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]
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
30 comments:
The Reformed confessions are not witnesses for the 19th century downgrade on the Word of God. They're not even witnesses for modern day Reformed Christianity in that they have been changed with a thousand justifications for the changes.
So please don't reference the Reformed confessions in this authoritative way when every one of those divines would have bought any critical text scholar today a ticket to Rome and pinned it on their collar.
As for the Reformed confessions being a witness for the AV1611 don't bring it up with regards to Riplinger (I don't believe she references Reformed confessions), but bring it up with regards to Reformed Christians who do reference the Reformed confessions, the WCF in particular, in defense of the Masoretic and Received Text. They exist. I directed you to where you can find some who are rather well-informed.
So, Counter-Reformation Rome supported the study of the original languages, did it? Where did you get this gem? The Reformed divines recognised that study of the original languages is something that only a false church built on the corrupt traditions of man has to fear. Whether that is Romanism, pretended liberalism or a fundamentalism falsely-so called.
Now, speak to the question, laddie. Who in the past has taught that a translation of the Bible is to be treated as the inspired word of God? Only one church, in my knowledge, that church being the Church of Rome. And, of course, some of the cults. There is not one - not one - theologian of the past who would have supported the position that God inspired the translators of the various Bible versions.
Riplinger is not a romanist, closet or otherwise, but just being a bit silly on this matter.
Sure, the Reformed Confessions are not witnesses for the late nineteenth century. They are also, as you clearly realise, not witnesses for the pottiness of Riplinger's position, either.
>So, Counter-Reformation Rome supported the study of the original languages, did it? Where did you get this gem?
Counter-Reformation Rome (Jesuits) supported the attack on the received Hebrew and Greek texts - the Traditional Text - in favor of the corrupt manuscripts and endless variants so as to undermine the Word of God in favor of the Word of man (Magisterium, or today the academic priesthood).
This angle of attack failed in the 16th century. Rome, like Islam, takes the long view though, and what failed in the 16th century succeeded rather easily (to the shame of Protestants, including Reformed Protestants) in the 19th century.
>The Reformed divines recognised that study of the original languages is something that only a false church built on the corrupt traditions of man has to fear.
This isn't the issue today. The issue today is the existence of corrupt, once-rejected manuscripts given the status as new-authoratative (if you will). And the devolution (and sabotage) in the study of Hebrew and Greek picked up steam in the Enlightenment and onwards not in the 16th and 17th centuries.
Intersting that critical text scholars say 'oldest is best' (supposed oldest) regarding manuscripts, yet 'most modern and *up-to-date* is best' regarding lexicons and language reference works and so on.
This shows a typical naivety (I hope it is naivety) regarding the work of the devil and his followers from the first century (actually from the Garden) on; and a juvenile notion of the superiority of modern day scholars over 16th and 17th century theologians and translators. We don't even know all the manuscripts available to the translators of the AV1611 let alone the schools and line of transmission of their knowledge and understanding of Hebrew and Greek. They obviously had understanding of the science of figures of speech modern day scholars and translators have no clue about to this day unless they pick up an obscure book published far outside any scholarly circles such as Bullinger's which resurrected the ancient study single-handedly and of course was ignored pretty much. It gave away too much and exposed the shallowness of the modern versions and their teams of scholarly translators and manuscript reconstructers.
Oh, wow, do I really have to write this current paragraph? Yes, I know I do, here it goes: Bullinger was a hyper-dispensationalist, yes, so don't google him and use that to smear the witness as is the usual tactic. The book in question is about figures of speech used in the Bible, not theology, not doctrine.
Funny, Riplinger's tactic is to smear people with things they haven't done when she disagrees with them. I take it you condemn that practice as well.
Now please, speak to the question, who in the past has taught that any vernacular Bible is in itself inspired? Which of the Puritans?
