(Disclaimer: This transcript is auto-generated and may contain mistakes.)

Hey, everybody, Pastor Steven Anderson here from Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe, Arizona, continuing my response to the King James only controversy by James White. And today I'm going to be talking about chapter 5, the King James only camp. On the first page of this chapter, he says, I wish to draw examples from various KJV only writers to illustrate points regarding the errors they have made in their writing, teaching, and preaching. Now, this video is going to be quite different from the previous four videos I've done in this series. Because this particular chapter, I actually agree with, okay, now, I'm not saying I agree with every little thing in this chapter. But in general, I agree with what this chapter is saying. So most of this video is going to be me agreeing with what's in this chapter. And you say, how can you agree with him? Well, here's the thing, if somebody is right, they're right. Okay. So just because someone is wrong in general, or someone is a person that I don't like, it doesn't mean that they're always wrong. Okay. And in this chapter, he happens to be right. It kind of reminds me of politics, where whatever Donald Trump does, the liberals will just automatically say it's wrong. No matter what he does, even if he does the exact things that Obama did, it's just wrong because Trump did it, right. And then when Obama was in office, everything Obama did was wrong. Even if Obama did the exact same things that Bush did, or even if he did things that Trump would do in the future, he was just always wrong. That's how these morons on talk radio are, you know, the liberals can do no right and the conservatives can do no wrong or vice versa. Folks, that's just ridiculous. Okay. Just because we don't like James White doesn't mean that he's wrong about everything. Okay. And just because someone's King James only, that doesn't mean that they're right about everything. Okay. So in this chapter, he's actually right when he condemns Gail Riplinger and Peter Ruckman. And I'm going to go through the examples that he gives and show actually, that he is right about these things. In fact, you know, back five, six years ago, I believe it was, yeah, it was like mid 2013. I did an interview with Dr. James White for our film New World Order Bible versions. And partway into that interview, James White says, Hey, you know, are we agreeing on too much here? Do you know, do we agree on too much? And I'm like, well, well, no, it's okay if we agree on stuff. Okay. A lot of people have tried to claim that I debated James White. I've never debated James White. I interviewed him for that film back in 2013, over five years ago now. And the purpose of that interview was to get footage for our film, New World Order Bible versions. And if you haven't seen our film, New World Order Bible versions, I highly recommend that you check it out on this issue of King James only. But, you know, in that interview, there was a lot that we agreed on. Obviously, there were times when we disagreed and argued about things, and so forth. But it wasn't a debate. My goal was not to prove him wrong. My goal was to get the footage that I wanted for the film. And mission accomplished. We got the footage. It was a great film. But, you know, if somebody's right, they're right, folks. And if they're wrong, they're wrong. Most of this book, the vast majority of this book is wrong. But chapter five is right. And that's what we're going to talk about today. So anyway, he starts out by saying that he's going to use examples of King James only teachers just to kind of represent three different types of King James only-ism. Basically, he uses one guy that he says is the least radical, the guy who represents, you know, a reasonable view. Then he's got Gail Riplinger as kind of in the middle. And then he's got Ruckman as just crazy off-the-wall teachings. So he says, in this chapter, I will examine the words of three writers who can be properly identified as KJV only. We will start with the least radical, Dr. Edward F. Hills, author of the King James version, Defended. Then we will look at Gail Riplinger in her book, New World Order Bible Versions. Finally, we will look at the most radical KJV only advocate, Dr. Peter Ruckman of the Pensacola Bible Institute. So he starts out with his first example and he labels this section a reformed advocate of the KJV. So, of course, this is the guy that he likes because this guy is a Calvinist. He has reformed theology. He says in this section, much to the chagrin of the KJV only movement's more radical elements, he did not join them in granting inspiration to the authorized version. Note his words. And here's what Edward Hills says, God's preservation of the New Testament text was not miraculous, but providential. The scribes and printers who produced the copies of the New Testament scriptures and the true believers who read and cherish them were not inspired, but God guided. And look, I agree with that 100%. I think that that statement by Edward Hills is right on. Then on the next page, Edward Hills is quoted as saying, in short, unless we follow the logic of faith, we can be certain of nothing concerning the Bible in its text. For example, if we make the Bodmer and Chester Beatty papyri our chief reliance, how do we know that even older New Testament papyri of an entirely different character have not been destroyed by the recent damming of the Nile and the consequent flooding of the Egyptian sands? So in short, what he's basically saying is, look, we have to have faith in the fact that God preserved his word. And this is the same argument that I've been using in the last four videos, that God's true word was not