Customer Reviews

New Age Bible Versions: An Exhaustive Documentation of the Message, Men & Manuscripts Moving Mankind to the Antichrist's One World Religion

5 star:		(91)
4 star:		(7)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(69)

 

 

As I read negative review after negative review of this book, I was struck by one repeated phrase. "While some King James only people have a valid point of view", and then rip Dr. Riplinger. Satan comes to deceive, confuse, and bewilder. The Bible is the infallible word of GOD. If you are a Christian, that much you absolutely have to believe. Therefore if you have two books both purporting to be the Infallible WORD OF GOD, and they differ, one is completly wrong. There can be no half rights, only absolutes. Finally read the Preface of any translation you pick up, the men who worked on the Authorized KJV 1611 didn't believe themselves to be infallible, compare the sincerity in that preface to any other traslation.

Dr. Riplinger knew she would be attacked by the minions of Satan when she wrote this and her other works proclaiming the singular truth that the 1611 KJV is the true translation of the INSPIRED WORD OF GOD. No matter how many reviews rip her books to shreads, anyone who reads her books completly will have a greater understanding of what this war of words over translations is really all about.

Mrs. Gail Riplinger's book and Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code are the two most error filled books I have ever encountered. Gail's defense of the "Authorized" King James Version of the Bible as the only legitimate translation will appear at first to the non-scholar to be a strong case (authorized not by God but by a rather unholy king of England). But it soon becomes evident, especially to those of us who read the Bible in the actual Greek and Hebrew texts, that most of her arguments are twisting the truth, false, irrelevant, or just plain ridiculous. For example she takes the letters of the abbreviations NASV and NIV and subtracts and adds letters to arrive at SIN (p. 149 in the 1994 edition). NASV is not even correct; it is NASB. The argument is not only rediculous, it is incorrect. This example is typical of her arguments. Sometimes she points out a legitimate weakness in another translation, but she fails to note that the KJV has been revised repeatedly because of weaknesses in its translation. Gail's book is an embarrassment to truth-lovers.

I fail to see how anyone can call this waste of paper "well researched" - it is poorly researched, so much so that other KJO advocates distance themselves from her lies, slander, and foolishness. A real piece of garbage.

I have a lot of sympathy for those who argue for the Textus Receptus. I am also sure that a compelling case can be put for the church to prefer the KJV over newer translations.

This isn't it.

I have read many books in my time. I have read many bad books in my time, and even some downright appalling books. However, adjectives fail me when I seek to do justice to the consistently abysmal quality of the 'scholarship' in this book.

Reading this volume I was not sure whether I should laugh or cry. In the end the fact that some people take this stuff seriously pressed me to the latter.

The slanderous and largely unsubstantiated charges that Mrs. Riplinger makes against certain individuals within this book should not be taken lightly by any who respect the ninth commandment. This is a book that must be repented of. It implicates godly evangelical men in a new age conspiracy and creates a dangerous disunity within the body of Christ.

It surprised me to pick up a book claiming to deal with Bible versions that failed to even engage with the Greek and the Hebrew of the original text.

I was further bewildered to be faced with a whole range of logical fallacies. Anyone with the merest smattering of logical thought would be able to demolish the 'arguments' put forward in this book.

Riplinger often takes the truth of her theology for granted and tests the reliability of newer versions against it. Her theology is obviously not very considered and represents a backwater in Protestant thought. Many of the positions she rails against as 'New Age heresy' have far more support from Christian tradition than those she advocates. Here is someone with a theological axe to grind.

Merely comparing tables of words from the KJV and new translations is far from sufficient to prove Riplinger's case. Most of these garner the limited persuasive power they can muster from the prior supposition that the KJV is the more accurate text, but this is, of course, begging the question.

Riplinger must remember that it is just as sinful to add to God's Word as it is to subtract. She merely presumes throughout that the texts underlying the KJV have not added to the Word. Any deviation from the KJV is, therefore, an omission.

Riplinger must also remember that merely showing similarity of wording between newer translations and New Age writers does not prove that the same views are being held. Jesus' statement: 'You must be born again' does not relate His teaching to that of reincarnation. Riplinger seems to be utterly oblivious to the phenomenon that is context.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. It is deeply unfortunate that this poisonous little book will find its way into unwary people's libraries, resulting in split churches and damaged friendships.

When Christian brothers and sisters are in the wrong there are right and wrong ways to approach it. There are godly evangelical scholars who are persuaded of the reliability of other textual traditions than that of the Textus Receptus. Demonizing such people serves little purpose. They seek to be faithful to the Word of God, just as Riplinger does. Rather than implicate them as pawns in a vast conspiracy, why does she not rationally engage with their textual arguments in the Greek and Hebrew rather than make the ridiculous error of believing that these important questions can be solved by mere comparison of the English translations.