AS for the question of the Reformed Confessions, you were the one who brought them up when you stated that Riplinger was closer to the WCF than many modern Reformed scholars on the matter of the preservation of the Bible. Now you back away from that point AS WELL YOU MIGHT!
As one who uses the TR myself, and preaches from the AV, I am not careful to defend the Critical text, or every modern Greek Lexicon. What does worry me is that I can find someone who is a Calvinist (you are one, aren't you?) defending, not the AV, but Gail Riplinger's strange book! Here in the UK the TBS crowd (many of whom I know) would never entertain these ideas for a moment, yet are strong defenders of the AV!
Puritan. I have neither the time, nor the inclination to 'google' anybody. It's vulgar.
I also know just what tripe is to be found on the internet.
Bullinger (and yes he is like the great grandson of the famous Bullinger who wrote the Second Helvetic Confession and the Decades and all that) lives mostly in the late 19th century. I don't know wht is 'vulgar' about doing an internet search on such a person. The only person in all the critical text/AV debate that I'd come across who even knew of his book in question was Theodore Letis.
>AS for the question of the Reformed Confessions, you were the one who brought them up when you stated that Riplinger was closer to the WCF than many modern Reformed scholars on the matter of the preservation of the Bible. Now you back away from that point AS WELL YOU MIGHT!
No, no, no, on he subject of preservation a big YES. On this different subject of vernacular translation replacing the Greek and Hebrew no. That was NOT the subject or context of that statement. But certainly preservation plays in to the overall subject setting its providential hand on the AV and its underlying manuscripts much more so than on any modern version. A great understatement.
>What does worry me is that I can find someone who is a Calvinist (you are one, aren't you?) defending, not the AV, but Gail Riplinger's strange book! Here in the UK the TBS crowd (many of whom I know) would never entertain these ideas for a moment, yet are strong defenders of the AV!
I am a Calvinist, but I'm not an elitist. I like Gail Riplinger's spirit. I don't fear or revere man which is what the environment of academia (including Christian academia) demands, I fear God alone. I'm also not a respecter of persons. I also agree with Riplinger's main thesis of her books, that the spirit that caused the downgrade on the Word of God in the 19th century was the spirit of disobedience, the spirit of the devil at work, and that the modern versions carry on that work to greater or lesser degree depending on the product, but unfortunately to a rather relentless progressive degree. What has been lost and the damage done is not as easy for Christians in academia to see (if they value seeing it). But this is all inevitable, and it's inevitable that God will have his own to sound the alarm and act as watchmen (and who get mocked and attacked and so on). The Christian men and women who defended the Word of God with their very lives paid infinitely more a price, God bless them.
Let me clarify. There is nothing vulgar in using the internet to find out about someone. However, there is also a prejorative use of the term 'google', which implies believing whatever you find through that search, however outlandish. This is vulgar.
Ah, I misread. Thanks.
My dear Puritan, surely you can see that the question of the METHOD of the preservation of the Bible is important as well as the fact thereof. Riplinger teaches that the mode of preservation was in inspired vernacular versions, the WCF that it is in the Greek and Hebrew. WHAT is preserved is as vital to understand as that it is preserved, and thus, while Riplinger and the WCF both agree that God's Word has been preserved, this hardly makes them agree so long as one is stating that Greek and Hebrew texts have been preserved and the other that inspired vernacular versions have been. I had hoped you would realise the difference.
I do not like Riplinger's spirit at all. Innuendo and constant use of pejorative language, with the use of the tactic of guilt by association are just not Christian ways of carrying on a controversy. Nor is describing Calvinism as a blasphemous heresy. In addition, remember that the IVOr thesis actually abandons the original languages completely, ceding the field of Greek and Hebrew to the critical scholars, something I for one am not prepared to do.
I know Bullinger, and his errors. I am quite aware of the fact that he was a hyper-dispensationalist, and that he was descended from the Reformer Bullinger.
