New Age Bible Versions Refuted (v Gail Riplinger)

The Book, the KJV-Only Claim, and the Planned Debate

Well, she's caused no small stir among Christians across the country ladies and gentlemen. In fact, I even got a call from Houston, Texas today about the book. We're going to be discussing. How has she done it?

Well, she's written a book which she's entitled New Age Bible versions the subtitle of which reads thusly an exhaustive documentation Exposing the message men and manuscripts moving mankind to the Antichrist one world religion.

Now folks in this 696 page book which includes 1480 reference footnotes Gail Ripplinger presents a case against the new international version the new American standard version the new King James version the new revised standard version the Living Bible the J .B. Phillips translation and Just about every other version of the Bible in existence.

So what version of the Bible does he suggest that Christians use? Well, it won't come to any surprise. But I tell you she recommends the one and only Bible for believers is the King James version. Will it the idea of KJV only isn't something new folks?

But this book has caused no small amount of uneasiness for some Christians and the reviews to say the least are mixed. Well, I told you last week that I was attempting to arrange a debate bail and someone who disagreed with her conclusions.

So enters, mr. James White of Alpha and Omega ministries who is here in the studio with me today. I have dedicated two previous programs to Gail Ripplinger and now in fairness to those who might disagree with her conclusions.

We will dedicate the program today and tomorrow to an opposing viewpoint. James White disagrees with Gail Ripplinger so I've asked him to read New Age Bible versions and then come on the air and confront those specific points of Disagreement in her book.

Now, I'm not going to take any calls today. I want to give the remainder of our time to Gail Ripplinger who is online from her home in Ohio and James White who's here in the studio and Ladies and gentlemen, we're gonna give James White about five minutes to sort of set up where he's going.

And then we can begin some discussion. So James, I'll just turn it over to you. Well, thank you Pat's good to be with you. The issues raised by Gail Ripley who's raised by Gail Rippling are very important.

It's only for the fact that this book In this book professing Christian men who I believe lived godly lives are attacked and are associated with men who are anything but godly or concerned about Christian truth.

Orthodox Christian theologians are indiscriminately associated with heretics without any thought as to the consistency of such an action and Since we have in this book serious allegations of downright satanic actions in the part of Christian leaders I feel mrs. Ripplinger should be held the highest standards of scholarly acumen and accuracy.

Charges of Misrepresentation in New Age Bible Versions

Yeah Ripplinger claims that her book quote objectively and methodically documents the hidden alliance between new versions and a new age movements one world religion and quote. However, I feel an even semi unbiased review of mrs Ripplinger's book revealed this book is neither methodical nor objective in any way shape or form.

Now we need to remember right up front that New Age Bible versions is not a nice book. It plainly and obviously identifies anyone who was involved in the production of modern Bible versions or would dare to defend Translations such as a new American Standard Bible as a new international version as not just non-christians.

But as anti Christians who are opposed to God's work in this world and actually want everyone to worship Lucifer. Anyone who opposes Gail Ripplinger's unique view of the world in theology is in fact a new ager in sheep's clothing.

Now a quick review of her book bears this out. She alleges that these new versions Prepare the apostate Church of these last days to accept the Antichrist his mark his image and religion Lucifer worship.

She described work reform doctrine of regeneration a doctrine taught by Martin Luther Ulrich Zwingli Martin Bootser John Calvin The crafters the Westminster Confession of Faith the Puritans Charles Haddon Spurgeon BB Warfield J. Packer and R .C. Sproul as a belief that quote an orthodox Christian would find shocking and quote Ripplinger connects Christian men such as Edwin Palmer with everyone from Blavatsky to Charlie Manson All are in one boat according to New Age Bible versions.

No opportunity is missed to attack those who would dare to oppose this position. Now in light of this I hope no one will take too much offense at my less than sparkling review of Gail's book. Now as an apologist working on the front lines and dealing with the claims of the Church of Jesus Christ Latter-day Saints the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society and debating Roman Catholic apologists all across the United States I have only once or twice encountered a work that contained more misrepresentation of historical facts cited sources of documentation.

And the writing of those who are being reviewed than this book New Age Bible version shows not the slightest concern for accurately Representing its opposition context is a term that is utterly lost in the maze of disconnected citations.

So the reader on almost every page Utterly illogical argumentation carries a day in Gail's attempt to find a New Age conspiracy behind every bush. Even the deity of Christ is undermined so as to maintain the supposed inerrancy of a translation that being the KJV and of course We'll get into that later.

