"New Age Bible Versions" - Chapter Nine, Part 2

Since Chapter Nine was such a long chapter to review, I decided to post it in two parts, as I finished each part.  I posted part 1 on May 26th, and now you can peruse my review of the second half of Chapter Nine.

13.  Pp.166-167.  Riplinger goes on a tirade about about various Word of Faith teachers manipulating the Bible for their own belief system.  With “faith” being replaced by “faithfulness” (or similar), the WOF can say that we have faith for things rather than faith in God.  She is correct to say that Robertson, Crouch, Copeland, Baile, Hagin, et al, are apostate, but their use of “proof texts” does not invalidate the texts themselves.  The new versions were NOT written to facilitate apostate teachings.  This is a logic fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc.  (And remember, most of these teachers use the KJV!)

14.  P.167, Matt. 17:20.  As an example of Riplinger’s claim about new versions facilitating WOF, KJV here says, “Because of your unbelief,” while new versions say, “because of the littleness of your faith.”  Is not “littleness of faith” saying the same as “unbelief”?  Yet because WOF call faith a “power,” this supposedly gives them a text to “prove” their teachings.  In context, the disciples had some faith or they would never have attempted the exorcisms.  Matthew Henry says, “Though they had faith, yet that faith was weak and ineffectual.  Note, as far as faith falls short of its due strength, vigor, and activity, it may truly be said, ‘There is unbelief.’”

If Henry understood KJV this way, explain what is wrong with NAS and NIV?  It is a non-sequitur to say that with this translation it therefore follows that WOF get ammunition.

15.  P.168, 2 Cor. 10:15.  We are really getting into the realm of silliness with this one.  First, Riplinger gives us a definition from “The Occult Encyclopedia” in reference to the word “imaginations.”  In this definition, the imagination can be strengthened through faith, and “that through full and powerful imagination only can we bring the spirit into an image.”  So, when the KJV says, “Casting down imaginations,” that is fighting the occult idea as defined in that encyclopedia.  

But the “new” versions say, “We demolish arguments,” and Riplinger says this about them: “With the cooperation of the NKJV and other new versions, Christians ‘conjure up’ instead of ‘cast down’ imaginations.”

It takes a real stretch of her imagination to see any resemblance of occult teachings in this passage.  Not only that, but her statement is about “conjur[ing] up” -- while the text says “demolish” - which is the meaning of KJV’s “cast down.”  NIV says “destroying.”  KJV “imaginations,” in context, is synonymous with NAS/NIV “arguments.”

16.  P.170 chart depicting “country club” translations, which “read like a Christian Country Club Membership Checklist.”  At the end of the “checklist,” Riplinger asks if the new versions point to “Preppie or Peculiar” people.  The “new” version words are much more prim and proper for the preppie.  Right.  Let’s look at the passages in her checklist.

a.  Heb. 3:6; KJV “rejoicing” vs. “boast.”  How does this change reflect a “country club” atmosphere?  In context, they mean the same thing.

b.  2 Thes. 3:6.  KJV “withdraw yourselves” vs. NAS “keep aloof.”  Are they not synonymous?  NIV’s “Keep away from” sums them all up.

c.  1 Tim. 2:9.  KJV “modest” vs. NAS “proper clothing.”  The implication here is that in a “country club” one can wear proper clothing and yet not be modest.  Let’s now take a look at these in context to show Riplinger’s dishonesty, and no more will need be said:

KJV:  "adorn themselves in modest apparel”

NAS:  “adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly.”

d.  1 Tim. 2:15; “sobriety” vs. “propriety.”  In context they are the same.

e.  1 Tim. 3:2; KJV “good behavior” vs. NAS/NIV “respectable.”  Can one be “respectable” without “good behavior?”  They are the same in context.

f.  1 Tim. 3:11; 1 Tim. 3:4; Tit. 2:2; 1 Tim. 3:8.  All deal with KJV’s use of “grave/gravity” vs. NAS “dignity/dignified.”  In context the use of “grave” has the meaning of dignity and self-control, serious about their duty.  Show me a true problem here!

g.  Phil. 2:3; complaint against the NAS.  “more important” vs. “better.”  In context the thought is the same.

h.  1 Tim. 1:4.   KJV’s “godly edifying” does have a somewhat different - stronger - idea than “furthering administration,”  but when you further the administration of God, don’t you necessarily have to do it by “godly edifying?”  Even so, does this alter doctrine or give New Agers succor, let alone give a more sanitary understanding?

i.  1 Cor. 4:10.  KJV “despised” vs. “without honor.”  In context, the verse says, “ye are honorable, but we are despised.”   The contrast is “honorable” vs. “dishonorable,” i.e., “without honor.”  These say the same thing!

