NASB and NIV, True and Trustworthy.

This is hilarious. Steve says that Barker doctored his own words. Why would Barker doctor his own words prior to their use by Riplinger?? Are you even thinking about what is being said here?

This is a clear case of someone ignoring the evidence to their own detriment. The case is as plain as day. How it can be missed is beyond belief ...

Why would Barker doctor his own words to refute a citation that would not be cited for a number of years after the comment was originally made??

 

What part of "copy"don't you understand?Once again Larry a display of your in ability to grasp basic english without your own personal slant affecting it.Pity

 

Where's the venom rsr?

 

So typical,you guys can slam KJV guys"cult,deceived,men followers,rejecters of truth etc..." but as soon as someone comes back with truth you start whining."venom etc.."

 

I am not whining. But I am still waiting on you to answer some very simple questions about Riplinger. Was she directly inspired by God as she claimed? If you say 'no' then you must reject her as a heretic. If you say 'yes' then you join her.

You have not come back with any truth Steve. No original quotes, no documented history, and absolutely no scripture supporting the notion of KJVOnlyism. It is a lie Steve. Nothing more, nothing less. It is not based on fact. It is not based on scripture. And it certainly isn't proven by a book authored by a Home Ec teacher claiming inspiration from God.

Satan is the father of lies. Anyone who so casually dismisses the arguments placed before you without even investigating them is in love with a lie. This is an incredibly serious matter. You say you are a believer yet you embrace lies and liars rather than swallowing your pride and accepting the truth. You are willfully ignorant of the truth.

[ January 19, 2003, 12:21 AM: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

That's a lie Scotty! Play nice!

 

NO I do not embrace YOU.

 

Scott will you document the quote you spoke of by Riplinger?Give references,footnotes,book titles,dates,where to find it in the library of congress and any other sources you have and "I" will verify the authenticity of it.Otherwise you are just slandering and could be liable.

 

I understand "copy" Steve. Perhaps you could show where I used "copy" in my post. It apparently is not me who can't read since you will not find "copy" in anything that I wrote.

I was commenting on your unwillingness to deal with what you are saying. You said that Barker's quote is doctored, that Riplinger had it right. Barker's quote is before Riplinger's citation of it. Therefore, it means that Riplinger is the one who changed the quote. Barker would not change his own quote; there would be no need to.

Steve, this is black and white. There is not really any debate here. Riplinger took some clear quotes and twisted them to make them say things they were not intended to say.

Here is an article that will be enlightening to you about Riplingers book. In it, you will find all the documentation you can stand. New Age Bible Versions

In this, this quote concerning inspiration is documented to the The End Times and Victorious Living, January-February, 1994 (a ministry of the Paw Creek Church and Media Ministry). Now you can go find it and comment on it.

[ January 19, 2003, 09:29 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

The word copy was in my post that you commented in. The context was since you do not have the originals you cannot be sure it is true. Nice try! The quote is true!

 

Ah, interesting argument. Yet you say the quote about Barker (and Wescott) are "true" *despite* you NOT having the "original", but only a copy. Ladies and gentlemen, may I present for your entertainment, the amazing, the astounding, DOUBLE-STANDARD!!!

Just how many "original" books of Westcott's and/or Hort's do you own? Do you even have an original 1611 KJV, or just a copy?


[ January 19, 2003, 03:30 PM: Message edited by: BrianT ]

 

The quote you saw posted here predated the citation of it by Riplinger. How could Riplinger have a quote that was written after she quoted it?? Steve, that doesn't even make sense ...

The quote that Brian gave is what Barker and Palmer (I believe) actually said. Riplinger twisted them. As I have said, this is black and white. IT is not really an issue of discussion.

 

"I believe" but you don't know so you cannot possibly discuss it honestly and since that is what this board is for "GOOD DAY!"

 

Thank you Brian! I have just reversed roles with you and made myself and my material the final authority for determining truth.Just as I suspected you would become enraged and begin to lash out with cracks and comments.You my friend have been the subject of study without even knowing it. I simply reversed our roles and began to make the claims that you do to defend your position and you fell for it hook line and sinker.Let me ask you something. Can God do anything? yes or no?
Can he make a rock so big that even he can't pick it up? That is the kind of reasoning used by you. Only you have the answers.Everyone who disagrees with you has faulty thinking and material.It's been fun!Talk to you more later.

 

I am not enraged. In fact, I am amused.

I couldn't care less about your little study. I answered the way I intended, trying to maintain a rational discussion where logic is used and evidence is presented.

God can do anything he wishes to do.

Not at all. I have simply been asking you to *provide* some thinking and material. You seem more interested in slander and leaps in logic. That's fine with me, just don't expect to convince me without being able to support your view.

 

Actually, you didn't understand the sentence (surprise at that). The "I believe" followed the identification of the two people in question, meaning that I believe the two quotes that were conflated and twisted were those of Edwin Palmer and Kenneth Barker. See how easy things are when you read what they say and look at the structure?? You apparently and mistakenly understood "I believe" to refer to the content of the quotes which was your error. Your understanding is not the judge of truth as you have shown. These men made comments that should be used in their original context and with their original meaning. To use them otherwise is unethical and untruthful. It makes them appear to believe something that they in fact did not believe.

So I am qualified and able to carry on this conversation and I am endeavoring to keep it centered on the facts.

 

http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0187a.html

Here is a CRI article about her book. It contains a reference to the magazine and quotes her words in context.

Also, I think www.aomin.org still has the tape recording of the discussion between Riplinger and White. White confronted GA about those quotes. You might be interested in listening to it all.

 

http://www.straitgate.com/aom/#riplingernabv

Here's a link to a page that has RealAudio of White vs. Riplinger. At about the 10-12 minute mark of the first broadcast an exchange begins where GA claims that Jesus gave her the Acrostic Algebra.

[ January 20, 2003, 02:37 PM: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

Thanks for the link. That's some "weird, wild stuff," as Johnny Carson used to say.

I love how she has no explanation for how God gave here the acrostic.