It has been four months since my last chapter review, and I apologize for the delay. Doing this review has gotten to be more involved that I originally thought, because the claims become more and more absurd as I go, which means I have to be careful to keep an accurate report of Riplinger’s wild charges against modern Bible versions. (I would really be behind if I examined all her claims as to the people involved, the conspiracy theories, etc.!) Anyway, let’s now look at Chapter 15.
Chapter 15: “Striving or Saved?” The premise of this chapter is apparently that, while with the KJV you can know you are saved, with the “new versions” you are only striving to be saved - sort of a continuation of the premise of chapter 14.
1. P. 251 ff: Riplinger declares that there is “a trend” with “new version” Bibles being “modified to match their mentor - Martha, not Mary.” Then she points to Luke 10:40-42 in the KJV: “Martha was cumbered about much serving. . .Jesus answered and said unto her, ‘Martha, Martha thou art careful and troubled about many things: But one thing is needful and Mary hath chosen that. . .’”
a. Riplinger claims that the NAS has changed “one thing” to “a few things,” and thereby pointing to more things needed to be done than to listen to Jesus’ teachings. But what does the NAS really say? “but only a few things are necessary, really only one, for Mary has chosen the good part...” Notice that in the NAS Jesus says a “few things,” but then reduces it to “really only one” thing. Maybe Riplinger missed that part.
b. Next, Riplinger says, “the ‘one thing’ that was needful, that is, listening to Christ’s words, the new versions omit or obscure references to bible [sic] teaching, studying or meditation.” She follows this claim by the following examples of KJV vs “new versions” (Riplinger should have done some study in Vine’s before she did this section):
Luke 4:4: KJV “That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God” vs “man shall not live on bread alone.” (bold emphasis by Riplinger). I can’t respond to what the underlying texts have and why, but I feel that by using the first part of the passage, it pointed to the complete text - which Satan surely knew.
1 Peter 2:2: KJV “desire the sincere milk of the word” vs “long for the pure spiritual milk.” Well, while this is similar to what the NIV says, the NAS says the same as the KJV. Without searching others, this is an example of painting all with the same brush. However, in context, what could the “spiritual milk” be except the teaching of the Word?
1 Tim. 4:15: KJV “meditate upon” vs “take pains with [ouch].” Riplinger’s attempt at humor is stupid. “take pains with” is an idiom meaning the same thing as “meditate upon” in this context. Only NAS uses that.
2 Tim. 2:15: KJV “Study to shew thyself approved” vs “Be diligent [with what] to present yourself.” More dishonesty from Riplinger. The answer to “[with what]” is the same as for “study [what?]. Full passage says essentially the same thing in all versions, in that the Christian is to study the word and be diligent in such study so as to present oneself approved to God as one who is able to accurately understand and teach the Word of God.
Acts 20:28: KJV “Feed the church” vs “shepherd the church.” The Greek here is poimaino. According to Vine’s this word means “to act as a shepherd.” Vines says “to tend” would be a better translation of the KJV, since “feed” is not the only thing a shepherd does to take care of his flock. So the one with a bad translation is the KJV!
Rev. 7:17: KJV “feed them” vs “be their shepherd.” Same as Acts 20:28.
Luke 17:7: KJV “feeding” vs “tending.” Same as Acts 20:28, but this is used literally here, so how does this have anything to do with teaching the Word?
John 21:15: KJV “Feed my lambs” vs “Tend my lambs.”
John 21:16: KJV “Feed my sheep” vs “Shepherd my sheep”
John 21:17: KJV “Feed my sheep” vs “Tend my sheep”
Vine’s says the following: “In John 21:15, 16, 17, the Lord, addressing Peter, first uses No.1 bosko (v.15) [“too feed”], then No. 2, poimaino (v.16), and then returns to bosko (v.17). These are not simply interchangeable (nor are other variations in His remarks) . . . Nor, again, is there a progression of ideas. The lesson to be learnt . . . is that, in the spiritual care of God’s children, the ‘feeding’ of the flock from the Word of God is the constant and regular necessity; it is to have the foremost place. The tending (which includes this) consists of other acts, of discipline, authority, restoration, material assistance of individuals, but they are incidental in comparison with the ‘feeding’.” So, we have KJV in error for vs. 16. Also, the NIV has the correct sequence, but NAS is as Riplinger states. Riplinger again broad-brushes all “new versions” rather than pointing out the one with the error. Just for curiosity in this one, I checked other translations and found that the only other one like the NAS was the TEV. Even the Catholic NAB got it correct!
