New Age Bibles

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Ja, She tells in her answer to James White,
"
White's doom is his penchant for making statements without adequate research or proof. He bleats, "Her degrees, her teaching, and her writing are all in one area...Her field of study is not at all related to the Bible, history or any type of linguistics or textual study."
He's wrong about the teaching.
He's wrong about the degrees.
He's wrong about the history.
He's wrong about the linguistics.
He's wrong about the writing.
He will have a difficult time convincing Harvard and Cornell or the University which awarded my M.F.A., or my ten or so history professors at the graduate and undergraduate levels. He will find it equally difficult to persuade the employer who hired me as a linguistic expert, teaching Greek speaking students English as a second language. (Or the Japanese, Russian, Italian, Spanish or Serbo-Croatian students which followed.) Students from six different majors will also testify to White's lack of research.
Jim likes to play word games. He lost with Vanna White, let's see how he does with Jeopardy!
"Who was trained in law, yet designed the building on the reverse side of the nickel, gave us our finest English translation of the Greek Aeschyles and Sophocles, wrote The Dictionary of Indian Dialects and invented the swivel chair, storm window and dumb waiter?"
My field of study and research for the past nine years has been exclusively textual criticism, linguistics, history, and the Bible--resulting in the publication of two books. One has been adopted as a textbook in numerous seminaries (New Age Bible Versions). This followed a mid-career switch after 18 years researching the built environment (industrial, architectural, and interior design).
Which Bible is God's Word, my latest book, details the qualifications God sets forth (pp. 5-7). None of the aforementioned background fits God's requirements, nor does White's B.A. or M.A., or the NIV translators' degrees."

 

[Marcia]

Therefore, were Riplinger an ex-plumber or cab driver or Professor in Theology, it is WHAT she says, that counts.
And I must be frank, I find her critique of the NIV and NASB - and others - just and justified, and properly researched and answered for.

But she should stick to linguistics - her forte, obviously - and leave theology - obviously her weak spot! Her critique of James White for being a Calvinist, is quite comical.

Riplinger's critique of the NASB is not justified. She does not make her case soundly at all. It's full of holes and illogical arguments. I was actually laughing at some of her assertions in her book when I read it, they were so ludicrous.

 

[Darron Steele]

Actually, Ms. Riplinger does not.

Her so-called "doctorate" is an honorary doctorate granted by what is called an unaccredited college. An honorary doctorate is not a regular doctorate, but is bestowed as an honor.

Accreditation assures all people concerned that the college has an appropriate level of rigor and quality, in order that degree earners can be assumed `up to par.' It separates colleges operated and taught by qualified people providing an appropriate education from institutions set up by the likes of `Joe No-Know.'

Basically, an unaccredited college is one that does not meet the standards of rigor and quality required by regional accrediting agencies. The pieces of paper that they call diplomas do not represent degrees that
1) all of higher education would accept as having any level of legitimacy,
2) government or professional agencies that require credentials would accept as legitimate.
In other words, it is a college only to itself and anyone else who voluntarily chooses to treat it as one and can get away with doing so. To everyone else, it is not a legitimate college.

In other words, she is not entitled to be called "Dr. Riplinger." The institution granting the so-called "doctorate" does not have the authority to grant any such thing.

As far as respect, to treat her as a colleague to genuine doctorate-holders would be bringing them down to a level far below the respect they deserve as experts. I wrote this post not to be mean to Ms. Riplinger, but to set the record straight.[/SIZE]

I am fully aware that the Doctorate of Dr. Gail A. Riplinger is an honorary doctorate. I am also aware that the doctorates of many other individuals are 'honorary', as well.

Suppose I had mentioned, instead of Dr. Riplinger, an individual such as Dr. B. H. Carroll (Pastor, Theology Professor, Baylor University, Founding President of Southwestern Baptist Seminary, the largest in the world), Dr. H. A. Ironside (Noted Bible Teacher, Lecturer at Dallas Seminary, and Pastor of Moody Memorial Church), Dr. John Gill (English Baptist Pastor of the 18th Century, pastor of Horsleydown Church for 51 years, author of A Body of Divinity and to this day, stands as the only indivudual to write commentary on every verse in the Bible), Dr. Reuben A. Torrey (Evangelist, later served as Superntendent - equivalent to President - of what became Moody Bible Institute, also Pastor of both Moody Church, and Church of the Open Door, and Dean of Biola), Dr. Wilbur M. Smith (Pastor of Four Churches, Editor of Peloubet's Notes for almost 40 years, Professor at Moody, Fuller, and Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Associate editor of the New Scofield Reference Bible), or Dr. Billy Graham, [Evangelist for more than 50 years, is thought to have preached in person to more individuals than anyone in history, Co-founder of Youth for Christ, youngest individual to ever serve as a sitting College President (Northwestern College) to this day] for six other examples, instead.

