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

Sunday, June 30, 2013

Random Apostasies and Heresies

A busy week for reports of false teachers/teachings.  It’s difficult to know where to start, but there is so much apostasy in the Church that it must really grieve our Lord.

The Foursquare Gospel Church, which is too charismatic for my tastes, was founded by false teacher Aimee Semple McPherson (yep, the one whose grave Benny Hinn visits for an “anointing”).  She was one of the original faith (“fake”) healers.  The Smithsonian blog had a very interesting article about her.  Seriously, I can’t understand why any Christian can be a member of a church founded under such aberrant and false teachings.  But then again, I can’t understand why Benny Hinn has followers.

In the past I’ve read about various assemblies who use “praise bands” will often have unbelievers in such bands.  I find this abhorrent - that pagans are leading Christians in worship and that Christians don’t have a problem with it!   The Gospel Coalition has a good article about this subject.

I came across a new site, Spirit of Error, exposing much about the New Apostolic Reformation and IHOP, and why they are a movement of false teachers and false prophets.  First, just like any other cult, they now have their own Bible version which gives support to their false teachings.   Spirit of Error has so far published four parts of a study of “The Passion Translation.”  You’ll find part one here, part two here, part three here, and part four here.

The individual who “translated” this Bible version, Brian Simmons, is a self-proclaimed apostle in the NAR movement.  Sprit of Error has a series of articles exposing him for what he really is.  Part one is here, part two here, and part three here.
Holly has another article exposing the lies Simmons uses to pretend he doesn’t claim to be an apostle.
The NAR is a dangerous movement.  Beware.

Erin Benziger actually watched some IHOP live stream, and she had this to say about it:
I tuned in briefly last night to IHOP's (that's International House of Prayer, not pancakes—pancakes would be better) 24/7 "prayer and worship" live stream. When I finally awoke from my mind-numbingly-repetitive-music-induced trance early this morning, I had two thoughts. The first was, "Wow, I hope that's not what music is like in Heaven, because if it is, count me out." The second was, "Wow, the Great Deceiver surely is good at what he does."

By the grace of God, I see and hear what is sung and taught at IHOP and it never even crosses my mind to entertain it as viable, true, biblical worship and teaching. Yet, there are many who are involved in IHOP or movements like it or those who if not involved directly, at the very least acknowledge it as a legitimate expression of Christianity. The key words then in that first sentence are "by the grace of God." By the grace of God, I've not been deceived by the wacky, unbiblical teachings of IHOP. By the grace of God I, as an unregenerate, false convert college freshman, found myself repulsed by one professor's required reading of Richard Foster's Streams of Living Water when many of my classmates were enraptured by the same book. By the grace of God I later was saved out of the seeker-driven mindset that I could look and act like the world, love and treasure my sin and still call myself a Christian. By the grace of God.

By that same grace of God, then, there will be those who will be saved out of the dangerous, deceptive IHOP movement. You see, the Great Deceiver may be good at what he does, but the Savior is greater. Satan knows his time is running short, and there will soon come a day when he will never again deceive a human soul. Until that time, let us Christians be about proclaiming the gospel of salvation that is found in Jesus Christ. Let us do all we can to pull men from the fire of these devilish deceptions. [Link gone by 9/14/20]

I’ve never been a dogmatic proponent of the need for a pastor to attend seminary, because I think someone who really studies on his own can get the same training.  I also think that the type of person who would study on his own to get said training is few and far between!  While there have been many good pastors throughout the centuries who didn’t attend such schools, today’s self-proclaimed ministers of the Faith have nothing in common with them.  The Cripplegate has an excellent article using Joel Osteen as an example of what happens in the modern Church when someone with no training becomes a “pastor.”

The Church of England has hit just about bottom when it comes to apostasy.   They are now training their clergy to create a “pagan church” to draw in members.   You just can’t make these things up!

