Gail Riplinger

I don't understand how you believe that not being on the same page does not create confusion. I believe that when I was in school, the teacher and the kids read from the same book, page, word for word. Doesn't it make sense to read word for word what the pastor is reading?

 

Sure, it has its benefits. But that does nothing to show that those words are perfect, and something that is not word for word identical is an New Age Satanically-inspired attempt to overthrow the church - which is what Riplinger is saying in her book.

 

First, that is an incredible over exaggeration. There are not 200+ versions in popular use. OTOH, if you count all of the ancient versions, modern non-English versions, and Greek/Hebrew mss then there are many thousands of "books", not one.

Popularly, there are less than 10 English versions that sell with any volume: the NIV, KJV, NKJV, ESV, NASB, NRSV, NLT, and perhaps a few others.

That is not relevant since what makes sense to me in no way limits or controls God's will... moreover, what makes sense to you does not limit or control God's will either.

It is apparent from the evidence providentially given to us by God that it was not His will to preserve His Word in one book. All of the handcopied Bibles differ from each other and there have been multiple English versions before and after the KJV. If it had been God's will to preserve His Word in one single book then he could have easily given man the printing press in 1450 BC rather than 1450 AD.

I don't know why He didn't give us one single book. Perhaps because, like the Pharisees, we would stumble over the words and miss the message altogether. I simply accept the fact that He didn't give us a single set of English words... and never said that He would.

I think the Devil shows up on the Pharisee and Sadducee sides of this issue. On the one side, we have real liberals and modernists that swallow the camel so to speak and effectively deny biblical truth. On the other side, we have you guys who would deny God's Word to people for the sake of the word choices/language of the King James translators.

You all parallel the Catholic attitude about the Latin Vulgate of 600 years or so ago. They were convinced, and had the power to impose their conviction, that the LV was the only acceptable version of God's Word in any language. By taking this view, they denied the Word to millions that did not speak Latin and at the same time accumulated power to the Church and its clergy.

 

Folks, this thread is about the person who made this statement.

Dear KJVO,
Isn't this kind of statement above (if she indeed made it) a red flag waving in your face?

What was she thinking?

HankD </font>[/QUOTE]Sounds to me that she is giving glory to God for any and all the research that she has done, which is what she should do. Is this the wrong idea? </font>[/QUOTE]Yes it is. She is not giving God glory. She is identifying Him as the divine author of her book. The full quote says something to the effect that her inspiration was like the prophet was fed by the Ravens.

However, if I am not mistaken, this answer was in response to a question about why she did not use her name but rather her initials. The suspicion might be (and is on my part) that she didn't want the men in her target audience to be aware that they were submitting to the teaching of a woman.

I have a video tape of one of her "lectures". Although they call her a guest speaker giving a testimony, she is preaching/teaching to the whole congregation of a supposed IFB church in Winston-Salem, NC.

 

Ho hum. It seems that our KJV-only friends have gone into serious denial again, about the proven lies of G. A. Riplinger. The truth has gotten HomeBound so upset he's started accusing us of not believing the Bible. Blatant dishonesty, of course, is the last refuge of the perpetually wrong.

My next post is something I wrote up a few years ago documenting some of Riplinger's proven falsehoods. Let's see Homebound and Anti-Alexandrian argue with the facts . . . if they dare.

 

Did God write THEM during these Bible versions are not same? Look at 1 Cor.14:33:

For God is not the author of confusion , but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

Which Bible is most accurate?

 

Amen!

 

You know, one of the really cool things about living in Ottawa is the presence of a number of good university libraries.

On the other hand, one of the really non-cool things is that I live and work in the suburb that is farthest from either university. No matter; last night after work I hopped on the bus and headed down to Carleton University, in the end spending about 5 hours of time to do 5 minutes of looking things up, the extent of the research necessary for confirming our next inductee into the KJV-only Liar's Club: Gail "The Ripper" Riplinger.

It seems as though The Ripper cannot read. At least, her book New Age Bible Versions is one long, freaky mess of mangled misrepresentations from front to back. But never mind their original context; Gail The Ripper is on a Mission From God to "expose" the modern translations. It is irrelevant that they don't actually need exposing. If reality isn't in accord with her thesis, then why shouldn't The Ripper just rearrange reality a bit? I guess that in The Ripper's deluded mind, this is "defending" the Bible. Out here in the Real World, we call it "lying."

