|
Page:
1 2 3
[return to page 2,]
[click to read page
4]
Barbara Aho
Registered user
Global user
Registered:
07-2006
Posts:
5
Karma:
4 (+4/-0)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Barbara Aho (cont'd)
Dear Friends,
I will not strive with Lisa Ruby. We diverge at the very
starting point of the Bible issue – the question as to which
takes precedence, the Greek Received Text or the KJV derived
from it. I hope Lisa realizes that in promoting Gail Riplinger,
she is promoting a protégé of Peter Ruckman, the source of the
false teaching that “the KJV corrects the Textus Receptus” where
they differ.
In my defense of the KJV, I have not stated that it is
infallible but I have stated our positon that the Textus
Receptus which underlies it is inerrant. This is the position of
scores of King James Bible defenders – and those who maintain
the KJV is more accurate than the Greek are a small minority of
Ruckmanites.
To hold that the KJV has imperfect translations in places does
not mean the KJV is not the Word of God, as the 1611 AV
translators stated, “No cause therefore why the word translated
should bee denied to be the word, or forbidden to be currant,
notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be
noted in the setting forth of it.” Let’s note that, whereas the
KJV has “some imperfections and blemishes,” the modern versions
are rotten to the core. I would rather have “imperfections and
blemishes” than terminal cancer!
Jan Moser and I are researchers and, in our work, there are no
sacred cows. (We do hold fast to the Textus Receptus and the
fundamentals of the Christian faith, however.) We are always
revising our theories and assumptions and our reports as we find
new information. When we reach new conclusions, then we change
our reports accordingly. We are now in the process of
researching the New Testament of the NKJV and a private e-mail
to that effect was posted without even asking me what I meant
and then publicly misrepresenting this e-mail as Watch Unto
Prayer’s secret endorsement of the entire NKJV, Old and New
Testaments, which conflicts with other statements on our
website. We never planned to research the NKJV Old Testament or
to endorse the NKJV as a whole; however, we did intend to revise
our old reports as soon as our comparison of the NKJV New
Testament with the Textus Receptus was finished.
This disclosure and misrepresentation of my private
correspondence about our research project seems like an attempt
to trap me in my words in order to discredit other positions we
have taken which are not politically correct. At times I feel
like I’m still in the Catholic Church, limited by the
“Imprimatur” that little popes have stamped on the books and
subjects the Christian is permitted to read or agree with – and
the NKJV appears to be on the KJV-Only “List of Forbidden Books”
along with, in Ruckmanite circles, Greek lexicons, interlinears
and concordances. Moreover, it is a “mortal sin” to question the
party line set forth by the Christian Internet cabal and woe
unto that researcher who departs from the official dogma of the
thought police regarding the identity of Antichrist, the False
Prophet, the Mark of the Beast or timing of the Rapture! Has it
occurred to anyone besides us that the Synagogue of Satan is
promoting an entire system of approved counterfeits so that
Christians will not dare to look for any others???
I hoped that some of our Watchmen would feel led to contribute
to our research project, but now the intimidation card is being
played to inhibit anyone from ever consulting a Greek Bible
tool, much less opening a NKJV. Think about it. Could the
Judeo-Masonic publishers have more effectively discredited the
only two English New Testaments currently in use that are based
on the Textus Receptus than by putting occult symbols on them
and then spooking the Christians about these symbols? Case in
point:
“Isn’t it awful that these Rosicrucians placed the revered Greek
god Pan at the top of the 1611 KJV Genealogies page? Remember
what they were attempting to accomplish: they were attempting to
produce a Rosicrucian Bible which would reverberate with Satanic
power every second of every day, a sacred book which would
gradually move the peoples of the world into practicing that
‘Mystic Christianity; Rosicrucianism.” (David Bay)
I have a few comments to share about Gail Riplinger’s book which
Lisa recommends and then I’ll withdraw from this forum since
I’ve stated our position on the King James Bible and am really
not prepared to say more about the NKJV.
God bless you,
Barbara
|
|
7/4/2006, 3:17 pm |
Send Email to Barbara Aho
Send PM to Barbara Aho
|
Barbara Aho
Registered user
Global user
Registered:
07-2006
Posts:
5
Karma:
4 (+4/-0)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
"In Awe of Thy Word" by Gail Riplinger
In her book, "In Awe of Thy
Word," Gail Riplinger warns against trusting Greek interlinears
or lexicons to aid in understanding the Bible. She recommends
instead that readers “gather insights about the subject from
linguists who have already explored this vast and new scientific
field of letter meanings.” Who on earth explores “letter
meanings”??? Kabbalists do! How do we know that these unsaved
“linguists” are not also Kabbalists? We don’t.
In fact, Gail’s book seems to be a primer on Kabbalah, which is
discovering the hidden meanings in the letters of words, in this
case in the KJV. In her Appendix, which is a dictionary on the
hidden meanings of each letter of the alphabet, Gail highly
recommends Margaret Magnus’ book, "Gods of the Word: Archetypes
in the Consonants," which avers that “gods” inhabit the letters
of the alphabet:
“.the consonants and vowels do in fact have a meaning. The most
fundamental aspect of that meaning is pure sound without any
interpretation or symbolism. That pure sound is meaningful (and
how!). But one step above that most fundamental and pure
sound-meaning is the archetypal meaning. Since the consonants
and vowels form the foundation of the word - not only of its
sound, but also of its meaning, then we literally talk in terms
of archetypes. Every word is a sound - a shruti note - on which
are superimposed a collection of gods whose interaction forms
the basis of the word.”
http://www.conknet.com/~mmagnus/Archetypes/index.html
Gail hedges her recommendation of Kabbalists with a disclaimer,
“…just because esoterics see in letters ‘gods’ that are not
there, this should not deter true scriptural and scholarly
investigation into the word of God.” (p. 1116)
In her book, Gail also seeks to legitimize Wycliffe’s English
translation of the Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate as being a
translation from the Traditional Text.
“The myth that the Wycliffe bible came from this ‘Latin Vulgate’
arose from the misleading statement – ‘made from the Latin
Vulgate’ – added to the frontice page of an 1850 printed edition
of Wycliffe’s Bible, edited by Frederic Madden and Josiah
Forshall.”
This is easily proved to be a false statement. Here is a photo
of an original edition of the Wycliffe translation with a title
page stating that it was translated from the Latin Vulgate:
(General Title reads) “THE NEW TESTAMENT OF OUR LORD AND SAVIOUR
JESUS CHRIST TRANSLATED OUT OF THE LATIN VULGAT BY JOHN WICLIF,
S.T.P. PREBENDARY OF AUST. IN THE COLLEGIATE CHURCH OF WESTBURY,
AND RECTOR OF LUTTERWORTH, ABOUT 1378. ….TO WHICH IS PRAEFIXT A
HISTORY OF THE SEVERAL TRANSLATIONS OF THE H. BIBLE AND N.
TESTAMENT, &c. INTO ENGLISH, BOTH IN MS AND PRINT, AND OF THE
MOST REMARKABLE EDITIONS OF THEM SINCE THE INVENTION OF
PRINTING”
(New Testament Title reads) "THE NEW TESTAMENT WITH THE LESSONS
TAKEN OUT OF THE OLD LAW, READ IN CHURCHES ACCORDING TO THE USE
OF SARUM, TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH FROM THE VULGAR LATIN. BY JOHN
WICLIF, D.D. RECTOR OF LUTTERWORTH, 1380"
http://cgi.ebay.com/1731-WYCLIFFE-FOLIO-NEW-TESTAMENT-HOLY-BIBLE-1ST-ED_W0QQitemZ7377019320QQcategoryZ2200QQcmdZViewItem
Gail is a protégé of Peter Ruckman, who frequently makes
statements such as the following in his books:
“Correct the Greek with the English. It is always the best
policy; the one that God will bless. Feel free (with a clear
conscience) in always correcting the Greek Receptus with the
Holy Bible [meaning the King James].” ("How to Teach the
‘Original’ Greek," Pensacola: Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1992)
David Cloud wrote of Gail Riplinger's many errors in "In Awe of
Thy Word" and her Ruckmanite teaching that the “English KJV
corrects the Greek Textus Receptus”.
Friday Church News Notes, August 12, 2005:
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/fridaynews/pdf/2005/20050812.pdf
“Her newest book again contains many good things in defense of
the KJV but it is interspersed with serious mistakes so that it
is impossible to have confidence in her research or conclusions
at any point. For example, in chapter 22 she claims that John
Wycliffe did not use the Latin Vulgate as the basis for his
translation but that he used Hebrew, Greek, and Old Latin
sources. She says it is a “myth” to say that Wycliffe used the
Latin Vulgate. As a matter of fact, a careful comparison of the
Wycliffe Bible with the Latin Vulgate and the Old Latin
demonstrates that Wycliffe consistently used the Vulgate, with
only a very few exceptions. I have done extensive research into
the textual basis of the Wycliffe New Testament and it contains
most of the textual corruptions found in the Vulgate. For
example, the Wycliffe Bible omits “for thine is the kingdom, and
the power, and the glory, for ever” in Mat. 6:13, “to
repentance” in Mat. 9:13 and Mk. 2:17, “spoken by Daniel the
prophet” in Mk. 13:14, “get thee behind me Satan” in Lk. 4:8,
“the Lord” from 1 Cor. 15:47, “in Christ” in Gal. 3:17, and
“God” in 1 Timothy 3:16, to mention only a few of its textual
errors. In most of these instances, these things are omitted in
the Wycliffe and the Latin Vulgate but are NOT omitted in the
Old Latin, so that it is obvious that Wycliffe was indeed
following the Vulgate rather than the Traditional Greek Text or
the Old Latin. Mrs. Riplinger gives so much seeming
documentation that the average reader is convinced that her
scholarship is sound, not being in a position to see that she
frequently misuses her quotes and reaches conclusions not
supported by the facts given in the documents that she cites as
her authority…
“She also is a true Ruckmanite, teaching that the English KJV is
better than and has replaced the Greek and Hebrew, that there is
no need today for learning or using Greek and Hebrew, and other
such things. If her position were true we would not even have an
English Bible because it was laboriously translated by men who
learned Greek and Hebrew and diligently studied the Scriptures
in those languages! There is a strange, almost cultic element
within the Independent Baptist movement, and Mrs. Riplinger is
right in the middle of it.” [end quote]
To show how frequently the Wycliffe translation agrees with the
Alexandrian manuscripts and deviates from the Textus Receptus,
we have prepared the following Tables of Comparison:
http://watch.pair.com/n-t-corruption.html
Gail Riplinger also promotes the Gothic Bible as being in the
same line of Byzantine manuscripts as the Textus Receptus. The
problem is that the Gothic Bible was translated by Ulfilas, an
Arian missionary who brought the Arian heresy to Western Gaul in
the 4th C., specifically the South of France where the
Merovingian heresy had taken root. Arius was an arch heretic who
taught that Jesus Christ was a created being.
In his book, "True or False?," David Otis Fuller discussed the
Arianism of the Gothic bible:
The Gothic Version
“Modern scholars have been inclined to overestimate the value of
the testimony of the ancient versions in this place (I Tim.
3:16). …the Syriac ‘Pesh-itta’…cannot lay claim to perfection.
It was evidently influenced by Greek manuscripts like Codex D
and the Latin versions, which have ‘which was manifested’,
instead of ‘God was manifested’. The popularity of this reading
in the Syriac could be explained by the Nestorian influence in
the Syrian Church. Nestorius denied the union of two natures of
God and man in the one Person of Christ. He was accused of
teaching that there were two distinct persons, the Person of God
the Son and the Person of the man Christ Jesus. This teaching
was condemned by the Council of Ephesus in AD 431 at which Cyril
of Alexandria presided. (Cyril himself witnesses in favour of
‘God’ in I Tim. 3:16)...
