Some Words About the Following Information:
The following materials represent our best effort to convert what was originally a
printed booklet into html format so that this information, so often sought by people
throughout the land, and in fact, the world, can be more readily available. The booklet, New
Age Bible Versions Refuted, was, at last printing, 54 pages long. It grew out of
the debate notes I took to radio station KRDS in 1993. It went through many revisions as
new information was added. This html file contains information that is not to be found in
the booklet, mainly regarding "Dr." Riplinger's most recent escapades. Since the
article "grew" over time, you will be able to see my growing amazement at the
attitudes and beliefs of Mrs. Riplinger as I uncover more and more incredible information
about her book and her claims.
You will note sections marked "sidebar." These were originally sidebars in
the printed version, and are at times relevant to the discussion taking place around them.
We have set them apart through the use of graphics and headers.
Why Respond to Gail Riplinger?
Over the past few months I have been amazed at what has transpired with
reference to Mrs. Gail Riplinger and her 1993 book, New Age Bible Versions.
Ever since I "debated" Mrs. Riplinger in November of 1993 on two, one-half-hour
long radio programs, I have been inundated with requests from churches, Christian
bookstores, and individuals all across the United States, all seeking the same thing:
information on New Age Bible Versions (hereafter NABV).
It is important to emphasize right from the start that I have no
personal animosity toward Mrs. Gail Riplinger. I have only spoken with the lady by phone
while on KRDS radio in Phoenix in late 1993. Other than sending her a letter and some
materials from our ministry, this is the extent of my personal contact with her. I am sure
Mrs. Riplinger believes she is doing the right thing in writing NABV. She most
probably believes everything she says to be absolutely true. She may well be sincere in
her desire to warn the Church about false beliefs. But, sadly, she is also sincerely, and
almost completely, wrong.
NABV has disturbed the peace of many churches in the
United States and abroad. The allegations the book makes against Christian men of many
denominational backgrounds are serious indeed. The back of the book contains this
Each page opens a door exposing new version editors - in agreement with
Luciferians, occultists, and New Age philosophy - in mental institutions, seance parlors,
prison cells, and court rooms for heresy trials - and most shocking of all - denying that
salvation is through faith in Jesus Christ. Five have lost their ability to speak.
The following information demonstrates beyond question that Mrs.
Riplinger's information is fatally flawed and utterly untrustworthy. And yet many people
are accepting her statements at face value. Critical thinking seems to be "old
fashioned" among many Christians today.
This booklet is made up of articles, faxes, and letters that I have
written over the past few months since my debate with Mrs. Riplinger in late 1993. It is
in no way an exhaustive response to the 690 pages of NABV. There simply is no need
to take the time to do a page-by-page rebuttal of this book. Why? Because once it is
demonstrated that there is a consistent pattern of simple error that flows throughout NABV,
we might as well move on and give our time to more important pursuits.
The first article presented contains the story of my radio
"debate" with Mrs. Riplinger. It includes the notes I wrote in preparation for
the program, as well as a recounting of the program itself. I have gone through the notes
and added charts and further explanations so as to make the material more appropriate for
the published domain. The next section includes the body of a fax I sent to the producers
of a television program in Florida, written in response to the comments made by Mrs.
Riplinger on the Action 60's program. This material is followed by responses
to various radio appearances by Mrs. Riplinger.
It is truly my hope that many in the body of Christ will be helped by
the following information. The KJV Only controversy is, in reality, a non-issue when
compared with the serious challenges that face the Christian Church today. That so much
time and effort has to be put into debunking the wild allegations of such individuals as
Gail Riplinger is more of an indication of how easily American Christianity is distracted
from its true purpose than anything else.
Guess What Happened on the Way Home....
One of our faithful volunteers called one afternoon to let me know about
"some lady" who would be on a local radio talk program presenting the KJV Only
viewpoint. I was just heading out, so I turned on the radio on the way home. I was utterly
amazed at what I heard. Not only was the information I heard badly flawed, but no one was
calling in to respond to her position. Everyone was simply buying into it. By the time I
arrived home it was impossible to call into the program, but I did wish to speak to the
host of the program to see if there would be any possibility of providing a response to
what had been said.
This led to two, half-hour programs on a Tuesday and Wednesday
afternoon. The host informed me that his guest, Gail Riplinger, author of the book New
Age Bible Versions, would not debate anyone who had not read her book. Hence, I
needed to read her nearly 700 page book prior to doing any programs. As I knew that this
teaching had destroyed many churches in the past, I set aside a number of projects and
dove into the book in the days immediately prior to the programs.
Below I provide the text of the notes I took with me into the radio
studio the first afternoon. Upon completing these notes, I shall review Mrs. Riplinger's
response from the radio program.
The issues raised by Gail Riplinger are very important, if only for the
fact that in this book professing Christian men who lived godly lives are attacked
mercilessly and are associated with men who were anything but godly or concerned about
Christian truth. Orthodox Christian theologians are indiscriminately associated with
heretics without any thought as to the consistency of such an action. Since we have in
this book serious allegations of downright Satanic actions on the part of Christian
leaders, I feel Mrs. Riplinger should be held to the highest standards of scholarly acumen
Gail Riplinger claims that her book "objectively and methodically
documents the hidden alliance between new versions and the New Age Movement's One World
Religion." However, an even semiunbiased review of Mrs. Riplinger's book reveals
that this book is neither methodical, nor objective, in any way, shape or form.
Now we need to remember that New Age Bible Versions is not
a nice book. It plainly and obviously identifies anyone who was involved in the production
of modern Bible versions, or who would dare to defend translations such as the New
American Standard Bible or the New International Version, as not just
nonChristians, but as antiChristians who are opposed to God's work in this world and
who actually want everyone to worship Lucifer. Anyone who opposes Gail Riplinger's unique
view of the world and theology is, in fact, a New Ager in sheep's clothing. A quick review
of her book bears this out. She alleges that these new versions prepare the apostate
church of these last days to accept the Antichrist, his mark, his image, and religion¾Lucifer worship. She describes the historic
Reformed doctrine of regeneration, a doctrine taught by Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli,
Martin Bucer, John Calvin, the crafters of the Westminster Confession of Faith, the
Puritans, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, B. B. Warfield, J.I. Packer and R.C. Sproul, as a
"scandalous and sacrilegious" belief that "will stun and shock the
reader" (NABV, p. 231). Riplinger connects Christian men such as Edwin Palmer
with everyone from Blavatsky to Hitler to Charlie Manson! All are in one boat according to
New Age Bible Versions. No opportunity is missed to insult, attack, and
degrade those who would dare oppose Mrs. Riplinger's position. In light of this, I hope no
one will take too much offense at my less than sparkling review of Gail's book.
I note in passing that this book centers on the two most popular conservative
Bible translations, the New American Standard Bible and the New International
Version. Very little is said about blatantly liberal translations such as the New
Revised Standard Version or the New English Bible, most probably because these
translations have had little impact upon the conservative Christian community,
comparatively speaking. I would join Gail in critiquing these translations, not as part of
some New Age conspiracy, but as less than accurate translations of the Bible. But Gail
barely mentions these versions; her target is plainly the NIV and the NASB.
As an apologist working on the front lines in dealing with the claims of
the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society,
and in debating Roman Catholic apologists all across the United States, I have only once
or twice encountered a work that contained more misrepresentation of historical facts, of
cited sources of documentation, and of the writings of those who are being reviewed. New
Age Bible Versions shows not the slightest concern for accurately representing its
opposition. Context is a term that is utterly lost in the maze of disconnected, disjointed
citations thrown at the reader on almost every page. Utterly illogical argumentation
carries the day in Gail's attempt to find a New Age conspiracy behind every bush. Even the
deity of Christ is undermined so as to maintain the supposed inerrancy of a translation,
that being the KJV (see below). And worst of all, Gail Riplinger attacks the memories and
characters of good men of God, such as Edwin Palmer, without once differentiating between
the beliefs and actions of such men and the likes of New Age wackos and Satanists. She
misrepresents their writings and words over and over and over again. Accurate
representation of others is one thing that is utterly lacking in New Age Bible
Those are some pretty harsh words, but the documentation of these
statements is easily found. All one has to do is take Gail Riplinger's book, New Age
Bible Versions, and then take the time to find such books as Barker's The
NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation, Palmer's The Person and
Ministry of the Holy Spirit, and John Kohlenberger's Words About the Word,
and examine the references provided at the end of the book. The number of complete
miscitations and altered quotations will quickly prove the correctness of my statements.
Given the small amount of time we have today, I will only be able to provide a few
examples, but I could literally expand the list indefinitely.
First, one simply cannot believe the "facts" that are
presented in this book, for quite often, they are not facts at all. There are dozens and
dozens of charts throughout the book, allegedly comparing the KJV with the supposed
"New Versions," which she calls "mutant versions" (p. 129). Yet, over
and over again these charts are simply wrong. On page 22 we are told that the "New
Versions" delete the call to take up the cross, when they do not. We are told that
while the KJV tells us to bless our enemies, the new versions tell us to call our enemies
bastards, which, of course, they do not.
At times the facts are 180 degrees opposite of what is claimed by Gail
Riplinger. For example, on page 99 we read, "All new versions, based on a tiny
percentage of corrupt Greek manuscripts, make the fatefully frightening addition of three
words in Revelation 14:1." She then quotes the passage from the NIV, which reads,
"...the Lamb, standing on Mount Zion, and with him 144,000 who had his name and
his Father's name written on their foreheads." The phrase "his name and" is
not found in the KJV. She continues on page 100, "Will the unwary, reading Revelation
14:1 in a recent version, be persuaded that the bible sanctions and encourages the taking
of 'his name' on their forehead before they receive his Father's name?" Such
sounds truly ominous, until one discovers that in point of fact it is the Textus
Receptus, the Greek Text of the New Testament utilized by the KJV translators, that alone
does not contain the disputed phrase, "his name." The Majority Text
contains it, as do all the Greek texts. We have here merely a mistake on the part, most
probably, of Desiderius Erasmus, the Roman Catholic priest who collated what became the Textus
Receptus. He had major problems in producing the text of Revelation and merely skipped
over the phrase referring to the Lamb's name. Sadly, someone reading New Age Bible
Versions could be led to attack the NIV on the basis of a basic mistake.
The modern versions are unashamedly misrepresented in place after place
by the convenient use of punctuation. While attempting to argue that new versions teach us
to believe in monism through the use of the term "one," the NASB is cited as
follows, "True knowledge according to the image of the One..." on page 92. The
reference given is Colossians 3:10, which reads in full from the NASB: "And have put
on the new self who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One
who created him¾a renewal in
which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised,
barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all."
The arguments put forward in this book at times border on the ludicrous.
The chart found on page 26 should fascinate anyone seeking logical thinking. On page 232
we are warned against the letter "s." Riplinger writes, "Watch out for the
letter 's' ¾ sin, Satan, Sodom,
Saul (had to be changed to Paul). The added 's' here is the hiss of the serpent."
Such argumentation would lead us to abandon such terms as salvation, Savior, and
sanctification as well! Indeed, on page 174 our author recommends the KJV's use of the
term "sober" over other translations, possibly missing the "hiss" of
that "s" on "sober." I, as a Reformed theologian, was certainly amazed
to discover that, according to Mrs. Riplinger, the "Five Points" of Calvinism
form a Satanic pentagram (p. 231)! And everyone should surely take heed to Mrs.
Riplinger's use of "acrostic algebra" on page 149. Here, in a passage
reminiscent of the identifications of Henry Kissinger as the antiChrist two decades ago,
Mrs. Riplinger demonstrates how the abbreviations for the New American Standard Version
and the New International Version add up to the word "sin" when the Authorized
Version is taken away. Not only is such argumentation utterly without merit, but it is
interesting to note that throughout the rest of the book Mrs. Riplinger abbreviates the New
American Standard Bible as NASB, but solely for the purpose of this trip into
"acrostic algebra," she changes to the NASV, an abbreviation used nowhere else
in the book. Indeed, over and over and over again the arguments that are put forward could
easily be turned around and used against the KJV and Mrs. Riplinger's position. The use of
such argumentation should warn the reader that all is not well in New Age Bible
Gail Riplinger's Acrostic Algebra!
|Step 1 :
||(NASV - NIV) - AV = X
|NI V) - AV = X
||(ASI + NV) - AV = X
|ASI + N V - AV = X
||SIN = X
"Acrostic algebra reveals
the ashy residue on which the NIV and NASV rest. When you shake down the 'Lite'
and the...(NIV), you find some heresies which are common to both (like their common
letters 'N' and 'V', as shown in Step 2)"
Double standards are rampant throughout the book. Shortly after
attacking all modern versions for daring to use the term "one" in their
translations, she fails to attack the KJV for using it in her own citation of it on page
93. When the modern versions do not follow the KJV in rendering the Greek term Artemido" as Diana, she accuses them of
being ignorant of classical mythology on page 127; but when they recognize similar gods in
Old Testament passages, she accuses them of rejecting the one true God in favor of false
And in what would probably be one of the most amusing examples of double
standards, if it were not so sad, Gail Riplinger attacks all who are Reformed, or
"Calvinists," in many places, as I shall discuss and refute later. But in the
process she seems to be blissfully unaware of the simple fact that amongst the KJV
translators you have the likes of Doctor John Rainolds, a Puritan! And surely Mrs.
Riplinger must be aware of the theological beliefs of the Puritans! They were Reformed
men, Calvinists, who strongly believed in God's sovereignty and the deadness of man in
sin. If Edwin Palmer's Calvinistic beliefs make the NIV one of Satan's tricks, what about
It seems that as long as someone had anything at all to do with the
production of the NIV, it is fair game to not only impugn their character, but to
misrepresent their words. For example, on page 89 of New Age Bible Versions,
we read the following, "Even NIV translator Larry Walker applauds the rejection of
the Hebrew Old Testament for the Ugaritic wherein the gods of pantheism
preside." The reference given is to Walker's article, again in The NIV: The
Making of a Contemporary Translation, specifically pages 101102. Yet, one will
search in vain throughout the article for the slightest reference to a rejection of the
Hebrew Old Testament in favor of anything else at all. The citation simply has nothing to
do with the allegation that is made.
