Why King James Only?

[Steve Schwenke]

have you read Phil Stringer's books on Riplinger? also I have seen personal examples of how she is dishonest in her use of quotes, I have read her book New Age Bible versions and a lot of Hazardous Materials.

 

I don't trust Riplinger. 

No I have not.  I have no interest in reading someone's critique of somebody else.  It adds nothing to our knowledge of the KJV issue.  This is nothing more than gossip and backbiting.  

 

Riplinger's main points have not been refuted, so the only thing her critics can do is attack the way she got to her conclusions.  They have never SCRIPTURALLY refuted her points, only her methods.   Curious.

 

I am not saying she is blameless in the matter.

 

I am saying that her critics have added nothing to the discussion other than hearsay, gossip and backbiting.  Sounds like a bad case of "sour grapes" to me.  

 

So what is Stringer's position?  Perhaps you could enlighten us?

[Jordan Kurecki]

No I have not.  I have no interest in reading someone's critique of somebody else.  It adds nothing to our knowledge of the KJV issue.  This is nothing more than gossip and backbiting.  

 

Riplinger's main points have not been refuted, so the only thing her critics can do is attack the way she got to her conclusions.  They have never SCRIPTURALLY refuted her points, only her methods.   Curious.

 

I am not saying she is blameless in the matter.

 

I am saying that her critics have added nothing to the discussion other than hearsay, gossip and backbiting.  Sounds like a bad case of "sour grapes" to me.  

 

So what is Stringer's position?  Perhaps you could enlighten us?

In her book Hazardous Materials and New Age Bible Versions, she makes tons of quotes that would lead you to believe she is scholarly and that her information is factual, but when she does things like this how can you trust any of it:

 

In New Age Bible Versions, Riplinger claims that God has struck some "new version" Bible editors with the loss of their voice; Westcott is one of the editors of whom Riplinger has made this claim:

Westc

ot

t's biographer cites that in 1858 "he was quite inaudible" and by 1870 "His voice reached few and was understood by still fewer."[2]

Riplinger cites this as coming from the book Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, Vol. 1, written by his son, Arthur Westcott. The first misquote is from a line that actually tells of Westcott as a young man, as remembered by a Sir Dalrymple, who recalls, in a letter, Westcott's early years at Harrow School and that he was "shy, reserved, sensitive, a laborious student." Here is the actual paragraph from where Riplinger took her misquoted words:

He [Westc

ot

t] took his turn of preaching in Chapel, but he dreaded and disliked the duty, and 

he was quite inaudible

 to many of the boys. We knew all the same that his were no common sermons. It has been truly said "the se

nt

ences were closely packed with meaning, and the meaning was n

ot

always easy."[5] [bold text added to show the words Riplinger took out of co

nt

ext.]

The second misquoted line was again taken from Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, Vol. 1. In this case, a Dr. Butler gives another remembrance of Westcott in a letter to his son. Butler says:

You have kindly asked me to give you some impressions as to your father's work and influence at Harrow. [...] The years to which my words will refer are, speaking roughly, from 1860 to 1870. [...] At that time Mr. Westc

ot

t, n

ot

yet thirty-five years of age, held a very peculiar position at Harrow. He was little known in the School at large. He was n

ot

a Form Master. He had no "Large House" to administer. 

His voice

 was n

ot

yet a force in the chapel. It 

reached

 but 

few, and

 it 

was understood by still fewer.

 But even then he had at least two spheres of influence - his own pupils on the one hand, and the Masters on the

ot

her.[6]

Riplinger not only cut the two quotes from two different places in the original source but she also quoted the source incorrectly, leaving out the words that make the context clear, and making up her own quotation. Westcott never permanently lost his voice; he was simply known to have a quiet voice when he preached.

 

from: http://www.avpublications.org/gail-riplinger-misquotes.html

[Jordan Kurecki]

No I have not.  I have no interest in reading someone's critique of somebody else.  It adds nothing to our knowledge of the KJV issue.  This is nothing more than gossip and backbiting.  

 

Riplinger's main points have not been refuted, so the only thing her critics can do is attack the way she got to her conclusions.  They have never SCRIPTURALLY refuted her points, only her methods.   Curious.

 

I am not saying she is blameless in the matter.