Heb. 4:12: KJV “The word of God is...powerful” vs “The word of God is...active.” Vine’s says the Greek here, energes, means “active.” Of course the Word is indeed “powerful” in its various activities.
c. Riplinger then reverses and tells us to “Watch Martha keep busy with the following ‘few things’.”
Eccl 5:20: KJV “God answereth him” vs NKJV “God keeps him busy.” Other versions say “God keeps him occupied with the gladness of his heart” or similar. KJV complete verse is, “God answereth him in the joy of his heart.” I think the two pretty much say the same thing, in that God directs him to the joy in his heart and to focus on that while he goes about his business. This really is a silly example for Riplinger to use.
Rom. 12:16: KJV “condescend to men of low estate” vs “be willing to do menial work NASB (f).” I think Riplinger means in the footnote, but I only found it in the NIV. And that is noted as an alternate understanding rather than in the text. Even so, I would ask how one could “condescend to men of low estate” or “associate with the lowly” without being “willing to do menial work”? This is another really weak example of trying to make “new versions” look corrupt.
d. “The new versions substitute ‘a form of godliness’ for the ‘one needful thing,’ faith and its simplicity.”
2 Cor. 11:3: KJV “the simplicity that is in Christ” vs “purity of devotion to Christ.” This really has nothing to do with her claim. The point of the passage is that Paul concerned that the Corinthians will be led astray by false teachings. Whether it means to teachings more complex than the simplicity of the Gospel, or teachings which lead them from the purity of their devotion to Christ which is BASED on the Gospel, the result is the same. It gives no “form of godliness” as a replacement for “simplicity.”
Acts 2:46: KJV “singleness of heart” vs “sincerity of heart.”
Col. 3:22: KJV “singleness of heart” vs “sincerity of heart”
Eph. 6:5: KJV “singleness of your heart” vs “sincerity of your heart.”
WOW! Just off the top of my head I have to say if one is sincere in their heart, then they have a singleness of their heart in their sincerity; I see them as synonymous. The Greek in the Acts passage is aphelotes, which “denotes ‘simplicity,’... for which Moulton and Milligan, from papyri examples, suggest ‘unworldly simplicity’; the idea here is that of an unalloyed benevolence expressed in act.” I think that is expressed by the phrase “sincerity of heart.” The Greek in the other two passages is “haplotes,” for which Vine’s says, “The thought of sincerity is present in ... Eph. 6:5; Col. 3:22.” I rest my case.
Matt. 6:22: KJV “thine eye be single” vs “If your eye is clear.” NIV says “good” instead of “clear.” Vine’s says the word means “simple, single” in a moral sense in this passage, as well as in Luke 11:34, meaning “singleness of purpose.” I like “The Defined King James Bible” (a production of KJV only adherents) because it explains in footnotes the archaic language in the text. At this passage, the DKJB says the meaning of “single” is “sound, healthy.” I would say that if one’s eye is “clear,” then it is certainly “sound, healthy.” And a “clear” eye is also a “good” eye. Again, Riplinger’s claim is dismantled.
Riplinger then follows this section with five statements of how “simple” salvation is, to “prove” that the “singleness” and “simplicity” passages are superior to the “sincerity” passages. The claim has no bearing on the previous charges.
2. p.253, subparagraph (5) has Riplinger charging new Bibles with being oriented towards works-salvation. She says that verses critical to an understanding of faith vs works are omitted from “NIV, NASB, et al.” The following verses all show as being omitted (the bold passage is the “omitted” passage):
a. Romans 11:6
KJV: And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
NIV: And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.
