Well, now, that explains everything!
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Riplinger the Faux Linguist
- Thread starter John of Japan
- Start date
Oddly enough, she sells Scrivener's TR text on her website. Now if we use Scrivener, how are we going to know what the Greek words mean and how they fit together in a sentence, since she has banned the use of all lexicons and grammars and other Greek helps?
But I have to say that there is some evidence of intentional alteration of the Alexandrian text for doctrinal purposes. (Think Marcion and Origen here.)
Everything you wanted(or perhaps DIDN'T wanna know) about Gail Riplinger:
http://avpublications.org/
http://avpublications.org/
The Aleph-B text (Critical Text) is corrupt.
Are you making a broad-sweeping accusation that the entire text of the Critical text is corrupt?
If so, are you perhaps making that assertion based on the fallacy of composition that attempts to claim that an entire text can be claimed to have the quality that some individual parts of it are said to have?
If having some copying errors in its underlying manuscripts or its text supposedly means that an entire text can be labelled or called "corrupt," by a consistent application of the same faulty reasoning the Textus Receptus could also be claimed to be corrupt since the Greek manuscripts on which it was based had several copying errors.
jonathan.borland
Active Member
Those documents are pretty telling. They need to be publicized more. There should also be one for Ruckman, since he is still considered by many the KJVO godfather. Cf. vol. 1 of Norm Geisler's 4-volume Theology, which actually interacts with Ruckman a bit under the KJVO section.
IMO, Riplinger has gone even further than Ruckman in bizarre thinking, and that's saying a whole lot!
I think I've made my point that Gail Riplinger has no real knowledge of linguistics, and teaching English as a foreign language for three years did not make her a linguist in the eyes of anyone knowledgeable in the field. But I want to comment once more on her essay here: http://www.hacalumni.com/howtodefineaword.shtml
Notice some more blunders:
1. Here is a beautiful example of circular reasoning: "It is not necessary for Christians to go to a dictionary to define Bible words, when they actually have the original resource dictionary-makers use themselves." Well then if this were true, then it would be perfectly all right to go to a dictionary because it got its definitions from the Bible, which provides definitions for dictionaries, which get their definitions from...." :laugh:
2. She says you can get the definition of inspiration from the KJB, where the word occurs twice. So you get the definition of it in 2 Tim. 3:16 from Job 32:8 and vice versa. But then she doesn't use those verses, but the etymology of the word: "in" and "spir." So the definition is "spirit in." So she is not using the Bible but word origins to define the Bible word.
3. Again, the two verses are speaking of two different usages of the word: the giving of understanding by God, and the giving of verbal revelation by God. So Riplinger does not understand the concept of polysemy, which is that a word can have more that one meaning. So rightly, there should be other occurences of the word "inspiration" in the KJB to define the word, but there are not, only two occurrences with different meanings.
4. This brings up the point that there are hapax legomena (words that only occur once) in the Greek NT, and of course also in the KJB. So how do you define such a word from the Bible itself if it only occurs once? Riplinger doesn't say and of course doesn't know. For example, "impenitent" only occurs in Rom. 2:5. So what does it mean? Riplinger's method cannot tell you, but the Greek lexicons can! :type:
Notice some more blunders:
1. Here is a beautiful example of circular reasoning: "It is not necessary for Christians to go to a dictionary to define Bible words, when they actually have the original resource dictionary-makers use themselves." Well then if this were true, then it would be perfectly all right to go to a dictionary because it got its definitions from the Bible, which provides definitions for dictionaries, which get their definitions from...." :laugh:
2. She says you can get the definition of inspiration from the KJB, where the word occurs twice. So you get the definition of it in 2 Tim. 3:16 from Job 32:8 and vice versa. But then she doesn't use those verses, but the etymology of the word: "in" and "spir." So the definition is "spirit in." So she is not using the Bible but word origins to define the Bible word.
3. Again, the two verses are speaking of two different usages of the word: the giving of understanding by God, and the giving of verbal revelation by God. So Riplinger does not understand the concept of polysemy, which is that a word can have more that one meaning. So rightly, there should be other occurences of the word "inspiration" in the KJB to define the word, but there are not, only two occurrences with different meanings.
4. This brings up the point that there are hapax legomena (words that only occur once) in the Greek NT, and of course also in the KJB. So how do you define such a word from the Bible itself if it only occurs once? Riplinger doesn't say and of course doesn't know. For example, "impenitent" only occurs in Rom. 2:5. So what does it mean? Riplinger's method cannot tell you, but the Greek lexicons can! :type:
I think I've demonstrated sufficiently that Gail Riplinger is not only sadly mistaken when she says she is a linguist, but she doesn't even have the most basic knowledge of linguistics (phonemes and morphemes, syntax being part of grammar, etc.). So, since no one has stood up for her and contradicted a single point, I'll let this thread rest here--unless of course someone shows up who thinks she is defensible in this area. :type:
ALL greek texts in use today are to some degree'corrupted", as there were insertions/deletions/revisions etc, and at times some mistakes crept in, so that is why to me , I see TR/MT/BT etc as being valid for study uses and translation purposes....