buried under the sand, but that it's been preserved. It's been passed down. People have used it throughout the centuries. You'll never convince me that the true Bible was buried and that the Bible that everybody used for well over a thousand years is wrong. So he's using the same argument of we have to have faith that God could not only inspire the Bible, but also preserve the Bible. Jesus said heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. He said it's easier for heaven and earth to pass than for one jot or one tittle to pass from the law until all be fulfilled. The Bible says that the word of our Lord endureth forever. So what he's saying here in this quote is, look, if you're gonna sit there and just dig up some Egyptian papyri and say, hey, this is the oldest, the most reliable, whatever, who's to say there isn't something else that's even older or more reliable? And that's the scary thing about the modern version crowd is that they're ready to change the Bible based on new discoveries. So even the Bible that they're using right now, if they dug up something new tomorrow, they'll change it. So this just creates an opportunity for the Bible to keep changing and just keep changing, keep on changing it. Look, folks, we already have the Bible. It's been passed down. It's been preserved by God. We believe that by faith. So he calls this argument the logic of faith and it's a great argument and I agree with him. Then he gets into Gail Riplinger and Peter Ruckman and look, I agree with him about Gail Riplinger and I agree with him about Peter Ruckman. So the section on Gail Riplinger is called a case study in misrepresentation. Here's what he says, if you are fully convinced that the translators and editors of the modern translations, for instance, are all out to lead people away from the truth and away from Christ, why should you be overly concerned about being accurate in your representation of what they say or believe? In fact, why not just fudge a little to make them look even worse? If that will help to warn people about them, isn't a little white lie in the service of God acceptable once in a while? Sadly, modern Christianity provides us with all too many examples of less than honest reporting in the cause and under the name of good. A little later he says misrepresenting others, even those we strongly feel are in error, is not an option for one who follows Jesus, the very truth incarnate. And to that I say Amen. It isn't right to lie about people just because they're bad people. It isn't right to misrepresent them or twist their words just because they're bad. And this is what the Bible says that we should not have an attitude of let us do evil that good may come. It's not right to do wrong in order to get a chance to do right. The ends does not justify the means. And so just because Westcott and Hort are bad, just because the modern versions are bad, just because a lot of these so-called textual criticism scholars are bad, that doesn't give us the right to lie about them and twist their words. We have to be honest. And so he's pointing out the fact that Gail Riplinger in her book is dishonest. It's filled with things that are not accurate and it even has outright lies in it. And I agree with James White. That's true. It does. So he talks about how in late 1993, a book appeared on the market titled New Age Bible Versions. And he says on page 136, New Age Bible Versions contains a plethora of out-of-context citations and edited quotations and is a study in utter misrepresentation. Unfortunately, sadly, that's actually true. He says on page 138, the kinds of basic errors that fill New Age Bible Versions are at times difficult to understand. For example, we're informed that the KJV is also the only Bible that distinguishes between the Hebrew Adonai and the Tetragrammaton using Lord, capital L, lowercase ORD for the former and capital L, capital O, capital R, capital D for the latter. That's not true. He points out that that isn't true. The King James is not the only version that does that. The New American Standard, the NIV, the New King James, the RSV, the New RSV, the New American Bible, and others all use the, you know, the lowercase Lord versus the all uppercase Lord as a means of distinguishing between Adonai, which is just the basic word for the Lord, and the Tetragrammaton, which is the four-letter name of God, what we know as Jehovah. Even a brief glance at almost any Old Testament page in any of these other translations indicates the error of the statements, the type of which is found all throughout New Age Bible versions. She has a lot of things that are just inaccurate, false, they're lies, and that's just one example. He goes on to give other examples, and this is something that Gail Riplinger is notorious for in her books, not just New Age Bible versions, but in her other books as well. She'll give quotes from people with a ton of ellipsis in them. For example, she gives this quote from Westcott and Hort. Readings of Aleph and Bea should be accepted as the true readings, dot dot dot. They stand far above all documents, dot dot dot. Are very pure, dot dot dot. Excellent, dot dot dot. And immune from corruption. So in one sentence, Gail Riplinger quotes these guys, and in one sentence she has four sets of ellipsis where she's removing huge sections from their quote. I mean, if you're gonna quote people like that, you can pretty much get them to say whatever you want them to say. I mean, that's just ridiculous and it makes no sense. And then in the footnote for the citation, she shows that she's getting it from five different pages in their book. Page 225, 212, 220, 239, and 210. She combines it all into one sentence. Okay, and she does that a lot in her book. And, you know, frankly, it's