"New Age Bible Versions" - Chapter 13

Chapter 13: Another Gospel.  The premise of this chapter is that the editors of the “new version” Bibles “Reject Scriptural Salvation.”  Riplinger says, “Ignoring the word of God, which shows us the way, and following some New Age atlas, many turn down these blind alleys looking for avenues of spiritual advancement.  The street signs leading to salvation have been switched in recent Bibles.  They now map out a migration away from the New Jerusalem.”  This rhetoric is followed by a chart showing “When, How, What, Who, Where”  with columns for “New Versions,” “New Age” and “KJV.”  Riplinger doesn’t state which Bible versions she is specifically citing, nor does she say where she gets her “New Age” citations from, nor does she cite any specific passages so people can look them up in context!  But for demonstration purposes, here is the text from the chart - showing no context, etc.  How can we check her without excessive time-wasting?  

1.  When: 
a.   KJV says “are saved”, New Age says “have been (baptized/initiated)” and “New Versions” say “have been (baptized/initiated).”  I don’t know of any version which says anyone has been “initiated” into salvation, etc, so this has to be a misrepresentation.  However, “have been baptized” is not a problem if the context is the fact that they are saved.
b.  KJV says “are saved” while New Age and New Versions both say, “are being saved.”  

2.  How:
a.  KJV says “believe,” while New Age and New Versions say “obey.”  
b.  KJV says “faith” while the other two say, “faithfulness.”

3.  What:
a.  KJV says, “the gospel,” while the others say, “a gospel.”
b.  KJV says “his word,” while the others say, “a message.”

4.  Who:
a.  KJV “the God” vs “a God.”
b.  KJV “the Son” vs “a son”
c.  KJV “the Saviour” vs “a Savior”  (is it New Age to spell Savior vs Saviour?)
d.  KJV “the Spirit” vs “a spirit”  (my guess is that the caps in KJV are not warranted)

5.  Where:  KJV “the world” vs “an age.”

Knowing that there are language problems with KJV vs current English, and knowing that in all previous claims we see Riplinger’s lack of context making the text appear to be saying something different when it isn’t, I would assume that her complaints are without warrant.  But, I am not going to sit down with a concordance to try to figure out which passages she is referring to - it just isn’t a proper use of time.

Riplinger then says, “New Version Editors Reject Scriptural Salvation,” and spends the rest of the chapter supporting this claim against the following:

6.  “Edwin Palmer: NIV”.  Riplinger cites a statement by Palmer, which is standard Calvinist theology, which says one must be regenerated before they have faith in Christ.  While I agree that Calvinist theology isn’t correct, it does not “reject Scriptural Salvation,” rather it just has a different understanding as to the sequence.  Her whole argument then continues by attacking Palmer’s Calvinism, as if that has anything to do with what the Bible actually says.   But she does give an example from the NIV which supposedly proves her point, and she also gives an example from the NAS, which Palmer isn’t accused of editing!

a.  Lk. 21:19
KJV: “In your patience possess ye your souls”
NIV:  “By standing firm you will save your souls.”

I’d say that “in your patience” and “by standing firm” one is doing pretty much the same thing, whether you want to call it “save” your souls or “possess” your souls.

b.  Heb. 8:9
KJV:  “Because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not” 
NAS:  “For they did not continue in my covenant and I did not care for them.”

Riplinger bolded “because” to make a point that isn’t there.  The two say the very same thing.  “For” is very often used synonymously with “because.”   She claims the NAS version presents “a cruel and fickle God.”  

As Riplinger continues in her diatribe, she said we have to “watch out for the letter ‘s’” - because it is of Satan, which is why, she says, Saul “had to be changed to Paul.”   Sigh.

7.  “J.B. Phillips: NASB-Greek-English Interlinear Preface, J.B. Phillips Translation, et. al.”  Riplinger cites  a statement from Phillips without any context so it is impossible, without reading the book she footnotes, to know if she is misrepresenting him.  However just looking at the citation she gives says she reads beyond what is stated:

“Those who give themselves in love to others did in fact ‘know God,’ however loudly they might protest their agnosticism.”

I see nothing in this statement by itself which supports Riplinger’s claim.

8.  The other two editors, B.F. Wescott and F.J.A. Hort, are attacked for promoting a “social interpretation of the Gospel,” and she cites a couple quotations.  My guess is that these citations are out of context because there are many false charges leveled at these men by the KJV Only crowd.  Since I do not want to get into this discussion here, I will point my readers to the following two links defending these gentlemen.

http://hipandthigh.wordpress.com/2013/08/30/were-bf-westcott-and-fja-hort-apostate-heretics/

http://hipandthigh.wordpress.com/2013/09/06/f-j-a-hort-and-seances/

9.  Chapter Summary:  Nothing but false charges and misrepresentations.