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

Alpha & Omega Ministries

Subscribe

Download

Share

00

00:08

I understand very well what the five points of Calvinism are. Which you identify as a satanic pentagram in your book, which

00:14

I found to be just absolutely fascinating as well. But you also said that the Holy Ghost did not beget the

00:19

Son. Did you? I said the Holy Ghost did not beget the Son. Yes, you said that Dr. Palmer said that.

00:25

What is the context of that and in what context is he speaking? He wrote a book called The Holy Spirit.

00:30

Yes, he did. And in that book he said the Holy Spirit did not beget the Son. In what context? In John 1 .18, we don't have the only begotten

00:37

Son, we have the only Son. And you know what happened in the second printing of the NIV? No, wait a minute, wait a minute.

00:42

It went from the only Son to the one and only. And so all the editions of the NIV are not even the same. It becomes more and more watered down as each printing comes out.

00:50

Let's go back and again. I looked up your citation of Edwin Palmer in regards to the

00:55

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

01:00

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

01:14

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

01:20

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

01:26

He is not in any way, shape, or form referring to the physical incarnation of the Son in that passage, and to parallel it as you did with Brigham Young cited in the

01:38

Journal of Discourses, 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.

01:51

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.

01:58

And the context in which he said it is historic Christian doctrine that the Father begets the

02:03

Son in reference to the interrelationships of the persons in the Trinity. When you said the

02:09

Father begets the Son is historic Christian doctrine, do we go by what the Bible says? Yes, we do. Historic Christian doctrine.

02:14

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

02:20

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

02:29

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

02:36

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

02:41

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

02:47

Holy Spirit did not beget the Son. Within the doctrine of the Trinity, ma 'am, yes. I don't point out what some of these people say or what some of these people believe unless there's evidence of it in the

02:58

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

03:04

You've had Greek background. You know genes means begotten. No, ma 'am, you're in error about that.

03:10

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?

03:20

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

03:27

New Testament. And hence, in John 118, which is a passage that you miscite Edwin Palmer on a number of times, by the way, you miscite him in regards to supposedly his denying the deity of Christ.

03:40

On page 2, you quote Palmer in the following form, quote, few and clear and decisive texts say that Jesus is

03:47

God. End quote. That's the quote that you give from him, supposedly showing some sort of heresy on his part. But this is taken as evidence of this supposed heresy.

03:55

The actual statement that he made is, quote, John 118, as inspired by the Holy Spirit, is one of those few and clear and decisive texts to declare that Jesus is

04:05

God. But without fault of its own, the KJV, following inferior manuscripts, altered what the

04:11

Holy Spirit said through John calling Jesus son. What a different context makes when you put it in that passage.

04:17

And if you look at John 1, verse 18, in the NIV, it utilizes unique God, one and only

04:23

God. It uses the term theos of Jesus Christ. That's what he's talking about. May I comment on what he said about using inferior text?

04:30

As it happens, the Nestles Greek text in the 26th edition has made 476 changes back to what he called the inferior text, back to the text that the

04:42

King James has been working under for the last 400 years. And so if he's calling them inferior, he's probably one of the few people still calling them inferior because Caldwell, who's the past president of the

04:52

University of Chicago, said that P66 has the King James readings.

04:57

All right, Gail, we're going to have to stop and let you guys pick that up tomorrow. That's it for today. Here's our host,

05:06

Pat Shaughnessy. Hi, everybody, this is Pat Shaughnessy and this is P .S. on the

05:11

Air. Well, I've dedicated three previous programs to the discussion of Gail Riplinger's new book,

05:18

New Age Bible Versions. The front cover describes this book as the latest research supporting the authorized

05:25

King James Version. Now, on programs one and two, we heard from Gail. And on program two, we allowed you to call in and join the conversation.

05:33

On yesterday's program, program number three, we invited James White to express his disagreement with Gail Riplinger.

05:40

And today on program number four, we're going to invite you to call in again and join the conversation.

05:45

Gail is on the phone from her home in Monroe Falls, Ohio. And James is here in the studio and we're ready to go for program number four, the last one,

05:53

I think, that we're going to be doing on this book. Gail, are you there? Yes, I am. Well, welcome back to the program.

05:59

Thank you for having me, Pat. Now, Gail, on all the programs we've done so far, including yesterday's program, I still don't think we've talked about the heart of the debate here.

06:07

Because if I understand your book, the real issue has to do with the manuscript. That's the main issue.

06:13

And I'd like to get to that today and as quickly as possible get to call her. So what

06:18

I'd like you to do is take about three minutes and I'm going to time you so we can stay on target, our program goes so quickly, and talk about the real heart of the debate here, the real issue you're trying to present in your book,

06:32

New Age Bible Versions. And when you get through with that, then I'll give James the same amount of time to respond. So go ahead.

06:38

The difference between the King James Version and the New Versions is because they were based on different Greek manuscripts.

06:45

Okay? There are 8 ,674 differences between the Greek text underlying the

06:51

King James Version and that underlying the New Version. Now, most of these 8 ,000 differences are omissions.

06:58

So what we have, in essence, is an NIV that has 64 ,000 missing words.

07:05

Okay? Now, until 1881, and I'm quoting the director of the British Museum, Frederick Kenyon, he said, until 1881,

07:14

Christians had used the text underlying the King James Version. Now, what happened in 1881? Okay?

07:20

Two spiritualists, these were gentlemen who were the fathers of the current channeling movement, changed the

07:26

Greek text. Now, they did this using Vatican Manuscript B. Okay?

07:32

Now, NIV's Mr. Kohlenberger admits all subsequent versions, that includes the

07:37

NIV and the NASB, have accepted the Westcott & Horton Manuscript, the Westcott & Horton text.

07:43

In front of Neffel's Greek text, the one that Mr. James carries around with him, it says, quote, this is not the traditional

07:51

Greek text. Okay? Now, the past president of the University of Chicago now deceased Mr.

07:57

Caldwell, who was America's preeminent textual scholar, says of Westcott &

08:02

Horton's Greek text and the text underlying the New Version, quote, it is an artificial entity.

08:08

And if Mr. James had spent lots and lots of time in Metzger's textual commentary on the

08:14

Greek New Testament, he would know that the gentlemen on that committee don't even agree with each other as to what the readings should be.

08:20

Each of the readings has an A, B, C, or D ranking, and it's ranked based on, you know, how true do they think what they've chosen is.

08:29

And most of them are ranked B or C. In other words, we're not really sure either. South Theological Seminary person,

08:37

Dr. Pickering, says, quote, New Versions differ from the originals in some 6 ,000 places.

08:44

Okay? Senior editor at Tyndale, Dr. Comfort, he's also a professor at Wheaton, said, quote, although the

08:51

NASB translators had claimed consideration was given to the latest available manuscript, the evidence does not bear this out.

08:59

Now, what does that mean? In the New Nestled Text, that's the text underlying what versions

09:05

I don't know because not any at this point, but Nestled 26th Edition has 500 changes in the

09:11

Greek text, and the NASB is based on Nestled 21st

09:16

Edition. That's 43 years old, 1951. Okay? The NIV is based on Nestled 23rd

09:22

Edition. That's 34 years old. All right? Neither of these have all of those 500 changes.

09:29

The NASB, as a matter of fact, has none of them. And the NIV has a handful. Okay? And so the people who are carrying around their

09:37

King James versions between 1950 and 1993, and everyone was telling them, you know, you're using an archaic version.