Out of curiosity, in her new book does Riplinger continue to talk trash about the Leningrad Codex? What does she say about it?

Gail writes about the problems,some small some great , in current Hebrew editions. She exposes the heretical beliefs of Liddell-Scott, Gesenius, Ruechlin, Ginsburg, Bomberg, Thayer, Strong, Vine, Zodhiates, Brown, Driver and Briggs, etc...Gail has stated the problems with R Kittel's Biblica Hebreaica Stuttgartensia (Bible Hebrew Stuttgart) published by the Pontifical Biblical Institue in her earlier works. Kittel placed thousands of false footnotes in his book. R Kittel was an anti semite and a hellenistic mystery religion occultist.
She does write about Gerhard Kittel's anti-semitism in New Age Bible Version's chapter 41 Lucifer's Lexicons. Kittel was Hitler's propaganda high priest. His Theological Dictionary of the New Testament is today considered the authority on Bible definitions at seminaries.
The question is, do we rely on word study tools from men or rely on the Holy Spirit guiding us unto all truth. Do we trust that God has given His living Word to us prefect and entire as our inspired KJV or do we have to wait for an archaeologist to dig up an original?

Not related. I'm just a raw scholar defending a godly woman against apostates.
Not one of you has yet to give any specifics on Gail Riplinger's errors or errors in the KJV. Just smoke and hot air.
$1 Bud, casino promos, half naked young men. Is this a Jesuit forum?

And Kindergarten Scholar wants to gamble off his BMW. So, I see that he fits right in with the Google supplied advertisements.

Where is a picture of your car Kindergarten Scholar? You still have not posted it. Or, were you bluffing just like G.A. Riplinger, Harvard?

__________________
Simply observing the floccinoccinihilipilification of the KJVO movement.

For my Arminian friends who need a new understanding of particular redemption, click here: http://www.imeem.com/people/hX0Ft9/m...-accomplished/

My Facebook Profile

The following post was copied from a post made by a poster named Euthymius at the Bible Version Discussion Board. He has given permission for others to share his comments concerning Riplinger's new book.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In her zeal to defend KJV readings at any cost, GAR not only reveals her utter ignorance about Greek, but in the process ends up condemning the KJV translators themselves! Hard to believe? Read on (bracketed insertion by me; italics in the main quote by GAR):

p. 665 -- "James 3:14. [KJV "But if ye have ... strife in your hearts"] The Greek text has 'ye' and 'your.' To have these plurals refer to and modify a singular noun, 'heart' would be a choice any English teacher could question. Therefore the KJB refuses to make a questionable grammatical choice and therefore uses the plural 'hearts,' in this context instead of 'heart,' as seen in Berry's and Scrivener's ..."

FACT: For the record, a minority textual variation exists here (following manuscripts Aleph (Sinaiticus) 323 945 1241 1739 2298 al latt bo) that reads the plural "hearts" (KARDIAIS), as in the KJV, while the Berry and Scrivener TRs, along with the majority text and the Nestle/UBS critical texts all read the singular "heart" (KARDIA).

Secondly, GAR's overall thrust in this portion of HazMat (pp. 654-668) is that she claims to have "demonstrated at least 20 errors in Scrivener's Greek Textus Receptus which have Greek textual support." These readings with "Greek textual support" are present in the KJV, even if not present in the main text of any TR or critical text edition.

The point here is that (according to Gail) the KJV thereby proves itself superior to any printed Greek text because, not only does the KJV reading have some Greek support (albeit very minor), but also because the KJV translators were astute enough not "to make a questionable grammatical choice" which "any English teacher could question." Remember that (according to Gail) such "plurals" could not "refer to or modify a singular noun." GAR would certainly say the same thing about Col. 3:16, KJV "singing with grace in your [plural] hearts," where the Greek KARDIA of the Berry/Scrivener and majority printed editions is also singular, but where the Nestle/UBS text has the plural (KARDIAIS).

So far so good (perhaps GAR might think).

But then what does GAR do about the KJV renderings at the following locations, where the plurals "your" or "our" are followed by the singular "heart"? (remember that in KJV English, "ye" and "your" are always plural) --

Mt. 6:21 -- there will your heart be
Mk. 8:17 -- have ye your heart yet hardened
Lk. 12:34 -- there will your heart be
Eph. 5:19 -- making melody in your heart
Eph. 6:5 -- singleness of your heart

Lk. 24:32 -- did not our heart burn
2Co. 6:11 -- our heart is enlarged
1Jn. 3:20-21 -- if our heart condemn us not, God is greater than our heart ... if our heart condemn us not"

Ooops.....

Repeating GAR's strong declaration with emphasis added by me:

"To have these plurals refer to and modify a singular noun, 'heart' would be a choice any English teacher could question."

