Another Riplinger video...

Thank you, Ed... I suspected that "hall" actually had the arachiac meaning of "palace" and "tent". The KJV has properly translated the word, although a bit difficult for me to divide my vocabulary; that is, to ignore my contemporary concept of a simple word like "hall", and replace it with a uncommon meaning only when reading my Bible.
________

Next in the Riplinger video, she returns to the premise that the KJV is easier to read than the NKJV. To support her position, she reads off a list of words that the NKJV allegedly uses (no references are given) instead of the "simple Anglo-Saxon word: evil". I assume she means that it is the KJV that is the standard for the English word "evil" in these verses. Ed, perhaps you could lend us the Elizabethan English definitions of 'evil'.

Because of her voice inflection and the overabundance of "they" I failed to understand her next comment when she said "they did what, in fact, the NIV translators say they did" (I guessed she is paralleling the NKJV folks with the NIV folks now). She alludes to the book "The NIV Story" (by Burton Goddard) about the translating process, and at some point the NIV translators utilizing a thesaurus. I think there is some NKJV guilt-by-association with the NIV being suggested here.

She states that this action was necessitated by a "derivative copyright law" (a topic she evidently addressed the evening before). Under the copyright law a derivative work is defined as "a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation..." (US CODE: Title 17101. Definitions from Cornell U. website). The accusation is that modern translators must change words virtually at random to gain copy protection status, and to not infringe upon others. Aren't all the words used up?

Here is her list of the NKJV's synonyms for "evil": adversity, distressing, catastrophy, calamity, difficult, harmful*, terrible, wild, disaster, tragedy, doom, trouble, and harm. (*harmful seems almost redundant here.)

Remember, this is NOT about multiple words in English representing a single Greek or Hebrew word. It could be that some of these different English words are representing different original language words. Allow me to say here that I do not think the NKJV is perfect, and it is possible that some of their decisions regarding individual translated words might need to be challenged.

She then implies that "any eight or nine year-old" could tell what 'evil ' meant but not these other words. Even if that were true, it is irrelevent since ages 8 and 9 are usually in Second or maybe Third Grades, not at Sixth (and nearly Seventh) Grade reading level as she has already placed the KJV. I believe my 6th Grade daughter understands all those NKJV words; I know I do.

Incidently, the word "adversity" appears in the KJV about 10 times; oh, and "distress" 33 times; and "terrible 52 times; "trouble" over 100 times; also "harm" 16 times; "wild" 44 times; while "calamity" appears at least 19 times in the KJV. So the KJV reader has to know many of these words, too!

The words in her list are not that difficult compared to some that could have been employed: iniquitous, peccant, deleterious, detrimental, injurious, inauspicious, unpropitious, malevolent, venomous (nine synonyms taken from online Houghton Mifflin Thesaurus). Now these words would drive me to the dictionary.

In summary, a list of translated words lacking the underlying words and specific verses for context makes no logical or legitimate point. These NKJV words themselves do not seem to be above the reading difficulty of the KJV. Additionally, there is no proof being offered to indicate the NKJV translators' rationale for words they have chosen. She was able to talk for several minutes without saying anything worthwhile or constructive (is that a miracle of some kind?).

 

Gail Riplinger in this video next quotes the early church father Chrysostome (347-407): "But still you will say, I cannot understand it. What marvel! Why shouldst thou understand it, if thou will not read or look upon it." I say, AMEN! Let's read the Bible more, and for more understanding! This is a great quote.

Her point is that "part of understanding the King James Bible is just simply a matter of reading the king James Bible." I concur; in the event that any one wonders if I am just bias against everything she says, that is demostratibly untrue... I am not afraid to agree with Mrs. Riplinger when she speaks the whole truth.

I have read the KJV for years and I am fairly comfortable with it; but it does take time. I respect the KJV, and I will not be silent whenever it's Godly reputation is brought shame by zealous error and dangerous heresy.

 

Next in this video, Gail Riplinger enumerates the removal of words in the NKJV (as compared to the KJV). She says the word "Lord" has been eliminated 66 times in the new version; "god" 51 times (should this be a capital "G"?); "heaven" 50 times, "repent" 44 times; and "blood" 23 times. Obviously, I would excuse her from giving all the many verse references for each word during this limited lecture time. But she should have clearly distinguished if these words have simply been replaced by a synonym, or completely missing from the text.

This sounds concerning at first, but put in the context of how many times some of these words appear, it may not be as significant as it seems. For example, the word "god" appears in the KJV some 4,447 times. Assuming a conspiratorial "New Age" effort is being made to eliminate the word "god" from the Bible, those NKJV translators still allowed 4,381 "god"-s to slip into their text. The word "lord" is found in the KJV over 7,800 times. Do you think it's possible that maybe 66 (less than 1%) of those could be rendered properly with another word or phrase? Or maybe some are the result of differences in underlying text, which makes this a redundant argument (since this has already been complained about).

The word "heaven" appears in the KJV 582 times, which would include references not only to the domain of God Almighty and angelic beings, but also that of the stars and planets, and that of birds and clouds. In the case of "blood", her audience is not informed that these are all specific references to Jesus' blood (that is what is implied by its inclusion in this mention of "important words"), or to any of the 447 total occurances of "blood" in the KJV. So, without details it is not at all certain what her data means; that is, if any alarm is justified.

She spends a little more time with the word "hell" (alledgedly removed 22 times), and the NKJV translators "have given us that wonderful Catholic place called 'purgatory'." She continues to expose Thomas A. Nelson as a Roman Catholic, and also his company (which publishes the NKJV) by reporting that they published a book entitled "Purgatory" in 1986. She actually has verbalized the words "Catholic" 9 times and "purgatory" 10 times over the course of several minutes before she briefly 'corrects' herself at the end, that what she meant all along was the word "Hades" (spoken only once!). That's right: the NKJV doesn't have the word "purgatory" in it at all. To me, this is an unforgiveable 'mistake' (but what do you think people will remember?).

How is it that her brain interchanges "Hades" and "Purgatory"? She claims that Hades is "that third place, something other than Heaven or Hell". In Catholicism, the middle ground is called Purgatory. But she makes no effort to prove that "Hades" is the same place as "Purgatory" by a different name.

Therefore, I will not provide (at this time) evidence that "Hades" is neither a synonym for a Catholic limbo state, nor an alternative eternal destination along side of Heaven or Hell. Her presentation in this portion is either totally irresponsible, or outright dishonest.

 

Thank you Brother franklinmonroe for taking the time to discuss what
you heard on that vidio. Right now I don't have time to listen
to it. But earlier I've read her books NEW AGE VERSIONS
and IN AWE OF THY WORD (which BTW overlap 30% to 40%).
So probably you are shooting from the hip here. I certainly didn't
hear anything new or different.

Another marked feature of her writing (making them look
like standard propaganda) is she never says anything nice
about any version other than her one KJV which is probably
of the 1769 family (in actuality there are dozens of versions
among the KJVs with many varian spellings)

 

Truth is truth, even when brought out by someone who supports the KJVO thought. Just because they follow this error doesn't necessarily mean that they cannot possibly be right about anything.

You and I were both probably brought up reading one of the KJVs, so we don't have that much problem with the archaic language. And I, like you, do not want to see the KJV's "Godly reputation brought shame by zealous error and dangerous heresy." After all, the KJVs are great versions of God's word, and they all should be revered as such.

 

Here is some information related to this Rabbinical Bible--

Published in 1525 by wealthy Daniel ben Corniel Bomberg (born in Antwerp) whom was granted the privilege to print Hebrew books in Venice, the 'Mikraot Gedolot' (Rabbinic Bible) second edition was edited by the masoretic scholar Yaakov ben Hayyim. All of its elements - text, mesorah, Targum, and commentaries were based upon the manuscripts that Ben Hayyim had at hand (but he did not always have access to the best ones). Mmmm... sounds strangely familar.

