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

Monday, March 31, 2014

Judgments Are Necessary

It is quite impossible for either an individual or a church to make no judgments; for even the failure to make decisions is in fact a decision based on the implicit assumption that this circumstances are not weighty enough to force a judgment…. Neither an individual Christian nor a church can avoid responsibility by refusing to make judgements; for that very refusal is already a judgment, an evaluation of commitments, strategies, priorities, and competing truth claims….

D.A. Carson, A Model of Christian Maturity: An Exposition of 2 Corinthians 10-13, p.70

Saturday, March 29, 2014

The “Noah” Movie

I read reports of this movie over the past month, from people who had seen previews, and realized from the get-go that it would be normal Hollywood garbage.  Yet the producer, Scott Franklin, claimed, “I think we stayed very true to the story and didn’t really deviate from the Bible.

Regardless of such a claim, from the reports I've read I’ve acquired some information as to unbiblical problems with “Noah.”  And these don’t even include the fact that it was primarily an extremist enviro-nazi propaganda piece.

1.  Only one son takes his wife on the Ark in the movie, while in the Bible all three sons had wives with them.

2.  Noah decides who will be worthy board the Ark, while in the Bible it is GOD who chooses.

3.  The son with the wife has twin daughters, which are perhaps supposed to be the future wives of the other two sons.

4.  Noah seeks advice from his grandfather Methuselah to understand a vision by God; this never happened.  Apparently in the movie Noah really never understands God.

5.  Methuselah is shown to be sort of a witch-doctor with mental health issues.

6.  Noah has no concern for the people who will be killed in the flood, but the Bible says he was a “preacher of righteousness,” which would make his lack of concern out of character.

7.  When Noah learns that his son’s wife is expecting, he says if it is a girl she should be killed because God doesn’t want to repopulate the world.  Yet in the Bible we find that repopulation is exactly why Noah and his family — all eight of them — are saved.

8.  A wounded man cuts his way into the Ark and eats animals to stay alive as a stowaway, and even tries to kill Noah.  The Bible says no one but the eight of Noah’s family were on the Ark, and none of the animals died on the journey.

9.  Noah teaches theistic evolution to his family while on board the Ark.

10.  The “nephilim” are giant rock-creatures, help Noah build the Ark, and defend the Ark in battle.

Well, just with these little tid-bits, it should be no surprise to those who follow my blog that I won’t waste my time, money, or brain cells on viewing such trash.  However, Time magazine’s on-line review of this movie said it was “Better Than The Book.”  Of course that’s about what we can expect from a secular magazine.

Well, “Noah” has now been released in the theaters, and some good reviews have been posted.

The first one I read was a short one from Ken Ham’s blog.  He said the movie “is disgusting and evil — paganism.”  Ham said the movie “portrays Noah as a psychopath who says that if his daughter-in-law’s baby is a girl then he will kill her as soon as she’s born,” and that “Psychopathic Noah sees humans as a blight on the planet and wants to rid the world of people.”  Ham said the movie was boring and the worst movie he’d ever seen.

Ken Ham was able to get a more detailed review posted at time.com to rebut their claims about it.
“Except for some of the names in the movie, like Noah, his sons’ names, and Methuselah, hardly any remnant of the Bible’s account of the Flood in Genesis 6-9 is recognizable. Yes, there is an Ark in the film that is true to the massive biblical proportions, but it did not look like a seaworthy vessel. There were many animals that came to Noah and went on board the Ark, but there were far too many creatures crammed inside and certainly many more than were needed. Also, while the extreme wickedness of man was depicted, the real sin displayed in the film was the people’s destruction of the earth. Lost within the film’s extreme environmentalist message is that the actual sins of the pre-Flood people were a rebellion against God and also man’s inhumanity to man. . . . Ultimately, there is barely a hint of biblical fidelity in this film. It is an unbiblical, pagan film from its start. It opens with: ‘In the beginning there was nothing.’ The Bible opens with, ‘In the beginning God.’ That difference helps sum up the problem I have with the film.”
You really need to read his whole rebuttal.

The next review was by Debbie Schlussel.  Debbie is a practicing Jew, and she found the film to be abhorrent.  She starts her review with, “Hollywood committed Noahcide. They killed the Biblical story in favor of a People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, soap opera, action film version of what bears little resemblance to the Bible version.  The new movie, ‘Noah,’ in theaters today, would be better called a host of other things: ‘Game of Thrones Noah,’ ‘The Noah-dashians,’ ‘Dysfunctional Family Noah.’ Or just plain, ‘NOT Noah.’”  