Here is a representative sample. Riplinger is quoting Bruce Metzger on the Egyptian papyri, which she claims supports the KJV's readings. (Note that my "page numbers" come from the electronic version of NABV that is available from www.firehouse.org; I do not own a paper copy of this book, although I would be more than happy to accept one from any concerned KJV-onlyist who feels I ought to cite from an authoritative source. If not, deal with it!) [Note from Scott in the present: www.firehouse.org is now history. You may find this hypertext edition of NABV by searching Google for "nabv.exe" but I make no promises.]

The Ripper cites Metzger, Manuscripts of the Greek Bible (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1981) 64, 108.

The way cool thing about this citation is that it doesn't actually exist; at least, it doesn't exist all in one place, or with the words quite in that order. Indeed, some words don't even appear at all. I had been in the very same library on Sunday afternoon looking at the same book, copying down a few points; last night I was rather surprised to find out I had already seen these quotations from The Ripper, and didn't even realize it because they're in disguise!

First of all, she cites the wrong page numbers. Some of the quotation—the last part—appears on page 64. None of the quotation appears on page 108. I'm looking at the same edition of the book (1981), so that's not the problem. What's left appears on page 66. It's bad enough that The Ripper thinks jamming a whole bunch of lines from different pages together as though they belonged that way is a proper citation, but it's a foregone conclusion that Metzger never intended them to be jammed together out of order as well.

Here's what Metzger really says about p46 on page 64:

The first thing worth noting is that The Ripper can't get her attributions right: Adams said that, not Metzger (he is citing a secondary quotation from F. W. Kenyon). Second, I wonder why The Ripper wasn't honest with her readers and point out that Metzger/Adams say some Byzantine readings are "faulty as well as genuine"? Reality doesn't agree with The Ripper, so The Ripper decides to ignore reality, I guess. What Metzger really says about p46 is this:

Here's the other citation from Metzger that The Ripper mangles, this time on p66:

This citation has been heavily redacted by The Ripper to make it agree with her thesis. I wonder why she wants to make it look like Metzger is saying the papyri are overwhelmingly Byzantine, when what he is really saying is that they occasionally agree with the Byzantine family?

But here's the best part. That first part of The Ripper's quotation, about p75, does not exist. Not on page 64, not on page 108, not on page 66 where p75 is described. Not anywhere in the book.

Here's what Metzger really says about p75. Note the last bit especially, because it explicitly refutes one of the key arguments of KJV-onlyism:

So Metzger doesn't say that p75 supports the Byzantine text dozens of times.

The Ripper made it up!

Why would she do that?

Was she stoned?

Was she temporarily insane?

Did some nasty Alexandrian Cult hacker break into her computer files and change things to make her look bad?

But really, what would possess someone to manufacture evidence like that? Surely no one who would write something so transparently false, enabling anyone with a library card to go and laugh loudly at her incompetence, can be quite right in the head. If I had pulled a stunt like that in school, I'd have been out on my ear. It's called "academic fraud." Has The Ripper been so blinded by the god of this age that she gladly and willingly makes stuff up to support her unbiblical ideology?

And if that weren't bad enough, The Ripper has the gall to blame her ineptitude on God. She wrote, in the Jan./Feb. 1994 End Times and Victorious Living, the newsletter of Joseph R. Chambers:

Finally, The Ripper has been awarded an honourary Ph.D. from Hyles-Anderson College. Of course, Jack Hyles isn't exactly generous with the truth either; in the preface to his book Let's Go Soul-Winning he claims to have preached over 50,000 sermons. (For those of you running the numbers, that's between two and three sermons every single day for 50 years straight! Think that adds up?). If HAC has any doctoral candidates, they might be wise to start assessing what their earned Ph.D. is really going to be worth if Hyles hands them out on such flimsy premises.

