Why do you hate Gail Riplinger?

[Charles Meadows]

Wow - I've missed a whole thread about Gail!

I don't hate her. I heard her radio debate with James White - she didn't do as badly as I would have thought! The problem like the others have said is that she quotes and cites inaccurately. I don't mind to debate with someone like Will K - but Gail honestly does (I think) more harm to the KJBO position by her lack of credibility - even if she does mean well.

 

[Orvie]

Originally posted by Precepts:
You may not actually hate her, and I hope you really don't, but the following is very easily true, "I don't hate Gail Riplinger, I just act like I hate Gail Riplinger" on your behalf.

I'm starting to believe that you'll never get it. Gail DOES NOT have her heart in the right place! KJVO advocate D Cloud proved her book wrong and she arrogantly called him names etc, instead of saying, "let me correct my mistake"...she's guilty of bearing false witness and close to violating Rev 22:18-19.
Try to squirm outta this one: Why pre-tell, did she say, "G. A. Riplinger" meant "God was the author and she's the secretary?" is that or is that not violating Rev 22:18-19?

 

[ScottEmerson]

If you admit that you have sinned in lying (what you call "misleading"), then why not repent of that sin?

And how can you speak on Gail Riplinger when you haven't even read her works?

 

[robycop3]

Her errors and misquotes have been pointed out to her, and SHE STILL STANDS BEHIND THEM! it's not as if there could be any question whether or not she really made them or not...some of her misquotes were pointed out to her by some of THE VERY AUTHORS WHOM SHE'D MISQUOTED !!! No more empirical proof of her dishonesty can be found, nor can it be more clear that she WAS dishonest, and that her misquotes were DELIBERATE!

No, I don't hate her, but I wouldn't believe the clock on her wall was giving the correct time.

 

[Precepts]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
[QB] If you admit that you have sinned in lying (what you call "misleading"), then why not repent of that sin?

I did repent and confess, that has never been good enough for pharisees has it?

And how can you speak on Gail Riplinger when you haven't even read her works?

I have her book. I have read some of it. I agree with her so far. I don't agree with the hateful attitudes exerted towards her in any case. That is my point. You are detracting again and holding one to your false accustaions.

 

[Precepts]

Originally posted by robycop3:
Her errors and misquotes have been pointed out to her, and SHE STILL STANDS BEHIND THEM! it's not as if there could be any question whether or not she really made them or not...some of her misquotes were pointed out to her by some of THE VERY AUTHORS WHOM SHE'D MISQUOTED !!! No more empirical proof of her dishonesty can be found, nor can it be more clear that she WAS dishonest, and that her misquotes were DELIBERATE!

No, I don't hate her, but I wouldn't believe the clock on her wall was giving the correct time.

And you said after your
$608 16 hour venture you were going to post many of her misquotes and false allegations too! But we're still waiting. BTW, when did you go tobed, Cranston? I'm starting to woryy about you. You are looking as if you're some one who doesn't get enough sleep. Do you know Squidwerd?

 

[robycop3]

First, I go to bed when I jolly well please, day or night. I work swingshift, run a amall e-biz with my wife, have two sons, work for my church in door-to-door ministry, and find time for recreation also. Unlike some people I can think of, I have a life. But I've come to expect little else but ad-hominem digs from KJVOs, as they cannot even tell us by whose authority they unload such a preposterous myth upon the rest of us. But now, back to the REAL business at hand:

The following is copied/pasted from
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/newage.htm

New Age Bible Versions is extensively documented, but the documentation is extremely unreliable. A great many references that I attempted to check were not accurate.

Examples:

1. On page 2 Mrs. Riplinger misquotes Edwin Palmer, editor of the NIV. It would appear from the quote that Palmer is questioning the deity of Jesus Christ. She prefaces the quote with these words:

"The NIV's chief editor vaunts his version's heresy saying: ... [F]ew clear and decisive texts say that Jesus is God."

In her notes, Mrs. Riplinger cites The Making of a Contemporary Translation, p. 143. The fact is that Palmer IN NO WAY is questioning the deity of Jesus Christ. In fact, in the paragraph cited, HE IS CONTENDING for Christ's deity! The full quote which Mrs. Riplinger has pulled out of context is as follows:

"John 1:18, as inspired by the Holy Spirit, is one of those few clear and decisive texts that declare that Jesus is God. But, due to no fault of its own, the KJV, following inferior manuscripts, has altered what the Holy Spirit said through John. It calls John `Son', whereas it should have called him `God'."

