Gail Riplinger

Scroll back 3 or 4 posts.

 

Have you ever noticed that strange tendency of KJV-onlyists to post reams of material to bulletin boards, only to suddenly become "busy" when you start challenging their facts?

HomeBound appears to be doing everything within his power not to interact with any criticism of Gail the Ripper's lies.

Plenty of them have been posted . . . after all that impatient foot-tapping he did with Brian, he's got no excuse for stalling now.

cricket . . .

cricket . . .

cricket . . .

 

Ransom, the first link did not work so I had to work with it and I came to this website http://www.firehouse.org is this it? It really doesn't matter because I'm not looking for a website, I'm looking for what BrainT said that he could do, scan two documents from two different authors, one actual quote and Riplinger's misquote found in her book.

 

cricket . . .

cricket . . .

cricket . . .

 

OH NO!! The Apostle John is now suspect!!

1 John 5:1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.

 

I take it this thread has been abandoned? I provided what you asked for near the bottom on page 12, more than 10 days ago, and this is the second time I've pointed it out.

 

Running down Riplinger is
like rolling drunks;
easy to do, but not very nice.

 

I take it this thread has been abandoned? I provided what you asked for near the bottom on page 12, more than 10 days ago, and this is the second time I've pointed it out. </font>[/QUOTE]I saw your post on page 12 when you post it. If I understand it correctly, you scanned a page from Westcott and highlighted different things, but I never saw the scan from Riplinger's book. I don't have a copy of her book yet so that is why I asked for a scanned copy of her misquoted what they said. Understand?

 

Come on, Homebound, give me a break! Earlier in the thread I gave you a link where you can download Riplinger's book ( http://www.tegarttech.com/kjv/nabv.zip ), so a "scan" from Riplinger's book isn't necessary when you can look it up any of the Riplinger quotes yourself. Are you saying the things we are discussing don't count because you haven't seen an "scan" of actual paper, instead of a screen shot of the electronic version???? Please. Maybe next you'll say that the scans don't count, and that you'll actually have to hold both books in your hand. And then maybe you won't even accept that, because you won't have a guarantee that the books themselves aren't clever forgeries.

I gave you an electronic copy of Riplinger's book, I've provided numerous quotes, I've provided scans of those she quotes. Stop stalling. The info has been on the table for a long time. Do your own homework, but I am willing to scan anything from Westcott/Hort, the NIV committee, that I have. I'm not going to spoonfeed you, nor bend over backwards preparing information for you if you're simply going to play these games.

[ October 01, 2003, 12:57 PM: Message edited by: BrianT ]

 

Sorry BrianT for the incovenience that I am causing you. I downloaded the zip file and opened it up in DOS, in a small window. Is there another download that is better. If I was trying to disprove someone and I had a copy of the two pieces of material in question and you asked me to scan something, I would have know problem with that. I am not playing games with you, maybe I'm just slow. Again, can you scan the page of Westcott or Hort or whoever that has the quote and then scan the page of Riplinger's misquote?

 

No. That's it. Why is it unacceptable?

I don't have a problem with it either, I thought what I already gave you was sufficient, as it would be for anyone else. My copy of Riplinger's book has been lent out and I won't be able to get it back for some time, but for now I can take screen shots of the electronic version for you:

Screen shot of quote from chapter 2, highlighted

Screen shot of footnote from chapter 2, highlighted

Combining those two pics with the info I gave on page 12, should be more than enough, eh?

 

Okay, I've read and reread what Westcott has on paper and what Riplinger has on paper. I first was looking for a quote that Westcott said and what Riplinger said different from what Westcott said. I did not find a "quote." What I found was Riplinger analyzing Westcott's Commentary on 1-3 John. Westcott said that this is StJohn's teaching on the "powers of evil" and I believe that he only recognized the Devil as just that, a power of evil, not a real person. Sure, he used the pronouns he and his, but even we refer to the Earth as "she." So as you have already assumed, I agree with Riplinger, Westcott only saw the Devil as a "power of evil" and I would bet that Hort did too.

 

OH....MY....GOODNESS.

Straw. Homebound. So very much grasping.

Did you miss the part in the Westcott scan that says "A fallen being"? Did you miss the parts about "the evil one"? How about the part about the "*personal* antagonist"? Do you think Riplinger believes Jesus is just a "power of good" and not a person because Riplinger uses "he", and even we refer to the Earth as "she"???? Why not???? Is it really that difficult to recognize and admit that a fellow KJV-onlyite botched it up big-time????

Homebound, what do you want????? What could possibly convince you????? This thread is full of her misrepresentations, and you have dealt with none of them, except this pathetic attempt at the info I have scanned in. No matter what anyone will ever provide, you've already made up your mind ahead of time, and instead of considering the *facts*, will instead will focus your effort on twisting things just so you don't have to deal with the obvious. Well, hats off to you, you'd make Riplinger mighty proud, you are well on your way to true, terminal, semi-contagious, uncurable KJV-onlyitis.

Excellent. Wonderful. Perfect. Thank you. I give up. You have just renewed my faith that discussing these sorts of things with the typical KJV-onlyist is a *complete* waste of time. I'm off now to bang my head against the wall, ta-ta!

 

This would be absolutely laughable were it not so tragic. You have seen the black and white evidence that Riplinger is a liar but you still willing to folow her. There is no way that a reasonable person can read these pages and come to your conclusion. The lengths to which you will go to ignore truth is truly sad ... You don't have to agree with Westcott's position but at least be honest enough to see the plain truth in black and white before you.

 

what? u found a genitival phrase n declare that u found a WMD?



funny how KJBOs flatter themselves!

 

Show them a word in the Bible and and be prepared to hear all of the reasons why it is probably mistranslated.

Show them a huge animal that has inpenetrable scales and breaths fire and be prepared to hear all of the reasons why it can only be a crocodile. (Oh wait, that's you guys.) Nevermind

Lacy

 

Can some one sum up for me how we got to 14 pages on Gail Riplinger

 

Don't generalize too much. I oppose you on KJVO issues but definitely oppose Johnv on creation issues including the interpretation of what "leviathan" was.