• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Gail Riplinger

Status
Not open for further replies.
V

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I think we pretty much agree, the advocates of KJVO, have missed the boat. But what purpose, other than looking down our noses, is a thread dedicated to belittling people rather than positions? There are plenty of KJVO advocates with credentials, so why attack those lacking credentials, as if that was the reason for the error?

In the 1660-88 period in Scotland, a group of believers separated from the Church of England and became know as Covenanters. They were persecuted, punished and some were "drawn and quartered." But they loved God and stood for what the believed. No need to question their "credentials."
 
SovereignGrace

SovereignGrace

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
John of Japan said:
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.
Click to expand...
One of her ilk, Gene Kim, said the original Greek is garbage.


https://twitter.com/DrOakley1689/status/1110023996009930753
1110023996009930753
 
George Antonios

George Antonios

Well-Known Member
John of Japan said:
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.
Click to expand...

Translation: "behold, my personal life and ministry and credentials are the standard".

That was the attitude of the Pharisees toward the Galileans. You could hardly have illustrated it better. I'll stand with the Galileans and their faults, thank you very much. You can stay in your corner "embarrassed" all you want.

No wonder Ruckman had such a hard time with you guys.
 
John of Japan

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Van said:
I think we pretty much agree, the advocates of KJVO, have missed the boat. But what purpose, other than looking down our noses, is a thread dedicated to belittling people rather than positions? There are plenty of KJVO advocates with credentials, so why attack those lacking credentials, as if that was the reason for the error?
Click to expand...
We are commanded in the Bible to oppose heresy. Riplinger is an heretic in the Bible meaning of the word, which is one who causes division among the brethren especially in a church. This woman's doctrine has caused great harm among God's people.

The NT is full of names of people that believers should watch out for. The Apostle Paul and others actually named names and openly opposed troublemakers in the churches.

"Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them" (Rom. 16:17).

In the 1660-88 period in Scotland, a group of believers separated from the Church of England and became know as Covenanters. They were persecuted, punished and some were "drawn and quartered." But they loved God and stood for what the believed. No need to question their "credentials."
Click to expand...
Have you actually read anything that Gail Riplinger has written? I suggest you should read her work before comparing her to genuine heroes of the cross. My purpose in exposing her lack of credentials is to show her brazen pride in claiming to be what she is not.

Her website has some free downloads: AVPublications - Thank you for visiting!

"I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not" (3 John 1:9).
 
Last edited:
John of Japan

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
SovereignGrace said:
Peter Ruckman was a certifiable nut, and that’s not up for debate.
Click to expand...
In John R. Rice's 1979 book, I Am a Fundamentalist, there is a chapter, “Be a Fundamentalist, But Not a Nut." In it he wrote:

"When a Peter Ruckman sets out to say that only he and a few others in the world are right on the matter of manuscript evidence for the Bible and says that in the King James Version the translation itself was inspired of God and is without error…, and that all are modernists or hypocrites or ignorant who do not agree that the King James Version—even the translation—is inspired perfectly, then we know that that arrogant attitude, that calling of good men by bad names, shows the man cannot be trusted in doctrine" (p. 74).
 
V

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
John of Japan said:
We are commanded in the Bible to oppose heresy. Riplinger is an heretic in the Bible meaning of the word, which is one who causes division among the brethren especially in a church. This woman's doctrine has caused great harm among God's people.

The NT is full of names of people that believers should watch out for. The Apostle Paul and others actually named names and openly opposed troublemakers in the churches.

"Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them" (Rom. 16:17).


Have you actually read anything that Gail Riplinger has written? I suggest you should read her work before comparing her to genuine heroes of the cross. My purpose in exposing her lack of credentials is to show her brazen pride in claiming to be what she is not.

"I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not" (3 John 1:9).
Click to expand...

No, of course I did not waste my time reading Riplinger! Did I compare her to genuine heroes of the cross. No, I indicated she had missed was boat, and her problem was not a lack of credentials. And I certainly was not disparaging you for warning us about her.

I am sick and tired of threads personally attacking people rather than addressing their false doctrine. Full Stop
 
John of Japan

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Chapter 13 of Riplinger's New Age Bible Versions has the title, "Another Gospel." Now one would think that if an author was going to oppose a false Gospel, he or she would first give the true Gospel, right? (The Gospel is very clear in 1 Corinthians 15.) This chapter does no such thing. In it Riplinger rails against some folk she thinks have the wrong Gospel. For example, there is a kind of disjointed attack on the Calvinism of Edwin Palmer, who she says was the "coordinator" of the NIV.