Please understand that I am not supporting what Palmer says here. I do not believe the KJV follows inferior manuscripts. The man is wrong. But it is also wrong to misquote him and to have him saying something that he does not say, particularly when someone puts heresy in his mouth that he does not believe. Palmer does believe that Jesus Christ is God, and Mrs. Riplinger slanders him when she misquotes him as she does.

2. On page 165 Mrs. Riplinger claims that NIV translator Herbert Wolf teaches that gain is godliness.

"Paul said that those, like Wolf, who teach that `gain is godliness' are `destitute of the truth.' Equating financial prosperity with spirituality is a common characteristic of the `New' Christianity and the New Age."

For evidence of this observation, Riplinger cites Wolf's chapter in The Making of A Contemporary Translation. She quotes Wolf as saying:

"[N]on-literal translations enhance accuracy ... The word tsedeqah--normally rendered `righteousness' is translated `prosperity', perhaps understood as the reward of righteous living In fact, Wolf is not promoting any sort of gain-is-godliness concept. Consider the full context of Wolf's statement:

"The book of Proverbs also contains several verses where non-literal translations enhance accuracy. ... In [Proverbs] 8:18 tsedaqah is linked with riches and enduring wealth, and in 21:21 with finding life and honour. The abstract quality of `righteousness' does not seem to fit either verse."

When the entire quote is taken into consideration, there is nothing to connect Mr. Wolf with New Age heresy. He is correct in what he said. For Mrs. Riplinger to take this quotation and to tie it together with the promotion of New Age prosperity makes a laughing stock out of the position she is trying to defend. Further, Mrs. Riplinger, by dropping a significant portion of Wolf's statement, makes it appear that he is supporting non-literal translations in general, whereas he is merely listing certain instances in which non-literal translation can be accurate. We would not agree with everything Wolf has to say on this point, but it is wrong to put words in a man's mouth that he has not said.

3. On p. 213 Mrs. Riplinger says,

"NIV editor Larry Walker admits further that `ome Bible characters appear to have disappeared from the text.' Is it any wonder since Westcott said, `David is not a chronological ... person.'"

This is an amazingly erroneous connection. Walker is merely speaking of different TRANSLATIONS of certain names. Walker gives the following example:

"The name Ishtob in the AV rendering of 2 Samuel 10:6,8 becomes `men of Tob' in the NIV translation."

On the other hand, Westcott is questioning the actual HISTORICITY of the names. To connect these dissimilar remarks is absurd.

4. On p. 166 Mrs. Riplinger says, "NEW VERSIONS" read "godliness actually is a means of great gain" in 1 Tim. 6:6. She uses this to support her contention that modern versions support the New Age philosophy of material prosperity. In fact, the "New VersionS" (plural) do not support such a reading. Only one "New Version" (singular) I could find has the reading Mrs. Riplinger cites, and that is the NASB; and when read in context, the NASB is NOT saying godliness is material gain. The full verse reads, "But godliness actually is a means of great gain, when accompanied by contentment."

5. On p. 292 Mrs. Riplinger claims that NIV editor R. Laird Harris's view of Hell is identical to that of cults such as Armstrongism and Jehovah Witness. To "prove" this contention, she quotes from Harris's chapter in The Making of A Contemporary Translation and has him saying,

"This view [hell] has some problems. [It] ... refers only to death, not to ... any punishment..."

The bracketed additions inserted by Riplinger remove Harris's remarks from their proper context. The quotation is taken from two different pages of the book cited. In the first part of the quote Harris is addressing something entirely different from what he is addressing in the last part of the quote, yet Mrs. Riplinger puts the two misjointed pieces of quotation together. In neither quotation is Harris addressing any question about the existence of an eternal, fiery Hell. Rather, in the first part of the quotation he is discussing the view of some that in the Old Testament times Sheol was divided into two compartments. Consider exactly what Harris was discussing:

"[The Bible] does present what is a difficulty to the New Testament believer: both wicked (Num. 16:3) and righteous (Gen. 38:35) go to Sheol. A view was therefore early developed that said that there were two compartments in Sheol, an upper part for the believers and a lower for the lost."

He then says,

"This view has some problems."

