"WOE UNTO
THEM THAT CALL...GOOD EVIL"
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
1
|
All Greek texts have the wording of the KJV. None render it as
the new versions do. |
2
|
The Granville Sharp theory he cites is just that, a theory.
It does not require that the Greek word order be changed,
or commas added, but simply states that one person, not two,
are presented here. |
3
|
The same grammatical construction is used to express the
deity of the Father "God and our Father") in
Gal. 1:4, 1 Thes. 1:3, and Phil. 4:20. The O.T. uses such construction
frequently (i.e. Is. 45:21, a just God and a Saviour, and Gen.
49:25). |
4
|
New versions omit the definite article "the" great
God, seen in all Greek texts. He is the great God,
but is only our Saviour since we believe in him. |
5
|
The spelling of 'Saviour' as "Savior" denies
his deity. See Webster's distinction between a "savior"
("one who saves") (it could be anyone) and the
'Saviour' "Jesus Christ the Redeemer". (The move from
a seven letter word, the Bible's number for perfection, to a
six letter word, the Bible's number for man, is a downhill move.) |
2 Peter 1:1
1
|
The Textus Receptus (Elzevir) reads "our Saviour."
(See footnote in Berry's Stephen's interlinear.) |
2
|
P. 371 of New Age Bible Versions quotes Lewis Foster,
an NIV editor, confessing WHY they really insert Christ's
deity here and omit it nearly 100 other places. |
3
|
White pretends the KJV says "our God and our Savior, Jesus
Christ" in Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1. The KJV has only
one "our," no comma, and spells Saviour correctly. |
|
|
|
|
NEED A GOOD LAUGH
ABOUT NOW?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
WHITE FLEECES
THE FLOCK
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note just a few of White's outright lies, misrepresentations
and faulty facts, exegesis and theology.
- Hunt did not write the May, 1994 Berean Call articles.
Pretending he did is a lie. (Letter from T.A. McMahon dated June
18, 1994: "I wrote the review...")
- Pretending Norman Geisler's quote (p. 318) was taken out
of context is preposterous, given the 28 times Geisler documents
the New Age use of the term "the Christ" in his brief
22 page "Summary of New Age Beliefs," Infiltration
of the New Age (pp. 107-128).
- Although White says, "Again you are in error. The NIV
translates it as 'false gods...'" In fact the NIV's term
is NOT A TRANSLATION of the Hebrew word there for 'lie'. The
NIV interpolates and substitutes "false gods." All
false gods are lies, but all lies are not false gods.
- White talks about misrepresentations in the 'index'. There
is no index.
- White wants to limit the Holy Ghost's ability to use the
word of God as intended, that is, as "a discerner of the
thoughts and intents of the heart" (Heb. 4:12). The KJV's
use of words which can communicate more than one meaning
facilitates this. White would limit the Bible's vocabulary to
his limited vocabulary and his narrow semasiology.
For example, the KJV's use of "peculiar" gives the
reader both meanings of that word. It can be from the Latin peculiarus
meaning "one's own property;" or as Webster defines
it: "different from the usual." The NIV's "people
belonging to God" denotes only the former. The KJV's
"peculiar people" is defined in Webster's 5th edition
Collegiate Dictionary as, "Jehovah's own people; the people
of Israel;--used of themselves of many Christian bodies."
Hence both definitions of peculiar are in the dictionary,
giving the reader a picture of how God views us and how
the world views us.
Other words such as 'sober' and 'heady highminded' have multiple
meanings. The latter, surprisingly, speaks volumes to this generation
who have given up pursuing 'knowledge' through intellectualism
and have given over their 'mind' to drug induced 'highs' as a
vehicle for experiential 'knowledge'.
- If White had done a six year long word-for-word collation
instead of a six week long slap-dash high school newspaper style
analysis, he would often avoid faulting the KJV. For example,
in I Cor. 16:2 the KJV inserts the word "God" to identify
"him." How can he fault the KJV for this when a word-for-word
collation of the NIV proves they substitute names (i.e. Jesus)
for pronouns (i.e. he) and vice versa, hundreds and hundreds
of times. Greek or Hebrew names and pronouns are interchanged
indiscriminately all over the NIV.
- The following notice appears on the copyright page of almost
every copy of New Age Bible Versions in print. White ignores
it and steams when the reading of the NIV isn't identical
to the NASB.
"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.
|
|
|
|
WHITE OR BLACK
MAGIC
|
|
|
|
|
|
"[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."
|
|
|
|
WHITED WALL
|
|
|
|
|
|
"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:
|
CORRECT |
CRITIC |
MINE |
|
perfect (p. 261) |
prefect (White) |
perfect." |
|
few clear and decisive texts that declare that Jesus is God.
(p. 305) |
few and clear (White)
John is God (Cloud) |
declare that |
|
In both cases the word "all" should be "almost
all" |
"All the Greek texts."
(re: Rev. 14:1)
(White) |
"All Greek texts"
(re: James 5:16) |
No doubt their errors have been fixed in subsequent printings
since others have also pointed them out. |
|
|
|
|
Part 7 of The James White Controversy | Top |