“Another ancient version likely to prefer the weaker rendering
of this important verse was the Gothic translation by Ulphilas,
who became Bishop of the Goths in AD 348. He was known to favour
the heresy of Arius, who denied the preexistence of the Son of
God, affirming that He was created by God and not of one
substance with the Father.
“Existing manuscripts of the Gothic version indicate some
measure of corruption from Latin sources. The Latin versions all
have ‘which was manifested’. Finding this erroneous reading in
the sources available to him, Ulphilas would have no difficulty
in adopting it, but would be likely to welcome it as favourable
to his Arian views.” (David Otis Fuller citing “God—Was Manifest
in the Flesh... (I Tim. 3:16)” by Terence H. Brown, Secretary of
Trinitarian Bible Society, pp. 33-34) [end quote]
The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition gives a similar profile
of "Ulfilas":
“ULFILAS [Ulfilas] or Wulfila [Gothic,=little wolf], c.311-383,
Gothic bishop, translator of the Bible into Gothic. He was
converted to Christianity at Constantinople and was consecrated
bishop (341) by the Arian bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia. Ulfilas
then returned to the Visigoths as a missionary; it was partly as
a result of Ulfilas's work that the Goths became and remained
Arians for so long in the face of triumphant Catholicism. Of
Ulfilas’s Bible only fragments remain—parts of Genesis,
Nehemiah, most of the Gospels, and the whole of Second
Corinthians, with several more fragments. Ulfilas is said to
have invented the alphabet that he used.” (2006 Columbia
University Press)
There are other serious problems with "In Awe of Thy Word," but
two major issues are that Gail Riplinger is teaching Kabbalism
and turning Christians away from acceptable and very useful
Greek resources for Bible study and directing them to occult
sources instead.
Barbara Aho
|
|
7/4/2006, 4:31 pm |
Send Email to Barbara Aho
Send PM to Barbara Aho
|
comeuphither
Registered user
Global user
Registered:
06-2006
Posts:
217
Karma:
2 (+2/-0)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Barbara Aho, Which Bible is Your Final Authority?
Barbara,
I'm so sorry you are withdrawing from here. Most people know
when some proud person is trying to take on something they know
nothing about.maybe then I will withdraw too. i'm beginning to
think forums are not what God intended but to go to church. I'm
sad about this. God Bless You Barb, I'm still on your mailing
list! DEB~ |
|
7/5/2006, 1:57 am |
Send Email to comeuphither
Send PM to comeuphither
|
geo27
Registered user
Global user
Registered:
06-2006
Posts:
5
Karma:
0 (+0/-0)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re:
Barbara Aho, Which Bible is Your Final Authority?
Just My Take:
I have been reading the back and forth E-Mail which has made for
some very,to say the least intresting reading.Lisa should have
went with her friend that sent the E-Mail,and spoke with Barbara
before going public of this form.Also when one of the members of
this form sent Lisa a PM she again went public with the
reply.That seems to be a pattern with Lisa and then you go her
web site it all about exposeing others and even some of the
product sold by the BC and you came in the door here to
expose.Maybe you need to read the format for this form again it
so people of like mine can gather not for you to expose others
and push your on agenda the only thing that was really exposed
was you and by your on words lets just say you were over
exposed.
geo 27 |
|
7/5/2006, 8:19 am |
Send Email to geo27
Send PM to geo27
|
geo27
Registered user
Global user
Registered:
06-2006
Posts:
5
Karma:
0 (+0/-0)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Barbara Aho, Which Bible is Your Final Authority?
Comeuphither,
No form or host are building is the "Chuch" it all who follow
the lord it is you me and others that are tring to follow and
serve him.I as you had plan to leave this form and but change my
mind and this is a great form if we use it for the reason it was
started.On a lighter side you are sure long winded but have
enjoyed reading your view and info that you have placed on this
form and I might not agree or reply it was great to read your
point of view.
God Bless,
geo27 |
|
7/5/2006, 8:38 am |
Send Email to geo27
Send PM to geo27
|
Saved
Registered user
Global user
Registered:
06-2006
Posts:
3
Karma:
0 (+0/-0)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Barbara Aho, Which Bible is Your Final Authority?
Hello Barbara,
I appreciate very much this information on Gail Riplinger's
teaching in her book "In Awe of Thy Word".
" “.the consonants and vowels do in fact have a meaning. The
most fundamental aspect of that meaning is pure sound without
any interpretation or symbolism. That pure sound is meaningful
(and how!). But one step above that most fundamental and pure
sound-meaning is the archetypal meaning. Since the consonants
and vowels form the foundation of the word - not only of its
sound, but also of its meaning, then we literally talk in terms
of archetypes. Every word is a sound - a shruti note - on which
are superimposed a collection of gods whose interaction forms
the basis of the word.” "
<http://www.conknet.com/~mmagnus/Archetypes/index.html>
I would encourage the readers to research for themselves by
using Google. Type in
divine harmony+consonants and vowels+Kabbalah, and just see what
you come up with!
Also, thank you for letting the readers of this forum know about
Gail's views about Wycliffe, and clarifying that for us.
"In her book, Gail also seeks to legitimize Wycliffe’s English
translation of the Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate as being a
translation from the Traditional Text.