Would you have offered the same opinion? Would you suggest these individuals also would 'lower' the standards? All these doctorates were also honorary, and only Dr. Torrey, had any training beyond a College Bachelor's degree (B.D.); Drs. Graham and Smith each only 'earned' a B.A., Dr. Carroll was a few months shy of his B.A., when he entered the Confederate Army during the Civil War, and Baylor awarded him that degree, anyway, saying his time served was 'worth more' than three additional months of classroom time would have been, Dr. Ironside did graduate from the 8th grade, and Dr. Gill had no formal schooling beyond the age of 11.

Please forgive me, if I do not think these served to lower any standards, rather I would say they raised them to a fairly lofty level. Incidentally, I could rather easily add another score of individuals along these same lines. I suggest it is the individual, that is the difference, hence I have no problem with calling any individual by that title, when it has been bestowed.

Ed

EdSutton: the issue is whether or not Ms. Riplinger is entitled to be called "Dr. Riplinger" in the present time.

This is the twenty-first century. The self-named "college" that gave Ms. Riplinger a so-called "honorary doctorate" is not accredited.

It is no more legitimate than if I set up a school, called it a "college" and started offering "degrees," even in mathematics. The place that gave her an "honorary doctorate" may be more similar to a college than my fictitious school, but it is no more a college. It does not have the authority to offer legitimate degrees.

She does not have a legitimate honorary doctorate. End of story.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Which 'College' was it?

I see now, Riplinger is very vague in the above quote!

But again, who cares? All that matters is what she says in her book. Let it be its own test and judge.

 

[Rippon]

But again, who cares? All that matters is what she says in her book. Let it be its own test and judge.

In the court of the informed Christian public -- her book has been deemed hogwash -- and rightly so.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

'Informed'? You see, this is how real information is disposed of so easily: Exactly the way you do it here and now. You do not pay attention to a single point of information Riplinger supplies. And so, to my knowledge, has everybody else who shoots her dow, done. James White's attempt at refuting Riplinger was the best of the lot, and how pathetic is it not! But for you information your 'informed' public is not so widely 'public' as you pretend. Here's one better informed, and what he had to say on this issue:

"
White's false accusations have brought him much public embarrassment. The Christian radio station in White's very own town aired several broadcasts presenting North America's most beloved Bible teacher, Cecil J. Carter--the title: "The Public Spanking of James White."
"Welcome to our radio congregation: This includes a welcome to the person of Mr. James White, director of the Alpha & Omega ministries. I understand that he has promised that he will be listening...
Your great activity in promoting new versions, downgrading the KJV, and viciously attacking defenders of the Bible as, for example, Mrs. Gail Riplinger, is having a deadly effect in many lives...
Picture if you can the multitudes of men, women and children, who will arise in the day of judgment and charge you with their doom, because you have convinced them that new bible versions which are based on inconceivably corrupted manuscripts are in reality the true word of God...
My prayer to God is that he will be merciful to you and those who have been deceived by you into casting away the true Bible for these miserable counterfeits...
In your two articles and booklet attacking Gail Riplinger and her amazing book: New Age Bible Versions, you are obviously so angry that you have not hesitated to try to destroy the credibility, honesty, and reputation of a gracious Christian woman...this is to your shame, because you have gone far, far beyond the proper bounds of scholarly criticism...
These all, along with you, have opened your mouths against one of the most courageous Christian women, in a most despicable manner...Do you not think it is time someone called a halt to these extravagant charges against a gracious Christian woman...
That which you cannot find wrong, you invent with false accusations, and please do not say that you do not. A simple examination of your booklet reveals the fact...
Now you cruel, ungracious, voracious critics, shame on you!...You appear like so many terrible birds of prey lodging in the branches of the church ready to interfere with anything that might awaken the multitudes who have been deceived by your lectures and writings into forsaking the pure word of God (Matt. 13:31-32)...
Howl, you sinners and cry unto God to have mercy on your money loving souls. Yes, you are quite right, if Gail is right in her contention that the new versions rest on corrupted MSS., and she is right, no doubt about that, you will sell less of your books which are filled with quotations from those dangerously polluted versions...
Rejoice in the great mercy of God: when Job's friends humbled themselves they had to come to the one they had accused so heartlessly in the midst of his other trials...
[T]here is a way back; take it and rejoice in restoration of your soul, and say with David the man after God's own heart: He restoreth my soul..."
Cecil J. Carter"

 

[Rippon]

Mr.Carter had nothing of any substance in that spiel.He just kept repeating how gracious Riplinger is and how nasty James White is.He offered no specifics.

