<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d14792577\x26blogName\x3dPLAIN+PATH+PURITAN\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dBLUE\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttp://electofgod.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://electofgod.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d3757314713231228019', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>


Gail Riplinger's approach that goes over the heads of her critics

The comment below was written to self-identified 'anti-critical text bible' people who yet could not but help themselves in being man-fearing and obsequious towards inane critical text scholars. In the comment is also some information on Gail Riplinger they didn't know, and that critical text scholars are incapable of understanding, being shallow with regards to literature and art and similar influences in general...

If by your definition of English preservationist you are calling Riplinger an English preservationist then you are wrong. In that case you’d have to also call her a German preservationist and a French preservationist and a Dutch preservationist, etc.

One point: I make a distinction between the underlying manuscripts as one subject, and the translation of those manuscripts as another subject (Riplinger does as well). But in truth the two bleed into each other (and Riplinger writes based on this fact, which may be what is making you see her as a so-called English Preservationist), again, in truth the two bleed into each other more than that distinction recognizes, and it is also a concession to dumb, mocking critical text academics to even make that distinction.

The English language is more at the bedrock of God’s preservation of His Word(s) starting with the Gothic than is being recognized here. The Traditional Text (Hebrew and Greek) and the English language are more intertwined (in terms of carrying the meaning of the words themselves) than it is currently ‘cool’ for you all to even begin to hint at or accept publicly or privately given the fear I see here of seeming ‘non-academic’ in the face of empty, dumb, inane critical text scholars and their mocking.

What I’m seeing here is people who feel a need to stake out a middle ground between ‘embarrassing unwashed non-academic’ believers and critical text scholars (who by default you consider to be less embarrassing even though by your own standards - biblical - they are empty and inane and dangerous fools.

This is a form of worldly fearing of man.

Think about this regarding the connection of English with the Traditional Text in terms of carrying the very meaning of the words down through history: critical text scholars unthinkingly and necessarily (and really, actually, shamelessly) use that English document (the English Bible that culminated in the AV1611 that was refined through the history of God’s people from the Gothic) as their ‘base’ and ’standard’. They would be lost at sea without it. They don’t *just* use it to give themselves and their products derivative seriousness or to actively defile the standard. They really *have* to use it. Their products would be babylonish in a most revealing and extreme way if they didn’t stick to the foundation of the English Bible refined to the culmination that is the AV1611. They are shameless in this sense, and they aren’t called on this enough if ever.

To make the point of the last paragraph clearer: the Critical Text industry doesn’t just need the English Bible that culminated in the AV1611 to be able to make any translation *at all* that isn’t babylonish, but they *also need it* to have the meaning of the very words themselves (and also thus to provide the standard to make their dutiful-to-Satan deviations from, not only in their finished bible products but also in the language reference products they make authoritative). If they didn’t have it for that their bible products would be so doctrinally unorthodox based on the standard of the Reformation (recovered apostolic biblical doctrine) that they would be exposed for what they are: liberal, unbelieving, children of babel and disobedience.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

>> The English language is more at the bedrock of God’s preservation of His Word(s) starting with the Gothic than is being recognized here. <<

English is derived from the Gothic?


No, English is a derivative of West Germanic while Gothic is a derivative of East Germanic. Two entirely different streams.

I don't think your opponents are the ones who are missing insight into the issue.

March 8, 2009 at 12:00 PM  
Blogger c.t. said...

>English is derived from the Gothic?

That is, of course, not what I wrote. But this is par for the course with critical text people. When you despise the authority of God and demand all fear and revere man like you do then you will engage in dishonesty at every step to protect your devilish world.

The context is the Word of God culminating in the AV1611, not the direct line of the English language. In this sense 'Germanic' is the connection, not east or west.

And the Gothic Bible was translated from the Traditional Text. Not the Arian, Egyptian dung beetle filth of Vaticanus and Ssssssinaiticus.

Try again, genius.

March 8, 2009 at 5:46 PM  
Blogger c.t. said...

And while you're here reading this, Criticial Text genius, why don't you suggest to your fellow geniuses that they maybe should stop plagiarizing from the traditional English Bible. Go ahead, show your ability to translate the Word of God from your favorite manuscripts all on your own. Come on, geniuses. Oh, I forgot, you can't. You never could. You not only need the foundation of the Authorized Version to derive the seriousness that you lack, but you need it to know what all those strange Hebrew and Greek words even mean. If you didn't use the Bible of God's elect to make your filthy bible products you'd expose yourselves as the children of the devil that you are.

March 8, 2009 at 5:53 PM  
Blogger c.t. said...

I said it years ago: God's elect have no more patience for these man-fearers and their filthy Jesuit, word-of-man bible products.

March 8, 2009 at 5:59 PM  
Blogger c.t. said...

Run back to your seminary with your devil tail between your legs.

March 8, 2009 at 6:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am not a CT person. You were ranting against TR people who are not swayed by Riplinger's many heresies. And your contex (and your ignorance) are very obvious. Seems like you have a lot of personal issues as well. Bye. -:)

March 8, 2009 at 6:16 PM  
Blogger c.t. said...

CT people always say, especially when they are writing anonymously, "I'm not a critical text person." Of course they aren't. Who wants to defend the indefensible? They are cowards who can only fool and defile innocents, and if the innocents are God's elect they can only defile them for a season. God's own know the voice of the Shepherd. The devil can only play for time. The devil's followers actually think the devil can defeat God, but the devil knows better than his followers. The devil knows he can only play for time.

March 8, 2009 at 6:24 PM  
Blogger c.t. said...

>You were ranting against TR people who are not swayed by Riplinger's many heresies.

What you were doing was licking James White's ball sack because you were shivering in fear when an elect of God showed up at your fake pro-Traditional Text website. "James! James! Come and defend us!!!"

March 8, 2009 at 6:28 PM  
Blogger c.t. said...

This is the context, genius, you've seen it before:

King James Version

Yeah, I know, you think English has always sounded and read like the New Living Translation and your other new age bible products. I'm sure you've spilled many a tear on your favorite new age bible product reading about the One who brought crystals from the ascended masters. Oh, wait, I forget the critical text scholars havn't gotten around to including those parts in the new, improved bible products based on the newly discovered manuscripts...

March 8, 2009 at 6:40 PM  
Blogger c.t. said...

One of the owners of the website this anonymous came from wrote a post saying the King James Bible needs to be rewritten. He then wrote a retraction. One of those 'retractions' that don't actually retract anything. It exposed the line of demarcation between God's elect and the embarrassed man-fearers who don't know God.

March 8, 2009 at 6:45 PM  
Blogger c.t. said...

For the record God's elect aren't embarrassed by any defenders of God's pure and whole Word. Not Gail Riplinger, not any of God's elect who can see and value the Traditional Text in sound translation.

God's elect don't care if the world mocks us. We expect it. The world and the devil not only mocked but put to death our brothers and sisters throughout history who did the hard work in defending and handing down God's pure and whole Traditional Text. We recognize that and value it, and God's elect will continue to defend the Traditional Text against the corrupting influences of the world and the devil.

March 8, 2009 at 6:49 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home