New Covenant Ministries
NEW AGE BIBLE
Mentioning that this book's author is
"Her" identity is deliberately
hidden from any readers as there is
in the supplied
person." see more below
[Reviewed in 1994]
"NEW AGE BIBLE
VERSIONS," authored by
Riplinger, has recently become a popular "defense of the
King James Version" and an
attack on all other Bible translations.
The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate some of the many weaknesses of
this work and give references so that the Bible student of any level can
see this information for himself.
Having been told by a
"KJV-Only" advocate that this book is a
well-written defense of the KJV, I felt
it was only appropriate to examine the book. Unfortunately, it only took
a few pages to become aware of the fact that this book's theory is like many
other illogical and ridiculous arguments in defense
of the Bible: God's Word preserved as a
The book uses
again the fallacy of "guilt by association."
Numerous quotes (whether accurate or not) are used to discredit certain men
connected with textual criticism and modern translation.
Certainly it is not that hard to understand that
the textual debate and issues have to do with manuscripts and fragments nearly
2,000 years old, the copyists being unknown! It is ultimately
irrelevant who is examining the evidence if what is reported is accurate.
It is quite easy to find numerous strong defenders of historic Christianity
who recognize the truth of the evidence presented by men whose faith may
be less than solid.
Most of the observations and
arguments in the book can be easily answered by a short examination of a
concordance or commentary on specific texts of Scripture. For example, the
book uses the worn-out argument that
the New International Version
and others are against the "blood of
Christ" because certain verses
omit that phrase.
A simple examination of an NIV concordance would demonstrate that the
"blood" is mentioned numerous times in
that version. The issue has nothing to
do with the bias of translators as we can easily examine the texts from which
they did their translating work.
The author argues that certain verses
omit the word "our" in connection with
the Father, supposedly because of a
"conspiracy" to support the "universal
fatherhood of God" [page 60]. The text then cites John 8:44 as a clear example
of God not being the Father of all men, for those to whom Christ was speaking
were said to be of their father "the devil." Amazingly.., if the author had
looked at John 8:44 in the NIV (or any other legitimate translation), we
would have found the same idea and words of the KJV. If such a "conspiracy"
existed, wouldn't the instigators have eliminated the clear and explicit
passages rather than merely the word "our" in a few passages (which does
not necessarily exclude God from being the Father of others) ?
It should be our general practice
to assume the integrity and sincerity of an author when reading his/her book.
In the case of New Age Bible Versions, however,
it is very difficult to believe that an author who is of an educational level
and accomplishment as that boasted on the back of the book would produce
such a poor literary work
[none of Riplinger's degrees
are for any form of biblical or textual studies
and yet in 1996, "KJV-Only" Pastor
Jack Hyles of Indiana's
Hyles-Anderson College, honorarily
I want to point out the basic framework
we are defending. First, the New Testament is preserved for us in thousands
of manuscripts. These range from small pieces of books to almost whole New
Testaments. There are differences between
all the manuscripts. Most of these are insignificant spelling
changes, word order differences, etc. There are numerous "minor" word
differences, however, such as one text reading "Jesus Christ" while another
"Lord Jesus" or some other variation. These are considered "minor" because
they do not change or alter any doctrine or interpretation.
Furthermore, there are no
examples of manuscripts that are considered seriously in textual criticism
where a deliberate attempt has been made to eliminate all references
to "Christ" or "Lord," or any other term. These are copyist errors or scribal
additions. It is the purpose of the science of textual criticism to examine
these differences and attempt to determine the original reading. There are
numerous ways this is done which space forbids us from discussing. The
differences between the new versions in some readings arise from discoveries
in the last century of older new Testament manuscripts that have affected
the evidence behind certain texts. Very few of these are of any consequence
to doctrine, however, and the majority would not be detected by very good
Bible students as they change no meaning.
There have arisen two contrary
positions with regard to the manuscript evidence available. Speaking
simplistically, one prefers the "majority" of manuscript readings
as the best, the other prefers the "older" readings. Certainly, there
are fewer older manuscripts to examine but they consistently bear out a striking
fact: the older manuscripts are typically shorter in their readings
than the newer. This, according to textual critics, is because of the tendency
of scribes to add explanatory words to the text rather than delete them.
On the other hand, some say the older
manuscripts represent a distorted text that ultimately was not preserved
through the greater part of church history and therefore must be rejected.