On page 165 we have another personal attack upon an NIV translator,
Herbert Wolf, for his defense of the very logical, scholarly translation of the Hebrew
"zedekah" in poetic contexts by the term "prosperity." Ignoring the
very solid, reasonable defense given by Wolf, Riplinger chooses instead to play games with
the man's name, writing, "Perhaps the armour and breastplate of 'righteousness does
not fit' Mr. Wolf and his pack because they are puffed up and paunchy, because they have
devoured souls (Ezekiel 22:25)." She goes on to say, "Paul said that those, like
Wolf, who teach that 'gain is godliness' are 'destitute of the truth.' Equating financial
prosperity with spirituality is a common characteristic of the 'New' Christianity and the
New Age." Of course, anyone can see that Wolf said nothing at all about equating
prosperity and spirituality; this is mere fantasy on Riplinger's part. Yet the book is
filled from cover to cover with such misrepresentation and wild imagination.
Mrs. Riplinger moves on to attack another NIV translator, Richard
Longenecker. On page 345, after saying that the NIV "joins the cults," she
massacres a quote from Longenecker, again from the book, The NIV: The Making of a
Contemporary Translation. She introduces Longenecker's quotation as follows:
"To Longnecker (sic), Jesus was 'chosen' to receive the title 'Son of God' because he
earned it through 'obedience.' He says, that Jesus, [then quoting] ...exemplified in his
life an unparalleled obedience...[H]e has the greatest right to the title...God's son par
excellence." A quick glance at page 125 of the original source reveals yet once
again that Gail Riplinger has misrepresented yet another Christian scholar. Longenecker
says nothing of the kind, and in fact gives a very solid, orthodox, Biblically based
discussion of the Sonship of Jesus Christ. In light of this it is amazing to read again on
page 345 that Riplinger says, "Both Longnecker (sic) and Carlson (sic)
are expressing a view similar to that held by the early Adoptionists, Dynamic Monarchists
or Ebionites." Not only is this utterly untrue of what Longenecker said in the cited
passage, but it is equally untrue of the other person she mentions, D. A. Carson. Neither
Now, it is possible that all these misrepresentations are due to
horrifically poor research on Gail Riplinger's part. For example, she misspells the names
of both Longenecker and Carson on page 345, even though ostensibly quoting from their
books while accusing them of being cultists. On the previous page she misspells the term
"Mormon" as well; indeed, every time it appears in the book it is spelled
incorrectly. Possibly she simply read other people's books and then got all her bad
information from those secondary sources. Who knows? All I know is that the book is one
long misrepresentation from the preface to the index.
Edwin Palmer wrote an article comparing the KJV and the NIV that appears
in the book, The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation. On page 153
he addresses 1 Peter 2:9 which, in the KJV refers to a "peculiar people." He
wrote, "Today that means 'odd people.' It should be, 'a people belonging to God.'
(NIV)." Edwin Palmer believed strongly that God's people are a special people, a
people chosen by God Himself and set apart by their holiness. Yet on page 170, Gail
Riplinger, under the title "The Country Club or the Cross," writes, "A
lifestyle driven by verses not vogue, will brand one as 'peculiar' (NERD, in the
vernacular). Unwilling to bear 'his reproach,' the NIV's Edwin Palmer pushes the 'peculiar
people' of Titus 2:14 and 1 Peter 2:9 into the closet¾already crowded with the 'righteous' and 'the perfect.' Palmer writes, '...a
peculiar people. Today that means odd. It should be...' " She goes on to say,
"It meant odd when Peter and Paul wrote it and when Moses wrote it 4000 years
earlier." In reality, the term has nothing at all to do with "odd" or
"peculiar" as we use it today. In point of fact, the Greek term found in 1 Peter
2:9 is also found in Ephesians 1:14, where the KJV translates it as
"possession"! That Riplinger can say that a Christian minister was unwilling to
bear the reproach of Christ for more accurately understanding the Greek term peripoihvsi" than she does is absolutely
It is Palmer himself, the editor of the NIV Study Bible until his
death in 1980, who comes in for the most obvious personal attack on the part of Riplinger.
I can see no other conclusions, having examined Riplinger's attacks upon Palmer, than
either she is grossly dishonest in her methods or is completely ignorant of the writings
of Edwin Palmer and what he actually believed. I can see no other possibilities. For
example, on page 344 she attempts to parallel Palmer's quotation, "The Holy Spirit
did not beget the Son" with a quotation from Brigham Young from the Journal of
Discourses. Of course, Palmer, in the context in which he was speaking, was
exactly right, since he was speaking of the internal operations of the Trinity. Young, on
the other hand, was denying the Christian doctrine of the Virgin Birth. One might
conjecture that Riplinger has never read either Palmer's statements, or those of Brigham
Young, and hence did not know that she was mixing contexts so badly. In either case, her
point is utterly false.
The same is to be said of her citation of Palmer's words with regards to
the deity of Christ. On page 2 she quotes Palmer in the following form: "[F]ew clear
and decisive texts say that Jesus is God." This is taken as sure evidence of Palmer's
supposed heresy. Yet, is this accurate? No, yet once again context has been thrown out the
window. Palmer is actually talking about the rendering of John 1:18 in the NIV. His words
are, "John 1:18, as inspired by the Holy Spirit, is one of those few and clear and
decisive texts that declare that Jesus is God. But, without fault of its own, the KJV,
following inferior manuscripts, altered what the Holy Spirit said through John, calling
Jesus 'Son.' " My what a difference context makes! And Palmer is exactly right. There
are less than ten places in all the New Testament that could possibly apply the term Qeov" to Jesus Christ; if that is not
"few" then what is?
In passing, I wish to note that Riplinger even misleads her readers
regarding the deity of Christ in an effort to maintain the accuracy of the KJV. I am
referring to two important passages, Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1. The NIV translates Titus
2:13, "While we wait for the blessed hope¾the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ." and 2
Peter 1:1 says, "To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus
Christ have received a faith as precious as ours." In both cases the KJV interrupts
the proper translation, splitting up the terms "God" and "Savior,"
resulting in the phraseology, "our God and our Savior, Jesus Christ," as if two
persons, God the Father, and Jesus Christ the Savior, are being referred to, when this is
not the case. Now, on page 370, with reference to Titus 2:13, Riplinger says, "All
Greek texts have the wording of the KJV, 'God and our Savior Jesus Christ.' None render it
as the new versions do." And on page 371 she wrote, "2 Thessalonians 1:12, Titus
2:13, and 2 Peter 1:1 are called hendiadies, from the Greek hen dia dyoin,
'one by two.' Grammatically it is the 'expression of an idea by two nouns connected by and,
instead of by a noun and an adjunct. It would be like introducing one's spouse as 'my wife
and best friend.' ' " In reality, the reason that the NIV and NASB (and I might add
the NKJV) and others accurately translate these passages as "our God and Savior Jesus
Christ" is due to what is known as Granville Sharp's Rule. Without going into detail,
the KJV translators were not aware of this grammatical feature of koine Greek, and hence
did not translate these passages accurately. The Jehovah's Witnesses mistranslate these
passages purposefully, of course, for obvious reasons. Now, if I were looking for
conspiracies, I'd have to identify Gail as a secret Jehovah's Witness trying to infiltrate
the Church. Of course, I know that is not the case and would never make such an argument,
yet this is the kind of argument presented throughout her book.
On at least three different occasions our author attacks Palmer's belief
in the sovereignty of God in saving mankind. Twice she miscites his words, first on page
2, then again in the exact same form on page 231. Here is her quote from the very
beginning of her book on page 2: "The NIV's chief editor vaunts his version's heresy
saying: 'This [his NIV] shows the great error that is so prevalent today in some orthodox
Protestant circles, namely the error that regeneration depends upon faith...and that in
order to be born again man must first accept Jesus as Savior.' " Now, I agree
wholeheartedly with Dr. Palmer. Men must be made new creatures by the Holy Spirit of God
before they can have true, saving faith. Romans 8:59 teaches this with glaring clarity
in any translation. And it was, in fact, this belief in salvation by
grace - free, unmerited grace - that spawned the Reformation itself. It is Gail Riplinger
who here denies the Protestant heritage. But even in doing this she misrepresents Palmer
yet once again! Riplinger says that Palmer is talking about the NIV. He is not! The NIV is
nowhere mentioned on page 83 of the book being cited. Hence, her whole point is based upon
the insertion of the little phrase "his NIV" where it does not belong! Anyone
who would read Palmer's work would shake their head in disbelief at the complete misuse of
his words by Riplinger.
Gail's Pelagianism comes out in yet another misrepresentation of Palmer
on page 90. She writes, "His denial of free will is seen in his NIV. He says his
change in 1 Thessalonians 1:4 'suggests the opposite' of the KJV." When you look up
the reference, you read the following, "1 Thessalonians 1:4: 'your election of
God.' In the days of the KJV this was a way of saying 'your election by God.' As it is
today, the KJV suggests the opposite of what the Greek really says. NIV has 'he has chosen
you.' " Notice that Palmer says nothing like what Riplinger says; and, Palmer happens
to be 100% right, as anyone who has examined the passage well knows.
This topic was so important for Riplinger that she addressed it a third
time on page 231. Here she says that the same quotation given above is so "scandalous
and sacrilegious" that it will "stun and shock the reader." One has to
wonder what Gail would say about the following quotation from Martin Luther:
"If any man ascribe ought of his salvation, even the
least part, to the free will of man, he knows nothing of grace, and has not learned Jesus
But beyond this, it is obvious that Gail attacks Palmer's theology, and
by extension, the theology of the Protestant Reformation, on the basis of ignorance of
it's tenets. She asks, "If he denies faith and each individual's responsibility to
accept Jesus as his Savior, what does he offer in its place?" Possibly if Gail would
read Dr. Palmer's book she would discover what he was really saying? I'd be glad to send
her a copy of Dr. Palmer's works, or other books such as R.C. Sproul's Chosen by God
or J.I. Packer's Sovereignty and Evangelism, or my own God's
Sovereign Grace, if she would like to discover what it is that was taught by the
For some, as long as you are reviewing the words of
"the enemy," you can twist, distort, and misrepresent all you jolly well want.
And that's what Gail Riplinger does to men like Edwin Palmer.
On the KRDS radio program, Gail Riplinger repeated her
charge that Edwin Palmer denied the role of the Holy Spirit in the incarnation of Jesus
Christ. While I tried to correct her, I get the feeling that she will continue to tell
people this falsehood. She claims to have read his book. Here's the passage she quotes. Note what Palmer is actually taking about:
There is among the three Persons of the Trinity a
definite relationship and order. Because the three Persons are equally God, it must not be
thought that they are all the same. Each one has distinctive properties and relationships
to the others. Between the first and second Persons, for example, there is the
relationship of Father and Son. From all eternity the Father begat the Son. The Holy
Spirit did not beget the Son, only the Father did.
The context is very plain: he is speaking here of the
eternal relationship of the Father and the Son, and in so doing presents the orthodox,
historical, Biblical understanding of the relationship of the Father and the Son. Gail is
utterly ignoring context to cite this passage in the way she does. What makes the whole
situation worse is that if she has really read this book (I personally doubt that she
has), she would have read the following from the same work, page 65:
I. The Incarnation
The Holy Spirit was needed at the very start of Jesus'
human life, at his incarnation. By the word incarnation we mean that act by which the
Second Person of the Trinity, remaining God, "became flesh and lived for a while
among us" (John 1:14). This was an act effected by the Holy Spirit....The
Holy Spirit is the cause of the conception of Jesus. He is the one, and not the Father
nor the Son, let alone Joseph, who planted the seed of life in a mysterious way in Mary's
So ended the notes that I brought with me to the radio station. I was
able to cover about 25% of the preceding material in the brief time allotted. The vast
majority of the information regarding the gross misrepresentation found in Mrs.
Riplinger's book could not be covered on the program. Instead, I had a grand total of five
minutes to make comments, and then the rest of the first program, approximately 20
minutes, was dedicated to give and take between Gail and myself. She did not attempt to
respond to the documentation of errors on her part that made up my opening statements. I
began by asking about the "acrostic algebra" that I mentioned above. I had never
heard of "acrostic algebra," so I asked Gail what it was, and why it was that
while she consistently used the abbreviation NASB throughout the book, to make her
"algebra" work she switched to the abbreviation NASV. Her response was
tremendously revealing. She first indicated that "the Lord gave that to me one
night." Hence, "acrostic algebra" is a revelation given by God to Gail
Riplinger. Obviously, then, the validity of such an argument cannot possibly be evaluated.
When asked about the switch from the NASB to the NASV, we were told that "the Lord
calls it the NASV."
Mrs. Riplinger then went on to say that the new versions allow for sin
because they do not use the term "fornication." In the process she mentioned
that Dr. Virginia Mollencott was on the NIV Translation Committee, and that she was a
lesbian, and that her beliefs are found right in the NIV. I had never heard of such a
charge, so the next morning I called the International Bible Society and inquired
about this. I discovered that while Virginia Mollencott has indeed confessed to be a
lesbian, Mrs. Riplinger again was busy taking things out of context. First, Mollencott was
not a translator, but a stylist, and that for a massive five months. When
she took stands contrary to Biblical standards, she was removed from the project.
Mrs. Riplinger then launched into her attack and misrepresentation of
Dr. Edwin Palmer, quoting the passage about faith, and then the passage about the Holy
Spirit not begetting the Son. When asked about the context of the statement about the Holy
Spirit in Palmer's book, she could not provide an answer. She seemed very confused about
the internal operations of the Trinity and could not refute the fact that she was mixing
contexts by comparing Palmer's statement with that of Brigham Young. Instead, she dodged
the question and alleged that the NIV "takes out" the phrase "only begotten
Son." I explained that she was in error regarding the meaning of monogenh", and explained the actual
meaning of the term. I then addressed her allegations regarding John 1:18, and at that
point the 30 minute program ended.
