The Problem With New Age Bible Versions

By David Cloud

[Even though David Cloud is a KJV defender to the core, his review reveals that Riplinger’s book is no friend of the truth. Every preacher who bought one should find the nearest trash receptacle and make a deposit. There are more problems with this book than what Cloud mentions here, but I am letting him say what needs to be said rather than taking the time to ferret out this stuff on my on. JRE]

The book New Age Bible Versions by Mrs. Gail Riplinger claims to be “the latest research supporting the Authorized King James Version.” While there is very little in it of reason or substance that has not already been published by defenders of the Authorized Version, its sensational approach has given it a far-reaching audience.

While I agree with Mrs. Riplinger that the multiplicity of modern versions has caused great spiritual damage, I have decided I must warn our readers of the many errors we have found in New Age Bible Versions. Dozens of people have asked my opinion of the book, and I have been promised to give an answer.

PROBLEMS WITH NEW AGE BIBLE VERSIONS

The following are some of the problems we found in the first half of the book. Please understand that this is not an exhaustive list. New Age Bible Versions is so marred by error, carelessness, and faulty logic that it cannot be used as a dependable resource.

MISQUOTING AND POOR DOCUMENTATION

New Age Bible Versions is extensively documented, but the documentation is extremely unreliable. A great many references that I attempted to check were not accurate.

Consider a few examples:

1. On page 2 Mrs. Riplinger misquotes Edwin Palmer, editor of the NIV. It would appear from the quote that Palmer is questioning the deity of Jesus Christ. She prefaces the quote with these words:

“The NIV’s chief editor vaunts his version’s heresy saying: ... [F]ew clear and decisive texts say that Jesus is God.”

In her notes, Mrs. Riplinger cites The Making of a Contemporary Translation, p. 143. Actually Palmer IN NO WAY is questioning the deity of Jesus Christ. In fact, in the paragraph cited, HE IS CONTENDING for Christ’s deity! The full quote which Mrs. Riplinger has pulled out of context is as follows:

“John 1:18, as inspired by the Holy Spirit, is one of those few clear and decisive texts that declare that Jesus is God. But, due to no fault of its own, the KJV, following inferior manuscripts, has altered what the Holy Spirit said through John. It calls John ‘Son’, whereas it should have called him ‘God.’”

Please understand that I am not supporting what Palmer says here. I do not believe the KJV follows inferior manuscripts. I do not believe there are only a few clear and decisive passages that declare Jesus as God (see my article “Who Says Jesus Is God” at the Way of Life web site). I don’t believe that John 1:18 should read “the only begotten God.” That is a gnostic corruption.* The man is wrong on many important points, which I have exposed in my books on the Bible version issue (see particularly the 775-page Faith vs. the Modern Bible Versions), but it is also wrong to misquote him and to have him saying something that he does not say, particularly when someone puts heresy in his mouth that he does not believe. Palmer does believe that Jesus Christ is God, and Mrs. Riplinger slanders him when she misquotes him as she does.

[* John Burgon demonstrated that the “the only begotten God” reading in John 1:18 in the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts can be traced to Valentinus (Burgon and Miller, Causes of Corruption, pp. 215, 216). “The Gnostics said that Christ was ‘the Beginning,’ the first of God’s creation, and Valentinus referred to Him as ‘the Only-begotten God’ and said that He was the entire essence of all the subsequent worlds (Aeons)” (Jay Green, The Gnostics, the New Versions, and the Deity of Christ, 1994, p. 74). In the Received Text there is no question that the Word is also the Son and that both are God. The Word is God (Jn. 1:1); the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us (Jn. 1:14); the Word is the Son (Jn. 1:18). By changing Jn. 1:18 to “the only begotten God,” Valentinus and his followers broke the clear association between the Word and the Son.]

2. On page 165 Mrs. Riplinger claims that NIV translator Herbert Wolf teaches that gain is godliness.

“Paul said that those, like Wolf, who teach that ‘gain is godliness’ are ‘destitute of the truth.’ Equating financial prosperity with spirituality is a common characteristic of the ‘New’ Christianity and the New Age.”

