Gail Riplinger

[Hagios17]

www.avpublications.com/ (http://www.avpublications.com/)

Give her site a look see. Bible versions and all.

[Logos1560]

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 “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).

[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? 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?

[aReformedPatriot]

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.

[Logos1560]

Also her authorial name, G.A. Riplinger stands for "God and Riplinger."

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.

[aReformedPatriot]

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.


Good show old chap. :thumbsup:

What do you think of Riplinger, Hagios? You did not specify one way or the other in the OP.

[BereanTodd]

Good show old chap. :thumbsup:

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.

[aReformedPatriot]

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.

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.

[TwinCrier]

http://www.av1611.org/kjv/ripwhit1.html
G.A. Riplinger has B.A., M.A., and M.F.A. degrees and has done additional postgraduate study at Harvard and Cornell Universities. As a university professor, the author taught seventeen different courses, authored six college textbooks and was selected for the Honor Society's teaching award and membership in a national Education Honorary.
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.

[Logos1560]

Speaking as someone who has actually read New Age Bible Versions I assure everyone it is a well documented book and extremely educational.

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.

[BereanTodd]

http://www.av1611.org/kjv/ripwhit1.html

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.

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".

[mesue]

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.

[BereanTodd]

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.

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.

[mesue]

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.
Read the critiques? Have you read her books so you can speak for yourself and not be a sheep following the herd?

[BereanTodd]

Read the critiques? Have you read her books so you can speak for yourself and not be a sheep following the herd?

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]

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:
"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:
Under the centure old spell of the Westcott and Hort Greek Text, NIV Editor Edwin Palmer comes to his chilling theological conclusion!:[There are] few clear and decisive texts that declare Jesus is God. (New Age Bible Versions p 305).

What Dr. Palmer Actually Said:
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.

I'd provide a scan of White's text but that might be copyright violation. As such he has been properly cited.

So let's see what Riplinger says, shall we? Can we trust her integrity?

[Logos1560]

Have you read her books so you can speak for yourself

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.

[aReformedPatriot]

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.

You're a KJVO, correct?

[Logos1560]

You're a KJVO, correct?

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

[TwinCrier]

It's a shame she's not here to defend herself......Ms. Riplinger has defended her works against the attacks of critics James White (http://www.avpublications.com/avnew/content/Critiqued/james1.html) and David Cloud (http://www.avpublications.com/avnew/content/Critiqued/cloud1.html) but I doubt that they read those.

[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 (http://www.avpublications.com/avnew/content/Critiqued/james1.html) and David Cloud (http://www.avpublications.com/avnew/content/Critiqued/cloud1.html) 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?
http://www.giftsheep.com/Images/BigSheep_01.gif

[aReformedPatriot]

http://www.giftsheep.com/Images/BigSheep_01.gif

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

[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.

[mesue]

No, not words. Entire verses are added in the KJV that appear nowhere in the Greek manuscripts. Nowhere.
It depends on which manuscripts you're talking about. There were several different ones.

[Logos1560]

You don't like the fact that people prefer the KJV over any other Bible.


Your statement is false. As I have noted before, I do not mind at all if many English-speaking believers prefer the KJV over any other English translation. I prefer it over all too.

Based on the truths taught in the KJV and other good translations, I should and do object to the making of false claims about the KJV and about other English translations. The KJV does not teach your inconsistent, KJV-only view. The KJV does not make exclusive only claims for any one translation. The KJV does not teach that claimed love for the KJV justifies or excuses the making of inaccurate, misleading, and even false claims about Bible translations.

[BereanTodd]

It depends on which manuscripts you're talking about. There were several different ones.

No, the things I mentioned above appear in NO manuscripts anywhere. It's not about TR versus the older copies. It's that they appear in NO SINGLE GREEK MSS ANYWHERE.

[JPPT1974]

I prefer either the KJV as they spoke
That language in the Bible days
Or the NIV version in which is more understanding
To read.

[BereanTodd]

I prefer either the KJV as they spoke
That language in the Bible days

Uhm, English was not invented until 1000 years after the time of Christ. The KJV is not written in the language of the Bible days. The language of the "Bible days" was Hebrew in the OT (which it was written in). In Jesus' day they spoke mostly Aramaic and wrote mostly in Greek (Greek being what the NT is written in for the most part, with Matthew and Hebrews being possible exceptions).

The KJV English is not the language of the Bible days.

[psalm511013]

Ms. Riplinger has defended her works against the attacks of critics James White and David Cloud but I doubt that they read those.As it is proven that Ms. Riplinger's research and ability to quote the works of others is suspect at it's best and fraudulent at it's worst -- the proof lying in the posted quotations throughout this thread, all of which are easily verifiable -- how would any defense she might offer not be tainted by the suspicions (at best) or the fraud (at worst)?

[psalm511013]

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. ... you accept in the KJV the exact same practice you condemn in the NASB (I've seen it in other threads). How's that workin' out for ya?

[psalm511013]

So, why the anti-KJV campaign?We are not waging an "anti-KJV campaign" but the KJVO folk, perhaps with good intentions, are definitely waging an "anti-every-other-English-version campaign." Our "attacks" on the KJV are merely efforts to point out that calling the KJV "inspired" despite these discrepancies is to call into question the ability of God to produce a perfect work. Further, to claim the KJV somehow "improves" on the original languages is tantamount to heresy, given II Timothy 3:16, 17 which clearly states that "All Scripture is inspired (God breathed) ...", a fact spoken of those works coming through the pens of 40 or so writers in the languages of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek between 1450 BC and 96 AD, not through the pens of three Englishmen toiling for King James in the Age of Enlightenment.
We get it.
We got it, 100 posts ago.So did we. In spades.
You don't like the fact that people prefer the KJV over any other BibleThere you go again, taking it as a personal attack on you, which is probably the real motivation behind the KJV Only efforts in the first place. People need to feel their choices are somehow special or privileged, likely because they lack self-confidence and need to boost themselves up with false pride over a false assumption about a mere translation. That's worldly behavior, not Christlikeness. Well ...

