Missing Riplingers point on NWT and MVs

So the charge is that while searching for the ancient original text the modern versions show differences from the Textus receptus in various passages with regards to the deity of Christ. Not surprising. One of the key accusations against the Byzantine text form is that it exhibits changes that buttress key doctrinal positions. In this charge, Riplinger’s shows an inability to see the forest from the trees. Christ’s deity is evident and provable in the faithful modern versions and the doctrine is clearly held by Christians that use them. Rob XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX I seem to be having a formatting problem again, ugggh.

 

One of the problems with my argument above is that Riplinger lumps the NKJV in with the modern versions, it shouldn't be.

Modern versions generally follow the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament.
The NKJV generally follows the textus receptus (with some exceptions).

But the argument still holds water, users of the NKJV hold to the deity of Christ with just as much tenacity as users of the KJV.

Additionally Riplinger rightfully claims that the NWT mistranslated Scripture to deny Christs deity but she fails to account for the Jehovahs Witness acceptance of the KJV in instances when their translation is not acceptable to the audience at hand.

Why would this be if what she claims is true?

Rob

 

Franklinmonroe: //I have read portions of the NWT,
and the majority of words are translated accurately ... //

Romans 10:9 (KJV1611 Edition):
That if thou shalt confesse with thy mouth
the Lord Iesus, and shalt beleeue in thine heart,
that God hath raised him from the dead,
thou shalt be saued.

Romans 10:8-9 (NWT):
For if you publicly declare
that 'word in your own
mouth', that Jesus is Lord,
and exercise faith in your heart
that God raised him up from
the dead, you will be saved.

In this key salvation issue the NWT is clearly
correct as is the KJV1611 Edition.

Caveat: The NWT does have enough
inaccurate translations as to preclude
complete underwriting of it's validity as
'a Bible'. But the NWT does have correct verses
even chapters.

 

Mike Berzins: //Forget about the gnats you find near
Riplinger and tackle this camel.//

Matthew 23:24 (KJV1611 Edition):
Ye blind guides, which straine at a gnat,
and swallow a camel.


Tee, hee. Poor point; bad translation.

Mat 23:24 Ye blind5185 guides,3595
which strain1368 at a gnat,2971 and1161
swallow2666 a camel.2574

"as a gnat" is the mistranslation of one
greek word (Strong's number 2971)

a better translation would be:
Ye blind guides, which straine OUT a gnat,
and swallow a camel

Apparently in 1605-1611,
after some 800 years without a legal Jew in
England, the translators really didn't understand
the phrase.

Some people were so concerned about
NOT eating unclean food that they would
strain their wine to get out those gnats (and
other unclean insects).

 

Riplinger does write something correct sometimes; usually, it's something already known to folks on both sides of the KJVO issue. She also writes lotsa stuff designed just for the itching ears of those KJVOs who are looking for ANYTHING to justify their doctrine. But she knows that if she wrote new stuff all the time, even the diehard KJVOs would grow suspicious of her.

Remember, her main objective is to SELL BOOX. Whatever else she is, I credit her with being a decent writer, and for having the intelligence to keep a fanbase happy so they'll sell boox for her. She is a Mistress of Half-Truth, skilled in placing her Sensationalist fiction close to a known fact so that many people believe her worx are credible. Friends, she's good at it!

But many other KJVOs have seen through her deceit & distance themselves from her, same as theu do Ruckman. This is just another example where she tells the truth in order to make her guesswork & fantasies seem more credible. BEWARE THE WOLF IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING!

 

I don't have the sheet she was holding up in the video (Logos1560 apparently does have it). Unless you have a copy of it in front to you, then neither of us can say with certainty what verses Gail Riplinger actually used as examples of the NKJV "paralleling" the NWT, and whether those particular verses are doctrinally important ones. All my comments should be understood in the context of my critique of the material expressed in the video.

The thread was not about Riplinger and "others", it was about Riplinger in context of that video. From the video it seems that generally her emphasis is primarily enumerating differences. And in relation to the NWT, the majority of the differences she specifically elaborated upon in the video are either not doctrinally significant (for example Acts 7:45, Hebrews 4:8), or not particularly convincing examples (her choice of Acts 3:13).

By selectively comparing only the NWT of JWs it seems very obvious to me that she is attempting to smear guilt-by-association on the NKJV. Because in many cases there are only a limited number of proper ways to translate a verse, it is inevitable that the NWT also "match" the KJV in some places.

In the video, she is frequently not "precise". I do not presume to know what she may have intended to say, only what she actually said to that audience.

We didn't miss the point; the fact is that Gail Riplinger does not succeed in making the point within that video. I do understand the significance and I agree with you on the NWT; you have stated the systematic eliminatation of the deity of Christ by the NWT more clearly than she did in the video. (The NWT does this to the Holy Spirit, too). I would have had more respect for her had she thoroughly expounded upon any single point, than to so superficially touched numerous weak arguments against the NKJV.

I think you know the answers. First, with few exceptions (NKJV is one), the contemporary Bibles are based upon different underlying text than the KJV. Second, these versions benefit from all discoveries and advances in the last 400 years. It is somewhat like asking, 'Why do people, when given the choice, generally agree upon democratic society against a dictatorship?'

 

Mike Berzins: //This is a key salvation verse, but not a key deity
of Christ verse. If you are believing "another Jesus" (like the Russellites
created being), or a "false Christ", (like the Catholics
wafer-god), you can believe this verse and still be damned.//

I respectfully disagree. Perchance you are reading your
Bible like one of these?

That if thou shalt confesse with thy mouth the PROPER
Lord Iesus, and shalt beleeue in thine heart,
that God hath raised him from the dead,
thou shalt be saued.