j.  1 Cor. 4:11; KJV “naked” vs. “poorly clothed.”  I believe “naked” in this context is hyperbole.  “Poorly clothed” (NAS) or “in rags” (NIV) surely are more accurate; I doubt that Paul was nude!  

k.  Acts 2:44.  Other than idiom, I fail to see the difference between “had all things common” (KJV)  and “had all things in common.”  This is gross nit-picking.

l.  Titus 2:15.  Again, other than idiom, what is the difference between “Let no man despise thee” and “Let no one disregard you?”

m.  Luke 5:32.  KJV “righteous” vs. “respectable.”  Now, this is a legitimate complaint about not meaning the same thing, but it still doesn’t give a “Preppie” understanding.  And, what does it change?  Of course this is another broad-brush charge because I did not find it in the popular versions, such as NAS, NIV, GWN, REB, CEV, NAB, NLT, or Berkeley translations; they either said “righteous” or a synonymous word/phrase.  I found “respectable” only in the TEV, so it is not a widespread error.

n.  1 Cor. 15:34.  KJV “righteous” vs “soberminded.”  Again, in context, KJV, NAS and NIV are all very similar.  No granting of “preppie” status.

17.  Bottom of p.170, and p.171.  Riplinger complains about NIV removing “peculiar people” from Tit. 2:14 and 1 Pet. 2:9.  She makes an issue of how that phrase distinguishes  Christians as “Jehovah’s own people.”  However, the NIV says “ a people that are his very own” at Titus, and “a people belonging to God” at 1 Peter.  Whereas KJV’’s “peculiar people” can mean many things, NIV’s phrases are much more explicit.

18.  P.171 Rom. 12:8, supposedly showing “At the root of all the rhetoric about the need for a new version lies the true cause - covetousness.”  The chart that follows supposedly shows a “love of money,” and Riplinger claims that some ministries “promote the new versions because they, in turn, pack their treasuries” (a charge I’d like to see proof of), all because KJV’s “giveth…with simplicity” has been changed to “generously,” or “with liberality” in other translations.  What did the KJV translators mean by “simplicity?”  Let’s check with someone who knew the language of the times, Matthew Henry:

“Let them do it en aploteti - liberally and faithfully… He that hath wherewithal, let him give, and give plentifully and liberally; so the word is translated, 2 Cor. 8:2; 9:13.  God loves a cheerful and bountiful giver.”

Now, the interesting question is why the same charges weren’t levied at KJV for 2 Cor. 8:2 and 9:13???  And what does Riplinger do with 2 Cor. 9:6, 7?  This complaint about Rom. 12:8 is dishonesty on Riplinger’s part, and it appears to be intentional.  This leaves me with little respect for her work!

19.  Bottom of p.171, Rom. 12:13.  “distributing” vs. “contributing.”  We already covered this verse (L.11.d. - 2nd one.)

20.  At the bottom of p.171 is a contention that “God is the author” of KJV.  This is totally ludicrous.  Only the original autographs are inspired by God, unless Riplinger has been given a revelation otherwise, which, I guess, is possible.  According to The Facts on the King James Only Debate, by John Ankerberg & John Weldon, “Riplinger has stated publicly that she receives direct revelations from God.”  She has claimed that she hesitated to put her name on NABV, and used “G.A. Riplinger, which signifies to me, God and Riplinger - God as author and Riplinger as secretary.”  So perhaps Riplinger has a word from God that the KJV is His choice?!?

21.  P.172:  “New version editors twist verses which warn of seeking wealth.”  Do they really?

a.  1 Cor. 10:24, KJV “wealth” vs. “good.”  In KJV “wealth” is italicized, as is “good” in NAS.  That means neither word is in the original!  The context of the chapter makes it very perspicuous that money is not the context of the word “wealth.”  As Henry points out:

“He must not seek his own only, but his neighbour’s wealth.  He must be concerned not to hurt his neighbour , nay, he must be concerned to promote his welfare; and must consider how to act so that he may help others…”

The newer versions are definitely plainer in the meaning of the text!

b.  1 Tim. 6:10.  KJV “the root of all evil” vs. “a root of all kinds of evil.”  Without any other reference, logic and common sense dictate that money is not THE root of all evil.  In fact, I believe one will discover that sex is a root of as much evil as is money!

