New Age Bibles

Ja, She tells in her answer to James White,
"
White's doom is his penchant for making statements without adequate research or proof. He bleats, "Her degrees, her teaching, and her writing are all in one area...Her field of study is not at all related to the Bible, history or any type of linguistics or textual study."
He's wrong about the teaching.
He's wrong about the degrees.
He's wrong about the history.
He's wrong about the linguistics.
He's wrong about the writing.
He will have a difficult time convincing Harvard and Cornell or the University which awarded my M.F.A., or my ten or so history professors at the graduate and undergraduate levels. He will find it equally difficult to persuade the employer who hired me as a linguistic expert, teaching Greek speaking students English as a second language. (Or the Japanese, Russian, Italian, Spanish or Serbo-Croatian students which followed.) Students from six different majors will also testify to White's lack of research.
Jim likes to play word games. He lost with Vanna White, let's see how he does with Jeopardy!
"Who was trained in law, yet designed the building on the reverse side of the nickel, gave us our finest English translation of the Greek Aeschyles and Sophocles, wrote The Dictionary of Indian Dialects and invented the swivel chair, storm window and dumb waiter?"
My field of study and research for the past nine years has been exclusively textual criticism, linguistics, history, and the Bible--resulting in the publication of two books. One has been adopted as a textbook in numerous seminaries (New Age Bible Versions). This followed a mid-career switch after 18 years researching the built environment (industrial, architectural, and interior design).
Which Bible is God's Word, my latest book, details the qualifications God sets forth (pp. 5-7). None of the aforementioned background fits God's requirements, nor does White's B.A. or M.A., or the NIV translators' degrees."

 

Which 'College' was it?

I see now, Riplinger is very vague in the above quote!

But again, who cares? All that matters is what she says in her book. Let it be its own test and judge.

 

'Informed'? You see, this is how real information is disposed of so easily: Exactly the way you do it here and now. You do not pay attention to a single point of information Riplinger supplies. And so, to my knowledge, has everybody else who shoots her dow, done. James White's attempt at refuting Riplinger was the best of the lot, and how pathetic is it not! But for you information your 'informed' public is not so widely 'public' as you pretend. Here's one better informed, and what he had to say on this issue:

"
White's false accusations have brought him much public embarrassment. The Christian radio station in White's very own town aired several broadcasts presenting North America's most beloved Bible teacher, Cecil J. Carter--the title: "The Public Spanking of James White."
"Welcome to our radio congregation: This includes a welcome to the person of Mr. James White, director of the Alpha & Omega ministries. I understand that he has promised that he will be listening...
Your great activity in promoting new versions, downgrading the KJV, and viciously attacking defenders of the Bible as, for example, Mrs. Gail Riplinger, is having a deadly effect in many lives...
Picture if you can the multitudes of men, women and children, who will arise in the day of judgment and charge you with their doom, because you have convinced them that new bible versions which are based on inconceivably corrupted manuscripts are in reality the true word of God...
My prayer to God is that he will be merciful to you and those who have been deceived by you into casting away the true Bible for these miserable counterfeits...
In your two articles and booklet attacking Gail Riplinger and her amazing book: New Age Bible Versions, you are obviously so angry that you have not hesitated to try to destroy the credibility, honesty, and reputation of a gracious Christian woman...this is to your shame, because you have gone far, far beyond the proper bounds of scholarly criticism...
These all, along with you, have opened your mouths against one of the most courageous Christian women, in a most despicable manner...Do you not think it is time someone called a halt to these extravagant charges against a gracious Christian woman...
That which you cannot find wrong, you invent with false accusations, and please do not say that you do not. A simple examination of your booklet reveals the fact...
Now you cruel, ungracious, voracious critics, shame on you!...You appear like so many terrible birds of prey lodging in the branches of the church ready to interfere with anything that might awaken the multitudes who have been deceived by your lectures and writings into forsaking the pure word of God (Matt. 13:31-32)...
Howl, you sinners and cry unto God to have mercy on your money loving souls. Yes, you are quite right, if Gail is right in her contention that the new versions rest on corrupted MSS., and she is right, no doubt about that, you will sell less of your books which are filled with quotations from those dangerously polluted versions...
Rejoice in the great mercy of God: when Job's friends humbled themselves they had to come to the one they had accused so heartlessly in the midst of his other trials...
[T]here is a way back; take it and rejoice in restoration of your soul, and say with David the man after God's own heart: He restoreth my soul..."
Cecil J. Carter"

 

No sir, I shall not adopt your tactics, though she is no 'heroine' of mine. I'll only say this, that whereas what I have read about this whole issue of 'New Age Bibles' - which is more than I have read of Riplinger - has been characterised by two things: First the massive detail specified by the critical side over against the zero counter-detail by the 'New Age' side. Second, the by far greater 'detail'-differences and differentiations between the 'older' and 'newer' 'Translations' or 'Versions' as such - irrespective now of the 'original' text differences.

These discrepancies are not only convincing of the justness of the criticisms; they are condemning of the injustices committed in the New Age Bibles against the Christian Faith! We don't talk of small issues or of a few flaws here and there; we see the basics, fundamentals, essentials of the Christian Faith worm-eaten through the corruption in thousands of proven textual instances.

 

I haven't. Let us know more; but also tell us if it's worth anyone's while.

 

GE:
I started this thread, and I borrowed the title of the debate as publicised between Riplinger and White, 'New Age Bibles'. Replies received, like this of yours, Marcia, for me are above criticism. I accept what you say unconditionally. Especially your attitude I appreciate most sincerely for being Christian in every respect.
It is true, it takes more than man can ever launch against God's Word to destroy it. Even the Divinity of Christ still proves itself through these versions despite the many ommissions and real instances where his Divinity is in fact attacked or assailed. These things remain irrefutable. But more so does Jesus Divinity remain irrefutable.
Let me therefore put two things straight:
1. It is not so much the 'modern' collations of manuscripts as such that are questionable or problematic, but the 'translations' and 'versions' since these 'texts' were published.
2. that these 'later' 'translations' and 'versions' for the ordinary, not so learned commoners like me, give themselves away for their poor attention to factual detail or rather for exactly their exceptional attention to factual detail.
I have followed over years one specific 'trend', develop. It betrayed itself precisely by its gradual evolution from one species as it evolved into the next. The reader who did not observe was either credulously trusting both tradition and translators, or, he was himself incuriously prejudiced.

 

Not one of these 'rules' you mention can be adhered to perfectly.
Be it 'word for word' or 'thought for thought', there is the other factor of subjectivity; which again brings into play the factors of tradition and doctrine. That is where I got drawn into the 'textual conflict' or rather battle of the versions. You must have noticed some specifics in this thread and others.