For evidence of this observation, Riplinger cites Wolf’s chapter in The Making of a Contemporary Translation. She quotes Wolf as saying:

“[N]on-literal translations enhance accuracy ... The word tsedeqah--normally rendered ‘righteousness’ is translated ‘prosperity’, perhaps understood as the reward of righteous living.”

In fact, Wolf is not promoting any sort of gain-is-godliness concept. Consider the full context of Wolf’s statement:

“The book of Proverbs also contains several verses where non-literal translations enhance accuracy. ... In [Proverbs] 8:18 tsedaqah is linked with riches and enduring wealth, and in 21:21 with finding life and honour. The abstract quality of ‘righteousness’ does not seem to fit either verse.”

When the entire quote is taken into consideration there is nothing to connect Mr. Wolf with New Age heresy. He is not correct in the change that he wants to make in the rendering of 1 Timothy 6:6; the King James is correct; but for Mrs. Riplinger to take this quotation and to tie it together with the promotion of New Age prosperity makes a laughing stock out of the position she is trying to defend. Further, Mrs. Riplinger, by dropping a significant portion of Wolf’s statement, makes it appear that he is supporting non-literal translations in general, whereas he is merely listing certain instances in which a non-literal translation technique can be accurate. We would not agree with everything Wolf has to say on this point, but it is wrong to put words in the man’s mouth.

3. On p. 213 Mrs. Riplinger says,

“NIV editor Larry Walker admits further that ‘[S]ome Bible characters appear to have disappeared from the text.’ Is it any wonder since Westcott said, ‘David is not a chronological ... person.’”

This is an amazingly erroneous connection. Walker is merely speaking of different TRANSLATIONS of certain names. Walker gives the following example:

“The name Ishtob in the AV rendering of 2 Samuel 10:6,8 becomes ‘men of Tob’ in the NIV translation.”


On the other hand, Westcott is questioning the actual HISTORICITY of the names. To connect these dissimilar remarks is absurd.

4. On p. 166 Mrs. Riplinger says, “NEW VERSIONS” read “godliness actually is a means of great gain” in 1 Timothy 6:6. She uses this to support her contention that modern versions support the New Age philosophy of material prosperity.

In fact, the “New VersionS” (plural) do not support such a reading. Only one “New Version” (singular) I could find has the reading Mrs. Riplinger cites, and that is the New American Standard Version; and when read in context, the NASV is NOT saying godliness is material gain. The full verse reads, “But godliness actually is a means of great gain, when accompanied by contentment.”

5. On p. 292 Mrs. Riplinger claims that NIV editor R. Laird Harris’s view of Hell is identical to that of cults such as Armstrongism and Jehovah Witness.

To “prove” this contention, she quotes from Harris’s chapter in The Making of A Contemporary Translation and has him saying,

“This view [hell] has some problems. [It] ... refers only to death, not to ... any punishment...”

The bracketed additions inserted by Riplinger remove Harris’s remarks from their proper context. The quotation is taken from two different pages of the book cited. In the first part of the quote Harris is addressing something entirely different from what he is addressing in the last part of the quote, yet Mrs. Riplinger puts the two misjointed pieces of quotation together. In neither quotation is Harris addressing any question about the existence of an eternal, fiery Hell. Rather, in the first part of the quotation he is discussing the view of some that in the Old Testament times Sheol was divided into two compartments. Consider exactly what Harris was discussing:

“[The Bible] does present what is a difficulty to the New Testament believer: both wicked (Num. 16:3) and righteous (Gen. 38:35) go to Sheol. A view was therefore early developed that said that there were two compartments in Sheol, an upper part for the believers and a lower for the lost.”

He then says:

“This view has some problems.”

He’s right. It does have some problems! That is not to say, of course, that the view is wrong.

In the second part of the quotation Harris is discussing the condition of Shimei in 1 Kings 2:9:

“To bring Shimei’s gray hairs down to Sheol in blood (2:9) surely refers only to his death, not to the condition of his soul after death or to any punishment beyond his execution.”

My friends, no matter what we might think of Harris and his translation activities, such a statement by him DOES NOT make him a co-fellow with cultists who deny the Bible doctrine of Hell. By taking the man’s statements entirely out of context, Mrs. Riplinger has slandered him.