“The myth that the Wycliffe bible came from this ‘Latin Vulgate’
arose from the misleading statement - ‘made from the Latin
Vulgate’ - added to the frontice page of an 1850 printed edition
of Wycliffe’s Bible, edited by Frederic Madden and Josiah
Forshall.” "
Not long ago, I was doing a search to see which "alternative"
media sources were interviewing David Bay and Chris Pinto in
support of their new video, "Secret Mysteries of America's
Beginnings", due to the information you had provided on Kelly's
program. That search turned up The Southwest Radio Church
program which is presided over by Noah Hutchings. I noticed that
Gail Riplinger has also been a guest on Hutching's program
numerous times promoting her various books over the years. I
believe I saw a notice on the SWRC website that Noah and Gail
were to work on a book together, but it might have been Noah and
Cathy Burns? I'm sorry, I have not been able to find that
information again.
What disturbed me most though, was my discovery that Noah
Hutchings has written a book about Pyramidology, "The Great
Pyramids, Prophecy in Stone".
I was stunned at this discovery. I couldn't see how anyone
calling themself a Christian, and supposedly someone who
"exposes" Freemasonry, could possibly believe that the Great
Pyramids of Egypt could be "Prophecy written in stone"!
The Great Pyramid
Dr. Noah Hutchings
The Scriptures say that God established wonders in the land of
Egypt. When was the Great Pyramid built? Who was the builder?
Why was it built? These are questions that continue to be
debated by archaeologists, astronomers, other scientists, and
historians.
As brought out by the author, there is evidence that the Great
Pyramid also incorporates a prophetic time table for coming
events, including the coming Tribulation and the return of Jesus
Christ.
With words and pictures, Noah Hutchings takes the reader on an
exciting tour of the Great Pyramid of Cheops, and many other
wonders, including the Sphinx, Memphis, Sakkara, Luxor, and
Karnak. Features: 171 pages.
http://www.swrc.com/offers/hutch.htm
I recalled that several years ago I had found that Charles Taze
Russell, Knight's Templar and Freemason, founder of the Zion's
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society / Jehovah's Witness cult, has
written about this same heresy.
CHARLES TAZE RUSSELL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Taze_Russell
A Pyramid Scheme
How C.T. Russell's Great Pyramid Changed with the Times
by Eric Francke
[Excerpt]
Charles Taze Russell went to his grave believing that the Great
Pyramid was the "Bible in Stone", built as witness to the
chronologies he espoused. Regarding his shifting chronologies
based on the Bible, most of us will grant that he had a change
of opinion on certain verses, and adjusted his calculations
based on his accumulated knowledge. The Great Pyramid, is a
little different, however, since the stone passage ways do not
generally grow or shrink at command. The only accounting of the
changes one can give then, is that Russell was deliberately and
knowingly fabricating numbers to support his theories.
In all fairness, he was not alone in the belief that the Great
Pyramid was a witness by God to the truth of the Bible. A number
of dispensationalist teachers, such as Clarence Larkin, were
likewise committed to the idea. Larkin, however, who was a
contemporary of Russell's and Smyth's, is quick to point out
that if taken at face value, the measurements of the Great
Pyramid at best would tell us that this dispensation should now
be over. Larkin thus concludes that the "pyramid inch" as a unit
of measure must be faulty. 5
Russell, however maintained the divine origin of the Great
Pyramid, and taught it dogmatically. The Watchtower Bible and
Tract Society, apparently endorsed the idea, even after
Russell's death. There is perhaps no more telling a witness to
this, than the following image, which is the monument to Russell
at his grave that the Watchtower erected. [see photograph of
Russell's pyramid tombstone here]
http://neirr.org/pyramidscheme.htm
According to this writer, Noah Hutchings is also a proponent of
"The Gospel in the Stars", occult, Kabbahlist, Ancient Mystery
Religion, New Age heresy.
The "Gospel in the Stars"
(Or Astrology & Occultism?)
[Excerpt]
In actuality, it is a century-old "wind of doctrine" which seems
to be gaining new popularity among many of today's Christians
who feel a need to prove the veracity of the Gospel by some
means outside God's Word. They attempt to glean diamonds of
hidden truth from the gravel pit of occult theory. [Besides
well-known "evangelical" D. James Kennedy <http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/exposes/kennedy/>
who teaches this "Gospel in the Stars" folly, other lesser known
promoters are Noah Hutchings, J.R. Church, John Barela, and
David Webber, all currently or formerly of Southwest Radio
Church, and Chuck Missler <http://members.tripod.com/ccfuaq/ccfrmenu.htm>,
[formerly of Calvary Chapel <http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/exposes/smith/>
Costa Mesa.] Yet, not one shred of historical evidence can be
offered in support of this theory. It is based not upon fact,
but speculation. Seiss even admits in his book (p. 5) that the
insights leading to his thesis came "in connection with [his]
studies of the marvelous wisdom embodied in the Great Pyramid of
Gizeh." Thereby, the alleged "Gospel in the Stars" is simply a
"Christianized" interpretation of astrology and occultism, in
the same class as pyramidology -- and equally dangerous.
http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Psychology/astrol.htm
All of this information together paints a very discomforting
picture of all of the above. I have no idea how Gail Riplinger
feels about Hutchings book, "The Great Pyramids, Prophecy in
Stone", but it does appear that Gail has been affiliated with
Hutchings and his SWRC for quite some time, and it seems it
would be negligent of her not to know about Hutching's Great
Pyramid book.
I have to wonder if Gail also believes that the Great Pyramids
contain bible prophecy??
Thank you again for this information. I do understand that we
learn new information during our research everyday. For myself,
I can relate to that, and I do feel that your explanations above
are sufficient. I can also see how this would be confusing to
some, in light of what you have previously reported on your
website, but as you say, research is an ongoing process, the
deeper we dig, the more we learn, and sometimes we do have to go
back and revise previous publications due to more indepth
understanding.
I have discerned much from reading from your website over the
years, Barbara. You have done some of the most excellent
research and documentation of any writer I have found thus far.
Finding your website was an eye-opening experiance for me, and
I'm sure there are so many others who feel the same way. I do
differ with you on the Pre-Trib Rapture issue, but I know you
are a sincere and genuine Christian sister.