And worst of all my opinion Gail Riplinger attacks the memories and characters of good men of God such as Edwin Palmer without once Differentiating between the beliefs and actions of such men and the likes of New Age wackos and Satanists.

She misrepresents their writings and words over and over and over again. Now those are some pretty harsh words but the documentation of these statements is easily found. All one has to do is take Gail Riplinger's book New Age Bible versions and Then take the time to find such book such books as Barker's the NIV the making of a contemporary translation Which is cited very frequently in her book Palmer's the person in ministry of the Holy Spirit and John Kohlenberger's words about the word and examine the references provided at the end of The book.

The number of comp citations and altered quotations will quickly prove the correctness of my statement. And given the small amount of time we have today I'll only be able to provide a few examples, but I could literally expand the left the list indefinitely.

First one simply cannot believe the facts that are presented in this book for quite often. They are not facts at all. There are dozens and dozens of charts throughout the book allegedly comparing the KJV with the supposed new versions.

Which she calls mutant versions yet over and over again these charts are simply wrong. On page 22 we are told that the new versions delete the call to take up the cross when they do not. We're told that while the KJV tells us to bless our enemies the new versions tell us to call our enemies bastards.

Which of course they do not. At times the facts are a hundred and eighty degrees opposite of what is claimed by Gail Ripplinger. For example on page 99 we read quote all new versions based on a tiny percentage of corrupt Greek manuscripts.

Make the faithfully frightening edition of three words in Revelation 14 1 and quote. She then quotes the passage from the NIV which reads. Quote the lamb standing on Mount Zion and with him 144 ,000 who had his name and his father's name written on their foreheads and quote the phrase his name.

And is not found the King James Version. She continues on page 100 quote. Will the unwary reading Revelation 14 1 in a recent version be persuaded that the Bible Sanctions and encourages the taking of his name on their forehead before they receive his father's name and quote.

That sounds truly ominous until one discovers that in point of fact It is the textus receptus the Greek text in the New Testament utilized by the King James Version translators that alone Does not contain the disputed phrase his name the majority text contains it as do all the Greek text.

What we have here is merely mistaken the part most probably of desiderius Erasmus the Roman Catholic priest who collated what became the textus receptus. He had major problems in producing the text of Revelation and merely skipped over the phrase referring to the lamb's name.

Sadly someone reading New Age Bible versions could be led to attack the NIV and the basis of such a basic mistake. All right. Now you got five minutes under your belt got as much as you could in Gail.

You're still there. Sure. I am All right. Now it's specific. You've made your your case James. Where do you want to start with with Gail? Well, I think that the first thing I probably go to is I have some very serious problems with the Type of argumentation Gail that you utilized in in your book for example on if you could explain to us on page 149 you utilize something called acrostic algebra and What you did in a passage that reminded me a little bit of the identification of Henry Kissinger is the Antichrist two decades ago.

How they'd take his name apart and add it up. So and so forth. You took the New American Standard Version and the New International Version NASV and NIV and then you somehow subtracted out AV and Using this acrostic algebra somehow demonstrated that supposedly the NIV and the NASV together add up to sin.

As if this demonstrated something about the version, so I'd like to ask you first of all Where where where does acrostic algebra come from and secondly why it is that everywhere else in your book? You referred to the NASB New American Standard Bible except for this one place where you changed it to NASV.

Why is why the change in the two things? Okay, I'll address your first question or just this last question of yours relating to that acrostic algebra. Your ministry is called Alpha and Omega, right? Jesus Christ is the Word of God now.

It's very very likely that every single word and every single letter in the Bible has a specific meaning and it's there for a reason. And that lots of words and things that we use today have very specific meanings.

He said like not one jot or tittle would pass from the lots or all be fulfilled. So I don't think anything is accidental. Okay I think when we're in heaven the dark glass that we're seeing through now everything will be quite clear and The fact that when you take the letters out of when you take the material that's in the NIV and in the NASB.

Out away from them and you just have the AV left. What's left are the letters F I N. I didn't look at that something that just happened and I think it's very purposeful because the new versions do allow for sin.

I mean, you've got immorality instead of fornication if you have any college student that I'm sure you've worked with and after what immorality is. They'll give you a definition. Relating to pollution or something like that.

And if you look fornication up in the dictionary. It's very clear that that's premarital sex. And so the new versions do in fact allow for sin. And so where did I get that from the Lord gave that to me one night?

