Here I continue from where I left off with the last NABV post! Again, the bold in the Scripture passages is by Riplinger.
5. “Antichrist” vs “Lord Jesus,” beginning on p.268. “The following charts continue to show how ‘the beasts’ [sic] bloodless bibles [sic] hide the keys to God’s kingdom — leaving souls out in the cold kingdom of the coming ‘king of nations.’”
a. John 9:35: “Do you believe on the son of Man?” vs “Dost thou believe on the Son of God?” `As noted previously, BOTH titles refer to the Messiah. So what are we hiding?
b. Acts 9:6: “[omitted]” vs “Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him…” Riplinger makes this appear to be something nefarious, but the particular passage affects nothing. It just has Saul asking the question, while with the “new versions” Jesus gives instructions without the question being asked. Again, what is hidden? (Perhaps “Lord” is being hidden, since she made it bold.)
c. Acts 8:37: “[omitted]” vs “And Philip said if thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” Again, the bolded phrase must be what Riplinger is calling hidden, because, as with the previous passage, whether we read Philip’s statement and the eunuch’s response, the action tells us what transpired - that the eunuch must have confessed his belief since he was baptized then and there.
d. Luke 23:42: “Jesus, remember me?” vs “Jesus, Lord, remember me.” Riplinger makes the first one a question, yet the passage cited never does! Or is this just a typo an editor didn’t discover? Again, the problem apparently is the lack of the word, “Lord,” as if the thief on the cross is asking Jesus to remember him while not believing He is Lord?!
Apparently Riplinger believes that references to deity are “hidden” in these passages in the “new versions,” yet if there really is a conspiracy to “hide” the deity of Christ, then why were only so few passages “fixed”? Nowhere in any of these cited passages has the context of the event been changed, and the deity of Christ is understood.
Continuing with “Antichrist vs Lord Jesus,” on page 269 Riplinger changes gears a bit with the next several passages as she implies that “new versions” support the “New Age” teaching that “the faith must be in ourselves.”
a. Mark 9:42: “who believes” vs “little ones that believe in me.” While the NAS and REB, read as stated, the NIV reads the same as KJV, yet Riplinger includes the NIV in her charge. GWN, NKJV, NET, ESV, HCSB, RSV, Beck, Phillips, and even Berkeley all read as the KJV, yet with Riplinger’s “et al” you’d think more than two versions would have this “problem”! Even so, it isn’t a problem because, in context, the subject of the belief has to be Jesus! (I wonder how many versions Riplinger actually reviewed - why does she not list them?)
b. John 3:15: “whosoever believes” vs “whosoever believeth in him.” Here we go again; Riplinger says this is with “NIV, NASB, et al” and yet both the NIV and NASB read as KJV! In fact, I couldn’t find a version on my shelf which meets her claim! I’m at the point that I don’t want to bother with searching all the versions I have, rather I will mostly just check the NIV and NAS in my parallel Bible.
c. John 6:47: “he who believes has everlasting life” vs “he that believeth on me hath everlasting life.” I didn’t look beyond the NIV and NAS because they are both as stated here. However, the lack of the words “on me” doesn’t affect the context. Anyone reading the passage in context should easily understand the object of the belief is not self but Christ!
d. Acts 22:16: “calling on His name” vs “calling on the name of the Lord.” This is another example of nonsense. If one is calling on “His name,” he is certainly calling on the “name of the Lord.” The two phrases are synonymous! Riplinger has a real problem with context, and is paranoid about not having “of the Lord” because, in reference to the previous section, someone must be hiding something! Yet, this section is supposed to be about passages that, in new versions, teach belief - i.e. faith - in oneself!! It would be nice if Riplinger was consistent.
e. Rom. 1:16, 1 Cor. 9:18: “gospel” vs “gospel of Christ.” Well, Riplinger has apparently returned to the issue of “hiding” things in the “new versions,” because she is complaining about the lack of “of Christ” — as if there is another gospel in the context of these passages.
