Friday, October 9, 2009

Gail Riplinger's Inspiration!

Couldn't resist it!


Waitaminute! said...

I have examined Gail's qoutations and have found them to be honest and in coxtext. She does make honest mistakes like the wrong page number in a footnote but the qoute is always in context.

Highland Host said...

Um, have you actually done what I have done? Looked at the actual books she's quoting from? Can you point out where I'm mistaken? Having given a whole series of quotations from Westcott that Riplinger has manipulated, I find your statement literally incredible. If you call taking sentence fragments from different books and stringing them together honest and in context... we may have different definitions of "honest and in context" going on.

But perhaps you'd like to defend some of them.

Highland Host said...

For starters, please explain to me how this 'quotation' from P. 260 of NABV is "Honest and in context".

“[It is] significant that the original only gives ‘words’ without the definite article… the religions of the world surrender to a supreme king. … and are not far from the Kingdom.”

The elements of this "quotation" are from three different books, by the way. The second and third sentence fragments come from two different books, and do not even refer to the same subject.

Ransom said...

If you call taking sentence fragments from different books and stringing them together honest and in context... we may have different definitions of "honest and in context" going on.

Back when NABV was a book of fresh, never-heard-before lies (instead of a book of tired, oft-refuted lies), I pointed out a number of similar context abuses to an online KJV-onlyist and Riplinger fan. Like "Waitaminute!" he thanked me for proving that Riplinger's quotes had been "in context" every time.

My feeling is that to these people, a quotation remains "in context" provided that Riplinger managed to preserve the proper word order, whether or not the author's meaning or intention was faithfully and honestly portrayed.

Waitaminute! said...

I have looked at some of the reference works she qoutes from and have found Gail to be honest and accurate.
Have not read much of Westcott. I'll try to make some time to.
Westcott is a prototype New Ager.
I did find a mistake on page 565 of Hazardous Materials. The qoute "insisting that every piece of informatin given in the Bible is factually accurate" is actually on page 6 of Frederick Danker's No Room In The Brotherhood. A book by an apostate lexicographer.

Highland Host said...

Oh, so you haven't done what I've done, carefully gone through every Westcott quote in NABV and checked them against the original sources. Then your comment is perfectly worthless. It is these twisted and manufactured quotations I am referring to, not just a few quotations from encyclopaedias and other reference works. I believe that I have given, in my 'Craft of Dishonest Quotation' series, quite enough evidence to prove that Riplinger has been quite dishonest in NABV. As this book is still in print, and HazMat claims to be the 'sequel' to it, I think I am right to deal with material in NABV as still representative of Riplinger's position.

Let me add that to make out B F Westcott to have been a "prototype New Ager", Riplinger has had to commit a number of logical fallacies, including the genetic fallacy, the fallacy of non sequitur, and the Another man of the same name fallacy.

Steven said...

Hi Folks,

Please note that Gail Riplinger missed the quote that most clearly shows that Hort and Westcott were quite familiar with occult activities even in their later Bible study years, not just a college research dalliance.

Hort - 'table-tapping' occult seance in Bible research years

While I have no objection to showing errors in her writings, and have many objections myself on various levels, much of her basic emphasis (e.g. the excellence of Erasmus, the problems with Westcott and Hort) stands up very well upon analysis.

Steven Avery

Highland Host said...

Steven, can you actually give the reference, rather than a link I can't seem to access?

I note that the points where Gail Riplinger is original are not good, and where she may have a point she is not original.

Highland Host said...

Steven. So we can add to this that Westcott and Hort were present at a seance that was a complete bust once. Since this was something of a fad in that era, and it is a single incident, it hardly makes Westcott an occultist. One swallow does not a summer make, and nor do two or three. Westcott in later life became convinced that such activities led to no good. It seems, then, that he learned this by experience.

Hiraeth said...

When it comes to seances, etc., you need to understand that what would be understood today asdangerous dabbling in the occult was not viewed in quite the same light back then. The former Cabinet Minister, Gerald Bafour (brother of Prime Minister and apologist A. J. Balfour and scientist Eustace Balfour), devoted years of his life to research of a type that would be seen as out-of-court today, while the Earl of Dunraven, a bluff and hearty yachting and travelling type who also served in Government, published a book on his experiences with Oliver Lodge. As I recall, Lloyd George attended seances while he was Chancellor of the Exchequer.

What is the point of that statement? Dabbling in what we wouldtoday refer to as the occult, was common in the period. More importantly, it was not viewed as occult. The drawing-room seances these people attended were not the seances you will find in your local Spiritualist Church (not that I recommend checking). They were junk science, like certain supposed remedies today. Well, more close to yoga, which many people engage in without realising that this opens them to Satanic influences. Not that most of the people who attended these things were possessed or anything. That danger pertains to the person who acts as the channel. The danger is being Satanically misled or decieved. In the case of Lloyd George and Balfour, they ignored advice given by the spirits, or treated them with amused indifference (when did Balfour ever do anything else?).

Waitaminute! said...

We were talking about Gail's new book Hazardous Materials Greek and Hebrew Study Dangers.
The apostasy of Westcott and Hort is well documented.
I have read over a dozen of the references Gail used in her new book. I checked well over 100 qoutations and found them all to be 100% accurate and in context.
Can any of you direct me to the testimonies of Westcott and Hort being born again?

Thank You

Ray McIntyre said...

Please point out these "100 quotations" of Gail's that you have found to be "100% correct and in context."