Let it be noted that regardless of which position is taken, there
remain numerous textual variants with both of these text types. Gail Riplinger
cites such authors as Zane Hodges in her attempt to make the reader think
that the Majority text is so well-established that there are
not questionable readings remaining (page 469). If one examines the Greek
New Testament that Hodges helped to edit, however, he will find a sophisticated
textual apparatus giving numerous variations between the majority manuscripts.
With some "KJV-Only" advocates affirming God "preserved His
perfect Word in the Textus Receptus Greek
New Testament " used for the KJV, it is interesting to know that
6 different versions of
the T.R. [edited by Erasmus] were used by the KJV
Riplinger presents the word-differences
"as a 'New
Age' conspiracy designed to prepare the world
for the Antichrist!" ...Really
? Since when does the coming
Antichrist care about the thousands of Bible
translations produced by mankind or the millions of copies printed of them
is! As noted above, this
preposterous in light of the fact that the differences
come from manuscripts 1800 or more years old and the copyists are unknown.
is simply out of the
Furthermore, Ms. Riplinger has
exaggerated her case and actually
distorted the evidence she claims
substantiates her views some of the many examples:
| A chart on page 13 makes the general claim that the new
versions use the word "Lord" alone without
the name Jesus, thereby "dropping" the identity of Jehovah or Jesus. But
Acts 19:13, 20:24 & 35, 21:13, 28:31, Romans 1:4&7, 5:1 & 11
& 21, 6:23, 7:25, 8:39, are only the beginning of a multitude of verses
in the NIV, NASB, and others using the name
"Jesus" with Lord and Christ.
| A chart on page 14 states that the KJV uses the proper
name "Jehovah" while the new versions
substitute "Lord" for it, supposedly to
depersonalize God [page 15]. This statement is
incredible in light of the fact that
the KJV inserts 'LORD' hundreds of times where the Hebrew Jehovah
| A chart on page 17 attempts to show that the new versions
eliminate the name Jesus and simply insert
the pronoun "he." The idea is that
there is an effort to get rid of the name of Jesus. Amazingly Ms. Riplinger,
if ever you have read the NIV
use the name of Jesus in several of the verses you listed!
[Luke 24:36, Matthew 4:18, Mark 2:15, Mark 10:52].
the name of Jesus over 1100 times
more than it is used
simple observations can be seen
by using the complete KJV and NIV exhaustive concordances.
| On page 19 a chart is found
that claims the new versions place "a new
age" where the KJV affirms "a new
earth." This is in spite of the fact that Revelation 21:1 in the
NIV speaks of a new earth. The same chart claims the new versions use
"fruit of light" for the
"fruit of the Spirit." This, again, in
spite of the fact that Galatians 5:22 speaks of the fruit of the Spirit in
the new versions. In fact, I would
Riplinger to show me where the KJV speaks of either of these subjects and
the new versions do not.
| The author attempts to show a conspiracy against the Lord's
prayer at several places in the book, including the bottom of page 19. She
fails to mention, however, that Matthew 6:9-13 does record
the complete version of the prayer in the modern versions! Her claim that
it is omitted in the new versions is simply... NOT
| On page 20 an especially interesting chart appears in
which it is claimed that the newer versions are attacking the person of Christ.
This chart is so
and so filled with
it is difficult to believe the author is
I affirm that every point found in the KJV is also confirmed
in the new versions. Jesus is called the Lord Jesus Christ, God, Son of God,
Son, Saviour, Alpha and Omega, equal with God, Creator, etc., in the new
versions [Rev 1:18, Phil. 2:6, John 1:1, Romans 9:5, Isaiah 7:14, etc.,
| It is claimed on page 21 that the new versions omit salvation
by grace. I ask the reader to take your pick of the most popular new versions
and look up Ephesians 2:8-9.
Ms. Riplinger not only uses faulty
logic and poor research to support her claims, but she also misuses and distorts
sources she cites. For example, she quotes one of the leading New Testament
scholars today, Dr. D. A.
Carson, without giving a faithful evaluation of the contest
of her quote. On page 303 of New Age Bible
Versions, a quote is given from page 63 of Carson's classic book,
THE KING JAMES VERSION DEBATE
[originally written in the late 1970's.] Carson is cited
as saying that he will "pass up" a technical discussion of the Greek language
and its bearing on the translation of various verses dealing with the deity
of Christ. He instead offers a simpler illustration by comparing the main
verses teaching the deity of Christ in the modern versions with the KJV.
