-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Gail Riplinger
- Thread starter Hagios17
- Start date
- Status
Even some KJV-only advocates including David Cloud consider Riplinger to be an inaccurate source of information.
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/newage.htm
KJV-only advocate David Cloud noted that Riplinger's book "is so marred by error, carelessness, and faulty logic that it cannot be used as a dependable resource" (O Timothy, Issue 8, 1994, p. 3). In another issue, Cloud noted that Riplinger's book "contains so much that is indefensible, that is pulled out of context, that is inaccurate, that is off course, that is speculative, that the reader can never know when perusing any page whether he is reading truth or fancy" (Issue 6, 1995, p. 8). Cloud referred to Riplingers conspiratorial,conjecture-filled approach (Examining, p. 17).
A review of Riplinger's book by the Trinitarian Bible Society (a group which defends the KJV) stated that her book "contains many factual errors, false innuendoes, mistakes in logic, misquotations, and instances of misleading research" (p. 1). This review also noted: "Truth must be defended by truth and not by innuendo, slander, personal attack, false doctrine, poor research, misleading statements, and faulty scholarship, as is done in this book" (p. 2). In the heresy-exposing quarterly entitled The Discerner, William BeVier stated: "It is obvious Riplinger has made some untrue statements and has quoted sources out of context" (Jan.-Mar., 1995, p. 4). Ron Minton observed that Riplinger's book is "a mass of misinformation" (Baptist Preacher, March/April, 1996, p. 20).
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/newage.htm
KJV-only advocate David Cloud noted that Riplinger's book "is so marred by error, carelessness, and faulty logic that it cannot be used as a dependable resource" (O Timothy, Issue 8, 1994, p. 3). In another issue, Cloud noted that Riplinger's book "contains so much that is indefensible, that is pulled out of context, that is inaccurate, that is off course, that is speculative, that the reader can never know when perusing any page whether he is reading truth or fancy" (Issue 6, 1995, p. 8). Cloud referred to Riplingers conspiratorial,conjecture-filled approach (Examining, p. 17).
A review of Riplinger's book by the Trinitarian Bible Society (a group which defends the KJV) stated that her book "contains many factual errors, false innuendoes, mistakes in logic, misquotations, and instances of misleading research" (p. 1). This review also noted: "Truth must be defended by truth and not by innuendo, slander, personal attack, false doctrine, poor research, misleading statements, and faulty scholarship, as is done in this book" (p. 2). In the heresy-exposing quarterly entitled The Discerner, William BeVier stated: "It is obvious Riplinger has made some untrue statements and has quoted sources out of context" (Jan.-Mar., 1995, p. 4). Ron Minton observed that Riplinger's book is "a mass of misinformation" (Baptist Preacher, March/April, 1996, p. 20).
Upvote
0
In her tract attacking and misrepresenting the NKJV, Gail Riplinger claimed that the "NKJV copies Jehovah Witness Version" at Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8 by having the rendering "Joshua" instead of having the rendering "Jesus" as the KJV does. Part of this tract was also published in the Church Bus News (April-June, 1996, p. 26). Riplinger had earlier claimed that the “new versions use dynamic equivalencies frequently, such as translating ‘Jesus’ as “Joshua’ in Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8” (New Age Bible Versions, p. 127). Riplinger and Beebe asserted that “the NKJV even turns ‘Jesus’ into “Joshua’ in Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8” (Church Bus News, July-Sept., 2002, p. 17). Were the KJV translators following a Jehovah Witnesses' reading when they stated in the margin of the 1611 concerning their reading "Jesus" at Hebrews 4:8 the following: "That is Joshua"? A mark by "Jesus" at Hebrews 4:8 in the Geneva Bible referred to this marginal note: "He speaketh of Joshua the son of Nun." Waite's Defined KJB gave the following note for "Jesus" at Hebrews 4:8: "i.e. Joshua (Heb equivalent of Jesus)" (p. 1589).
