Another Riplinger video...

G. A. Riplinger mentions a few more words that are "omitted" from the NKJV which finishes this section of the video: "new testament", "damnation and damned", and "devils".

Personally, that the NKJV prefers to render the words consistantly as "new covenant" rather than as "new testament" in all 6 occurrances doesn't bother me. This seems very straightforward, and there isn't anything 'tricky' going on here. Perhaps some one could kindly explain to me any superiority that the word "testament" has over "covenant" in fundamental orthodox Baptist theology. "Testament" is a true archaic English term for a covenant between humans and God. From Middle English, a will, from Latin testamentum, from testari, to make a will, from testis, witness. Most any decent thesaurus will show that "covenant" is a proper synonym for "testament".
_____

"Damned" (only 3 occurrences in the KJV) is consistantly translated as "condemned" in the NJKV. "Damnation" (11 occurrances in KJV) is mostly translated "condemnation" in the NKJV, but also once as "judgement" (1 Corinthians 11:29) and once as "destruction" (2 Peter 2:3). In the KJV the English word :damnation" could represent any of three different Greek words: krima, krisis, or apoleia.

The Greek word krima (Strong's #2917) is translated by the KJV as "damnation" in only one-fourth of its 28 occurrances in the text, and it is most often rendered as "judgment" (13 times) and several times as "condemnation" (5 times). From this evidence it is probable that the NKJV is justified in its translation of "judgement" in 1 Corinthians 11:29, as well as "condemnation" at some other verses.

The Greek word krisis (Strong's #2920) is translated by the KJV as "damnation" only 3 times of the 48 total occurrances, and translated it as "judgement" the great majority of times (41). It carries the meaning of handing down a decree or judgment.

The Greek word apoleia (Strong's #684) is translated only once as "damnation" in the KJV (in 2 Peter 2:3). The Greek word occurs 20 times, and is rendered by the 5 times as "destruction" in the KJV. It has the meaning of destroying or ruin. This seems to indicate that the NKJV has properly articulated this word in 2 Peter 2:3.

None of the definitions of these three Greek words has "damnation" as its primary meaning, and none of these words are used to mean "damnation" in the majority of their occurrances in the KJV.
_____

Lastly, the word "devils" is actually has a significant presence in the KJV text: 55 occurrances in 48 verses. I didn't check them all, but the ones I did check in the NKJV seemed to consistantly render it "demons".

The KJV is representing at least 5 different Greek words with "devils". In the OT there is sa'iyr (Strong's #8163), and shed (Strong's # 7700). In the NT there is daimonizomai (Strong's #1139), daimonion (Strong's #1140), and daimon (Strong's #1142). I will spare you all the definitions for now, but just look at the spelling of these NT Greek words (you can see the how they would virtually become "demon" transliterated English).

Surely, she doesn't deny the exsistance of demons? Yet, the word "demon" (or plural "demons") is completely absent from the KJV text! Most any decent dictionary or thesaurus will display that "demon" is a definition or synonym for "devil" (an evil supernatural being, but not the personality Satan, also known as the Devil). DEVIL: Middle English devel, from Old English deofol, from Latin diabolus, from Late Greek diabolos, from Greek, slanderer, from diaballein, to slander : dia-, dia- + ballein, to hurl. DEMON: From the Middle English, from Late Latin daemon, from Latin, spirit, from Greek daimon, divine power.

Either Mrs. Riplinger chooses her examples very poorly to support her point (under scrutiny), or these ineffective examples actually represent the only 'problems' available to her.

 

Or either she just doesn't know what she's talking about! Thanks for the commentary on Riplinger's video - it shows just how errant her beliefs pertaining to the KJV really are.

 

Invite her here and I shall be delighted to tell her to her face. Anyone who makes himself a public figure can expect his work to be criticised in public.

D.

