Gail Riplinger

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by BrianT:
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.

Really, I bet DeVelde thinks he's right. BTW, if your right, don't give me someone to read if they are wrong.

Nah, let's share the info with others: http://www.tegart.com/brian/bible/kjvonly/isa14_12.html

Hey thanks! BTW, this is not another DeVelde site is it? Because you know he's wrong.

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by HomeBound:
Really, I bet DeVelde thinks he's right.

DeVelde is correct that "The Hebrew word helel means 'light bearer' which in the Latin Vulgate is translated (not transliterated) lucifer. Lucifer in Latin also means light bearer." However, in the context of Isa 14:12, it means much more than 'light bearer', it is referring to a specific light bearer, the planet Venus. Heylel is the name of a Babylonian god. DeVelde is correct in general, my comments are more correct in context of this specific verse. Riplinger is basically completely wrong, from all perspectives.

BTW, this is not another DeVelde site is it?

No, it is my own. And I will gladly correct anything you can show to be in error.

 

[RaptureReady]

From David Cloud.
11. According to the chart on p. 188, the "New Versions" omit the words "in him" in 2 Cor. 5:21. In fact, both the NIV and the NASB retain these words.

I looked this up and the NIV has it in there, but the NASB does not. Interesting.

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by HomeBound:
From David Cloud.
11. According to the chart on p. 188, the "New Versions" omit the words "in him" in 2 Cor. 5:21. In fact, both the NIV and the NASB retain these words.

I looked this up and the NIV has it in there, but the NASB does not. Interesting.

Check the pre-1995 edition of the NASB. Riplinger's book came out in 1993, NASB released a new edition in 1995.

 

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by BrianT:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by HomeBound:
From David Cloud.
11. According to the chart on p. 188, the "New Versions" omit the words "in him" in 2 Cor. 5:21. In fact, both the NIV and the NASB retain these words.

I looked this up and the NIV has it in there, but the NASB does not. Interesting.

Check the pre-1995 edition of the NASB. Riplinger's book came out in 1993, NASB released a new edition in 1995. </font>[/QUOTE]If that is not confusing I don't know what is. BTW, why did they take it out? Let me guess, another MSS said differently.

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by HomeBound:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by BrianT:
Check the pre-1995 edition of the NASB. Riplinger's book came out in 1993, NASB released a new edition in 1995.

If that is not confusing I don't know what is. BTW, why did they take it out? Let me guess, another MSS said differently.
</font>[/QUOTE]Homebound, you're making this too easy.

What's the difference between that and this?:

click here

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
Askjo - You can't be serious? You have defended the KJV (whichever revision) on threads, but this is beneath you, friend!

The KJV is copyrighted. We in America just defy international copyright and don't pay it!

The printers of the KJV make a profit on printing and marketing their bible just like those of the NIV, NASB et al.

Any argument made about $$ applies equally to the KJV (whichever revision) AND the modern versions. You know that. Don't spout off false information that is beneath your normal arguments!

You are right that the KJV is coyrighted. The KJV translators' jobs were very dangerous if they did wrong. What's about today? Nothing? If one KJV translator breaks the rule, he must be killed. What's about today? Nothing?

 

[BrianT]

Um, what?

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by BrianT:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by HomeBound:
So why didn't the new versions say "light bearer?"

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).

BTW, ask anyone today who Lucifer is and they will say the devil.

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."

BTW, the Bible will always be right over someone's commentary or notes.

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?

</font>[/QUOTE]"Morning Star" in Isa. 14:12 is not found in hebrew text. Morning in hebrew is boqer. Star in hebrew is kokav. Helel means light bearer or shining one.

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by Askjo:
"Morning Star" in Isa. 14:12 is not found in hebrew text. Morning in hebrew is boqer. Star in hebrew is kokav. Helel means light bearer or shining one.

Pay attention. "Heylel" is the name of a Babylonian god - it's what they called the planet Venus when it appeared as a star in the morning. The Hebrew does not need "boqer" or "kokav" to convey this meaning.

You say the Hebrew word means "light bearer" or "shining one". "light" in Hebrew is "owr", and "bearer" in Hebrew is "yalad". "Shining" in Hebrew is "halal" (similar to "heylel", same root) and "one" in Hebrew is "echad". None of these words are in the Hebrew either, yet you acknowledge by your comment that the single Hebrew word can mean something that is not a literal word-for-word translation, but rather a translation of the *meaning*. You have just *defended* my argument, because that is exactly what I am saying. Thanks.

