Gail Riplinger

[TwinCrier]

No, I do not hold a KJV-only view. I do read and use the KJV as my overall preferred English translation.

Oh, we know, you don't have a problem with anyone reading the KJV, it's just those of us who use ONLY the KJV that stick in your craw. Read it all you want..... but don't go around thinking GOD had anything to do with it.

 

[aReformedPatriot]

Ms. Riplinger has defended her works against the attacks of critics James White and David Cloud but I doubt that they read those.

I have them saved on my computer. I was hoping we could see what her original book said. I want to know if she quotes fully. Because having read her response to white and White's response to her defense in his footnotes, Ms. Riplinger is probably one of the worst scholars I have ever read from in terms of integrity.

So what's her book say?

 

[Logos1560]

Oh, we know, you don't have a problem with anyone reading the KJV, it's just those of us who use ONLY the KJV that stick in your craw. Read it all you want..... but don't go around thinking GOD had anything to do with it.

I have not objected to the reading of only the KJV, and I have not objected to some one thinking that God had something to do with it. Your statements are a misrepresentation of my view. I do disagree with the inconsistent, man-made KJV-only view that is not taught in the KJV and that is contrary to the view of Bible translation held by the KJV translators themselves.

The problem is not someone thinking that God had something to do with the making of the KJV but the claim or implication that the only English translation that God had something to do with was the KJV. Exclusive only claims made for the KJV are not correct.
The claimed guiding of the Holy Spirit for the translators who produced the KJV is the same guiding of the Holy Spirit for the translators who produced the 1560 Geneva Bible, for the believing Baptists who revised the KJV in 1842, for the translators who produced the 1982 NKJV, and for other believing translators. The Scriptures do not teach that God showed partiality to one group of scholars in 1611.

 

[Logos1560]

In their booklet entitled KING JAMES ONLY that examines G. A. Riplinger's book NEW AGE BIBLE VERSIONS, Bob DeWaay and Jonathan Krohnfeldt wrote: "In a large research piece, a few accidental misquotations may be excused. Human are fallible, and errors in the copying procedure occur. However, if the misquotations are of such a nature as to indicate intentional omission are changing of information to bolster a claim, then the motive of the writer must surely be questioned. This is especially true if the entire thesis is primarily supported through such information doctoring.
It is such mishandling of information that plagues New Age Bible Versions" (pp. 16-17).

 

[mesue]

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?

 

[aReformedPatriot]

Come on now Mesue, its not fair to say that everytime. For instance if you were to tell me that the Satanic Bible, Book of Mormon, Talmud, etc were unbiblical one of their adherents might say, "have you ever read the works?" But I would bet that you've read portions, quotes, followed by some commentary. Are you saying that you follow your advice to the proverbial "T"?

But it is best to hear what the horse has to say. I myself have posted excerpts from the book asking for clarification if thats what she indeed wrote. Apparently no one wants to touch that and it makes me wonder why.

Mark...


Baaaa...

 

[Logos1560]

Come on now Mesue, its not fair to say that everytime. For instance if you were to tell me that the Satanic Bible, Book of Mormon, Talmud, etc were unbiblical one of their adherents might say, "have you ever read the works?" But I would bet that you've read portions, quotes, followed by some commentary. Are you saying that you follow your advice to the proverbial "T"?
Mark...

You make a valid point. People do not have to read all of a book to know that there are problems with it. After documented evidence has been provided that points out problems with a certain book, why should believers be encouraged to read that book?

As I noted before, I have read Riplinger's books. I have posted some examples of misleading and false claims in Riplinger's writings along with the documented evidence that shows those claims to be false.

 

[mesue]

Come on now Mesue, its not fair to say that everytime. For instance if you were to tell me that the Satanic Bible, Book of Mormon, Talmud, etc were unbiblical one of their adherents might say, "have you ever read the works?" But I would bet that you've read portions, quotes, followed by some commentary. Are you saying that you follow your advice to the proverbial "T"?

But it is best to hear what the horse has to say. I myself have posted excerpts from the book asking for clarification if thats what she indeed wrote. Apparently no one wants to touch that and it makes me wonder why.

Mark...


