The James White Controversy- 4th. 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'S WEAK THEOLOGY

Scanning I John 4:2,3 in a new version will show how their wording fits precisely into the New Age One World Religion.

NIV
KJV
This is how you recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of antichrist...Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist...
I John 4:2-3

The MAIN tenet of the New World Religion is TOLERANCE for the religious beliefs of others. Therefore Christians may still believe that "Jesus Christ is come in the flesh" as stated in verse 2 above. BUT the broad way forbids that we say that one who "confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God." Therefore, I John 4:2 can stand with little alteration. BUT, I John 4:3 MUST change to conform to the unjudgmental broad way. "Christ is come in the flesh" must be removed. All New World Religion advocates will "acknowledge Jesus."

In addition, new versions deny Jesus Christ IS alive; note the change in verse 2 from "is come" to "has come." Those who would deny the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ could "acknowledge" (head knowledge) that he "has come." (The difference between "acknowledge" and "confesseth" is apparent to anyone.) When Jesus was seen by Thomas, he said, "for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have." (Of course the NIV and NASB omit Eph. 5:30 "of his flesh, and his bones." New Greek text editor B.F. Westcott questioned the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ; hence much that points to it has been removed.)

In spite of all of the theological implications regarding the changes in new versions, Mr. White tells his reader it's OK to omit "it" in verse 3 since "it's" still in verse 2. He adds, it's "hard to believe" KJV only advocates find the NIV wanting here. He ends noting, "one can almost be sure that the shorter reading (that of the modern texts) is the best..." Scholars disagree. A.C. Clark's Descent of Manuscripts notes, "errors to which scribes are most prone are omissions not interpolations." Colwell (past President of the University of Chicago), in his Studies in Methodology in Textual Criticism, says that the scribes of P45, P66, and P75 were "prone to lose their place in the text and consequently skip over words, phrases..."

White closes his discussion of I John 4:2 and 3 charging "deception" and a "tremendously unbalanced picture" because New Age Bible Versions fails to give the "whole story," that being "its in verse 2." White's vacation Bible school exegesis is an embarrassment to the school from which he graduated. With "blind guides" like this, the new version advocates and New Agers will march hand in hand agreeing that those who do NOT confess "Jesus Christ is come in the flesh" are OK. (This is called Inclusive Theology and fits in perfectly with what is taught at almost ALL of the seminaries at which new version editors teach.)

Speed reading I Tim. 6:10 brings White to his dead end conclusion. "[I]s the love of money the root cause of rape?" Misreading the word 'ROOT' (R-O-O-T) as the word 'cause' (C-A-U-S-E) will never put James White in line for Vanna White's job. A root is not a 'seed.' A seed generates or 'causes' something; a root merely acts as a vehicle for feeding. The pornography, movie, fashion and advertising industry and their "love of money" are at the root. This root "leads into temptation" man's sinful nature. This nature is ready and willing to bear evil fruit; the desire for gain inspires (or is at the root of) the tempters.

Also the new versions' addition of the word "kinds of" does not occur in any Greek text. "Evil" is plural, disallowing their interpolation and implying all.

WHITE DENIES FREE WILL

White says Palmer is miscited on p. 2; when in fact there is no miscitation. He further contends the braced [ ] words [his NIV] are "her whole point," when, in fact, the whole point relates to Palmer's denial of each person's responsibility to, by an act of their free will, by faith, receive Jesus Christ as their personal Saviour. The braced [his NIV] were placed there because Palmer's sentence began with the word 'This' and no antecedent followed; Palmer was referring to his NIV, which he thinks does not teach 'free will'. White's comment is: "as it is today the KJV suggests the opposite." This is not true. The decision as to whether "of" (genitive) is subjective or objective is a perennial question in any language. Look at any English sentence. Does 'the love of God' mean God's love (yes) or one's love for God (no). Look at another phrase--'the love of money'. Is it one's love for money (yes) or money's love (no). In I Thes. 1:4 the question, in Greek OR English, remains. Is it God's election of us or our election of God. The text as it stands in the KJV allows both interpretations; this is fair and right. Palmer and White's hyper Calvinism will only allow one understanding. They change the word to fit their theology. Is it "your election" or the election of you. The word "by" in the text is referring to being "beloved by God." The question remains, is it "your election of God" (KJV) or 'he has chosen you'. Both versions must 'fill in' the phrase to make a complete thought for the Greek merely says "your election" or "the election of you" "beloved by God, your election." Any lexicon lists both "of" and "by" as appropriate for hupo; it depends on how the translator wants to interpret it, in this case.

