We who preach the gospel must not think of ourselves as public relations agents sent to establish good will between Christ and the world. We must not imagine ourselves commissioned to make Christ acceptable to big business, the press, the world of sports or modern education. We are not diplomats but prophets, and our message is not a compromise but an ultimatum. A.W. Tozer
Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth. --Basil of Caesarea
Once you learn to discern, there's no going back. You will begin to spot the lie everywhere it appears.

I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who has strengthened me, because He considered me faithful, putting me into service. 1 Timothy 1:12

Friday, February 19, 2016

"New Age Bible Versions"-- Chapter 22

Yes, it's been 2 1/2 months since my last chapter review.  This is really an onerous task because one must check every single detail of every Bible verse Riplinger makes claims against in "new" Bible versions.  It's sometimes difficult to get motivated to continue the work!  Nevertheless, here is the latest episode.  

Chapter 22: “King of Kings & Lord of Lords.”  The claim in this chapter is more denigrating Jesus’ position, calling him “master” instead of “lord” or “Lord” instead of “God” or “Christ.”  “Lord” is an “objectionable” title for use in the “new age” versions, according to Riplinger.

1.  First chart is on pg.331.  Riplinger writes that because Rom. 10:9 says one must confess Jesus as Lord, replacing the word with “master” shows the title “Lord” is hated.  So let’s look at the passages:

a.  Matt. 24:45:  “Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season?”  
Here we have a passage not even speaking about Jesus!  Strong’s says the Greek word here (kyrios) means: “lord, master.  This can be a title of address to a person of higher status, ‘lord, sir’; a master of property or slaves…”  I would say that in this passage, the context is much better expressed by “master.” It has nothing to do with denigrating the status of Jesus.

b.  Matt. 25:18:  “But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord's money.”  This issue is the same as with the previous passage.  It is not about Jesus Christ.

c.  Matt. 25:21:  “His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.”  Riplinger has the word capitalized in her chart (“Lord”) as if it is referring to Jesus, but again context proves differently.

d.  Mark 10:51, 52.  “And Jesus answered and said unto him, What wilt thou that I should do unto thee? The blind man said unto him, Lord, that I might receive my sight. And Jesus said unto him, Go thy way; thy faith hath made thee whole. And immediately he received his sight, and followed Jesus in the way.”  
Riplinger’s chart shows KJV with “Lord…Jesus” while new versions have “Rabboni,…Him.”  The first word, rhabboni, is translated correctly in the newer versions, in that they translate literally. Strong’s says, “Rabboni, a title of a teacher,” and in the KJV it is used twice, once translated as “lord” and the other as  ‘Rabboni.”  So in this instance the use of Rabboni is not addressing Jesus as the Lord, but rather as the teacher.  
Where the new versions replace “Jesus” with “him,” they are merely using a matter of style since Jesus’ name was already in the paragraph twice and using a pronoun does not diminish who Jesus is.

e.  Luke 12:45-47: But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken; The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.” 
Riplinger makes these three verses as three separate entries to make it look like many passages twist “lord” to be “master” to denigrate Jesus’ position.  However, all of these are the same issue as with above, where “lord” has nothing to do with Jesus and “master” is a very appropriate translation of the Greek.

f.  Luke 23:42:  “And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.”
Riplinger’s chart shows this one as “OMIT” in new versions.  What she means is that the new versions just say “Jesus” rather than “Jesus, Lord.”  While the word may not be in the manuscripts Riplinger condemns, even in the KJV there is nothing which says the dying man meant for the word (says “kyrios” as above) to mean anything other than “master,” and omitting the word does not lessen Jesus’ stature in any way.

g. 1 Cor. 15:47:The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.
Again, Riplinger says of “new versions,” “OMIT,” meaning “Lord” is left out.  However, the context of this passage goes back to at least vs.20 where a contrast is being made between Adam and Christ.  Since it is plain that Christ is the “man from heaven,” there is no denigration of Christ by leaving out the word “Lord” in any manuscript.

