Gail Riplinger

Luke 5:29ff recline at table(NASV), sat(KJB. In those days, they reclined on couches. They didn't sit at the kitchen table.


Hey, I sometimes do this now.

 

Perhaps the funniest misuse of charts is her "ACROSTIC ALGEBRA." [14] Simply put, she analogizes between the contents of the versions and their letter designations. She says to take the letters representing the New American Standard Version (NASV) and New International Version (NIV) and the King James Version, or Authorized Version (AV). If you eliminate the letters the NASV and NIV have in common as representing the heresies the two versions have in common (but leave the second N), and the letters they have in common with the AV as representing the scattered truth in both versions used to mislead people, you are left with the letters S-I-N -- an appropriate designation for these New Age versions!

Well, whata know. Thanks for recommending this book guys, it filled with good little tidbits.

 

Homebound, on page one you asked "Curious, what would be one problem in her writings?". I posted the following links, maybe you missed them:

http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/gailriplinger.htm
http://www.equip.org/free/DB015.htm
http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/graphic1designer/writings/kjo/dcongar.html http://answers.org/bookreviews/newagevers.html
www.trinityopc.org/Essays/NEWAGE.rtf (downloadable document, right click and choose 'save as')
http://www.northville-baptist.org/navbdocb.htmlhttp://www.northville-baptist.org/navbdocb.html

Let's discuss some of the *problems* these sites mention, shall we? We already have assumed you would agree with her general position, so we don't really need you to tell us that.

 

Riplinger grossly misrepresents Dr. Norman Geisler by yanking a quote out of context to support her misapprehension that anyone who uses the term "the Christ" is somehow a closet New Ager. She says, "Liberty University's Dean Norman Geisler adds: 'We should be particularly wary when someone refers to Jesus Christ as "the Christ" . . . '" [20] However, Geisler and Amano actually said,

"We should be particularly wary when someone refers to Jesus Christ as "the Christ spirit" or "Christ-consciousness." [21]

If she misquoted Mr. Geisler then she was wrong to do that, but something I saw here. Who is "Amano?" Did he/she say this?

 

That's what I am doing. I think I'm on number 3 or 4.

 

The very first difference Riplinger notes is in Isaiah 14:12. This verse in the KJV refers to Lucifer which is supposed to be the name of the devil. However the Hebrew word is helel which is nothing like Lucifer. The Hebrew word helel means “light bearer” which in the Latin Vulgate is translated (not transliterated) lucifer. Lucifer in Latin also means light bearer. Therefore the KJV does not translate helel correctly nor does it transliterate it as a name. If it did it would be Helel not Lucifer. Furthermore, Satan is the biblical name for the devil not Lucifer which only occurs once in the KJV in Isaiah 14:12 and then incorrectly. This is a very important point to Riplinger who contends that because the NASB and NIV omit the reference to Lucifer therefore they are satanic. However, we have seen that this omission is based on the proper translation of the Hebrew word helel and not some motive to defer to the devil.

So why didn't the new versions say "light bearer?" BTW, ask anyone today who Lucifer is and they will say the devil. Also, isn't he the only one that has fell from Heaven? BTW, the Bible will always be right over someone's commentary or notes.

 

Her deliberate misquotes are now infamous. One could write an entire booklet, just illustrating this.

However, beside misrepresentation of quotes, she has gone one level further:

In England at the end of the 19th century, there were two authors named "Westcott". One is our well-known B.F. Westcott, Anglican bishop and scholar who worked with F.J.A. Hort on the Critical Text of the New Testament. The other Westcott was W.W. Westcott, a mortician and occultic teacher.

Throughout her book, Riplinger often discusses "Westcott" without identifying which she is referring to, or even noting there is a difference. She deliberately mentions "B.F." Westcott, and then goes on to quote "Westcott" and explain how "Westcott" was into occultic practices, etc, deliberately leading the reader to believe she is talking about the same "Westcott". This has led to MUCH confusion, misrepresentation and false assertions of B.F. Westcott, by other authors and readers of her book. Many KJV-only supporters have been led to believe that B.F. Westcott was involved in occultic practices (an may even have been the same person as W.W. Westcott, just using a different name) because of this deliberate, dishonest, slanderous tactic. Barf. BARF. B-A-R-F.

To her credit, at least she does say "The connection between B.F. Westcott and the activities attributed to the possible allonym W.W. Westcott are speculation on my part." However, she buries this is a footnote at the end of chapter 30, where basically no-one will ever read. I have never seen a KJV-only author refer to this footnote, so I assume they haven't read it, or have chosen to ignore it. No KJV-only supporters that I have heard of have challenged her on this.

Tabloid journalism. Trash.

 

Because she is wrong. The Hebrew word means "morning star". The Hebrew word is "heylel", the name of the Babylonian god who the Babylonians believed was Venus when it appeared as a star in the morning. Heylel was the son of Shahar. Shahar was the god of the dawn. In other words, "heylel son of shahar" or "morning star, son of the dawn" - which is exactly what the text says in Hebrew. The passage was written to the Babylonians (verse 4).

That's because language has evolved over time. "Lucifer" comes from the Latin Vulgate, and is the old Latin term for the planet Venus.