Furthermore, Riplinger seemed to be unaware of the fact that several of the early good Bibles have this same rendering as the NKJV. At Hebrews 4:8, Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's Duoglott, Great, Taverner's, and Whittingham's have "Joshua." At Acts 7:45, Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, and Great Bibles have "Joshua." Were the majority of the earlier 1500's English Bibles which have "Joshua" at Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8 copying the 1950's Jehovah Witnesses' Version? Did the old Peshitta Syriac follow a Jehovah Witnesses' reading in these verses? The Peshitta even adds "the son of Nun" to make sure that it is clear that Joshua is referred to in Hebrews 4:8. Did John Wesley in 1754 copy a Jehovah Witnesses' reading in these verses? All the editions of Luther's German Bible published during Luther's lifetime have "Josua" (Joshua) at Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8. Would Ruckman claim that Tyndale and Luther purposely mistranslated Acts 7:45?
The 1808 translation by Charles Thomson, signer of the Declaration of Independence and secretary of the Continental Congress, has "Joshua" at Acts 7:45 as did the 1842 revision of the KJV by Baptists. The 1866 American Bible Union New Testament has "Joshua" in both these verses. The 1833 Webster's Bible has the center column note "or, Joshua" at Acts 7:45 and "That is, Joshua" at Hebrews 4:8. The 1917 Scofield Reference Bible has the center column note "Joshua" at Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8. The 1657 Dutch Annotations has at Jesus at Acts 7:45 the following: “That is Joshua, the son of Nun, whereby we see that the names Joshua and Jesus are all one name.”
The fact should be obvious that a 1950's Jehovah Witnesses' Version did not even exist when the old Syriac, Luther's German Bible, and several of the early English Bibles had the reading "Joshua" in these verses. It is also interesting to note that Wally Beebe's 1975 Bus Worker's Edition of the KJV has "Joshua" in the text at Acts 7:45 and that it has a note listing "Joshua" as an alternative translation at the end of Hebrews 4:8. Would Riplinger say that Beebe's Bus Worker's Bible copied from the Jehovah Witnesses? The Liberty Annotated Study Bible [KJV], the Criswell Study Bible [KJV], and the Rice Reference Bible [KJV] also have "Joshua" in the text at Acts 7:45.
The evidence is clear and overwhelming that it was wrong and false to claim that the NKJV copies the Jehovah Witnesses' Version at Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8. Check these verses in my second appendix. In his commentary on the Gospel of Luke, G. Campbell Morgan observed that "Jesus is merely the Anglicising of the Greek name; and the Greek name rendered Jesus is the Greek form of a very well known and common Hebrew name, Joshua; and Joshua is really an abbreviation of the name Jehoshua" (p. 40). In his commentary on Acts, J. Vernon McGee noted about 7:45: "Jesus in this passage refers to Joshua. Joshua is the Hebrew name, and Jesus is the Greek" (p. 83). In his 1857 commentary on Acts, J. A. Alexander stated: "Jesus, the Septuagint form of Joshua, occurs also in Heb. 4:8, and in both cases creates some confusion in the minds of English readers" (p. 294). Bullinger maintained that “Jesus=Joshua, the son of Nun” at Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8 (Lexicon, pp. 422-423). In his commentary on Acts, H. A. Ironside wrote: "The word 'Jesus' here of course is really Joshua. It is the same name, but we somehow think of 'Jesus' as applying only to our blessed Saviour" (p. 173). Concerning this verse in the 1839 Baptist edition of the Comprehensive Commentary edited by William Jenks and Joseph Warne, this is stated: “The tabernacle was brought in by those who came with Jesus, that is, Joshua, as, for distinction-sake, and to prevent mistakes, it ought to be read, both here and Hebrews 4:8” (p. 38). The ABS’s Committee on Versions commented: “Thus in Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8, we find the name Jesus, which the common reader will naturally refer only to the Saviour; while in reality it is simply the Greek form for Joshua, and should properly have been so written” (Statements, p. 7). It could also be noted that the New Testament used the name "Jesus" to refer to a man also called "Justus" (Col. 4:11).