NAS: But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.
As we can see, it is true that the last sentence is missing in the modern texts. But it is redundant to the first sentence, and the last phrase really doesn’t make sense. There is NO omission of the teaching of faith vs works.
b. Col.3:16 - omitted the word “grace”
KJV: Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.
NIV: …with gratitude in your hearts to God.
NAS: …with thankfulness in your hearts to God.
More of Riplinger’s deception. In this passage, “grace” has nothing to do with salvation, let alone teaching works vs faith. And the words used in the “new versions” are synonymous.
c. Gen. 6:8 - omitted the word “grace”
KJV: But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.
NIV & NAS: But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.
Again with the deception. As with Col.3:16, this passage has nothing to do with faith vs works for salvation, and “favor” is a better understanding of the text.
d. Mark 6:11: KJV has the following statement which is omitted from new versions: “Verily I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment for that city.” Riplinger then comments: “Not receiving Jesus Christ is a greater sin than sodomy etc. Consequently those with ‘good works’ but without faith in Christ will be judged more harshly than the Sodomites.”
The problem is that this passage has nothing to do with the subject of works vs. faith, which is supposed to be the subject. Whether the passage should be there or not, using this verse to “prove” her case actually proves nothing.
e. p.254 “The word ‘deeds’ is added with no Greek basis. The ‘evil heart of unbelief’ in Hebrew 3:12 is also scrambled in the new versions, obscuring God’s definition of evil and good.” Lets look at Heb. 3:12 first.
KJV: “Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.”
NAS: “Take care, brethren, lest there should be in any one of you an evil, unbelieving heart, in falling away from the living God.”
NIV: “See to it brothers, that none of you has a sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God.”
From what I see, they all say the same thing. I don’t know how Riplinger sees them as “scrambled.”
The next passage Riplinger looks at is John 5:29, comparing NAS to KJV. KJV says, “they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.” The NAS has “good deeds” and “evil deeds,” with “deeds” italicized. I think in the KJV “deeds” is implied, and the NAS seems to me to just be adding for clarification - and NOT teaching works vs faith.
Riplinger next makes a big deal about NAS “DEEDS” vs KJV “deeds” at Rom. 2:6; she says, “Just so you won’t miss it—” and then shows the comparison. This is deception again. NAS uses all caps when citing from the O.T., which this passage does! It is NOT emphasizing “deeds” as something important.
Next, Riplinger compares Acts 18:5 and 1 Tim. 4:12 with the statement, “New versions substitute will-power for the power of the indwelling spirit.”
Acts 18:5
KJV: “Paul was pressed in the spirit, and testified to the Jews”
NAS: “Paul began devoting himself completely to the word, solemnly testifying to the Jews”
NIV “Paul devoted himself exclusively to preaching, testifying to the Jews”
Well, I can certainly see the difference here! Even my Nestle Greek interlinear agrees with KJV. The question becomes, was the motive for this translation to “substitute will-power for the power of the indwelling spirit”? I don’t think so, and I don’t think Riplinger is a mind-reader. So, although there is a reason to raise one’s eyebrows here, I think her charges are presumptuous.
Next, she says KJV “in spirit” is replaced by “in purity”
1 Tim. 4:12
KJV: “be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.”
NAS: “but rather in speech, conduct, love, faith and purity show yourself an example”
NIV: “set an example for the believers in speech, in life, in love, in faith and in purity.”
Riplinger is wrong; there was no replacement of “spirit” with “purity,” because all three have the word “purity.” So there has been NO exchange as claimed. One may question the omission of the word “spirit,” but the charge levied is false.