Oddly you will stick up for Riplinger who DOES bring up men's theological vagaries to smear them, yet you are insistent no-one behaves as she does with people you agree with. Personally I think the tactic silly. If a man says something sensible, we can listen to him without dismissing the silly things he said. Plus, the tactic works both ways. There were AV translators who wrote advocating episcopacy.
What you are describing is called the Ruckman view (and it's questionable whether it's actually even his view). Riplinger believes preservation is in the Hebrew Masoretic and the Greek Received Text. Again, you are describing an English Preservationist view, and if you read Riplinger (her other big book is In Awe of thy Word which goes to great extent into this history) you'd know she is not English preservationist as you state it.
I already stated her more difficult to see stance (critical text defenders are certainly not interested in much of anything but canards and exaggerations and straw men).
My dear chap (you are a chap, right?), what I am stating is the view found in Riplinger's 'Hazardous Materials'. If she has moved towards Ruckman since 'In Awe of Thy Word', then that's how it is. People's views change over time, you know. It shocked me too, and at first I thought I had misread Riplinger, but I am now more than half-way through the book, and she is explicit in several places that God preserved His Word through inspired vernacular versions given via the gift of tongues. It is NOT fair to call this 'English Preservation', as she states that there are inspired vernacular versions in other languages as well, including Spanish, Italian and French. Hence IVOr, 'Inspired Vernacular Originals'. I try to be fair, you know ;)
Then that is not Ruckman(ism). Not tht Ruckman is even a Ruckmanite, though I do not know much about Ruckman but have read that Ruckmanism is a straw man regarding Ruckman himself.
No, Ruckmanism as the charge is used by critical text types means Eglish preservation solely and the King James Version only is the standard and corrects the Greek. I do believe it corrects the Greek and Hebrew in terms of manuscripts. The manuscripts used today are cartoonishly corrupt.
I also believe, as does Riplinger, that there was the hand of the Holy Spirit in the English Bible that culminated in the AV1611, and say it unashamedly in the face of the world and the devil just as I unashamedly declare the name Jesus Christ before the world and the devil and my own inner Old Man.
This latter point exposes the shallowness of critical text scholars in the area of literature. If you have experience with great literature you have a taste for such things as inspiration in works and in the provenance of works. You also have a background to see how manuscripts are manipulated and adopted for different worldly reasons and the worth of such decisions. Most critical text scholars are of the type that think if they need to learn something they need to 'take a class'. No, pilgrim, just pick up a good book and engage it. You don't need to 'take a class' on Homer to understand the Iliad and the Odyssey. You need to engage the Iliad and the Odyssey.
C. S. Lewis wrote an essay on the common shallowness of biblical scholars regarding literature, called something like 'Elephants and Fern Seed'.
Fern-Seed and Elephants
http://orthodox-web.tripod.com/papers/fern_seed.html
The Puritan said:
"If you have experience with great literature you have a taste for such things as inspiration in works and in the provenance of works."
My dear chap, we are equivocating here with the term 'inspiration' between a secular and a Christian meaning. You're quite right that the best way to understand and appreciate great literature (and the Bible!) is to read it. But the Bible is not, despite the insistence of the liberal scholar (who doesn't really believe it anyhow) 'just like any other book'. The word 'Inspiration' as applied to the Bible does not mean the same as it does applied the Homer and Shakespeare and John Bunyan. It is defined according to 2 Peter 1.19-21.
Like I said, I don't think Riplinger's an English Preservationist, which is why I aven't called her one. She has a uniquely odd position involving original texts given in vernacular languages by inspiration of God as defined Biblically.I quite agree that the AV is a literary masterpiece of translation, but it is just that, as a good translation of Homer or Augustine may be a masterpiece, without denying that the work was originally written in Greek or Latin, and without denying the primacy of the original text. Riplinger goes much further, as I intend to show. But now I must make dinner.