h. 2 Cor. 4:10:   “Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body.”
Riplinger’s complaint is that “Lord” is left out of the first use of Jesus’ name; my question is, if it is so important then why does the KJV not have “Lord” in the second use?  The whole chapter is discussing the glory of Christ, so how would leaving out the word “Lord” be denigrating in any way?!?!

i.  2 Tim. 4:1:  KJV “Lord Jesus Christ” vs “Christ Jesus.”  So does leaving out the word “Lord” really diminish Jesus in any way?

j. 2 John 1:3:  KJV “Lord Jesus Christ” vs “Jesus Christ.”  Again, does leaving out the word “Lord” diminish Jesus in any way?
Riplinger then cites 1 Corinthians 12:3:  “No man can say that Jesus is Lord but by the Holy Ghost.”  The implication is that because these few passages did not say “Lord,” the Holy Spirit was not with those who copied the Greek manuscripts which weren’t the Received Text.  Of course this is twisting the 1 Cor. passage out of context, which doesn’t seem to matter to her.
Riplinger continues with this:  “The apostle Peter pronounces ‘swift destruction’ for these teachers and others who omit ‘Lord’ from their description of Jesus Christ.”  She then uses 2 Pet. 2:1 as her “proof text”:  “there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord …”   She follows the quote with this statement:  “Such judgment ensues because the word Lord, used in conjunction with Jesus Christ, points to his eternal deity and preexistence.”  Notice she uses ellipses at the end because if she continued the passage it would prove she is abusing it!  Let’s look at the “rest of the story”: “…even denying the Lord that bought them…”   Peter is saying they are denying the Lord, not leaving out “Lord” in their description!!  This is rank dishonesty on the part of Riplinger, just as we continue to see throughout this review.

2.  As lead in to Riplinger’s next chart, on pg. 332, she writes, “When the new versions do use ‘Lord,’ it appears they like to use it alone, a ploy which makes their bible [sic] a more ‘International’ document.”

a.  Acts 4:24:  KJV “Lord, thou art God” vs “Lord.”  Let’s look at the passage in context:
KJV: And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, “Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is’
NIV:  When they heard this, they raised their voices together in prayer to God. “Sovereign Lord,” they said, ‘you made the heavens and the earth and the sea, and everything in them.
The first problem with using this passage for support for her claim is that it is not addressing Jesus at all, rather it addresses God the Father.  The NIV says “Sovereign Lord” rather than just “Lord,” The passage says they are addressing God, and they use the word “Lord” in doing so, so I don’t understand the issue.

b. Acts 7:59.  KJV “God” vs “Lord.”   Again, let’s look at the passage:
KJV: And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.
NIV: While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.”
Three things to notice: 1) The new versions do NOT replace “God” with “Lord” 2) the “God/Lord” claim has nothing to do with Jesus 3) “God” in KJV is added by the translators and is not in the Greek text.  Riplinger’s claim is as bogus as it gets.

c.  Acts 8:22.  KJV “God” vs “Lord.
KJV:  Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee. 
NIV:  Repent of this wickedness and pray to the Lord in the hope that he may forgive you for having such a thought in your heart.
Again the passage is not about Jesus.  Apparently while Riplinger’s theme for the chapter is Jesus, but she decided to switch to God the Father.  Since “God” and “Lord” are used interchangeably throughout Scripture, I see no reason to claim any denigration of title or that this makes for a better “international” version.