This is in harmony with Carson's stated purpose in the preface of the book
to write "on an easy level."
In her quote, Riplinger ignores Carson's
argument entirely, and ridicules his choice of not discussing the issues
involved in the translation of Greek. She says "he [Carson] has no chance
of scoring with a discussion of 'the Greek.'" Perhaps
she simply does not know that Carson
authored a detailed commentary on the Gospel of John in which he does discuss
at length the issues related to the deity of Christ in that Gospel from the
original language. It is also of value to note that
Riplinger leaves out
a whole sentence
in-between the first and second sentences of her "quote"
without an indication of such omission. She also takes it upon herself to
alter some specific words in the quote. In the hands of Riplinger, this type
of selective quoting is a rampant tragedy, exposing
cultic, biased views toward the KJV.
From the points I have made, the
reader will see that it is a tragic
error to take seriously Riplinger's
"selectively"-created charts and other assertions without examining
the quotes and the actual sources. When the
evidence is examined, it becomes obvious
that Riplinger's manuscript is not compelling
and does not establish her claims and ultimate conclusions
such as proving that new translations are
"preparing way for the
and a one world religion."
FAR FROM IT
! Currently, God's Word
is all or partially translated in over 2000 languages!
with the NIV translation now the most read English Bible
since 1991. Can
anyone who has
ever lived show me where
17th Century Elizabethan
"translation"...uh, the KJV
For the Scriptures still say, "No
one comes to the Father except through Me (Jesus speaking) and, if our gospel
is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing," and, "I tell you the
truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again," and, "whoever
believes in Him (Jesus) is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands
already condemned because he has not believed in the name of God's one and
only Son" [John 14:6, 2 Cor.
4:4, John 3:3 &
17 the NIV]. These classic verses
emphasizing the absolute necessity of Jesus Christ and His saving Gospel
have not lost their force in the modern
You would be wise to
reject this book and any other
books by Riplinger, Peter
Ruckman, David Otis Fuller,
Samuel Gipp, D. A. Waite,
William Grady, Edward
Hills, Benjamin Wilkerson,
J. J. Ray...
Pilgrim Publications has many articles
available refuting this cultic movement.
See the LIST
Or, for $ 4, you can receive about a dozen articles
refuting Riplinger' heresies.
P O Box
| written by Mark
A. McNeil B.A. & M.A. (Biblical Studies / Luther Rice Sem.),
MA (Theological Studies / St. Thomas School of Theology), PhD. Student
(University of St. Thomas), Assistant Editor/Writer for
Magazine, and author of
$ 3 / Pilgrim Pub.
= Ms. GAIL
"The real reason
men don't like the author" of New Age Bible
Versions is that "the author is a woman"
(Gail Riplinger) so says
Mrs. Donald A. Waite in
THE BIBLE FOR
TODAY News Report #222
located in Collingswood, NJ]. Mrs. Waite also says Ms. Riplinger
"can't help it! She was
born that way!"
Waite... not only was Ms. Riplinger born a woman, she was
also born with a "carnal nature." She
"can't help" that fact, either; but she is held
responsible to "mortify" the carnal nature
[Col. 3:5, Romans 8:13]. Ms.
Riplinger's being born a woman does not give her a
"handicapped" license to "speak
her mind" with impunity. Crying
woman" as a
cop-out from critical review is similar to the "race card"
used by some as a excuse for irresponsible actions.
If Mrs. Waite wants to
"defend Gail Riplinger," as she proposes, then she
would better serve her purpose by presenting substance rather than smoke.
And furthermore, if Mrs. Waite would spend a little time researching
history, she would find that women such as Riplinger
(all "born that way") have been involved
in the spawning of not a few heretical, cultic religious
movements. Being born a woman does not make one
immune to the deceptions of Satan [Rev.
2:20, Acts 16:16].
The attitude of Mrs. Waite suggests
the possibility that she may harbor resentment of men and the sovereignty
of God in His choice of men as His ministers
[1 Tim. 2:11-15]. Her
indiscriminate allegation that criticism of Riplinger's fallacious book is
simply due to the fact that Riplinger is a 'woman' smacks of modern
"FEMINISM" of the past quarter-century. Was Mrs. Waite
"infected" by the "feminist" propaganda of the "women's movement"? Or is
she just now opting for this "feminist" cop-out allegation
for lack of anything substantial with which to defend Riplinger...
FINDING OUT OF THE
JAMES VERSION to
This Page was Created on 27 November 1998