Gail Riplinger video

I was wondering this as well. Not sure which is more disconcerting, that you might be desirous of giving your life on the board or that there might be someone on the board willing to take it.

M`ARTYR, n. [Gr. a witness.] One who, by his death, bears witness to the truth of the gospel. Stephen was the first christian martyr.
1. One who suffers death in defense of any cause. We say, a man dies a martyr to his political principles or to the cause of liberty. (Source: Webster's 1828)​

 

First, Rufus I doubt anyone on this board would take Salamander's life over this issue. The point which seems to be missed is the great numbers of KJVOist who have come through this forum and began discussing the issues and then made is so personal that they acted as if they were personally being persecuted by the others. Then they "figurative" threw themselves on there swords for the cause, so they would be able to say I have been persecuted by those liberals on the BB. It has happened far too often. The point just deal with the issue and leave the theatrics for the actors. No one is going to kill you (actually or figuratively) so don't become a martyr for the cause in your own eyes.

Bro Tony

 

I firmly believe this to the point that anyone who passionately stands on their belief, and for good reason, can be provoked into wrath that would equal your estimation from previous experience. But that would only be because some are so practiced in the art of provacation they could even cause themselves to frother up into a frenzy all by themselves.

I was accused of getting mad due to the attacks against my person for standing with the pastor. Those attacks wreaked with their anger. I haven't gotten angry at one of you, just becuase I don't want to.

I believe the problem lies in the suspicious mindset of [Edited out personal attack against those who happen to hold a different view than yourself. Debate the issues of the OP. Stick to the Topic of the OP. Do not make personal attacks against your fellow posters.]

 

Interesting, could you provide any proof that I or any others are liberals. What theological stance have I taken that proves that I'm a liberal. It is those who add to the Word, ie. the KJVO doctrine that have commited a liberal act.

Bro Tony

 

Actually you support the label "KJVO", I don't.

You concoct a form of labeling people and adhere to it so subjectively that you cannot see through your dark curtains.

The harmony of the KJB supports the fact that it is the Word of God for the English speaking people. Gail Riplinger takes great time and effort to reveal the depth of our language which consists of many other languages and you attack her for it.

New age versions attack the voracity of Scripture in many ways. All she has done is point out some of those ways.

Other versions do the same thing in their limited use of MSS to the Alexandrian type and attempts to exclude what has been regarded as the Canon of Scripture is very deceptive, and can very easily be referenced with the verbage of the serpent, "Hath God said?"

Now either Riplinger is good at what she's done, or you have problems with people in general.

Either God has preserved His Word in the KJB or you have to admit he has a problem with the plethora of contradictory versions also being His word.

Does God have a problem?

 

You've acted upon your suspicion. Need I any more proof?

 

That's nice.

Said "attacks" were responses to your name-calling and accusations.

Sure am glad you don't get angry. I'd hate to see how badly you'd assassinate the character of other Christians if you did.

You're being contentious, and you know it.

 

Thanks for clearing that up, I am glad you opened my eyes to my liberalism ---not!!!

Bro Tony

 

If you say so.. whatever makes you sleep at night. Your comments were directed at me, and not the question I asked. It's almost nice the way you can sum it up like you're my best friend making a joke...

No, however when one starts to talk about the Bible and the differences in translations, then one would need to know Greek or Hebrew. Since those are the two languages the Bible was written in, how can she compare the different versions without understanding it? Of course, she could just take someone else's word for it and then have her own opinion, but I think she wants people to believe that it's more than her opinion.

She sets herself up as a scholar, and yet don't have anything to back it.

So you agree that God can relate His message in any language? Really? Even if that language is in English, and happened to be called the NIV? Thanks for stepping up to the plate and admitting that people can be saved, through God, using the NIV.

You are correct, God isn't handcuffed.. Not even to the KJV. His message gets out in many many forms, not just the KJV.

Again, attack the poster and not the contents... It this you're style of posting? If so, let me know so I can add you to my ignore list.

No, it doesn't offend me at all. Who ever implied it did? Now you're jumping to conclusions.

But, mind you I don't write books, or speak about things I don't know or am not qualified to talk about without stating it as my opinion. She however, wants you and everyone else to believe she does have the scholarly backing to teach as truth, and not as her opinion.

Oh well... Believe what you will. Trust who you will.. I for one, don't believe or trust anything she states.

Jamie

 

This thread originated in contention for the very first post started out with ad hominem. The thread was birthed in contention, was intended to be contentious, and sustained in contention. Pinning the contention crown on a responder to all the contention is curious. The Alexandrian crowd wanted to have a thread where they could blast at a sister in Christ as being a "Mistress of Misinformation", an expert in fields outside of the topic she wrote or spoke on, a liar as she allegedly did not attend Harvard, and was in error for being a woman. The expectation was that no one defend her and when a brother does, he's a "martyr" and "contentious" and we're once again not focusing on specific elements of her works. It adds more credibility to her work in my mind when her dectractors can't focus on issues but would rather attack her person or the person of her defenders.

 

Wow!!! Now this is too funny. It has consistantly been the KJVOist like Riplinger, Ruckman, Cloud et al. who have personally attacked those involved in the translations of MV's rather than deal with the issue. They have been the ones that have stated that the translation is faulty because of who translated it. She is the one going off in bizarre numerology and taking legitamate words and associating them with the "New Age". She makes herself the clown, no one needs to do that for her.

Bro Tony

 

Does he understand the gospel of Paul, which gospel comes from Christ Jesus in heaven? If he does, then he is more qualified than many of those with doctorates in Theology to write on a subject foreign to them. I believe there are "good" books written today by men and women with the proper credentials, and also by some without the proper credentials. Some understand the "dispensation" we are now in, and some do not. Some understand on what foundation they stand, and some do not.

We notice Paul didn't waste any time on Mars' Hill with those filled with the knowledge of man. Very few of the intellectual giants of that day, or this day, will come down from the mountain.

Out with Matthew, Out with Mark, Luke, and John. Jude? We have no proof any attended any kind of school with the exception of Luke. But Luke had no formal training or schooling in "religious matters". Other than Luke they had no formal training with written credentials, yet we study and teach from these books. Poor Peter, always sticking his foot in his mouth, but we believe him. James and Paul? We have no indication of "higher" learning for this man James, yet we study and teach from his Book, trying to have him conform to the gospel of the "uncircumcised".

In Paul we have finally found one taught at the feet of Gamaliel in Jerusalem, the religion of his people and their God, in the perfect manner of the law of the fathers. Yet this one from Tarsus, the zenith of Greek learning of that day, having attained excellence in a University setting (and right given by most to write books to his people), wrote only one book to those under law, viz. Hebrews which some question. If He didn't write this book then we know he did write one book to those of the "circumcision" gospel. He was qualified to do so.

But how dare he, the most prolific writer in the New Testament, take on himself to write 13 books to we Gentiles, and also the Jew? Unconscionable many should say for he was never schooled by man in his dispensational gospel. Could this be the reason so many take issue with this Apostle? Thank God we have His Word written out for us so we can choose between the writings of man (and woman), and God.

From among all the writers in our New Testament, we can find none that had any formal training in the subject/s they write, with the exception of Paul. I say we of "higher education" should not look down on any unschooled by man if the writings, or the preaching proclaims salvation today is by the grace of God through faith with all works demanded by God of His people, nailed to the Cross.

 

Go back and read your KJV again. It forbids a woman to "teach NOR usurp authority over the man." Riplinger teaches men, therefore she is in direct disobedience of the KJV. And so I am embarrassed that KJV defenders such as you defend her so strongly. It is entirely possible to defend the KJV without defending a woman who is in direct disobedience to it.

 

Your post had nothing to do with mine, which you quoted.

 

JoJ, this is the reason I got out of the IFB movement in WV. All IFBs that I knew, in the area I grew up are like the ones on this thread. KJVOs to the nth degree.

You are very blessed to be in another country, where you don't have to see Satan's hand coming into the churches, dividing them over this issue.

He has them so blinded, that they will do anything, or support anyone, even those that support the bible code mysticism in order to keep this belief alive.....

I am KJVP, but not only.
And I refuse to support false teaching to prove anypoint.

Some of the ones on this thread supporting her are the same ones that supported Sanderson's statement that the KJV is God. That should tell you where the IFB movement is heading...

Please pray that the old time IFBs stand up, and put down this neo-IFB teaching of Riplinger and Ruckman!

 

You were accusing Salamander of being contentious. I considered your contention to be a bit selective.

 

We were united prior to the modern version myth coming along. The KJVO's did not divide the church, ya'll did by accepting the all bibles are good bibles/valid versions/soul competency/Alexandrian manuscript beliefs.

 

It's amazing to me that the ones who so staunchly defend a woman teaching men are the same ones that say it's a sin for women to wear pants.

 

:laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

How do you suppose they are related? If Priscilla was here do you suppose she would keep quiet while wearing jeans and wearing butch hair or would she be expounding the word of God more perfectly while wearing long hair and a dress? Or was it only Aquila that was doing the talking?

Let's say though I'm being blinded by my bias and I go with your doctrine that women should not teach and they should not write, edit books or otherwise expound on the Bible. Will you likewise be willing to give up on other books for the same cause? Will you say the TNIV should be kicked to the side because of the efforts of Karen Jobes? Or that the NIV should be kicked to the side because of the consulting efforts of Kathryn Ludwigson and the lesbian Virginia Mollenkott?