Gail Riplinger

[John of Japan]

Mike Hollner invited me to start a thread on Riplinger, who I consider to be a huge cause of trouble in fundamentalism and elsewhere. I'm embarrassed that so many independent Baptists believe and follow her, and even have her in their churches to "preach," though they might call it "teaching" instead. Whether "teaching" or "preaching," it's wrong according to the Bible. Fundamentalists who support Riplinger or have her in to preach are disobeying the Bible, which says, "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence" (1 Tim. 2:12).

Again, I stand for revival theology: soul winning, mass evangelism, both individual and corporate prayer, confession and forsaking of sin, walking with God daily. When did Gail Riplinger ever encourage soul winning and revival? I've never read in her works of her winning a soul to Christ, spending much time in prayer, or anything else that revival means. I consider it far more important to obey the KJV than to defend it. As I tell my students: "The Bible is a sword, and you don't defend a sword, you fight with it."

"But," her defenders might say, "She's a big help in opposing modern Bible versions." My answer is that she is not qualified to do that. As far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong):
1. She does not have any Bible degrees.
2. She does not have any formal linguistic training.
3. She claims to be a linguist because she once taught English to foreign students. Having spent 1000s of hours and 1000s of dollars to become a linguist, I don't accept someone as linguist with this incredibly meager background.
4. She has no training in Greek or Hebrew.

On the spiritual side:
1. She has been divorced and remarried twice, and is on her third husband.
2. Her books never encourage revival: personal and corporate prayer, soul winning, church attendance, etc. (She very briefly encourages the reader to pray for understanding of Scripture in Appendix C of New Age Bible Versions.)
3. So, the Great Commission is the last and greatest command of Christ, but where in her works does she speak of it?
4. Along that line, I was a missionary for 33 years, and was the lead translator of the Lifeline Japanese NT (due out soon). Where has she advocated fulfilling the Great Commission by missionary Bible translations?
5. She threatened a fellow believer (D. A. Waite) with a lawsuit, which is contrary to Scripture).

Tell you what, I'll stop there, but surely this is enough to show what a mess her "ministry" is.

 

[John of Japan]

In her book Hazardous Materials, she makes a very bizarre comparison. Amidst all of her railings at how awful it is to consult a Greek lexicon, Greek grammar, or even an interlinear Greek New Testament, she compares what I do to showing pornography. Yes, that's right, teaching college kids to read and translate Greek is just like teaching them pornography.

Page 51: "Greek grammars and lexicons do not teach Greek. They teach unbelief. Young Bible school students are given an assignment to translate a portion of a book of the Bible. A floodgate of lexical definitions and textual variants soon pours into their souls. Each student’s translation is bound to be different, as 'Every man did that which was right in his own eyes' (Judges 17:6). By changing the Bible [she means only the KJV--, to her the Greek NT is not the Bible, even though God gave it--JoJ] the young men have just destroyed their weapon of defense, the word of God, which is the sword of the Spirit."

On the same page she then writes, "The professor may just as well have shown the students pornography and proclaimed, 'The ‘original’ Eve actually looked like this. Your wife’s version is inferior.' Lexicons have the exact same destructive effect and are, in effect, ‘Christian’ pornography." This is an incredibly awful attack. Have you ever known anyone addicted to pornography? It destroys marriages and lives.

I'm almost done teaching Greek 101. So far the students have only gone through a grammar (David Alan Black's Learn to Read New Testament Greek), and translated simple sentences, with only a couple of actual Bible verses in the assignments, such as, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life." They do not yet have a Greek NT or lexicon. But Gail would have you believe that even that is like giving pornography to them. By the way, Dr. Black is a fine Christian Greek scholar. He was my son's mentor for his PhD, and I know him through my son. For many years he went overseas on missions trips. Has Gail Riplinger ever taken a missions trip? If so, I've never heard or read about it.

Next semester, I'll teach the same kids the rest of the textbook in Greek 102, and then divide them into committees to simulate a missionary Bible translation effort, and we'll work on 1 John. They absolutely love doing this, and you know what? Some of them will become actual missionary Bible translators. We also have an MA in Bible Translation. Two of my students have been recently accepted by a mission board. One is working on a Farsi OT already, and the other is on deputation to go to Africa and work with an existing Bible translation effort.