f. Gal. 5:15: “Neither is circumcision anything” vs “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything.” Something else “hidden” again. The whole context of this section is about the change of things “in Christ.” Again, context is ignored so as to make the claim that “new versions” have hidden Christ’s name.
g. Rom. 15:29: “the blessing of Christ” vs “the blessing of the gospel of Christ.” ARGH!! So here we don’t have new versions hiding the deity of Christ, rather we are hiding that the gospel of Christ actually gives a blessing rather than just Christ giving the blessings. Would not the blessings of Christ include His gospel?
h. Eph. 1:13: “in Him” vs “In whom ye also trusted.” I’m not sure if the charge here is of hiding something or teaching belief/trusting/faith in oneself. First, I must point out that in the KJV “trusted” is italicized, which means it is not in the original Greek but was put there by the translators. So when Riplinger complains about what the Greek text says, she has to drop out this word for the KJV! In the passage, the “missing” KJV phrase is redundant, because further in the passage it says the person believed in Christ!
i. Eph. 1:11: “also have obtained an inheritance” vs “In whom also we have obtained an inheritance.” Actually, the context carries over from vs.10 and it becomes, “In Him also we have obtained.” Either Riplinger doesn’t understand the context or she is being dishonest. NIV actually says something different, but there is no need to address it because she didn’t address it.
There is nothing in these passages which support Ripliner’s claim that new version Bibles teach faith in oneself.
6. “The Beast” vs “The Blood.” This chart (p.270) supposedly shows the theology of “the Beast” by verses which have left out references to “the Blood.”
a. Col. 1:14: “in whom we have redemption” vs “in whom we have redemption through his blood.” I agree that this is missing “the blood.” My only point would be that the entire context of the N.T. tells us how the redemption was purchased, so to leave “the blood” out of this passage does not weaken the doctrine.
b. Rom. 3:25: “faith” vs “faith in his blood.” More deceit from Riplinger. NIV is as KJV, while NAS says, “in His blood through faith.” If she can’t get the first two of her “NIV, NASB, et al” right, I’m not wasting my time searching for the “guilty” version.
c. Matt. 27:4: “innocent blood” vs “the innocent blood” (“Jesus is the only one with innocent blood”). Whether the passage includes “the” or not, the subject in the context is Jesus. Additionally, the term “innocent” blood is used often of one who is punished while being innocent of the crime for which he was punished, and has nothing to do with the equivocation Riplinger made. (see Deut. 19:10; 1 Kings 24:2-4; Prov. 6:16-19, e.g.)
d. Rev. 1:5: “freed us from our sins” vs. “washed us from our sins.” Riplinger implies that in order for Jesus’ blood to be efficacious we must be washed in it. However, the washing here is figurative, and in the “new versions” the “blood” is still there. NIV: “freed us from our sins by his blood.” NAS: “released us from our sins by His blood.” So the question is how one is “freed” or “released” from sins by the “blood”? There is not literal “washing,” and the doctrine is still that sin is paid for by the blood of Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross.
e. Luke 22:20: “cup which is poured” vs “blood which is shed.” In context, the “cup which is poured” out is the “new covenant in my blood.” So whether the blood is “poured” or “shed,” the context is the same — the cup of wine represents the blood of Christ sacrificed for our sin.
d. “Col. 1:24: “which is lacking in Christ’s afflictions” vs “the afflictions of Christ in my flesh.” I don’t understand why Riplinger included this passage in this chart about “blood.” In fact, I find reading this passage in KJV to be very difficult to understand: “and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ” seems to me to be saying “what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ” — “which is behind of afflictions” does not seem to be comprehensible.
Again, the charge by Riplinger that new versions eliminate the need for blood for forgiveness of sin has been proven false.