Critical text scholars and those who unthinkingly follow them don't - apparently can't - see how much they rely on the English Bible for their understanding of the 'original.' This is where the 'inspiration' of the Holy Spirit comes into play regarding translation. Translation is a mute point though when you're using corrupt underlying manuscripts.
My dear Puritan
I have no idea what your last comment actually means. Do you or do you not define 'Inspiration' the same way for the Bible as for Shakespeare (whose writings a representative of Riplinger has denounced to me in correspondence) and Homer (whose books Riplinger advocates burning)? If so, then I am afraid that your position is closer to Barth than to Bunyan!
>I have no idea what your last comment actually means. Do you or do you not define 'Inspiration' the same way for the Bible as for Shakespeare (whose writings a representative of Riplinger has denounced to me in correspondence) and Homer (whose books Riplinger advocates burning)? If so, then I am afraid that your position is closer to Barth than to Bunyan!
The Holy Spirit shepherd's God's Word, Highland Host. The same 'inspiration' that caused the canon to be set (I hope you don't think any church did that) is the inspiration that sheperded the pure and whole - received - Word of God down through time and history and that involves the process of translation as we see it in the line of the great English Bible. The modern versions don't have that history. They began to appear in the late 19th century.
And appreciation of Shakespeare and Homer is rare among ALL Christians. Go to the Puritan Board where you will find 98% critical text advocates. They read science fiction and fantasy and consider it literature. They watch movies more than anything else.
This is because modern day Christians have no idea who they are. A Christian is a prophet, priest and king. Modern day Christians sit in church buildings getting lectured to like they are children. Fear of man. Christians who fear God only are rare.
I see, so it is your position, my dear Puritan, that there is no difference between the process by which the Bible was given and the process by which it is transmitted? Where in the Bible do you go for this idea?
And may I ask, outright, if you believe the King James Bible to be inspired of God in the same way as the originals were when written by the Holy men of God?
Is the preserved Word of God to be found in Greek and Hebrew today? If so, where? In a printed text? In a manuscript? Please give definite answers.
You said: "This is because modern day Christians have no idea who they are. A Christian is a prophet, priest and king. Modern day Christians sit in church buildings getting lectured to like they are children. Fear of man. Christians who fear God only are rare."
Do you think that Christians ought not to sit in Church buildings listening to the exposition of the Word of God? What does "fear of man" have to do with sitting in Church buildings "being lectured to?"
I ask because I wish to know.
And another thing. Where does it say that God would STOP shepherding His Word in English after 1611? You see, all this argument is only arbitrarily used to uphold the AV as God's final Word in English. What if it isn't?
>I see, so it is your position, my dear Puritan, that there is no difference between the process by which the Bible was given and the process by which it is transmitted? Where in the Bible do you go for this idea?
Wow, if you're this bad at recreating what I wrote I can't imagine what you've been doing with Riplinger's book.
>And may I ask, outright, if you believe the King James Bible to be inspired of God in the same way as the originals were when written by the Holy men of God?
Where are the originals? Oh, you don't have them. You have two dung-tainted Alexandrian manuscripts corrupted by generations of children of the devil and resurrected from the dust bin of history by liberal theologians and scholars of the 19th century. In other words you have worse than nothing.
>Do you think that Christians ought not to sit in Church buildings listening to the exposition of the Word of God? What does "fear of man" have to do with sitting in Church buildings "being lectured to?"
Christians are not to be evangelized or 'taught' their entire lives. If that is the case they are engaging in empty (vain) activity. What Christians are are prophets, priests, and kings. A real Christian doesn't need to be spoon-fed the Word of God. A real Christian is born again (regenerated) and on the Way where spiritual battle happens whether one looks for it or not. If a Christian doesn't have the Sword of the Spirit at hand in his/her heart that Christian is a dupe and a slave to the filthy kingdom of darkness and death called the kingdom of satan.
>Where does it say that God would STOP shepherding His Word in English after 1611?