Bomberg (not Jewish) had requested an imprimatur from Pope Leo X and his editor was Felix de Prato, a monk born a Jew. So, he produced the second edition under the direction of a proper Jewish editor Jacob ben Hayyim (1470–1538) to be acceptable to the Spanish and Portuguese Jewish exiles in Renaissance Italy. The 'Mikraot Gedolot' of Ben Hayyim, though hailed as an extraordinary achievement, was riddled with thousands of technical errors.

Many of Ben Hayyim's textual errors were later corrected by Menachem di Lonzano and Shlomo Yedidiah Norzi. It is only in the last generation that fresh editions of the 'Mikraot Gedolot' based directly on manuscript evidence have been published. Bomberg (1516-1549) is also credited with the first complete printing of both the Babylonian Talmud and the Jerusalem Talmud. He advanced Hebrew typography greatly.

Mikraot Gedolot ("Rabbinic Bible" in English) is an edition of the Tanakh in Hebrew that generally includes four distinct elements: 1) the Biblical text according to the mesorah in its letters, vocalization, and cantillation marks; 2) Masoretic notes on the Biblical text; 3) Aramaic Targum; 4) and Biblical commentaries (most common and prominent are medieval commentaries in the peshat tradition).

 

In another disgraceful error, Mrs. Riplinger has confused the publisher of NKJV with the publisher the book "Purgatory". This book is actually distributed by TAN Books & Publishers of Rockford, Illinios. This company was "founded by Thomas A. Nelson in 1967 at a time when the problems in the Church were just getting into high gear. Many Catholic publishers such as Benziger and Bruce were getting out of Catholic publishing." This man is the Roman Catholic signer of the letter that she posses.

As previous, I continue to quote from TANbooks.com: "Mr. Nelson's original concept was both to publish books and to distribute the best books of other Catholic publishers--hence the words "Books and Publishers." The word TAN (Thomas A. Nelson's initials) was chosen instead of a religious name because Mr. Nelson wanted to be able to also sell books on history, health, politics, etc. (TAN has no connection with the famous Thomas Nelson publishing company in Nashville, Tennessee.)"(my emphasis added)

"Thomas Nelson, now based in Nashville, has since published a wide range of Christians, from Billy Graham and Robert Schuller to James Dobson and Tim LaHaye, as well as Christian Zionist works by John Hagee. Thomas Nelson, the corporate publisher discussed in this article should not be confused with the person, Thomas Nelson, who owns the religious publishing house Tan Books located in Rockford, Illinois." --from Wikipedia (again, my emphasis)

The info in the few paragraphs are from the 'Company History' section of fundinguniverse.com--

Thomas Nelson of Edinburgh, Scotland, founded Thomas Nelson and Sons when he published The Pilgrim's Progress in 1798. His son* perfected the rotary press in 1850, and in 1854 the firm opened a U.S. office in New York City.

A Christian Lebanese immigrant to the United States, Sam Moore went on to work at Chase Manhattan Bank for a couple of years. However, he left the bank to begin his own Bible-selling company called Royal Publishers, Inc. in Nashville in 1959.

Once his firm expanded out of the Nashville area, Moore began publishing Bibles himself. In 1961 he took Royal public. The firm prospered and began to gain attention in the world of religious publishing. In 1969 a major opportunity presented itself when British interdenominational Bible publisher Thomas Nelson and Sons approached him about running its U.S. operations. Instead, Royal Publishing bought them.

The purchase of Thomas Nelson and Sons made Moore's firm, now called Thomas Nelson, Inc., the largest Bible-publishing company in the United States... In 1982 this revision project resulted in the New King James Version of the Bible, which sold so well that it made Thomas Nelson the largest Bible-publishing company in the world.​

I was unable to find a middle initial for the Scottish Mr. Nelson (1780–1861) which seems to indicates he did not use one. He had two sons in the business: William, and *the inventor was Thomas (1822–92).