He's right. It does have some problems! This does not mean the view is wrong, of course.

In the second part of the quotation Harris is discussing the condition of Shimei in 1 Kings 2:9:

"To bring Shimei's gray hairs down to Sheol in blood (2:9) surely refers only to his death, not to the condition of his soul after death or to any punishment beyond his execution."

My friends, no matter what we might think of Harris and his translation activities, such a statement by him DOES NOT make Harris a co-fellow with cultists who deny the Bible doctrine of Hell. By taking the man's statements entirely out of context, Mrs. Riplinger has slandered him.

Here's a quote from a long article by the Lockman Foundation. The entire article may be read at
http://www.kjvonly.org/other/riplinger_lockman_pr.htm

An example of even more deliberate mishandling of a scholar's comments is seen in Riplinger's treatment of D. A. Carson's comments in his book THE KING JAMES VERSION DEBATE. Riplinger's quotations, which try to make Carson appear self-contradictory, are found on pp. 478-9 of NEW AGE. Note that the misquotations are indicated below by braces { }:

1. To set up and support her contention that Carson contradicts himself, she begins by quoting from p. 36 (chap. 5) of his book: "Nevertheless {Ms. Riplinger omits "Nevertheless" and capitalizes the following "the"} the textual basis {"base" in the original} of the TR ["T.R."] is a small number of haphazardly collected {"collated"} and relatively late minuscule manuscripts."

2. She then pieces together fragments from several lines on different pages to create the following quotation, preceded by her comment that this is what Carson says "chapters later":

95% of the MSS belong to the Byzantine tradition...[That is] the textual tradition which in large measure stands behind the KJV...[There are far more manuscripts extant in this tradition than in the other three combined [Caesarean, Western, and Alexandrian].

The first part of the quotation comes from p. 50 in chapter 7. There, what Carson actually says is:

If it be true that about 95 percent of the manuscripts belong to the Byzantine tradition (and it is), it is also true that approximately the same percentage date from periods after the seventh century, when the Heimat of Greek had been reduced, more or less, to the Byzantine area.

Rather than emphasizing the fact that 95 percent of the manuscripts have a Byzantine background, it is clear that Carson is pointing out their late date and limited geographical distribution, and thus discounting the value of the sheer number of Byzantine manuscripts.

The next part of this quotation is introduced with "[That is]," which seems to serve no useful purpose except perhaps to create the impression that the author is being very careful not to misquote (technically there should have been four periods preceding, to show that the previous sentence was finished). Otherwise, a simple comma would have sufficed after the ellipsis. It is important to note that Ms. Riplinger introduces this quotation with the words: "[Chapters later he admits]"; because the remaining parts of the quotation actually come from page 26 (chap. 3) of Carson's book, two chapters before the first quotation. Here is what Carson actually says (the words quoted out of context by Riplinger are in italic):

This is the textual tradition which, in large measure, stands behind the KJV. It was largely preserved in the Byzantine Empire, which continued to use Greek, unlike the (western) Roman Empire and its offshoots, for which Latin was the common language. [T]here are far more manuscripts extant in this tradition than in the other three combined; but on the other hand, most of these manuscript witnesses are relatively late.

Notice again that Ms. Riplinger brackets the capital "T" of "There," even though the word was already capitalized in the original. To a reader who has not seen the original, this perhaps contributes to a false impression of accuracy in NEW AGE.

I have more if you need'em!

 

[Orvie]

Roby,
You can post facts left and right, but Mr Pre doesn't want to be confused w/ facts...it's apparent that he'll be loyal to gail, even though she's been demonstrated as a false witness, just he's loyal to his pickled in English version.

 

[Precepts]

First, I go to bed when I jolly well please, day or night. I work swingshift, run a amall e-biz with my wife, have two sons, work for my church in door-to-door ministry, and find time for recreation also. Unlike some people I can think of, I have a life. But I've come to expect little else but ad-hominem digs from KJVOs, as they cannot even tell us by whose authority they unload such a preposterous myth upon the rest of us. But now, back to the REAL business at hand:

Go! Cransbaby!

But with that in mind I just disqualified your rant about Riplinger and see you waste your time. Also by your "ad-hominem" you dug up this thread days later and try to call it "real" business.

I've learned something very valuable in the Christian walk; I can glean from those who expostulate Truth w/o the other's disdain for any author. May I recommend you spend more time in your Bible than the time it took you to try and discredit another's literary works? Seems you're busy running tangents instead of understanding what thus saith the Lord.