I was pretty surprised when I find.

Well, then okay, you didn't answer the question of why throughout the book you use NASB, but you change it to NASB.

I suspect that the Lord the Lord called it the NASB. Actually, it is the NASB and I called the Lord calls it the NASB. I don't know I'm just suggesting that he gave me that formula there and that's all the only thing that I can say about that.

I think the the NAS has been called all three the NAS the NASB and the NASB. And so calling it one or the other just the King James is also called the authorized version.

I Don't think that's significant. Well, you know, I just don't believe at all that the quote-unquote new versions. Promote or allow for sin you say that well. If they don't use the term fornication, they're somehow promoting sin.

Anyone who has an NIV or an NASB in their hand knows that in reading that Bible a lot is talked about sin. And sexual sins all court kinds of sexual sins.

Sexual sin, but it doesn't say fornication. Okay. Now if you ask someone at Kent State University where I used to talk talk what sexual sin is they will tell you having sex. With animals or having sex in a group.

They will not tell you sex before marriage. So if you say sexual immorality to a Kent State University student, they will not say fornication. They will not say premarital sex. They will not say it's good for a man not to touch a woman the way the Bible says.

Ma 'am. If I ask if I ask a lot of people fornication means they're there. They're gonna be utterly clueless that the point in Bible Study is that if you're gonna find out what the Bible says You look into it you allow it to define its own terms.

And when you look at the meaning of these groups what they mean is very very plainly brought out. You can't possibly say that the NIV and NASB do not address the issue of sexual sin. Are you saying that they never address the issue of sexual sin?

Well, let me tell you what they do to sodomy for example. And the whole sin of sodomy is completely omitted in the new versions and that's because dr Virginia Mullencott has come out as a lesbian on the NIV committee.

She wrote two books is the homosexual my neighbor and Sensuous spirituality and in those books. She says that the Bible does not censor Sincere homosexuals drawn to someone at the same sex. It only censors criminal offenses like prostitution and violent gang rape.

So what you have in 1st Corinthians 6 9 in the new versions is that the term effeminate is taken out and Substituted in that place. We have male prostitutes or homosexual offenders. So this woman's Beliefs are present right there in the NIV in the NASB in the entire Old Testament.

The term sodomy is removed now. We know that sodomy is the means of transmission of the HIV virus are people dying of it all over the world. You know what? They have a King James Bible. They're not gonna know how they got that.

No, no, wait, wait, wait. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait fine prostitutes. I don't think shrine prostitution is a real big problem. United States.

No one is dying of shrine prostitution. 1st Corinthians 6 9 the NIV says do you not know? That the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God do not be deceived neither sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male Prostitutes nor homosexual offenders.

That's right on Northeast nor the greedy nor drunkards or slanders. There's there's a whole discussion there. I.

University. A male prostitute a homosexual offender is not an effeminate. I had plenty of effeminates in my classes and they were not male prostitutes nor would they say that they were. No are they? Homosexual offenders.

Well, it could be easily argued.

That's one of the major problems of your book is that almost every argument you bring forward can be logically used against you. It could be very easily logically argued that well the NIV specifically talks about homosexuality and therefore one of the reasons That homosexuality is so rampant United States The King James does not specifically call it homosexuality and therefore since they're using this other term that the King James doesn't use it's all The King James is fault.

This this is utterly illogical argumentation.

I can't believe I would ever believe I was given by the homosexual community. The Bible has always used the term effeminate and sodomy.

Okay. The homosexual is a positive. The Bible has not always done that because we need to recognize the Bible was not written in Greek. The by I'm sorry in English. It was written in Greek and Hebrew.

The English language did not even exist at the time in which the Bible was originally written. So to say the Bible has always used the King James terminology. Should we go to the to the translations that existed prior to the King James Version and say well.

No, the Geneva Bible didn't use this particular thing. So here the King James is changing things.

Logical the language. Look at the word pornea. Everyone knows what pornea is. I wouldn't have to tell anyone out there what pornea means. Pornographic. Okay. Now we get the word fornication from pornea.

All right now you change it to immorality mores. In the Latin just means what people do in the culture. Okay, it has nothing to do with pornea.

