:40

Go back and look at Walter Martin on with Saban on oneness theology.

48:47

This is supposed to be a give and take type thing. It's not an equal time type thing.

48:52

It's why it's not a formal debate. It's a television discussion. It has to have pace.

48:58

People are going to fall dead asleep if you give... Well, remember when I debated who was the guy in London?

49:06

Mount Impassable. Jack Mormon. Remember his opening statement?

49:14

I mean, for TV, it was really bad because he just sat there and read it. He had it written out, and when you're sitting on TV and you're not even looking at the camera, it's just sort of like...

49:26

And he read his. I turned to the audience, had no notes, and just simply talked to them and made a connection with them.

49:34

The debate was over at that point. If you know anything about television, the debate was over at that point. So, I can...

49:41

I was never contacted and asked, well, would you allow this?

49:47

I had nothing to do with setting it up or anything else. I wanted

49:52

Ripplinger there. I was very disappointed when I was informed that she was not going to be there, but there was going to be a representative.

50:00

She says she had nothing to do with this. Okay. If you say you had nothing to do with this, fine. The reality is that the man who appeared there,

50:13

Joe Chambers, presented himself as defending your position. And he had notes, he had materials.

50:20

My assumption was those notes and materials came from you. Maybe they didn't. I don't know. I think they did.

50:27

But, bid as it may, Ruckman's position was represented by Gip, yours was represented by Chambers, and poor

50:34

Thomas Strauss... Poor Thomas Strauss just looked like he wanted to crawl under his chair most of the time when either

50:43

Gip or Chambers were speaking. Because Strauss is representing more of the D .A. Waite perspective, which is not as as this stuff is.

50:52

And so they sometimes get embarrassed by the stuff. So, I had nothing to do with anything in lining these things up whatsoever.

51:07

So, to say that you offered to have a formal debate with me is the same thing as to say that you offered to go on the

51:15

Ankerberg show if John Ankerberg would change the format of the show. Those are not the same things.

51:22

I know in your mind they are. I know. I almost queued up,

51:27

I started to queue up one of my favorite lines from Cheers.

51:36

When Fraser Crane looked at the... Who was the postal guy? The postal deliverer?

51:42

I forget who that was. Anyways, he just looked at him after he made one of those wild -eyed statements, and he says,

51:49

What color is the sky in your world? Cliff. Yeah, he looked at Cliff and said, What color is the sky in your world?

51:56

I need to have that queued up much more often than I have it queued up.

52:02

Because it's really good. Anyways, what color... What?

52:11

Why? What'd I do? Oh. It shows...

52:16

It came up with what size, which is not really what I was looking for. Anyways, that didn't happen.

52:26

So, I don't know what she's thinking, but there was never any offer of a formal debate. Notice the delusions of grandeur here, though.

52:34

When he called me back, he said that they refused my simple requirements. 1 ,000 pounds of Greek -speaking

52:40

Goliaths were afraid of a little woman. Perhaps the sharp and powerful word of God was their real opponent, and their knees smote one against another.

52:51

I'm sorry. It's just... The delusion of this woman is really, really, really hard to imagine.

52:59

It really is. Did I not queue this up? I thought I had all this stuff just sitting here.

53:05

Or did I not download it? Or maybe

53:11

I posted it in Facebook, is what I did. Yeah, I did post it in Facebook, didn't I?

53:18

Yeah, because this section's coming up here. There it is.

53:24

Okay, I'll be able to play it, and I'll have to fire up the thingamabobby and send this over to you, so we can see this, because this is important to see.

53:37

No, no, no, not yet. I'll give it to you in a second.

53:45

Alright, there it is. That's the exact... The guy on Twitter, is he the guy that provided all the dividing line descriptions?

53:58

I thought you'd be faster than that. Copy URL. That's him?

54:04

Okay. Many thanks to the gentleman who just provided me with this

54:10

URL. But... Yeah, it's a genetic quirk in the

54:15

Claiborne family that we all have two extra teeth. You see, that's the only way that we can prove that we are the rightful heirs to the

54:22

Russian throne. Hello. Hello in there, Cliff. Tell me, what color is the sky in your world?

54:34

Tell me, what color is the sky in your world? It's just one of my favorite quotes, ever.

54:40

It just fits. It really, really does. Anyway, let's see here.

54:50

So do we need to do a Hello in there, Gail? Yes, yes. I can actually do a fairly decent

54:57

Fraser Crane. I can pull it off myself. Hello in there, Gail. What color is the sky in your world?

55:05

We do need to record that. And we can even get the audience laughter, too. Anyway, White has pretended all these years

55:11

I just wouldn't come. He has never revealed that they refused my offer to debate. It's just not true. If I had been asked,

55:20

I know that I realize that Ankerberg would not change the format of the show because that would be dead

55:29

TV. I know he wouldn't do that. But I wanted her there. I wanted her there more than anything.

55:36

And the reality is she does send her questions before interviews.

55:44

And she has never debated anybody else. That is a fact. So, anyway.

55:56

On a side note. Here we go. On a side note, my request to bring my own camera was not without reason.

56:03

They did boldly edit out of the Ankerberg program the piece de resistance where the

56:09

Lord gave the KJB side a victory. This has been refuted for so many years.

56:16

With documentary evidence. They just keep repeating it. When you don't have anything else, you might as well. I had fasted for three days preceding the

56:23

Ankerberg program, praying that the Lord would prevail and more specifically that a new version editor would lose his ability to speak as other new version editors had.

56:32

And I had documented in New Age Bible versions. Lo and behold, when the cameras were rolling, Ankerberg asked Wilkins of the

56:37

NESB what he thought of my claim that some had lost their ability to speak. Wilkins could not speak. They had to cut the cameras off.

56:44

Shock and horror filled the studio according to those KJB men who had cajoled into participating.

56:52

Notice, cajoled into participating. This is the old Wilkins lost his voice lie.

57:01

And lo and behold, I had posted in 2008,

57:07

February 27, 2008. I guess something had happened. I forget what it was. Something had happened that had brought the

57:17

Ripplinger and Ankerberg stuff back up again. And I had done a video talking about what had happened.

57:24

And I even show in this video. I posted it on my Facebook page yesterday if you want to see it. I even showed the video that I had from the

57:39

VHS tapes. We had spent like $89 on two VHS tapes when we first got it.

57:47

Well, I posted that stuff and then lo and behold, somebody comes to the chat channel and goes hey, that stuff is on the internet now.

57:56

And what they had done is when they had posted this portion it was the beginning of show number four.

58:04

I had remembered that correctly. It was the beginning of show number four. They had posted the original material which included

58:13

Wilkin having to get a drink of water. Now, remember these people are so deluded.

58:24

Sam Giff, Peter Ruckman, Gail Ripplinger. They are so deluded that they can sit here and say what you're about to watch was the striking of a man so he cannot speak.

58:39

All in great defense of the King James Bible. Let's remember something, folks.

58:46

This is only for rational people. I realize Gail won't get this because this is for people who can actually think through problems on a rational level.

58:59

There were eight programs. Eight programs. Half an hour each.

59:04

Let's say 25 minutes. That's still what? Three hours and 45 minutes approximately? Three hours and 45 minutes.

59:15

My voice was fine. I went after Gail Ripplinger quite strongly. Why wasn't my voice taken away?

59:23

Don Wilkin said a lot during that time period. He had to take a drink once.