 

I am saying that her critics have added nothing to the discussion other than hearsay, gossip and backbiting.  Sounds like a bad case of "sour grapes" to me.  

 

So what is Stringer's position?  Perhaps you could enlighten us?

From Stringer:

 

MEGALOMANIA ON STEROIDS

Listen to the claims that Gail Riplinger makes about herself:

“The reader is in for many surprises, some that will verge on riveting shock. Before this

book, no one had ever critically examined the authors of Greek and Hebrew study fools.”

(Hazardous Materials,

p. 13)

That’s right! No one ever understood before Gail Riplinger. Without her, you would be forever ignorant.

“The worse mistake a reader could make would be to suppose that, because an author

is not mentioned in this book, his Greek or Hebrew study tools are safe. All tools have

been examined and ALL are corrupt.” (Hazardous Materials, p.37)

That’s right! Gail Riplinger has studied everything. She has not missed anything.

“That with which the reader may not agree or which the reader may not understand

will be rectified upon reading the entire book. All questions have been anticipated and are

explained somewhere and in detail. Assuming, ‘the author does not know or understand

‘something’ will only be possible if the entire book is not read.” (Hazardous Materials, p.

40)

That’s right. Dr. Riplinger has anticipated all your questions. She has answered them all. It is not possible that the

author misunderstands anything.

When has anyone, male, or female, ever made such claims about their work? All for the “Greater Glory of Gail!”

TRUST DR. RIPLINGER TO TELL YOU WHAT THE GREEK MEANS!

“ I have done all of the Greek work for the reader.” (Hazardous Materials, p. 42).

What a statement! Don’t do any research. Don’t check out anything for yourself. Gail Riplinger will tell you what the

Greek means. Trust her as your authority. What kind of a Baptist allows someone do all of their thinking for them?

This proclamation is all the stranger when you realize that Gail Riplinger does not know Greek.

 

In a May, 1994 radio interview with Dr. Wayne House, Dr. Riplinger was forced to admit that she cannot read Greek or

Hebrew.

[Jordan Kurecki]

some more from Stringer:

 

In the January-February 1994 edition of the “End Times Victorious Living Prophecy Newsletter,” Gail Riplinger stated:

“Daily, during the six years needed for this investigation, the Lord miraculously brought

the needed materials and resources—much like the ravens fed Elijah. Each discovery was not

the result of effort on my part, but of the direct hand of God—so much so that I hesitated to

even put my name on the book. Consequently, I used G. A. Riplinger—God as author and

Riplinger as secretary.”

That is an incredible statement in Baptist circles. It is literally a claim to divine inspiration.

 

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

https://www.biblefortoday.org/PDF/StringerOnRiplinger.pdfheres a free link to his book:

 

The main points about Riplinger are that she basically claims Inspiration of God, she tear down all other people as authorities similar to a cult leader, Shes a woman teaching and preaching in churches which no other woman could get away with in Baptist circles, and she is not even an actual linguistic, She has also threatened to sue D.A. Waite when they found out that she had lied to them and the publicly stopped promoting her and her books in the Dean Burgon Society.

 

The Woman cannot be trusted, and she brings a lot of division into the King James camp, I think she's making a fool out of a lot of Baptist pastors who are promoting her, and also causing King James Bible defenders to be less credible when she manipulates quotes in her books. here is some examples from David Cloud:

 

 On page 2 Mrs. Riplinger misquotes Edwin Palmer, editor of the NIV. It would appear from the quote that Palmer is questioning the deity of Jesus Christ. She prefaces the quote with these words: 

“The NIV’s chief editor vaunts his version’s heresy saying: ... [F]ew clear and decisive texts say that Jesus is God.” 

In her notes, Mrs. Riplinger cites The Making of a Contemporary Translation, p. 143. 
Actually Palmer IN NO WAY is questioning the deity of Jesus Christ. In fact, in the paragraph cited, HE IS CONTENDING for Christ’s deity! The full quote which Mrs. Riplinger has pulled out of context is as follows:

“John 1:18, as inspired by the Holy Spirit, is one of those few clear and decisive texts that declare that Jesus is God. But, due to no fault of its own, the KJV, following inferior manuscripts, has altered what the Holy Spirit said through John. It calls John ‘Son’, whereas it should have called him ‘God.’” 

