You just don't get it do you, Eliyahu? When anyone allows their beliefs to be published in any way (print, video, audio, etc.) their beliefs become fair territory for public debate and discussion. Riplinger made these comments publicly, and she has written her books with the intent of having them released to the public. In doing so she opened her comments and beliefs up for public scrutiny. She doesn't have to be a participant at BB for her comments to be fair territory for public commentay. You are adding to the public discussion of her beliefs just as much as anyone else participating in this discussion. If you don't want Ms. Riplinger's beliefs discussed and dissected publicly then you shouldn't be making any comments regarding the discussion, and she shouldn't have made public any of her beliefs. It's really quite simple - if Ms. Riplinger didn't want the public dissecting her beliefs then she should have kept them to herself rather than publishing them. This is not a cowardly discussion of her beliefs as you intimated, Eliyahu. It is merely public discussion of her publicly stated beliefs.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Another Riplinger video...
- Thread starter robycop3
- Start date
- Status
Disgruntled UK Baptist
New Member
O come on. How could anyone do that in a church in secret and get that sort of quality?Eliyahu said:
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Disgruntled UK Baptist said:
Good question. Your basic hid-in-a-MV-spy-camera
just isn't that good.
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
I have a copy of IN AWE OF THY WORD.
Are there enough others who would care to look in it
to debate Riplinger's PUBLIC findings?
Are there enough others who would care to look in it
to debate Riplinger's PUBLIC findings?
Where and at which occasion did she make the publication? Did OP bought it? Could you not notice that the contents were not the academic debate? I can imagine what logic is behind the people shooting behind a person. You can never change the situation of the shooting behind. If anyone debate with the proper preparation for Luke 13:8, Mt 18:26, for Sobriety or Sober, I am sure she was very correct. Moderation cannot teach the teaching of Sophranas in 1 Tim 2:9 for Sober or sobriety.Keith M said:
All the accusations are dismissed and Case is closed as you said.
Last edited:
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
This page:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=964598#post964598
with this title
AWE Chapt 5: THE HOLIEST OF ALL
is where I will be discussing Chapter 5
of Riplinger's IN AWE OF THY WORD
which is in a public place
so there will be a public discussion of it
(with all rights reserved, of course, to the PTB /powers
that be - i.e. the bosses around here/ )
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=964598#post964598
with this title
AWE Chapt 5: THE HOLIEST OF ALL
is where I will be discussing Chapter 5
of Riplinger's IN AWE OF THY WORD
which is in a public place
so there will be a public discussion of it
(with all rights reserved, of course, to the PTB /powers
that be - i.e. the bosses around here/ )
franklinmonroe
Active Member
I will continue my analysis of the Riplinger video posted by the pro-KJV website for public consumption. This lecture moves quickly, and she uses her time efficiently; so, part of the purpose of this post is to allow so time to think about what she has presented.
BTW - much of the controversy is a result of Gail Riplinger's failure to quote verses in full, and/or in context. She claims to be a supporter of the KJV, but as she speaks in front of this audience she does not seem to have her Bible from which to read her own examples (instead she refers to notes).
I pick up now where she was discussing "26 instances" of the demotion of Christ's Diety by the substitution of words (like "Sir" and "Master" in the NKJV instead of the KJV word "Lord"). It has been established that the word in both the previous example texts was the Greek word kurios which has been translated elsewhere in the KJV itself as "Sir" and "Master".
Even though both Luke 13:8 and Matthew 18:26 are within parables spoken by fictional characters to other fictional characters, she is very clear that she thinks the word "Lord" refers to Jesus Christ in these passages. I quote her verbatim--
Her opinion is that "what these new versions seem to do is: if the King James says 'Jesus' they say 'Master; if the King James says 'Master' they say 'Lord'. They always move him down one position every chance that they get." It is apparent to me that she misspeaks here because she has already demonstrated that she thinks that "Master" is a downgrade from "Lord" (not vice versa).
The next example offerred by Mrs. Riplinger seems to be found in Matthew 20:20 (although she mistakenly says "20:22" in the video). She correctly states that the KJV has "worshipped him" and the NKJV has "kneeling before him".
Here is the KJV verse and some context (Matthew 20:20-21)--
The "he" in verse 20 is Jesus. Matthew writes that the action from James, John, and their mother is toward Jesus. The Greek word translated "worshipped" is proskuneo (Strong's #4352) which according to Thayer's basically means the following: 1) to kiss the hand in token of reverence; 2) among the Orientals to fall upon the knees and touch the ground with the forehead as an expression of profound reverence; or 3) in the NT by kneeling or prostration to do homage or make obeisance, whether in order to express respect or to make supplication. This word is translated by the KJV as "worshipped" every time (60).