Debbie is known for calling a spade a spade, so her review is much more harsh than even Ken Ham’s - but don’t miss it.

I finally red Glenn Beck’s review.  [Link gone by Sep 2020] Of course I know Beck is a Mormon, but even Mormons have a quasi-biblical worldview and agree with a lot of the Bible’s teachings.  Beck said of “Noah,” “It’s more take ‘Sinbad the Sailor’ meets ‘The Shining’ and ‘Friday the 13th,’ with a sprinkle of ‘Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome.’”  He further stated that,“If you are looking for a biblical movie, this is definitely not it … It’s not the story of Noah that I was hoping for. If you are going for that, you will be horribly disappointed. . . . . I always thought of Noah as more of a nice, gentle guy, prophet of God … and less of the homicidal maniac that Paramount found in the Bible. More of the man [that] loves God, and less of him trying to break down the doors inside the ark to kill his whole family.”

Believe it or not, there are actually “Christian” leaders who recommend this movie.

Arch-heretic and political darling Jim Wallis proved he is not a Christian, and that he has no idea what the Bible says.  He was all twitter-pated about it:  “in my opinion Aronofksy’s Noah is a beautiful, powerful, difficult film worthy of the ‘epic’ label. A vivid, visually spectacular reimagining of an ancient story held as sacred by all three Abrahamic religious traditions, it also is the most spiritually nuanced, exquisitely articulated exploration of the ideas of justice and mercy I’ve ever seen on a movie screen. … And despite what you may have heard elsewhere, Noah is deeply, passionately biblical.  Nothing in the film contradicts the Bible’s account of Noah and the Great Flood, either in spirit or detail.”

Wallis must have see a different movie than these other people saw.

One last review I invite you to read is by Erick Erickson at Red State.  I liked the way he ended his review:  “Also, we might should [sic] consider burning at the stake any Christian leader who endorses this movie. The book is always better.”  I agree with you 100%, Erick!

And, by the way, this isn’t the last Hollywood religious garbage film to come out this year.  Elizabeth Prata has a good article about the problem with this type of entertainment, as well as examples of up-coming religious movies.

Friday, March 28, 2014

Random Apostasies and Heresies

I’ll start off today with a bit more about World Vision and their latest fiasco.  A good point made by Bryan Fischer is that World Vision needs to “clean house” [link gone by Sep 2020] of those who would even suggest sanctioning same-sex unions.  Meanwhile, Sola Sisters has an article about the philosophy in general at World Vision.  They also have a commentary about when the church at large will accept homosexuality.

Mormons.  I can never do enough to expose their false religious system for what it is: a system which leads people to hell rather than to eternal life.  Anyway, they claim to believe in the Bible, “as far as it is translated correctly.”  Of course this is a smokescreen, because their claims against it have been proven totally erroneous for decades, especially since discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which proved the accuracy of the transmission of the Old Testament.  Well, this is another one of those beliefs that they obfuscate about when asked.

For a bit more fun with Mormons, this will take 36 minutes of your time, but will give you a good insight as to how well the average Mormon don’t know their own belief system!

Hip and Thigh has the review of Michael Brown’s Authentic Fire, chapter 8.

Sola Sisters has updated their one-article clearing house of all the problems which make Mark Driscoll unqualified for the pastoral role.

More about Beth Moore.  She is now really aligning herself with more false teachers and heretics, as she joins them at Joel Osteen’s goat-pen.

Moore isn’t the only one buddying up with false teachers; James MacDonald is buddies with those on the heretical TBN TV.

Steven Furtick is daily getting more bizarre.  A true goatherd who seems to be more about worshiping himself than about pointing to God.

Oh, and did you know that wife battery and other anti-woman behavior is due to things like the Catholic ban on women priests?  Well, Jimmy Carter said it, so it must be true.  He’s a worse Christian than he was a president (don’t forget that he thinks homosexuality is okay).

An article about the need for sober leaders in the church comes from Elizabeth Prata.  See how many things above are examples of what she writes about.

Tuesday, March 25, 2014

Living Your Faith

Religion is not a single, separate sphere of human life, but the divine principle by which the entire man is to be pervaded, refined and made complete.  It takes hold of him in his undivided totality, in the center of his personal being; to carry light into his understanding, holiness into his will, and heaven into his heart; and to shed thus the sacred consecration of the new birth, and the glorious liberty of the children of God, over his whole inward and outward life.  No form of existence can withstand the renovating power of God’s Spirit.  There is no rational element that may not be sanctified; no sphere of natural life that may not be glorified.

