Gail Riplinger has a new book, and what does it argue? All Greek and Hebrew texts are faulty. Yes, all, including the Textus Receptus. Scrivener was a heretic, apparently, as bad as Westcott and Hort. TBS are denounced as promoting heretics. Lest any think I am over-egging the pudding, Part 3 is titled: All AVAILABLE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT TEXTS ARE FAULTY, and part 5: ALL CURRENTLY AVAILABLE HEBREW OLD TESTAMENT TEXTS ARE FAULTY. Chapter 29 is The Occult & Catholic Origin of Greek & Hebrew Focus. Yes, that's right, even though the Council of Trent declared that the Latin Vulgate was the standard (Fourth Session), a focus on the original languages is Catholic. Why? Because the men who revived the study of the original languages were members of the Roman Catholic Church!
So what are we to do if God's Word is not preserved in the original languages? Simple, God inspired the King James Bible. Never mind that she would probably regard some of the teachings promoted by the King James translators as heretical. Lancelot Andrewes, for example, was an Anglican Bishop, a high churchman (his writings were published in the Library of Anglo-Catholic Theology), and a promoter of forms of prayer. Hadrian Saravia was an advocate of the Monarchical Episcopate, the ruling Bishop. Thomas Ravis was a pluralist, a man who at one point held nearly half-a-dozen church posts, being Vice-Chancellor of the University of Oxford (whose main function was to train ministers), a Canon of Westminster Abbey, Rector of Islip, Oxfordshire and Vicar of Wittenham Abbey Church in Berkshire. He was made Bishop of Gloucester, then of London, where he was a determined persecutor of the Puritans. These are only three of the 'worst', of course, and there were many good men among the translators, including George Abbot, Thomas Holland and John Reynolds - who were all Calvinists.
Of course, the King James Translators were all students of the ancient languages (Henry Savile, another of the translators, significantly shortened his life by the efforts he made in editing the complete works of the Greek Father John Chrysostom), and relied on the very texts that Gail Riplinger's new book deprecates. The only people at the time of the Reformation who taught that all Greek and Hebre texts were faulty and that we should instead rely on a translation that had been divinely inspired were... well, the Romanists. Not that I am accusing Ms. Riplinger of being a Romanist, I know she isn't one (otherwise she'd be promoting the Latin Vulgate), but that she is thinking like one at this point. Surely the crowning irony!
This is all rather silly. It's one thing to say that the AV is the most accurate English translation in existence, but to basically spend a thousand pages rubbishing all study of the original languages is surely over the top!
This is a silly book, and belongs with the works of the Jesus Seminar.