Baaaa...

twice does everytime not make
ETA:
I have read the Quran and some of the Book of Mormon. I pretty much can put my money where my mouth is. I've been on the planet longer than most here. I would hate to see anyone that young blindly follow the "majority" How wide is the road to Heaven? Not wide enough to hold the "majority".
That was really my point.
As a side:
I went to a Bills game and we were exiting through one gate. It was a very large crowd and the process was long. I felt like cattle being herded, so I started to moo and baa. It had the whole crowd going. LOL It was funny at the time.

 

[BereanTodd]

Oh, we know, you don't have a problem with anyone reading the KJV, it's just those of us who use ONLY the KJV that stick in your craw. Read it all you want..... but don't go around thinking GOD had anything to do with it.

TwinCrier, how many times have we had this conversation? We don't care if you read the KJV. We don't care if you ONLY read the KJV. We don't care if you think God had something to do with the KJV. When we care is when the contention is made that other versions are satanic/awful/unreliable and aspersions are made at those who use them.

Notice that OTHER KJO people have made points of tearing into Riplinger's work. Why would that be? Perhaps because it's horribly doccumented and slanderous?

 

[TwinCrier]

I have them saved on my computer. I was hoping we could see what her original book said. I want to know if she quotes fully. Because having read her response to white and White's response to her defense in his footnotes, Ms. Riplinger is probably one of the worst scholars I have ever read from in terms of integrity.

So what's her book say?

Okay, I'm holding it in my hand now. What do you want me to look up?

TwinCrier, how many times have we had this conversation? We don't care if you read the KJV. We don't care if you ONLY read the KJV. We don't care if you think God had something to do with the KJV. When we care is when the contention is made that other versions are satanic/awful/unreliable and aspersions are made at those who use them.

Notice that OTHER KJO people have made points of tearing into Riplinger's work. Why would that be? Perhaps because it's horribly doccumented and slanderous?

But I feel it's my duty to warn Christians about the changes from the original text made in the other versions. If you change words to water down sin, disguise the virgin birth, diety of Christ, trinity and attoning blood of the Savior you have a very dull sword.

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?

Yeah, why get the facts when you already have an opinion?

 

[BereanTodd]

But I feel it's my duty to warn Christians about the changes from the original text made in the other versions. If you change words to water down sin, disguise the virgin birth, diety of Christ, trinity and attoning blood of the Savior you have a very dull sword.

If anyone changed the text it was the KJV! I have posted lists of several verses that appear NOWHERE in any Greek manuscript, and yet are included in the KJV. Why? Why does the KJV add what was never there?

 

[TwinCrier]

The words in italics were added to make a sentence make more sense in the English language. The italics show the honesty of the translators. http://www.biblebelievers.com/jmelton/knowkjv.html

 

[BereanTodd]

The words in italics were added to make a sentence make more sense in the English language. The italics show the honesty of the translators. http://www.biblebelievers.com/jmelton/knowkjv.html

No, not words. Entire verses are added in the KJV that appear nowhere in the Greek manuscripts. Nowhere.

 

[TwinCrier]

I think you are confused. It's not the KJV adding verses, but many translations ommit entire verses. But that's expected since they are translated from inferior manuscripts.
http://www.av1611.org/biblecom.html
http://www.bible-truth.org/NIVtest.html

 

[TwinCrier]

Just so the fact isn't lost, I have Riplingers New age bible versions at my computer desk if anyone wants me to look up something.

 

[BereanTodd]

I think you are confused. It's not the KJV adding verses, but many translations ommit entire verses. But that's expected since they are translated from inferior manuscripts.
http://www.av1611.org/biblecom.html

No, here are a list of just some issues with the KJO. The KJ in some places has bad translations of words and in others adds entire verses that nowhere appear in the Greek, here are just a few:

5. Printing errors in it that have never been corrected (one example being "..strain at a gnat.." (Mt.23:24). This should be "..strain out a gnat.." (Gk. diulivzonto", filtering out).

