October 18, 2011
Gail Riplinger and the KJV-only Cult
Ok now that I got that out of my way.
Just what is with those with that kind of thinking? Good people, people I have known for years go from a truth seeker that seem to know and understand everything. To become a person who seems to think it"s their God given calling to spread the "Good News". The "Good News" being the King James Version is the truly word for word inspired Word of God!
No matter what I say they outtalk me. They have an answer for everything. They drop that stupid woman"s name (I forget it again) who has wrote 100,s of pages in books to show the world that The King James Version is the ONLY true word for word, word of God.
(vw: there was more....but this is enough for here)
Over the years I have not studied deeply into the Gail Riplinger controversy. I would see some people's comments, have read things by David Cloud (a KJ-onlyist) -criticizing- Riplinger. So, until these books arrived, not having paid that much close attention (the Lord has given me other stuff to do!), I wasn't remembering if she was KJV-only, or if she was a NKJV promoter.
Past vw comments on "KJ-only" can be found at [link]
This past January we observed again about "oracles" [link]
And after browsing these books, I googled to see what I could find on Riplinger, and there was an article by David Cloud www.politicalbyline.com/2010/01/15/beware-of-gail-riplinger/ in which it is described how she has been divorced a couple of times, but lies and says she was not. There were also some (telling) pictures posted of her...obviously a woman who is not under the headship of her man. Apparently she also goes around and preaches... contrary to 1Ti2:11-15
Now all that aside, let's address, again, briefly some of the things I saw in these books. From what I've seen, as I opened pages here and there, at random, I am not about to read them cover-to-cover. Every single place I opened a page, there were glaring errors or false premises....and a very -evil- 'spirit' to the writings and graphics.
Taking from the title of the one book, the "English Scriptures" were "given by inspiration to all generations"
However, as we observe on a regular basis, there are many discrepancies here and there between the KJV and the Heb/Grk texts. So, guess what the title of the other book says: "Hazardous Materials/Greek & Hebrew Study Dangers" and at the bottom of the cover it lists many lexicons and dictionaries that are on the "hazardous materials" list.
In other words, apparently the KJV has been elevated to the level of the "prophecy" of the "holy men of God" who were "propelled along by the Holy Spirit" (2Pt1:20-21) If a person looks at that entire passage, working backwards a couple of verses, apparently the KJV came from the "voice which came from Heaven" from the "holy mountain" (vs18) Hmmm...the KJV is 1611 AD, the "holy mountain" was something like 1430 BC. So, which came first? Even the NT was 1st century AD. Again, which came first? God's Word/s, or the KJV?
Trouble is, it was a British king, of the Church of England, who commission the KJV. The fact that it is even -called- "King James" version...it's very name -honors- a king. Without a copy with me here as I type this, going from memory, the preface starts out something like: "to the most high and mighty Prince James" The scholars who compiled it were also of the Church of England. And what is the Church of England? It is what resulted when a prior king could not get 'permission' to divorce his wife by the church of Rome (which is what England had been up to that point), so he broke away from the Pope and started his own church. But other than name, and a few insignificances, the Church of England and Rome are related...their heritage going back to Babylon. When they televise events from England, they look for everything the same as if they were coming from the Vatican. Their cathedral architecture (as seen from the air above) is in the shape of a cross, just like Rome. And just like we observed about the Defined KJV [link] when these entities translate, one of their prime objectives is to stick with the "historic" and "traditional" doctrines.... not the Hebrew or Greek texts. In other words, if the Heb/Grk say something different than what the church has done, traditionally, for years...the translation agrees with tradition...not the text. Same as Rome. If Catholic tradition differs from Scripture in some point, catholic -tradition- takes precedence to Scripture. What they believe about doctrine is how they translated the Scriptures. They don't discover the True Words, realize their error, and -change- their doctrine to -conform- to God. Their idea of God's Word must conform to -their- doctrines and traditions. Thus, the KJV has words like: baptise, oracle, lucifer, etc.etc.
But this -cult- has raised James and his men to the status of "Godly men", and the -translation- (not the -original- words written by the "holy men of God") is "inspired". The KJV is their final authority.
And when I turned to one of the pages, I finally understood the queries I have gotten on occasion. Where can I find a KJV-Bible in Chinese? Where can I find a KJV-Bible in Swahili? The book actually has this 'list' of many languages into which the KJV has been translated. Not the Heb/Grk....the KJV.
And so, when the KJV differs from the Heb/Grk, what to do? Discredit the Heb/Grk sources. Discredit the lexicons and dictionaries as having been produced by perverts and all sorts of satan's messengers, because the KJV is correct. It's 'inspired'.
Hopefully, you're laughing and shaking your heads at this last paragraph. But that's exactly the sort of mind-numbing idiocy that seems to characterize Gail Riplinger's writings.
If languages do not have -words-, characterized by certain -meanings-, that can be LOOKED UP in lexicons or dictionaries... well... isn't it idiocy to suggest it is not so. Like little children at play, creating their own play language...and then refusing to come back to earth and speak the way the rest of society speaks, with researchable words, texts and sources.
God -wrote- the Ten Commandments on the stones. Moses -wrote- down the Law. The prophets -wrote- God's Word. The NT was -written-. Somebody might object that the verse says the holy men of God "spoke". Last week we observed Jeremiah's scribe. Other prophets had scribes. Even for Paul, who wrote half the NT, Tertius did some scribing for him. (Ro16:22) When revivals happened in Judah, it was because some scribe found a scroll of the -written- Law, read it to the king, who then tore his clothes in repentance, and some cleansing in the land took place. Most notable being Josiah.
"The grass withers, the flower fades; but the Word of our God stands forever." (Is40:8)
Actually, what Paul said was...
When the KJV gave the devil a name, Lucifer, not bestowed on him by God. When the KJV self-proclaims to have come from 'oracles'...not God's Holy Spirit (to mention but two items), in those instances the KJV is an "other" gospel. When KJV labels the last book, the Revelation of "St. John the Divine"...is the rest -wrong- when names for God like "Jehovah" and "Jesus" are used? Is God's name actually "John"??? John would not even mention his own name when authenticating the gospel he wrote...
"For I testify to everyone who hears the Words of the Prophecy of this Book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add upon him the plagues that are written in this Book; and if anyone takes away from the Words of the Book of this Prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this Book." (Re22:18-19)