The James White Controversy- 2nd. Part

From King James Version Ditches Blind Guides by Gail Riplinger

She is also author of New Age Bible Versions and Which Bible is God's Word?

"WHITE LIES

White lies once again. His headlong rush through the material under discussion has ended in a charge of reckless driving. He accelerates through every caution light, flying past critical words and entire quotes! Hoping his traveling companions won't notice or hear the siren, he turns up the radio ranting--"gross misrepresentation," "dishonesty," and "egregious error." His 'white lies' given to the arresting officer are recorded here (and in heaven).

I quoted Westcott and Hort as saying,

"[R]eadings of Aleph and B should be accepted as true readings...[They] stand far above all documents...[are] very pure...excellent...immune from corruption."

White cites this quote and concludes the following.
WHITE LIE #1:
"Anyone reading this material would be led to believe that Westcott and Hort held a very radical view of the Greek manuscripts Aleph and B."

Officer: White takes three pages setting up and demolishing this straw man. If he had carefully read the entire page and knew the jargon of the textual critics, he could have saved himself much embarrassment. To foster his misrepresentation, White does three things.
1.) He ignores the words "Readings of" and pretends the descriptive adjectives (pure, excellent, et al.) refer to "the Greek manuscripts Aleph and B" not "[R]eadings of Aleph and B." He pretends Riplinger says, "the Greek manuscripts Aleph and B," when the quote was "[R]eadings of Aleph and B." DID YOU PASS THE EYE TEST, MR. WHITE? "R-E-A-D-I-N-G-S O-F." In the literature of textual criticism the phrase "readings of" ALWAYS refers to parts, that is readings in a manuscript. No one familiar with the field would mistake a quote discussing (for example) "readings of the Byzantine manuscripts having very ancient attestation" with the WHOLE of the manuscripts. If White would read my quote on page 546 AND his own expanded Westcott and Hort quote, he would find the word "READINGS" occurs seven times. If White would re-read Westcott and Hort's Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek highlighting the word "readings" as he goes, he would have an eye opener. Page 220 alone uses the word seven times in connection with Aleph and B. The "readings" which Westcott and Hort find "identical" in Aleph and B are those "readings" which they think come from "the common original" (see your own quote).
Having set up his straw opposition, pretending Riplinger is referring to "the Greek manuscripts Aleph and B," White says,

"Note that Westcott and Hort are not referring to Aleph/B AS RIPLINGER INDICATES but to the parent text. [emphasis mine] Riplinger indicated no such thing and the "Readings of Aleph and B' which she discusses are identified by Westcott and Hort as virtually identical to the readings of the parent text. Westcott and Hort say on p. xxiv: "Readings of Aleph and B are virtually readings of a lost MS above two centuries older." Riplinger WAS talking about the parent! 2.) To further perpetuate his misrepresentation he CHOPS UP the quote so that the pronoun "[They]" is disconnected, for his reader from its antecedent "Readings." 3.) Finally, he makes the grand gaffe of overlooking (or hoping his readers will overlook) a quote on the same page (p. 546) which negates his entire pretense. New Age Bible Versions quoted Hort saying, "...these manuscripts Hort admits, they...reached by no means a high standard of accuracy."

WHITE LIE #2:
"Contextually, at the top of this very page [p. 225], W & H were talking about errors in Aleph/B."

Officer: The "top of" a page is not the context. Read the whole secton C, pp. 212-227 and you will find that, the quote is from the last sentence or two. As in all good English composition, it is SUMMATIVE and CONCLUSIONAL. It summarizes and concludes section C, entitled, "Origin and Character of Readings of Aleph and B Combined." The section predominately points to the "exceptional purity" of their readings and only the last subsection (303) notes any errors. In fact, if White had given the whole sentence, that would be very clear. It reads, "Accordingly, with the exceptions mentioned above [White's phoney "context"], it is our belief (1) that readings of Aleph and B should be accepted as the true readings..."

WHITE LIE #3:
"[T]here is nothing on page xxii that is in Mrs. Riplinger's quote."

Officer: Have you read the manual? (The Chicago Manual of Style or a similar reference work on the use of footnotes.) If you had, you would know the rule that footnotes may contain "not only the source of the quotation in the text but other related material as well." The pages listed (i.e. xxii) if read set a foundation for understanding Hort's dismissal of the overwhelming evidence of the Versions and Fathers against their "best Greek MSS." Why do you bring up p. xxiv; Riplinger doesn't cite or quote it. But while you're there, note how it identifies as identical your "parent text" and the "readings of Aleph and B."

