New Age Bibles

Here is some information BY THE PUBLISHER about NEW AGE VERSIONS (AVPublications, 1993) by Gail A. Riplinger

http://www.avpublications.com/3_catalogue/nabv/nabv_html_tract.htm#anchor1086736

quoting the cover:

When malware that came with the voice handling software ate three of my computers (back then they ran $1800 down to $1200 new) I quit listening to sound bites on-line. I never picked up the habit.

By contrast James R. White wrote THE KING JAMES ONLY CONTROVERSY (Bethany House Publishers, 1995) defends the above versions including the KJV. Brother James R. White has definately taken the moral high ground in this issue.

 

First off, Mrs. Dr. Mrs. Gail A. Riplinger is a she, not a he.

Second off, Dr. Riplinger is strictly a KJVO person, who 'attacks' the NIV as a Bible version, and includes it among the "New Age" Bible versions, which she does not support in any manner or form, since it is not the KJV. I assure you she does not defend the NIV, in any manner, that I'm aware of, at least.

Third off, I would suggest that any Bible since the 1769 'Blaney" revision of the KJV, would be considered a 'New Age' Bible, by Dr. Riplinger.

Fourth off, it is not necessary for you to continually 'yell', on the forum, as I have now pointed out to you at least four times.

Incidentally, the last time I mentioned this was less than 6 hours ago, earlier today! How about 'knocking it off' the yelling, already?

Ed

 

Please don't side with Riplinger! I've read that book, "New Age Bibles" and it's full of holes! She has the weakest case ever against modern versions. Personally, I'd be embarrassed to have my name on that book.

She tries to make some kind of case that the modern versions are New Age or New Age influenced. I was in the New Age for about 20 yrs and I can guarantee you 200% these Bibles are not New Age! Good grief! If they were, I would not read them. Nor would I be able to use them to prove the deity of Christ, the Trinity, that man is wicked, that man needs Christ, etc. -- all the things a New Ager would disagree with.

 

Ed,

Ed,

What in the world are you talking about???

The original poster DID NOT post in all caps with lots of exclamation marks. The post simply has a slightly larger text size. This site has several fonts and sizes available.


:godisgood:

 

It's interesting to note that our forefathers in the US (the Pilgrims) did not use the KJV as it was considered the "King's" Bible. It was dismissed by them and they used the Geneva Bible instead.

I have seen others state that the KJV is an "inspired" translation for the English speaking people. Of course, there's no evidence for that. Personally, I think that borders on heresy. While I hope & expect that translators do their best and are indeed led by the Spirit, that is much different than the original authors being inspired.

And what about the rest of the world that doesn't speak English?? Is there a special translation for them too -- or does God just have a "special" translation for us English speaking people? Those poor people who only speak Italian, Spanish, French, Japanese, Chinese, etc. -- too bad God doesn't have a "special" translation for them.

It's rather ridiculuous & rather silly when you think about it.

 

I think Dr Suess supports the Green Eggs and Ham(GEAH) version exclusively, or maybe he was opposed to the GEAH version.. Its so confusing.

In the few weeks I've been looking at the issue, I've came to the conclusion that if WE had spent as much time preaching Christ and Him crucified as we have the ABC version over the CBA version we would be more in line with what we are supposed to be doing.

 

Ms Riplinger fails to make her case. I hope you do read White, who soundly refutes arguments such as Riplinger's. There is no evidence for what Riplinger contends.

She is not the only one who says this but those who agree have no credibilty among scholars, students of the bible, students of church history, or even solid, mature believers. The people who are like Riplinger like to sling mud and make baseless accusations.

They are divisive as many of them believe you are not reading God's word if you do not read the KJV or that you may not even be a believer if you do not agree with them.

 

If I offended you, I apologize, here. I would have said nothing had you announced in advance that you needed the larger print, in a clearer manner.

I have no earthly idea why you would be jealous over a farmer and cab driver, however, unless you were driving in my area, or wanted to buy some hay for livestock, and I was not of a mind to sell any, as my nephew and I needed it for our own cattle, at that time.

I am not, and have never been a school teacher, although my mother was for a while, prior to my dad getting sick, some 30+ years ago.

FTR, while we are on the subject of attitude and respect, I believe I am the only person on this thread who referred to Dr. Gail A. Riplinger being a she, only as a matter of correction, and I know that I am the only person on this thread who has referred to her as Dr. Riplinger,

She fully merits that title, since it was bestowed on her, by an institution. That title has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not I agree with any premise or position she is advocating, FTR. (Nor does the use of that title say one thing about my personal esteem for an individual or my personal view of the granting institution. But a Doctorate granted - whether "earned" or "honorary", by any institution, from Oxford Univ., or one earned at the Univ. of So. Africa, or some previously institution, previously unknown to me school, still rates one given that honor, being addressed as "Dr.", and I normally do so, whenever I am aware of this. If this is 'talking down' or sounds like one attempting to teach "from high over" to anyone, I apologize.

I give this, simply as information. I would suggest that some might consider giving those awared Doctorates a bit more credit, than I usually see on the Baptist Board.

I do pray your vision improves to the point you will no longer need the larger font, for I desire to see you, as everyone, in health and prosper, just as did John. (III John 2)

Incidentally I have made absolutely no claim to being superior to anyone, I have not claimed to have more knowledge, nor ever claimed to having better insight, than anyone else, that I recall. Whether or not you desire to be taught or learn of me, is you decision, I guess.

Ed

 

My father was legally blind (deceased now) and so are all of my uncles. They use caps and bigger text so that they can see what they are typing.

You never know why folks may need to type in big bold letters and it might be considerate of them to just accept it instead of ridicule them.

The idea that big text and bold letters is "yelling" is common among folks that live and breathe by their pc's. If the pc is your life, and you take caps as a personal attack, then maybe you should take a break from the computer and interact with real people for a while.

Just a suggestion

AJ

 

Actually, Ms. Riplinger does not.

Her so-called "doctorate" is an honorary doctorate granted by what is called an unaccredited college. An honorary doctorate is not a regular doctorate, but is bestowed as an honor.

Accreditation assures all people concerned that the college has an appropriate level of rigor and quality, in order that degree earners can be assumed `up to par.' It separates colleges operated and taught by qualified people providing an appropriate education from institutions set up by the likes of `Joe No-Know.'

Basically, an unaccredited college is one that does not meet the standards of rigor and quality required by regional accrediting agencies. The pieces of paper that they call diplomas do not represent degrees that
1) all of higher education would accept as having any level of legitimacy,
2) government or professional agencies that require credentials would accept as legitimate.
In other words, it is a college only to itself and anyone else who voluntarily chooses to treat it as one and can get away with doing so. To everyone else, it is not a legitimate college.

In other words, she is not entitled to be called "Dr. Riplinger." The institution granting the so-called "doctorate" does not have the authority to grant any such thing.

As far as respect, to treat her as a colleague to genuine doctorate-holders would be bringing them down to a level far below the respect they deserve as experts. I wrote this post not to be mean to Ms. Riplinger, but to set the record straight.

 

I certainly have no problem with anyone having any physical problems,whatsoever, for I have a couple of my own. I fully expect that on a Board of this size, several have some physical problems of one sort or another, and probably several have multiple ones, far more numerous than I. I did apologize for not recognizing that the poster has problems seeing clearly, however.

A simple statement to that effect, in the past, would have saved three mentions of that, by me. The original statement when I first asked about the reason for large print, contained a much different answer.

I will say no more about this, at this time.

Ed

 

I am fully aware that the Doctorate of Dr. Gail A. Riplinger is an honorary doctorate. I am also aware that the doctorates of many other individuals are 'honorary', as well.

Suppose I had mentioned, instead of Dr. Riplinger, an individual such as Dr. B. H. Carroll (Pastor, Theology Professor, Baylor University, Founding President of Southwestern Baptist Seminary, the largest in the world), Dr. H. A. Ironside (Noted Bible Teacher, Lecturer at Dallas Seminary, and Pastor of Moody Memorial Church), Dr. John Gill (English Baptist Pastor of the 18th Century, pastor of Horsleydown Church for 51 years, author of A Body of Divinity and to this day, stands as the only indivudual to write commentary on every verse in the Bible), Dr. Reuben A. Torrey (Evangelist, later served as Superntendent - equivalent to President - of what became Moody Bible Institute, also Pastor of both Moody Church, and Church of the Open Door, and Dean of Biola), Dr. Wilbur M. Smith (Pastor of Four Churches, Editor of Peloubet's Notes for almost 40 years, Professor at Moody, Fuller, and Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Associate editor of the New Scofield Reference Bible), or Dr. Billy Graham, [Evangelist for more than 50 years, is thought to have preached in person to more individuals than anyone in history, Co-founder of Youth for Christ, youngest individual to ever serve as a sitting College President (Northwestern College) to this day] for six other examples, instead.

Would you have offered the same opinion? Would you suggest these individuals also would 'lower' the standards? All these doctorates were also honorary, and only Dr. Torrey, had any training beyond a College Bachelor's degree (B.D.); Drs. Graham and Smith each only 'earned' a B.A., Dr. Carroll was a few months shy of his B.A., when he entered the Confederate Army during the Civil War, and Baylor awarded him that degree, anyway, saying his time served was 'worth more' than three additional months of classroom time would have been, Dr. Ironside did graduate from the 8th grade, and Dr. Gill had no formal schooling beyond the age of 11.

Please forgive me, if I do not think these served to lower any standards, rather I would say they raised them to a fairly lofty level. Incidentally, I could rather easily add another score of individuals along these same lines. I suggest it is the individual, that is the difference, hence I have no problem with calling any individual by that title, when it has been bestowed.

Ed

 

I fully agree that it is what Dr. Riplinger (or anyone else) says, that counts.

Actually, Dr. Riplinger's academic 'training' is in the field of Interior Design (B.A.), Home Economics (M.A.), and Art (M.F.A.) with some additional post graduate study at Cornell and Harvard, according to her biography.

Ed