Another Riplinger video...

[gb93433]

I thought "Baptists" stood solidly on the authority of the scripture. It has been established long ago, that everyone of the "new versions" are serious corruptions of the God-blessed text. How can someone copyright the scriptures? (Hint: $$$$$)

Are you not aware that the KJV is copyrighted?

Your comments are amazing because it is quite clear that you need just a little more study to get it right. When Jesus was around there was more than one translation of the OT. I wonder which one He used? Apaprently they did not have a proper Bible over 2000 years ago but according to you that in 1611 they did come up with one which was perfect without ever any need for corrections.

I do believe in the value of God's word found in Prov. 18:17, "The first to plead his case seems right, Until another comes and examines him."

 

[Mongol Servant]

Finally

Rip - in 1901, most (if not all) fundamental Baptists were using The Holy Bible, not the ASV, that had just came on the scene.
Lost unitarians: (They deny the Deity of Christ, the fall of man, and the vicarious atonement)
1) J.H. Thayer
2) J.D. Michaelis
3) Herbert Marsh
4) Thomas Belsham
5) Joseph Priestly
6) Gilbert Wakefield
7) William Frend
8) Theophilus Lindsey
All of these influenced the modern versions.
Westcott & Hort were lost, demon-possessed "church-men", but in no sense of the term, were they Christian. Both stated that they got more out of reading Darwin than reading the Bible. All modern versions come from their corrupted N.T. manuscripts.

Roby - yes, my friend, it HAS been long ago established fact that ALL of the modern versions are (attack on Bibles deleted) of the God-blessed text. Riplinger (yes, I've read some of her material) has some good material, as does several others, but they are late-comers to much of the previously documented problems with the modern versions. See Dr Jasper Ray's book entitled, "God Only Wrote One Bible," by Eye Opener Publishers of Junction City, Oregon, published in 1955. The best that I have read is by Dr James H. Sightler, entitled "A Testimony Founded Forever," by Sightler Publications, published in 1999. This book has a bibliography that is astounding.

No, the KJV is not copyrighted in England - it still has the Crown's sanction and approval - big difference.

Yes, any (attack on Bibles deleted) of the scriptures can be copyrighted ($$$), but not the God-blessed scriptures themselves. God holds the copyright to The Holy Bible, not Zondervan or Thomas Nelson. In Acts 2, when the disciples spoke in many different languages (not Hebrew & Greek), was what they spoke the word of God? Hmmm.....

Yes, I teach Mongol believers about God in English (from the Holy Bible) and also in their native tongue. There is also a work underway to translate into Mongolian from the English (Holy Bible), because the current translation is from the (attack on Bible deleted) ASV. The Mongols know that The Lord doesn't say things as recorded in the MASV!

No, on the contrary, I am NOT closed to the truth - I have the TRUTH, The Holy Bible, and it doesn't change from continent to continent or terms of usage from generation to generation.

Yes, it is true, my Holy Bible was translated from vernacular Bibles in existence since 250AD (or earlier). The king's translation committees relied 90% on them and seldom ever consulted the TR (in koine Greek).

Better selection of versions? How? Everything touched by Westcott & Hort (all short of the Holy Bible) are (attack on Bibles deleted).

Translating from one language (English) to Mongolian will lose nothing, if The Lord is backing it! We didn't lose anything from Hebrew to Greek to Italian to Spanish to Dutch to German to English, because The Lord was behind it.

Sounds like you (and others) think that God can't preserve (Psalm 12:6-7) and protect (Ecclesiastes 8:4) His word, without "help" from a bunch of lost psuedo-scholars!

Well, as pointed out previously - people are dropping into hell while we discuss something God settled a long time ago.

Back to winning souls for His glory! :jesus:

 

[gb93433]

Translating from one language (English) to Mongolian will lose nothing, if The Lord is backing it! We didn't lose anything from Hebrew to Greek to Italian to Spanish to Dutch to German to English, because The Lord was behind it.