59:29

One time. This is divine inter - This is your God? This is your

59:36

God? I mean if this is what divine intervention is, then

59:41

I guess when we read in Acts about Paul striking Bar Jesus blind because he was withstanding the

59:50

Gospel, I guess what really happened was this is what happened to Bar Jesus. Oh. What were we saying?

59:58

That's what happened, huh? He had to blink something out of his eye. There we go. That was

01:00:05

Bar Jesus being struck blind, right? The absurdity. You make

01:00:11

Christianity a mockery with your absurdity, with your cultic dedication to a human tradition.

01:00:20

It is incredible. Absolutely incredible. And here it is.

01:00:28

Let me find it here first. Don't bring it up until I can. Okay.

01:00:39

It's really low resolution so I'm not sure that's going to help much. Alright, let's see if this is going to work.

01:00:46

Alright, it's running. That'll give you all the documentation you could ever want on this particular issue.

01:00:53

Okay, that does not look good. You want to take that down and let's try this again?

01:01:01

Alright. ...case against the NIV, the New King James, and the

01:01:07

New American Standard Bible plus a group of the other modern translations. And I have the general editors of those

01:01:14

Bibles right here. Now, did you catch that cough? That was Don. And the reason that he was coughing, he'd just flown in from Greece and he takes migraine medication.

01:01:25

And it has the effect of drying him out. So, he had, you know, believe it or not, this is not a magic potion, this is just water.

01:01:35

And when you talk a lot, you know, there's a lot of people who drink water while speaking.

01:01:41

Really not an unusual thing. But, anyway, we continue. I'd like you to respond, and Dr.

01:01:47

Joe Chambers is also representing Gale, so he'll kind of take your response. What was that?

01:01:53

What, what? Dr. Joe Chambers is representing Gale. I guess

01:02:00

Ankerberg's lying too, right? Yeah, well, that's how he was represented. I think, I think if we go back to the very first program, which

01:02:08

I am not going to take the time to do. I have got other things to be doing. But I think if we go back to the very first program, he's represented as her representative.

01:02:18

Just thought we'd mention that in passing. Don Wilkins, you're representing the

01:02:24

New American Standard Bible. And Gale, in her book, she groups all of you together, and she says that the new translations,

01:02:36

NAS, NIV, New King James, have an occult bent to them. They introduce

01:02:41

New Age philosophies into the church. They spread mysticism and liberalism, and line by line, they are changing the face of Jesus Christ.

01:02:50

Now, just to keep it up there, to Ankerberg's right is

01:02:56

Chambers, next to that you can see Thomas Strauss's legs, next to that, and then barely in the right -hand corner of the screen is

01:03:03

Dan Wallace. So, Wilkins right here on the left, next to him is Farstad. I'm in between Farstad and Barker, who is visible on the left -hand side there, if you're wondering where the thing is.

01:03:15

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.

01:03:25

What do you think about the evidence and the documentation in this book? Well, first of all, that book...oh,

01:03:32

I'm losing my voice. Give me a little water here first. By the way, this is not the first time that we had started a question and then stopped and kept rolling and said, let's do it differently.

01:03:49

Both sides have done that. That's what recording is all about. That's what editing is all about.

01:03:55

But, I leaned over to that. Because you can hear the chuckling.

01:04:02

I leaned over to Farstad and I said, they're going to make something big out of this. And he looked at me like, you're crazy.

01:04:08

I mean, he really did look at me, almost offensively, like, you're nuts. He didn't know them as well as I did.

01:04:15

Pick it up there when he gets his voice. There it is. There's documentation. Okay.

01:04:23

Hold on. Are you all ready? Try it out. Hi. I think

01:04:29

I'm all right now. All right, so we'll pick it up right there. Are you ready? What do you think about the evidentation that she has produced?

01:04:39

Now, before he starts here, he should not be able to speak. If this is divine, same question, this should just continue, right?

01:04:49

I mean, was Bar -Jesus just like that? No, he had to search out for someone to lead him around by the hand.

01:04:56

He was blind. Not only is he going to continue, but you're going to hear

01:05:02

John rather impatiently going, so what did you find,

01:05:07

John? What did you find? Ankerberg struggled to get, especially the scholars, to recognize they're on TV.

01:05:15

I was a radio. I know you only have a certain amount of time. You've got to get it done. And so I knew what he wanted.

01:05:22

And what's interesting is the version they've now posted, they took my discussion out to make room to show this, just to refute the frog in the throat thing, which

01:05:34

I'll show you here in a second. But anyways, we continue on. Well, let me tell you that we, when this book came out, the

01:05:41

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.

01:05:53

And so we spent six weeks going through it, or at least going through parts of it.

01:05:59

See, he's not going fast enough. She spent six years working on it. And frankly, we didn't feel like we had that kind of time to go through that.

01:06:07

What'd you find? We found, what I personally found is that... He wants facts.

01:06:13

Virtually everything she's wrong or mislocation... Give us an example. Or it's a deliberate deception of people, misleading them about what facts there are.

01:06:22

What do you think of her documentation? I think it's ridiculous. It's careless.

01:06:28

It is full of holes. Everything I've seen in Ripplinger's book, virtually everything she says is either a misquotient or misleading of the truth.

01:06:36

And I'll give you a good example. Now, he goes on from there. And my point is, he's talking. He was not struck dumb.

01:06:44

He had to take a drink of water. If your god can't beat a glass of water,

01:06:51

I'm not interested in him. Okay? All there is to it. Now, let me fast forward here a little bit to what was originally posted.

01:07:04

Because this is the part they ended up taking out. It's true. And it's a deliberate misstatement of the facts.

01:07:10

You hear the buzz? I think we need to point out the fact that the type of complete misrepresentation we have here,

01:07:16

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.

01:07:26

Ripplinger... Now, by the way, my voice seems to be just fine, doesn't it? Yeah, yeah, it does. ...claims

01:07:31

God gave her. On page 149, we have something called acrostic algebra. And you take the

01:07:38

NASV and the NIV and by some mathematical process you take out the

01:07:43

AV and the last letters left is SIN. And this somehow is supposed to demonstrate that these modern translations have something wrong with them.

01:07:51

Well, I asked Ripplinger in a radio debate, first of all, why did you call it NASV? Throughout the rest of your book, you called it

01:07:57

NASB. She said, that's what God calls it. Even all through the rest of the book, she said NASB instead of NASV.

01:08:04

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 inciting from one particular place, being honest and saying, well,

01:08:15

Westcott also happens to have, and in fact in a passage that Dr. Gipp cites in his own book, they like to go after Westcott and say, well, see, he found this thing of Mary and Dr.

01:08:24

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.

01:08:35

He right afterwards finds a crucifix and he says, I wish it had been empty that there is no Jesus upon it. He frequently spoke of the

01:08:42

Roman superstition and so on and so forth. So by selectively editing these things, you can make these people look bad.

01:08:48

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.

01:08:59

So, there you go. There was the alleged victory.

01:09:06

So, when Gail Ripplinger fasts for three days, you can get over the result by sipping water.

01:09:12

There you go. It's just, wow. What on earth can be said about that?

01:09:21

So, this is taking a lot longer than I expected it to. I should have, but let me try to press on here and we'll see what we can do.

01:09:30

Gail goes on to say, White ambushed me on the radio program in 1993 and then continued to try to pretend he debated me.

01:09:36

The edited audio he sells was covered in item one. Remember, when she said, did he change my voice?

01:09:41

I can't prove it. I'm not saying that. Again, Mrs. Ripplinger, produce the audio.

01:09:48

Send the tape that Judy Pinalto sent you. Name the unbiased third party.