For that matter, there's an easier and cheaper way to get an HAC Ph.D. It goes something like this:

</font>

1. Waste 6 years of your life doing spurious and worthless research.</font>
2. Write a book and publish it yourself. Don't hire a copyeditor; that costs extra.</font>
3. Sell tons of copies to thousands of gullible fundamentalists who'll believe anything printed in a book as long as it supports their pet "doctrines."</font>
4. Find some credulous Christian "leaders" to support and sell your book from their pulpits/newsletters/radio shows.</font>
5. Find a super-gullible person to produce a video of one of your lectures. Sell that too.</font>
6. Do tons of radio interviews and lectures.</font>
7. When someone points out that the Empress has no clothes [shudder!], whine about it through two or three more books.</font>
8. If you get caught in a really silly lie, make sure God gets the credit.</font>

I guess Paul knew what he was talking about:

 

Askjo said:

Look at 1 Cor.14:33:

1 Cor. 14:33 has to do with maintaining order in corporate worship. It has nothing to do with Bible translations.

 

Nor does it have anything to do with Gail Riplinger. Askjo was attempting to change the topic.

 

Ransom, why would that matter?

Isn't it easier to just twist and pervert truth in favor of beating down ignorant people?

 

I disagree with you. 2 Cor. 2:17 is the history. You see there are too many corrupted Bible versions since 1881 because we see they are selling according to modern version's Greek definition on this verse. It said, "peddle." These corrupted bible versions are peddled at many Christian Bookstores for one reason: profit A Lutheran scholar was right because he said in order to survive business to RUN!!! That is TRUE!!!! Why $$$$? It is the root of evil. (1 Tim. 6:10)

Before the KJV was appeared, some Catholics took William Tyndale's life because the Tyndale Bible was where the KJV was derived from. Catholics burned Tyndale Bibles because they were filled with errors; in fact, they were burned because they could find no errors. It is the history before the KJV was produced.

Earliest Churches received the Traditional texts for their mother tongues. (Romans 16:26) It is the history. This history tells us that there were heretics who tried to destroy the Word of God such as Marcion. Marcion was one of the gnostics. In earliest time there were gnostics among the true Churches stole the Traditional texts and twisted harmfully the Word of God such B and Aleph. It is the history.

Lax Christians have moral failures because of their Modern Versions.

[ September 12, 2003, 07:25 PM: Message edited by: Askjo ]

 

I'll leave the other absurdities in your post for the others to comment on, but that particular statement is my favorite. Why? Because if you could prove it, you could basically put to rest the whole debate in one fell swoop. Shall I hold my breath until you are able support, let alone prove, such a bold statement? I think not.

 

Askjo said:

2 Cor. 2:17 is the history.

Did a KJV-onlyist ever cite a proof-text in context?

2 Cor. has nothing to do with history. It has to do with the motives of false teachers, as opposed to Paul's sincerity (v. 18).

Before the KJV was appeared, some Catholics took William Tyndale's life because the Tyndale Bible was where the KJV was derived from.

I hadn't realized that the Catholic Church had perfected time travel.

Catholics burned Tyndale Bibles because they were filled with errors; in fact, they were burned because they could find no errors.

If Tyndale was without error, why did we need the KJV, especially the KJV New Testament?

 

Well, now, I see that the resident KJVers have wisely abandoned the indefensible G. A. Riplinger and her proven lies, and moved on to safer ground - vague and baseless accusations.

You.
Gotta.




augh.

 

I don't understand how you cannot understand this. Perhaps you should try it. It would greatly increase your understanding of Scripture as well as this issue. The confusion in your mind is bred by the fact that you have been mislead. People like Riplinger have led you to believe a false position and now you judge all others from that false position.

 

"For her blood is in the midst of her; she set it upon the top of a rock; she poured it upon the ground, to cover it with dust" (Ezek. 24:7, 1611 KJV).

"For her blood is in the midst of her; she set it upon the top of a rock; she poured it *not* upon the ground, to cover it with dust" (Ezek. 24:7, today's KJV).

Don't you agree this verse (comparing the 1611 KJV with today's KJV) says something different?

 

When was the wording of the autograph of 2 Cor. 2:17?

 

Sorry, I am not a Riplingerite.

 

I remember reading an article on a website some time ago in which the author presented numerous examples of how Riplinger mutilated her sources by using ellipses to make them say something completely different. The writer returned the compliment by producing this "shocking" admission from Riplinger's own book --

"I... worship... Satan."