 

You're right in one way, Eliyahu, but absolutely wrong in another way. While it is true there should be no name-calling it is not name-calling when someone merely points out many of the errant things said by someone else. When someone publishes a book and it is out there for the public to read there is absolutely nothing wrong with discussing what is incorrect in the book (in this case, the video). The writer does not have to be present to represent their views because they have already done so by releasing their book or video. It is not at all unfair to point out (1) the errors that are found in Ms. Ri[plinger's books and videos, and (2) that when these errors are presented she obviously doesn't know what she's talking about. The verse you quote has absolutely nothing to do with this situation. The verse is talking about when you have a personal "fault" between you and someone else. In cases like this we are not to go around spreading the "news" to everyone we know - we are to approach that person one-on-one and discuss the "fault." Public critique of a public work filled with error is not the same thing.

 

A closing thought about Mrs. Riplinger's "omitted" words from the NKJV is what I view as her misuse of the term "omit" itself. "Omit" really means to fail to include or mention; that is, to leave out something. The definition of the word "ommission" doesn't discriminate between unintentional passing over or neglect, or intentional elimination or exclusion.

First, the NKJV doesn't "omit" the underlying Greek scripture in her examples; they do not seem to be the result of textual variants.

Second, her comparison is English-to-English; it is improper to say that any other English version "omits" the words of the English King James Version (having exactly the same words would be plagairistic). The only proper "ommission" of words from the KJV would be in a document in English where words were excluded from a direct quotation from the KJV, or the likes of a printing error where the KJV text is being reproduced in English. "Omits" would not even be an accurrate description of the results from translation of the KJV into some other language.

She could have truthfully stated that the NKJV replaces, exchanges, or subsitutes for the words she offers in the video. But her use of "ommission" is imprecise and incorrect.

I am about one-third of the way through the video.

 

I pray you have time to finish and continue your interesting
observations, insights, and analysis of this PUBLICLY
RELEASED video.

 

That's the typical way of disobeying the commandments of the Lord. Were you not spending lengthy of time for finding faults with her in her absence? Remember, many things are ambiguous to draw the line. Academic matters can be commented, discerned, or fairly criticized in the academic ways. The person's real name is exposed in her absence, but you guys are shooting her behind without your real names. I wonder how much you can effectively present the argument in her presence. In the academic forum, you could have the chances to do so. For the theses, for the treatises, or for the articles, you can equally dispute or argue by presenting your theses, treatises, or articles. If it is video, you can make one. Otherwise, certain comments may be tolerated until you may hear the response. If you don't hear any response, the more debate or argument cannot be proceeded. That's is it.
These type of shooting behind also relates to the criticism following the majority, because only the number of the CT-MV followers are many.
Read this.

Exodus 23:2
Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou speak in a cause to decline after many to wrest judgment:

You should be careful that you may not judge or criticize others in the way Jesus was judged by the multitude. Even Jesus may have difficulty if He comes to this BB, I wonder.

In documents, there are plenty of articles which show the comparison between MV's and KJV, even KJV and NKJV, but if you fairly compared both sides of the arguments, you can hardly say that KJVO's or KJVB's yield to you in the actual debate.
Even on this section of the board, no one could win over me in many issues.

 

Eliyahu, there's a huge difference between finding fault with someone and finding fault with what that person erroneously claims to be truth. Don't you understand the difference between the two? You should be careful that you may not judge or criticize others in the way Jesus was judged by the multitude. Even Jesus may have difficulty if He comes to this BB, I wonder.

Then why make the false argument that we are unfairly passing judgment on Riplinger? The truth about some of her false claims is being shown. No one is condemning Ms. Riplinger for the clothes she wears, the people she associates with, the car she drives, the food she eats, etc. Those things would be finding fault with her. Pointing up her errors is not finding fault with her. In this resapect you are absolutely wrong, Eliyahu.

 

Is this a fair debate?

I wonder how much IQ this type of criticizers have. The invitation should be made by the person who wants to debate with her.


As for the contents of the debate, I believe if the person is not invited, once or twice rebuke or condemnation is enough.

