Bestseller Book.....New Age Versions of the Bible

[tribesman]

Yeah I worked hard to get there as well....I live on 40 acres in Mark Twain National forest in Missouri...off the grid...generate my own power and for the most part get to study and cc all day HAHAH....I prayed to God to move me there after 9-11 and he answered.....seems like it will get real difficult for believers before the end of the age and to be honest...sometimes I am just sick of society and fully enjoy the (woods) HAHAHHA

I wouldn't mind staying in a tent on that land. Love MO.

 

[Reborn]

Yeah I worked hard to get there as well....I live on 40 acres in Mark Twain National forest in Missouri...off the grid...generate my own power and for the most part get to study and cc all day HAHAH....I prayed to God to move me there after 9-11 and he answered.....seems like it will get real difficult for believers before the end of the age and to be honest...sometimes I am just sick of society and fully enjoy the (woods) HAHAHHA

You're a lucky guy. Must be peaceful out there?
My old man is always talking about doing what you have done.
Must be in the American blood these days? ...or in guys who were once in the service?
Now, he just goes to Thailand all of the time.
Thailand?......woods of Missouri? It's all retirement living, I suppose?

Very cool.

 

[dcontroversal]

I wouldn't mind staying in a tent on that land. Love MO.

HAHAH why stay in a tent...come build a cabin HAHA I live right on Indian creek...a spring fed creek that has never went dry...crystal clear cold water that you can drink as it purifies itself every 100 feet or so

 

[dcontroversal]

You're a lucky guy. Must be peaceful out there?
My old man is always talking about doing what you have done.
Must be in the American blood these days? ...or in guys who were once in the service?
Now, he just goes to Thailand all of the time.
Thailand?......woods of Missouri? It's all retirement living, I suppose?

Very cool.

Amen to that for sure.....I would use the term blessed for sure....the Lord has blessed me with this life and all that he has done......I am for sure not worthy so all glory and praise goes to God for sure....it is very relaxing and rather enjoyable for sure.....peaceful for sure....!

 

[JackH]

I have to concur that the book is OK. Guess my "testimony" about it is similar to that of Jason. Bought it in the early 90s while being newly saved, I thought it had good features and it spawned a further interest in me to dig deeper into the history of translating the Bible.

This summarizes the book quite well:

A lengthy critical review of her book New Age Bible Versions was originally published in Cornerstone magazine in 1994, authored by Bob and Gretchen Passantino of Answers In Action, and described the book as "erroneous, sensationalistic, misrepresentative, inaccurate, and logically indefensible." [SUP][4][/SUP] They concluded by summarizing "There is hardly a page of this book that is free from error. Riplinger does not know Greek, Hebrew, textual criticism, linguistics, principles of translation, logical argumentation, proper citation and documentation standards, competent English grammar and style, or even consistent spelling. This book would never have done more than use Riplinger's savings and fill up her garage if Christian "celebrities" such as Texe Marrs and David Hocking had not promoted it."[SUP][5]

[/SUP]Gail Riplinger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Jason0047]

The purpose of the book is not mistakes in grammar and spelling. Even if she may not hit the nail on the head in all of her points either does not undo the purpose of what the book is for. It's not about how she is a perfect Christian or not or if she is a scholar. The main purpose of the book is comparing the KJV vs. the Modern Translations. The man of God who trusts in every word of God can see the comparisons she makes and see that the changes are not for the better, but for the worse. The man of God can see a pattern taking place. An elimination and subtle change to God's Word. That is the purpose of the book.

But good thing we live in the age of the internet now. While the book can be a valueable resource, one can just Google a lot of the comparisons between the KJV vs. the Modern Translations themselves; They can then see whether those changes are for the better or worse. So there is no use in shooting down what she has written. We do not live in the book age anymore. People can just research the KJV vs. the Modern Translations for themselves online. If they think there is something to this research in the fact that God's Word is being attacked by the devil, then the book would just be an added resource in their study. The book should not be treated like another Bible or that it is perfect or any way. For I do not hold all views expressed by her but yet I can still see the value in the comparisons she made.

In fact, I do not agree with all KJV-onlysts on everything, as I am sure you do not agree with all Anti-KJV-onlyists on everything.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

... Dr. Gail Riplinger also exposes yet unreleased material ...

The reference proves this OP is based on the largest truckload of B/S to be dumped in CCF recently.

 

[Jason0047]

The reference proves this OP is based on the largest truckload of B/S to be dumped in CCF recently.

