"INSTITUTIONAL [hypocritical] CHRISTIANITY" vs "HISTORIC CHRISTIANITY"
"Bible Versions by Gail Riplinger – whether you like this Book or not"
Why do we mention Gail's book in the context of "whether you like this Book or not" ?
Because we think that it is important to understand, that whether or not you use this book to explain the problems of Modern Versions of the Bible, there is often a perception by mainstream evangelicals that 1) Gail Riplinger's book is the Only One on this topic of the corruption of Modern Versions of the Bible, and 2) the arguements in her book were responded to successfully by James White in his book the KJV-Only controversy.
Those who study either book for more than 15 minutes know that these perceptions are not accurate .But in order to question the premise that Riplinger's book is NOT accurate, one must read it first.
Most Pastors who are against Gail's Book have NOT read the book for themselves. So it is important that you - a defender for the KJV and against the corruption found in Modern Versions, would be able to explain to Pastors - just what Riplinger's book actually said, - even though the people that you are explaining this to...will probably claim to have read it in anycase.
Some people think that they have read a book just because they have read a few pages of that book. We think that it is important that people (and especially Pastors and Church Leaders) read this book entirely, whether one agrees with her conclusions or one does not.
[Note: NEXT TIME that someone criticizes Riplinger's book to you, ask them directly: "Have you actually read her book yourself ?". If they say "yes", then ask them: "Did you read the book entirely or only a few pages or chapters ?". Don't accept to take it for granted...that because they criticize Gail Riplinger's book - that this means that they have read it. ]
However, the purpose of the book was to raise issues that others had not been willing to talk about. Since those issues were there for more than 30 years (actually since Westcott & Hort), it was time for those issues to be raised. The fact that other books making the same points as Gail's were not available to the public did not mean that those issues were not valid.
On the contrary, there were some books that came out prior to Gail Riplinger's work - on the same topic - that were valid. Those books were ignored by "Instititutional Christianity", by which we mean the Christian news media, Christian magazines (such as Christianity Today), and major Christian leaders.
The fact that Gail's book could receive the publicity it did, and raise issues that those leaders had no answers to was a major problem for "Institutional Christianity". Please do not confuse "Institutional Christianity" with Historic Christianity.
Historic Christianity is: The Christianity of the Bible which is found throughout History and the Historical Record since the time of Jesus Christ.
"Institutional Christianity" is: those 10 to 100 people who control 90% of Christian Media and Christian publications (including publishing and Christian magazines) within the so called "evangelical circles". It is these leaders who - for better or worse - were greatly convicted by Riplinger's work...and even only what they heard about her book ----> and this is why they became so hostile to its message.
Their first goal was essentially to ignore her work. Their second goal was to try to ensure that others would do the same. In that sense, James White's book serves as the book which pretends to respond to her points...while actually ignoring most of them.
But at least - Institutional Christianity - Can "congratulate itself" that it has played its own role in putting evangelicals back to sleep.
For awhile, institutional Christianity was very concerned about this. It looked as though Chrsitians were going to wake up, as though they were going to study the Bible for themselves. But Institutional Christianity helped to distract them, to give them instead fads and recipes and small "ten minutes with Jesus" devotionals.
The Idea that Christians would know and study their Bible and History has always been something which worried Institutional Christian Leaders, because Christians would know just how strong personal Christianity had been - historically - and would also learn how to go about making that difference...in society today.
Institutional Christian leaders seek to DILUTE the influence of Christians today, and further seek to neutralize those who want to hold those Institutional Christian Leaders personally accountable in any way. That is one of the reasons why there are so few forums (within Institutional Christianity)...that will allow the issue of Bible Debates to surface, and be discussed and debated.
One reason why Institutional Christianity is so disturbed by the King James Bible - is not because it preaches truth and accuracy - though it does do that. It is one of the few Bible in English that actually shows the number of changes that have taken place...in the Modern Versions. It shows how much the New Versions have altered, changed, watered down, changed the emphasis, created a different emphasis, and in other ways - altered the Word of God. That their deceit is being uncovered is what they find offensive.