PRIMARY SOURCES: WESTCOTT & HORT

If White had secured a terminal degree (Ph.D., M.F.A., et al.), he would have learned that only PRIMARY SOURCES are admissible as documentation and evidence. Even law students know "double hearsay" is inadmissible. New Age Bible Versions documents from primary sources. White's "double hearsay" sources and 'arguments from silence' prove nothing. (Viz. A few pop occult books do not list Westcott and Hort in the lineage of the current channeling movement.)

But if White wants to ignore all of the primary sources shown in the book, and follow some "double hearsay" sources--TONS of those CAN be found to prove the new version editors. Westcott and Hort were considered 'mystics' by their contemporaries and are classified as such by other scholars who used primary sources.

In addition to numerous references given in New Age Bible Versions, B.F. Westcott is identified as "a mystic" by the standard reference work of his day: The Encyclopedia Britannica (1911). Princeton University Press' recent book, The Christian Socialist Revival (1968, Peter d'A Jones) says B.F. Westcott was "a mystic" (p. 179). The highly respected Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics identifies both B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort as Alexandrian mystics (see 'Alexandrian Theology' et al.). The Occult Illustrated Dictionary even cites our Bible correctors B.F. Westcott, Hort, and Lightfoot and their 'ghostly' games.

The pretence by White and others, that B.F. Westcott's 'Ghostly Guild' activities and Spiritualism were only a part of his younger days, is proven wrong through numerous quotes in New Age Bible Versions. He speaks, as late as 1880 (age 55), about "fellowship with the spiritual world" and "the dominion which the dead have over us" (p. 439).

White needs practice parsing English sentences; Westcott's son said he had "faith" "in Spiritualism." White takes the very sentence wherein Westcott's son said his father B.F. had "faith" in "Spiritualism," and responds, "It's hard to understand how someone can take this and say that Arthur Westcott called his father a 'spiritualist.'" Webster defines 'spiritualism' as "the practices of spiritualists;" and "the belief that departed spirits hold intercourse with mortals by means of physical phenomena, as by rapping, or during abnormal mental states, as in trances, commonly manifested through a medium." Webster defines necromancy as, "communication with the spirits of the dead."

The pretense that Westcott and Hort's Ghostly Guild was 'scientific' rather than 'spiritualistic' is dissolved by the many references cited in the book. If it was scientific, it would not have aroused the "derision and even some alarm" by Cambridge colleagues who were "appalled" and referred to it as "mediaeval darkness." The Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology lists the Ghost Club as one in which "members related personal experiences concerning ghosts."

DIAGRAM THIS SENTENCE

Jer. 26:2 commands "Diminish not a word." Yet White recommends dropping two words from Eph. 1:11. He thinks because similar (not identical) words are in the preceding verse, that should be 'good enough.' Every Greek text, as well as the KJV, has the phrases in BOTH places. Yet White says, "All you had to do was not tell folks that the missing word is found in verse 10. One could write a book on how often you mislead your reader." New Age Bible Versions showed this comparison:

NIV, NASB et al.
KJV
also have obtained an inheritancein whom also we have obtained an inheritance

White is wrong; "In whom" is not in verse 10! 'Whom' is spelled W-H-O-M; Him is spelled H-I-M. (The NASB is as slippery as White. They pretend God started a verse in the middle of a sentence. They recommend putting "in him" with verse 10, yet use punctuation and capitalization to put it with verse 11.)