01:09:55

We'll send ours. You send theirs. We'll see what they have to say. How about it? We'll do it because I know the truth.

01:10:03

And somewhere deep inside your mind, you know it too. That's what's scary. I know the suppression might be tough, but there you go.

01:10:14

She makes a really disgusting parallel between myself and Bill Cosby.

01:10:20

I won't even go through that. It's beneath contempt. Let's see.

01:10:27

I have been ambushed several times over the years where the host assured me they strictly wanted to exalt the KJB and were not interested in entertaining any criticisms of it.

01:10:34

The radio program with White began on false premises. Let me back up. White further added to the fable saying

01:10:41

I talked to the host of the program. He said, hey, you know she says no one will debate her, so if you'd like to debate her, the fact is I never said no one will debate someone.

01:10:48

White of the host made this up. White said he was surprised I returned for the next day. He knew I had not agreed to such a free -for -all to begin with.

01:10:54

That's not true. Utterly untrue. I did not think you would come back because you had made such a fool of yourself.

01:11:02

Your answers were foolish. They were foolish. When you sit there and say,

01:11:09

God gave you acrostic algebra, and then in this, when you go on to say later on, when you go on to parallel your acrostic algebra, where you take

01:11:24

NIV and NASV and subtract out SIN and arrogantly say that I'm the stupid person because I can't recognize symbolic and exercise in symbolic logic.

01:11:40

I ask anyone in the studio audience, go online. Google logic.

01:11:46

What you'll find is like what I have in my textbooks right here. You open up the inside front cover and you will find, for example, right here inference rules for statement logic.

01:11:58

Implicational rules such as modus ponens, modus tollens, disjunctive syllogism, simplification, conjunction, hypothetical syllogism, addition, dilemma.

01:12:06

And there is a way of utilizing symbols to discuss how to make arguments in symbolic logic, using symbols in logic, in formal logic.

01:12:21

You've got The Power of Logic here by Stephen Lehman. You've got addition logic. I've taken classes in that.

01:12:28

I've constructed those arguments. And Gail Riplinger, if you think your acrostic algebra, which you said on that program in your own words,

01:12:35

God gave you is symbolic logic. You are certifiably insane.

01:12:43

I asked, go look. That is not symbolic logic. It has nothing to do with symbolic logic.

01:12:49

It's numerology. And why didn't you say on the program, well, it's just symbolic logic. James, haven't you ever taken a class in symbolic logic?

01:12:57

You didn't say that. Who suggested this to you? Where did you run across this new excuse?

01:13:03

The fact remains that symbolic logic is easily definable.

01:13:11

Acrostic algebra is lunacy. Nothing more than lunacy. That you claim

01:13:17

God gave you. There you go. Let me see if there's anything else here even worth looking at.

01:13:26

I already said, I'm not even going to do it now. I have the entire

01:13:32

Titanic thing here, the five -minute version. Maybe I'll put the link to the

01:13:41

YouTube that I played it on. We also have the Southwest Radio Church recordings from 2000 on Sermon Audio.

01:13:48

Folks can listen to those. We've gone through so much of this stuff in the past, just the vast majority of our audience didn't know we had done that years and years ago.

01:13:58

But she says that I'm misrepresenting her mind about the 666.

01:14:06

I won't play the whole thing, but let me just play the first part of it.

01:14:12

I'll tell you what I'll do. I'll speed it up just a little bit so we can get this done. Listen to what

01:14:21

I made of actually thinking she was making a point here. I repent in sackcloth and ashes for ever having allowed the thought to cross my mind that Gail Riplinger was actually making a point about anything.

01:14:33

This is just simply Gail Riplinger babbling. Now, let me just stop.

01:14:48

Is that a difficult question? Is that a hard question? And the answer is going to have to do with something about the versions, right?

01:14:58

I mean, when they appeared, something along those lines, right?

01:15:05

You'd think. Now, the only thing that...

01:15:36

See, my mind seeks consistency and harmony and logical thought.

01:15:44

I'm sorry. I guess that's what makes me just go crazy when dealing with Gail Riplinger, because there's none of that.

01:15:50

It doesn't exist in her mind. And so, when I hear the three sixes, six small slits, what does that have to do with Bible versions?

01:16:02

64 verses. 16 ,000 words. What's the only thing consistent? 666? What does that have to do with anything?

01:16:12

Why else say these words? Well, then again, why else say almost anything else she said? ...owned by J .P.

01:16:30

Morgan. And the term White Star is a codename for Lucifer. If someone needs to document this, they could read the book

01:16:36

Mastering Witchcraft by Paul Henson. It includes a prayer to Lucifer. Thou of the unholy trinity, help us, whose star is white.

01:16:44

Blot out the red star. Now, they are praying that Lucifer will take the place of our precious bloodstained savior, the

01:16:50

Lord Jesus Christ. We remember Lucifer himself said in Isaiah 14, I will be liked the most high. Now, back at the turn of the century,

01:16:57

Madame Blavatsky with her newspaper, Lucifer. Okay, I just... She just goes on, and on, and on, and on, and there is no meaning to it.

01:17:07

It's just one sentence followed by another sentence that just sort of... I don't know.

01:17:15

Okay. Yeah, that's pretty much everything it needs.

01:17:24

Anybody who can watch all this up to this point and still think that there is even a semblance of credibility in anything that we're going to have to say, what can

01:17:35

I say? I bet you're voting for Bernie Sanders too.

01:17:40

Anyway, yes sir? Just one point. You said that you were surprised that she came back on that second day. I wonder if she would have come back on that second day if the phone call from Judy Pinalto had not already been set up.

01:17:52

That's always been our theory. We can't prove it, but that's always been our theory. That was part of trying to give her some help because obviously she couldn't handle it on her own.

01:18:03

No question about that. No question about that. I did mark two other things. Let me just see what I marked here real quick.

01:18:10

Look at the text and look at the bottom of the page. Anyone who has these critical texts has all the readings...

01:18:16

Oh, okay. Yeah. Now listen to this. This is from the tape. She was talking about turning her down.

01:18:24

She was kept up while I was speaking. And listen carefully here. Look at the text and look at the bottom of the page.

01:18:32

Anyone who has these critical texts has all the readings in the manuscripts right there. When I look at a passage,

01:18:39

I can tell you exactly what any of the manuscripts in the various manuscripts, all through the

01:18:45

Byzantine tradition, so on and so forth, what they read due to the tremendously advanced, very wisely put together textual apparatus at the bottom.

01:18:55

Now, do you hear her laughing? Now, I don't think she can even read those apparatus. The critical text.

01:19:01

But she's laughing. She was up even while I was speaking. And then just shortly after that was the

01:19:10

Penalto call. But, like I said, we've linked to it yourself.

01:19:16

It is very, very, very, very, very revealing. Here's my choice right now.

01:19:26

That went 20 minutes, minimum of 20 minutes longer than I thought it would. Here's my thinking.

01:19:35

I have invited someone to call on Thursday.

01:19:43

And the subject is Roman Catholicism. So I think what we'll do is

01:19:48

I want to talk about the Pope and his super confessors. He sent out these super confessors that have super powers of forgiveness.

01:19:56

I want to compare and contrast that wackiness with biblical truth.

01:20:04

Um I noted a Roman Catholic writer who accurately called his fellow

01:20:11

Roman Catholics to a level of honesty on the 33 ,000 nations myth. So I want to I think it was

01:20:18

Scott Alt. I want to applaud someone when they do what's right. Wanted to mention that. And I do want to address the issue of Justice Scalia and the issue of the gospel.

01:20:33

Because I'm of discussion after his passing that once again illustrates for me the fact that for most evangelicals the nature of the gospel is secondary in their analysis of individuals.

01:20:51

And really, especially at depth, we find out what people's priorities really are.

01:20:58

If you're willing to jettison the gospel at that point um so as to not offend then once there's real pressure put upon you as to what the nature of the gospel we know where you're going to go.

01:21:16

But those cannot be done in a rushed way. And so I think what would be better would be for me to address those issues on Thursday's dividing line and then take that call um and make it a dividing line on Thursday.

01:21:37

So I will cut those out. I know I said I was going to play them but I still have three major things to do and I'm not sure

01:21:45

I'm going to get them into 38 minutes. It may be a little bit more than a mega. And I'm going to put more ice and water in the process if at all possible.

01:21:57

Uh I did however want to play a video for you and to interact a little bit of what it is all about.

01:22:14

I spent a lot of time yesterday putting it together. I had to do so so as to take all the profanity out because there was a lot of it.

01:22:24

But a few weeks ago I saw this. I was going to play it on the program and I just forgot. I'm sorry. It happens.

01:22:32

This is a video of a group called Britain First doing a sweep

01:22:41

I thought you were going to just, well, okay. Doing a sweep through Luton in a suburb of London I believe.

01:22:53

I think it's a suburb of London. No, I'm good. And I found this horrifically offensive.

01:23:06

Horrifically offensive. There is no question in my mind that these individuals are specifically seeking to create conflict.

01:23:16

They're specifically seeking to offend. They give absolutely zero evidence of a knowledge of the gospel.

01:23:26

Zero evidence of a knowledge of what the cross actually means. They scandalize the

01:23:33

Christian faith, the cross, and the gospel. They fit perfectly into the false understanding of the role of the cross in Christianity in the minds of Muslims.

01:23:47

If you watch carefully the most mature people in the video are

01:23:55

Muslims. Oh no, there's plenty of foul -mouthed, nasty Muslims. I mean, they managed to get the

01:24:02

Muslims riled up. No question about it. And these Muslims were cussing up a blue street.

01:24:07

They did not represent Islam very well. But if you watch carefully, if you watch carefully, you will see a number of Muslims ignoring the provocation.

01:24:20

Other older Muslims trying to drag the younger Muslims away. Other Muslims just trying to pull the people that are getting away from.

01:24:30

The only mature adults in the video were Muslims. This is...

01:24:40

I'm not going to apologize to these people because they don't represent me. This is a Britain equals

01:24:47

Christian idea, and I reject that. Britain is a secular nation.

01:24:54

Britain has done what our nation has done. Our nation is a secular nation. Britain is a secular nation.

01:25:00

They've embraced secular worldviews. They reject the Christian faith. A small, tiny percentage

01:25:07

British populace attends church, and even a large portion of that attends a dead church.

01:25:14

A dead formal church. I'm not saying all Anglicans are dead. You all know I've gone down to Sydney and there's great brothers down there.

01:25:22

But they know how unlike they are from most of what is in England. So this was reprehensible.

01:25:33

I call upon Britain First to stop carrying crosses when you will not bow before it.

01:25:46

If you don't know what it means, if you don't live in light of it, and if you don't understand that it means you're to love these people, not hate them, then stop blaspheming the cross.

01:25:57

In the name of Jesus Christ, do not use his name in that way. It's blasphemy.

01:26:06

And if you, as a Christian, think this is just fine, you and I don't seem to understand the gospel in the same way.

01:26:13

And something tells me you could never defend. Never, ever, defend your position, biblically.

01:26:21

So, having now condemned it, you got it? Watch it. I'm jealous that we're taking over.

01:26:29

You're not taking over. What are you all doing here? Why are you killing us? You've got to be

01:26:34

Muslim to come to Luton. That's why I keep calling it barbarity.

01:26:40

Wow! Muslims will take over, watch! Jada, can you tell us where we are today?

01:27:14

We're in Burry Park today. We're just walking down the high street. There's about 20 or so of us.

01:27:20

We're giving out newspapers. We've got our Christian crosses. And we are going through the town centre.

01:27:26

We've already had a bit of hostility, but we're marching through. This is a British town. And we're proud to be British.

01:27:49

What's it say, sir? It's our country. It's your country, is it? It's a

01:27:59

Christian country. It's a Christian country. Yes, it is. This is a Christian country.

01:28:05

You're jealous that we're taking over. You're not taking over. Why are we jealous you're taking over? Why are you taking over?

01:28:11

How are you taking over? We've got it, mate. We're loving it here. You've got people scared.

01:28:18

You don't have us scared. You think you can take over town and tell us that it's your country? Not for long.

01:28:24

See this cross? This will prevail. This is a British town. I'll come here where I like. Well, if she had a

01:28:31

Muslim symbol, you wouldn't say anything. I've got to be Muslim to come to Luton. You come down here. Whoa!

01:28:52

Whoa! Stay back. What's wrong with this? What's wrong with this?

01:28:58

Oh, really? Slap her. You're being hidden because you're trying to be religious.

01:29:03

Don't you have enough so that you don't get raped? This is a

01:29:09

Christian country. This is a Christian country. This is a

01:29:25

Christian country. What about rape?

01:29:30

I'm a Christian. What's the matter, mate?

01:29:45

Free country. Yeah. Thank you for stopping.

01:30:31

Can you give us a little idea of what just happened? So, we were walking through... We're now getting...

01:30:39

...thrown at us. We were walking through Berry Park High Street campaigning. We've got Christian crosses with us and we just literally got mobbed.

01:30:48

Muslims came out from every angle. Muslims told us that they've taken our country. We're not welcome. It's not a Christian country.

01:30:54

They've taken over and we need to leave. They were threatening violence. People attacked me. People threatened to attack

01:31:00

Paul Golding. People tried to attack our activists. They're throwing things. This is a British town. This is

01:31:05

Britain. This is a Christian country. I'm British. These activists are British. So we will walk through these streets.

01:31:11

We have every right to. Without being threatened. The English people, as you can tell, they're very supportive, the local

01:31:19

English. There are very few of them here but the ones that are here, they have been entirely supportive. They were thanking us for coming.

01:31:26

And what can you tell us about what some of the Muslims have been saying about this being their town, their country.

01:31:32

They're taking over. They said they've taken over. They said this is no longer ours. It's no longer Britain. That us

01:31:37

British people out and take over our country. They said it's not a Christian country.

01:31:42

It's now an Islamic country. They said that I should cover up. Their women are covered up up there.

01:31:49

Some of them are. Some of them are hurling abuse. You know, it's just, it doesn't resemble Britain anymore. And you can just see that the very small minority of British people left in this town are just in despair.

01:32:01

You can see that today. This is our town.

01:32:08

This is our town. Not your town. This is our town. This is Luton. This is

01:32:13

Britain. England. Don't come over and threaten us.

01:32:25

This isn't your town. Our town is

01:32:30

Christian. It's a Christian. Reject the false prophet

01:32:40

Mohammed and follow the true saviour of the world, Jesus Christ our

01:32:45

Lord. Oh yeah, that helps. No, I'm not shutting up. No.

01:32:55

No. No. Britain first. Fight him back. Britain first. Fight him back.

01:33:01

Britain first. Fight him back. Britain first. Fight him back. Britain first.

01:33:06

Fight him back. Britain first. Fight him back.

01:33:12

Britain first. Fight him back. Britain first. Fight him back. Fight him back. Britain first. Fight him back.

