The following article is taken from Blind Guides (pp.22-34) by G.A. Riplinger. Blind Guides is a scholarly and detailed response to the critiques of Hunt, McMahon, Lalonde, Cloud, Morey, White, Hanagraaff, House, Passantinos, and others concerning Dr. Riplinger’s international bestseller: New Age Bible Versions.

 The James White Controversy

G.A. Riplinger’s Response to James White’s Criticism
of New Age Bible Versions

“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.

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”).

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 Adonai JHVH 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.

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?”

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 in 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 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).

“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.”

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.

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.”

“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…”

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.”

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.“

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.”

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).

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.

White’s doom is his penchant for making statements without adequate research or proof. He bleats, “Her degrees, her teaching, and her writing are all in one area…Her field of study is not at all related to the Bible, history or any type of linguistics or textual study.”

He’s wrong about the teaching.
He’s wrong about the degrees.
He’s wrong about the history.
He’s wrong about the linguistics.
He’s wrong about the writing.

He will have a difficult time convincing Harvard and Cornell or the University which awarded my M.F.A., or my ten or so history professors at the graduate and undergraduate levels. He will find it equally difficult to persuade the employer who hired me as a linguistic expert, teaching Greek speaking students English as a second language. (Or the Japanese, Russian, Italian, Spanish or Serbo-Croatian students which followed.) Students from six different majors will also testify to White’s lack of research.

Jim likes to play word games. He lost with Vanna White, let’s see how he does with Jeopardy!

“Who was trained in law, yet designed the building on the reverse side of the nickel, gave us our finest English translation of the Greek Aeschyles and Sophocles, wrote The Dictionary of Indian Dialects and invented the swivel chair, storm window and dumb waiter?”

My field of study and research for the past nine years has been exclusively textual criticism, linguistics, history, and the Bible–resulting in the publication of two books. One has been adopted as a textbook in numerous seminaries (New Age Bible Versions). This followed a mid-career switch after 18 years researching the built environment (industrial, architectural, and interior design).

Which Bible is God’s Word, my latest book, details the qualifications God sets forth (pp. 5-7). None of the aforementioned background fits God’s requirements, nor does White’s B.A. or M.A., or the NIV translators’ degrees.

White may “come to you in sheep’s clothing” in his city’s phone directory, as Alpha Omega. But inwardly, underneath the covers of his NIV, the words “I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last…” have been ravenously removed from Rev. 1:11. “Ye shall know them by their fruits.”

The accompanying chart shows just some of the other barren spots in his NIV in that one chapter alone, Revelation 1. The deity of Christ is uprooted seven times in one chapter. A second insert “How to Lead a J.W. to Christ” shows how the NIV’s thorny hedges bar a seeker’s path to salvation.

The NIV and other new versions make other changes to detract from the deity of Christ. Liberals have always tried to pretend verse 8 and verse 11 are different speakers. They insert “God” in Rev. 1:8 to pretend the speaker is not Jesus Christ but God the Father. “Words of Christ” in red editions sometimes do not put these words in red to perpetuate this false idea. They point to the use of the words “Lord God Almighty” (the three words used in Rev. 1:8 by new versions) as a title belonging to God the Father. The KJV’s “Lord” “Almighty” could too easily point to the Lord Jesus (i.e. 1 Cor. 6:14).

Rev. 22:13 and 16 tie together the common identity of the person of Rev. 1:8 and 11 saying,

“I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, the first and the last…I Jesus…I am the…morning star…”

There is no mistaking that it is Jesus Christ who is “the beginning and the ending” of verse 8 (omitted in new versions) and the “Alpha and Omega, the first and the last” of verse 11 and the Old Testament (also omitted in new versions).

In fact, in new versions, the identity of the speaker becomes the fallen “morning star” of Isaiah 14 who the NIV describes as “an oppressor” “a corpse trampled under-foot” because “you have destroyed your land and killed your people…made the world a desert” and would not let his captives go home…”

How unlike our precious Saviour.

White misrepresents the MS evidence for Rev. 1:11. He misinterprets both Hodges and Hoskier and the available collations and mistakenly reports, “a little more than a dozen manuscripts containing the phrase…”

Contrary to White’s error, the facts reveal that the phrase is in 57 of Hoskier’s cursives; it is in most of the Andreas line (about 80 MSS). Note P. 1, 42, 61, 104, 336, 628, 2019, 2020, 2023, 2057, and Von Soden’s Ia (181, 296, 432, 598, 743, 2026, 2031, 2033, 2054, 2055, 2056, 2060, 2064, 2067, 2068, 2069, I b2 (104, 459, 922). Andreas, Cappadocia, 614. Also including the phrase are men like Tyndale, Stephens, Beza, Elzevir, (Geneva)(Bishops)–men who had access to even more versions and manuscripts.

Readers are directed to J.A. Moorman’s When the KJV Departs from the Majority for a primer on the Andreas/048 dispute in Revelation. Many noted scholars have faulted Hodges for his preference for following: 1.) a poorly collated resource (Hoskier), 2.) the 048 line instead of the OLDER Andreas line 3.) Schmid’s recension/grammatical form theory.

Moorman adds, “There is strong internal evidence for its [Rev. 1:11] inclusion. After the Superscription (1:1-3), and Salutation (1:4-8), John, beginning at 1:9 describes his first meeting with the Glorified Christ on the island of Patmos. He hears the voice in 1:10, receives the command in 1:11, and turns to see the speaker in 1:12. In verse 11, it would be strange if the speaker did not first reveal his identity before giving John such an all-embracing commission.”

Once again, White’s lack of familiarity with the debates and collations within the field of textual criticism, has led him to make false statements. White, like Ankerberg, Hanegraaff, McMahon, and others who pretend to be an expert in all fields, becomes a “jack-of-all-trades and a master of none”.

White’s false accusations have brought him much public embarrassment. The Christian radio station in White’s very own town aired several broadcasts presenting North America’s most beloved Bible teacher, Cecil J. Carter–the title: “The Public Spanking of James White.”

“Welcome to our radio congregation: This includes a welcome to the person of Mr. James White, director of the Alpha & Omega ministries. I understand that he has promised that he will be listening…

Your great activity in promoting new versions, downgrading the KJV, and viciously attacking defenders of the Bible as, for example, Mrs. Gail Riplinger, is having a deadly effect in many lives…

Picture if you can the multitudes of men, women and children, who will arise in the day of judgment and charge you with their doom, because you have convinced them that new bible versions which are based on inconceivably corrupted manuscripts are in reality the true word of God…

My prayer to God is that he will be merciful to you and those who have been deceived by you into casting away the true Bible for these miserable counterfeits…

In your two articles and booklet attacking Gail Riplinger and her amazing book: New Age Bible Versions, you are obviously so angry that you have not hesitated to try to destroy the credibility, honesty, and reputation of a gracious Christian woman…this is to your shame, because you have gone far, far beyond the proper bounds of scholarly criticism…

These all, along with you, have opened your mouths against one of the most courageous Christian women, in a most despicable manner…Do you not think it is time someone called a halt to these extravagant charges against a gracious Christian woman…

That which you cannot find wrong, you invent with false accusations, and please do not say that you do not. A simple examination of your booklet reveals the fact…

Now you cruel, ungracious, voracious critics, shame on you!…You appear like so many terrible birds of prey lodging in the branches of the church ready to interfere with anything that might awaken the multitudes who have been deceived by your lectures and writings into forsaking the pure word of God (Matt. 13:31-32)…

Howl, you sinners and cry unto God to have mercy on your money loving souls. Yes, you are quite right, if Gail is right in her contention that the new versions rest on corrupted MSS., and she is right, no doubt about that, you will sell less of your books which are filled with quotations from those dangerously polluted versions…

Rejoice in the great mercy of God: when Job’s friends humbled themselves they had to come to the one they had accused so heartlessly in the midst of his other trials…

[T]here is a way back; take it and rejoice in restoration of your soul, and say with David the man after God’s own heart: He restoreth my soul…”

Cecil J. Carter

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

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.

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.”

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:

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.)

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.

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:

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).

“[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.

White bases his assertions about the correctness of Bible readings on the critical apparatus in his UBS 4th edition, Nestle’s 27th edition, and Hodges’ Majority Text. When the International Greek New Testament Project investigated most apparatuses, Colwell, their Director, determined that they “fail to cite witnesses accurately or completely.” Anyone who has spent time actually collating manuscripts knows this. Secure for yourself through ILL (Inter-library loan) a Facsimile of the Washington Manuscript of the Four Gospels (MSW) from The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan (Henry A. Sanders, 1912). Check Luke 5:6, 16:31, Matthew 16:2-3, 26:26, and John 6:2, for example. The witness given for Manuscript W is wrong in the Nestle Aland text. In addition, they cite only 7% of the cursive manuscripts, .02% of the lectionaries, 33% of the versions and 24% of the church fathers. If all evidence supporting the KJV readings was listed, it would not fit on the page! Von Bruggen has also proven that Aland does not collate Byzantine type manuscripts, he collates Egyptian MS.

Furthermore, The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text, which White often cites to support his errors (i.e. Rev. 1:11), makes an error in John 21:7 and Romans 16:1, carelessly omitting words which are found in the majority of manuscripts, the KJV and even new versions.

Readers (& White) naturally assume that the term ‘Majority Text’ and the German sigla “M” represent a numerical majority of a full collation of the five thousand-plus Greek New Testament documents. Nothing could be further from the truth. This so-called ‘Majority Text’ White cites is based on von Soden’s collation of 414 of the 5,000+ documents. Even these 414 were not fully collated. White must not have carefully read the preface which admits, “We were forced to rely on von Soden’s work…his presentation of the data leaves much to be desired….The present edition does not cite the testimony of the ancient versions or church fathers.”

The editors of this ‘Majority Text’ took von Soden’s work, and by comparing group variations within the manuscripts listed for each group, derived the apparent wording of the Greek witnesses for each verse. The group that von Soden called Kx is followed in most cases.

Frederik Wisse, in his The Profile Method for the Classification and Evaluation of Manuscript Evidence as Applied to the Continuous Greek Text of the Gospel of Luke: Studies and Documents (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1982) pp. 16-17, found a LARGE number of errors in von Soden’s work. His conclusion was that “von Soden’s inaccuracies cannot be tolerated for any purpose. His apparatus is useless for a reconstruction of the text of the MSS he used.” Even the editors admit, “all decisions about M p t [even split] readings are provisional and tentative.” (Hodges 1985, xxii) Kevin James in his brilliant book, The Corruption of the Word: The Failure of Modern New Testament Scholarship notes, “We do know that at times von Soden examined only 13 of the more than 300 manuscripts that make up his Kx group to determine the wording” (p. 248). (It is important to note that Hodges has not misrepresented his work, but unlearned students like White have. In Luke 1 von Soden cites 120 MSS; Wisse profiles nearly 1400. When the KJV Departs from the Majority Text by J.A. Moorman summarizes such findings. Wisse explains that, “Of the 99 checked MSS, 76 were missing one or more times when they should have been cited, or were listed when they should not have been. This breaks down to 59 MSS which were missing in von Soden’s apparatus from one to four times, and 39 which were added incorrectly from one to six times” (pp. 16,17).

In conclusion, I will say the ‘Majority Text’ White cites is based on a collation of less than 10% of the extant documents. These 10% were not fully collated and were very frequently miscited. H.C. Hoskier said of von Soden’s work, “I regret to have to condemn it strongly… the apparatus is positively honeycombed with errors.” (JTS, 15-1914, p. 307)

The book of Revelation in Hodges-Farstad’s so-called “Majority Text” relied, for the most part, on H.C. Hoskier’s collation of the book of Revelation. In spite of the fact that the eighty or so Andreas MSS are older and stylistically superior, Hodges-Farstad relied on an equal number of MS in the 046 line. To excuse this prejudicial move, they list only one-third of the Andreas line. This distortion allows the omission of vital texts such as Revelation 1:11, “I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last.”

Again, White’s reliance upon secondary, not primary, sources, leads him into error. I recommend he secure the work of Alford, Tischendorf, Souter, Merk, Vogels, Legg, Moorman, James, Charles, International Greek New Testament Project, Migne, as a start. Then secure the manuscripts listed in James’ Corruption of the Word. From there, he can begin securing facsimiles through ILL from the Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center, 1325 North College Ave., Claremont, CA 91711 U.S.A.

“One woe is past; and behold, there come two woes more hereafter.” Rev. 9:11-12

My heart goes out to this young man’s family, and to the families of the other critics, as well, some of whom are Christians. They are bringing upon themselves and their precious families, much unnecessary woe. “Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord, I will repay.” “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” God will no doubt ‘correct’ those who ‘correct’ the Bible and falsely accuse those who defend his word.

KJV antagonists love to quote White’s remarks about my brief comments about the letter “S”. I stated:

“Their Greek differs from the overwhelming majority of manuscripts by one letter, ‘s’. The former has the genitive eudokios while the latter has the nominative eudokia. Watch out for the letter “s”–sin, Satan, Sodom, Saul (had to be changed to Paul). The added ‘s’ here [emphasis added] is the hiss of the serpent.”

The new versions destroy the meaning of Luke 2:14 because of an added ‘s’ in their minority Greek text. My comments about the ‘s’ were intended as satire and fit Webster’s definition:

“trenchant wit, irony or sarcasm, used for the purpose of exposing or discrediting vice or folly”

That was the intent. HOWEVER, White is wrong to assume that the comment is devoid of truth. The realities regarding the letter ‘s’ are known to any student of linguistics. A brief history follows, if only to prove that: 1.) even simple statements in New Age Bible Versions were not made without years of study behind them. 2.) Mr. White’s background in most of the subjects under discussion is shallow, at best.

Is the letter ‘s’ (and some words using it) connected with ‘the hiss of the serpent’? (Remember, I merely said, “Watch out for ‘s’…here it is the hiss of the serpent.” White jumps over the word ‘here’ and pretends I’m saying that all “s” words are bad. White comments, “Such arguments would lead us to abandon such terms as salvation.” He and hostile radio hosts take my satirical jab and pretend I actually think all “s” words are bad. They must have a very weak case to employ so vacuous a ploy. My “watch out,” though intended satirically, has a linguistic basis. Written language began as ideography; each picture conveyed an idea. From this logography developed in which signs were abstracted from pictures to represent a word. (Chinese is the only current alphabet that still uses such a system.) Stephen’s classic Runic Monuments of Scandanavia and England (Copenhagen, 1868, Vol. 1) is only one of scores of books which show that the letter ‘s’ developed from a logography of a serpent. When the syllabic system replaced the logographic, the sign that stood for one word could not only be used for that word, but also phonetically similar words. (Rebus writing, for example, replaces an abstract picture of a serpent for the ‘s’ sound.)

