“New Age Bible Versions” - Chapter 10, Part 2

This review is a continuation of the previous post, “‘New Age Bible Versions’ - Chapter 10, Part 1”

13.  P.189, top chart against “NIV, NASB, et al.”  1 Peter 1:24, which is a citation of Isa. 40:6-8. 
KJV: “all the glory of man as the flower of the grass”
NIV, et al:  “all its glory like the flower of grass”

 KJV in Isa. does not have the word “man,” but Riplinger doesn’t complain about that!  Context of NAS is the “flesh,” so in that case “its” glory is the same as “the glory of man.”  NIV says “their glory,” referring to “men” in the previous phrase. 
Riplinger says, “Having grafted God’s glory on to man, new versions must now keep under wraps the verse which windows the withering of man’s glory.”  I’m looking for how the verse is “kept under wraps.”  They say the same thing!

14.  P.189.  Riplinger defines “self-esteem” as coming “from a reservoir of esteem stolen from God.”  There is no biblical foundation for this claim - it’s just an assertion by Riplinger.

15.  P.189 bottom chart, continuing to P.190, top two charts.  These supposedly show God with a “despoiled character” in “new age” versions.  First, we weaken His “consuming fire” by changing commands to instructions.

a.  Matt. 10:5 and Mark 6:8; KJV “commanded” vs. “instruct.”  Actually, the word used in new versions is “instructions.”  In this case “instructions” seems appropriate.  Henry says, “We have here the instructions that Christ gave to his disciples.”  So even Henry sees that, in this context, commandment is synonymous with instruction.

b.  Mark 7:7; KJV “commandments” vs. “precepts.”  This verse has nothing to do with God’s commandments; it’s about man’s teachings.  Nevertheless, it is quoting Isa. 29:13, which in KJV says “precept”!!!  Argument dismantled!

c.  Matt. 15:4; KJV “God commanded” vs. “God said.”  Verse 3 says it’s a “commandment” being referenced in v.4.  KJV uses the word “commanded” twice, but the others say the same thing in context!

d.  Matt. 21:7; KJV “reverence” vs. “respect.”  Reverence is a form of respect!  The choice of verbiage certainly does not “despoil” God’s character.

e.  1 Tim. 4:11; KJV “command” vs. “prescribe.”  NIV reads the same as KJV.  This is not God, but Paul talking to Timothy.  So it doesn’t “despoil” God.  Nevertheless, Webster’s says for prescribe: “to set down or give rules, directions, etc . . . . syn. - direct, order, require, command, enjoin.” [my emphasis]. So where is the problem?

f.  1 Peter 3:15; KJV “fear” vs. NAS “reverence” (NIV has “respect”).  At d. Riplinger complained that “reverence” wasn’t  used!  This is directed at man, not God, so again, it can not “despoil” God.  Webster’s definition of fear (noun) reads: “reverence; awe; respectful dread. . . .  syn. - . . . reverence.”  Webster’s v.t. says: “to feel reverence for; to have a reverential awe of; to venerate.”  

Henry adds some  more insight:  These confessions of our faith ought to be made with meekness and fear; apologies for our religion ought to be made with modesty and meekness, in the fear of God, with jealousy over ourselves, and reverence to our superiors.

g.  Luke 9:43; KJV “mighty power” vs. “greatness.”  I read these as synonymous, but, if not, how does it “despoil” God?

h.  Matt. 2:6; KJV “shall rule” vs. “shall shepherd.”  In context they are synonymous.  A shepherd “rules” his flock.  But does it “despoil” God? 

(Continuing in the charts, now God’s “greatness” is supposedly removed.)

i.  Matt. 4:24; 9:26; KJV “his fame” vs. “news.”  In this context “fame” and “news” are synonymous.  After all, the N.T. is about the “good news” of Jesus, not “good fame.”  Does “news” “despoil” God?

j.  1 Tim. 1:17; KJV “wise God” vs. “God.”  Point is taken that the word “wise” is missing, although by definition of God, He is all wise.  But does this lack of “wise” in this passage remove God’s “greatness?”

k.  Rev. 19:1; KJV “the Lord, our God” vs. “our God.”  Although “the Lord” is missing, I see no problem here, no “despoiling,” since the praise begins with “Hallelujah,” which means, “Praise the Lord.”  

