Gail Riplinger

Unfortunately, I don't. I too have been looking for a hardcopy.

 

iNTERESTING, i do a Google on "G. A. Riplinger"
and of the 690 results, the first one
gets me right into Chick Publications.
If it isn't Friday, i'll never make it

 

No sir.No you don't;you have done your talking,now lets see some action from it.

I will leave the dabbling in the black arts up to you if that is what you like;but as far as W&H are concerned,I will wait till 2 Corinthians 5:10 happens;I personaly know I will be there anyway.

 

Some one please tell me she was kidding.

HankD

 

Why dont you say it to her face then? I dare you;your not a coward are you? </font>[/QUOTE]I would say it to her face if I ever met her or had contact with her. I am not a coward in the least. I have dealt with people on more solid ground than she is. You set up the meeting and I will confront her with her lies and errors.

However, this has been done many times and Riplinger's heart has been hardened to the truth. Once someone starts believeing lies and the espousing them by teaching others, they become increasinginly hardened to the truth, their consciences having been seared as with a hot iron. There is no excuse for Riplinger to have ever published her book. She knows nothing at all. Her degrees are in home economics, not in theology, much less in bibliology or a related field. She is grossly incompetent to speak on these matters and her ignorance flies off of virtually every page in her book. She is an embarrassment to the cause of Christ and to the Bible.

She has been confronted and has refused to repent. She is guilty of lying, of false teaching, or dividing the body of Christ, of slander, and of blasphemy. She should be rebuked publicly and separated from by everyone who knows the true and living God. Unfortunately, there are many among us, unthinking and unawares who have been led astray by her teaching. They have become partners in her sinfulness and wickedness by promoting her and encouraging her. It is a sad state of affairs to be sure.

 

Anti-Alexandrian said:

but as far as W&H are concerned,I will wait till 2 Corinthians 5:10 happens;I personaly know I will be there anyway.

You imply that Westcott and Hort will not; therefore, you have no intention of calling them a liar to their faces, and you're still a coward.

 

Just one??? That is the most difficult question you have ever asked on this board. How in the world are we supposed to take her tome and limit our list of problems to only one??

I will start with this one: She is a liar.

I am dying to say more because there is so much more to say but this one problem sums it up very clearly and directly. </font>[/QUOTE]Says who, you and others that do not believe the Bible? The first website that was mentioned by BrianT talks about archaic words in the KJB. I agree with her. BTW, here is some archaic words in the NIV http://jesus-is-lord.com/archaic.htm

Here's something to ponder. You have your websites and materials and I have mine. Which one of us is right? Accordingly to you guys we can't go by the Bible because it has errors. But I will stick with the Bible because God's word is infallible, inerrant, inspired, and not to mention, God wrote it.

 

I am not used to defending the NIV however just a brief look at the lists leads me to a couple of thoughts.

First, if the author thinks the vast majority of those words are archaic, it is a strong indicator that they have a very poor vocabulary. There are some difficult words but the bulk of them are commonly used today with known meanings. (Before you go off on a tangent, I am willing to list the non-standard words if you like.)

Most of the other supposed archaic words appear to be attempts to leave the text in its culture rather than obscuring the meaning by stripping it of its cultural context. Some seem to be transliterations.

Second, there is yet another double standard being applied. For instance, the NIV uses the word 'cor' while the KJV has 'measure'. The NIV is giving a more accurate representation here. 'Cor' has a value that is denoted in the footnotes rather than a simple, ambiguous 'measure'. If the situation was reversed, you would be charging that this was yet another instance of the NIV dumbing down the Bible and being inaccurate.

That is not according to us but rather according to the words you try to put in our mouths. We never said that we could not go by the Bible. Most of us do not dispute the truth of scripture. We dispute the notion that one English translation has the only authoritative set of words. We dispute the notion that the differences between the KJV and MV's amount to a change much less a denial of Christian doctrine.

OK, prove it. Cite the chapter and verse where the KJV says any of the things you believe concerning this subject.

You can't. I know it and you know it. For all of your blather about sticking with the Bible, what you are actually doing is sticking with the vain words of wicked men who have soothed your itching ears.

 

First of all, I do believe the Bible and everyone that I know of on this side of hte equation also believes the Bible. So right off the bat, you are showing your obvious disregard for the truth.

Second, the facts are what tell us that Riplinger is wrong. If you compare the undeniable facts--not the ones open to interpretation--but the real undeniable facts, Riplinger is shown to be a liar.

