Tuesday, August 11, 2009

Riplinger does this in 'Hazardous Materials' as well

This recorded exchange is Riplinger, on the radio, doing what she does all the time in Hazardous Materials. Enjoy. Video is from Dr. James R. White of Alpha and Omega Ministries, and remains his property.

23 comments:

The Puritan said...

In the making of that video why do you think White looked for and chose a video frame of Riplinger in the midst of a hand gesture that makes it look like she is flipping somebody off? Is that just juvenile behaviour on White's part? Rank propaganda? Worse? False witness? All the above? Why are such tactics needed against this woman? Is she saying something that convicts critical text scholars?

Ransom said...

In the making of that video why do you think White looked for and chose a video frame of Riplinger in the midst of a hand gesture that makes it look like she is flipping somebody off?

If that's the way you interpret the picture, it's only fitting. Gail Riplinger flips the bird to everyone's intelligence when she spews out inane "arguments" like that one.

The Puritan said...

Sorry, Ransom. It pure juvenile delinquency mixed with a too-easy default to lying on White's part. The behavior of critical text scholars is deeply delinquent. What they have to defend is wicked. They are not in a good place.

Highland Host said...

My dear Puritan, the thought never entered my mind, and I doubt it did Dr. White's. Unlike Riplinger, I do not interpret every hand gesture as intentional or meaningful. 'To the pure all things are pure'. Isn't it funny how you pick on something so surface-level that most people ignore it, rather than the actual content of the video.

Highland Host said...

See Pp. 164-5 of HazMat for what Riplinger does with hand gestures. Surely what she is doing in the pictutre is replicating for the viewer variation #300 of the occult 'Lion's Paw' gesture.

Ransom said...

The Puritan displays the typical hallmarks of "Insane Conspiratorial Thinking Syndrome" [TM], to wit: interpret event the most trivial and accidental matters a) as entirely intentional; b) as having great significance; and c) in the worst possible light.

I have had to find a good freeze-frame from a full-motion video in the past as well, and it's difficult to find one where the subject doesn't look completely goofy, isn't staring off in the wrong direction, isn't obscured by motion blur, doesn't have his mouth hanging open, etc., etc., etc.

I suspect that White did similarly, and came up with that frame. Perfectly normal, except for the fact that she appears to be in the process of pointing to herself, giving the illusion that she is making a rude gesture, when in reality no such thought probably crossed White's mind: he was probably concentrating on getting a good face shot.

But the Puritan, suffering from a terminal case of ICTS, thinks he chooses the frame deliberately for the hand gesture; that it is "rank propaganda" or "false witness" (though I don't see how that can be the case when in reality she washolding her hand in that pose).

Riplinger, of course, has the worst case of ICTS I have ever seen. Perhaps the Puritan and her can get together and form a support group.

Ransom said...

On second glance, it is quite obvious to me that Riplinger is in fact making a fist, and the digit which the Puritan has identified as her middle finger is, in fact, her thumb.

Speaking of bearing false witness, perhaps the Puritan should engage in a little self-examination in that area. I think there is good reason to question the basic honesty and intgrity of someone who would make such baseless accusations against James White, while simultanously defending Gail Riplinger, who almost literally cannot open her mouth without uttering lies.

The Puritan said...

Disingenuous bewilderment (a tactic of pomo academics and political socialists of every stripe).

When you are defending the devil's garbage manuscripts and garbage versions based on them you will engage in every disgusting behaviour the devil's children engage in.

Ransom said...

"Pomo academics and political socialists"! LOL!

Oh, I'm not bewildered. It's quite obvious you're a crackpot.

Highland Host said...

My dear Puritan. Why do you defend Gail Riplinger? You say youadmire her spirit, yet this woman holds all Calvinists to hold "one of the worst of heresies". She spreads malicious gossip about B.F. Westcott, Charles Dodgson (I refer to the Ripper accusation), and C.D. Ginsburg. She uses a method of attacking the modern Bible versions that would have disasterous results if used on the AV.

But then, you yourself speculate wildly about Riplinger's pose in the shot posted, when the thought you suggest never entered my mind!

The Puritan said...

Highland Host, I don't hold the belief that a born again Christian must understand the five points of Calvinism to be saved.

And if you've done any debating with Arminians you will know they are more often than not 'default' Calvinists. Born again Christian understand biblical doctrine in their heart if not currently their intellect.

There is a brand of Arminian that is simply juvenile and 'puts God in the dock', i.e. judges God by their own notions of what is good and just and so on, but I speak of truly born again Christians.

There is, needless to say, a LOT of anti-Calvinist propaganda everywhere. I myself am accused of being not a Calvinist because of my stance on the so-called 'sacraments' and virginity of Mary or whatever. We all take our exceptions. Basically though I am in the Baptist camp and Bunyan, Spurgeon, and Pink would probably best define my doctrine. I would suggest Riplinger would have much less problem with a Spurgeon or Bunyan than a high church Calvinist.

Riplinger also praises Calvinists of the Reformation era *recognizing* it was they who defended the pure and whole - received - Word of God, often with their very lives. I think she is much less favorable towards modern day self-identified Calvinists because she discerns a bit of wolf in sheep's clothing among those ranks. As I do.

Highland Host said...

Riplinger calls BEZA, Calvin's successor at Geneva, a heretical Calvinist. What is it about this woman that makes you bend over backwards to defend her? She engages in the nastiest innuendo towards those she disagrees with, blatants misrepresents the writings of others... and you seem to think she can do no wrong! It's not churchmanship that's her problem, it's Calvinism.

But you keep on giving her a free pass, while being really hard on those who call her for what she has said and done. She has stated that the ASV omits words that it does not. She claims to have 'exhaustively collated' Bible versions. This cannot be a mere mistake. But of course you'll say that's not fair, because your standard is that anything Riplinger does is fine, and any criticism of her is an attack on the Bible. She's a big girl, she can look after herself.

The Puritan said...

>But you keep on giving her a free pass, while being really hard on those who call her for what she has said and done. She has stated that the ASV omits words that it does not. She claims to have 'exhaustively collated' Bible versions. This cannot be a mere mistake. But of course you'll say that's not fair, because your standard is that anything Riplinger does is fine, and any criticism of her is an attack on the Bible. She's a big girl, she can look after herself.

IFBs are stout defenders of the Traditional Text and the Authorized Version. They just are. I join with them there. Why should I abandon that defense because they are not Calvinists? We're talking about the Word of God, not Calvinists or Calvinism. And I certainly won't look down on them because they don't value or understand Turretan or the Dutch Reformed, etc.

I suspect if Federal Theology were actually explained clearly to most of those types they would start to recognize the truth in Calvinism, but all they see are dumb academics mocking them and for what? What? Reading the King James Version? Actually *valuing it* highly? Actually *defending* the Authorized Version? Oh, my! And then offering them 'bibles' mutilated throughout and based on the most cartoonishly corrupt manuscripts one could possible find? Say, don't Sinaiticus and Vaticanus differ amongst themselves in 3000 places? Need we even argue after stating that fact? Yeah, change the Bible based on *them.* Then defend it with oceans of sophistry mixed with asinine pretension and belittling of Bible-believing Christians.

And you complain about Riplinger?

Highland Host said...

So apprently you feel that any argument to 'uphold' the AV is valid, and that if someone is arguing for the use of the AV, you ought to support them. Even if the arguments are bad ones? Even if their "seven infallible froofs of the inspiration of the King James' are nothing of the sort (See 'Hazmat' Pp. 1132-1185)? Even if she uses numerology to 'prove' the inspiration of the Bible (Pp. 1181-4).

Fred Phelps opposes abortion and homosexuality. So do I. Yet I will have nothing to do with Fred Phelps because the WAY in which he does it is cultic and does not honour God.

The Puritan said...

Listen, you can call people 'nutty' all you want (the Village of Morality like to label people as 'whacko' and 'nutty' and so forth), but your case against Riplinger is based on the fact that you don't like what she is exposing in the modern versions and the academic priesthood. It both angers you and makes you feel 'weird.' That is your problem not Riplinger's or mind or any other Christian who recognizes that God preserves His word. Every word.

Highland Host said...

My case against Riplinger is based on the fact she's wrong, chum, not on anything as subjective as the way she makes me feel. But obviously my criticizing Riplinger makes you uncomfortable, as you feel the need to run around defending her and attacking anyone who doesn't hold to your own view. Does having to think about how God preserved His Word make you feel 'weird'? Does it make you cross? Then don't read my comments and posts any more, and go back to your safe little cocoon of Riplinger books. Buy 'Hazardous Materials' and read it, maybe it'll make you feel better.