Certainly, from the lexical definition the NKJV could be justified with their translation. But consider also the scene: it seems that mother of James and John has come to selfishly petition for their desired postions. I think its possible that they didn't arrive in a particularly worshipful frame of mind. Note that the brothers' mother does not even respectfully address Jesus with any title, but just blurts out her request. But it is evident (to a degree) that she knows she is asking the right person; no one else would have the authority to grant her desire.
At least they got the body position right. I confess that sometimes when I arrive at church, I am not in a worshipful spirit. Sometimes, even when I properly have my head bowed and my hands folded, I do not have the proper heart for prayer. The appearance of worship is not the proof of worship.
Riplinger is asserting that "kneeling down" diminishes the Diety of Christ here. But that is to presume that this word's purposes is to show the Deity of Christ in the first place. Obviously, not every scripture verse exists to prove this doctrine (and this theological truth does not depend upon any particular English word in this verse).
The word itself does not prove Deity in the KJV: in Acts 7:43 Paul concerning Israel wrote "ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan, figures which ye made to worship them"; in Acts 10:25 as Peter is met by Cornelius, he "fell down at his feet, and worshipped [him]"; and in Revelation 19:20 concerning "them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image". So idols, men, and demons are also "worshipped"; this word is not exclusively used with acts of worship toward the true Lord God.
Some day every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that He is Lord, but for some rebellious hearts it will not be an act of worship.
BTW - much of the controversy is a result of Gail Riplinger's failure to quote verses in full, and/or in context. She claims to be a supporter of the KJV, but as she speaks in front of this audience she does not seem to have her Bible from which to read her own examples (instead she refers to notes).
I pick up now where she was discussing "26 instances" of the demotion of Christ's Diety by the substitution of words (like "Sir" and "Master" in the NKJV instead of the KJV word "Lord"). It has been established that the word in both the previous example texts was the Greek word kurios which has been translated elsewhere in the KJV itself as "Sir" and "Master".
Even though both Luke 13:8 and Matthew 18:26 are within parables spoken by fictional characters to other fictional characters, she is very clear that she thinks the word "Lord" refers to Jesus Christ in these passages. I quote her verbatim--
"Let me give you an example. Luke chapter thirteen, verse eight. The King James says Lord; we know whenever anyone calls Jesus Lord, they are saying he is the God of the Old Testament."
She is quoted exactly just moments later--"Look at Matthew 18:26. The King James says, and worshipped him saying, Lord... so, we're definately saying that Jesus Christ is God there. Worship; the First Commanment is Worship the Lord thy God and him only. And they're calling him Lord, they're saying he is the God of the Old Testament."
Her opinion is that "what these new versions seem to do is: if the King James says 'Jesus' they say 'Master; if the King James says 'Master' they say 'Lord'. They always move him down one position every chance that they get." It is apparent to me that she misspeaks here because she has already demonstrated that she thinks that "Master" is a downgrade from "Lord" (not vice versa).
The next example offerred by Mrs. Riplinger seems to be found in Matthew 20:20 (although she mistakenly says "20:22" in the video). She correctly states that the KJV has "worshipped him" and the NKJV has "kneeling before him".
Here is the KJV verse and some context (Matthew 20:20-21)--
Then came to him the mother of Zebedee's children with her sons, worshipping [him], and desiring a certain thing of him.
And he said unto her, What wilt thou? She saith unto him, Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom.
And he said unto her, What wilt thou? She saith unto him, Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom.
The "he" in verse 20 is Jesus. Matthew writes that the action from James, John, and their mother is toward Jesus. The Greek word translated "worshipped" is proskuneo (Strong's #4352) which according to Thayer's basically means the following: 1) to kiss the hand in token of reverence; 2) among the Orientals to fall upon the knees and touch the ground with the forehead as an expression of profound reverence; or 3) in the NT by kneeling or prostration to do homage or make obeisance, whether in order to express respect or to make supplication. This word is translated by the KJV as "worshipped" every time (60).
Certainly, from the lexical definition the NKJV could be justified with their translation. But consider also the scene: it seems that mother of James and John has come to selfishly petition for their desired postions. I think its possible that they didn't arrive in a particularly worshipful frame of mind. Note that the brothers' mother does not even respectfully address Jesus with any title, but just blurts out her request. But it is evident (to a degree) that she knows she is asking the right person; no one else would have the authority to grant her desire.
