Featured Gail Riplinger

I actually agree with much that you say. But it is to the areas where I disagree that I am addressing my comments. For instance, you said the following.

I compared myself to you and other linguists in spiritual understanding only in the context of the subject of this thread. I am not going back to mine your comments about Riplinger's spiritual condition, but you did make a comment about her being out of the will of God because she has set herself up as a teacher of theology to men in a church setting. While I would heartily agree with this assessment, I point it out to show that you have indeed judged her spiritual understanding and her obedience to the word of God and that she has violated a plain command in the pastoral epistles, which says, "I suffer not a woman to teach nor usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."

You said this in your op:
"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)."

Now, I would probably say that points # 3 and #4 is not a spiritual comparison between Ms Riplinger and yourself, but I defer to your very own claim.

Are you accusing me of something here? If you are, please be plain, say it straight out.

I have tested my theory on the doctrinal forums, such as eschatology and the Arminian/Calvinist debate, and find it to be true.

Remember our subject. You seem to think that KJV only believers, such as Riplinger, should not have an opinion on what is true and what is not true concerning translations of scripture unless they have proper academic credentials, which includes the ability to read the original languages and to be trained as linguists. That is what I gleaned from your comments so far and is probably why you have raised the subject now. My point was that there is as much doctrinal division among these people as there is among the common people and it is because that the deep things of God are hidden from the natural man no matter how polished and educated he is. God himself has made this point through the apostle Paul in 1 Cor 1-3.

Therefore, my theory is that one can prove the disagreement that exists between debaters because of how they view the words they read. Those who believe the words are literal and mean what they say, to whom they say them, are far more likely to have sound doctrine than those who read the words and see only a message that can be expressed in any words they choose, even to the point of paraphrasing. This gives the linguist and his translations no advantage if we already have a tried and true English word bible in which God has chosen the words and delivered them to us. We must believe his words and live by them. This is what he says.


Lu 4:4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

The operative phrase is "live by." Men do not need every word of God to be saved from the penalty of sin, which is the second death, eternal separation from God and all that he is, in the lake of fire. But men do need every word of God if they are expected to live by them.

There are far worse bible deniers out there than Gail Riplinger, who have the ears of thousands more than she ever could have, who are accepted as great bible teachers and debaters because they know the original languages and have made a name for themselves. These seems to be the ones who cannot seem to get enough new English translations. Yet they do not believe the words that God says.

 

Many Independent Fundamental Baptists do that no matter what camp they are in.

 

Well, you are not addressing Independent Fundamental Baptists here for the most part, I think. Probably most here are Baptists but they would disagree with you on the points that you would present to define yourself as an Independent Fundamentalist Baptist whether there was a Gail Riplinger, a KJV only group of believers or if Peter Ruckman had never been heard of.

However, I do believe you when you say you are a literalist and you believe the words literally. You just will not accept the fact that I can be a literalist by believing every word in my KJV. How do I know this? Because you are challenging me concerning passages in the KJV that I believe are literal and you are wanting to prove to me that I am wrong about that. I can be a literalist as long as I learn the Greek and Hebrew and agree with your interpretation of those passages.

My position on the scriptures has been stated before. They are for believers, not unsaved people. God went for 2500 years before he ever wrote a single word but he did not go a single day without a witness to his goodness and grace and mercy. He went another 1500 years before addressing the gentiles in writing. You are translating the scriptures into the Japanese language because the believers in Japan do not have the scriptures in their own language after 6000 years of human history has passed. You are not sending your translation to Japan, but to the Japanese believers and churches. It will do no one else any good. They will need a faithful preacher who knows God through Jesus Christ to preach what that book says.

God says the Scriptures are able to make us wise unto salvation and are profitable for 4 different things, that THE MAN OF GOD may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

I am not a fan of Riplinger but I think bringing her up here and now for the reasons you have stated does more harm than good. Many have addressed her errors in the past and I doubt you are adding anything new. You are advancing the philosophy that God cannot or will not translate his perfect bible into the language of those who will take his gospel to the world. I think I have learned something about God and his ways in the years I have been studying his scriptures. A man can preach the gospel of Jesus Christ in his own words but he must make a big deal out of the inspired scriptures and teach the believers in God's words and rightly divide them if there is sound doctrine.