... Get over it!!!

Aside from Christ, none of us has anything in which to be confident, least of all ourselves. The real issue here is not that we disapprove of your use of the KJV, it is that you disapprove of our use of anything else. Without the insistence that the KJV is inspired, there would be no controversy to discuss and fill volumes and volumes of cyberspace with wasted effort (like this post and the others before it).
What does this have to do with salvation?Nothing
What does it have to do with giving honor and glory to God?Nothing
What does this have to do with anything?As I said before, the only thing it has to do with is false pride and self-confidence that is of the world, not of Christ.
I'm the one that reads it in the morning, let me read what I prefer.Gladly. Will you allow me the same privilege without insulting me and my intelligence with nonsense about the "satanic" nature of my NASB or the "inspired nature" of the KJV which, like my NASB, the NIV, the NLT, the ESV, etc., etc., etc., is a mere translation of the truly inspired original works from Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek? Please?

[Razorbuck]

TwinCrier, I admire your stand for our LORD's perfectly preserved Word. It seems to me an awful shame that most folks don't believe that God preserved His Word. We hear much about the God-breathed "originals", but in the end they don't believe they can hold a perfectly preserved copy of them in their hand. Intentionally or not, they place themselves at the mercy of the latest and greatest scholarship of men, believing (by faith, presumably) that we are somehow actually gaining in understanding of ancient languages though further removed from them by time. In regard to the very words of the LORD, they look unto PhD's rather than for His own mighty signature.

Personally, I no longer debate this question. I received my present convictions through years of prayer and study, and will gladly share them when asked, but have found debate for the most part unfruitful. Simple, unwavering faithfulness to the LORD's precious Word in my experience has convinced more folks of the truth than all the debate over conflicting reports, testimonies, histories and text families ever could. When I was on the other side of the debate, no scholarship, no logic, no presentation could sway me. It wasn't until I sought the answer from my Master alone that peace came.

The LORD says that if we seek, we shall find. The truth of His Words is there for all His children who diligently seek it. He desires to give them good gifts.

I have His Son, perfect and complete. No confusion, no debate.

I have His Spirit, perfect and complete. No confusion, no debate.

I have His Word, perfect and complete. No confusion, no debate.

The author of confusion can never, ever change these facts.
Praise be unto God!

[Logos1560]

It seems to me an awful shame that most folks don't believe that God preserved His Word. We hear much about the God-breathed "originals", but in the end they don't believe they can hold a perfectly preserved copy of them in their hand. Intentionally or not, they place themselves at the mercy of the latest and greatest scholarship of men, believing (by faith, presumably)

How do you know what most folks believe? I believe that God has preserved His Word. Your inconsistent, man-made KJV-only view is not taught in the Scriptures regardless of how confident you are in it. You provide no valid consistent scriptural basis for your claims. Holders of a KJV-only view seem to place themselves at the mercy of the interpreting/translating/understanding of Church of England scholars in 1611 and at the mercy of many printers and editors (some unknown) who introduced many changes in the text of the 1611 edition of the KJV.

Your post seems to suggest that you think that you cannot be wrong about this issue, and thus it implies that you consider your understanding of the Scriptures to be perfect and infallible (beyond any possibility of misunderstandings or errors).

In his commentary on 1 Corinthians 13, Spiros Zodhiates observed: "There is no one more blind than he who thinks he has a message from God for everyone but himself" (p. 29).

[IisJustMe]

It seems to me an awful shame that most folks don't believe that God preserved His Word.This statement is the worst kind of bulldozer debate tactic. It deliberately misstates the view of the opponent, then builds on it with further misstatements that succeed in establishing a very potent straw man who nonetheless serves the purpose of straw men everywhere and goes down to humiliating defeat.

The word of God is perfectly preserved in the manuscripts made available to us by the hand of God. Despite your insistence that is not sufficient, that "I must hold the preserved word in my hand" or it somehow doesn't "count" as the preserved word, the word of God is perfectly preserved in the sheer numbers of manuscripts that survive. KJV-O's always focus on the differences between the so-called Textus Receptus and the balance of the majority texts. In the end, adherents to the "inspired and perfect English version" strain out a gnat and swallow a camel.

The fact is, the differences between the 400 KJV manuscripts (only six of which were used heavily) and the remaining 4,400+ majority texts are so minute as to be unimportant. The real discrepancies between the KJV and the more modern translations are in lexical choices made by the translators -- including Erasmas, Stephanus, Beza and the Elzevirs, all of whom gave no pretense to the foreign (to them) concept that their work was inspired -- and has nothing or at least very little to do with any differences in the texts. That is in spite of the fact that the more than 5,000 manuscripts range in age from shortly after the turn of the turn of the second century, to 900 or 1000 AD. Given the number of scribes, the numerous opportunities for copying errors, and all the other circumstances that could have misguided and derailed God's preserved word in the original languages only, it is amazing to the point of miraculous that the manuscripts are in such nearly total agreement.