Obviously you have not ever translated anything and especialy particles.

Let me just give an example. If you were going to translate the following Spanish sentences into English how would you translate como estas and como esta.

 

[gb93433]

Well, as pointed out previously - people are dropping into hell while we discuss something God settled a long time ago.

You are right. It was settled long ago. It was settled long before English came into being. You can read in the Bible about how big of an issue Jesus made it during a time when there was more then one Greek translation of the OT.

I remember the first time I heard such a phrase is when a man in the congregation decided to show up to Sunday School and made the comment, "You know why people are going to hell today? Because they don't read the King James Bible." I told him to get busy and lead people to Christ and make disciples. He no longer had an argument. Then I gave a sermon on what a true leader looks like--Jesus. A true leader makes disciples who look to him for leadership. He had never led anyone to Christ that I knew about but was willing to argue his points. I gave him the opportuinity to prove his theology. The fact was that the church had quite a number of KJVO folks and it was dying. God removed them. Everyone of them moveed for job reasons. The closest one moved about 500 miles away. Everyone of them moved without me saying one word to them. I just encouraged them to share their faith and make disciples. Not one of them led anyone to Christ in the community.

 

[EdSutton]

Rip - in 1901, most (if not all) fundamental Baptists were using The Holy Bible, not the ASV, that had just came on the scene.
Lost unitarians: (They deny the Deity of Christ, the fall of man, and the vicarious atonement)
1) J.H. Thayer
2) J.D. Michaelis
3) Herbert Marsh
4) Thomas Belsham
5) Joseph Priestly
6) Gilbert Wakefield
7) William Frend
8) Theophilus Lindsey
All of these influenced the modern versions.
Westcott & Hort were lost, demon-possessed "church-men", but in no sense of the term, were they Christian. Both stated that they got more out of reading Darwin than reading the Bible. All modern versions come from their corrupted N.T. manuscripts.

Roby - yes, my friend, it HAS been long ago established fact that ALL of the modern versions are very serious corruptions of the God-blessed text. Riplinger (yes, I've read some of her material) has some good material, as does several others, but they are late-comers to much of the previously documented problems with the modern versions. See Dr Jasper Ray's book entitled, "God Only Wrote One Bible," by Eye Opener Publishers of Junction City, Oregon, published in 1955. The best that I have read is by Dr James H. Sightler, entitled "A Testimony Founded Forever," by Sightler Publications, published in 1999. This book has a bibliography that is astounding.

No, the KJV is not copyrighted in England - it still has the Crown's sanction and approval - big difference.

Yes, any (per)version of the scriptures can be copyrighted ($$$), but not the God-blessed scriptures themselves. God holds the copyright to The Holy Bible, not Zondervan or Thomas Nelson. In Acts 2, when the disciples spoke in many different languages (not Hebrew & Greek), was what they spoke the word of God? Hmmm.....

Yes, I teach Mongol believers about God in English (from the Holy Bible) and also in their native tongue. There is also a work underway to translate into Mongolian from the English (Holy Bible), because the current translation is from the corrupt ASV. The Mongols know that The Lord doesn't say things as recorded in the MASV!

No, on the contrary, I am NOT closed to the truth - I have the TRUTH, The Holy Bible, and it doesn't change from continent to continent or terms of usage from generation to generation.

Yes, it is true, my Holy Bible was translated from vernacular Bibles in existence since 250AD (or earlier). The king's translation committees relied 90% on them and seldom ever consulted the TR (in koine Greek).

Better selection of versions? How? Everything touched by Westcott & Hort (all short of the Holy Bible) are proven corruptions.

Translating from one language (English) to Mongolian will lose nothing, if The Lord is backing it! We didn't lose anything from Hebrew to Greek to Italian to Spanish to Dutch to German to English, because The Lord was behind it.

Sounds like you (and others) think that God can't preserve (Psalm 12:6-7) and protect (Ecclesiastes 8:4) His word, without "help" from a bunch of lost psuedo-scholars!