We are ... because the facts correspond with what our side teaches. I read an interesting quote the other day that referenced the fact that the ease of website and even book publishing in the modern era has led us to believe that anyone who can speak has something worth listening to. We need to disabuse ourselves of that idea very quickly. The fact that a website says something does not make it true.

You keep citing and believeing in errors, lies, false teaching. You think because certain people say something that it has to be regarded as truth. However, truth is found in correspondence to reality, not in your little icons that you follow. The simple truth is that your belief does not conform to reality.

Again, you are simply dishonest. We can go by the Bible. It has no errors. Translations at times do contain errors as we have seen in many places. Your unwillingness to be honest precludes your from any serious spot in this discussion.

 

No ScottJ, it just makes sense to me that we have one book that is God's word, not 200+.

 

No Pastor Larry, it just makes sense to me that we have one book that is God's word, not 200+. Does this not make sense to you guys? Don't you think the devil has something to do with all the bibles on the street, tying to confuse God's word? I do.

 

No, actually it doesn't. Because what was the "one book" in 1605, and why was the KJV produced? The church has *never, ever* had "one book", it has had a collection of manuscripts, translations and versions in various languages. To pick "one book" to be the word of God is to deny the existence of the word of God before that "one book" was published.

I do too. The devil is involved in deliberate corruption (such as the NWT), as well as faulty *interpretation* of good Bibles. That's the way it's always been, since the early church. Just because he has been involved does not mean he has been involved to the level you wish he was.

 

I seem to recall that the "one Book" was somewhat bulkier in 1611, containing about a dozen or so "books" now rejected by the KJV-Onlyists.

 

No it does not make sense. History shows you to be wrong. All through church history, there have been multiple translations of God's word. There is not one bit of church history to support your "one book only" belief. There is not one bit of theology to support that belief either. It simply isn't there.

Not in the sense that you are referring to. I think the KJVO folks are the ones confusing people. I am telling you ... I deal with MVs every day with everything from people who have been saved for 50+ years to people who have been saved less than 1 year. They are not confused. The only people who are confused are the KJVO people. This mass conspiracy of confusion simply does not exist where the word of God is faithfully taught.

 

Just because history does not show a "one book only" theory does not mean that it cannot happen. Curious, in your church I assume that most everyone uses the same version that you preach from, right? If this is not the case, how can there not be confusing? For example:

Mark 10:24 NASV: "... 'Children how hard it is to enter the kingdom of
God!'" KJV: "... Children, how hard is it for them that trust in
riches to enter into the kingdom of God!"

Don't you agree this verse (compared with the NASV and KJB) says something different? Why not read word for word what you are reading? This is what makes sense to me. I'm I the only one?

 

Folks, this thread is about the person who made this statement.

Dear KJVO,
Isn't this kind of statement above (if she indeed made it) a red flag waving in your face?

What was she thinking?

HankD

 

Folks, this thread is about the person who made this statement.

Dear KJVO,
Isn't this kind of statement above (if she indeed made it) a red flag waving in your face?

What was she thinking?

HankD </font>[/QUOTE]Sounds to me that she is giving glory to God for any and all the research that she has done, which is what she should do. Is this the wrong idea?

 

Of course not ... but we are not talkign about what "can" happen, but what "is" true.

[qutoe]Curious, in your church I assume that most everyone uses the same version that you preach from, right?[/quote]No. We are probably split pretty evenly between NASB and KJV, with a few who carry the NIV.

I assume you mean "confusion." The answer is because I preach clearly and reference all necessary information. I would never preach Mark 10:24. I would always include the context (something that mnay KJVOs routinely omit). The context of v. 25 make clear that "riches" is what is being discussed. Therefore, there is no confusion.

Nope ... The context shows they mean the same thing.

Because as the KJV translators said, there is value in a variety of translations to gain teh sense.

It didn't make sense to the KJV translators and doesn't make sense to most others. Look at it this way. When someone is explaining something and the person says, "I don't understand," we typically don't just repeat it. We choose some different words and try to clarify it. By analogy that is what happens when we use multiple translations. It helps us gain the sense.

[qutope]I'm I the only one? [/QUOTE]No ...

The problem is people like Riplinger mislead people into false positions by asserting contradictions where there are none. When she misleads people into thinking the very kidn of thing that you think, then she is to blame for false teaching. James 3 makes clear that such teaching brings greater condemnation because the standard is higher.