Gail Riplinger

Sorry I generalized.


Lacy

 

Homebound, I apologize for my last post, it was a bit over the top. I shouldn't have replied with such a snapping response. I have been working many long hours lately, and I'm a bit tired and burnt out. It was frustrating to come home exhausted at 10pm (every day for 3 weeks straight) and then scan the requested documents for you instead of catching up on stuff I should have been doing instead, and then have them brushed off so lightly. That's not an excuse for my grumpiness, just an explanation.

I looked over several other of Riplinger's quotes of Westcott last night. The more I dug, the more amusing it became. I found a few examples where she provides a "quote" but when you check the footnotes, you see that she has constructed the quote by gluing together a few words here and there from completely different pages, AND OFTEN COMPLETELY DIFFERENT BOOKS (written years apart!), yet she tries to pass them off as a single quotation! This is textual butchery, this is deliberate deception and misrepresentation!

E.g.

"[T]he revelation of the Divine in man realized in and through Christ. . .Man is divine. . .Every type of essential human excellence coexists in Christ. . .humanity has been raised in the Son of Man to the right hand of God."(31) (page 361 of the electronic edition)

Now look at the footnote - look how she had to jump around pages (skipping over approximately 150 pages in one instance!), and even three books, to concoct that mess!:
31 Historic Faith, pp. 111, 105, 253, The Epistles of St. John: The Greek Text With Notes and Addenda, p. 70; The Gospel According to St. John: The Authorized Version With Introduction and Notes, p. 246.

e.g. #2

"[T]he knowledge of Christ,. . .has its analogues in human power. . .the Son of Man gives the measure of the capacity of humanity. . .Nothing implies that the knowledge of the Lord was supernatural."(36) (page 366 of the electronic edition)

Now look at the footnote, which again shows the quote was constructed from combining phrases from more than one book, and jumping *backwards* 20 pages in one of the books:
36 Historic Faith, pp. 258-259; The Gospel of St. John, pp. 66, 46.

I'll scan all the above later, it should be good for a chuckle.

Oh this one is funny: on page 518 of the electronic edition, she's discussing places where the KJV has "faith" and some other versions have "faithfulness", and how that is so terrible. She then provides a quote where "a noted dissenting new version editor points out this error in these new versions", and provides a quote. Who is this "dissenting" new version editor that she is quoting for *support* of her argument? Why, it's our old friend Westcott himself, but she's not going to tell the reader that in the text! The footnote on the quote says "69 The Life of Westcott, Vol. II, p. ?." Note also the page number! Wow, great.

As Ransom would say, "Ya gotta laugh"

[ October 02, 2003, 01:15 PM: Message edited by: BrianT ]

 

Sorry I upsetted you BrainT, wait a minute, I can't do that, you have control of your own emotions. BTW, I'm not playing any games with you. You said what about "A fallen being." Is that a side note from Westcott or what? Why isn't it in the sentence structure?

 

You are correct.

Yes.

Because it's a short one-phrase summary of the paragraph it sits beside, like all the other ones - these are useful for "topic finding" by a reader, as you can just skim down the side notes when looking for a specific issue. It allows one to find the subject matter they are looking for much quicker.

Riplinger blew it. I hope you don't continue to defend her deception.

 

I still stand with Riplinger for now. I would like to get a real copy of her book and also Westcott and Hort's papers. I know where I can get her book, but what about W/H stuff? And what stuff do I need to get?

 

Reminds me of an old joke....

A woman brought her husband to a psychiatrist. "Doc, you've gotta help my husband," she said. "He believes that he's dead!" The doc accepted the challenge, and spent a long time trying to convince the woman's husband that he really wasn't dead. "Do dead people eat?" he asked the man. The man replied, "Well, I've heard stories of how some cultures leave food at a person's grave, so dead people must eat." "Do dead people walk?" the doc then asked. The man responded, "Well, I've heard stories about haunted castles where the deceased owners came back and moaned and groaned and rattled chains, so dead people must walk." Finally, the frustrated doc found a question that got to the man. "Do dead people bleed?" the doc asked. The man thought about it for a moment and said, "No -- that's one thing dead people don't do. Dead people don't bleed." The exasperated doc then grabbed a scalpel and nicked the man's finger so that it drew a large drop of blood. "There!" the doc cried triumphantly. "What do you think now?" "My goodness!" the man said. "Dead people DO bleed!"

 

Why? Because "Dead people DO bleed!"? Seriously, what is your reason? What words from the pages I scanned would lead anyone to that false understanding of Westcott?

Westcott and Hort's books are a little tough to find (at least the "original" printings). Reprints are easier to find, amazon.com has several.

Click here for one:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/159244198X and then click on "B. F. Westcott" and/or "F.J.A. Hort" on that page for a few others.

If you can find "The Historic Faith", I highly recommend it - an objective reading of it will show anyone that Westcott was sound on the key doctrines of Christianity. I've uploaded an excerpt at the following link:

http://www.tegarttech.com/wh/historicfaith_iv.html

 

Pete Richert asked:

Can some one sum up for me how we got to 14 pages on Gail Riplinger

</font>

• If you are a KJV-onlyist, it is by aggressively avoiding any discussion of Gail Riplinger;</font>
• if you are not a KJV-onlyist, it is by constantly reminding the KJV-onlyists that the topic is Gail Riplinger.</font>

 

Why 14 pages? Because some have nothing else to do?

(Trust me when I tell you this version is much better than my first crack at a response)

[ October 03, 2003, 03:27 PM: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

Too much caffeine.

HankD

 

Isn't a better question how Gail Riplinger got to 690 pages without having to resort to the truth?

 

Was this thread supposd to be about about Gail Ripplinger?


Lacy

 

Alright, look at W/H's comments on the Bible. W/H's belief/faith contradicted with their comments on the Bible.

Click here: Westcott/Hort

 

Yes, more of the same out-of-context quote-massaging as Riplinger. Any specific examples you want to discuss?

 

To do an exhaustive critique of all of Riplinger's errors, you'd need a lot more than 14 pages. Just be glad the thread is still more or less on topic!

 

I do not defend Gail Riplinger, but I agree with her good comments, and I do not like her negative attitude toward anyone who disagree with her. I do not agree with her "smart" mouth such as example of her and Cloud. She called him, "O Madman." I am sure that Gail made many mistakes on her book, "New Age Versions."

 

James White's book title is incorrect! He SHOULD title his book, "Riplinger/Ruckman Controversy."

 

Gail's great witch hunt for syllables
NEW AGE BIBLE VERSIONS, 204-208.

Example: Revelation 7:15:
NASB, "spread his tabernacle over", 8;
KJV, "dwell", 1

Interesting, KJV only says God will live with them.
NASB says God will live with them and shelter
them.

 

If it were the other way around, she'd be upset that the NASB deleted three words.

 

Unfortunately, this is true more often than not concerning the "debate tactics" of some of us who believe the KJVO position. I can't argue with that.

Lacy