At least they got the body position right. I confess that sometimes when I arrive at church, I am not in a worshipful spirit. Sometimes, even when I properly have my head bowed and my hands folded, I do not have the proper heart for prayer. The appearance of worship is not the proof of worship.
Riplinger is asserting that "kneeling down" diminishes the Diety of Christ here. But that is to presume that this word's purposes is to show the Deity of Christ in the first place. Obviously, not every scripture verse exists to prove this doctrine (and this theological truth does not depend upon any particular English word in this verse).
The word itself does not prove Deity in the KJV: in Acts 7:43 Paul concerning Israel wrote "ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan, figures which ye made to worship them"; in Acts 10:25 as Peter is met by Cornelius, he "fell down at his feet, and worshipped [him]"; and in Revelation 19:20 concerning "them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image". So idols, men, and demons are also "worshipped"; this word is not exclusively used with acts of worship toward the true Lord God.
Some day every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that He is Lord, but for some rebellious hearts it will not be an act of worship.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Franklin Monroe: //I will continue my analysis of the Riplinger
video posted by the pro-KJV website for public consumption.//
Thank you for you thoughtful and persistent work.
video posted by the pro-KJV website for public consumption.//
Thank you for you thoughtful and persistent work.
franklinmonroe
Active Member
The next verse that Riplinger claims demotes the Deity of Jesus is Genesis 22:8. The story is well known. Here is the KJV verse--
Her objection is the addition of the NKJV word "for" inserted between the words "provide" and "himself". She asserts that this changes the KJV meaning of "a prophetic reference to the sacrifical offerring of God himself dying for our sins" to the NKJV meaning that it will not be God but a "separate person". Perhaps some one more qualified than myself could testify to the grammatical correctness of either version.
The word "God" here is the Hebrew elohiym (which a plural form, Strong's #430). It is translated "God" in the KJV 2346 times, "god" (244), and few other ways.
I understand her argument. I believe that I can accept the NKJV translation to mean that it will be the separate person God-the-Son that becomes the Lamb, not the entire Godhead (the Triune God). Spiritualizing the story, the two separate persons of Abraham and his beloved Isaac become representive of God-the-Father offerring His Son-of-Promise.
Taken together with the fact that this not only a "prophetic reference" but also a historical narrative where God actually does provide a ram (v.13), I do not find this an attack on the Deity of Christ.
Seen side-by-side, I prefer the NKJV's puncuation (quote marks around Abraham's response) and capitalization (the cap H for "Himself" showing a pronoun referring to Deity).
And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.
Here is the NKJV verse--And Abraham said, "My son, God will provide for Himself the lamb for a burnt offering." So the two of them went together.
Her objection is the addition of the NKJV word "for" inserted between the words "provide" and "himself". She asserts that this changes the KJV meaning of "a prophetic reference to the sacrifical offerring of God himself dying for our sins" to the NKJV meaning that it will not be God but a "separate person". Perhaps some one more qualified than myself could testify to the grammatical correctness of either version.
The word "God" here is the Hebrew elohiym (which a plural form, Strong's #430). It is translated "God" in the KJV 2346 times, "god" (244), and few other ways.
I understand her argument. I believe that I can accept the NKJV translation to mean that it will be the separate person God-the-Son that becomes the Lamb, not the entire Godhead (the Triune God). Spiritualizing the story, the two separate persons of Abraham and his beloved Isaac become representive of God-the-Father offerring His Son-of-Promise.
Taken together with the fact that this not only a "prophetic reference" but also a historical narrative where God actually does provide a ram (v.13), I do not find this an attack on the Deity of Christ.
Seen side-by-side, I prefer the NKJV's puncuation (quote marks around Abraham's response) and capitalization (the cap H for "Himself" showing a pronoun referring to Deity).
Last edited by a moderator:
Franklin Monroe,
Thank you for taking the time to dissect this public presentation for those of us who cannot hear well enough to do it for ourselves. I have read a couple of Mrs. Riplinger's books and pretty much knew where she stood, but never had a chance to hear her in person.
Also thanks for your reasonable treatment of her and her subject matter.
Thank you for taking the time to dissect this public presentation for those of us who cannot hear well enough to do it for ourselves. I have read a couple of Mrs. Riplinger's books and pretty much knew where she stood, but never had a chance to hear her in person.
