This Chapter has more anti-Catholic apologetics, which is not supposed to be the subject of the book. Riplinger presents her own interpretation of Revelation as fact. There are too many interpretations, even by KJV adherents, for Riplinger to be so dogmatic.
1. PP.124-125. “God of forces.” Riplinger goes into a discussion about one of “Lucifer’s” “last-days aliases” being, according to the KJV (Daniel 11:38), “the God of forces.” This discussion brings in examples of the many New Age uses of “the Force” (e.g., in “Star Wars”) or “the Forces,” and sets the stage to say that any use of the term is indeed discussing the demonic realm. And, of course, she also cites the New Age book, “The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ,” which also uses the KJV phrase, “God of Forces” when referring to Satan. Then the clincher comes when she “proves” it is another example of new Bibles hiding references to Satan, because they say, “god of fortresses.” There are five times the word “fortress” is used in Daniel 11, and, as Matthew Henry points out, the reference is to a deity of power. Whether it be a god of “forces” or a god of “fortresses,” the symbol is one of power. While Riplinger is certain it is new age “forces,” what is to say that they are not military forces, or the forces of nature? Nowhere in the Bible does it say that “the God of Forces” is a name for Satan, and it takes a lot of stretch to build this case. It sounds more like paranoia and irrelevant reasoning.
2. PP. 125-127. Riplinger cites Alexander Hislop (whose book has been soundly discredited) as identifying the goddess Diana as the “God of Forces.” And then she goes into an anecdote about a European nightclub, with a statue of Diana, wherein all sorts of dark forces are present. The whole point of this dissertation is to point out how again new versions hide such evil by replacing the name “Diana,” in various passages in Acts, with the name “Artemis.” Diana was the Roman version of Artemis. Since the N.T. is written in Greek, I guess I would think they’d use the Greek version. It is the same goddess no matter what - no one is hiding anything!! But the really interesting thing, to me anyway, is that in the Greek TR underlying the KJV, it says “Artemis,” which means the KJV translators chose “Diana,” and Riplinger praises them for doing so! I’ll just address three of her claims:
a. First, it is absurd to say that “Diana” is the goddess “whom all Asia and the world worshipped” by that name. Several gods of Roman and Greek mythology, for example, went by different names depending on the culture, but they were still the same god. So, whether the name was “Artemis” or “Diana,” it would still be the same goddess “whom all Asia and the world worshipped.”
b. Where does Riplinger get the authority to identify KJV as “intended” for “all Asia and the world”? It’s in English! When KJV was written, English was NOT the world-wide language it is now, and even now the Bible is in different languages for the rest of the world. KJV is NOT God-inspired!
c. Riplinger is praising KJV for using dynamic equivalency by rendering “Artemis” as “Diana,” while complaining that NAS/NIV translate directly from the Greek! This is quite ironic in light of the premise of the book! But the Greek doesn’t fit Riplinger’s conspiracy theory so she had to build an illogical case to force it to fit.
3. P.128, 1 Cor. 9:27. KJV says “I keep under my body” but new versions say, “I beat my body,” or “I buffet my body,” or “I punish my body.” Riplinger says that this is adopting pagan doctrines of self-torture and self-denial to bring oneself to a high spiritual state. Then she says, “None of the Greek words for ‘beat’ (dero, tupto, proskopto, prosregnumi, or rhabdizo) are in the sentence; nor is the word “punish” (kolazo, timorea) or buffet (kolaphizo). The word used is ‘hupopiazo.’ The apostle Paul is saying, ‘I keep under [keep down] my body, and bring it into subjection.’ ... In other words, he does not allow the ‘lusts of the flesh’ to dominate him.”
Well, I have a Bible put out by KJV only people, and it is called “The Defined King James Bible,” the purpose of which is to have footnoted definitions of all the archaic language. For this passage it has the following footnote for “keep under” as follows: “Gk beat black & blue; discipline by hardships.” I guess that sort of destroys Riplinger’s argument! Sorry, but again she is trying to force her thinking into the text. CONTEXT says Paul is using the analogy of a boxer (v.26), and he is boxing himself, metaphorically-speaking.
4. P.129, Col. 2:23.
KJV: “Which things have indeed a show of wisdom in will-worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body...”
NAS: “These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body...”