6. On page 448 Mrs. Riplinger says:

“Westcott's biographer cites that in 1858 ‘he was quite inaudible’ and by 1870 ‘his voice reached few and was understood by still fewer.’”

Riplinger uses this quote to support her claim that Westcott lost his voice and sees that as a judgment of God for tampering with the Bible. The fact is that Westcott did NOT lose his voice. Riplinger cites volume one of The Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, but the quotes are misused.

The first quote is from a statement about how that Westcott, as a young student, disliked public speaking.

“He [Westcott] took his turn of preaching in Chapel, but he dreaded and disliked the duty, and he was quite inaudible to many of the boys” (The Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, vol. 1, p. 198).

There is nothing here about Westcott losing his voice.

The second of Riplinger’s quotes is taken from a letter from a Dr. Butler, who said that Westcott, when he was 35 years old and teaching at Harrow, still had a weak public speaking voice.

“His voice was not yet a force in the chapel. It reached but few, and it was understood by still fewer” (The Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, vol. 1, pp. 272-273).

Again, there is not a hint that Westcott lost his voice. It is a figment of Mrs. Riplinger’s fertile imagination.

ERRORS OF FACT

New Age Bible Versions contains a great number of factual errors. The following is a mere representation of this type of thing which is found throughout the book.

1. On page 59 Mrs. Riplinger calls John Burgon “a dissenting scholar on the ‘New Greek N.T. committee.”

In fact, Burgon had nothing to do with the committee that produced the Westcott-Hort Greek N.T. or any other Greek New Testament.

2. On page 143 Mrs. Riplinger says:

“Hundreds and hundreds of other examples of Roman Catholic theology in the new versions could be cited and are explored thoroughly in other books.”

While there can be no doubt that there is a Roman Catholic connection in the modern versions, I have never seen any documentation to prove Mrs. Riplinger’s contention that the new versions promote Catholic theology in hundreds and hundreds of instances.

3. On page 89 Mrs. Riplinger says, “Even NIV translator Larry Walker applauds the rejection of the Hebrew Old Testament for the Ugaritic wherein the gods of pantheism preside.”

In fact, Walker says:

“Generally, the NIV translators adopted a very conservative attitude towards the text and our traditional understanding of it and the Hebrew language. Noticeable in this regard is the translation of Job, which follows extremely closely the Masoretic (traditional Hebrew) Text and shuns many modern suggested emendations. Several of the translators had studied and taught Ugaritic, so they were familiar with the many new proposals emanating from Mitchell Dahood and his students. In some cases the new insights into vocabulary and grammar were accepted and incorporated into the translation. IN MOST CASES, for example the Psalms, THE ALMOST ENDLESS PROPOSALS BY DAHOOD TO RE-EDIT THE MASORETIC TEXT IN THE LIGHT OF UGARITIC AND NORTHWEST SEMITIC WERE REJECTED IF THE PRESENT UNDERSTANDING OF THE TEXT MADE GOOD SENSE. ... the NIV follows a very conservative course and rarely departs from the Masoretic Text” (The Making of A Contemporary Translation, pp. 127,128).

We do not believe the NIV translators should have departed from the Masoretic Text even a few times, but the point is that Walker does not “applaud the rejection of the Hebrew Old Testament for the Ugaritic.” Exactly the opposite is true.

4. On page 179 Mrs. Riplinger has a chart which purports to give nine instances in which the “NIV, NASV, et al.” translates the KJV’s “rejoicing” as “pride.”

In fact, three of these are NOT translated “pride” in the NIV, but are translated “boast” and “joy” (2 Cor. 1:12, 14; Phil. 1:26).

5. The chart on page 180 says the “NASB et al.” adds words which weaken the reading of Romans 15:1 and 1 Peter 3:3.

From this statement one would think that most modern versions have this change, but, in fact, it is ONLY the NASB which adds the words in question. The NIV omits the words in question, as does the Today’s English Version, the Living Bible, the Revised Berkeley Version, and the New English Bible.

6. The chart on page 182 claims the “NIV, NASB, et al.” translates 1 Corinthians 11:1 as “be imitators.”

In fact, the NIV in 1 Corinthians 11:1 reads “follow my example.”

7. The chart on page 186 claims the “NIV, NASB, et al.” deletes “God” from Galatians 1:15.

In fact, the NIV has God in this verse. The same chart claims the “NIV, NASB, et al.” does not capitalize the word “the head” in Colossians 2:19. In fact, the NIV does capitalize the word “Head” here.

8. The chart on page 187 says the “NIV, NASB, et al.” translates Genesis 41:38, “A man like this in whom is a divine spirit?”

In fact, the NIV reads “Spirit of God” in this verse.

9. The chart on page 187 claims the “NIV, NASB, et al.” reads “a divine being” in 1 Samuel 28:13.

In fact, the NIV reads, “I see a spirit coming up out of the ground.”

10. The chart on page 187 claims the “NIV, NASB, et al.” reads, “But what is the divine response” in Romans 11:4.

In fact, the NIV reads “And what was God’s answer to him?” which is what the KJV says.

11. According to the chart on p. 188, the “New Versions” omit the words “in him” in 2 Corinthians 5:21.

In fact, both the NIV and the NASB retain these words.

12. On p. 129 Mrs. Riplinger claims the modern versions promote asceticism in Colossians 2:23.

In fact, every modern version I checked condemns asceticism in this passage.

13. According to the chart on p. 22, the new versions radically change the Bible’s teaching pertaining to a Christian’s attitude toward his enemies. According to Riplinger’s chart, whereas the KJV tells us to “bless” our enemies, the New Versions omit this and have “you ... bastard.” And whereas the KJV tells us to “do good” to our enemies, the New Versions omit this and have “go to hell.” And whereas the KJV tells us to “forgive” our enemies, the New Versions omit this and replace it with “you son of a bitch.”

This is an amazing and gross misrepresentation of the truth. All of the modern versions teach that the Christian is to bless, do good to, and forgive his enemies. What about “bastard” and “son of a bitch”? These were expressions used in early editions of the Living Bible. They are no longer found even in the Living Bible, and were never used in the NIV or NASV. The critical text does remove a portion of Matthew 5:44, but to see in this omission what Mrs. Riplinger sees requires putting on a strange sort of glasses.

Please understand that these are only a few examples of the types of errors that are found in Mrs. Riplinger’s charts. They are unreliable.

FAULTY LOGIC

New Age Bible Versions, from beginning to end, advances faulty logic. Mrs. Riplinger continually makes unequal and unfair comparisons and makes connections where no proper connections exist. The following are a mere representation of the almost countless illustrations which could be given of this.

1. On pages 90-91 Riplinger cites the NIV chief editor’s Calvinism as cause to lump him into the same category with Charles Manson and Madam Blavatsky.

“Those, like Manson, Blavatsky and the NIV’s Chief, Edwin Palmer, who see God as ‘the One’--driving both evil and good--’call evil good’ (Isaiah 5:20). They are setting the stage for the slaughter of those who are saved during the tribulation.”

While I reject Calvinism, I certainly cannot accept that there is any connection between the Calvinist and the New Age weirdoes! Charles Haddon Spurgeon was a staunch Calvinist. Did his preaching set the stage for the New Age? In fact, most of the King James Translators were Calvinists.

2. On p. 116 Mrs. Riplinger connects the NASB translation of Acts 22:6-11 with the “light” and the “One” promoted by the New Age. I believe this amazing connection is entirely in Mrs. Riplinger’s mind.

3. On p. 157 Mrs. Riplinger claims:

“Bibles which omit a clear mandate against, ‘sexual intercourse on the part of unmarried persons’ (Webster’s ‘fornication’) leave parents defenseless in their battle for their children’s chastity. An anxious mother called Moody Broadcasting’s ‘Open Line’ program asking Pastor Cole where she could find a verse to show her son that pre-marital sex is wrong. He was unable to give one. On a recent 700 Club, the author of Generation at Risk was asked why sexually active Christian kids have no sense of guilt. He responded that there was ‘no absolute standard of scripture’ to use...”

The fact is that many verses in the NIV and in most other modern versions plainly condemn pre-marital sex. Examples are Ephesians 5:3 and Hebrews 13:4. “Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral” (Heb. 13:4 NIV). The problem here is not with the modern translations but with the blind and compromised Christian leaders who use those translations.