d.  Acts 19:10.  KJV “The Lord Jesus” vs “The Lord” 
KJV: And this continued by the space of two years; so that all they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks.
NIV:  This went on for two years, so that all the Jews and Greeks who lived in the province of Asia heard the word of the Lord.
This passage is in a story about Paul at Ephesus.  In the NIV the name “Jesus” is in vs. 4, while the KJV says “Christ Jesus.”  In vs 5 we find “the Lord Jesus” in both versions (I wonder why no complaint against the missing “Christ”?).  So in the same story, same context, we have the NIV using “Jesus,” “the Lord Jesus,” and “the Lord.”  Since we already had “Lord Jesus,” is it really denigrating Jesus’ status to fail to use “Lord” second time?  If I write a story about Sergeant Alvin York’s actions for which he received the Medal of Honor, and I write “Sergeant York” did such-and-such and two sentences later just said “York received …,” have I denigrated York’s rank and position?  Absolutely not.  This is why Riplinger’s contention is so absurd.
e.  1 Cor. 16:22.  KJV “Lord Jesus Christ” vs “The Lord.”  This is another example of where in one passage “Jesus Christ” is left off the title, but in vs 23 in the NIV we have “Lord Jesus” and in vs 24 we have “Christ Jesus.”  Throughout the book of 1 Corinthians we have “Lord Jesus Christ” or “Jesus Christ our Lord” in 1:2,3,7,8, 9,10; 6:11; 8:6; 15:57.  We also have “Christ Jesus our Lord” at 15:31; and other variants as “Lord Jesus,” “Jesus our Lord,” “Lord Jesus,” Christ Jesus,”  “Christ Jesus,” “Jesus Christ” — all in 1 Corinthians!  So in context of the whole book there is one missing “Jesus Christ” compared to the KJV and this is cause for alarm?!?!?  This is rank foolishness!

f. 1 Cor. 10:9.  KJV “Christ” vs “The Lord.”  As with f. above, in the total context of 1 Corinthians, who is Paul referring to, and who would the readers understand him to be referring to, by the term “Lord” in context?!?!  Both titles refer to the very same person and it does NOT denigrate Christ in any way by using “Lord” in one place where the KJV uses “Christ,” especially since, as demonstrated in f., the three terms are used together often!

g.  Col. 3:22.  KJV “God” vs “The Lord.”  What’s interesting about Riplinger’s complaint is that at vs.13 KJV says “Christ” while NIV says “the Lord” and yet no complaint is made.  But let’s look at vs 18, 20, 22-24:
KJV:  18.  Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.  20.  Children, obey your parents in all things: for this is well pleasing unto the Lord.  22. Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God;  23. And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men;  24.  Knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ.
NIV:  18 Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.  20.  Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord.  22.  Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. 23.  Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters,   24.  since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving. 
Verse 18 refers to the Lord, verse 20 refers to the Lord, verse 23 refers to the Lord, verse 24 refers to the Lord.  Perhaps KJV is wrong to change from “Lord” to “God”?  Especially since the section ends by saying you are serving the Lord Christ?  If it is referring to God the Father, does it denigrate Him to call Him Lord?  Absolutely not!

h.  2 Thes. 2:2.  KJV “Christ” vs “the Lord.” The paragraph opens at vs 1 with “Lord Jesus Christ,” so using just “Lord” in vs 2 is nothing but an abbreviation from the full title in the previous clause!  This in no way denigrates Christ, regardless of Riplinger’s claims.

i.  2 Tim. 2:19.  KJV “Christ” vs “the Lord.”  Again, in the opening passages of Chapter 2 we’ve already established the context of the Lord as being Jesus Christ.  Not repeating “Christ” in the same discussion does not denigrate Christ.

j.  Rev. 11:4.  KJV “God” vs “Lord of the earth.”  Isn’t the “Lord of the earth” in the context of the entire Bible no other than “God”?  I see the terms as synonymous, and for Riplinger to claim the second term denigrates God is just foolishness, especially since in the context of the chapter it is established who the “Lord of the earth” is, i.e., GOD!
Riplinger ends by stating that for the “Hindoos,” “Lord” means a personal manifestation of God, so I guess that somehow means that if “new version” Bibles use the word “Lord” for “God,” they are following a Hindu practice?  This is inane on the face of it.