Every dictionary and reference book (look up ‘s’ in Webster’s) calls ‘s’ “the hissing sound.” The sound phonetically associated with the serpent shaped pictograph was the sound made by the serpent–hiss. (pronounce ‘s’ as “hiss”) Even Webster’s “Guide to Pronunciation” identifies ‘s’ “as in hiss,” on p. vii. ‘S’ is the hissing sound in French, German, and most other European languages.

The Semite (Shem) and Phoenician ‘S’ first appeared as a reclining serpent. All alphabets from this fertile crescent area do likewise. (A Hebrew word for ‘serpent’ tanneen even means “to stretch out.” Another Hebrew word for serpent tsiph-ohnee means ‘a hissing serpent’. It is from the root ‘to hiss’.) The Hebrew, Samaritan, Arabic and Syriac ‘S’ is called “Sin”. This fact and sample letters which all appear as serpents can be seen in Webster’s (1828) The American Dictionary of the English Language. The Syrian ‘skin or sin’ can be seen to uncoil as it changes positions in a word from final, medial, and initial. Even the Ethiopic sa, su, sy, look like a snake pictogram. (Even today, the handsign for the deaf for ‘a snake’ mimics the Arabic final ‘sin’ letter.)

The Greeks and Romans stood the “S” erectly, as we see it now. This erect serpent (standing next to a tree a la Gen. 3) pervaded the art of this period. Even the technical term in phonics for the ‘hissing sound’ is sybilation, coming from the occult Sybils who spoke then as New Age channelers do today. In the Greek alphabet, the second letter for the lower-case s, sigma, is used only as the terminal letter of a word. This peculiar form of ‘S’, identical to a serpent pictogram, is used for the Greek number 6. It is called stigma, and means ‘a mark’ from the root ‘to prick’. (Does this not point to Rev. 13 and 14 and its mark of 666.) Stigma (prick) and charagma (sharpen to a point), both translated ‘mark’ in the KJV, point to the new hypodermically inserted identification microchip, inserted “in” the hand or forehead (not “on” as new versions say!). Incidentally, Xi, which represents 60, is identified as “the symbol of the serpent” in Greek, by one of this century’s greatest scholars, E.W. Bullinger. His classic book Number in Scripture shares my “Watch out” view of the “S”. [see pp. 49, 150, 156, 282, 283, et al.]

“But 666 was the secret symbol of the ancient pagan mysteries connected with the worship of the Devil…The great secret symbol consisted of three letters SSS, because the letter S in the Greek alphabet was the symbol for the figure 6.”

The letter ‘S’ had such negative roots and associations that it has been suggested the letter “f” was used in its place. Bibles proceeding from the KJV 1611 often used “f” for “s”. Matthew Carrey was the first to change “f” to ‘s’. Even in chemistry, the letter ‘s’ is the symbol for sulfur. (Bible students know sulfur is “brimstone,” the final home of those who take the mark (Rev. 19:20) and of the serpent (Rev. 20:10). Bullinger comments,

“It is today the secret connecting link between those ancient mysteries and their modern revival in Spiritism, Theosophy, etc. The efforts of the great enemy are now directed towards uniting all into one great whole…The letter is becoming familiar to us now…”

Was my aside, “Watch out”, ludicrous? I have gone to lengths to prove that even the sarcasm in New Age Bible Versions is wiser than White.

White claims “the deity of Christ” is undermined in the KJV in Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1. He must be unaware of the following:

Titus 2:13

2 Peter 1:1

White includes a lengthy quote from NKJV Old Testament editor James Price to prove that the KJV is New Age too. For example, Price asserts that the KJV rendering “found mules” instead of “found water” is “a New Age attack…”

Gen. 36:24: The new version’s translation of yemin as ‘hot springs’ or ‘found water’ is based on Jerome’s Latin Vulgate interpretation (see Gesenius, “Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon,” p. 351). One commentator notes, “Hebrew words have as many as three meanings with the same letters, and as many as ten meanings when traced back to the roots.” Calvin, Luther, and Clarke side with the KJV rendering. Price’s pretense that “mules” promote the New Age agenda is funny.

I Sam. 2:25: This is a gem! Price’s pretense is unconscionable. He faults the KJV for translating elohim as ‘judges’ here, yet he translated elohim as ‘judges’ in his NKJV in Ex. 21:6, 22:8, 22:9a, and 22:9b! Using Price’s logic, we must ask of his NKJV, “Do you suppose this is a New Age denial that God will judge sinners?” His dissemblance to fool readers that elohim always means ‘God’ is deceitful at best. All versions variously translate this word dozens of ways. The NIV uses 40 different words to translate elohim such as, “goddesses, angels, idols, and heavenly beings.” Even Strong notes that it is “occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates…judges.”

The rest of Price’s verse samples are equally devoid of accuracy, content, meaning, or relevance to any ‘New Age’ implications. The weak and too often deceitful case of new version advocates gives added proof of the veracity of the King James Version.

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.

   

  “The NIV and NASB do not have identical words because each is copywritten. Space permits only one example, often that of the NASB, but the heresy occurs in other versions as well, worded in a slightly different way.”

   

  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.

“[E]very idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account in the day of judgment.” Matt. 12:36-37

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.”

“God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?” Acts 23:3

“Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.” Luke 9:55

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.

“Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.“

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:

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

“Woe unto you, scribes…Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel…Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness. Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. Woe unto you, scribes…” Matt. 23:23-29

Oh how God must wish such Pharisees would strain out the bats in their new versions, as energetically as they try to strain at my gnats.

In a herculean effort to find something wrong with a book that finds SO MUCH truly wrong with his own new versions, White has resorted to inflating typographical and proofreading errors in the early printings. He describes such human error as “grossly dishonest.” Pickpockets tend to think everyone who bumps into them is trying to pick their pocket. Psychologists call this projection. Only someone who lied themselves would assume that simple transcriptural errors, common in any written material (including the critics’), were intentional lies.

When White’s NIV differs from the KJV, he points out that scribes do make human errors in copying text.

“The reason for the difference has nothing to do with conspiracies. It has to do with copying Greek by hand and the errors we make when we do this. Quite simply, the phrase was dropped from the manuscripts of the Byzantine textual tradition because of something known as “homoiteleuton” i.e. “similar endings”…when looking back at the original, skipped to the next occurrence…NO GREAT CONSPIRACIES, JUST HUMAN ERROR.” (emphasis mine)

Those, like White, can recognize the possibility of transcriptural error by scribes as quite human and devoid of evil motives. HOWEVER, White and the critics call this SAME type of error “grossly dishonest,” when committed by those with whom they do not agree. Jesus called this “HYPOCRISY”. He identified hypocrisy as a characteristic of the scribes and Pharisees.

White noted two “similar ending” proofreading errors (already fixed in the most recent printing). Regarding p. 289 (John 18:36) he said,

“Obviously, you looked at the beginning of the verse where NASB has “My kingdom is not of this world.”

When ‘scribes’ do this, they commit “human error.” When KJV advocates do this, they are perceived to be “grossly dishonest.”