4. On p. 192 Mrs. Riplinger says, “New versions shatter the only mirror betraying man’s seared conscience. Consequently ‘Christians’ can conclude with Starhawk, the New Age’s most outspoken witch, ‘There is nothing to be saved from.’”

To say that the new versions support Starhawk’s philosophy of life is preposterous. Even the new versions teach plainly and repeatedly that man is a fallen sinner that needs to be saved from his sin, that he cannot save himself, and that salvation is through the Lord Jesus Christ.

5. On p. 149 Mrs. Riplinger implements a method she calls “acrostic algebra” to remove the “sheep’s clothing” from the modern versions so as to “expose the brand on the hand of the wolf’s skin.”

Her five-step acrostic beings with (NASV-NIV)-AV and ends with SIN. With logic like this, anything can be “proven.” Or maybe she intended this to be a little joke?

UNPROVEN STATEMENTS

New Age Bible Versions contains countless statements which are entirely unsubstantiated.

Consider some examples:

1. On p. 190 Mrs. Riplinger says:

“Only when we are in lullaby land or on the lines of the latest version does the likeness of a lovable man appear. Verses which mar Narcissus’ vision of himself are missing. ‘Lovable’ people, after all, when visited by their creator, do not strike him, accurse him, or constrain him.”

To prove this contention, Riplinger notes a number of omissions and changes in the modern versions. The fact is that nothing she lists here proves in any way her contention. The new versions DO plainly show man’s mistreatment of Jesus Christ and DO condemn man’s love of self. For example, in Matthew 27:28-30 the NIV reads:

“They stripped him and put a scarlet robe on him, and then wove a crown of thorns and set it on his head. They put a staff in his right hand and knelt in front of him and mocked him. ‘Hail, King of the Jews!’ they said. They spit on him, and took the staff and struck him on the head again and again.”

2. On p. 125 Mrs. Riplinger says:

“These versions leave their readers open to popular New Age books like The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ, which advises, ‘[E]nter fully into the spirit of the God of Forces’ (p. 16).”

The supposed proof for this amazing statement is the “NIV, NASB et al.” translation of Daniel 11:36-39 which says the antichrist will “honor a god of fortresses” instead of the KJV reading of “honor the God of forces.” With logic like this I contend that one can make ANY statement one pleases about ANYTHING whatsoever and support it by ANY fact about ANYTHING regardless of whether or not there is the slightest connection between the statement and the fact! I studied the Aquarian Gospel when I was following Hinduism prior to my conversion in 1973. I can assure you that the new versions, as corrupt as they are, DO NOT leave their readers open to the Aquarian Gospel or to Hinduism.

3. On p. 167 Mrs. Riplinger says, “New versions foster the phoney [sic] faith teachers which flood the media.”

There is no proof given for this contention. The phony faith teachers don’t even need a Bible. They have prophecies and tongues and visions and “a word from the Lord”! They don’t prove their phony teachings by modern version corruptions, but by twisting the Bible to say what they want it to say. Many of the phony faith teachers, in fact, still use the King James Bible.

MRS. RIPLINGER’S AMAZING STATEMENTS

Let me also say that I have found some of Mrs. Riplinger’s statements pertaining to her work to be amazing and frightful.

On page 34 of New Age Bible Versions she mentions Dr. Wilbur Pickering’s book The Identity of the New Testament Text and says, “He set the stage for, THIS THE FINAL PAGE, closing ‘the cover’ on new versions.” Thus Mrs. Riplinger points to her own book as THE FINAL PAGE which will close the cover on the new versions. Amazing. And I thought Peter Ruckman had already thrown THE LAST GRENADE!

In a Pentecostal paper titled The End Times and Victorious Living, January-February 1994, Mrs. Riplinger gives her testimony. She says, “EACH DISCOVERY WAS NOT THE RESULT OF EFFORT ON MY PART, BUT OF THE DIRECT HAND OF GOD--so much so that I hesitated to even put my name on the book. Consequently, I used G.A. Riplinger, which signifies to me, GOD AND RIPLINGER--God as author and Riplinger as secretary.”

Even the most radical charismatic prophets hesitate to use such intemperate language.

