I will be quoting from a book by G.A. Riplinger dealing with
those who attacked her book, "New Age Bible Versions". She
reproved, corrected, "spanked" certain so-called bible scholars
such as Dave Hunt, T.A. McMahon, Robert Thomas, Bob Morey, David
Cloud, James White, Someone(?) from the Trinitarian Bible
Society, Bob Passantino, Hank Hanagraaff, and Dr. S.E. Schnaiter
of Bob Jones University. The book points out the total ignorance
and lack of concern of many Christians regarding the word of God,
King James Bible. Excellent for Christians who have been deceived
by the new bible (per)versions. Get all of her books, if so-
called "Christians" are going to all this trouble to shut her up
then you know it is worth your time and effort to read it. See
what has put the religious world in an uproar.
The James White Controversy- 1st. Part
From King James Version Ditches Blind Guides by Gail Riplinger
She is also author of New Age Bible Versions
WHITE'S LEGALLY ACTIONABLE LIES
"Mrs. Riplinger never once mentions the fact that many of
her confident statements about Westcott and Hort being
'spiritualists' are based upon pure speculation on her part...she
is not referring in her statements to B.F. Westcott, the textual
critic, but to W.W. Westcott, a London mortician...Did Mrs.
Riplinger ever note this on Action 60's? Did she ever say, 'Now,
what I'm saying about Westcott and Hort is in fact merely
speculation on my part? No, she made her assertions directly and
without qualifications."
White's purposeful misrepresentation here is legally actionable.
It is clearly and plainly libelous. It is inconceivable that
White, a college graduate, could read the citations from the
cited books about the life of B.F. Westcott and his involvements,
and conclude that all of these citations in the body of the book
were references to W.W. Westcott. All citations and discussions
in the text of New Age Bible Versions are about B.F. Westcott. A
simple trip to each footnote will take the reader to the
source proving this. Likewise, ALL comments made on Action 60's
were about B.F. Westcott. His own esoteric activities have led
researchers (I am not alone) to surmise that perhaps he may ALSO
have been the person responsible for activities attributed to
W.W. Westcott, the name put forth as a 'blind' by the Order of
the Golden Dawn. This theory was mentioned in a footnote, but is
totally parenthetical to the rest of the book and in no way
relates to the body of the book.
JUST PLAIN LIES
White ALTERS a quote by Edwin Palmer to give his reader the
impression that my Palmer citation is a "gross misuse of the
words." Both Palmer and my quotation of him say "few clear and
decisive texts" (p. 305, New Age Bible Versions and p. 143, The
NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation). White places my
quote next to his trumped up quote in a chart headed "What Dr.
Palmer Actually Said." White adds the word "and" ("few and clear
and decisive texts") to give the impression that I have grossly
miscited the man. White's power to persuade lies not in his data,
but in his altering of facts, like this, and his use of fierce
invectives like "poison," "gross misuse," "alleged,"
"inexcusable," "misrepresenting," and "error." These words all
appear on the one page in which White miscites Palmer.
It is easy for readers, in this busy non-reading culture, to skip
over a few words and thoughts which are submerged in a welter
of other words. To bring the views of new version editors out
from hiding, I put the magnifying glass on those words which
distill their thoughts. Palmer, for example, communicated his
belief that he thinks the Bible has "FEW CLEAR AND DECISIVE TEXTS
that declare that Jesus is God." He said this amidst this
discussion of John 1:18, citing it as one of them. A Bible
translator that only can find a few such texts strikes me as
"chilling," to say the least. New Age Bible Versions followed
Palmer's quote (p. 305) listing hundreds of places (pp. 302-383)
which document that his NIV does have few compared to the many in
the KJV.
White pretends the first five words of my Palmer quote don't
exist. He focuses on the 'Jesus is God' portion pretending in his
mind that it says 'Palmer doesn't think Jesus is God,' rather
than READING "few clear and decisive texts that declare that
Jesus is God." Palmer's ideas about the deity of Christ are not
the topic of my discussion, nor Palmer's quote. The subject is
texts and their number.
White's lie that "She attempts to paint Dr. Palmer as a closet
Aryan..." proves: 1.) White cannot read the words on a printed
page and 2.) he substitutes his own wild imaginations. If that
won't convince his reader, he ALTERS Palmer's quote under his
heading "What Dr. Palmer actually said" to give the impression
that I have grievously misquoted him (e.g. "few and clear").