(Continuing in the charts of “despoiling” God, “love” is now removed.)

l.  Titus 1:4; KJV “mercy” vs. “OMIT.”  In NAS/NIV God’s “grace” is from love. No love has been removed.

m.  Heb. 3:10; KJV “grieved” vs. “angry.” Anger is not necessarily loveless!

n.  2 Cor. 6:9; KJV “chastened” vs. NAS “punished.”  Webster’s defines “chastened” as “corrected; punished; purified from faults.”  I punish my children because I love them.

o.  Eph. 6:4; KJV “nurture and admonition” vs. “discipline and instruction of the Lord.”  Matthew Henry responds, 

“Bring them up well, in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, in the discipline of proper and of compassionate correction, and in the knowledge of that duty which God requires of them and by which they may become better acquainted with him.  Give them a good education.”  It is the great duty of parents to be careful in the education of their children; “Not only bring them up . . . taking care to provide for them; but bring them up in nurture and admonition, in such a manner as is suitable to their reasonable natures.  Nay, not only bring them up as men, in nurture and admonition, but as Christians, in the admonition of the Lord. Let them have a religious education.  Instruct them to fear sinning; and inform them of, and excite them to, the whole of their duty towards God.”

p.  2 Cor. 12:21; KJV/NIV “humble” vs. NAS “humiliate.”  Henry says, “[Paul] was grieved at the apprehension that he should find scandalous sins among them not duly repented of.  This, he tells them, would be the cause of great humiliation [my emphasis] and lamentation.”  Webster’s defines “humiliate” as “to humble.”  Case closed!

q.  John 20:17; KJV “touch me not” vs. NAS “stop clinging to me.”  Henry Morris, in The Defender’s Study Bible (KJV), says, “Here ‘touch’ could mean ‘cling to’.”  Matthew Henry says, “Mary thought, now that her Master was risen, he would presently set up a temporal kingdom, such as they had long promised themselves.  ‘No,’ says Christ, ‘touch me not, with any such thought; think not to lay hold on me, so as to detain me here.’” 

This sounds like Christ is saying, “stop clinging to me, detaining me.”  How has this removed love?

r.  Acts 7:30,35; KJV “bush” vs. NAS “thorn bush.” Vine’s says the word “denotes ‘a bramble bush’,” as does Thayer’s.  What if it was a rose (thorn) bush?  What does the type bush have to do with love?  Can God not use a thorn bush in love?  Are thorns a natural sign of hate?  This is a clear case of Riplinger assigning a meaning to something where the scriptures are silent!

16.  P.190.  Now Riplinger claims that self-esteem promotes “lovable people” who won’t “strike him, accuse him, or constrain him” - meaning that passages showing this abuse of Christ are omitted.  Of course she finds only three verses in her attempt to support her case.  Assuming there is no valid reason for these omissions, they are still an unrepresentative sample.

a.  Luke 22:64.  The phrase, “they struck him on the face,” is omitted, but the question, “who hit you?” necessarily requires that someone did so!

b.  Luke 11:54.  KJV “that they might accuse him” ends the verse, “Laying in wait for him, and seeking to catch something out of his mouth. . . .”  NAS says, “plotting against Him, to catch Him in something He might say.”  NIV says, “waiting to catch him in something he might say.”  It becomes OBVIOUS that the purpose is to make an accusation.  Omitting the phrase, “that they might accuse him,” doesn’t take away the obvious!

c.  Luke 22:68; KJV “nor let me go” is omitted in new versions.  Jesus is saying that they will continue to restrain him even if he answers their questions.  Again, omitting this phrase doesn’t alter what took place.  Jesus remained restrained!  Lovable people would have released Him.  The argument is foolish.

17.  P.191-192 chart which purportedly gives man a healthy self-image by deleting references  to his sin.

a.  Col. 3:6; KJV’s “on the children of disobedience” is omitted.  The label, “children of disobedience,” is not a necessary addition.  Read the CONTEXT!  Paul is telling them that all this stuff (NIV “sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry . . . anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language”) is wrong; i.e., sinful.  This certainly isn’t promoting a “healthy self-image” just because they weren’t labeled as “children of disobedience”!

b.  Eph. 4:22; KJV “is corrupt” vs. “being corrupted.”  In context they are saying the same thing; the old person is corrupt and being corrupted by the old way of life.  There is no hint that “being corrupted” implies man is not corrupt - or has a “healthy self-image.”  Riplinger is reading into the text.