Also thanks for your reasonable treatment of her and her subject matter.
franklinmonroe
Active Member
(I'm still stuck in the house with an ice storm outside)
G. A. Riplinger mentions that she feels that while the NKJV and NIV are bad, the NRSV and NEB are really much worse. Evidently, the NEB has "the beast" in Genesis 22:8 rather than "lamb" (I don't have a NEB with the Old Testament, nor could I find it online to check). She then begins a rather lengthy discourse about Virginia Mellencott and a feminist 'Reimaging God' conference which she makes sound truly ungodly. I have to thank Gail for introducing me to author Mellencott, the lesbian and former NIV-stylist (although she mistakenly calls her a "translator" at first). There is a strange off-hand reference here by Riplinger to "the book of Hermes".
______
Returning to the issue of demotion of the Deity of Christ, she offers her last two scripture examples (we've heard 6 of the alleged 26). The first is from John 8:35 where "the Son" (KJV) is reduced to "a son" (NKJV). Here is the KJV verse in context (John 8:34-36)--
Was Jesus referring to Himself ("the Son"), or reciting a generic saying ("a son")? This is the decision the translators faced. IMHO, whichever position they choose, the word rendered in verse 35 should be consistantly rendered in the same manner in verse 36 (which the NKJV does not). Additionally, there really is no indefinate article in Greek ("a"), and since the article is present in the Greek text, I think it probably is more literal and accurate to use "the".
This does not mean necessarily that I am convinced that the "s" should be capitalized in "son" (referring to Christ). As I stated in a previous post, we cannot assume to know that the among the purposes of God choosing this word for this verse that it must support the doctrine of the Deity of Christ here. If Jesus is made "the Son", then who is the servant that "abideth not in the house for ever"?
The word translated "Son/son" is the Greek word here huios (Strong's #5207) does not always refer to Jesus Christ; therefore the context may determine whether it is a reference to the Divine or not (and some cases it may remain uncertain). The word will not be capitalized even when it is very clearly referring to Jesus in His humanity in the KJV--
The second is from Matthew 8:19 where "Master" (KJV) is reduced to "Teacher" (NKJV). Here is the KJV verse in context (Matthew 8:18-20)--
The KJV word "Master" is the Greek word idaskalos (Strong's #1320) which means a teacher. The KJV translates it thus: Master (Jesus)-40 times, teacher-10, master-7, doctor-1. A "master" can be a slave owner, or denote some other ownership role (over a plantation, a sea vessel, etc).
______
She asserts that the NKJV has "theological contridictions" as a result of the changes. She empolys Matthew 23:10 (NKJV)--
The problem with this argument is that it must equally be applied to the KJV. Matthew 23:10 (KJV)--
Now these KJV NT verses--
G. A. Riplinger mentions that she feels that while the NKJV and NIV are bad, the NRSV and NEB are really much worse. Evidently, the NEB has "the beast" in Genesis 22:8 rather than "lamb" (I don't have a NEB with the Old Testament, nor could I find it online to check). She then begins a rather lengthy discourse about Virginia Mellencott and a feminist 'Reimaging God' conference which she makes sound truly ungodly. I have to thank Gail for introducing me to author Mellencott, the lesbian and former NIV-stylist (although she mistakenly calls her a "translator" at first). There is a strange off-hand reference here by Riplinger to "the book of Hermes".
______
Returning to the issue of demotion of the Deity of Christ, she offers her last two scripture examples (we've heard 6 of the alleged 26). The first is from John 8:35 where "the Son" (KJV) is reduced to "a son" (NKJV). Here is the KJV verse in context (John 8:34-36)--
Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.
And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: [but] the Son abideth ever.
If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.
And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: [but] the Son abideth ever.
If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.
Was Jesus referring to Himself ("the Son"), or reciting a generic saying ("a son")? This is the decision the translators faced. IMHO, whichever position they choose, the word rendered in verse 35 should be consistantly rendered in the same manner in verse 36 (which the NKJV does not). Additionally, there really is no indefinate article in Greek ("a"), and since the article is present in the Greek text, I think it probably is more literal and accurate to use "the".
This does not mean necessarily that I am convinced that the "s" should be capitalized in "son" (referring to Christ). As I stated in a previous post, we cannot assume to know that the among the purposes of God choosing this word for this verse that it must support the doctrine of the Deity of Christ here. If Jesus is made "the Son", then who is the servant that "abideth not in the house for ever"?