ENDORSEMENTS WHICH ARE NOT ENDORSEMENTS

Mrs. Riplinger’s promotional materials list three men as endorsing her book who do not actually endorse it. These are Dave Hunt, Henry Morris, and S. Frank Logsdon.

Dave Hunt, on being questioned about his supposed endorsement of New Age Bible Versions, said:

“The ‘endorsement’ came about based on a phone conversation I had with the author upon receiving her manuscript. As she explained various aspects of her book, I commented that if she could document what she was telling me, she would be doing a great service to the church. I also told her that the impressive form of the manuscript itself should help her with publishers since they rarely receive manuscripts that well done. Somehow bits of our conversation ended up as an ‘endorsement’ of a book which I haven’t even read: ‘You have done a great service to the church. ... Publishers never receive books this well done.’ The publisher was contacted and agreed to remove my name from all promotional copy. However, some who are promoting the book independently have continued to use what they mistakenly believe is my endorsement.”

Hunt’s The Berean Call magazine has made the following statement about New Age Bible Versions:

“The book not only misses the author’s professed marks, it seriously undermines her credibility and brings her integrity into question. ... She starts off misrepresenting people and continues to do so throughout the entire book. ... Time and space will not allow for more than a sampling of the hundreds of mistakes in Riplinger’s 690-page book.”

Henry Morris, in a letter “To Whom It May Concern” dated February 28, 1994, stated:

“Since a number have inquired about my ‘endorsement’ of Gail Riplinger’s book, I have requested--and she has agreed--not to use this statement in any future printing of the book or in any promotional literature. ... She did devote several years of diligent research to this project and I believe has compiled much worthwhile material in the book. Unfortunately, there is also some misleading material.”

A statement by Frank Logsdon is included under the Comments section of the promotional flyer for New Age Bible Versions. Logsdon’s statement follows that of Texe Marrs, John Barela, and Henry Morris. One is therefore led to believe that Frank Logsdon, who is listed as “co-founder NASB,” is writing in support of Mrs. Riplinger’s book. In fact, Logsdon has been dead for many years and knew nothing about New Age Bible Versions. Logsdon did come out in support of the Received Text and of the King James Bible, but this is not to say that he would have endorsed Mrs. Riplinger’s view on the subject. I have researched Logsdon’s life and his position on the Bible version issue. In fact I was the first one to publish Logsdon’s views on the King James Bible in print, and I find it extremely doubtful that he would have supported Riplinger’s approach to this debate.

A DIVORCED WOMAN PREACHER

Like Peter Ruckman, Mrs. Riplinger has been divorced twice and married thrice. The following information is from http://www.avpublications.org/

Riplinger was born Gail Anne Ludwig in Columbus, Ohio, at Mount Carmel Hospital, She is the only child of Wilson and Helen (Frech) Ludwig.

She was married the first time in 1969 to a man named Latessa and divorced from him in February 1975. Her second married was in 1976 to a man named Kaleda, and they were divorced in August 1984. Her third marriage was contracted only two months after the second divorce.

Divorce References:

Divorce Case #74-DR-1543, State of Ohio (Mahoning County), Latessa (Ludwig) Vs. Latessa, Division of Domestic Relations, February 12, 1975. Records can be ontained from the Mahoning County Clerk, 120 Market Street, 2nd Floor, Youngstown, OH 44503. Riplinger's birthdate and place of birth found on Ohio Marriage Record. Her former name: Gail Anne Latessa

Divorce Case #84-CV-0652, State of Ohio (Portage County), Kaleda (Ludwig) Vs. Kaleda, Court of Common Pleas Domestic Relations, August 6, 1984. Records can be obtained from the Portage County Court, P.O. Box 1035, Ravenna, OH 44266. Riplinger's birthdate and place of birth found on Ohio Marriage Record. Her former name: Gail Anne Kaleda

Here are all three of her marriage records:

Marriage Record #61989, Trumbull County, Ohio Probate Court, 1969; Gail Anne Latessa

Marriage Record #45789, Portage County, Ohio Probate Court, 1976; Gail Anne Kaleda

Marriage Record #59311, Summit County, Ohio Probate Court, 1984; Gail Anne Riplinger

Updated January 3, 2008 (first published in O Timothy magazine, Vol. 11, Issue 8, 1994)
David Cloud, Way of Life Literature, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org