I will say that I agree that her book is amazing though.How so?It's amazingly bad.Find a new heroine.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

No sir, I shall not adopt your tactics, though she is no 'heroine' of mine. I'll only say this, that whereas what I have read about this whole issue of 'New Age Bibles' - which is more than I have read of Riplinger - has been characterised by two things: First the massive detail specified by the critical side over against the zero counter-detail by the 'New Age' side. Second, the by far greater 'detail'-differences and differentiations between the 'older' and 'newer' 'Translations' or 'Versions' as such - irrespective now of the 'original' text differences.

These discrepancies are not only convincing of the justness of the criticisms; they are condemning of the injustices committed in the New Age Bibles against the Christian Faith! We don't talk of small issues or of a few flaws here and there; we see the basics, fundamentals, essentials of the Christian Faith worm-eaten through the corruption in thousands of proven textual instances.

 

[trustitl]

Has anyone read Which Version Is The Bible? by Floyd Nolen Jones?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

I haven't. Let us know more; but also tell us if it's worth anyone's while.

 

[FriendofSpurgeon]

I fully agree that it is what Dr. Riplinger (or anyone else) says, that counts.

Actually, Dr. Riplinger's academic 'training' is in the field of Interior Design (B.A.), Home Economics (M.A.), and Art (M.F.A.) with some additional post graduate study at Cornell and Harvard, according to her biography.

Ed

So this woman has no degrees or training in linguistics, Greek, Hebrew, etc. but is writing books on what Bible translation is the best??? Isn't that scary enough??Based on what I've read, perhaps she should stick to home economics. Thankfully, I don't run into too many KJOs.

 

[annsni]

It is important to study the facts for oneself. If you look at Ms. Riplinger's verse comparisons and complaints, just a look at the Greek/Hebrew and the other instances of the word occurance and the way the KJV translators used that word makes a difference. Just looking at what she says as fact doesn't work because she's very misleading.

An example:

1 John 4:3

KJV: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

NIV: but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world

Ms. Riplinger says "Bruce Metzger, author of the Reader's Digest New Testament as well as co-editor of the USB Greek New Testament, picked the wrong verse to help create a slimline bible. By omitting "Christ" and "is come in the flesh," new versions are not confessing that "Jesus Christ is come in the flesh"; as John says, "this is that spirit of antichrist." Readers, who subscribe to these "deceivers," my have full bookshelves instead of a full reward" (New Age Bible Versions, page 351)

But let's take a look at the whole thought - since the KJV starts the sentence with "and" and the NIV is obviously in the middle of a sentence:

KJV: Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

NIV: This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.


She's full of this sort of deception and one needs to fully researched before what she states is believed.

 

[Marcia]

These discrepancies are not only convincing of the justness of the criticisms; they are condemning of the injustices committed in the New Age Bibles against the Christian Faith! We don't talk of small issues or of a few flaws here and there; we see the basics, fundamentals, essentials of the Christian Faith worm-eaten through the corruption in thousands of proven textual instances.

The "New Age bible versions" do not attack Christianity. As I said before, I was a New Ager and I can smell New Age stuff 3 miles away. I use many versions - NKJV, NASB, and a few others.

If the NASB or NIV was a New Age Bible - please note this -- it would not have anything in it that you could use to show the deity of Christ, that mankind needed a savior, that man is sinful (I can show you many verses in the "New Age" bibles that say man is sinful - this idea is anathema to New Agers), that Jesus bodily rose, that Jesus reigns. Nor would it have anything about Satan - New Agers do not believe in Satan.

In short, the NASB and NIV are rejected by New Agers, not embraced by them (except New Agers do read esoteric meanings into any bible, not matter what version it is).

If Riplinger is correct, then New Agers would love these Bibles. This is only one of many reasons why Riplinger's assertions are baseless.

One can still show the deity of Christ, man's sinful state, the Trinity, and man's need of a Saviour from the "New Age" bibles.

You should check out refutations of Riplinger that show her many flawed arguments and assertions.

 

[Ed Edwards]

The "New Age bible versions" do not attack Christianity. As I said before, I was a New Ager and I can smell New Age stuff 3 miles away. I use many versions - NKJV, NASB, and a few others.