In a desperate attempt to prove error, White points to the misplacement of one quotation mark! (p. 261 perfect.” should be perfect. The ” belong after side.) If he had read carefully, he would have found the same quoted material on page 543 with both the correct and incorrect punctuation, making it crystal clear that the error was accidental. Since NONE of the handful of proofing errors in the book (all corrected by now) affects or alters ANY points being made, it should be clear to any honest person (pickpockets excluded) that they do not reflect a “dishonest” heart but merely my feeble eyesight. Only God knows if White’s accusations are in reality a reflection and ‘projection’ of his own way of doing things.

White says that if God were behind my book, it would have no typos. Even the KJV itself had scores and scores in its first printing. The NIV has made many, many changes in each subsequent printing; most are very important doctrinally. Note just a few of the tons of changes in the NIV. These are not typographical changes, but doctrinal changes. The LORD and the Son are now GONE.

We have demonstrated that White not only misrepresents New Age Bible Versions, but gives his reader no solid evidence on which to base their trust in new versions. With no hard data and only lying statements to feed his reader, he MUST resort to fierce investives to emotionally arouse his reader. Consequently, EVERY PAGE on which he discusses New Age Bible Versions (approx. 20 pages), he sandwiches his ‘bologna’ with inflamed rhetoric using the following libelous words about 40 times: “purposeful distortion,” “simple dishonesty,” “false statement,” “no interest in being…honest,” “less than honest,” “white lie,” “fudge,” “false impression,” “falsification of citations,” “gross misrepresentation,” “honesty and integrity,” “untrue,” “disregard for…honest argument,” “sacrifice truth,” “gross misuse,” “untrue,” and “misrepresentation.” The purpose and goal behind the constant repetition of such words is evident.

The critics cannot defend their new versions nor deal with all 700 pages of documentation and proof in New Age Bible Versions. So they must instill in their followers a general distrust for the character and “honesty” of the author. This is done so that when evidence is presented that they cannot refute, they can simply cloud the whole issue with ‘feelings’ that ‘maybe that fact isn’t true’ because it is presented by a “less than honest” person. New version advocates have such a weak case; New Age Bible Versions documents such a strong case. Any thing based on a false premise will eventually have to resort to lies to defend itself. We have seen this tactic used by the critics throughout Blind Guides.

Christ’s trip to the cross to rescue lost sheep left him looking horrific. They were trying to stop him all along the way. By the time he reached the cross, his visage was marred more than any man. No doubt when David fought the lion and the bear, to rescue one little lamb, he was torn and ripped upon in the fight. Anyone who sets out to rescue babes in Christ from the “roaring lion” will be set upon in word and deed–hoping to keep him from the rescue operation.

The KJV translators said in their ‘To The Readers’:

“So hard is it to please all, even when we please God best…whoever attempts anything for the public (specially if it pertains to religion, and to the opening and clarifying of the word of God) the same acts himself upon a stage to be frowned at by every evil eye, yea, he casts himself headlong upon spikes to be gored by every sharp tongue.”

“Many false witnesses came” (Matt. 26:60) against Jesus. The same religious leaders set up “false witnesses” (Acts 6:13) against Stephen. “[I]n the last days…men shall be…false accusers.” (2 Tim. 3:3)

“Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God. For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds.” Heb. 12:2-3

Those sharp tongues who have always gored at the word of God, pierced the suffering Saviour as well.

The manuscripts, versions, and principles of ‘textual criticism’ recommended by the critics tell Christians to pierce the written word defacing the Lord Jesus Christ–even his name.

The following list was taken from Salliby’s If the Foundations Be Destroyed. Moorman’s Early Manuscripts and the Authorized Version lists many more.

“[H]e that regardeth the clouds shall not reap.” Eccl. 11:4

Another David whose spiritual adulteries “help the ungodly” (II Chron. 19:2 and II Sam. 12:14) is David Cloud. Like a thundercloud, his critique of the book is more noise than substance — simply another nebulous attempt to obscure the light. His torrential downpour of rhetoric, when examined, is as vaporous as a fog cloud. The KJV’s Dedication, written by the translators, identifies the two types of men who hurl “bitter censures and uncharitable imputations.”

“So that if, on the one side, we shall be traduced by Popish persons at home or abroad who therefore will malign us, because we are poor instruments to make God’s holy truth to be yet more and more knowledge unto the people, whom they desire still to keep in ignorance and darkness,”

“[O]r if, on the other side, we shall be maligned by self-conceited brethren, who run their own ways, and give liking unto nothing but what is framed by themselves, and hammered on their own anvil…”

Cloud has hammered a framed picture of himself — his final authority — above the altar of his opinion, his newsletter.

Cloud, like King Saul, has warred against “thousands” of Christ’s foes, but God used the little shepherd to kill the giant and go on to thwart “ten thousands” (1 Sam. 18:7). Driven by envy, “Saul sought to smite him” “without a cause” (1 Sam. 19:10).

God commanded Saul to “utterly destroy” the enemy of God “and fight against them until they be utterly consumed” (1 Sam. 15:18). Saul was unwilling to be a part of such “extremism”, as Cloud calls it (p. 12). Saul thought certainly God could use “the best of” it “and all that was good and would not utterly destroy them: but everything that was vile and refuse, that they destroyed utterly” (I Sam. 15:9).

Cloud confessed in a personal letter to me (Letter dated June 12, 1994, p. 6) that in India he had used, “a Westcott-Hort Bible; it was a modern version; yet God used the truth in that Bible….” Like Saul, Cloud thought he could use the “good” in it and discard the vile.

Neither Saul’s “stature” (I Sam. 16:7), nor Cloud’s boasting (Rom. 1:30) about his “respected” stature (p. 2), can compensate for their lack of childlike obedience. When Saul “wast little in thine own sight” (I Sam. 15:17), he “cut off those that have familiar spirits.” However, his envy of David found him finally consorting with such spirits (I Sam. 28:9). Cloud too is now consorting with the spirit of compromise; a spirit he had “cut off” earlier.

He boasted to me that his “Westcott-Hort Bible” was used “to build a solid, self-governing, self-supporting, self-propagating New Testament church” (p. 6). Yet in his earlier days he said “this very Bible has been one of the root causes for the great weakness and confusion which exists among many Nepali churches to this hour” (Cloud, Is the English Language Provincial?, p. 22). Was the church it built “solid” or weak? The terms are contradictory and mutually exclusive.

1  

Cloud begins his critique shadow-boxing with his own imagination.

“It would appear from the quote that Palmer is questioning the deity of Christ…Palmer does believe that Jesus Christ is God and Mrs. Riplinger slanders him…”

Cloud joins those few careless readers who mistake their own poor reading comprehension skills for error on the part of the material they are reading. Cloud’s claim that “Riplinger slanders him” is preposterous; Cloud was forced to say “It would appear…” because the book doesn’t “say” what Cloud is surmising. He must lie about the book to criticize it. Cloud IGNORES the majority of the sentence, “Few clear and decisive texts” and only sees the “Jesus is God” portion. As stated in the book — it is heretical to believe that the Bible only has a few TEXTS relating to Christ’s deity. Even John said the reason the New Testament was written was to show who Jesus Christ is.

“But these are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God…” John 20:31

Palmer’s NIV omits many of these texts and, as a consequence, he can find only a few. (“Christ” is omitted 43 times; “Son of God” is also omitted many times.)