WHITE LIE #4:
"Finally page 210 shows the same kind of egregious error of citation that we saw on p. 225."

The "same kind of egregious error" is YOURS. The word [They] refers back to the sentence's SUBJECT, "readings". Note your own quote: "immunity from distinctive Syrian READINGS...freedom from either Western or Alexandrian READINGS."

WHITE LIE #5:
"There is nothing on page 212 which is anyway relevant..."

Officer: You are driving too fast and missed "the preeminent excellence of the Vatican and Sinaitic MSS [Aleph and B] or the statement that they are "found to have habitually the best readings."

WHITE LIE #6:
"There is nothing even remotely relevant to the quotation on page 239."

Officer: Did you speed past the word "excellent," which you pretend is an error coming from "excellence" on p. 212? You missed the stop sign "readings being shown by the respective contexts to have been actually used by Clement and both [readings] making excellent sense." If you missed ALL of that, how did you also miss "The special excellence of B"? White's final horn blast--"falsification of citations" brings White a citation from the officer for driving under the influence of "spirits more wicked than himself" (Matt. 12:45).

SYNTAX AND ITALICS

White hopes his readers are as weak in grammar, syntax and theology as he is. He tells easily noted outright lies, which only the "simple" (Rom. 16:18) will swallow. He begins his lambast, storming: "[T]he rest of the verse actually contains the 'key words' she alleges are missing!...This kind of actual miscitation of the modern versions is rampant throughout the text of her work." If White can find the missing words "on thee" in that verse in his NASB, I'll give him $1 million dollars. He is lying, the rest of the verse does NOT "actually contain the key words she alleges are missing!" His accusations fall under the category of "false allegations" (not "fair comment") in the courts. Was White looking out the window in grade school when sentence diagramming was presented on the board? His misunderstanding of subjects, objects, and modifiers can be seen here in his mishandling of Isaiah 26:3. The KJV presents a simple equation that, if followed, would prevent the current rush of Christians to psychiatrists. It states that if one's mind is stayed on God, it will have perfect peace. It is no coincidence that psychology followed the new versions into the church. The NASB and NIV's presentation of this verse in Isaiah is theologically wrong. They state that it is the operation of the mind (viz. focused, steadfast), and not the object of that focus, that will bring peace. Hindu meditation precisely fits the NASB criterion. One must keep his mind steadfastly fixed on the mantra; when other thoughts enter, they must be rejected. A mind that is steadfastly focused on one's job, family, or other earthly things, will also fit the new version's criteria--but not God's criteria. One cannot pretend, as White does, that because the words "in Thee" are a part of the next subject (he), verb (trusteth), and prepositional modifier (in Thee), that they have any grammatical connection to the earlier sentence and its syntax. The KJV has BOTH "on thee" in part one AND "in thee" in part two. The NASB omits one, thereby changing the meaning. White misses, not only the grammatical differences and hence the factual differences here, but he misses the basic biblical distinction between the heart, which trusts in God, and the mind which thinks on God. The "because" phrase tells WHY it works; it does not tell WHAT works.
The KJV uses italics when the theological sense of a verse demands the insertion of English words to accurately complete a Hebrew thought. It is the only translation that is honest in this way. Both the NIV and NASB insert 1000's of words, but give the reader no clue as to which words are inserted. One NIV editor's article "When Literal Is Not Accurate" gives expression to the frequent use (6000 in the NIV) of such insertions.
The veracity of the italics in the KJV have been proven true to such a degree that this author feels no need to pick them out and set them apart as uninspired. The ten words in italics in 1John 2:23 have since been vindicated by ancient manuscript discoveries. Note the following 'miraculous' coincidences: The italics of Ps. 16:8 are quoted by Paul in the Greek text of Acts 2:25.
The italics of Is. 65:1 are quoted by Paul in the Greek text of Rom. 10:20.
The italics of Ps. 94:11 are quoted by Paul in the Greek text of 1 Cor. 3:20.
The italics of Deut. 25:4 are quoted by Paul in the Greek text of 1 Cor. 9:9.
The italics of Deut. 8:3 are quoted by Jesus in the Greek text of Matt. 4:4.

I miscited nothing; my allegations regarding the NASB's omission are true. White's wrong again."

End of Part 2.
To be continued!