So, it's fair to ask what Riplinger thinks the Gospel is. On her website I have found a single page that purports to offer salvation to the reader: AV Publications Content Page

She lists some Scripture, and that's good. But then she says, "If You Sincerely Prayed the Above Prayer, You Are Now Born Again! (John 3:3)" Folks if you think you are saved by a prayer, you are advocating works salvation! Prayer is a work, which may or may not exhibit faith. We often tell people to pray when we seek to lead them to Christ, but we must never tell them that they are saved because of a prayer. It is trust in Christ's shed blood for our sins and His resurrection that save us, not saying a prayer, however sincere that prayer might be.

I got in big trouble about this matter many years ago in Japan. I taught Personal Evangelism, among other courses, at a Japanese Bible school down in Tokyo headed by another missionary. One day I got called on the carpet because I had taught that one need not pray to be saved. He believed that a lost sinner must always prayer a prayer to be saved, or he wasn't.

I said, "Is prayer a work?" If it is and you have to pray for salvation, then you are trusting a works salvation. He was backed into a corner. He finally waffled, "Well, prayer is a work usually, but it is not a work if you are praying for salvation." Yeah, like that makes sense! But he didn't fire me. He knew deep within that I was right. He's in Heaven now, so he knows better. ;)

My grandfather used to lead folks to Christ after giving the Gospel by praying with them, then stopping his prayer and saying, "If you will receive Christ as your Savior, take my hand." In his method, it was clear that the work did not save, but was only a sign of the faith that was in the heart.
 
Last edited:
T

TheOldJudge

Member
My goodness. John of Japan shocked me with his righteous indignation in this topic. I always thought that he was mild-mannered no matter what was thrown at him!

All kidding aside, however, you are absolutely right about Riplinger. One of the saddest moments for me this summer was reading Hugh Pyle's autobiography and reaching the chapter where he mentioned meeting Gail Riplinger and spoke of her in glowing terms.

Now I am a bit of a paradox as a Fundamentalist. The best way to describe me is that I hold to a style of evangelism and corporate worship akin to Lee Roberson, hold to biblicism like Sam Bradford and R. V. Clearwaters, and use the King James Version like the founding members of the Baptist Bible Fellowship. My views on women speaking in church services fall in line nicely with W. B. Riley---I am not against it, and am for it if the women are blessed with the power of God in a unique way; however, this practice should be left to men as a general rule.

Riplinger is different. She should be barred from any Bible-believing Baptist church, and I would not trust any minister who endorses her. A former pastor of mine was a devotee of her books, and his "preaching" on the subject fractured the congregation. Those that imbibed the falsehood had their bibliology, and thus their entire doctrinal system, permanently warped.

It is not difficult to see how flimsy her arguments are. Those that believe them cannot defend them. This one simple fact reveals more than many are willing to acknowledge. One cannot claim to hold indisputable truth unless said narrative can hold up against inquiry and skepticism. Has anyone here ever met a Ruckmanite or a "Riplingerite" that can rationally and reasonably defend their claims without getting angry or resorting to ad hoc attacks or straw man arguments?

When I graduated from Maranatha Baptist University up in Watertown, Wisconsin, my pastor at the time was very displeased that I had gone to a school that did not "believe the Bible." I was grateful for my time at MBU, for it showed me that the main concern in Bible translations is that the original articles are used as the source material, not so much how the final product sounds. Language changes over time, but the Word of God shall stand forever. It is up to our Christian linguists, like John of Japan, that they carefully steward their abilities so that the most accurate translations possible can be made.
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Van said:
I think we pretty much agree, the advocates of KJVO, have missed the boat. But what purpose, other than looking down our noses, is a thread dedicated to belittling people rather than positions? There are plenty of KJVO advocates with credentials, so why attack those lacking credentials, as if that was the reason for the error?

In the 1660-88 period in Scotland, a group of believers separated from the Church of England and became know as Covenanters. They were persecuted, punished and some were "drawn and quartered." But they loved God and stood for what the believed. No need to question their "credentials."
Click to expand...
there seem to actually few few Kjvo that have solid credentials. in the fields of biblical studies or textual criticism!
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
George Antonios said:
Translation: "behold, my personal life and ministry and credentials are the standard".

That was the attitude of the Pharisees toward the Galileans. You could hardly have illustrated it better. I'll stand with the Galileans and their faults, thank you very much. You can stay in your corner "embarrassed" all you want.

No wonder Ruckman had such a hard time with you guys.
Click to expand...
Ruckman had a hard time due to poor theology!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top