New Age Bible Versions Refuted (v Gail Riplinger)

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

If 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 on the part of Christian leaders

I feel mrs Ripplinger should be held the highest standards of scholarly acumen and accuracy 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 his 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 the 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's wing

Lee Martin Bootser John Calvin The crafters the Westminster Confession of Faith the Puritans Charles Haddon Spurgeon BB Warfield GI Packer and R .C

Sproul as a belief that quote an Orthodox Christian would find shocking end 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 the

Church of Jesus Christ Latter -day Saints 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 throughout 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 in 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 and 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 Citations and altered quotations will quickly prove the correctness of my statements and given the small amount of time we have today

I 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 present 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 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 texts Well, 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 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 take his name apart and add it up So and so forth you took the

New American Standard version and the new international version NAS V and NIV and then you somehow subtracted out a

V and Using this acrostic algebra somehow demonstrated that supposedly the

NIV and NAS V 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 NAS V 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 in 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 law to 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 of the letters? Yes, I am I didn't that that's 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 thought well then You didn't answer the question of why throughout the book you use

NASB, but you change it to NASB In fact 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 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 kinds of sexual sins There's 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 first 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, no, 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 first Corinthians 6 9 the

NIV says do you not know 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

In fact, I can't at 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 it 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 in 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 that pornea is

I wouldn't have to tell anyone out there what pornea mean porno graphic 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 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 that are 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, but I don't know how conservative yet Well, first of all, those are those are both misrepresentations gross And I applaud 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 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 reform Baptist churches? it was taught by the Westminster Confession of Faith Martin Luther John Calvin Ulrich Zwingli and Many people day

J. I Packers on so forth is actually an unorthodox belief. That is that is shocking the 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 at 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 a doctor 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 fact 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 the NIV are not even the same it

Becomes more and more watered down at each printing. Come on. Let's go back and and again I looked up your citation of Edwin Palmer in regards to the

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 from 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 Christians and 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 interrelationships of the persons in the

Trinity And you said the father begets the son. It's historic Christian doctrine. Do we go by what the Bible says? Yes, we do

The Bible says that Mary was overshadowed by the Holy Ghost, ma 'am We are not talking about the incarnation of Jesus Christ 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 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 they're mono? Gannett and you're you've had

Greek background, you know Gannett means begotten. No, ma 'am You're an error about that The the the terminology monogamous monos meaning only the error that you're making is that Gannett?

Comes from Ghana which means to be get it doesn't it comes from Ghana which means kind which is why it means unique or One of a kind that is a consistent usage of the phrase monogamous throughout the

New Testament and hence in John 1 18 Which is a passage that you miss site Edwin Palmer on a number of times, by the way you miss cited 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 Theos of 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 the University of Chicago Said that p66 has

King James readings and ideal. 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 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 going to invite you to call in again Join the conversation 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

I think that we're gonna be doing on this book Gail. Are you there? Well, welcome back to the program

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're 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 The difference between the

King James version and the new versions because they were based on different Greek manuscripts. Okay, there are 8 ,674 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

Okay now until 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

Changed the Greek text now. They did this using Vatican manuscript B.

Okay now NIV's Mr. Kohlenberger admits all subsequent versions that includes the

NIV and NASB have accepted the Westcott and Horton Manuscript the Westcott and Horton text in front of Neffel's 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 Mr. Caldwell who was

America's preeminent textual scholar says of Westcott and Horton's Greek text and the text underlying the new versions

Quote it is an artificial entity and if Mr James had spent lots and lots of time in Metzger's textual commentary on the

Greek New Testament He would know that the gentleman 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 chosen is and most of them are ranked B or C in other words We're not really sure either

Thalassological 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 manuscripts.

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 that's 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. Alright, 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, but 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 and 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 But 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 Reported 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

I I agree and that's why I have to ask you Judy. Have you read New Age Bible versions? Yes, sir I did. Okay, really when you and when you when you saw and I'm dr.

Palmer associated with Charlie Manson and Blavatsky And Hitler and these people called

Every name under the Sun and their their characters impugned and in fact, they were misrepresented over and over again

Did that cause you a problem? Can I finish what I have to say first? Then I'd love to hear we can't. All right, go ahead Judy and finish your statement

I brought along with me some of the personal correspondence of pastor Cecil Carter a

British Columbia who personally exchanged letters with Frank Logsdon with the honorary member of the

Lachman Foundation and personally assisted Dewey Lachman in forming the NASB committee That I'd like to quote if I may

It's he's wrote here and I'm going to take it out in excerpt I know we don't have time to read the whole thing

But Frank wrote I thought the Westcott and Hort was the text you were intelligent

If you believe the Westcott and Hort some of the finest people in the world believe in that Greek text

They haven't gone into it just as I hadn't gone into it They're just taking it for granted and then after he was questioned numerously by his friends

He said to his wife and I'm in trouble. I can't refuse these arguments. It's wrong.

