franklinmonroe
Active Member
For the record, above the title the cover states "Uncovers NIV, NKJV, KJ21, NASB Pitfalls."
Below the title the cover states "Discover Its Hidden Built-In Dictionary."
My only general comments now about the books appearance (I am a graphics professional and artistically trained) are that it is somewhat poor in design (although much better than her NABV), with lots of unrelated pictorials and with entirely too much 'white' (empty) space (in other words, it could have been a much shorter book).
I have not read the entire book, yet. I am writing this review somewhat as I go through it. I have read the Introduction where the author lists 10 objectives. Mrs. Riplinger does indicate that the book is "merely an overview of the subject" (p. xvii) from an abundance of her research that she claims she may publish later (it has been 13 years since the original publication date, so I'm not expecting to see this alleged other data anytime soon).
The book's first objective (Introduction, p. xvi) --
First, the clear implication throughout the book (literally from cover-to-cover) is that the so-called "built-in dictionary" is unique to the KJV. You will also notice that it is often stated that God is behind the KJV with the purpose to imply that only the KJV can be the Bible.
Second, Gail A. Riplinger (GAR, an abbreviation I may use) does not identify any specific edition of the KJV text, although she is acutely aware that "All editions of the NIV, NKJV, and NASB are not the same" (this "Note" is found on the book's copyright page).
Third, although not stated above, later she clarifies that she does not mean that the "built-in dictionary" literally defines each-and-every word in the KJV but rather just the "most difficult words" (Chapter 1, p.3). I find it curious that the king's revisers addressed only those English words that would be difficult for our generation! Wouldn't the potential difficult words be somewhat different in previous and subsequent generations? And as another poster pointed out in another thread, the difficulty of English words also varies among English-speaking countries. What educational levels is this "built-in dictionary" prepared to help?
Fourth, when she refers to "Webster's" (she abbreviates as WEB) she is usually referring to the 1828 edition, although she occassionally will reference a Webster's New College edition (WNC) and three other Webster's publications. GAR lists 14 dictionaries or/ reference sources on an unnumber page of Abbreviations (across from a page listing some "Corrupt New Versions").
Fifth, in my opinion the phrase "using the very words of the Webster's and Oxford English Dictionaries" is subtly misleading. The KJV cannot be "using" (suggesting the borrowing of) words from publications that did not yet exist (that is, prior to 1611); later she acknowledges that the dictionaries did come after the KJV (p.5). But the idea is planted more than once (p.3) --
There is much more I could comment on in the Introduction but will refrain for now so that we may go on the 'meat' of the material.
Below the title the cover states "Discover Its Hidden Built-In Dictionary."
My only general comments now about the books appearance (I am a graphics professional and artistically trained) are that it is somewhat poor in design (although much better than her NABV), with lots of unrelated pictorials and with entirely too much 'white' (empty) space (in other words, it could have been a much shorter book).
I have not read the entire book, yet. I am writing this review somewhat as I go through it. I have read the Introduction where the author lists 10 objectives. Mrs. Riplinger does indicate that the book is "merely an overview of the subject" (p. xvii) from an abundance of her research that she claims she may publish later (it has been 13 years since the original publication date, so I'm not expecting to see this alleged other data anytime soon).
The book's first objective (Introduction, p. xvi) --
Some comments resulting from the above quote--
First, the clear implication throughout the book (literally from cover-to-cover) is that the so-called "built-in dictionary" is unique to the KJV. You will also notice that it is often stated that God is behind the KJV with the purpose to imply that only the KJV can be the Bible.
Second, Gail A. Riplinger (GAR, an abbreviation I may use) does not identify any specific edition of the KJV text, although she is acutely aware that "All editions of the NIV, NKJV, and NASB are not the same" (this "Note" is found on the book's copyright page).
Third, although not stated above, later she clarifies that she does not mean that the "built-in dictionary" literally defines each-and-every word in the KJV but rather just the "most difficult words" (Chapter 1, p.3). I find it curious that the king's revisers addressed only those English words that would be difficult for our generation! Wouldn't the potential difficult words be somewhat different in previous and subsequent generations? And as another poster pointed out in another thread, the difficulty of English words also varies among English-speaking countries. What educational levels is this "built-in dictionary" prepared to help?
Fourth, when she refers to "Webster's" (she abbreviates as WEB) she is usually referring to the 1828 edition, although she occassionally will reference a Webster's New College edition (WNC) and three other Webster's publications. GAR lists 14 dictionaries or/ reference sources on an unnumber page of Abbreviations (across from a page listing some "Corrupt New Versions").
Fifth, in my opinion the phrase "using the very words of the Webster's and Oxford English Dictionaries" is subtly misleading. The KJV cannot be "using" (suggesting the borrowing of) words from publications that did not yet exist (that is, prior to 1611); later she acknowledges that the dictionaries did come after the KJV (p.5). But the idea is planted more than once (p.3) --
The words of the KJV may in fact correspond or parallel the dictionary definitions, but it may only be that dictionaries have been influenced by the presence of the KJV word usage, not proof of providential anticipation. I think an experienced writer would use a more precise word. Notice also in the above quotation the introduction of another key criterion: the "built-in dictionary" applies only to the first instance of the English word.
There is much more I could comment on in the Introduction but will refrain for now so that we may go on the 'meat' of the material.
Last edited by a moderator:
