The James White Controversy- 6th. 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 FLEECES THE FLOCK

Note just a few of White's outright lies, misrepresentations and faulty facts, exegesis and theology.

Hunt did not write the May, 1994 Berean Call articles. Pretending he did is a lie. (Letter from T.A. McMahon dated June 18, 1994: "I wrote the review...")

Pretending Norman Geisler's quote (p. 318) was taken out of context is preposterous, given the 28 times Geisler documents the New Age use of the term "the Christ" in his brief 22 page "Summary of New Age Beliefs," Infiltration of the New Age (pp. 107-128).

Although White says, "Again you are in error. The NIV translates it as 'false gods...'" In fact the NIV's term is NOT A TRANSLATION of the Hebrew word there for 'lie'. The NIV interpolates and substitutes "false gods." All false gods are lies, but all lies are not false gods.

White talks about misrepresentations in the 'index'. There is no index.

White wants to limit the Holy Ghost's ability to use the word of God as intended, that is, as "a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart" (Heb. 4:12). The KJV's use of words which can communicate more than one meaning facilitates this. White would limit the Bible's vocabulary to his limited vocabulary and his narrow semasiology. For example, the KJV's use of "peculiar" gives the reader both meanings of that word. It can be from the Latin peculiarus meaning "one's own property;" or as Webster defines it: "different from the usual." The NIV's "people belonging to God" denotes only the former. The KJV's "peculiar people" is defined in Webster's 5th edition Collegiate Dictionary as, "Jehovah's own people; the people of Israel;--used of themselves of many Christian bodies." Hence both definitions of peculiar are in the dictionary, giving the reader a picture of how God views us and how the world views us.

Other words such as 'sober' and 'heady highminded' have multiple meanings. The latter, surprisingly, speaks volumes to this generation who have given up pursuing 'knowledge' through intellectualism and have given over their 'mind' to drug induced 'highs' as a vehicle for experiential 'knowledge'.

If White had done a six year long word-for-word collation instead of a six week long slap-dash high school newspaper style analysis, he would often avoid faulting the KJV. For example, in I Cor. 16:2 the KJV inserts the word "God" to identify "him." How can he fault the KJV for this when a word-for-word collation of the NIV proves they substitute names (i.e. Jesus) for pronouns (i.e. he) and vice versa, hundreds and hundreds of times. Greek or Hebrew names and pronouns are interchanged indiscriminately all over the NIV.

The following notice appears on the copyright page of almost every copy of New Age Bible Versions in print. White ignores it and steams when the reading of the NIV isn't identical to the NASB.

For example, in John 6:68 (discussed on p. 260), the NIV's "you" of verse 68 is heretically identified as "the Holy One of God" (the term used in scripture by the devils!) instead of "Christ, the Son of the living God" (verse 69). The quote (on p. 260) immediately beneath, cites a new version editor connecting the use of the term "words" with universal salvation by a supreme King (Holy One of God). The book was written for serious students of the Bible, those who study material and don't just breeze through it.

When new versions other than the NIV and NASB are cited, the book uses the heading 'New Versions'. For White to squawk that a verse under this heading is 'in the NIV or NASB', is ludicrous. That is why the heading did not say "NIV, NASB". If I said, "Newspapers across the country are saying..." it would be irrational for White to charge: "My newspaper didn't say that."

Yet, White repeatedly uses this ploy saying, "But the NASB doesn't say that," when the book never said it did. In fact, he cites 2 Cor. 5:21 wherein ALL new versions, except the NASB, move "in him." He squawks that the NIV has the phrase, yet neglects to tell his reader that by MOVING it, the NIV and other new versions change the verse's entire meaning!

Eph. 3:9: Metzger's NRSV and Reader's Digest Bible are the epitome of liberalism; he is a part of the faulty foundation on which new versions are built. Metzger's ascertions that "there is no reason why if the words [by Jesus Christ] were original, they should have been omitted," is the height of naivete. Anyone who hasn't noticed that the world omits "Jesus Christ" every chance it gets, is deluded.

Phil. 1:14: His comment that "This is one of the few places where the Byzantine text rightly claims the support of an early papyrus for a unique, significant reading" reveals his lack of familiarity with the hundreds upon hundreds of instances in which the KJV received support from the early papyri.

James 5:16: White claims, "she is also asserting that modern versions are polluted by Roman [Catholic] influence. She is simply incorrect." Is White aware of the fact that Time magazine (Dec. 26, 1994-Jan. 2, 1995, pp. 72-73) notes that "the best-known candidate [for the next Pope] is Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini...a Jesuit...on order with a reputation for liberalism." Martini was one of the five men who created the UBS Greek text underlying new versions. When is a Catholic Cardinal using the Vatican's own Vaticanus (B) MS not a Catholic? The Greek textual evidence is overwhelmingly on the side of the rendering 'faults' not 'sins'.

The manuscript evidence given in New Age Bible Versions was not slavishly culled from someone else's review of the facts (UBS 4th, Nestle's 27th, or Hodges et al.). It is important to read thoroughly the history of each reading and come to a decision which is not second-hand. The reading 'sins' has been shown to be a very isolated error (or heretical depravation). The many correctors of Aleph and B (11 total and over 15,000 corrections in Aleph alone) make it imperative that the originator and date of the reading be established before one assumes an Aleph & B reading is authentic, not one 'corrected' before it left the scriptorium, or in the 12th century.