To listen right now to this program, click
The next day the program began with a brief discussion (3 minutes each)
on the subject of Greek manuscripts. While I was explaining the format of modern critical
texts, Mrs. Riplinger began to laugh and giggle, why, I can't imagine. Then the phone
calls began. The first caller, Judy, launched into an attack upon me, scolding me for
supposedly having attacked Mrs. Riplinger personally (something I had carefully avoided
the evening before). She was an obvious "ringer," as she had clearly prepared
her comments and had contacted Mrs. Riplinger and possibly others involved with the radio
program. She was given a tremendous amount of time to "preach." This led to a
discussion of Erasmus and his rejection of the Comma Johanneum, 1 John 5:78. At
this point I asked Gail, "Does 1 John 5:78 appear in the Majority Text?" She
absolutely refused to answer the question (the passage does not appear in the
Majority Text). [Note: I later discovered that "Judy" was
Judy Pinalto, a strong KJV Only advocate who had her own radio program on another station.
Pinalto later launched into attacks upon me on her own program, even airing one program
titled "The Public Spanking of James White."
The rest of the program was taken up with Gail's assertion that when the
Bible speaks of God's Word it is actually speaking of the King James Version. She even
went so far as to assert that when the Psalmist said, "Thy word have I hid in my
heart," that he was talking about the KJV, because "you can't hide Greek in your
heart." And all who would study Greek were likened to those Greeks "who seek
after wisdom" as Paul said.
It is truly amazing how this kind of material can infiltrate churches.
It just seems that Christians in this nation feel that there is some fundamental conflict
between logical, rational thinking, and the Christian faith. There isn't. God is true, and
His Word is true, and none of this is contradictory to faith. Faith and reason walk hand
in hand...to a point. As Pascal said, "Reason's last step is the recognition that
there are an infinite number of things which are beyond it. It is merely feeble if it does
not go as far as to realize that."
To listen right now to this second program, click here.
If you wish to obtain the tape of this debate, it is offered through our
ministry. See our catalog for details.
I Saw It On TV, So It MUST Be True....
In February of 1994 Gail Riplinger appeared on the Action 60's
television broadcast, which originated in Florida. She made a number of comments that cry
out for correction.
First, Mrs. Riplinger observed that her students who used Bibles other
than the KJV had emotional and spiritual problems. Personally, I have met people who used
the KJV who had emotional and spiritual problems. Does this reflect upon the translation?
I think not. I believe it has much more to do with whether someone is actively reading
whatever translation they are using and applying God's truth to their lives.
Mrs. Riplinger recounted her desire to show a young lady a verse from
the Psalms about keeping her mind stayed on Christ. She is actually referring to Isaiah
26:3, which in the KJV reads, "Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is
stayed on thee: because he trusteth in thee." She indicates that the phrase "on
thee" to use her words "had been taken out" of the NASB, and she is correct
that the NASB does not translate the Hebrew in the exact same way as the KJV, for it
reads, "The steadfast of mind Thou wilt keep in perfect peace, because he trusts in
Thee." However, both the NASB and KJV translations are perfectly acceptable. Nothing
has been "taken out" at all. Mrs. Riplinger is not able to read either Greek or
Hebrew, and hence could not verify the accuracy of the NASB translation.
She next claimed that the name "Lucifer" had been
"removed" from Isaiah 14, and that the NIV was attempting to make Isaiah 14
refer to Jesus Christ. One can certainly see why people would be upset about something
like this! The problem is that Mrs. Riplinger is seemingly not aware of the fact that the
Hebrew term used here, llyh, does
mean "shining one" or "morning star." The standard lexicon in the
field, Brown Driver and Briggs, states,
llyh n.m. appell. shining
one, epith of king of Babylon, rjvA@B llyh !ymVm Tlpn
&ya Is 14 12 how art thou fallen, shining one, son
of dawn! i.e. star of the morning.
Just because the NIV does not follow Jerome, who introduced the term
"Lucifer" into the text at this point, does not mean that the NIV is attempting
to identify Jesus with Lucifer. Indeed, most scholars believe this passage refers to the
king of Babylon, and is used of the Lord in Luke to refer to Satan.
I next note that Mrs. Riplinger, in citing 1 John 2:22, demonstrated one
of the inconsistencies of her position. She accurately cited the passage as saying,
"Who is a liar, but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ." Yet, if you will
look at her book, New Age Bible Versions, on page 318 she asserts that the
use of the phrase "the Christ" is somehow related to New Age mysticism. If this
is so, doesn't 1 John 2:22 count as well? The fact is that the charts you will find on
pages 318 through 319 demonstrate a translational error not in the NASB or NIV, but in the
KJV, for in every instance but one listed by Mrs. Riplinger, the word "Christ"
(Gr: Cristov") in these
passages has the definite article, and hence is properly translated "the
Christ." The only exception is 2 Corinthians 13:3, and here many modern translations,
such as the NIV and the RSV, do not say "the Christ" at all!
This kind of error is found throughout Mrs. Riplinger's work. One may
well ask, how can someone with the degrees and training listed on the back of Mrs.
Riplinger's book make errors such as this? The answer is to be found in the fact that Mrs.
Riplinger is not a Biblical scholar. Her degrees, her teaching, and her writing, are all
in one area: interior design. Mrs. Riplinger did indeed teach at Kent State, but she did
so in the Home Economics department, teaching classes in interior design. This is why she
can produce charts like those on pages 318319: she is unable to verify her assertions by
reference to the original sources, in this case, the Greek New Testament. Unfortunately,
Mrs. Riplinger has never, to my knowledge, indicated to any host who was interviewing her
that her degrees are not in any way relevant to the assertions she makes regarding the
Biblical text. This does not mean that Mrs. Riplinger's statements are to be
dismissed simply because she is untrained in the field. However, it does speak to why
she can make the elementary errors that she does throughout her book.
Mrs. Riplinger went on to assert that the NIV is "missing"
64,000 words. Again, no words are "missing." Mrs. Riplinger assumes the KJV to
be the standard, and then accuses all other versions of "error" on the basis of
her standard, the KJV. One could easily take the NIV as one's standard and say "The
KJV has 64,000 added words!" Would one wish to allege additions to the Word of God by
the KJV on such a basis? Hardly! And yet this is the logic of Mrs. Riplinger's statements.
Gail then says that the differences between the modern texts and the KJV
are very relevant to doctrine. This is simply not the case. I believe any person
knowledgeable in the area, and even semiunbiased, will agree with the following
statement: A person properly exegeting the Textus Receptus or the Majority Text
or the NestleAland 26th Edition will derive the exact same doctrinal beliefs
from any of these texts. There is simply no "conspiracy" on the part of such
translations as the NIV or NASB to "hide" the deity of Christ or any other
important doctrine of the faith.
Mrs. Riplinger cites Galatians 4:7 as an example of a doctrinally
relevant "change." The KJV reads, "Wherefore thou art no more a servant,
but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ." The NIV reads, "So
you are no longer a slave, but a son; and since you are a son, God has made you also an
heir." The phrase "through Christ" is not found in many of the most ancient
witnesses to the text. The proper question then is, "What did Paul write?" Mrs.
Riplinger seemingly wishes people to think, given her comments about a Hindu, that the
"new versions" deny the centrality of Christ in the role of salvation. Such is
obviously untrue. Note Romans 5:1, 11, in the NIV: "Therefore, since we have been
justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ....Not
only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ,
through whom we have now received reconciliation." If the NIV wishes to hide the role
of Christ, why include these passages? The answer is simple: there is no hidden agenda in
the NIV to make it possible for people to be right with God outside of Jesus Christ. The
issue is completely textual: the evidence suggests that Paul did not originally write
"through Christ" at Galatians 4:7, and hence the modern Greek texts place this
reading in the textual apparatus at the bottom of the page (one would think if they were
trying to "hide" something they would not tell you about the variant reading at
In attempting to turn Edwin Palmer into a heretic, Mrs.
Riplinger attempts to bring his belief in the deity of Christ into question. Here are her
Under the century old spell of the Westcott and Hort
Greek Text, NIV editor Edwin Palmer comes to his chilling theological conclusion:
[There are] few clear and decisive texts that declare
Jesus is God.
Palmer should qualify his statement noting, "In
the new versions, there are few clear and decisive texts that declare Jesus is
God." (p. 305)
Mrs. Riplinger should qualify her statement in light of
what Dr. Palmer actually said:
"John 1:18, as inspired by the Holy Spirit, is one
of those few and clear and decisive texts that declare that Jesus is God. But, without
fault of its own, the KJV, following inferior manuscripts, altered what the Holy Spirit
said through John, calling Jesus 'Son.' " (The NIV: The Making of a
Contemporary Translation, p. 143).
Gail claims to have read Palmer's books. If she has, then
she must know Palmer's strong defense of the deity of Christ. Why then attempt to make her
readers think evil of Palmer? It's easy: guilt by association. If she can make those
involved with the "modern versions" look bad, she has won half the battle. This
is what motivates her attack upon Westcott and Hort as well. Since the majority of her
readers will never take the time to actually read the references she gives, they will be
left with an untrue impression of the men who are behind the modern versions which, of
course, she is attempting to prove are Satanically inspired and designed to lead everyone
into Lucifer worship.
This kind of argument, based as it is upon differing texts underlying
the English translations, can be used against the KJV just as easily. Note 1 John 3:1 in
See how great a love the Father has bestowed upon us,
that we should be called children of God; and such we are. For this reason the
world does not know us, because it did not know Him.
But compare the KJV:
Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon
us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because
it knew him not.
The phrase "and such we are" is missing from the KJV, though
it's textual basis in the Greek manuscripts is overwhelming. If I were to argue as Mrs.
Riplinger, I could say, "See, the KJV is trying to deny that we are in reality the
children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. This is a New Age conspiracy to prepare us for
the AntiChrist." But such would be silly, of course. In point of fact, the reason
for the difference has nothing to do with conspiracies. It has to do with copying Greek by
hand, and the errors we make when we do this. Quite simply, the phrase was dropped from
the manuscripts of the Byzantine textual tradition because of something known as
"homoiteleuton," i.e., "similar endings." You don't even need to be
able to read Greek to see how it happened. I reproduce here the Greek text of the passage:
i;dete potaph.n avga,phn de,dwken h`mi/n o`
path.r( i[na te,kna qeou/ klhqw/men( kai. evsme,nÅ
The phrase that is missing in the KJV comes from the last two words
above, kai. evsme,n
which is translated, "and we are." Now you will note that
the word that immediately precedes this in the Greek ends with the same three letters as
the missing phrase, men. As we
so often do, a scribe long ago, upon writing the word translated "we might be
called," the Greek term klhqw/men, when looking back at the original, skipped to the next occurrence of the last
three letters he had just written, and in the process dropped the phrase kai. evsme,n. No great conspiracies, just
human error. Just as it would be wrong to charge the KJV translators with heresy for their
translation of this passage, so Mrs. Riplinger is in error in her comments about Galatians
Next Mrs. Riplinger accuses the NIV of "taking out" 13 words
from 1 John 4:3, going so far as to say that the NIV translators are "denying that
Jesus is the Christ." The KJV reads,
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is
come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that [spirit] of antichrist, whereof ye have
heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
The NIV reads,
but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not
from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even
now is already in the world.
One can readily see that the only thing "missing" is the
phrase "Christ has come in the flesh," and again, this is because the phrase is
disputed and is placed in the textual apparatus of the Greek text utilized by the NIV
translators. While a good case can be made for the insertion of the phrase (I personally
would favor retaining it), the reasoning for not including it is plain: the phrase appears
immediately before verse 3 in verse 2. Hence in the process of copying the text a scribe
could have easily repeated the phrase, coming as it did right after the name of Jesus.
However one views this, the point is that the NIV immediately before 1 John 4:3 contained
the very words Mrs. Riplinger thinks they are trying to hide! Note the NIV's translation
of 1 John 4:2:
This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every
spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from
If the NIV were trying to "hide" something, why not delete
this reference, too? The answer again is plain: no one is trying to hide anything. No
conspiracies, though one is forced to ask why Mrs. Riplinger fails to bring this vital
point to the attention of the audience! Surely Mrs. Riplinger owes the NIV translators a
great apology for this kind of wild accusation.
Pelagius Lives Again
There seems to be a strong element of anti-Reformed or
anti-Calvinistic feeling among adherents to the KJV Only position, and Mrs. Riplinger is
no exception to the rule. Her book is sprinkled with attacks aimed at those who are
Reformed, though it is painfully obvious that her knowledge of the Reformed position is
very, very shallow. We have noted that she identifies the "Five Points of
Calvinism" as a "Satanic pentagram" (p. 231), and in the midst of using
purposefully insulting and misleading language ("Palmer and his cronies,"
"He admits his purposeful switch saying...", "Palmer's elite 'Elect' and
damned 'depraved' classes") she provides us with the following paragraph:
Palmer's chapter on the 'Elect' elite is reflected in his
translation of 1 Thessalonians 1:4, "he has chosen you." He admits his change
"suggests the opposite of" the KJV's "your election of God." In his
system, God elects a few 'winners'. In Christianity, God calls all sinners, but few elect
to respond. Palmer denies that man should respond, and like psychologist B.F. Skinner,
author of Beyond Freedom and Dignity, Palmer believes, "Man is entirely
passive." He points to his alteration of John 1:13 asserting that it 'proves' man has
no free will.
1) Anyone even slightly familiar with Reformed beliefs
knows that the use of the term "elite" is utterly ridiculous. 2) The translation
of the Greek at 1 Thessalonians 1:4, uJpo; qeou' th;n
ejklogh;n uJmw'n, as "he has chosen you," while dynamic,
is certainly acceptable and completely accurate, both contextually as well as in the
entire spectrum of Paul's theology. 3) What Palmer actually said is that the KJV's
rendering suggests the opposite of what the Greek indicates, and he is correct yet once
again. 4) In "his system," which is called historic Reformed belief, the same
beliefs that ushered in the Reformation, God elects sinners unto Himself in mercy, not
"a few winners." 5) The connection of Palmer's statement that man is passive
(because man is dead in sin: Ephesians 2:1-4) with B.F. Skinner is simply absurd. 6)
Palmer nowhere says he "altered" John 1:13, because, of course, he didn't.