I appreciate the information that Lisa Ruby has published on her
website, as well, and have also read from Lisa's website for
quite sometime and found it to be very informative.
I have to say that it is disappointing to me that Lisa did not
email Barbara directly to find out more about this matter of the
NKJV, and get a better handle on Barbara's position and her
current research into it.
I pray this matter will be resolved very soon.
Kelly, thank you very much for your program.
God Bless |
|
7/5/2006, 12:26 pm |
|
Lisa Ruby
Registered user
Global user
Registered:
06-2006
Posts:
14
Karma:
0 (+1/-1)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Barbara Aho, Which Bible is Your Final Authority?
Barbara Aho wrote:
Dear Friends,
"I will not strive with Lisa Ruby. We diverge at the very
starting point of the Bible issue – the question as to which
takes precedence, the Greek Received Text or the KJV derived
from it."
Lisa Ruby wrote:
I do not want to strive either. I do not want to upset anyone
here, but I must hold fast to his [the Lord Jesus Christ's]
words until he comes.
According to the The New King James Version, the fact that I
brought up this subject and some have become offended means that
I should be rejected: "Reject a divisive man after the first and
second admonition," (Titus 3:10) NKJV.
My post about the King James Bible is divisive in the eyes of
some here. The NKJV says that you must reject me on that
basis--not on the basis of doctrine, but on the basis of whether
I am divisive or not. This verse promotes the ecumenical one
world church. Truth divides.
The King James Bible says, "A man that is an heretick after the
first and second admonition reject;" Titus 3:10
A heretic is a "person who holds and avows religious opinions
contrary to the doctrines of Scripture, the only rule of faith
and practice." (Webster's 1828 dictionary)
A person can be divisive for a good reason (such as holding fast
"the engrafted word which is able to save your souls" or a bad
reason--for the purpose of stirring up strife.
The heretick must be rejected because he is anti-christ, or
against the doctrines of the Lord Jesus Christ. A divisive man
must be either accepted or rejected based upon whether or not he
is submits to the doctrines of scripture.
Barbara Aho wrote:
"I hope Lisa realizes that in promoting Gail Riplinger, she is
promoting a protégé of Peter Ruckman, the source of the false
teaching that “the KJV corrects the Textus Receptus” where they
differ."
Lisa Ruby wrote:
Indeed Peter Ruckman teaches falsely if he says the KJV corrects
the Textus Receptus. (I am not referring to a Greek/English
interlinear with corrupted definitions that an apostate
devised.) Ruckman's statement (wittingly or unwittingly) serves
to give KJV critics ammunition to discredit those who have faith
that God has indeed preserved the Bible for us in English in the
KJV.
Barbara Aho wrote:
In my defense of the KJV, I have not stated that it is
infallible but I have stated our positon that the Textus
Receptus which underlies it is inerrant.
Lisa Ruby wrote:
The new version promoters believe the Holy Bible is inerrant in
the original languages. They do not believe that God has
preserved the Holy Bible in English. You differ in that you
qualify what you mean by the original languages--you mean the
George Ricker Berry Greek/English interlinear.
(Note:
Thomas Newberry, the late Plymouth Brethren leader who
authored the George Ricker Berry English Interlinear, did NOT
regard the Textus Recpetus as the word of God.) See:
The George
Ricker Berry English Interlinear: Corrupt Foundation
The Holy Bible is inerrant in the Received Text. I believe that
God has preserved the Bible perfectly in the English translation
too. The ancient Koine Greek is not spoken now but English
is--It is the international language. The real Holy Bible is
available to us in English.
Barbara Aho wrote:
"This is the position of scores of King James Bible defenders –
and those who maintain the KJV is more accurate than the Greek
are a small minority of Ruckmanites."
Lisa Ruby wrote:
I do not follow Peter Ruckman but I know the King James is more
accurate than corrupt lexicons and interlinears that are all
based on the work of infidels. Flawed Greek/English interlinears
are not more accurate than the King James bible. The King James
is a perfect translation of the uncorrupted Received Text.
Barbara Aho wrote:
"To hold that the KJV has imperfect translations in places does
not mean the KJV is not the Word of God, as the 1611 AV
translators stated, “No cause therefore why the word translated
should bee denied to be the word, or forbidden to be currant,
notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be
noted in the setting forth of it.”
Lisa Ruby wrote:
There were some imperfections and blemishes. There were
typography problems, typos and misspellings because the English
language had not yet been standardized.
Barbara Aho wrote:
"Let’s note that, whereas the KJV has “some imperfections and
blemishes,” the modern versions are rotten to the core. I would
rather have “imperfections and blemishes” than terminal cancer!"
Lisa Ruby wrote:
May I please remind the reader that Ms Aho believes that the
King James Version is in error by using the preposition, "in" in
reference to the mark of the beast being in the hand or the
forehead. According to Designer Marks of the Beast, she believes
the New King James Version's choice of the word "on" is the
correct word to use in reference to the placement of mark of the
beast.
If the King James Bible is in error here, this is no mere
blemish. It is terminal cancer! The reason I say so is this: if
the MOB is really "ON" rather than "IN", then the King James
Bible will damn untold millions to the Lake of Fire. The
difference between On or In will mean the difference between
heaven and hell for multitudes.
Barbara Aho wrote:
"Jan Moser and I are researchers and, in our work, there are no
sacred cows. (We do hold fast to the Textus Receptus and the
fundamentals of the Christian faith, however.) We are always
revising our theories and assumptions and our reports as we find
new information. When we reach new conclusions, then we change
our reports accordingly. We are now in the process of
researching the New Testament of the NKJV and a private e-mail
to that effect was posted without even asking me what I meant
and then publicly misrepresenting this e-mail as Watch Unto
Prayer’s secret endorsement of the entire NKJV, Old and New
Testaments, which conflicts with other statements on our
website. We never planned to research the NKJV Old Testament or
to endorse the NKJV as a whole; however, we did intend to revise
our old reports as soon as our comparison of the NKJV New
Testament with the Textus Receptus was finished."