Riplinger's false claim, which seems to attempt to condemn the NKJV by associating it with a group that sometimes considered a cult, is based on the ad hominem (poisoning the well) fallacy. Did Riplinger intend or desire to injure the good name and reputation of the NKJV translators by making these false, and perhaps even slanderous, or libelous statements concerning the NKJV? Does not Riplinger's claim "bear false witness" against the NKJV and its translators (Exod. 20:16, Prov. 6:19, 14:5, Rom. 13:9)? Riplinger wrote: "Anything based on a false premise will eventually have to resort to lies to defend itself" (Blind Guides, p. 58). Did Riplinger possibly assume or start with a false premise that the NKJV copied the Jehovah Witnesses' Version? Defending Riplinger, Waite wrote: "If she has made an error of fact or quotation, she is willing to admit it and correct it" (Foes, p. 55). Have these errors been corrected or are these false claims still being published in her tract?
Furthermore, Riplinger seemed to be unaware of the fact that several of the early good Bibles have this same rendering as the NKJV. At Hebrews 4:8, Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's Duoglott, Great, Taverner's, and Whittingham's have "Joshua." At Acts 7:45, Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, and Great Bibles have "Joshua." Were the majority of the earlier 1500's English Bibles which have "Joshua" at Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8 copying the 1950's Jehovah Witnesses' Version? Did the old Peshitta Syriac follow a Jehovah Witnesses' reading in these verses? The Peshitta even adds "the son of Nun" to make sure that it is clear that Joshua is referred to in Hebrews 4:8. Did John Wesley in 1754 copy a Jehovah Witnesses' reading in these verses? All the editions of Luther's German Bible published during Luther's lifetime have "Josua" (Joshua) at Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8. Would Ruckman claim that Tyndale and Luther purposely mistranslated Acts 7:45?
The 1808 translation by Charles Thomson, signer of the Declaration of Independence and secretary of the Continental Congress, has "Joshua" at Acts 7:45 as did the 1842 revision of the KJV by Baptists. The 1866 American Bible Union New Testament has "Joshua" in both these verses. The 1833 Webster's Bible has the center column note "or, Joshua" at Acts 7:45 and "That is, Joshua" at Hebrews 4:8. The 1917 Scofield Reference Bible has the center column note "Joshua" at Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8. The 1657 Dutch Annotations has at Jesus at Acts 7:45 the following: “That is Joshua, the son of Nun, whereby we see that the names Joshua and Jesus are all one name.”
The fact should be obvious that a 1950's Jehovah Witnesses' Version did not even exist when the old Syriac, Luther's German Bible, and several of the early English Bibles had the reading "Joshua" in these verses. It is also interesting to note that Wally Beebe's 1975 Bus Worker's Edition of the KJV has "Joshua" in the text at Acts 7:45 and that it has a note listing "Joshua" as an alternative translation at the end of Hebrews 4:8. Would Riplinger say that Beebe's Bus Worker's Bible copied from the Jehovah Witnesses? The Liberty Annotated Study Bible [KJV], the Criswell Study Bible [KJV], and the Rice Reference Bible [KJV] also have "Joshua" in the text at Acts 7:45.
The evidence is clear and overwhelming that it was wrong and false to claim that the NKJV copies the Jehovah Witnesses' Version at Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8. Check these verses in my second appendix. In his commentary on the Gospel of Luke, G. Campbell Morgan observed that "Jesus is merely the Anglicising of the Greek name; and the Greek name rendered Jesus is the Greek form of a very well known and common Hebrew name, Joshua; and Joshua is really an abbreviation of the name Jehoshua" (p. 40). In his commentary on Acts, J. Vernon McGee noted about 7:45: "Jesus in this passage refers to Joshua. Joshua is the Hebrew name, and Jesus is the Greek" (p. 83). In his 1857 commentary on Acts, J. A. Alexander stated: "Jesus, the Septuagint form of Joshua, occurs also in Heb. 4:8, and in both cases creates some confusion in the minds of English readers" (p. 294). Bullinger maintained that “Jesus=Joshua, the son of Nun” at Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8 (Lexicon, pp. 422-423). In his commentary on Acts, H. A. Ironside wrote: "The word 'Jesus' here of course is really Joshua. It is the same name, but we somehow think of 'Jesus' as applying only to our blessed Saviour" (p. 173). Concerning this verse in the 1839 Baptist edition of the Comprehensive Commentary edited by William Jenks and Joseph Warne, this is stated: “The tabernacle was brought in by those who came with Jesus, that is, Joshua, as, for distinction-sake, and to prevent mistakes, it ought to be read, both here and Hebrews 4:8” (p. 38). The ABS’s Committee on Versions commented: “Thus in Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8, we find the name Jesus, which the common reader will naturally refer only to the Saviour; while in reality it is simply the Greek form for Joshua, and should properly have been so written” (Statements, p. 7). It could also be noted that the New Testament used the name "Jesus" to refer to a man also called "Justus" (Col. 4:11).
