An open letter to Gail Riplinger

[Salamander]

This would be true if she thought the modern versions were valid translations of the Scriptures. Instead she does not - so your statement is untrue.

Actually your remark holds more untruth that you realize.

 

[robycop3]

Hmmm, when one deals with the personal attack against the person who is not part of the conversation or even present, with the very same "heat" they belch forth, it is conveyed as a "personal attack" thru the censorship of the moderators.

What a laugh!

I haven't sat around on my duffous examinig everything another person says to know whether they are in need of repentence the way some here have. I only made an observation.

I suppose BIAS has NOTHING to do with this!:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Then perhaps you oughtta take the time to examine the facts for yourself, rather than criticizing them & the people who call attention to them. As Christians, we have a D-U-T-Y to fight false doctrines whenever/wherever we find them, & GAR is clearly promoting a false doctrine with untrue material. If you wanna condone this, shame on you.

 

[sag38]

Some have never met a KJVO person they didn't like even if that person's integrity was somewhat lacking to say the least.

 

[robycop3]

Again, I have posted sources of FACTS about GAR. You are freeta confirm or disprove their veracity as you choose. If you wishta support her hooey just cuz she's KJVO, well......

 

[HankD]

The "inspired" translators of the 1611 King James Version of the Bible thenselves did not believe what Drs Ruckman and Riplinger teach.

These are the two golden pipes, or rather conduits, where-through the olive branches empty themselves into the gold. Saint Augustine calleth them precedent, or original tongues; Saint Jerome, fountains. The same Saint Jerome affirmeth, and Gratian hath not spared to put it into his Decree, That as the credit of the old Books (he meaneth of the Old Testament) is to be tried by the Hebrew Volumes, so of the New by the Greek tongue, he meaneth by the original Greek. If truth be to be tried by these tongues, then whence should a Translation be made, but out of them? These tongues therefore, the Scriptures we say in those tongues, we set before us to translate, being the tongues wherein God was pleased to speak to his Church by his Prophets and Apostles.

From The Translators to the Reader, 1611 KJV Prologue

That the languages of inspiration of the Word of God given to His Church are Hebrew and Greek (not 17th century Elizabethan-Jacobean English).

That those through whom it came were OT Prophets and NT Apostles (not Church of England bishops and scholars).


HankD

 

[robycop3]

What concerns me most is that she has clearly and deliberately misquoted some other authors, and refuses to admit it. That's just plain DISHONEST.

 

[Keith M]

As for her lack of education:
How much education does it take, to point out all the changes being made in the Bible?

Just because modern translations sometimes use different words doesn't mean the modern translations are wrong or that the message has been changed.

Herer's a challenge for anyone who believes the KJVO position...

Start with a blank piece of paper. On it copy only the text of 1 Thessalonians 4:15 from one of the KJVs.

For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.

Be sure to omit the footnote that reads "prevent: or, come before, or, anticipate, or, precede."

On another piece of blank paper print the same verse from one of the modern translations. Here it is from the NKJV:

For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep.

Take the two pieces of paper to a shopping mall, a restaurant or any other place where you're likely to find more unchurched people than church-goers. Show the first piece of paper (the one with the KJV verse on it) to a number of people. Chances are you're going to ge a lot of people asking something like "Prevent them from doing what?" Next show them the modern translation of the verse and ask them if it clarifies the meaning of prevent for them.

The vast majority of unchurched people don't have a clue that "prevent" once meant to "come before" or "precede."

This is just one example of a situation where the meaning of Scripture is clouded by the use of a word that meant something else in the 17th century than it means in the 21st century.

Putting it more simply, it's far better to change words where necessary in order to keep the original meaning of Scripture. The preservation of the intent or meaning of Scripture is more important than the preservation of a particular set of English words. Many KJVOs lose sight of this fact. They often get hung up on the preservation of particular English words (remember, the Bible wasan't written in English) while completely ignoring the preservation of the original meaning of Scripture.

In a changing and evolving language like English, the meanings of words may change. That's why it's often important to change words. Modern translations put God's word (His message to us) into words that are more easily understood by modern readers.

 

[preachinjesus]

I fail to see how calling out someone who claims to be a "scholar" for not having awfully scholarful insights and works is being unduly harsh.

I sat and watched a presentation of Ms. Riplinger's on Google video tonight and frankly she is out of her league and is using very poor information to frame her points.

Maybe if she could learn some Greek and Hebrew it would help. Her points are fairly off base, not all of them, but many. She accepts this Bible Code nonsense. Finally, she doesn't seem to understand the translation methodology between the texts.

Just an honest evaluation here.