3. p.255. Riplinger says that the Jehovah Witness cult substitutes the word “disobedience” for “unbelief,” and “obey” for “believe.” Then she provides six passages which show how new versions have done the same thing, and questions if they shouldn’t read “Jehovah Witness Bible” on the cover.
a. John 3:36: KJV “believeth” vs NAS “obey.” There are two parts of the passage, and the NAS does say “believes” in the first part, but “obeys” in the second. Curious, but the passage still has “believe,” contrary to Riplinger’s claim.
b. Rom. 11:32: KJV “unbelief” vs “disobedience.” In this case, it appears to me that “disobedience” includes unbelief, and is more than unbelief. So I think it is appropriate here.
c. Heb. 3:18: KJV “believed not” vs “disobedient.” Heb. 3:19 in all say “unbelief,” reiterating vs 18, and in context I think “disobedient” here is as in Rom. 11:32 - appropriate.
d. Heb. 4:6, 11: KJV “unbelief” vs “disobedience.” Context here DEFINITELY calls for “disobedience” vs “unbelief,” because it was BOTH in context, and the former includes the latter.
e. Rom. 15:31: KJV “do not believe” vs NAS “disobedient.” Again, in context, I think “disobedient” is appropriate due to the inclusion of “do not believe” in that term.
Riplinger then says that “faith is obedience,” so cannot “disobedience” include the lack of faith? I realize that not all the time can it do so, but I think the context of these passages do. So, no, the new versions should NOT be labeled JW Bibles.
4. p.256. “Other verses lead new version readers to think salvation is dependent upon perseverance, endurance, or steadfastness.” Looking ahead at the passages she cites, I can see Riplinger confuses “perseverance” with “work.” Can it include work? Yes, but overall it just means to continue in what you are doing, whether it work, living, trusting, waiting, etc.
a. Rom. 5:4; 2 Cor. 12:12, 6:4: KJV “patience [wait]” vs “persevere [work].” Well, in Rom. 5:4, “perseverance” in context is certainly the same as “patience.” In 2 Cor. 6:4 NAS and NIV both say “endurance,” which is certainly synonymous in context with “patience,” and a different word than Riplinger claims! In 2 Cor. 12:12 “patience” and “perseverance” are synonymous.
b. Heb. 10:36 and 2 Cor. 6:4: KJV says “patience” vs “endurance.” These are synonymous in context.
c. Col. 1:23: KJV says “settled” (which Riplinger defines as “resting”) vs “steadfast” (which she defines as “don’t mess up”). I don’t know where she gets her definition, but I’ve never heard “steadfast” meaning to not mess up! It means to hold your ground, be unwavering, etc. Now, let’s look at what the passage really says as opposed to what Riplinger says they say:
KJV: “continue in the faith, grounded and settled”
NAS: “continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast”
NIV: “continue in your faith, established and firm”
As you can see, each of these passages, while using different verbiage, are saying the exact same thing! Riplinger is again being deceitful by pulling one word out of context and then claiming that the new versions are promoting works over faith for salvation!
d. 2 Tim. 2:12. KJV “suffer [if we suffer]” vs “if we endure [if we made it].” Again, the problem is Riplinger’s definitions. One of the meanings for the word “suffer” is to “endure,” and is proper in the context of the passage. Riplinger, seemingly not knowing this, comes up with her own biased interpretation and then blames the new versions!
e. Acts 11:23: KJV “cleave unto [rely on him]” vs “to remain true [don’t mess up].” Again Riplinger misdefines words so as to deceive the reader. To “cleave unto” in this context indeed means “to remain true.” To “cleave unto” something means to stick to it, remain true to it, to remain loyal. Look at Gen. 2:24 where it says man will “cleave unto” his wife - does that mean he will “rely on” her?!?
f. 1 Pet. 1:5: KJV “are kept [God keeps you] vs “are protected by the power of God [Is God a body guard?]” Riplinger is getting completely foolish. What does it mean to be “kept” by God? (Notice her definition just uses another form of the word.) The full phrase in KJV is “who are kept by the power of God,” which means “protected by the power of God.” Why did Riplinger cut short the phrase in KJV? Obviously it is because the two versions look so much alike - they say the same thing!
g. Heb. 10:23: KJV “profession of our faith” vs “confidence of our hope [I ‘hope’ I make it!]. Again the deception of Riplinger raises its head; she equivocates on the word “hope” to make it sound foolish. What is our “hope”? It is “the confidence that what God has done for us in the past guarantees our participation in what God will do in the future. This contrasts to the world’s definition of hope as ‘a feeling that what is wanted will happen.’” [Riplinger’s definition]. (Holman Bible Dictionary) God is our Hope, Christ is our Hope, and indeed our hope is the object of our faith.