 

[Ed Edwards]

HomeBound: "Wow! Three Bibles(books as you call them)
on your computer desk!"

Actually i've got ten Bibles on my computer desk
(and some more in the Library). Maybe i aught
to check and see if both my NIB (New International
Bible)s are really the same

HomeBound: " One or two questions here.
Do you believe the Apocrypha to be scripture?"

I think they suck positive karma away from
the KJV1611 and other Versions of the KJV which
contain them. As such they are New Age blasphemes
placed 250 years in the past by Satan.

I have a second opinion which is more practical
but not near as exciting

HomeBound: " Do you believe the sidenotes to be scripture?"

Yes.

HomeBound: //Have you read those "books" on your desk
or are they just paperweights?//

This paragraph is a repeat of data already
placed on this Baptist Board (BB). I use the
KJV1769 with which to teach my Sunday School class.
My Sunday School class is for men 46-60 and there are
frequently five students there on Sunday morning.
But now it looks like the men's class 31-45 doesn't
have a class teacher. Their average attendance is 1.5.
As for my KJV1611, I only use it to flaunt in front of
KJVos

THey can't even agree wheather it is
the KJB or not: some saying Satan contaminated it
with the Apocrypha & sidenotes; others saying it
is the KJB. As for my KJV1873, I hardly ever use
it because it is interlaced with the NASB,
NIV and NLT and i am prone to hernias

HomeBound: "BTW, I don't consider the Apocrypha to be God's
word and I don't think the translators did either.
The sidenotes in my King James Bible are not scripture,
it's just a tool to help study."

I respect your belief and even tend toward it.

HomeBound: "Also, before you ask, I use the 1769 King James Bible,
which doctrinely and scripturely is no different than the 1611."

Exactly how I feel about my devotional Bible,
the New King James Version (nKJV).

 

[shilo]

Nothing like tearing down a sister in Christ and sowing discord among the brethren...which by the way the Lord HATES!

Also, look at all you people sitting there behind your computers trying to speak so badly of her and her books.. you know how it makes you look?? makes you look Jealous..and you know what the funny thing is?? She wouldn't be getting under your skins if she were wrong..If she were wrong you wouldn't be wasting your time, trying so hard to prove her wrong..

She's right in everything she's ever written and you Pharisees just can't stand that. (Btw I'd like to see the books you have written)

This woman is Highly educated..teaches in very highly accredited Universities and what do you people do?? you trash the brethren from behind computers on a board..

Can't WAIT to see the Lord stand there and point to her and let everyone of you know that she was right and you were wrong..

 

[Ransom]

shilo:

Nothing like tearing down a sister in Christ and sowing discord among the brethren...which by the way the Lord HATES!

Indeed he does - which is why we are setting the record straight after Riplinger deceived so many people into believing they are practically worshiping Satan just by believing the Bible they have.

I hear the Lord also hates a lying tongue. Maybe Riplinger is exempt, though.

..and you know what the funny thing is?? She wouldn't be getting under your skins if she were wrong..

We certainly got under your skin enough for you to come out of the woodwork and make this post. I guess that makes us right. :b

She's right in everything she's ever written and you Pharisees just can't stand that. (Btw I'd like to see the books you have written)

OK, so the NIV is corrupt, and Riplinger is infallible.

Pull the other one.

This woman is Highly educated..teaches in very highly accredited Universities

Bruce Metzger is more highly educated and teaches at a more prestigious institution than Riplinger. So maybe she shouldn't have gone after him so hard!

Nonetheless, since I don't go to Metzger, an expert on the Biblical text, for advice on matching drapes with the carpet, why should I go to Riplinger, an interior designer, for information on the Biblical text?

you trash the brethren from behind computers on a board..

Takes one to know one.

Can't WAIT to see the Lord stand there and point to her and let everyone of you know that she was right and you were wrong..

Yeah, and I can't wait to see Satan skating to work, either.

You gotta laugh. Not as much as usual, though, because I've already laughed pretty hard at the rest of your tirade.

 

[shilo]

We certainly got under your skin enough for you to come out of the woodwork and make this post. I guess that makes us right.

I guess so..but the differance is I'm not going to argue with you and work hard to prove you wrong..I KNOW you're wrong and I dont need to dwell on you.

OK, so the NIV is corrupt, and Riplinger is infallible.