Everyone knows the Greek term pornea refers to a whole range of sins and again what you're doing I think here is simply attacking the accuracy of the modern translations and attempting to point out in fact many of your charts in your book did the same thing that what these these translators are trying to do is explain to us that the Greek has a number of different words that refer to different aspects and that they are attempting to Translate them in such a way that we can recognize that They're not all referring to the exact same thing that that Paul is being rather Exhaustive in his list listing of sexual sins and I can't it's hard for me to believe that what you're saying is because someone does Not use a term fornication, but instead says sexual immorality.

That's somehow relevant to Encouraging people and that the NIV translators want everybody to go out and commit sexual sin. I mean You know, you know that that I hope that you know that Edwin Palmer who comes in for a lot of attacks in your book Did you are you are you saying that Edwin Palmer went out and told people to go commit sexual sin?

No, no, no.

You're directing things way way way beyond what I said. I said that there was two Homosexuals on the NIV committee and they have come out and presented it. I did not say Edwin Palmer was a homosexual and I'm sure he would be very much against homosexuality.

I'm just saying there's enough liberalism and a false doctrine. Presented on the members of the NIV and the NASB committee to give it a little bit of leaven throughout the whole thing.

Well, you know the interesting thing to me is and I was going to mention this in my in my opening statements I didn't have time to. You know, I would join with you in in critiquing New American new revised Aaron version revised Aaron version the New English Bible.

But it's quite obvious from reading your book that those are not your targets. There are two translations of your targets the NIV and NASB. The others have just mentioned. In passing in comparison to the the attacks that are made upon Edwin Palmer and the translators of the NIV specifically the NASB is sort of secondary in that and comparing the translation committees of the NIV to let's say the new revised standard version is.

Is Almost unbelievable the difference between the two as far as conservatives versus liberals, wouldn't you agree?

Well, if Edwin Palmer says that it's an error to believe that regeneration depends upon faith. Then I don't know how conservative he is. Well, ma 'am, maybe if he said the Holy Spirit did not forget the Son, then I don't know how conservative he is.

Well, first of all, those are those are both misrepresentations gross.

And I applied your suggestion that people go out and get the books and read them for themselves because I think they'll have a real Eye-opening experience when they do. I think they will because.

Both are gross miscitations both of dr. Palmer. And that's one of the things I had to wonder about is because every time I looked up the references that you gave to Mr. 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 I would imagine what you're saying when you call this a scandalous belief. Is that the doctrine that underlies the Presbyterian churches reformed Baptist churches?

It was taught by the Westminster Confession of Faith Martin Luther John Calvin Ulrich Zwingli and Many people they GI Packers on so forth is actually an unorthodox belief. That is that is shocking to most Christians.

I don't get the idea that you understand what he's saying.

I understand very well at the five points of Calvinism.

Which you identify as a satanic pentagram in your book, which I found to be just absolutely fascinating as well. But you also said that the Holy Ghost did not beget the Sun. Did you said the Holy Ghost did not forget?

Yes, you said that that's. Dr. Palmer said that. What is the context of that and what in what context is he speaking?

He wrote a book called the Holy Spirit. Yes, he did. And in that book, he said the Holy Spirit did not beget the Sun. In what context? John 118 We don't have the only begotten Son. We have the only son.

And then you would happen in the second printing of the NIV. No, wait a minute. Wait a minute. From the only son to the one and only and so all the additions that NIV are not even the same. Becomes more and more watered down at the printing company.

Let's go back in and again.

I looked up your citation of Edwin Palmer in regards to Holy Spirit did not beget the Sun and Let me ask you have you read the book the Holy Spirit? Well because so many times you miss cited that I that I honestly had to believe that there's a possibility that you were getting All your information to secondary sources because if you read it Then that means that you are directly responsible for the miss citations and the gross out of context Citations.

If you read the Holy Spirit by Palmer and the citation that you give he is talking about the internal Operations of the Trinity where the father begets the son. This has been Orthodox Christian theology for the past 2 ,000 years.

He is not in any way shape or form Referring to the physical incarnation of the Sun in that passage and to parallel it as you did Gail Gail to to parallel it as you did with Brigham Young cited in the journal 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 and that is not what Christians should be doing if you're going to attack what Palmer said attack It in the context of which he said it and the context of which he said it is historic Christian doctrine that the father Begets the son in this in reference to the inter relationships of the persons in the Trinity.

And you said the father begets the son is historic Christian doctrine. Do we go by what the Bible says? Yes, we do historic Christian doctrine. The Bible says that Mary was overshadowed by the Holy Ghost.

Ma 'am.

