A REVIEW/REFUTATION OF Gail Riplinger’s New Age Bible Versions

KJV Only Resource Center ^ | unk | James Richard May, M.A., M.B.A

[ahadams2]

A REVIEW/REFUTATION OF

Gail Riplinger’s New Age Bible Versions by James Richard May, M.A., M.B.A

In this classic tome of biblical knowledge, exhaustive research, and careful reasoning, Gail Riplinger brings the full weight of her scholarship and technical expertise in home economics[1] to bear upon the daunting question of Bible texts and translation. Her ignorance of Greek and Hebrew is no deterrent to thorough investigation as she navigates the murky waters surrounding satanic influence in modern Bible versions. In her own words,

Much digging in libraries and manuscripts [all apparently in English] from around the world has uncovered an alliance between the new versions of the bible [sic](NIV, NASB, Living Bible and others) and the chief conspirators in the New Age movement’s push for a One World Religion, (NABV[2], p. 1).

Well, there it is! The New Agers are responsible for all of the modern versions of the bible [sic]! Quite a surprise for many of us who thought that much of the work was done by great and godly scholars, men and women who love the Lord Jesus and have given their lives to his service. I have learned many such interesting things in reading this book, including the fact that the proper name “bible” should not begin with a capital letter, even when referring to the true King James bible. The author’s careful attention to such matters of morphology is refreshing in this new age of sloppy composition. The reader may rest assured that similar precision is reflected in all matters, great and small, of New Age Bible Versions.

The journey from page 1 to page 650 of NABV is long and painful. A brother in Christ with considerable knowledge of the KJV only movement confessed to me that he “couldn’t read it through; its every page is marred by multiple errors of fact, selective presentation (and concealment) of evidence, distortion, misquotation, bad logic and every other possible form of inaccuracy.” Perhaps I should clarify the just-mentioned confession, lest Gail read this and accuse the brother and me of being Roman Catholics. I can assure the reader that we are both Bible-believing, born-again Baptists, that I do not hear confessions regularly, and that the brother did not regard his failure to finish NABV as sin. Yes, I am being ridiculous, but with no better factual basis Riplinger has produced a continuous stream of false accusations against a multitude of individuals. Considering the absurd errors that fill every page of Gail’s exposé, it is a wonder that any thinking person can endure such rubbish to the end. To be altogether to the point, the book is a filthy rag, a piece of yellow journalism made all the worse by the claim of allegiance to the Word of God. It takes little research to discover that a large number of the people she libels, while often possessing faults, are not at all guilty of the wicked charges that she brings against them. She frequently slices up sentences from multiple contexts and reconstructs them so as to make people appear to say things that they never said. The more time that I have spent investigating the book, especially the hideously flawed endnotes with their hopeless documentation, the more I have realized how pathetic it is. It is so egregious that there can be no excuse whatsoever for its writing and distribution.

All of the blame for the poor quality of the book, however, should not be placed upon Ms. Riplinger. As she herself says, “Satan, . . . in loving concern, . . . provided me access to documents,” (NABV, pp. 53, 3, 4). I must admit that even I was shocked at this quotation, and I’m the one who fabricated it. Using the Riplinger method of citation, any number of similar quotations can be produced using her very own book. One must question how she can criticize modern versions while admitting that the devil helped her write the criticism. I’m beginning to think that she may be a New Ager herself, a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Why else would she put a black cover on her book with a picture of a red dragon (Satan?) on the front? Why does the book have forty-two chapters? 6 x 7 = the number of man times the number of God? Man seeking to reach God by his own works? Obviously, I have spent too much time reading NABV.

Rather than deal with the theme of NABV in any systematic way, I have decided to document some of the innumerable errors in the order that they occur in the book. I simply wish to demonstrate clearly that Ms. Riplinger is a totally unreliable source of information and that nothing that she writes can be accepted as truth unless independently confirmed.

Copywritten?

NABV contains a multitude of miscellaneous errors, many of which have little to do with basic argumentation, but the sheer number of which surely demonstrates the overall poor quality of research, knowledge, attention to detail, and accuracy of presentation. The inside front cover presents the following note:

Note to the reader: 1) All editions and printings of the NIV and NASB et al. are not the same. 2) The NIV and NASB do not have identical wording because each is copywritten [sic].

Note 1) perhaps is meant to suggest that new Bible versions are an unstable, tentative lot and not forever settled in heaven, as is the King James Version. The note could have stated just as truthfully that all editions and printings of the KJV are not the same. The KJV in common use today is the edition of 1769 and is different than either of the two non-identical 1611 printings.