It's terribly wrong It's frightfully wrong I must under God renounce every attachment to the new

American standard And then he wrote as a member of the editorial committee in the production of the

Amplified New Testament We honestly and conscientiously felt it was a mark of intelligence to follow

Westcott and Hort Now what you have in these books strikes terror to my heart. It proves alarmingly that being conscientiously wrong

Most dangerous state of being God help us to be more cautious lest we fall into the snares of the arch deceiver

Franklin Franklin Logsdon now Judy, who again is Franklin Logsdon Frank Logsdon was on the

NAS V Editorial committee and he wrote the preface to the new new

American Standard Bible and he went on to spend the rest of his life Recounting what he had done.

So here again are godly men who are in the bosom of the Lord who were sincerely wrong

Again that wasn't it's not the issue. Mr. White godly men can be sincerely wrong the real issue here that I wish you to debate is the

Manuscripts that produced the King James Version and those of Westcott and Hort that have produced the new versions that Gail wrote about well first Are we gonna have an opportunity?

Explanations of the majority text versus the text is receptive. So let him go ahead and respond Judy, first of all,

I did not attack Gail Riplinger at all I reviewed her book and I pointed out that she over and over and over again

Missed I didn't misrepresent people and I provided documentation. I'd be glad to provide that documentation anyone who would like to see it

So I did not attack her at all. So I Reject your assertion that I did secondly the issue of manuscripts

Does not become the issue of New Age Bible versions until you're over 400 pages in it's referenced a couple times

It's alleged that everything's based upon corrupt manuscripts But the first over half of the book attacks

NIV and NASB for their Translation and not just for the manuscripts that underlie them

I would be glad to talk about those issues But the problem is when you start reading reading New Age Bible versions by the time you get to the discussion of manuscripts

So much misrepresentation and unfair representation of the scholars who produced the

NIV and NASB has been presented Then how could you ever even begin to have a meaningful discussion of the issue of the manuscripts themselves?

now Well, I thought I thought I'm not sure who said that but let me just respond to one other thing

These many of these New Testaments that we are talking about here NASB and NIV are not

Slavish translations of the Westcott and Hort text anyone is aware of that I mean that we get

Gail into here Gail. Come on in and respond to what James is saying there I think there's a misunderstanding that if someone finds something wrong with what a

Christian believes That you're hating that Christian and you certainly aren't Peter was wrong twice

Jesus said to Peter get thee behind me Satan and that was only two minutes After he that Jesus had got done saying blessed art thou

Simon Barjona for flesh and blood hath not rebelled it unto thee but my father which is in heaven So we have a man saying something from Satan one minute and saying something from the father the next

So someone like Edwin Palmer and some of these other people may be godly people But they can be wrong Peter was proved to be wrong in Galatians 2 14

But listen Gail Gail is not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel So Peter was wrong twice, you know,

Peter took the rebuke but listen Gail let me let me get you to respond to what he's saying about the fact that you don't even talk about the text until 400 pages into your book and Some of his comments most people

I don't think I think most people find Pathological research rather dry. So you really have to have them ask why would

I bother reading about pathological research? Why could they read it? You have to give them the reason first, okay

We need give you any other thing you want to say Judy before we go to our next caller Basically, I'd still like to hear her response to his criticism of the text as receptive and the majority text because this is the main

Issue. All right harassment The Texas Receptive was put on the index of forbidden books by the

Pope Erasmus wrote two other books praise a folly and a dad. Yeah, both were rabid anti -catholic book at that time

He was the world's leading intellectual and so when people say he had 11 manuscripts in front of his hand That's hardly case because if you really studied his life, you'd know that he spent a fair portion of his life

Translating the Greek and Latin Church fathers. I have I have studied his life very in -depth and written a number of graduate papers on Erasmus and the first edition of his

New Testament Was based upon that many manuscripts? He did make changes and in fact the whole reason the first John 5 7 2 8 appears in the

Texas Receptive is I'm sure you're Aware is due to the fact that he came under great fire under the first two editions

His first and second edition is Greek New Testament did not have that passage Wait a minute.

Wait a minute. Now you you brought up Erasmus and I'm just I want to point out to you that He wrote to his friend

Bombasius in Rome and asked his friend Bombasius to consult what manuscript Gail?

Which which manuscript at Erasmus consult in regards to that? Excuse me, but which one did he ask?