We are not talking about the incarnation of Jesus Christ. And when Palmer was not talking about the incarnation of Jesus Christ. That's what begotten means. Well, ma 'am we're if you're. Obviously, you're not familiar with the ancient discussion of the relationship with the father and the son and how the son is the only begotten son of the father.

I.

Would suggest that you review it within the Trinity. I'm sorry.

He's the son within the Trinity. Exactly, and that's exactly what Edmund Palmer was talking about was Jesus begotten by the Holy Spirit within the Trinity. I.

Said the Holy Spirit did not beget the fact exactly in the doctrine of the Trinity man. Yes, I don't I don't point out what some of these people say or what some of these people believe unless if there's evidence of it in the new Version and we have to look back and say why did he take out the only begotten son when the Greek there?

Mono-ganess and you're you you had Greek background, you know ganess means begotten. No, ma 'am. I know ma 'am. You're an error about that.

The the the term monogamy monogamy monos meaning only the error that you're making. Is that again ace? Comes from Ganaa which means to be get. It doesn't. It comes from genos, which means kind which is why it means unique.

Or one of a kind as a consistent usage of the phrase monogamy throughout the New Testament and hence in John 1 18. Which is a passage that you miss sight. Edwin Palmer on a number of times, by the way.

You miss sighted him in regards to Supposedly his denying the deity of Christ. On page 2 you quote Palmer in the following form quote. Few and clear and decisive text say that Jesus is 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. The actual statement that he made is quote. John 1 18 as inspired by the Holy Spirit is one of those few and clear and decisive text to declare that Jesus is God.

But without fault of its own the KJV following inferior manuscripts altered what the Holy Spirit said through John calling Jesus son. What a different context makes when you put it in that in that passage.

And if you look at John chapter 1 verse 18 in the NIV it utilizes unique God one and only God. It uses the term.

Jesus Christ, that's what he's talking about. I mean, I comment on what he said about using inferior text as it happens the Nestle Greek text in the 26th edition has made 476 changes back to what he called the inferior text back to the text that the 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 University of Chicago Said that p66 has.

King James readings. All right, Gail. We're gonna have to stop you let you guys pick that up tomorrow. That's it for today. Here's our host Pat Shaughnessy. Hi everybody, this is Pat Shaughnessy and this is PS on the air.

The Textus Receptus, Westcott and Hort, and the Manuscript Debate

Well, I've dedicated three previous programs to the discussion of Gail Ripplinger's new book New Age Bible versions. The front cover describes this book as the latest research supporting the authorized 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 on yesterday's program program number three. We invited James White to express his disagreement with Gail Ripplinger and today on program number four We're gonna invite you to call in again.

Join the conversation. Gail's 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. I think that we're gonna be doing on this book Gail.

Are you there? Well, welcome back to the program. Thank you for having me now Gail 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.

Because if I understand your book you the real issue has to do with the manuscript. That's the main issue and I'd like to get to that today and as quickly as possible get to call her. So what I'd like you to do is take about three minutes and I'm gonna time you.

So we can stay on target where 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 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.

New versions because they were based on different 3674 differences between the Greek text underlying the King James Version and that underlying the new versions now most of these 8 ,000 differences are omissions.

So what we have in essence is an NIV that has 64 ,000 missing words 1881 and I'm quoting the director of the British Museum Frederick Kenyon, he said until 1881 Christians had used the text underlying the King James Version.

Now what happened in 1881? Okay, two spiritualist. These were gentlemen who were the fathers of the current channeling movement. Now they did this using Vatican Manuscript B. Okay now in IV's Mr. Kohlenberger admits all subsequent versions that includes the NIV and NASB have accepted the Westcott Manuscript the Westcott and Hort text in front of Neffel Greek text the one that Mr. James carries around with him.

It says quote. This is not the traditional Greek text. Okay now the past president University of Chicago now Mr. Caldwell who with America's preeminent textual scholar says of Westcott and Hort's Greek text and the text underlying the new version Quote it is an artificial Entity.

James had spent lots and lots of time in Metzger's textual commentary on the Greek New Testament. He would know that the gentlemen on that committee Don't even agree with each other as to what the reading should be.

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 just of them are ranked B or C. In other words, we're not really sure either Dow Theological Seminary Person Dr. Pickering says quote new versions differ from the originals in some 6 ,000 places.

