Gail Riplinger video

Her logic is all over the page. Of course anyone who has little to say always approaches things that way in an effort to try and win people. It is much like the shotgun approach.

Can you believe she said, "Mr. Kohlenberger translates the NIV into Hebrew."

Apparently she know nothing about languages. It is obvious when you campare the NIV to a translation of the MT to the NIV. She failed to look at Amos 4:4.

None of her research is from primary sources for her to say some of the things she did.

 

Ever notice how "Gail" sounds like "gale", a burst of wind?

Also, a "rippling" is "Fretting on the surface" (according to Webster's 1828) and to make small waves, thus a "ripplinger" would be one who frets on the surface and makes waves.

Coincidence? You decide. Personally, I think God is telling us something.

 

Maybe in the near future for you and her to sit down and have a nice fellowship, since yall are debating an individual, behind her back at that, in the BVT debate forum!

 

Ever notice how Natters sounds like gnatters? As in; small annoying flys?

OTOH; Jim sounds like gym, a place where excercise is done to strengthen oneself and others.

Or! Phillip sounds like Fill-up, something one does to a GAS tank. Full of gas.

Go figure huh?

LOLROFLOL!

In HIS service;
Jim

 

Maybe in the near future for you and her to sit down and have a nice fellowship, since yall are debating an individual, behind her back at that, in the BVT debate forum! </font>[/QUOTE]I am sure she is welcome here any time.

She has made herself a public personality. It isn't "behind her back" to debate her views and methods... any more than you are debating behind the backs of numerous people that you criticize and condemn.

BTW, when she has debated her views publically with an informed opponent... she comes off looking like a fool or worse.

 

So then we should place our trust in the hands of men like you when it comes to the Word of God?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nope. Nor should you place your trust in the men who made up KJVOnlyism. In fact that may be a key difference between me and them. They would demand that you trust them. I tell you to only trust the Bible and honest arguments from the evidence. If someone has to speak where the Bible is silent or make-up/deny evidence then they aren't trustworthy. just as I don't put my trust in men who ONLY debate against the KJB, nor do I put my trust in men that only think they know what the Word of God is by the teachings passed down from liberal and secular institutions, don't you? Yes, you do.

Riplinger, Gipp, Marres, Cloud, et al. are not trustworthy. They aren't honest with the evidence nor with the implications of what the Bible says about itself. I could say that you aren't either, so there!

You should place your trust in what the Bible actually says about itself along with an interpretation of the evidence that is intellectually honest and consistent with biblical principles. Exactly! and I do! But I will never accept the contradictory mss introduced from Alexandria that most commonly when compared to the Byzantine MSS, which is in Perfect Harmony, and if YOU are "honest", you have to admit before the cyber world the TRUTH of that statement! I am certain what is the Word and what isn't. I am not certain nor is anyone honest about the providentially preserved evidence about what the words of the originals were verbatim. Thank God that we can know what He said without knowing precisely every word He used to say it. Really now?
Quite possibly one of the great understatements I have seen since joining here. Hmmm? Spit or spin? Do you really wanna play that junk? In my opinion, if you made a scale with the Byzantine on one end and the Alexandrian on the other... the originals would lie between but skewed toward the Byzantine. This is an opinion.
Then your "opinion" is much closer to the Truth than you will ever admit I know that God preserved His Word. I know He did not see fit to preserve a particular "perfect" set of words in the original languages much less another language. The evidence clearly demonstrates this. I know that He inspired the originals and that inspiration was directly tied to very special qualifications held by a select group of men who God chose to pen scripture.
Agreed, except that God knew what He said, and will not let men alter it to their own satisfaction. That is precisely why we have the KJB, to show that all other versions are wrong in their respective places when they introduce disharmony and confuse the understanding, thus the disharmony and confusing relative to the guile of the serpent.