Well, apparently the KJV translators themselves did exactly that -- not once, but at least 10 times in the NT alone! The same KJV translators, by Gail's own standard, apparently "got it right" only twice (Jas 3:14 and Col. 3:16). Shame on them!

Therefore, if the KJV translators were wrong 10 other times -- as GAR clearly is claiming by her strong and absolute statement -- then the KJV at those 10 places must be in error, and need some "correction" by English/Greek "experts" such as GAR herself, right? And if so, then the KJV is not the "perfect translation" as claimed, but still contains errors that need correction....

Ooops again....

Ends up sort of like a KJVO suicide bombing.....

GAR would do herself well to either learn Greek, learn English, or "to learn in silence with all subjection" (1Tim. 2:11), rather than spouting off about that which she clearly does not understand.....
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Hi Folks,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coverdale "James 3:14. [KJV "But if ye have ... strife in your hearts"] The Greek text has 'ye' and 'your.' To have these plurals refer to and modify a singular noun, 'heart' would be a choice any English teacher could question. Therefore the KJB refuses to make a questionable grammatical choice and therefore uses the plural 'hearts,' in this context instead of 'heart,' as seen in Berry's and Scrivener's ..."

This is obvious from the context of James, that a singular noun in the Greek would be a collective singular that would not translate well in James 3 into English without a plural of number. Paul is giving an exhortation to the community as a whole and the hearts therein.

James 3:1
My brethren, be not many masters,
knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation.

3:14
But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts,
glory not, and lie not against the truth.

The NAS and ASV and some other versions do go the awkward route.

James 3:14
But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your heart,
do not be arrogant and so lie against the truth

Although today the NIV and ESV would be examples of versions that have returned to the superior grammar flow and sense of the KJB and the Geneva.

Geneva
But if ye haue bitter enuying and strife in your hearts,
reioyce not, neither be liars against the trueth.

The address is to the community as a whole, so hearts is clearly superior.

Interestingly, Rotherdam is the only smart 'literal' Bible of the three, with hearts, Green and Young, not surprisingly, put in the English single of number. The English translations of the Syriac (Lamsa) and Latin (Rheims) have the superior 'hearts' plural.

And it is actually easy to see that the other verses given by Euthymius are quite different. (For most, it is unlikely that they are split even in the modern versions.) They clearly allow for additional nuances of the precise grammar of each phrase.

Thus the Norris-Euthymius criticism here is quite strained and convoluted. It makes for an interesting study but is more arrogance (the presentation is grossly deficient) than substance.

Since Gail Riplinger's words were cautious and guarded:

"'heart' would be a choice any English teacher could question."

Euthymius and Norris have to morph this to accuse.

"" Remember that (according to Gail) such "plurals" could not "refer to or modify a singular noun."

However Gail Riplinger did not say that such reference was impossible:

"could not" - had to be inserted by the dynamic duo

Gail wrote simply that it should be questioned (especially in a verse like James 3:14).
The deception here is Euth-Norris. Tawdry.

Now to some other comments.

Gail Riplinger
"in this context instead of 'heart,' as seen in Berry's and Scrivener's "

Scrivener's Paragraph Bible has the superior 'hearts' so this likely refers to the formal 'literal' Greek grammar. I dunno if Berry or Scrivener place the literal heart in an English edition. Either way, there is nothing wrong with the Gail Riplinger comment, although it could be elucidated more fully.

As to the larger context, I really cannot comment in depth without reading the full section. I would probably disagree if this is given as one of "20 errors in Scrivener's Greek Textus Receptus which have Greek textual support." since I doubt that this is a Greek error and languages tend to be quite fluid in the use of the collective singular. It could be seen more effectively as an example where the English Bible is clearer than the Greek text, which the literalist could stumble over. As to whether Gail Riplinger calls this a Greek TR "error" I would like to see the section as a whole, since I have learned not to trust Euthymius-Norris extractions. If she does call it an error, that would be the proper base of critique, a defense of the Greek TR formal singular, which translates to an English plural of number.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

I assume this means that Riplinger does not discuss the Leningrad Codex in her new book.

Rudolph Kittel's Biblia Hebraica, in its first two editions (1909, 1912) used as its main text that of the Second Rabbinic Bible, edited by Jacob ben-Hayyim and published in Venice in 1525 -- which was also used as the main text of Ginsburg's editions. The third edition (1937), some 8 years after Kittel's death and edited by his colleague Paul Kahle, used instead as the main text the Leningrad Codex, written in AD 1006, purportedly scrupulously copied from a master codex worked up personally by Aaron ben Asher, last and reputedly the best of the Massoretes. Kittel, while alive, had hoped to use instead of the ben-Hayyim text, the Aleppo Codex, approximately 60-80 years older than the Leningrad, reputedly the oldest complete Hebrew Bible and personally corrected by Moses ben Asher, but the congregation of the Great Synagogue in Aleppo refused to allow its ms to be copied -- and had been extremely reluctant to let any stranger even touch the ms since one had made a few illicit photographs in bright sunlight ca 1880.