Mrs. Riplinger then said that in the new versions the "Father"
is there but the Lord Jesus Christ is "gone." Anyone with a "new
version" in their hands can see that this is utterly false. Mrs. Riplinger gives a
couple of examples to substantiate her point, but seemingly forgets the many, many places
where both the Father and the Son are clearly presented in any translation.
Her first example was Ephesians 3:14, which in the KJV reads, "For this cause I bow
my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." But the NIV and NASB say,
"For this reason, I bow my knees before the Father." Mrs. Riplinger takes this
as some indication of heresy on the part of the modern versions, but, again, it goes to
the text used in these translations. The phrase "of our Lord Jesus Christ" is
not found in P46
(one of the earliest papyri copies of the Pauline letters), a* A B C P 0150 6 33 81 365 1175 1573 1739 1962 2127,
some lectionaries, 596, manuscripts of the Vulgate, four early translations into other
languages, and by ten of the early Fathers who cite this passage. That is a very
impressive listing of evidence against the originality of the phrase. But this passage
gives us an excellent opportunity of examining Mrs. Riplinger's arguments for consistency.
She wishes us to believe that the "modern versions" are purposefully attempting
to make this acceptable to a Hindu or a Muslim. It should follow, then, that we should not
be able to find the phrase "the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" in the modern
versions, correct? And yet, just a quick glance at the very book from which she draws her
example, Ephesians, tells us a different story. Here I quote from the NASB:
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in
Christ (Eph. 1:3)
And what of Paul's second epistle to the Corinthians?
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort (2 Corinthians 1:3)
The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, He
who is blessed forever, knows that I am not lying (2 Corinthians 11:31)
We again see that Mrs. Riplinger's conspiracy theories fall apart under
the most basic examination. There is no denial of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ, nor the
uniqueness of the Christian gospel, by the modern versions Mrs. Riplinger attacks. And
given her claim to have spent six years exhaustively collating these versions, what excuse
can she offer for not taking note of these passages that utterly destroy her arguments?
At this point Mrs. Riplinger engaged the topic of the deity of Christ.
It is just here that I have trouble with the KJV Only people in a way unlike any other,
for I am actively involved in witnessing to those who deny the deity of Christ on a
regular basis. It is a simple fact, known to any person who is active in evangelizing
Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, that the NIV is the single strongest translation with
reference to the classical passages that demonstrate the deity of Christ. I would include
in the list of these passages the following: John 1:1, 1:18, 8:58, 10:30, and 20:28; Acts
20:28, Romans 9:5, Philippians 2:511, Colossians 1:1617, 2:9, Titus 2:13, and 2 Peter
1:1. It should hardly go without saying that if there is a bias against the deity of
Christ, these passages should show it. In some modern translations we do find problems
here (such as the NRSV). But Mrs. Riplinger has two main targets in her campaign, the
NIV and the NASB, and both outperform the KJV in these passages! Note especially the
inferior translations of the KJV at Romans 9:5, Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1:
Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the
flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. (KJV)
Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the
human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen. (NIV)
Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing
of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ (KJV)
while we wait for the blessed hope¾ the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior,
Jesus Christ, (NIV)
2 Peter 1:1:
Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to
them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and
our Saviour Jesus Christ: (KJV)
Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To
those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a
faith as precious as ours: (NIV)
You will note how very clear the translation of Romans 9:5 is in the NIV
over against the rather ambiguous translation of the KJV; and in both Titus 2:13 and 2
Peter 1:1, the KJV mistranslates what is known as a "Granville Sharp
Construction." The KJV translators can hardly be blamed for this, since the
construction was not identified until the late eighteenth century. If I were into
conspiracies, as Mrs. Riplinger is, I might be tempted to make much of these passages, but
such is neither logical nor right.
As those who watched the program will recall, Gail never mentioned these
passages. She never brings up any facts that would be contrary to her position. Instead,
she focused upon the textual variant at 1 Timothy 3:16, where the KJV reads,
And without controversy great is the mystery of
godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels,
preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
The NIV reads,
Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great:
He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached
among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.
We have already seen that the charge that the NIV or NASB are hiding the
deity of Christ is absurd. Why, then, do they not have "God" here? Again, it is
due to the text. Many ancient witnesses read "He who" rather than
"God." How could the two terms get mixed up? Rather easily, since in the uncial
(all capitals) texts of the New Testament, this passage would have looked like this:
....when it was reading "He who" and this when it was reading
The only difference is between OS and QS. One can easily
see where the problem arose. Now, personally, I prefer the reading "God," and
can argue for it on textual grounds. But the point is that there again is no
"conspiracy," no attempt to do away with the deity of Christ. Indeed, the NIV
indicates the reading "God" in its textual footnotes. Why do this if you are
trying to hide something?
Gail continued her attack upon the modern translations by citing
Ephesians 3:9, which in the KJV contains the phrase "by Jesus Christ." The
modern translations do not have this phrase, again due to the fact that the phrase is
missing from nearly every early witness we have, including P46 a A B C D* G P 33 81 365 1175 1739 2464 2495 and most early translations. Again,
we must ask Mrs. Riplinger: Are not additions just as important as deletions? Are we to
allow indiscriminate additions to the Word? And does she really believe that the modern
translations deny that all things were created by Christ Jesus? If she does, she needs to
read John 1:3 and Colossians 1:1617 in the NIV or NASB.
On the same program Mrs. Riplinger asserted that "99 44/100" of all Greek manuscripts agree with one
another. Surely she must be aware that this is not a word-for-word agreement. No two
handwritten manuscripts of the New Testament agree with each other 100% of the time. Due
to the fact that handwriting introduces common errors into the text, we will find spelling
errors or missing words due to simple copyist error in every manuscript. A more
accurate statement would be that the majority of Greek manuscripts come from what is
called the Byzantine manuscript tradition, and that this tradition differs in some
respects from other manuscript traditions represented by smaller numbers of manuscripts,
such as the Western or the Alexandrian. These issues lead us into the discussion of
textual criticism. The reader will find a large number of works, representing an entire
spectrum of viewpoints, available in the library or bookstore. We would recommend the
following works for the person who wishes to read a number of different perspectives:
The Text of the New Testament by Bruce
Metzger (Oxford, 1968)
The Text of the New Testament by Kurt and
Barbara Aland (Eerdmans, 1987).
These two works, aside from proving that textual critics are lousy at
thinking up original titles for their works, would represent the "main stream"
perspective on textual criticism today. Their viewpoint would be specifically rejected by
KJV Only advocates. However, anyone wishing to truly understand the thinking behind
the textual choices of such modern versions as the NASB or NIV must deal with these
works. However, both are rather technical. Thankfully, there is a simplified text that
presents the same perspective:
Scribes, Scrolls, & Scripture by J.
Harold Greenlee (Eerdmans, 1985)
Greenlee's work is best for those who wish a shorter, less complex
introduction to the practice of textual criticism.
The Identity of the New Testament Text by
Wilbur Pickering (Thomas Nelson, 1980).
This work is cited often and favorably by Mrs. Riplinger in her book,
though I find some inconsistency in this, as Pickering would not defend the Textus
Receptus as inspired. Be that as it may, this book attempts to provide a completely
different alternative to the textual methodology that lies behind the modern Greek texts
such as the Nestle-Aland 26th or the UBS 4th. Most scholars have rejected Pickering's
theories, mainly because of the fact that he utilizes a tremendous amount of statistical
mathematics. Why is this a problem? Basically, human beings living in a difficult world
copying manuscripts under difficult circumstances tend to defy the precise categories of
complex statistical analysis. Furthermore, history plays a large role in the transmission
of the New Testament text, and Pickering's theories cannot give the proper place to the
realities of the historical situation.
The Byzantine Text-Type & New Testament Textual
Criticism by Harry Sturz (Thomas Nelson, 1984).
The late Dr. Sturz provided an important book, in my opinion, that has
been, by and large, ignored by most. He walks a mediating line between the extreme seen in
those who utterly ignore the manuscripts of the Byzantine family, and those who present a
defense of the "Majority Text" who end up minimizing the importance of the other
families, simply due to their smaller numbers. Sturz argues that the Byzantine text type
needs to be given equal weight with the other families.
Finally, I wish to address very briefly Mrs. Riplinger's confident
statements about Westcott and Hort. A few points. 1) Modern Greek texts are not mere
copies of the Westcott and Hort text of 1881. Modern scholars have recognized various
errors in the work of Westcott and Hort, and have modified their views accordingly. 2)
Mrs. Riplinger never once mentions the fact that many of her confident statements about
Westcott and Hort being "spiritualists" are based upon pure speculation on her
part. Note reference 128 on pages 676677. Here Mrs. Riplinger admits that in point of
fact, she is not referring in her statements to B.F. Westcott, the textual critic, but to
W.W. Westcott, a London mortician! She asserts that B.F. Westcott was in fact W.W.
Westcott, and that based upon the statement of B.F. Westcott's son that his father wrote
his "B's" like "W's"! Note the final statement she made: "The
connection between B.F. Westcott and the activities attributed to the possible allonym
W.W. Westcott are speculation on my part." Did Mrs. Riplinger ever note this on Action
60's? Did she ever say "Now, what I'm saying about Westcott and Hort is in
fact merely speculation on my part"? No, she made her assertions directly and without
qualification. What is more amazing is the fact that the very sources Mrs. Riplinger cites
indicate that B.F. Westcott was born in January of 1825; W.W. Westcott was born in
December of 1848. B.F. Westcott died in July of 1901; W.W. Westcott died in June of 1925.
Indeed, the book Mrs. Riplinger cites most often about B.F. Westcott, The Life of
Westcott, was published 22 years before W.W. Westcott died! Furthermore, W.W.
Westcott published his work, Sepher Yetzirah, the Book of Formation in 1911,
a full decade after B.F. Westcott was dead! How she can maintain that B.F. Westcott is
actually W.W. Westcott, I have no idea.
Beware the Sleight of
KJV Only advocates love to fill books with charts of how
things have been "removed" from the Bible, all the time alleging that some
terrible sinister plot it afoot to hide this doctrine or that. Mrs. Riplinger gives us a
great example of this on page 109 of NABV:
The title 'the Virgin' has been applied to the goddesses
of the Canaanites (Astarte and Ashtoreth), the Babylonians (Rhea or Semiramis), the
Egyptians (Isis), the Hindus (Isi, Kanyabava, Trigana), the Romans (mother of Romulus and
Remus), and the Greco-Roman goddesses Ceres, Hestis, Vesta, Diana, Artemis, Demeter, and
Cybele. For this reason, new versions omit Luke 1:28, a phrase which speaks of Mary's
We are then given the following chart:
NIV, NASB, et al
blessed art thou among women
Note that Mrs. Riplinger claims that the reason the
phrase "blessed art thou among women" is specifically because the new versions
are trying to push pagan goddesses upon the Christian Church. Is this the case? Only if
the new version editors are really witless! Look at Luke 1:42 as found in the
In a loud voice she exclaimed: "Blessed are you
among women, and blessed is the child you will bear!"
How did THAT get there? Here in all manuscripts, and all
modern versions, we find the very phrase in question, "Blessed are you among
women." If the modern versions were trying to degrade Mary's unique position, why not
delete this reference, too? Because there is no such conspiracy, and because decisions
about the text are based upon the evidence provided by the manuscripts, not upon
conspiracies. Why would the phrase be inserted at a later date at Luke 1:28? Because of
its presence at Luke 1:42. In both situations Mary is being greeted, first by the angel
and then by Elizabeth. It seemed natural to a scribe long ago to have the words of
Elizabeth come from the mouth of the angel as well.
This kind of misrepresentation of the Biblical text is
common place in KJV Only writings. Beware the sleight of hand!
Furthermore, Mrs. Riplinger likes to utilize "equivocation" in
her arguments; that is, she likes to take one term and use it in a way that suites her
position, even if that usage is utterly out of context. For example, she cites Arthur
Westcott, B.F. Westcott's son, as indicating that his father was a
"Spiritualist." Mrs. Riplinger quickly defines "spiritualist" as one
who has contact with the dead, that is, a necromancer, and on this basis pronounces B.F.
Westcott's activities to be an abomination before God. And yet, the honest person must
ask, "Did Arthur Westcott actually say that his father was a necromancer?" And
the answer, of course, is "no." Here is what Arthur Westcott actually said:
In spite of what he called his "Puritanic
temperament," Westcott always delighted in congenial society. He was essentially
affectionate and enthusiastic in any cause which invited co-operation and served some
useful purpose. He devoted himself with ardour, during his last year at Cambridge, to two
new societies. One of these was the "Ghostlie Guild," and the other the
"Choral Society." The "Ghostlie Guild," which numbered among its
members A. Barry, E.W. Benson, H. Bradshaw, the Hon. A. Gordon, F.J.A. Hort, H. Luard, and
C.B. Scott, was established for the investigation of all supernatural appearances and
effects. Westcott took a leading part in their proceedings, and their inquiry circular was
originally drawn up by him. He also received a number of communications in response.
Outsiders, failing to appreciate the fact that these investigations were in earnest and
only seeking the truth, called them the "Cock and Bull Club."
Arthur Westcott then provides the concluding section of the
"Ghostlie Circular" written up by his father, which explains that the society is
interested in determining whether supernatural events are indeed taking place or not. The
The first object, then, will be the accumulation of an
available body of facts: the use to be made of them must be a subject for future
consideration; but, in any case, the mere collection of trustworthy information will be of
value. And it is manifest that great help in the inquiry may be derived from accounts of
circumstances which have been at any time considered "supernatural," and
afterwards proved to be due to delusions of the mind or senses, or to natural causes
(such, for instance, as the operation of those strange and subtle forces which have been
discovered and imperfectly investigated in recent times); and, in fact, generally, from
any particulars which may throw light indirectly, by analogy or otherwise, on the subjects
with which the present investigation is more expressly concerned.
If the preceding does not strike one as the words of a full-blown
"spiritualist" seeking to get others interested in contacting the dead, you
should hardly be surprised. Obviously, Westcott's interest was that of a Cambridge
scholar, and one might well criticize him more for being a naturalist than for being a New
The above paragraph is followed by the comment made by Arthur Westcott
that is cited by Gail Riplinger. Here are his words:
What happened to this Guild in the end I have not
discovered. My father ceased to interest himself in these matters, not altogether, I
believe, from want of faith in what, for lack of a better name, one must call
Spiritualism, but because he was seriously convinced that such investigations led to no
good (Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, Abridged Edition (London:
1905) p. 76).