just dishonest and you say, well, yeah, but Westcott and Hort are bad. Yeah, but that doesn't mean that you can just twist what they say, misquote them and say inaccurate things. Okay. And it's not like she just has a couple mistakes in her book. This is a pattern with her. Okay. And I've got my own beef with Gail Riplinger. In her book Hazardous Materials, she has a couple of chapters attacking the Greek Textus Receptus published by the Trinitarian Bible Society, which is the Greek text underlying the King James. She tries to claim that there's like 50 discrepancies between the Greek Textus Receptus from the Trinitarian Bible Society and the King James Version. I actually took her book and I got my Greek New Testament and I got my King James and I put them all side by side and I looked up every single example that she gave and I found her to be just outright lying the majority of the time. Completely wrong. Out of all the examples she gave, there were only two that were legit. Okay. Two basically typos in the Greek New Testament from the Trinitarian Bible Society. One of them is that it's missing the Amen at the end of the book of Ephesians. Well, that was pretty easy to fix because I just took my Greek New Testament and I just wrote the word Amen at the end of that. So that's all that. And then another one was just a discrepancy between where it said instead of Word of God, it said Word of the Lord. So that's it folks. She has two chapters listing like 50-some discrepancies. When you actually look them up, it turns out they're lies. They don't pan out when you actually fact-check them. And the only two are a missing Amen and a change from Word of God to Word of the Lord. Folks, that's not going to affect the price of tea in China. God and the Lord are the same person. Obviously, one of them is right, one is wrong, but a little typo like that and you're just going to throw out the whole Greek New Testament as published by the Trinitarian Bible Society. That's ridiculous. Every Bible is going to have a typo here and there. And so that's the kind of dishonest stuff that she'll do. But anyway, let me get back to the book here. So here's this quote. Remember the one that has the four sets of ellipses in it? Readings of all F and B should be accepted as the true readings... Okay, here's the whole quote. Readings of all F and B should be accepted as the true readings until strong internal evidence is found to the contrary. And two, that no reading of all F and B can safely be rejected absolutely, though it is sometimes right to place them only on an alternative footing, especially where they receive no support for virgins or fathers. So again, Westcott and Horder are wrong, but her quote is misleading. Then the part where it says, are very pure... Excellent. Okay, here's what the actual quote says. These considerations show that the common original of all F and B, for by far the greater part of their identical readings, whatever may have been its own date, had a very ancient and very pure text and that there is no sufficient reason for surmising that the rest of their identical readings came from any other source. So again, she's saying that Westcott and Horder said that all F and B are very pure, but actually the are very pure is talking about a common original of all F and B in places where all F and B agree. Now again, look, Westcott and Horder are completely wrong here, but she's lying about this quote because they didn't say in this quote that all F and B were very pure. What they actually said was that the common original where they both agree was very pure. So even though Westcott and Horder are completely wrong, it doesn't change the fact that she twisted that quote and lied about it. They stand far above all documents. And then the actual quote is, we found all F and B to stand alone in their almost complete immunity from distinctive Syrian readings. All F to stand for above all documents except B in the proportion which the part of its text neither Western nor Alexandrian bears to the rest and B to stand far above all F in its apparent freedom from either Western or Alexandrian readings with the partial exception in the Pauline epistles already mentioned more than once. She quotes this as, they stand far above all documents. So again, just super loosely quoting them, inserting ellipsis. Sometimes it's an outright fabrication or misrepresentation. This is not the right way to quote people, folks. Taking it out of context, twisting it, adding ellipses. And then this one's even worse. Listen to this one. It says here, the NIV editors, this is a little chart that she has in her book. The NIV editors are saying, the Holy Spirit did not beget the Son. Mormon doctrine, he, the Son, was not begotten by the Holy Spirit. Right? So you see that? So she's trying to say, look at the NIV editors teaching this Mormon doctrine that the Holy Spirit did not beget the Son. Okay, folks, she's wrong. Guess what? The Holy Spirit didn't beget the Son. God the Father begat the Son. Okay, listen to what the man that she's quoting is Edward Palmer. And look, Edward Palmer is a bad person. Edward Palmer is wicked. But does that give the right to twist what he said and lie about him and try to make it seem like he believes like the Mormons on this? Listen to what Edwin Palmer actually said. So what does she take from that paragraph? The Holy Spirit did not beget the Son. And then she tries to compare it to Brigham Young. Actually, what Edwin Palmer says here is correct when he says the Holy Spirit did not beget the Son, only the Father did. He's just differentiating between God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. So what he's teaching is actually correct, a biblical view of the Trinity, an Orthodox view