The fact we have so many manuscripts surviving after all these centuries is also miraculous. We have reconstructed Homer's The Illyad from a mere 64 manuscripts, and though many of them are suspect, there is no real controversy about whether we have a perfectly preserved work of Homer, with far fewer manuscripts available for translation than the number of biblical transcripts we have.
Intentionally or not, they place themselves at the mercy of the latest and greatest scholarship of men, believing (by faith, presumably) that we are somehow actually gaining in understanding of ancient languages though further removed from them by time.There is, in fact, no claim of "'gaining in understanding" but merely confirmation that, despite the length of time and the number of manuscripts, nearly total agreement exists as to the correct translation of the original inspired languages and nothing after all these years has arisen to refute what translators at least as far back as Wycliffe accomplished, and accomplished accurately and well.
In regard to the very words of the LORD, they look unto PhD's rather than for His own mighty signature.This continues the erroneous concept above, skewering the non-KJV Only scholar with a sword that doesn't exist, i.e., that he prefers "scholarship" to truth. More straw-man slaughter, in other words.
Personally, I no longer debate this question. I received my present convictions through years of prayer and study, and will gladly share them when asked, but have found debate for the most part unfruitful. Simple, unwavering faithfulness to the LORD's precious Word in my experience has convinced more folks of the truth than all the debate over conflicting reports, testimonies, histories and text families ever could. In other words, you hold to your convictions by faith. Yet just a paragraph ago, in this post, you chided the non-KJV Only adherent for trusting in the hand of the Lord in preserving those thousands of manuscripts to prove to us that they faithfully reproduced the originals. Sorry, friend, but you must decide if faith is our skewer, or your pedestal. It cannot be both.
When I was on the other side of the debate, no scholarship, no logic, no presentation could sway me. It wasn't until I sought the answer from my Master alone that peace came ... The LORD says that if we seek, we shall find. The truth of His Words is there for all His children who diligently seek it. He desires to give them good gifts ... I have His Son, perfect and complete. No confusion, no debate ... I have His Spirit, perfect and complete. No confusion, no debate ... I have His Word, perfect and complete. No confusion, no debate ... The author of confusion can never, ever change these facts ... Praise be unto God!What? No brass bands? No flag waving? Perhaps an Iraqi war veteran to parade out in front of us to confirm your POV as correct? Really, that reads like a campaign stump speech, filled with platitudes and very empty of facts. Certainly I agree that there is no point to arguing this, because no one will change their minds. But you really should consider giving up your day job and running for public office. You wouldn't even have to hire a speech writer.

[TwinCrier]

... you accept in the KJV the exact same practice you condemn in the NASB (I've seen it in other threads). How's that workin' out for ya?Great.
http://hissheep.org/kjv/a_comparison_of_the_kjv_nasb.html

[TwinCrier]

How do you know what most folks believe? It's obvious since most folks tell you what they believe. You do this.
I believe that God has preserved His Word. Your inconsistent, man-made KJV-only view is not taught in the Scriptures regardless of how confident you are in it. You believe God preserved His word? Where is it? :scratch: I need a copy of it in English please.

[Logos1560]

You believe God preserved His word? Where is it? I need a copy of it in English please.

God was just as faithful to preserve His word before 1611 as after 1611. According to the trusted scholars of your view [the KJV translators], the preserved Scriptures are found in the original languages.
According to its title page and its preface, the KJV professes to be translated from the original languages. According to its title page for the New Testament, the 1611 KJV's New Testament was "newly translated out of the original Greek." The first rule for the translating referred to “the truth of the original.“ The sixth rule and fifteen rule referred to “Hebrew” and to “Greek.“ Lancelot Andrewes, a KJV translator, wrote: "Look to the original, as, for the New Testament, the Greek text; for the Old, the Hebrew" (Pattern of Catechistical Doctrine, p. 59). Gustavus Paine pointed out that another KJV translator John Rainolds "urged study of the word of God in the Hebrew and Greek, 'not out of the books of translation'" (Men Behind the KJV, p. 84). In the preface to the 1611 KJV entitled "The Translators to the Reader," Miles Smith presented the view of the KJV translators as follows: "These tongues [Hebrew and Greek] therefore, we should say the Scriptures, in those tongues, we set before us to translate, being the tongues in which God was pleased to speak to his church by his prophets and apostles." In this preface before the sentence just quoted, Smith wrote: “If you ask what they had before them, truly it was the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, the Greek of the New.“ KJV-only author D. A. Waite acknowledged that the preface of the 1611 "had the approval" of all the KJV translators (Defending the KJB, p. 64). KJV-only author Laurence Vance indicated that Smith wrote the preface “in the name of all the translators” (King James, His Bible, p. 52). Vance cited the report of the British delegates (including KJV translator Samuel Ward) to the 1618 Synod of Dort that included a reference to “the truth of the original text” (p. 47).

I think that you already know that there are several English translations of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages. The KJV translators referred to the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision as being "the word of God."

Was the KJV a revision of earlier English Bibles which were or were not the word of God?

[VCViking]

Read the critiques? Have you read her books so you can speak for yourself and not be a sheep following the herd?


Better than being part of the "blind leading the blind" group. You know nothing about her but are willing to defend her? Sounds like blind sheep to me.