The word translated "Son/son" is the Greek word here huios (Strong's #5207) does not always refer to Jesus Christ; therefore the context may determine whether it is a reference to the Divine or not (and some cases it may remain uncertain). The word will not be capitalized even when it is very clearly referring to Jesus in His humanity in the KJV--
And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. (Matthew 1:21)
And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David (Matthew 12:23)
Mat 21:37 But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son (Matthew 21:37, spiritualized)
But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end. (Hebrews 3:6)
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (Isaiah 7:14, prophetic)
_____And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David (Matthew 12:23)
Mat 21:37 But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son (Matthew 21:37, spiritualized)
But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end. (Hebrews 3:6)
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (Isaiah 7:14, prophetic)
The second is from Matthew 8:19 where "Master" (KJV) is reduced to "Teacher" (NKJV). Here is the KJV verse in context (Matthew 8:18-20)--
Now when Jesus saw great multitudes about him, he gave commandment to depart unto the other side.
And a certain scribe came, and said unto him, Master, I will follow thee whithersoever thou goest.
And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air [have] nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay [his] head.
And a certain scribe came, and said unto him, Master, I will follow thee whithersoever thou goest.
And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air [have] nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay [his] head.
The KJV word "Master" is the Greek word idaskalos (Strong's #1320) which means a teacher. The KJV translates it thus: Master (Jesus)-40 times, teacher-10, master-7, doctor-1. A "master" can be a slave owner, or denote some other ownership role (over a plantation, a sea vessel, etc).
______
She asserts that the NKJV has "theological contridictions" as a result of the changes. She empolys Matthew 23:10 (NKJV)--
And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ
Now look at 1 Corinthians 12:28 (NKJV)--And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
The problem with this argument is that it must equally be applied to the KJV. Matthew 23:10 (KJV)--
Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, [even] Christ.
Now these KJV NT verses--
Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?
Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things? (John 3:9-10)
And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him. (Ephesians 6:9)
Masters, give unto [your] servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven. (Colossians 4:1)
Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things? (John 3:9-10)
And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him. (Ephesians 6:9)
Masters, give unto [your] servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven. (Colossians 4:1)
Last edited by a moderator:
I can’t believe you’re going through the whole video.
I listened for about a minute and estimated the time lost listening to it was better spent doing just about anything else.
Anyway, I enjoy reading your commentary.
Re: John 8:34-38---
Translators need to be consistent in their method, they do not need to consistently capitalize a particular word in a verse if it is used is differently.
In the passage in John 8:34-38, the first “son” (vs. 34) can refer either to the broad category of sons, (a son of a household) or to Jesus himself.
But in either case it refers to a son and is not a title for Jesus.
In the second use of the word “Son” (vs 36) it is used as a shortened form of “the Son of Man” that Jesus used previously in this chapter (vs. 28). In this case its capitalization is appropriate.
The English Standard Version does not capitalize the pronouns referring to God/Jesus.
It does capitalize their titles. It is consistent in it’s translational methods and renders the verse: “The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. (John 8:35-36 – bolding added)
Rob
I listened for about a minute and estimated the time lost listening to it was better spent doing just about anything else.
Anyway, I enjoy reading your commentary.
Re: John 8:34-38---
I’m not sure I understand you correctly Franklin.
Translators need to be consistent in their method, they do not need to consistently capitalize a particular word in a verse if it is used is differently.
In the passage in John 8:34-38, the first “son” (vs. 34) can refer either to the broad category of sons, (a son of a household) or to Jesus himself.
But in either case it refers to a son and is not a title for Jesus.
In the second use of the word “Son” (vs 36) it is used as a shortened form of “the Son of Man” that Jesus used previously in this chapter (vs. 28). In this case its capitalization is appropriate.
The English Standard Version does not capitalize the pronouns referring to God/Jesus.
It does capitalize their titles. It is consistent in it’s translational methods and renders the verse: “The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. (John 8:35-36 – bolding added)
Rob
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, that helps explain the thread ...franklinmonroe said:
That's correct. Of course, the NEB has been supplanted, and I don't know if that quirky verbage is still included. (Dr. Gail's point, of course, was to allege that the NEB had take a type of Christ - the lamb provided for God - and made it equivalent with the beast of Revelation.)
That was no "mistake." Gail intended to make the charge in a way that she could deny having made it.
Sinaiticus contains part of The Shepherd of Hermas, a book occasionally considered canonical by some early church fathers (Tertullian and Irenaeus). The fact that an apocryphal book was included in the manuscript.
I admit I listened to the whole thing today (didn't watch it; I was doing something else while my brain was bombarded with misinformaton.)
It's a pretty pitiful mish-mash of half-baked charges; especially are the ones in which the NIV is castigated for translating a word the same way as the KJV, but just not in the same place. (See the Lord vs. Master section above.)