NASB
KJV
10...earth. In Him 11 also we have
obtained an inheritance		10...earth; even in him: 11 In
whom also we have obtained an inheritance

Either way "In whom" is MISSING in new versions, just as I said. The KJV and the Greek have BOTH "in him" and "In whom." My recommendation to White: 1.) count the words, 2.) diagram the sentences, and 3.) look up the Greek (any Greek). The KJV wins on all counts. How have I "misled the reader," Mr. White?

Several other cases in which a knowledge of parsing English sentences (resolving a sentence into its parts of speech and their interrelation) would prove the new versions' words do not modify the same things as the KJV's words. Often new versions retain a word or phrase, yet MOVE it, so that its grammatical use in the sentence is COMPLETELY CHANGED. White misses all of these and childishly asserts that some 'missing' words are still around 'somewhere'.

Inclusive theology, mentioned earlier, is taught in most major seminaries today. It asserts that Christ died for the sins of the world, and it is not necessary to "believe in him" to have eternal life "in him." Even those who "believe in Buddha" will have eternal life in Christ. Westcott, Hort, Schaff, Phillips, and most seminaries represented by new version editors believe and teach this. The Roman Catholic Church also teaches this in its seminaries.

Consequently the NASB's rendering of John 3:15 fits this 'inclusive' theology.

Choke
the word,
and it
becometh
unfruitful.


Mark 4:19

NASB
KJV
whoever believes may in Him have eternal life.whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

In 'inclusive' theology and the NASB, no one perishes and one may believe in anything, yet still have eternal life "in Him." When the "in him" is moved, it no longer modifies the verb "believeth," but now modifies the verb "have." Naive new version readers are unfamiliar with the 'Games Theologians Play'.

New versions often scramble the words and, as a result, destroy the sense of many sentences. Ephesians 1:13, for example, is badly mangled. The KJV's simple, "In whom ye also trusted" (viz. believe in him) becomes "In him, you also, after listening..." The "trusted" or "believed" is REPEATEDLY separated from the sole object of belief that will give eternal life.

White's inability to parse English sentences or discern aberrant theology leaves him ranting "deceptive citations" and "purposeful misrepresentations" regarding those who can.

A very important example of White's inability to decipher English syntax occurs in Philippians 2:5-6. This verse presents Jesus Christ and his deity and equal standing as part of the Trinity. The NIV and some editions of the NKJV deny his deity in the following phrase:

NIV
KJV
who...did not consider equality
with God something to be grasped 		who...thought it not robbery to be
equal with God:

Evidently the NKJV received so much criticism for rendering this as the NIV does, it changed in recent printings to the KJV reading. In the KJV the 'NOT' modifies the word 'robbery'; in the NIV (and some NKJV), the 'NOT' modifies 'equality'.

To make it clearer, look at a parallel statement.

Mrs. Christian...did not consider equality with her husband something to be grasped.

Mrs. Lib...did not think it was robbery to be equal with her husband.

The two woman have very different ideas. The Christian woman does not claim equality; woman's lib does. Clear?

White wants to convince his readers that the three words "hath he quickened," in Eph. 2:1 are not necessary; he suggests the reader merely JUMP FIVE VERSES LATER to Eph. 2:5 to "hath quickened us." The theological problems evade White. Verse 1 is about "you"; verse 5 is about "us". Also the new versions' verse 5 ends with "You have been saved"; the KJV ends with "ye are saved." Two points are critical. 1.) "You" cannot be saved in verse 5 unless "you" were quickened in verse 1. 2.) One does not join the "we" of verse 5 automatically; "you" must be born again. In conclusion: The omission of the three words and the substitution of "have been" for "are" presents a completely different soteriology--precisely the subject of the chapter in which this verse was discussed (viz. baptismal regeneration heresy).

LUCIFER'S LEXICON LIBRARY

"[T]he angel of the bottomless pit...hath his name Apollyon, [destruction]." Rev. 9:11

White's newsletter is called Pros Apoligian. There is a fine line between a 'defence' of one's beliefs and destroying the hearer's ear. (Mark 14:47) White crosses the line with the 666 mobius logo he now uses to terminate letters and his choice of reference works to correct the KJV and New Age Bible Versions. His Greek lexicon library comes from the enemy camp. He must be totally unaware that the lexicon he uses, Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon, was written by a UNITARIAN. Thayer spent his entire life trying to prove that the Trinity does not exist and that Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are not God.

