Gail Riplinger video

Master of bad links,

Could you repost that please? It's no worky.

 

==No doubt about that. Her book "New Age Bible Versions" was a disaster.

The google site said,

" It objectively and methodically documents the hidden alliance between new versions and the New Age Movement's One World Religion."

All I can say to that is HA!

If I recall correctly her degrees are in home economics and not theology, history, or any related field. This shows in her works.

 

Is that a typo?

Sure you did not mean to type DIS-information? For that is probably a more accurate description!

Ed

 

Did any of you really watch the entire video with an objectionable point of view or is this just the same old KJVO crowd again?

My suspicions are probaly right.:tonofbricks:

 

Actually you are wrong. I have watched the activities of one Gail Riplinger for several years. In fact there was a period, several years ago, where I looked into her arguments. I even found a copy of her book at the local public library (so I did not have to waste my money on it)! Her "scholarship" is sloppy, at best, and many of her claims just can't be supported. I can't recall the details, since it has been a while since I have given this any thought, but I know that her book "New Age Bible Versions" took several quotes out of context and misrepresented what some scholars said/beleive(d). I think her book belongs in the same grouping as Dan Corner's "The Believers Conditional Security". I would certainly hope that the KJVO position has better advocates than Riplinger. If not, well, it's time to fold up the old tent.

 

So your answer is "No."

You're only making rash judgements due to her stand on the KJB.

Ever hear, "The proof is in the pudding"?

If you're going to lump up Riplinger with heretics be advised, it makes you look rather foolish. No such thing as conditional security of the believer, you know that, and you aslo know Riplinger doesn't believe heresy like that either, if you really even do know her.

 

Would you expound on this apparent degree obsession? What does it mean if someone speaks on a topic that they are not degreed in? Does this make them unqualified, open to ridicule or what exactly is the issue? How does it show in her works?

Personally, I couldn't care less whether someone goes through an antichrist state college, an antichrist Ivy league college or a seminary or any other institution that provides worldly criteria for acceptance. None are necessary to have a relationship and knowledge of God and none are necessary to expound on His word or type words into a computer to form a book.

Having said that, this is an excerpt of her bio from her website:

"G.A. Riplinger has B.A., M.A., and M.F.A. degrees and has done additional postgraduate study at Harvard and Cornell Universities. As a university professor, the author taught seventeen different courses, authored six college textbooks and was selected for the Honor Society's teaching award and membership in a national Education Honorary."​

It would seem as though she's jumped through all of the educational hoops and excelled in her various roles. However, am I to understand, that in your view, a Christian with her educational background is not qualified to compare verses in multiple versions, research new age topics and compare them to these changes and then write a book about what she found? Is it your belief she would need to go back for additional skuling to be qualified to write a book on this topic? Is this truly a case of educational deficiencies or is it just a matter of what she found not aligning with your worldview and an attempt to seek any manner to discredit her?

 

==Did you read what I said? I am familiar with her work(s). I am familiar with her positions. I spent time looking into them. Nothing "rash" about this. Maybe you should reread my post???

==I did not lump her in with that group. Via her argumentation she lumped herself. Her work was misleading and, in my opinion, dangerous. That is not a rash judgment, it is a judgment based on my view of her work.

==I did not say that she believed in conditional security. I am putting the two books in the same category (sloppy). Again, maybe you need to reread my post???

 

Why is this woman teaching men? Doesn't the KJV speak against that?:thumbs:

Bro Tony

 

==Does she "need" degrees in theology, Biblical studies, philosophy, or history to write books on those subjects? No. Does it add to the problems with her books when she claims she has degrees yet does not say the degrees are not in the field she is writing in? In my opinion the answer is YES.

My step-father, now a retired professor, has three MA degrees (two in education and one in counseling) and a EdD degree. Is he qualified to write a book on dispensationalism? No. Could he write such a book? Sure, but he should make clear that dispensationalism is not his field of study.

As far as her "findings" are concerned I don't think she "found" anything she did not already believe, one. And two there are massive problems with much of her argumentation.

Again, if this is the best the KJVO camp has then it is time to close the store.

 

If this is the best the Alexandrian camp has to discredit her book, then the store should remain open.

 

Since I have not dealt with any of her arguments in these posts your reply makes no sense. Anyone who does their homework on her book (ie...checks sources, etc) is going to find some major problems. Don't believe me? Do your homework on her book.

As for closing the store, that comment refered to her argumentation (not her degrees).

 

Does anyone know if Gail Riplinger can read Greek or Hebrew?


Rufus_1611 mentioned he didn't care where her degrees came from, and to a point, I agree with him, however, for her to be qualified in my opinion, to speak and write about the Bible in a scholarly manner, she needs to be able to read Greek and Hebrew to understand the orginal texts.

Jamie

 

Exactly!! I have her book but had never heard her speak--didn't know she gave lectures or whatever. I listened to the first few minutes and immediately thought, "This woman is trying to be a preacher." I am once again amazed and somewhat ashamed that there are many fellow IFBs that plug this woman and push her book.

For crying out loud, there are good and scholarly books on the KJV and its underlying texts by men like Hills, Sturz, Wilbur Pickering. Why in the world do KJV advocates embarrass other IFBs like myself by pushing this woman preacher?

 

Martin: //Again, if this is the best the KJVO camp
has then it is time to close the store.//

Amen, Brother Martin -- Preach it! :thumbs:

Care to share the $22 (plus $8 for
shipping) I wasted on IN AWE
OF THY WORD? She really gets wierd
when she tells how 'J' as in 'Jesus' is sacred
but 'I' as in 'self' is evil (we are talking letters
here). But she didn't seem to know that
in the original KJV1611 Edition that
there is no 'J' and 'I', just 'I'.
\o/ Praise Iesus! \o/

Martin: //Anyone who does their homework
on her book (ie...checks sources, etc) is going
to find some major problems. Don't believe me?
Do your homework on her book.//

Been there - done that.
Her scholarship reminds me of screen doors
on submarines.

 

I watched the entire video. Her foundation is the KJV translation. It is not an attempt to prove or disprove the KJV. She started with the premise that the KJV is right. What she did was to attempt to prove the others wrong without any proof that her fondation had any substance. Her idea is much like saying the sky is green and proving it by showing that the grass is green.

 

I just started watching the video, and within the first 3 minutes, she quotes a scripture out of context... Actually it was 2 minutes 58 seconds, when she applys Psalms 12:6 and 7 to scripture, when in fact, when read in context it is talking about God's people...

I am going to watch more, but so far false doctrine has raised it's scaley head within the first 3 minutes.

 

False teaching alert at 3 minutes and 40 seconds... she states that the reason the plagues were in Revelation is because people added to the word of God... funny, I thought it was because they weren't saved...

Talking about adding to the Word, she is guilty of this here.