c.  Mark 15:28.  The phrase is omitted from NIV, but not the NAS.  NIV footnotes it anyway.  But the phrase refers to v.27 which describes the men as robbers.  Do we need to also call them “transgressors” to take away their “healthy self-image?”  If I was to make a complaint about this omission, it would be because it removes a reference to prophecy that is nowhere else in the Gospels!

d.  1 John 5:19.  This charge is ridiculous.  Can Riplinger tell me the difference between “in wickedness” or “under the control of the evil one?”  No promotion of a “healthy self-image” either way!

e.  Luke 5:20; KJV “man” vs. “friend.”  I suppose that, by calling the man “friend,” Riplinger could argue that this helps his self-image, but how does this delete a reference to sin?

f.  Acts 17:22; KJV “superstitious” vs. “religious.”  The context is Paul addressing their pagan religions.  They are worshiping idols and false gods.  This is a religion and they are religious.  In this case, religion and superstition are synonymous.  But how does this promote self-esteem or delete sin?

g.  Matt. 15:8.  Omission of the beginning phrase from Isa. 29:13. The parallel passage is Mark 7:6-8, which phrase even KJV omits.  The passage is easily understood apart from the phrase.  There is no promotion of self-esteem or deletion of sin!

h.  2 Cor. 10:10; KJV “weak” vs. “unimpressive.”  Riplinger says that, in new Bibles, “man at his worst is ‘unimpressive’.”  But that has nothing to do with the context of this verse!  KJV’s “weak” seems clear to me that it does indeed mean “unimpressive.”  Morris (KJV advocate) says, “Paul was evidently small and unimpressive in appearance, though certainly not a weakling.”

i.  Phil. 3:21; KJV “vile” vs. “humble.”  Henry says, “The body is now at the best a vile body, to soma tes tapeinoseos hemon - the body of our humiliation.  It has its rise from the earth, it is supported out of the earth, and subject to many diseases and to death at last.”   Sounds like “vile” or “humble” both work.

j.  James 4:5.  
KJV:  “The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy.”
NIV, NAS, et al:  “He jealously desires the Spirit which He has made to dwell in us.”

I don’t have a clear understanding of what Riplinger sees as the difference here, but the change certainly doesn’t fit the charge of promoting self-esteem or deleting sin.

k.  1 Cor. 10:1; 12:1; 2 Cor. 1:8; KJV “ignorant” vs. “unaware.”  Webster’s defines “ignorant” as, “uninformed or unaware.”  So where’s the problem?

l.  1 Cor. 14:38.  
KJV “if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant,” 
NIV, NAS,  et al: “if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized.”

I guess by not using the word “ignorant,” it appeals to self-esteem?  NAS and NIV both footnote to be like the  KJV.  There is no self-image help here!

m.  Rom. 1:22. KJV’s “themselves” is omitted.  But, “Professing to be wise, they became fools” is, by context, addressing “themselves.”   Who else is “they?”!!!???

n.  Rev. 12:12.  KJV “woe to the inhabitants of the earth” vs. NAS “woe to the earth.”  The context is addressing the people!

18.  Beginning p.192 bottom, the new versions are “haughty” while KJV is “humble.”

a.  1 Cor. 4:4 complaint only against the NIV and NASB.
KJV:  “For I know nothing by myself.”
NIV/NAS:  “My conscience is clear.”

 While they do seem to say something different, they have nothing to do with haughtiness or humility.

b.  Job 42:6, NAS complaint.  
KJV:  “I abhor myself and repent in dust and ashes”
NAS:   “I retract, and I repent in dust and ashes”

Firstly, “myself” in the KJV is italicized, and not really there in the Greek.  So the comparison is “I abhor” vs “I retract.”  NAS is saying, “I withdraw” or “I pull back” and then “and I repent in dust and ashes.”  In other words, Job is humbling himself before God.  This is a far cry from being “haughty.” 

c.1 Thes. 2:4; KJV “allowed of” vs. “approved.”  In THIS context, the words mean the same thing.  Henry says, “They were stewards, put in trust with the gospel; and it is required of a steward that he be faithful.”  Isn’t this the same as saying they were “approved by God?”  God approved them by His trust in them.  Webster’s gives a definition of “allow” as, “to approve, justify, or sanction.”

d.  Luke 9:55,56 omission.  NAS does have these verses, and NIV footnotes them.  Even so, NIV v.55 says “Jesus turned and rebuked them.”  This sounds to me as if He just humbled them rather than built up their self-esteem.

e.  Matt. 18:11 omission.  NAS does have it, NIV footnotes it.  Nevertheless, how does this omission indicate “haughtiness?”