Furthermore, Cloud used this quote to document alleged “misquotations” in the book. The typographical error (substituting “say” for “that declare”) does not affect the meaning of the sentence. BUT Cloud’s citation of the quote is a MISQUOTATION that does affect the meaning. Cloud says,

Is Cloud trying to misrepresent Palmer? Does Cloud think John is God? Of course not — all writers, proofreaders, and typesetters are subject to error. But to turn Cloud’s reaction back on himself I would have to blather: “But it is also wrong to misquote him and to have him say something that he does not say, particularly when someone puts heresy in his mouth that he does not believe” (Cloud, p. 4).

I put no heresy in Palmer’s mouth. Cloud, however, did. Touché.

Cloud has four such transcriptional errors in his 13 page critique. At that rate, if he had written a 700 page book, like New Age Bible Versions, he would have 220 pages with errors — one error every three pages. Would this not fulfill his criterion for “frequent error”?

2  

Cloud’s second venture into the ring finds him sparring, “as one that beateth the air” (I Cor. 9:27). He tries to pretend the NIV and its editors do not support “non-literal translations in general.” To do this he will have to ignore the 6,149 instances in which the NIV completely ignores the Hebrew or Greek word and instead introduces an interpolation. (Webster’s: “To alter or corrupt, as a text, by inserting new or foreign matter.”) Scholars are very aware of this; the Harvard Theological Review’s article, “The New International Version and the Prologue of John” by E.L. Miller (July-October 1979: 310) criticizes the NIV, exactly as I do, for its “interpretational intrusions.”

An ENTIRE chapter was included in The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation, to defend the NIV’s use of non-literal translation. Its author Herbert Wolf entitled it, “When Literal Is Not Accurate.” He admits that “a number of observers have criticized the less literal approach of the NIV (p. 128). New Age Bible Versions is not alone.

Wolf admits that “at times the NIV translators have been guilty of reading something into the text….” However he gives as many examples as can fit in his 10 page chapter, of the THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS of good instances (in his opinion) in which the editor’s ideas are substituted for what the text says. (For a detailed list see D.A. Waite’s The New International Version: Weighed in the Balance.)

Cloud quotes a small portion of Wolf’s article, leading his reader to believe that Wolf only supports non-literal translation in “the book of Proverbs” in certain instances. However Wolf’s ENTIRE CHAPTER was written to defend non-literal translations all over the Bible, in instance after instance — 6,000 PLUS.

Cloud defends Wolf’s substitution of the word “prosperity” for the Hebrew word for “righteousness.” Cloud quotes Wolf as saying “In [Proverbs] 8:18 tsedaqah [righteousness] is linked with riches…”

BUT Wolf and his NIV OMIT THE LINK — “RIGHTEOUSNESS” IS COMPLETELY OMITTED HERE IN THE NIV and Wolf applauds this. Cloud says, “He is correct in what he said.”

The Hebrew word occurring 3 times in these texts is tsedaqah. The NIV correctly translates it in the 4th word in verse 21. It means RIGHTEOUSNESS all through the entire Bible and would mean righteousness to any Hebrew to whom it was spoken.

Webster’s synonym for “righteousness” is HOLY; its synonym for prosperity is LUCKY. Cloud hopes he’s LUCKY and none of his readers actually look up Wolf’s article or the verses under discussion. He is certainly not RIGHTEOUS in saying, “it is wrong to put words in a man’s mouth that he has not said.” He makes this lying assertion — then gives no proof that New Age Bible Versions does this. Cloud will be LUCKY if God doesn’t strike him dead. Lying Christians have met this fate before (Acts 5:5,10).

I must commend those, like Cloud, who are not aware that the ‘new’ Christianity has substituted the prosperity gospel for holiness and righteousness. They must not own a TV.

3  

But I will give an ‘instant replay’ of this gospel for those who have no TV’s. Cloud says (p. 5),

“New Versions [plural] do not support such a reading. Only one New Version [singular] I could find has the reading Mrs. Riplinger cites and that is the NASB…”

Au contraire. Note just a few of the following:

There are varying degrees of distortion in the new versions but the KJV reading gives NO room for misinterpretation. How different these are from the KJV’s:

“But godliness with contentment is great gain.” (I Tim. 6:6)

The KJV says that godliness with contentment is GAIN. The RSV, NASB, JB and NEB move the prepositional phrase, relating to contentment, to the end of the sentence, with “contentment” no longer a modifier and qualifier of godliness.

4  

Riplinger says, “NIV editor Larry Walker admits that ‘[S]ome Bible characters appear to have disappeared from the text.’ Is it any wonder since Westcott said, ‘David is not a chronological person.’ This is an amazingly erroneous connection.

Being an Old Testament scholar, Walker was very aware that the two main O.T. characters, Jehovah and Lucifer, have both been completely omitted in new versions. Pages 48-50 of New Age Bible Versions documents that Lucifer has been omitted because most scholars believe he is “not a chronological person”! New versions cast doubt on the historical accuracy of people and events traditionally held.

New versions, in II Sam. 21:19, deny that David killed Goliath. They read instead, “Elhanan the son of Jaareoregin, a Bethlehemite killed Goliath.” The NIV: Weighed in the Balance lists over 37 times in I and II Samuel and I and II Chronicles where the NIV ignores the Hebrew text and omits the mention of David.

Confusion abounds in the NIV as Job becomes Jashub in Gen. 46:13 and Manasseh becomes Moses in Judges 18:30. The work just cited lists over 100 instances in which the names of 50 different Bible characters have been replaced by “he” or “she”. The pronoun’s antecedent then becomes a guessing game. Who is talking in the NIV in I Sam. 26:10? Is it David or Abishai?

The rude way these vandals handle their ‘versions’ stands in sharp contrast to the precise and many faceted sublimity of God’s true word. For example, the NIV omits Noah’s name twice. The name Noah actually occurs 10 times in the KJV between Gen. 5:29 and 6:13. Each occurrence parallels exactly the meaning of that number in the scriptures. (See accompanying chart.)

For instance, 7 is the number of perfection. Therefore, the seventh time Noah’s name is mentioned the Hebrew text and KJV read, “Noah was a just man and perfect.” The NIV’s omission of instance 4 and 8 crushes God’s magnificent mathematical microscope. Their mishandling is merely one of the thousands upon thousands of times where they impose their clouded vision upon their readers.

5  

1

Under Cloud’s first section entitled “Misquoting…,” Cloud misquotes Edwin Palmer as saying “John” is “God”. Now in Cloud’s next section entitled “Errors of Fact,” Cloud errs saying Pages 127 & 128 of The Making of a Contemporary Translation quote Larry Walker discussing the Ugaritic. In fact, the quote comes from pages 95 and 96 of the work cited. Is Cloud guilty of the “carelessness” (p. 3) he attributes to me but cannot document?

The MAJORITY of copies of New Age Bible Versions in print do not read as Cloud quotes: “a dissenting scholar on the New Greek N.T. committee” (p. 59). This was corrected over a year ago (Nov. 1993 printing).

2

“I have never seen any documentation to prove…new versions promote Catholic theology in hundreds and hundreds of instances.”

New Age Bible Versions cites hundreds and hundreds of examples. Between pages 106 and 257, there are 118 specific instances. Over one hundred more are given between pages 259 and 372 (i.e., a lesser Jesus, purgatory, etc.). Finally, their historic antisemitism and “Kingdom Now” sentiments are evidenced in 30 verses between pages 605 and 612.

Having been a Catholic for twenty-six years — before my salvation — I can recognize the all too familiar face of the Roman church as it looks back at me on the pages of the new versions.