Look, she did not write a research story where it hinges on you believing her or not. I do not agree with all her views. That's not the point of the book. The book makes many many side by side comparisons between the KJV and the Modern Translations. The reader can then decide if these changes or differences between the KJV and the Modern Translations are for the better or for the worse themselves. In fact, if the believer today is skeptical of such a work, they do not have to be. We have Google at our fingertips. No longer can knowledge be hidden. People can research the differences between the KJV and the Modern Translations and see if the changes between the KJV and the Modern Translations are made for the better or for the worse on their own. The book primarily focuses on the comparisons made. Yes, she can be very opinionated on some points I do not agree with; But the book is not geared towards promoting primarily opinon but it is a resource for comparing the KJV vs the Modern Translations. The reader can then decide for themselves if these are good changes or bad changes.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

Look, she did not write a research story where it hinges on you believing her or not. I do not agree with all her views. That's not the point of the book. The book makes many many side by side comparisons between the KJV and the Modern Translations. The reader can then decide if these changes or differences between the KJV and the Modern Translations are for the better or for the worse themselves. In fact, if the believer today is skeptical of such a work, they do not have to be. We have Google at our fingertips. No longer can knowledge be hidden. People can research the differences between the KJV and the Modern Translations and see if the changes between the KJV and the Modern Translations are made for the better or for the worse.

Adding another shovelful?

You didn't say squat. I have no idea what you are trying to say here. I don't need to investigate whether the NASB is accurate on Google. I can sit down with it and a copy of the original manuscripts and see is the most accurate, most literal translation in existence, that the ESV is a very close second, and the KJV isn't that far behind. So why should I quibble over versions when they are all the word of God, as preserved in His inspired original languages?

 

[Jason0047]

Adding another shovelful?

You didn't say squat. I have no idea what you are trying to say here. I don't need to investigate whether the NASB is accurate on Google. I can sit down with it and a copy of the original manuscripts and see is the most accurate, most literal translation in existence, that the ESV is a very close second, and the KJV isn't that far behind. So why should I quibble over versions when they are all the word of God, as preserved in His inspired original languages?

Saying you do not need to research it is saying you don't want certain information that is easily available to you with but the touch of a few keystrokes. I understand you have a high regard for the original languages taken from certain manuscripts, but we should not let any stone go unturned if it comes to the matter of our authority in what God's Word is actually saying.

In other words, I know there are problems in the ESV and the NASB versus the KJV because I was not afraid to look up that information on Google. If you do not want to see the problems in the Modern Translations, then you will never see it (Regardless of whether I not post those comparisons here or not). People see what they want to see. But at the end of the day, we have to be honest with ourselves and with God and what He says in His Word.

 

[yogosans14]

King James onlyism is HERESY. I use the NLT I love it it's so easy to understand. The KJV mentions unicorns and Easter LOL!!!

 

[dcontroversal]

King James onlyism is HERESY. I use the NLT I love it it's so easy to understand. The KJV mentions unicorns and Easter LOL!!!

King Jimmy only is idolatry and leads one to worship an anglican translation/transliteration of the bible which by the way was copied (OT) almost verbatim from the first English version as well as COMPARED to an English version ALREADY in existence.......it contains....

1. Mistranslated words
2. Transliterated words
3. Different words translated as the same word
4. Additions to scripture (last of Mark's gospel)
5. Additions to scripture (in italics)

And to say that God inspired 54 Episcopalian priests contradicts Jude and the (faith) system of teaching being ONCE delivered unto the SAINTS......

 

[Nick01]

The purpose of the book is not mistakes in grammar and spelling. Even if she may not hit the nail on the head in all of her points either does not undo the purpose of what the book is for. It's not about how she is a perfect Christian or not or if she is a scholar. The main purpose of the book is comparing the KJV vs. the Modern Translations. The man of God who trusts in every word of God can see the comparisons she makes and see that the changes are not for the better, but for the worse. The man of God can see a pattern taking place. An elimination and subtle change to God's Word. That is the purpose of the book.

But good thing we live in the age of the internet now. While the book can be a valueable resource, one can just Google a lot of the comparisons between the KJV vs. the Modern Translations themselves; They can then see whether those changes are for the better or worse. So there is no use in shooting down what she has written. We do not live in the book age anymore. People can just research the KJV vs. the Modern Translations for themselves online. If they think there is something to this research in the fact that God's Word is being attacked by the devil, then the book would just be an added resource in their study. The book should not be treated like another Bible or that it is perfect or any way. For I do not hold all views expressed by her but yet I can still see the value in the comparisons she made.

In fact, I do not agree with all KJV-onlysts on everything, as I am sure you do not agree with all Anti-KJV-onlyists on everything.