I am in favor of missionaries first and then translations. Our church supports more than one missionary who is translating the bible into the language of the country in which they are serving. And no, they are not all translating the KJV. And by the way, I am thankful that you are doing the same thing. I love missionaries and their devotion to Christ and I hold men such as you in high regard. So, there are things about your comments I disagree with but praise God for missionaries to Japan and bible translations to follow. I pray God richly bless you in all that you have right.

That is all I have to say on the subject.

 

I have not posted on this thread, but I will now to make these few points.

First, If you are not a fan of Gail Riplinger, then being KJVOnly should not be a problem with you and this thread. David Cloud (in my understanding) is KJV only, yet is stately opposed to Riplinger.

Second, I personally am not KJV only, but neither do I denigrate that great work. Just as the compilers of the KJV were not “only” for they used Wycliffe, Geneva and the Great Bible in the KJV. There is value in such translation work such as the, NKJV, Berean (literal and study) and the early NASB. I do not like the NLV, NIV and other such work, but will not denigrate them, just not hold them with the esteem I hold the others.

Lastly, Apparently from your post you do not put much authority in the study of the original languages to tease out a more intensive and extensive understanding of God’s word. I find that remarkably sad. How can you not bring insight into John 3:36 if you do not comprehend that the two words translated “believe” by the KJV reflect far different aspects? It is not merely one does and the other does not believe; rather, there is open rejection, rebellion, and refusal in the “believeth not”. Other versions and language work help bring this thinking to light. KJV only folks typically miss the very cause of wrath. Lack of belief is not benign or dormant but a forceful rejection that vexes the very heart and mind of them that believe.



God grant you wisdom and understanding.[/QUOTE]

 

Perhaps you close your eyes to the serious flaws and problems with your own human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning/teaching. The KJV itself does not state or teach your KJV-only opinions. You make claims that you do not prove to be true. You are not clear in some of what you assert.

KJV-only reasoning depends on use of fallacies [false arguments] such as the fallacy of begging the question, on over-simplification and over-generalization, on use of divers measures [double standards], on showing of partiality to one exclusive group of Church of England critics in 1611, and on deception [blind belief in some assertions and claims that are not true.

The majority of the many different denominations already existed when the KJV was essentially the only English translation in use. Many different interpretations and understandings of Scripture have been based on use of only the KJV. The denominations have not been demonstrated to be the result of having multiple English Bible translations.

The KJV is a revision of multiple varying pre-1611 English Bible translations, and it is a translation of multiple textually-varying original-language texts. There were significant and important textual differences and variations in the actual few Greek NT manuscripts on which the varying twenty and more printed Textus Receptus editions were based. These include most of the same type differences [omissions, additions, and changes] as those in the Greek NT manuscripts that you may be condemning. The process of the making of the KJV depends upon some of the very same things that you condemn.

There are not 100 completely different English Bible translations based on a completely different set of manuscripts. Some of the present English Bible translations such as the NKJV that you condemn are based on same original-language texts as the KJV. Most original-language words of Scripture are not actually translated 100 different ways. The KJV itself translated some original-language words many different ways. The KJV translators themselves approved or recommended the consulting of more than one English translation. In my opinion, you tend to over-generalize as you may try to minimize the differences in the varying TR editions and varying KJV editions and maximize the differences in other English Bibles.

There are likely less than a dozen perhaps around six English Bible translations that are widely read or used in churches, which may be around the same number in use around 1610 and in 1611. Most of the 100 English Bibles to which you prefer may be out of print or have had very limited circulation. While most English-speaking believers likely read one English translation, they may consult or check only one to six additional English Bible translations in their study [not a 100].

 

Enjoyable and highly "information-filled" thread. I look forward to looking in upon the one on your thinking considering preservation and how you will show that He will preserve all that He has made.