"This disclosure and misrepresentation of my private
correspondence about our research project seems like an attempt
to trap me in my words in order to discredit other positions we
have taken which are not politically correct. At times I feel
like I’m still in the Catholic Church, limited by the
“Imprimatur” that little popes have stamped on the books and
subjects the Christian is permitted to read or agree with – and
the NKJV appears to be on the KJV-Only “List of Forbidden Books”
along with, in Ruckmanite circles, Greek lexicons, interlinears
and concordances."
Lisa Ruby wrote:
Greek lexicons, concordances and interlinears that are based on
the definitions of liberals should not be used because they
weaken God's people's faith regarding the soundness of the King
James Bible. That is indeed the reason why some were written.
One man used the Strong's concordance to 'prove' to me that
morningstar is indeed lucifer. The Strong's actually increased
his faith in his corrupt NIV 'version' of truth. (How can there
be 'versions' of truth anyway?)
Barbara Aho wrote:
"Moreover, it is a “mortal sin” to question the party line set
forth by the Christian Internet cabal and woe unto that
researcher who departs from the official dogma of the thought
police regarding the identity of Antichrist, the False Prophet,
the Mark of the Beast or timing of the Rapture! Has it occurred
to anyone besides us that the Synagogue of Satan is promoting an
entire system of approved counterfeits so that Christians will
not dare to look for any others???"
Lisa Ruby wrote:
Your last sentence in the above paragraph, "Has it occurred to
anyone besides us that the Synagogue of Satan is promoting an
entire system of approved counterfeits so that Christians will
not dare to look for any others???" seems to indicate that you
think the King James Bible is an another approved counterfeit by
the Synagogue of Satan. Is this what you meant or did I
misunderstand you?
Barbara Aho wrote:
"I hoped that some of our Watchmen would feel led to contribute
to our research project, but now the intimidation card is being
played to inhibit anyone from ever consulting a Greek Bible
tool, much less opening a NKJV.
Lisa Ruby wrote:
The Bible says to "neither give place to the devil." The NKJV
has a logo that belongs to the devilish New Age movement. It is
not ungodly intimidation to inform God's people about the
corrupted study tools that most pastors rely on--over and above
the Bible itself. The church is becoming apostate because the
men of God are learning, not from the Holy Bible, but from works
of scholars who did not even believe the Bible is inspired by
God.
[continued in next post]
Last edited by
Lisa Ruby, 7/6/2006, 1:17 am
|
|
7/5/2006, 5:08 pm |
Send Email to Lisa Ruby
Send PM to Lisa Ruby
|
Lisa Ruby
Registered user
Global user
Registered:
06-2006
Posts:
14
Karma:
0 (+1/-1)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Barbara Aho, Which Bible is Your Final Authority?
Barbara Aho wrote:
"Think about it. Could the Judeo-Masonic publishers have more
effectively discredited the only two English New Testaments
currently in use that are based on the Textus Receptus than by
putting occult symbols on them and then spooking the Christians
about these symbols? Case in point:
“Isn’t it awful that these Rosicrucians placed the revered Greek
god Pan at the top of the 1611 KJV Genealogies page? Remember
what they were attempting to accomplish: they were attempting to
produce a Rosicrucian Bible which would reverberate with Satanic
power every second of every day, a sacred book which would
gradually move the peoples of the world into practicing that
‘Mystic Christianity; Rosicrucianism.” (David Bay)"
Lisa Ruby wrote:
The occult symbols on the pages of the King James Bible of 1611
are there because the printers used their regular plates to
print the Holy Bible. Antique books are known to have these
symbols on their pages.
The reason for the occult logo on the New King James cover is
not the fault of the printer, but rather the decision of the
publisher, Thomas Nelson to mark the book with New Age
symbolism.
Barbara Aho wrote:
"I have a few comments to share about Gail Riplinger’s book
which Lisa recommends and then I’ll withdraw from this forum
since I’ve stated our position on the King James Bible and am
really not prepared to say more about the NKJV."
God bless you,
Barbara"
|
|
7/6/2006, 12:57 am |
Send Email to Lisa Ruby
Send PM to Lisa Ruby
|
Lisa Ruby
Registered user
Global user
Registered:
06-2006
Posts:
14
Karma:
0 (+1/-1)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Barbara Aho, Which Bible is Your Final Authority?
Barbara Aho wrote:
"In her book, "In Awe of Thy Word," Gail Riplinger warns against
trusting Greek interlinears or lexicons to aid in understanding
the Bible. She recommends instead that readers “gather insights
about the subject from linguists who have already explored this
vast and new scientific field of letter meanings.”
Actually Gail Riplinger recommends the safe way of arriving at
meanings by letting the Bible define itself in context rather
than trusting lexicons and interlinears that were based on the
works of men who denied the Christian faith. [Her revelation of
the liberal foundation the lexicons, concordances and
interlinears are based upon is worth the price of the book, in
my opinion. Pastors are feeding off of the labors of men who
were far from being the friends of God.]
Barbara Aho wrote:
Who on earth explores “letter meanings”??? Kabbalists do! How do
we know that these unsaved “linguists” are not also Kabbalists?
We don’t.