Riplinger's false claim, which seems to attempt to condemn the NKJV by associating it with a group that sometimes considered a cult, is based on the ad hominem (poisoning the well) fallacy. Did Riplinger intend or desire to injure the good name and reputation of the NKJV translators by making these false, and perhaps even slanderous, or libelous statements concerning the NKJV? Does not Riplinger's claim "bear false witness" against the NKJV and its translators (Exod. 20:16, Prov. 6:19, 14:5, Rom. 13:9)? Riplinger wrote: "Anything based on a false premise will eventually have to resort to lies to defend itself" (Blind Guides, p. 58). Did Riplinger possibly assume or start with a false premise that the NKJV copied the Jehovah Witnesses' Version? Defending Riplinger, Waite wrote: "If she has made an error of fact or quotation, she is willing to admit it and correct it" (Foes, p. 55). Have these errors been corrected or are these false claims still being published in her tract?
Upvote
0
aReformedPatriot
Ron Paul for President!
An excellent and fairly extensive critique of Riplinger and her inability to tell the whole story or even quote properly is made in The King James Only Controversy by James White.
Also her authorial name, G.A. Riplinger stands for "God and Riplinger." Im not certain but I do believe she writes under a psuedonym. Dont take my word for it though, its been a while since I've read anything concerning that.
Also her authorial name, G.A. Riplinger stands for "God and Riplinger." Im not certain but I do believe she writes under a psuedonym. Dont take my word for it though, its been a while since I've read anything concerning that.
Upvote
0
In an article entitled "Why I Wrote the Book: New Age Bible Versions," Gail Riplinger is quoted as stating: "Each discovery was not the result of effort on my part, but of the direct hand of God--so much so that I hesitated to even put my name on the book. Consequently, I used G. A. Riplinger, which signifies to me, God and Riplinger--God as author and Riplinger as secretary" (The End Times and Victorious Living, January/ February, 1994, p. 15). This publication is a KJV-only publication.
Upvote
0
aReformedPatriot
Ron Paul for President!
Good show old chap.
What do you think of Riplinger, Hagios? You did not specify one way or the other in the OP.
Upvote
0
BereanTodd
Missionary Heart
- Nov 26, 2006
- 2,448
- 281
- 49
- Faith
- Pentecostal
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Good show old chap.
What do you think of Riplinger, Hagios? You did not specify one way or the other in the OP.
Hagios is a hard-core KJO guy along with BigChris around here, and my very strong guess is that Hagios buys into all of Riplingers laughable, awful scholarship.
Upvote
0
aReformedPatriot
Ron Paul for President!
I didnt know that. Although, I stray away from all the KJVO threads myself so thats my excuse. Just not a topic that holds my attention.
Hagios, when you first came here you were solidly anti-batpist. I would not have guessed you'd adhere to that theology at all. But maybe thats just my mis-conception and the fact that i thought only IFB held that view.
Upvote
0
TwinCrier
Double Blessed and spreading the gospel
- Oct 11, 2002
- 6,069
- 617
- 55
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
http://www.av1611.org/kjv/ripwhit1.html
Speaking as someone who has actually read New Age Bible Versions I assure everyone it is a well documented book and extremely educational. Of course I no longer needed further convincing that the KJV was God's word at the point in my life when I read it.
http://www.avpublications.com/7_about/about_avp.htm
Speaking as someone who has actually read New Age Bible Versions I assure everyone it is a well documented book and extremely educational. Of course I no longer needed further convincing that the KJV was God's word at the point in my life when I read it.
Upvote
0
I have read four books written by Gail Riplinger including NEW AGE BIBLE VERSIONS, have listened to several tapes of her speaking or being interviewed, and heard her speak in person once. I have checked out a good number of her claims, and valid evidence shows them to be inaccurate or misleading. Do you agree with Gail Riplinger's false claims about the NKJV documented in the third post in this thread? Do you agree with Riplinger's claim that God was the author of her book?
