Missing Riplingers point on NWT and MVs

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Mike Berzins, Mar 21, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Mike Berzins

    Mike Berzins
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2006
    Messages:
    142
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gail Riplinger (among many others) has pointed out how most modern versions match the NWT in many passages of great doctrinal importance. It is evident that many on this board have no understanding of the significance of this. Here are a sample of comments from a previous thread:

    Riplinger does not presuppose the entire NWT is erroneously translated. She does presuppose that the NWT is an attempt to deny the deity of Christ. It is not simply the fact that some verses match from the NWT and the NKJV that is the problem here. The accusation she is making here can not be made against the KJB. Franklinmonroe misses the point. The real issue she raises will be addressed below. And whether the NWTs (or any versions for that matter) rendering of John 1:1 or I Timothy 3:16 is done “honestly” or “dishonestly” in some amateur’s or (professional’s) opinion is not really important – what is important is whether the translation is true.


    Robycop3 misses the point in the same way. The fact that you can find many places where various versions match is not relevant to the point Riplinger and others make when they compare the MVs to the NWT. She is not just picking out any old verse where the NKJV and NWT happen to match, although one might not always see the significance.

    She didn’t tone down her claim. It’s evident to any thinking man that Riplinger never thought that the various versions that predated the NWT directly copied the text of the NWT. She meant to say that the readings matched but mistakenly used the synonym copy instead, which was not as precise and ended up sending at least some down a rabbit trail, which while chasing they ended up missing the important point. Her point she did make is not “faulty reasoning”, because the claim she makes about the MVs and the NWT can not be made if one compared the King James Bible to the NWT.

    So what is this point that many seemed to have missed? Simply that the NWT is an attempt to systematically eliminate scriptural proof of the deity of Christ. And that in many key doctrinal passages that prove the deity of Christ, the MVs read just like the NWT. Make a list of the passages that you use to most clearly establish the nature of the Godhead when you are witnessing to someone who denies the deity of Christ, compare the verses from a KJB to the NWT or almost any other MV, and you will find that the KJB proves the deity of Christ where the MVs (including the NWT) generally will not.

    The point was not that some MV verses happen to agree with the NWT so therefore by association the MVs must be bad like the NWT. The point was that key doctrinal verses that in a King James Bible prove the deity of Christ read the same in the MVs and the NWT – and that IN BOTH THE NWT AND THE OTHER MVS THEY DO NOT PROVE THE DEITY OF CHRIST.

    One very clear example of this would be I Timothy 3:16. I have detailed this on other threads.

    So the question becomes, Why do the MVs in agreement with the NWT generally stand united against the KJB in these crucial passages? I hope you all have something more substantial then, what in essence is, your lexicon or Dr. so and so told you so.

    Forget about the gnats you find near Riplinger and tackle this camel.
     
  2. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,971
    Likes Received:
    128
    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.
     
    #2 Deacon, Mar 21, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 21, 2007
  3. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,971
    Likes Received:
    128
    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
     
  4. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  5. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    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).
     
  6. Mike Berzins

    Mike Berzins
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2006
    Messages:
    142
    Likes Received:
    0

    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.

    Other than John 1:1, are you aware of any key deity of Christ passages where the NWT is inaccurate?
     
  7. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    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!
     
  8. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    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?'
     
    #8 franklinmonroe, Mar 22, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 22, 2007
  9. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
    #9 Ed Edwards, Mar 22, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 22, 2007
  10. Mike Berzins

    Mike Berzins
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2006
    Messages:
    142
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, I am reading the bible like that. In the context of the rest of the bible, you do indeed have to believe in the "proper" Lord Jesus to be saved. The bible predicts that there are many who are and will claim to be Christ. If someone told you that Sun Young Moon or whatever his name is, is Jesus Christ, and that God raised him from the dead, and you confessed it and believed it, you would still die in your sins and you would not be saved.
     
  11. Mike Berzins

    Mike Berzins
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2006
    Messages:
    142
    Likes Received:
    0
    I was referring to what Riplinger generally teaches, not the video in particualr. I'm going to try to broaden this discussion from being about the video and Riplinger.

    These verses are very significant, but a foundation needs to be set first, so I'm going to limit the discussion to obvious verses on the deity of Christ.

    Or perhaps it matches the KJB in places because in order for the devil to make his NWT a counterfeit bible, it has to look somewhat like the real thing. It is interesting when you consider the significance of the places where the NWT and most MVs just happen to match.

    Fair enough, if that video is all you have read or seen of Riplinger's material.

    She probably "superficially" touched on the subject because her audience was a favorable audience that already believed the truth in what she was saying. She didn't have to go into detail because her hearers didn't need the foundation laid that I am attempting to lay here.

    The question I am trying to get you to consider, is "What if it's not only the NWT that is systematically eliminating significant doctrinal verses?" And I am trying to show this by appealing to the books that we can handle and examine ourselves; not by appealing to hearsay about fragments of paper or dead languages.

    What makes you think the MVS are fruits of an "advance" rather than a degeneration? As a society, have we advanced in art, music, entertainment, virtue, or ability to think? Does the bible predict these last days to be times of a great revival or a great falling away form the truth?


    Ultimately, I don't care if you can find some issues with parts of a particular Riplinger video. So let's dipense with Riplinger and talk about the bigger issue.

    The issue is that the NWT and most MVS tend to agree with readings that remove the deity of Christ. (Perhaps from your point of view, the King James readings were spuriously added, but to simplify the conversation, and since it is what I believe, I am from henceforth just going to refer to them as being removed).

    Why is this?

    Deacon (correct me if I am wrong) thinks that this is at least partially explained by the fact that the KJB comes from a text type that tends to have additions to the word of God to "buttress" the doctrine of the deity of Christ.

    I hope we can agree that there is a devil that is actively trying to corrupt the word of God, as well as a God that is actively preserving it. That being the case, why would one think that the King James Bible reflects texts that wrongly buttressed the word of God, as opposed to the MVs reflecting text types that deliberately dimished his deity?

    FranklinMonroe agrees the differences are generally because of different underlying texts. So which text is right? 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. Which reading is the word of God? And it's not limited to that verse; we can go through many more.

    It's been said that the deity of Christ can be proven from the MVs. Anyone care to give some example verses? How about just from the NIV to keep the topic a little bit narrow?
     
  12. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    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.
     
  13. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    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 ;)
     
  14. Rufus_1611

    Rufus_1611
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    3,006
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sure doesn't make it easy to reason with you Ed, when you seem to speak your own language.
     
  15. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    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?
     
  16. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
    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.
     
  17. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  18. Rufus_1611

    Rufus_1611
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    3,006
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  19. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    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!
     
  20. Rufus_1611

    Rufus_1611
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    3,006
    Likes Received:
    0
    Speaking of stooping...you have apparently found new levels that even surprise me.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...