Didn't say that..I said what she writes in her books is correct..

and I'm sorry I missed it when you told me what books you have written..

you trash the brethren from behind computers on a board..

Takes one to know one

I'm not trashing you..I'm letting you know you ought to be ashamed of yourselves for this thread.

you can laugh Ransome and you go ahead and keep tearing down Mrs. Riplinger along with those who stand for the Authorized 1611..you WILL reap what you sow.

Wonder if you'll laugh when the Lord asks you why you threw out his Holy Infallible Word and chose to read and promote versions that are lies instead.. hmmmmm.. don't think you'll be so smug.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Shilo: "you can laugh Ransome and you go ahead
and keep tearing down Mrs. Riplinger along with
those who stand for the Authorized 1611..you
WILL reap what you sow."

Yes, Brother Ransom has sown a seed of truth and
shall reap a bountiful harvest of TRUTH. Amen,
Brother Ransom - you go Boy!

Meanwhile i'll speak of the perfidy of those
(unlike some local posters who are KJBO)
who talk a lot about the authorized King James
Bible of 1611 but who say the KJV1611 was
corrupted by satanic popeists and has the
Apocrapha and the translator side notes.
Such liars use the the unauthorized version
of KJV1769. But i've found most of the KJBOs
who post here aren't like that, so i tend to
be a bit more frinedly to them.

And good morning.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by shilo:
Nothing like tearing down a sister in Christ and sowing discord among the brethren...which by the way the Lord HATES!

Christians are supposed to take a stand against false doctrine. If you have read her book then who can you say that those who are responding to her false accusations and teachings are the ones sowing discord? We didn't ask her to write the book. We didn't teach her that it is valid to use ellipsis to "create" false quotes.

She lies. There is no other term any more accurately descriptive of taking a person's words and manipulating them to say something they never said. It is she that is determined to tear down those who have done far more for the cause of Christ than she will ever do. It is she that is sowing discord.

Brian gave examples of her intentional distortions earlier. If he is lying and you have her book then you should be able to prove her true and him false.

If Brian is wrong then he is sowing discord but if Riplinger is lying then you should "prove all things".

She wouldn't be getting under your skins if she were wrong..If she were wrong you wouldn't be wasting your time, trying so hard to prove her wrong..

Actually no. People who are right (or even people who I believe to be wrong but who have honestly, thoroughly studied an issue and arrived at a different conclusion than mine) do not typically get under my skin.

People who are willfully ignorant or down right dishonest do tend to get my dander up however. Riplinger has been shown her errors. Some of the things she writes must be intentional acts of her sinful flesh or else a result of direct demonic influence or both. If she knew that she was putting words in the mouths of those she impugns in her book then she is intentionally sinning. If she doesn't recognize that she did it then it certainly wasn't inspiration from God... it was the father of lies that gave her those words.

She's right in everything she's ever written and you Pharisees just can't stand that. (Btw I'd like to see the books you have written)

I am not an author. To this point, it is not my calling... it doesn't appear to be Gail's either unless she is a fiction writer.

BTW, Please prove that she is right about the acrostic algebra that "Jesus" gave her.

This woman is Highly educated

Her education is in Home Economics which might qualify her to be a keeper at home but can never qualify her to teach and usurp authority over men.

..teaches in very highly accredited Universities and what do you people do?? you trash the brethren from behind computers on a board.

Actually I am a person paid to see flaws in methods or systems. I don't know GA personally. What I know is that she employed methods to produce a book that contains information that is either intentionally false or much, much worse.

Can't WAIT to see the Lord stand there and point to her and let everyone of you know that she was right and you were wrong..

Your attitude is noted. I personally don't look forward to seeing anyone judged by the Lord. Not you. Not Ransom. Not Ed. And not GA "God And" Riplinger.

The dangerous thing here is that GA lied. Her lies have been proven to her in numerous reviews of her books. She has not recanted nor apologized for those lies. In fact, if anything she has added to them. Revelation 21:8 should terrify her but there is no indication that it has.

 

[HankD]

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />OK, so the NIV is corrupt, and Riplinger is infallible.

Didn't say that..I said what she writes in her books is correct..</font>[/QUOTE]She claims something akin to infallibility…

Each discovery was not the result of effort on my part, but of the direct hand of God — so much so that I hesitated to even put my name on the book. Consequently, I used G. A. Riplinger, which signifies to me, God and Riplinger — God as author and Riplinger as secretary.

