The arrogance and false teaching of G. A. Riplinger

L

logos1560

Active member
Elect
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
553
Reaction score
30
Points
28
Seeming to imply that she could not possibly be wrong in any of her claims, Gail Riplinger wrote: "Even simple statements in New Age Bible Versions were not made without years of study behind them" (Blind Guides, p. 51). Riplinger asserted: “This book will provoke grave silence, as none can answer it, except with trite and tiny vagaries” (Hazardous Materials, p. 1192). Riplinger contended concerning her book: “Assuming, ‘the author’ does not know or understand ‘something’ will only be possible if the entire book is not read” (p. 40).

In an article "Why I Wrote the Book: New Age Bible Versions," Gail Riplinger stated: "Each discovery was not the result of effort on my part, but of the direct hand of God--so much so that I hesitated to even put my name on the book. Consequently, I used G. A. Riplinger, which signifies to me, God and Riplinger--God as author and Riplinger as secretary" (The End Times and Victorious Living, January/ February, 1994, p. 15).

By claiming that God is the "author" of her book, Riplinger seemed to place her book on the same level with God's Word. A contemporary word from God such as claimed by Riplinger as God's latest spokesman will become a rival and hindrance to the authority of Scripture. Only Riplinger herself had direct access to her supposed "revelations" from God in her book.
 
Gail Riplinger maintained that the earlier English Bibles such as Tyndale's and the Geneva are "practically identical to the KJV" (Language of the KJB, p. 5). Riplinger also wrote: “The Geneva text is almost identical to the KJV” (In Awe of thy Word, p. 566). Riplinger asserted that “generally speaking, the early English Bibles are the same” (p. 130; Hidden History, p. 37). Riplinger asserted that “the words that differ in the early English Bibles are pure synonyms” (In Awe of Thy Word, p. 859). Riplinger maintained that “both the Bishops’ and the KJV are literal, word-for-word renderings of the Greek text and show all words, even if they seem repetitive” (p. 288). Riplinger even indicated that those previous early English Bibles “were no less perfect, pure, and true than the KJB” (Hidden History of the English Scriptures, p. 59). Riplinger asserted that the Geneva “follows the traditional text underlying the King James Version” (Which Bible Is God‘s Word, p. 51). Riplinger described the English translation in the 1599 Nuremberg Polyglot [which was an edition of the Geneva Bible] as “pure” and as “the Bible before the KJV of 1611” (In Awe of Thy Word, pp. 41, 1048, 1052-1108).

Riplinger's very own statements suggest that she is uninformed or misinformed about the pre-1611 English Bibles even though she claims to have collated and compared them. In her book In Awe of Thy Word, Gail Riplinger referred to her “word-for-word collation of earlier English Bibles with the KJV” and her “word-for-word analysis of the English Bibles before the KJV” (pp. 17, 18).

Her statements would actually be a problem for her unsound, human KJV-only reasoning, and her statements would clearly prove that she uses unjust divers measures/standards in her allegations against the NKJV in comparison to her claim concerning the pre-1611 English Bibles.
 
In her misleading tract attacking and misrepresenting the NKJV, Gail Riplinger claimed that the "NKJV copies Jehovah Witness Version" at Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8 by having the rendering "Joshua" instead of having the rendering "Jesus" as the KJV does. Part of this tract was also published in the Church Bus News (April-June, 1996, p. 26). Riplinger had earlier claimed that the “new versions use dynamic equivalencies frequently, such as translating ‘Jesus’ as “Joshua’ in Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8” (New Age Bible Versions, p. 127). Gail Riplinger and Wally Beebe asserted that “the NKJV even turns ‘Jesus’ into “Joshua’ in Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8” (Church Bus News, July-Sept., 2002, p. 17). Peter Ruckman claimed that Acts 7:45 "has been purposely mistranslated in the ASV and New ASV as 'Joshua'" (Problem Texts, p. 338).

Were the KJV translators following a Jehovah Witnesses' reading when they stated in the margin of the 1611 concerning their reading "Jesus" at Hebrews 4:8 the following: "That is Joshua"? A mark by "Jesus" at Hebrews 4:8 in the Geneva Bible referred to this marginal note: "He speaketh of Joshua the son of Nun." Waite's Defined KJB gave the following note for "Jesus" at Hebrews 4:8: "i.e. Joshua (Heb equivalent of Jesus)" (p. 1589). At this verse in his multi-volume commentary, KJV-only author David Sorenson wrote: “The New Testament name Jesus is also a translation of the Old Testament name Joshua. Clearly, it is Joshua at the end of the exodus which is so referred to here” (p. 32).

Gail Riplinger, who claimed to have collated the pre-1611 English Bibles, did not share with her readers the fact that several of the early good English Bibles have this same rendering as the NKJV. At Hebrews 4:8, Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's Duoglott, Great, Taverner's, and Whittingham's have "Joshua." At Acts 7:45, Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, and Great Bibles have "Joshua." Were the majority of the earlier 1500's English Bibles which have "Joshua" at Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8 copying the 1950's Jehovah Witnesses' Version?

Did the old Peshitta Syriac follow a Jehovah Witnesses' reading in these verses? The Peshitta even adds "the son of Nun" to make sure that it is clear that Joshua is referred to in Hebrews 4:8. Did John Wesley in 1754 copy a Jehovah Witnesses' reading in these verses? All the editions of Luther's German Bible published during Luther's lifetime have "Josua" (Joshua) at Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8.
 