He you know, he did not have it He wanted to have access to it, but he did he was not able to get it. He eventually wrote to his friend

Bombasius in Rome Because we've got the italicized words in 1st John 2 23, so he definitely had access to the

Vatican He wrote to his friend. I'm gonna say all right. Let me let me stop you gang. I Think we're losing the audience

This is a very difficult thing to deal with and our time is getting by take just a minute My point was that Erasmus said that if he could find one

Greek manuscript that had first John 5 7 2 8 in it That he would put it in the third edition The one was written simply for the occasion and that's why it appeared in there and the statement

I made in regards to the number Of transcripts of manuscripts he had is substantiated by every source that you could look into it

All right, go ahead and respond. Yes First John 5 7 if you don't have it the way it is in the

King James The Greek genders don't agree you have three masculine witnesses and three neuter nouns And the only way it'll work is the way

Erasmus has it first John 5 7 is in 170 old Syriac 180 patient 200 old land to Chilean to the wrong

Debreon 350 Athanasius 415 Council of Carthage I've listed six manuscripts right there that BC the

Vatican does the majority text have it get around 450 Okay, and if I can Gail line of Bergen 750, you know

Gail answer his question the majority text have it. Yes or no Well, I'm not sure what your point is does already does the majority does the majority text?

You know what I'm talking about have right here in my hand the Greek New Testament according the majority text Hodges and fires How does it have it

Dean Bergen in the British Museum collated? 87 ,000 church father the church fathers support the

Texas Receptive 2 to 1 and 3 to 1 an important person So we have proof that it was in the old manuscript.

We just don't have old man All right, let's let's move on now gang. We got to get some more colors in Judy. Thanks for your call

All right, Dave, are you there? Yeah, sure. All right, Dave. You're here. Come on. What's your question?

My question is I don't understand why what is this lady's name again? Who wrote this book Gail Ripplinger Gail Ripplinger?

I don't understand her argument here being the fact that in the Preface of the 1611 edition of the

King James the translator said that as language changed So would also a translation have to you know a new

English translation would yeah Okay, the Bible said every word of God is pure Proverbs 35

Psalm 119 said thy word is very pure. Okay, preface are not pure lexicons are not pure And so if the

Word of God is to abide forever Then that's what's pure and that's perfect And if you look at the words of men, you know

It says the Old Testament see she from men whose breath is in their nostrils be therefore followers of God It's better to put trust in the

Lord than to put confidence in man If you look at what men wrote without the anointing of the Holy Spirit, obviously it can be wrong

And so they didn't claim to be inspired and I think that the Holy Spirit inspired them So just because they didn't claim it just like John didn't claim to be

Elijah But Jesus Christ said he was that doesn't mean that they weren't fine I think the Greek and the

Hebrew manuscripts were inspired but it the English translation is just that it's a translation

Okay, the Bible does not say the Greek and Hebrew are inspired and that the translations are not inspired the definition of Scripture in the

Bible all Scripture is given by inspiration of God. Okay for 2nd Timothy 3 36, excuse me, 3 16

Scripture is defined right around there. It says about Timothy from a child that has known the Holy Scripture All right,

I'm gonna have to stop you Gail. I'm gonna have to stop you because I told our listeners they could call in today Dave Thanks for your call.

I'm sorry We have to move on try to get as many calls in as we can we got miles back miles you're on PS on the

Air. Oh, thank you This is indeed a very important subject because we're dealing with a word of God, right and The question

I'm sure it must be in many people's minds If God took the care to divinely inspire his word in the original autograph

Then would he not also exercise? supernatural providential preservation of the scriptures through the centuries

Most definitely and I think that the way that he did so in fact, I don't have near the time to do this I'm gonna have to do it very quickly got a minute and a half

I I believe that he did so by immediately making sure that the Word of God went forth to all nations

And to have copies of the scripture going everywhere No one at any time in history ever had the opportunity of gathering up all manuscripts and changing them and totem and hence

Anyone who attempted to change the scripture that would stand out very plainly as we examine what is given to us today

So, you know when when certain cult groups for example say hey, you know The Bible's been changed over and over and over again and it's untrustworthy so forth.

That's just simply not the case It does not follow. However, that that means that there is one English translation that is supposedly inspired

Well, the point that I'm making is From all maybe when

Christianity first came into acceptance under Constantine in 325 all the way down to Stephen's text and which is the background or foundation for the

King James This was the Erasmus was the first time that the whole

New Testament Greek New Testament was printed Being before that we had numerous even thousands of copies.

Is that right? Yes. Uh -huh Well, there was actually one that was printed before his but it wasn't published for his but but they yes

There were thousands of the gale you jump in anywhere you want here. Okay I truly appreciate what he said because I'm afraid that the people who go back to the

Greek The Bible says the Greek speak after wisdom, you know And if you'd require a sign, but we preach

Christ crucify And I think all that's going back to the Greek is kind of the Greek speak after wisdom But you know written in Greek to preach

Christ crucified It's for the Greeks foolishness and people don't want to look foolish So they have to jump back to the

Greek text, but the Bible says preach the word Well, let me hurt if I hit my heart you cannot hide the

Greek in your heart And that that word was not written in English, all right miles, what's your question the question is if We have a

Numerous amount of manuscripts available and The textus receptus was based on That which was available.

We got about 30 seconds. Okay Now the textus receptus has been considerably

Changed or altered with so -called new discoveries Was is what we have now compared to the

King James Version. Is there any Substantial difference I'm sorry