There's one tidbit at the end that I really enjoyed. Both Gail and the preacher are concerned about the New Jerome Biblical Commentary because of the "heretical" beliefs of one Cardinal Martini, who was supposed to be the next pope. Hmm. He didn't get the job, it seems, so perhaps the pastor's prayer was efficacious indeed.
It's a pretty pitiful mish-mash of half-baked charges; especially are the ones in which the NIV is castigated for translating a word the same way as the KJV, but just not in the same place. (See the Lord vs. Master section above.)
There's one tidbit at the end that I really enjoyed. Both Gail and the preacher are concerned about the New Jerome Biblical Commentary because of the "heretical" beliefs of one Cardinal Martini, who was supposed to be the next pope. Hmm. He didn't get the job, it seems, so perhaps the pastor's prayer was efficacious indeed.
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Franklinmonroe: //(I'm still stuck in the house with an ice storm outside)//
As this country's fathers were prone to say:
'Tis an ill wind does no good at all'.
Thank you for your thoughtful & meangingful analysis
of the subject video.
As this country's fathers were prone to say:
'Tis an ill wind does no good at all'.
Thank you for your thoughtful & meangingful analysis
of the subject video.
franklinmonroe said:
The NEB may not be available online (published in 1970 there have been many later translations which eclipsed the NEB) but comments can be found at various locations.
See
http://www.mag-net.com/~maranath/NEB.htm for an article accusing the NEB of butchering the word of God.
See
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,943214-3,00.html for a less condemning article.
See availability information at
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,943214-3,00.html for anyone who may be interested in obtaining a copy of the NEB.
Franklin, thank you for your patience in evaluating Riplinger's video for us. It has been truly enlightening to see just how far into error she has gone.
franklinmonroe
Active Member
Your speculation may well be correct. But in the video she clearly says "the book of Hermes"; definately not Hermas (and she doesn't ever say anything like The Shepherd) The reason that this is confusing is because there is a work in antiquity entitled The Book of Hermes.rsr said:
Another one of her "mistakes?"
Hermes, if you recall, was the name of the little society that B.F. Wescott formed at Cambridge at which essays on Greek and Latin topics were discussed. Wescott, if you also recall, was a necromancer (according to the video). Thus a book of Hermes (sic) ties up everything neatly, linking Sinaiticus, Westcott and necromancy all together for condemnation.
Hermes, if you recall, was the name of the little society that B.F. Wescott formed at Cambridge at which essays on Greek and Latin topics were discussed. Wescott, if you also recall, was a necromancer (according to the video). Thus a book of Hermes (sic) ties up everything neatly, linking Sinaiticus, Westcott and necromancy all together for condemnation.
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
According to Webster's 1828 Dictionary:
NECROMANCER, n. [See Necromancy.] One who pretends
to foretell future events by holding converse
with departed spirits; a conjurer.
I think Sister Riplinger may be doing a little projection
here. It seems to me where her books may be going
is to necromancy -- well closer to divination
According to Webster's 1828 Dictionary:
NECROMANCY, n. [Gr. Dead, and divination.]
1. The art of revealing future events by means
of a pretended communication with the dead.
This imposture is prohibited. Deuteronomy 18.
2. Enchantment; conjuration.
I really think she is close to teaching the
heresy of equidistant skip divination from the English Bible
(you can have one and only one text or the whole thing
won't work right).
divination:
The art of revealing future events by means
of a pretended message from the English Bible..
This imposture is prohibited. Deuteronomy 18.
Deu 18:10-11 (KJV1611 Edition):
There shall not be found among you any one
that maketh his sonne, or his daughter to passe
thorow the fire, or that vseth diuination,
or an obseruer of times, or an inchanter,
or a witch,
11 Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits,
or a wyzard, or a Necromancer.
NECROMANCER, n. [See Necromancy.] One who pretends
to foretell future events by holding converse
with departed spirits; a conjurer.
I think Sister Riplinger may be doing a little projection
here. It seems to me where her books may be going
is to necromancy -- well closer to divination
According to Webster's 1828 Dictionary:
NECROMANCY, n. [Gr. Dead, and divination.]
1. The art of revealing future events by means
of a pretended communication with the dead.
This imposture is prohibited. Deuteronomy 18.
2. Enchantment; conjuration.
I really think she is close to teaching the
heresy of equidistant skip divination from the English Bible
(you can have one and only one text or the whole thing
won't work right).
divination:
The art of revealing future events by means
of a pretended message from the English Bible..
This imposture is prohibited. Deuteronomy 18.