She wouldn't be getting under your skins if she were wrong.. If she were wrong you wouldn't be wasting your time, trying so hard to prove her wrong..

So, do the KJVO believe that this lady is God’s secretary and is the purity of this dictation of the same quality as God provided the 1611KJV translators (Apocrypha included) and if not why not?

The plot thickens.

"Oh what a tangled web we weave..."

HankD

 

[Ransom]

shilo, first of all, there are a great number of serious errors of fact and reasoning that have been documented in Riplinger's "books," many of which have been referenced here on this thread by Brian and myself.

Do you intend to answer these accusations, or are you just going to smugly sit there and take potshots at us because you "know" you are right?

It seems to me that you are afflicted with a common KJV-only ailment, to wit:

I KNOW you're wrong and I dont need to dwell on you.

First we have "proof by persecution," now "proof by smugness." I love it!

Didn't say that..I said what she writes in her books is correct..

If Riplinger is not infallible, then I am sure you can identify and analyze one error in New Age Bible Versions, right?

Just one; that's not asking too much. I can find several per page.

and I'm sorry I missed it when you told me what boo s you have written..

Well, I must have missed the seminar where they told us I had to write a book before I could start criticizing other authors.

I'm not trashing you..I'm letting you know you ought to be ashamed of yourselves for this thread.

Yeah, well I'm not. Deal with it.

you can laugh Ransome and you go ahead and keep tearing down Mrs. Riplinger along with those who stand for the Authorized 1611..you WILL reap what you sow.

I certainly hope so!

Wonder if you'll laugh when the Lord asks you why you threw out his Holy Infallible Word and chose to read and promote versions that are lies instead..

No, I think rather that God will tell me, "Well done, good and faithful servant - and by the way, good job standing up to that KJV-only trash."

Not that I speak for God - but then, again, neither do the KJV-onlyists.

You gotta laugh.

[ September 16, 2003, 12:52 PM: Message edited by: Ransom ]

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by BrianT:
Pay attention. "Heylel" is the name of a Babylonian god - it's what they called the planet Venus when it appeared as a star in the morning. The Hebrew does not need "boqer" or "kokav" to convey this meaning.

You say the Hebrew word means "light bearer" or "shining one". "light" in Hebrew is "owr", and "bearer" in Hebrew is "yalad". "Shining" in Hebrew is "halal" (similar to "heylel", same root) and "one" in Hebrew is "echad". None of these words are in the Hebrew either, yet you acknowledge by your comment that the single Hebrew word can mean something that is not a literal word-for-word translation, but rather a translation of the *meaning*. You have just *defended* my argument, because that is exactly what I am saying. Thanks.

[/QB]

Whoa! Modern versions on Isa. 14:12 said "morning star." They are wrong because Helel means to "shine," therefore this verse refers to shining one. The Satan is an angel of light (2 Cor. 11:14). Check with Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon and look up helel that comes from halal. Also Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. This books will tell you what these terms mean. Lucifer means "light bearer." Lux in latin mean light. Fer in Latin means to carry or bear. Shining one is a good translation for Isa. 14:12.

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by Askjo:
Whoa! Modern versions on Isa. 14:12 said "morning star." They are wrong because Helel means to "shine,"

No, "halal" (Strong's #1984) means to shine, "helel" (Strong's #1966) is *derived* from "halal", and refers to an entity. It is a name, a name that carries a "shining" meaning. It occurs only here in the O.T. It is the name of the Babylonian god that Babylonians equated with the morning star, Venus.

therefore this verse refers to shining one.

Yes, a specific "shining one", the planet Venus when it shines like a star in the morning.

Check with Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon and look up helel that comes from halal.

Exactly. It is *derived* from halal, it is not equal to halal. Just like "regel" ("foot") is *derived* from "ragal" ("to walk" or "to go out to spy"). Not the same, but related.

Lucifer means "light bearer." Lux in latin mean light. Fer in Latin means to carry or bear. Shining one is a good translation for Isa. 14:12.

Yes, it is good. But it's not complete, for it eliminates the fuller, derived meaning, the connection to the Babylonian god which bore light in the morning as the planet Venus when it appears as the morning star. "Lucifer" in Latin means "light bearer", but it is also the name of the planet Venus because Venus bears light when it appears as a morning star.

Askjo, aren't you KJV-only, or am I thinking of someone else?