Spiritual Life
Reasons to Believe
Religions & Sects
Church History
In the News
Faith & Reason Press Speaker's Forum Links Resources About Us

New Age Bible Versions

by H. Wayne House, Paul Carden, Marian Bodine and Rich Poll

A Summary Critique: New Age Bible Versions,

G. A. Riplinger
(A. V. Publications, 1993)

Another book against modern versions of the Bible has entered the marketplace. Like previous works by King James Version (KJV)-only advocates, it argues for the KJV and/or majority text-type as being truer to the original manuscripts than the modern critical Greek texts and their underlying textual traditions. It goes beyond previous works, however, by developing a conspiracy theory for the KJV-only view. Author G. A. Riplinger believes that lying behind modern versions (especially the NASB and NIV, apparently) is New Age influence.

Until the late 19th century, the texts used by scholars generally were built on a manuscript tradition begun in the seventh century of the Christian era (though I would concede that some readings found in this tradition date back before the fourth century). With the discovery of older Greek manuscripts, and other New Testament manuscripts, critical texts began to be built on manuscripts developed in the fourth and fifth centuries -- in addition to a number of ancient papyri, some of which date into the second century. Riplinger rejects these earlier manuscripts and urges us to return to the Bible of the precritical era.

If there is anything good to say about Riplinger's New Age Bible Versions (hereafter NABV), it is that the book is not any longer than it is and that the foolishness of its various claims are transparent when one takes the time to study them. Unfortunately, NABV has received considerable praise from many popular authors who either did not really take the time to evaluate the book or apparently share Riplinger's ignorance of the issues of textual criticism and translation.

NABV is replete with logical, philosophical, theological, biblical, and technical errors. Riplinger lacks the proper training to write this book (her M.A. and M.F.A. in "Home Economics" notwithstanding). Many of her errors arise from a lack of understanding of Old and New Testament textual criticism as well as biblical and theological studies. In a two-hour debate I had with her, I found her very able to articulate her position. But she repeatedly mispronounced terms used by biblical scholars and did not seem to understand the development of the textual tradition from the Byzantine/"majority" manuscripts to the Erasmian text used by the translators of the KJV. Moreover, I had to ask her four times before she hesitatingly admitted that she really could not read Greek.

A seminary degree is not required to understand the matters of Bible transmission and translation. But one must learn the history and methodology of textual transcription and transmission, and gain a good grasp of the Hebrew and Greek languages, before one "pontificates" on the subject as Riplinger has done. Simply comparing the KJV with the NIV and NASB through endless charts does not prove a thing. She needs to demonstrate that the specific translations she accepts are really better textual renditions than the alternatives she rejects, rather than merely assuming the superiority of the majority text type or the KJV.

I have no personal interest in defending the NIV or NASB. I prefer to use the NKJV (New King James Version), though I adopt a more eclectic view of textual criticism than its translators, who hold to the majority text theory.

In order to do justice to a review of NABV in such short space, I will categorize the types of errors Riplinger makes throughout her work and then provide an illustration of each.


Riplinger commits a logical fallacy commonly employed by those whose arguments are weak: an appeal to authority. In a newsletter, she explains her reason for writing the book and claims some sense of divine inspiration for her work: "Daily, during the six years needed for this investigation, the Lord miraculously brought the needed materials and resources -- much like the ravens fed Elijah. Each discovery was not the result of effort on my part, but of the direct hand of God -- so much so that I hesitated to even put my name on the book. Consequently, I used G. A. Riplinger, which signifies to me, God and Riplinger -- God as author and Riplinger as secretary."[1]

Certainly we should not credit God with being a participant in the writing of NABV unless we are prepared to affirm that God commits the kind of errors manifestly obvious in her book. This I am unwilling to do.

Another example of this approach may be found in a debate between Riplinger and James White, where, upon being challenged on her acrostic algebra, she claimed it was given to her by God.[2] Note her method, which involves deleting the common letters of NASV and NIV, and then deleting the letters A and V from what is left:

Step 1: (NASV-NIV)-AV = X
Step 2: (NASV-nIv)-AV = X
Step 3: (ASI+NV)-AV = X
Step 4: aSI--NV-AV = X
Step 5: SIN = X

The success of this arbitrary method of determining truth depends on using NASV rather than NASB (the customary designation for the New American Standard Bible), and using AV rather than KJV (the customary designation for the King James Version). When asked about this alternation, Riplinger said God calls the NASB the NASV.

One may construct a similar "acrostic" to Riplinger's but have far different results: Rather than using two versions, however, let us use seven (the perfect number of God): Cunard's Authorized (CA), King James II (KJ2), Hayman's Epistles (HE), Revised English Bible (REB), New International Version (NIV), New American Standard Bible (NASB), and Barclay's New Testament (BNT). In omitting all the letters in common one is left with CKJHRIVST-KJV, and thus CHRIST. Using Riplinger's logic these versions must be from God.[3]


A major error Riplinger makes is impugning the theological integrity of evangelical scholars by identifying their thinking with New Age ideology. She does this without realizing, apparently, that the views she criticizes are representative of theological positions held by Christian theologians and laypeople for much of the history of the church.

Riplinger, for example, charges Edwin Palmer, executive secretary of the NIV committee, with denying that the Holy Spirit participated in the conception (begetting) of Jesus, seeking to equate his views with Mormon theology (p. 344). The context of Palmer's statement, "The Holy Spirit did not beget the Son," however, indicates that he was speaking of the eternal begetting of the Son from the Father within the Trinity, not the physical conception of the Second Person as the man Jesus.[4] Her quote from Brigham Young, however, speaks of the physical conception of Jesus through Mary.[5] This is careless scholarship or confused theology at best, but it may be outright deception on her part to prove her ill-founded theory about the supposed heresies of the NIV.

When Palmer does speak of the conception of Jesus Christ, he clearly indicates that the Holy Spirit was personally involved:

The Holy Spirit was needed at the very start of Jesus' human life, at his incarnation. By the word incarnation we mean that act by which the second Person of the Trinity, remaining God, 'became flesh and lived for a while among us' (John 1:14). This act was effected by the Holy Spirit, as is seen by both Matthew's statement that Mary 'was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit' (1:18), and the angel's announcement to Mary that the 'Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you' (Luke 1:35). The Holy Spirit is the cause of the conception of Jesus. He is the one, and not the Father nor the Son, let alone Joseph, who planted the seed of life in a mysterious way in Mary's womb.[6]