 

 On page 59 Mrs. Riplinger calls John Burgon “a dissenting scholar on the ‘New Greek N.T. committee.” 

In fact, Burgon had nothing to do with the committee that produced the Westcott-Hort Greek N.T. or any other Greek New Testament.

 

http://www.wayoflife.org/database/newagebibleversions.html

[ThePilgrim]

I have no dog in this Riplinger fight I just thought I might mention something I noticed.

 

Concerning this Riplinger discussion I know nothing about her or her writings apart from what I see on here but I would offer a little advice.  I read the article on the website you posted http://www.avpublications.org/with interest and like I always do I like to check the sources of the post so I clicked on the address on the bottom of the page hoping to see the homepage of the site.  All it did was loop me back to the same page I was already on.  I checked another way, I went to the address line and deleted the last half of the address relating to the open page.  So up comes the same page.  All this to say, I have no idea who owns that website and if they can be trusted.  I would be more careful about things on the internet you use as proof of your argument.

[Steve Schwenke]

Jordan

You have proven my point, so thank you for that.

This is simply an attack on her method, not on her product.  I am not necessarily condoning anything she did, per se, but there is nothing in any of those quotes that refutes her main thesis.

Everything you posted is second, third, and fourth hand information, regurgitated ad nauseum by her detractors. 

This amounts to little more than a witch hunt and character assassination. 

 

How about we discuss the issue of the preservation of the KJV?

 

I asked you about Phil Stringer's position on the KJV.  Could you provide that, or do you just want to continue bashing Riplinger?

 

As for me, there is nothing personal in anything I say here, so I hope you do not misinterpret anything I have said as a personal attack on you or anyone else.  '

You asked me for my opinion about Riplinger and I gave it. 

Then you just pile on her dishing up the same old tired trash from a bunch of babies who for some reason have chosen to attack her instead of simply defend the KJV and sound doctrine. 

 

I should also ask if you personally have read her books in their entirety, and done any of the research yourself, or if you are just taking the word of somebody else on the matter?

 

As for me personally, I have read her books, and checked the Scriptural references.  I don't have the time or the resources to go further than that, so that is why I cannot say for any certainty that her methods as far as quoting and citing other sources is correct.  But I know her approach is correct, and that the changes made in the new versions fall into lockstep with the new age movement.  Thus, her thesis is correct.

 

I don't know why these goons out there have to take issue with her method....why can't they discuss the ISSUE, which is the KJV? 

As far as her claims to receive information and help from the Lord - my goodness - what a childish accusation. 

It is my sincere hope and prayer that when I stand in the pulpit to preach and teach, that the Lord is speaking through me - that my lessons, sermons, study, and preparation all came from the Lord, and that the delivery of that message has the power of the Holy Spirit behind it.  Why would we criticize someone who is trying help her fellow believers for claiming the same thing? 

 

This whole conversation is just ridiculous and disgusting to me - attacking God's people who love and defend the KJV on a personal level, rather than dealing with the issues they raise.

 

I bid thee farewell on this subject.

[DaveW]

I don't care either way but to dismiss it all as "the same old tired trash" is quite surprising.

To show that she has deceitfully misused quotes to for instance 'prove' that God struck him with loss of voice IS relevant.

You complain on one hand of people misquoting Mr Ruckman, but then excuse this Rippling for doing precisely that.

A person's character is relevant in such discussions.

[Steve Schwenke]

I don't care either way but to dismiss it all as "the same old tired trash" is quite surprising.

To show that she has deceitfully misused quotes to for instance 'prove' that God struck him with loss of voice IS relevant.

You complain on one hand of people misquoting Mr Ruckman, but then excuse this Rippling for doing precisely that.

A person's character is relevant in such discussions.

No Dave, I am not excusing Gail Riplinger at all.  I have said that I am not in a position to determine if she has misquoted anyone or not.  All I have heard is 2nd and 3rd hand information, which I cannot prove either way.  

 

I can speak to the misquoting of Dr. Ruckman because I have first hand knowledge of the situation.

 

I have said repeatedly that the quotations given to discredit Riplinger are personal attacks that do not disprove her main thesis.  Her thesis is solid and has not been disproven.  