01:33:28

We'll be back. We'll be back. Don't you worry. We'll be back. Okay, well, we don't need to spend any more time there.

01:33:40

What a degradation of the gospel to right there at the end.

01:33:47

I'm sorry, I see zero evidence that these people have any love in their heart. At all.

01:33:53

At all. And if you are not willing to die to bring the gospel to these people, then stop pretending to be a

01:34:05

Christian. I know you have cultural Christianity. That's not going to get you to heaven.

01:34:13

That's going to give you a nice, hot place in hell. Stop it. Needs to be some good gospel preaching to those people.

01:34:21

But they're the hardest to reach. They're the hardest to reach. And if you think that that does not harden the

01:34:28

Muslims and their rebellion, then you don't get it. Anyway.

01:34:34

So there you go. I was going to play that a few weeks ago. It got skipped, and I apologize for that.

01:34:42

Quick announcement, and then I need to... We're going to press on. I'm going to shift over to a textual critical issue real quick.

01:34:50

And we get done. Hopefully close to two hours. Might go a little bit over, but anyway.

01:35:00

Sunday night, my fellow elder preached a wonderful sermon. He's going through the book of Job.

01:35:07

Job is not easy, folks. Job's tough sledding. And I happen to know that my dear friend

01:35:17

Michael Brown is writing a commentary on Job. Pretty much finishing up a commentary on Job.

01:35:24

And we ran to a text. Now, I've read the text before, but you know how it is.

01:35:30

We'll just jump out and you just go, wow, this is brand new. Never seen this before. And as soon as I'm reading it, and Pastor Fry's preaching on it,

01:35:43

I'm looking at the Hebrew, and I'm going, this is really interesting, and thought crosses my mind.

01:35:49

Here's the text. Job 23, 13 through 14.

01:35:56

But he is unique. It's Bechad, and it's translated a number of different ways.

01:36:05

Unique, one, unlike any other. It's very similar to the phraseology found in Sura 1, 12.

01:36:17

Actually. But notice, he is unique, and who can turn him? And what his soul desires, that he does.

01:36:29

For he performs what is appointed for me. This is Job speaking. And many such decrees are with him.

01:36:42

Now, as a elvenist,

01:36:49

I look at that, and I go, wow. Yeah. I mean, and of course, immediately, when you're interpreting

01:36:59

Job, what's the end of the book? Nobody, the conversations, got

01:37:09

God exactly right. But even the correction that God provides is rhetorical.

01:37:16

It's the interview. Where were you when I? And Job's response is,

01:37:22

I place my hand over my mouth. I need to stop speaking. So, the question is, is

01:37:31

Job speaking the truth here? And does God correct him at the end of the book?

01:37:40

And if he's speaking the truth, certainly, but he is unique, is true. Who can turn him?

01:37:46

What his soul desires, that he does. That's Psalm 135, 6. True. So, the only question is verse 14, for he performs as appointed for me, and many such decrees are with him.

01:37:57

Is there a decree of God? And so, I'm looking at that. I'll be perfectly honest with you.

01:38:04

I missed some of what the pastor said. Because I was digging into the Hebrew, and I'm looking at the

01:38:09

Septuagint, and I'm going, so what I did is

01:38:15

I wrote to Michael Brown. And I said, what's your commentary on verses?

01:38:25

How do you deal with this particular Hebrew phrase, this particular Hebrew phrase? He wrote back pretty quick, gave me the material.

01:38:31

I said, interesting. We pretty much agreed, but the question was application. And so,

01:38:37

I wrote back and said, how about you come on the dividing line?

01:38:44

And actually, I said, how about we have a discussion? So, actually, I haven't discussed about where we'll have it. Maybe we'll have it, sort of, do what we did before.

01:38:51

Maybe I'll be on line of fire, and maybe he'll be on the dividing line.

01:38:56

We have more time on the dividing line. But I said, how about we have a discussion?

01:39:04

We both provide our own translations of the Hebrew, our own exegesis, and we use that as a jumping off point to discuss whether there is a sovereign decree of God.

01:39:15

Because I think that's the key area of disagreement between Michael and I.

01:39:21

And he was like, perfect, let's do it. So, we haven't set the date yet, probably early March.

01:39:28

We will just do a program where, for at least an hour, the two of us will give our presentations and we'll start with that and then move out from there to the broader issues.

01:39:42

So, I think that'll be interesting. And our goal is to demonstrate

01:39:47

God -honoring disagreement and a common commitment to the final authority of the

01:39:53

Word of God. And so, I thought I would mention that. I think that'll be quite interesting.

01:40:00

Alright, one last thing to get to. But I don't know that I'm going to be able to do it in just 20 minutes.

01:40:05

So, as I said, please ignore any sounds coming from the microphones.

01:40:13

It's after lunchtime here. And I can't exactly send Rich out to Subway while the program's on to get us something to eat.

01:40:27

I was sent this material by Yusuf Ismail.

01:40:34

Yusuf Ismail is a Muslim apologist in South Africa, Durban specifically.

01:40:41

We did two, dear. They've been posted online. We've done a number of debates.

01:40:48

We debated the year before last in the Juma Masjid in Durban.

01:40:54

It was a great honor to get to defend the deity of Christ in that place. You may recall that I mentioned to Yusuf in our discussion of John 1 -1 in the debate in Durban that his comments, he has always, at least in all the material that I've seen down through the years, been dependent upon Unitarians of various stripes,

01:41:24

Unitarians or liberals of various stripes, to try to find a way around the testimony to the deity of Christ that is the prologue of John.

01:41:33

And of course, he doesn't mention the fact that one of the reasons that the

01:41:41

Gospel of John was dated so late by liberals, for example, in the 19th century was because of its high

01:41:47

Christology, its self -evident high view of Christ as God.

01:41:54

Well, that must have taken time to develop and so on and so forth. Of course, then the discovery of P52 sort of blew that theory away, but that even liberal scholars, even unbelieving scholars like Bart Ehrman, oh yeah, sure, it's right there, surface level reading of the text, it's right there, no problem.

01:42:19

But in our debate, Yusuf had demonstrated, he does not read

01:42:26

Greek, and when I say read Greek, I don't mean, like I won't claim to read

01:42:33

Arabic in a proper fashion. I can read Arabic. I've got the tool, and if someone sends me a text in the

01:42:44

Quran with my various tools and with the study I've done of the basic grammar of the language,

01:42:50

I can get by. And it also helps that I've taught Hebrew. So it's not like I'm ignorant of Semitic languages and Toto.

01:42:58

But reading Greek is different than reading a verse in Greek.

01:43:06

Most ministers cannot read Greek in the sense that they are not reading from the

01:43:13

Greek text while they preach, for example. I do that. Devotionally, I will simply read the text.

01:43:23

And when you read Greek, you have to learn to internalize syntax and the forms of the language.

01:43:34

We've all done that with English, if you're an English speaker. And whether you know it or not, when you read, there are entire categories of internalized data that you are accessing in your mind regarding the relationship of terms, vocabulary, all sorts of things like that.

01:43:58

It's true of Greek. Yusuf cannot do this. And it comes out in his comments. It comes out very plainly in his comments.

01:44:07

And I said during the debate, I said, Yusuf, you would fail my first year Greek class.

01:44:13

I was trying to be nice. But I corrected his misapprehensions regarding especially the third clause of John 1 1, and the lack of a definite article before and Yusuf to this day does not understand the

01:44:32

Greek article because there is nothing in the Greek language more dissimilar to the article.

