Gail Riplinger

Still waiting.

 

For what?? Did you read the link I provided??? If so, why didn't you interact with it and show us where this author is wrong? If not, why not?? Are you not interested in the truth??

In the above post, your arguments (that Riplinger used) were shown to be foolish and ridiculous. Were you waiting on someone to bail you out???

Over and over again, you have been shown errors in Riplinger's writings. Are you waiting for someone to repeat them so you don't have to load the previous page??

What are you waiting for??

 

If you're waiting, you obviously have plenty of time on your hands to evaluate the two posts I did about Riplinger's stupidity and tell me where I am wrong.

It seems to me that if you are going to challenge the entire board to show where Gail the Ripper has lied, then you ought at least to acknowledge the fact that someone has taken your challenge - much less refute our posts or concede that we are right.

Mind you, I'm not holding my breath.

BTW, patience is still a virtue, you know.

 

I think I have but you stated it very concisely.

I believe that just as Satan used the Catholic fixation on Latin and the Vulgate to deny the people God's Word, he is now using mostly pious, often well intentioned, otherwise fundamental Christians to obscure or deny the Word of God to many through KJVOnlyism. Intermingled among these sheep are wolves like Riplinger and Ruckman.

 

As I explained above, my job has taken up my evenings lately. I check into the BB during the day now and then when I have a few minutes, but all my books and notes are at home. I've been working 12-14 hours every day, and when I get home at 10 at night the last thing I feel like doing is scanning and typing in Riplinger's shoddy work, to show you what can already be found *in the links in this thread* as well as via any search engine.

But don't worry, I haven't forgotten, and I've already put together several examples, but it will take a while for me to finish my list. Really, there are a lot. And they're easy to find for yourself as well: while you're waiting, dig out the misreprentations for yourself out of the following articles:

http://www.bible.org/docs/theology/biblio/riplnger.htm
http://www.kjvonly.org/other/riplinger_new_age_bible.htm

 

I'm not asking for blood here, just "1" example of an misquote error. Don't give me websites to go to because I have already reviewed and critiqued the ones that you(BrianT) have provided already, so far, she's right. You(BrianT) said that you would scan from books that you have. Since I don't have these books and you do, could you or someone else please scan the page on which the quote is on and then scan Riplinger page with the misquote(if there is one). Is this understandable?

 

I've seen this happen a billion times. Riplinger gets exposed for the fraud and liberal she is, and her followers jump up and down and scream bloody murder, calling anyone who disagrees with her liberal views of Scripture a Bible hater or cultist. Why bother? Why waste time, oxygen, and good bandwith? It's been well established that she's no friend to the Bible-believer. Let's move on.

 

Alright, I'll scan a single one and post it tonight. But please understand, I'm not the sort of person who likes to do anything half-way. I'm the sort of guy that when my wife asks for a Kleenex, I hand her the whole box.

Here's one for you to chew on: On page 580, in an attempt to slander early Greek manuscripts, she quotes the Epistle of Barnabas as saying "Satan...is Lord". What the Epistle of Barnabas actually says: "There are two ways of doctrine and authority, the one of light, and the other of darkness. But there is a great difference between these two ways. For over one are stationed the light-bringing angels of God, but over the other the angels of Satan. And He indeed (i.e., God) is Lord for ever and ever, but he (i.e. Satan) is prince of the time of iniquity."

Another: on page 318, she says "Liberty University's Dean Norman Geisler adds: 'We should be particularly wary when someone refers to Jesus Christ as "the Christ" . . . '", but what Geisler actually said was "We should be particularly wary when someone refers to Jesus Christ as "the Christ spirit" or "Christ-consciousness."

Oh heck, one more: 546, she quotes Westcott and Hort as saying "[R]eadings of Aleph & B should be accepted as the true readings...[They] stand far above all documents... [are] very pure... excellent... and immune from corruption." Wow, that's quite a few ellipses (...). They really said "readings of Aleph/B should be accepted as the true readings until strong evidence is found to the contrary". In fact, Westcott and Hort were actually talking about errors in Aleph/B. When Riplinger cites them as stating that these manuscripts are "very pure and excellent" she is again misquoting because the words are not referring to Aleph/B but the parent text of Aleph/B. Also, the words "and immune from corruption" cannot be found in any of Riplinger’s citations in her footnote. I will post more info later about this.

Basically, all her quotes are at the least, suspect.

Sorry to be blunt, but it should have taken you 15 months to do a proper critique of all the links I provided. I don't believe you even *read* them all, you haven't had enough time to even read everything presented, let alone critique it.

Patience, grasshopper.

Brian

 

HomeBound said:

I'm not asking for blood here, just "1" example of an misquote error.

Great! I provided a few in my analysis of Riplinger's treatment of Bruce Metzger, earlier in this thread.

Go to it.

 

BrianT, here is the reply about the Geisler quote which I posted on page 7.

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?

Again, who is Amano? Did Amano say this or did Geisler say this?

 

What page might that be please.

 

That particular quote comes from page 142 of "The Infiltration of the New Age", co-written by J. Yutaka Amano and Norman L. Geisler, published by Tyndale House Publishers (Wheaton, IL), 1989. That's who "Amano" is. This information was already given in one of the articles this thread links to.

Regardless, what do you think of this quote-manipulation and deliberate misrepresentation?

 

HomeBound said:

What page might that be please.

Fourth page, about the fourth message down.

Now, stop stalling and put your money where your mouth is.

 

OK, here's one picked basically at random.

In Chapter 2 of "New Age Bible Versions", Riplinger says

"both Westcott and Hort assert that the devil is not a person but a general "power of evil."(12)", trying to connect Westcott to New Agers that believe Satan doesn't really exist as being. Footnote 12 gives the reference for Westcott as "Westcott's Commentary on 1-3 John, p. 106" (I don't have Hort's book, so I won't address that in this post). I scanned page 106 from Westcott's book, as well as the page the "quote" refers to. Remember, Riplinger asserted that Westcott asserts that the devil is not a person but a general power. Right from the very pages she refers to, we see this is not true (never mind the myriads of other quotes I can scan for you where Westcott and/or Hort assert that the devil is a 'person' and not just a 'general power of evil'). See for yourself.

I have identified the (mis)quote with red, and the text that speaks exactly opposite to what Riplinger is trying to convey in blue (note especially the repeated use of "he" and "his", which are *personal* pronouns, and not "its" which would be the pronoun used of simply a "general" power). The green highlight in the first picture simply identifies what I've scanned for you for the second and third pictures, indicating that since Riplinger found "powers of evil" on page 106, she would have also seen the direct connection of this phrase to the "Additional Note on ii 13":

Page 106 of "The Epistles of St. John" by Westcott

Page 89 of the same, containing the "Additional Note"
Page 90 of the same, containing the remainder of the "Additional Note" paragraph

[ September 19, 2003, 01:09 AM: Message edited by: BrianT ]

 

In May 1961 I graduated from High School.
During the summer thereafter i read
my first conspiracy book. Ah yes, you
never can forget your first conspiracy
book. Other conspiracy books pale
by comparison to that first conspiracy
book. That is why Gail Riplinger's
New Age Versions conspiracy book is
NOT to exciting to me. Been there, done that,
got the tee shirt.

 

Hey, where did Homebound go?

Looks like faced with the facts, he done R-U-N-N-O-F-T.

 

I didn't go anywhere. I just got sidetracked. Maybe I missed it, but I thought that BrianT was going to scan a quote from a book and then Riplinger's misquote?