You have read the book, yes? She spends some time comparing the KJV to other translations, but a bit less then half the book is essentially an attack on the personnel who worked on the various translations (much of Riplinger's accusations plain wrong, a great deal of it selective use of quotations and context, almost all of it irrelevant to the actual translations themselves), and a discussion of the manuscript tradition. So like it or not, Riplinger does actually go beyond comparing translations and argues on other grounds. Why did she do that, if she did not think it necessary?

The problem with relying on an argument based purely on comparisons between the KJV and other translations based on different critical editions (and you know this, because we've discussed this before) is that it assumes things were taken away, rather than added. The comparison is pointless if one doesn't start with a clear idea in their head of what should be in the Bible, which makes any discussion pointless - how people respond to the comparison squares almost entirely with which presupposition one brings to the table.

But, again, as I've pointed out in previous discussions with you, SaintJoe, KJV1611, Huckleberry and others on this forum, almost all such comparisons that are made are selective in the extreme, require looking at a verse (or one word in a verse) devoid of all context. For instance, I previously had a long discussion with someone about John 4:67 and whether people are required to 'believe on Jesus' in that verse. Apparently a lot of KJVO people believe this is essentially modern translation denying that one must believe in specifically Jesus. The problem is they conveniently overlook that in EVERY RELEVANT MSS, and EVERY MODERN TRANSLATION, Jesus specifically says people must believe in him to be saved only a handful of versus earlier, and he discusses it implicitly multiple times in the same passage (i.e. he is the bread of life, he who eats will never hunger). If some people were taking things out to try and deny key aspects of doctrine like soteriology, one has to concede that, in John 6 at the very least, they did an amazingly terrible and utterly incompetent job, even over hundreds of years of trying, as some KJVO proponents will often argue.

If you have specific comparative passages you think are knock down examples of what you mean, Jason, then by all means let's discuss Scripture. But, speaking from prior experience with others on this board and in RL, a lot of them just end up winding back to proof texting and people not actually reading 'the whole counsel of God'.

 

[Jason0047]

You have read the book, yes? She spends some time comparing the KJV to other translations, but a bit less then half the book is essentially an attack on the personnel who worked on the various translations (much of Riplinger's accusations plain wrong, a great deal of it selective use of quotations and context, almost all of it irrelevant to the actual translations themselves), and a discussion of the manuscript tradition. So like it or not, Riplinger does actually go beyond comparing translations and argues on other grounds. Why did she do that, if she did not think it necessary?

The problem with relying on an argument based purely on comparisons between the KJV and other translations based on different critical editions (and you know this, because we've discussed this before) is that it assumes things were taken away, rather than added. The comparison is pointless if one doesn't start with a clear idea in their head of what should be in the Bible, which makes any discussion pointless - how people respond to the comparison squares almost entirely with which presupposition one brings to the table.

But, again, as I've pointed out in previous discussions with you, SaintJoe, KJV1611, Huckleberry and others on this forum, almost all such comparisons that are made are selective in the extreme, require looking at a verse (or one word in a verse) devoid of all context. For instance, I previously had a long discussion with someone about John 4:67 and whether people are required to 'believe on Jesus' in that verse. Apparently a lot of KJVO people believe this is essentially modern translation denying that one must believe in specifically Jesus. The problem is they conveniently overlook that in EVERY RELEVANT MSS, and EVERY MODERN TRANSLATION, Jesus specifically says people must believe in him to be saved only a handful of versus earlier, and he discusses it implicitly multiple times in the same passage (i.e. he is the bread of life, he who eats will never hunger). If some people were taking things out to try and deny key aspects of doctrine like soteriology, one has to concede that, in John 6 at the very least, they did an amazingly terrible and utterly incompetent job, even over hundreds of years of trying, as some KJVO proponents will often argue.

If you have specific comparative passages you think are knock down examples of what you mean, Jason, then by all means let's discuss Scripture. But, speaking from prior experience with others on this board and in RL, a lot of them just end up winding back to proof texting and people not actually reading 'the whole counsel of God'.

If you were to talk to me a while back I probably would have a go with you on it. Currently, the Lord is not really leading me to fight people on this issue. I use Modern Translations and find them useful for my purposes in updating the Early Modern English within the KJV. I know what I know and I cannot unlearn what I know. So for you to convince me would take a lot of unlearning of what I know, which I don't think is humanly possible. I believe the KJV is perfect based on many observable evidences. But yet currently, it is not enough of an issue to me at this time for me to get all fired up about it. I realize there are many corrupt things in Modern Translations, but they can also be just as equally helpful in my study of the KJV and they can be helpful to many other people who find it hard to understand "Early Modern English." So I take more of a balanced approach on this topic now. I see folks on both sides of the fence on this point in taking it to the wrong extreme (Wherein they see things that are just not there or they nitpick things that are not really all that important). The focus is always Jesus Christ (God Almighty in the flesh) and Him crucified, buried, and resuurrected so as to save me and the entire world.