I have stated that her methods MIGHT BE questionable.  I give allowance for that.  

 

My point is that we are rehashing the same old tired quotes that have been batted around in IFB circles for a long time, and none of this helps anyone's cause regarding the KJV.  These are indeed character attacks, they do not refute her position, only attempt to discredit her on a personal level.  It is the same approach they use on Dr. Ruckman, and that is why I am suspicious of these attacks. 

 

The material Riplinger has presented is worth consideration, and I have not found anything unscriptural in her conclusions, even if her methods are suspect.  Her thesis has not been refuted, her conclusions have not been refuted.  All these guys are doing is throwing sticks at her in an attempt to discredit her....I ain't drinking their koolaid.   I can't prove her right or wrong on the issue of her quotations from other sources, but I can't prove her detractors right or wrong either.  I am simply not going to just believe THEIR claims, but I am not going to entirely dismiss them either.

 

Now if these same guys had spent as much time dismantling her SUBJECT, THESIS, and CONCLUSIONS, then we would have something to work with, wouldn't we?  But they didn't - they attacked HER.  So that does not speak well of them, now does it?

[HappyChristian]

Machiavelli would be proud...

[DaveW]

I dunno - if someone - anyone - lies in the presentation of their argument, it kinda affects the strength of the argument.

Like when someone deliberately misquotes say, Mr Ruckman for the purposes of discrediting him, and someone else reveals through proper use of the quotation that the original quote was wrong, the original quoter kinda loses face with the audience.

You are inclined to not trust anything else he says.

Or if someone uses a quote to suggest that someone else was judged by God, and it turns out that the quote was from before the work that was apparently judged, the original quoter sorta loses face before the audience, and I for one am less inclined to trust them.

But let's not mention double standards.

[Jordan Kurecki]

Yes I have read her book New Age Bible Versions in it's entirety, the way she applies some scriptures is really bad interpretaion, some of her ideas about things really caused me to scratch my head.

 

And yes it is completely relevant that she misuses quotes, especially because in Hazardous Materials the main support she has is quotes and information bashing in Greek and Hebrew Lexicons and scholars, so it is completely relevant.

 

Riplinger may suport the KJV, but she sure does more damage to the position in the way she defends it... in fact her arguments really don't hold up, she just uses a bunch of quotes that are prOBably not even true to overwhelm you and make you think she's a scholar.

 

Greek and Hebrew does in fact often make the English translation more clear in certain places, to deny that is a denial of facts, does that mean the English is not sufficient, no, Study of Greek and Hebrew is just a tool one can use, Funny how the same people who are against Greek and Hebrew also often use uninspired commentaries, I think we can all agree that commentaries can sometimes shed light, yet we still use them.

 

people who bash on the learning and usage of Greek and Hebrew Lexicons are making a virtue out of ignorance, and if these people were to be consistent, then they need to throw out their study bibles, commentaries, etc.

 

Greek and Hebrew learning is a fallible tool, OBviously our final authority is the King James bible, which we know is reliable, we would not even have a King James Bible if the translators held to Riplinger's position.

 

I find Riplinger's arguments for King James Only to be lacking, and I would not cite her or her books to defend the King James bible.

[Steve Schwenke]

I dunno - if someone - anyone - lies in the presentation of their argument, it kinda affects the strength of the argument.

Like when someone deliberately misquotes say, Mr Ruckman for the purposes of discrediting him, and someone else reveals through proper use of the quotation that the original quote was wrong, the original quoter kinda loses face with the audience.

You are inclined to not trust anything else he says.

Or if someone uses a quote to suggest that someone else was judged by God, and it turns out that the quote was from before the work that was apparently judged, the original quoter sorta loses face before the audience, and I for one am less inclined to trust them.

But let's not mention double standards.

This is ridiculous.

 

David Cloud misquotes and misrepresents Dr. Ruckman, yet I trust Cloud on most everything else he presents.  I just know he is off base on THAT SUBJECT.  How so?  Because I can check his work and compare it with Scripture.

 

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater....

Eat the chicken and throw away the bones...

[Steve Schwenke]

Yes I have read her book New Age Bible Versions in it's entirety, the way she applies some scriptures is really bad interpretaion, some of her ideas about things really caused me to scratch my head.