Books such as Riplinger's book(s) now demonstrate not only that the Bible is being changed, but that it is being changed a) systematically and b) deliberately. Obviously those who were making the changes - and to those who are still planning on making more changes...found it disturbing that people were actually disclosing to the public, the changes that were being made.
The point that we want to be sure and state - is that those who are on the side of the KJV, must read Riplinger's book and its contents, simply in order to be sure that they are familiar with its contents, and can learn how to find more facts and evidence that can demonstrate it to be accurate. The point about those who are pro-KJV needing to research and read the material that favors their side of the debate...is just as valid...as it is for the opposition.
Overall, it remains an accurate books, and its conclusions remain valid as well. Those of you who have questions about it are welcome to write to us (or other ministries) and we will help if we can.
We believe that many people are under the impression that the KJV debates are easily solved, and that whatever material is on the Internet is sufficient.
- Skeptics will ask:
How can you say this is an "easy" debate - in the context of all of the information you have posted on your site, that would tend to demonstrate that one has to do a lot of preparation - in order to be able to convince others?
- Because we are not talking about That context. We are not discussing the content of the material on our own website. We are talking about a wider context. It is important not only to respond to the initial arguments - advanced by Modern Version advocates, but to be able to respond to their in-depth arguments as well.
We know that we have posted some reasonably good initial information about the KJV and other versions. But we want to be sure you know the encouraging news: there is a lot more information - that supports the KJV that we have Not posted.
The reason is that the arguments are too technical and require too much space to be able to address them all. (The other reason is that it is cost-prohibitive at this point for us to be able to do this).
An example of this is the book "The Revision Revised" by Burgon. It is a good book, even though we won't be posting much of the information here. There are even a few good reviews of the book on the Internet. But none of the information - ABOUT the "Revision Revised" which is available on the net, comes close to the actual information, contained in the book itself.
We are often amazed at the Pro-KJV people who write to us, and ask us where to find manuscript evidence that would agree with the pro-KJV position. Those people are either a) beginners in these debates or b) have never read or seen "The Revision Revised" (Offered for FREE in PDF Here) by Oxford Professor John William Burgon. That book explains not only many of the manuscripts that DO agree with the KJV, but that book (among ohters) also explains a great deal about the manuscripts that Don't agree with the KJV and formed the basis for the work of Westcott & Hort.
We want pro-KJV people to know that - based on our own research - percentage of the information that supports the KJV - that is available or has been posted on the internet - at least so far (fall 03) is about 10% of the information that is available.
SO in plain terms: we are stating that there is 90% of additional material that a) supports the KJV and b) disagrees with the Modern Versions...that has Not Been Posted to the Internet.
However, in addition to the initial work done by Riplinger, other important sources of information on the KJV/Modern Versions debate...can be found both in The Revision Revised by Burgon, and in Which Version by Philip Mauro (which is on the RSV specifically, ancestor to the ASV, the RSV, the NRSV, the NASB, and the new ESV).
_____________
Secret Rapture ? - Rapture Verses - Rapture and Tribulation - Free 1800s Rapture Ebook
Mary - Goddess Worship in The Roman Catholic Context - Idolatry - Mary as Goddess
Scofield Never Agreed with Westcott and Hort
Coming - Where is the other 90% of the Information and how would knowing it or learning this information affect me ?
Helpful to you in your studies:
Support this Ministry - Buy a Book !
Purchase the books we offer and support this ministry !
FREE For WINDOWS P.C. - MAC - VISTA - LINUX -
FREE EBOOKS
[
CFree
Ebooks
P
]
- DOWNLOAD
EBOOKS
IN PDF 
FORMAT
We would love to hear from you at our E Mail Address HERE