Where is a Bible version based on the Hebrew Masoretic and Greek Received Text? God creates a famine of the end times, and it's a famine for the Word of God. God's own though know where to get sustenance.
I obviously mesread you. What you intended to say was no doubt that God superintended the transmission of the Bible as He superintended the recognition of the Canon by the universal Church. That better?
I note that instead of answering my question you attacked the Sinaiaticus and Vaticanus manuscripts. That's irrelevant. I ask again, do you believe that the King James Bible is inspired in the same way that what Paul and the other Biblical writers wrote was inspired?
May I ask if you are a member of a local Church? The Bible tells us to be those "not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together." You write "Christians are not to be evangelized or 'taught' their entire lives." Have you reached already that point where you do not need to be taught? Once more I ask, where is your Biblical justification for this teaching? I am a minister in a local Church, and my aim in teaching is to teach the congregation to go on to maturity, and to build them up in the knowledge of the Word of God. None of the Puritans ever taught that a Christian reaches a point in this life where he does not need to attend the preaching of the Word.
So apparently you can't tell me where God says He'll stop Shepherding His Word after 1611. Can yo tell me where to find a pure TR and a pure Masoretic Text?
>I ask again, do you believe that the King James Bible is inspired in the same way that what Paul and the other Biblical writers wrote was inspired?
I believe God preserves His inspired Word *pure and whole.* We don't have the original manuscripts thus God has inspired His Word (all His Words, everyone of them, Highland Host) in the *received, traditional text*. The Bible translated from that Traditional Text is the AV1611. The only one. And no, the NKJV does not use the Masoretic, and it doesn't even follow the TR as it advertised.
When I hold the AV1611 in my hand I have the God-preserved pure and whole Word of God in my hands. When I hold any modern version in my hand I do not have the God-preserved pure and whole Word of God in my hand.
Christians died protecting and passing on the Traditional Text. People have only made money and vain academic careers off the modern versions.
>May I ask if you are a member of a local Church? The Bible tells us to be those "not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together."
Christians who I have evangelized and who have just met with me gather around me (and I them) and that is how it happens in God's kingdom. When you are a born again Christian you will find yourself in the company of other born again Christians. God works it that way. Your notion of church is your own, I follow the Bible and hope you do as well on that subject. As to you direct question which is an *accusation* I direct you to John Bunyan's response to the Anglican judge threatening him with another stint in a prison cell. Find it. Learn from it. You will encounter the *spirit of a real Christian.*
>You write "Christians are not to be evangelized or 'taught' their entire lives." Have you reached already that point where you do not need to be taught?
Highland Host, when one learns anything one is self-motivated and *active* in the process. Sitting in a pew and listening to a man give a sermon is as passive as it gets. No one (no one) learns biblical doctrine that way. You sit down with a Bible and with books of theology and you actively learn biblical doctrine. If you are sitting in a pew passively listening to a man sermonizing you are not learning anything. If the pastor is actually reading the *actual* Word of God that the person in the pew is in a better more profitable situation. But few pastors have the valuation for reading only the lively, quickening actual Word of God. They consider that to take away from the time they have to spout their own wisdom. If you're an exception, God bless you.
>Once more I ask, where is your Biblical justification for this teaching? I am a minister in a local Church, and my aim in teaching is to teach the congregation to go on to maturity, and to build them up in the knowledge of the Word of God. None of the Puritans ever taught that a Christian reaches a point in this life where he does not need to attend the preaching of the Word.
My goodness you are dishonest in how you recap what someone has said. My goodness, you really need to look in a mirror and see this in yourself and ask yourself if you are not prone to a rather nasty false-witness. My point obviously was not about discarding the Word of God, something I am obviously rather passionate about. My point is summed up in John Calvin's words (which I'll post in the next comment since blogger now has a word count, apparently).
Hebrews 6:1
1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,
2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.
