CHAPTER FOUR: This 2-page chapter is all about how new Bible versions have deleted references to “dragons,” which means they have deleted references to Satan. No references are given so the reader can not check the charge of removing the word “dragon.” There may be very good reasons for doing so. The sole example given is Isaiah 27:1, which is NOT referring to Satan; that is not the context! Leviathan is the dragon (or “monster” of NIV). In 1611 English, “dragon” was the word used to describe not only mythical creatures, but also to describe creatures now known as dinosaurs. Similar language is used in modern translations, and I’m guessing to avoid the mythical aspect, so as to refer to a real beast! Reading into the text does not justify complaints of changes. Isa. 27:1 is talking about a literal beast, what we now know as a dinosaur. Why spiritualize it? This chapter gives no support to the charge of New Age tampering, rather it is just bellicose rhetoric.
CHAPTER FIVE: The chapter starts with a chart on pp. 76-77 comparing the use of “One” vs. “him/he.” Sometimes “One” is more specific as to uniqueness. Just because New Agers use a term, that doesn’t mean we have to disallow its use elsewhere. That would be illogical. Of course there is a huge claim that the use of “One” is because of one editor of the NIV is an “avowed lesbian” with New Age beliefs - as if one person in the whole translating committee determined what word was used! Riplinger’s rhetoric continues for a couple pages as she “proves” her case by demonstrating all sorts of other religious belief systems which label their particular god/messiah as “the One.” Well, many others have their own “messiah,” so we’d better have the word “messiah” in our Bibles!
On P.81 there is a chart showing where “One” is used in the new versions, instead of more descriptive terms in the KJV.
a. John 1:14, 18. KJV says, “the only begotten Son,” while NIV says, “the one and Only.” Somehow I see them as saying the same thing - emphasis is on uniqueness. NAS says the same as KJV, and the NIV footnotes it, so there is nothing hidden.
b. Luke 9:35. KJV says, “my beloved Son,” while others say, “My chosen One.” A “beloved” would necessarily be a chosen one.
c. John 6:69. The “Holy One of God” in new versions would mean the same as “the anointed one”. KJV says, “Christ, the Son of the living God.” Does not “Christ” merely mean “the anointed one?
d. John 4:42. KJV: “this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.” Others: “this One is indeed the Savior of the world.” Although “Christ” is deleted, the context is the same. The “Savior of the World” was to be the “Christ.”
P.81 In the middle of the page Riplinger says that Luke 4:34 “reveals that only the devils call Jesus ‘Holy One of God.’’’ This claim is WRONG. All this verse proves is that “Holy One of God” is a proper identity. Luke does not say that “only the devils call Jesus” that title. That is an assumption made by Riplinger. It is poor logic to say that because devils use a term no one else can.
P.81, bottom chart.
a. Mark 12:32. KJV says, “there is one God and there is none other but he.” “NASB (NIV et al)” say, “he is One; and there is no one else besides Him.” Well, that is correct for NAS, but NIV says, “God is one and there is no other but him.” Riplinger is immediately dishonest by claiming the NIV says the same as NAS - and I didn’t even check the “et al”! Although NAS, NIV and KJV all say something different, they actually give two attributes of God, both reinforcing the same doctrine. KJV says there is only one God, while NAS/NIV say God is One. (Deut.6:4!)
b. Matt. 19:17. KJV says, “There is none good but one, that is God.” Others say, “There is only One who is good.” Two ways to say the same thing; One is referring to God.
PP.82-83 charts. More of the same as previous chart. Again, they say the same if no paranoia is introduced. For Riplinger, the use of the word “One” is all about New Age and “Luciferian” doctrines. However, the use of “the One” doe not change the meaning in any text, nor is “the One” something which only New Agers and Luciferians have a title deed to! The rest of the chapter continues with more charts showing the use of “the One” vs KJV’s other words.