On this board, no one could prove that the KJV was wrong in many issues like:
1John 5:7, 1 Tim 3:16, John 7:39, John 8:1-11( Pericope Adulturae), Mark's longer ending, Acts 8:37, Acts 12:4, Ephesians 3:9, Colossians 1:14, Danel 9:26, Isaiah 53:10, Zechariah 13:6.
At best both parties could agree to disagree each other.
If you have the actual debate in person with the real names exposed, the conclusion may be that no one could win the other.

The only thing that is enjoyed by the multitude here is shooting behind in the absence of the person, which is definitely coward thing.
You may disagree with me on this again, then I would leave this up to the Great Judge.

 

Actually I have noticed the problems with both sides, but I decided not to be involved in there because I was sure that the debate would be a quagmire, wasting too much time. But in general, over the two threads, I feel it is excessive, and in some cases the expression exceeded the limit.
You can continue shooting behind her! Enjoy your portion!

 

What's the problem, Eli? The term "silly women" appears in 2 Tim 3.6 :thumbs:

 

Where's "disaster" found?

 

Anyone seen the book The Language of the King James Bible
by G. A. Riplinger (Author), Gail A. Riplinger (Author)

Two authors?

I wonder if is she is a Moonie. She practices heavenly deception on Christians.

James 1:22 "But prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves."

Her deception alone associates her with those who are deluded.

 

Quoted above:

I request you cite also the Bible Version from which you cut and
pasted. Thank you.

Here is an example of how you can be helpful. Thank you.

Exodus 23:2 (KJV1769 Edition):
Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil;
neither shalt thou speak in a cause to decline
after many to wrest judgment:

Here is the same verse in today's (2007) English:

Exodus 23:2 (NIV):
"Do not follow the crowd in doing wrong.
When you give testimony in a lawsuit,
do not pervert justice by siding with the crowd,

Nobody here is giving 'testimony in a lawsuit'.
We are in a debate about publicly stated positions
(i.e. the video).

Then you should have quoted the scripture without comment.
(It is hard for us to add to what the scripture says).

Request: Please don't abbreivate a person's moniker.
If we do that, I will be calling you 'Dis'. Thank you.

BTW, 'Silly' in 1769 means something different than
it means in 2007:

2 Timothy 3:6 (Geneva Bible of 1587):
For of this sort are they which creepe into houses,
and leade captiue simple women laden
with sinnes, and led with diuers lustes,

Webster's 1828 dictionary found at:

http://65.66.134.201/cgi-bin/webster/webster.exe?search_for_texts_web1828=silly

says:

 

Folks, I appreciate all your comments that pertain to the topic of this thread, which is: the Riplinger video and how it relates to translations and versions. Thank you.

 

It's like this:

There are a few, only a few but nevertheless a few, GOOD arguments for the superiority of the Textus Receptus. Every time someone uses a BAD argument, especially an argument based on a fundamental misunderstanding of English (such as the argument about Genesis 22.8) or an argument based on an ad hominem, especially if that involves guilt by association or the deliberate taking of a quotation out of context, that person does immeasurable harm to the cause of the KJV.

At one time I myself believed in the superiority of the Textus Receptus. That was before I saw the quality of the arguments used to support the KJVO view.

D.

 

Tee Hee ...

I've not seen that book.
I've already spent over $50 on books by her,
I can't see promoting her deceptions by giving
her more money. Would you like to send me your
copy? I'll pay the postage (I do support my USofA
parcel post delivery groups).

 

Yes, I know that, Ed. I was making a point to Eliyahu, that's all. In this case I think the modern versions would apply equally well. However if you prefer I will rephrase to "unscholarly woman", will that do?

D.

 

Works for me. But this is also good:

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]The Holman Christian Standard Bible [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]2 Timothy [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]3:6


[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]For among them are those who worm their way into households
and capture idle women burdened down with sins, led along
by a variety of passions, [/FONT]