Okay, senior editor at Tyndale. Dr. Comfort. He's also a professor at Wheaton said quote Although the NASB translators had claimed Consideration was given to the latest available manuscript. The evidence does not bear this out.

Now, what does that mean in the new Neffel text? That's the text underlying What versions I don't know because not any at this point but Neffel 26th edition has 500 changes in the Greek text and The NASB is based on Neffel 21st edition.

That's 43 years old 1951. Okay, the NIV is based on Neffel 23rd edition. That's 34 years old. All right. Neither of these have all of those 500 changes 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 King James versions between 1950 and 1993. And everyone was telling them.

You know, you're using an archaic version Capra. Okay, I'm gonna have to stop you Gail. Now. That's your three minutes. Let's let James respond now. Well, I'd like to point out that the King James version Utilized what's known today as the Texas Receptus in the New Testament.

The Texas Receptus goes back to Roman Catholic priests by new desiderius Erasmus. Erasmus had only about 10 or 12 manuscripts from which he was working and That accounts for number of the errors in the Texas Receptus that I think anyone will admit.

Erasmus certainly admitted that they were there and there are differences between what is known today as the majority text Which is basically the Byzantine text and the Texas Receptus. I pointed one out yesterday that that Gail misrepresented in her book in Revelation 14 1 where the majority text the modern text all the Greek texts have a certain phrase there.

The Texas Receptus does not. The TR is no Inspired text. In fact Erasmus in making numerous editions of it made changes. And in fact made changes in the basis of writing to Rome and asking people to look at the Vatican manuscript that Gail attacks So vociferously in her book.

She says that there are disagreements among people. There was disagreements amongst Erasmus and many others in regards to the production of the Texas Receptus as well. That's that's not anything That's really Relevant the majority text differs from the TR for example and not having first John 5 7 through 8 Which is considered to be a watershed by many King James people as being Example of your orthodoxy do you have first John 5 7 through 8 in your text.

The majority text doesn't have it. The TR does not now. She's just said that all these changes made. I wish people would take the time even if you don't buy it To go buy a Christian bookstore and pick up the Nestle Alon text UBS now fourth edition that just came out.

Look at the text and look at the bottom of the page. Anyone who has these critical texts has all the readings in the manuscripts right there in front of them. When I look when I look when I look at a passage I can I can tell you exactly what any of the manuscripts in the various Manuscripts all through the Byzantine tradition so on so forth what they read do the tremendously advanced very very wisely put together textual apparatus at the bottom and any reading that is in Any of the tradition is found either in the text or in the footnotes.

So when they say change what they mean is. There used to be a word up here and now they've put in the footnotes and they put the alternate reading up in the text. Anyone who wants to can examine these readings and come to their own conclusions?

I want to make one point very very clear if anyone utilized majority text or the Nestle Alon 26 edition and They accurately executed both of those. They looked at all that scripture said and they drive the theology from both of those.

There would not be any Difference between the theologies that are derived between those two texts at all. All right, James. Thank you. Well, ladies and gentlemen, we have a little couple of disagreements among a couple of Christians here and that's okay to disagree.

Now we'd like to hear what you think. So the lines are open. We're gonna take a quick break and then we're gonna come back. Is your turn to get involved in the discussion. Our numbers are nine nine five ninety five fifty five and two four seven five seven three seven call now.

Two four seven K RDS get online and keep calling if the lines are busy. We're gonna take one break today after which we'll spend the remainder of the time letting you speak to our guests. So stay right where you are listening to PS on the air.

I'm Pat Shaughnessy.

And now back to PS on the air and Pat.

I think ladies and gentlemen, both our lines are full. Is that right Bob? We've only got. Can we take any more calls? Okay, you can still get online at nine nine five nine five five five or two four seven five seven three seven.

We're gonna start with Judy and Scottsdale Judy. You're on PS on the air. Good evening, Pat. Welcome to the program. Thank you. Mr.

White I tuned in last night as did many other members of the body of Christ in hopes of hearing some earnest Dialogue on the issue of where is the preserved and the inherent Word of God, sir? I was sorely disappointed at your personal attack on mrs. Ripplinger in the disguise of debate format.

First I'd like to say that yours was a miserable testimony to both believers and unbelievers alike. So I'm hoping to hear something scholarly Supported by the Word of God this evening, which you honestly failed to deliver last night.

So I'd like to begin by saying as far as the issue of mr Palmer's personal character is concerned whether he is godly or never kicked his dog or loved his mother isn't the issue here.