The KJV's marginal note on this said, "Or, O daystarre." Strong's concordance/dictionary says the definition of "heylel" is "the morning-star". The marginal notes in the Geneva Bible say this passage is referring to the planet Venus. The first definition of "Lucifer" in Webster's 1828 dictionary is "1. The planet Venus, so called from its brightness."

The Bible is right. It is your (and Riplinger's) understanding that is wrong. Surprise.

This is only about half of my evidence supporting the "morning star" translation. Do you want the other half?

 

In chapter three of Riplinger’s book she contends that an occult version of the Lord’s Prayer found its way into Luke 11:2-4. The NIV for example reads, "He said to them, "When you pray, say: "'Father, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come. {3} Give us each day our daily bread. {4} Forgive us our sins, for we also forgive everyone who sins against us. And lead us not into temptation.'"" The KJV reads, "And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth. {3} Give us day by day our daily bread. {4} And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil." This of course represents a considerable difference which Riplinger contributes to textual corruption. She informs us that the NIV version is profane, occult, mutilation, etc. This is not true at all. In the context both versions of the Lord’s Prayer are directed to God the Father and not the devil. Jesus would hardly be telling his disciples to pray to the devil. To say, as Riplinger does, that “Our Father” refers to the Lord but the shorter “Father” refers to the Devil, is blasphemy.

Me thinks she has something here. The NIV says, "'Father, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come." The KJB says, "Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come." The NIV leaves out "Our" and "which art in heaven." "Our" which represents the Disciples and "our" Father, God. "which art in heaven" which tells us that we are talking about God the Father in heaven. The KJB has a better reading and understanding of who is being spoken of. In the NIV verse, you could plug anyone into that verse.

 

The only reason for the difference between the King James Version and all modern translations on this text is the difference in the Greek manuscripts from which they were translated. The NIV and NASB read this way because Vaticanus and Siniaticus among others read this way.

And that's why they are corrupt.

 

If these manuscripts were mutilated by Marcion in the 2nd century why did he not also mutilate the Lord’s Prayer in Matthew chapter 6?

Because the devil gives 80 to 90% of the truth.

 

Wow, I didn't know you had such a low view of Riplinger. She only gives 50%.

 

Because she is wrong. The Hebrew word means "morning star". The Hebrew word is "heylel", the name of the Babylonian god who the Babylonians believed was Venus when it appeared as a star in the morning. Heylel was the son of Shahar. Shahar was the god of the dawn. In other words, "heylel son of shahar" or "morning star, son of the dawn" - which is exactly what the text says in Hebrew. The passage was written to the Babylonians (verse 4).</font>[/QUOTE]BrianT, she didn't say "light bearer," Everett C. DeVelde Jr. said this is what the Hebrew meant, the same person who you recommended that I read concerning Riplinger. So who right here, you or DeVelde?

I believe the Bible to be true over everything.

Sure, PM me if you'd like.

 

Wow, I didn't know you had such a low view of Riplinger. She only gives 50%. </font>[/QUOTE]Calling someone the devil is a very serious charge, do you have proof?

 

I didn't say she did.

I am much more correct. "Light bearer" relates the base root of the word, and is *why* "heylel"/"lucifer" became proper names for the Babylonian god, which we know as Venus. DeVelde is essentially correct, but quite incomplete. Perhaps he didn't know about Babylonian mythology and the history of the Latin/English terms.

I believe the Bible to be true over everything.
</font>[/QUOTE]Wonderful. What does that have to do with what I posted?

Sure, PM me if you'd like.
</font>[/QUOTE]Nah, let's share the info with others: http://www.tegart.com/brian/bible/kjvonly/isa14_12.html

 

Wow, I didn't know you had such a low view of Riplinger. She only gives 50%. </font>[/QUOTE]Calling someone the devil is a very serious charge, do you have proof? </font>[/QUOTE]I didn't call her the devil. You said the devil gives 80-90% of the truth. I simply pointed out Riplinger gives even less.

 

That's it, I've through each website that you mentioned and have posted above what I thought about them. If Gail Riplinger is misquoting people just to make a claim against the modern versions, then she is wrong to do so. If you think she did misquote someone, can you please provide the exact literature of the quoter and what Riplinger said that they said.

 

I have lots of example in book form, I will scan them and post them later tonight.

 

Here's some I found. These are from David Cloud, who is himself KJV-only. This is an excerpt from THE PROBLEM WITH NEW AGE BIBLE VERSIONS:

Misquoting and poor documentation

New Age Bible Versions is extensively documented, but the documentation is extremely unreliable. A great many references that I attempted to check were not accurate.

Examples:

1. On page 2 Mrs. Riplinger misquotes Edwin Palmer, editor of the NIV. It would appear from the quote that Palmer is questioning the deity of Jesus Christ. She prefaces the quote with these words:

"The NIV's chief editor vaunts his version's heresy saying: ... [F]ew clear and decisive texts say that Jesus is God."

