In Awe of They Word. by: Gail A. Riplinger

[Relic]

By: Gail A. Riplinger
Two books in one! 1200 pages
Hardback
Color-coded
Red ribbon marker

Understanding the King James Bible
Its Mystery & History
Letter By Letter


The Mysteries
DISCOVER what translators and past generations knew --- exactly how to find the meaning of each Bible word, inside the Bible itself.

Understand also what translators, such as Erasmus and Coverdale, meant when they spoke of the vernacular Bible's "holy letters" and "syllables."

See how these God-set alphabet building blocks build a word's meaning and automatically define words for faithful readers of the King James Bible --- which alone brings forward the fountainhead of letter meanings discovered by computational linguists from the world's leading universities.

Learn about the latest research tools from the University of Toronto (EMEDD) and Edinburgh University, which prove the purity of the KJV and the depravity of the new versions.

Find out how only the King James Bible teaches and comforts through its "miraculous" mathematically ordered sounds.

Meet the KJV's built-in English teacher, ministering to children and over a billion people around the globe.

Journey around the world and see that only the KJV matches the pure scriptures preserved "to all generations" and "to all nations," including the Greek, Hebrew, Old Italia, Italian, Dutch, German, French, Spanish and others.


The History
THIS BOOK is the first and only documented history of the words of the Holy Bible.

It is based on word-for-word and letter-by-letter analysis of a vault of ancient, rare and valuable Bibles. Ten thousand hours of collation rescued echoes from these documents almost dissolved by time.

See for yourself the unbroken preservation of the pure holy scriptures, from the first century to today's beloved King James Bible. Watch the English language and its Holy Bible unfold before your very eyes.

Examine the letters and sounds, shown in red, which bind the words of each successive Bible from the Gothic, Anglo-Saxon, pre-Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Great, Geneva, and Bishops' to the King James Bible.

Uncover time-buried eyewitness reports, views and Bible study secrets of history's great translators and martyrs.

See word-for-word collations, aided by the KJV translators' newly discovered notes, revealing exactly how the KJV translators polished the sword of the Spirit.

Watch in horror as the destroyer, through the NIV, TNIV, HCSB, NKJV, NASB and ESV, teams up with Jehovah Witness and Catholic versions to silence the utterances of the Holy Ghost. History's Bibles and their champions defeat their challengers, as they meet on this book's pages.

---------------------------------------------


Here is why I recommend this book:
http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?p=160167#160167

Note: if you don't want to get the book, at least read the excerpts provided on the web site! There are many! At least 100 pages from out of the 1200 page book! Is is well worth the time to learn what is written there.


.

 

[kiwimac]

Gail A. Riplinger's work is valueless. She is simply either a liar or deluded.

Kiwimac

 

[Relic]

Gail A. Riplinger's work is valueless. She is simply either a liar or deluded.

Kiwimac

That comment of yours is valueless, and you are either a liar or deluded!

And I would not doubt it one bit if you don't even know a thing about her or the work she has done throughout her lifetime!


I see you put "Deepest Darkest NZ as your place of residence in your profile.

That speaks loads of what you represent! :evil:

.

 

[kiwimac]

Ah Grasshopper,

Allow me to enlighten you.

Please consider the following site:

http://aomin.org/NABVR.html

Note the following comments:

...Those are some pretty harsh words, but the documentation of these statements is easily found. All one has to do is take Gail Riplinger's book, New Age Bible Versions, and then take the time to find such books as Barker's The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation, Palmer's The Person and Ministry of the Holy Spirit, and John Kohlenberger's Words About the Word, and examine the references provided at the end of the book. The number of complete mis­citations and altered quotations will quickly prove the correctness of my statements. Given the small amount of time we have today, I will only be able to provide a few examples, but I could literally expand the list indefinitely.

First, one simply cannot believe the "facts" that are presented in this book, for quite often, they are not facts at all. There are dozens and dozens of charts throughout the book, allegedly comparing the KJV with the supposed "New Versions," which she calls "mutant versions" (p. 129). Yet, over and over again these charts are simply wrong. On page 22 we are told that the "New Versions" delete the call to take up the cross, when they do not. We are told that while the KJV tells us to bless our enemies, the new versions tell us to call our enemies bastards, which, of course, they do not.

