Results 1 - 2 of 2
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | NIV bible | Bible general Archive 2 | Taleb | 110562 | ||
Hank, a while ago I obtained a copy of “New Age Bible Versions”. This anti-modern translation book erroneously depicts that ALL translations, except the authorized King James Version, ARE satanic. It even has a hideous picture of a winged dragon on its cover. One doesn’t have to read far to discover how off the wall G.A. Riplinger is in her faulty assessment. She quickly paints a fake picture that the NASV and the NIV are the result of a conspiracy of the New Agers, preparing “Christians” to fall for the schemes of the antichrist. With misquotes and taking other authors out of context, she weaves a path that is actually destructive to the purposes of God. Then, apparently in the hopes that no one really knows what the KJV really says, she quotes verses from various new translations as her evidence. (Huh?) :) On page 17, she lists a few examples where the KJV reads Jesus and the NIV “translated” the name to “he”. What she fails to reveal is the real truth about the matter. The KJV uses the name “Jesus” 983 times. The NIV uses it 1,275 times. About halfway through the book she tries to convince her readers “We should be particularly wary when someone refers to Jesus Christ as “the Christ”. This obviously contrived attempt to “prove” they are removing the name of Jesus to make way for the antichrist flopped dead in the water - considering she failed to take into logical consideration concerning the 19 times that the KJV uses “the Christ”. I use the KJV for all my memorization work. I use the KJV for all my “word study definition work”. I use the KJV whenever I want to read Scripture out loud. But, I know that, contrary to what some bumper stickers claim, “We use the Bible that GOD uses-Authorized King James Version 1611,” God’s word is NOT KJV. Blessings, Taleb |
||||||
2 | NIV bible | Bible general Archive 2 | kalos | 110564 | ||
'STATEMENT DB015 'A Summary Critique: New Age Bible Versions G. A. Riplinger (A. V. Publications, 1993) by H. Wayne House 'Riplinger's book 'goes beyond previous works, however, by developing a conspiracy theory for the KJV-only view. Author G. A. Riplinger believes that lying behind modern versions (especially the NASB and NIV, apparently) is New Age influence.' (...) 'Riplinger rejects [the] earlier manuscripts and urges us to return to the Bible of the precritical era. 'If there is anything good to say about Riplinger’s New Age Bible Versions (hereafter NABV), it is that the book is not any longer than it is and that the foolishness of its various claims are transparent when one takes the time to study them... 'NABV is replete with logical, philosophical, theological, biblical, and technical errors. Riplinger lacks the proper training to write this book (her MA. and M.F.A. in “Home Economics” notwithstanding). Many of her errors arise from a lack of understanding of Old and New Testament textual criticism as well as biblical and theological studies...She hesitatingly admitted that she really could not read Greek. '...Simply comparing the KJV with the NIV and NASB through endless charts does not prove a thing. She needs to demonstrate that the specific translations she accepts are really better textual renditions than the alternatives she rejects, rather than merely assuming the superiority of the majority text type or the KJV. (...) 'The bottom line in Riplinger’s mind is that the King James Version of 1611 is alone the Word of God. Anything prior to or after that specific translation is in some measure not really the Word of God. We are back to the absurd view that the KJV is the Bible of Paul and the apostles. 'A volume the size of NABV would be required to point out Riplinger’s misunderstanding of theology, translation technique, and her fascination with New Age conspiracy and its association with modern versions. This book will cause a temporary stir. Hopefully, however, most Christians will recognize NABV as an ill-begotten book and will turn back to a study of the Word of God in the language of the people today. In so doing they will fulfill the prayers of godly translators of centuries past, including the very ones who translated the King James Version of the Bible.' ____________________ [This article has been edited to fit here. To read the entire article, see (www.equip.org/free/DB015.htm)] |
||||||