You admit to being a man of Biblical studies. You also congratulate yourself as such, but yet you deny men of obviously higher education, speaking of those who took up the task of study of the MSS that makes up the KJB. Now, Sir, that IS truly laughable, but then I am certain you will argue more mss and more recent discoveries and older mss, but then your opinion is become the mandate, not the dictate of the Supreme. the Word of God IS established by Harmony, not opinion of translating and interpretation by malicious means, speaking directly to the W/H understanding of Greek, which most emphatically smacks in the very faces of those who have Greek as their native tongue.

Limited defintion hinders understanding, allowing confusion ansd uneducation to prevail over their respective opposing factors/ Education and Understanding, which does not happen with usI know that what God chose to reveal of Himself and His plan is faithfully represented in several English translations that includes but is not limited to the KJV. I have never said, nor has anyone to my knowledge that has said that! Except in utter ignorance of the fact that we have MSS the KJB is derived from. The KJB is the Final Authority in that it is COMPLTETE, not removing passages that the confusing mss introduce, it has been proven a thousand times a thousand times over. Either you have what God said, completely, and w/o mistake, or you don't.

Your statement hints only the Gospel as that which is the Word of God, and the Word is NOT limited to only the Gospel. The Bible is our Standard for worship and practice of living, Holy Living, where God is not mocked, not equated with the wicked, nor ever deceived, and precisely His Deity revealed throughout the Holy Scritpures, not as most newer versions, which are at best limiting view and perspective.

 

Well, I only had it backwards .

I should have noted the obvious, that cows are kind instead of saying that to be kind is to act like a cow.

Do people actually buy into this stuff? </font>[/QUOTE]You do that every time you speak English my friend, It is the "KIND" of stuff English is made of, like the word "no" for instance. Think first.

 

Yes.

Speaking of gales and ripples (wind and waves), this verse immediately comes to mind:

Mark 4:39a And he arose, and rebuked the wind, and said unto the sea, Peace, be still.

If only she would heed the Master's command...

 

That was no "attack" and i am offended by your insinuating it was, it was nothing more than informing you that ALL languages are formed by linguistics, that form of sound emitted by our ancestors in response and inciting expressions to others

 

And I am now very dissapointed in he who I had learned to respect his piosition as a moderator here, that is sad.

 

POR states:

Agreed, except that God knew what He said, and will not let men alter it to their own satisfaction. That is precisely why we have the KJB, to show that all other versions are wrong in their respective places when they introduce disharmony and confuse the understanding, thus the disharmony and confusing relative to the guile of the serpent.

You still have yet to prove that the MV's do this, Ralph. The King James is a VERSION of the Bible, and even the "translators", if you wish to call them that, admitted such. Too bad the Onlyist sect can't be righteous enough to do the same instead of trying to make straw man arguments and intentionally lying about the MV's.

 

Yes.

Speaking of gales and ripples (wind and waves), this verse immediately comes to mind:

Mark 4:39a And he arose, and rebuked the wind, and said unto the sea, Peace, be still.

If only she would heed the Master's command... </font>[/QUOTE]__________________________________________________

LOL That's a good one!

In HIS service;
Jim

 

Like I said POR, I will not budge on what the Bible actually says or directly insenuates about itself. After that, I will try to apply biblical principles to the evidence God has providentially provided to us... and the opinions of those who have interpretted that evidence.

Yes... but we both have been here long enough for me to be fairly confident that you couldn't back it up with scripture nor evidence. I can and have backed up my contentions about these and other KJVO's from both.

That is fine but it isn't a Bible based decision. It is a decision that was made beyond what the Bible says or infers.

The truth? The Alexandrian does contain more variants within its type than the Byzantine. There are a number of legitimate possibilities for why this is true that do not conclude that it is worthless evidence.

BTW, the Byzantine IS NOT in "Perfect Harmony". That family has many variants within it. Moreover, there are some very significant passages where the Byzantine majority differs with the TR and thus the KJV- most famously, I John 5:7-8.

Yep. Really.

Just joking with you POR. I apologize if you were really offended. I wasn't making a serious point at all.

That's an interesting statement... I hold an opinion but you think I am unwilling to admit that it is close to the truth?

An opinion- mine, yours, or anyone's is not the standard of truth. God is the only one who is infallibly true in all of His opinions... if that word is even proper to use with regard to God.