Well, as pointed out previously - people are dropping into hell while we discuss something God settled a long time ago.

Back to winning souls for His glory! :jesus:

Mongol Servant, I realize you are new to the BB. I'm going to offer you a bit of friendly advice, as one who has no position on the BB, except as a member. You can take it or leave it. I note you have a total of three posts. You have already in three posts clearly violated several of the rules on the BB, especially in this forum. Those are to be found at the very top of this forum. And they are fairly simple to read and fairly clear in what they say. I don't make any rules, I just follow them, here. If you would like to see your post number climb to a much higher number, you should probably consider cleaning up your act in a hurry. Take it for what it's worth. More than one poster has not reached double figures in posts before being banned. You could easily join that crowd, at present rate. And I will not have anything at all to do, with your joining them. Others in authority will be the ones, who help one find the door, who will not abide by the rules of this private forum. You don't like 'em? Start your own forum.

Ed

 

[robycop3]

Mongol Servant, you have many, many errors of the KJVO doctrine within your framework. First, Psalm 12:7 is about the PEOPLE named in Ps. 12:1-5, as a simple reading of the AV 1611 & the translators' marginal note for the 2nd them in V7 will showya. And i've read Ray's work. It's largely a plagiarism of 7TH DAY ADVENTIST official Dr. Benjamin Wilkinson's 1930 book, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated. Don't believe it? Just read Wilkinson's book for yourself. And tryta find a bio of Ray anywhere, or who actually owns Eye-Opener.

And Eccl. 8:4 has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with BVs.

A Crown sanction is a COPYRIGHT in England, & the KJV is under such copyright in England. Don't believe it? just contact the nearest BRITISH EMBASSY!

Sightler, as Riplinger, tells only ONE SIDE of the story, although he's not as deliberately dishonest as she is.. And none...NONE...of the KJVO authors can provide the first quark of SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for the KJVO myth!

Yes, any (per)version of the scriptures can be copyrighted ($$$), but not the God-blessed scriptures themselves. God holds the copyright to The Holy Bible, not Zondervan or Thomas Nelson. In Acts 2, when the disciples spoke in many different languages (not Hebrew & Greek), was what they spoke the word of God? Hmmm.....

First, a friendly reminder...The moderators of this board don't allow calling God's word a "perversion". And don't argue that MVs are not God's word. That won't work here; it's not an acceptable excuse. Now, as to copyrights...TRANSLATIONS are copyrighted, and there's no such thing as a "free" copy of the Bible in ANY version. Someone somewhere paid for it. Even if you sit down & make a Mongol Bible & give copies of it away at no charge to the recipient, YOU will be paying for the materials used to make it, & for the actual printing.

A simple fact of life is that printers must make money to stay in business. I assure you that if the KJV didn't make money for its printers, it would no longer be printed.

So, if the KJV was made largely from vernacular Bibles, did they lose their validity after 1611? just what WAS the HB in English before 1611? Or, do ya believe God waited over 1500 years to give His complete word to mankind?

Lemme close my reply with this comment: YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY **NO** SCRIPTURAL BASIS FOR YOUR BELIEF!

Again, a friendly reminder...THIS THREAD IS ABOUT THE MATERIAL SEEN/HEARD ON A VIDEF A GAIL RIPLINGER LECTURE. I am not a moderator, nor do I wannabee, but the rules of the board are clear...STAY ON TOPIC within a given thread. If ya wanna discuss KJVO, then please start another topic. We don't want this'n closed until the discussion of the GAR video has run its course, so if ya haven't seen the video, please watch it & confine your comments in this thread to being about that video.

 

[Rufus_1611]

A Crown sanction is a COPYRIGHT in England, & the KJV is under such copyright in England. Don't believe it? just contact the nearest BRITISH EMBASSY!

We've already gone down this path. The Brits do not answer questions regarding this issue. Why do you continue to encourage people to do this? It is a Crown Copyright and is unique to the others.