 

[Ed Edwards]

I fail to see how calling out someone who claims to be a "scholar" for not having awfully scholarful insights and works is being unduly harsh.

I sat and watched a presentation of Ms. Riplinger's on Google video tonight and frankly she is out of her league and is using very poor information to frame her points.

Maybe if she could learn some Greek and Hebrew it would help. Her points are fairly off base, not all of them, but many. She accepts this Bible Code nonsense. Finally, she doesn't seem to understand the translation methodology between the texts.

Just an honest evaluation here.

// She accepts this Bible Code nonsense. //

This is the most serious of anti-Christian, anti-human, anti-whatever of the charges against her.

The short trip from FUNDAMENTALISM to NEW AGEism:

Just change a few of the fundamentals of traditional fundamentalism:

1. the inspiration and infallibility of scripture
2. the deity of Christ (including His virgin birth)
3. the substitutionary atonement of Christ's death
4. the literal resurrection of Christ from the dead
5. the literal return of Christ in the Second Advent

Note the first one is about the Written Word of God,
the Holy Bible (AKA: Holy Scripture).
Note that #2 to #5 (the last four) are about
the Living Word of God, Messiah Jesus.
Notice that a person (even if He is a spiritual person)
is NOT the same as a Book (even if it is the
best book in the world).

To equate the Written Word of God and the Living
Word of God is a step away from the Fundamentals
of Christianity. To equate the Written Word of God
and the Living Word of God is a step toward
a NEW AGE belief.

The next step toward the NEW AGE belief concerning
the Holy Scripture is to use the Divine Bible
(third person of the Holy Trinity) as a divination device
and a fortune telling tool: i.e. using
some Bible Code on the King James Version 1769
Edition ONLY.

BTW, the NEW AGE is just the OLD IMMORALITY/Paganism

The Bible Codes are a direct violation of the ETERNAL
LAW OF GOD as shown in Deuteronomy 18:10-12
(note that for clarity I use, as my signature suggests, more than one translation)

Sources
Deuter 18:10-12 (Geneva Bible, 1599 Edition)
Deuter 18:10-12 (KJV1611 Edition):
Deuter 18:10-12 (HCSB = Christian Standard Bible /Holman, 2003/ )

Geneva 10A. or that vseth witchcraft,
KJV1611 10A. or that vseth diuination,
HCSB 10A. practice divination,

Geneva 10B. or a regarder of times,
KJV1611 10B. or an obseruer of times,
HCSB 10B. tell fortunes,

Geneva 10C. or a marker of the flying of foules,
KJV1611 10C. or an inchanter,
HCSB 10C. interpret omens,

Geneva 10D. or a sorcerer,
KJV1611 10D. or a witch,
HCSB 10D. practice sorcery,

Geneva 11A. Or a charmer,
KJV1611 11A. Or a charmer,
HCSB 11A. cast spells,

Geneva 11B. or that counselleth with spirits,
KJV1611 11B. or a consulter with familiar spirits,
HCSB 11B. or (consult) a familiar spirit,

Geneva 11C. or a soothsaier,
KJV1611 11C. or a wyzard,
HCSB 11C. consult a medium

Geneva 11D. or that asketh counsel at ye dead.
KJV1611 11D. or a Necromancer.
HCSB 11D. or inquire of the dead.


What is Deut 18:10-12 speaking of? What offence do these things make before God? IMHO they are attempts to deal with the Forces of the Universe and GO AROUND God trying to IGNORE God.
---------------------------

in Dictionary.com this is the definition of SORCERY:
the art, practices, or spells of a person who is supposed to exercise supernatural powers through the aid of evil spirits; black magic; witchery (this term dates from 1259-1300).

in Dictionary.com this is the definition of DIVINATION:
the practice of attempting to foretell future events or discover hidden knowledge by occult or supernatural means. (this term dates from 1350-1400)

 

[stilllearning]

Hi Ed Edwards

Even though I started this thread, I have already stated that my opinion of this lady has changed;(After learning some more about her.)

But I am a bit confused with your response:

It said.........

“To equate the Written Word of God and the Living
Word of God is a step away from the Fundamentals
of Christianity. To equate the Written Word of God
and the Living Word of God is a step toward
a NEW AGE belief.”

Now are these words yours or hers???
--------------------------------------------------
The reason I ask this, is because of........

John 1:1
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

John 1:14
“And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.”

I have always “equated” the Written Word of God and the Living Word of God:
Don’t you?

 

[robycop3]

Still Learning, if you'd carefully investigate the whole KJVO doctrine, you'd see it's totally a product of MAN, without the first quark of Scriptural support, nt even in the KJV itself.