Philip Schaff, The Principle of Protestantism.  Cited in Revelation: Four Views: A Parallell Commentary, edited by Steve Gregg, p.491.

Monday, March 24, 2014

False Teaching Is No Small Thing

Let us never forget that we who stand in the historic stream of Christianity really believe that false doctrine, at those crucial points where false doctrine is heresy, is not a small thing.  If we do not make clear by word and practice our position for truth as truth and against false doctrine, we are building a wall between the next generation and the gospel.

Francis Shaeffer, 1966 Berlin Conference on Evangelism.  Cited by Iain H. Murray, “The Unresolved Controversy: Unity With Non-Evangelicals,” pp.13-14.

Friday, March 21, 2014

Random Apostasies and Heresies

Wow, short time from last RA&H post, but I just got so many things to alert my readers to that I just had to write it up NOW!  (And that is a sad commentary on the state of the church.)

Another good review of the Son of God movie.

Perhaps you have read some of my “Did They Really Say That?!?” articles citing the Seventh-day Adventist false prophet Ellen G. White.  Perhaps you’ve also read my article about the false teachings of the SDA.  Tim Challies has an excellent article exposing E.G. White as a false teacher.

Hip and Thigh has a good commentary on the nonsense going on at another goat-pen.

Or the "WOW worship."

I wonder why Paul never had to resort to such worldly ways to spread the REAL gospel!

Even worse - or maybe they’re even in their own ways - is the Word of Faith heresy and how it is spreading within the mainstream church.

Mormonism Research Ministry’s blog Mormon Coffee always has some interesting tidbits about the Mormon Church’s false teachings.  This article explains their convoluted teaching about God the Father.

Voice of the Martyrs has been a good organization for speaking on behalf of the many persecuted Christians around the world.  Well, things seem to be a wee bit “rotten in Denmark” with VOM recently.

Mark Driscoll; I’ve been telling you over and over how he is unworthy to be in a pastoral position.  In my last RA&H report I exposed his unethical actions to get his book on the best sellers list.  
Well, now it seems Driscoll is coming out with apologies and repentance, and claims that he will be turning his life around.  The Cripplegate has an article questioning how our response should be to all this.  My thinking is pretty much summed up in the article posted by Sola Sisters.  Driscoll should definitely step down from any and all leadership positions.

I came across an article this week on a blog I’m not familiar with, and penned by an author I can’t recommend to those not solid in the faith (because he is a preterist,  buddies up with Rome, appears to be egalitarian, is a replacement theologian, promotes a Sunday “Sabbath” and tithing).  BUT, the article is a solid examination of Joel Osteen and what his teaching is doing to Christianity.

The review of Chapter 7 of Michael Brown’s book, Authentic Fire, is posted.

Oh boy, Steven Furtick will have the ability to reach even more people with his false teachings.

Beware of Unorthodoxy

Unorthodoxy makes its advance in the face of tolerance and undermines orthodoxy like a slowly creeping paralysis. It does not need to repudiate evangelicalism explicitly because it constantly destroys and overthrows it by more subtle means. Unorthodoxy is always happy to keep evangelical terminology because it simply redefines the terms and makes them meaningless. When words can mean anything they mean nothing.

--John Bunyan (28 November 1628 - 31 August 1688, English Christian writer and preacher, who was imprisoned twice for his ministry)  Cited in the 3/18/14 The Berean Call e-mail.

Thursday, March 20, 2014

Do You Face and Conquer Evil?

A man can no more be a Christian without facing evil and conquering it, than he can be a soldier  without going to battle, facing the cannon’s mouth, and encountering the enemy in the field.


Tuesday, March 18, 2014

Image Idolatry

The pathos of the crucifix obscures the glory of Christ, for it hides the fact of His deity, His victory on the cross, and His present kingdom.  It displays His human weakness, but it conceals His divine strength; it depicts the reality of His pain, but keeps out of our sight the reality of His joy and His power.  In both these cases, the symbol is unworthy most of all because of what it fails to display.  And so are all other visible representations of Deity. …

Psychologically, it is certain that if you habitually focus your thoughts on an image or picture of the One to whom you are going to pray, you will come to think of Him, and pray to Him, as the image represents Him.  Thus you will in  this sense “bow down” and “worship” your image; and to the extent to which the image fails to tell the truth about God, to that extent you will fail to worship God in truth.  That is why God forbids you and me to make use of images and pictures in worship.