At times the facts are 180 degrees opposite of what is claimed by Gail Riplinger. For example, on page 99 we read, "All new versions, based on a tiny percentage of corrupt Greek manuscripts, make the fatefully frightening addition of three words in Revelation 14:1." She then quotes the passage from the NIV, which reads, "...the Lamb, standing on Mount Zion, and with him 144,000 who had his name and his Father's name written on their foreheads." The phrase "his name and" is not found in the KJV. She continues on page 100, "Will the unwary, reading Revelation 14:1 in a recent version, be persuaded that the bible sanctions and encourages the taking of 'his name' on their forehead before they receive his Father's name?" Such sounds truly ominous, until one discovers that in point of fact it is the Textus Receptus, the Greek Text of the New Testament utilized by the KJV translators, that alone does not contain the disputed phrase, "his name." The Majority Text contains it, as do all the Greek texts. We have here merely a mistake on the part, most probably, of Desiderius Erasmus, the Roman Catholic priest who collated what became the Textus Receptus. He had major problems in producing the text of Revelation and merely skipped over the phrase referring to the Lamb's name. Sadly, someone reading New Age Bible Versions could be led to attack the NIV on the basis of a basic mistake.

The arguments put forward in this book at times border on the ludicrous. The chart found on page 26 should fascinate anyone seeking logical thinking. On page 232 we are warned against the letter "s." Riplinger writes, "Watch out for the letter 's' ¾ sin, Satan, Sodom, Saul (had to be changed to Paul). The added 's' here is the hiss of the serpent." Such argumentation would lead us to abandon such terms as salvation, Savior, and sanctification as well! Indeed, on page 174 our author recommends the KJV's use of the term "sober" over other translations, possibly missing the "hiss" of that "s" on "sober." I, as a Reformed theologian, was certainly amazed to discover that, according to Mrs. Riplinger, the "Five Points" of Calvinism form a Satanic pentagram (p. 231)! And everyone should surely take heed to Mrs. Riplinger's use of "acrostic algebra" on page 149. Here, in a passage reminiscent of the identifications of Henry Kissinger as the anti­Christ two decades ago, Mrs. Riplinger demonstrates how the abbreviations for the New American Standard Version and the New International Version add up to the word "sin" when the Authorized Version is taken away.

Not only is such argumentation utterly without merit, but it is interesting to note that throughout the rest of the book Mrs. Riplinger abbreviates the New American Standard Bible as NASB, but solely for the purpose of this trip into "acrostic algebra," she changes to the NASV, an abbreviation used nowhere else in the book. Indeed, over and over and over again the arguments that are put forward could easily be turned around and used against the KJV and Mrs. Riplinger's position. The use of such argumentation should warn the reader that all is not well in New Age Bible Versions.

Double standards are rampant throughout the book. Shortly after attacking all modern versions for daring to use the term "one" in their translations, she fails to attack the KJV for using it in her own citation of it on page 93. When the modern versions do not follow the KJV in rendering the Greek term Artemido" as Diana, she accuses them of being ignorant of classical mythology on page 127; but when they recognize similar gods in Old Testament passages, she accuses them of rejecting the one true God in favor of false gods.

And in what would probably be one of the most amusing examples of double standards, if it were not so sad, Gail Riplinger attacks all who are Reformed, or "Calvinists," in many places, as I shall discuss and refute later. But in the process she seems to be blissfully unaware of the simple fact that amongst the KJV translators you have the likes of Doctor John Rainolds, a Puritan! And surely Mrs. Riplinger must be aware of the theological beliefs of the Puritans! They were Reformed men, Calvinists, who strongly believed in God's sovereignty and the deadness of man in sin. If Edwin Palmer's Calvinistic beliefs make the NIV one of Satan's tricks, what about the KJV?

It seems that as long as someone had anything at all to do with the production of the NIV, it is fair game to not only impugn their character, but to misrepresent their words. For example, on page 89 of New Age Bible Versions, we read the following, "Even NIV translator Larry Walker applauds the rejection of the Hebrew Old Testament for the Ugaritic wherein the gods of pantheism preside." The reference given is to Walker's article, again in The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation, specifically pages 101-­102. Yet, one will search in vain throughout the article for the slightest reference to a rejection of the Hebrew Old Testament in favor of anything else at all. The citation simply has nothing to do with the allegation that is made.

On page 165 we have another personal attack upon an NIV translator, Herbert Wolf, for his defense of the very logical, scholarly translation of the Hebrew "zedekah" in poetic contexts by the term "prosperity." Ignoring the very solid, reasonable defense given by Wolf, Riplinger chooses instead to play games with the man's name, writing, "Perhaps the armour and breastplate of 'righteousness does not fit' Mr. Wolf and his pack because they are puffed up and paunchy, because they have devoured souls (Ezekiel 22:25)." She goes on to say, "Paul said that those, like Wolf, who teach that 'gain is godliness' are 'destitute of the truth.' Equating financial prosperity with spirituality is a common characteristic of the 'New' Christianity and the New Age." Of course, anyone can see that Wolf said nothing at all about equating prosperity and spirituality; this is mere fantasy on Riplinger's part. Yet the book is filled from cover to cover with such misrepresentation and wild imagination.

Perhaps you would like to comment?

Kiwimac

 

[Relic]

This was a double post. I had to delete one of them. sorry.

 

[Relic]

Thank you for that information, I am going to forward it to the radio station in my town that aired the promotion of her book and see what that pastor has to say about this found information you have provided.

I was under the impression that she was a professor of religion at Kent State. I will look into that! She did present her case on the radio as if she taught religious studies at that College. I'm going to ask the pastor what he knows about her and the information you provided. He aired a three hour show interviewing her most of the time on the air, and it was just last week.

I am not discrediting all of Gail Riplinger's book because I have not read the whole book and have not had the opportunity to make my own conclusions. However, What you have provided does present a good cause to use caution in reading her book but it should be noted that we should not exclude the TRUTH that is in her work. No matter how many falsehoods are present, in any word or book, I will never exclude the TRUTH within any written or spoken matter.

When people believe "every single word" a Pastor or some author writes or says, instead of thinking for themselves and looking things up in the bible, for themselves, are headed for trouble. So thank you for bringing this controversy to my attention.

Goes to show, even though Gail Riplinger presents her case in many good ways, there is still likelihood that she is not 100% correct. Yes, we should put everyone to the test of truth.

If I may use an old cliche,

"We should not throw out the baby with the bath water".

SEPARATE THE WHEAT FROM THE CHAFF!


No matter what books or people we come across, we all need to separate the wheat from the chaff.


Again, thanks for the information.



.

 

[Free]

Relic,

This is from about 1/3 of the way down the very long article (a very interesting read if you have the time):

This kind of error is found throughout Mrs. Riplinger's work. One may well ask, how can someone with the degrees and training listed on the back of Mrs. Riplinger's book make errors such as this? The answer is to be found in the fact that Mrs. Riplinger is not a Biblical scholar. Her degrees, her teaching, and her writing, are all in one area: interior design. Mrs. Riplinger did indeed teach at Kent State, but she did so in the Home Economics department, teaching classes in interior design. This is why she can produce charts like those on pages 318­319: she is unable to verify her assertions by reference to the original sources, in this case, the Greek New Testament. Unfortunately, Mrs. Riplinger has never, to my knowledge, indicated to any host who was interviewing her that her degrees are not in any way relevant to the assertions she makes regarding the Biblical text. This does not mean that Mrs. Riplinger's statements are to be dismissed simply because she is untrained in the field. However, it does speak to why she can make the elementary errors that she does throughout her book.

(The bolded parts are my emphasis)

I have read most or all of the article and she uses some of the worst logic and reasoning I have ever seen, not to mention outright deceit. That type of reasoning is why I reject KJVOism.

 

[Relic]

.

That website which bashes Gail Riplinger, is the web site of James White. He doesn't have such a clean record for being accurate himself.

He gets slapped on the wrist in this article: http://www.mag-net.com/~maranath/white.htm So, who is to say he is that all authority on critiquing Gail Riplinger?

In my opinion, having to do so much research on all of these authors is taxing for sure. And that is why I believe in separating the wheat from the chaff, why I believe in not throwing out the truth that is in the rubble, and why I believe in reading and re-reading the bible as much as I can for the rest of my life in order to grow closer to the knowledge of God so as to be able to decipher truth from deception. I do appreciate the information that comes in opposition to what others have to say. However, in the mean time, I will STICK TO THE KING JAMES BIBLE because I truly believe that the more people translate the bible the more distorted it gets and the more they leave out parts of it that are important in keeping with the Judaism of the Torah and the Mishna. I'll stick with the King James Bible, thank you.


I am still doing check up on Gail Riplinger. I am in the process of contacting the Human Resources Dept at Kent State University to find out exactly what she taught at that University and what gave credence to her being able to teach bible classes there.

I did listen to both of the radio debates between James White and Gail Riplinger that are on James Whites' web site, And, as it stands, I am still on the side of Gail Ripliinger's reasonings, and tend towards favoring her writings instead of the writings and rantings of James White.


