Dave Baker and Mrs. Riplinger teaching a KJVO Extreme class.
- Thread starter bgwilkinson
- Start date
Listened to about 20 min of it -- it's so sad that they are twisting what God said and using English text to justify their wacko teachings.
II Tim 3:16 in Greek starts with three words: PASA (meaning all, every, each), GRAPHE (using in Scripture to mean the Scripture), and then the word THEOPNEUSTOS; a compound word made of of THEOS (God) and PNEO (breathe).
So, Dr John Rice was quite correct when he called this "God-breathed".
Mr Baker here just points to the word "inspiration" and says this divides up as IN-SPIR-ATION. He says that we can ignore "-ation" because it makes the word a noun. He says "in" means "in" and "spir" means "spirit" -- but no basis in fact or language -- in fact, this is simply Gail Riplinger's position as she taught pastors. Just because "spirit" has "spir" does NOT mean that "spir" here refers to "spirit" -- one could just as well argue that "spir" refers to "spiral" because of the similarity of letters. In fact, a look at an English dictionary shows that the proper break is inspir-ation, with "inspir" meaning to breathe, and the "-ation" being the noun ending. It still means, in medical circles, "the act of breathing in". The earliest use of inspiration meant the literal act of breathing in; it wasn't until the 1860s that the word came to have the secondary meaning of someone lifting the mind of another to a different level. So, in 1611, the word was used literally of breath -- once again, "God-breathed" is correct.
I despise this kind of sham knowledge and teaching.
II Tim 3:16 in Greek starts with three words: PASA (meaning all, every, each), GRAPHE (using in Scripture to mean the Scripture), and then the word THEOPNEUSTOS; a compound word made of of THEOS (God) and PNEO (breathe).
So, Dr John Rice was quite correct when he called this "God-breathed".
Mr Baker here just points to the word "inspiration" and says this divides up as IN-SPIR-ATION. He says that we can ignore "-ation" because it makes the word a noun. He says "in" means "in" and "spir" means "spirit" -- but no basis in fact or language -- in fact, this is simply Gail Riplinger's position as she taught pastors. Just because "spirit" has "spir" does NOT mean that "spir" here refers to "spirit" -- one could just as well argue that "spir" refers to "spiral" because of the similarity of letters. In fact, a look at an English dictionary shows that the proper break is inspir-ation, with "inspir" meaning to breathe, and the "-ation" being the noun ending. It still means, in medical circles, "the act of breathing in". The earliest use of inspiration meant the literal act of breathing in; it wasn't until the 1860s that the word came to have the secondary meaning of someone lifting the mind of another to a different level. So, in 1611, the word was used literally of breath -- once again, "God-breathed" is correct.
I despise this kind of sham knowledge and teaching.
So... apparently Greek is neither a prerequisite for the student nor the teacher.
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2012
- Messages
- 4,013
- Reaction score
- 11
- Points
- 38
FSSL said:
How much we have learned about Bible translation since Miles Smith claimed one had to try a translation by the Hebrew and the Greek. The golden pipes.
prophet said:
Not mentioned in the lesson. I tossed that in for free.
At around 23:19, he is extolling the superiority of the 1828 Webster's dictionary, and fawns over Webster's definition of "inspiration" (which, ironically, is the opposite of what they are trying to teach).
According to him, Webster 1828 defines inspiration as The infusion of ideas into the mind by the Holy Spirit - he goes on to say the giving of "impressions" the mind, but nothing in the definition provides the historic "each word is inspired" position. Webster only says "ideas" or "notions" or "impressions".
I found this to be a bit humorous.
According to him, Webster 1828 defines inspiration as The infusion of ideas into the mind by the Holy Spirit - he goes on to say the giving of "impressions" the mind, but nothing in the definition provides the historic "each word is inspired" position. Webster only says "ideas" or "notions" or "impressions".
I found this to be a bit humorous.
More misinformation; around 26:07, he claims that the root word of "pnuestos" is "pneuma" (spirit); this is what GR says, but she is no Greek scholar. The root of "pneustos" is the verb "pneo", (to breathe); the root of "pneuma" is also the verb "pneo" (breathe). It is incorrect say say that the root of "pnuestos" is "pneuma".
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2012
- Messages
- 4,013
- Reaction score
- 11
- Points
- 38
It is a little different than the Greek "God Breathed", θεόπνευστος, God breathed or God's breath.
The Vulgate says "omnis scriptura divinitus inspirata", which is not too bad, but by the time it makes it into English it is rather easy to misunderstand what it meant in Latin
It is God's (the Holy Spirit's) breath that gave us the words of the original Scripture, not some thought inspiration like Shakespeare might have experienced.
I am a firm advocate for using God breathed instead of the more nebulous and open to misunderstanding, inspiration which came into English from Latin by way of Old French.
The Vulgate says "omnis scriptura divinitus inspirata", which is not too bad, but by the time it makes it into English it is rather easy to misunderstand what it meant in Latin
It is God's (the Holy Spirit's) breath that gave us the words of the original Scripture, not some thought inspiration like Shakespeare might have experienced.
I am a firm advocate for using God breathed instead of the more nebulous and open to misunderstanding, inspiration which came into English from Latin by way of Old French.
Next class is starting now!!
Still on class 1... around 30:00, he gets into debunking the "straw man" argument that they believe in "double inspiration".... his logic hurts my head - he doesn't even bother to properly understand double inspiration.
The historical belief has been that God gave the very words of Scripture to the men who wrote them. This is what has been historically understood by "inspiration" -- that action.
"Double-inspiration" is that God gave His word twice by the above method; once when he provided, word-by-word, the Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic words, and again when He gave them the English words.
First of all, the claim that since more than two people (double) wrote the Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic Bible, double inspiration doesn't make sense... WRONG -- it's the TEXT that was given twice, per their wrong doctrine, NOT the number of people.
Next, Mr Baker/Mrs Riplinger redefine "inspiration" to mean "general thoughts and ideas" and claim that because the Holy Spirit guided the men who wrote the KJV, that it is "inspired" just as much as the original languages. But I don't believe God gave "general ideas" to the holy men of old: I believe He gave them the actual words He wanted used. The Holy Spirit may well have guided/aided/helped the KJV translators, but He did NOT give them the words to use.
The historical belief has been that God gave the very words of Scripture to the men who wrote them. This is what has been historically understood by "inspiration" -- that action.
"Double-inspiration" is that God gave His word twice by the above method; once when he provided, word-by-word, the Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic words, and again when He gave them the English words.
First of all, the claim that since more than two people (double) wrote the Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic Bible, double inspiration doesn't make sense... WRONG -- it's the TEXT that was given twice, per their wrong doctrine, NOT the number of people.
Next, Mr Baker/Mrs Riplinger redefine "inspiration" to mean "general thoughts and ideas" and claim that because the Holy Spirit guided the men who wrote the KJV, that it is "inspired" just as much as the original languages. But I don't believe God gave "general ideas" to the holy men of old: I believe He gave them the actual words He wanted used. The Holy Spirit may well have guided/aided/helped the KJV translators, but He did NOT give them the words to use.