The "handbook" of KJVO is 7TH DAY ADVENTIST official Dr. Benjamin Wilkinson's 1930 book, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated. Every KJVO author who followed, fromRuckman to Riplinger, have copied material from this error-filled book, manufacturing a whole new doctrine about God's word, a doctrine which happens to be FALSE. Now, while GAR has manufactured quite a bit of codwallop on her own, she still relied on BW's book for many things.

Right now, GAR is riding her popularity on the lecture circuit, telling tall tales & promoting her boox. After all, she wantsta continue livin' large.

Now, if one wantsta continue using only the KJV outta PERSONAL PREFERENCE, fine, but when one tells others the KJV is the ONLY valid English BV, then one is in serious error & promoting a doctrine of MAN.

 

[Baptist4life]

Now, if one wantsta continue using only the KJV outta PERSONAL PREFERENCE, fine, but when one tells others the KJV is the ONLY valid English BV, then one is in serious error & promoting a doctrine of MAN.

I don't have any problem with that statement. The only problem I have is people (Rippon) saying that the KJV isn't a VALID version anymore because it's too outdated.


Here's a quote from Rippon from another thread he just started:



quote: "I'm just giving added weight to the fact that the Anglican Version is woefully out-of-date. A contemporary English reader of Scripture needs to study a more modern version so that understanding will result.The KJV family has had its day.But for nearly 200 years the English speaking world has needed something in the common vernacular." end quote



THAT I have problems with. I don't see much difference in what Riplinger is doing and what Rippon is doing! Just from different ends of the spectrum.

 

[annsni]

I don't have any problem with that statement. The only problem I have is people (Rippon) saying that the KJV isn't a VALID version anymore because it's too outdated.


Here's a quote from Rippon from another thread he just started:



quote: "I'm just giving added weight to the fact that the Anglican Version is woefully out-of-date. A contemporary English reader of Scripture needs to study a more modern version so that understanding will result.The KJV family has had its day.But for nearly 200 years the English speaking world has needed something in the common vernacular." end quote



THAT I have problems with. I don't see much difference in what Riplinger is doing and what Rippon is doing! Just from different ends of the spectrum.

Maybe reading what the translators of the KJV wrote might help you:

"Indeed without translation into the vulgar tongue, the unlearned are but like children at Jacob's well (which is deep) [John 4:11] without a bucket or something to draw with; or as that person mentioned by Isaiah, to whom when a sealed book was delivered, with this motion, "Read this, I pray thee," he was fain to make this answer, "I cannot, for it is sealed." [Isa 29:11]"

"But we desire that the Scripture may speak like itself, as in the language of Canaan, that it may be understood even of the very vulgar."
...About the Greek Septuagint

 

[Askjo]

The only problem I have is people (Rippon) saying that the KJV isn't a VALID version anymore because it's too outdated.

These people who are "W/H" group negated against the KJV.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Hi Ed Edwards

Even though I started this thread, I have already stated that my opinion of this lady has changed;(After learning some more about her.)

Hello Brother Stilllearning! When I first started reading her I had an open mind about what she said. But when I started checking the original sources, I found her quotations maligned they sources INCLUDING the Written Word of God (Holy Bible).

But I am a bit confused with your response:

It said.........

To equate the Written Word of God and the Living
Word of God is a step away from the Fundamentals
of Christianity. To equate the Written Word of God
and the Living Word of God is a step toward
a NEW AGE belief.

Now are these words yours or hers???

Mine
This needs to be understood though, as it is difficult for some to understand. (Which is EXACTLY why the New Age movement makes the arguments.)

Mat 24:23-27 (Geneva Bible, 1599 Edition):
Then if any shall say vnto you, Loe, here is Christ, or there, beleeue it not.
24 For there shall arise false Christes, and false prophets, and shall shewe great signes and wonders, so that if it were possible, they should deceiue the very elect.
25 Beholde, I haue tolde you before.
26 Wherefore if they shall say vnto you, Beholde, he is in the desert, goe not forth: Beholde, he is in the secret places, beleeue it not.
27 For as the lightning commeth out of the East, and is seene into the West, so shall also the comming of the Sonne of man be.

This says that the Lord shall come openly for His own and openly every time He comes. //he is in the secret places// reminds us of one who translated the (so called) Book of Mormon in the secret chamber. This false prophet of the Mormon's (and other 'Later Day Saints' sects) says DAY OF THE LORD = END OF THE WORLD. This is the meaning that serious (but wrong ) a-mills (who believe in a physical Second Advent but a spiritual Millennial Messianic Reign) mean - they are alright (according to their beliefs) but the Mormons are mislead. Yet it seems pretty much the same. Still, there is a find distinction between the New Age Mormons (AKA: Latter Day Saints /LDS/ ) and the Christin a-mills.