In fact, Gail’s book seems to be a primer on Kabbalah, which is
discovering the hidden meanings in the letters of words, in this
case in the KJV. In her Appendix, which is a dictionary on the
hidden meanings of each letter of the alphabet, Gail highly
recommends Margaret Magnus’ book, "Gods of the Word: Archetypes
in the Consonants," which avers that “gods” inhabit the letters
of the alphabet:
“.the consonants and vowels do in fact have a meaning. The most
fundamental aspect of that meaning is pure sound without any
interpretation or symbolism. That pure sound is meaningful (and
how!). But one step above that most fundamental and pure
sound-meaning is the archetypal meaning. Since the consonants
and vowels form the foundation of the word - not only of its
sound, but also of its meaning, then we literally talk in terms
of archetypes. Every word is a sound - a shruti note - on which
are superimposed a collection of gods whose interaction forms
the basis of the word.”
http://www.conknet.com/~mmagnus/Archetypes/index.html
Gail hedges her recommendation of Kabbalists with a disclaimer,
“…just because esoterics see in letters ‘gods’ that are not
there, this should not deter true scriptural and scholarly
investigation into the word of God.” (p. 1116)"
Lisa Ruby wrote:
I would not have recommended a book by kabbalists (and I have
not read what she said about letter meanings in her lengthy
book) but the fact that Gail Riplinger did this does not make
the King James Bible a counterfeit that is promoted by the
Synagogue of Satan. The King James Bible was the word of God in
English long before Gail Riplinger was born. (See
update regarding
Riplinger's use of letter meanings in her book, In Awe of Thy
Word)
Barbara Aho wrote:
In her book, Gail also seeks to legitimize Wycliffe’s English
translation of the Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate as being a
translation from the Traditional Text.
“The myth that the Wycliffe bible came from this ‘Latin Vulgate’
arose from the misleading statement – ‘made from the Latin
Vulgate’ – added to the frontice page of an 1850 printed edition
of Wycliffe’s Bible, edited by Frederic Madden and Josiah
Forshall.”
This is easily proved to be a false statement. Here is a photo
of an original edition of the Wycliffe translation with a title
page stating that it was translated from the Latin Vulgate:
(General Title reads) “THE NEW TESTAMENT OF OUR LORD AND SAVIOUR
JESUS CHRIST TRANSLATED OUT OF THE LATIN VULGAT BY JOHN WICLIF,
S.T.P. PREBENDARY OF AUST. IN THE COLLEGIATE CHURCH OF WESTBURY,
AND RECTOR OF LUTTERWORTH, ABOUT 1378. ….TO WHICH IS PRAEFIXT A
HISTORY OF THE SEVERAL TRANSLATIONS OF THE H. BIBLE AND N.
TESTAMENT, &c. INTO ENGLISH, BOTH IN MS AND PRINT, AND OF THE
MOST REMARKABLE EDITIONS OF THEM SINCE THE INVENTION OF
PRINTING”
(New Testament Title reads) "THE NEW TESTAMENT WITH THE LESSONS
TAKEN OUT OF THE OLD LAW, READ IN CHURCHES ACCORDING TO THE USE
OF SARUM, TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH FROM THE VULGAR LATIN. BY JOHN
WICLIF, D.D. RECTOR OF LUTTERWORTH, 1380"
http://cgi.ebay.com/1731-WYCLIFFE-FOLIO-NEW-TESTAMENT-HOLY-BIBLE-1ST-ED_W0QQitemZ7377019320QQcategoryZ2200QQcmdZViewItem
Lisa Ruby wrote:
Gail Riplinger is not a god to be followed and praised and
unquestioned. She is an author who can and does make mistakes. I
am glad the mistakes of men and women have nothing to do with
the authority of God's word in English, the Holy King James
Bible.
Barbara Aho wrote:
"Gail is a protégé of Peter Ruckman, who frequently makes
statements such as the following in his books:
“Correct the Greek with the English. It is always the best
policy; the one that God will bless. Feel free (with a clear
conscience) in always correcting the Greek Receptus with the
Holy Bible [meaning the King James].” ("How to Teach the
‘Original’ Greek," Pensacola: Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1992)
Lisa Ruby wrote:
Thank you for this quote. Now I can say with no hesitation that
Peter Ruckman is a plant. A not-very-subtle one at that.
Barbara Cloud wrote:
David Cloud wrote of Gail Riplinger's many errors in "In Awe of
Thy Word" and her Ruckmanite teaching that the “English KJV
corrects the Greek Textus Receptus”.
Friday Church News Notes, August 12, 2005: http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/fridaynews/pdf/2005/20050812.pdf
“Her newest book again contains many good things in defense of
the KJV but it is interspersed with serious mistakes so that it
is impossible to have confidence in her research or conclusions
at any point. For example, in chapter 22 she claims that John
Wycliffe did not use the Latin Vulgate as the basis for his
translation but that he used Hebrew, Greek, and Old Latin
sources. She says it is a “myth” to say that Wycliffe used the
Latin Vulgate. As a matter of fact, a careful comparison of the
Wycliffe Bible with the Latin Vulgate and the Old Latin
demonstrates that Wycliffe consistently used the Vulgate, with
only a very few exceptions. I have done extensive research into
the textual basis of the Wycliffe New Testament and it contains
most of the textual corruptions found in the Vulgate. For
example, the Wycliffe Bible omits “for thine is the kingdom, and
the power, and the glory, for ever” in Mat. 6:13, “to
repentance” in Mat. 9:13 and Mk. 2:17, “spoken by Daniel the
prophet” in Mk. 13:14, “get thee behind me Satan” in Lk. 4:8,
“the Lord” from 1 Cor. 15:47, “in Christ” in Gal. 3:17, and
“God” in 1 Timothy 3:16, to mention only a few of its textual
errors. In most of these instances, these things are omitted in
the Wycliffe and the Latin Vulgate but are NOT omitted in the
Old Latin, so that it is obvious that Wycliffe was indeed
following the Vulgate rather than the Traditional Greek Text or
the Old Latin. Mrs. Riplinger gives so much seeming
documentation that the average reader is convinced that her
scholarship is sound, not being in a position to see that she
frequently misuses her quotes and reaches conclusions not
supported by the facts given in the documents that she cites as
her authority…
“She also is a true Ruckmanite, teaching that the English KJV is
better than and has replaced the Greek and Hebrew, that there is
no need today for learning or using Greek and Hebrew, and other
such things. If her position were true we would not even have an
English Bible because it was laboriously translated by men who
learned Greek and Hebrew and diligently studied the Scriptures
in those languages! There is a strange, almost cultic element
within the Independent Baptist movement, and Mrs. Riplinger is
right in the middle of it.” [end quote]
Lisa Ruby wrote:
Cloud's citations of Gail Riplinger's mistakes have nothing to
do with whether the King James Bible is preserved perfectly by
God or not. They do reveal that Gail Riplinger is not perfect.