 

[Nick01]

Jason, on the one hand, you say the Lord is not leading you to fight people on this issue. On the other hand, you have come back into this thread to argue for the kind of arguments in Riplinger's book, you make comments about what a "true man of God" should be able to observe in comparisons of Bible versions, and that a true man of God would see that modern translations are changing God's word, while the KJV is the real deal (and the only truly really deal in English). When you start making assertions about what true men (or women, for that matter) of God should and should not be able to do, I think, and I say this with all honesty and gentleness, you have swung a blow, no matter how well-meaning and non-combative your expression is.

If your position was merely "I think the KJV is the best translation of God's word, I don't like the other ones, I generally only read KJV", I don't have a problem with that. It's not going to make or break you whether you read the KJV or ESV. You are entitled to your own tastes.

It's when people make the same argument on the basis that modern translations are corrupted, and/or the texts they are based upon are corrupted, and that people are being deliberately misleading about those supposed 'facts' that I have an issue. Riplinger's book went beyond that, by openly, repeatedly, and maliciously attacking modern translations on the basis that they, the translators, the publishers, etc, are deliberately setting out to create a paganised New Age Christianity in order to bring about a one world religion, through misrepresentation and wild speculation. Those are incredibly inflammatory positions to base your book around.

Let's be clear, Jason, you haven't made those arguments yourself (to your immense credit ), but frankly, you'd be better off not defending the book at all, because most of Riplinger's most critical comparisons are tainted and driven by her ideology more than the texts. Very few, if any, of the comparisons she makes are at all reasonable if you actually look at your Bible instead of her charts. If you want, or if anyone else cares enough to explore the issue, I'm more than happy to illustrate with specific reference to comparisons she makes.

 

[Reformedjason]

most people what to say " if it is different than the kjv it must be changed". The kjv is not the starting point , if the new versions are different than the kjv , don't think it is changed. Look why it is different. the textual basis is different because we have more mss. modern translations are not changed but more accurate

 

[Jason0047]

Jason, on the one hand, you say the Lord is not leading you to fight people on this issue. On the other hand, you have come back into this thread to argue for the kind of arguments in Riplinger's book, you make comments about what a "true man of God" should be able to observe in comparisons of Bible versions, and that a true man of God would see that modern translations are changing God's word, while the KJV is the real deal (and the only truly really deal in English). When you start making assertions about what true men (or women, for that matter) of God should and should not be able to do, I think, and I say this with all honesty and gentleness, you have swung a blow, no matter how well-meaning and non-combative your expression is.

If your position was merely "I think the KJV is the best translation of God's word, I don't like the other ones, I generally only read KJV", I don't have a problem with that. It's not going to make or break you whether you read the KJV or ESV. You are entitled to your own tastes.

It's when people make the same argument on the basis that modern translations are corrupted, and/or the texts they are based upon are corrupted, and that people are being deliberately misleading about those supposed 'facts' that I have an issue. Riplinger's book went beyond that, by openly, repeatedly, and maliciously attacking modern translations on the basis that they, the translators, the publishers, etc, are deliberately setting out to create a paganised New Age Christianity in order to bring about a one world religion, through misrepresentation and wild speculation. Those are incredibly inflammatory positions to base your book around.

Let's be clear, Jason, you haven't made those arguments yourself (to your immense credit ), but frankly, you'd be better off not defending the book at all, because most of Riplinger's most critical comparisons are tainted and driven by her ideology more than the texts. Very few, if any, of the comparisons she makes are at all reasonable if you actually look at your Bible instead of her charts. If you want, or if anyone else cares enough to explore the issue, I'm more than happy to illustrate with specific reference to comparisons she makes.

The only way you are going to truly know the KJV is the Word of God is if you ask the Lord to show you if it is the Word of God or not over and over (Until He shows you). Besides, that, if you are fishing to attack it, and be negative against it, then it is useless to to convince others who believe the KJV is the true Word that was revealed to them by the Spirit and various observable evidences. I honestly do not know what you intend to accomplish in getting someone by not having a final word of authority? Do you want to push people away from the Word of God? Would not your time be more constructive in just telling people to believe God's Word? For example: If someone told me the ESV was the perfect Word of God, I might point out certain verses to them showing them that is not so, but I would tell them to still trust that God did preserve His Word, though. If they didn't see it, I would move on and let them figure that out with God. For if they are a true believer, the Spirit will guide them into all truth and show them what is true or false in various passages. So just because I believe the KJV is divinely inspired doesn't mean I have to convince you of that fact. I believe what I believe because of my own walk and life experiences with God.

 

[Nick01]

The only way you are going to truly know the KJV is the Word of God is if you ask the Lord to show you if it is the Word of God or not over and over (Until He shows you). Besides, that, if you are fishing to attack it, and be negative against it, then it is useless to to convince others who believe the KJV is the true Word that was revealed to them by the Spirit and various observable evidences. I honestly do not know what you intend to accomplish in getting someone by not having a final word of authority? Do you want to push people away from the Word of God? Would not your time be more constructive in just telling people to believe God's Word? For example: If someone told me the ESV was the perfect Word of God, I might point out certain verses to them showing them that is not so, but I would tell them to still trust that God did preserve His Word, though. If they didn't see it, I would move on and let them figure that out with God. For if they are a true believer, the Spirit will guide them into all truth and show them what is true or false in various passages. So just because I believe the KJV is divinely inspired doesn't mean I have to convince you of that fact. I believe what I believe because of my own walk and life experiences with God.

Jason, I've said it many times in various threads, many of which you've been involved in, but I'll say it again - THE KJV IS GOD'S WORD. I am not looking to try and convince people they cannot trust the KJV. I am not looking to stop people reading the KJV if they so desire. What I am trying to do is deal with people who want to try and convince others that what they are reading is not true, or reliable, or is outright blasphemy and perversion, as Riplinger argues. Indeed, this thread, and others like it, are EXPLICLTY formed around the idea that translations other than the KJV cannot be trusted, and in actual fact are actively seeking to corrupt the faith. What you have mistakenly accused me of is precisely what many KJV only people do, and which many have done in this thread.

Let me just point you back to something you yourself posted earlier in this thread:

. The man of God who trusts in every word of God can see the comparisons she [Riplinger] makes [between the KJV and modern translations] and see that the changes are not for the better, but for the worse. The man of God can see a pattern taking place. An elimination and subtle change to God's Word. That is the purpose of the book.

Jason, I don't know if this is what you intend, or if you realise you are doing it, but what you do in sentences like these is you begin to, as you say in your own words, "push people away from the Word of God" People who use translations like the NIV, ESV, HCSB, NET, etc, find salvation in Christ through these translations of the word, and live godly lives in the light of them. When you start saying that what a "man of God" should or should not discover about their translations in comparison to the translation you happen to use and love, it is YOU who is on the offensive.

If you wish to retract those words, then by all means do so. If you did not mean them, then I am happy to stop badgering you over it, and we can leave the discussion there.

But frankly, when you accuse me of 'pushing people away from God's word', you don't have a leg to stand on when you do the same thing in reverse.

If you still stand by your earlier words, then I can only assume your real interest is not (or not only) whether or not people have faith in what they decide in God's word, but your interest is in what is true. In which case, your most recent post is irrelevant to the discussion.

On a side note, I spent quite a bit of time years back pondering, praying, asking whether or not God wanted me to read a particular version, whether I should read the KJV (which I have had many people tell me is the only one worth reading), whether or not I should read another. My conclusion was that at the end of the day, the most important thing is what the prophets and apostles really wrote and said. Every matter of salvation and doctrine is identical across almost all translations, therefore God wants people to read his in whatever version it might be found.

 

[Jason0047]

Well, it is highly unusual to debate against me in believing the KJV as the perfect Word and then say you are for it. I am glad you think the KJV is the Word of God; But while I think other translations can lead people to the Lord and be helpful in understanding many things, they are not perfect. Many of them have problems within them. So I cannot think all versions are the perfect infallible Word of God. There can only be one perfect Word. But if you believe we do not have a perfect Word, then how can you stand if the foundations be destroyed? In other words, we come to saving faith in the fact that we believe God's Word. For if you cannot trust some words, then how can you trust others? Is it just pick and choose which words you want to follow or not (And make your own Bible)? That's my point. But like I said, if a person has a hard time understanding the KJV, I am not going to force feed them it. It takes time to study and to learn these things on their own. It takes time for a person to seek the Scriptures and talk to the Lord if there is a perfect Word of God. Sometimes it is not an immediate answer over night for some. It takes continual seeking with the Lord.

 

[Jason0047]

Anyways, lets allow the matter to rest for a while. I am not interested in debating the KJV vs. Modern Translations at this time in my life. So let's love each other as brothers and move on.