New Book on the Doctrine of Scripture

[John of Japan]

Ambidextrous, maybe? I had to stress the methodology of "pretending one set of feelings and acting under the influence of another", somehow, so I followed the article's' wording.

Sorry, if I caused a sharp misunderstanding regarding his overall mental or moral qualities. They just changed what they were doing compared to the impression that was made initially` by the publishes and later in their advertising, etc.

Whatever you want to call it, using a less emotionally charged word for where we saw where "The executive editor of the Old Testament of the New King James Version does not advocate the Greek Textus Receptus at all; he is an advocate of the Nestle-Aland critical Greek text, by his own admission."



I was referring to where James Price was speaking about the New Testament like Logos1569 posted:

James D. Price explained that the real reason for this choice of rendering in the book of Acts in the NKJV is that the translators thought that in this context Peter was alluding to Isaiah 52:13, which identifies Christ as the Servant of the LORD (False Witness, p. 25).

From: New Book on the Doctrine of Scripture


HAVE A HAPPY! HAVE A HAPPY LIFE AND YEAR.

Hallelujah!

Cool.

Will do. Thank you.


I'm not KJVO. I just quoted his quote.

Good.

Kjvo Ruckmann was indeed a quack. I don't know much at all about Riplinger. What I've read of her research was sound. Even if someone has fallen for any portion of Ruckman's quackery, if they have the truth in some of their writings I go with it the same as I would from any other person in the world of literature.

IMO, Riplinger is worse than Ruckman, who was very bad! I find it completely ridiculous that she calls all Bibles other than the KJV "New Age Bibles." If a translation is even dynamic equivalence, it is utterly impossible to make it a "New Age Bible." It is absolutely impossible to get New Age Doctrine out of any, ANY, Bible translation.

New Age doctrine includes monism (there is no separation between the physical and immaterial parts of a person, contra Heb. 4:12), humans can become gods, karma, reincarnation, altered states of consciousness, etc., etc. The movement gets its beliefs from Asian religions such as Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism and Shinto, all of which I know well, having lived in the Far East for decades. I even lecture in a college classes on several Asian religions. The Bible directly opposes all of these, so it is idiotic to claim that any translation of the Word of God can be "New Age."

Then there is the matter of knowledge. As wrong as he was about nearly everything, Ruckman at least had a PhD in Bible, but Riplinger had no formal Bible training that I can discover: no BA, no MA, no PhD. Her grad degree was reportedly in home-making! She writes about Greek and Hebrew having never taken a class in either!