A Critique of New Age Bible Versions, Part 11

March 15, 2024 at 5:06 pm (Hermeneutics, Textual Criticism)

In chapter 1, Riplinger argues that the job of all the new versions is to infiltrate the church and thus corrupt it. She seems to think that the modern translations of Philippians 3:3 serve this role. This is one of the more interesting places in textual criticism, since the vast majority of texts have the genitive “theou” instead of the dative “theo.” She only uses the majority argument when it favors her position, and omits all mention of the majority position when it doesn’t. The TR construction allows for how the KJV translates it (interpreting “theo” as the object of the verb, which does normally take the dative, and the “spirit” as a dative of sphere). However, the majority of the texts favor the genitive, in which case the Spirit of God (i.e., the Holy Spirit) is in view as the sphere in which we serve/worship. Riplinger again seems to be making hay out of what is a lexical range of possible meanings for the verb, which can mean either “worship” or “serve.” The context indicates that God is the only possible legitimate object of our worship or our ultimate service. Therefore, the modern translations are really getting at the same thing as the KJV was.

In the next section, we see something that Riplinger will do over and over again. She will list a bunch of quotations from New Age theologians as if they get to define certain words and phrases, note the modern versions’ use of similar phrases, and then equate the meanings assigned to both without any argumentation whatsoever. The first couple of tables have no Scripture references, so I will not bother with them. They are contextless accusations that have no weight whatsoever.

Riplinger makes the utterly bizarre claim that a mere substitution of a title for a name is proof positive of New Age influence. I might answer that the KJV has plenty of titles for God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Does the mere presence of titles in certain passages prove New Age influence? In the discussion, for instance, she adduces the name “Lucifer,” which is in the KJV’s translation of Isaiah 14. It is not a clear passage, but Riplinger is quite confident that the modern translations’ refusal to use the name “Lucifer” to describe Satan in Isaiah 14 is evidence of New Age influence. Her argument is exactly how heretics themselves argue: from the obscure to the clear, rather than vice versa. By translating “morning star” instead of “Lucifer,” the modern translations are supposedly pointing people to Satan. She doesn’t allow for the possibility of counterfeit morning stars. The bright and morning star does indeed point to Jesus Christ. But Satan wants to counterfeit everything Christ does.

Directly slandering modern Bible translators, she accuses the ESV, NIV, NKJV, CSB, and NASB of “spreading mysticism” (15). As we will see, she makes mountains out of molehills, always ascribes motivations where she cannot possibly know them, and uses illegitimate hermeneutical moves (sort of like the Rabbinic key-word exegesis) to “prove” her points.