"THEY HAVE TAKEN AWAY THE LORD" (John 20:2)
White is lying once again. Regarding the fact, stated in New Age
Bible Versions, that the KJV is the only version which
consistently distinguishes Adonai as Lord, White bleats,
"This kind of false statement is found all through New Age
Bible Versions."
White whittles away at any notion that he is a researcher. New
Age Bible Versions warned readers (pp. 375-376) that the KJV is
the only Bible which consistently distinguishes between the
Hebrew Adonai, as Lord, and JHVH, as LORD. White states that even
if you take a "brief glance," as he calls it, at new versions,
you will find "Of course, this is simply untrue." His "brief
glance" missed the 291 times when the NIV, for example,
substituted "Sovereign" for the Hebrew noun Adonai. The
KJV, in all 291 of these instances, translates it "Lord." These
instances (e.g. Gen. 15:2) where AdonaiJHVH appear together,
the KJV retains both proper names, not inserting 'new' words when
the Hebrew text has the names of God. (Note the introduction by
the NIV of just another Calvinistic term: Sovereign.) The "false
statement," as White called it, was his, not mine.
WHITE-OUT
By altering what the book says, a few strokes here, a few
there--White turns the picture into a caricature. He says new
version editors are called "cultists" (p. 345), Adoptionists (p.
345), and Aryans (pp. 304-305 et al.), yet checking those pages
leads to no such distortions. The words "cultist" and "Arian" do
not even occur. Page 345 simply said that in their quote (one
quote) they are "expressing a view similar to that held by early
Adoptionists. One quote that expresses a view similar to
something is a far cry from a person being an Adoptionist. (If
White is worried about anyone pointing their finger at new
version citations and noting 'Adoptionism,' he might want to
check Hasting's classic, The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics.
It cites the new version text's (Sinaiticus) Shepherd of Hermas,
as an early EXAMPLE of Adoptionism! See under heading: Adoptionism.)
He pretends the book "identifies anyone who was involved in the
production of modern bibles...as non-Christians...who actually
want everyone to worship Lucifer." Yet the book introduces the
section on new version editors pointing out that there are "good
men" who are "saved" who have been involved. Bold type (p. 431)
and italics (p. 393), were used to draw the readers' attention to
the fact that these editors were "unaware" and "unconsciously"
harming the Bible.
White claims, "Orthodox Christian theologians are
indiscriminately associated with heretics without any thought as
to the consistency of such actions" [emphasis mine]. Was it
"inconsistent" for Jesus to call Peter "Satan"? Did Jesus not
recognize Peter's theological credentials? Did Jesus take Peter
"out of context"? After all, Peter's recorded statement in the
verses immediately preceding this were, "Thou art the Christ, the
Son of the living God." How orthodox can you get! Could a
Christian speak a word, as "revealed" by the Father, and the very
next time they speak, be inspired by "Satan" himself? Jesus
thought so. Many are forgetting the biblical example set by Jesus
(Matt. 16). One moment Peter spoke what the "Father" "revealed"
to him, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." This is
highly "orthodox." The very next words recorded out of Peter's
mouth led Jesus to say to Peter, "Get thee behind me Satan."
Peter's revised version of verse 21 was Satanic. Evidently a
true Christian can be in grave error. The charge of "out of
context" could be leveled at Jesus, for Peter had just said
something very orthodox.
The frail egos of new version editors and advocates seem to make
them immune to correction. The man-centered and man-elevating
theology of today is seen clearly in some responses to the book.
The cry is not, "Why have new versions demoted our precious
Lord?" but "Why have the editors been demoted?"
JAMES GAMES: JAMES WHITE MEETS VANNA WHITE
Can a Vanna White beat James at his own games? Evidently she can,
as she proves daily that she can distinguish between the English
letters T-H-E and H-I-S. It's embarrassing to have to explain
kindergarten orthography and freshman Bible to an M.A., but Mr.
White's shallow knowledge of the Bible makes it necessary.
