Wednesday, August 19, 2009

Her Hazardous Materials

This is it, the review of G.A. Riplinger's Hazardous Materials (Ararat VA, AV Publications) Pp. 1200

We have all of us been annoyed at times by the young preacher who says in a sermon 'the Greek really means...', especially those of us who know that the Greek means nothing of the sort in context. A good rule is that if no English Bible has that translation, there's a reason for it, so keep that 'nugget of wisdom' to yourself. Gail Riplinger, however, goes further. This reliance on the Greek, she thinks, is the result of an Occult plot, and she has published a book to share this with the world.

This is a great brick of a book that purports to expose the dark secrets lurking in Greek and Hebrew study, a study that the authoress believes is equivalent to showing pornography to Bible college students. It is full of innuendo, logical fallacies, and wide-eyed conspiratorial ravings. The only use a sane person might have for it is to read excerpts to a dinner party to gales of laughter. In sharing the contents of this book with good conservative Christian friends, I have universally been greeted with loud laughter and incredulity that anyone could believe this stuff. She lambasts all Greek and Hebrew learning as springing from Catholic and Occultic sources, and asks why anyione would want to learn Greek when we have a Holy Bible. She manages the amazing feat of brining in the Titanic, the Knights Templar, the Freemasons, the Rothschilds, Jack the Ripper, and Alice in Wonderland (after I had told a friend that it included the first five he asked "does it bring in Alice in Wonderland too?" The affirmative answer prompted loud laughter). In all the long and honoured history of nonsense, I doubt there has ever been a book this bad.

She spends literally hundreds of pages detailing facts about the lexicons most commonly used today. Quotations from lexicographers and Greek scholars are given in which they state that most modern lexicons are inadequate. Yet from this Riplinger does not conclude, with the lexicographers themselves, that new, better lexicons are needed, but that Lexicons obscure the tecahings of the Bible, and we ought to do away with them as polluted by the study of Classical Greek and secular Greek. Since God is not the author of confusion, she says, He must be the authour of the one inspired English Bible today - the King James Bible. Time and again Gail Riplinger commits the logical fallacy of Non sequitur. The conclusion just does not follow from the argument. The conclusion is that we need more Greek study, not less.

For those interested, Riplinger does not even attempt to direct her readers to any Greek and Hebrew lexicons, past or present, that do not contain the problems she identifies. These problems are: use of classical Greek literature and post-Classical Greek documents to understand Biblical Greek, and the use of cognate languages to shed light on the Hebrew. In fact all Greek study since the Rformation has used non-Biblical literature in the teaching of Greek and the interpretation of Biblical languages, and William Bedwell, an AV translator, actually argued that you had to know Arabic to understand Hebrew texts, a position concerning the cohnate languages far more extreme than any held by modern scholars! She cannot tell us where God has preserved the Bible in Greek and Hebrew, even quoting favourably a writer who arges that God has not done so at all. Where does that differ from this slightly doctored quotation: "[The King James Bible] is truer than the [common] Greek text itself. It is not only better than all other [English] translations, but than the Greek text itself, in those places, where they disagree"? Yet this is taken from the preface to the Roman Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible! The original reads: "It [the Latin Vulgate] is truer than the vulgar Greek text itself. It is not only better than all other Latin translations, but than the Greek text itself, in those places, where they disagree."

And she does not simply point out the inadequacies in the lexicons and modern Bible versions. As she did in New Age Bible Versions, she argues that the moral and spiritual failings of the men involved with a work affects the character of the work itself. Moreover, the moral character of those associated with those associated with a work is also important. And thus we are hurled into rambling rabbit-trails of speculation that are finally to very little point. There is really no necessary connection between Cecil Rhodes using the Liddell-Scott Greek lexicon and his imperialist ambitions. The ad hominem fallacy looms large in this book. Rather than arguing against the materials themselves, she spends most of her time attacking the men involved. One suspects this to be because she simply lacks the ability in the original languages to argue any other way.

In fact we have to admit that a Bible translator's moral character must, at least to some extent, be less important than his or her scholarly credentials. Why is this? Simply because otherwise the King James Version itself would have to be rejected. Several men on the King James committee were actively involved in the persecution of Puritans, for example Bishop Overall of Norwich and Thomas Ravis. Hadrian a Savaria, another King James translator, was forced to flee Holland after engaging in political intrigue, and Richard Thompson was a drunken Arminian. These are only four men, and others could have been referred to. Taking Riplinger's separatistic Baptist position, we would further have to condemn the AV for being traslated entirely by paedobaptist Anglican clergymen, seven of whom became Bishops, three of whom actively attacked non-episcopalian government, and most of whom were Calvinists. The engineer is hoist with her own petard. But God who could speak by Balaam and by Caiaphas can also make use of wicked scribes and translators to merely convey His Word.
The point is urged through the use of very dirty arguments, for example B.F. Westcott is made the target of some of the vilest innuendo I have ever read in any book, Christian or otherwise, and all without a sliver of evidence. C.D. Ginsburg is made the subject of an offhand accusation of murder, again without evidence, and Riplinger repeats the worn-out suggestion that Charles Dodgson (Lewis Carroll) was Jack the Ripper, an accusation that is not taken seriously by the online source that she cites. Even when a man has true moral failings, she has to over-egg the pudding and pull in arguments that have no relation to the real world, as evidenced in her bringing in the Knights Templar in relation to C.J. Vaughan, passing from truth (Vaughan allegedly had homosexual relationships with sixth-formers when headmaster at Harrow School) to the realms of pure fantasy. There is very little discrimination here, and everywhere the marks of an obsession with the infiltration of the occult, for she sees the occult everywhere, esepcially where it is not.
Riplinger's research is an odd mix of the accurate and the inaccurate, using modern sources and outdated sources. She is also unable to discriminate between reliable and unreliable sources, and as a result presents 'facts' to her readers that are nothing of the sort, as I have already shown in the posts preliminary to this review.

The book is meant to defend the King James Bible. In fact what it defends is the Fundamentalist deviation that proclaims the AV to have been inspired of God, and that in a bizzarre scheme which I have christened IVOr, the theory of Inspired Vernacular Originals, given by God in Acts 2. Since none of the New Testament had been written at that date, to give vernacular New Testaments then would have been a source of endless confusion ("Look, Peter, here's two letters you're going to write! And who's this Paul fellow?"). This interpretation of the Gift of Tongues is unknown until the modern age, as is the idea that the AV is God's final word in English. The teaching that the originals of the New Testament books might not all have been in Greek (for example she suggests that Romans was originally in Latin) is not a development that any historic Bible-believing Christian would welcome, and the suggestion that the English and Latin can trump the Greek at times is truly disturbing.

This is one of the worst books I have ever read. If you need something to cheer up a party, buy one and read out selected passages to entertain your friends. If you actually want to obtain factual information, don't bother. There is fact in this book, but so mixed with myth and misrepresentation that you will be disappointed.

Gail Riplinger's English style is affected, and her use of rhyming couplets in prose has already been commented on. This is hardly surprising in one who lambasts the reading of imaginitive literature, and views Shakespeare as Satan's pawn to distract people from the King James Bible. I kid you not. Finally the book has no index, an extremely irritating feature in a work this size.

In conclusion, to those who wish to defend the exclusive use of the King James Bible (please note the word exclusive), I would say: get yourselves a better champion. The woman is quite unreliable as a source of factual information. I have discovered that she has a devoted following who will jump down your throat if you dare to say anything against her, but will in no wise object to her making the foulest of accusations against others. This ought not to be so, my friends. Despite her own claims, Gail Riplinger is not an inspired prophet of God, she is a fallible human being, and a very dirty writer. I do not believe in burning books, but if I did, I should burn this one first.

[Note: It has recently come to my attention that Riplinger is probably wrong to say that Liddell-Scott is the first Greek-English lexicon. Postings here indicate the prior existence of at least four Greek-English lexicons before Liddell-Scott. One poster indicates that Pickering, one of these old lexicons, can be traced back to Stephanus' lexicon, which would have been used by the AV translators. Also of interest is the fact that the AV translators actually used lexicons that referenced the classical Greek literature and in Hebrew other Semitic languages - features Riplinger attacks modern lexicons for. Thus once again we are faced with the problem that Riplinger's methods end up falling on the AV!]


thyhart said...

Thank you, thank you, thank you! Your review of Gail Riplinger's book "Hazardous Materials" is precisely at almost every point the same serious concerns I have also had about Ms Riplinger's publications.

I also believed after reading "In Awe of Thy Word" that her dismissal of all Greek and Hebrew manuscripts (yes even the sacred Textus Receptus and the Masoretic Text) as suspect, and her extreme lack of scholarly research and study that Riplinger lacked a working knowledge and comprehension of any ancient language, needless to say the biblical languages. It was not difficult to see by her grossly faulty research methods and the many errors in comparison of the KJV to MEV's, and the creation of the "in-book" Bible dictionary (laughable to say the least), that she lacked the ability to work in any biblical translation beyond the definition of words. And even worse than that, her new definitions of the words in the Bible from her "in-book" bible dictionary have certainly called into question her abilities to even look into a dictionary and discern appropriate meanings.

By vilifying and demonizing these ancient manuscripts she does not have to answer the obvious questions about the truth of her claims and defend them against true scholarly work and much needed questioning.

And of course there are such highly inflammatory descriptors of the all manuscripts that are not the Textus Receptus and the Masoretic Text that they are "corrupt" and "perverted", and the final blast against modern versions is that they are tools of the "anti-christ" due to some convoluted logic regarding the omission of the name 'Lucifer' in Isaiah 14:12 of the modern English versions. Woops. Now that would be trouble if I believed it.

Your review was right on target. And sadly you are very astute in observing her fans will not see the huge number of errors, misquotes and even lies in her books. It is quite sad. They will go to the wall for her and eventually go down with her.

Sad also the great spirit of schism she and others have fostered and the division in the Body of Christ over this extreme separatist movement they have spawned.

Great Review, thanks

Highland Host said...

I'll say this, though, Hazmat is far better written than NABV is. There are fewer rhyming couplets, and no long rhyming paragraphs. Also there are fewer cases where you are left after reading a paragraph wondering just exactly what the point of that was, fewer comparison tables, and no points where, having quoted a modern version, she says "Will this verse, plucked out of context, be used by New Agers to convince Christians...?" (See NABV P. 106 for a great example). It's still a bad book, but a better written bad book.

The Puritan said...

>...and the [...] "in-book" Bible dictionary (laughable to say the least)

It's called comparing Scripture with Scripture. Laugh all you want (mocking of Christians and of the Word of God is a feature of the end times).

The Puritan said...

>They will go to the wall for her and eventually go down with her.

This sentence gives you away. I suspect you're not conscious of it though. You just said I will "go down" because I value the Bible of English speaking Christians since Reformation times who defended it through time and gave their lives for it. Because I value and defend the Authorized Version. Because I put my faith in a God-preserved received text with the authority of God in it rather than a constructed text with the authority of scholars (man) in it. Because I like the Spirit in a woman who defends God's Words (all His Words) and I don't particularly care for the spirit of the critical text scholars which is a vain and prideful and rebellious spirit of worldliness and worse. Yes, for these reason you say I will "go down." See how perverse the spirit of the times has made you.

thyhart said...

Hello Puritan -
I will afford you what you did not afford me, decency. I did not attack anyone personally. That seems to be the thrust of so many KJVO people. I am sorry to see that here.

>... It's called comparing Scripture with Scripture. Laugh all you want (mocking of Christians and of the Word of God is a feature of the end times).

You seem to have left me out as though you are a Christian and I am not. This is not true. It is not the pervue of any person to judge my heart. Only God can judge the human heart. I will not judge yours. That is the sole domain of God. Why does it always come to this? "You don't believe what I believe, therefore you are going to hell." You are outside your rights in the one and only, perfect for all time Bible (which I use by the way). And it is in no way true that I mocked the Word of God. My contention is with the author of HazMat.

>... You just said I will "go down" because I value the Bible of English speaking Christians since Reformation times who defended it through time and gave their lives for it. Because I value and defend the Authorized Version.

You immediately brought this to a confrontation I never brought. You are putting words in my mouth and implying motives that simply are not there. At no point did I ever even imply that I attacked any person who loves the King James Version 1611. I have serious doubts about the writer of the HazMat. These are honest concerns from an individual who has some knowledge and comprehension of the Textus Receptus. That, by the way, I also use.

>... Because I put my faith in a God-preserved received text with the authority of God in it rather than a constructed text with the authority of scholars (man) in it.

I put my faith in Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior. I believe in the Trinity and believe that the Son of God always was the Son of God, and that Jesus Christ is totally God and man. I am purchased of God and bought back with a price - the blood of my Lord Jesus Christ which He shed for me upon Calvary. I am a child of the Living God. I belong to the one and only true God - the Elohim of the time of the patriarchs, Jehovah by His own name, and Jehowshua Messiach. I also have access to the same Father (as you do) through the same (Holy) Spirit. These are things that you cannot judge. I stand firmly upon the salvation given to me, undeserved, yet given by the Grace of God through Jesus Christ.


thyhart said...

Part 2 - Puritan :)

>... Because I like the Spirit in a woman who defends God's Words (all His Words) and I don't particularly care for the spirit of the critical text scholars which is a vain and prideful and rebellious spirit of worldliness and worse.

I am not a critical text scholar. I am a student of the Bible. I know what is right and correct and what is wrong when I see it. Have you ever once checked up on the verses she presents against the modern versions. Have you looked up her references to see that she is speaking the truth? There is a lot that has been hidden in her work, and it is not the Truth.

I AM A WOMAN who defends God's words (all of them). I don't just defend them, I also believe we are required to live by them. I am not accusing you, but I have seen individuals who staunchly believe in the KJV as the only perfect Word of God, yet they do not practice the words therein. It is the viscious name calling and vile demonization of anything that is not what the author HazMat believes, that she demonizes in incredible visciouness. This is a direct attack on the Body of Christ - the Church (the whole Church) and not a man-made concept of who is the Church. This is for no one to judge but Christ Jesus Himself. This I object to in a woman of God, or a man of God. And it is not in any way the Love of Jesus Christ. That I can say with certainty.

What happened to John 15:12- And this is my commandment. That ye love one another as I have loved you; John 15:9- As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love; and 10- If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love?

This is what is terribly wrong. Where is the love of Christ Jesus? I pray you will find Christ's love in your beautiful Book, the King James Version. The truth of Jesus Christ is there. Please I pray you look to His words. This is the Book I love too.

The Bible to be sure is Holy. But who is greater? The Bible, or the Author? It is the Author who is greater, and the Author that makes it Holy. It is the Creator of the Word, the Holy Spirit that inspired all of it. If I do not have my Bible with me and meet someone in need, is it impossible to speak to that person the words of salvation and eternal life? No. Christ lives within us, and we are living epistles and are those whom God has sent forth into this world as His ambassadors, and at the same time His servants.

If we are fellow servants together, then let us love one another. I begin by loving you in Jesus Christ, the Lord our Righteousness. I pray you will be able to love others in the same Spirit, and in the divine will and purpose of God our Father.


Highland Host said...

My dear Puritan, you could not have given a better example of the double standards of your party if you had tried. You like the spirit of a woman who is constantly engaged in ad hominem and innuendo, including accusations of practices so vile that I will not mention them (You have the page references)? A woman who claims that all modern Bible versions are part of a Luciferian plot to usher in Antichrist's One World Religion? You will excuse me if I do not share your enthusiasm for Mrs. Riplinger.

Then you go on: "I don't particularly care for the spirit of the critical text scholars which is a vain and prideful and rebellious spirit of worldliness and worse." All apparently because they do not agree with you! Yet if Riplinger is the best you have, then there is no BIBLICAL reason to agree with you at all!

Forsooth, it is a commonplace that words are defined in context, but wottest thou not that there doth not exist any reason why thou needest to ever read the Bible in this tongue? Wottest thou not that the naughtiness of thy heart and the corruption of thy reins are not the trying of all men. What, because Riplinger is teetotal shall there be no more cakes and ale? I would rather drink pure beer with Bishop Westcott (and Bishop Miles Smith) than water with Riplinger.

The Puritan said...

HH, you write as if the subject at hand is not the very Word of God itself. To present the two manuscripts critical text scholars present as the 'best' and 'most accurate' representations of the Word of God is, in no uncertain terms, satanic lunacy.

>Yet if Riplinger is the best you have, then there is no BIBLICAL reason to agree with you at all!

If Edward F. Hills doesn't reach you nothing will. And the Received Text has all of history on its side. It is the text God preserved. It is the text Christians died for.

Highland Host said...

Of course, no Critical Text scholar would say that Vaticanus and Sinaiaticus are to be followed slavishly. Even Westcott and Hort, who affixed far too much importance to those two manuscripts, didn't say that! And it's modern scholars who say Westcott and Hort attached too much importance to those two!

The fact remains that the most Alexandrian manuscript and the most Byzantine teach the same Gospel. They do not present radically different Jesuses, or radically different views of God and salvation. The AV is just a translation, the TR represents the state of the Greek text known in the west at the time of the Reformation. As it was based largely upon manuscripts brought to the west by refugees fleeing the fall of Constantinople (Byzantium), it of course represented the Byzantine text-type. Riplinger, in HazMat, recognises that the Greek Orthodox Church is hardly known for its Biblical practices and fidelity to the Word of God!

You write as if Sinaiaticus and Vaticanus taught a radically different message, a Satanic message. Kindly prove it. For I would wager that if the AV committee had had access to those codices, they would have used them.

The Puritan said...

The AV translators had access to many manuscripts we don't have a clue about. And the variations found in vaticanus were known. These are well-disabused statements you are making. Corruptions, progressive corruptions (the critical text industry has more than one or two products, doesn't it?) and a continual license to look down on and treat the Word of God at a mere document that needs its content to be determined by scholars. Wake up, folks. Right now you are all dead asleep.

Hiraeth said...

Puritan. The problem with Riplinger, and, indeed, with yourself is that you seem unable to grasp that a person may disagree with you position vis a vis the Bible and still be a Christian. I attend a church where the AV is used, and use the AV myself, but I am horried at the idea that anyone who does not use the AV, but some other translation is automatically evil or something.

Whatever happened to 'in all things charity'?

The Puritan said...

What horrifies you is directed at people who 'teach' Christians (God will hold them to a higher standard) and people who know enough to know better. As for the currently naive or innocent regarding these things the role of watchman and sounding the alarm is what Christians are supposed to do.

The academic priesthood use all manner of accusations againt God's watchmen to protect themselves. "Oh, these watchemen, they are saying to you Christians that you aren't really Christians because you follow us! What? And we are only bringing you the most scholarly, the most up-to-date Word of God!"

Hiraeth said...

Puritan, what you are doing is precisely that. Presuming to judge the souls of men. All too often it seems that you are commenting as though you are a true Christian and those who disagree with you as to the question of translations of the Bible are not. That is not given to us to know, but to the Lord who searches the heart.

thyhart said...

Hi Puritan-
It is a good day. God has been with us.

Hiraeth has said what I said -

<-- Presuming to judge the souls of men. All too often it seems that you are commenting as though you are a true Christian and those who disagree with you as to the question of translations of the Bible are not. That is not given to us to know, but to the Lord who searches the heart.

If there is a battle for souls here, it is that I pray you will learn the lesson of Love that Jesus Christ brings. No matter what way one translates John 15:1-17 it still comes down to the Commandment of Jesus Christ -

John 14:15 - If ye love me, keep my commandments.
John 15:9 - As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love.
v.10 - If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.
v.12 - This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.
v.17 - These things I command you, that ye love one another.
1 Jn 2:10 - He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is none occasion of stumbling in him.
v.11 - But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes.
1 Cor 13:1 - Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity/love, I am become [as] sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
v.2 - And though I have [the gift of] prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity/love, I am nothing.
v.3 - And though I bestow all my goods to feed [the poor], and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity/love, it profiteth me nothing.

The love of Jesus Christ is far from what we would like to admit. It attacks the very core of our Self: "I want it MY way! I will not die!" Hey, you're not alone. I die daily, and some days I don't want to die at all.

Imagine having to love a son-in-law who wears a dress? Yet God asks that we do just that. Jesus loved the whores and the despicable ones in society, the untouchables and the devil possessed.

Why do we study this beautiful Word from God? Not so I can fight over words to be sure. We study so that we might know God and His Son Jesus Christ, through the work of the Holy Spirit. We study so that we might bear fruit. And that in bearing fruit we will fulfill the will of God and give Him glory. And that by so doing, we obey the deepest commandment of all - to Love.

Our walk in Jesus Christ has so many stumbling blocks. Take a breath, get down on your knees and listen in the quietness of your soul. God certainly loves you. I certainly do.

Just Love One Another. It's simple when you begin to understand you have to die. And that is your fight right now. I agree that the KJV is Holy. I also see that people are saved by the very same doctrine of Salvation in the NIV that the KJV has.

I have an advantage over you. I read them both. I know absolutely there is no difference.


Accept my love for you. I ask you forgive me for anyway I have embarassed you, or offended you.

Please accept the Love I send you in Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior.


The Puritan said...

Yes, peace, peace, love, love, while I mutilate the Word of God. I tell you to follow the Word of God, while I mutilate the Word of God. Look at John 17 (see? we've kept it in for you!), while I mutilate the Word of God. Get down on your knees and feel the love of Christ, while I mutilate the Word of God. And when you've forgotten the Word of God, because we've mutilated the Word of God, well, all you really need is the love of Christ anyway, you know? Peace, peace, love, love... - Satan

Highland Host said...

My dear 'Puritan'. You may personate Satan if you so wish. Apparently you have been reduced to rhetoric, rather than reason. Obviously I cannot 'answer' your statement. It was never intended to be answered. Am I making you uncomfortable? Forcing you to think outside the box? I hope so.

The Puritan said...

HH, you're telling a Christian who values God's preserved Word, the AV1611, the received pure and whole Word of God, that he has to begin to 'think outside of the box' to...I suppose...'grow'. This is what the spirit of the times does to some.

Anyway, my Satan post was directed to peace and love thyhart.

Hiraeth said...

Satan's tactics have always been the same. To mutilate the word of God and tear asunder the body of Christ. Ask yourself - are those who split churches over the use of a Bible translation unwittingly allowing the devil in another way. Let he who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall.

thyhart said...

Evening dear Puritan -

<--Anyway, my Satan post was directed to peace and love thyhart.

I did not know exactly the best way to reply. I believe you were enraged and had become unreasonable. At least you were raging while writing that post.

I typed up something yesterday, trying reaching out to you, biblical quotes, attempting to reason. Then I was checked in the Spirit. I think perhaps I was posting to hear myself think, or see it in print. This is not about me, though. This is for Jesus Christ our Savior.

This specific discussion between us is about the Love of Jesus Christ and His Peace. Love and Peace are listed in the Fruits of the Spirit in Gal 5:22,23. And now that I read that passage I see v.26 says - "Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another." So I have my answer from Scripture that I was guilty yesterday of vain glory and the Spirit checked me.

I looked at your profile. You are obviously a highly intelligent person. Your favorite reading materials are the stuff of great scholars. Are you also adept at their original languages? You have thought things through and believe strontly - so much so that you take one of the strongest stands I have seen. You are very passionate, definitely not lukewarm. You do speak your mind, and as such I must call you an honest person. I don't see at any point that you have lied to me. So if we were standing toe-to-toe I would expect your honesty. I respect that.

We two are very different. And this is as it should be. God made us to be different. We have different tasks in the Body, different roles to play as the work laid out for us by God before the foundation of the world.

The Love of Jesus Christ and the Peace He brings is not a syrupy sweet, candied thing that bleeding hearts weap over and imagine it makes the world all peachy clean and just wonderful. His Love is real.

For those who have become cynical it is that which alone is pure and holy. For those incredibly wounded and regected by family and community it is an unconditional acceptance and embrace in the arms of God. For the weary it is a reason to keep striving, or running, or walking, or even crawling toward the goal because His Love brings hope.

For no apparently good things ever in my life past or present, God has blessed me with an unusual experience. I once felt the presence of Jesus Christ. It was probably only less than an instant but it has lasted alive in my soul for many years. His presence was very powerfully expressive of His unconditional love. He is 100% accepting of this very unworthy person. It was accompanied by His Peace. That Peace can only be described as Scripture does: "The peace which passeth all human understanding..." There are no words.

When I speak of the Love and Peace of Jesus Christ it is this very, very high divine expression I speak of. It is not maudelin nor shallow. It is transcending. It is food for the soul for eternity. I will never comprehend all it is. Nor will I ever comprehend all that Jesus is. They are inseperable.

And at no point does it denounce the truth of Scripture. It is one with it. Hard to explain. But Christ is inseparable in His attributes. It drives me deep into Scripture to feed on Him more.

That moment altered me. I KNEW then that there was something beyond - far past the letters on the page, soaring infinitely above anything I am. I knew, - I have a knowing that there is the living God.

This is what I know of Jesus Christ the Living Word and His Love. This is the Word working deep within through the power of the Holy Spirit.

I am a sinner saved by Grace. I have not in any way arrived. My struggles are yours and the rest of humanities. I'm a lousy example. But then there is His Love. I don't know why He loves us.

Doubt not that I care deeply for you.


The Puritan said...

>I believe you were enraged and had become unreasonable. At least you were raging while writing that post.

You're either being disingenuous (most likely) or you hang out exclusively with shallow people.
Amazing what a little creative use of language can bring out in some people.

The rest of your comment is really not pertinent to this subject of the manuscripts and versions based on them. The Word of God is foundational to your experience as a Christian.

thyhart said...

Hey my friend, I'm really starting to like you Puritan -

No. God Himself is the fountainhead of all religious experience. Before Abraham was "I AM". Before 1611, "I AM". Before the Gospels, "I AM". and before the Torah, "I AM". What did Job read?

How did God communicate with him? Through dreams. That is how God communicated with His prophets - dreams and visions and puzzles. And it is with Moses that he communicated face to face.

Puritan - you have elevated the paper and ink and type and the venacular above the Creator.

The work of the Holy Spirit has been before all time, and will continue long after books are gone. God is not confined to items made with human hands.

It is the most egoistic mind that believes it can limit the Almighty. I can see you do not do much medication on Who/What "I AM" means. It would be helpful to consider why Jesus Christ is referred to in the Greek as "o wn" (phonetically - ho own), the masculine nominative singular participle of "eimi" - to be. Or why the word for the essence of God is ousia which is the feminine participle of "eimi". Why exousia is used in Jn 1:12 - "and to them gave he power to become the sons of God." And that power is the Essence of God Himself - it is "that" coming out of the essence of God Himself - that which is of the Holy Spirit, but not limited to the inspired product alone.

These are just skimming the surface of The Eternal Being "o wn o aiwnon". God just "be's".

Don't attempt to confine the Almighty and Eternal within the boundaries of what He created, even His Word for it was He who breathed it.

God is so beyond our puny concepts of what He is. When dedicating the Temple, Solomon prayed unto God - I King 8:27 - "But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded?"

King Solomon, the wiseth man who ever lived, understood God could not be confined to the house built for Him, although His Presence was there and made it Holy. The scrolls, the books that contain the Holy words, even the words themselves cannot confine the living God, although He lives in them and makes them Holy. God fills those words with Spirit and Life. 2 Tim 3:16 - "All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"

God is the prima mobile - the prime mover. The Word never begat God. The Word is the tool of God through the Holy Spirit to communicate and to use. But it is not the only means of communication. The power within the Word is that which worketh exousia in every man and woman called to salvation in Jesus Christ - THAT POWER is out from the very essence of God, the power of Himself sent into us.

This in no way denies the purity, holiness and authority of Scripture. But it places it in proper relationship to its creator.

Keep at it Puritan. You are getting to the heart of the Version discussion.

- - Before the paper and page, before the typeset, before the words thereon, before the Temple of Solomon, before all things on earth, before the universe and all His creations - - God will say "I AM".

peace and love - thyhart
p.s. I kinda like it - "peace and love thyhart". Feels all warm and fuzzy :)

The Puritan said...

Thyart, the word fatuous and the fallacy straw man come to mind reading your latest comment.

I'm writing assuming a basic level of understanding of doctrine, including the doctrine of general and special revelation. You are conflating the two. Actually, more accurately, you are mixing things up quite a bit.

Notice also you quote the Bible to make the point God is bigger than the Bible. Where'd you get that info, thyart? A fatuous point made ironically.

Waitaminute! said...

Does James Reticulate White have an online deception school going?
Highland Host's review of gail's book is anything but precise. Are we being lead to believe that HH has studied her 1200 page book and checked all the references
(most only available through through ILL since they are top scholarly works) All HH can do is use emotional rhetoric since he has NO proof of his VAIN claims.
Gail has answered all of the false accusations with precision. Her research is top notch. Gail only uses the best in scholarly resources. The fact that you find the Bible's built-in dictionary (always defining the first mention of a word in it's context- see Genesis 8 for examples) laughable leads me to believe that you are either stupid, ignorant or are trying to willfully deceive.
Actually, the hate-filled lies and gross distortions of her work defending the Holy Scriptures have only confirmed the fact that Satan will stop at nothing to destroy the truth.
Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are the most corrupt maniscripts on earth. That is a fact.
Lay off the holy water.

Highland Host said...

So now I have to check ALL her references in order to be able to write a REVIEW? Not a rebuttal, a review. I have been reviewing books for a magazine for some time now, and my editor has never said that one has to check every reference to write a review, even a critical one! I have not the time (being a minister of Christ, not of any one Bible version) to write a full rebuttal, I leave that to others. I merely accepted a challenge to read the book, and have shared with the world the results of that. If you complain that I have not written a full rebuttal, then that is not what I set out to do, and so I am not overly bothered.

Nor do I write for Riplinger's devoted followers, you don't want the truth ("You can't handle the truth!!"), you want to be told that your King James Bible is inspired by God, that God doesn't care about preserving His Word in Greek and Hebrew, and that all scholars are evil and nasty. Fine, it's a free country.

thyhart said...


I can see why my thoughts cause confusion for you. Sorry for not being more skillful and precise in stating my studied interpretation of Scripture, my personal beliefs, and my spiritual associations between special and general revelations. ["conflating the two" I'm not too ashamed of that]

<---Where'd you get that info, thyart? [thyhart]

Scripture, Puritan. And then you will say - 'Ah Ha!' [don't hurt yourself when you fall off your chair laughing :)]

So let us speak of special revelation. When I say 'God is greater then the Book', that is better stated: When men have elevated ONE version of the Bible to such authority and they believe their version supercedes the validity of all other versions, THAT IS is a "man made decision" not God's.

#1 - That decision was and is made by MEN.
#2 - GOD is NOT LIMITED to MAN's interpretations, statements of belief, and/or decisions made by and for themselves.


The Roman Catholic Church believes the Pope is God's representative on earth. Is God is confined by the boundaries of that interpretation of St. Peter and the keys to the kingdom?

Interpretation of any document is affected by personal beliefs and motives - beliefs that a word means something because of language study, a belief molded by doctrines one was taught, and sometimes highly affected by an individual's motives and personal agendas. [I do not call all motives malicious, bad, or evil.]

I perceive motives here that are not spiritual but fleshly and an agenda for supremacy and absolute control. This is not the absolute control of a governing body that has the authority to burn all "corrupt, bad, perverted" Bibles - the Nazi's in WWII could have done this. It is the the attempt at absolute control of the minds, thoughts and perceptions of every other Christian - valid or otherwise. These are my perceptions, and I stand by them.

Even God gives us free will to choose folks.

What we have ended up with is a brawl. This has degeneratged into two camps slinging shit balls at each other. Sorry for the language but that is the equivalent of this battle of words by both camps.

The entire disagreement between the KJVO and THE REST OF ALL CHRISTIANITY (BODY OF CHRIST) is based on a special revelation. That special revelation is only their man made interpretation of Scripture. Others have been wrong before them.

thyhart said...

Morning Waitaminute!

I will not descend to your level.

In my checking of Gail's work, I have found many, many gross errors.

<-- The fact that you find the Bible's built-in dictionary (always defining the first mention of a word in it's context- see Genesis 8 for examples) laughable leads me to believe that you are either stupid, ignorant or are trying to willfully deceive.-->

I am tired of parsing words for nonbelieving Gail fans. If you want me to go into detail, I will e-mail you. I don't want to take up any more time or space here and now. There are many people who have checked EVERYTHING in ALL her books. I'm not wasting anymore time here for someone who will not look for himself and just would rather slime me. Check out for yourself. Even Websters will do for a start. See for yourself! Think clearly for yourself! Right now you're a Paul Parrot. You haven't tested one single thing on your own.

I have only patience for one example and that does not include parsing and definitions and grammatical structures in Greek. Although I certainly do that on a daily basis.

Here is one example of a gross error using in-book Bible dictionary. "In Awe of Thy Word" pp 65-67. The word is "to purloin". (BTW this is not the first appearance of the word either.) Basically she says "to purloin" does not mean "to steal", but "to stay at home or stay at work on the job." She is grossly wrong both in Titus 2:5,9,10 and Acts 5:2,3. She really missed it this time.

How could this happen? Because she does not know anything at all about Koine Greek, Greek use of Middle Voice, Greek use of the Genetive Case, Greek dictionary references and etymology.

No wonder she had to clear all the library shelves of all the legitimate dictionaries, lexicons and grammars in her latest book. She had to eliminate anything that could prove her to be wrong. She has made such outlandish statements such as they are all "corrupt, pagan, perverted". Duh! With the exception of Hebrew - all languages are pagan! All dictionaries are defining words that were not ordained on High.

This is paranoia on a high order! Think about it.

What is wrong with her? That is a very legitimate question. More people are finally beginning to ask, "Why did she lie about her marriages and divorces?" This is not boloney. Dr and Mrs. Waite and have personally seen these documents, and they supported her and sold her books.

I don't care about the personal insults you care to throw at me.

Open up your eyes.

The Puritan said...

thyart, you do make a good contribution, as usually happens, in demonstrating the level of understanding of the average critical text scholar-taught Christian that exists today. Thank you for that at least.

Highland Host said...

Gail ought to have asked an Englishman what 'Purloin' means, as the word is still used (admittedly not very extensively) in modern English. It means 'to steal', "as any fule kno (this is a literary quotation)." Every knowledgeable Englishman knows this. So Thyhart has picked a good example of an error. I have not read 'In Awe of Thy Word', of course. Can't get it cheap enough, and I haven't finished NABV yet. Checking half the references (strangely for one who taught at university level, she appears not to know how to lay out quotations) slows me down.

The Puritan said...

>Here is one example of a gross error using in-book Bible dictionary. "In Awe of Thy Word" pp 65-67. The word is "to purloin". (BTW this is not the first appearance of the word either.) Basically she says "to purloin" does not mean "to steal", but "to stay at home or stay at work on the job." She is grossly wrong both in Titus 2:5,9,10 and Acts 5:2,3. She really missed it this time.

You wrote this to give people who don't have the book the impression she was not aware of the common dictionary definition of purloin(ing). This was, of course, rather dishonest of you. Look at HH's response to you. I notice you didn't respond to correct the misunderstanding.

She is specifically making a case that purloining as the AV uses the term specifically in the context she is referencing in fact does not mean only what the modern dictionaries give for that term, but has a slightly different - not totally different, but slightly different, less-restricted to theft alone, if you will - meaning.

Purloin, of course, is as well-known a word in American English as British English. We hear it and we think steal.

The context is the 'fidelity' of a slave/servant in not stealing himself away.

[Middle English purloinen, to remove, from Anglo-Norman purloigner : pur-, away (from Latin prō-; see pro–1) + loign, far (from Latin longē, from longus, long).]

Riplinger concludes the section on this word puloin with this:

"Secular dictionaries [what modern version translators rely on] and new versions give the false impression that 'purloining pertains *only* [her emphasis] to 'theft.' The latest research in EMEDD [The Early Modern English Dictionaries Database] says that 'purloining' can mean, 'stealing away.'"

The point being that this could be discerned using the AV itself and studying the word in context in the various ways she goes through in that chapter.

Highland Host said...

I'd have more confidence in Mrs. Riplinger's 'dictionary' idea if she didn't think 'peculiar people' in 1 Peter 2.9 in the AV meant 'oddballs'. It doesn't. As in the term 'Royal Peculiar' (a Church where the right to appoint the minister lies directly with the Crown), it means 'people specially belonging to'. Note the AV margin (as found in my 1611 facsimile), "Or, a purchased people." Now while "specially belonging to" may alternatively be translated "purchased" (I PURCHASED my 1611 facsimile AV, so it specially belongs to me, it is PECULIARLY mine), 'odd' cannot be. Thus the margin of the AV does what it was meant to do, helps us to understand the main body of the text. Riplinger ought to have consulted the margin before assuming she understood the main text (note that the marginal alternative translations are part of the original AV). Peculiarly enough (using the word in its modern meaning), I go with the AV translators here, not Riplinger!!!

Now of course the best way to understand the meaning of any word is to view it in context, as part of a unit of meaning, not as a unit of meaning in itself. Thus indeed most difficult words in the AV can be understood by a reference to the context, by reading the whole passage. "Bowels", for example, were viewed as the organs of compassion (to to be "straitened in your bowels" is to be lacking in compassion), a direct translation of my favourite Greek word, Splanchnisthai. This does not mean the AV has a miraculous built-in dictionary, but that it can be understood with a little effort.

thyhart said...

Good morning Puritan -

You did a good job on this one. I thought about it from your stance. I re-evaluated my position. Good dialogue.

<--Look at HH's response to you. I notice you didn't respond to correct the misunderstanding.

I didn't see any misunderstanding. Please point it out. I'll sling some rhetoric HH's way.

<--You wrote this to give people who don't have the book the impression she was not aware of the common dictionary definition of purloin(ing).

I did not write anything to deceive anyone, Puritan. I'm just tired of typing. I think too long. I don't believe I said she did not have this knowledge. In actuality she rejected the dictionary meaning. I was suggesting some beginnings for study for you.

Your answer was well thought out. You have some good points regarding the EMEDD. As far as the English definition of an English word, this could very well be true.

However I went to the Textus Receptus Greek New Testament for the orignal Greek.

The Greek word for "to purloin" used in the KJV is nosphidzw (the w=an omega). The word in Greek means:
*****Active voice*****
1) to set apart, separate, divide
*****Middle voice*****
2) to set apart or separate for one's self
3) to purloin, embezzle, withdraw covertly and appropriate to one's own use (it has a quality of secrecy to it)

nosphoridzw here in Titus 2:5 uses the Middle voice. Same is true of nosphoridzw in Acts 5:2,3 is also in the Middle voice.

In English we have 2 voices:
Active - I threw the ball.
Passive - The ball was thrown by me
..Greek has this nifty Middle
..voice where the subject acts
..upon himself, or for his own
Middle voice - I threw myself on the ball.

nosphoridzw in the Middle would translate something like -
'I separated away 10 denarii out of the big bag (I separeted the out in reference to my own interests)'.

Simply said - I stole them. 'of the big bag' uses something called Genitive of the Whole (of Which a Part Is Mentioned). It has a long and awkward name doesn't it?

I believe this word has the sense of separating 'an object OR thing' out or away.

I was looking up Grk words for to steal or run away. There are lots, and they usually have a different kind of stealing: Like one of them means 'stealing the understanding' Other special meanings -'plundering/stealing'; 'stealer of women'; stealer of honeycombs; and the like. And one means 'to steal in to the hurt of another.'

It does not mean 'to steal away', like to rondevue, but 'to steal some THING from something'. 'steal away' is an English concept.

To further strengthen this definition, the problem with slaves was stealing. Has, is, and will be the problem of slaves or hired help. If a slave took himself away and they got caught, they branded their face. From that time forth, they were always marked and ANYONE could roust them for just about anything.

aka peace and love thyhart,
aka dryhart.

The Puritan said...

HH, I'd need to see a page reference. Forgive me if I am sceptical GR's critics represent her 'stupidity' and 'silliness' very accurately.

What you write doesn't seem accurate. Methinks you are twisting something somewhere in some way. Perhaps even unconsciously, in your desire to prove what is so 'obvious', that Riplinger is a fool.

thyhart said...

Hi again -

The page numbers for her work on purloin are pp 65-67.

The grammar I just know, but I'll look it up at some online sources.

Each grammarian or school of Greek grammar have slightly different names for these grammatical structures. This is not a case where all the words must be the same. Any Greek or Latin grammarian will tell you the same. Koine Greek studies have different names yet for some of the clauses and structures. They are the same thing, just named different. So don't get in twist over that.

Genitive of the Whole and Partitive Genitive ['Athenaze, An Introduction to Ancient Greek', Book 1, pp 147,237].

Middle Voice ['Athenaze, An Introductin to Ancient Greek', Book 1, pp 75-76, 86-87]

Below are links to the Perseus site and the online grammars from various scholars who have set the standards for Greek grammar.


copy-paste the following URL and there is a list of 4 entries about Genitive of the Whole, aka Partitive Genitive. All 4 have basically the same thing.


Copy-paste. Choose the entries.

Blue Letter Bible is a great New Testament study site on line. They carry many different versions of the Bible along with the Textus Receptus and the Hebrew text.

Enter Titus 2:10 in the box and ENTER. Each verse in the chapter appears in a drop-down menu. It will automatically stop on v.10. Press C in the column to the left of the verse. This will open up a drop-down window with the verse in Greek and the data for each Greek word. Press on G3557. It is the number group to the right of 'purloin' in the drop down window. This takes you to the definition of nosphidzw.

This has the same definitions I gave you. 1) is active; 2) & 3) are both middle.

Puritan - I understand your suspicions. Greek and Latin are much different languages than Spanish, French, German and of course English. They were very, very complicated. I don't know how Greek formed in such precise detail. I asked a French teacher in a High School if there were Conditional Phrases in French. He never heard of them.

Trust me - they're different - 2500 years of difference. They thought differently and categorized things differently. nosphidzw is about items or any kind of number of things from a larger group. There are verbs that are used for all kinds of movement. They add prepositions to make them compound. To steal away would more likely use ex and agw or bainw: to go away => leave/steal away. They could use an adverb or participle of nosphidzw to show the stealth.

The Puritan said...

thyart, I appreciate your latest comment above, and I'll follow the links, but I was referring to Highland Host's comment regarding 'peculiar.' He didn't give a page (or book even) reference, and I was interested in looking up what GR had said about that.

The thing about purloining that has relevance on the AV vs. the modern versions discussion is how the modern versions lose a lot of meaning in their legal necessity (to gain copyright) to be different from the AV and each other. This English word purloin carries the meaning of the Greek, according to the AV translators, par excellence, and the modern scholars don't even have the language resources to know it, let alone value it. This is what is really meant by the King James interpreting the Greek and Hebrew. Modern scholars naively think they know more than all the language that went into the English Bible over centuries.

thyhart said...

You know Puritan - I'm not that egocentric. I've just been on the hot seat for about a week. I think I'm walking bleary eyed and on kinda automatic - so you got all my references - ha! I could have been taking a walk instead of typing - arghhh.

Actually Gail writes that 'to purloin' means to 'steal away' like to steal ones self away. That's not quite what it means. There are shades of shades of meanings. That is why I tried to show what the nosphirdzw is for things other than yourself.

My favorite thing about Greek is to look at the world through their eyes. But that's my passion in translation. Could be boring to others. If I could have the plastic pocket protector I could really look like the geek I am.

As it is, I just haul my red backpack around everywhere inspite of my age. My youngest daughter kind of grits her teeth, never knowing what I'll show up as.

have a nice night - thyhart

Highland Host said...

NABV Pp.170-1, where Riplinger uses a secular dictionary rather than the AV margin as well

The Puritan said...

Well, just as I thought, on this matter of the word 'peculiar' Gail Riplinger is not being given a fair witness.

The bottom line is she states in that section that peculiar means 'Jehovah's own people', but she is contrasting the modern versions changing of words to make Christians seem more 'hip' and 'popular' whereas Scripture says Christians will seem odd to the rest of the world (you really have to read this section) and she notes peculiar meant 'odd' in 1611 along with God's unique people. I.e. the two meanings *go together.*

Now, the main point is this, HH: you were insinuating Gail Riplinger didn't know the meaning of peculiar in its sense of 'belonging to God' and so on, when she states *just that definition* in that section.

This is what I meant when I am suspicious of any criticism of her. She rattles cages in so many different ways and to such violent and emotional degree that her critics find it difficult to present what she has actually written in their desire to excoriate her and make her come across as dumb or silly.

Highland Host said...

And once again our friend 'The Puritan' bends over backwards to defend Gail Riplinger. This is only expected, of course. Because you have a lot invested in her, don't you? If she's wrong in one point, then your whole house of cards comes crashing down, and then who knows what will happen!

I have read the whole of NABV, tedious though it is, and if you are right in your understanding of Riplinger's words in the section, then she's still wrong, because the word 'Peculiar' in its context DOES NOT MEAN 'ODD'. It was not intended by the AV translators to mean Odd, nor does it traslate a word that means 'odd' in the Greek. Thus it is perfectly permissable to use a synonym that does not hold the meaning of 'odd' to translate this word. Any idea of oddness is purely an accidental result of the word used in the AV.

Isn't it funny? Gail Riplinger can write pages and pages on inconequential details in other people's writings, but if anyone picks up on an inconsequential detail in HER books, they're being overly critical.

I suggest you look up the term 'double standard' at some point. In other news, you may want to look at some of her manufactured quotations in NABV and check them against the actual books they come from. I suggest starting with the bit on 'The Epistle of Barnabas'.

The Puritan said...

Because you have a lot invested in her, don't you?

Silly statement. God's preserved Word need not rely on any one person or persons. God takes care of His Word. God's people know His Word and where to find it.

>If she's wrong in one point, then your whole house of cards comes crashing down, and then who knows what will happen!

Again, silly. You are side-stepping the fact that you wanted to make her sound dumb by insinuating she didn't know that peculiar meant belonging to Jehovah, when that is exactly what she stated in that section of her book.

Highland Host said...

Longest comment thread on this blog EVER.

No, you're trying to avoid the fact that Gail Riplinger is wrong to say that the word 'peculiar', AS FOUND IN CONTEXT IN 1 PETER, does not mean 'odd', either as its primary or secondary meaning. I note that once again you try to change the subject. Not this time, my friend.

Our options here are:

1. Gail Riplinger is ignorant of the meaning of the word 'peculiar' in this context


2. Gail Riplinger is making a totally irrelevant point in insisting that "it meant odd then..." (excuse my partial quotation, but I'm not at home right now, and my copy of NABV is)

So either Riplinger is mistaken, or she is utterly incoherent. Take your pick.

The Puritan said...

a) She stated it meant 'belonging to Jehovah' in the very section you cited. You implied she didn't know that meaning.

b) The discussion regarding 'odd' is in the context of her pointing out how the new versions make Christians sound 'cool' and 'hip' when the Word of God says you will be the opposite in the eyes of the world. She gives many examples of the word changes in the modern versions regarding this.

Bottom line: you wanted to make her seem dumb, and you had to default to false witness to do it. This is par for the course for Riplinger's critics. When you are defending the Alexandrian manuscripts and the modern versions based on them you are in a position of defending the indefensible. It is not surprising her critics have to slip the boundaries of honesty to do it. Unfortunately.

HH, whether you were doing it unconsciously or not, you simply weren't being honest when you implied she didn't know the meaning of peculiar vis-a-vis belonging to Jehovah. Just as you did the same with her section on the word purloining.

thyhart said...

Hey fellas -
Well, you're still at it. Since purloining was mentioned, I decided to reenter the discussion.

When we discussed this, Puritan, I went back to the Textus Receptus. I did not derive my understanding from any English dictionary. The Greek word is nosphidzw. It is from the word "nosphi - apart or clandestinely". This word is used in Active and Middle voices:
Active: 1)to set apart, separate, divide.
Middle: 2) to set apart or separate for one's self; 3)to purloin, embezzle, withdraw covertly and appropriate to one's own use.

Here I list three definitions Gail mentions on p 66:
Gail's words -> a) The words 'not purloining' mean 'not loosing,' but 'keeping.' Just as the wife is to keep "at home," so the servant is to remain "at" work, not running away
--> WRONG. Has no relationship to running away whatsoever. It is an act of separating some part of a larger group if items away for one's self.

Gail's words -> b) He is to 'keep at' the job, not prolonging his tasks.
--> WRONG. She arrives at this meaning from Acts 5:1-3. She lifted it out of context. The entire quote is not 'keep', but 'keep back'. The original states:
- - -"v.1 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, v.2 And KEPT BACK [PART] OF THE PRICE, his wife also being privy [to it], and brought a certain part, and laid [it] at the apostles' feet. v.3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and TO KEEP BACK [PART] OF THE PRICE of the land?"

It does not mean "He is to 'keep at' the job, not prolonging his tasks." Here the full quote is 'to keep back' and the correct definition is 'to hold back/hold apart, separate a part away (clandestinely) for his own interests'.

Gail's words -> c)...not prolonging his tasks. (The word 'purloin is actually a tower of Babel scramble of 'prolong.')
--> WRONG: In the GREEK it DOES NOT mean 'prolong'! Just as the prophecy in Is 7:14 states "a virgin shall conceive" [which all three of us believe] the word for 'virgin' has a 2nd definition being 'young woman; a woman of marriabable age', it requires us to choose the correct definition. Just because the other definition is listed, does not mean it must somehow be jammed into the sentence as well.

Example: He had a red-eye because of his late night. "Red-eye" could mean 'tired, red eyes'. Another definition of the word "red-eye" is 'travel on an overnight flight.' When we are left with a choice, we have to discern them carefully, not just allowing that because that other definition is listed that it pertains to this case.

Even though the KJV uses 'purloin' correctly, Gail keeps working the word and has it wrong on all 3 tries.

To be kind, I can say it looks like Gail is reaching too far for definitions, and misses the mark.

What makes people want to strike back against her are her remarks that can be construed as arrogant. Some of them are downright vicious. She lambastes the entire Body of Christ - judging others which is not her right or office. She invites the intense degree of rhetoric she receives.

pg 67 Gail states: "the lastest research in EMEDD says that 'purloining' can mean "stealing away."." Here again, the importance is to look at the Greek for the true meanings. Nosphidzw in Acts 5:2,3 and Titus 2:9,10 are one in the same in definition - to separate something out OR steal something away from the Master.

How much more plainly can I state this? She got it wrong, even though the KJV got it right.

Highland Host said...

I think Riplinger does a pretty good job of making herself look foolish without my having to do anything, chum.

Apparently you want to go with the "Riplinger is incoherent" option, fine by me. She does tend to ramble on a bit, doesn't she? Like ten pages on a publisher's logo.

And if we're on the subject of honesty, there are some terrible fake quotations in NABV manufactured from sentence fragments. But this comment thread is too long, and will self-destruct in 10 hours... or something like that.

thyhart said...

Hi Puritan -
This has been a good challenge and experience. You offer good food for thought.

I just started a blog under my only name - thyhart. Just thought we might continue the discussion outside the public eye. Perhaps it can work into a civilized back and forth.

My purpose is to provide an avenue to go over disagreements and also points of agreement without all the volatile and bombastic rhetoric.

I know you have had lots of silly, foolish names to call me - but basically what you see is really what you get with me. I try and keep life simple. It's hard enough to live in this lousy world. This is my small contribution to have a more Christ-like discussion about all of this. Up to date, from what I've seen on both sides, this is a scandal.

So - this is a formal invite, or Whatever.

Hey - Highland, thanks for the topic. You do a lot of work on your blog. I admire all you can put into it. Not today, but perhaps in a month or two I can get something up and running.

later spater

Highland Host said...

My apologies. The last few comments were written when I did not have access to my copy of NABV. On consulting P. 70 I find that Mrs. Riplinger is in fact guilty of the fallacy of illegitimate totality transfer, which is the besetting sin of the 'Amplified Bible', that is, the fallacy of transferring multiple dictionary entries into the word 'peculiar', when the context requires only one of them. Thus she is assuming that 'Peculiar people' means BOTH 'purchased people' AND 'odd' at the same time, which it does not. Still wrong, but several hundred preachers commit this fallacy every week-end, so one shouldn't be too hard on the woman.