Well, we’ve all heard by now of the latest Supreme Court decisions about same-sex fake marriage.  The support from various apostate bodies for homosexuality is another example of how quickly we are headed to the end times.  I’ve previously reported about the homosexual-supporting United Church of Christ, ELCA Lutheran Church, Episcopal Church, and the Presbyterian Church (PCUSA), as well as many United Methodist assemblies.  But the National Cathedral in Washington DC has outdone all of them with their celebration of the Supreme Court decisions.  They held a huge “prayer service” to celebrate, with their bells tolling the demise of real marriage.  Dean Hall of that body said the ruling should “serve as a call for Christians to embrace religious marriage equally.”  Many local “Christian” church leaders joined the service, which also had African drums pounding the death knell for real marriage.  These so-called Christian leaders/pastors are in reality wolves out to destroy the sheep.  The Bible is very clear about what God says about homosexuality, and He is certainly not pleased with those who blasphemously use His name to support same-sex fake marriage.

Remember Jimmy Carter - the worst U.S. president up until Barak Obama?  He has long had a history of teaching contrary to the Bible, all the while claiming to be a Christian and Bible teacher.  He recently demonstrated his ignorance of Scripture by twisting Galatians 3:28 to “prove” that women should be church leaders, and that the Catholic Church should allow women in the priesthood.  After all, he says, all religions should promote gender equality.  And here all this time I thought we did.

Friday, June 28, 2013

The Valley of Vision

Lord, high and holy, meek and lowly,
Thou has brought me to the valley of vision,
where I live in the depths but see thee in the heights; 
hemmed in by mountains of sin I behold thy glory.

Let me learn by paradox
that the way down is the way up, 
that to be low is to be high,
that the broken heart is the healed heart,
that the contrite spirit is the rejoicing spirit,
that the repenting soul is the victorious soul,
that to have nothing is to posses all,
that to bear the cross is to wear the crown,
that to give is to receive,
that the valley is the place of vision.

Lord, in the daytime stars can be seen from deepest wells,
and the deeper the wells the brighter thy stars shine;
Let me find thy light in my darkness,
thy life in my death,
thy joy in my sorrow, 
thy grace in my sin,
thy riches in my poverty, 
thy glory in my valley.

Arthur Bennett, Introduction to “The Valley of Vision: A Collection of Puritan Prayers and Devotions.”

Wednesday, June 26, 2013

The Whole Purpose of Evangelism

“To be saved is to be rightly related to God, and that is holiness.  The whole purpose of evangelism is primarily to tell men what sin has done to them, to tell them why they are what they are, namely, separated from God.  It is to tell them that what they need above everything else is not to be made to feel happy, but to be brought back into a right relationship with the God who is ‘light and in him is no darkness at all.’ But that means preaching holiness.  To separate these two things, it seems to me, is to deny essential biblical teaching.  We must start with holiness, and continue with it; because it is the end for which we are chosen and delivered.  We must never think of holiness as something we may decide to go in for; if yo are not holy you are not a Christian.  These things belong together.”

D.. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, “God’s Ultimate Purpose: An Exposition of Ephesians 1,” p.102

Thursday, June 20, 2013

Random Apostasies and Heresies

Let’s start out by telling of the movie I watched yesterday - Man of Steel.  I had read many articles about the numerous Christian references in the film, and most of them I would never have recognized as being such without having read about them first.  I thought the movie, which was over two hours long, was a waste of my money.  The story line really diverted from original Superman history, with Lois Lane knowing who he was from the beginning of her investigations.  The makers of the movie decided an overall gray tone was artistic, I suppose, but I found it very distracting.  The movie was just too much mayhem, and too much implausible and impossible stuff even for science-fiction.  I found nothing edifying, and little entertaining about the movie.  While there were indeed some good messages in the movie, I think they were far outweighed by the violence and mayhem, and the occasional crude language from Lois Lane.

But guess what - it has become the newest movie to be Christian-promoted!  After all, it has Christian themes, so they say.  But, even worse, you can now get “ministry resources” which can be used to “educate and uplift your congregation.  On this site, you can get “Free Videos, Sermon Outlines and Images.”  Apparently this resource site was available in time for Father’s Day. 

An example of the nonsense is this citation from one of the teaching outlines:
“Kids will better appreciate Jesus and his sacrifice through looking at scripture and the parallels in the Man of Steel movie.”  Really?  The Bible isn’t enough so we have to appeal to a worldly movie story?

This is one of the problems with the Church today - too many leaders feel a necessity to appeal to the basest character of man and provide entertainment instead of meat.  I am really very tired of movies being used for sermon material.  We are to be in the world and not of it.  Keep Hollywood out of the Church!

Catholic Charities has invited a pro-homosexual priest, Greg Boyle as a keynote speaker at their annual gathering in September.  He supports same-sex fake marriage and wants women in the priesthood. This guy is apostate even by Romanist standards, so why has he not been defrocked! 

Rob Bell.  Do I need to say more?  An interesting video of an interview with Bell demonstrates his support for homosexuality and same-sex fake marriage.  After all, “That’s just how the world is.”  But watch the video and you will notice that Bell didn’t answer the question as to whether homosexuality is sinful.  He just keeps giving an obfuscating response.  He doesn’t want to say it isn’t sin in general, but his response does de facto claim it isn’t sinful.  As to his claim that Jesus didn’t say anything about homosexuality, I recommend this blog post by Stan demonstrating the ignorance - and dishonesty - of such a claim.

More on the Andy Stanley controversy as to his view of Scripture.  Denny Burke had two good posts, both of which really need to be perused to see exactly what the problem is.  The first one was posted May 30th, and Andy commented on it.  This led to a second post on June 6th responding to Stanley and his enablers.

False teacher Rodney Howard-Browne isn’t happy about an upcoming conference exposing him and his ilk.  Phil Johnson explains the conference and posts Rodney’s response, as well as a good example of Rodney’s behavior and false teaching in an attached video.

Over at Joe’s Jottings you can read of another example of abused Scripture.  In reference to Job 1:21, Joe asks, “Does the Lord give and then take away?

Beth Moore is always a good example of what is wrong with the pop-culture teachers in the Church.  I have many articles exposing her false teachings, and they are the articles which get me the most hate mail.  Elizabeth Prata examined an older teaching by Moore  where Moore tells us that God revealed to her that the Church “is paralyzed by unbelief.”  (This statement was in her series, “Believing God,” which I examined five years ago.)  Prata does a very good job of dismantling this claim by Beth.

Lastly, another fad of recent times is called “contextualization of the Gospel.”  This teaching says that in order to reach people with the Gospel message, you have to consider the local culture, etc.  It is a teaching apparently originating in the Emergent movement, but now it is being fostered in more and more missionary work.  Roger Oakland examines the problems with this faddish idea.

Tuesday, June 18, 2013

Question of the Day

Should Christians favorably cite false teachers in regards to Christian teachings?  

A Christian posted a citation on facebook, a citation which in and of itself was just fine, and then cited the author - a known false teacher.  I suggested to the individual that posting such a citation gave tacit approval to the author, and would lead readers to think that author was worthwhile to listen to for Christian teachings.  I was excoriated for suggesting such a thing, and was told I was slamming and attacking the character of the one who posted the citation.  The one posting the citation said that because the citation itself was good and truthful there was no problem with posting it, and that I was being legalistic by saying it was wrong to do so.  The poster got angry with me because I stood firm that it was not ethical to do so, and he ended up “unfriending” me.  Many comments from his supporters were in like vein, as none of them could see the problem.

Paul cited non-Christian authors when he was teaching pagans, pointing out to them that even their own authors pointed to God.  This is not the same thing as what I’m discussing.  I’m talking about using Christian teachings from a false teacher.

I say it is wrong and unethical to use a citation from a known false teacher in order to teach Christian truths.  A false teacher, even if he is a Christian, is promoting the deeds of darkness, and Ephesians 5:11 says we are to have nothing to do with such deeds - and it further says we are to expose them!  So how can citing them favorably expose them?

I just recently received the current edition of “The Quarterly Journal” from Personal Freedom Outreach. On the back page is a book review of a new book by Ron Rhodes.  Now, Ron is one of my favorite teachers, and is really a top-notch apologist.  The reviewer noted that there is a blemish in Ron’s book, which were two favorable citations from known false teacher Peter Kreeft.  I know the author of the review, and I know he highly esteems Rhodes and yet he pointed out that such citations were not good.  Was he slamming Ron or defaming Ron’s character? Absolutely not.

