The New Age Versions... I mean new age

[Hagios17]

So why are we slagging gail riplinger? 7 years of research- ha, always mocking the clever ones. But seriously, Why?

[RichardT]

http://www.wayoflife.org/articles/newage.htm

I like Gail Riplinger, don't get me wrong, but there are some serious mistakes in the book. Read David Cloud's article, he shows us the quotes she took out of context...

Remember, i'm also a KJO, I just like to correct error...

edit : I mean, there might be some good stuff in the book, but i'm just reading the quotes that David Cloud used and reading them in context and I can see that Riplinger didn't quote properly for some of her quotations.

I'm pretty much taking David Cloud's word for it. I could be wrong.

[TwinCrier]

I don't claim Gail Riplinger is infallible, but the research in her book in impeccable. I've only read it through once as it's a rather lengthy book, but I didn't research any quotes and didn't care much about them anyhow. I was concerned with the facts about manuscripts.

[RichardT]

wow LOL, I laughed so hard when I got here:

13. According to the chart on p. 22, the new versions radically change the Bible's teaching pertaining to a Christian's attitude toward his enemies. According to Riplinger's chart, whereas the KJV tells us to "bless" our enemies, the New Versions omit this and have "you ... bastard." Whereas the KJV tells us to "do good" to our enemies, the New Versions omit this and have "go to hell." Whereas the KJV tells us to "forgive" our enemies, the New Versions omit this and replace it with "you son of a [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]." This is an amazing and gross misrepresentation of the truth. All of the modern versions teach that the Christian is to bless, do good to, and forgive his enemies. What about "bastard" and "son of a [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]"? These were expressions used in early editions of the Living Bible. They are no longer found even in the Living Bible, and were never used in the NIV or NASV. The critical text does remove a portion of Matthew 5:44, but to see in this omission what Mrs. Riplinger sees requires putting on a strange sort of glasses.

[Logos1560]

Gail Riplinger's books have many inaccurate and misleading claims.

In one of other books, Gail Riplinger maintained: “The previous Bishops’ Bible (c1568-1611) was no less perfect, pure, and true than the KJV” (In Awe of Thy Word, p. 17). Riplinger wrote: “In the main, the Bishops’ Bible is the same as all previous English Bibles” (In Awe, p. 567). She proposed that “the Bishops’ Bible is the textual twin of the KJV” (p. 164). She observed: The KJV translators generally followed the grammatical elements and word order (syntax) of the Bishops’ Bible. This was their foundation and they seldom varied from it” (p. 132). She also commented: “Both the Bishops’ and the KJV are literal, word-for-word renderings of the Greek text and show all words, even if they seem repetitive” (p. 288). She claimed that “the words that differ in the early English Bibles are pure synonyms” (p. 859). Riplinger maintained that she did a “word-for-word collation of earlier English Bibles with the KJV,” which suggests that she should be aware of the renderings of the Bishops’ Bible (p. 17).

Actual evidence from the Bishops' Bible would show that Riplinger's claims about it are inaccurate.

[Logos1560]

http://www.wayoflife.org/articles/newage.htm

I like Gail Riplinger, don't get me wrong, but there are some serious mistakes in the book. Read David Cloud's article, he shows us the quotes she took out of context...

Remember, i'm also a KJO, I just like to correct error...



While continuing to use this tactic in her new book, Gail Riplinger wrote: "This ad hominem technique is not scholarly and is usually only employed as a last resort by opponents who cannot win a debate on a rational and factual level" (Blind Guides, p. 2). Why does Riplinger depend on this weak tactic in her personal attacks on all who dare to disagree with her uninspired and fallible opinions? Riplinger also noted: "Fierce invectives are employed for the purpose of emotionally arousing the reader to question the author's character" (Ibid., p. 2). She again condemned the "worldly technique of littering their articles with name-calling and emotional appeals" (Ibid., p. 9). After claiming that such tactics were wrong, the "humble" Mrs. Riplinger then personally attacks fellow KJV-only advocate David Cloud under the heading "O Madmen" (Ibid., p. 22). While seeming to be proud of her own claimed accomplishments, Riplinger stated: "Cloud's five 'I' statements, about his accomplishments, are reminiscent of Lucifer (Is. 14)" (Ibid., p. 32). She accused him of "spiritual adulteries" (Ibid., p. 22). Seeming to misuse Cloud's last name by making a derogatory pun concerning it, she wrote: "Clouds constantly change their shape depending on how much 'heat' comes their way" (Ibid., pp. 33-34).

Perhaps the reason for Riplinger's attack was that 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 “Riplinger’s 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).

[BigChrisfilm]

While continuing to use this tactic in her new book, Gail Riplinger wrote: "This ad hominem technique is not scholarly and is usually only employed as a last resort by opponents who cannot win a debate on a rational and factual level" (Blind Guides, p. 2). Why does Riplinger depend on this weak tactic in her personal attacks on all who dare to disagree with her uninspired and fallible opinions? Riplinger also noted: "Fierce invectives are employed for the purpose of emotionally arousing the reader to question the author's character" (Ibid., p. 2). She again condemned the "worldly technique of littering their articles with name-calling and emotional appeals" (Ibid., p. 9). After claiming that such tactics were wrong, the "humble" Mrs. Riplinger then personally attacks fellow KJV-only advocate David Cloud under the heading "O Madmen" (Ibid., p. 22). While seeming to be proud of her own claimed accomplishments, Riplinger stated: "Cloud's five 'I' statements, about his accomplishments, are reminiscent of Lucifer (Is. 14)" (Ibid., p. 32). She accused him of "spiritual adulteries" (Ibid., p. 22). Seeming to misuse Cloud's last name by making a derogatory pun concerning it, she wrote: "Clouds constantly change their shape depending on how much 'heat' comes their way" (Ibid., pp. 33-34).

Perhaps the reason for Riplinger's attack was that 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 “Riplinger’s 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).

You are what I would call a AKJVist. That stands for

Against King James Version ist.

[Logos1560]

I was agreeing with RichardT that errors and false claims should be corrected. How is advocating truth, accuracy, and consistency supposed to be being against the KJV?

[BereanTodd]

http://www.wayoflife.org/articles/newage.htm



Chris, just read that article. The guy who wrote it is every bit as KJO as you (and every bit as wrong for holding such a silly view), and yet he tore Riplinger to shreds. He doccumented dozens of false and innacurate quotes, lies and missinformation in her book.

[Logos1560]

Gail Riplinger claimed: "All new versions, in their attempt to present a 'works' based salvation mistranslate pistis as 'faithfulness'" in Galatians 5:22 (New Age Bible Versions, p. 257). Riplinger suggested or implied that the NKJV supported "works salvation" because of its rendering "faithfulness" at Galatians 5:22 (Language of KJB, p. 149). Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, and Great Bibles on the KJV-only view's line of good Bibles all had "faithfulness" at Galatians 5:22. Is Riplinger suggesting that William Tyndale, in effect the primary translator of the KJV, and Miles Coverdale were attempting to present a works-based salvation? Was the KJV a revision of earlier Bibles that supported "works salvation?" KJV-only advocates fail to consider how their claims apply to the English foundation that underlies the KJV.

[Logos1560]

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? Does the old Spanish Bibles copy a Jehovah Witnesses' reading in these verses with its rendering "Josue" (Joshua)? 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, the Spanish Bibles, 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 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?

[Logos1560]

I don't claim Gail Riplinger is infallible, but the research in her book in impeccable. I've only read it through once as it's a rather lengthy book, but I didn't research any quotes and didn't care much about them anyhow. I was concerned with the facts about manuscripts.

If you have not checked the accuracy of Riplinger's quotes, how can you claim that her research in that book is "impeccable" [faultless, flawless, irreproachable; not capable of wrongdoing]? There is plenty of valid evidence that shows that Riplinger's research in her book NEW AGE BIBLE VERSIONS was not impeccable as you claimed.

The followers of Gail Riplinger should check the actual evidence instead of repeating Riplinger's inaccurate accusations.