Gail Riplinger

You know, I have never read anything by the lady except from BrianT first website where she talked about the NIV and I agree with her on that. As to her other writings I don't know, but seeing the modernist slander her, she must be right about something.

 

To some extent, I do as well. There are some weird, archaic words in the NIV.

There, now that is out of the way, how about some of the myriad of other, more serious, problems mentioned in the articles?

Well, now you can know, and verify that what those articles say are true (the links I posted). You can download her book by clicking here. The only good thing this book is good for is to provide an example of how NOT to write a book. Factual errors, ignored information, faulty logic, deliberate misquotes, slander, lies, etc. fill the book. A full critique of the book exposing and explaining the problems with the book would be longer than her original book.

 

I don't thing your link is working right. Can you fix?

 

Sorry, I guess that copy of it is corrupted and won't open properly. I'll post a working link later tonight.

 

Can you define 'modernist' for us?

 

Again, simple and forthright dishonesty on your part. 1 Co 2:17 has nothing to do with translations. If you study the context of 1 Cor 2, you will see that Paul is concerned with those who distort the message of Scripture. At that time, there was very little of the NT written, and there were no translations of it. To apply 1 cor 2:17 to translation is dishonest and a raping of God's word. You should be ashamed. Unfortunately, you are not.

Another case of dishonesty, clear and forthright. 1 Tim 6:10 does not say that money is the root of all evil. It says that the love of money is the root of all evil. You are plainly twisting Scripture and misquoting it to support your false teaching. Again, you should be ashamed. Unfortunately, you are not.

Which demonstrates my point ... There has never been "one version only" in church history. You admit it with this paragraph (in spite of some inaccuracies) and then try to deny it. How can you admit that I am right and then disagree with it??

The history shows that the earliest churches did not have the traditional text type, and most certainly not the TR. Those are most likely later corruptions to the text, based on what we know from history. Again you abuse Scripture by citing Rom 16:26 that has nothing to do with this issue.

I don't know any user of modern versions that has had a moral failure. I am sure there are some, but I do not know them. I know many users of the KJV that have had moral failures. This is a completely ridiculous line of argumentation. It is ludicrous to assert such a thing. It shows that your thought process is so out of line that you will stoop to the most ridiculous unproveable statements to attack God's word.

Here in this post, you have said things that are not true, you have miscited Scripture, you have used Scripture out of context, you have made Scripture mean something it was never intended to mean, you have participated in faulty logic, all for the sake of defending your false position in spite of the truth. How shameful ...

 

Click here

 

According to the KJV translators, the earliest church received and use the Septuagint:

"It is certain, that that Translation was not so sound and so perfect, but it needed in many places correction; and who had been so sufficient for this work as the Apostles or Apostolic men? Yet it seemed good to the holy Ghost and to them, to take that which they found, (the same being for the greatest part true and sufficient) rather than making a new, in that new world and green age of the Church, to expose themselves to many exceptions and cavillations, as though they made a Translations to serve their own turn, and therefore bearing a witness to themselves, their witness not to be regarded." (emphasis added)

"The translation of the Seventy dissenteth from the Original in many places, neither doeth it come near it, for perspicuity, gravity, majesty; yet which of the Apostles did comdemn it? Condemn it? Nay, they used it...which they would not have done, nor by their example of using it, so grace and comment it to the Church, if it had been unworthy the appellation and name of the word of God." (emphasis added)

Both of these quotes are from the preface of the 1611 KJV.

 

Askjo said:

Sorry, I am not a Riplingerite.

You aren't the only KJV sophist attempting to change the subject of this thread.

 

Askjo said:

When was the wording of the autograph of 2 Cor. 2:17?

It could have been written in the first century or it could have been written at 10:15am this morning, and it still wouldn't mean what you and your wishful-thinking buddies want it to, because context means something.

 

Archangel7 said:

The writer returned the compliment by producing this "shocking" admission from Riplinger's own book --

"I... worship... Satan."

On another forum I used to sign myself with this fully documented quotation taken from her own book:

 

Aha! Codex Riplingersis.

Second only to Codex Ruckmansis.

I’m sorry KJVO, I couldn’t help myself, the devil made me do it.


HankD

 

Well, since it looks like our resident KJV "defenders" are doing all in their power to make a thread about "God And" Riplinger anything but a thread about "God And" Riplinger, it falls to the rest of us to keep it on-topic. In that spirit, the following is another article I wrote a few years ago about the most ridiculous argument she tries to make.

Woohoo! Finally, God And tries to explain "acrostic algebra," on Blind Guides page 30. As explanations go, it's kind of a non-explanation.

</font>[/QUOTE]Really. Perhaps Dr. Bouw mistakenly believes silence always implies that a thesis is unassailable - the common assumption of the crank - and ignores the possibility that silence indicates that the work isn't worth the skeptic's time.

Then again, birds of a feather flock together. Gerhardus Bouw, it turns out, is the head of the Association for Biblical Astronomy, which defends the "geocentric" view of the universe. That is to say, Bouw believes that when the Bible says the sun went up and down, it means it! Rather than the earth orbiting the sun, the Earth is fixed in space and the rest of the universe circles it.

In short, one kook is appealing to the endorsement of another kook for her kookery.

Be that as it may, they're certainly no part of "acrostic algebra" either. So why bring them up? To look intelligent in front of the uncritical, perhaps?

Here's the silliness from page 149 of &lt;i&gt;NABV&lt;/i&gt; (screen 288 for those of you using the hypertext version):

[BaptistBoard does not appear to support strikeout text as in the original; for the purpose of this repost I am using boldface in these equations.]

Certainly this bears no resemblance to anything I ever saw in algebra, either at the high-school or the university level. If

(NASV - NIV) - AV = X

then by what rules of mathematics (with which, she claims, Dr. Bouw ought to be familiar) is

(NASV - I) - AV = X?

Shouldn't

(NASV - I) - AV = X + NIV - I

or

N[V(AS - I) - A] = X?

So what gives here? Where's the binomial?

After blathering about nothing for a minute and a half, God And told James White in their infamous radio debate that God gave her "acrostic algebra" one night. Apparently God told Riplinger that you can add or subtract values from the left side of the equation without doing so to the right side as well. It seems Riplinger is saying that my grade 9 math teacher is more qualified to teach basic algebra than God. Go figure.

Anyway, moving right along:

Riplinger continues to blather on about variables and symbolic logic and ancient mathematicians, as though these things had anything in the slightest to do with "acrostic algebra" which, of course, has nothing to do with variables, logic, algebra, acrostics, or the laws of mathematics. And besides, no doubt Ahmes and Diophantus would have remembered to do to the left side of the equation what they did to the right (that's why it's called an "equation." Duh!)

No, the likelihood of it "working" at all is nada, since it isn't mathematics to begin with! Can you believe this garbage?

Just like "acrostic algebra."

I'm beginning to understnad why Jack Hyles would grant Riplinger an honorary Ph.D. She's certainly piling it higher and deeper in this book!

True, though quite over-simplified. But the acrostic format of Lamentations and Psalm 119 was done for literary and artistic purposes. It doesn't prove anything. And neither does "acrostic algebra," nor Riplinger's "explanation" thereof.

Well, as is expected, Riplinger tries once again to hide her utter incompetence to write on biblical issues under a cloud of obfuscation and pseudo-mathematics. Assuming this Dr. Bouw, whoever he is, has actually looked at the "acrostic algebra" and endorsed it, I can't say it gives me any great confidence in his ability to find the floor with both feet in the morning, let alone study the stars.

 

Can you define 'modernist' for us? </font>[/QUOTE]Sure, anyone that accepts the modern versions of the Bible to be God's infallible, inerrant, inspired...wait, they don't even believe that about their own bible, so anyone that using anything else except the King James Bible.

 

Click here </font>[/QUOTE]I get the download and unzip it, but what program is used to open the file? XP does not recognize it.

 

Once it's unzipped (all the 6 files are extracted to the same directory), double-click "go.bat".

 

anyone that using anything else except the King James Bible.
</font>[/QUOTE]Whoa. Cool. I proudly stand with "modernists" such as Spurgeon, Burgon, the Puritans, the Reformers, the KJV translators, Wycliffe, Tyndale, the early church fathers, the Christians of the first few centuries (even those in Antioch), the Disciples and Apostles, and Jesus Christ himself.

Thank you for putting me in this group, instead of yours. BTW, feel free to join our group any time you want.

 

HomeBound said:

[a modernist is] anyone that using anything else except the King James Bible.

A new motto for Christianity: "1611 Years of Modernism."

You gotta laugh.

* *
* * *
* *

 

anyone that using anything else except the King James Bible.
</font>[/QUOTE]Whoa. Cool. I proudly stand with "modernists" such as Spurgeon, Burgon, the Puritans, the Reformers, the KJV translators, Wycliffe, Tyndale, the early church fathers, the Christians of the first few centuries (even those in Antioch), the Disciples and Apostles, and Jesus Christ himself.

Thank you for putting me in this group, instead of yours. BTW, feel free to join our group any time you want. </font>[/QUOTE]Amen, Brother BrianT -- Preach it!

BTW, Brother HomeBound, I have three
different books each claiming
to be the "King James Version"
on my computer desk. Please help me
determine which is the KING JAMES BIBLE.

#1. Contains the Apocrypha and
translator sidenotes.

#2 Contains the translator sidenotes

#3 Contains neither

My Favorite comic book vendor suggests
that only #3, can be the true
King James Bible and that the other two
are Satanic Lies that might damage my
eternal soul. I don't really like to
have my eternal soul wrinkled.
Thank you for your kind consideration
and speedy reply.