The history of the reading "God" in I Tim. 3:16 is another which, if investigated, finds the critical apparatus in error. Reading the books cited in the bibliography (The Unjustly Exscinded Text of the Three Divine Witnesses) which expanded from a paper prepared for the Classics Department (Classical Philology 510) at the University of Arizona, sheds unbelievable light on 1 John 5:7-8, not given in any apparatus.

White asserts that "Men who strongly believe in salvation by grace alone have been involved in the translation of many of the modern versions." He is ignoring the clearly demonstratable fact that men who do not were also involved. Furthermore, translating a corrupt Greek text created and edited by those who do not believe in salvation by faith, can only result in a corrupt translation.

Paine's The Men Behind the King James Version, p. 71, describes the unbelievable number of translators that sifted through each book of the KJV Bible. In most new version committees, only a few men go over the translation work of one or two people who are 'experts' on that book. This allows the prejudices of some translators to crop up in the section they are responsible for and leaves other locations free of that particular prejudice.

WHITE OR BLACK MAGIC

If your copy of White's critique doesn't have the portions and errors discussed herein, it is because, like a chameleon, he CHANGES IT, as his ERRORS are exposed. 'Witch-gaffed' edition of White's critique merits a response? It is ever-changing. As his lies are exposed--presto-chango--the allegations levitate from the pages. His very latest work contains NONE of the allegations from his first critique.

I demonstrated in Which Bible Is God's Word (p. 62) that White's assertion that "all the Greek texts read as new versions do in Rev. 14:1" was wrong. It is in MSS P, 1, 5, 34, 025, 141, 246, 2049, 2053, 2065, and 2255mg. He fixed that error, among others. Charges of misspelling vanish after his critique's thirty-some spelling errors were pointed out to him by readers. God forbids us to cast our pearls before swine, "lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you" (Matt. 7:6). I have seen a good sample of White's ability to "trample." His track record for 'rending' and bending, keeps me from personally sending him any pearls.

White is not alone in his ever evolving and changing 'story'. He states that Virginia Mollencott worked on the NIV for "five months." The NIV Translation Center seems to have been telling callers this over the phone, but when written confirmation is requested, that time period is denied. Kenneth Barker wrote in a letter (dated July 21, 1994), "I do not know who at IBS told you that Mollenkott's involvement as a literary consultant was five months but, whoever it was, he or she was mistaken." He states that she was involved "in the earliest stages of the translation work (in the late sixties and early seventies...)" [The NIV began in 1966 and the N.T. was published in 1973.] In case the reader has the NIV Translation Center's response, "The NIV and Homosexual and Lesbian Practice," you will note that the 'story' has changed. In that article it said, "earliest stages of the translation work on the NIV (in the late 1960's)." A letter from Virginia Mollencott herself states, "I worked as NIV stylistic consultant for several years. To my knowledge throughout the final years of the work when initial translations were being polished." (June 12, 1994) [emphasis mine].

When presented with the NIV Translation Center's version she writes, "If you want to do me a favor, you could set the record straight with IBS in Colorado Springs. But perhaps they would rather not be disturbed by the facts?!" (June 20, 1994). Was it months or years? Seems White and the NIV Translation Center, "would rather not be disturbed by the facts"! White's notion that, "When she took stands contrary to Biblical standards, she was removed from the project" is denied by Mollencott, who states in a letter (Jan. 20, 1995),

"You are right that Barker is playing little word games. It would be a different story if Edwin Palmer were still alive: he knew me, had heard me speak, and sent me sheaf after sheaf of translations to review over a period of three or more years including several gift editions for the committee members when the work was first completed."

WHITED WALL

Matthew 18 demands that, as Chrisitans, we must give our brother and sisters in Christ the benefit of the doubt regarding their actions. If a fault is perceived, we are to go to that brother or sister privately. If White had called me, noting his 'problems', I could have relieved his concern, assuring him that some of what he's noted were proofreading errors which were FIXED ALMOST TWO YEARS AGO (i.e. p. 191, Matt. 12:10 was changed to Luke 11:54 FOUR PRINTINGS AGO!). If the party's motive is to help, they will follow Matt. 18 and its command; if however, their motive is to promote self (ego, notoriety, sell books, etc.), this path will be avoided.

There are two kinds of men: just and unjust. When God was choosing a stepfather for Jesus, he chose Joseph. When Joseph perceived that his espoused, Mary, was guilty of a fault and therefore with child, he reacted privately.

The unjust scribes and Pharisees, on the other hand, when perceiving that the woman in John 8 was likewise guilty, sought to "set her in the midst" and stoned her with public accusations. Jesus countered their accusations by writing their own sins on the ground.

God has a sense of humor. Every time the critics found a typo or proofreading error in New Age Bible Versions, THEY TOO had a typo or proofreading error in the VERY SAME SPOT. Note a few examples:

CORRECT
CRITIC
MINE
perfect (p. 261)prefect (White)perfect."
few clear and decisive
texts that declare that
Jesus is God. (p. 305)		few and clear (White)
John is God (Cloud)		declare that
In both cases the word
"all" should be "almost
all"		"All the Greek texts."
(re: Rev. 14:1)
(White)		"All Greek texts"
(re. James 5:16)

No doubt their errors have been fixed in subsequent printings since others have also pointed them out.

End of Part 6
To be continued...