J.I. Packer, Knowing God, pp.41-42

Thursday, March 13, 2014

Random Apostasies and Heresies

The movie “Son of God” is getting a lot of attention, with some more reviews explaining how unbiblical it is.  The only people who like it are those who claim to have gotten all emotional about it; they let their emotions determine the validity of it rather than comparing it to Scripture.
Reviews to consider are at Steak and a Bible, Answers in Genesis, and Marsha West.

Bill Gothard has resigned his position at IBLP.  Now if only the whole system would collapse!

A false teacher to beware of, who I never heard of before, is David Benner.

Another episode from the Cripplegate’s series about tongues.

Janis Hutchinson has another part of her series on the Trinity posted.

The review of Michael Brown’s “Authentic Fire” book continues.

The Berean Call radio had a two part series on the Hebrew Roots Movement, and the transcripts are available here and here.

There are those who claim that Jesus would have no problem with photographing or otherwise providing services for a same-sex fake wedding ceremony.   Good refutation article here.

Steve Bricker has an interesting article about the problem with repetitious choruses in worship.

More apostasy in the United Methodist Church - a bishop refuses to bring church discipline against a minister who officiated at a same-sex fake wedding.

John MacArthur had a thought-provoking article about recognizing and dealing with wolves who would endanger the flock.  He ends with this statement: 
Far from engaging or accommodating false teachers, the clear duty of every church leader is to guard the truth from the deadly, corrupting influence of heretics, liars, and charlatans.  A godly shepherd faithfully protects the sheep; he doesn’t dance with the wolves.

Finally, along that line of what the church’s identity should be, a bit of controversy has arisen over a new book by Ken Wilson, Letter to My Congregation.  Look at what he says about what the church’s mission is, and his idea of accommodating unrepentant sinners (specifically homosexuals).  Then look at my article about the purpose of the church.  It is apparent that Wilson just doesn’t get it.

Wednesday, March 12, 2014

"New Age Bible Versions" - Chapter 15

It has been four months since my last chapter review, and I apologize for the delay.  Doing this review has gotten to be more involved that I originally thought, because the claims become more and more absurd as I go, which means I have to be careful to keep an accurate report of Riplinger’s wild charges against modern Bible versions.  (I would really be behind if I examined all her claims as to the people involved, the conspiracy theories, etc.!)  Anyway, let’s now look at Chapter 15.

Chapter 15:  “Striving or Saved?”  The premise of this chapter is apparently that, while with the KJV you can know you are saved, with the “new versions” you are only striving to be saved - sort of a continuation of the premise of chapter 14.

1.  P. 251 ff:  Riplinger declares that there is “a trend” with “new version” Bibles being “modified to match their mentor - Martha, not Mary.”  Then she points to Luke 10:40-42 in the KJV:  “Martha was cumbered about much serving. . .Jesus answered and said unto her, ‘Martha, Martha thou art careful and troubled about many things: But one thing is needful and Mary hath chosen that. . .’” 

a.  Riplinger claims that the NAS has changed “one thing” to “a few things,” and thereby pointing to more things needed to be done than to listen to Jesus’ teachings.  But what does the NAS really say?  “but only a few things are necessary, really only one, for Mary has chosen the good part...”  Notice that in the NAS Jesus says a “few things,” but then reduces it to “really only one” thing.   Maybe Riplinger missed that part.

b.  Next, Riplinger says, “the ‘one thing’ that was needful, that is, listening to Christ’s words, the new versions omit or obscure references to bible [sic] teaching, studying or meditation.”  She follows this claim by the following examples of KJV vs “new versions” (Riplinger should have done some study in Vine’s before she did this section):

Luke 4:4: KJV “That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God” vs “man shall not live on bread alone.” (bold emphasis by Riplinger).  I can’t respond to what the underlying texts have and why, but I feel that by using the first part of the passage, it pointed to the complete text - which Satan surely knew.

1 Peter 2:2:  KJV “desire the sincere milk of the word” vs “long for the pure spiritual milk.”  Well, while this is similar to what the NIV says, the NAS says the same as the KJV.  Without searching others, this is an example of painting all with the same brush.  However, in context, what could the “spiritual milk” be except the teaching of the Word?

1 Tim. 4:15:  KJV “meditate upon” vs “take pains with [ouch].”  Riplinger’s attempt at humor is stupid.  “take pains with” is an idiom meaning the same thing as “meditate upon” in this context.  Only NAS uses that.

2 Tim. 2:15:  KJV “Study to shew thyself approved” vs “Be diligent [with what] to present yourself.”  More dishonesty from Riplinger.  The answer to “[with what]” is the same as for “study [what?].  Full passage says essentially the same thing in all versions, in that the Christian is to study the word and be diligent in such study so as to present oneself approved to God as one who is able to accurately understand and teach the Word of God.
Acts 20:28: KJV “Feed the church” vs “shepherd the church.”  The Greek here is poimaino.  According to Vine’s this word means “to act as a shepherd.”  Vines says “to tend” would be a better translation of the KJV, since “feed” is not the only thing a shepherd does to take care of his flock.  So the one with a bad translation is the KJV!

Rev. 7:17:  KJV “feed them” vs “be their shepherd.”  Same as Acts 20:28.

Luke 17:7:  KJV “feeding” vs “tending.”  Same as Acts 20:28, but this is used literally here, so how does this have anything to do with teaching the Word?

John 21:15:  KJV “Feed my lambs” vs “Tend my lambs.” 
John 21:16:  KJV “Feed my sheep” vs “Shepherd my sheep
John 21:17:  KJV “Feed my sheep” vs “Tend my sheep

Vine’s says the following:  “In John 21:15, 16, 17, the Lord, addressing Peter, first uses No.1 bosko (v.15) [“too feed”], then No. 2, poimaino (v.16), and then returns to bosko (v.17).  These are not simply interchangeable (nor are other variations in His remarks) . . . Nor, again, is there a progression of ideas.   The lesson to be learnt . . . is that, in the spiritual care of God’s children, the ‘feeding’ of the flock from the Word of God is the constant and regular necessity; it is to have the foremost place.  The tending (which includes this) consists of other acts, of discipline, authority, restoration, material assistance of individuals, but they are incidental in comparison with the ‘feeding’.”  So, we have KJV in error for vs. 16.  Also, the NIV has the correct sequence, but NAS is as Riplinger states.  Riplinger again broad-brushes all “new versions” rather than pointing out the one with the error.  Just for curiosity in this one, I checked other translations and found that the only other one like the NAS was the TEV.  Even the Catholic NAB got it correct!

Heb. 4:12:  KJV “The word of God is...powerful” vs “The word of God is...active.”  Vine’s says the Greek here, energes, means “active.”  Of course the Word is indeed “powerful” in its various activities. 

c.  Riplinger then reverses and tells us to “Watch Martha keep busy with the following ‘few things’.”

Eccl 5:20:  KJV “God answereth him” vs NKJV “God keeps him busy.”  Other versions say “God keeps him occupied with the gladness of his heart” or similar.  KJV complete verse is, “God answereth him in the joy of his heart.”  I think the two pretty much say the same thing, in that God directs him to the joy in his heart and to focus on that while he goes about his business.  This really is a silly example for Riplinger to use.

Rom. 12:16:  KJV “condescend to men of low estate” vs “be willing to do menial work NASB (f).”  I think Riplinger means in the footnote, but I only found it in the NIV.  And that is noted as an alternate understanding rather than in the text.  Even so, I would ask how one could “condescend to men of low estate” or “associate with the lowly” without being “willing to do menial work”?  This is another  really weak example of trying to make “new versions” look corrupt.

d. The new versions substitute ‘a form of godliness’ for the ‘one needful thing,’ faith and its simplicity.

2 Cor. 11:3:  KJV “the simplicity that is in Christ” vs “purity of devotion to Christ.”  This really has nothing to do with her claim.  The point of the passage is that Paul concerned that the Corinthians will be led astray by false teachings.  Whether it means to teachings more complex than the simplicity of the Gospel, or teachings which lead them from the purity of their devotion to Christ which is BASED on the Gospel, the result is the same.  It gives no “form of godliness” as a replacement for “simplicity.”

Acts 2:46:  KJV “singleness of heart” vs “sincerity of heart.
Col. 3:22:  KJV  “singleness of heart” vs “sincerity of heart
Eph. 6:5:   KJV  “singleness of your heart” vs “sincerity of your heart.

WOW!  Just off the top of my head I have to say if one is sincere in their heart, then they have a singleness of their heart in their sincerity; I see them as synonymous.  The Greek in the Acts passage is aphelotes, which “denotes ‘simplicity,’... for which Moulton and Milligan, from papyri examples, suggest ‘unworldly simplicity’; the idea here is that of an unalloyed benevolence expressed in act.”  I think that is expressed by the phrase “sincerity of heart.”  The Greek in the other two passages is “haplotes,” for which Vine’s says, “The thought of sincerity is present in ... Eph. 6:5; Col. 3:22.”  I rest my case.

Matt. 6:22:  KJV “thine eye be single” vs “If your eye is clear.”  NIV says “good” instead of “clear.”  Vine’s says the word means “simple, single” in a moral sense in this passage, as well as in Luke 11:34, meaning “singleness of purpose.”  I like “The Defined King James Bible” (a production of KJV only adherents) because it explains in footnotes the archaic language in the text.  At this passage, the DKJB says the meaning of “single” is “sound, healthy.”  I would say that if one’s eye is “clear,” then it is certainly “sound, healthy.”  And a “clear” eye is also a “good” eye.  Again, Riplinger’s claim is dismantled.

Riplinger then follows this section with five statements of how “simple” salvation is, to “prove” that the “singleness” and “simplicity” passages are superior to the “sincerity” passages.  The claim has no bearing on the previous charges.

2.  p.253, subparagraph (5) has Riplinger charging new Bibles with being oriented towards works-salvation.  She says that verses critical to an understanding of faith vs works are omitted from “NIV, NASB, et al.”  The following verses all show as being omitted (the bold passage is the “omitted” passage):

a.  Romans 11:6
KJV:  And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace.  But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
NIV:  And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.
NAS:  But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.

As we can see, it is true that the last sentence is missing in the modern texts.  But it is redundant to the first sentence, and the last phrase really doesn’t make sense.  There is NO omission of the teaching of faith vs works.

b.  Col.3:16 - omitted the word “grace”
KJV:  Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.
NIV:  …with gratitude in your hearts to God.
NAS:  …with thankfulness in your hearts to God.

More of Riplinger’s deception.  In this passage, “grace” has nothing to do with salvation, let alone teaching works vs faith.  And the words used in the “new versions” are synonymous.

c.  Gen. 6:8 - omitted the word “grace”
KJV:  But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.
NIV & NAS:  But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.

Again with the deception.  As with Col.3:16, this passage has nothing to do with faith vs works for salvation, and “favor” is a better understanding of the text.

d. Mark 6:11:  KJV has the following statement which is omitted from new versions:  “Verily I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment for that city.”  Riplinger then comments: “Not receiving Jesus Christ is a greater sin than sodomy etc.  Consequently those with ‘good works’ but without faith in Christ will be judged more harshly than the Sodomites.
The problem is that this passage has nothing to do with the subject of works vs. faith, which is supposed to be the subject.  Whether the passage should be there or not, using this verse to “prove” her case actually proves nothing.

e.  p.254The word ‘deeds’ is added with no Greek basis.  The ‘evil heart of unbelief’ in Hebrew 3:12 is also scrambled in the new versions, obscuring God’s definition of evil and good.”  Lets look at Heb. 3:12 first.

KJV:  “Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.
NAS:  “Take care, brethren, lest there should be in any one of you an evil, unbelieving heart, in falling away from the living God.
NIV:  “See to it brothers, that none of you has a sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God.”

From what I see, they all say the same thing.  I don’t know how Riplinger sees them as “scrambled.”

The next passage Riplinger looks at is John 5:29, comparing NAS to KJV.  KJV says, “they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.”  The NAS has “good deeds” and “evil deeds,” with “deeds” italicized.  I think in the KJV “deeds” is implied, and the NAS seems to me to just be adding for clarification - and NOT teaching works vs faith.

Riplinger next makes a big deal about NAS “DEEDS” vs KJV “deeds” at Rom. 2:6; she says, “Just so you won’t miss it—” and then shows the comparison.  This is deception again.  NAS uses all caps when citing from the O.T., which this passage does!  It is NOT emphasizing “deeds” as something important.
Next, Riplinger compares Acts 18:5 and 1 Tim. 4:12 with the statement, “New versions substitute will-power for the power of the indwelling spirit.”  
Acts 18:5
KJV:  “Paul was pressed in the spirit, and testified to the Jews
NAS:  “Paul began devoting himself completely to the word, solemnly testifying to the Jews
NIV  “Paul devoted himself exclusively to preaching, testifying to the Jews

Well, I can certainly see the difference here!  Even my Nestle Greek interlinear agrees with KJV.  The question becomes, was the motive for this translation to “substitute will-power for the power of the indwelling spirit”?  I don’t think so, and I don’t think Riplinger is a mind-reader.  So, although there is a reason to raise one’s eyebrows here, I think her charges are presumptuous.

Next, she says KJV “in spirit” is replaced by “in purity

1 Tim. 4:12
KJV:  “be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.
NAS:  “but rather in speech, conduct, love, faith and purity show yourself an example
NIV:  “set an example for the believers in speech, in life, in love, in faith and in purity.

Riplinger is wrong; there was no replacement of “spirit” with “purity,” because all three have the word “purity.”  So there has been NO exchange as claimed.  One may question the omission of the word “spirit,” but the charge levied is false.

3.  p.255.  Riplinger says that the Jehovah Witness cult substitutes the word “disobedience” for “unbelief,” and “obey” for “believe.”  Then she provides six passages which show how new versions have done the same thing, and questions if they shouldn’t read “Jehovah Witness Bible” on the cover.

a.  John 3:36: KJV “believeth” vs NAS “obey.”  There are two parts of the passage, and the NAS does say “believes” in the first part, but “obeys” in the second.  Curious, but the passage still has “believe,” contrary to Riplinger’s claim.

b.  Rom. 11:32: KJV “unbelief” vs “disobedience.”  In this case, it appears to me that “disobedience” includes unbelief, and is more than unbelief.  So I think it is appropriate here.

c. Heb. 3:18:  KJV “believed not” vs “disobedient.”  Heb. 3:19 in all say “unbelief,” reiterating vs 18, and in context I think “disobedient” here is as in Rom. 11:32 - appropriate.

d.  Heb. 4:6, 11:  KJV “unbelief” vs “disobedience.”  Context here DEFINITELY calls for “disobedience” vs “unbelief,” because it was BOTH in context, and the former includes the latter.

e.  Rom. 15:31:  KJV “do not believe” vs NAS “disobedient.”  Again, in context, I think “disobedient” is appropriate due to the inclusion of “do not believe” in that term.

Riplinger then says that “faith is obedience,” so cannot “disobedience” include the lack of faith?  I realize that not all the time can it do so, but I think the context of these passages do.   So, no, the new versions should NOT be labeled JW Bibles.

4.  p.256.  “Other verses lead new version readers to think salvation is dependent upon perseverance, endurance, or steadfastness.”  Looking ahead at the passages she cites, I can see Riplinger confuses “perseverance” with “work.”  Can it include work?  Yes, but overall it just means to continue in what you are doing, whether it work, living, trusting, waiting, etc.

a.  Rom. 5:4; 2 Cor. 12:12, 6:4:  KJV “patience [wait]” vs “persevere [work].”   Well, in Rom. 5:4, “perseverance” in context is certainly the same as “patience.”  In 2 Cor. 6:4 NAS and NIV both say “endurance,” which is certainly synonymous in context with “patience,” and a different word than Riplinger claims! In 2 Cor. 12:12 “patience” and “perseverance” are synonymous.

b.  Heb. 10:36 and 2 Cor. 6:4: KJV says “patience” vs “endurance.”  These are synonymous in context.

c.  Col. 1:23:  KJV says “settled” (which Riplinger defines as “resting”) vs “steadfast” (which she defines as “don’t mess up”).  I don’t know where she gets her definition, but I’ve never heard “steadfast” meaning to not mess up!  It means to hold your ground, be unwavering, etc.  Now, let’s look at what the passage really says as opposed to what Riplinger says they say:

KJV:  “continue in the faith, grounded and settled
NAS:  “continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast
NIV:  “continue in your faith, established and firm

As you can see, each of these passages, while using different verbiage, are saying the exact same thing!  Riplinger is again being deceitful by pulling one word out of context and then claiming that the new versions are promoting works over faith for salvation!

d.  2 Tim. 2:12.  KJV “suffer [if we suffer]” vs “if we endure [if we made it].”  Again, the problem is Riplinger’s definitions.  One of the meanings for the word “suffer” is to “endure,” and is proper in the context of the passage.  Riplinger, seemingly not knowing this, comes up with her own biased interpretation and then blames the new versions!

e.  Acts 11:23:  KJV “cleave unto [rely on him]” vs “to remain true [don’t mess up].”  Again Riplinger misdefines words so as to deceive the reader.  To “cleave unto” in this context indeed means “to remain true.”  To “cleave unto” something means to stick to it, remain true to it, to remain loyal.  Look at Gen. 2:24 where it says man will “cleave unto” his wife - does that mean he will “rely on” her?!?

f.  1 Pet. 1:5:  KJV “are kept [God keeps you] vs “are protected by the power of God [Is God a body guard?]”  Riplinger is getting completely foolish.  What does it mean to be “kept” by God? (Notice her definition just uses another form of the word.)  The full phrase in KJV is “who are kept by the power of God,” which means “protected by the power of God.”  Why did Riplinger cut short the phrase in KJV? Obviously it is because the two versions look so much alike - they say the same thing!

g.  Heb. 10:23:  KJV “profession of our faith” vs “confidence of our hope [I ‘hope’ I make it!].  Again the deception of Riplinger raises its head; she equivocates on the word “hope” to make it sound foolish.  What is our “hope”? It is “the confidence that what God has done for us in the past guarantees our participation in what God will do in the future.  This contrasts to the world’s definition of hope asa feeling that what is wanted will happen.’” [Riplinger’s definition].  (Holman Bible Dictionary)  God is our Hope, Christ is our Hope, and indeed our hope is the object of our faith.

As we can see, NONE of the passages have new versions teaching that our works are needed for salvation. Riplinger’s deceit is manifest.

5.  Beginning at p.256 and ending the chapter at p.258, Riplinger makes an issue of the use of “faithfulness” in new versions instead of “faith” in KJV.  Then she claims that the false teachings promulgated by Word of Faith teachers like Kenneth Copeland can teach what they do by use of new versions!  Interestingly enough, most of the teachings by WOF heretics is done using the KJV!  Cults LOVE the KJV.  

So let’s look at Riplinger’s first two examples, Matt. 23:23 and Gal. 5:22, both of which in the KJV say “faith” vs “faithfulness” in new versions.  Riplinger uses a Focus on the Family radio program’s explanation of “faithfulness” to demonstrate the Biblical problem in these two passages.  Here is FOF’s definition:  “paying your bills on time and canceling appointments when you can’t make them.”  Again, the problem with Riplinger is the logic fallacy of equivocation - swapping the meanings of the word.
In both these passages “faithfulness” means more than faith - faithfulness by meaning is “full of faith.”  Not only does one have faith in Christ and his work for our salvation, but he applies it in his everyday living by his being full of faith, by his faithfulness to his to his belief. 

Riplinger, who to my understanding has no training in the Greek language, then attacks new versions’ handling of what she calls “the two key verses opening the door to an understanding of faith.”  (By what reasoning she comes to the conclusion that these two passages are “the two key verses” was not explained.)  The two passages are Gal. 3:2 and Heb. 11:1.

a.  Gal. 3:2 
KJV:  “Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
NAS:  “Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by the hearing with faith?
NIV:  “Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard?

Riplinger takes umbrage with NIV’s “observing the law” over “works of the law,” but my question is how can one “observe” the law without doing the works?  She then has a problem with NIV’s “believing what you heard,” but isn’t that just saying one has faith in what they heard, that the hearing was done with faith?

b.  Heb. 11:1
KJV:  “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
NAS:  “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
NIV:  “Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.
TEV:  “To have faith is to be sure of the things we hope for, to be certain of the things we cannot see.

Riplinger says that both NIV and TEV changed two Greek nouns to adjectives and that the NAS mistranslates the noun “substance.”  Well, we often change grammatical structures of words so as to get better meaning in English, and KJV does that a lot.  But when I read all four translations above, I see them all saying the same thing!  However,  KJV’s “substance” is what the WOF use as one of their main “proofs” for their belief that faith is a substance!

Riplinger stated that there were two “key verses,” but she closes the chapter with a third!

c. John 12:41
KJV:  “The things said Esaias when he saw his glory
NIV:  “Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus’ glory.” (Riplinger’s bold).

Riplinger states, “The majority of Greek MS read ‘when,’ which points to faith.”   It appears to me, from reading the plain English, that BOTH point to a faith that was brought about by what Isaiah saw!

6. Chapter summary.  Riplinger’s premise at the beginning of this chapter was a continuation of the premise of Chapter 14, i.e., that the new versions teach works for salvation rather than faith; that the new versions have one in a continuous state of doing something in order to be saved.  In every single instance of words compared, we have found that Riplinger has often been deceptive, and that all versions end up with the very same meanings in all of the passages she cites as her evidence.  Only one passage demonstrated a problem with translation in the new versions, and that was Acts 18:5, as reviewed in subparagraph 2.e. above.  Even that apparently wrong translation did NOT meet the requirements of Riplinger’s claim, in that it had nothing to do with teaching works vs. faith.