It's hard to understand how someone can take this and say that Arthur
Westcott called his father a "spiritualist," let alone how one can then jump
from this use of the term "Spiritualism" to "necromancy," but this is
indeed what Gail Riplinger has done. She asserts that the New Agers themselves trace the
channeling movement back to Westcott and Hort. While one might well question the integrity
of quoting New Agers for historical facts, I find it fascinating that a quick trip to the
library lends no support for Gail's theories. For example, The Encyclopedia of
Parapsychology and Psychical Research by Arthur and Joyce Berger (Paragon House:
New York) contains no references to either B.F. Westcott or F.J.A. Hort, though it has
extensive information on topics relating to the occult, channeling, etc. How could they
have missed the "fathers" of the channeling movement? The Encyclopedia of
the Unexplained (edited by Richard Cavendish, McGraw-Hill) manages to discuss the
Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (a topic Riplinger mentions a number of times in NABV)
with no mention of B.F. Westcott or F.J.A. Hort, either, though it speaks often of W.W.
Westcott, the London mortician that Gail attempts to turn into B.F. Westcott. Again the
"fathers" of the modern channeling movement are left out of this entire work.
How can this be? Possibly the same strange reason explains why Harper's Encyclopedia
of Mystical & Paranormal Experience manages to miss Westcott and Hort as well?
Indeed, the Encyclopedia of Occultism & Parapsychology, in two volumes,
described as "A Compendium of Information on the Occult Sciences, Magic, Demonology,
Superstitions, Spiritism, Mysticism, Metaphysics, Psychical Science, and
Parasychology," while giving full information on the Hermetic Order of the Golden
Dawn (volume 1, pages 677 through 678) and on W.W. Westcott (volume 2, page 1803) somehow
manages to avoid mentioning the "fathers" of the channeling movement, Westcott
and Hort! Hopefully the reader will forgive the slight amount of sarcasm, but the wild
claims of Mrs. Riplinger make it difficult to resist responding in such a manner.
Gail Riplinger appeared with Dr. Joe Chambers on June 4, 1994 on a radio
program in Charlotte, North Carolina. Again Mrs. Riplinger allowed the interviewer to make
reference to her academic credentials without once mentioning the fact that her field of
study is not at all related to the Bible, history, or any type of linguistic or textual
study. Again Mrs. Riplinger brought up Virginia Mollencott, but then, when a caller
brought up the charge of homosexuality that history places against King James I of
England, she was vociferous in her defense of King James. The interviewer rightly pointed
out that James had nothing to do with the translation itself: of course, Virginia
Mollencott's unannounced lesbianism had no impact upon the NIV, either, though Mrs.
Riplinger would inconsistently deny this.
A caller challenged Mrs. Riplinger's statement that all the modern
translations deny the deity of Christ at Philippians 2:511, the famous Carmen Christi.
It was truly amazing to listen to both the host and Mrs. Riplinger attempt, in vain, to
argue that the KJV's translation affirms the deity of Christ while the NIV and NKJV deny
it. Note the passages for yourself:
Phil 2:56 (NKJV) Let this mind be in you which was also
in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal
Phil 2:56 (NIV) Your attitude should be the same as
that of Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God
something to be grasped,
It was painfully clear that neither Mrs. Riplinger, nor the interviewer,
were familiar with the many discussions of this passage. Having utilized this text in
sharing Christ with many Jehovah's Witnesses, I am quite familiar with the superiority of
the rendering of the NIV at this point. The ambiguous translation of the KJV is a
stumbling block in sharing with the JW's; the NIV is crystal clear. Mrs. Riplinger
completely misunderstood both the underlying Greek text as well as the NIV translation. It
was truly a shame, for anyone believing Mrs. Riplinger is thereby deprived of one of the
clearest, best translations of the passage, and is in fact led astray as to the true
meaning of the apostle at this point. This is not the only place where, in the mad drive
to make the KJV "inspired," Mrs. Riplinger and her fellow agitators actually end
up undermining the very belief she is attempting to uphold. Another clear example of this
is seen in Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 (already mentioned).
A number of people who have attempted to get Mrs. Riplinger to
"debate" them have reported that she is declining these offers. However, she did
a program with Al Kresta on WMUZ early in 1994, and Mr. Kresta did a fine job in asking
her direct questions (every single one of which she managed to avoid answering). When my
name was mentioned, Mrs. Riplinger rather angrily informed the audience that I am
"rude and crude" and that I am a "heretic."
NABV does not seem to be going away too quickly, despite
its being denounced by many. Even those who originally showed some support for the book
have backed away from it, with the notable exceptions of such scholarly sources as Texe
Marrs and Jack Chick. Dave Hunt, himself an advocate of the KJV, has written a strong
review of the book in his newsletter, The Berean Call (May, 1994). In the article
we find such statements as,
If New Age Bible Versions (NABV) had both accomplished
its goal and fulfilled it in the way the author stated, NABV would be of great value to
the church. The book, however, not only misses the author's professed marks, it seriously
undermines her credibility and brings her integrity into question.
We've received a half dozen evaluations of NABV from
individuals whose research we respect. Their work, much of it checked against the
difficulttoobtain sources quoted by Riplinger, has complemented our own scrutiny of
Those who have a preference for the KJV, as we do, will
find no encouragement in Riplinger's endeavor. Her writing is driven by a misleading style
and loaded with contrived "evidence." She starts off misrepresenting people and
continues to do so throughout the book.
That is, of course, exactly what I said in my opening remarks on the
KRDS radio program in November of 1993. Anyone taking even the slightest time to review
this book is forced to the same conclusion. Hunt echoes my own sentiments when he writes,
Time and space will not allow for more than a sampling of
the hundreds of mistakes in Riplinger's 690page book. Most of the errors can be chalked
up to incompetence, but there are far too many that seem to be designed to convince the
reader of the author's viewpoint regardless of how lacking the proof might be, or of even
how much evidence exists to the contrary.
And yet Mrs. Riplinger's book continues to sell. One of our volunteers
sent us a copy of an advertisement that appeared in Practical Homeschooling
(Vol. 2, No. 1). One part of the add reads,
* The result of former university professor G. A.
Riplinger's sixyear collation of new Bible versions and their underlying Greek editions.
We have noted that Mrs. Riplinger does not seem to want people to know
she is a woman (we have yet to see her identify herself in advertising situations as Gail
Riplinger: it is always "G.A. Riplinger.") But beyond this, there is the
continued attempt to foster the appearance of scholarship on her part. She is very
careful not to say anything that is absolutely untrue about her credentials. She is indeed
a former university professor. However, as I noted above, her expertise is in interior
design, not history or Biblical studies. She is unable to read Hebrew or Greek, and hence
the claim that she has "collated" the "Greek editions" is almost
With reference to her use of "G.A. Riplinger," the
January/February 1994 The End Times and Victorious Living newsletter contains an
article by Gail about why she wrote NABV. Keeping in mind her claim that God
"gave" her "acrostic algebra," note her own words:
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 directed
hand of God - so much so that I hesitated to even put my name on the book. Consequently, I
used G.A. Riplinger, which signifies to me, God and Riplinger - God as author and
Riplinger as secretary.
The significance of this statement should not be overlooked. When I
first began studying NABV, I was continually faced with making a decision about
Mrs. Riplinger. In the light of the fact that she misrepresents the facts literally
hundreds of times, utilizing grossly dishonest methods of research and citation, what am I
to think of her? Is she purposefully dishonest, or merely so tremendously deceived that
she is willing to lay aside honesty so as to obtain a "higher" goal (the ends
justifying the means)? I came to the conclusion early on that most probably Mrs. Riplinger
is so convinced of the "conspiracy" theories she presents that this drives her
to the lengths of dishonest reporting that we have documented in this response. The
preceding quotation only verifies this conclusion. Mrs. Riplinger, seemingly, cannot
accept correction, since God, in her opinion, is the author of her book, and she is merely
the secretary. This makes the book revelatory in nature, and hence uncorrectable. Things
like acrostic algebra may be silly, but when you think God gave it to you, you don't see
it in the same way as others who would critically examine your statements.
On page 22 of NABV, Mrs. Riplinger
attempts to contrast the KJV with "New Version/New Christianity." In this chart
she alleges that while the KJV calls believers to "take up the cross" the new
versions "OMIT" this call. When I posted this material on a national computer
echo dedicated to the discussion of the KJV Only controversy, a defender of Mrs.
Riplinger's attempted to support her statement. This led to my writing the following
Then Jesus beholding
him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou
hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the
cross, and follow me.
Jesus looked at him
and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have
and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.
Many believers are troubled by
charts such as the one above. At first glance, it would appear that the NIV is somehow
"deleting" or "removing" the phrase "take up the cross" from
Mark 10:21. But is this the case? Is there reason for not including the phrase in Mark
10:21? And is there some bias against the call to take up the cross in the modern
translations, as some KJV Only advocates would have us to believe?
We begin by pointing out that the
NIV and other modern translations do not include this phrase because the Greek texts they
utilized in their work do not contain the words "take up the cross." The text
utilized by the NIV translation committee was the NestleAland text. It is the judgment
of the scholars who compiled this text that the phrase was not a part of the original
Gospel of Mark. We will discuss their reasoning below.
Next, it is important to note that
the phrase "take up the cross" appears four times in the King James Version of
the Bible: Matthew 16:24, Luke 9:23, Mark 8:34 and the disputed passage at Mark 10:21. The
first three all recount the same incident in the teaching ministry of the Lord Jesus. If
there is indeed some "conspiracy" on the part of the modern translations to get
rid of the call to take up the cross, surely they will delete this phrase in these
passages as well, will they not? And yet the modern translations have all three
occurrences in their translations. Note, as an example, Mark 8:34 in the NIV (emphasis
Then he called the crowd to him
along with his disciples and said: "If anyone would come after me, he must deny
himself and take up his cross and follow me."
It is difficult to see how a charge
of "conspiracy" can be made against the modern translations, unless one believes
that theology is based upon how often the Bible repeats a command. That is, if the Bible
says "take up the cross" only three times, rather than four, this somehow makes
the command less important or binding than if it were said four or five times. But surely
we all can see that this kind of thinking is muddled. God's truth is not decided by
counting how many times He says the same thing. When God says "Before me no god was
formed, nor will there be one after me" (Isaiah 43:10, NIV), we do not ask that He
repeat Himself three or four more times before we will accept the great truth of
monotheism, that there is but one true God. In the same way, Scripture records Jesus' call
to take up the cross in three places, and this is sufficient.
Why, then, does the KJV contain the
phrase at Mark 10:21? Again, we note that it is because the Greek text used by the KJV
translators, later called the Textus Receptus, contains the phrase in the Greek. In point
of fact, the majority of Greek texts contain the phrase. So why omit it? Here are the
First, and foremost, the oldest
manuscripts of the New Testament do not contain the phrase. This includes not only the two
manuscripts, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, that are so often vilified by KJV Only advocates,
but many others. Not only this, but entire translations into other languages lack the
When Biblical scholars encounter a
situation like this, they look for a reason as to why a phrase like this would be inserted
into the text. Most often, insertions are made due to the presence of the phrase in a
similar context elsewhere in Scripture, which causes a scribe to place the material in the
copy he is writing due to familiarity with the other passage. For example, in Ephesians
1:2 in the NIV we read,
Grace and peace to you from God our
Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
This phrase found a place early on
in the regular vocabulary of Christians. It was used in the worship of the Church, and
everyone was familiar with it. That familiarity led to a problem with Paul's greeting in
his letter to the Colossians. Here is how the KJV reads at Colossians 1:2:
To the saints and faithful brethren
in Christ which are at Colosse: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the
Lord Jesus Christ.
Yet the NIV reads,
To the holy and faithful brothers in
Christ at Colosse: Grace and peace to you from God our Father.
The final phrase "and the Lord
Jesus Christ" is not found in many of the early manuscripts, but it is found in
others. Why not include it? Because we recognize that this passage has been influenced by
Ephesians 1:2. We find no reason why the phrase would be deleted, but familiarity with the
phraseology of Ephesians 1:2 gives us a good reason why the phrase would be included here.
It is not a matter of trying to slight the Lord Jesus Christ, but one of again asking that
question, "What did the Apostle originally write?"
The same is true in Mark 10:21.
Remember how Mark records the one time the Lord Jesus spoke of taking up the cross in
chapter 8, verse 34:
Then he called the crowd to him
along with his disciples and said: "If anyone would come after me, he must deny
himself and take up his cross and follow me."
Notice that Jesus says that those
who would come after Him must deny themselves and "follow me." When we come to
Mark 10:21, we again find that phrase "follow me." Seemingly an early scribe,
familiar with the phraseology of Mark 8:34 and its use of "follow me," upon
encountering the same thing in Mark 10:21, either mistakenly or even on purpose, inserted
the phrase "take up the cross."
But this is not the only fact that
points to the correctness of not including "take up the cross" at Mark 10:21.
There is another good reason. Mark 10:21 is part of a story that is found in both Matthew
and Luke as well, specifically, in Matthew 19:21 and Luke 18:22. Note that neither Matthew
nor Luke record the phrase "take up the cross" in their gospels at this point:
Jesus said unto him,
If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt
have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me (Matthew 19:21).
Now when Jesus heard
these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and
distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me
The fact that the parallel passages
in Matthew and Luke omit the phrase in all manuscripts further verifies the
propriety of not including it in Mark 10:21. Indeed, those who would charge the modern
texts with "heresy" for not including the later insertion at Mark 10:21 are hard
pressed to explain why they do not make the same charge against both Matthew and Luke!
Nearly all the charts produced by KJV Only advocates suffer from the same kind of
"double standards" seen in this example from Mrs. Riplinger.
It is not joyous to have to engage in the kind of task that requires you
to dwell upon mistakes, errant conclusions, and mis-citations. I would much rather take my
time to speak of the wonders of God's providence in preserving His Word through the
centuries, not in the way the KJV Only folks demand, but in the way He sovereignly
decreed. I would rather speak of the glories of Christ and the wonders of His grace. But
Gail Riplinger, purposefully or not, has disturbed the peace of Christ's Church, and that
for no reason. Her errors must be exposed, and she must be called to cease her troubling
of the saints.