Gail Riplinger would stop this! She believes my efforts to train future Bible translators is like giving them pornography. Shame on her! She is a disgrace to fundamentalism and the cause of worldwide missions.

 

[Yeshua1]

In her book Hazardous Materials, she makes a very bizarre comparison. Amidst all of her railings at how awful it is to consult a Greek lexicon, Greek grammar, or even an interlinear Greek New Testament, she compares what I do to showing pornography. Yes, that's right, teaching college kids to read and translate Greek is just like teaching them pornography.

Page 51: "Greek grammars and lexicons do not teach Greek. They teach unbelief. Young Bible school students are given an assignment to translate a portion of a book of the Bible. A floodgate of lexical definitions and textual variants soon pours into their souls. Each student’s translation is bound to be different, as 'Every man did that which was right in his own eyes' (Judges 17:6). By changing the Bible [she means only the KJV--, to her the Greek NT is not the Bible, even though God gave it--JoJ] the young men have just destroyed their weapon of defense, the word of God, which is the sword of the Spirit."

On the same page she then writes, "The professor may just as well have shown the students pornography and proclaimed, 'The ‘original’ Eve actually looked like this. Your wife’s version is inferior.' Lexicons have the exact same destructive effect and are, in effect, ‘Christian’ pornography." This is an incredibly awful attack. Have you ever known anyone addicted to pornography? It destroys marriages and lives.

I'm almost done teaching Greek 101. So far the students have only gone through a grammar (David Alan Black's Learn to Read New Testament Greek), and translated simple sentences, with only a couple of actual Bible verses in the assignments, such as, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life." They do not yet have a Greek NT or lexicon. But Gail would have you believe that even that is like giving pornography to them. By the way, Dr. Black is a fine Christian Greek scholar. He was my son's mentor for his PhD, and I know him through my son. For many years he went overseas on missions trips. Has Gail Riplinger ever taken a missions trip? If so, I've never heard or read about it.

Next semester, I'll teach the same kids the rest of the textbook in Greek 102, and then divide them into committees to simulate a missionary Bible translation effort, and we'll work on 1 John. They absolutely love doing this, and you know what? Some of them will become actual missionary Bible translators. We also have an MA in Bible Translation. Two of my students have been recently accepted by a mission board. One is working on a Farsi OT already, and the other is on deputation to go to Africa and work with an existing Bible translation effort.

Gail Riplinger would stop this! She believes my efforts to train future Bible translators is like giving them pornography. Shame on her! She is a disgrace to fundamentalism and the cause of worldwide missions.

Her real beef has to be with the Holy Spirit, as He chose to inspire to us the word of the Lord in Hebrew and Greek, is she superior to Him now then?

 

[Yeshua1]

Mike Hollner invited me to start a thread on Riplinger, who I consider to be a huge cause of trouble in fundamentalism and elsewhere. I'm embarrassed that so many independent Baptists believe and follow her, and even have her in their churches to "preach," though they might call it "teaching" instead. Whether "teaching" or "preaching," it's wrong according to the Bible. Fundamentalists who support Riplinger or have her in to preach are disobeying the Bible, which says, "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence" (1 Tim. 2:12).

Again, I stand for revival theology: soul winning, mass evangelism, both individual and corporate prayer, confession and forsaking of sin, walking with God daily. When did Gail Riplinger ever encourage soul winning and revival? I've never read in her works of her winning a soul to Christ, spending much time in prayer, or anything else that revival means. I consider it far more important to obey the KJV than to defend it. As I tell my students: "The Bible is a sword, and you don't defend a sword, you fight with it."

"But," her defenders might say, "She's a big help in opposing modern Bible versions." My answer is that she is not qualified to do that. As far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong):
1. She does not have any Bible degrees.
2. She does not have any formal linguistic training.
3. She claims to be a linguist because she once taught English to foreign students. Having spent 1000s of hours and 1000s of dollars to become a linguist, I don't accept someone as linguist with this incredibly meager background.
4. She has no training in Greek or Hebrew.