In Note 2) it is my assumption that when Ms. Riplinger writes that “The NIV and NASB do not have identical wording because each is copywritten,” she actually means that each is “copyrighted.” Not that it matters -- the sentence is nonsense no matter which way it is read. “Copywriting” refers to the preparation of documents by a copywriter for printing (usually for advertising). This process has nothing to do with editions failing to have identical wording. KJO people frequently criticize modern versions for being copyrighted while assuming that the King James is not. The popularity of this oft-repeated error leads me to believe that “copywritten” should be “copyrighted.” But of course neither does such legal protection against unauthorized use result in the various editions failing to have identical wording. One can only puzzle over what Ms. Riplinger is trying to say here. Perhaps she actually means that the wording of the NIV is not identical to the wording of the NASB because each is copyrighted. One must hope that her knowledge of Bible versions is ever so much greater than such a comment would indicate. Unfortunately NABV is replete with such absurd statements, often making it almost impossible to analyze rationally what is being said. As to the criticism of modern translations for being copyrighted, so is the King James Version, the rights being vested in the Crown of England.[3]

[ahadams2]

you need to read the whole thing to get the full effect, but since I don't know enough html to get the tables to come out right on freep I just put up enough of an excerpt to demostrate the worthwhile nature of this particular article.

[Alex Murphy]

Ping to the usual suspects, and apologies to any I missed...

[drstevej]

[snerkel]

Thank you for the ping. I really enjoyed reading that article. :)

[snerkel]

I forgot to add, cool pic! :)

[DonQ]

Riplinger's book has been out now for about ten years and it will be a classic in ways that its supporters wouldn't like. Almost every page - indeed, almost every paragraph - has a glaring error of some sort.

One short chapter, where Riplinger attempts to "recreate" a meeting of Victorian-era spiritualists and modernists, has dozens of absolutely impossible and glaring errors of chronology. Riplinger wastes the first chapter of her book trying to insist that the name Lucifer, which appears only once in Isaiah chapt. 14, must be a name for Satan; even John Calvin didn't believe this. Throughout her book she complains of certain usages in other Bible versions, blithly unaware that the very same usages occurred in the original first edition (1611) of the KJV. Although she is an energetic defender of the Textus Receptus Greek text of the New Testament, she gets all bitchy because some modern versions (such as NIV) use the name "Artemis" in Acts chapt 19, where the KJV used "Diana", and claims there are profound and compelling reasons to stick with Diana - although the Textus Receptus (and all other Greek versions) clearly say Artemis, and Diana comes only from the Latin Vulgate. She discusses the Old Testament rarely - but when she does she always makes a mistake.

Riplinger indulges in a very common KJV-Only ploy of listing words and clauses omitted in other versions. Everytime she finds such an instance she brays that this new version "denies" or "rejects" such-and-such a doctrine .... sweeping under the rug that the same expression is repeated elsewhere in the New Testament and the new version does show that other occurrence. She doesn't bother to mention the instances where a newer version has words that didn't appear in the KJV.

It's worth pointing out that Riplinger seems to be a bit flaky when it comes to identifying herself. Her book identifies her only as "G.A. Riplinger" and the blurbs on the cover and in the promotion literature where cleverly worded to conceal her gender; when she finally was identified she made excuses that the use of initials was intended to mean "God And Riplinger" - she actually believed that God had co-authored the book (I am of the opinion that God wrote better stuff before Riplinger became His co-auther). Her cover blurb claims that she was listed in "an international edition of Who's Who" - but she cannot be found (at least under the name Riplinger) in any such book and she declines to be more specific about the book or its date.

[ahadams2]

:-) wow! talk about trinitarian logic...or something anyways.

[LiteKeeper]

INTREP

[GrandEagle]

I'll have to admit that I also am a KJV only person. However I will have to agree with you about this particualr book. I got it as part of my research into the different versions and could not finish reading it either. It could be that I'm more of a "rubber meets the road" kind of guy and all the emotional lead-in's and dead end discussions designed to stir emotions don't work well with me.

[streetpreacher]

Gail Riplinger vs. James White, 1993, KRDS Radio

Part I: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVXjw4jd61M
Part II: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tdld8KGEm7E
Part III: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuEm62KSRxg
Part IV: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYPVUp7zAMo
Part V: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qioE1HIUV0

[streetpreacher]

Gail Riplinger on the Sinking of the Titanic and the NIV

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNyH5A_OZs8

[DarthVader]

Here is great resource if you want to find about the truth about Riplinger and those of her ilk.

http://members.aol.com/pilgrimpub/unlearnd.htm