We who preach the gospel must not think of ourselves as public relations agents sent to establish good will between Christ and the world. We must not imagine ourselves commissioned to make Christ acceptable to big business, the press, the world of sports or modern education. We are not diplomats but prophets, and our message is not a compromise but an ultimatum. A.W. Tozer
Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth. --Basil of Caesarea
Once you learn to discern, there's no going back. You will begin to spot the lie everywhere it appears.

I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who has strengthened me, because He considered me faithful, putting me into service. 1 Timothy 1:12

Thursday, January 31, 2013

"New Age Bible Versions" - An Examination to Come

Back in the early 1990s I began reading things about how all the newer Bible translations were corrupt and of the devil.  It was my introduction to the whole “KJV Only” teaching.  I didn’t give it a whole lot of thought for a while, but after a couple years I became more and more concerned about the matter and decided I’d research the subject.  In 1996 I was at the local Christian book store and found G.A. Riplinger’s book, “New Age Bible Versions.”  Thumbing through the book I decided this would be just the ticket.

Well, I was disappointed with the presentation, and was not at all convinced.  Since that time I have acquired and read numerous books and articles from both sides of the debate and am convinced that there is no “New Age” conspiracy to corrupt the Bible, nor are the newer versions inferior to the KJV by virtue of being newer versions.  There is a lot of scholarly debate on both sides about the relative value of the underlying Greek manuscripts especially, and as far as I’m concerned the jury is still out.

Now, Riplinger’s book seems to be one of the most cited resources by the KJV Only crowd, so I think it is worth while to examine exactly what her argument is.  For this reason, I am re-reading the book and writing an examination for my personal files as well as for posting on this blog.  I will be posting my examination of each chapter as I finish the write-up, so it will be a long project.  I hope you will find the endeavor to be informative.

This examination is of the 1993 edition, sixth printing.  In the lengthy discussion of NABV, unless otherwise noted, I will reference only the NAS and NIV for comparisons, because these are the most frequently cited in NABV, and I have a parallel Bible with all three (KJV, NAS, NIV) for easy reference.
I will make references to Matthew Henry’s Commentary in regard to the understanding of certain passages in the KJV.  This is because he began this work in 1701, which would necessarily mean that he would understand the meaning of the language as used in the KJV, more so than would G. A. Riplinger.

This examination will not discuss the underlying Greek or Hebrew, nor will it be a discussion of Riplinger’s claims about the people involved in any part of the translations.  This study is solely about comparing the actual texts of the various Bible translations which Riplinger compares to “prove” that all but the KJV are “New Age Bible Versions.”

I want to make a point to start with:  This book could have been half the size if all of Riplinger’s rhetoric were removed.  There are so many baseless claims about why various versions are made, that to examine them all would take a book in itself!  Let me give just one example from Chapter One, which demonstrates her rhetoric, as well as paranoia.  She opens the chapter with Revelation 13:4, and then begins her narrative (you’ll also notice that she seems to fancy herself as a poet):

“Souls snagged in a spiritual region remote from reason, will one day give way - sliding headlong down into Satan’s dark chambered church.  These  chaff choose a pew. (He’ll hew one for YOU too.)  Friend and foe are ‘falling away,’ down the steep slippery stairs, framed by the archfiend - to the Church of [Revelation] Chapter 13.

“Satan’s barred by a small book from his quest for the throne.  When opened it unleashes a wall of words - graven in stone.

It is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord they God and him only.’ ... Luke 4:8
[At this point she compares NIV, NASB et al, with KJV at Phil 3:3, where KJV says “worship God” and the others say, “worship.”  I address this problem when we get there.]

“Wanting to weaken this wall, Satan slips out stone after stone, hoping not to be known.
“‘Satan cometh immediately and taketh away the word...’  Mark 4:15

“To begin, he removes the rubblestone of sin and the keystone of salvation.  The cornerstone of Jesus Christ and the capstone of his second coming are cut.  These words once withdrawn leave loopholes for skeptics and portholes for postulators.  Taken together these breaches become windows with wide-angle lenses, taking in the ‘broad way’ of these ‘last days.’  The stones piled high become props for his lie.  Widening and deepening gaps give way, as scattered stones lay - like stepping stones to Satan’s sought after throne.  The word of God so discomfit, becomes a bridge to the bottomless pit.

“His goal is to trap souls, so he adds key words, like keyholes.  Page after page these open his hatchway to the New Age.  Slipping in the side door of Satan’s church, using these keys, the ushers of apostasy bring souls from the nave to their knees, as a chorus of New Agers sing:...”

And from here, Riplinger cites five quotes about the New Age as if these citations have anything to do with the topic of the book - other than to perhaps “prove” that there is a “New Age” threat of a one-world religion.  And of course the conspiracy means Satan has to have all these “New Age Bibles.”  This is the type of drama on almost every single page! 

To top it off, the first page of the book quotes Rev. 22:18-19 as the reason for not adding or subtracting from the Bible.  But this is out of context because that passage refers only to Revelation  - the rest of the N.T. wasn’t even put together yet!  This should be a hint as to her hermeneutics.

The next time I post about the book will be an examination of the Introduction.


Anonymous said...

Hi Glenn,

Am looking forward to your discussions on Bible translations. I struggled with this and found answers in the book, The King James Only Controversy by James R. White. Keep up the great work. Laura.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Hi Laura,

Yes, that book is one of many I have on my shelf, and is very good.

I am almost finished with my examination of the Introduction to NABV, and hope to post it shortly.

Mr. and Mrs.White said...


Gail Riplinger is not a reliable scholar and those of us who use the KJV do not need her to defend it, as she has done far more harm than good. Also, on a personal note, she is a thrice-married woman. She has attacked some KJV only preachers because of their criticisms of her book, calling them "Blind Guides." Last night, we listened to a radio debate between Mrs.Riplinger and James White. It took place around 1993 or 1994 and can be heard on Youtube.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Mr. and Mrs. White,

I am very familiar with Riplinger's history, etc. I have her "Blind Guides" book also. She is given much credence by the majority of KJV Onlyers on-line and everyone I've met in person.

You are correct - she does them no good.

Jess B. said...

I agree with Mr. and Mrs. White and with Glenn, Riplinger does little good to the cause of the KJV-Only issue.
While I believe there are many scholarly arguments on both sides of this issue, I personally use only the KJV.
I have never read NABV in it's entirety, but I have read James White's book. I wasn't impressed with it. He contradicts himself numerous times in the book.

I am interested in reading the rest of your articles on NABV, although, I'm not sure I will have time to get through all of it! :).

Glenn E. Chatfield said...


There are many reasons people like to use only the KJV, but if the reason is because it is supposed to be more accurate, then the reason is false.

I have studied this issue for over a decade, and have on my shelf scholarly examinations from both sides of the issue, and I find the idea that the KJV is more accurate to be unconvincing, especially when there are so many errors in the translation of the texts that they actually used! The "Lucifer" translation is but one minor example.

The main thing is that most KJV people rely on most of the same arguments Riplinger uses - and from personal experience I'd say many KJVOs learned their belief from her! And this is why I want to demonstrate just how fallacious Riplinger's arguments are.