Riplinger, Gail. "Bible Versions." (Oklahoma City: Southwest Radio Church, n. d.), audiotape #K560.
Riplinger, Gail. Blind Guides. Ararat, VA: A.V. Publications, 1995.
Riplinger, Gail. "Detailed Update." (Ararat, VA: A. V. Publications, n. d.), audiotape.
Riplinger, Gail. "Gail Riplinger--Interviewed on the KJB by Dr. Joseph Chambers." (Collingswood: The Bible for Today, Sept., 1995), audiotape #2580/02.
Riplinger, Gail. In Awe of Thy Word: Understanding the King James Bible, Its Mystery and History, Letter by Letter. Ararat: A. V. Publications, 2003.
Riplinger, Gail. The Language of the King James Bible. Ararat, VA: A.V. Publications, 1998.
Riplinger, Gail. "The Language of the KJB." Riplinger Lecture Series. (Ararat, VA: A. V. Publications, n. d.), audiotape.
Riplinger, Gail. New Age Bible Versions. Shelbyville, TN: Bible & Literature Missionary Foundation, 1993.
Riplinger, Gail. New Age Bible Versions. Twelveth Printing, 2003. Ararat, VA: A. V. Publications, 1993.
Riplinger, Gail. "Research Update." (Ararat, VA: A. V. Publications, n. d.), audiotape.
Riplinger, Gail. Which Bible Is God's Word? Hearthstone Publishing, 1994.
Riplinger, Gail. "Which Bible is God's Word?" (Oklahoma City: Southwest Radio Church, n. d.), 4 audiotapes #K472.
Riplinger, Gail and Wally Beebe. A Handy Guide to Modern Language Versions. Beebe Publications, 2002.
Upvote
0
BereanTodd
Missionary Heart
- Nov 26, 2006
- 2,448
- 281
- 49
- Faith
- Pentecostal
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Riplinger has been shown to be a slanderer and a flat out liar, have you even read any of the critiques of her work? Even the KJO people almost unanimously decry her pathetic "scholarship".
Upvote
0
mesue
Love all, trust a few. Do wrong to none.
It's a shame she's not here to defend herself.
Maybe we can rename the thread "How ungraceful can I speak about someone that can't stick up for themselves?"
I haven't read her work, and didn't know who she was until I came to this thread.
I am KJVO because this is the tool God uses with me. It's how He speaks to me. You can read your comentary versions if you'd like. I was reading the NAS when I met Jesus at the Cross and He became my personal Savior.
Maybe we can rename the thread "How ungraceful can I speak about someone that can't stick up for themselves?"
I haven't read her work, and didn't know who she was until I came to this thread.
I am KJVO because this is the tool God uses with me. It's how He speaks to me. You can read your comentary versions if you'd like. I was reading the NAS when I met Jesus at the Cross and He became my personal Savior.
Upvote
0
BereanTodd
Missionary Heart
- Nov 26, 2006
- 2,448
- 281
- 49
- Faith
- Pentecostal
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Have you read any of the critiques? They were written by other KJO people. They show quite conclusively that at best Ms. Ripplinger is horribly, unbelievably guillable and doesn't check her sources. And that is being exceptionally king. It is shown that she twists quotes from other people, says that just flat out aren't so, makes false assertions. There is no way to defend what she did in that book.
Upvote
0
BereanTodd
Missionary Heart
- Nov 26, 2006
- 2,448
- 281
- 49
- Faith
- Pentecostal
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
I don't have to, and I won't. It has been shown conclusively and without a doubt that she:
-lied
-misquoted
-misinformed
-made false statements
Why would I read a book that included all of that? What's the point?
Upvote
0
aReformedPatriot
Ron Paul for President!
So I take it some of you have her work (New Age Bible Versions)? Excellent. So let us examine it real quick with a critique that has been made.
Turn to page 455 of Riplinger's book. Do you see a chart quoting the following:
NASB:
"The Steadfast mind thou wilt keep in perfect peace."
KJV
Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee. Isaiah 26:3
That chart appears right?