 

And yes it is completely relevant that she misuses quotes, especially because in Hazardous Materials the main support she has is quotes and information bashing in Greek and Hebrew Lexicons and scholars, so it is completely relevant.

 

Riplinger may suport the KJV, but she sure does more damage to the position in the way she defends it... in fact her arguments really don't hold up, she just uses a bunch of quotes that are prOBably not even true to overwhelm you and make you think she's a scholar.

 

Greek and Hebrew does in fact often make the English translation more clear in certain places, to deny that is a denial of facts, does that mean the English is not sufficient, no, Study of Greek and Hebrew is just a tool one can use, Funny how the same people who are against Greek and Hebrew also often use uninspired commentaries, I think we can all agree that commentaries can sometimes shed light, yet we still use them.

 

people who bash on the learning and usage of Greek and Hebrew Lexicons are making a virtue out of ignorance, and if these people were to be consistent, then they need to throw out their study bibles, commentaries, etc.

 

Greek and Hebrew learning is a fallible tool, OBviously our final authority is the King James bible, which we know is reliable, we would not even have a King James Bible if the translators held to Riplinger's position.

 

I find Riplinger's arguments for King James Only to be lacking, and I would not cite her or her books to defend the King James bible.

Ok, so what I am hearing you say is that you don't like her approach.  But you have not answered some important questions:

 

1.  Have you personally checked her citations from the sources she listed to find out if she is misquoting someone, or did you get that information second and third hand?  If you are relying on someone else to feed you that info, then we have to ask if that second hand source is accurate or not.

 

2.  I don't consider an intensive study of the KJV to be ignorance.  Dr. Ruckman's works have proven conclusively that you don't need Greek and Hebrew to "clarify" anything.   The people who go back to the Greek and Hebrew have not brought out anything that cannot be found in the KJV.

 

3.  You have not actually dismantled Riplinger's thesis or conclusions.  You have stated that you did not LIKE some of the things she said, and that you QUESTIONED parts of her book.  That would be normal for any book you read, right?  So why pick on her?

 

4.  Your statements betray you.  You OBviously have not read and understood the point Riplinger is making in Hazardous Materials, and you are unable to make the proper application because of your bias against her.  Unfortunate.  You truly have thrown the baby out with the bathwater....your loss...

 

5.  You still have not answered my question about Stringer's position on the KJV, even though I have asked 3 times now.  Why continue the Riplinger bashing when you could shed some more light?  Or is it just that Stringer's position is the Anti-Riplinger position?  

[Steve Schwenke]

Machiavelli would be proud...

Wow...so now you accuse me of being dishonest?

 

That's a low blow.

adjective 

1.

of, like, or befitting Machiavelli.

2.

being or acting in accordance with the principles of government analyzed in Machiavelli's The Prince, in which political expediency is placed above morality and the use of craft and deceit to maintain the authority and carry out the policies of a ruler is described.

3.

characterized by subtle or unscrupulous cunning, deception, expediency, or dishonesty:

 

I have been honest here.  I can't comment on Riplinger's quotations because, as I have said, I do not have the time or resources to check them out.  

But let's be honest...NOBODY ELSE HERE HAS EITHER.  Everyone is operating off what SOMEBODY ELSE SAID about her quotes, and, so far as I know, NOBODY has checked these quotes out personally.  I at least am willing to admit it.  

So the entire argument against Riplinger is that she misquotes her sources, which is only proven by 2nd and 3rd hand information, which is accepted without question.

 

Now, considering that this is the exact same tactic used against Dr. Ruckman, and considering that I know for a fact that those cheap shots against Dr. Ruckman are blatantly false, then I have to question the criticisms of Riplinger.  

 

Machiavellian???  

That is just plain uncalled for, offensive, disgusting, and abhorrent.  

[HappyChristian]

Steve, cut it out. Apparently you have come back with an axe to grind.  No, I did not accuse you of being dishonest.  The reference to Machiavelli is simply applied to your acceptance of Riplinger's conclusions, regardless of her methods (not to you personally).  I'm sorry, but I do not believe the ends justify the means.  Scripture does not teach that, either.  She lied.  She lied. She lied.  Enough for me to disregard her stuff - yes, completely.  There's a boatload of excellent work, scholarly work, honestly written, that I don't need hers. To defend her lies by citing her conclusions, and calling those who've pointed them out "goons", is Machiavellian.  That has nothing to do with your honesty, but everything to do with what you (generically meant) accept.  