I believe that not one word has been lost from the Bible, that we have every word God has spoken. We also have a history of textual transmission by means of Scribes who made mistakes (no two Greek manuscripts read the same), so the question that faces the Church is this: which words are the ones God spoke? Erasmus and the text editors behind the texts available to the AV translators made their decisions, the AV committees then made theirs when they had to choose between readings. Now today we have more manuscripts than they did. We COULD just ignore the fact, or we could take it into account.

Now, who am I? I am a former liberal, converted through and NIV-using Reformed Baptist Church. As a liberal Anglican, I used the AV exclusively, and was quite comfortable with that. Now isn't that funny! Liberals using the AV! Today I preach regularly from the AV, and from the NKJV, and have a library of many modern versions, as well as a number of older versions such as a facsimile of the 1611 AV and a modern edition of the Geneva Bible. My dissertation at seminary was on the infiltration of liberalism into the theological colleges of the Free Church of Scotland. So I know how liberals get in, and how the 'Higher Criticism' (rightly called by James Begg 'the Lower Scepticism') infiltrated the Churches. That's just a bit of background, of course. I have an article linking those same liberals with the Emergent Church coming out in a popular-level publication. In the meantime I'm off to preach the Gospel in a British city, using the antiquated and inadequate method of preaching sermons.

The Puritan said...

>I believe that not one word has been lost from the Bible, that we have every word God has spoken. We also have a history of textual transmission by means of Scribes who made mistakes (no two Greek manuscripts read the same), so the question that faces the Church is this: which words are the ones God spoke?

No, the question is which manuscripts are the received text. The answer is obvious. The corruptions of the Alexandrian manuscripts are not difficult to see. They are only accepted by modern day scholars because it gives them license to determine what the Word of God is (actually what is *will be*). They disdain the received text because it is something they have to humble themselves to. But this is all obvious, and any degree of discernment that comes from the Holy Spirit will make it so. Keep engaging the Word of God, and if there is one thing I would leave you with it is this: ponder the difference, what it actually, practically means, to fear God alone and not man.

Highland Host said...

My dear chap, I fear no man - or woman - and that includes you and Gail Riplinger, not to mention Westcott and Hort. Nor am I afraid of the modern versions (or any other honest Bible translation). I am not afraid of the truth, and nor should anyone be. On the other hand, I do not lightly accept anything as the truth when it first comes to me. In my study of the 19th century liberals and Higher Critics, I have noted that they were altogether too willing to accept speculation as evidence.

So is Gail Riplinger when it suits her, the only difference is the underlying agenda. Anyone who trusts Hislop's 'Two Babylons' and anything Leigh and Baigent say (I mean by that even the acceptance of one statement on the say-so of those two fabulists), is guided by an agenda OTHER than that of a search for the truth.

The Puritan said...

I would gently suggest to you (and other critics of Riplinger) that she has changed you in ways you can't currently see. I'm hearing a lot of "You say this and that and Riplinger says this and that regarding the AV - which I happen to use myself..." Only James White is still at the stage where he announces on his internet show that just *seeing* a first edition AV in the same viewing room with his beloved Sinaiticus made him feel physically sick, though now that I recall in his book on so-called KJV-onlyism he too makes the same comments about how he actually has no problem with the AV (really! how wonderful, the Bible of Christians for 400 years, and he has no problem with it, sweet). Your conscience is awake on the subject. Just awake though.

Highland Host said...

My dear Chap, I'm a former King James-Onlyist! What's rich is that it's not Riplinger's book that's changed anything! Even when I was KJVO, I ridiculed Riplinger. I've been preaching from the AV for years, and I'm a member at a Church that uses the AV only. Why, all through seminary I was basically King James Only! Mind you, when I was an unconverted Anglican liberal I used the AV, so that's that for you, isn't it?

Can you tell me when White says seeing a 1611 AV in the same room as Sinaiaticus made him feel ill? I'd like to know your source there.

The Puritan said...

Dividing Line. Find the episode where he is recapping his trip to England and visit to the British Library (or British Museum), British something that contains ancient documents under glass cases.

Highland Host said...

British Library. Can you give a date? A year would be nice.

Micah John Walter said...

Of course the ASV was published in 1902, not 1912.