19.  Pp.193-194; the claim that sin is being squeezed out.  All one has to do is to read the N.T. in any new version to see constant references to sin, so even if these nine examples are valid examples of “squeezing out sin,” they are a small/unrepresentative sample.

a.  Col. 2:11; KJV “sins of the flesh” vs. NAS “the body of the flesh.”  In context, both say the sinful nature is being removed.

b.  Isa. 53:10; KJV “sin offering” vs. “guilt offering.”  Isn’t the guilt offering because of sin?

c.  1 John 3:5:   KJV “our sins” vs. NAS “sin.”  NIV reads as KJV.  “Sin” has not been removed!

d.  Heb. 9:7 “not in Greek” vs “committed in ignorance.”  Apparently Riplinger is saying that by saying the sins were committed in ignorance, the sin is being “squeezed out.”  Well, in my TR interlinear, it most certainly is there.  It says, “he offers for himself and the ignorances of the people.”  Argument dismantled.

e.  Matt. 18:7; KJV “offenses” vs. NAS “stumbling blocks.”  NIV says “sin”!  In context, I believe NAS and KJV are saying the same thing.  Sin is not being squeezed out.

f.  Heb. 1:3
KJV:  “by himself purged our sins”  [Riplinger’s emphasis]
New:  “He had made purification of sins”

While the new versions don’t emphasize “our” sins in the statement, the context is certainly about “our” sins.  Where is the “squeezing out” of sin?

g.  1 Peter 4:1; KJV “suffered for us” vs. “suffered.”  Anyone reading 1 Peter in its entirety will see that the context of 4:1 is indeed “for us,” whether stated here or not.  This still doesn’t fit the charge of removing sin.

h.  1 Cor. 5:7; KJV “for us” is missing in new versions.  But they do say “Christ our Passover” or “our Passover lamb.”  If He is ours, the He is “for us.”

i.  Luke 22:19-20. “which is given for you.”  NAS and NIV both have this in the text, regardless of the footnotes Riplinger doesn’t like.  Again, Riplinger only refers to footnotes that she can use for her claims, not those that go against them!

20.  P.194, Luke 7:30.  Riplinger says, “Like the Pharisees of old, new version editors have ‘redetected the counsil [sic] of God against them’ (even rejecting that verse).”

KJV:  “rejected the counsel of God against themselves”
NAS/NIV:  “rejected God’s purpose for themselves”

Henry says,  “The Pharisees, who were most in reputation for religion and devotion, and the lawyers, who were celebrated for their learning, especially their knowledge of the scriptures, rejected the counsel of God against themselves; they frustrated it, they received the grace of God, by the baptism of John, in vain.  God in sending that messenger among them had a kind purpose of good to them.”
It sounds to me that Henry sees the purpose for themselves in the counsel . . .against themselves.

21.  Chapter summary.  This was another very long chapter, and the main premise was that new versions promote the “self-esteem dream.”  Charges made against the “new versions” were as follows: 

a.  Replacing KJV words with “proud” or “boastful,” leading to self-esteem.
b.  Use of words with the prefix “self” to focus on self. 
c.  Use of the word “likeness” exalted man to be like God.
d.  Use of the word “imitate” made “imitation Christians.”
e.  Use “slander” instead of “blasphemy” to reduce the seriousness.
f.  Changing “Godhead” to “divinity” raises man to be like God.
g.  References to God have been removed to build a pedestal for man.
h.  By using “divine” instead of “God,” new versions replace God with a “personal power.”
i.  Passages give man divine power, precluding the need for God.
j.  New versions graft God’s glory into man.
k.  New versions “despoil” God’s image.
l.  New versions delete references to sin so as to prop up self-esteem.
m.  New versions teach haughtiness vs humility.
n.  New versions “squeeze out” sin.

No matter how many passages we looked at, there was not a single one which even hinted at promoting self-esteem.  Almost all of the passages in new versions read the same as KJV when context was considered.  Of course, as we have seen continuously in this review, Riplinger does not seem to be able to understand the context of passages.  As with the other chapters, Riplinger practices a great amount of eisegesis in her attempts to prove her case.  The verdict for Chapter Ten is the same as for all the previous chapters:  Riplinger hasn’t a leg to stand on in any of her charges.