I read this book the first time when I bought it back in 1996 because the title intrigued me. By the time I finished it I had decided that the author was seriously in error. A few years later I decided to go through it in detail to mark errors and even began to write a review. Time has a way of getting away from me and I never got it properly done.
So, back in January 2013 I began a chapter-by-chapter review of this book with the object of posting it on this blog. My objective was to look at each individual claim Riplinger made against each individual passage from “new” Bible versions when compared to the KJV. It was an arduous task to get through the first 23 Chapters!
Chapter 23 finishes on page 350 of the book. There are a total of 42 chapters, and epilogue, and three appendices. I have decided to end this quest due to the horrendous amount of time it takes when the rest of the book has the exact same problems as the 23 chapters already finished, so one will not learn anything new about the author even though you won’t get to see the non-problems with the specific passages she addresses.
The main problems with Riplinger are pretty much summed up as follows:
She uses excessive diatribes and rhetoric, as well as just plain foolishness.
She exudes paranoia.
She uses much vitriolic nonsense.
She abuses scripture by taking passages out of context.
She either fails to understand context or simply disregards it.
She misrepresents other versions.
She promotes conspiracy theories.
She makes unwarranted assertions, suppositions, and assumptions
She claims to know what Satan is thinking.
She makes complaints about writing style.
She makes ad hominem attacks and unsubstantiated claims against people and organizations who have connections to new Bible versions.
She claims other versions are hiding references to Satan.
She is very dishonest in her claims, especially when handling texts used for comparisons.
She lacks understanding of basic logic.
She lacks understanding of word definitions.
She exudes extreme anti-Catholic bigotry and paranoia.
She claims that Roman Catholic meanings are in new versions.
She dogmatically claims that her interpretation of Revelation is the correct one.
She libels people and organizations.
She practices eisegesis.
She has a lack of understanding Greek.
She makes many proven-false charges.
She practices much equivocation.
For quick reference to those interested in this topic, here are links to all the chapter reviews already posted:
3 comments:
The trouble with Riplinger, I think, is that she lends credibility to the accusations that atheists and sundry sceptics make that Christians have left reason behind and put their brains in the freezer.
Whatever modern version you read, your doctrinal stance is hardly likely to be affected at all. And I don't know of anyone who says you shouldn't read the KJV, not just make it the sole and only accurate translation into English. A variety of translations is a good idea to avoid any doctrinal bias even accidentally creeping into the text. Words like 'bishop' for example.
Its beauty of language probably makes it the most noble sounding translation, it is indeed superb, but that said you have to take into account the number of words it uses that have changed in meaning over the last 4 centuries or so. It doesn't communicate as well as modern English, and surely this is the most important aspect of teaching and preaching the bible in the first place.
Ken B
"The KJO view was articulated by Benjamin G. Wilkinson (1872–1968), a Seventh-day Adventist missionary, in the book Our Authorized Bible Vindicated (1930). This book was plagiarized by Jasper James Ray (1955) and by Peter Ruckman (1964). In 1970, Wilkinson's writing was republished in Which Bible? (1970), properly attributed this time. This book is a collection of essays edited by Fuller. Fuller added numerous footnotes to correct errors and misunderstandings in the Wilkinson text, some of which involve basic matters of church history. Fuller presents the footnotes as if they were written by Wilkinson, so Wilkinson's lack of expertise is not as apparent in the 1970 edition as it was in earlier editions.[1] Several major Bible translations appeared in the early 1970s, making Fuller's treatment topical. Fuller's book got far more attention than earlier works on this subject. It is considered responsible for kicking off KJO as a movement." (Conservapedia, "King James Only")
"Many of the versions were translated from Greek at an early date...Almost one hundred extant Latin manuscripts represent this Old Latin translation—and they all attest to the Western texttype. In other words the Greek manuscripts they translated were not Byzantine. The Coptic version also goes back to an early date, probably the second century34—and it was a translation of Alexandrian manuscripts, not Byzantine ones. The earliest forms of the Syriac are also either Western or Alexandrian....
The significance of these early versions is twofold:37 (1) None of the versions produced in the first three centuries was based on the Byzantine text. But if the majority text view is right, then each one of these versions was based on polluted Greek manuscripts—a suggestion that does not augur well for God’s providential care of the New Testament text, as that care is understood by the majority text view.38 But if these versions were based on polluted manuscripts, one would expect them to have come from (and be used in) only one isolated region. This is not the case; the Coptic, Ethiopic, Latin, and Syriac versions came from all over the Mediterranean region. In none of these locales was the Byzantine text apparently used. This is strong evidence that the Byzantine text simply did not exist in the first three centuries—anywhere..." (Daniel B. Wallace, Bible.org, "The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They Identical?")
"(1) The Byzantine text (i.e., the group of Greek MSS behind the Textus Receptus) was not quoted by any church father before AD 325, while the Alexandrian text was amply represented before that period. (2) The Byzantine text was shown to depend on two earlier traditions, the Alexandrian and Western, in several places. The early editors of the Byzantine text combined (or conflated) the wording of the Alexandrian and Western traditions on occasion, while nowhere could it be shown that the Alexandrian combined Western and Byzantine readings or that the Western combined readings of the Alexandrian and Byzantine.
....
In a word, evidence. WH’s argument was solid. Interestingly, in WH’s day only one NT papyrus fragment was known. Now, almost 100 have been discovered. These antedate the great uncials by as much as two hundred years! What is most significant about them is that not one is Byzantine. But if the Byzantine text was the original, why did it not show up in either patristic evidence or MS evidence until much later? In fact, for Paul’s letters, the earliest Byzantine MSS belong to the ninth century. The earliest Alexandrian witnesses? Second century." (Daniel B. Wallace, Bible.org, "The Conspiracy Behind the New Bible Translations")
Post a Comment