Talk:Gail Riplinger/Archive 1

message: REMINDER: Poorly sourced comments and vandalism are not allowed in Wikipedia articles or talk pages. To the person 75.26.169.54 who continues to vandalize this site, all the information that people have contributed to this article so far is 100% documented with page numbers and sources. The page numbers and source name of all Riplinger examples are WELL documented, which means they are within Wikipedia guidelines. What you are doing is vandalism and it will not be tolerated. If you are a Christian then you will abide by the rules of this site. If you don't like them you may leave it. Doesn't God require you to obey rules and live in peace with all people? It seems you need to spend more time reading your Bible instead of causing trouble where you have no right to. Your nasty attitude is far from that of a Christian and you set a very poor example for what Christianity is supposed to be.67.142.130.37 01:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 67.142.130.37: Thank you for pointing out the validity of the sources, but please be careful with your comments - a person's spiritual beliefs should not interfere with their editing of this page in any way. That's why the offending comment below was removed; telling people that they will go to Hell for for "slandering" Riplinger (as that poster said we would) is NOT appropriate, but neither is telling someone they should edit responsibly as a Christian. Just try to keep religion out of the talk page altogether. (This is, once again, directed at all editors, not just you.) :) --DearPrudence 04:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Instead of rambling on like a robot repeating what most KJOs say when they have no argument, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and start checking the references that go with the information added to this article. If you think it's "vandalism" then PROVE IT and stop repeating the same old non-arguments. If you decide not to take the smarter road, keep your mouth closed, because you are wearing your I.Q. on your lapels. In other words, the spew that KJOs keep reciting without any solidity to their "arguments" is getting mighty old and a lot of people are tired of hearing it.67.142.130.34 02:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I tried to edit this article to tone it down as much as humanly possible and still present GAR for what she is. She really is a conspiracy theorist, and openly talks about the conspiracy in her own book. She really is a home economics professor. Her scholarship is lampooned by anyone who bothers to review her books. The article is more neutral now, so I hope it passes the NPOV test - if not, tell me how to fix it. GAR is extremely important in the KJO world. Her book basically split the KJO world into two camps - the "textual" KJO who advocate a return to the Textus Receptus, and the "conspiracy" KJO who see modern Bibles as a way to undermine Christianity. Her book is more or less an epoch marker for this split, just as the Wilkinson book is an epoch marker for the "good" and "bad" Greek texts, an issue which never came up in earlier times. Scott1329m 12:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent vandalism

message: Is Gail divorced? Does anybody know? 24.205.52.191 23:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 69.179.60.71, please do not let your religious views filter into your edits to this article or its talk page. This talk page often turns into a religious battleground, and as this is an encyclopaedia (which means that we must remain neutral), it's the last thing we want to happen. --DearPrudence 05:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Divorced

message: I've just cleaned up the Controversy section; many of the examples of misquotes had to be removed, as the section was too long, but I kept a couple of them and created a Misquotes section.
However, I've left up the "expand this section" template as more information on her controversial ideas needs to be added - misquotes are, to be sure, a big part of it, but there is more. --DearPrudence 08:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: DearPrudence: Thank you for editing the Misquote section. I knew it was a lot of info and detail and wanted to give the best picture of some of the misquoting but am glad you chose which examples were best to keep in the article. I am currently working on a section concerning Westcott and Hort being misquoted by Riplinger to make them appear as "evolutionists" and "liberals" when they were not. I have original copies of most of the Westcott books (as well as his son's two volume bio) cited by Riplinger and have been able to verify Riplinger's incredible misquoting of him. I will post several examples so you can choose which ones are best. Thanks. FannyMay 00:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, good! Thank you. They provide valuable insight into the inaccuracies of Riplinger's books. --DearPrudence 02:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy section rewrite