If the NASB or NIV was a New Age Bible - please note this -- it would not have anything in it that you could use to show the deity of Christ, that mankind needed a savior, that man is sinful (I can show you many verses in the "New Age" bibles that say man is sinful - this idea is anathema to New Agers), that Jesus bodily rose, that Jesus reigns. Nor would it have anything about Satan - New Agers do not believe in Satan.

In short, the NASB and NIV are rejected by New Agers, not embraced by them (except New Agers do read esoteric meanings into any bible, not matter what version it is).

If Riplinger is correct, then New Agers would love these Bibles. This is only one of many reasons why Riplinger's assertions are baseless.

One can still show the deity of Christ, man's sinful state, the Trinity, and man's need of a Saviour from the "New Age" bibles.

You should check out refutations of Riplinger that show her many flawed arguments and assertions.

Amen, Sister Marcia - you are so RIGHT ON! :thumbs:

Meanwhile, back at the New Age Movement: I recommend someone one read about the New Age Movement so they can actually recognize the New Age Movement when they see it. I've read several descriptions of the New Age Movement which were written by a string of people who copies from Sister G.A. Riplinger, none of which appear to have read or studied anything but anti-New Age Movement. Recall that many writers who are anti-New Age Movement have sworn never to read anything that isn't perfect & whole (not even the ones who think they are called to FIGHT the New Age Movement). Sorry folks, you have to know the enemy before you can fight them. People who are clueless about the New Age Movement do not really know dangers of the New Age Movement nor how to fight them. Only the Spirit of God can adequately fight the New Age Movement and it's false ideas. Thankfully the Lord enables those who yield to His Spirit's control. But part of that enablement to fight the New Age Movement is to know that the New Age Movement. Sorry, but NEW AGE VERSIONS is not a good source of information on the New Age Movement. For the New Age Movement is content to fool people about the King James Versions - AND I SEE IT BEING DONE.

Here is how the New Age Movement fools Bible readers:

By changing the meaning of the words. This makes it especially easy to deceive those with the false presupposition:

CAUTION FALSE premises below:
There is one and only one set of Words
in which God can express the meaning
of the Written Word of God.
CAUTION FALSE premises above
​

 

[Ed Edwards]

Seven New Ageism Thoughts:

1. All is one
2. All is divine
3. You are divine
4. Reincarnation
5. Create your own reality
6. All is reality
7. There is a New Age coming
​

required 'message' of ten letters or more

 

[Marcia]

1. All is one
2. All is divine
3. You are divine
4. Reincarnation
5. Create your own reality
6. All is reality
7. There is a New Age coming

I wonder if he meant in no. 6 "all is God" because that makes more sense.

Here is what I have at the beginning of my article on Eckhart Tolle's book, A New Earth, which was promoted by Oprah. It's a thoroughly New Age book with a lot of Buddhism in it. If anyone wants to quote this or copy it, please be sure and put my name and the link on it. This is my material. Thanks.

What is the New Age?
(by Marcia Montenegro)

The New Age is always a blend of beliefs; intermingling strands from Eastern accepted wisdom, New Thought, Gnosticism, the occult, and even Christianity. It uses terms from these beliefs but often changes the meaning, especially with Christianity, adding in other concepts along the way. Thus, the New Age has multiple facets, some of which differ widely from each other. However, the New Age embraces that which is compatible with its basic ideas:

1. God is one with the universe or is contained in the universe
2. Everything came out of God
3. We are pure eternal spirit, and come from God, and/or are pieces of God or are expressions of a divine being, and will return to God
4. God is usually not personal but is described as Intelligence, the Source, the One, the Divine, Consciousness, the Universe (Tolle uses "consciousness," "Being," "Presence," "Source") or variations of these
5. God emanated beings from himself in order for God to learn or experience something, and/or to experience him/herself in material form
6. We are trapped in our bodies and in a material existence; the world we see and our bodies are illusions or temporary forms that serve as vehicles for our eternal spirit
7. We are always evolving toward our purpose (usually through reincarnation), which is to awaken to our true Self, which is part of God or an expression of God
8. We must awaken to our true nature and reality by transcending the mind; thinking is a barrier to this awakening
9. Everything has a vibration; vibrations are higher or more spiritual the closer one is to realizing the true Self
10. Jesus was an advanced spiritual teacher, a highly evolved man who realized his true Self - the Christ Consciousness - a consciousness we all can attain
11. We have the ability to create our own reality
12. There is no sin, or sin is redefined as identification with the false self (or with form) and/or as a belief that we are separate from God

There are variations on the above, which are also very close to New Thought principles and to some Gnostic views.

Source:
http://www.christiananswersforthenewage.org/Articles_NewEarth.html

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

The "New Age bible versions" do not attack Christianity. As I said before, I was a New Ager and I can smell New Age stuff 3 miles away. I use many versions - NKJV, NASB, and a few others.

If the NASB or NIV was a New Age Bible - please note this -- it would not have anything in it that you could use to show the deity of Christ, that mankind needed a savior, that man is sinful (I can show you many verses in the "New Age" bibles that say man is sinful - this idea is anathema to New Agers), that Jesus bodily rose, that Jesus reigns. Nor would it have anything about Satan - New Agers do not believe in Satan.

In short, the NASB and NIV are rejected by New Agers, not embraced by them (except New Agers do read esoteric meanings into any bible, not matter what version it is).

If Riplinger is correct, then New Agers would love these Bibles. This is only one of many reasons why Riplinger's assertions are baseless.

One can still show the deity of Christ, man's sinful state, the Trinity, and man's need of a Saviour from the "New Age" bibles.

You should check out refutations of Riplinger that show her many flawed arguments and assertions.

GE:
I started this thread, and I borrowed the title of the debate as publicised between Riplinger and White, 'New Age Bibles'. Replies received, like this of yours, Marcia, for me are above criticism. I accept what you say unconditionally. Especially your attitude I appreciate most sincerely for being Christian in every respect.
It is true, it takes more than man can ever launch against God's Word to destroy it. Even the Divinity of Christ still proves itself through these versions despite the many ommissions and real instances where his Divinity is in fact attacked or assailed. These things remain irrefutable. But more so does Jesus Divinity remain irrefutable.
Let me therefore put two things straight:
1. It is not so much the 'modern' collations of manuscripts as such that are questionable or problematic, but the 'translations' and 'versions' since these 'texts' were published.
2. that these 'later' 'translations' and 'versions' for the ordinary, not so learned commoners like me, give themselves away for their poor attention to factual detail or rather for exactly their exceptional attention to factual detail.
I have followed over years one specific 'trend', develop. It betrayed itself precisely by its gradual evolution from one species as it evolved into the next. The reader who did not observe was either credulously trusting both tradition and translators, or, he was himself incuriously prejudiced.

 

[Marcia]

GE:
I started this thread, and I borrowed the title of the debate as publicised between Riplinger and White, 'New Age Bibles'. Replies received, like this of yours, Marcia, for me are above criticism. I accept what you say unconditionally. Especially your attitude I appreciate most sincerely for being Christian in every respect.

Well, thank you.

Let me therefore put two things straight:
1. It is not so much the 'modern' collations of manuscripts as such that are questionable or problematic, but the 'translations' and 'versions' since these 'texts' were published.
2. that these 'later' 'translations' and 'versions' for the ordinary, not so learned commoners like me, give themselves away for their poor attention to factual detail or rather for exactly their exceptional attention to factual detail.
I have followed over years one specific 'trend', develop. It betrayed itself precisely by its gradual evolution from one species as it evolved into the next. The reader who did not observe was either credulously trusting both tradition and translators, or, he was himself incuriously prejudiced

Actually, the NASB is a very accurate translation. The translator has to decide whether to translate closer to a word for word or thought for thought or in between. Translating any language involves these issues. Translators also may disagree.

Then you have the issue that some of the manuscripts have a tiny dot which be read different ways (as far as Hebrew goes). This accounts for some of the numerical differences.

Idioms translated literally from Hebrew or Greek often do not make sense in English. That's why there are often study notes explaining these.

And there are many ways to translate a sentence into another language. None of this changes anything important. The KJV, NKJV, NASB, NIV, ESV, RSV, etc. all teach the same redemption story and give the gospel.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Not one of these 'rules' you mention can be adhered to perfectly.
Be it 'word for word' or 'thought for thought', there is the other factor of subjectivity; which again brings into play the factors of tradition and doctrine. That is where I got drawn into the 'textual conflict' or rather battle of the versions. You must have noticed some specifics in this thread and others.

 

[Marcia]

Not one of these 'rules' you mention can be adhered to perfectly.
Be it 'word for word' or 'thought for thought', there is the other factor of subjectivity; which again brings into play the factors of tradition and doctrine. That is where I got drawn into the 'textual conflict' or rather battle of the versions. You must have noticed some specifics in this thread and others.

Well, none of these issues relate to what Riplinger contends. Here arguments are invalid and illogical.