Page 158 of New Age Bible Versions pointed out the fact that the
phrase "take up the cross" has been completely omitted in
the NIV and NASB. Yet James White tries to put readers in doubt,
as the whites of his eyes bulge out and he shouts,
"Mrs. Riplinger does want people to think that this phrase
is deleted from the Bible on the basis of Mark 10:21, and she
still does not deal honestly with the presence of the phrase in
three other places in the modern version." [emphasis mine]
There is a $10,000 prize, if he can back up his lies. Readers of
White won't applaud; even Vanna could prove him a fraud. He
has put his credibility in question by confusing his own
inability to read, with the honesty of the author he reads. The
three places to which he points are references to "his cross,"
not "the cross" (Matt. 16:24, Luke 9:23, and Mark 8:34). These
three parallel passages do not relate at all to those in Mark
10:21, Matt. 19:21, and Luke 18:22. The cross to which Jesus was
referring in the former verses ("his cross") is that daily
crucifixion of the fleshly and self-serving desires of the
Christian. The phrase immediately preceding it says, "let him
deny himself (and take up his cross)." The word "his," and its
corresponding emphasis, also occurs in the verses which
immediately follow it. Mark 15:21 was a foreshadowing of this
daily crucifixion of the flesh as Simon was compelled to bear
"his cross." The following other verses expound this theme.
"I die daily" I Cor. 15:31
"[T]ake up his cross daily" Luke 9:23
"And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh..."
Gal. 5:24
"I am crucified with Christ" Gal. 2:20
On the other hand, "the cross," omitted in new versions in Mark
10:21, refers to "the cross of Jesus" (John 19:25), "the cross
of Christ" (I Cor. 1:17), and "the cross of our Lord Jesus
Christ" (Gal. 6:14). "The preaching of the cross is the power of
God unto salvation" (I Cor. 1:18). Taking up "his cross" daily
will not save a person. "The cross of Christ" will. It is only
after we have taken our sins to the cross, that our redeemer can
help each of us bear his own cross.
When someone like James White spends only a few days or even
months writing a critique of a book which entailed six years
of research, this reckless, broad brush approach
results--painting its con artist into a corner. When Vanna turns
to reveal the letters indicating the manuscripts which include
Mark 10:21, as the KJV renders it, Mr. White turns white as a
ghost. The vast majority of Greek MS have "take up the cross."
These include the uncials A (E) F (G) H, K, M, N, S, U, V, W, X,
Y, Gamma, Pi, Sigma, Phi, Omega, fam 13 and the majority of all
cursives. It is in the Old Latin: (a)q, Syr: (pesh) sim harc,
Cop: (sa-mss) bo-mss, Goth (Arm) (Eth). It is also extant in 047,
05, 0211, 0257. The few corrupt manuscripts which omit it are
Aleph, B, C, D, Theta, Psi, 0274, pc, c, f, fz, g1, and Vulg. Every word of God is important. The serpent added ONE word and
changed the entire course of history. God said, thou "shalt
surely die." The serpent added ONE word and said, "Ye shall NOT
surely die." When Jesus FIRST met him in Luke 4:4, he brought
this to his attention saying, "It is written, That man shall not
live by bread alone, but by EVERY word of God." (New versions
omit this last part.) Liberals have always said the Bible
CONTAINS God's MESSAGE. The Bible however says that it is the
very words of God. New versions and their advocates, like White,
miss the importance of each individual word. They are rapidly
moving into the liberal camp where the serpent adds a word here
and there, or like Eve, drops a word ("freely"). Paul preached a
sermon on the importance of one letter(s) (Gal. 3:16). Those who
are not concerned that there are 64,000 words missing in the NIV
would invariably overlook the distinction between words like
"T-H-E" and "H-I-S." Since their NIV omits "but by EVERY word of
God" (Luke 4:4), it's no wonder. White is wrong. The new versions
do omit "take up the cross"! Verses that say "his cross" are no
substitute. His accusation that I am not "honestly" dealing with
the topic is legally actionable.
WHITE'S WHOPPER
White lies again saying I claim "Palmer denies the role of the
Holy Ghost in the Incarnation..." Nowhere in New Age Bible
Versions do I make any comments at all about Palmer's notions
about the incarnation. In fact, Palmer's quotes, seen in the
book, do not mention or discuss the incarnation. New Age Bible Versions is a study in semantics (the meaning of
words). It devoted several pages to an analysis of the word
'begotten' and 'beget'. In trying to assess why the NIV would not
fully translate the word monogenes (only begotten), the views and
writings of several NIV translators were reviewed. The writings
of Edwin Palmer reveal that he believes the term "begotten"
refers to the Father begetting the Son in eternity past, as shown
on p. 339. White's mad rush through the book missed this quote,
evidently. Here, Palmer even notes that it is strange that the
Bible doesn't also note that "the Holy Spirit was begotten by the
Father." Palmer definitely has unique views about the word
begotten. The definitive treatise on monogenes, by Buchsel,
disagrees with Palmer and agrees with me, saying John 1:14 and
1:18 do not discuss any "eternal begetting".