So, where does Mr. White go to prove that my defence of the KJV's "Godhead" (Rom. 1:20, Col. 2:9, Acts 17:29) is wrong? You guessed it: Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon!! The publisher's preface even gives a warning cautioning readers to be alert regarding alterations and verses dealing with the deity of Christ. There are four very strong verses on the Trinity in the KJV. Thayer manages to dissolve all of them. White follows this blind leader of the blind and says,

"Thayer's lexicon says 'deity...theotes, theiotes: theot'. deity differs from 'theiot'. divinity, as essence differs from quality or attribute. This bit of information is vital" (Pros Apoligian, Vol. 2, Issue 2)

To defend the new version's dismissal of "the Godhead," White parrots Thayer saying, "theiotes means divinity or divine nature just as the NASB renders it. [T]heotes...means deity."

Sorry, Mr. Thayer and Mr. White, the root theos means G-O-D, no matter how deftly a non-Trinitarian like Thayer tries to divest the powerful term 'Godhead' of its Trinitarian meaning. Most lexicons used to correct the KJV were written by unsaved liberal scholars. (White also cites Trench's Synonyms to correct the KJV; Trench was a turn-of-the-century liberal.)

His pretense of "correctly translating the term for age" misses the fact that new versions often translate aiona and aionos as 'world'. Are new versions 'incorrect' in those places? The fact is, the word can refer to both time (age) and space (world) depending on the context. The KJV gives no entre to New Age cosmology and wisely ignored some of the Greek neo-Platonic lexical writings which see time as cyclical.
When a word has two or more potential meanings, the new versions always use this as an opportunity to 1.) elevate man and 2.) demote Jesus or God. White will pretend to his readers that the lexical evidence supports only his word choice, always the liberal one--Abridged bookstore lexicons and one word Greek definitions given in Strong's Concordance DO NOT represent the varieties of potential word meanings given in real research lexicons (i.e. the ten volume Theological Dictionary of the New Testament). Both the pagan and Judeo Christian semantic tradition are presented in such unabridged works. Recent bookstore brand lexicons present only the recent liberal trend to choose their definitions from the PAGAN tradition.
In the legal world, when liberals could not change the laws, they altered Black's Law Dictionary instead, giving broader and more liberal definitions for words. A parallel move has taken place in the 'dictionaries' used by 'Christians'. Those ministers, students or professors who say, "The word should have been translated...," (based on a brief citation in a lexicon) are echoing the serpent's 'hath God said?'. They are trusting the interpretation of one or two men, who probably are not born again Christians and about whom they know NOTHING. The scriptures are of no "private interpretation" (II Peter 1:20). The entire body of Christ replaced the O.T. priesthood and took over its job to guard the scripture. The Bible (KJV) has been approved after being subjected to the scrutiny of believers for hundreds of years. Cults always move the authority away from the Bible itself. Neither the definitions in interlinears (NASB, NIV, Berry's, Green's, Kohlenberger's, et al.) or the definitions in concordances (Strong's, Young's, et al.) or definitions in lexicons by Bauer, Bullinger, Earle, Gingrich, Kubo, Liddell-Scott, Louw-Nida, Mounce, Perschbacker, Thayer, Vincent, Wigram, Wuest, Brown, Driver and Briggs, Gesenius, Davidson or Holladay can or should be transplanted to replace the correct equivalencies God has instilled into the Bible.
The historic doctrine of 'providential preservation' is being replaced by the notion of 'provisional restoration'. They are moving the locus of inspiration away from the Bible you hold in your hand to some 'lost originals'. God did not promise inaccurate translations and lost originals. An inerrant, but inaccessible, word of God is of no value. Why wouldn't the world laugh at those who profess infallible truth from a fallible book. Authority is based on infallibility which is based on inspiration. The ultimate question and the first question (Gen. 3) is who is the authority--God and his word or man and his ideas.

End of Part 4
To be continued...