Deu 18:10-11 (KJV1611 Edition):
There shall not be found among you any one
that maketh his sonne, or his daughter to passe
thorow the fire, or that vseth diuination,
or an obseruer of times, or an inchanter,
or a witch,
11 Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits,
or a wyzard, or a Necromancer.
franklinmonroe
Active Member
I praise God for giving me the time and resources to study in, and about, His Word. I have learned a lot by doing this critique.
G. A. Riplinger revisits the assertion that "the NKJV parallels the Jehovah's Witness version". She says in the video--
This is not the Greek word huios previously discussed in this thread, which is literally translated "son". The KJV revisors have choosen make a non-literal rendering here by selecting neither 'child/boy' nor 'servant/slave'. It is unknown why she singles out the NKJV to match with the NWT. In fact many versions have used "servant" rather than "son": ESV, NLT, NIV, NASB, NET, Darby, and RSV were quickly confirmed. Young's Literal Version has "child". Green's Interlinear/KJV2 has "Child" in his sidetext, but "servant" running under the Greek.
Again, the word in question can be properly articulated in more than one way; the translators must interpret the passage, then determine the English word that best suits their interpretation. Which word better suited Peter's (the speaker of these words recorded by Luke) purpose at that time: to portray Jesus to these people as a 'child', or as 'servant'?
Riplinger says "Moses is a servant, you and I are servants", implying that Jesus cannot be called a servant. Is Jesus ever called a servant in the scriptures? Note these passages from the KJV--
Riplinger correctly points out that the questioning of the Sonship of Jesus Christ is an old Satanic tactic (remember when the Devil said to Jesus in the wilderness "if thou be the Son of God?"). But the Sonship of Christ is a seperate and different issue from the Diety Christ. If there is a New Age conspiracy to eliminate the Diety of Christ from the NKJV, then they failed to erase the reference to "the Holy One and the Just" and "the Prince of life".
She says in the video--
She seems to be referring to John 4:51 where Greek word pais does appear. But it is clear from the context (John 4:46-53, I will not reproduce here due to length) that this is definately a sick male youth. The more specific Greek word for "son" (huios) occurs in the passage 4 times (once each in verses 46, 47, 50 and 53). There is no doubt in the Greek text (nor in the English KJV) that this not the nobleman's "servant". False accusation.
She also wildly overstates her claim that the NWT is "word-for-word" the same as the NKJV. Here are the texts (Acts 3:12-15) for comparison--
She mentions that NKJV does this again at Act 3:26 and 4:27, which is just a matter consistantcy with their translation methodology. Why does the KJV translated the word as "child" in Acts 4:27 and Acts 4:30 instead of "son"? She failed to mention Acts 4:30 which is exactly the same situation.
G. A. Riplinger revisits the assertion that "the NKJV parallels the Jehovah's Witness version". She says in the video--
"Let me give you some examples of how the New King James Version demotes the Deity of Jesus Christ, paralleling word-for-word the New King James Version."
We can assume that what she meant to say was that the NKJV text is identical to the New World Translation (NWT). Her first example comes from Acts 3:13. She correctly states that the KJV has "his Son Jesus" while the NKJV (and indeed the NWT) has "His Servant Jesus". Here is the KJV verse in context (Acts 3:12-15)--And when Peter saw [it], he answered unto the people, Ye men of Israel, why marvel ye at this? or why look ye so earnestly on us, as though by our own power or holiness we had made this man to walk?
The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let [him] go.
But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you;
And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.
The KJV word "Son" is the Greek word pais (Strong's #3816) which is defined in two ways: 1) a child, boy or girl, infants, children; or 2) servant, slave, an attendant, servant, specifically a king's attendant, minister. Gail admits this fact "because that word can be translated either 'servant' or 'son' depending upon the context". The KJV translates this word the following ways: servant 10 times, child 7 times, son (Christ) only 2 times, son-1 other time, manservant-1, maid-1, maiden-1, young man-1 (24 total). The book with the most occurrances is Matthew (8); but the highest concentration is the 5 occurrances right here within Acts chapters 13 and 14. BTW - the AV 1611 has "sonne" (no capitalization).The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let [him] go.
But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you;
And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.
This is not the Greek word huios previously discussed in this thread, which is literally translated "son". The KJV revisors have choosen make a non-literal rendering here by selecting neither 'child/boy' nor 'servant/slave'. It is unknown why she singles out the NKJV to match with the NWT. In fact many versions have used "servant" rather than "son": ESV, NLT, NIV, NASB, NET, Darby, and RSV were quickly confirmed. Young's Literal Version has "child". Green's Interlinear/KJV2 has "Child" in his sidetext, but "servant" running under the Greek.