message: I think we all agree that it is important to stick with the facts, which when I first observed this article, wasn't represented by the theme of things. I will admit personally as a follower of Jesus Christ I cannot follow falsehood, which is why I cannot endorse Gail Riplinger. I see many who do, who always push the "evidence" in her book, but when confronted with it, just make the claim that you are of the devil. Somebody wrote earlier that "This is what the devil always does: he impersonates the light, while he is bringing evil...". Well, that could easily be applied to Gail Riplinger as well. The God I worship is a God of truth and doesn't hide behind an author with "new revelation" that has to be accepted without question. If you are open to discuss the facts, than great. If not, please do not bother even discussing things, as it would be fruitless. So please, if you are going to discuss something, don't name call, bash, or even debate. This is an encyclopedia discussion page, not a message board. We are here to discuss "facts", not to defend or ridicule anyone.
With that being said if anybody has something positive about Gail Riplinger that can be verified, then please feel free to add it. If she has donated or is affiliated with any charities, then please add that information to this article. This is an article about Gail Riplinger for those who want to know the facts about her.
The reason this article seems to bash her is that she is has reached a semi-celebrity status, and has done so through her publications. It can be verified that she has misquoted sources and has factual errors in the books. I will not ask you to blindly accept it, but ask you to check for yourself, as this is what should only be allowed. I understand that most of the editors of this article are going to be biased one way or the other. I just ask that whatever you add, that it doesn't represent that bias. If you have FACTS that are in support of her, then put them in. The more information the better. I am a very spiritual person, but I realize that this is not the forum to be discussing those issues. So I ask that we all refrain from name calling and personal attacks on Gail and each other. To the supporters of Gail Riplinger, do not post on her that this is an attack or that we are all wrong. If there is anything in this article that can be shown to be in error, then please bring it to attention. Let us all just stick to factual truth. This page is a discussion, where questions and topics are "discussed", not personal opinions argued. RyanDaniel 02:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with most of what you have said. The only thing, however, is that bias is something universal. Everyone is biased about/toward something, or maybe many things. However, when bias is based on factual discovery and objective truth, the result of a truth-seeker is to hold to that bias. It becomes a conviction. When there is bias based only on opinion, with no fact or objectives to back it, then it is empty and proves little. It appears that those editors who have done the work themselves and checked Riplinger's material stand on the side of truth. Of course this seems biased to those who only defend her on the basis of trust alone, never having taken the time to find out if her book is based on truth. As someone who has checked on the reports of "two divorces", I did my part and found out that, yes, the information is 100% factual. I can say that I know because I checked. Personally, I have spent a lot of time, as others have, verifying Riplinger's claims and quotations with the original sources. I am relieved when I find only one error on a page in her book, which is not very often. Right now, I am researching chapter 30 of New Age Bible Versions. I own a majority of Westcott and Hort books in my library, as well as close access to many of the other books from which she cites. Because I care about the truth and don't like to see people fooled by fraud, I have chosen to spend time investigating Riplinger's claims, because I want to know the truth. As a Christian, I want to know that what I might trust in is based on a foundation of truth. The main point here is that only those who have done the work to check if what she says is really accurate and true have a right to write anything objective here about Riplinger. To post anything untrue or non-objective would be dishonest and possibly libelous, so that is why the editors who have worked on this article have been careful to research every subject placed into it. Her followers also need to care about posting things that are not true, and if they have not verified what she has written in her books with the actual sources, etc., then they are not able to honestly say whether they truly know that what they write about her here is fact. To just say "I trust Riplinger, therefore I believe Riplinger" is not enough. People who followed such individuals as Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Jim Jones, etc. believed the same way and in their minds they really convinced themselves that they were right, because no one bothered to check them out first and weigh their false and grandiose claims. These people would have amounted to very little without followers that just blindly trusted them. In case someone wants to argue that Riplinger is not the same thing as Hitler, etc., remember what kind of mess she has made in many churches. The outcome and the effect on people is still the same, no matter how small it seems.67.47.34.221 (talk) 20:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The point of the article

message: Riplinger ignores the proper translation from Hebrew into English in her books and examples, as well as the use of the Latin Vulgate Bible by the KJV translators for their translation of Isaiah 14:12. In the Hebrew Bible (Masoretic Text) the correct word is (and has always been) "heylel," which in Hebrew refers to the "morning star." In the late 400s, Jerome translated "heylel" as the Latin word "Lucifer" since it was the closest rendering he could find to explain the brightness being explained in the allegory of the morning star, the planet now called "Venus," which is known to be quite bright in the sky. The KJV translators, for reasons not fully known, decided to keep the Latin rendering "Lucifer" in the English Bible instead of literally translating it as they did most of the thousands of other words in the KJV. They were very fond of Latin and spoke it fluently, which could be part of the reason they kept it. However, it is a popular misunderstanding, carried over many generations, that "Lucifer" is a proper name. It is not. It is a noun that is also used as an adjective in Isaiah 14:12. Nowhere in scripture does it say that Satan's name was ever Lucifer. When Isaiah 14:12 is read in proper context with the rest of chapter 14, in verse 4 it is explained that it was a message meant for the King of Babylon, most likely Nebuchadnezzar since he was warned in the book of Daniel that he would be brought down for the wicked things he had done. Chapter 14 has been used as a secondary or figurative address to Satan, but it is first and foremost a direct address to the King of Babylon.
No one can prove one English version of the Bible is any worse than any other or more wrong or inaccurate than another by simply comparing it to the KJV or any other English Bible. The KJV, just as any other Bible version, is not the standard of comparison for what Bibles are "right" and what Bibles are "wrong." If this were so then the work of textual comparison, and studying the original languages, would not be necessary for Bible translation. If anyone believes that the KJV translators believed that their translation was better, more pure, or more "Holy" than any other English Bibles, please read the Translators' "Letter to the Reader" (written by KJV translator Miles Smith) found in the Preface of the Cambridge King James Bible.
Quoting directly from Riplinger's teachings as proof that those teachings are correct or accurate is not ample resourcing. Proof that her teachings are correct must be backed up with concrete, objective evidence. Just saying, "In her book, Riplinger says..." is not enough. Original sources that back her work and prove it as true must be used in an encyclopedia.FannyMay (talk) 03:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Lucifer" vs. "Morning Star"