3.  CONCLUSION:  As usual, Riplinger has not proven her claims, and, in fact, has in places been deceitful about what the texts actually say.


Jesse said...

Okay Glenn, it's time to invent a new doctrinal system called N.A.B. onlyism and accuse all other Bible translations of adding and subtracting from the text of sacred Scripture whenever we find transnational differences (including the K.J.V)!!! Let's make our own fanciful, wacky, alien abduction conspiracy theories to "prove" our points, as well.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

I think it's already been done!

Jesse said...

What?!?!? Please fill me in on this.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

I thought you were humorously talking about the NABV, and I was only noting that the NABV book is sort of that way. AH, by now I see you meant the NAB -- New American Bible, the Papist version! Well, in a sense that is how they feel, because they interpret it their way--and the Pope wants to change the Lord's Prayer.

Jesse said...

Hello Glenn,

Well, I was trying to illustrate the logical absurdity of the K.J.V. only mindset by showing how anybody could easily take a particular translation and defend it in the same manner as they do. They are guilty of employing double-standards and circular reasoning.

You might be interested to know that one of my favorite Bible translations is the Roman Catholic NAB. It is a great literal translation filled with (surprisingly) unbiased scholarship.

Here are some news articles on the pope altering the Lord's prayer:



Glenn E. Chatfield said...

I also have a copy of the NAB. My favorite version isn't a literal one, but it's more literal than any of the "dynamic" translations-- the HCSB. As for literal, I use the NAS for often, but also refer to the ESV, NKJV and Darby's.

I'm familiar with the Pope and the Lord's prayer topic (and follow Denny Burke) from the many news sources I've read this past week.

Anonymous said...

no none of this can be right...your manuscripts all were corrupted because they came from egypt...there was alot of heresy there back in the day.no of your facts can be right..this is simply wishful thinking..if we do not have a perfect bible, then we have no bible at all.be careful brother glen

Glenn E. Chatfield said...


All you have done is made an assertion in regards to manuscripts being corrupt due to being from Egypt. Have you actually studied anything about the manuscripts or have you just accepted the words of KJVO cultists? Have you ever studied the science of textual criticism? or textual transmission?.

All my facts in this article are indeed right -- otherwise they wouldn't be facts.

There is no such thing as a "perfect" Bible outside of the original manuscripts, and even the KJV translators so stated that they didn't have a perfect Bible. The research done for over a century has led to recognizing that what we have today in our Bible is probably 99+% of what the original texts had.

Rather than just asserting that none of my "facts" can be right, how about you find something in the article where I am actually wrong and address that.

Jesse said...


There are literally thousands of manuscripts lending incredible support to the overall veracity of the New Testament canon. In fact, some manuscripts can be dated back as early as 120 AD. Although some copies contain minor spelling errors, grammatical errors, and textual variations, none of them are problematic for the Christian church. None of these errors bear any significance to the historical data recorded in Scripture. Not a single error endangers any article of the Christian faith. Manuscript errors are relatively few in nature, and scholars can correct most of the textual variants simply by comparing them to majority renderings. The New Testament alone is almost one hundred percent textually pure. It has much wider and earlier source attestation than any other document of antiquity. This is the underlying basis for us being able to trust the Bible translations available to us today.

On the other hand, the King James only movement endangers the integrity of these New Testament manuscripts. It has actually proved injurious to the cause of Christ because it has resulted in unnecessary church divisions. It has resulted in professing Christians having a self-righteous mindset. It has resulted in fellow believers having unnecessary concerns about the historical reliability of the Bible. Unlike the translators of the King James Version, modern translators of the New Testament have knowledge of Koine Greek.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

I've also read recently that they have a small piece of manuscript dating to about 70 A.D.

Jesse said...

Really? Please fill me in on that!

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

I'm sorry I notice I wrote "read" when I meant "heard." It was at an "Intelligent Faith" conference where they were discussing recent finds. Real interesting stuff.