Again, the word in question can be properly articulated in more than one way; the translators must interpret the passage, then determine the English word that best suits their interpretation. Which word better suited Peter's (the speaker of these words recorded by Luke) purpose at that time: to portray Jesus to these people as a 'child', or as 'servant'?
Riplinger says "Moses is a servant, you and I are servants", implying that Jesus cannot be called a servant. Is Jesus ever called a servant in the scriptures? Note these passages from the KJV--
That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying,
Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles.(Matthew 12:17-18, quoting Isaiah 42:1)
But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister:
And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all.
For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
(Mark 10:43-45, by implication; the Greek word for "minister" also means 'a servant')
He shall see of the travail of his soul, [and] shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.(Isaiah 53:11, prophetic)
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: (Philippians 2:6-7)
Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles.(Matthew 12:17-18, quoting Isaiah 42:1)
But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister:
And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all.
For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
(Mark 10:43-45, by implication; the Greek word for "minister" also means 'a servant')
He shall see of the travail of his soul, [and] shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.(Isaiah 53:11, prophetic)
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: (Philippians 2:6-7)
Riplinger correctly points out that the questioning of the Sonship of Jesus Christ is an old Satanic tactic (remember when the Devil said to Jesus in the wilderness "if thou be the Son of God?"). But the Sonship of Christ is a seperate and different issue from the Diety Christ. If there is a New Age conspiracy to eliminate the Diety of Christ from the NKJV, then they failed to erase the reference to "the Holy One and the Just" and "the Prince of life".
She says in the video--
"The crooked thing about this is the New King James takes that same Greek word there, and in John chapter four when the nobleman's son needs healed it says 'son'... so when it was the nobleman's son it got to be 'son' but when it was Jesus christ it wasn't the 'son' anymore."
She seems to be referring to John 4:51 where Greek word pais does appear. But it is clear from the context (John 4:46-53, I will not reproduce here due to length) that this is definately a sick male youth. The more specific Greek word for "son" (huios) occurs in the passage 4 times (once each in verses 46, 47, 50 and 53). There is no doubt in the Greek text (nor in the English KJV) that this not the nobleman's "servant". False accusation.
She also wildly overstates her claim that the NWT is "word-for-word" the same as the NKJV. Here are the texts (Acts 3:12-15) for comparison--
When Peter saw this, he said to the people: "Men of Israel, why are you wondering over this, or why are you gazing at us as though by personal power or godly devotion we have made him walk?
The God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob, the God of our forefathers, has glorified his Servant, Jesus, whom YOU, for YOUR part, delivered up and disowned before Pilate's face, when he had decided to release him.
Yes, YOU disowned that holy and righteous one, and YOU asked for a man, a murder, to be freely granted to YOU, whereas YOU killed the Chief Agent of life. But God raised him up from the dead, of which fact we are witnesses. (NWT)
So when Peter saw it, he responded to the people: "Men of Israel, why do you marvel at this? Or why look so intently at us, as though by our own power or godliness we had made this man walk?
The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified His Servant Jesus, whom you delivered up and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let Him go.
But you denied the Holy One and the Just, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you,
and killed the Prince of life, whom God raised from the dead, of which we are witnesses." (NKJV)
(NWT note: I think the YOUs and YOUR are in all caps to distinguish these pronouns as plural form, not for emphasis.)
The God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob, the God of our forefathers, has glorified his Servant, Jesus, whom YOU, for YOUR part, delivered up and disowned before Pilate's face, when he had decided to release him.
Yes, YOU disowned that holy and righteous one, and YOU asked for a man, a murder, to be freely granted to YOU, whereas YOU killed the Chief Agent of life. But God raised him up from the dead, of which fact we are witnesses. (NWT)
So when Peter saw it, he responded to the people: "Men of Israel, why do you marvel at this? Or why look so intently at us, as though by our own power or godliness we had made this man walk?
The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified His Servant Jesus, whom you delivered up and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let Him go.
But you denied the Holy One and the Just, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you,
and killed the Prince of life, whom God raised from the dead, of which we are witnesses." (NKJV)
(NWT note: I think the YOUs and YOUR are in all caps to distinguish these pronouns as plural form, not for emphasis.)
She mentions that NKJV does this again at Act 3:26 and 4:27, which is just a matter consistantcy with their translation methodology. Why does the KJV translated the word as "child" in Acts 4:27 and Acts 4:30 instead of "son"? She failed to mention Acts 4:30 which is exactly the same situation.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status