Gail Riplinger

Even the disreputable ones use them. :)

 

True, but they do not use them very well!

 

Not to mention that Gail Riplinger is notorious for slandering people and taking quotes about them out of context. David Cloud has some excellent articles on Riplinger.

 

I think we pretty much agree, the advocates of KJVO, have missed the boat. But what purpose, other than looking down our noses, is a thread dedicated to belittling people rather than positions? There are plenty of KJVO advocates with credentials, so why attack those lacking credentials, as if that was the reason for the error?

In the 1660-88 period in Scotland, a group of believers separated from the Church of England and became know as Covenanters. They were persecuted, punished and some were "drawn and quartered." But they loved God and stood for what the believed. No need to question their "credentials."

 

One of her ilk, Gene Kim, said the original Greek is garbage.


https://twitter.com/DrOakley1689/status/1110023996009930753

 

Translation: "behold, my personal life and ministry and credentials are the standard".

That was the attitude of the Pharisees toward the Galileans. You could hardly have illustrated it better. I'll stand with the Galileans and their faults, thank you very much. You can stay in your corner "embarrassed" all you want.

No wonder Ruckman had such a hard time with you guys.

 

Peter Ruckman was a certifiable nut, and that’s not up for debate.

 

That's an insult to the Word of God. Since the NT was originally given in Greek. I believe it would be sinning to say about any Bible version, much less the original language versions, that they are "garbage." God doesn't make or speak "garbage."

 

My thoughts exactly.

 

We are commanded in the Bible to oppose heresy. Riplinger is an heretic in the Bible meaning of the word, which is one who causes division among the brethren especially in a church. This woman's doctrine has caused great harm among God's people.

The NT is full of names of people that believers should watch out for. The Apostle Paul and others actually named names and openly opposed troublemakers in the churches.

"Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them" (Rom. 16:17).

Have you actually read anything that Gail Riplinger has written? I suggest you should read her work before comparing her to genuine heroes of the cross. My purpose in exposing her lack of credentials is to show her brazen pride in claiming to be what she is not.

Her website has some free downloads: AVPublications - Thank you for visiting!

"I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not" (3 John 1:9).

 

In John R. Rice's 1979 book, I Am a Fundamentalist, there is a chapter, “Be a Fundamentalist, But Not a Nut." In it he wrote:

"When a Peter Ruckman sets out to say that only he and a few others in the world are right on the matter of manuscript evidence for the Bible and says that in the King James Version the translation itself was inspired of God and is without error…, and that all are modernists or hypocrites or ignorant who do not agree that the King James Version—even the translation—is inspired perfectly, then we know that that arrogant attitude, that calling of good men by bad names, shows the man cannot be trusted in doctrine" (p. 74).

 

No, of course I did not waste my time reading Riplinger! Did I compare her to genuine heroes of the cross. No, I indicated she had missed was boat, and her problem was not a lack of credentials. And I certainly was not disparaging you for warning us about her.

I am sick and tired of threads personally attacking people rather than addressing their false doctrine. Full Stop

 

Chapter 13 of Riplinger's New Age Bible Versions has the title, "Another Gospel." Now one would think that if an author was going to oppose a false Gospel, he or she would first give the true Gospel, right? (The Gospel is very clear in 1 Corinthians 15.) This chapter does no such thing. In it Riplinger rails against some folk she thinks have the wrong Gospel. For example, there is a kind of disjointed attack on the Calvinism of Edwin Palmer, who she says was the "coordinator" of the NIV.

So, it's fair to ask what Riplinger thinks the Gospel is. On her website I have found a single page that purports to offer salvation to the reader: AV Publications Content Page

She lists some Scripture, and that's good. But then she says, "If You Sincerely Prayed the Above Prayer, You Are Now Born Again! (John 3:3)" Folks if you think you are saved by a prayer, you are advocating works salvation! Prayer is a work, which may or may not exhibit faith. We often tell people to pray when we seek to lead them to Christ, but we must never tell them that they are saved because of a prayer. It is trust in Christ's shed blood for our sins and His resurrection that save us, not saying a prayer, however sincere that prayer might be.

I got in big trouble about this matter many years ago in Japan. I taught Personal Evangelism, among other courses, at a Japanese Bible school down in Tokyo headed by another missionary. One day I got called on the carpet because I had taught that one need not pray to be saved. He believed that a lost sinner must always prayer a prayer to be saved, or he wasn't.

I said, "Is prayer a work?" If it is and you have to pray for salvation, then you are trusting a works salvation. He was backed into a corner. He finally waffled, "Well, prayer is a work usually, but it is not a work if you are praying for salvation." Yeah, like that makes sense! But he didn't fire me. He knew deep within that I was right. He's in Heaven now, so he knows better. ;)

My grandfather used to lead folks to Christ after giving the Gospel by praying with them, then stopping his prayer and saying, "If you will receive Christ as your Savior, take my hand." In his method, it was clear that the work did not save, but was only a sign of the faith that was in the heart.

 

My goodness. John of Japan shocked me with his righteous indignation in this topic. I always thought that he was mild-mannered no matter what was thrown at him!

All kidding aside, however, you are absolutely right about Riplinger. One of the saddest moments for me this summer was reading Hugh Pyle's autobiography and reaching the chapter where he mentioned meeting Gail Riplinger and spoke of her in glowing terms.

Now I am a bit of a paradox as a Fundamentalist. The best way to describe me is that I hold to a style of evangelism and corporate worship akin to Lee Roberson, hold to biblicism like Sam Bradford and R. V. Clearwaters, and use the King James Version like the founding members of the Baptist Bible Fellowship. My views on women speaking in church services fall in line nicely with W. B. Riley---I am not against it, and am for it if the women are blessed with the power of God in a unique way; however, this practice should be left to men as a general rule.

Riplinger is different. She should be barred from any Bible-believing Baptist church, and I would not trust any minister who endorses her. A former pastor of mine was a devotee of her books, and his "preaching" on the subject fractured the congregation. Those that imbibed the falsehood had their bibliology, and thus their entire doctrinal system, permanently warped.

It is not difficult to see how flimsy her arguments are. Those that believe them cannot defend them. This one simple fact reveals more than many are willing to acknowledge. One cannot claim to hold indisputable truth unless said narrative can hold up against inquiry and skepticism. Has anyone here ever met a Ruckmanite or a "Riplingerite" that can rationally and reasonably defend their claims without getting angry or resorting to ad hoc attacks or straw man arguments?

When I graduated from Maranatha Baptist University up in Watertown, Wisconsin, my pastor at the time was very displeased that I had gone to a school that did not "believe the Bible." I was grateful for my time at MBU, for it showed me that the main concern in Bible translations is that the original articles are used as the source material, not so much how the final product sounds. Language changes over time, but the Word of God shall stand forever. It is up to our Christian linguists, like John of Japan, that they carefully steward their abilities so that the most accurate translations possible can be made.

 

there seem to actually few few Kjvo that have solid credentials. in the fields of biblical studies or textual criticism!

 

Any link to them?

 

Explain that to the Holy Spirit!

 

Ruckman had a hard time due to poor theology!

 

He was the patron saint of Kjvo!