If the NIV, Living Bible, Good News Bible and others did not represent Catholic theology, why would they be available in Catholic Editions with an official imprimatur. The Authorized King James Version has never been available with a Catholic imprimatur.

How is Cloud’s lack of familiarity with the day-to-day teachings of a Catholic parish and his shallowness of research in that area (not to mention the hundreds of examples given in New Age Bible Versions), an “Error of Fact” on my part?

Cloud’s introductory phrase, “I have never seen” (p. 6), echoed on page 3, “I do not see,” and again on page 5, “only one…I could find,” expresses Cloud’s clouded vision. Jesus described the Laodicean churchmen as “blind” (Rev. 3:17). He diagnosed the “blind leaders” of Matt. 15:14. In their eye was a lumber yard. Their necks and minds and hearts were hard.

Today’s blind leaders like Cloud, have a new beam in their eye — the hypnotic beam of light from their TV or computer screen. Cloud’s cohorts confess they cannot wean him from his screen long enough to read The Life & Letters of B.F. Westcott. Cloud’s “I haven’t seen” [on my color screen] is characteristic of this tunnel vision age.

3

Walker’s article is entitled “How the NIV Made Use of New Light on the Hebrew Text.” Cloud quotes Walker’s introductory page, in an attempt to convince his reader that the NIV translators don’t step out on their wives very often. (viz. depart from the Hebrew O.T. text). Most readers miss a key word on Walker’s introductory page. He said, “IF the present understanding of the text made good sense.” One need only compare the KJV and NIV Psalms to conclude that the NIV translators have little spiritual “good sense”.

Walker’s 11 page article includes 8 pages of examples of instances when the NIV translators depart from the traditional Hebrew text to follow the Ugaritic. Walker whole-heartedly agrees with their decision to do so. Those who visit harlots, do so only occasionally, but such whoremongering puts the faithful bride in great jeopardy. The Hebrews, even as unbelievers, would never alter one word of the holy scriptures entrusted to them.

4

Cloud seems unaware that since both the NIV and NASB are both copywritten, they cannot legally use the same words. Obviously then, charts with the heading “NIV, NASB et al.” cite only one or the other rendering. The heresy occurs in both and other versions too, all using a slightly different word.

For over a year, printings of New Age Bible Versions have addressed this very issue on the copyright page so that readers will be aware of this before they proceed.

The NIV used the term “boast” in II Cor. 1:12 and 1:14, while the NASB used “proud.” These words both promote the ungodly ‘self-esteem’ movement seen in the church today. Neither word choice comes close to the KJV’s “rejoice”.

5

“One would think that most modern versions have this change, but in fact, it is ONLY the NASB, which adds the words in question.”

The ‘words in question’ are not only added in the NASB. The Message and The Phillips’ Modern English Translation add “just,” like the NASB. The CEV adds “not please only ourselves.” The Everyday Bible says “not please only ourselves.”

Cloud’s “One would think that most modern versions have this” cries loudly of his inability to read beyond the high school level. Any dictionary will inform its reader that et al. means “and others.” If I had meant “most,” I would use etc., meaning “and the rest” or et ubique or et passim meaning “everywhere.” If Cloud is going to present himself as a scholar or an expert on Bible translation, he needs to visit a garage sale and 1) buy a Webster’s Dictionary and 2) get a collection of various Bible translations. He is an embarrassment to his followers.

6

7

The reading shown for Col. 2:19 (“head”) is found in the NASB, NRSV, CEV, NAB, JV, TEV, Phillips, and Everyday Bible. The NIV also errs here in the subject under discussion, viz. the deity of Christ. It ignores the Greek text, introducing the phrase “causes it,” thereby fracturing the connection and inter-identity of the “Head” (Christ) and “God.” In addition, the NIV’s intrusion of “He has lost connection with” (v. 19) and substitution of “Since” for “If” (v. 20), paint a very different theological picture.

The NIV does not read as the KJV or Greek (“pleased God”) in Gal. 1:15. It ignores the Greek word order, placed there by God for emphasis, and as stated in New Age Bible Versions “jig-sawed around” the text.

8

9 & 10

11

“New Versions” such as The Message and The Living Bible omit entirely the crucial words “in him” in II Cor. 5:21. The chart on page 188, to which Cloud refers, was purposely not titled NIV, NASB et al, since these two particular versions retain these words. Yet the dust Cloud raises, as he stomps his feet, blinds him as he misreads the chart’s title.

The NIV, NRSV, CEV, AMP, TEV, JB, NEB, RSV, and Phillips DO NOT read “God in him” as the Greek text (or the KJV) do. Instead, they scramble the word order, shifting “in him” to another part of the sentence. In doing this, they are showing their insensitivity to Paul’s characteristic usage of this praseology in the very book under discussion, II Corinthians (II Cor. 1:20, II Cor. 12:19), and in the very immediate context, II Cor. 5:19. This usage is seen again in Gal. 3:17 and Phil. 3:14.

(The new versions often employ the device of retaining the words, yet scrambling their order. Phrases cease to modify the intended object and important theological connections are lost.)

Example:

David went home himself and left the spoon in the bowl.
David went in the bowl himself and left the spoon home.
(All of the same words are there, yet the meaning is changed.)

In II Cor. 5:21, the NIV further demolishes the congruence created by the phrases, “hath made…(v. 21a) and “might be made” (v. 21b). It substitutes the mishmesh “made” (v. 21a) and “might become” (v. 21b). Of course, such meat (Heb. 5:12-14) might choke a yearling like Cloud who is still trying to figure out how to get the milk out of the bowl.

12

Cloud affirms, “Every modern version I checked, condemns asceticism” in Col. 2:23. The Bible is not talking about asceticism here. (Webster defines asceticism as “self-torture.”) Not only do new versions introduce asceticism here; they all say it has the “appearance of wisdom.” “Harsh treatment of the body” (NIV) or “severe treatment of the body” (NASB, TEV, NRSV, JB) appear to be good things according to new versions.

The KJV instead says that “neglecting the body” (viz. fasting, not adorning it) seems wise (which it is). IF it flows as a natural “increase” in godliness from a relationship with Christ, not as a result of “will” power or the “fleshly mind” following the “commandments and doctrines of men.”

The Bible always defines its own words within the context. The term “neglecting the body” is defined immediately after it appears as not “satisfying” the fleshly desires. New versions ignore the Bible’s own definition of “neglecting” and create their own. All new versions (The Message even uses the word ascetic!) say there is the “appearance of wisdom” in actually harming oneself. Our bodies are the temples of the Holy Ghost; to harm them would never even “seem” wise. It does seem wise to neglect satisfying fleshly desires. (The NRSV even introduces witchcraft’s “elemental spirits” into these verses. All new versions further promote ascetic ‘visions’ by changing “things which he hath NOT seen” to “what he HAS seen” (v. 18).

13

Cloud does not think it is important that the NIV and other new versions omit an entire verse of the Bible–Mark 11:26–and also omit most of Matt. 5:44.

Cloud claims that new versions teach Christians “to bless, do good to and forgive his enemies.” In fact, the NIV and all new versions follow the Jehovah Witness New World Translation in their handling of Mark 11:26, Matt. 5:44, Luke 6:27-28 and Matt. 6:15 — they OMIT HALF of the references, thereby disqualifying themselves from being called Bibles. The few corrupt MS they follow suffer from homoeoteleuton not harmonization in Mark 11:26. The KJV reading in Matt. 5:44 is clearly the reading seen throughout history, as evidenced by John Burgon in Unholy Hands on the Bible. (New versions ENTIRELY omit the command to “pray for those which despitefully use you.”)