The issue at hand is not who is correct, but what do NIV
translators believe about the Greek term monogenes and the
English word 'begotten'. (Paralleling Joseph Smith's quote next
to Palmer's simply proves that both have views relating to the
word 'beget' which exclude the Holy Ghost and thereby disconnect
the term from the incarnation, as has historically been
understood. See Adam Clarke's Commentary, The Theological
Dictionary of the New Testament, et al.) The law of first
mention and the context of John 1:14,18 would lead anyone to note
that the first use of 'beget' (Gen. 4:18) and 'begotten'
(Gen. 5:4 and John 1:14) indicate it refers to flesh.)
White's own ignorance of such theological discussions leads him
to make quantum leaps of logic and READ INTO the book notions and
words that ARE NOT THERE. White erects straw men, then cites
quotes by Palmer on the incarnation to dismantle his own
contrived misreading of my book. Interestingly, however, it
should be noted that in Palmer's quotes about the incarnation, he
NEVER uses the term 'begotten' because he does not connect this
word with the incarnation like most Christians do. That's WHY the
NIV omits 'beget' from the Bible! The BOLD MISREPRESENTATION is
White's; New Age Bible Versions does not assert that "Palmer
denies the role of the Holy Ghost in the Incarnation." See you in
"court" (Esther 6:4--7:10).
THE PALMERWORM DEVOURED THEM (AMOS 4:9)
"There is a bird which is named the Phoenix...the only
one...makes for itself a coffin of frankincense and myrrh...then
dies. But as the flesh rots, a certain worm is engendered which
is nurtured from the moisture of the dead creature and puts forth
wings...It takes up that coffin where are the bones of its
parent, and carrying them, it journeys...to the place called the
City of the Sun."
This depraved pagan parody of the death, burial, and resurrection
of our precious Saviour is given by NIV editor Richard
Longenecker to 'help' us understand WHY the NIV translates John
1:14 and 1:18 as "One and Only" instead of "only BEGOTTEN" (see
The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation, pp. 119-126).
He points also to such occult literature as the magical papyri's
"One", Plato's (Critias) "one," and the Orphic Hymn's (gnostic)
"only one". He cites numerous other early Greek writers, like
Parmenides, head of the Eleatic School. He brought pantheism to
the West after his trips to India and initiation into the Greek
mysteries. Do we look to a pantheist and their god 'the One' to
alter our view of God?
Longenecker chides the KJV's "begotten Son" because "it neglects
the current [time of Christ] usage for the word." Current
usage amongst PAGAN OCCULTISTS should not change how Christians
use words! He and the NIV translators have broadened the
"semantic range of meaning" (Longenecker p. 122) to include the
broad way that leadeth to destruction. The translators of the
King James Version were so highly educated that they not only
knew of these Greek quotes, but knew who Parmenides was and what
he taught. They wouldn't touch such pagan sources. Either the NIV
translators are ignorant of the philosophies of those they cite,
like Aeschylus, Plato and Parmenides, and the Orphic Hymms or
they are sympathetic to such ideas. (The "begotten God" seen in
John 1:18 in the NASB comes directly from lexical support from
the occult tome The Trimorphic Proitenoia!)
Anyone who has spent years studying the resources used to
generate the definitions seen in Greek lexicons will get a
chuckle out of White's comment: "I explained that she was in
error regarding the meaning of monogenes, and explained the
actual meaning of the term." Even Longenecker admits the
translation of monogenes [only begotten] and huios [Son] "have
become bones of contention among Christians."
Real scholars like Buchsel (The Theological Dictionary of the New
Testament, Vol. IV, pp. 737-741) allot five entire pages of
lexical evidence to the meaning of monogenes. Buchsel proves that
White's "actual" definition of monogenes is only that of a few
pagan philosophers. New version editors and advocates seem to
pick the pagan lexical definition, time after time.
(Imagine, for example, if 2000 years from now, a lexicographer
reviewed our culture's use of the word "love." They would find
the KJV's definition of 'charity' and Hugh Hefner's definition of
'sex'.)
White may not understand my response in Which Bible Is God's
Word, but Buchsel does, and agrees with me. He says,
"Though many will not accept this; he here understands the
concept of sonship in terms of begetting."
End of Part One.
To be continued!
A.V. Publications
P.O. Box 280
Ararat, VA 24053