White quotes from Riplinger's work on that passage:
"It certainly appears, if one takes Riplinger at face value, that the NASB has indeed "deleted" something. And yet such would be a grand mistake. But notice the actual readings of both versions:
[White's Chart]
NASB:
"The steadfast of mind Thou wilt keep in perfect peace, Because he trusts in Thee."
KJV:
"Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee: because he trusteth in thee."
While New Age Bible Versions places a period after "peace" in its rendering of the NASB, we see that no such period exists. Instead, the rest of the verse actually contains the "key words" alleged to be missing!" (James White, The King James Only Controversy p. 98).
Now I did some checking and they are quoting out of the Original NASB before it was updated and removed the Thees and Thous. So if you have the NASBU don't expect to see a word for word.
So can those of you who have the book please check?
If I may draw one more critical evaluation made by White from his book, it would be on her supposed inability to quote properly when making an argument.
The following appears in White's text:
So let's see what Riplinger says, shall we? Can we trust her integrity?
Turn to page 455 of Riplinger's book. Do you see a chart quoting the following:
NASB:
"The Steadfast mind thou wilt keep in perfect peace."
KJV
Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee. Isaiah 26:3
That chart appears right?
White quotes from Riplinger's work on that passage:
"A second attempt to arm her (Ephesians 6:17) in her joust with the devil, found the NASB's sword sheathed hiding the key words, "on Thee" (Riplinger p. 454 New Age Bible Versions p. 1993).
So then what does White have to actually say concerning this one portion:
"It certainly appears, if one takes Riplinger at face value, that the NASB has indeed "deleted" something. And yet such would be a grand mistake. But notice the actual readings of both versions:
[White's Chart]
NASB:
"The steadfast of mind Thou wilt keep in perfect peace, Because he trusts in Thee."
KJV:
"Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee: because he trusteth in thee."
While New Age Bible Versions places a period after "peace" in its rendering of the NASB, we see that no such period exists. Instead, the rest of the verse actually contains the "key words" alleged to be missing!" (James White, The King James Only Controversy p. 98).
Now I did some checking and they are quoting out of the Original NASB before it was updated and removed the Thees and Thous. So if you have the NASBU don't expect to see a word for word.
So can those of you who have the book please check?
If I may draw one more critical evaluation made by White from his book, it would be on her supposed inability to quote properly when making an argument.
The following appears in White's text:
Dr. Edwin Palmer wsas the exective secretary of the NIV translation committee. Consequently he is the subject of merciless attakcks in New Age Bible Versions. But even worse is the misreepresentation of his statements that, again, is fo ra very obvious purpose. Edwin Palmer is the leading name in the origination and translation of the single English translation that has most severely challenged the preeminece of he KJV. If Riplinger can miseald her readers with referecnce to the executive secretary of the translation committee of the NIV, she has gone a long way in convincing people to abandon the use of the NIV. And how does she go about her task? She first focuses upon one of the "hot" issues: the great truth of the deity of Christ. She attempts to paint Dr. Palmer as a closet Arian, a denier of the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, through the misuse of his own words. Compare her alleged "citations" with his actual words:
Riplinger's Version:
KJVO Controversy pages 102-103.
I'd provide a scan of White's text but that might be copyright violation. As such he has been properly cited. Riplinger's Version:
Under the centure old spell of the Westcott and Hort Greek Text, NIV Editor Edwin Palmer comes to his chilling theological conclusion!:
What Dr. Palmer Actually Said:[There are] few clear and decisive texts that declare Jesus is God. (New Age Bible Versions p 305).
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 "Son."
The fact that this kind of out-of-context quotation is inexcusable is made even more clear by the fact that Mrs. Riplinger misrepresented Dr. Palmer elsewhere...
KJVO Controversy pages 102-103.
So let's see what Riplinger says, shall we? Can we trust her integrity?
Upvote
0
As I noted earlier, I have read Riplinger's books and have compared a good number of her claims to the actual evidence and found her claims to be inaccurate or misleading.
Upvote
0
No, I do not hold a KJV-only view. I do read and use the KJV as my overall preferred English translation.
Upvote
0
TwinCrier
Double Blessed and spreading the gospel
- Oct 11, 2002
- 6,069
- 617
- 55
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Ms. Riplinger has defended her works against the attacks of critics James White and David Cloud but I doubt that they read those.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