22.  P.173 begins the charge that new versions feed the “fierceness” of man.

a.  Mat. 5:44.  Because the new versions omit “do good to them that hate you,” this ostensibly allows for mistreatment of them.  NIV footnotes this, so it is not hidden in that version.  Nevertheless, even with that phrase removed, the context of the full verse still teaches the same thing!  NAS and NIV both say, “love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you.”  Add that verse to the context of the rest of 38-48 and the intent is perfectly clear - no “fierceness!”

b.  Mark 11:26.  Rather than being omitted as claimed for all versions, this verse is in NAS, and footnoted in NIV.  All this verse does is repeat verse 25 in the negative sense.  If you don’t understand v.25, you certainly won’t understand v.26!

c.  Gal. 5:21, omission of the word “murder” from the list of “works of the flesh.”  This is a valid complaint as to its omission, but there are plenty of other places where murder is spoken against.  Riplinger is guilty here of the logic fallacy of oversimplification, i.e., “the thin entering wedge.”  She is saying, in a sense, “If the word ‘murder’ is removed from this one text, it will permit ‘fierceness’ to develop.”  It isn’t really that simple!

d.  Luke 3:14.  KJV “do violence to no man” vs. NIV “don’t extort money.”  There was no complaint about NAS “Do not take money from anyone by force,” which says the same as NIV, and perhaps clarifies what kind of “violence” is meant.  Henry says,

“They must not be injurious to the people among whom they were quartered, and over whom indeed they were set:  ‘Do violence to no man.  Your business is to keep the peace, and prevent men’s doing violence to one another; but do not you do violence to any.  Shake no man’ (so the word signifies); ‘do not put people into fear; for the sword of war, as well as that of justice, is to be a terror only to evil doers, but a protection to those that do well.  Be not rude in your quarters; force not money from people by frightening them.’”  [My emphasis at bold.]

Again, Henry sees the meaning of the KJV: “Shake no man”; “force not money.”

e.  2 Tim. 3:3.  KJV “despisers of those that are good” vs. “haters of good.”  In context, they say virtually the same.  Actually, NIV/NAS is more inclusive in that more than people are hated; rather anything that is good is hated.  But tell me how this change fosters “fierceness?”

f.  Titus 1:8.  KJV “a lover of good men” vs. “loving what is good” (NAS) or “one who loves what is good.”  As with e. above, newer version is more inclusive.  It must include men, but all else also.  Henry says, “or of good things.”  Again, how does this change foster “fierceness?”

23.  P.174.   Now the claim is that by changing KJV’s “sober” it will lead to a loss of “dispassionate and calm reason.”  The new versions “deny their reader the two-fold meaning of the word,” which has to do with drunkenness.  This, of course, has Riplinger defining the use of the word “sober.”

a.  1 Tim. 2:9;  KJV “sobriety” vs. “discreetly.”  In context it is discussing how women should dress!!  This is another twist at the same verse we addressed in 16.c. above.  There is NO context of drunkenness involved.  Riplinger is guilty of equivocation.

b.  Titus 1:8;  KJV “sober” vs. “sensible.”  In this context sober would mean (as per Webster), “temperate in any way; not extreme or extravagant,” i.e., “sensible.”  If it was in reference to drunkenness, why did Paul in v.7 say  “not given to wine?”  Henry says, 

“Sober,  or prudent as the word signifies; a needful grace in a minister both for his ministerial and personal carriage and management.  He should be a wise steward, and one who is not rash, or foolish, or heady; but who can govern well his passions and affections.”

This sounds very much like “sensible” to me.  Riplinger is again guilty of equivocation; she defines the words as she wants, not as they are.

c.  Titus 2:2; KJV “sober” vs. “temperate.”  Again, the meaning is plainly nothing to do with drunkenness.

d.  1 Tim. 2:15; KJV “sobriety” vs. “self-restraint.”  Refer to b. above for meaning of sober.  Again, this verse has nothing to do with drunkenness.

e.  1 Tim. 3:2; KJV “sober” vs. “prudent.”  Same argument as Titus 1:8.  Henry says,  “He must be sober, temperate, moderate in all his actions, and in the use of all creature-comforts.”  Sounds like “prudent” to me!

24.  P. 175 supposedly demonstrates that “new versions” remove the idea of “honesty” from the text.  “Do you think the KJV might produce honest Christians and the other versions might not?”  The question is absurd because NO version will “produce honest Christians.”  If Riplinger believes removing “honesty” from the text will lead to that conclusion, she is again guilty of oversimplification.  (KJV hasn’t helped her honesty in this work!)  But let’s look at the verses:

a.  Rom. 13:9.  “Thou shalt not bear false witness” is missing from new versions. This looks like a valid complaint that this commandment is missing from this verse in NAS/NIV.  However, Paul doesn’t list all 10 commandments even in KJV.  He lists a few, then says, “any other commandment.”  In CONTEXT, not bearing false witness would then be included.  KJV Rom. 13:9 doesn’t have “Honor thy father and thy mother,” so, by Riplinger’s logic, this would lead Christian children into rebellion.  The commandment to not bear false witness may not be in Romans, but it is still in Exodus!

b.  2 Cor. 8:21; Phil. 4:8.  KJV “honest” vs. “honorable.”  These mean the same!  Where is the problem?

c.  1 Pet. 2:12; KJV “honest” vs. “excellent.”  When discussing behavior, one can be “honest” but not “excellent.”  However, to be “excellent” one has to be “honest.”