message: B.F. Westcott and W.W. Westcott will never be the same person, no matter how many times GAR's supporters quote her attempts to make them appear as if they even could have been the same person. Like this article expressly points out, their birth and death dates do not match. Check them out. That should be the end of the discussion. The person calling themselves "Linguisticsclass-Student" has attempted to keep GAR's speculation going by posting material that argues with the actual documented fact placed in the article. This is contributing to the slander of an individual, which is puzzling coming from people who claim they pursue the truth. All a person has to do is check B.F. Westcott's son's book for themselves to see the absurdity of GAR's false claims. After dragging on and on the nonsensical B.F. and W.W. Westcott connection, she herself half admits in the footnote buried at the back of her ridiculously long book that it is "speculation" on her part. However, throughout her book, she leads the reader to believe the "Westcott" she mentions frequently (often without any first and second name initials) in conjunction with H.P. Blavatsky is B.F. Westcott instead of who it actually was: London coroner and avowed occultist W.W. Westcott. Even the books on the occult that GAR quotes from in New Age Bible Versions speak of it being Dr. W.W. Westcott who was involved with the occult world of Blavatsky, not Anglican Bishop B.F. Westcott who wrote many books that openly glorify God and his Son. GAR's main motive for distorting the factual information about B.F. Westcott and his identity is to protect herself, because she has lied about B.F. Westcott through her entire book. What cowardice to admit only at the very back of your book that your speculations just might be in error. Therefore, she has to forge a connection between the two men that never existed and she did it on purpose to present the wildly sensational and fictional accounts that have proven for her successful book sales. Until some GAR supporter comes along who has actually read the source materials that GAR purports to quote from in her books DON'T come around here and attempt to change the work that people who have their facts together have done here. Those who wish to further spread the lies, hate, and slander of Gail Riplinger are not welcome to contribute to this article. Any information that is not backed on fact that can be confirmed WILL be speedily deleted. If you really do believe in defending the truth, then prove it by checking GAR's information with the sources she has listed for you in her books. None of you have yet to prove from any kind of concrete fact that B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort were any of the things you say they were (liberals, occultists, New Agers, etc.) instead of just quoting your mentor Gail Riplinger. Do some research, like the rest of us have. 67.142.130.19 (talk) 19:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just as I suspected, ALL KJV/GAR defenders are not allowed any "positive" edits on this page. An example of "positive" is -She is smart. A negative comment is -She is a prostitute(THIS DOES NOT HAVE TO BE TRUE OR FALSE TO MAKE IT NEGATIVE). No moderators are keeping watch on this!! Everything in the previous paragraph by 67.142.130.19 are POV. ANYONE who looks at the handwritten letter by B.F. Westcott will undoubtly see the possible interpretation "W.W.Westcott"!!! There are only a few quotes directed at "WW" and they are footnoted. ALL other quotes are from B.F. Westcott!! She is pointing out things that New Agers and Modern Theologians have in common. These are the facts and according to Wikipedia rules YOU are to leave them unedited! NO NEGATIVE comments about LIVING PERSONS. If you want to bash her, go build your own web page!!!!!!!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linguisticsclass-student (talk • contribs) 20:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, you just DON'T get IT. You REFUSE to get it. You'd rather protect your ignorance of the facts by not checking into the facts, because those facts could just very possibly pop your bubble and prove that your support of GAR is not what it should be. It doesn't matter to you people how many times we state that we have checked the facts, you keep accusing us of using POV, bias, bashing, etc. You just won't check into things the way we have. We can back everything we say about the claims of GAR. Your comment added earlier was not worded in an encyclopedic manner and it wasn't positive either. It just tried to cover for the lie GAR has made throughout her book against Anglican theologians Westcott and Hort. It doesn't matter if B.F. Westcott's signature resembles whatever someone thinks they might see when looking at it--B.F. Westcott and W.W. Westcott were not born and did not die at the same time--they are TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE! Do you get it yet??? No, you enjoy vicious slander and that is why GAR's teachings, sadly, suit you. You just want to believe what you want to believe. A lot of people's sloppy signatures could