Gail Riplinger claimed: "All new versions, in their attempt to present a 'works' based salvation mistranslate pistis as 'faithfulness'" in Galatians 5:22 (New Age Bible Versions, p. 257). Riplinger suggested or implied that the NKJV supported "works salvation" because of its rendering "faithfulness" at Galatians 5:22 (Language of KJB, p. 149).

Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, and Great Bibles in the KJV-only view's line of good Bibles and praised by Riplinger all had "faithfulness" at Galatians 5:22.

Is Riplinger suggesting that William Tyndale, in effect the primary translator of the KJV, and Miles Coverdale were attempting to present a works-based salvation? Was the KJV a revision of earlier Bibles that supported "works salvation?"

Over and over KJV-only advocates fail to consider how a consistent, just application of their own claims would apply to the English foundation that underlies the KJV.
 
I would argue that Logos666 calling anyone else "arrogant" is laughable.
 
Twisted said:
I would argue that Logos666 calling anyone else "arrogant" is laughable.
Click to expand...
You argue incorrectly. I nowhere make the arrogant claims made by Gail Riplinger.

I am willing to learn from any believer including even KJV-only believers when they prove what they claim to be actually true and sound scripturally.
I quote KJV-only authors favorably when they state accurate assertions, and I properly disagree with them when they make claims that they do not prove to be true.

It is KJV-only advocates who seem to be unwilling or too proud to learn anything from a believer who is not KJV-only.
 
logos1560 said:
You argue incorrectly. I nowhere make the arrogant claims made by Gail Riplinger.

I am willing to learn from any believer including even KJV-only believers when they prove what they claim to be actually true and sound scripturally.
I quote KJV-only authors favorably when they state accurate assertions, and I properly disagree with them when they make claims that they do not prove to be true.

It is KJV-only advocates who seem to be unwilling or too proud to learn anything from a believer who is not KJV-only.
Click to expand...
Yeah, and Gail doesn't think she's arrogant either.
 
Twisted said:
I would argue that Logos666 calling anyone else "arrogant" is laughable.
Click to expand...
I'll be the second witness to attest to that, Logos666 is a demonically influenced mole.
 
Actually reading his comments is sometimes amusing.

It's like watching a 3 year old struggle to formulate sentences, and the lack of logic is absolutely magnificent.

I don't think I could be that illogical if I tried to do it on purpose. I'm somewhat jealous, that gift could help if I were to ever write stand up comedy.

Truly a gift, don't you think, Canadian Bacon?

He somehow manages to find all of the dumbest scholars in existence and collect their most nonsensical statements and fit them together into one giant collage of dung.


I'm sure it all makes sense in his own mind:
sunny.gif
 
UGC said:
It's like watching a 3 year old struggle to formulate sentences, and the lack of logic is absolutely magnificent.
Click to expand...

Yes, I can relate. I have to watch you struggle with pretending to be an actual Christian, not a total fraud.

He somehow manages to find all of the dumbest scholars in existence and collect their most nonsensical statements and fit them together into one giant collage of dung.
Click to expand...

I'll have to take your word for it. A lying turd like you would be the expert on dung.
 
Are KJV-only advocates unable to discuss the actual subject of a thread instead of throwing out bogus, false allegations?

Evidently they are unable to defend Riplinger's opinions.
 
Gail and others accurately pointed out:


"Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." -KJV
"For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few." -ESV


"And the disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said to them again, “Children, how difficult it is to enter the kingdom of God!" -ESV

Do you believe it's hard and difficult to get into heaven, or that it's a free gift and takes no work on our part?


"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."

If you're believing what these New Versions say about how to get eternal life, the Bible says to let you be accursed.
See now, that wasn't so complicated. Unless you idolize the "popular church culture narrative" of the apostate times.
 
On the other hand, according to Mark 10:24 in the Blessed Virgin KJV, getting into heaven isn't "difficult," it's just "hard."

UGC just wants to remind us all that they are a) lying sacks of crap and b) weapons-grade stupid on two threads.

They're more to be pitied than censured. Stupidity and dishonesty are job requirements for Ruckmanoid KJV-only apologists.
 
Mark 10:24? The truth stings, doesn't it:


KJV: "But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!"

How we do get into heaven? Through simple trust in the finished work of the cross.
So if you instead trust riches, it will be hard for you to have a change of mind and trust Christ instead of those riches.


ESV: "And the disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said to them again, “Children, how difficult it is to enter the kingdom of God!"

Nothing about trusting anything. Anyone who didn't have a KJV would simply read this as it is: "difficult to enter the kingdom of God". Plain and simple.


No need to overcomplicate it to avoid the truth in your own defiant mind. Truth is never muddy or complicated.
When God reveals it to you, it's clear. Men just reject it because they hate the truth and love their own traditions.
 
UGC said:
Truth is never muddy or complicated.
Click to expand...

So-called KJV-only "truth" is inconsistent, contradictory, muddy, and complicated as human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning avoid some clear, simple, scriptural truths.

It is KJV-only advocates who love their own human KJV-only traditions.
 
UGC said:
He somehow manages to find all of the dumbest scholars in existence
Click to expand...

Are you in effect claiming that Gail Riplinger, who is quoted in this thread, is one of the "dumbest scholars in existence"?
Is that your "objective" assessment of the scholarship of Gail Riplinger, perhaps your favorite woman "Bible" teacher?

Does a consistent, just application of your own assertion claim that John William Burgon is one of the "dumbest scholars in existence"?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top