That if thou shalt confesse with thy mouth
the Lord Iesus, and shalt beleeue in thine heart,
that God hath raised him from the dead,
AND SHALT HAVE AN ORTHODOX CHRISTOLOGY;
THEN thou shalt be saued.

BTW, one time I was on a chatline with a Jehovah's
Witness. We decided to make a statement upon
which we both agree {I'm a member of a church which
is a member of The Union Bapatist Associate (Cleveland
and McLain counties), the Baptist General Convention
of Oklahoma (BGCO), and the Southern Baptist
Convention (SBC) }. Here is the statement:

If you get saved, it was because of Jesus the Christ.

 

Well, your OP topic is "Missing Riplinger's point on NWT and MVs" and your first quote was from the 'video thread'. Naturally, I thought this was a continuation of that discussion of the video.

 

Mike Berzins: //I have shown and will be happy to show
again that I Timothy 3:16 can be used to prove
the deity of Christ in a KJB, but can not in most modern versions.//

Actually you didn't show that.
I showed there was no difference.

Tell me which scriptures you use in the KJV
(Please specify which edition so I can check you
out to see if you cut & paste right) to show
the deity of Christ.
I'll be glad to show you the same verse in the
NIV also shows the diety of Christ.

Lumping all modern versions together is
a poor debating technique as well as a
logical error AND is very likely to
show you have been deceived than the point
you are trying to make. There is a significant
difference between Modern Versions (MVs).

I define MV to be any English version written
since the year 1700. So the KJV1769 Edition
(and its kinfolk, the KJV1762 Edition, and the
American unauthorized 'Authorized Versions ')
is a Modern Version. So around me, when you
dis a MV - you dis the KJV1769 Edition

 

Sure doesn't make it easy to reason with you Ed, when you seem to speak your own language.

 

I have not read any of her books. That video and one other on the internet are all I have firsthand knowledge of her and her material. Since it was my introduction to Mrs. Riplinger, I must admit that I was shocked by the several egregious errors she made in front of that audience (in the video).

The Baptist community as a whole should be outraged by her unprofessional scholarship at the very least. Yet, that does not seem to be the case: this video is still being offered by a 'pro-KJV' website, and you defend her as if she is still credible. Has she made some recorded public apologies that I should be aware of?

 

Subsequent revisions of the KJV cannot be considered as new versions since it was never "re-translated." The revisions were never taken back to the originals and re-translated. The MVs, on the other hand, were new versions of the text which they used as a basis. Each one was individually derived from the "originals," however they were defined.

 

Sure doesn't make it easy to have a debate with you
when you don't understand the mathematics of Logic
and don't understand the requirements of a formal debate.

At this time in normal/logical debates,
you are, having found my definition of
MV unacceptable, supposed to propose your own definition of
a MV. and we can discuss that.

 

I understand logic, I just don't understand your logic. Your definition of "Modern Versions" would be like having a debate about animals and someone saying they consider rattlesnakes to be marsupials. On neither side of the KJV v Modern Version debate do people consider a KJV to be a modern version. You add confusion to this discussion when you create your own definition which is inconsistent with one of the few things both sides agree on.

 

I believe the NWT is a corruption of the British Revised Version. Some big shots in the Jabroney False Witlesses decided they oughtta have their own bible since all us Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, etc. are "worldly" in their view. Thus, fred franz & Georhe Gangas sat down with the Rv, which is a rather groddy translation which never gained favor in the USA, & "translated" it to match JW doctrines. I. E. John 1:1, "the word was *A* god. They couldn't revise the KJV or ther ASV, or any other familiar version, & neither Franz nor Gangas could read a word of Hebrew, so they found an obscure version to re-write.

I don't trust ANYTHING by Riplinger, as I HAVE read her boox, & taken the trouble to find the boox by other authors whom she's quoted, and lay them side-by-side with her boox, especially NABV, and seen her misquotes for myself. THESE JUST COULDN'T BE TYPOS or other accidental misquotes!

Her dishonesty and half-truths override anything she mighta gotten correct in her writings. As Franklin has so ably written about here, dissecting her video, we see she's even more off in her live lectures than she is in her writings. If she had any REAL PROOF for her propaganda, she woulda simply written completely-HONEST material. She wouldn'ta had to resort to dishonest deliberate misquotes & half-truths.

While not equating Riplinger with Hitler morally-wise at all, she indeed uses some of his principles. For example..."The great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a great lie than to a small one." (Hitler, 1931, speech to cronies & Nazi officials)

"The size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed, for the vast masses of a nation are in the depths of their hearts more easily deceived than they are consciously and intentionally bad. The primitive simplicity of their minds renders them more easily prey to a big lie then a small one, for they themselves often tell little lies but would be ashamed to tell a big one."(Hitler, private letter to a crony, 1933)


"The streets of our country are in turmoil. The universities are full of students rebelling and rioting. Communists are seeking to destroy our country. Russia is threatening us with her might and the Republic is in danger. Yes, danger from within and without. We need law and order. Without law and order our nation cannot survive. Elect us and we shall restore law and order."(Hitler, 1931 campaign speech

These same words were repeated verbatim by more than one "conservative" politician in the '60s.

Why a woman who claims to be a Christian would stoop to use a few of the methods used by the most evil person who ever lived, to fool people, is beyond me. But the proof lies in her own writings and videos. The evidence is there for all to see, undeniable, irrefutable. Mike, if you're relying on HER for Scriptural insight, you're as Judah was in Jehoiachim's day, relying upon EGYPT for support.

RIPLINGER'S STUFF IS POISON!

 

Speaking of stooping...you have apparently found new levels that even surprise me.