New Age Conspiracy or More
On page 184 of NABV Mrs. Riplinger notes
that while the KJV has the phrase "the Godhead" at Romans 1:20, the NIV and NASB
have "divine nature." She objects to the "modern" rendering found at
Romans 1:20 with the words, "Now 'Christian' and cultic blasphemies bear a strong
The problem here is that not only is Mrs. Riplinger
making connections where none logically exist (the single most common error she makes in
her book and in her speaking), but she is attacking the modern translations for being more
accurate than the King James! The KJV uses the phrase "Godhead" three times,
once at Acts 17:29, once at Romans 1:20, and once at Colossians 2:9. In each case the KJV
is translating a different Greek word by the same English word! This leads to a real
problem when comparing Romans 1:20 and Colossians 2:9. The term at Romans 1:20, qeiothj,
means "divinity" or "divine nature" just as the NASB renders it.
However, the term at Colossians 2:9 is qeothj, which means "deity," i.e., the
state of being God. Colossians 2:9 is one of the plainest affirmations of the deity of
Christ, yet the KJV obscures this by rendering different Greek terms with one English term
that itself communicates poorly. Rather than applauding the modern translations for their
accurate rendering, Mrs. Riplinger, because of her tunnel vision, has to attack them for
being "different" than the KJV!
It is my sincere belief that the preceding information is sufficient to
establish, beyond doubt, the unreliability of Gail Riplinger as a researcher, writer,
theologian, and textual critic. While one could literally fill another hundred pages with
the errors she makes, there simply is no reason to do so. If the preceding does not
establish the point, no amount of information will suffice.
If you see someone in your church with New Age Bible Versions,
do not ignore them. Give them this booklet. Warn them of the problems in the book. Do
something, or before long you will have problems. Sadly, we hear of people
attacking everyone who does not carry the KJV with them into the service, and often, this
includes the Pastor, who does not need that kind of grief at all.
An Open Letter to Mrs. Gail Riplinger
Dear Mrs. Riplinger:
Over the past month I have made a number of efforts to contact you,
including two letters, which have gone unanswered. Individuals involved with the
"Defending the Faith" radio program on KIXL in Austin, Texas, have attempted to
invite you to appear on their radio program to debate your claims in New Age Bible
Versions, but they report that you have not returned any of their phone calls. As
you seem unwilling to engage in open discussion of your book or your claims, I felt an
open letter would be appropriate. I will be enclosing copies of this letter as part of the
information we will be sending to people who request information on your book, along with
my booklet, New Age Bible Versions Refuted.
Over the past few weeks I have been doing research in preparation for
the writing of my new book, The King James Only Controversy. Part of that
research has taken me deeply into your own book (as well as many others), as I wish to
collate as many of the common passages cited by KJV Only advocates as I can, and your book
is surely filled with such passages. As I have checked your citations, however, I have
been appalled by the errors upon errors that I have encountered. Up until this
moment, I was simply marking them in my copy, knowing that someday I will have opportunity
of sharing these things on various radio and television programs. However, the error I
just encountered, coupled with the tremendous misrepresentation I encountered yesterday
with reference to a couple of NIV translators, has caused me to put aside my writing
project for a few moments and write to you to ask you to please do something
about all the falsehoods that fill your book and that are misleading many across the
I am referring specifically to the chart at the bottom of page 289 of NABV.
I reproduce your own statements:
|NIV, NASB, et al.
|My kingdom is not of this realm. (The NASB
concordance pretends the word is enteuthen; all Greek MS say kosma, even
||My kingdom is not of this world.
Mrs. Riplinger, even a brief glance at the Greek text shows your error.
The NASB Concordance is not "pretending" anything, but surely, Ma'am, you are
"pretending" scholarship in your writing. Note the Greek text of John 18:36:
avpekri,qh VIhsou/j( ~H basilei,a h` evmh.
ouvk e;stin evk tou/ ko,smou tou,tou\ eiv evk tou/ ko,smou tou,tou h=n h` basilei,a h`
evmh,( oi` u`phre,tai oi` evmoi. hvgwni,zonto Îa;nÐ( i[na mh. paradoqw/ toi/j
VIoudai,oij\ nu/n de. h` basilei,a h` evmh. ouvk e;stin evnteu/qenÅ
Obviously, you looked only at the beginning of the verse where the NASB
has, "My kingdom is not of this world," just as the KJV. Here the term is
definitely kovsmoj (not
"kosma" as you erroneously put it). However, you attack the NASB for the translation of the final phrase, "My
kingdom is not of this realm." Yet the KJV has "my kingdom is not from
hence." The Greek term is indeed evnteu/qen, just as the NASB Concordance said, and it is the very same term that is found
in the TR and translated by the KJV as "from hence"!
If this kind of error was an isolated instance, one might forgive the
unwarranted attack upon the NASB. But it is the norm, not the exception! Your
inability to check your assertions against the actual text (you may be able to "make
out" a word or two here or there, but there is a vast difference between being able
to read the language and merely recognizing a term once in a while) lead you to error
after error after error, and, most sadly, since you have put your errors in print, you are
leading others to follow you in your mistakes! Note your words on page 145:
The Sacrament of Penance
confess your sins
confess your faults (All Greek texts have
the word for faults here, -not sins.)
Mrs. Riplinger, what is the term translated "sin" or
"sins" in the KJV? Is it not the term a`marti,aj? You say that "all Greek texts have the word for faults here." Really?
Why, then, do I note the following in the Nestle-Aland text?
ta paraptwmata 049 M | txt
a A B P Y 048vid 33. 81. 614. 630. 1241. 1739. 2495
The text reads a`marti,aj, and that is the reading of all the manuscripts cited above. How can you say
"All Greek texts have the word for faults here" when that is simply not the
case? Is this not very much like your assertion that all Greek texts read as the KJV at
Revelation 14:1, when in fact the exact opposite is the case? Are you able to understand
the information presented in the textual footnote, Mrs. Riplinger? Or are you dependent
solely upon secondary sources?
I note in passing that often your generic "New Versions"
heading is inaccurate. For example, you say the "New Versions" have "For
the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven" at John 6:33 (page
146), while the NIV has "he" just as the KJV. On the same chart you cite the
"New Versions" as saying "after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, forever
sat down on the right hand of God" while neither of your two main targets, the
NIV and the NASB, give such a reading. The same is true on page 170; you lump "New
Version" into one group reading "respectable" at Luke 5:32, when the only
translation I can find that so poorly renders the passage is the TEV: the NIV, NASB, etc.,
all translated the passage as "righteous."
On page 172 we find this chart:
NIV, NASB et al.
Nobody should seek his own good.
1 Cor. 10:24
Let no man seek his own...wealth.
the love of money is a root of all kinds
1 Tim. 6:10
For the love of money is the root of all
Here, amazingly, we find you misrepresenting the KJV itself! Here is the
actual, unedited rendering: "Let no man seek his own, but every man another's wealth."
The way you have presented it differs from the reality; besides this, the term
"wealth" is not only in italics, it doesn't even fit, and is in fact an error in
the KJV translation (we are not to seek after other people's "wealth" but are to
look to their welfare, that is, their good). And I might add that the modern rendering of
1 Timothy 6:10 is perfectly accurate; rizw in the Greek is anarthrous, and pantwn twn
kakwn is plural, hence, "all kinds of evil." Think about
it, Mrs. Riplinger: is the love of money the root cause of rape? If not, then obviously
the KJV rendering cannot be defended as absolute.
On pages 175 through 176 you claim the NIV does not translate bzk. Again you are in error. The NIV
translates it as "false gods," and you might wish to think about how appropriate
that translation is.
On page 182 you attempt to make the NASB's translation of the Greek term
relevant to the psychology of self-esteem. The translation of qrovnoi by the term "thrones" can hardly be
faulted; indeed, it is the KJV's "seats" that is less direct.
On page 184 you address the quite accurate modern translation of a group
of terms translated by "the Godhead" in the KJV. I provide you with the
following chart of my own making:
the divine being
Acts 17:29 (qeioj)
Rom 1:20 (qeiothj)
Col 2:9 (qeothj)
Would you care to explain, Mrs. Riplinger, why the KJV translates three
different terms by one English term, when those three terms do not, in fact, mean the same
Your penchant for "hacking up" quotations is plainly seen on
page 188. Here are the first two entries in your chart on that page:
as he hath prospered
1 Cor 16:2
as God hath prospered him
we might become the righteousness of God
2 Cor 5:21
we might be made the righteousness of God
First, the term "God" is nowhere to be found in the TR at 1
Corinthians 16:2; this is a "paraphrastic" translation on the part of the KJV.
You then emphasize "in him" in your chart at 2 Corinthians 5:21, and cite the
"New Versions" as if they don't contain this phrase. Yet, the NASB says,
He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that
we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
And the NIV has,
God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in
him we might become the righteousness of God.
By quoting the NIV from the point immediately after "in him"
appears, you create an illusion to fit your scheme. How can you do this kind of thing?
On page 191 you indicate that the NIV and the NASB "OMIT" the
phrase "that they might accuse him" at Matthew 12:10. Yet, when we check out
your accuracy we find the following:
And behold, there was a man with a withered hand. And
they questioned Him, saying, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?"-- in order
that they might accuse Him. (NASB)
and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Looking
for a reason to accuse Jesus, they asked him, "Is it lawful to heal on the
On page 246 you seem to be unaware that the KJV translators anticipated
the phrase "and you he has made alive" in Ephesians 2, translating it as part of
verse 1 when in fact it is in verse 5. As a result, you falsely accuse the NIV/NASB of not
having a phrase that they properly translate, in its place.
In your chart on page 260 you contrast the KJV's "the words
of eternal life" against the NASB's "words of eternal life," not mentioning
that the NIV, RSV and ASV all have "the words of eternal life." Besides
this, the Greek construction is anarthrous, making the NASB an acceptable translation.
Further on down the list you have "a common faith" under the NIV/NASB
column, contrasted with "the common faith" of the KJV at Titus 1:4. Again
you ignore the NIV's "our common faith." And again, the construction is
As I have mentioned, it is the consistency of your misrepresentations
that is so striking. The examples pile up as anyone takes the time to work through your
book. More of your seemingly purposeful misrepresentation is found in these three examples
taken from your chart on page 269. First I give your representation, and then in the
second chart I contrast your deceptive citations with the real words of the translations
you are attempting to malign:
NIV, NASB, et al.
whosoever believeth in him John 3:15
In whom ye also trusted Eph 1:13
also have obtained an inheritance
in whom also we have obtained an
inheritance Eph. 1:11
But in reality:
Mrs. Riplinger's Citation
What It ACTUALLY Says
that whoever believes may in Him have
eternal life. (John 3:15, NASB)
In Him, you also, after listening to the
message of truth, the gospel of your salvation--having also believed, (Eph 1:13, NASB)
also have obtained an inheritance
In Him also we have obtained an
inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after
the counsel of His will (Eph 1:10-11, NASB)
I thought the last one was really great, given that all you had to do
was not tell folks that the "missing" term is found in verse 10. One could write
a book just on how often you mislead your readers. On page 270 you do the same thing all
over again to the NASB with reference to Romans 3:25. You cite the KJV, "through
faith in his blood," and put the "NIV, NASB" rendering as
"faith" as if the modern translations do not have "in his blood." But,
again, a quick glance at the texts demonstrates your error:
whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in
His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the
forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; (NASB)
God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through
faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his
forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished--(NIV)
Did you assume, Mrs. Riplinger, that no one would look at the texts? On
the same page you cite the NIV/NASB as "that which is lacking in Christ's
afflictions" and attempt to contrast it with the KJV by citing Colossians 1:24 in
this manner: "the afflictions of Christ in my flesh." If anyone looks up the
passage, they find that you are comparing apples to oranges:
Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill
up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's
sake, which is the church: (KJV)
The emphasized portion is that which corresponds to what you cited from
the NASB; you conveniently neglect to quote it, and instead quote a later portion,
misleading the reader yet once again.
The inconsistency of your arguments is overwhelming at times as well,
Mrs. Riplinger. On page 303 you point out through the use of a chart that the KJV follows
a "fuller" text, especially when it comes to titles. Expansion of titles in the
Byzantine manuscript tradition is a well known fact, and is indeed one of the very things
that leads scholars to recognize secondary elements in that tradition. However, can you
not see that your chart actually disproves your conspiracy theory? You note, for example,
2 Corinthians 4:10, where the modern texts have "Jesus" and the KJV has
"the Lord Jesus." Yet, you also cite Matthew 12:25, where the KJV has only
"Jesus." Why is it acceptable for the KJV to have just "Jesus" at
Matthew 12:25 and not "Lord Jesus"? If the KJV is not denying the Lordship of
Christ by using the single name "Jesus" at Matthew 12:25, then how can you
assert the NIV/NASB is doing this at 2 Corinthians 4:10? And looking down the chart, you
note that at 2 Corinthians 11:31 the modern texts have "Lord Jesus." Well, if
they were trying to attack Jesus at 2 Corinthians 4:10 by not having "Lord
Jesus," why did they allow that title just a little over seven chapters later? The
argumentation makes no sense at all.
Your ignorance of the Biblical languages leads you to more serious
errors in your section on the deity of Christ. It is here, indeed, Mrs. Riplinger, that
you should surely be ashamed of your activities, for there is no more important doctrine
than the deity of Christ, and yet you sacrifice many of the most important references to
it in your struggle to make a 17th century Anglican translation the "inerrant word of
God." You do this in a number of ways. First, as I have already demonstrated (in my
booklet), you sacrifice the great passages at Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1, preferring the
inferior translation of the KJV over the plain and proper translations found in the
NIV/NASB. You do the same thing on page 305, where you prefer the errant reading, and
translation, of Jude 1:4 over the proper translation, again giving us a Granville Sharp
Construction, "our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ." If you were familiar
with defending the deity of Christ against those who deny it, you would know that this is
a very significant passage, for the term in the Greek here, despovthj, "Master," is used of God alone in
Acts 4:24 (though poorly rendered in the KJV-note the NIV's bringing out of the fuller
meaning). Once again your zeal for the KJV has caused you to lead believers astray from
yet another passage that demonstrates the deity of Christ.
As I mentioned briefly in New
Age Bible Versions Refuted, your comments on the great Carmen
Christi at Philippians 2:5-11 are completely out of line. You do not seem to have any idea
what the passage is saying, nor how the NIV translation of this passage is the best
available. You speak of sharing with Jehovah's Witnesses, but I can assure you I have
shared with far more JW's than you have, and this passage, as it is found in the NIV, is
one of the best single passages in the New Testament for explaining how Jesus Christ was
eternally God, and yet became man to die as the sacrifice for the sins of God's people.
Please at least attempt to understand that when the modern translations have "did not
consider equality with God something to be grasped," they are not saying that
He did not already have this equality, but did not consider it something to be
held on to. The NIV makes it very plain that He was "in very nature God" prior
to the incarnation. The torturous KJV rendering only hides this marvelous fact.
But I tire of demonstrating error after error. I mentioned at the
beginning that the second thing that prompted me to write this letter was your gross
misrepresentation of NIV translators. I am specifically referring to pages 261 and 262
where you misrepresent the words of Calvin Linton and Ronald Youngblood. I begin by giving
your own words:
NEW VERSION EDITORS
Calvin Linton: NIV
The bible is "God's message" and not his words,
contends Linton. He believes the bible is "the wrong side of a beautiful embroidery.
The picture is still there, but knotted, blurry-not prefect." He calls Christians
"amusingly uninformed," who "presume the Holy Spirit dictated the actual
words of the text of the original writers."
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven
and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall in no wise pass from the law." Matthew 5:18
(A 'jot' is the smallest letter and a tittle is the
smallest ornament placed on a letter.)
Your reference footnote is number 76, found on page 665. It cites The
NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation, 1986 edition, pp. 17-19. Here we
find an article by Calvin D. Linton entitled, "The Importance of Literary Style in
Bible Translation Today." I provide Dr. Linton's actual words so that the depth of
your misrepresentation can be easily seen:
I recently received a lengthy letter from a devout reader
of the Bible who asked why there needed to be any modern translations of the Bible at all.
Why cannot we simply put down God's exact words in English form? Why dress them up in so
many styles? (These questions remind one of the famous mot: "If the King James
Version was good enough for Saint Paul, it is good enough for me.")
Such questions, though amusingly uninformed, do actually
touch on a profound consideration, one suggested by the great seventeenth-century poet and
preacher John Donne, whose sermons as dean of Saint Paul's (in his later life) drew
throngs. Speaking of the style of the Bible, he said, "The Holy Ghost is an eloquent
author, a vehement and abundant author, but yet not luxuriant." This presumes that
the Holy Spirit dictated the actual words of the text to the original writers, thereby (it
is further presumed) investing the entire Bible with his own literary style. The style of
the Bible, however, is not homogeneous. Rather, each writer has his own style, reflective
of his personality, which a faithful translation must reflect in ways perceptible to the
modern reader. "When the original is beautiful," says The Story of the New
International Version, "its beauty must shine through the translation; when it is
stylistically ordinary, this must be apparent."
The Holy Spirit, while preserving the inspired writers
from error, used the individuality of each writer as colors on his palette to paint a
unified picture-or, to use another image, to weave a seamless garment. Such exploitation
of the differing characteristics of the original writers-their learning, personality,
environment, literary style, etc.-in no way impugns the inerrancy of the original
autographs. It merely means that God did not expunge all individuality from the inspired
writers, using them only as automata or as "word processors." The written Word
comes to us through the "dust" of our earthly nature, but it is uniquely
breathed into (animated) by God. It foreshadows and testifies to the ultimate revelation
of God in his Son, when "the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us"
(John 1:14). He, too, like the Bible, partook of our earthly condition (yet without sin,
as the Bible in its original autographs is without error), possessing a human body, a
certain physical appearance and manner of speech, and reaching us on our level, that God's
message may be made wholly ours.
I pause briefly to note the propriety of Dr. Linton's remarks. Anyone
who has read Paul's epistle to the Ephesians, or the epistle to the Hebrews, and also 1
John, knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that the style differs markedly between these three
books. Belief in plenary verbal inspiration does not require one to hold to a dictation
theory. Dr. Linton is exactly correct when he points out that each of the writers used by
God had their own style, their own mannerisms. The style of 1 John is not the style of
Luke, that is for certain. This in no way vitiates the reality of the work of the Holy
Spirit in "carrying along" these men as they spoke "from God" (2 Peter
Dr. Linton then goes into a discussion of literary style, and gives us
these words, which you badly misquote in your work:
If, therefore, style is a fusion of the idea to be
expressed and the individuality expressing it, it follows that, since no two
individualities are identical, no two styles are identical. And it further follows that no
translation can be a perfect reproduction of the original style, for it is not possible to
alter the original words without altering the original style. The goal, therefore, is to
create (and it is a creative act) a style in modern English as closely reflective
of the original style as possible. The translator must, among other things, strive to
eradicate all characteristics of his own personal style, becoming a sounding chamber
without strings. At best we probably must agree with the seventeenth-century writer James
Howell when he says that a translator can do no more than reveal the "wrong side of a
Persian rug." Fortunately the Bible is so gorgeously woven a tapestry that even the
"wrong side" is wonderful!
Mrs. Riplinger, I was so shocked at the depth of the purposeful
misrepresentation here that my naturally generous nature forced me to stop writing this
letter and contact individuals who could help me to verify that the above material, taken
as it was from the 1991 edition of The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation,
matches what is found in the edition you cite, that being the 1986 edition. I had to make
certain that there was not some mistake, some reason for your complete misrepresentation
of Dr. Linton. But there is no such reason. The 1986 edition reads the same as the 1991.
You made up the entirety of your chart entry for only one purpose: to malign the character
of Dr. Linton, and to misrepresent his statements so that you could further the goal of
your book. This kind of action is ungodly, for it is nothing more than lying, and lying
is a sin against God.
Sadly, the exact same thing happens on the very next page of your book,
page 262. Here the target of your attack is Dr. Ronald Youngblood, and his article
"Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament," found on pages 111 through 118
of The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation. Here is your
statement, allegedly quoting from pages 111 and 117:
NEW VERSION EDITORS
The bible is the "words of men,"
a "literary production."
Ronald Youngblood: NIV
The word of the Lord endureth
forever. 1 Peter 1:25
We see that you are attempting to contrast a belief in the
"word of the Lord" with Dr. Youngblood's statement. Since you are also contrasting
"New Version Editors" with "Christianity," we can only assume you do
not believe Dr. Youngblood or Dr. Linton, "New Version Editors," to be
representative of Christian belief. Therefore, we must understand your citation of his
saying the Bible is a "literary production" is meant to deny a belief that the
Bible is inspired or is the "word of the Lord." And yet, is this was Dr.
Youngblood said on page 111 of The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation?
Of course not:
The Bible is the most dramatic literary production of all
time. The preparation and promise of the Old Testament find their completion and
fulfillment in the New Testament. Each half of Scripture needs the other for its fullest
understanding. As Augustine put it: "The New Testament is in the Old Testament
concealed, the Old Testament is in the New Testament revealed." Such a close
relationship between the two Testaments is reason enough to warrant frequent examination
of the ever-fascinating and always-important topic, "Old Testament Quotations in the
New Testament." Each of the major elements in that title, however, is fraught with
its own dangers.
There is the source of your citation, "literary production."
And what, may I ask, is there to object to in this statement? Setting up a dichotomy
between Dr. Youngblood's statement and a belief in the inspiration of Scripture is not
only illogical, it goes against everything Dr. Youngblood said in his article, and
hence is, again, dishonest to the core. But you were not through. You also alleged
that Dr. Youngblood taught that the Bible is "the words of men." You
specifically set up a contrast between this and a belief in the "word of the
Lord." Here you are drawing from page 117 (I can't say "citing," since you
are not quoting but misquoting):
Jean Levie gave to his book on biblical criticism and
exegesis the perceptive title The Bible: Word of God in Words of Men. The subtle
symbiosis between divine and human authorship in Scripture is present in such a way as to
give us divine truth without admixture of human error. This fact is none the less true
with respect to Old Testament quotations in the New Testament than with respect to any
other biblical phenomenon.
I can certainly see how quoting what he actually said would destroy your
argument, Mrs. Riplinger. You wouldn't want people learning that there were NIV
translators who believed in inerrancy or inspiration! Such would cause people to actually
think of them as Christians, and then ask why you would be so willing to attack Christians
via misrepresentation! We can't have that, so we hack up the quotation, all again in the
cause to defend the "true Bible."
Mrs. Riplinger, you made a frightening statement in your article on why
you wrote NABV. You said,
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 directed
hand of God - so much so that I hesitated to even put my name on the book. Consequently, I
used G.A. Riplinger, which signifies to me, God and Riplinger - God as author and
Riplinger as secretary.
Mrs. Riplinger, God does not lie. God does not hack up quotations. God
does not misrepresent people. God does not make basic, fundamental errors on every page of
his works. Saying God "directed" you to misrepresent Dr. Palmer and Dr. Barker
and Dr. Linton and Dr. Youngblood is, quite simply, blasphemous, is it not? Saying God's
"directed hand" led you to accuse the NASB Concordance of "pretending"
when in fact you were simply in error is dangerous, is it not?
The only honorable thing for you to do, Mrs. Riplinger, is to withdraw
this book from publication and issue a letter of retraction, apologizing to all those you
have misrepresented, and all those you have misled. I pray that God will give you the
courage to do just that.
In the original booklet, at this point we reproduced a hand-written note
from Texe Marrs, dated July 28, 1994. We provide the text here, retaining original
spelling and punctuation:
Living Truth Publishers
1708 Patterson Road, Austin, Texas 78733-6507
- 263-9780 FAX (512) 263-9793
July 28, 1994
Don't write me again unless in sincere repentance. You
are a devil, plain + simple. And I understand well why Mrs Riplinger does not respond to
your ridiculous assertions. Why dignify the lying claims of a servant of Satan!
P.S. Dr. Waite will make you look exactly like what you
are: a sinner in need of redemption, so arrogant + uninformed you do not even know that
the new versions take out the "Alpha + Omega" - the very name of your Fake
"ministry" in one passage of Revelation I also notice that you corrected your
incorrect spelling of Gail's name in your unscholarly, pitiful article. As I recall,
that's one of the things you falsely accused her of - spelling words incorrectly. Exactly
the error in the first version of your ever changing treatise God doesn't lie,
true. But Satan + his people do, of which you are one.
Amazingly, Mr. Marrs is not the only person who has focused upon only
two issues in responding to what I have written about New Age Bible Versions. It
seems all the critics can think about is how to spell Gail's first name, and the fact that
Revelation 1:11 in the KJV has the phrase "Alpha and Omega" while the modern
texts do not. I answered these concerns in my response letter to Texe Marrs:
July 30, 1994
Living Truth Publications
1708 Patterson Road
Austin, TX 78733
Dear Mr. Marrs:
Long ago, sir, the Scripture writer recorded the following words:
"He who answers a matter before he hears it, it is folly and shame
to him." (Proverbs 18:13).
These are indeed words of wisdom, and your letter of July 28th
shows clearly that you do not find these words relevant to your reactions to those who
would seek to be of assistance to you in your ministry.
Over the years I have received "nasty" letters from all sorts
of people. Working as I do with Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, atheists, Roman Catholics,
and others, I take my share of "heat" from irate people. One does not stand
outside the LDS temple in Salt Lake during every General Conference for the past ten years
and pass out tracts without getting some people a little upset. And one does not pass out
literature to the thousands gathered to see the Pope in Denver, or debate Roman Catholic
apologists on the Papacy at Denver Seminary, without encountering opposition and angry
feelings. And I certainly heard my share of foul language as I held a sign outside the
convention of the American Atheists here in Phoenix a few years ago. But I never imagined
that the single meanest, nastiest letter I would receive would come from a "Christian
leader." Just so that you are clear on what you said, I quote your brief letter
[See above for text]
The fact, sir, that you can respond to the materials I have provided to
you, which do nothing more than plainly and clearly document the errors and mistakes in
Mrs. Riplinger's work, and that in a fashion that can only be called "kind and
gentle" in comparison with your own demeanor, is truly amazing.
With reference to "sincere repentance," I can only repent of
thinking that you, a Christian leader, would be open to correction and instruction.
Obviously, I was quite incorrect in thinking in such a manner.
I am not a devil, sir. I am, in point of fact, your brother in Christ
(if in fact you know Him), a redeemed sinner saved by the grace of Jesus Christ. I have
known the Lord for more than 25 years, and have served him as a minister most of my adult
life. That you are willing to call a Christian minister a "devil" simply because
I have the temerity to disagree with you, and to demonstrate the errors of your
statements, is beyond comprehension. And to then identify such a person as a "servant
of Satan" - are you willing to answer for such absurd and reckless accusations before
the judgment seat of the Lord Jesus Christ, Mr. Marrs? You will surely have to answer for
such things, I can assure you.
It is telling indeed to note that upon receipt of nearly 30 pages of
double-column small print you have only two things to say by way of substance (ignoring
the ridiculous insults). First you take me to task for having spelled Mrs. Riplinger's
name as "Gayle" in my initial draft of the paper, calling me a "liar"
for having done so! Such is, of course, so utterly irrational as to boggle the mind.
Perhaps you have not noticed that Mrs. Riplinger did not put her first name in her book,
Mr. Marrs? Look for yourself. She always has "G.A. Riplinger." No first name
given. The only reason I knew her first name wsa Gail was because the host of the radio
program I listened to (and later participated in) called her by her first name. I had to
guess what spelling she used, and I chose Gayle. Later someone mentioned that they had
received a letter from her and she had spelled her name "Gail." So, I changed
the spelling in my paper. You consider this obviously understandable situation as grounds
for calling me a liar, sir? Do you not remember the words of Jesus, wherein He warned us
about condemning our brothers? His warning is in the KJV as well as all other versions.