NIV: “Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body...”
In context, they mean the same! Riplinger claims this is putting “asceticism” in the text! How she got to that point was by using all sorts of irrelevant information, which makes no sense at all - but it supports her agenda.
5. P.130-131, Gal. 5:12. In the KJV it looks as if Paul is wanting the Judaizers to be cut off from the assembly, while newer versions have him saying he wishes they would emasculate themselves. The CONTEXT is about circumcision, so the wish that preachers of it would go further and emasculate themselves would be a logical follow-on: “You want circumcision, go all the way then and remove the whole organ!” I’m sure it has to do with the different Greek texts, but Riplinger makes it into an issue of how Paul is cursing them in the modern versions, which is not what Christians should be doing. And of course she immediately claims that self-emasculation is a “New Age and ancient occult practice,” and then gives some citations which prove that assertion. Of course the fact that self-emasculation may have been a practice in some “New Age” and occult cultures, it is a non sequitur logic fallacy to say that is why the modern translations are this way. She especially attacks the NASB “mutilate” and says, “the NASB is giving expression to a practice foreign to Christianity but familiar to the mystery religions” - and then quotes from a book saying it was a Babylonian religious virtue. Another bit of irrelevant information.
Riplinger has to go one step farther and claim that Origen was the author of the Greek N.T. manuscripts used by new versions, and he was prompted by these teachings to castrate himself.
6. P.131, Rev. 19:2. Jumping immediately from the previous ramblings about self-emasculation, Riplinger’s next paragraph is entirely off topic as she claims the new versions hide the “blood stained hands” of the “MOTHER OF HARLOTS” because they delete the phrase “at her hand.” KJV says, “he...hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hand,” while new versions say, “He has avenged on her the blood of his servants.” There is no difference in understanding, especially since the object of discussion in the verse is not her “hands.”
7. P.131-132 is a complaint about the “veil” new versions put over Babylon’s identity in Revelation. She claims the ancient religions of Babylon were called “the mysteries,” and therefore by eliminating that ID it makes the Babylon of Revelation 17:5 merely a city instead of a religious system. The NAS, for example, says, “upon her forehead a name was written, a mystery, ‘BABYLON THE GREAT...’” - instead of KJV’s, “upon her forehead was a name written, ‘MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT...’” NIV, though, states it this way: “This title was written on her forehead: ‘MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT...’”
The problem becomes as to whether or not it IS a mystery or “mystery” is part of the name. Either way, it is discussing the woman. Does it alter doctrine of any sort to say the name written is a mystery or part of the name is “Mystery”? Is this a “veil” hiding her true identity? I’m not convinced. Whether or not it is part of her name does not thereby change it from a religious system to a city. Riplinger has not proven that “Mystery Babylon” as a name is a religious system - she just asserts that it is a reference to ancient religious systems and you must agree with her.
But let’s look at her chart on p.132 which “proves” her case. She has on one side “NIV, NASB, et al” and on the other side “KJV” to compare four passages.
a. Rev. 17:5 (the column for the passage does not state the passage, but it has already been addressed in the previous paragraphs, so we must assume that context”
NIV, NASB, et al: “BABYLON”
KJV: “MYSTERY BABYLON”
Well, NIV says the same as KJV, so she misrepresents that version, as well as a few more which agree with that being in the name. However, the majority of the translations say, in some fashion, that the name itself is a mystery, has a mysterious meaning, etc. And I really think that is the intent of the KJV way of saying it, even if it is part of the name - that the name itself is a mystery, and not that it means it is part of the “mystery religions.” What is interesting is that Matthew Henry agrees that “mystery” is not part of the name, rather it is descriptive of the name! So here we have a well-respected theologian of late 1600s to early 1700s who agrees with all the “New Age” versions rather than with Riplinger. Who should I trust?
b. Rev. 17:9-10:
NIV, NASB, et al: “sits, and they”
KJV: “sitteth. And there”
Let’s look at the full passage:
KJV: “The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth. And there are seven kings...”
NASB: “The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits, and they are seven kings...”
NIV: “The seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits. They are also seven kings...”