Yes, any (per)version of the scriptures can be copyrighted ($$$), but not the God-blessed scriptures themselves. God holds the copyright to The Holy Bible, not Zondervan or Thomas Nelson. In Acts 2, when the disciples spoke in many different languages (not Hebrew & Greek), was what they spoke the word of God? Hmmm.....

First, a friendly reminder...The moderators of this board don't allow calling God's word a "perversion". And don't argue that MVs are not God's word. That won't work here; it's not an acceptable excuse.

Mongol, feel free to call the belief that God's Word being contained in any book that has the word "Bible" on it, or any "valid" book (as subjectively defined by each individual belief in what Bible works best for them), or any version that uses manuscripts containing the word "Vatican" or that are found in the trash of a Catholic monastery, a "myth" as this word is preferred over "perversion".

Robycop, have you not made the argument that some modern versions are not God's word? There are folks that contend that The Message is a modern version of God's Word but are you not in the camp that the Message is not a "valid" version? What is argued typically on this board is which versions are "valid" and which are "invalid" and I for one can not pin ya'll down in objectively defining how one goes about that determination. Therefore, you have an opinion that some modern versions are the word of God, others say none of them are. Since you are advocating for this issue being subjective anyway, why be so vehement about who is right? From your worldview each man's opinion is what reigns no?

Now, as to copyrights...TRANSLATIONS are copyrighted, and there's no such thing as a "free" copy of the Bible in ANY version.

I can copy a complete King James Bible word for word, bind it in paper and charge you for that copy without fear of being sued. If I copy more than 500 verses of an NIV, or copy a book of the Bible, and try to sell it (or even give it away), then I will have violated the Copyrights of Zondervan and will be at risk of litigation.

Someone somewhere paid for it. Even if you sit down & make a Mongol Bible & give copies of it away at no charge to the recipient, YOU will be paying for the materials used to make it, & for the actual printing.

Materials are not relevant to copyright. I can charge for materials + profit of a KJV without getting consent of any man. I would have to get Zondervan's permission to copy NIVs for they own the right to their words.

A simple fact of life is that printers must make money to stay in business. I assure you that if the KJV didn't make money for its printers, it would no longer be printed.

I assure you that it would be printed, for Christians would do everything within their power to follow the footsteps of the King James Translators, Wycliff, Rogers, Tyndale, and the others who shed their blood to get the Word of God in the English language into the hands of the common man. Contrary to the behaviors of Zondervan/Harper-Collins/Rupert Murdoch, Thomas Nelson, Lockman, NavPress etc. not all Bible publishers and printers are/were motivated by the love of money. However, this is unnecessary as His word has been preserved just as He promised and there is no cause to rewrite it or start our own printing presses.

Lemme close my reply with this comment: YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY **NO** SCRIPTURAL BASIS FOR YOUR BELIEF!

NOR DO **YOU** FOR YOURS! In fact, in order for one to hold your position one has to believe that God is the author of confusion and thus, your position runs contrary to scripture (In my subjective opinion of course).

 

[gb93433]

I can copy a complete King James Bible word for word, bind it in paper and charge you for that copy without fear of being sued. If I copy more than 500 verses of an NIV, or copy a book of the Bible, and try to sell it (or even give it away), then I will have violated the Copyrights of Zondervan and will be at risk of litigation.

People in other countries copy (steal) software all the time which has an American copyright. Ever notice how little software is developed in other countries. Who would be willing to pay software developers large sums of money and then give the software away. They would not stay in business long.

Copyright is not always to make money. It is also for the protection of what is written. I have copyrights on some work I have done and would not want some idiot steal my work, make changes, and call it his. I want the work protected so that what I did is preserved and not adulterated.

If you tried to copy a Bible most likely it would cost more than it would to buy one that is already made. Try making a complete Bible in paperback and see if you have less then $10 in it.

 

[gb93433]

I assure you that it would be printed, for Christians would do everything within their power to follow the footsteps of the King James Translators, Wycliff, Rogers, Tyndale, and the others who shed their blood to get the Word of God in the English language into the hands of the common man.