In her notes, Mrs. Riplinger cites The Making of a Contemporary Translation, p. 143. The fact is that Palmer IN NO WAY is questioning the deity of Jesus Christ. In fact, in the paragraph cited, HE IS CONTENDING for Christ's deity! The full quote which Mrs. Riplinger has pulled out of context is as follows:

"John 1:18, as inspired by the Holy Spirit, is one of those few clear and decisive texts that declare that Jesus is God. But, due to no fault of its own, the KJV, following inferior manuscripts, has altered what the Holy Spirit said through John. It calls John `Son', whereas it should have called him `God'."

Please understand that I am not supporting what Palmer says here. I do not believe the KJV follows inferior manuscripts. The man is wrong. But it is also wrong to misquote him and to have him saying something that he does not say, particularly when someone puts heresy in his mouth that he does not believe. Palmer does believe that Jesus Christ is God, and Mrs. Riplinger slanders him when she misquotes him as she does.

2. On page 165 Mrs. Riplinger claims that NIV translator Herbert Wolf teaches that gain is godliness.

"Paul said that those, like Wolf, who teach that `gain is godliness' are `destitute of the truth.' Equating financial prosperity with spirituality is a common characteristic of the `New' Christianity and the New Age."

For evidence of this observation, Riplinger cites Wolf's chapter in The Making of A Contemporary Translation. She quotes Wolf as saying:

"[N]on-literal translations enhance accuracy ... The word tsedeqah--normally rendered `righteousness' is translated `prosperity', perhaps understood as the reward of righteous living In fact, Wolf is not promoting any sort of gain-is-godliness concept. Consider the full context of Wolf's statement:

"The book of Proverbs also contains several verses where non-literal translations enhance accuracy. ... In [Proverbs] 8:18 tsedaqah is linked with riches and enduring wealth, and in 21:21 with finding life and honour. The abstract quality of `righteousness' does not seem to fit either verse."

When the entire quote is taken into consideration, there is nothing to connect Mr. Wolf with New Age heresy. He is correct in what he said. For Mrs. Riplinger to take this quotation and to tie it together with the promotion of New Age prosperity makes a laughing stock out of the position she is trying to defend. Further, Mrs. Riplinger, by dropping a significant portion of Wolf's statement, makes it appear that he is supporting non-literal translations in general, whereas he is merely listing certain instances in which non-literal translation can be accurate. We would not agree with everything Wolf has to say on this point, but it is wrong to put words in a man's mouth that he has not said.

3. On p. 213 Mrs. Riplinger says,

"NIV editor Larry Walker admits further that `ome Bible characters appear to have disappeared from the text.' Is it any wonder since Westcott said, `David is not a chronological ... person.'"

This is an amazingly erroneous connection. Walker is merely speaking of different TRANSLATIONS of certain names. Walker gives the following example:

"The name Ishtob in the AV rendering of 2 Samuel 10:6,8 becomes `men of Tob' in the NIV translation."

On the other hand, Westcott is questioning the actual HISTORICITY of the names. To connect these dissimilar remarks is absurd.

4. On p. 166 Mrs. Riplinger says, "NEW VERSIONS" read "godliness actually is a means of great gain" in 1 Tim. 6:6. She uses this to support her contention that modern versions support the New Age philosophy of material prosperity. In fact, the "New VersionS" (plural) do not support such a reading. Only one "New Version" (singular) I could find has the reading Mrs. Riplinger cites, and that is the NASB; and when read in context, the NASB is NOT saying godliness is material gain. The full verse reads, "But godliness actually is a means of great gain, when accompanied by contentment."

5. On p. 292 Mrs. Riplinger claims that NIV editor R. Laird Harris's view of Hell is identical to that of cults such as Armstrongism and Jehovah Witness. To "prove" this contention, she quotes from Harris's chapter in The Making of A Contemporary Translation and has him saying,

"This view [hell] has some problems. [It] ... refers only to death, not to ... any punishment..."

The bracketed additions inserted by Riplinger remove Harris's remarks from their proper context. The quotation is taken from two different pages of the book cited. In the first part of the quote Harris is addressing something entirely different from what he is addressing in the last part of the quote, yet Mrs. Riplinger puts the two misjointed pieces of quotation together. In neither quotation is Harris addressing any question about the existence of an eternal, fiery Hell. Rather, in the first part of the quotation he is discussing the view of some that in the Old Testament times Sheol was divided into two compartments. Consider exactly what Harris was discussing:

"[The Bible] does present what is a difficulty to the New Testament believer: both wicked (Num. 16:3) and righteous (Gen. 38:35) go to Sheol. A view was therefore early developed that said that there were two compartments in Sheol, an upper part for the believers and a lower for the lost."

He then says,

"This view has some problems."

He's right. It does have some problems! This does not mean the view is wrong, of course.

In the second part of the quotation Harris is discussing the condition of Shimei in 1 Kings 2:9:

"To bring Shimei's gray hairs down to Sheol in blood (2:9) surely refers only to his death, not to the condition of his soul after death or to any punishment beyond his execution."

My friends, no matter what we might think of Harris and his translation activities, such a statement by him DOES NOT make Harris a co-fellow with cultists who deny the Bible doctrine of Hell. By taking the man's statements entirely out of context, Mrs. Riplinger has slandered him.