The James White Controversy - Part 1

"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

When someone like James White spends only a few days or even months writing a critique of a book which entailed six years of research, this reckless, broad brush approach results--painting its con artist into a corner. When Vanna turns to reveal the letters indicating the manuscripts which include Mark 10:21, as the KJV renders it, Mr. White turns white as a ghost. The vast majority of Greek MS have "take up the cross." These include the uncials A (E) F (G) H, K, M, N, S, U, V, W, X, Y, Gamma, Pi, Sigma, Phi, Omega, fam 13 and the majority of all cursives. It is in the Old Latin: (a)q, Syr: (pesh) sim harc, Cop: (sa-mss) bo-mss, Goth (Arm) (Eth). It is also extant in 047, 05, 0211, 0257. The few corrupt manuscripts which omit it are Aleph, B, C, D, Theta, Psi, 0274, pc, c, f, fz, g1, and Vulg.

Every word of God is important. The serpent added ONE word and changed the entire course of history. God said, thou "shalt surely die." The serpent added ONE word and said, "Ye shall NOT surely die." When Jesus FIRST met him in Luke 4:4, he brought this to his attention saying, "It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY word of God." (New versions omit this last part.) Liberals have always said the Bible CONTAINS God's MESSAGE. The Bible however says that it is the very words of God. New versions and their advocates, like White, miss the importance of each individual word. They are rapidly moving into the liberal camp where the serpent adds a word here and there, or like Eve, drops a word ("freely"). Paul preached a sermon on the importance of one letter(s) (Gal. 3:16). Those who are not concerned that there are 64,000 words missing in the NIV would invariably overlook the distinction between words like "T-H-E" and "H-I-S." Since their NIV omits "but by EVERY word of God" (Luke 4:4), it's no wonder. White is wrong. The new versions do omit "take up the cross"! Verses that say "his cross" are no substitute. His accusation that I am not "honestly" dealing with the topic is legally actionable.

White 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."

Part 2 of The James White Controversy