How much did the British taxpayers pay to have that Bible done under King James's administration?

May you should push to have an authorized version called the President Bush Version (PBV). It would be about the same thing.

 

[Rufus_1611]

People in other countries copy (steal) software all the time which has an American copyright. Ever notice how little software is developed in other countries. Who would be willing to pay software developers large sums of money and then give the software away. They would not stay in business long.

Copyright is not always to make money. It is also for the protection of what is written. I have copyrights on some work I have done and would not want some idiot steal my work, make changes, and call it his. I want the work protected so that what I did is preserved and not adulterated.

If you tried to copy a Bible most likely it would cost more than it would to buy one that is already made. Try making a complete Bible in paperback and see if you have less then $10 in it.

All true. We have a local Dollar Tree that has paperback KJVs for $1 a piece and last time in there I bought 7 so I would have copies I could give to folks. I can't buy a ream of paper for a $1 much less bind it. Praise God that His word is preserved and we don't have to go through much trouble or expense to put it in our hands or to put it in the hands of others.

 

[Rufus_1611]

How much did the British taxpayers pay to have that Bible done under King James's administration?

May you should push to have an authorized version called the President Bush Version (PBV). It would be about the same thing.

If we did it would have a passage or two in it explaining how Muslims serve the same God as Christians.

Bush is a Universalist?

 

[Ed Edwards]

I. Statement #1:
Rufus_1611: //... for Christians would do everything within their
power to follow the footsteps of the King James Translators,
Wycliff, Rogers, Tyndale, and the others who
shed their blood to get the Word of God
in the English language into the hands of the common man.//

II. Conversation #2:
Whomever: // Lemme close my reply with this comment:
YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY **NO** SCRIPTURAL
BASIS FOR YOUR BELIEF!//

Rufus_1611: //NOR DO **YOU** FOR YOURS!
In fact, in order for one to hold your position one
has to believe that God is the author of confusion
and thus, your position runs contrary to scripture
(In my subjective opinion of course).//

Statement #1 seems to contradict your damnation
in Conversation #2 of many modern versions
by misquoting your own personal Bible.

1 Co 14:33 (KJV1611 Edition):
For God is not the authour of confusion,
but of peace,
as in all Churches of the Saints.

Your Bible clearly defines 'confusion' as the
opposite of 'peace'.
But you use that 'confusion' as though it means
that your mind can't wrap itself around more than
one version. Sorry, that kind of confusion is
yours and NOT MINE. And you have no right
as a Baptist nor as an American to damn my
Bible(s).

Here is the way my Bible reads:
1 Corinthians 14:33 (HCSB = The Holman Christian Standard Bible):
since God is not a God of disorder
but of peace.
As in all the churches of the saints,

for this to have meaning: // ... in order for one to hold your
position one has to believe that God is the author of confusion ... //

Consider the two different interpertations of 'confusion' and I'll
substitute each in your statement:

// ... in order for one to hold your
position one has to believe that God
is the author of disorder ... //
(This was the correct meaning: confusion = disorder)

// ... in order for one to hold your
position one has to believe that God
is the author of mental mixups ... //
(this was the incorrect meaning: confusion = mental mixup)

Strangely, that make some they that shed the blood
(virtual) of those who try to being the Bible to
modern men in a modern language.

 

[Rufus_1611]

Your Bible clearly defines 'confusion' as the
opposite of 'peace'. But you use that 'confusion' as though it means
that your mind can't wrap itself around more than
one version. Sorry, that kind of confusion is
yours and NOT MINE. And you have no right
as a Baptist nor as an American to damn my
Bible(s).

Damning something is not a right that any man has save for the Son of Man. Whatever damnation occurs will not be because of my worldview but based solely on the fruits of each Bible and its authors. The King of Kings is the judge of damnation and salvation, and this is not a right that I claim as a Baptist nor as an American.