On the spiritual side:
1. She has been divorced and remarried twice, and is on her third husband.
2. Her books never encourage revival: personal and corporate prayer, soul winning, church attendance, etc. (She very briefly encourages the reader to pray for understanding of Scripture in Appendix C of New Age Bible Versions.)
3. So, the Great Commission is the last and greatest command of Christ, but where in her works does she speak of it?
4. Along that line, I was a missionary for 33 years, and was the lead translator of the Lifeline Japanese NT (due out soon). Where has she advocated fulfilling the Great Commission by missionary Bible translations?
5. She threatened a fellow believer (D. A. Waite) with a lawsuit, which is contrary to Scripture).

Tell you what, I'll stop there, but surely this is enough to show what a mess her "ministry" is.

Her credentials are about the same as all other Kjvo "scholars", see Peter Ruckman!

 

[Squire Robertsson]

No, Mr. Ruckman's quals were a bit more solid.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

In her book Hazardous Materials, she makes a very bizarre comparison. Amidst all of her railings at how awful it is to consult a Greek lexicon, Greek grammar, or even an interlinear Greek New Testament, she compares what I do to showing pornography. Yes, that's right, teaching college kids to read and translate Greek is just like teaching them pornography.

Page 51: "Greek grammars and lexicons do not teach Greek. They teach unbelief. Young Bible school students are given an assignment to translate a portion of a book of the Bible. A floodgate of lexical definitions and textual variants soon pours into their souls. Each student’s translation is bound to be different, as 'Every man did that which was right in his own eyes' (Judges 17:6). By changing the Bible [she means only the KJV--, to her the Greek NT is not the Bible, even though God gave it--JoJ] the young men have just destroyed their weapon of defense, the word of God, which is the sword of the Spirit."

On the same page she then writes, "The professor may just as well have shown the students pornography and proclaimed, 'The ‘original’ Eve actually looked like this. Your wife’s version is inferior.' Lexicons have the exact same destructive effect and are, in effect, ‘Christian’ pornography." This is an incredibly awful attack. Have you ever known anyone addicted to pornography? It destroys marriages and lives.

I'm almost done teaching Greek 101. So far the students have only gone through a grammar (David Alan Black's Learn to Read New Testament Greek), and translated simple sentences, with only a couple of actual Bible verses in the assignments, such as, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life." They do not yet have a Greek NT or lexicon. But Gail would have you believe that even that is like giving pornography to them. By the way, Dr. Black is a fine Christian Greek scholar. He was my son's mentor for his PhD, and I know him through my son. For many years he went overseas on missions trips. Has Gail Riplinger ever taken a missions trip? If so, I've never heard or read about it.

Next semester, I'll teach the same kids the rest of the textbook in Greek 102, and then divide them into committees to simulate a missionary Bible translation effort, and we'll work on 1 John. They absolutely love doing this, and you know what? Some of them will become actual missionary Bible translators. We also have an MA in Bible Translation. Two of my students have been recently accepted by a mission board. One is working on a Farsi OT already, and the other is on deputation to go to Africa and work with an existing Bible translation effort.

Gail Riplinger would stop this! She believes my efforts to train future Bible translators is like giving them pornography. Shame on her! She is a disgrace to fundamentalism and the cause of worldwide missions.

I’m not often shocked, but that part about her assessment of teaching to translate Scripture did it.

 

[Ziggy]

Jj: "She has been divorced and remarried twice, and is on her third husband"

Actually, now widowed from her third husband, and her second husband (I think, if not the first) is also deceased.

Squire: "Mr. Ruckman's quals were a bit more solid."

Ruckman had an earned PhD from BJU.

 

[John of Japan]

Just so no one thinks I'm barking up the wrong tree in regards to Riplinger's claim to be a linguist, let me source that. She wrote in answer to James White's accusation that she was not a linguist, saying: "He will find it equally difficult to persuade the employer who hired me as a linguistic expert, teaching Greek speaking students English as a second language. (Or the Japanese, Russian, Italian, Spanish or Serbo-Croatian students which followed.) Students from six different majors will also testify to White's lack of research." (Gail Riplinger's Response to James White's Critque of New Age Bible Versions- Part 3)

Let me be clear. I've done TOEFL (Teaching of English as a Foreign Language), and nobody, no linguist ever, thinks that just teaching English to someone qualifies one as a "linguistic expert." As I've said, to be a genuine linguist, people expect one to have genuine training.