Cloud is not concerned about warning parents of the profanity in some new versions. Good News for Modern Man renders I Sam. 20:30, “You son of a bitch” — as did the Living Bible in earlier editions. It was changed to “you fool” in later editions of the Living Bible. Due to pressure, the Living Bible may have removed “go to hell” (John 9:34) and “you…bastard” (Acts 8:20); however the publisher has not notified parents or recalled the millions of editions still in the hands of children.

The charts on pages 17-22 are immediately preceded by the comment, “Documentation follows in this book.” The chart Cloud mentions on p. 22 is discussed in detail on pp. 161, 173, and 211. Evidently Cloud cruised past the introductory sentence and following documentation pages. Cloud gravely misrepresents the book. The errors he perceives are his own, the fault of careless reading.

1

One reviewer of Cloud’s article wrote regarding his comments on this point,

“Where on pages 90-91 does she even use the word “Calvinism”? Nowhere. You, sir, endanger your own integrity and reliability by deliberately broaching Calvinism and attempting to “drive home” intents not hers. Planting ideas is not nice either.”

Contrary to Cloud’s misrepresentation, the word “Calvinism” or the philosophies of John Calvin do not appear anywhere even remotely nearby. The quote under discussion represents the NIV’s chief, Edwin Palmer’s, move away from the moderate Calvinism of Spurgeon (and the KJV translators), out on to a cliff called supralapsarianism, and headlong down into a chasm to be met by Siddhartha and The Three Fates.

A scriptural parallel may be helpful here. In Matt. 16:23 Jesus made a “connection” between Peter, a believer, and Satan, a non-believer; at the point under discussion, Peter and Satan were in agreement. My book pointed out the point at which Palmer agrees with Blavatsky and Manson (viz. the One “controls the thoughts” of men; sin and evil are part of the “Plan” of God). The critic’s elevation of man beyond the critical eye of discernment is not biblical. Since when are professed Christians above having their beliefs scrutinized? Are the NIV translators more ‘sanctified’ than Peter?

If you are a ‘good’ person, but you steal something, does that goodness negate the fact that stealing is wrong? If you are caught, will it not put you in the very same jail with others who may steal and murder?

I quote Palmer and Blavatsky from primary sources proving their parallel thinking at this point. I then demonstrate that this thinking has infiltrated the NIV. Cloud, on the other hand, gives no quotes from Calvin, Spurgeon, or any KJV translators, nor does he cite proof that such thinking has affected the KJV. Slovenly scholarship, faulty logic and careless reading skills characterize all of Cloud’s article.

2

The New Age leanings of new versions are not without notice in occult circles. Henry Travers Edge, a personal pupil of Luciferian (A.K.A. Theosophist) Mme. Blavatsky, wrote in his book, Esoteric Keys to the Christian Scriptures & The Univesal Mystery Language of Math & Symbol:

“[T]he learned body of divines and scholars [Westcott, Hort, et al.] who drew up the ‘Revised Version’ of 1881 have not endorsed these earlier translations [KJV]. Following the actual Greek text, they have produced a rendering much more in accord with the view a Theosophist takes of the matter” (p. 38).

Cloud may not recognize esoteric “Language”, but the esoterics do! The KJV rendering of Acts 22:6-11, with its “man” (v. 7) instead of Mollencott’s gender inclusive “One,” is only one example.

“If it was good enough for Paul, it’s good enough for you, huh?” quips KJV critics. Could be true! The retelling of Acts 9 by Paul in Acts 22 (in any version) follows the KJV rendition of Acts 9. It includes Paul’s salvation (“What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me) which is omitted in the NIV, NASB and others. I guess Paul picked the KJV, Henry Travers Edge picked the new version, and Cloud straddles the pick-it fence.

3

A reader of New Age Bible Versions wrote to Pastor Cole asking about the book’s quote which referred to his inability to identify a verse which forbids premarital sex. The following answer was sent:

“Look up the word ‘Fornication’ in a concordance. You will see such verses as Gal. 5:19, Eph. 5:5, Col. 3:5, I Thess. 4:3, etc. Hope this is helpful — ” C.D. Cole

He finally had to admit that only the KJV’s “fornication” forbids premarital sex. The NASB term, “immorality,” or the NIV substitute “sexual immorality” DO NOT “condemn premarital sex,” according to Webster’s Dictionary, Latin etymology, or any ‘engaged’ college student who is ‘really’ in love and plans to be married ‘soon’. Ask one. Ten years as a Christian professor at a secular university, counseling young single women, brought a realistic understanding of how young people interpret the NIV’s phrase “sexual immorality.” Believe me, total abstinence is NOT their definition of sexual morality, nor is it Webster’s.

4

The word of God is likened to a light and a mirror, whereby we can see ourselves clearly (Ex. 38:18, Jas. 1:23, Ps. 119:104). It only takes a few cracks to render a mirror useless. Each crack brings the image further and further from reality.

“Thy word is a lamp unto me feet and a light unto my path.” Ps. 119:104

The word of God is a steady light. All false versions have flashes of light but not consistent enough to keep the sojourner on the right path. Their flicker and sparkle may catch the eye, but do not linger long and steady enough to warm the heart, illuminate deep down into the soul or fully reveal “the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.” Marvelous light (I Peter 2:9) or flickering sparks (Is. 50:10,11) — the choice is yours.

Cloud contends the NIV teaches that man is lost and can only be saved through Jesus Christ. Why then do they completely omit the verse which best summarizes this?

John 3:17 expresses similar thoughts and is included in the NIV and KJV. In summary, the NIV omits 2 out of 4 of the verses which most succinctly state Cloud’s point. Let’s look at the manuscript evidence for those 2 omissions. Matt. 18:11 is in every known uncial except 3 corrupt ones and every known cursive except 3. It is vouched for by the Old Latin, the Vulgate, the Peschitto, Cureton’s and the Philoxenian Syriac, by the Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Georgian, and Slavonic versions. Origen, Chrysostom, Tertullian, Ambrose, Hilary, Jerome, Damasus, and Augustine quote it. The entire Greek Orthodox church has always read it near Pentecost.

Luke 9:55,56 has similar attestation from the mauscripts, versions, and fathers from the second century downwards, as Tischendorf admits (see Unholy Hands, p. D-28).

New Age Bible Versions documents scores of other new version verses which omit man’s need for salvation, as well as omitting the Saviour himself. “Diminish not a word,” warned God in Jer. 26:2. God is not redundant.

In the O.T. there were six cities of refuge; God required that the location of each be no more than ONE day’s travel. They were a picture of God’s word and a foreshadowing of Christ, to whom we have “fled for refuge” (Heb. 6:18- 20). New versions extend the reader’s search beyond God’s intended one day. Readers of new versions must travel much farther in their reading journey to reach refuge. We consequently see many weary new version travelers today, stopping at the false rest spot of psychology and heeding false ‘signs’ along the way.

5

Internationally known astrophysicist Gerardus D. Bouw, Ph.D, was the first scholar to document evidence that huge clusters of galaxies rotate. He writes regarding the book New Age Bible Versions,

“A monumental piece of research work. I’ve sent copies to over a dozen skeptics and none have come up with any substantial arguments against Riplinger’s work.”