However, as a Baptist, according to the doctrine of soul competency, I do have the right to set forth my convictions and as an American I have the freedom (for now) to express these convictions.

As to my view, I have an equal right to express that the modern versions do not say the same things as the Authorized Version and thus are a source of confusion as you do to say they are all the word of God and taken collectively brings order and clarity to understanding God. In my view, while it would be sensical to say that one of the modern versions is the word of God and the AV is not, it is nonsensical to say that all of these Bibles are the same and at the same time God is not the author of confusion/disorder/mental mix-ups or whatever descriptor it is that you would desire to apply, depending on the Bible you desire to read from.

 

[gb93433]

However, as a Baptist, according to the doctrine of soul competency, I do have the right to set forth my convictions and as an American I have the freedom (for now) to express these convictions.

You are right. You also have the right to be wrong without prosecution in this country. You also have the right to be ignorant and not know it. Soul competency does not negate study. Soul competency does not make one competent by a lack of study and making claims he thinks he knows.

As to my view, I have an equal right to express that the modern versions do not say the same things as the Authorized Version and thus are a source of confusion as you do to say they are all the word of God and taken collectively brings order and clarity to understanding God. In my view, while it would be sensical to say that one of the modern versions is the word of God and the AV is not, it is nonsensical to say that all of these Bibles are the same and at the same time God is not the author of confusion/disorder/mental mix-ups or whatever descriptor it is that you would desire to apply, depending on the Bible you desire to read from.

You are right. It is your view and not the view of many others. So that makes at least one or more wrong. One may think he has the entire picture and be absolutely wrong. Another may think he has the entire picture and be wrong. But the only person who has the entire picture and is never wrong is God.

Convictions are somethings one is willing to die for. Preferences are something one is not willing to die for but prefers.

You say that you have convictions about the version you choose to use. So which theological positiuon are you willing to die for?

 

[Ed Edwards]

Rufus_1611: //Whatever damnation occurs will not be
because of my worldview but based solely on the fruits
of each Bible and its authors.//

I still like the KJVs even though they were
translated by baby sprinklers & spawned
(in the 19th century /1801-1900/ alone):

Christian Science
Adventist Movement
Later Day Saints (LDS) /biggest is the Mormons)
Jehovah's Witnesses

Some fruit, eh?

 

[Rufus_1611]

You say that you have convictions about the version you choose to use. So which theological positiuon are you willing to die for?

The narrow one.

 

[Rufus_1611]

Rufus_1611: //Whatever damnation occurs will not be
because of my worldview but based solely on the fruits
of each Bible and its authors.//

I still like the KJVs even though they were
translated by baby sprinklers & spawned
(in the 19th century /1801-1900/ alone):

Christian Science
Adventist Movement
Later Day Saints (LDS) /biggest is the Mormons)
Jehovah's Witnesses

Some fruit, eh?

There was that whole reformation thing as well and then there was the 400 years of the English speaking peoples evangelizing the world. What do you think of the fruits of the 20th century Bibles? You suppose Western Civilization is on the incline or decline since laying down the Sword and picking up the Wescott and Hort boxcutters?

 

[gb93433]

The narrow one.

So now you get vague when it comes right down to "where the rubber meets the road?" Are you saying that you are willing to die for the use of the KJV? If so, then you had better convert the world to the ld English language and typestyle including the culture. If not then you do not have a conviction on that issue. You simply have an opinion and preference.

 

[Rufus_1611]

So now you get vague when it comes right down to "where the rubber meets the road?" Are you saying that you are willing to die for the use of the KJV?

Yes.

Which Bible will you die for?

 

[Ed Edwards]

The same one you damn.

//You suppose Western Civilization is on the incline or decline since laying
down the Sword and picking up the Wescott and Hort boxcutters?//

I like to think of it as the Wescott & Hort NUCLEARS.
The HCSB has been read by more people in the past 3 years
(I got mine in March 2004) than the KJVs were read in
their first hundred years (1611-1710).