I am saddened to write such a review as this. However, I feel it is necessary to identify clearly books that are theologically dangerous. There are good books on this subject by respected evangelical scholars, scholars embarrassed by the way that Riplinger argues for their position. The Lordship of our Saviour Jesus Christ extends even over the world of scholarship. I would encourage any who read this review to purchase books by scholars who engage in their scholarship in accord with Christ's Word (not misrepresenting opponents, not presenting clearly flawed arguments, not slandering, misquoting nor presenting factual inaccuracies) and to steer well clear of the doctrinal reef represented by New Age Bible Versions.

This book was sent to me by an Internet friend who got disgusted with its harsh language. This harshness should be obvious just from the title of the book. To claim that ALL new versions are "new age" is to really throw down the gauntlet.

And Riplinger doesn't stop there. She attributes all new versions to the work of Satan. Now let me say from the start, I do have serious concerns with many, but by no means all, new versions. But there is no reason to use such disparaging language as Riplinger does.

That said, Riplinger's pattern in this book is about the same as seen throughout KJV onlyist literature. She will cite a passage or word from the KJV and then one from "new age versions." She then just assumes the KJV is correct and the new versions are incorrect. She never appeals to the Hebrew and Greek texts and standard lexicons to demonstrate the KJV reading is in fact superior. But without recourse to the original languages, this is just circular reasoning.

But the fact remains is, there are passages in the KJV that are not translated as accurately as they could be. And in many of these cases, new versions, such as the NKJV, translate these passages correctly. I detail many such instances in my book "Differences Between Bible Versions." But unlike Riplinger's book, in my book I refer constantly to Hebrew and Greek lexicons, documenting very carefully where the KJV is accurate and where it is not so accurate.

Second, Riplinger makes the very interesting claim that the KJV is somehow easier to read than modern versions. She tries to support this claim by appealing to a computer program that supposedly showed the KJV is easier to read than modern versions and by claiming the KJV uses "easier" words than modern versions.

But both of these claims can be easily explained. Take for instance the KJV word "ere" (Exod 1:19). This is a very "easy" word by Riplinger's standards. It only has three letters and one syllable, but most readers today wouldn't even know what it means. The modern-day equivalent is "before," which a computer would consider to be a more difficult word since it has six letters and two syllables. But most readers would find "before" to be much easier than "ere."

Next Riplinger makes her case against the modern-day "Critical Text" (UBS, Nestle-Aland text). Now I do agree with her that the Critical Text (CT) is less accurate than the "Textus Receptus" (TR) or Majority Text (MT). However, when discussing on this subject I would never use the disparaging language that Riplinger does.

Moreover, Riplinger confuses the MT and the TR. The TR is the text the KJV is based on, but the MT is a more recent text developed from the many more manuscripts that have been discovered since the time the KJV was translated.

Now these two texts are very similar, much more similar than either is to the CT. However, there are some significant differences between them. And in these cases, there is overwhelming manuscript support in favor of the reading of the MT but very little in support of the TR's reading.

But the important point here is, most of Riplinger's arguments would only be applicable to the MT, not the TR. So her arguments are not really supporting the KJV. If she really believed the MT is the most accurate Greek text, then Riplinger should use a version based on it. There are two such versions available: the World English Bible and my own Analytical-Literal Translation of the New Testament.

In my Bible versions book I detail very carefully the differences between these three texts and present in a straightforward not disparaging manner why I prefer the MT to the CT and even the TR.

So overall, I cannot recommend Riplinger's book. The harsh language is simply unnecessary and there is too much faulty logic, circular reasoning, and confusion of issues.

For a much more balanced approach to the Bible versions controversy, see my book "Differences Between Bible Versions." It has an entire section (100 pages) demonstrating the problems seen in KJV only literature like Riplinger's. But it also details the many problems seen in many modern day versions.

I advocate the use of the MT or TR and a literal or formal equivalence method of translating. And simply put, if Riplinger wasn't being so dogmatic, she would agree with this standard. And rather than telling people they must use the KJV or they are "new age" she would also recommend versions like the "New King James Version," the "Literal Translation of the Bible," or my own "Analytical-Literal Translation."