7. “New Age Avatar” vs “Suffering Saviour.” Here we have a chart (p.271) which is claiming that passages just make Jesus out to be anybody rather than our savior.
a. 1 Cor. 11:24: “This is my body which is for you” vs “This is my body which is broken for you.” Previous to this, Paul said Christ broke the bread and then gave it to them. So is the bread that which is “broken” in the KJV? Christ’s body wasn’t broken at all! However, there is a parallel here from the bread to Christ’s body, and although Christ’s body wasn’t literally broken, it was broken in a metaphorical sense, which I think is easily understood in the non-KJV versions. It certainly doesn’t lead to one thinking of Christ as just an “avatar” as claimed by Riplinger.
b. 1 Pet. 3:18: “Christ also died” vs “Christ also hath once suffered.” In the context, the passage explains what “suffered”in KJV means: “being put to death in the flesh.” So, by context, they all say the same thing.
c. Matt. 8:17: “carried away our diseases” vs “bare our sicknesses.” To “bare” is to “carry,” so that isn’t the problem. Riplinger’s problem is “diseases” vs “sicknesses,” as if healing from “diseases” is new age and healing from “sicknesses” isn’t. What’s interesting is that Matt. 8:17 is quoting Isaiah 53:4, and Isaiah says that he bore our “sorrows.” I wonder what Riplinger would have to say about that?
d. Eph. 1:14: “to the redemption of God’s (own) possession” vs “the redemption of the purchased possession.” I discovered that Ripliner’s “(own)” is to let us know that the NAS has the word italicized. However, she missed the fact that the word “God’s” is also italicized! She needs to be consistent. She alerts us to the fact that there is no “purchased” in the “new versions,” but the context of the entire section tells us that, “In him we have redemption through his blood,” and “redemption” in this context is the same as “purchasing.” So if the word “purchased” is missing, does this relegate Christ to a “New Age Avatar”?!?!
e. Col. 2:14: “nailed it to the cross” vs “nailing it to his cross.” Since the whole context is about the cross Christ was crucified on, isn’t “his” implied? Riplinger thinks by leaving out the word “his” Christ then is no longer a “suffering Savioiur.” Of course this is inane.
This chart, like the others, has nothing to back Riplinger’s claim that new version Bibles promote an “avatar” instead of a Savior.
8. “God in All” vs “God in Christians.” (p.272) Riplinger claims that new versions (NIV, NASB, et al) have language which leads to the belief that God is in everything - i.e., panentheism. She gives but two examples:
a. Eph. 4:6: “God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all” vs “One God and Father of all who is above all and through all and in you all.” Firstly, the citation from the “new versions” leaves off the “one” at the beginning; i.e., “one God and Father.” Did Riplinger do this intentionally to imply that the “new versions” don’t teach one God? Secondly, the Christian doesn’t have God the Father or God the Son in them; they instead have God the Holy Spirit in them. So I’d say the KJV is in error here. The “new versions” could just mean, since the letter is to Christians, that God is in “all people.” I think the point is not that God is “in” everything, but that He is omnipresent; there is nowhere that God isn’t.
b. Rev. 22:21: “The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all.” vs. “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all.” I see this as like the previous - the “all” has to be the people; simple context, which Riplinger doesn’t seem to understand. Also, with this one she applies the charge to just the NASB, yet the chart both passages are in says “NIV, NASB, et al.”
So here we have Riplinger fining two passages which she believes are promoting panentheism. This is a gross overstatement.
9. “Antichrist: King of Nations” vs “Christ: King of Saints” (p.273) Riplinger found two verses which in the “NIV, NASB, et al.” the word “saints” is replaced with “nations.” Of course this means the new Bibles are promoting the antichrist.
a. Rev. 15:3: “King of the nations” vs “King of the saints.” Riplinger notes that different Greek texts vary here, and while the TR has “hagios” and translated as “holy” in other places, the other two texts have “aeon” (“ages” — as with the NIV, contrary to Riplinger’s heading) or “ethos,” stated by Riplinger to be translated as “pagans” elsewhere in the Bible. It seems to me that, in context, that “nations” would make more sense because Jesus is not just King of the believers. The rest of the world may not recognize him as their king, but that doesn’t change the facts. Even “King of the ages” makes more sense than just “king of the saints.” KJVO’s actually limits Jesus’ kingship!
b. Rev. 21:24: “And the nations shall walk by its light” vs “and the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it.” If one actually looks at the context (as apparently Riplinger doesn’t), the only people in the nations are saved people. So it becomes redundant to put Riplinger’s phrase in there.
As with the previous chart claims, there is nothing substantiating Riplinger’s charges.
10. The chart on p. 274 has one verse from the Living Bible (a paraphrase) which shows “Universalism” vs “Christianity.” The one passage is 1 Tim. 3:16: “Christ. . .was accepted by men everywhere” vs “preached unto the Gentiles.” Riplinger is again being dishonest. The parallel to the KJV in the LB is, “preached among the nations.” These say the very same thing! The passage which is supposed to be showing universalism is paralleled by KJV’s “believed on in the world.” Again, the phrases are synonymous!
11. Buried in a chart full of rhetoric on p. 275 are two claims against the NAS under “Apostate Christianity.” The first attack lists the word “proclaiming” vs many passages in the KJV which use the word “preaching” instead. This is rank foolishness, since in this context the two words are synonymous. I really have to ask how this is “apostate.”!
The second passage is Rom. 8:2, where the NAS says, “Jesus Christ has set you free” vs the KJV which says, “Jesus Christ hath set me free,” and then she says to “see Gal. 5:1.” I don’t understand her reference to Galatians, since that passage in every version says, Christ has set/made “us” free. The context in Romans is indeed “me,” since Paul is talking about himself, but the use of the plural “you” in the NAS would include Paul. The meaning doesn’t change, so I’m at a loss to see how this is “apostate.”
12. Riplinger has one more claim against other version Bibles in this chapter; while the KJV in many passages refers to “the way,” newer versions refer to “the Way” (“Way” being capitalized). To “prove” the problem with this usage, Riplinger cites pagan religious systems which call their belief “the Way,” and cites New Age writers as using “the Way” to describe their various teachings. Therefore, as Riplinger makes out, Bible versions using a capital letter are promoting the same thing as the Eastern and New Age religions. However, the actual reason that the new versions use the upper case for “Way” is because of its association with God/Christ, just as they capitalize “the Word” when referring to Scripture. It is a non sequitur logic fallacy to say that this is proof of New Age” teachings in new Bibles.
13. So, let’s look at the charges Riplinger has made in Chapter 6.
a. “A gospel” vs “The gospel,” with claims that “a” replaces “the” and changes the context. Proven to be wrong about the claim.
b. “A message” vs “The word,” the claim being that “message” isn’t precise as to the “Word” of God. We saw in context that the two words were actually synonymous.
c. “A God” vs “the God” again is synonymous in context.
d. “A Son” vs “the Son” has the same claims refuted as the previous “a” vs “the” examples.
e. “A Savior” vs “the Saviour”; like all the previous “a” vs “the” claims, was dismantled.
f. “Antichrist” vs “Lord Jesus” claims the “keys to God’s kingdom” are hidden and we discovered that there is nothing hidden.
g. “The Beast” vs “The Blood” supposedly has new versions dropping the mention of the blood of Jesus, yet this was proven to again be an invalid charge.
h. “New Age Avatar” vs “Suffering Saviour” had absolutely no evidence to substantiate her claim.
i. “God in All” vs “God in Christians” was another poor claim demonstrated to be false.
j. “Antichrist: King of Nations” vs “Christ: King of Saints.” Another weak claim dismantled.
k. Claims of “Universalism” and “Apostate Christianity” were proven false.
l. The foolishness of “the Way” being New Age was examined.
m. Claims against “NIV, NASB, et al.” very often proven that only one Bible has the problem, and usually it’s an obscure version or a paraphrase.
n. Dishonest handling of the texts used for comparison.
I’d say that, with only 16 chapters examined, Riplinger has continued to be shown as one who doesn’t understand context, who is paranoid about word meanings, who is, by all appearances, intentionally deceptive to make her charges look firm, as one who is not a credible author.
No comments:
Post a Comment