P. 91 leaves the “One” subject and has three passages for demonstrating doctrinal problems. Let’s look at them to see if there really are problems (remember, this applies, according to Riplinger, to ALL new Bibles, and is headlined as “NIV and NASB et al.”).
a. 1 Thess. 1:4. KJV days, “your election of God,” while new versions say, “He has chosen you.” Okay, this is supposed to contrasting what Riplinger considers Calvinist heresy in the new versions. KJV supposedly has us choosing God, while new Bibles have God choosing us. Well, when I read KJV for the first time way back when, my understanding is that “your election of God” means “your election by God.” Matthew Henry says that’s what it means. Jay Green’s literal translation from the TR (same text as KJV uses) says “your election,” but the total context is “your election [by God]. So here is a man using the Greek text Riplinger claims is not corrupted and he comes up with the same understanding as the new versions - i.e., that we were elected by God.
b. Rev. 13:10.
KJV: “He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity”
NAS: “If anyone is destined for captivity, to captivity he goes”
NIV: “If anyone is to go into captivity, into captivity he will go”
Supposedly KJV shows man’s free will to act, while the others don’t. I’m not seeing this, and I really don’t understand the difference. Perhaps someone else will.
c. Rev 13:8 (why this wasn’t put first, I don’t know!) There is supposed to be some sort of difference between what these all say. Here is where there is some real dishonesty. Riplinger shows KJV as saying, “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world” while others say, “everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world”. Let’s look at the passage:
KJV: “And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him [i.e., the beast], whose names are not written in the book of the life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.”
NAS: “And all who dwell on the earth will worship him [the beast], everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain.”
NIV: “All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast - all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world.”
So the deal appears to be that KJV says that the phrase “from the foundation of the world” is referring to Christ, while the other Bibles have it referring to the names written in the book. NASB certainly appears that way, but the NIV agrees with KJV!!! Yet Riplinger says ALL of the new Bibles are like the NAS. I really wonder how many she actually looked at? In my review of various versions I found them to be about evenly split. The question I have is, “so what?” Were not the names written in the book before the foundation of the world? Did God not know who would be saved from the beginning of time? And do we not have plenty of Scripture to tell us that God’s plan for salvation was established before the creation of the world? So if I mention that Christ was slain, in order to proper doctrine do I HAVE to include that it was planned from the foundation of the world? Where is the doctrinal problem which is supposed to be so obvious here?
On p. 92 Riplinger shows a few passages from the NASB and she doesn’t complain about what they say in context, but instead says, “Can you just imagine how the following new verses could be plucked out of context and used to encourage worship of the image of the beast, and murder in his ‘service’?” How ironic is it then, that the KJV is used by ALL the cults when they take passages out of context to preach their false doctrines!?!
At the bottom of p.92 Riplinger has a chart of only two passages, with KJV on one side and “new version” (not identified) on the other. Headlining this chart she says, “Lest those killed should see themselves as ‘martyrs,’ all references to martyrs have been removed.” Then below the chart she says, (“The Greek word is martus, meaning martyr.”) Well, that is true - but what does “martyr” mean? It means “witness.” Now look at her comparisons:
a. Rev. 2:13: KJV says “martyr” and “new version” says “one,” is the claim.
KJV: “Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you”
NAS: “Antipas, My witness, My faithful one, who was killed among you”
NIV: “Antipas, my faithful witness, who was put to death in your city”
Every version I checked used the word “martyr” or “witness.” Some said witness AND “faithful one,” as did the NAS.
b. Rev 17:6: KJV says, “martyrs” and “new version” says “witness.”
Riplinger’s complaint is with the word “witness” instead of “martyr,” yet martyr by definition means witness! So because the choice of word is “witness,” Riplinger has decided that this somehow takes away the importance of them dying for their faith?!? Very, very dishonest.
Chart at the bottom of p.93 is another list showing passages in “NEW VERSIONS” which use “One” rather than whatever KJV uses. Let’s look:
a. Matt. 11:3 & Luke 7:20
KJV: “Art thou he that should come”
NKJV: (specifically cited): “Are You the Coming One”
NAS: “Are You the Expected One”
NIV: “Are you the one who was to come”
Let me first point out that the NIV does not capitalize “One” as a title, which the others apparently do, so I don’t see the difference between saying, “Are you he” or “Are you the one.” John the Baptist had said there would be “one” who would be coming, and even KJV uses the term “one” for that. So when the question is posed about being the “one” foretold, why is that a problem? Some versions use a capital letter for any word representing deity, and since Jesus as God is the one foretold to come, what is the problem with using the capital letters to indicate deity? The reason Riplinger gives, of course, is “One” (capitalized) can only refer to a new age deity. This is totally illogical.