.

 

[Free]

And, as it stands, I am still on the side of Gail Ripliinger's reasonings, and tend towards favoring her writings instead of the writings and rantings of James White.

Well, that's too bad. Everything I read from her on various websites, including her own, has very poor reasoning and childish name-calling.

 

[Relic]

.


The following article is taken from Blind Guides by G.A. Riplinger.

Blind Guides is a scholarly and detailed response to the crtiques of Hunt,
McMahon, Lalonde, Cloud, Morey, White, Hanagraaff, House, Passantinos,
and others concerning Riplinger's New Age Bible Versions. Shows the
dishonesty and complete disregard for the truth in the attack on the King
James Bible. Very good reading.Used by permission.

The James White Controversy - 7 Parts
===============================================
===============================================


Gail Riplinger's Response to James White's Critique of New Age Bible Versions:

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7



Clearly exposes the hypocrisy and lies of the King James Bible "Correctors" .

=====================================

Here is an excerpt from Part 3 of the articles listed above.

The James White Controversy - Part 3
===============================================
===============================================
G.A. Riplinger's Response to James White's Criticism of New Age Bible Versions ===============================================
WHITEWASHED TOMBS OR WHITEWASHED ROOMS?

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. ...

.

 

[Relic]

.

Free,

I see no fault in Gail Riplinger's claims.

I have posted many of her responses to White's accusations against her. It is clear that he makes false accusations in regards to her education.

And as far as her being childish... well, that is a matter of opinion, and saying so does not address the truth she presents in response to her debate with White.

Care to be more specific as to what you find contrary to "your beleifs" in regards to her writings? And, care to be more specific in the logic and reasoning she presents that you don't agree with, what is it you find to be "outright deceit" ?

I appreciate your input


.

 

[kiwimac]

Relic try this:

New Age Bible Versions"  A Critical Review
Female Author's Book is FALLACIOUS!
by MARK A. MCNEIL


[this REVIEW written in 1994]

NOTE:


Mentioning that this book's author is Female is hereby given.

"Her" identity is deliberately hidden from readers as there is

NOT A MENTION ANYWHERE in the supplied contents!

 "Ms." Riplinger is spoken of only in "the third person."

SEE MORE FURTHUR BELOW
by

"G.A."

Ms. Gail

Riplinger


Now here in January 2002, GAIL RIPLINGER's website is still HIDING "Her" identity!

The book, "NEW AGE BIBLE VERSIONS," authored by G. A. [Gail] Riplinger, has recently become a popular "defense of the King James Version" and an attack on all other Bible translations. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate some of the many weaknesses of this work and give references so that the Bible student of any level can see this information for himself.

Having been told by a "KJV-Only" advocate that this book is a well-documented, well-written defense of the KJV, I felt it was only appropriate to examine the book. Unfortunately, it only took a few pages to become aware of the fact that this book's theory is like many other illogical and ridiculous arguments in defense of the Bible: God's Word preserved as a 'one-an-only' English translation!

The book uses over-and-over again the fallacy of "guilt by association." Numerous quotes (whether accurate or not) are used to discredit certain men connected with textual criticism and modern translation. Certainly it is not that hard to understand that the textual debate and issues have to do with manuscripts and fragments nearly 2,000 years old, the copyists being unknown! It is ultimately irrelevant who is examining the evidence if what is reported is accurate. It is quite easy to find numerous strong defenders of historic Christianity who recognize the truth of the evidence presented by men whose faith may be less than solid.

Most of the observations and arguments in the book can be easily answered by a short examination of a concordance or commentary on specific texts of Scripture. For example, the book uses the worn-out argument that the New International Version [NIV] translation (and others) are against the "blood of Christ" because certain verses omit that phrase. A simple examination of an NIV concordance would demonstrate that the "blood" is mentioned numerous times in that version. The issue has nothing to do with the bias of translators as we can easily examine the texts from which they did their translating work.

The author argues that certain verses omit the word "our" in connection with the Father, supposedly because of a "conspiracy" to support the "universal fatherhood of God" [page 60]. The text then cites John 8:44 as a clear example of God not being the Father of all men, for those to whom Christ was speaking were said to be of their father "the devil." Amazingly(!), if the author had looked at John 8:44 in the NIV (or any other legitimate translation), we would have found the same idea and words of the KJV. If such a "conspiracy" existed, would not the instigators have eliminated the clear and explicit passages rather than merely the word "our" in a few passages (which does not necessarily exclude God from being the Father of others)?