It would seem that nothing she says can be taken at face value. Thanks to Ziggy for pointing this out. Her shameful scholarship should be enough to motivate any reputable website to delete this video.

 

Continuing through this video; G. A. Riplinger disparages the NKJV which "completely omits the word Jehovah from the Old Testament". Well, just how omissions is that? Dozens? Hundreds?

The word "Jehovah" is actually found in the KJV only 4 times! Why did the KJV revisors use "Jehovah" in only these four places (Ex. 6:3, Ps. 83:18, Is. 12:2 & 26:4) when 6,510 times they translated it as "LORD"? It seems that in both Isaiah verses they may have wanted to avert redundancy (where the word for Jehovah, or Yahweh, is preceded by a contraction for the same word). Another four times they rendered it as simply as "God". Three different words so far; maybe this one of those situations where the KJV is assisting the reader with the definition of this difficult word.

The 'Tetragrammaton' is the four transliterated letters JHWH, or YHVH. The question of interest is that of what vowels to insert to vocalize the proper Hebrew Name of God. I am not going to go into great detail on this controversal subject here. There are entire cults built upon the transliterated result of this word.

Additionally, the first consonant is uncertain as well. That first consonant in the Hebrew is letter 'yodh', transcribed I in Latin, often J since the 16th century. The 1611 AV spells this as "IEHOVAH"; it seems to have been changed to "JEHOVAH" in 1769. In order to avoid confusion it seems easier to transcribe the 'yodh' with Y in English.

Straw man.

 

What astounds me is that anyone takes this silly woman seriously. She is the worst possible advocate for the KJVO side so why don't they just tell her to go away?

 

I am here who discerns she is OK. Problem is that she didn't come to this site, but someone brought her video here. You can blame him because the accusers are shooting her back from behind.

 

She doesn't even get her basic facts right. She is a disaster. I am astounded that anyone listens to her. Just a case of itching ears hearing what they want to hear, I'm afraid.

D.

 

No, it is the people here who make personal attacks to the person who is absent here, that doesn't get the basic facts right. I have her book In the Awe of Thy Words, which is good to read, in defense of KJV.

It is very much coward thing if anyone make personal attacks onto the person in absence! Read Matthew 18:15-16

15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

 

Eliyahu,

No one is attacking Ms. Riplinger personally. She wrote a book- actually several. She has presented her teachings in public. The presentations were recorded. They are available on the internet for all to see. If you feel that she needs to be represented here, why don't you ask her to join us and defend her views. I am sure that she will be as welcomed as anyone else.

There is no sin involved in discussing the rights or wrongs of her beliefs or teachings than in discussing those of Billy Graham.

 

She was just called a silly woman and a disaster.

This is accurate, as long as everyone sticks to positions and doctrines that is fair game and it seemed like this thread was sticking to that perspective. When folks go off on the name-calling it becomes something else.

 

Eliyahu: //Problem is that she didn't come to this site,
but someone brought her video here. You can
blame him because the accusers are shooting her
back from behind.//

Brother Franklinmonroe has tirelessly beaten
her with a feather pillow. This does not constitute a
problem.

Eliyahu: //It is very much coward thing if anyone
make personal attacks onto the person
in absence! Read Matthew 18:15-16//

Brother Franklinmonroe serves a higher calling
than that:

2 Timothy 4:2 (KJV1611 Edition):
Preach the word, be instant in season,
out of season, reprooue, rebuke, exhort
with all long suffering & doctrine.

We aren't talking about something between two
individuals, but the MASS deception of Ms. Riplinger.
Her deceptions will be exposed and Bro. Franklinmonroe
has done it quite a bit kinder than I would and than many
people here on Baptist Board have done.
For this Bro. FM will be commended as indeed I do
commend him now. Amen.

 

I have said for years that people will follow someone who seems to know where they are going even if it wrong.

 

I agree on the name-calling.