[VCViking]

GAIL RIPLINGER'S SLANDERS

by David W. Cloud KJVO Adcovate

May 19, 1996 (David W. Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, Michigan 48061, fbns@wayoflife.org) - In 1995 Mrs. Gail Riplinger, author of New Age Bible Versions (http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/newage.htm), included this Editor in a book entitled Blind Guides. The section dealing with David Cloud includes a mockup of the O Timothy magazine banner, but instead of saying "O Timothy," it says "O Madmen." And instead of the excerpt from 1 Timothy 6:20, "keep that which is committed to thy trust," she has an excerpt from Psalm 52:4, "O thou deceitful tongue." The entire article is characterized by this type of vicious and malicious slander.





In 1994 I had been asked by many to critique a book entitled New Age Bible Versions (published in 1993). The author was listed as "G.A. Riplinger." We soon learned that this a woman named Gail. As I read the book and attempted to examine the documents she cited, I found that she frequently misused and twisted quotations by others. I wrote a review of the book and sent it first to Mrs. Riplinger. My cover letter was dated June 12, 1994. It consisted of one paragraph, as follows:"Christian greetings in the lovely name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Dr. D.A. Waite in New Jersey suggested that I write to you about some problems I have found in your book New Age Bible Versions. Sometime back he asked me what I thought of the book and I told him that I had found some problems, but that I had only read a few pages. I started the book last year, but put it aside in December in order to give my full attention to completing our Way of Life Encyclopedia of the Bible & Christianity. Now that this project is complete, I have again picked up your book. I am finding lots of problems and errors, though, and I would like to know what you think of the enclosed. The Lord's blessing and grace be with you" (Letter from D.W. Cloud to Gail Riplinger, June 12,1994).

She has never replied personally to my correspondence, and I did not make another attempt to contact her. I printed the review in O Timothy, Volume 11, Issue 8, 1994, which was mailed out at the end of August of that year. I summarized my conclusion in regard to her book as follows:"Let me say very plainly at the outset of this article, I do not believe New Age Bible Versions is a dangerous book; I believe it is an undependable book. I agree with Mrs. Riplinger that the multiplicity of modern versions has caused great spiritual damage. At the same time, I have decided I must warn our readers of the many errors we have found in New Age Bible Versions. ... Some might be thinking, 'Why are you defending the modern versions? Aren't they corrupt?' Yes, the modern versions are corrupt, and I am not defending them. I am against error, though, regardless of where it appears. We do not have the right to make false statements even about the devil himself. When our speaking and writing is filled with error of fact and is characterized by shoddy research and indefensible extremism, we discredit our entire position. I am not saying there is no good in New Age Bible Versions. The book contains many helpful insights and it documents the frightful corruption of the modern versions, but it also is filled with illogical and improper statements which have the effect of discrediting everything the author says that is true. There is no reason, friends, to promote a book like this when there are so many dependable volumes which defend the preserved Word of God and expose the error of the modern versions. We would recommend the following: Defending the King James Bible by D.A. Waite and Forever Settled by Jack Moorman. For a smaller overview we recommend Jack Moorman's Modern Bibles: The Dark Secret. [These are available from Bible for Today, 900 Park Ave., Collingswood, NJ 08108.]" (D.W. Cloud, New Age Bible Versions: A Critique, O Timothy, Volume 11, Issue 8, 1994).Many have been confused by these various articles. I have claimed that Mrs. Riplinger is careless and her writings undependable. She claims that I am careless and undependable--among many other things!
For those who find themselves confused by all of this, let me say that you will not the truth of these matters unless you are willing to look into it for yourself. If you read my books and articles and find that I question the Authorized Version, that I doubt it in any sense whatsoever, then she is right in grouping me with other Bible deniers. If, on the other hand, you find that I have not doubted the AV, she is proven to be a slanderer and a liar.
HERE I WILL LIST A FEW OF THE SLANDERS SHE STATED IN HER ARTICLE ABOUT ME.

SLANDER #1--"Cloud confessed in a personal letter to me (Letter dated June 12, 1994, p. 6) that in India he had used, 'a Westcott-Hort Bible; it was a modern version; yet God used the truth in that Bible...' ... He boasted to me that his 'Wescott-Hort Bible' was used 'to build a solid, self-governing, self-supporting, self-propagating New Testament Church.' She then says, "Yet in his earlier days he said 'this very Bible has been one of the root causes for the great weakness and confusion which exists among many Nepali churches to this hour' (Cloud, Is the English Language Provincial?, p. 22). Was the church it built 'solid' or weak? The terms are contradictory and mutually exclusive" (Riplinger, Blind Guides, p. 22).
This is an incredible bunch of half-truths which are twisted entirely out of shape and made to appear to mean something other than what the author intended. Gail Riplinger has never seen fit to reply to my first letter so I have not persisted in trying to communicate directly with her. I have never said anything directly to Mrs. Riplinger about the Bible we used in Nepal. Possibly she is quoting from the first unpublished edition of my critique of her book which I sent to her, but she writes as if that were a part of my personal letter to her and that I was actually boasting something to her. She says I boasted about using a Westcott-Hort Bible 'in India," but my church-planing work was not in India; it was in Nepal. She claims there is a contradiction in my statements about the church we started in Nepal and the Nepali Bible, whereas there is no contradiction whatsoever. In one statement I was addressing the church, singular, that we started. In the other statement I was addressing the churches, plural, in general in Nepal. The church we started was solid, but that, in my opinion, was because of the teaching we gave that church and it was IN SPITE of the weakness of the existing standard Nepali Bible, not BECAUSE of it. On the other hand, the churches in general in Nepal are weak, and I do believe that one of the key reasons for this is the condition of the Nepali Bible. That was what I was stating in the book Gail cites. Mrs. Riplinger treats me like she treats others. She takes things out of context and puts things together from various sources which should not be put together. By so abusing my words, she does not make a liar out of me; she makes a liar out of herself.
I paid a heavy price in Asia for my stand for the Authorized Version and the Received Text, and I stood practically alone in my zeal to see a pure Bible in that language, and for this woman now to claim that I have boasted of starting a strong church through a Westcott-Hort Bible is a great wickedness which I believe she will answer for at the judgment seat of Christ. The standard Nepali Bible is based largely on the English Revised Version. We did use it to establish a church. There was nothing else to use. We had great battles with the Bible Society in Nepal and the one in India and they tried to destroy my ministry. They actually brought about an ecclesiastical trial and brought 11 or 12 charges against me. They demanded that we stop our work and leave the country. We did not leave until many years later, but that was their demand. They told many lies about me in an effort to discredit our ministry. The charges had to do largely with causing division in the "body of Christ in Nepal," but the thing that brought all of that to a head was our public opposition to the Bible Societies' work in South Asia and against their corrupt translations. In our own church planting work we corrected the standard Nepali Bible and educated the people about Bible texts and translations in general to prepare them for a proper translation. We stood alone in this endeavor to educate the Nepali people properly about Bible texts and versions. We labored all along to produce a Nepali Bible based on the KJV. Our Nepali KJV New Testament was completed some years ago and is being reprinted for the third time. The Old Testament is in progress, but very slowly.

SLANDER #2--"Cloud would replace the Holy Bible with a Holey Bible, with 1000's of spiritual loopholes through which to fall" (Riplinger, Blind Guides, p. 31).
Every person who has written to me after reading Mrs. Riplinger's slanders has gotten the idea that I am a Bible corrector, that I somehow secretly support the new versions, that I do not have a solid faith in the English Authorized Version and in its underlying text. This is because of Mrs. Riplinger's lies about me which have darkened the minds of many people. She has lumped me in with men who support the modern versions. My attempt to correct some of Mrs. Riplinger's statements about modern versions was not an underhanded way of supporting those versions. If Mrs. Riplinger says something about the NIV that is not correct, and I attempt to correct that statement, I am not thereby raising a flag for the NIV. Mrs. Riplinger implied that the editor of the NIV denies the deity of Christ. I stated simply that the man does not deny the deity of Christ and that it is wrong to imply that he does. Mrs. Riplinger has made the incredible leap of reason whereby I am now allegedly defending the man and his work. Anyone who has actually read my writings will know how ridiculous this is. I have never defended New Evangelicals or their Bibles. I have stated that New Evangelicalism is apostasy. At the same time, I don't believe it is correct to put words in the mouths of men which they have not actually stated. I support absolutely none of the modern English versions. I don't support the RV or the RSV or the NASV or the NEB or the NIV or the LB or the TEV. I believe they are all perversions of the Word of God. I also do not support the NKJV or the 21st Century KJV or the King James Bible II. My stand for the Authorized Version as my final authority is evident in my writings on this subject. One man asked if I support any changes in the KJV and if I believe "easter" in Acts 12:4 is accurate. I replied, "I do not believe any changes need to be made in the KJV nor do I believe any changes should be made in the KJV. The word 'easter' in Acts 12:4 is an accurate translation which can be traced back to Tyndale." In my critique of New Age Bible Versions I recommended two works on Bible versions: Defending the King James Bible by D.A. Waite and Forever Settled by Jack Moorman. Both of these works present the King James Bible as the preserved Word of God. Mrs. Riplinger has slandered me by implying that I support the new versions and that I question the AV.

SLANDER #3--"If Cloud is going to present himself as a scholar or an expert on bible translation, he needs to visit a garage sale and 1) buy a Webster's Dictionary 2) get a collection of various bible translations. He is an embarrassment to his followers" (Riplinger, Blind Guides, p. 26).
I do not present myself as a scholar or as an expert on Bible translation. Mrs. Riplinger should read my writings. But I do have the equipment to do proper research into this topic. I have dozens of dictionaries, including several Webster's from 1828 to present. I have an extensive collection of Bible translations. Some knowledgeable men have said that I have one of the best private collections of material on Bible texts and versions in the country. I have spent thousands of dollars on this endeavor. I have spent $800 on one book. Mrs. Riplinger will probably use this statement as "evidence" of my boasting, but the Lord knows I am not boasting; I am stating a simple fact. My goal in building this library has been to obtain ready access to the relevant material so I can make an informed opinion on various aspects of this important subject SO I CAN DEFEND THE PRESERVED WORD OF GOD, THE AUTHORIZED VERSION AND ITS UNDERLYING TEXT.

SLANDER #4--"Cloud's superficial analysis and understanding is characteristic of those who spend little time analyzing 'every word of God'" (Riplinger, Blind Guides, p. 27).
This is a gross lie. For 23 years my chief aim has been to analyze every word of God. Those who know me will testify of this. I have spent hours a day in this blessed endeavor. My Way of Life Encyclopedia of the Bible & Christianity is one of the fruits of my pursuit of the meaning of the words of God. I had one chief aim in publishing such a Bible study tool, and that was to help God's people better understand and love the very words of God. That Encyclopedia is based strictly upon the words of the Authorized Version and absolutely no shadow of doubt is cast upon any word in the AV. It is my position that those are the very words of God. I dedicated the Encyclopedia with these words: "DEDICATED TO Dr. Bruce Lackey (1934-1988), who, as a Pastor and as the Dean of Tennessee Temple Bible School, helped a generation of preachers to understand and love the Word of God. No man helped me more in this most crucial area of life. Though he read his beloved Greek New Testament [Received Text] every day, he never caused his students or his congregation to question the God-honored English Bible. He was a Bible teacher, not a Bible critic." This dedication expresses the heart of a man Mrs. Riplinger labels a "blind guide." The Bible says woe unto them who call good evil and evil good, Mrs. Riplinger.

[VCViking]

SLANDER #5--"Today's blind leaders like Cloud, have a new beam in their eye--the hypnotic beam of light from their TV or computer screen. Cloud's cohorts confess they cannot wean him from his screen long enough to read The Life & Letters of B.F. Westcott" (Riplinger, Blind Guides, p. 26).
This is a lie. I have an original printing of Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott by his son Arthur, and I have read the two volumes of this work. I don't know who Gail is referring to as "Cloud's cohorts" but they obviously are misrepresenting themselves and don't really know me. I spend a lot of time at my computer with my writing and research and typesetting, but I spend a lot of time away from it, as well. Whoever reported this to Riplinger was a liar, and I can assure you that the person does not know me.

SLANDER #6--"...Cloud's lack of familiarity with the day-to-day teachings of a Catholic parish and his shallowness of research in that area ..." (Riplinger, Blind Guides, p. 25).
This is a lie. I have an extensive knowledge of Catholicism and a very excellent library on this subject, with roughly 100 works which were published in centuries prior to this present one, and hundreds more from this century (which in turn contain firsthand material from previous centuries). I have done diligent research into the history of Romanism, as well as into its present status. I have visited Catholic parishes in many parts of the world, attended mass in half a dozen countries, visited famous Catholic shrines, interviewed priests and nuns, studied the relevant Catholic documents, such as Trent, Vatican I, Vatican II, and the New Catholic Catechism. My knowledge of this subject is respected and used by men who are former Catholic priests and who have ministries to Roman Catholics.

SLANDER #7--"Yet the dust Cloud raises, as he stomps his feet, blinds him as he misreads the chart's title. ... a yearling like Cloud who is still trying to figure out how to get the milk out of the bowl. ... Clouds have always been a deterrent to astronomers and those hoping to catch a glimpse of the heavenly city. ... Cloud's five 'I' statements, about his accomplishments, are reminiscent of Lucifer (Is. 14). ... Clouds constantly change their shape depending on how much 'heat' comes their way. Pilots know that Clouds are dense and full of hot air; consequently, they detour around them when they can. I'd recommend the same course" (Riplinger, Blind Guides, pp. 27,30,32,34).
Gail's article about me is filled with this type of silly, childish miscaricature. It is so nonsensical that I cannot take her seriously. The only reason I have responded to her article at all is to give an answer to those who have written to me about it.
If any person wants to know what David Cloud believes about the Bible or anything else, let that person make the effort to read him carefully for himself. Don't depend on Mrs. Riplinger.

For my review of New Age Bible Versions see "New Age Bible Versions: A Critique" (http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/newage.htm) at http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/newage.htm/ (http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/newage.htm)

[psalm511013]

Great.So you enjoy expressing the hypocracy of availing yourself of a faith you chide in others? Well, if nothing else, that's exceptionally honest of you.

[mesue]

GAIL RIPLINGER'S SLANDERS

by David W. Cloud KJVO Adcovate

May 19, 1996 (David W. Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, Michigan 48061, fbns@wayoflife.org) - In 1995 Mrs. Gail Riplinger, author of New Age Bible Versions (http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/newage.htm), included this Editor in a book entitled Blind Guides. The section dealing with David Cloud includes a mockup of the O Timothy magazine banner, but instead of saying "O Timothy," it says "O Madmen." And instead of the excerpt from 1 Timothy 6:20, "keep that which is committed to thy trust," she has an excerpt from Psalm 52:4, "O thou deceitful tongue." The entire article is characterized by this type of vicious and malicious slander.






In 1994 I had been asked by many to critique a book entitled New Age Bible Versions (published in 1993). The author was listed as "G.A. Riplinger." We soon learned that this a woman named Gail. As I read the book and attempted to examine the documents she cited, I found that she frequently misused and twisted quotations by others. I wrote a review of the book and sent it first to Mrs. Riplinger. My cover letter was dated June 12, 1994. It consisted of one paragraph, as follows:"Christian greetings in the lovely name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Dr. D.A. Waite in New Jersey suggested that I write to you about some problems I have found in your book New Age Bible Versions. Sometime back he asked me what I thought of the book and I told him that I had found some problems, but that I had only read a few pages. I started the book last year, but put it aside in December in order to give my full attention to completing our Way of Life Encyclopedia of the Bible & Christianity. Now that this project is complete, I have again picked up your book. I am finding lots of problems and errors, though, and I would like to know what you think of the enclosed. The Lord's blessing and grace be with you" (Letter from D.W. Cloud to Gail Riplinger, June 12,1994).

She has never replied personally to my correspondence, and I did not make another attempt to contact her. I printed the review in O Timothy, Volume 11, Issue 8, 1994, which was mailed out at the end of August of that year. I summarized my conclusion in regard to her book as follows:"Let me say very plainly at the outset of this article, I do not believe New Age Bible Versions is a dangerous book; I believe it is an undependable book. I agree with Mrs. Riplinger that the multiplicity of modern versions has caused great spiritual damage. At the same time, I have decided I must warn our readers of the many errors we have found in New Age Bible Versions. ... Some might be thinking, 'Why are you defending the modern versions? Aren't they corrupt?' Yes, the modern versions are corrupt, and I am not defending them. I am against error, though, regardless of where it appears. We do not have the right to make false statements even about the devil himself. When our speaking and writing is filled with error of fact and is characterized by shoddy research and indefensible extremism, we discredit our entire position. I am not saying there is no good in New Age Bible Versions. The book contains many helpful insights and it documents the frightful corruption of the modern versions, but it also is filled with illogical and improper statements which have the effect of discrediting everything the author says that is true. There is no reason, friends, to promote a book like this when there are so many dependable volumes which defend the preserved Word of God and expose the error of the modern versions. We would recommend the following: Defending the King James Bible by D.A. Waite and Forever Settled by Jack Moorman. For a smaller overview we recommend Jack Moorman's Modern Bibles: The Dark Secret. [These are available from Bible for Today, 900 Park Ave., Collingswood, NJ 08108.]" (D.W. Cloud, New Age Bible Versions: A Critique, O Timothy, Volume 11, Issue 8, 1994).Many have been confused by these various articles. I have claimed that Mrs. Riplinger is careless and her writings undependable. She claims that I am careless and undependable--among many other things!
For those who find themselves confused by all of this, let me say that you will not the truth of these matters unless you are willing to look into it for yourself. If you read my books and articles and find that I question the Authorized Version, that I doubt it in any sense whatsoever, then she is right in grouping me with other Bible deniers. If, on the other hand, you find that I have not doubted the AV, she is proven to be a slanderer and a liar.
HERE I WILL LIST A FEW OF THE SLANDERS SHE STATED IN HER ARTICLE ABOUT ME.

SLANDER #1--"Cloud confessed in a personal letter to me (Letter dated June 12, 1994, p. 6) that in India he had used, 'a Westcott-Hort Bible; it was a modern version; yet God used the truth in that Bible...' ... He boasted to me that his 'Wescott-Hort Bible' was used 'to build a solid, self-governing, self-supporting, self-propagating New Testament Church.' She then says, "Yet in his earlier days he said 'this very Bible has been one of the root causes for the great weakness and confusion which exists among many Nepali churches to this hour' (Cloud, Is the English Language Provincial?, p. 22). Was the church it built 'solid' or weak? The terms are contradictory and mutually exclusive" (Riplinger, Blind Guides, p. 22).
This is an incredible bunch of half-truths which are twisted entirely out of shape and made to appear to mean something other than what the author intended. Gail Riplinger has never seen fit to reply to my first letter so I have not persisted in trying to communicate directly with her. I have never said anything directly to Mrs. Riplinger about the Bible we used in Nepal. Possibly she is quoting from the first unpublished edition of my critique of her book which I sent to her, but she writes as if that were a part of my personal letter to her and that I was actually boasting something to her. She says I boasted about using a Westcott-Hort Bible 'in India," but my church-planing work was not in India; it was in Nepal. She claims there is a contradiction in my statements about the church we started in Nepal and the Nepali Bible, whereas there is no contradiction whatsoever. In one statement I was addressing the church, singular, that we started. In the other statement I was addressing the churches, plural, in general in Nepal. The church we started was solid, but that, in my opinion, was because of the teaching we gave that church and it was IN SPITE of the weakness of the existing standard Nepali Bible, not BECAUSE of it. On the other hand, the churches in general in Nepal are weak, and I do believe that one of the key reasons for this is the condition of the Nepali Bible. That was what I was stating in the book Gail cites. Mrs. Riplinger treats me like she treats others. She takes things out of context and puts things together from various sources which should not be put together. By so abusing my words, she does not make a liar out of me; she makes a liar out of herself.
I paid a heavy price in Asia for my stand for the Authorized Version and the Received Text, and I stood practically alone in my zeal to see a pure Bible in that language, and for this woman now to claim that I have boasted of starting a strong church through a Westcott-Hort Bible is a great wickedness which I believe she will answer for at the judgment seat of Christ. The standard Nepali Bible is based largely on the English Revised Version. We did use it to establish a church. There was nothing else to use. We had great battles with the Bible Society in Nepal and the one in India and they tried to destroy my ministry. They actually brought about an ecclesiastical trial and brought 11 or 12 charges against me. They demanded that we stop our work and leave the country. We did not leave until many years later, but that was their demand. They told many lies about me in an effort to discredit our ministry. The charges had to do largely with causing division in the "body of Christ in Nepal," but the thing that brought all of that to a head was our public opposition to the Bible Societies' work in South Asia and against their corrupt translations. In our own church planting work we corrected the standard Nepali Bible and educated the people about Bible texts and translations in general to prepare them for a proper translation. We stood alone in this endeavor to educate the Nepali people properly about Bible texts and versions. We labored all along to produce a Nepali Bible based on the KJV. Our Nepali KJV New Testament was completed some years ago and is being reprinted for the third time. The Old Testament is in progress, but very slowly.

SLANDER #2--"Cloud would replace the Holy Bible with a Holey Bible, with 1000's of spiritual loopholes through which to fall" (Riplinger, Blind Guides, p. 31).
Every person who has written to me after reading Mrs. Riplinger's slanders has gotten the idea that I am a Bible corrector, that I somehow secretly support the new versions, that I do not have a solid faith in the English Authorized Version and in its underlying text. This is because of Mrs. Riplinger's lies about me which have darkened the minds of many people. She has lumped me in with men who support the modern versions. My attempt to correct some of Mrs. Riplinger's statements about modern versions was not an underhanded way of supporting those versions. If Mrs. Riplinger says something about the NIV that is not correct, and I attempt to correct that statement, I am not thereby raising a flag for the NIV. Mrs. Riplinger implied that the editor of the NIV denies the deity of Christ. I stated simply that the man does not deny the deity of Christ and that it is wrong to imply that he does. Mrs. Riplinger has made the incredible leap of reason whereby I am now allegedly defending the man and his work. Anyone who has actually read my writings will know how ridiculous this is. I have never defended New Evangelicals or their Bibles. I have stated that New Evangelicalism is apostasy. At the same time, I don't believe it is correct to put words in the mouths of men which they have not actually stated. I support absolutely none of the modern English versions. I don't support the RV or the RSV or the NASV or the NEB or the NIV or the LB or the TEV. I believe they are all perversions of the Word of God. I also do not support the NKJV or the 21st Century KJV or the King James Bible II. My stand for the Authorized Version as my final authority is evident in my writings on this subject. One man asked if I support any changes in the KJV and if I believe "easter" in Acts 12:4 is accurate. I replied, "I do not believe any changes need to be made in the KJV nor do I believe any changes should be made in the KJV. The word 'easter' in Acts 12:4 is an accurate translation which can be traced back to Tyndale." In my critique of New Age Bible Versions I recommended two works on Bible versions: Defending the King James Bible by D.A. Waite and Forever Settled by Jack Moorman. Both of these works present the King James Bible as the preserved Word of God. Mrs. Riplinger has slandered me by implying that I support the new versions and that I question the AV.

SLANDER #3--"If Cloud is going to present himself as a scholar or an expert on bible translation, he needs to visit a garage sale and 1) buy a Webster's Dictionary 2) get a collection of various bible translations. He is an embarrassment to his followers" (Riplinger, Blind Guides, p. 26).
I do not present myself as a scholar or as an expert on Bible translation. Mrs. Riplinger should read my writings. But I do have the equipment to do proper research into this topic. I have dozens of dictionaries, including several Webster's from 1828 to present. I have an extensive collection of Bible translations. Some knowledgeable men have said that I have one of the best private collections of material on Bible texts and versions in the country. I have spent thousands of dollars on this endeavor. I have spent $800 on one book. Mrs. Riplinger will probably use this statement as "evidence" of my boasting, but the Lord knows I am not boasting; I am stating a simple fact. My goal in building this library has been to obtain ready access to the relevant material so I can make an informed opinion on various aspects of this important subject SO I CAN DEFEND THE PRESERVED WORD OF GOD, THE AUTHORIZED VERSION AND ITS UNDERLYING TEXT.

SLANDER #4--"Cloud's superficial analysis and understanding is characteristic of those who spend little time analyzing 'every word of God'" (Riplinger, Blind Guides, p. 27).
This is a gross lie. For 23 years my chief aim has been to analyze every word of God. Those who know me will testify of this. I have spent hours a day in this blessed endeavor. My Way of Life Encyclopedia of the Bible & Christianity is one of the fruits of my pursuit of the meaning of the words of God. I had one chief aim in publishing such a Bible study tool, and that was to help God's people better understand and love the very words of God. That Encyclopedia is based strictly upon the words of the Authorized Version and absolutely no shadow of doubt is cast upon any word in the AV. It is my position that those are the very words of God. I dedicated the Encyclopedia with these words: "DEDICATED TO Dr. Bruce Lackey (1934-1988), who, as a Pastor and as the Dean of Tennessee Temple Bible School, helped a generation of preachers to understand and love the Word of God. No man helped me more in this most crucial area of life. Though he read his beloved Greek New Testament [Received Text] every day, he never caused his students or his congregation to question the God-honored English Bible. He was a Bible teacher, not a Bible critic." This dedication expresses the heart of a man Mrs. Riplinger labels a "blind guide." The Bible says woe unto them who call good evil and evil good, Mrs. Riplinger.
.

[sheina]

SLANDER #7--"Yet the dust Cloud raises, as he stomps his feet, blinds him as he misreads the chart's title. ... a yearling like Cloud who is still trying to figure out how to get the milk out of the bowl. ... Clouds have always been a deterrent to astronomers and those hoping to catch a glimpse of the heavenly city. ... Cloud's five 'I' statements, about his accomplishments, are reminiscent of Lucifer (Is. 14). ... Clouds constantly change their shape depending on how much 'heat' comes their way. Pilots know that Clouds are dense and full of hot air; consequently, they detour around them when they can. I'd recommend the same course" (Riplinger, Blind Guides, pp. 27,30,32,34).
Gail's article about me is filled with this type of silly, childish miscaricature. It is so nonsensical that I cannot take her seriously. The only reason I have responded to her article at all is to give an answer to those who have written to me about it.
If any person wants to know what David Cloud believes about the Bible or anything else, let that person make the effort to read him carefully for himself. Don't depend on Mrs. Riplinger.

For my review of New Age Bible Versions see "New Age Bible Versions: A Critique" (http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/newage.htm) at http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/newage.htm/ (http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/newage.htm)
When a brother or sister in Christ says such things as the above about another brother or sister in Christ, what kind of an attitude does this display?

I didn't read New Age Bible Versions, but I have been receiving O Timothy for 10 years. From what I know of David Cloud, I believe him to be a man of God with a great deal of integrity and honesty. David Cloud is a great defender of the AV1611. It was through his ministry, Way of Life Literature, that I became KJV.

Gail Riplinger did slander Bro. Cloud. Here is a scripture that we all need to read before we "go on the attack" and say things that we will regret later. We all will have to give account at the Judgment Seat of Christ.

Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6)
(http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/newage.htm)