6.
The following is a list of some terms and passages in the AV which are found in no Greek manuscripts at all.

A. Acts 9: 5,6: "..it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him…" (Erasmus honestly admitted in the notes accompanying his Greek NT that he took the words from the parallel passage in Acts 26:14, and included them in his GNT because they were in the Vulgate.)
B. Col. 1:14: "..through his blood.."
C. Rev. 5:14: "..him that liveth for ever and ever."
D. Rev. 17:4: "..full of abominations and filthiness.." The Greek term for "filthiness" (ajkaqavrthto") used in this verse in the KJV, does not exist in the Greek language

 

[Logos1560]

At the web address below, there is a book review of one book written by Gail Riplinger.

http://www.kjv-only.com/rick/riplinger_review.html

 

[Logos1560]

The words in italics were added to make a sentence make more sense in the English language. The italics show the honesty of the translators.

Along with their own statements in their preface and their marginal notes, another evidence that the KJV translators did not consider their translation to be inspired is their use of italics. F. H. A. Scrivener noted that the 1611 translators were inconsistent in their use of italics and that the later editors of editions of the KJV made many changes in their use. Scrivener observed: "There is really no serious attempt to avoid palpable inconsistencies on the same page, in the same verse; and those who have gone over this branch of their work will be aware that even comparative uniformity can be secured only in one way, by the repeated comparison of the version with the sacred originals" (Authorized Edition of the English Bible, p. 63). E. W. Bullinger commented: “The italics were used very loosely and inconsistently in the A. V.“ (Figures, p. 985). J. R. Dore also pointed out the many differences in the number of words in italics in various KJV editions. In his book entitled Old Bibles, Dore presented a table with the number of words in italics in the Gospel of Matthew in some KJV editions (p. 340).

Place of Publication Year No. of Italic words
London 1611 43
Cambridge 1629 165
Cambridge 1638 224
Cambridge 1762 352
Cambridge 1870 583

Some KJV-only authors maintain that the use of italics in the 1611 KJV prove the honesty of its translators. For example, William Bradley claimed: “The italics in the Geneva Bible and also in the King James Bible represent the translators’ honesty and integrity” (Purified Seven Times, p. 86). Peter Ruckman wrote: “The italics in the King James Bible are marks that the man who did the translating was an honest man” (Why I Believe, p. 10). Mickey Carter asserted: “The use of italics by the King James Version translators was a sign of their honesty” (Things That Are Different, p. 140). Ed DeVries wrote: “The translators of the KJV acknowledge that these words were not originally dictated by God and so they, to be honest (and to avoid the plagues of Revelation 22) set these words apart by placing them in italics” (Divinely Inspired, p. 65). Timothy Morton proposed that “one reason the King James Version is the most honest English Bible is because of the use of italics” (Which Translation, p. 33). David Daniels also claimed that “any time the King James translators felt compelled to add a word for clarity in English, they were honest enough to put it in italics, so we would know that it was not in the original text” (Answers, p. 109). If the use of italics issupposed to show the honesty of the KJV translators, why were they so inconsistent in their use? Why did later editors have to change so many more words into italic type? Were either the KJV translators or later editors such as Paris and Blayney inconsistent or wrong in their use of italics? Do KJV-only advocates consider those later editors who changed the italics to be very presumptuous?

Would any words need to be placed in italics in a perfect translation? Glenn Conjurske, a defender of the KJV, observed: "If the translation, no less than the original, is verbally inspired of God, then it were both unnecessary and impertinent to set off some of those words from the rest, as though they were not of equal authority with the others. This being so, the italics which meet us everywhere on the face of the King James Version constitute a standing proof that the producers of that version did not believe it to be inspired in the same sense as the original texts" (Olde Paths and Ancient Landmarks, Oct., 1994, p. 2). Conjurske also suggested: “an apparent disadvantage of the practice of distinguishing added words by different type may be that it increases the temptation to add such words, where they are certainly unnecessary” (p. 230). Arthur T. Pierson (1837-1911) wrote: "In the judgment of many scholarly exegetes no italics should be used in a translation. They represent words supplied by translators; if the original implies such words they need not be italicized; if it does not, to supply them is unwise, perhaps irreverent, for it may obscure and even pervert the sense" (Knowing the Scriptures, p. 58). E. W. Whitten, a KJV-only author, asserted: “The fact of the matter is that the italicizing of words is just as slanderous and unnecessary as coloring the letters” (Truth, p. 82).