3 And this will we do, if God permit.
John Calvin's commentary on this passage:
Therefore, leaving, etc. To his reproof he joins this exhortation, -- that leaving first principles they were to proceed forward to the goal. For by the word of beginning he understands the first rudiments, taught to the ignorant when received into the Church. Now, he bids them to leave these rudiments, not that the faithful are ever to forget them, but that they are not to remain in them; and this idea appears more clear from what follows, the comparison of a foundation; for in building a house we must never leave the foundation; and yet to be always engaged in laying it, would be ridiculous. For as the foundation is laid for the sake of what is built on it, he who is occupied in laying it and proceeds not to the superstruction, wearies himself with foolish and useless labor. In short, as the builder must begin with the foundation, so must he go on with his work that the house may be built. Similar is the case as to Christianity; we have the first principles as the foundation, but the higher doctrine ought immediately to follow which is to complete the building. They then act most unreasonably who remain in the first elements, for they propose to themselves no end, as though a builder spent all his labor on the foundation, and neglected to build up the house. So then he would have our faith to be at first so founded as afterwards to rise upwards, until by daily progress it be at length completed.
I see. Thank you for your enligtening comment. AS this post is about to fall off the bottom of the front page, I won't reply to any more comments on it, just to say that, unlike the real Puritans, you appear to have no regard for preaching at all. Calvin and the Puritans preached the Word. Any so-called preaching that is not preaching the Word is not preaching at all. Apparently, like Riplinger, you enjoy calling other Christians dishonest, not supposing that perhaps they have misconstrued your language.
You're right, I should have considered you misconstrued my language. I tend to default to, being in 'battle mode' when writing on these subjects, less charitable assumptions. A defect.
Good show Puritan!
Sorry, I am not an Augustinian, ooops!, Calvinist.
Gail Riplinger has spent the last thirty years of her life, 8-12 hours a day, researching serious Bible translation issues using the best primary sources available with the assistance of some of the best scholars of our day like Dr James Sightler and Dennis Palmu.
Gail Riplinger's ability to research massive amounts of world class scholarly material, condense it and present the big picture in an understandable way is truly a gift from our Lord Jesus Christ.
Gail Riplinger states she was reluctant to write some of the bios of those spiritual creeps since she "does not enjoy writing about the dregs of society". It is important what manner of life one lives, especially as it pertains to the servants of our Lord Jesus Christ.
By their fruits ye shall know them. Providing things honest in the sight of all men and the Lord seems to be lacking in critics of Gail Riplinger's works. I have read most of the books in print on the Bible version issue and confess that most writers are at the Kindergarten level compared to the breadth and depth of her scholarship.
Almost to a man, her critics whine and blow smoke in the air and imagine the most pathetic reasonings why one must absolutely, positively, stay-away-from-her-works-or-you-will-be-anathema.
Gail Riplinger spends 75 pages teaching Jack Schaap of HAC the meaning of inspiration. Excellent article setting it straight for those who consider "God-breathed"(NIV) the proper translation.
You can keep your pagan derived lexicons.I thank God he inspired ( moved and guided the spirit of the interpretors of) all the true pure vernacular Bibles.
Gail Riplinger has my utmost admiration and respect. Gail Riplinger's books have strengthened my faith in God's Holy Word.
God bless her!
My dear Fundamentalists, I READ Riplinger. I'd let anyone in my congregation read her books, so long as they actually checked up on what she says. If I belived in covering up what Riplinger says, would I be reporting it? Would I have taken up the Puritan's challenge? I trow not.
I perceive that ye are both men of a pugnacious and froward complexion, not to mention of turbulent reins.
Wot ye not that such a man as I can surely write the pure tongue of King James' Bible. For ye must know that I have long been uttering long prayers in that same tongue.
And this is my blog, I get the last word.
Imagine with all your mind. Believe with all your heart. Achieve with all your might.
Annyeong!Thanks for sharing your interesting article, please do visit my site too imarksweb.net. God Bless :)
Post a Comment