While Gail Riplinger Is The Topic

I know of many books that deal with other subjects such as Islam, or a variety of other subject that do not get the criticism that Riplinger gets. Other books make mistakes, historical and otherwise. But they don't get a trashing.

Consider this:
Ripling is a woman. I don't take teaching from a woman, therefore I reject her book completely. Reasonable? No.

Ripling has made mistakes in her book. Therefore I will cast aside the entire book. Reasonable? No.

Ripling is KJVO. That in itself makes the entire book suspect if not heretical. Reasonable? No.

It is our obligation in reading any material to read with a critical mind. Sift out that which is inaccurate and not according to Biblical truth, and glean that which may be helpful. I am not KJVO. But I do have some non-KJVO books that have quoted her books because of some of the research that she has done, that was not wrong and/or biased. Not everything in her material "is of the devil" so to speak.

 

I have a copy of the first printing of the 1993 edition of Riplinger's book NEW AGE BIBLE VERSIONS that was printed by the Bible & Literature Missionary Foundation. I also have a copy of what is identified as the twelveth printing in 2003 that was printed by AVPublications.

Here is one example of Riplinger's quotations:

In the 1993, Riplinger wrote: "Their subversive and clandestine approach continued, as seen ten years later when Westcott writes to Hort, '. . . strike blindly . . . much evil would result from the public discussion'" (p. 408 ).

In a booklet printed in 2000, Bob DeWaay and Jonathan Krohnfelt checked out this quote. Jonathan Krohnfelt wrote: "The first thing that must be said is that the letter is addressed to Rev. J. F. Wickenden not Hort. Riplinger's quotation is supposed to be evidence to support that Westcott and Hort dealt with their Greek text clandestinely. In the original, however, it has nothing to do with Greek texts. Westcott is writing Wickenden concerning the controversy over 'Mr. Maurice's views on the Atonement,' whatever they may have been. Furthermore, the quoted words of Westcott are simply stating a fact; namely, that harm can result when we jump into debates and discussions prematurely without fully understanding the issues" (King James Only, p. 21).

On page 20 of this same booklet, Jonathan Krohnfelt provided the quotation in context:
"to the Rev. J. F. Wickenden"
". . . Have you entered into the Maurice controversy? I only hope it may pass away quietly. At first onset we always strike blindly; and much evil would result from the public discussion of the moot points just now. It is well, I believe, that they have been named; and it will be well for men to get familiarised with them. Then at length they may debate if they please."

In the 2003 edition of her book, Riplinger had removed the words "to Hort," but still leaves the wrong impression that she implied from the quotation. In the 2003 edition, Riplinger wrote: "Their subversive and clandestine approach continued, as seen ten years later when Westcott writes, '. . . strike blindly . . . much evil would result from the public discussion" (p. 408 ).

It is possible that the change was first made in an earlier edition, and someone else may have pointed out the problem before 2000.

 

What a refreshingly sensible post. Thank you sir.

 

Here is another example of a quotation by Gail Riplinger compared to the actual quotation:

In her 1993 edition, Gail Riplinger wrote:
"Liberty University's Dean Norman Geisler adds: 'We should be particularly wary when someone refers to Jesus Christ as 'the Christ . . .'" (p. 318 ).

In 2000, Jonathan Krohnfeldt checked out and found the following was the actual statement in the book THE INFILTRATION OF THE NEW AGE by J. Yutaka Amano and Norman L. Geisler:

"We should be particularlywary when someone refers to Jesus Christ as 'the Christ spirit' or 'Christ-consciousness'"
(KING JAMES ONLY, p. 24).

Krohnfeldt wrote: "Here again is an excellent example of Riplinger's quoting procedure: support conspiracy theory and malign modern translations, by omitting part of the original source. Changed wording; changed meaning; supported theory" (p. 24).

What did Riplinger leave off the last three words of the statement?

After her misleading quotation was exposed at some point, in the 2003 edition, Gail Riplinger had changed her statement to as follows: "Liberty University's past Dean, Norman Geisler, warns of the Infiltration of the New Age, documenting their use of the term 'the Christ' 28 times in his brief 22 page 'Summary of New Age Beliefs'" (p. 318 ).