As we can see, NONE of the passages have new versions teaching that our works are needed for salvation. Riplinger’s deceit is manifest.
5. Beginning at p.256 and ending the chapter at p.258, Riplinger makes an issue of the use of “faithfulness” in new versions instead of “faith” in KJV. Then she claims that the false teachings promulgated by Word of Faith teachers like Kenneth Copeland can teach what they do by use of new versions! Interestingly enough, most of the teachings by WOF heretics is done using the KJV! Cults LOVE the KJV.
So let’s look at Riplinger’s first two examples, Matt. 23:23 and Gal. 5:22, both of which in the KJV say “faith” vs “faithfulness” in new versions. Riplinger uses a Focus on the Family radio program’s explanation of “faithfulness” to demonstrate the Biblical problem in these two passages. Here is FOF’s definition: “paying your bills on time and canceling appointments when you can’t make them.” Again, the problem with Riplinger is the logic fallacy of equivocation - swapping the meanings of the word.
In both these passages “faithfulness” means more than faith - faithfulness by meaning is “full of faith.” Not only does one have faith in Christ and his work for our salvation, but he applies it in his everyday living by his being full of faith, by his faithfulness to his to his belief.
Riplinger, who to my understanding has no training in the Greek language, then attacks new versions’ handling of what she calls “the two key verses opening the door to an understanding of faith.” (By what reasoning she comes to the conclusion that these two passages are “the two key verses” was not explained.) The two passages are Gal. 3:2 and Heb. 11:1.
a. Gal. 3:2
KJV: “Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?”
NAS: “Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by the hearing with faith?”
NIV: “Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard?”
Riplinger takes umbrage with NIV’s “observing the law” over “works of the law,” but my question is how can one “observe” the law without doing the works? She then has a problem with NIV’s “believing what you heard,” but isn’t that just saying one has faith in what they heard, that the hearing was done with faith?
b. Heb. 11:1
KJV: “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”
NAS: “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.”
NIV: “Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.”
TEV: “To have faith is to be sure of the things we hope for, to be certain of the things we cannot see.”
Riplinger says that both NIV and TEV changed two Greek nouns to adjectives and that the NAS mistranslates the noun “substance.” Well, we often change grammatical structures of words so as to get better meaning in English, and KJV does that a lot. But when I read all four translations above, I see them all saying the same thing! However, KJV’s “substance” is what the WOF use as one of their main “proofs” for their belief that faith is a substance!
Riplinger stated that there were two “key verses,” but she closes the chapter with a third!
c. John 12:41
KJV: “The things said Esaias when he saw his glory”
NIV: “Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus’ glory.” (Riplinger’s bold).
Riplinger states, “The majority of Greek MS read ‘when,’ which points to faith.” It appears to me, from reading the plain English, that BOTH point to a faith that was brought about by what Isaiah saw!
6. Chapter summary. Riplinger’s premise at the beginning of this chapter was a continuation of the premise of Chapter 14, i.e., that the new versions teach works for salvation rather than faith; that the new versions have one in a continuous state of doing something in order to be saved. In every single instance of words compared, we have found that Riplinger has often been deceptive, and that all versions end up with the very same meanings in all of the passages she cites as her evidence. Only one passage demonstrated a problem with translation in the new versions, and that was Acts 18:5, as reviewed in subparagraph 2.e. above. Even that apparently wrong translation did NOT meet the requirements of Riplinger’s claim, in that it had nothing to do with teaching works vs. faith.
No comments:
Post a Comment