It should be our general practice to assume the integrity and sincerity of an author when reading his/her book. In the case of New Age Bible Versions, however, it is very difficult to believe that an author who is of an educational level and accomplishment as that boasted on the back of the book would produce such a poor literary work [Note: NONE of Riplinger's degrees are for any form of biblical or textual studies  and yet in 1996, "KJV-Only" Pastor Jack Hyles of Indiana's Hyles-Anderson College, honorarily "Doctored" Ms. Riplinger!].

I want to point out the basic framework we are defending. First, the New Testament is preserved for us in thousands of manuscripts. These range from small pieces of books to almost whole New Testaments. There are differences between ALL the manuscripts. Most of these are insignificant spelling changes, word order differences, etc. There are numerous "minor" word differences, however, such as one text reading "Jesus Christ" while another "Lord Jesus" or some other variation. These are considered "minor" because they do not change or alter any doctrine or interpretation.

Furthermore, there are no examples of manuscripts that are considered seriously in textual criticism where a deliberate attempt has been made to eliminate all references to "Christ" or "Lord," or any other term. These are copyist errors or scribal additions. It is the purpose of the science of textual criticism to examine these differences and attempt to determine the original reading. There are numerous ways this is done which space forbids us from discussing. The differences between the new versions in some readings arise from discoveries in the last century of older new Testament manuscripts that have affected the evidence behind certain texts. Very few of these are of any consequence to doctrine, however, and the majority would not be detected by very good Bible students as they change no meaning.

There have arisen two contrary positions with regard to the manuscript evidence available. Speaking simplistically, one prefers the "majority" of manuscript readings as the best, the other prefers the "older" readings. Certainly, there are fewer older manuscripts to examine but they consistently bear out a striking fact  the older manuscripts are typically shorter in their readings than the newer! This, according to textual critics, is because of the tendency of scribes to add explanatory words to the text rather than delete them.

On the other hand, some say the older manuscripts represent a distorted text that ultimately was not preserved through the greater part of church history and therefore must be rejected. Let it be noted that regardless of which position is taken, there remain numerous textual variants with both of these text types. Gail Riplinger cites such authors as Zane Hodges in her attempt to make the reader think that the Majority text is so well-established that there are not questionable readings remaining (page 469). If one examines the Greek New Testament that Hodges helped to edit, however, he will find a sophisticated textual apparatus giving numerous variations between the majority manuscripts. With some 'KJV-Only' advocates affirming God "preserved His perfect Word in the Textus Receptus Greek New Testament" used in production of the KJV, it is interesting to know that 6 different versions of the T.R. [edited by Erasmus] were used by the KJV translators!

Riplinger presents the word-differences "as a 'New Age' conspiracy designed to prepare the world for the Antichrist!" ...Really? Since when does the coming Antichrist care about the thousands of Bible translations produced by mankind or the millions of copies printed of them  they ALL reveal who 'HE' is! As noted above, this 'theory' is preposterous in light of the fact that the differences come from manuscripts 1800 or more years old and the copyists are unknown! A current conspiracy is simply out of the question!

Furthermore, Ms. Riplinger has exaggerated her case and actually DISTORTED the evidence she claims substantiates her views  some of the many examples:

| 1 | A chart on page 13 makes the general claim that the new versions use the word "Lord" alone without the name Jesus, thereby "dropping" the identity of Jehovah or Jesus. But Acts 19:13, 20:24 and 35, 21:13, 28:31, Romans 1:4, 7, 5:1, 11, 21, 6:23, 7:25, 8:39, are only the beginning of a multitude of verses in the NIV, NASB, and others using the name "Jesus" with Lord and Christ.

| 2 | A chart on page 14 states that the KJV uses the proper name "Jehovah" while the new versions substitute "Lord" for it, supposedly to depersonalize God [page 15]. This statement is incredible in light of the fact that the KJV inserts 'LORD' hundreds of times where the Hebrew Jehovah ("Yahweh") appears!

| 3 | A chart on page 17 attempts to show that the new versions eliminate the name Jesus and simply insert the pronoun "he." The idea is that there is an effort to get rid of the name of Jesus. Amazingly Ms. Riplinger, if ever you have read the NIV (?)  it does use the name of Jesus in several of the verses you listed! [Luke 24:36, Matthew 4:18, Mark 2:15, Mark 10:52]. Furthermore, the NIV uses the name of Jesus over 1100 times  more than it is used in the KJV! These simple observations can be seen by using the complete KJV and NIV exhaustive concordances.

