Winter Driving Best Books of the Month Valentine's Day Shop Learn more nav_sap_SWP_6M_fly_beacon St Lucia easycohice_2016 All-New Amazon Fire TV Subscribe & Save Valentine's Day Cards Amazon Gift Card Offer chiraq chiraq chiraq  Amazon Echo All-New Fire Kindle Paperwhite Shop Now DOTD

Your rating(Clear)Rate this item

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

on November 18, 2015
Gail Riplinger spent 6 years reviewing all other versions next to the KING JAMES BIBLE, and it is shocking what she found. Most of the Christian world uses the NIV, but it has over 64,000 words and MANY verses gone. I am constantly reviewing her book. Extremely well done commentary on all written material out there that calls itself "bible".
0Comment5 of 5 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on September 28, 2015
Excellent book! Very well documented. Uncovers the truth of a plan to change God's Word. I highly recommend this book. Go back to the Old King James Bible.
0Comment9 of 11 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on October 25, 2015
You will not find this book in any Christian Bookstore because it exposes the apostasy (heresy, and blasphemy) that is in the very bibles they try to sell.
11 comment7 of 9 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on July 8, 2001
It's baffling how such poor logic and misinformation can convince so many people. This reflects a deep malaise in Christendom, where people are disobeying what Christ called "The greatest commandment", i.e. "love God with all your ... mind." E.g.
* P. 149: Riplinger indulges in acrostic algebra to prove that the letters of the New International Version and the New American Standard Bible (which she conveniently abbreviates NASV to fit her "equation") minus the abbreviation for Authorized Version equate to "sin". As a reductio ad absurdum, the Passantinos did the same trick with seven modern versions, subtracted the letters KJV, and were left with "Christ". So by Riplinger's own "reasoning", the modern versions must affirm Christ!
* P. 232, Riplinger writes, "Watch out for the letter 's' -- sin, Satan, Sodom, Saul (had to be changed to Paul). The added 's' here is the hiss of the serpent." At first, I thought this was a signal that that her book was an April Fool's joke, but sadly all indications are that she's totally serious. What about salvation, Saviour, sanctification, Stephen, Sarah, to say nothing about sober, which ironically Riplinger commends the KJV for using (p. 174)?!
* P. 231: the "Five Points" of Calvinism form a Satanic pentagram! Whatever your views about Calvinism and Arminianism, this numerological quackery is no way to argue -- the Bible alone must be the basis for deciding the truth. Riplinger also fails to realise that the Five Points of Calvinism were a *response* by the Synod of Dordt to the Five Points of Arminianism in the "Remonstrance". To be consistent, Riplinger would equally have to brand the Five Points of Arminianism as a Satanic pentagram.
Other reviewers have noted much of the misinformation in this book, and in my own reviews of both pro- and anti- KJV-only books I've explained many of the issues involved. So there's little need for me to document many other errors. Also, this has already been done so well by James White in his book and his Alpha and Omega site. My challenge for future positive reviewers is to explain why we should take her in the slightest bit seriously with just those three examples I've raised above.
1414 comments56 of 81 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on August 2, 2015
If your into Liberal,Social,or Orthodox Church confusion this book is not for you. It might upset the little devils in you. The truth for some is hard to bare, A seminary degree will certainly do that for you. The King James is the words of God in the English language. This book is the best ever written on the truth about the different versions of the Bible. I realize some of you have a $$$ interest in destroying the truth, but the truth will prevail. I highly recommend this exceptioal work for all that has an open mind and can accept the truth.
0Comment7 of 10 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on August 12, 2001
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."
1515 comments112 of 167 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on May 24, 2015
And most amazing of all is how the attacks against those who hold up the King James Bible keep going on and on and on.....The King James Bible has gone out to the tune of more than a BILLION copies. It is the greatest, bestselling book of all history! NOTHING has ever compared to it before. You can always tell a new bible revision loyalists. They rabidly go to the Greek or to the Hebrew to try to uphold their own deity. To support their "cause" and ease their conscience! The revisionists believe that they are gods and that they can correct that book any time they choose. Don't believe it? Well, just ask them, they will tell you. I've seen them all my life. In churches, where they will get in the podium and attack that book from dawn to dusk. You've heard it all before --- "The King James translates this word wrong --- it should be this______" and thus setting THEMSELVES up as the final authority on what God MEANT. You know - you poor, illiterate people sitting down there in the pews, you can't figure out what the book MEANS even though it is in your OWN language (English), but you can look to ME because I KNOW HEBREW and GREEK and I WILL TELL YOU WHAT IT SAYS! Uh-huh, EXACTLY what the popes of Rome did for hundreds of years - forbade the people from reading the Bible and told them that only THEY could tell them what it meant! Same old trickery. Does it ever end? No, and it won't until the works of the devil are forever stilled. He hates that book! Millions upon millions have gotten saved, born-again READING THAT BOOK! Many have given their LIFE for that book!!! Keep your SWORD of the SPIRIT (King James Bible) ! Don't trade it for trash! All the revisions compare themselves to the KING JAMES? WHY? WHY, oh WHY? Because that book is the STANDARD, and in their evil, wicked hearts, they KNOW THAT! See if they compare the NIV to the RSV, or the NASB to the NIV? NO, they don't! They ALWAYS, always compare their rotten works to the STANDARD! And the standard will always be the AV 1611 Kimes James. Written in ENGLISH, of course. "Where the word of a King is, there is power:" (Ecc 8:4). And if they can't assassinate that book, they will try to assassinate the one who authorized the translation, King James. "Oh, what a terrible person he was," or "didn't you know, he was a pervert?" (uh-huh, yeah right!), or "OH, what awful people the translators were - they were illiterate," etc., etc. - you know - well, we've heard it all. They can't kill the message, so they try to kill the messengers or attack their character, EXACTLY as they have tried to do to the author of New Age Bible Versions. And on and on it goes, yada, yada (yawn). What else is new?
11 comment8 of 12 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on October 9, 2015
Compare Bible versions & you will be shocked. Read this book, & be led by the Holy Ghost in your version of Bible to read.
11 comment3 of 4 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on June 25, 2007
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.
2727 comments89 of 135 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on April 10, 2015
This stays in my library, will never be sold or given away>!
0Comment7 of 10 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse