Customer Reviews

Which Bible Is God's Word?

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(6)

 

 

I'll never use a modern English Bible again after reading this book. NIV, NASV, etc, nothing compares to the King James Bible.

Excellent, thanks to the author!

I read these articles, and seeing everyone is split with 1 star or 5 stars i looked into it. I sat down and looked at the NIV and KJV, i looked at the word spirit, consistently throughout the NIV it perverts the holy spirit by saying it's a figment of our emotions, a part of our imagination. These new versions truly do pervert the word of God, theyer blasphemous, it's truly evident. You don't need to go to the manuscript evidence for this to be evident, just sit down and compare topics and see what the versions show. These new age versions always pervert the words, they put in words that aren't even synonymous in place of other words. They imply lots of things, mainly showing that the spirit is a figment of emotion, imagination, its true blasphemy. Stick to the KJV only, don't be mislead, be open minded, do your reaserch yourself, you will see the facts, the KJV is truly the word of God.

Are you americans crazy? Do you think that english (and the King James Version) is god's own language? Oh Man, every non-english speaking person in the world, who doesn't have the King James Version, should not have god's word? My advice: Put your trust in Jesus Christ and not in a certain translation! This discussion is simply sectarian. PS: Schon Martin Luther hat dem Volk auf's Maul geschaut.

dorianrex/Gregory Miller contends that Mrs. Riplinger's name is not "G.A." Yet he proves his own ignorance and incompetence in this because her name is in fact "Gail A. Riplinger." This is an absurd accusation by a supposed "religious" person who instead of simply disagreeing with Mrs. Riplinger has chosen to slander her himself. Further, he is incorrect about the one of her degrees being in "Interior Design." The one degree in question of the numerous that she holds is in Architecture. Interesting that he has chosen to do what he accuses her of doing.

The book by Mrs. Riplinger is excellent and the claims by those who disagree with her about inaccurate quotes are baseless accusations intended only to confuse and mislead anyone who would simply like to consider all the facts in the debate.

I have read Mrs. Riplinger's books and found them to be accurate in their facts. Though she does interject her interpretations of the facts it is plainly obvious to me which are the facts and which are the interpretations. I happen to agree substantially with Mrs. Riplinger. Though some of her deductions from the facts are subjective, I find it only scholastically cordial to allow her to hold her view. I find it scholastically dishonest and unethical to slander her just because she holds an opposing view with someone. Moreover, those who would say she idolizes the Authorized Version of the Bible themselves reveal their idolatry of those individuals they don't like her to criticize.

It would be nice if Mr. Gregory Miller would provide factual evidence for his slanderous remarks about Mrs. Riplinger, perhaps a copy of a birth certificate stating Mrs. Gail A. Riplinger 's real name is "God And Riplinger" or something other than "Gail A."

B. Adkins, M. Div, B.S.

This book does an excellent job of answering questions about Bible manuscripts, Bible versions, the superiority of the KJV, etc. A very good book to learn the basics about the various versions of the Bible.

My only regret in wriging this review is that it is not possible to rate this book in negetives. It is so nuanced and biased and just plain wrong that it actually deserves to be rated with a negative 5. This book is just another one of Gail Riplinger's irrational defenses of what can only be described as self dilusional idolatry. To say that the KJV translatoin is the only one that can be considered as God's Word, is simply intellectually unintelligable. God gave the O.T. Scriptures in Hebrew to Moses and the Prophets between 1400 and 400 BC and the N.T. in Greek to the apostles between 30 and 90 AD. Every copy of the Scriptures ever produced since the original documents were written is either a transmission or a translation from the original. Therefore, every translation is to be compared with the oldest and most reliable transmitted textual documents in order to determine its accuracy. It is simply asinine and uneducated to suggest that all translations are to be compared with another translation to determine it's accuracy. If there were 10,000 copies of one of Piccaso's paintings brought together to determine which one was the most accurate, we wouldn't choose one of the copies out of the 10,000 to compare all the rest to would we? NO!! THAT WOULD BE COMPLETELY IDIOTIC!! Instead, we would compare all 10,000 against the original. But this same kind of irresponsible and idiotic procedure is exactly what Gail Ripplinger and all of her deluded KJV-ONly minions do. They pick one translation out of many others and make IT the new standard by which all other translations should be compared. WHY WOULD ANYBODY DO THAT!? It is absolutely bizzare. Now, I know that we don't actually posses the original documents anymore. But we do have at least 6,000 VERY EARLY TRANSMISSIONs, which corroborate together to give us as close to the original documents as we are able to get. God's providence has seen to it that we have these transmissions so that His word could be preserved down through the centuries. When we begin throwing these transmissions away and using the KJV as the new standard by which all translations are to be judged, we explicitly reject what God's providence has preserved for us in favor of some 17th century translation. Now you tell me which positoin is more honoring to God and more faithful to the Scriptures. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that Gail Riplinger and her KJV-Only cult are the ones who have moved far away from the preservation of God's word in favor of an idolatrous fixation on a poorly translated copy of the Bible. But sincere and educated Christians must hold a higher view of Scripture than that as well as a greater respect for God's providence. As for me "my conscience is bound by the word of God." Do not buy into the KJV-Only lie. WAKE UP CHURCH!!! .

There is a joke: after Waterloo, Napoleon asked the Duke of Wellington for his secret of victory. The Duke said: "All our soldiers pray before battle". Napoleon: "So do ours". Duke: "No doubt you do, but WE pray in English!"

This is exactly the attitude of the KJV-only movement, but they carry it a step further and claim that God speaks only in archaic English. It's sad that they are more interested in pushing an archaic Bible version that is becoming more and more incomprehensible even to native English speakers than in communicating God's word as clearly and accurately as possible.

Riplinger is also more interested in preserving the KJV than in clear teachings of vital doctrines. This shown by her dismissal of Granville Sharp's rule, although it leads to clearer teachings on the Deity of Christ in Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1.

Yes, it is strange that American Independent Baptists should love a translation by Anglicans commissioned by a bisexual king who persecuted the Pilgrim Fathers (who used the Geneva Bible not the KJV). They even translated in a way to support English ecclesiasms, e.g. Bishop (episcopos = overseer) and baptize (a transliteration of baptizo which hides the fact that it means "immerse" or "dip"). They were also heavily influenced by the Latin Vulgate, e.g. the real KJV-1611 contained the Apocrypha, and the Vulgate is responsible for translations like "firmament" in Gen. 1, "giants" for nephilim in Gen. 6, "Lucifer" instead of "morning star" in Isaiah 14:12.

However, despite their shortcomings, the KJV translators were not as silly as KJVO leaders. They denied producing a perfect translation, wanted to produce on in the language of their day, advocated a "variety of versions" to gain understanding, distinguished the originals from translations or copies, said that even an imperfect translation like the Septuagint deserves to be called "the Word of God". They were also sensible enough to paraphrase in places, as well as have 8000 footnotes. One significant one was in Is. 14:12, which said "or, O daystarre" -- Riplinger attacks the modern versions for [correctly] translating the passage "star of the morning".

Finally, yes, her name is Gail, but she is *on record* as saying that she used her initials "G.A. Riplinger" to signify "God and Riplinger", supposedly because God was the author and she was the secretary. This is a frightfully grandiose and heretical claim.

First off, her name isn't "G.A.Riplinger". She admits in her own books that it stands for "God And Riplinger", because she thinks she is the mouthpiece of God! The vast majority of her claims and accusations cannot be proven, and if you double-check her referances you will find that she over and over just MAKES UP QUOTES THAT DON'T EXIST IN THE BOOKS SHE SAYS THEY DO! SHE IS A LIAR! Her fanatical idolatry concerning the King James Version detracts from the real issue of Christianity teaching the Gospel of the Kingdom to people. By the way, she claims to be a college professor. True; but she doesn't say it's in INTERIOR DESIGN! So, unless you want to know which Bible matches you're curtains, leave this "doctor" be!

With so many fussing about how hard it is to understand the whole debate over the different bible versions, this book was a well-written, easily understood synopsis of some of the most important issues on the subject. Taken from a radio interview, this lays out some of the arguments, and is specifically written with the layman in mind. Ms. Riplinger's extensive collation is right on the money, and all those who like to refer to the "original Greek", need to realize none of them exist anymore! Read this book prayerfully, and follow it up with "New Age Bible Versions" for a complete understanding.

Gail Riplinger, one of the "leaders" in the King James Only movement has been thoroughly discredited by evangelical scholars due to her sloppy scholarship and truly abyssmal use of "citations". She has no experience in the original languages, and while she does indeed teach on the college level, her teaching is in the field of FINE ARTS -- and NOT THEOLOGY!

To call her positions heterodox would be generous. Give this one a miss.