So, according to the Riplinger understanding of the KJV, the seven heads just represent mountains, and in addition to that there are seven kings discussed. The others say that the seven heads represent seven hills as well as seven kings. Again, Matthew Henry’s commentary agrees with the understanding of the new translations in that the heads represent mountains, which are also kings. And that is how I understood KJV when I was a new Christian, so it appears Riplinger is the one who doesn’t understand what she reads.
Part of Riplinger’s complaint is that the seven hills must be referring to Rome as a reconstituted “mystery religion” in the form of Roman Catholicism. However, Henry Morris (a KJV adherent), in The Revelation Record, makes the following observation:
This has been widely interpreted as the “seven-hilled city of Rome,” with the woman correspondingly identified as the Roman Catholic Church. Such an identification is wrong, however, for several reasons. The Roman Catholic Church does not sit on the seven hills or Rome. Its churches are all over the world and its headquarters only in Vatican City. Furthermore, many cities have seven hills, and Rome itself has more than seven. Besides that, a “hill” (Greek bounos) such as in Rome is not a “mountain” (Greek oros), and it is the latter word that is used here.
The clearest interpretation is shown in the very next verse, which identifies the seven mountains as seven kings, with one being the beast mentioned in this chapter. The latter we have already seen to represent a Satan-controlled kingdom, the first (and last) in a series of similar kingdoms, all comprising political Babylon. Thus the scarlet-arrayed harlot is seen as supported through the ages by seven kingdoms.
The seven heads of the beast on which the harlot rides are thus interpreted as seven mountains, but these in turn are interpreted as seven kings. The equating of mountains with kings requires yet another link in the chain to conform to scriptural example elsewhere. That is, mountains often represent kingdoms, and each kingdom is usually equated with some prominent king at its head.
Morris goes on to cite examples of mountains being kingdoms/kings from Isa.2 and Dan. 2. Since Morris uses only KJV, Riplinger can’t cite him for changing the text when he identifies the connection between the seven kings of v.10 with the mountains of v.9
c. Rev. 17:18. “That great city” (KJV) or “The great city” (all others) - both say the same thing. So what’s the problem? Riplinger believes “that” is pointing to Rome and Catholicism, and she must have everything pointing to Roman Catholicism or else the Bibles are “New Age.” The context of this passage is identical whether the word “that” or “the” is used - they are both pointing to a particular city!
d. Rev. 11:8. “Spiritually” (KJV) or “mystically,” or “figuratively” (all others). In context, they all say the same thing!
8. Morris does an excellent job of interpreting Revelation in a literal manner, and demonstrating that Babylon is not Rome but truly Babylon. Another reason for accepting that “Babylon” is indeed Babylon and not Rome is the fact that Babylon was a major Jewish settlement with major theological academies. This is also seen from the following from The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, by Alfred Edersheim:
The Palestinians…had to acknowledge that, ‘when the Law had fallen into oblivion, it was restored by Ezra of Babylon; when it was a second time forgotten, Hillel the Babylonian came and recovered it; and when yet a third time it fell into oblivion, Rabbi Chija came from Babylon and gave it back once more.’
Such then was that Hebrew dispersion which, from the first, constituted really the chief part and the strength of the Jewish nation, and with which its religious future was also to lie. For it is one of those strangely significant, almost symbolical, facts in history, that after the destruction of Jerusalem the spiritual supremacy of Palestine passed to Babylonia, and that Rabbinical Judaism, under the stress of political adversity, voluntarily transferred itself to the seats of Israel’s ancient dispersion, as if to ratify by its own act what the judgement of God had formerly executed.
9. Just for clarification, I think Dave Hunt’s book, A Woman Rides the Beast, gives the best evidence for Rome being “Babylon.” My personal belief is that Hunt has an even better argument than Morris and I accept Rome as Babylon. However, neither view should be dogmatically presented in order to develop a theory of error among new Bible versions.
10. Summation: Too much anti-Catholic bias for objective analysis. Riplinger asserts that her interpretation of Revelation is the factual one.
a. Paranoia and irrelevant reasoning behind “God of forces” and the “Diana/Artemis” argument.
b. The assumption that KJV is “intended” for “all Asia and the world.”
c. Avoiding the context to make a case in several verses, and is contradicted by Matthew Henry
d. Personal dogma in relation to the “City of the Seven Hills” and interpretation of Revelation in general.
e. No valid arguments provided, and therefore another wasted chapter.