| 4 | On page 19 a chart is found that claims the new versions place "a new age" where the KJV affirms "a new earth." This is in spite of the fact that Revelation 21:1 in the NIV speaks of a new earth. The same chart claims the new versions use "fruit of light" for the "fruit of the Spirit." This, again, in spite of the fact that Galatians 5:22 speaks of the fruit of the Spirit in the new versions. In fact, I would challenge Gail Riplinger to show me where the KJV speaks of either of these subjects and the new versions do not.

| 5 | The author attempts to show a conspiracy against the Lord's prayer at several places in the book, including the bottom of page 19. She fails to mention, however, that Matthew 6:9-13 does record the complete version of the prayer in the modern versions! Her claim that it is omitted in the new versions is simply... NOT TRUE.

| 6 | On page 20 an especially interesting chart appears in which it is claimed that the newer versions are attacking the person of Christ. This chart is so poor and so filled with untruths, it is difficult to believe the author is serious! I affirm that every point found in the KJV is also confirmed in the new versions. Jesus is called the Lord Jesus Christ, God, Son of God, Son, Saviour, Alpha and Omega, equal with God, Creator, etc., in the new versions [Rev 1:18, Phil. 2:6, John 1:1, Romans 9:5, Isaiah 7:14, etc., etc.]

| 7 | It is claimed on page 21 that the new versions omit salvation by grace. I ask the reader to take your pick of the most popular new versions and look up Ephesians 2:8-9.

Deliberate Sabotage!

Ms. Riplinger not only uses faulty logic and poor research to support her claims, but she also misuses and distorts sources she cites. For example, she quotes one of the leading New Testament scholars today, Dr. D. A. Carson, without giving a faithful evaluation of the context of her quote. On page 303 of New Age Bible Versions, a quote is given from page 63 of Carson's classic book, THE KING JAMES VERSION DEBATE [originally written in the late 1970's.] Carson is cited as saying that he will "pass up" a technical discussion of the Greek language and its bearing on the translation of various verses dealing with the deity of Christ. He instead offers a simpler illustration by comparing the main verses teaching the deity of Christ in the modern versions with the KJV. This is in harmony with Carson's stated purpose in the preface of the book to write "on an easy level."

In her quote, Riplinger ignores Carson's argument entirely, and ridicules his choice of not discussing the issues involved in the translation of Greek. She says "he [Carson] has no chance of scoring with a discussion of 'the Greek.' " Perhaps her ignorance is because she simply does not know that Carson authored a detailed commentary on the Gospel of John in which he does discuss at length the issues related to the deity of Christ in that Gospel from the original language. It is also of value to note that Riplinger leaves out a whole sentence in-between the first and second sentences of her "quote" without an indication of such omission. She also takes it upon herself to alter some specific words in the quote. In the hands of Riplinger, this type of selective quoting is a rampant tragedy, exposing her extreme cultic, biased views toward the KJV!

Conclusion...

From the points I have made, the reader will see that it would be a tragic error to take seriously Riplinger's "selectively"-created charts and other fallacious assertions without examining the quotes and the actual sources. When the evidence is examined, it becomes obvious that Riplinger's manuscript is not compelling and does not establish her claims and ultimate conclusions  such as proving that new translations are "preparing way for the Antichrist and a one world religion." FAR FROM IT! Currently, God's Word is all or partially translated in over 2000 languages!  with the NIV translation now the most read English Bible since 1990. Can anyone who has ever lived show me where GOD revealed that His Word is only preserved in one 17th Century Elizabethan English "translation"...uh, the KJV ?!?

For the Scriptures still say, "No one comes to the Father except through Me [Jesus speaking] and, if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing," and, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again," and, "whoever believes in Him [Jesus] is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands already condemned because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son" [John 14:6, 2 Corinthians 4:4, John 3:3 and 17  the NIV]. These classic verses emphasizing the absolute necessity of Jesus Christ and His saving Gospel have not lost their force in the modern versions!

You would be wise to REJECT this book and any other "KJV-Only" books by Riplinger, Peter Ruckman, David Otis Fuller, Samuel Gipp, D. A. Waite, William Grady, Edward Hills, Benjamin Wilkerson, J. J. Ray... and others.