I studied at the prestigious Tokyo School of the Japanese Language (now called: The Naganuma School) for two whole years full time in order to reach a professional level in Japanese. That's around 35-40 hours studying first with a tutor for a few months, then riding a train (then walking) two hours into Tokyo and back five days a week. I spent 1000s of hours and dollars on tuition, textbooks, transportation, etc., to get to a professional level as a linguist in Japanese.

And this chick thinks she's a "linguistic expert" because she taught a little bit of English, her own language?????

 

[John of Japan]

Concerning Hebrew and Greek lexicons, it's a mixed bag. Riplinger rejects all of them, recommending that we define words in the Bible from their contexts--in the KJV, that is. She rejects the Greek and Hebrew languages in which the Word of God was originally written. Tell you what, I'll stick with God on that one, instead of a twice divorced woman preacher who constantly glorifies herself and not God, who never mentions reaching the world for Christ and apparently never wins souls or goes on missions trips. She certainly does not support missionary Bible translation.

But let's apply her standards for rejecting dictionaries to a couple of Japanese-English dictionaries I have. First is the one published by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, a dictionary of Christian terms. I've gotten great good out of this for many years. Oops. It's put out by the Japanese government. Well, they're probably idolaters, so I'd better not use it anymore.

Let's see. Here's a better one, the 教会用語辞典, or "Dictionary of Church Terms." Nope, it's put out by the 日本基督協議会, Nihon Kirisuto Kyougikai, and they have some liberal connections. Nope, can't use that.

Well, here's my little Kodansha Co. English-Japanese Dictionary. I use it all the time. Kodansha is a famous company, a good one, right? Nope. Probably idolaters. Can't use it, according to Riplinger.

What about my huge four volume kanji (Chinese character) dictionary that my translation partner Uncle Miya gave me? Nope, better not use that anymore--might have been idolaters who compiled it.

Here is what she misses. Compiling a dictionary is a mental job, not a fundamentally spiritual one. Giving the Gospel is spiritual, preaching the Word is spiritual, counseling should be spiritual, and so forth. But not compiling a dictionary.

Now, a Christian lexicographer should be filled with the Holy Spirit when he compiles a dictionary, but if he doesn't have the mental equipment and linguistic experience he still can't do it.

Can a liberal interject his own theology into a Greek-English lexicon? Not very well. It will only show up in a very, very few places. I consult Greek and Hebrew lexicons all the time, and I assure you, I am not being influenced towards liberalism in the slightest bit when I do so.

 

[John of Japan]

Here's documentation on Riplinger's divorces:
http://www.truth.sg/Gail Riplinger Prophetess of KJVO-VPP Exposed.pdf

 

[Logos1560]

In an article "Why I Wrote the Book: New Age Bible Versions," Gail Riplinger stated: "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).

By claiming that God is the "author" of her book, Gail Riplinger seemed to place her book on the same level with God's Word. A contemporary word from God such as claimed by Riplinger as God's latest spokesman will become a rival and hindrance to the authority of Scripture.

 

[Logos1560]

Seeming to imply that she could not possibly be wrong in any of her claims, Gail Riplinger wrote: "Even simple statements in New Age Bible Versions were not made without years of study behind them" (Blind Guides, p. 51).

Gail Riplinger asserted: “This book will provoke grave silence, as none can answer it, except with trite and tiny vagaries” (Hazardous Materials, p. 1192). Riplinger contended concerning her book: “Assuming, ‘the author’ does not know or understand ‘something’ will only be possible if the entire book is not read” (p. 40).

 

[John of Japan]

Seeming to imply that she could not possibly be wrong in any of her claims, Gail Riplinger wrote: "Even simple statements in New Age Bible Versions were not made without years of study behind them" (Blind Guides, p. 51).

Gail Riplinger asserted: “This book will provoke grave silence, as none can answer it, except with trite and tiny vagaries” (Hazardous Materials, p. 1192). Riplinger contended concerning her book: “Assuming, ‘the author’ does not know or understand ‘something’ will only be possible if the entire book is not read” (p. 40).

And in these statements she glorifies herself and not God. "Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God" (1 Cor. 10:31).