Why do you ignore His teachings on this matter, sir?
Secondly, you assert that I am "arrogant and uninformed" with
reference to the phrase "Alpha and Omega" in the book of Revelation, and the
fact that there is one place where the modern texts do not include the phrase. I can
assure you, sir, that I am not in the least ignorant of the textual variation found at
Revelation 1:11. We chose the name Alpha and
Omega Ministries on the basis of Revelation 1:8 and 22:13, not
1:11. The phrase is found in that passage only in the MA text type; it is not found in a A C 1006. 1841. 2050. 2329. 2351. MK lat sy sa. Hence, the
Nestle-Aland, UBS 4th, and Majority texts do not place this reading in the
text, and rightfully so. Of course, this in no way, shape, or form does damage to the
plain identification of the Lord Jesus Christ as the Alpha and Omega, the First and the
Last, the Beginning and the End. As I have shared this precious truth with many, many
Jehovah's Witnesses over the years, I can assure you that they are hard pressed to explain
this clear teaching of Scripture. And I am just as hard pressed to understand both the
harsh, mean-spiritedness in your letter, and your unwillingness to defend what is plainly
a later addition to God's Holy Word. I despair of your providing a meaningful answer to
this question, but why do you invest infallibility in Desiderius Erasmus, a Roman Catholic
priest, who made the choice of including this passage in his text? The inconsistency of
this action, given your other statements, is exceptionally plain.
You identified my article as "unscholarly and pitiful." I will
gladly allow any and all to examine my article, and your retort, and judge for themselves
who is unscholarly, sir. The simple fact is that neither you nor Mrs. Riplinger can
respond to the plain documentation of error after error in her work. And, you cannot
defend your statements made on KXEG radio, either, for again, the facts are not on your
Christian are people who love the truth, Mr. Marrs. They do not love
traditions more than truth. KJV Onlyism is a man-made tradition, and it is very plain,
given the tone of your reply to being corrected on the issues, that you love this
tradition quite deeply: so deeply that you will identify Christian men who try to share
the truth with you as "devils" and "servants of Satan." Such charges
are quite serious, but given the irrationality of your words, they carry little weight.
If you love the truth, Mr. Marrs, you will take the time to seriously
and rationally consider the stance you have taken. If you fear the face of men more than
the face of God, you will continue with your tirades against modern translations such as
the NASB and NIV. The choice is indeed yours. I would hope that you would take the time to
examine what I have sent you. You say it is unscholarly. Prove it. Document it. Don't hide
behind blustery words of condemnation. Come out and show my errors, if there are any. I
will be glad to meet you in the public arena.
How did Mr. Marrs respond to this letter? He sent it back with red
writing written in large letters across the first page, read:
MR MARRS DOES NOT WANT
YOUR EVIL TRASH. DON'T WRITE AGAIN EXCEPT IN REPENTANCE.
Most people find it hard to believe that men can act in such a manner,
yet this is very common amongst the hard-core KJV Only believers. Another such individual,
Dr. Peter Ruckman, concluded a short article about me and Alpha and Omega Ministries with these words:
Blow it out your nose, kid. Out here in the traffic
you're liable to get run over. Stick to fairy tales.
This kind of behavior is directly contradictory to the teaching of Paul
found in 2 Timothy 2:24-26 in any translation. We pray for those who speak evil of
us and who spread lies about us. We leave it in God's hands to judge the motives of their
hearts, and the truth of the issues at hand.
Another Book by Mrs. Riplinger?
The middle of 1994 saw another book published under Mrs. Riplinger's
name, Which Bible is God's Word? When I first saw the book I failed to notice that
Mrs. Riplinger attempted to make some reply to my earliest criticism of her first book.
Her responses demonstrate yet once again that honesty and integrity is the farthest thing
from her mind when she sits down to write her works. We note her words:
The NIV Translation Center directs queries about the
version controversy, not to a scholarly detailed defense of their word choices, but to two
copied pages written by a self-proclaimed, "apologist working in the front lines
in dealing with the claims of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints [Mormon]
(sic) . . . ." NIV champion Jim White spent all of several "days,"
at his own admission, researching the topic. Three examples of his careless and unlearned
comments follow: (p. 61).
I note that 1) my initial review was much more than two pages in length.
2) Mrs. Riplinger failed to provide even the beginning of a meaningful response to the
first review of her most unscholarly work. 3) I am an apologist who has worked for years
on the front-lines of evangelizing LDS people. She conveniently ignored the rest of my
sentence (found in its original form earlier in this text). 4) I have never
"admitted" to having spent "several days" studying textual critical
issues (the context in which she places her words); such is a simple lie. She may be
thinking of the several days I spent reading her book, but that is not what she
says. Anyone who has read the previous pages of this booklet, has listened to my debate
with Mrs. Riplinger, or has read The King James Only Controversy, well knows that I
have spent more than a few "days" studying the issue of the King James Only
controversy. 5) How "careless" and "unlearned" I am can be seen by
looking at the four (she said three, but must have added another later and forgot to go
back and edit her words) items she chooses to include in her review.
The first item she chose to address, by God's providence, happens to be
the "take up the cross" issue that is so thoroughly discussed earlier in this
text. Obviously Mrs. Riplinger had not seen my comments on this issue before she fired her
broadside, for all she says in response to my statement, "We are told that new
versions delete the call to take up the cross, when in fact they do not" is this:
"They do delete it. See Mark 10:21, NIV, NASB, et al." Please note that
our initial comments on this topic earlier in this work are borne out completely: Mrs.
Riplinger does want people to think that this phrase is deleted from the Bible on
the basis of Mark 10:21, and she still does not deal honestly with the presence of
the phrase in three other places in the modern versions.
Her next statement should astound all Christian readers. Mrs. Riplinger
caught me in an error. Yes, earlier in this work I indicated that "all" Greek
texts contain the disputed phrase at Revelation 14:1, a phrase that Mrs. Riplinger said
was based upon a "tiny percentage of corrupt Greek manuscripts." I was
technically wrong in my statement. While none of the popularly available Greek texts cite
any variants here (including the Nestle-Aland 27th edition, the UBS 4th,
and even the Majority Text, which cites the TR as standing alone), there are a "tiny
percentage of corrupt Greek manuscripts" that read as the KJV does. The vast majority
of the manuscripts join against the KJV reading. But my use of the word
"all" was incorrect. But please note that Mrs. Riplinger, while correcting my
"all," somehow, incredibly, forgets to apologize to her readers for having been completely
in error in her original statement! In fact, she does not even mention her own
statement in her second book! And why not? It's simple: to prove me "wrong" in
having overlooked a small handful of late manuscripts she has to admit that the reading is
found in just a few, while she had originally said in NABV that it was the
reading of the vast majority! Instead of doing what any honest person would do and admit
she made the mistake, she chooses to cover her error and use it as a cloak to attack the
person who pointed out her mistake in the first place! Such reprehensible actions are
How does she respond to the demonstration that she completely
misrepresented Dr. Edwin Palmer in her quotation of him (see above)? See if you can make
heads or tails out of her attempted response:
Neither I nor my quote from Edwin Palmer mention the
incarnation at all. Palmer does not believe the word beget (John 1:14 et al) refers
to the incarnation. In spite of the fact that the verse is talking about his
"flesh." Palmer's "begotten God" (John 1:18, The NIV: The
Making of a Contemporary Translation, p. 143) is no more accurate theologically than
the Mormon notion, "The head of the gods appointed a God for us" (Teachings
of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 370, 372).
She is here citing from my article that made mention of our radio
interview. Any person who has listened to that interview well knows that Mrs. Riplinger did
make reference to the incarnation, and misrepresented Palmer on that topic. [Note: one can
hear this very section of the discussion by dialing (602) 973-0318 and going to the
appropriate area in the Christian Information System]. What is more a quick glance at NABV
p. 344 will demonstrate that Mrs. Riplinger was talking about the incarnation!
Furthermore, there is no word "beget" at John 1:14; Mrs. Riplinger is again
misunderstanding the term monogenhv" as I explained to her in our radio discussion long ago. And finally, we must
note that here Mrs. Riplinger even misquotes Joseph Smith! It is almost as if she
cannot quote anyone she disagrees with correctly. If one thinks that is an unfair
conclusion note her fourth and final point. She points out my assertion that she
misspelled the names of Longenecker and Carson on page 343. Here is her response:
He is really grasping at straws. The early printings of
the 700-page New Age Bible Versions did accidentally drop the "e" from
the name Longenecker and add an "l" to Carson. I only reluctantly fixed
it, since these men advocate removing the name of deity from the bible about two hundred
times. Misspelled names exemplify "horrifically poor research" according
to Jim. (He misspells my name thirty times in his four-page critique).
I refer the reader to my response about Gail's name in my letter to Texe
Marrs, quoted earlier. I also note that here she says my critique was four pages:
immediately before she said it was two. Her confusion is almost beyond comprehension. But
I wish to emphasize the attitude and mind-set that is revealed by Mrs. Riplinger at this
point. She only "reluctantly" (emphasis hers!) changed the spelling of
these names. Why? Because she dislikes the textual choices of D.A. Carson and Richard
Longenecker! This surely fits with her blatant campaign to misrepresent all those with
whom she disagrees-one does not even need to spell their names correctly! Let the reader
beware of this kind of polemic literature.
And so the booklet, New Age Bible Versions Refuted, concluded as
of October of 1994. At that time was I working hard on The King James Only Controversy.
I completed the work, and the editing and publication process began. Since I mentioned
Mrs. Riplinger in the fifth chapter of that book, which came out in April of 1995, I sent
sections of chapters to her, offering her the opportunity of commenting upon or correcting
anything she felt was in error. I have often sent articles I was working on to individuals
who were being reviewed, or refuted, asking them for their comments (an action that has
almost never been reciprocated).
As anyone knows who has attempted to contact Mrs. Riplinger, it's next
to impossible, especially if you are "the enemy" from her perspective. At one
point, when I was faxing a letter to her, the fax machine on her end hung up half-way
through the transmission! Obviously she feels that she does not owe "rude, crude
heretics" much in the way of manners. Be that as it may, Mrs. Riplinger never once
responded to my attempts to get her replies to what I was writing. But, I did hear from
her. Right as my book was about to come out, Mrs. Riplinger began writing to Bethany House
Publishers and threatening to sue if they published the book! She made repeated
threats, though she never provided any meaningful documentation of the alleged
"errors." Instead, she sent pages from a future publication in which she makes
many more of the same kind of wild-eyed, conspiratorially-driven accusations that we have
already reviewed in her first two efforts. In fact, as time goes on, she becomes more and
more removed from the realm of reality, retreating, it seems, into a world of her own
Of course, no lawsuits resulted from the release of The King James
Only Controversy. Indeed, many have commented on how fairly Riplinger is
treated, especially in light of the fact that if someone wanted to, her own
writings provide a massive storehouse of "legally actionable material" (to use
her own phraseology), wherein she has grossly misrepresented and mercilessly attacked a
wide variety of Christian leaders, living and dead. The double-standard she lives by is
Later in 1995 her 64 page magazine/booklet, King James Version
Ditches Blind Guides came out. Nearly half of the book is dedicated to attacking me,
but others who come under Gail's wrath include Dave Hunt, and even David Cloud, a strong
KJV Only advocate who had the temerity and honesty to point out some of the ridiculous and
absurd conclusions found in NABV. As normal, Gail's only means of responding is to
play games with a person's name (if one took out all the name-calling there would be a
cover and about half a page of text). For Cloud, we get these words:
Clouds constantly change their shape depending on how
much 'heat' comes their way. Pilots know that Clouds are dense and full of hot air;
consequently, they detour around them when they can. I'd recommend the same course (pp.
My name seemed to delight Gail as well. Some of the sub-titles in this
cartoon-filled booklet include "White-out," "James Games: James White Meets
Vanna White," and "White's Whopper." Indeed, the book begins with a little
rhyme, printed over a picture of three blind mice:
Blind mice and "scribes" will never see
their names in Matthew 23
-The word slips from their NIV!
To get it back, they will not flee,
but sit and search for gnats on me.
Blind guides would rather strain for lice
than search within for their own vice
They'll swallow some unsavory story,
cooked-up by White, McMahon, or Morey,
their caravan of camels served
with humps and truth severely curved.
Woe to these scribes, who having swerved,
have turned aside from God's pure words.
According to my computer, we just began page 39. If after this amount of
time anyone still thinks Gail Riplinger has anything of substance to say regarding the
Bible, history, the biblical languages, or textual criticism, there is nothing more I can
say that would be of benefit. The facts are plain. But those dedicated to Riplinger's
theories and speculations are rarely impacted by any kind of factual rebuttal.
Gail Riplinger's works have been reviewed, and rejected, by numerous
Christian leaders and scholars. For most, it's a waste of time to even discuss the issue,
since it's so obvious that she is a troubler of the brethren, a woman who is out of
control, setting herself up as an expert on topics about which she knows nothing at all.
Her inability to function as a scholar is plain to anyone who wishes to see. The impact
she has had in disrupting churches, damaging missions work, and in generally causing
trouble, is hers to answer for.
In closing, though, we should actually be more troubled about what Gail
Riplinger's work says about the church as a whole. Where has discernment gone? Why
didn't someone sit her down a long time ago and try to straighten her out? And what is
worse, why are men to this day letting her go on her merry way, spreading falsehoods, and
even encouraging her in such activities? I have been informed (but have not taken
the time to verify) that Mrs. Riplinger was recently granted an honorary doctorate
by Jack Hyles for her work, New Age Bible VersionsI Can someone explain how a
person who doesn't even have the first bit of undergraduate training in any of the fields
relating to Bible translation can be given an honorary doctorate for having produced the
most error-filled volume on the topic ever to grace the planet? Is "acrostic
algebra" the stuff of doctorates? One may well forgive Gail, for she is obviously
deceived; but what of the many others who encourage her to continue on in her path of
disturbing the work of the Church? Might not they be even more liable? It would
For information on obtaining the tape of James White's debate against Gail Riplinger: click here.
To LISTEN to James White's debate against Gail Riplinger, click here.
To return to the KJV Only Resource Index: click here.