of the Trinity. He's not going off the plantation with the Mormons. And she's just a complete liar here, to put it that way. So anyway, here's another one. Riplinger claims that NIV editor Edwin Palmer comes to his chilling theological conclusion. There are few clear and decisive texts that declare Jesus is God. What Palmer actually said is that John 1.18, as inspired by the Holy Spirit, is one of those few clear and decisive texts that declare that Jesus is God, but without fault of its own, the KJV following inferior manuscripts altered what the Holy Spirit said through John, calling Jesus the Son. Now look, of course, Palmer is totally wrong. John 1.18 should say the only begotten Son there, but that doesn't change the fact that she is twisting what he says here in this quote that there are few clear and decisive texts that declare Jesus is God. That's not what he said. And see, she adds words. She adds words in brackets that actually change the substance of what he was saying. And like I said, even though these guys are bad guys, it doesn't give you the right to misquote them twist their words or anything like that. So that's what he has to say about Gail Riplinger. Then in the next section, he gets into Peter Ruckman. Okay, now he starts out the Peter Ruckman section. Remember the Gail Riplinger section was called a case study in misrepresentation. Well, amen to that because that is what she does, unfortunately. But under the Ruckman section, he called that section spearheading the KJV only movement. Now, is it true that Ruckman spearheads the KJV only movement? Well, in James White's own book on page 26, he breaks up the King James only camp into five different groups. And group four, he says, is the group that most King James only advocates would fall into. And that's the group that I would fall into. And again, I would refer you back to the first video in this series where we talked about the five different groups. And he admits most King James only advocates fall into group number four, which is where I, Pastor Steven Anderson, would fall as well. Then he gives group number five as being Peter Ruckman's group. Okay, the crazy off-the-wall group. Okay, so how can you say that Peter Ruckman is spearheading the KJV only movement when you admit it in chapter one of the book that he represents a radical fringe that the vast majority of KJV only believers want nothing to do with? Look, out of the 6,000 or so King James only independent fundamental Baptist churches in America, guess how many of them want to be associated with Peter Ruckman? A very small percentage. And those churches that do follow Peter Ruckman are usually very small churches. The big, thriving, growing, soul-winning independent fundamental Baptist churches are not followers of Ruckman. Look, in the state of Arizona, okay, there are big independent fundamental Baptist churches. You've got, you know, Valley Baptist out in Mesa that runs about four or five hundred. Okay, I think they even run over five hundred. Okay, they don't follow Ruckman. They're not Ruckmanite. They're not hyper dispensational. They're of the Hyles Anderson crowd. Okay, then you've got Faithful Word Baptist Church. We have about four hundred people in our church. On Sunday mornings, we typically run around 325 to 350 people. On our evening services, we run in the high 200s, sometimes breaking 300. And we don't follow Ruckman. We're not dispensationalists. We don't have his views on the King James at all. Okay, then there are many other churches throughout Arizona that I can think of that run approximately 200, 250 people that are King James only independent fundamental Baptist. And you know what? None of them are Ruckmanite. The Ruckmanite churches are tiny and there are a few of them. Okay, there aren't a lot. Now, they make a lot of noise on the internet, but this is not mainstream King James onlyism. So to say that he is spearheading it, you know, that's a little bit misleading right there, buddy, because he represents a small radical fringe of stupidity within King James onlyism. Now, he spends the next many pages talking about Ruckman and, you know, giving quotes from Ruckman and explaining just what a jerk Ruckman is and how crazy he is and everything like that. And look, I'm not even gonna spend five seconds defending Peter Ruckman because Peter Ruckman is a complete idiot. He's crazy. He's a psycho. His teachings are so crazy and off the wall. I mean, he taught that abortion is not murder and that a baby's not alive until it's outside the womb and breeds its first breath. Okay. He believed in people on other planets and just he was a total racist. I mean, just I'm not even gonna waste your time, okay, trying to go through James White's information on Peter Ruckman here because I agree that Peter Ruckman is a complete idiot. So anyway, that's chapter five for you. Chapter five wasn't really as much about the issue as him just kind of talking about and the chapter is called the King James only camp and explaining that there are reasonable people and he gives the example of the reasonable guy which, you know, amen to that. That guy was making sense in the quotes that James White gave. Then, he talks about Gail Ripplinger who lies and twists things and, you know, I have to agree with him on that and then he talks about the radical crazy weirdo Peter Ruckman and, again, I find myself in agreement. So again, this video is a little different than the other videos in the series because by and large, I agree with his point in this chapter even though I would take issue with small things in the chapter but the next chapter is pretty interesting so don't miss the next video which is chapter six of the book on translation differences. God bless you. Have a great day.