The Wycliffe Bible is not the issue anyway. The issue is whether
the King James Bible is the word of God in English.
[continued in next post]
|
|
7/6/2006, 1:57 am |
Send Email to Lisa Ruby
Send PM to Lisa Ruby
|
Lisa Ruby
Registered user
Global user
Registered:
06-2006
Posts:
14
Karma:
0 (+1/-1)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Barbara Aho, Which Bible is Your Final Authority?
Barbara Aho wrote:
To show how frequently the Wycliffe translation agrees with the
Alexandrian manuscripts and deviates from the Textus Receptus,
we have prepared the following Tables of Comparison:
http://watch.pair.com/n-t-corruption.html
Gail Riplinger also promotes the Gothic Bible as being in the
same line of Byzantine manuscripts as the Textus Receptus. The
problem is that the Gothic Bible was translated by Ulfilas, an
Arian missionary who brought the Arian heresy to Western Gaul in
the 4th C., specifically the South of France where the
Merovingian heresy had taken root. Arius was an arch heretic who
taught that Jesus Christ was a created being.
In his book, "True or False?," David Otis Fuller discussed the
Arianism of the Gothic bible:
The Gothic Version
“Modern scholars have been inclined to overestimate the value of
the testimony of the ancient versions in this place (I Tim.
3:16). …the Syriac ‘Pesh-itta’…cannot lay claim to perfection.
It was evidently influenced by Greek manuscripts like Codex D
and the Latin versions, which have ‘which was manifested’,
instead of ‘God was manifested’. The popularity of this reading
in the Syriac could be explained by the Nestorian influence in
the Syrian Church. Nestorius denied the union of two natures of
God and man in the one Person of Christ. He was accused of
teaching that there were two distinct persons, the Person of God
the Son and the Person of the man Christ Jesus. This teaching
was condemned by the Council of Ephesus in AD 431 at which Cyril
of Alexandria presided. (Cyril himself witnesses in favour of
‘God’ in I Tim. 3:16)...
“Another ancient version likely to prefer the weaker rendering
of this important verse was the Gothic translation by Ulphilas,
who became Bishop of the Goths in AD 348. He was known to favour
the heresy of Arius, who denied the preexistence of the Son of
God, affirming that He was created by God and not of one
substance with the Father.
“Existing manuscripts of the Gothic version indicate some
measure of corruption from Latin sources. The Latin versions all
have ‘which was manifested’. Finding this erroneous reading in
the sources available to him, Ulphilas would have no difficulty
in adopting it, but would be likely to welcome it as favourable
to his Arian views.” (David Otis Fuller citing “God—Was Manifest
in the Flesh... (I Tim. 3:16)” by Terence H. Brown, Secretary of
Trinitarian Bible Society, pp. 33-34) [end quote]
The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition gives a similar profile
of "Ulfilas":
“ULFILAS [Ulfilas] or Wulfila [Gothic,=little wolf], c.311-383,
Gothic bishop, translator of the Bible into Gothic. He was
converted to Christianity at Constantinople and was consecrated
bishop (341) by the Arian bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia. Ulfilas
then returned to the Visigoths as a missionary; it was partly as
a result of Ulfilas's work that the Goths became and remained
Arians for so long in the face of triumphant Catholicism. Of
Ulfilas’s Bible only fragments remain—parts of Genesis,
Nehemiah, most of the Gospels, and the whole of Second
Corinthians, with several more fragments. Ulfilas is said to
have invented the alphabet that he used.” (2006 Columbia
University Press)
There are other serious problems with "In Awe of Thy Word," but
two major issues are that Gail Riplinger is teaching Kabbalism
and turning Christians away from acceptable and very useful
Greek resources for Bible study and directing them to occult
sources instead.
Barbara Aho
Lisa Ruby wrote:
Gail Riplinger recommended a book about letter meanings that
could
lead readers astray but she is not teaching the doctrines
of the Kabbalah in order to defend the King James Bible. If she
was, she would be knowingly serving the devil and linking the
Holy King James Bible with evil.
I have never heard of letter meanings before but I do know that
the enemy of our souls is a counterfeiter, not a creator. He
imitates God. He attributes meaning to numbers because God does.
Of this we are all aware.
[Lisa's note added July 24, 2009:
Please see my
warning about
Gail Riplinger's book,
In Awe of Thy Word. Mrs. Riplinger is teaching that English
letters function as RUNES.
Gail Riplinger
has changed. Be very careful of her writings.]
Gail Riplinger's revelation of the foundation that concordances,
lexicons and interlinears are based on will raise the ire of the
religious establishment because is by their dubious authority
that the gates of hell are prevailing against the church.
May the Holy Spirit lead us into all truth.
"Thy word is truth." (See Jn 17:17)
Lisa Ruby
Last edited by
Lisa Ruby, 7/6/2006, 2:08 am
|
|
7/6/2006, 2:06 am |
Send Email to Lisa Ruby
Send PM to Lisa Ruby
|
Add a reply
Page: 1 2 3
[return to page 2,]
[click to read page
4]
Powered
by AkBBS 0.9.4 - Link
to us - Blogs
- Hall
of Honour - Chat
Click here to get your own free message board
|
You are not logged in (login)
Board's time is: 7/6/2006, 2:10 am |
|
|