Bouw’s background makes him familiar with algebra, apriori probability and symbolic logic. Cloud’s comment that formulas like the one on p. 149 can be used to prove “anything” clearly reveals that ‘variables,’ ‘aggregation signs’, and ‘binomials’ were not part of the vocabulary in his Bible school curriculum.

Although algebra was discovered by Ahmes (1700 B.C.), the use of letters to represent things was not introduced until Diophantus (AD 200). In the 1500s its value as a symbolic language attracted many scholars. In this century, logicians began using symbols instead of words to stand for logical units. This field of symbolic logic allows deductive logic to become a purely mechanical process like mathematics.

Probability, in statistics, is the measurement of the likelihood of events in numerical terms. A priori probability would suggest that the likelihood of the formula on page 149 working out as it does is infinitely small. The critical factor is the extremely limiting givens (viz. NIV, NASV, AV: the subject of the book). A solution generated from an unlimited alphabet soup of variables, like that used in the formula in Cornerstone Magazine (Vol. 23, Issue 104), is meaningless.

The acrostic technique was used by God himself in the Bible. The book of Lamentations uses it extensively; note that the sentences begin with the 22 successive letters of the Hebrew alphabet.

The mathematical formulas and models in Dr. Bouw’s recent book and articles for The Biblical Astronomer lead me to trust his opinion regarding page 149. Perhaps some would rather trust Cloud’s calculations for the next moon shot. Clouds have always been a deterrent to astronomers and those hoping to catch a glimpse of the heavenly city.

1

Cloud contends that the dozens of changes or omissions in modern versions, listed on pages 190-192, do not obscure man’s sinful likeness. Jesus spoke of those like Cloud,

“That seeing they may see and not perceive; and hearing they may hear and not understand.” Mark 4:12

With the new versions’ omissions in Luke 22:67,68, the statement by Jesus “nor let me go,” is completely banished from the entire Bible. Cloud’s opinions and assertions are just that–opinions; they are not proofs and are clearly contrary to the facts. Why doesn’t he prove his point by taking one example and analyzing the English semantics, etymology, doctrinal implications, Greek grammar or manuscript evidence?

He says “new versions DO plainly show man’s mistreatment of Jesus Christ and DO condemn man’s “love of self”. So does the Jehovah Witness version, but that doesn’t make it a Bible. Let’s look closely at his example given from Matt. 27:28-30. To begin with, he didn’t quote the passage down far enough to show that the NIV omits 25 words from verse 35. Also, if he is going to enter the ring as a new version contender, he’s got to get a current NIV; Matt. 27 in the NIV hasn’t read like that for 10 years! He seems to think Matt. 27 could replace Luke 22:64,68, which is omitted in new versions. It cannot. Matt. 27 is about the smiting of Christ by the ROMAN SOLDIERS after Pilate retained Jesus. Luke 22:64,68 takes place before Jesus was taken to Pilate and tells of the physical abuse Jesus suffered at the hands of the RELIGIOUS LEADERS. (New versions often omit the reference to the smiting of his “face,” a fulfillment of O.T. prophecies, such as Is. 50:6 and Is. 52:14). The ‘religious leaders’ on the new version committees do not mind pointing to ‘cruel’ Roman soldiers; they also don’t mind skipping over Luke’s account of the scribes’ beating of our Saviour. (They also omitted portions of Luke 11:54 which reveals abuse Christ suffered at the hands of religious leaders. The pattern is evident.)

These ‘New’ ASV’s (Ananias & Sapphia Versions) are like their namesakes– they claim to give All of the truth, but keep back Some. The new versions’ habit of watering down the Bible, that is, including a doctrine ‘somewhere,’ just not everywhere God put it, is characteristic of ALL CULTS. The power of heresy is its truth diluted and mixed with error. William Gurnall noted this in the 1600s; the devil has not changed his tactics. Gurnall said,

“The Pharisees [and scribes] do not make their bread all of leaven, for none would eat of it; among many truths they mix their errors.”

The new version mix of seeds/weeds, hot/cold, spiritual/carnal makes poor soul food.

“Ephraim, he hath mixed himself among the people; Ephraim is a cake not turned.” Hos. 7:8

The hireling’s half-baked bibles have just enough leaven to leaven the whole lump — it only takes a little (Gal. 5:9). There is no need to contend for the NIV’s crumbs, the master’s table is laden with the children’s bread in the banqueting house (Song of Sol. 2:4).

2

The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ tells its readers to worship “the God of Forces” — THE EXACT SAME WORDS used by the KJV to describe the false god of the last days. New versions do not use these words or words referring to the popular ‘force’ seen in Star Wars et al. Consequently new versions OMIT COMPLETELY the Bible’s ONLY warning about this god. The lack of logic rests with Cloud.

The nation’s foremost experts on prophecy and the New Age movement, Texe Marrs, Noah Hutchings, Mary Pride, John Barela, Salem Kirban, and David Hocking, ALL have recommended New Age Bible Versions. If Cloud thinks new versions do not leave their readers open to Hinduism, he should read the thankful letters I’ve received from readers who have experienced just that. One such letter came from Vijayanagara, Bangalore (India). Its Bible Society’s President wrote,

“My dear sirs, this book has opened the eyes of thousands. Even I myself did not know that there were so many omissions and corruptions in other translations of the Bible…this book is worth millions of dollars.”

Cloud would replace the Holy Bible with a Holey Bible, with 1000’s of spiritual loopholes through which to fall. Did the NIV editors consider it some new form of tithing when they offered up 10% of the scripture text to the sacred cow of ‘textual criticism’? (Gordon Fee provides this percentage of omissions.) A “swept and garnished” bible, like the demon possessed man in Matt. 12:44, is opening itself up to worse devils. New Age books are always filled with scriptures (always new versions) taken out of context and used to PROVE their false teaching. This year’s bestselling book, The Celestine Prophecy, begins with a new version quote from Daniel — then presents the New Age grab bag: nature religion, the occult, channeling, bad ‘church’ people and a search for ancient manuscripts that will explain human destiny. (The public is being conditioned to look for the antichrist’s final bible.)

New version editors have nailed the historic doctrine of divine preservation to the cross and have placed textual criticism on the throne. This dangerous sacred cow has bullied its way into Zion’s green pastures. Though destitute of heaven’s brand, the Laodicean church has awarded it her blue ribon. It is truly more bovine than divine. Its milk feeds a colicky Christianity crying for psychological burps. It brings “leanness unto their soul,” just as Israel experienced when they wanted something ‘new’ (Ps. 106:15). Only schizophrenic followers would “pluck off” palm branches on Sunday morning then pluck out Christ’s beard days later — or carry a bible which praises Jesus in Luke 24:44, then plucks out his ascension in verse 51. Like all hybrids this sacred cow, a cross between Christianity and humanism, is sterile; it cannot reproduce life. All new versions die out when their copyright owner dies; the KJV “liveth and abideth” from generation to generation.

3

Cloud’s inability to see the “proof given” may be attributed to that head-shaped shadow he saw on pages 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 182, 183, 188, 269, and Matt. 17:60–right below the quote Cloud gives. Big heads tend to cast big obscuring shadows when they are trying to stand between truth and the light. One could add reams of verse citations where new versions give voice to the phony faith movement, but four more will fit here.