When reading Gail Riplinger's New Age Bible Versions, the question that one must continually ask oneself is this: How did someone read this manuscript and agree to publish it? When originally released, it did create quite the ruckus in Evangelical Protestant circles with many readers becoming convinced that only the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible was the true Word of God. However, once examined by more level heads in the Evangelical community, the controversy generated by the book largely evaporated due to quite straightforward critiques of the quality of Riplinger's research and methodology. Although the book still resonates with some, its appeals is primarily restricted to those whose beliefs reside near the border between fundamentalism and conspiracy theory.

I should point out that as a traditional Anglican I hold the KJV in very high esteem. It is an excellent Bible that has served the Church well for centuries. It stands not only as a reliable text of Holy Scripture but also as one of the greatest literary achievements of the English language. One of the most disturbing aspects of the whole KJV-Only movement is its associating the work of those who used their scholarly abilities to advance the Kingdom with the most anti-intellectual elements of the Church.

Riplinger's questionable thesis revolves around the accusation that all available versions of the Bible except the KJV are corrupted and in essence satanic attempts at removing the Christian's main weapon - the Word of God - in the battle against demonic forces. In her attempts to convince the reader, she offers textual comparisons, historic data, biographical information on the translators, voluminous citations and footnotes, and a few techniques unique to her own methods. For those with less than a critical eye and predisposed to see all the problems of the world as arranged by conspirators (as opposed to being a direct result of man's sinful nature), it can be quite convincing.

The problem with Riplinger's analysis is that she - like most conspiracy theorists - simply cannot see outside the box she has created for herself. In her attempts to explan the omissions of certain passages in more recent translations of the Holy Scriptures that appeared in the King James Version, she assumes some nefarious plot behind each variation and never bothers to investigate the reasons for the differences. Much of her argument is predicated upon the alleged superiority of the Textus Receptus or received text that was used as the basis for the KJV. However, she has neither the background in Greek or Hebrew nor an understanding of Church history that would allow her to actually contribute anything constructive to the discussion of the manuscript evidence. In place of reason, she simply assumes evil intent on all parties associated with any newer translation and commits wholesale character assassinations against respected Christian scholars. Whatever may be missing from their Bibles, one can only guess that the commandment against bearing false witness must not make an appearance in hers.

Reasons for the differences are quite straightfoward. There are obvious similarities between the texts of the synoptics and with additional information in some variants of the same event. A scribe copying something from Mark (whose descriptions of events were often simpler) may be familiar with the same event in Matthew or Luke and add what he mistakenly thought had been omitted. Many of the so-called "omissions" are of this sort. The text still does appear in a different Gospel but just not in a place where it did not appear originally.

The Textus Receptus was based upon the later Byzantine family of texts that is primarily medieval in origin. Other textual families (such as the Alexandrian) are much earlier and their more primitive state is verified by much less polished text. Thus Riplinger's argument that the Byzantine family represented the vast majority of texts is shown to be fallacious. Yes, it is the majority but they are all later texts that do not represent the most primitive form of the texts. The Alexandrian family is earlier and simply a more reliable basis for a translation. The reason for the use of the Byzantine texts was that they were the texts available in the West at the time. The West had until the time of the Reformation had been mainly using the Latin translation by St. Jerome known as the Vulgate. A new translation of the Greek texts into Latin by Erasmus (using a limited number of Byzantine texts) provided the basis for the translation of the KJV. It is ironic that KJV-only adocates use arugments against newer translations similar to arguments opposing Erasmus' work because it contradicted parts of the accepted Vulgate translation.

If Riplinger had stuck to arguments on textual families to build a case for the KJV, one could write it off as a well-meaning person in far over her head, but this is simply not the case. She not only questions the use of other texts but also the intentions and even the eternal state of those involved in the newer translations. The most egregious example of this is the treatment of Anglican scholar and bishop B. F. Westcott who with fellow Anglican cleric F. J. A. Hortt compiled a standard critical version of the New Testament. The author accuses them of being both deniers of Christ's divinity and closet occultists. The former she asserts by selectively taking quotes from Dr. Westcott and twisting them to mean the exact opposite of their original intent. Her claim of some occultic connection is repeated througout the book with no supporting evidence. She does mention in a footnote that a Dr. Westcott was associated with Theosophy founder Madame Blavatsky and hypthesizes it was him but that Dr. Westcott was a coroner and known occultist Dr. Williiam Wynn Westcott. Hence, her entire attack is based upon out of context quotes and misidentifications. This is research?

Much of this stuff is common fair on the extreme ends of the fundamentalist landscape but Riplinger does add a few of her own unique contributitions. As she explained the "acrostic algebra" that "proves" the satanic origin of newer translations and her strange fascination with the letter "s", I began to realize that not only is there a fine line between genius and insanity but between stupidity and insanity as well.

I see no problem with someone using the KJV. It is a beautifully written and generally reliable reading of the Bible (as are the other scholarly translations) but has some limitations: archaic words, development in the meaning of words, and the use of later Greek texts. None of these nullify its power as the KJV has been the Bible for millions of Christians through the centuries, but neither does its long history deem it irreplacable any more than the Vulgate centuries before.

As for New Age Bible Versions, it is not only grossly inaccurate but makes completely unfounded attacks against a number of Christian scholars. Even if one gives Riplinger the benefit of the doubt and assumes both that her misidentification of Dr. Wescott and her misuse of his quotes were appropriated from other secondary sources (this form of unverified "citation borrowing" is rampant among fundamentalist authors), this only indicts her further as one who was willing to use unverified sources to attack a fellow Christian. Even worse, she has made the KJV - once a uniting force among English speaking Protestants - a source of division. This is a truly onerous book that should have been left unpublished.

I really don't know what to say. I am stunned that someone could write something so misled and ignorant.

I read the NIV. It tells me that:

* I am a sinner in need of salvation

* Salvation is in Jesus Christ alone

* I am to deny myself, pick up my cross and follow him

* That I should love the Lord my God with all my heart, with all my strength and with all my mind, and that I should love my neighbour as myself.

There is absolutely nothing New Age about this. The way of salvation and the Christian life is just as clear in the NIV as it is in the KJV (clearer, actually, because the English is more up to date - though the meaning remains). I read the KJV and NIV, but I would rather be known as one passionate for Jesus than one passionate for a particular version of the Bible. Many of Gail's arguments are flawed even on the surface ("Saul had to change his name to Paul" because the letter "S" is evil? What about 'salvation', 'sanctification', 'Saviour' and the 'Spirit' in 'Holy Spirit'? Is this for real? Even if you agree with Gail's thesis, do you agree with this logic?) Please, take a reality check before and after reading this one. Check sources, consider the logic of Gail's arguments. Don't be so open minded that you become misled. The last thing Christianity needs is paranoia stemming from cleverly (perhaps I should use the word 'slippery' because it starts with 's') composed slander and a focus on non-existent conspiracy.

I had one person come up to me after he had read this book as well, telling me that I should get rid of my NIV because it had less words in it than the KJV. I defy any two translators to translate even the same original from one language into another using exactly the same number of words. Please, let's get real and place the Christian focus where it belongs. Jesus is the same in the NIV - the eternal Son of God, saviour, Lord - and my redeemer.

There is no need for vitriol, and no need to accuse someone of slander just because he challenges Ms. Riplinger's facts. Ms. Riplinger does not have a degree in any sort of Biblical studies. Further, she does not read, write, or understand Hebrew or Greek, the original languages of Scripture. In as dispassionate a way as possible, let me say that she is simply "loose" with her facts. She does misquote people, and, if you check her citations, you will find that she is flat wrong on numerous occasions. Unfortunately, most folks don't have access to the reference works that Ms. Riplinger cites, so the majority of people can't check her work. Further, the "omissions" Ms. Riplinger cites are only omissions when compared to the KJV. If you check the ancient Greek texts, particularly the most-ancient Alexandrian papyrii, you will find that they have apparently "omitted" her cited passages as well. Ms. Riplinger's erroneous thesis begins with her faulty use of the KJV as the benchmark for all Scripture texts and translations. In reality, shouldn't we use the ancient writings that were closer to the original manuscripts of the Biblical writers? Of course.

If you like the KJV, great. However, remember that there was actually more than one "Textus Receptus", and that that name wasn't originally attached to the text used by the KJV translators, but instead to a different translation. Further, please understand that the KJV itself has been edited and revised several times, that the original KJV had almost 8,500 marginal notes indicating alternative definitions and readings, and that the KJV that most of us use today is not the original 1611 edition, but a late 1700's edition. Before we put it in stone that the KJV is the absolutely correct edition of the word of God, we should probably determine which edition we are speaking of.

As the KJV translators themselves advised in the preface to their original work, we should always have a variety of translations at hand so that we can be sure to get the entire flavor of what the original authors were trying to say. It's amazing that the translators of the KJV did not hold their work to be as perfect as Ms. Riplinger does.

Please remember,before attacking others, or feeling attacked yourself, check the facts, reevaluate your position, and proceed with LOVE. Our Savior expects it.

I read Gail's book my junior year of college and could have sworn that it was sent straight from God: a waking up for the nations, a way for us to remember our "true" Christian history and hold fervantly to our received tradition. Gail's book for me, contained salvation.

And then I went to seminary and earned a Master of Divinity with an emphasis in Greek and Hebrew Language. I did the Hebrew language track first, and by the end of that term, I knew that the KJO only camp was in way over their heads. Riplinger's book oversimplifies the debate about language and the issues surrounding language, which is odd because she claims to be a linguist. She also over-simplifies the issues surrounding textual criticism and attempts to make it just seem "so clear" that of COURSE, the KJV is the only version that one should ever use.

Not only did I read this book of Riplinger's, but I also read her books "The Language of the King James Bible" and her book "Blind Guides." I also ordered a bunch of her 'tracts,' listened to a couple of her messages on tapes, and ordered about 5 or so other books supporting the KJO position. The thing that I did like about her writing was that she clearly does have a high regard for seeking to discover what "God's Word" is... her conclusion of course is that God's Word is the King James Bible, and no other version.

I don't think that it was Riplinger's goal to be deceptive herself, or to start her own cult. In fact I have to be honest that although I am now a stanuch critic of her position, I don't think that she should be somehow condemmed as "writing a bunch of gibberish" or what have you. Riplinger is using one of the three approaches to Postmodernism: Paleoconstructivism. That is, she's reaching back to a time in the past, finding meaning there, and saying "this is what they believed then, THEREFORE this is what I'm going to believe now." This is not to say that God himself changes: but over time our understanding of the scripture does change - the Christian tradition cannot be simply reduced to a "theological list of statements to which we must consent" - it's a lot more and a lot deeper than that. Riplinger's paleoconstructive response is really a fear response to the changing world, with an attempt to stabalize the seeming spinning. Totally understandable.

What Riplinger does (perhaps without realizing it) is attempt to uphold scripture: but by locking it into a set period of time, she's actually doing damage to the scripture: making it irrelevant. Most of the "biblical" intuitions that she's trying to uphold are simply traditional interpretations based off the King James Version of the bible: therefore any version that says something different will of course sound a little different than that tradition, and it therefore becomes either "[worthless]" or in some way "New Ageish."

The single best way to work at getting toward what God is speaking through scripture is to use multiple translations (and use translations done by committees, not translations done by a single individual or paraphrases - paraphrases are too far removed from the actual manuscripts, and more often then not the people who were doing the paraphrases have no concept of what's going on in the Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic) for study. Why use multiple translations? Because it will make whoever's doing the research much more clear as to what the translations issues were for particular passages.

Please don't burn up your time trying to "prove" something about the KJV. It's a beautiful translation, and I do love reading it, but it's by no means "THE TRANSLATION" that we MUST use. Jesus is the True Word of God, as pretty much every translation of the bible points out. Although Scripture is an important foundation in our Christian belief, we ought not bow down to it and worship it: or our own interpretations of it.

Would you consult your mechanic about a brain tumor? Would you take grooming tips from Dennis Rodman? Would you read a book about Bible translations written by a Home Ec teacher? Are you nuts? Apparently, a lot of people are. They give credence to the most execrable pack of mis-truths, incomplete quotes and pseudo-scholarship ever to see print. G. A. Riplinger (Gail to her friends) has put together the biggest pile of nonsense ever seen between two covers. How anyone could give a minute's attention to a book about Bible translations written by someone who admits she has NO knowledge of Greek or Hebrew is beyond me. I am frightened for people who can't see the lunacy of such a faulty premise. Riplinger wards off any question of scholarship by declaring that she shares the inspiration of the apostles and prophets. She has the temerity to say that God basically dictated large portions of the book to her; thus G. A. Riplinger, according to her, stands for "God and Riplinger (as secretary.)" Puhleeze!

Logicians will find a special appeal in this book,as Riplinger commits every logical fallacy in the book, with special mention given to ad hominem, post hoc and genetic fallacies. I plan to use this as a perfect example of these and other fallacies in my logic classes.

If that isn't enough to put you off your feed, then the Scripture twisting and incomplete citations are sure to do that. Riplinger starts with the premise that the KJV is the only infallible text, and when any other text varies, why that variant is wrong! She accuses other translations of omitting words (could the KJV have ADDED words?), of changing terms (who uses the phrase "ouches of gold" these days, Gail?) and of perverting every doctrine you can think of. This book is so ludicrous, and so full of error, that I still cannot believe that anyone would take it seriously. What a waste of paper and ink. Makes a nice doorstop, though. I would have happily given this book less than one star if I could (note to Amazon: why cant we give a book NEGATIVE star ratings?)