Anyway, not having access to the Aleppo Codex, Kahle felt that the Leningrad Codex was the next best manuscript, in terms of age, authority, and completeness. The 1937 edition of Biblia Hebraica used a photo facsimile which had been worked up before the Russian Revolution, so the precision and detail left something to be desired. Far more recently, circa 1990, the Leningrad Codex was rephotographed, this time with extremely high-tech methods that enable erasures and the like to be detected.

In 1948, the Great Synagogue in Aleppo was firebombed and the Aleppo Codex reportedly destroyed. In fact, about half the ms was lost (although the remaining part does not show fire damage) and the surviving part smuggled into Israel. On the basis of the surviving portion, some notes based on eyewitness examination of the Aleppo Codex made many decades earlier, and the Leningrad Codex to supply the missing portions, a new edition of the Hebrew text was worked up by Bauer and recently published under the name of the Crown of Jerusalem.

Anyway, the Biblia Hebraica begun by Kittel and continued by Kahle was originally published by the Wurtemnberg Bible Society in [West] Germany until around 1975 when the same Bible Society became the Stuttgart Bible Society. It was not published by the Pontifical Bible Institute. Nor was Rudolph Kittel an anti-semite; his history of the Biblical kingdoms of Israel and Judea was published in English by a Jewish publishing house. I have absolutely no evidence that he was an occultist. Paul Kahle later found it necessary to flee the Nazis and he settled in London.

Kittel's apparatus criticus was/is not "false footnotes"; these are variant readings that actually exist in ancient versions such as the Peshitta and the Septuagint and in Hebrew mss (the recent editions include citations to the Dead Sea Scrolls). These are very informative, especially when dealing with obscurities.

For reason I cannot understand, Riplinger has described the Leningrad Codex as "corrupt". But she has not pointed to any place where it departs from, say, the ben-Hayyim text; the instances where such a variant would make a difference to a translator are undoubtedly very few. The Leningrad Codex - evidently unlike the Aleppo Codex even before 1948 - includes not only the whole of the Hebrew OT but also numerous appendices on the Massoretic notes, Hebrew grammar and the like, which indicates that it was fully intended to be an encyclopedic Bible codex.

Hi Folks,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tamar For reason I cannot understand, Riplinger has described the Leningrad Codex as "corrupt".

And I tend to agree that this is overdone in the writings of many King James Bible defenders. You have the small variants that do exist, maybe a dozen or so that clearly have an effect on the translation of words and phrases, and my understanding is that there is sloppy (inconsistent) pointing such as on the Tetragram.

And the editors who went with the Leningrad as their base are often modernists bent towards false emendation and sporadic mistranslations. (Which probably has the most to do with the lineage of how the corrupt allegation arose.)

That being said, the Leningrad Codex itself should not be considered "corrupt". e.g. This would allow the accusation of the small differences in the Received Text Greek manuscripts to be used to call specific editions "corrupt" - which would be a misnomer. Some corruptions in an individual manuscript do not justify calling the manuscript itself corrupt. Many major corruptions will, so it is always proper to call any Greek OT manuscript "abjectly corrupt" or the Vulgate OT as "generally faithful to the Hebrew yet frequently corrupt". Wordsmiths should try to ply their craft with precision.

There are also two general types of corruption of a manuscript. The Dean John Burgon discussion of the Codex Bezae NT is excellent in making this distinction. There is textual corruption (e.g. every Greek OT ms unless newly translated from the Masoretic Text, every Critical Text NT ms) and there is scribal corruption. Codex Bezae hit high low-notes on both .

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Kindergarten Kook said:

The question is, do we rely on word study tools from men or rely on the Holy Spirit guiding us unto all truth.

Is that what Riplinger relies on? Because if so, we are all without hope, as the Holy Spirit appears to be some sort of lying demon.

__________________
Take care,
Scott
>>>Minion of BASSENCO<<<
as outed by Shiloh

"In the heat of composition I find that I have inadvertently allowed myself to assume the form of a large centipede. I am accordingly dictating the rest to my secretary." - C. S. Lewis

Riplinger a "godly woman" Ha, unless you say a lying woman is a godly woman. And yes, her lies and misquotes have been documented.

Here are some "specifics on Gail riplingers errors"
http://strictandparticular.blogspot....ble%20Versions
http://www.avpublications.org/gail-r...misquotes.html
http://vintage.aomin.org/NABVR.html

__________________
II Corinthians 1:20 ESV "For all the promises of God find their Yes in him. That is why it is through him that we utter our Amen to God for his glory."

Jude 24-25 ESV "Now to him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless before the presence of his glory with great joy, to the only God, our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen."