I have given some of my impressions of Riplinger's book already. Although it was supposed to be a 'first impressions' post, it has been treated as if it were the whole of my answer to Hazardous Materials. It is not. Nor is this.
The majority of the 1200-odd pages of Riplinger's book are occupied with the tactic of 'Guilt by association', of which she is a master. It is her determination to include as much material as possible to smear those connected with the modern Bible versions and Greek tools that swells the book to its rather brick-like size. These accusations range from the true to the laughable to the irrelevant. The Knights Templar example already given is from the 'irrelevant', as it related to CJ Vaughan, who was Master of the Temple Church in the latter part of the 19th century, when the Templars were disbanded in 1307. Under 'true' is probably the fact that Vaughan was removed from his post at Harrow for gross immorality. Under 'laughable' is her regular citation against Charles Dodgson (Lewis Carroll) of the fantastical claim that he may have been Jack the Ripper. As regards the Ripper claims, first of all many people have been suspected of being the Ripper (up to and including Queen Victoria, we are informed). The website she cites found Dodgson the least likely of 22 'suspects' (for which read suggestions) to have carried out the crimes, and contains an essay explaining why. There is also a great deal of innuendo taking the place of fact.
To attempt to answer those pages would be difficult, and probably finally irrelevant, as it is not so much this material that is in error, but the conclusions drawn from it.
For it is not until the end of the book, Part VI (Pp.1094-1203), that we are treated to the Riplinger thesis, the conclusion into which all this ‘evidence’ has been forced to fit, namely that the original languages are completely irrelevant, and do not need to be studied. Instead we are to rely on “Inspired vernacular Bibles” (P. 1095), given during the Apostolic age via the gift of tongues (she cites Acts 2 and 1 Cor, 14.21). She denies unequivocally the “primacy and exclusivity of the Greek language” for the New Testament documents (P. 1101). She goes on: “The original Latin and Gothic Bibles from Acts 2 carried Christ to Europe. As languages continued to be confounded by divergent dialects, God gave each of these languages his words [Riplinger, following the King James, does not capitalize ‘him’ for God, and insists it is a “Catholic perversion” to do so], ‘forever settled in heaven,’ which would judge people in the last day (John 12.48). As language changed, Holy Bibles were ‘given’ and ‘purified’ (2 Tim. 3.16, Psalm 12.6, 7) to fit the linguistic need. The Italic, Gallic, Celtic, and Old Saxon editions came forth. As will be demonstrated, new New Testaments have usually been birthed from previous vernacular New Testaments” (P. 1105). This I have christened the theory of Inspired Vernacular Originals (IVOr). Going on, she declares, “Why use a text that needs its own translation before it can be accessed? We have a holy translation of it already” (P. 1128). “We have no solid Scriptural evidence that the originals were written in Greek alone, at least not solid enough evidence to base everything that we do on Greek” (P. 1128 again). Now we know why she insists of referring to 'the originall Greeke' rather than 'original Greek', because according to her 'originall Greeke' does not mean an original written in Greek!
Studying Greek and Hebrew, we are told, is dangerous, for it has Catholic and occult roots, and leads people into occultism and Catholicism. Better stick with the inspired King James. That is the Riplinger thesis. It is condemned by the Reformed Confessions. The Westminster Confession says that the final appeal in all controversies is to the original languages of Hebrew and Greek (chap. 1.8), but to Riplinger the final appeal is to the ‘Inspired vernacular translations.” The Greek and Hebrew are nullities now that we have the King James, it seems!
[Note: By 'Inspired', Riplinger means the Biblical definition, not a secular definition (one of the reasons she condemns lexicons is that they use secular sources to define the Biblical words). This is defined in 2 Timothy 3.16 and 2 Peter 1.21. This is a note made during the reading of the book, and not a final review]