The reason I ask this, is because of........

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

“And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.”

Once I thought that the Greek 'logos' used here in John always referred to the Living Word of God (Messiah Jesus) and that the Greek 'rhema' always meant the Written Word of God (Holy Bible). When I checked it out, I found that wasn't so. So there is SOME relation between the Living Word of God (Jesus) and the Written Word of God (Jesus). Here are some relationships I think exist. But the two are NOT equal (see later writings)

1. The Living Word of God (Messiah Jesus) IS TRUTH;
the Written Word of God (Holy Bible) speaks truth

2. The Living Word of God (Holy Spirit) helps us understand the Written Word of God (Holy Bible) whose main subject is the Living Word of God (Messiah Jesus).

3. The Living Word of God (Jesus) is NOT a created being;
the Written Word of God (Holy Bible) is a created thing.

I have always “equated” the Written Word of God and the Living Word of God:
Don’t you?

No.

Here is the mal-logic of such an equation:

1. IF: Written Word of God (Holy Bible) = Living Word of God (Jesus);
2. IF: Living Word of God (Jesus) = Holy Spirit of God (Holy Spirit)
3. THEN: Written Word of God (Holy Bible) = Holy Spirit of God (Holy Spirit)

#2 is correct because it is part of the Holy Trinity; #3 is not a good conclusion, so #1 has to be a bad statement. I just don't think one can have some Written Word of God (Holy Bible) that is equal to each of the three persons of the Holy Trinity and hence is God Almighty Himself. By that time one is worshiping the Written Word of God (Holy Bible). The Written Word of God (Holy Bible) should not be worshiped.



-

 

[Keith M]

These people who are "W/H" group negated against the KJV.

Askjo, as is often the case, your comment makes absolutely no sense. Please explain.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Askjo, as is often the case, your comment makes absolutely no sense. Please explain.

Please be patient and remember that ASL, not English, is Askjo's first language.

 

[Keith M]

I don't have any problem with that statement. The only problem I have is people (Rippon) saying that the KJV isn't a VALID version anymore because it's too outdated.


Here's a quote from Rippon from another thread he just started:



quote: "I'm just giving added weight to the fact that the Anglican Version is woefully out-of-date. A contemporary English reader of Scripture needs to study a more modern version so that understanding will result.The KJV family has had its day.But for nearly 200 years the English speaking world has needed something in the common vernacular." end quote



THAT I have problems with. I don't see much difference in what Riplinger is doing and what Rippon is doing! Just from different ends of the spectrum.

Rippon, in my opinion, states his opinions as fact and expects everyone else to agree with his often incorrect assessment - that's why I put him on my ignore list a long time ago. Although I stand firmly against the errant KJVO position, I don't agree with Rippon's assessment that the KJVs are "woefully out-of-date." There are some words in the KJVs that need clarification for modern readers, but apparently Rippon wants to trash the KJVs altogether and to make them a footnote in history. The word of God is never out of date even though the antiquated language may need a little clarification or explanation in certain places. As a matter of fact, one of the KJVs, the NKJV and the NASB are the three translations I use most frequently. No, we don't need to get rid of the KJVs altogether as Rippon seems to think, but we certainly need to use other translations and helps to clarify its meaning sometimes.

 

[Keith M]

Please be patient and remember that ASL, not English, is Askjo's first language.

Gotcha, Roger. But I feel the statement still needs clarification.

 

[Rippon]

Rippon, in my opinion, states his opinions as fact and expects everyone else to agree with his often incorrect assessment - that's why I put him on my ignore list a long time ago.

Is that a fact Contentious Keith?

Although I stand firmly against the errant KJVO position, I don't agree with Rippon's assessment that the KJVs are "woefully out-of-date."

Do you object to the qualifer "woefully"?Do you merely think they are out-of-date?

There are some words in the KJVs that need clarification for modern readers, but apparently Rippon wants to trash the KJVs altogether

Now that's what's called lying KM.I never said or implied any such thing.Your line of argumentation against KJVOism uses these kinds of tactics.Shame on you.

No, we don't need to get rid of the KJVs altogether as Rippon seems to think,...

That's your trouble.You think wrongly.How about quoting what I have said instead of what you think "Rippon seems to think"?You need a good old fashioned dose of honesty.

but we certainly need to use other translations and helps to clarify its meaning sometimes.

And if you had been paying attention to what I've been saying you would have noted that I have said about the same thing.You are so quick to denounce without adequate reasoning,reading and reflection.You really need to get a handle on things.You have two ears I presume -- use them more before speaking and typing.