Written by Mark A. McNeil (Houston TX USA), B.A., M.A., and current PhD. Student




NOTES OF INTEREST

by Bob L. Ross


"G. A. Riplinger" = Ms. GAIL RIPLINGER

"The real reason men don't like the author" of New Age Bible Versions is that "the author is a woman" (Gail Riplinger)  so says Mrs. Donald A. Waite in THE BIBLE FOR TODAY News Report #222 [a "KJV-Only" ministry located in Collingswood, NJ]. Mrs. Waite also says Ms. Riplinger "can't help it! She was born that way!"

Well, Mrs. Waite... not only was Ms. Riplinger born a woman, she was also born with a "carnal nature." She "can't help" that fact, either; but she is held responsible to "mortify" the carnal nature [Colossians 3:5, Romans 8:13]. Ms. Riplinger's being born a woman does not give her a "handicapped" license to "speak her mind" with impunity. Crying "I'm a woman" as a cop-out from critical review is similar to the "race card" used by some as a excuse for irresponsible actions.

If Mrs. Waite wants to "defend Gail Riplinger," as she proposes, then she would better serve her purpose by presenting substance rather than smoke. And furthermore, if Mrs. Waite would spend a little time researching history, she would find that women such as Riplinger (all "born that way") have been involved in the spawning of not a few heretical, cultic religious movements. Being born a woman does not make one immune to the deceptions of Satan [Revelations 2:20, Acts 16:16].

The attitude of Mrs. Waite suggests the possibility that she may harbor resentment of men and the sovereignty of God in His choice of men as His ministers [1 Timothy 2:11-15]. Her indiscriminate allegation that criticism of Riplinger's fallacious book is simply due to the fact that Riplinger "is a woman" smacks of modern "FEMINISM" of the past quarter-century. Was Mrs. Waite "infected" by the "feminist" propaganda of the "women's movement"? Or is she just now opting for this "feminist" cop-out allegation for lack of anything substantial with which to defend Riplinger... ?

"VARIETY OF TRANSLATIONS IS PROFITABLE FOR
FINDING OUT OF THE SENSE OF THE SCRIPTURES."
--the TRANSLATORS of the KING JAMES VERSION to the READERS

Source: http://members.aol.com/pilgrimpub/newagebv.htm

Kiwimac

 

[Relic]

.

Like I have written before, This is all so taxing. :-?

Gail Riplinger does NOT hide her identity, nor does she hide her credentials. http://www.avpublications.com/avnew/con ... about.html and her name is clearly displayed on this book: http://www.avpublications.com/6_qa/qa1-6b.htm
There is plenty of information and links to some rebuttals of hers on her web site, and if she so chooses to go by her initials then that is her prerogative. Many authors chose to do so. That is irrelevant to the topic. Seems to me those critics are nit picking her to pieces, but then that's what critics do to each other. :roll:

All those articles you posted neglect to give her credit for any of the degrees and research she has done that really matter in the work she has done, but they only bash her for what she did before she switched her career choice.

And in regards to the things they accuse her of... well, I'd have to read the whole of what you posted and compare for myself now, wouldn't I?

Did any of you even bother to read what she had to say in her response to the critiques of Hunt, McMahon, Lalonde, Cloud, Morey, White, Hanagraaff, House, Passantinos, and others that have said things against her? It's a huge 7 Part article.

SUCH A HUGE TASK! There are so many different opinions and nit picking going on! I will decide for myself after I have completed reading her book and have done my research.


But Honestly, just on my own impression! I have at least 7 different versions of the bible, and from over 20 years of reading a variety of versions of scripture ... I am a KING JAMES BIBLE BELIEVER.
Some people don't agree with my preference, but that's life. We are all entitled to our own opinions.
Well before I ever heard of Riplinger or those other critics, I knew straight away that the newer versions sway a person away from the truth and knowledge of God. If some of you want to believe those who promote those newer versions of the bible go right ahead. I know in my heart there is much lacking in them regardless of how much nit picking bickering these people do with each other.

After all is said and done.... I'll use my own judgement when I have completed with my research on this book entitled "IN AWE OF THEY WORD".


I'll STICK TO THE KING JAMES VERSION.




Thank you for the information.





.

 

[JM]

I reject KJVOnlyism, I use only the KJV...it's a different group. If you want solid Biblical info try the works published by Pensacola Christian College, I have three videos and have read a few of books. All solid and they're not Ruckmanites.

 

[thespunk]

Disappear! Oh please disappear!

 

[thespunk]

Disappear! Oh please disappear!

 

[Relic]

.


Personal attacks will do you no good.