b. Mark 1:7
KJV: “There cometh one mightier than I after me”
NAS: “After me One is coming who is mightier than I”
NIV: “After me will come one who is more powerful than I”
KJV says “one” without the capital and that is okay with Riplinger, but NAS uses the capital to indicate deity and that is suddenly new age.
c. Luke 3:16
KJV: “but one mightier than I cometh”
NAS: “but One is coming who is mightier than I”
Same problem with the last one. It seems this is a consistent style for the NAS, but not NIV. I looked at several other versions in my library and it looks like about half of them use the same style as NAS, while the rest are like the KJV and NIV. Yet Riplinger lumps all versions as if they are all identical.
d. There are three other passages with the same problem as above, in that some use a capital “O” instead of the little “o,” which of course makes them new age versions. This is total nonsense.
P.94 has the claim that God is “the mighty one of Israel, the mighty one of Jacob, or the mighty God - never the Mighty One.” And of course Riplinger dredges up some occultic citations referring to Satan as “Mighty One” in order to demonstrate the “new age” problem with “NIV, NASB et al.” The following passages are referring to God.
a. Luke 1:49
KJV: “he that is mighty”
NAS/NIV: “the Mighty One”
I see these as saying the same thing, except for the style which capitalizes deity references
b. Psalm 50:1
KJV: “THE MIGHTY God, even the LORD”
NAS/NIV: “THE MIGHTY One, God, the LORD”
Notice that NAS/NIV include “God” in the term, clarifying the meaning of who the “mighty one” is. How does this point to Satan? The dishonesty comes from Riplinger when she says the NAS/NIV et al only say, “the Mighty One,” without showing the clarification in the passage.
c. Josh. 22:22 (“the LORD God” vs “the Mighty One”)
KJV: “The LORD God of Gods”
NAS/NIV: “The Mighty One, God”
Well, this certainly has a slightly different connotation between the versions, but it certainly is not problematic unless you are paranoid about using a term someone else uses for something else. Of course, one would have to know what the original manuscripts actually translate as in order to know which version is the more accurate one.
The bottom of p.95 has a chart which leaves “the One” behind, and instead complains about five passages where the KJV uses the term “head of the corner” while the NIV uses “capstone.” The question becomes, which stone is meant in the original text, i.e., Psalm 118:22, which all five passages refer to? (KJV actually says “head stone of the corner”)
Wikipedia gives the definition for capstone (architecture) as being: “one of the finishing or protective stones that form the top of an exterior masonry wall or building.”
Matthew Henry calls it the “headstone,” which to me sounds more like something high rather than one on the ground.
Henry Morris says that it “was referring to the tradition that, when Solomon’s temple was being built, the odd-shaped stone which seemed not to fit anywhere turned out to be the chief cornerstone, designed for the very apex of the temple.” This sounds like a capstone!
So perhaps “head of the corner” in Hebrew is literally referring to the capstone? When looking at Strong’s Hebrew-Aramaic Dictionary for the word “head” used in Psalm 118:22 (stone is added by the KJV translators), it says, “head (of the body); by extension: top (of an object).”
I’d say that “capstone” is an accurate translation of what KJV calls “head stone of the corner,” meaning Riplinger’s complaint against the NIV here is 100% erroneous. What I find humorous is that other versions call the stone a “chief cornerstone,” and with them it could be a discussion as to what stone THAT phrase is referring!
The remainder of the chapter is spent with rhetoric and paranoia about new age cults and Transcendental Meditation all using the term “the One,” which “proves” that new Bible versions using this term are supporting such teachings, and are part of a conspiracy for a one-world religion.
Summation: The primary complaint of this chapter is about the use of a style which uses a capital letter for “One” when that word is referring to deity. “One” is somehow only a new age or satanic reference in Riplinger’s mind. However, there are also examples of Riplinger’s dishonesty and lack of understanding basic logic or even word definitions. There is absolutely nothing in this chapter to support any of Riplinger’s charges against modern Bible translations.