There are too many good teachers who feel it necessary to favorably cite false - or perhaps just questionable - teachers.  All this does is promote that bad teacher and lead unsuspecting (and non-discerning) people to seek more teachings by this person who came recommended.

So, am I off base here?  Or does it really matter who we cite as long as the quotation itself is good?

Thursday, June 13, 2013

Do You Read Your Bible?

"We often say that we have not the time to read - shame on us Christian people! - the truth being that we have not taken the trouble to read and to understand Christian doctrine.  But it is essential that we should do so if we really desire to worship God.  If there is no praise in a Christian's life it is because he is ignorant of these things.  If we desire to praise God, we must look at the truth, and expand our souls as we come face to face with it.  If we want to say 'Blessed be God' from the heart we must know something about how He has planned this great salvation."
D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, God's Ultimate Purpose: An Exposition of Ephesians 1, pp. 52-53

Are you suffering from AIDS - Acquired Ignorance of Doctrine Syndrome?  Then start reading your Bible.  After all, it is the only cure.

Monday, June 10, 2013

"New Age Bible Versions" - Chapter Nine, Part 2

Since Chapter Nine was such a long chapter to review, I decided to post it in two parts, as I finished each part.  I posted part 1 on May 26th, and now you can peruse my review of the second half of Chapter Nine.

13.  Pp.166-167.  Riplinger goes on a tirade about about various Word of Faith teachers manipulating the Bible for their own belief system.  With “faith” being replaced by “faithfulness” (or similar), the WOF can say that we have faith for things rather than faith in God.  She is correct to say that Robertson, Crouch, Copeland, Baile, Hagin, et al, are apostate, but their use of “proof texts” does not invalidate the texts themselves.  The new versions were NOT written to facilitate apostate teachings.  This is a logic fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc.  (And remember, most of these teachers use the KJV!)

14.  P.167, Matt. 17:20.  As an example of Riplinger’s claim about new versions facilitating WOF, KJV here says, “Because of your unbelief,” while new versions say, “because of the littleness of your faith.”  Is not “littleness of faith” saying the same as “unbelief”?  Yet because WOF call faith a “power,” this supposedly gives them a text to “prove” their teachings.  In context, the disciples had some faith or they would never have attempted the exorcisms.  Matthew Henry says, “Though they had faith, yet that faith was weak and ineffectual.  Note, as far as faith falls short of its due strength, vigor, and activity, it may truly be said, ‘There is unbelief.
If Henry understood KJV this way, explain what is wrong with NAS and NIV?  It is a non-sequitur to say that with this translation it therefore follows that WOF get ammunition.

15.  P.168, 2 Cor. 10:15.  We are really getting into the realm of silliness with this one.  First, Riplinger gives us a definition from “The Occult Encyclopedia” in reference to the word “imaginations.”  In this definition, the imagination can be strengthened through faith, and “that through full and powerful imagination only can we bring the spirit into an image.”  So, when the KJV says, “Casting down imaginations,” that is fighting the occult idea as defined in that encyclopedia.  

But the “new” versions say, “We demolish arguments,” and Riplinger says this about them: “With the cooperation of the NKJV and other new versions, Christians ‘conjure up’ instead of ‘cast down’ imaginations.
It takes a real stretch of her imagination to see any resemblance of occult teachings in this passage.  Not only that, but her statement is about “conjur[ing] up -- while the text says “demolish” - which is the meaning of KJV’s “cast down.”  NIV says “destroying.”  KJV “imaginations,” in context, is synonymous with NAS/NIV “arguments.

16.  P.170 chart depicting “country club” translations, which “read like a Christian Country Club Membership Checklist.”  At the end of the “checklist,” Riplinger asks if the new versions point to “Preppie or Peculiar” people.  The “new” version words are much more prim and proper for the preppie.  Right.  Let’s look at the passages in her checklist.

a.  Heb. 3:6; KJV “rejoicing” vs. “boast.”  How does this change reflect a “country club” atmosphere?  In context, they mean the same thing.

b.  2 Thes. 3:6.  KJV “withdraw yourselves” vs. NAS “keep aloof.”  Are they not synonymous?  NIV’s “Keep away from” sums them all up.

c.  1 Tim. 2:9.  KJV “modest” vs. NAS “proper clothing.”  The implication here is that in a “country club” one can wear proper clothing and yet not be modest.  Let’s now take a look at these in context to show Riplinger’s dishonesty, and no more will need be said:

KJV:  "adorn themselves in modest apparel
NAS:  adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly.”

d.  1 Tim. 2:15; “sobriety” vs. “propriety.”  In context they are the same.

e.  1 Tim. 3:2; KJV “good behavior” vs. NAS/NIV “respectable.”  Can one be “respectable” without “good behavior?”  They are the same in context.

f.  1 Tim. 3:11; 1 Tim. 3:4; Tit. 2:2; 1 Tim. 3:8.  All deal with KJV’s use of “grave/gravity” vs. NAS “dignity/dignified.”  In context the use of “grave” has the meaning of dignity and self-control, serious about their duty.  Show me a true problem here!

g.  Phil. 2:3; complaint against the NAS.  “more important” vs. “better.”  In context the thought is the same.

h.  1 Tim. 1:4.   KJV’s “godly edifying” does have a somewhat different - stronger - idea than “furthering administration,”  but when you further the administration of God, don’t you necessarily have to do it by “godly edifying?”  Even so, does this alter doctrine or give New Agers succor, let alone give a more sanitary understanding?

i.  1 Cor. 4:10.  KJV “despised” vs. “without honor.”  In context, the verse says, “ye are honorable, but we are despised.”   The contrast is “honorable” vs. “dishonorable,” i.e., “without honor.”  These say the same thing!

j.  1 Cor. 4:11; KJV “naked” vs. “poorly clothed.”  I believe “naked” in this context is hyperbole.  “Poorly clothed” (NAS) or “in rags” (NIV) surely are more accurate; I doubt that Paul was nude!  

k.  Acts 2:44.  Other than idiom, I fail to see the difference between “had all things common” (KJV)  and “had all things in common.”  This is gross nit-picking.

l.  Titus 2:15.  Again, other than idiom, what is the difference between “Let no man despise thee” and “Let no one disregard you?

m.  Luke 5:32.  KJV “righteous” vs. “respectable.”  Now, this is a legitimate complaint about not meaning the same thing, but it still doesn’t give a “Preppie” understanding.  And, what does it change?  Of course this is another broad-brush charge because I did not find it in the popular versions, such as NAS, NIV, GWN, REB, CEV, NAB, NLT, or Berkeley translations; they either said “righteous” or a synonymous word/phrase.  I found “respectable” only in the TEV, so it is not a widespread error.

n.  1 Cor. 15:34.  KJV “righteous” vs “soberminded.”  Again, in context, KJV, NAS and NIV are all very similar.  No granting of “preppie” status.

17.  Bottom of p.170, and p.171.  Riplinger complains about NIV removing “peculiar people” from Tit. 2:14 and 1 Pet. 2:9.  She makes an issue of how that phrase distinguishes  Christians as “Jehovah’s own people.”  However, the NIV says “ a people that are his very own” at Titus, and “a people belonging to God” at 1 Peter.  Whereas KJV’’s peculiar people” can mean many things, NIV’s phrases are much more explicit.

18.  P.171 Rom. 12:8, supposedly showing “At the root of all the rhetoric about the need for a new version lies the true cause - covetousness.”  The chart that follows supposedly shows a “love of money,” and Riplinger claims that some ministries “promote the new versions because they, in turn, pack their treasuries” (a charge I’d like to see proof of), all because KJV’s “giveth…with simplicity” has been changed to “generously,” or “with liberality” in other translations.  What did the KJV translators mean by “simplicity?”  Let’s check with someone who knew the language of the times, Matthew Henry:

“Let them do it en aploteti - liberally and faithfully… He that hath wherewithal, let him give, and give plentifully and liberally; so the word is translated, 2 Cor. 8:2; 9:13.  God loves a cheerful and bountiful giver.

Now, the interesting question is why the same charges weren’t levied at KJV for 2 Cor. 8:2 and 9:13???  And what does Riplinger do with 2 Cor. 9:6, 7?  This complaint about Rom. 12:8 is dishonesty on Riplinger’s part, and it appears to be intentional.  This leaves me with little respect for her work!

19.  Bottom of p.171, Rom. 12:13.  “distributing” vs. “contributing.”  We already covered this verse (L.11.d. - 2nd one.)

20.  At the bottom of p.171 is a contention that “God is the author” of KJV.  This is totally ludicrous.  Only the original autographs are inspired by God, unless Riplinger has been given a revelation otherwise, which, I guess, is possible.  According to The Facts on the King James Only Debate, by John Ankerberg & John Weldon, “Riplinger has stated publicly that she receives direct revelations from God.”  She has claimed that she hesitated to put her name on NABV, and used “G.A. Riplinger, which signifies to me, God and Riplinger - God as author and Riplinger as secretary.”  So perhaps Riplinger has a word from God that the KJV is His choice?!?

21.  P.172: New version editors twist verses which warn of seeking wealth.”  Do they really?

a.  1 Cor. 10:24, KJV “wealth” vs. “good.”  In KJV “wealth” is italicized, as is “good” in NAS.  That means neither word is in the original!  The context of the chapter makes it very perspicuous that money is not the context of the word “wealth.”  As Henry points out:
He must not seek his own only, but his neighbour’s wealth.  He must be concerned not to hurt his neighbour , nay, he must be concerned to promote his welfare; and must consider how to act so that he may help others…

The newer versions are definitely plainer in the meaning of the text!

b.  1 Tim. 6:10.  KJV “the root of all evil” vs. “a root of all kinds of evil.”  Without any other reference, logic and common sense dictate that money is not THE root of all evil.  In fact, I believe one will discover that sex is a root of as much evil as is money!

22.  P.173 begins the charge that new versions feed the “fierceness” of man.

a.  Mat. 5:44.  Because the new versions omit “do good to them that hate you,” this ostensibly allows for mistreatment of them.  NIV footnotes this, so it is not hidden in that version.  Nevertheless, even with that phrase removed, the context of the full verse still teaches the same thing!  NAS and NIV both say, “love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you.”  Add that verse to the context of the rest of 38-48 and the intent is perfectly clear - no “fierceness!”

b.  Mark 11:26.  Rather than being omitted as claimed for all versions, this verse is in NAS, and footnoted in NIV.  All this verse does is repeat verse 25 in the negative sense.  If you don’t understand v.25, you certainly won’t understand v.26!

c.  Gal. 5:21, omission of the word “murder” from the list of “works of the flesh.”  This is a valid complaint as to its omission, but there are plenty of other places where murder is spoken against.  Riplinger is guilty here of the logic fallacy of oversimplification, i.e., “the thin entering wedge.”  She is saying, in a sense, “If the word ‘murder’ is removed from this one text, it will permit ‘fierceness’ to develop.”  It isn’t really that simple!

d.  Luke 3:14.  KJV “do violence to no man” vs. NIV “don’t extort money.”  There was no complaint about NAS “Do not take money from anyone by force,” which says the same as NIV, and perhaps clarifies what kind of “violence” is meant.  Henry says,

They must not be injurious to the people among whom they were quartered, and over whom indeed they were set:  ‘Do violence to no man.  Your business is to keep the peace, and prevent men’s doing violence to one another; but do not you do violence to any.  Shake no man’ (so the word signifies); ‘do not put people into fear; for the sword of war, as well as that of justice, is to be a terror only to evil doers, but a protection to those that do well.  Be not rude in your quarters; force not money from people by frightening them.’  [My emphasis at bold.]

Again, Henry sees the meaning of the KJV: “Shake no man”; “force not money.”

e.  2 Tim. 3:3.  KJV “despisers of those that are good” vs. “haters of good.”  In context, they say virtually the same.  Actually, NIV/NAS is more inclusive in that more than people are hated; rather anything that is good is hated.  But tell me how this change fosters “fierceness?”

f.  Titus 1:8.  KJV “a lover of good men” vs. “loving what is good” (NAS) or “one who loves what is good.”  As with e. above, newer version is more inclusive.  It must include men, but all else also.  Henry says, “or of good things.”  Again, how does this change foster “fierceness?”

23.  P.174.   Now the claim is that by changing KJV’s “sober” it will lead to a loss of “dispassionate and calm reason.”  The new versions “deny their reader the two-fold meaning of the word,” which has to do with drunkenness.  This, of course, has Riplinger defining the use of the word “sober.”

a.  1 Tim. 2:9;  KJV “sobriety” vs. “discreetly.”  In context it is discussing how women should dress!!  This is another twist at the same verse we addressed in 16.c. above.  There is NO context of drunkenness involved.  Riplinger is guilty of equivocation.

b.  Titus 1:8;  KJV “sober” vs. “sensible.”  In this context sober would mean (as per Webster), “temperate in any way; not extreme or extravagant,” i.e., “sensible.”  If it was in reference to drunkenness, why did Paul in v.7 say  “not given to wine?”  Henry says, 
Sober,  or prudent as the word signifies; a needful grace in a minister both for his ministerial and personal carriage and management.  He should be a wise steward, and one who is not rash, or foolish, or heady; but who can govern well his passions and affections.

This sounds very much like “sensible” to me.  Riplinger is again guilty of equivocation; she defines the words as she wants, not as they are.

c.  Titus 2:2; KJV “sober” vs. “temperate.”  Again, the meaning is plainly nothing to do with drunkenness.

d.  1 Tim. 2:15; KJV “sobriety” vs. “self-restraint.”  Refer to b. above for meaning of sober.  Again, this verse has nothing to do with drunkenness.

e.  1 Tim. 3:2; KJV “sober” vs. “prudent.”  Same argument as Titus 1:8.  Henry says,  “He must be sober, temperate, moderate in all his actions, and in the use of all creature-comforts.”  Sounds like “prudent” to me!

24.  P. 175 supposedly demonstrates that “new versions” remove the idea of “honesty” from the text.  “Do you think the KJV might produce honest Christians and the other versions might not?”  The question is absurd because NO version will “produce honest Christians.”  If Riplinger believes removing “honesty” from the text will lead to that conclusion, she is again guilty of oversimplification.  (KJV hasn’t helped her honesty in this work!)  But let’s look at the verses:

a.  Rom. 13:9.  “Thou shalt not bear false witness” is missing from new versions. This looks like a valid complaint that this commandment is missing from this verse in NAS/NIV.  However, Paul doesn’t list all 10 commandments even in KJV.  He lists a few, then says, “any other commandment.”  In CONTEXT, not bearing false witness would then be included.  KJV Rom. 13:9 doesn’t have “Honor thy father and thy mother,” so, by Riplinger’s logic, this would lead Christian children into rebellion.  The commandment to not bear false witness may not be in Romans, but it is still in Exodus!

b.  2 Cor. 8:21; Phil. 4:8.  KJV “honest” vs. “honorable.”  These mean the same!  Where is the problem?

c.  1 Pet. 2:12; KJV “honest” vs. “excellent.”  When discussing behavior, one can be “honest” but not “excellent.”  However, to be “excellent” one has to be “honest.”

d.  1 Tim. 2:2; KJV “honesty” vs. “dignity.”  NIV says “holiness,” which is even better!  I think “honesty” is a better word in context, but will the NAS lead to dishonesty?  How can one have “dignity” without  honesty?

e.  2 Cor. 4:2;  KJV “hidden things of dishonesty” vs. “things hidden because of shame,” and “deceitfully” vs. adulterating.”  As to the first comparison, Henry says, “The things of dishonesty are hidden things, that will not bear the light; and those who practise them are, or should be ashamed of them.”   As to the second  comparison, adulterating the word of God” is a much stronger sense than “handling the word of God deceitfully.”  Complaint is totally invalid!

f.  1 Thes. 2:3; KJV “deceit” vs. “error.”  Read the entire verse in context and they say the same:

KJV:  For our exhortation was not of deceit, nor of uncleanness, nor in guile:
NAS:  For our exhortation does not come from error or impurity or by way of deceit;
NIV:   For the appeal we make does not spring from error or impure motives, nor are we trying to trick you.

In all these examples above, in reference to “honesty,” Riplinger is the one who is dishonest!

25.  P.175 bottom, specifically a charge against the NIV, which Riplinger claims has a “penchant for personal interpretation rather than translation.

a.  Ps. 40:4.  KJV says “turn aside to lies” vs. “to false gods.”  False gods are lies, and lies can be false gods.  NIV footnotes “or to falsehood.”  Using Riplinger’s logic, KJV has no concern for idolaters, only liars.

b.  Amos 2:4.  Again “false gods” replaces KJV’s “lies,” but it is footnoted.  Henry stated it this way: 
They put honour upon his rivals, their idols, here called their lies which caused them to err, for an image is a teacher of lies, Hab. 2:18.  And those that are led away into the error of idolatry are by that led into a multitude of other errors.

If Matthew Henry understood KJV this way, what is wrong with the NIV?

26.  P.176.  Riplinger claims that, “The NIV aided the AIDS epidemic when their editors and literary consultants silenced all [my emphasis] of God’s warnings against the means of transmissions of the HIV virus - sodomy.”  
There is absolutely no evidence for this absurd charge; how can the NIV aid the epidemic?  Her first example, 1 Cor. 6:9, is even more descriptive in the new versions!  The other examples cited all exchange “sodomites” of KJV for “shrine prostitutes.”  Whereas “sodomite” is inclusive of all homosexuals, in the context, the Bible is referring to specific ones - i.e., shrine prostitutes.  Riplinger’s problem with the following examples seems to be that she wants the word “sodomite” used instead of “homosexual.”

a.  Deut. 23:17 is followed by v.18 which says not to “bring the hire of a whore [prostitute], or the price of a dog [temple prostitute].”  The context is a paid sodomite, i.e., a “prostitute.”

b.  1 Kings 15:12.  Henry understood it as prostitutes: “He took away the sodomites out of the land, suppressed the brothels.

c.  1 Kings 22:46.  Referring back to 15:12, those who were left from Asa’s purge were expelled.

d.  2 Kings 23:7.  “Houses of the sodomites.”  Sounds like brothels!  Henry understood them as shrine prostitutes:  
Where all manner of lewdness and filthiness, even that which was most unnatural, was practiced, and under pretence of religion, in honour of their impure deities.

e.  “The deadly virus runs from the pens of the NIV scribes - signing the obituary of millions worldwide who practice sodomy.  Immune to their cries, the NIV lies.  They focus instead on a sin already dead - shrine prostitution.  Archaic. 
Riplinger focuses on a word - “sodomites.”  The O.T. references are indeed about a sin already dead, and that is not a lie.  What is a lie is Riplinger’s statement that the NIV silenced “all” of God’s warnings against homosexuality.  How does she account for Lev. 18:22; Lev. 20:13; Rom. 1:26, 27; 1 Cor. 6:9; and Jude 7?

27.  Summation:  This was the longest chapter so far, with the most assertions against the “new versions.”  The primary premise in this chapter is that new versions lead to people being “unholy due to the following:

a.  By encouraging sexual immorality.
b.  By being non-judgmental about homosexuality.
c.  By removing references to holiness or perfection.
d.  By being “inactive” in their faith, and only wanting to be holy; talking rather than walking.
e.  By promoting covetousness.
f.  By promoting “preppieness” rather than being devoted to God.
g.  By promoting “fierceness” rather than love and mercy.
h.  By leading to a loss of “dispassionate and calm reason.”
i.  By producing dishonest Christians.
j.  By aiding the AIDS epidemic. 

As we have seen in the analysis of every passage, all of Riplinger’s complaint have been disproven.  Additionally, she has been proven to be dishonest in her presentation of the various arguments, misrepresenting what the “new” versions actually say.