By the way, it may be possible that the change was first made in an earlier edition of Riplinger's book. It is also possible that someone else had pointed out the problem with the quotation earlier than this booklet printed in 2000.

 

If she really made the above quoted statement I have a real problem with her doctrinal position regarding the closed Canon of Scripture. If she made the above quoted statement she is a false teacher. She is putting her book on the same level as the Scripture. God has fully revealed Himself (as fully as He intends to do so) in His Word (the Bible) and in the person of Jesus Christ. God is not continuing His progressive Self-revelation (as He did in the Bible and in the person of Jesus Christ) and the Canon of Scripture is closed. God is not authoring any new books. If we try to argue otherwise we might as well embrace the Quran and the Book of Mormon!

 

It is not just a few errors that is the problem with her book. Even some KJV-only authors have pointed out the serious problems with it. For example, KJV-only advocate David Cloud noted that Riplinger's book "is so marred by error, carelessness, and faulty logic that it cannot be used as a dependable resource" (O Timothy, Issue 8, 1994, p. 3). In another issue, David Cloud noted that Riplinger's book "contains so much that is indefensible, that is pulled out of context, that is inaccurate, that is off course, that is speculative, that the reader can never know when perusing any page whether he is reading truth or fancy" (Issue 6, 1995, p. 8). Cloud referred to “Riplinger’s conspiratorial, conjecture-filled approach” (Examining, p. 17).


A review of Riplinger's book by the Trinitarian Bible Society (a group which defends the KJV) stated that her book "contains many factual errors, false innuendoes, mistakes in logic, misquotations, and instances of misleading research" (p. 1). This review also noted: "Truth must be defended by truth and not by innuendo, slander, personal attack, false doctrine, poor research, misleading statements, and faulty scholarship, as is done in this book" (p. 2).

 

The statement comes from a KJV-only publication THE END TIMES AND VICTORIOUS LIVING that is edited by Joseph Chambers, Paw Creek Ministries of Charlotte, NC. Joseph Chambers, who is KJV-only, interviewed Gail Riplinger on his regular radio program. The article was entitled "Why I Wrote the Book: New Age Bible Versions" and presented in that publication as though Gail Riplinger was the author of it although it might possibly be based on Joseph Chambers' radio interview with her.

Joseph Chamber is the author of a KJV-only booklet entitled MODERN BIBLE VERSIONS: DE-ABSOLUTIONIZING THE HOLY BOOK.

 

Riplinger discredits herslef when she makes such contradictory claims as "years of study" and "God is the author." Maybe it just took her years to get the "message"...

:laugh:

No one needs to be here to defend themselves when they write the fanciful things Riplinger writes. Doing so opens oneself to public scrutiny of their writings. Does Riplinger need to be here to defend herself? No, not at all when she has published such unsubstantiated "truths" as those found in New Age Bible Versions.

You say you love her biscuit recipe, Dr. Bob. Maybe she should have stuck with what she knows and left other things to people more qualified to comment on them.

:thumbs:

 

What are your qualifications to be a book critic? How many have you written and while you're at it, how 'bout you post your biscuit recipe? :thumbs:

 

Uh, Rufus, anything that is published is out there for critique by anyone and everyone. I did not claim to be a book critic, so you're putting words in my mouth. This is not at all unusual for you.

You want my biscuit recipe? Then go down to the store and buy yourself some Pillsbury biscuits. Go home, open the buscuits, place the biscuits on a cookie sheet and place the cookie sheet in a hot oven. Take the cookie shoot out of the oven when the biscuits have baked. There you have your biscuits.

Obviously, if Riplinger has a recipe for biscuits she is much more qualified to pass on that recipe than she is to pass on the often-refuted "truths" about her so-called "new age Bible versions." Riplinger, along with Ruckman and several other writers, need to stop spreading their "truths" as there is normally not an ounce of truth to their fantastic claims.

 

You know, if after you open the biscuits, you smash them all together, and roll them out, then use a biscuit cutter, cut them out, you can convince people you made them yourself!!!!:wavey: :laugh:

 

In case ya missed it, TT, I posted a second riplinger vid in the 'versions' forum. She does a NKJV-KJV comparison.

 

I tried watching it, but it made me sick.
I love my NKJV.