In the thread entitled "Final Authority and Final canonization," Is Gail Riplinger's statement quoted above accurate and reliable? Is the Bishops' Bible actually "no less perfect, pure, and true than the KJV"? In this thread, evidence will be provided from the Bishops' Bible so readers can evaluate whether her claims are correct. Gail Riplinger maintained: “The previous Bishops’ Bible (c1568-1611) was no less perfect, pure, and true than the KJV” (In Awe of Thy Word, p. 17). Gail Riplinger asserted: “According to the rules of translation, the [KJV] translators’ final authority was early English Bibles, particularly the Bishops’” (Hidden History of the English Scriptures, p. 41). Riplinger wrote: “In the main, the Bishops’ Bible is the same as all previous English Bibles” (In Awe of Thy Word, p. 567). She proposed that “the Bishops’ Bible is the textual twin of the KJV” (p. 164). She observed: The KJV translators generally followed the grammatical elements and word order (syntax) of the Bishops’ Bible. This was their foundation and they seldom varied from it” (p. 132). She also commented: “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 asserted: “Their prime authority was the Bishops’ Bible which carried forth the words of the English Bible since its genesis in Acts 2. The words of the 1611 English Bible (KJB) had their origin in languages and words which were given through the Holy Ghost‘s gift of tongues in Acts 2” (Hazardous Materials, p. 690).