d.  1 Tim. 2:2; KJV “honesty” vs. “dignity.”  NIV says “holiness,” which is even better!  I think “honesty” is a better word in context, but will the NAS lead to dishonesty?  How can one have “dignity” without  honesty?

e.  2 Cor. 4:2;  KJV “hidden things of dishonesty” vs. “things hidden because of shame,” and “deceitfully” vs. “adulterating.”  As to the first comparison, Henry says, “The things of dishonesty are hidden things, that will not bear the light; and those who practise them are, or should be ashamed of them.”   As to the second  comparison, “adulterating the word of God” is a much stronger sense than “handling the word of God deceitfully.”  Complaint is totally invalid!

f.  1 Thes. 2:3; KJV “deceit” vs. “error.”  Read the entire verse in context and they say the same:

KJV:  For our exhortation was not of deceit, nor of uncleanness, nor in guile:

NAS:  For our exhortation does not come from error or impurity or by way of deceit;

NIV:   For the appeal we make does not spring from error or impure motives, nor are we trying to trick you.

In all these examples above, in reference to “honesty,” Riplinger is the one who is dishonest!

25.  P.175 bottom, specifically a charge against the NIV, which Riplinger claims has a “penchant for personal interpretation rather than translation.”

a.  Ps. 40:4.  KJV says “turn aside to lies” vs. “to false gods.”  False gods are lies, and lies can be false gods.  NIV footnotes “or to falsehood.”  Using Riplinger’s logic, KJV has no concern for idolaters, only liars.

b.  Amos 2:4.  Again “false gods” replaces KJV’s “lies,” but it is footnoted.  Henry stated it this way: 

“They put honour upon his rivals, their idols, here called their lies which caused them to err, for an image is a teacher of lies, Hab. 2:18.  And those that are led away into the error of idolatry are by that led into a multitude of other errors.”

If Matthew Henry understood KJV this way, what is wrong with the NIV?

26.  P.176.  Riplinger claims that, “The NIV aided the AIDS epidemic when their editors and literary consultants silenced all [my emphasis] of God’s warnings against the means of transmissions of the HIV virus - sodomy.”  

There is absolutely no evidence for this absurd charge; how can the NIV aid the epidemic?  Her first example, 1 Cor. 6:9, is even more descriptive in the new versions!  The other examples cited all exchange “sodomites” of KJV for “shrine prostitutes.”  Whereas “sodomite” is inclusive of all homosexuals, in the context, the Bible is referring to specific ones - i.e., shrine prostitutes.  Riplinger’s problem with the following examples seems to be that she wants the word “sodomite” used instead of “homosexual.”

a.  Deut. 23:17 is followed by v.18 which says not to “bring the hire of a whore [prostitute], or the price of a dog [temple prostitute].”  The context is a paid sodomite, i.e., a “prostitute.”

b.  1 Kings 15:12.  Henry understood it as prostitutes: “He took away the sodomites out of the land, suppressed the brothels.”

c.  1 Kings 22:46.  Referring back to 15:12, those who were left from Asa’s purge were expelled.

d.  2 Kings 23:7.  “Houses of the sodomites.”  Sounds like brothels!  Henry understood them as shrine prostitutes:  

“Where all manner of lewdness and filthiness, even that which was most unnatural, was practiced, and under pretence of religion, in honour of their impure deities.”

e.  “The deadly virus runs from the pens of the NIV scribes - signing the obituary of millions worldwide who practice sodomy.  Immune to their cries, the NIV lies.  They focus instead on a sin already dead - shrine prostitution.  Archaic.” 

Riplinger focuses on a word - “sodomites.”  The O.T. references are indeed about a sin already dead, and that is not a lie.  What is a lie is Riplinger’s statement that the NIV silenced “all” of God’s warnings against homosexuality.  How does she account for Lev. 18:22; Lev. 20:13; Rom. 1:26, 27; 1 Cor. 6:9; and Jude 7?

27.  Summation:  This was the longest chapter so far, with the most assertions against the “new versions.”  The primary premise in this chapter is that new versions lead to people being “unholy due to the following:

a.  By encouraging sexual immorality.

b.  By being non-judgmental about homosexuality.

c.  By removing references to holiness or perfection.

d.  By being “inactive” in their faith, and only wanting to be holy; talking rather than walking.

e.  By promoting covetousness.

f.  By promoting “preppieness” rather than being devoted to God.

g.  By promoting “fierceness” rather than love and mercy.

h.  By leading to a loss of “dispassionate and calm reason.”

i.  By producing dishonest Christians.

j.  By aiding the AIDS epidemic. 

As we have seen in the analysis of every passage, all of Riplinger’s complaint have been disproven.  Additionally, she has been proven to be dishonest in her presentation of the various arguments, misrepresenting what the “new” versions actually say.