resemble those of other people--so what?! That GAR thinks B.F.'s signature looks like it says W.W. is subjective but she uses it as if it proves fact. I have volume 2 of B.F.'s bio right here. Like GAR, you fail to mention the little lower-case T-appearing thing in between the two cursive characters that GAR imagines are W's. His son pointed out that he had sloppy handwriting, so no wonder "B.F." is illegible--no-brainer! GAR failed to say that the "Westcott" portion of his signature doesn't look like it says "Westcott" either--due to its illegibility. The entire signature looks more illegible (unreadable) than it looks like it says "W.W. Westcott." Looking at it, it is next to impossible to know what the signature says, except for his son explaining that the sloppy handwriting--which he says was difficult to read in most of Westcott's letters--was that of his father B.F. It doesn't look any more like it says "WW Westcott" than it looks like it says "B.F. Westcott." The point you are trying to make is pointless and you now it. You are here to stir up strife. If anything, your comments only reinforce GAR's dishonesty in using questionable information to try to prove a false fact that she has created and that sells her books. If GAR were actually just drawing parallels between WW and BF then she would not have made the bold statement that "Blavatsky mentions B.F. Westcott in some of her books." "Books" by the way, that GAR never gives titles or page numbers to so that her information can be verified. If B.F. Westcott was personally involved with Blavatsky in the occult, together as friends and closely acquainted with one another, then I'd want to know where I can go read about it in Blavatsky's book. But GAR has withheld such information and instead just makes a flat statement backed on nothing but hot air. The truth is, Blavatsky mentions W.W. Westcott, which has already been proven by obvious facts to be a different person. You rightly call yourself a "student" of Linguisticsclass. Your lack of logic, honesty, and reasoning is no different than hers. If GAR was only drawing a comparison, as you said, then why the long endnote to explain her knowledge that the information she placed in the book was not fact and just "speculation"?? Since you like the false comparison between W.W. Westcott and B.F. Westcott, why don't you go to the Wikipedia article for W.W. Westcott and try to make your case over there; show your parallels over there. If you want to spread false information about GAR that makes her look good and honest, rather than the liar she is in her books, go build your own web site and leave this Wikipedia article alone!! Beat your dead horse somewhere else. 67.142.130.19 (talk) 21:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text: "No negative comments about living persons"? I think you misunderstand. You aren't allowed to spread SLANDER about a living person (or dead). Negative comments are allowed if they are verifiable, and the information in the article that you perceive as "negative" has references. --DearPrudence (talk) 02:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text: 58.111.130.254: I understand what you are saying. I believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt, but as for Riplinger, there is nothing in her books that is positive or that all can agree on--except if one doesn't mind lying, character assassination, or outright deception. I have checked large portions of Ms. Riplinger's book New Age Bible Versions and not one bit of information I have verified so far is backed by truth. Half-truth doesn't count. As for her quoting of anyone who disagrees with her, look out; she has altered every single quotation of Westcott and Hort used in her books. Perhaps, what a person can learn from all of that is not to lie about and slander others. Riplinger's false teachings have hurt my church and that is just wrong. Riplinger's books are a sad example of what can come about as a result of freedom of speech. Readers, beware. What I have learned from Riplinger is that KJOism has no solid foundation and that people like her are willing to lie if it means making their argument appear correct. As a Christian, I say, that is still lying and God hasn't changed his mind.67.142.130.19 (talk) 00:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Brooke Foss (B.F.) Westcott Vs William Wynn (W.W.) Westcott

message: Is anyone opposed to my archiving the talk page? It's quite long now and is becoming a bit difficult to navigate. I would of course leave any current discussions.
If no one opposes the archival by the end of the week, I'll do it on Sunday. --DearPrudence (talk) 03:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk page archival

message: (The comment below was posted on a page with the title "Talk:Gail Riplinger/Comments".  Since there already is an article talk page  there was no need for an additional page, so I have moved the comment here and marked that page for speedy deletion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment moved here

message: Substituted at 23:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment