Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by Martin, Feb 7, 2007.
Is this an example of Riplinger's "scholarship"?
Note PDF File
Is this post an example of pettiness? Or is it an example of gossip? Or perhaps it is an example of one brother in Christ trying to help a sister in Christ? Or perhaps it is an example of someone stirring up strife among the brethren? Perhaps it is just an example of someone trying to help the body of Christ to avoid a false or misguided treacher? Hmmmmmmm I really, HIGHLY doubt it is that last of these.
Two thoughts on the subject matter.
1) It has been said before: think the thought and you only have the Lord to answer to. Say the thought and you have that person you spoke to and the Lord to answer to. Write the thought and the whole world is your critic - plus the Lord.
2) How easy is it to blast a person when that person is not here to defend themselves.
We have to decide, is it #1 or #2 that we are taking part in.
The link is to Gail Riplinger's own web site A. V. Publications, and its contents seem to be chapter one of one of Gail Riplinger's books entitled THE LANGUAGE OF THE KING JAMES BIBLE.
Riplinger's first stated aim or goal was to show that "the King James Bible contains God's Built-in Dictionary" (p. xvi). She claims that "God defines" the 1,000 most difficult words in the KJV (p. 3). She wrote: "The Bible contains God's own built-in dictionary" (p. 59).
Wally Beebe, who printed several articles by Gail Riplinger in his publication, remarked: "When someone puts in print, practices, advertises, and vocalizes some particular new philosophy, then what he espouses is fair game for anyone to compare it with the Scriptures and say 'does this wash?'" (Church Bus News, April-June, 1993, p. 9).
==No actually what this post is doing is bring to light the "scholarship" of a person who has written several books on a issue. The link is to the first chapter in one of Riplinger's books. Is linking to her books is gossip? Are you admitting that her work(s) is that bad?
==Actually I am pointing out the silly, and false, arguments of Gail Riplinger.
There is zero serious scholarship in any of her works. Her books are sloppy, her argumentation is weak, and her whole position rests upon a presupposition which she claims her arguments prove. So in order to accept her arguments you have to first agree with her presupposition (ie...KJVO). She gives no Biblical, historical, or textual reason to believe that King James Onlyism is a true doctrine.
Riplinger has been confronted by much more knowledgeable people than myself. She is well aware of what those of us who disagree with her "teachings" say.
Pettiness and gossip seem to only be applied in so many cases when a discussion is against someone we support. How many times have men like T.D. Jakes and osteen been discussed. Their theology and writings are most certainly open for discussion. In reference to Riplinger I find much of what she espouses to complete lunacy. Numerology and names and dates hidden in text is just silly. It is reminiscent of the Davinci Code.
However it is easy to follow her view of the different translations and make a reasonable comparison of them. I find much of what she has pointed out with this regard interesting and worth looking into. In the several different discussions going on about her right now none include any real discussion on the substance of what she says. Most of it only works to discredit her by any and all other means.
The BB a gossip column? NEVER!:laugh:
I can show with my HCSB = Christian Standard Bible
(Holman, 2003) that the Bible is a definer of terms.
It is the Bible (in all it's English versions) that defines
terms well. So any Bible, including the KJV1769 Edition
will define certain terms.
On request I'll devote my 20 minutes a day to showing
that my HCSB defines words that the KJV1769 Edition
But be warned, I'll post whole verses, not just snippets.
I personally may not trust a word Ms Riplinger prints about her new revelations and interpretations (we have names we call women who come up with new spiritual revelation, isn't that right Mary Baker Eddy? Ellen White?.
But I have to say I LOVE her biscuit recipe,:applause:
Gail Riplinger wrote: "Even simple statements in New Age Bible Versions were not made without years of study behind them" (Blind Guides, p. 51).
In an article that is entitled "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).
All this stuff is at least 12-13 years old and has been beaten to death.
By raising this dirt again you are accomplishing.......what?
That is a rather arrogant statement. I don't think God had anything to do with her new and strange doctrines.
Bartimaus made a good point that when you put something in writing, you open up to thewhole world for criticism.
That is what Riplinger has done.
and 12-13 years ago, I was just a kid and didn't understand all this stuff so it has been informative to me.
Also, just so everyone knows, I am, de facto, a KJVO. I do NOT believe that there was any special second inspiration and I certaily do go for that davinci stye code non sense.
It isn't goggip, it is exposing a false teacher.,
==Actually it is not gossip at all. The chapter is from one of her books, which is linked from HER website, which was published in 1998. It contains her teaches on this subject so it is fair game.
In her store she has a product calling the New Living Translation very corrupt because of the way it translates Revelation 13 (the Mark of the Beast). She is being highly critical of everyone who disagrees with her position. So I don't see how it is gossip to respond to her, what I believe are seriously false, teachings. She is still active In KJV circles, she still promotes these teachings, and she still sells these products. So dealing with the arguments/issues she raises is not gossip. Nor is it gossip to be critical of her statements or chapters from her books.
There are still some people who BELIEVE her hooey. Long as there are such people, we, as Christians under His command to contend for the faith, must oppose it.
I don't care about her gendar; I don't care about her personal life. All I care about in regards to her is her PUBLIC WORKS, and her HONESTY to the public, or lack, thereof. When she writes HALF-TRUTHS, and misquotes other authors, the veracity of all her writings & her overall honesty as a writer are called into question.
OOOOOOOOO KKKKKKKKKKKK Salamander........
You know the BB rule don't you? If you haven't read a rumor by 12 noon.......Start One!:1_grouphug:
Here is a comment from that source by Sister Riplinger:
God And (GA) Riplinger: // Scholars agree that the English language
did not become fixed until the King James Bible//
Which of the KJVs is the KJB?
I've asked this before without much of an answer.
The sources named by Sister Riplinger were really discussing
the time that the translators translated the KJV (1605-1611).
However, the spelling wasn't fixed until the KJV1762
and KJV1769 Editions. Some slight varian of the KJV1769 Edition
is used by virtually every KJV user until some KJV1611 Edition Reprints were
published only a half-dozen years ago.
Exactly what 'fixed' means is somewhat cloudy. The English Language
has changed a lot in the past 400 years, even the alphabet is
different between the KJV1611 Edition and the KJV1769 Edition???
Have the incorrect claims made by Riplinger been corrected yet in her books and in her lectures? Are you suggesting that there is not anyone today that repeats her claims as being supposedly correct?
In July of 1996, Dr. James D. Price mailed Gail Riplinger a 28-page letter that provided evidence that several of Riplinger's claims about the NKJV bear false witness against it. Before that, James D. Price had mailed Riplinger a 20-page letter pointing out incorrect claims about the NKJV in her book NEW AGE BIBLE VERSIONS. So far after all these years, I am not aware of Riplinger correcting any of her inaccurate claims about the NKJV. She did not correct them in her recent books.