You do not "know" the truth on this no matter how strongly you hold one opinion or another. The reason is that God has providentially preserved evidence that contradicts what you believe to be true.

Would that include the KJV translators? If them, why not the NASB translators? The NKJV translators? On what basis have your arbitrarily chosen the KJV as the manifestation of God's act to prevent men from altering His Word to their own satisfaction... especially when there is evidence that the KJV translators did just that. Witness "bishop", "baptize with", etc.

You have made quite a leap here. You have yet to show that God made the KJV the standard by which all other versions are to be judged.

I see where Ralph has said so but not where God said so.

No I don't. I have said many times that the KJV translators were superior classical scholars. That simply doesn't mean that they produced a perfect Bible version nor that their version precludes the translation of any other reliable version.

Nope. Neither is KJVO the dictate of the Supreme. My opinion of all these scholars and their work is just that- an opinion. Hopefully, it is honest, informed, submitted to the Spirit, and consistent with biblical principles... but in the end, God's Word simply did not answer the question of versions.

With all due respect, the Word of God is established by what God inspired into existence when He moved the penmen. Whatever you mean by "Harmony" isn't relevant whatsoever. If you are talking about the concensus among men then it is still irrelevant.

God providentially left evidence. An honest evaluation of that evidence mitigates strongly against what you believe. So basically we have what God preserved vs what you deem "Harmony".

If you know that we have them then you also know that they did not agree with each other and that Erasmus who produced the actual text used as a basis for the KJV used the Latin Vulgate when his greek mss were incomplete/questionable.

The Word of God is the final authority. The KJV is the final authority only in as much as it is a faithful (not exclusive) translation of God's Word.

Please show where a MV or modern text removes pages. In the worst case, they drop words that the evidence for the originals weighs against (in the opinion of scholars/translators).

Not true. God never said that He would prevent one translator or another from making a mistake.

When taken in the whole context then we can accurately say that we have what God said completely and without mistakes (in teachings). However, you cannot say on the authority of anything God has said that every word choice of any translator or translation is w/o mistake.

When the Erasmus put "book of life" rather than "tree of life" in Rev 22 that was a mistake. The uniform witness of the Greek says "tree". In the context of the whole KJV, this is not a doctrinal problem. Likewise, every time the KJV translators used the term "God forbid" in Romans, it was a mistake. Not a mistake that threatens doctrine or the overall meaning of scripture but a mistranslation of the Greek none the less.

No such hint intended. If you are correct and I am wrong then you should be able to show me a doctrine from the KJV that I cannot support with the NKJV, WEB, or NASB.

I have much more faith in God's ability to preserve His Word in spite of human failings than apparently you do. The NASB and KJV cannot both be textually correct at every point. They differ slightly because of how the scholars behind them viewed the mss evidence. However they are both doctrinally correct and complete. God preserved His Word in both in spite of the fallibilities of the men who produced them.

 

Amen, Brother ScottJ -- PReach it!

 

Maybe in the near future for you and her to sit down and have a nice fellowship, since yall are debating an individual, behind her back at that, in the BVT debate forum! </font>[/QUOTE]I am sure she is welcome here any time.

She has made herself a public personality. It isn't "behind her back" to debate her views and methods... any more than you are debating behind the backs of numerous people that you criticize and condemn.

BTW, when she has debated her views publically with an informed opponent... she comes off looking like a fool or worse. </font>[/QUOTE]Oh really? And just WHO have I talked behind their back? It seems you have info that I don't, mind posting?

 

Charity is the word agape. "Benevolence" comes no where near what agape is.

 

If you have never criticized any MV translator, Westcott, Hort, or non-KJVO who does not frequent this board then I apologize for grouping you with other KJVO's who do so as a matter of habit.

However, that was not my point. GA Riplinger published a book making herself a public figure. It is not talking behind her back to criticize her views, methods, or honesty with regard to her public viewpoints.

BTW, this forum is public so I imagine she's welcome any time as long as she abides by the rules. I doubt she would want to though. It would ruin book sales if she couldn't adequately defend her views in a place like this.