 

I don't like Ruckman - and it's based on stuff he wrote and actually said...that I heard with my own ears.  You want to defend him, go ahead and do it. It matters not the least to me. You like Riplinger's conclusions regardless of her lies in her presentation (and, really, how hard is it to research the lies she told?  Not very.  She openly admitted not knowing Greek or Hebrew and said God gave her her information...claiming inspiration, without actually using the words. Meh, no thanks.), go for it.  But that isn't hard to research, either.  That doesn't mean I'm calling you dishonest.

 

Mayhap I find defense of a liar abhorrent, uncalled for, offensive, and disgusting.  But I never said you were dishonest. Nor did I imply it. Thicken your skin, Steve. 

[Steve Schwenke]

NOBody has proven to me that she has lied....

I am to trust what her critics say absolutely without question, but I can't trust what she says in her own defense????

 

Not very Christian like.

 

I don't understand how we can discuss something 2nd hand and accept the accusations without question.  Since nOBody here can prove it either way, then all we really have the right to discuss is the substance of her arguments, and NOBODY wants to do that.

 

Shame on all of you.

 

I provided the definition of Machiavellian above, and that is what I went off.  You don't have to worry about my skin being thick enough - I have faced some pretty hostile crowds.  You are the one who levelled that charge against me, and yes, it is a charge of being dishonest - CHECK THE DEFINITION.

 

And as a reminder, the only reason I jumped into this discussion is because of the FALSE ACCUSATIONS leveled against somebody that I know personally.  Those false accusations have not been retracted.  There is no "axe to grind."  I just don't like it when people are dishonest in their mischaracterization of people, and when they fail to discuss the actual substance of the issue.  

[HappyChristian]

Well, since she herself said she got her writings from God, inferring inspiration, I guess we can let her words speak for themselves.  I could care less, really, if you choose to believe what she says in her own defense. That's your choice. *shrugs* I don't think that's even been an issue

 

I know the definition, thanks.  I'm actually up on my vocabulary, and use words as they fit into the topic.  The Machiavellian principle of ends justifying means is what was intended, but, hey, you don't have to believe me that I wasn't "leveling the charge against you".  After all, since I said it, I must not know what I intended, right?  And, believe me, I'm not worried about your skin being thick enough. I simply adjured you to thicken your skin because you were seeing a personal attack where there was none. And that's not very Christ like...

 

Yes, I don't like it when people are dishonest in their characterizations of people, either...

[Steve Schwenke]

Machiavelli would be proud...

This was posted after one of my posts.  

It is not a very clear post.  No explanation. No elaboration.  But OBviously was addressed to me, since it followed one of my posts.  And I never said the "ends justifies the means."  

I said I could not comment on her  methods, because I don't have the time or resources to check them.  

What that means is that I would have to get the sources she cited and check them for myself.  I don't trust her critics to be honest in their representation of her.  

Why?

BECAUSE THEY DON'T DEAL WITH THE SUBSTANCE OF HER ARGUMENT.   If her argument is wrong, then prove it wrong - don't waste my time trying to convince me she "lied."  ALL MEN ARE LIARS, including her critics.  So why should I trust her critics more than her????????????????  It makes no sense.

 

I have addressed the accusations of her claiming inspiration...

 

I have been absolutely clear in my position, but because I am not ready to throw Riplinger or Ruckman under the bus based on hearsay, inuendo, and 2nd hand information, then my posts are largely UNREAD in their entirety.  I am getting the same treatment they get.  

 

Second hand accusations don't cut it for me.  All of this stuff is Diotrephes at work.  

And I think we all have better things to do.

 

I would suggest that we simply close the thread.  We are not getting anywhere nor  are we edifying each other.

[HappyChristian]

Steve, if I had intended that to be directed at you personally, I would have quoted you, as you did me, or named you as I did here.  Stop seeing boogeymen where there are none.

 

Back to topic.