I can live with those who prefer mv's, why can't you learn to live with we who stand for the KJB? Seems you have something ahead of Divine Order , Brother. I have mentioned this very thing before and tried to get you to realize it is become an obseesion and the devil's rabbit trail. You eventually will finish your course in destruction if you don't turn around.

Learn to deal with the Biblical issues and we'll all come to the knowledge God has for us, if you continue to rant and rave about Riplinger and others you disagree you will only continue to give the impression you actually do hate her and everytime you say you don't, you will look the more like a liar. No. I am NOT calling you a liar, and it's obvious you've spent more time in this matter concerning Riplinger and Cloud than I ever will.

 

[robycop3]

Precepts:I appreciate the efforts of Gail Riplinger. I have not studied her books completely, either,

Well, I HAVE, & I've also looked up the statements by her detractors such as Cloud and White. I didn't simply take them at their word any more than I took GAR at hers. It took some searching, but I found the books by Carson and Metzger in an archive of unused books in my local library.(Thanx, Mrs. Honaker, for having taken the time to have kept the books in that archive organized, & for allowing me admittance!) By comparing those books with GAR's writings and with the critiques of GAR's writings, I found the allegations of her misquoting were *TRUE*! But I don't expect YOU to take MY word for it any more than I took the word for it of the people I cited above.

You say you haven't read GAR's works completely. I suggest you do so, and to also read the critiques of her work, and to actually check out on your own the allegations made against her work-THEN, come back & tell us how accurate she was!

but I do believe her heart is right in the efforts to point out errors in the mv's, whether she has made any errors in doing so, or not.

So you believe someone who deliberately misquotes other authors & deliberately writes other misinformation is right in his/her heart? Well, then, you must think the Enron execs are candidates for sainthood, based upon their recent actions....


But I have seen the hatred for her exerted aginst her person by many in BB. Oooo!Oooooooo!Oooooooooooo!

Sorry, Charley, but surely you don't expect Christians to revere someone who's been caught in a web of lies and refuses to admit it?

 

[robycop3]

Precepts:But with that in mind I just disqualified your rant about Riplinger and see you waste your time.

But of course you did. You believe she helps your KJVO myth, so you defend her, although even most KJVOs dismiss her work now And you admit you don't know much about it..


Also by your "ad-hominem" you dug up this thread days later and try to call it "real" business.

Sorry, Charley, but as I said earlier, I have a life & I don't read every post in a given forum all at one time. Maybe you have too much time on your hands, so that's all you do. Since you have so much time, maybe you oughtta use some of it to find out by whose authority you support the KJVO myth.

I've learned something very valuable in the Christian walk; I can glean from those who expostulate Truth w/o the other's disdain for any author. May I recommend you spend more time in your Bible than the time it took you to try and discredit another's literary works? Seems you're busy running tangents instead of understanding what thus saith the Lord.

Wow! You're so bright your mom calls you Son!

Who started this thread?? YOU DID!And the very title of your thread asks a question. But when we answer that question honestly, you don't like the answers, and carry on about those who posted those answers! Real smart!

I can live with those who prefer mv's, why can't you learn to live with we who stand for the KJB?

I have no prob with those who choose to use only the KJV; their prob begins when they tell me I'm wrong to use any other version besides the KJV. That's because I *KNOW* their accusations, and the myth behind them, are totally WRONG.


Seems you have something ahead of Divine Order , Brother. I have mentioned this very thing before and tried to get you to realize it is become an obseesion and the devil's rabbit trail. You eventually will finish your course in destruction if you don't turn around.

No, the rabbit's trail is that of Onlyism. And every Christian has the d-u-t-y to fight false doctrines. It's not any obsession any more than my believing Jesus Christ is the Son of God, is Himself God, and is the ONLY ONE who can and has saved me from the penalty of my sins. This is one "obsession" I'm gonna keep.

MY "obsessions" are based upon the TRUTH, proven by FACTS of Scripture and history, while YOURS are based upon a theory derived from a Seventh Day Adventist's book.

Learn to deal with the Biblical issues and we'll all come to the knowledge God has for us, if you continue to rant and rave about Riplinger and others you disagree you will only continue to give the impression you actually do hate her and everytime you say you don't, you will look the more like a liar.

YOU should learn to not ask questions in these boards, knowing you're gonna receive honest answers you may not like. Once again, I remind you that YOU started this thread, so don't whine about the responses.


No. I am NOT calling you a liar, and it's obvious you've spent more time in this matter concerning Riplinger and Cloud than I ever will.

That's your choice, so don't complain about the answers given to your question given by someone such as I, who HAS spent the time and effort to find out the TRUTH of the matter.

Obviously, you haven't spent much time actually looking for any veracity for the entire KJVO myth, either. otherwise, you wouldn't be stumped by the questions we often ask you, so you hafta answer them with hype and blah-blah.

 

[Precepts]

Sorry Cransilly, I don't go around entrapping anyone and try to make them a liar, they do that all by themselves.

That's it though isn't it? The result is established by the means of entrapment, that is against the law.

 

[robycop3]

Orvie:Roby,
You can post facts left and right, but Mr Pre doesn't want to be confused w/ facts...it's apparent that he'll be loyal to gail, even though she's been demonstrated as a false witness, just he's loyal to his pickled in English version.

He asked a question, and I answered it, same as did several others. He shouldn'ta jumped into the pool if he didn't wanna get wet. I post mainly for the benefit of newbies & lurkers, although we sometimes see a long-time KJVO come out from under the delusion.

 

[Precepts]

Wow! Cranston, you reacted twice to the same post in an hour with a 500 word or better post.

Obsession is now evidenced again.

I don't maintain a KJVO myth yall do.

 

[Precepts]

Gail Riplinger didn't write or re-write the Bible, sirs, she wrote a book, much like Cranston has on this very issue. I read the Bible much more than books, yall should learn this practice to know more about God than you do authors of other books.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Precepts - You asked for evidence, then (of course) you won't believe it. Your choice.

Why do you hate truth?

BTW, as Administrator, I am concerned about little things like "name calling". Don't make fun of people's "handles". Don't demean them.

In a "debate" format, when one side presents evidence, you discuss it (and refute it if in error). For example, you demanded evidence of roby, then did nothing to refute it. Just blah blah blah.

That is unfruitful. If you are here to debate and present your case for "onlyism", then do so. If only to troll and prod and poke to try to get some perverse pleasure in seeing people respond to your bizarre statements, you will simply see your posts cut and yourself suspended.

Your choice.

 

[Precepts]

You make yourself the hypocrite by suggesting I hate truth. You are definitely a law unto yourself.

I have been accused of hating God's Word, now you also accuse me of hating truth and also threaten suspension in the same process after you yourself have violated your own laws.

The topic had all but died and Cranston brought it back to the surface making allegations about a discussion neither he or I were part. I refuted his "evidence" as only an obsession against Gail Riplinger. The subject being discussed is "Why do you hate Gail Riplinger" Cranston, it is alright to call him by his name?, he called me "Charley", I haven't seen you rebuke him for that yet, has shown why he hates her and her book.

God Bless

 

[Precepts]

BTW, I didn't ever say I don't believe any evidence Cranston posted, I only said I would not bother with something as such a detraction and what is so obviously hatred espoused towards another person.

 

[Orvie]

Originally posted by Precepts:
You make yourself the hypocrite by suggesting I hate truth. You are definitely a law unto yourself.

I have been accused of hating God's Word, now you also accuse me of hating truth and also threaten suspension in the same process after you yourself have violated your own laws.

The topic had all but died and Cranston brought it back to the surface making allegations about a discussion neither he or I were part. I refuted his "evidence" as only an obsession against Gail Riplinger. The subject being discussed is "Why do you hate Gail Riplinger" Cranston, it is alright to call him by his name?, he called me "Charley", I haven't seen you rebuke him for that yet, has shown why he hates her and her book.

God Bless

Please note Mr Precepts Double standard paranoia.

 

[Terry_Herrington]

Isn't it funny that Riplinger, from the very beginning, attempted to deceive those who now support her? She did not disclose the fact that she was a woman. She used her initials G A. which could stand for either male or female. She did this, no doubt, since many IFB would not even consider her work had they known she was a woman.

Orvie, you are correct. Many here will support anyone who exalts the kjv above all other translations, regardless of anything else. No doubt, if a document was found that proved Adolph Hitler preferred the KJV, many here would suddenly be willing to overlook his other faults.