 

[John of Japan]

I was just talking to our linguistics professor. She's preparing to teach a class next semester on linguistics for Bible translation. She mentioned some of the lectures she is preparing, and I'm pretty sure Riplinger would not even recognize the titles which have linguistic terminology.

How did this professor become a linguist? Well, first of all, she speaks seven (or is it nine?) foreign languages. She has a master's in linguistics under SIL at a university out west. It took a tremendous effort of 1000s of dollars and hours of time for her to get that degree. She did an analysis of an Asian language with a sizeable population here in the US as her thesis.

She used to come to my office to bounce stuff off me as she worked on it, and I must confess that some of the time she was far ahead of me--but I was there to listen anyway, and could follow most of what she said. She is now preparing to work on a NT translation for another Asian people group along with one of our graduates.

Now, what does that make Riplinger sound like? A "wannabe" linguist perhaps? Any Riplinger defenders here? Want to defend her status as a linguist? Do you get the impression that I have no respect for wannabes?

 

[Yeshua1]

No, Mr. Ruckman's quals were a bit more solid.

Perhaps, but his conclusions were just as ignorant, have you checked out the notes in his so called study bible?

 

[Yeshua1]

Jj: "She has been divorced and remarried twice, and is on her third husband"

Actually, now widowed from her third husband, and her second husband (I think, if not the first) is also deceased.

Squire: "Mr. Ruckman's quals were a bit more solid."

Ruckman had an earned PhD from BJU.

Do not think that his degree was in textual criticism though!

 

[Yeshua1]

Concerning Hebrew and Greek lexicons, it's a mixed bag. Riplinger rejects all of them, recommending that we define words in the Bible from their contexts--in the KJV, that is. She rejects the Greek and Hebrew languages in which the Word of God was originally written. Tell you what, I'll stick with God on that one, instead of a twice divorced woman preacher who constantly glorifies herself and not God, who never mentions reaching the world for Christ and apparently never wins souls or goes on missions trips. She certainly does not support missionary Bible translation.

But let's apply her standards for rejecting dictionaries to a couple of Japanese-English dictionaries I have. First is the one published by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, a dictionary of Christian terms. I've gotten great good out of this for many years. Oops. It's put out by the Japanese government. Well, they're probably idolaters, so I'd better not use it anymore.

Let's see. Here's a better one, the 教会用語辞典, or "Dictionary of Church Terms." Nope, it's put out by the 日本基督協議会, Nihon Kirisuto Kyougikai, and they have some liberal connections. Nope, can't use that.

Well, here's my little Kodansha Co. English-Japanese Dictionary. I use it all the time. Kodansha is a famous company, a good one, right? Nope. Probably idolaters. Can't use it, according to Riplinger.

What about my huge four volume kanji (Chinese character) dictionary that my translation partner Uncle Miya gave me? Nope, better not use that anymore--might have been idolaters who compiled it.

Here is what she misses. Compiling a dictionary is a mental job, not a fundamentally spiritual one. Giving the Gospel is spiritual, preaching the Word is spiritual, counseling should be spiritual, and so forth. But not compiling a dictionary.

Now, a Christian lexicographer should be filled with the Holy Spirit when he compiles a dictionary, but if he doesn't have the mental equipment and linguistic experience he still can't do it.

Can a liberal interject his own theology into a Greek-English lexicon? Not very well. It will only show up in a very, very few places. I consult Greek and Hebrew lexicons all the time, and I assure you, I am not being influenced towards liberalism in the slightest bit when I do so.

Do not know any reputable bible translators who would refuse to use any lexicons!

 

[Yeshua1]

In an article "Why I Wrote the Book: New Age Bible Versions," Gail Riplinger stated: "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).

By claiming that God is the "author" of her book, Gail Riplinger seemed to place her book on the same level with God's Word. A contemporary word from God such as claimed by Riplinger as God's latest spokesman will become a rival and hindrance to the authority of Scripture.

She sounds exactly the same here as Ellen White did regarding God inspiring her works also!

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Perhaps, but his conclusions were just as ignorant, have you checked out the notes in his so-called study bible?

I agree he was outstanding in his field, his cornfield on many matters.

 

[Yeshua1]

I agree he was outstanding in his field, his cornfield on many matters.

His expertise was not in textual criticism!