01:44:39

The Greek article and the English article have very little relationship to one another. And Yusuf does not understand this.

01:44:47

And I corrected it at that time. And then I sent to Dan Wallace Yusuf's citation of Dami.

01:44:57

And amazingly, Dan took the time to record and we've played here on the program and I've provided on YouTube Dan Wallace's refutation of Yusuf Ismail's misuse of Dan Wallace.

01:45:11

Now this is the author. This is a world -aged Greek scholar.

01:45:17

He is acknowledged as having expertise not only in the grammar of the language, but in the manuscripts of the

01:45:24

New Testament. He is the head of CSNTM, the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts. So, when you quote someone's book and they take the time to record an entire video saying dude, you don't get it.

01:45:43

I think the appropriate response to that is to go okay.

01:45:52

Alright. Got it. Instead, Yusuf has decided to plow on as if even

01:46:02

Dan Wallace did not understand what he was really saying. Even when we're talking about Dan Wallace's book.

01:46:13

I'm not going to spend time on that, but what I do want to spend time on is that in the course of discussing the

01:46:22

Christology of the Gospel of John, Yusuf made some comments about John 1 .18

01:46:30

and specifically, the appropriate of John 1 .18. In the

01:46:38

Nesialon text, we have Theon udais heoraken popete Manageneis theos haon aiston kalpon tu patras ekainos exe gesata

01:46:52

No one has seen God at any time. I just point out with a chuckle that that's an anarthorous use of God.

01:47:00

No one has seen God at any time. The manageneis theos the one and only

01:47:06

God. The unique God. The one being in the bosom of the

01:47:12

Father. So in relationship with the Fathers, this is identifying who the Theon, who is not the seen at the beginning of the verses.

01:47:19

That one has exegeted him, has explained him, has made him known. Now what

01:47:28

Yusuf is doing now is getting into criticism into the manuscripts and if you don't read

01:47:44

Greek doing textual criticism is not impossible but ain't and you should be extremely humble and tenuous in your conclusions.

01:48:01

If you are literally dealing with a language you can't read and then dealing with the examination of manuscripts, especially due to the fact, it's one thing to be able to look at sources, but you cannot even begin to measure intrinsic probabilities if you can't read the language.

01:48:16

If you can't say, well one of the favorite syntactic instructions in Pauline language is

01:48:25

Ais Tal with the infinitive. If you don't know what Ais Tal with the infinitive means, if all the ways in which that can be utilized and the proper translations of it and things like that, then when you encounter a variant that includes that form in a

01:48:42

Pauline text you're at a disadvantage. Now our King James only cultist friends say something along the lines of, you're saying you need to have a scholar to be able to tell you what the

01:48:53

God's word says. I am telling you these are scholarly issues. Yes, they are scholarly issues.

01:48:59

I'm not going to apologize for that. Because every single King James onlyist your text was produced for you by scholars.

01:49:10

And these guys love to talk about how scholarly the King James translators were. So their hypocrisy is self -evident at that point.

01:49:21

Anyway I was taken aback by Yusuf's commentary.

01:49:27

So I'm going to play it. I'm going to slow it down because I'm going to play it at 1 .0

01:49:35

The quality is not good. And it has nothing to do with us trying to make Yusuf sound bad. This is a

01:49:44

I'm not sure if this was Skype It sounded like Skype But I've been invited to address the same with Yusuf participating sometime over the next several months.

01:49:54

And we're using GoToMeeting. These are people from California, South Africa, England.

01:50:00

So it's a global thing. It's somebody recording it. I received two versions.

01:50:06

One from Yusuf unsolicited. And then another one this past week. I didn't check the two to see if one was better than the other.

01:50:13

I probably should have. That might have been a good idea. But here's what

01:50:19

Yusuf said. And then I want to respond to it. They referred to,

01:50:25

I think, was it John chapter 1 verse 14? John chapter 1 verse 14 or John chapter 1 verse 18?

01:50:32

And that's quite interesting because in the same passage, look at John 1 verse 18. No man has seen

01:50:38

God at any time. And the King James Version translates this as the only begotten

01:50:43

Son which is in the bosom of the Father. He has declared Him. If you look at the

01:50:49

New American Standard Bible you have a translation No man has seen

01:50:54

God at any time. The only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father.

01:50:59

He has explained Him. Now at face value, what does this mean?

01:51:05

There are two issues that maybe people will clarify. What do you mean by saying on the one hand, the only begotten

01:51:12

God who is in fact in the bosom of the Father? If you look at the I don't have my

01:51:17

NIV here, but if you look at the NIV and the New American Standard Bible, the translation

01:51:22

No man has seen God at any time. The only begotten God. It's in fact translated as this. And so they would translate it from the original text homo nobis fios.

01:51:36

Unique only begotten God. Whereas the King James Version on the other hand is representative of a later text which is viewed as homo nobis fios which is the only begotten

01:51:49

Son. Now the point is from this perspective here if some would argue that this in fact refers to the fact that some or the other that Christ is the only begotten

01:52:02

God as opposed to being the only begotten Son that some of the early church fathers, even though the

01:52:09

KJV is based on manuscripts much later, but some of the early church fathers if you look at the patristic citations

01:52:17

I think it's either Arrhenius or Tertullian in their patristic citations they quote this particular referring to no man has seen

01:52:28

God at any time as the only begotten Son and not God. And so that is particularly weighty when one considers the fact that Tertullian himself he argued aggressively for the incarnation and he in fact is credited for the idea of someone one could argue academically someone who had the idea of one

01:52:51

God in three persons. Now if Tertullian had a text that read

01:52:56

God or no man has seen God at any time the only begotten God, then surely he would have basically quoted it in what we can see as a patristic citation but clearly we see that the early church fathers translated this particularly as only begotten

01:53:15

Son. And it's not it's difficult to conceive to a

01:53:21

Jew living in the first century a Jew living in the first century if he were to be reading the only begotten

01:53:28

Son, what would he have meant in Jewish culture? Because there is no use of the phrase the only begotten

01:53:37

God if one were to look at the expression only begotten God, what would it mean in this particular culture?

01:53:44

And one would argue from this perspective that Jews living in the time of Christ would have no problem with the expression only begotten

01:53:53

Son. But one could argue that Christians of the 2nd, the 3rd century and so on and so forth with the increase of the nature of God would have been more easy to accept the doctrine of only begotten

01:54:08

God. And so from that perspective I think to argue that John 118 reads as the only begotten

01:54:15

God is not necessarily an accurate reading. If this was an accurate reading as is contained in the

01:54:23

NIV and the New American Standard Bible then clearly the Church Fathers who in fact believed in the

01:54:28

Incarnation in fact may subscribe to the deity of Christ, they would have certainly translated it in this way.

01:54:35

But you find that it is totally absent from that particular from this particular verse.

01:54:43

And so from that perspective I think there's these two aspects I want to draw out that the fact that Alexandrian Gnosticism was so prevalent in the time when the

01:54:51

Gospel of John was written is it not possible to see John 1 -1 as a writing in response to that, or in response to the idea that there are gods working in cross purposes with each other?

01:55:05

And rather you have the idea that there's God, there's Yahweh, there's a Father, and of course there's the

01:55:12

Word you can understand it as Christ who comes from God, is part of the plan of God, but is in fact not one with God in the ultimate sense as being sharing the same essence or being one and the same as being almighty

01:55:27

God. That would be my position in respect of John 1 -18 and my concluding remarks on the background of John 1 -1.

01:55:39

Okay, so there's what Yusef had to say. Now there are a lot of things that I could get into there but I want to specifically address the text of John 1 -18 and point out some of the fundamental errors that Yusef Ismail has made.

01:55:58

His research is very poor here. He has not availed himself of even the most basic resources.

01:56:04

I'm fairly certain that I have provided him with those basic resources. In giving him books over the years that we have debated,

01:56:15

I could be wrong, but I used to give away the diglot that had the

01:56:21

T in the NA -27 so it has the Sigla in it. I have given away copies of the Comfort Textual Critical Commentary which would likewise have the same information in it.

01:56:33

Let me move I'm going to have to play with this again.

01:56:39

Go to color and then go back to window and accordance. Let me show you what we have here in John 1 -18.

01:56:53

I'm going to blow up some of the text here real quick. We'll take

01:57:02

Metzger out of the mix here. Alright. What we have here is

01:57:09

John 1 -18. Here is the disputed phrase right here. Comfort gives us a nice breakdown.

01:57:20

The Westcott -Hort -Nessie -Allen UBS text has monoghanes theos. Variant 1, which is found in P75, and the first corrector is

01:57:30

Sinaiticus. The Boheric translation of the Coptic, and in a number of the margins of translations, is ha monoghanes theos, which

01:57:38

Yusuf errantly read as the primary reading. He put the article in, but it wasn't there in the actual text.

01:57:46

Variant 2, which is the reading of the TR, ha monoghanes theos, the unbegotten son, which is the majority text reading and the

01:57:54

Byzantine reading that is found here. If we look at the

01:57:59

Nessie -Allen apparatus, you will see that theos is, here's the majority text reading, families 1 and 13.

01:58:11

When you see Latin, right there, Irenaeus in the Latin, when you see

01:58:18

Latin like that, it's generally the Western reading. So, pretty much, pretty much, this is an

01:58:25

Alexandrian versus Western Byzantine reading when it comes to the manuscripts themselves.

01:58:34

What I wanted to point out, and he didn't get into it, he got into it at another point later on as he talked about Westcott and Hort, and he said that they argued against this.

01:58:48

Actually, it's the reading of it, but they argued against it. It's very common for those who do not do textual criticism to not recognize, there's a parallel here.

01:59:01

The author of the Quran showed no discernment when it came to the sources that he used representing the

01:59:10

Torah and the Injil. So, you have stuff from Jewish sources that were not canonized in the

01:59:16

Quran as if it's what was in the Torah. You have Gnostic sources being used by the

01:59:23

Quran, the infancy gospel of Thomas, the

01:59:28

Arabic infancy gospel, things like that. And so the author didn't know the sources of Christianity and Judaism well enough to differentiate and made errors as a result.

01:59:42

In the same way, Yusuf here, not knowing the field, is picking sources and not realizing that many of those sources are outdated.

01:59:55

Westcott and Hort, and much of what was written prior to the 1930s just isn't relevant for this text any longer.

02:00:05

And there's a simple reason for that, that those who do textual criticism of the New Testament understand. It's the discovery of the papyri which took place in the 1930s.

02:00:15

He moved our baseline of knowledge of the text of the

02:00:21

New Testament back by anywhere from 100 to at times 250 years.

02:00:30

And as a result, the alignmentnesses totally changed.

02:00:39

And so up until the discovery of the papyri, you had Sinaiticus and Vaticanus having the word theos in John 118, but many argued that's just too small a witness when it stands against the entirety of both the

02:00:59

Byzantine and Western sources. And majority text or Byzantine text advocates would continue to say that to today.

02:01:06

But even they have to deal with the reality of the papyri. And what happened with the discovery of the papyri, if we could bring the text back up online, please, you will see that we have two manuscripts cited.

02:01:23

Right here is P75. And it has hominogenes theos. P75 is simply one of the most accurate gospel papyri available to us.

02:01:37

And then down here, the text, so in other words, the monogenes theos without the article, is read by P66.

02:01:47

P66 and P75 together are our two earliest eyewitnesses to the text of John 118.

02:01:57

Now we have earlier papyri, but they don't contain the beginning of the book. And so the two earliest

02:02:04

John texts that we have, both have the term theos at John 118.

02:02:13

So this changed how things were viewed. It changed things because now you have the earliest witnesses of the

02:02:25

New Testament. Now again, if you are a majority or a

02:02:32

Byzantine priority advocate, even the papyri are not going to sway you.

02:02:37

All you're saying is, well, yes, that's the Alexandrian reading. That's always been the Alexandrian reading. This is a very, very early variant, but it doesn't matter.

02:02:44

And by the way, I just want to mention in passing, whether it's Mnagones Theos or Mnagones Hwios, they're both presenting the deity of Christ.

02:02:51

I think that Yusuf has completely missed. The one thing that I must fault

02:02:56

Yusuf Israel for over and over again, you can go ahead and take that down for the moment. I must fault him for the fact that he never reads the

02:03:05

New Testament in its context. Just doesn't. Almost no Muslim apologists

02:03:10

I know do. If you simply take the prologue of John, John 1 -1 -18 as a body, its message is not questionable.

02:03:24

Its message is not questionable. The language that it uses, and again, when you take into consideration the meaning of Memra and Dvar in Hebrew, the intertestamental development of Memra theology as the background of John with the

02:03:41

Logos, if you recognize the clear incarnational language of 1 -14 that the

02:03:48

Logos vernacled amongst us, and then you recognize the book ending, so that 1 -1 and 1 -18 become parallels of one another.

02:03:58

There really, there just simply isn't any meaningful way to argue this. There just isn't.

02:04:03

And he does not believe that Jesus is Mnagones Hwios or Mnagones Theos.

02:04:11

Both have to be rejected from an Islamic perspective because God has no son. And so he has to reject both.

02:04:20

And what Mnagones Hwios would mean in that context is not that much different than Theos, but the reason

02:04:27

Theos is used there is because of 1 -1, and the final phrase of 1 -1 was the one that's under consideration, and the word was as to his nature deity.

02:04:38

Yusuf insists that to understand that qualitatively means something completely different than everybody else understands qualitative to mean.

02:04:46

He wants quality to mean just a God -like quality, or an exalted man quality, but that's not what it means.

02:04:54

And so the parallel between Theos and 1 -1 and 1 -18 is a part of the book ending, is a part of the very structure of the text.

02:05:03

And, but, all of what I wanted to get to, and I'm already six minutes past into the third hour of the program today,

02:05:09

I apologize, let me get to it and we'll finish up. Let me, uh, oops,

02:05:15

I didn't want to do that. Don't do that, go back down please. Oh, now it's not going to do it. Great, fine, wonderful.

02:05:22

Alright, I'll just play with it this way then. Um, on the screen, the apparatus to the

02:05:31

United Bible Society's fifth edition. I did so because people always ask me what, what text should

02:05:43

I get if I'm going to get a Greek New Testament? Here you have, I need to fix this, make it the

02:05:50

NA28 instead of the NA27, but here it doesn't make any difference. Here's the Nessie -Olland apparatus for John 1 -18.

02:05:57

And here is the UBS for John 1 -18. Okay, it's much bigger.

02:06:03

Why? Well, the UBS is for translators.

02:06:11

And hence, the number of citations that are cited is much smaller than the

02:06:16

Nessie -Olland. But when they do cite the data for a particular variant, it's going to be much, and particularly, much fuller in its giving you patristic information.

02:06:31

Patristic information means the writings of the early church fathers. Now, patristic information is problematic when it comes to New Testament textual criticism because the fact that a manuscript is a much stronger witness than a citation in a sermon.

02:06:55

Because unless the author is specifically saying he's quoting from a manuscript, he may be quoting from memory, he may be paraphrasing, and furthermore, there is much work, much more work that needs to be done in the creation of a truly critical patristic apparatus than there is in the

02:07:19

New Testament. What I mean by that is, well, for example, Origin. There's entire portions of Origin's writings haven't been translated in English yet.

02:07:31

And you must remember that all of these writings went through the same transcription process that the

02:07:37

New Testament did. And so, once an ecclesiastical text became

02:07:43

English, it would be easy for a scribe to, in copying one of the early church fathers, to amend their biblical citations to the form of the text that they themselves were accustomed to, even if they do so without purposefully doing so, just because, well,

02:08:01

I know that text, and you write it out, and the early church father wrote it differently. So, they just cannot have the same amount of weight as an actual manuscript possesses.

02:08:15

But what Yusuf said was he focused upon Tertullian. He said,

02:08:20

Tertullian had Huyas, and therefore these early church fathers had the oath they would have quoted, so therefore

02:08:26

I don't think this is a proper reading. Well, I'm sorry, Yusuf, but you don't know how to do this stuff. It's quite simple.

02:08:32

Go back to the screen. You, for some reason, skipped all this information. Monogenes Theos is read by notice here,

02:08:43

Origin Greek 2 -4. So, in the

02:08:50

Greek manuscripts of Origin, where he cites this two of the four times, he has

02:08:56

Monogenes Theos. He's contemporary with Tertullian. He reads

02:09:03

Monogenes Theos. Cyril, one out of four times, Monogenes Theos. Then, when you put the article in,

02:09:10

Hamanogenes Theos, Clement of Alexandria two out of three times, Clement quoted from Theodotus one out of two times,

02:09:17

Origin Greek, there's the other two, so Origin Total War Times always used

02:09:22

Theos. Twice he used the article, twice he did not. That's what you gain from this. Eusebius, three out of seven,

02:09:29

Basil, one out of two, Gregory and Nysa all the time, Epiphanias, Serapion, one out of two,

02:09:34

Cyril, two out of four. Why didn't you quote them? Did you know about them?

02:09:42

None of your discussion even mentioned it. There is very early patristic evidence.

02:09:50

Now, anyone who then knows textual criticism goes, uh -huh, almost totally

02:09:58

Alexandrian. Like I said, this is pretty much Byzantine -Western reading. No question about that.

02:10:04

But the Alexandrian reading is Monogenes Theos. And it's the earliest. And we can document it far earlier than any others.

02:10:11

And it has clear patristic support. So where do you get his? Well, we go down here and we have

02:10:23

Irenaeus, Latin, one out of three. Clement from Theodotus, one out of two. So Theodotus is quoting

02:10:29

Clement. We saw him up above, one out of two. One time it's Theos, one time it's Huyos.

02:10:35

Clement, one out of three. Hippolytus, origin in Latin. And again, what's Latin? Latin's the Western text. Western text is

02:10:41

Huyos. And here you have all the others, Eusebius, Serapion. Finally, we get all the way down here and there's

02:10:48

Tertullian. Well, Tertullian is writing in Latin. And the Latin text reads

02:10:55

Huyos. You can see that right here. When you see IT and then these here, the Latin versions, they're all reading

02:11:00

Huyos. So there is unity in the Western reading.

02:11:07

Again, a textual critical scholar looks at this, this is you when you've done this enough years, you look at it you go, okay, this is

02:11:16

Byzantine versus primarily Byzantine Western reading. And you would rather have a wide spectrum support from all the manuscript families.

02:11:34

That's why the statement from the cross, Father forgive them for what they do. When that deletion is found in the

02:11:42

Alexandrian, Western and even the earliest Byzantine sources, that's why it's extremely relevant.

02:11:52

But there are times, like here, where you have the Alexandrian versus the

02:11:57

Western and the Byzantine. And that is why, until the discovery of the papyri in the 1930s, it was so striking in its reading that even with Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, it was questioned by many.

02:12:18

Once the papyri come in and move that pedigree back to within a century of John, that's why it's found and that's why it's a very strong reading.

02:12:33

So the practice of textual criticism is rife for abuse.

02:12:40

It really is. And let me just mention something real quickly since Rich and I already decided to go on a diet today anyhow, because it looks like he's fading in there.

02:12:55

I was going to just mention this very, very quickly. There was an article that appeared on the

02:13:01

Gospel Coalition website last week and I saw it, should have read it, didn't.

02:13:07

A bunch of other people caught the mistake before I did, so I'm the last one to the party. But there are myths out there.

02:13:15

I was taught, I think it was from a Norm Geisler book, around 1983 or 4 -ish, that the number of variants in the

02:13:30

New Testament, that big number of 400 ,000 really isn't all that big, because every time you have a variant and then it's a variant in this manuscript and this manuscript, each one of those adds up as an individual one, since we have over 5 ,000 manuscripts, then it's really not all that many variants.

02:13:50

That very common error was republished on the

02:13:56

Gospel Coalition website last week in an article about the reliability of the

02:14:02

New Testament. Dan Wallace immediately caught it on the

02:14:08

Evangelical Textual Criticism blog, immediately caught it, and said, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. It's 400 ,000 individual units.

02:14:15

It doesn't matter how many manuscripts it has. It's 400 ,000 individual units. There's no question about that. 99 % of them, insignificant, but it's 400 ,000.

02:14:22

Don't play with the data. And by the way, in reading the, uh, who was it,

02:14:29

I forget the guy, I'm sorry, I forgot the guy's name just off the top of my head. I didn't have any of this in front of me, I'm just going by memory here, but one of the

02:14:37

European guys in correcting that error also corrected another error that I have seen and maybe even promulgated myself.

02:14:47

Um, in regards to the number of manuscripts we have of, I'd have to look it up, but I know that I'm going to be changing one of the graphics in one of my presentations because you've got to keep up with this stuff.

02:15:00

There are databases coming online that weren't even available to people just a few years ago. Um, and, you know, the

02:15:08

King James only guys go, see, see, we can't have this change, we want an unchanging word.

02:15:14

That's exactly what the Pope gave you with the infallible Vulgate. And that's exactly what the

02:15:20

Muslims think they've got with the 1924 Cairo edition of the

02:15:26

Quran. If you want to trade truth for certainty. See you later. You go on.

02:15:33

I will not do that. I am thankful that we have more and more and more data. More and more and more information that we can look at.

02:15:43

And I am not infallible. And I'm not going to pretend to be infallible. I'm not going to be like Ripplinger.

02:15:49

I'm not going to be like these people. You know, I'm really thankfully grown up. And I stand before my

02:15:56

Lord. And if some of you don't like what I do, okay.

02:16:02

Like I said, I give to people and their opinions of me the weight that their character and their work in their life demands

02:16:10

I give. And man, that has lowered my blood pressure a lot. So Yusuf, we'll have some interesting things to discuss when we do that little thing there with various and sundry people.

02:16:24

But your comments on Textual Criticism, consider them reviewed and I think refuted as well.

02:16:33

Alright. That was two hours and eighteen minutes.

02:16:40

And next time, we'll finish up what we were going to do. Just for future reference,

02:16:45

YouTube will not let us go beyond four hours. So just so you know that in the future.

02:16:51

Thank you. So, on Thursday, we will do a

02:16:57

Roman Catholic program and discuss some important stuff and we'll see if we can get our caller to call in and sort of schedule it around all that.