I've had it with you people who come here to tear down everything that has to do with fundamentalist bible teaching on this web forum and who only come to bash those who promote for good cause.


Gail Riplinger doesn't need your approval for anything. And who says she needs to have certain types of degrees from some university to be a able to interpret the bible or write books? I think she is doing just fine. And her work is excellent.

And yes, I did read what was posted above.

And if people at Pensacola Christian College want to follow certain life styles that are of a certain type of self discipline then they have every right to teach that form of discipline and regard for one another. There is reason for that type of restriction. It is a form of respect and teaches about the control of the carnal mind. That is their business if they want to use that form of self discipline. There is significant meaning to abstinence of certain forms. If you can't understand that then that's your problem. Those people are getting valuable lessons in respect to others. And it is their choice to do so. If they don't like what that college teaches in regards to mind, body, and spirit, then they don't have to attend. I'm sure most of them are all well aware of the reasons behind the restrictions they submit themselves to. And what college doesn't have a few students that rebel? Regardless of what you say, Pensacola Christian College is an excellent bible based college.

Makes me wonder about people who would not understand what certain types of self discipline are all about and for what reason?

And, makes me wonder why you are so adamant at tearing down Gail Riplinger? Is it because she is A "King James Bible" teacher and you don't like that just like Mr. White doesn't like it and the rest of her critics who are out to promote 'Updated" version of the bible?

We can go back and forth about her. I will not debate with you. I have better things to do than to bicker about her with you. Enough people have done that already. And I will read what is already presented and decide for myself.

Enough said. Thank you.



.













.

 

[kiwimac]

And, makes me wonder why you are so adamant at tearing down Gail Riplinger? Is it because she is A "King James Bible" teacher and you don't like that just like Mr. White doesn't like it and the rest of her critics who are out to promote 'Updated" version of the bible?

Nope, it is because she:

Misrepresents her qualifications;
Deliberately misquotes other Christians & pours scorn on their salvation;
Calls all modern Bible translators tools of Satan;
Takes a heresy (KJV-Onlyism) and makes it a standard for Christian living;
LIES and continues to lie even when her lies are made public.

 

[Relic]

Re:

.

kiwimac, Digging up graves are we?

Why you bring up a thread that is 4 years old is beyond me when clearly you have no new input. It's all the same of what you said previously. :gah

So then, I'll just post to you my last posting in this thread "from 4 years ago" regarding the matter.

I still stand on the content of that posting until anyone can PROVE otherwise. I don't think your providing debators of hers that are of no better repute will serve to prove anything.

.

Like I have written before, This is all so taxing. :-?

Gail Riplinger does NOT hide her identity, nor does she hide her credentials. http://www.avpublications.com/avnew/con ... about.html and her name is clearly displayed on this book: http://www.avpublications.com/6_qa/qa1-6b.htm
There is plenty of information and links to some rebuttals of hers on her web site, and if she so chooses to go by her initials then that is her prerogative. Many authors chose to do so. That is irrelevant to the topic. Seems to me those critics are nit picking her to pieces, but then that's what critics do to each other. :roll:

All those articles you posted neglect to give her credit for any of the degrees and research she has done that really matter in the work she has done, but they only bash her for what she did before she switched her career choice.

And in regards to the things they accuse her of... well, I'd have to read the whole of what you posted and compare for myself now, wouldn't I?

Did any of you even bother to read what she had to say in her response to the critiques of Hunt, McMahon, Lalonde, Cloud, Morey, White, Hanagraaff, House, Passantinos, and others that have said things against her? It's a huge 7 Part article.

SUCH A HUGE TASK! There are so many different opinions and nit picking going on! I will decide for myself after I have completed reading her book and have done my research.


But Honestly, just on my own impression! I have at least 7 different versions of the bible, and from over 20 years of reading a variety of versions of scripture ... I am a KING JAMES BIBLE BELIEVER.
Some people don't agree with my preference, but that's life. We are all entitled to our own opinions.
Well before I ever heard of Riplinger or those other critics, I knew straight away that the newer versions sway a person away from the truth and knowledge of God. If some of you want to believe those who promote those newer versions of the bible go right ahead. I know in my heart there is much lacking in them regardless of how much nit picking bickering these people do with each other.

After all is said and done.... I'll use my own jugement when I have completed with my research on this book entitled "IN AWE OF THEY WORD".


I'll STICK TO THE KING JAMES VERSION.




Thank you for the information.





.

 

[kiwimac]

You have obviously learned nothing in the last four years, have you Relic?