 

[TwinCrier]

At the web address below, there is a book review of one book written by Gail Riplinger.

http://www.kjv-only.com/rick/riplinger_review.html

I thought we were talking about New Age bible versions, not Language of the King James Bible. I do not have that book, however, I do not diagree with anything that the article disagrees with. When I was in grammar school we were taught that about any book. Read the word in context and you can figure out what it means using your common sense. That website was cute though, even if it didn't make much sense.

 

[mesue]

Along with their own statements in their preface and their marginal notes, another evidence that the KJV translators did not consider their translation to be inspired is their use of italics. F. H. A. Scrivener noted that the 1611 translators were inconsistent in their use of italics and that the later editors of editions of the KJV made many changes in their use. Scrivener observed: "There is really no serious attempt to avoid palpable inconsistencies on the same page, in the same verse; and those who have gone over this branch of their work will be aware that even comparative uniformity can be secured only in one way, by the repeated comparison of the version with the sacred originals" (Authorized Edition of the English Bible, p. 63). E. W. Bullinger commented: “The italics were used very loosely and inconsistently in the A. V.“ (Figures, p. 985). J. R. Dore also pointed out the many differences in the number of words in italics in various KJV editions. In his book entitled Old Bibles, Dore presented a table with the number of words in italics in the Gospel of Matthew in some KJV editions (p. 340).

Place of Publication Year No. of Italic words
London 1611 43
Cambridge 1629 165
Cambridge 1638 224
Cambridge 1762 352
Cambridge 1870 583

Some KJV-only authors maintain that the use of italics in the 1611 KJV prove the honesty of its translators. For example, William Bradley claimed: “The italics in the Geneva Bible and also in the King James Bible represent the translators’ honesty and integrity” (Purified Seven Times, p. 86). Peter Ruckman wrote: “The italics in the King James Bible are marks that the man who did the translating was an honest man” (Why I Believe, p. 10). Mickey Carter asserted: “The use of italics by the King James Version translators was a sign of their honesty” (Things That Are Different, p. 140). Ed DeVries wrote: “The translators of the KJV acknowledge that these words were not originally dictated by God and so they, to be honest (and to avoid the plagues of Revelation 22) set these words apart by placing them in italics” (Divinely Inspired, p. 65). Timothy Morton proposed that “one reason the King James Version is the most honest English Bible is because of the use of italics” (Which Translation, p. 33). David Daniels also claimed that “any time the King James translators felt compelled to add a word for clarity in English, they were honest enough to put it in italics, so we would know that it was not in the original text” (Answers, p. 109). If the use of italics issupposed to show the honesty of the KJV translators, why were they so inconsistent in their use? Why did later editors have to change so many more words into italic type? Were either the KJV translators or later editors such as Paris and Blayney inconsistent or wrong in their use of italics? Do KJV-only advocates consider those later editors who changed the italics to be very presumptuous?

Would any words need to be placed in italics in a perfect translation? Glenn Conjurske, a defender of the KJV, observed: "If the translation, no less than the original, is verbally inspired of God, then it were both unnecessary and impertinent to set off some of those words from the rest, as though they were not of equal authority with the others. This being so, the italics which meet us everywhere on the face of the King James Version constitute a standing proof that the producers of that version did not believe it to be inspired in the same sense as the original texts" (Olde Paths and Ancient Landmarks, Oct., 1994, p. 2). Conjurske also suggested: “an apparent disadvantage of the practice of distinguishing added words by different type may be that it increases the temptation to add such words, where they are certainly unnecessary” (p. 230). Arthur T. Pierson (1837-1911) wrote: "In the judgment of many scholarly exegetes no italics should be used in a translation. They represent words supplied by translators; if the original implies such words they need not be italicized; if it does not, to supply them is unwise, perhaps irreverent, for it may obscure and even pervert the sense" (Knowing the Scriptures, p. 58). E. W. Whitten, a KJV-only author, asserted: “The fact of the matter is that the italicizing of words is just as slanderous and unnecessary as coloring the letters” (Truth, p. 82).

So, why the anti-KJV campaign?
We get it.
We got it, 100 posts ago.
You don't like the fact that people prefer the KJV over any other Bible.
What does this have to do with salvation?
What does it have to do with giving honor and glory to God?
What does this have to do with anything?
I'm the one that reads it in the morning, let me read what I prefer.