From time to time, we will highlight King James Only advocates use of doctored quotes and misrepresentations in their zeal for the defense of the King James Bible. The end doesn’t justify the means, and a principled conviction is no excuse for not taking the time to represent the position of another with care.
I was working my way through James White’s revised edition of The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations (Bethany House), and came across quite the doozy. Gail Riplinger’s work is chock full of doctored quotes and misrepresentations, but I want to focus on her treatment of Isaiah 26:3.
Before I quote from White’s book, I must be careful to explain Riplinger represents the thinking and tactics of only the extreme elements of King James Onlyism. Perhaps 30-40% or more of the KJV Only folks would respect and value her contributions; most KJV Only advocates, however, would join me in condemning this argument of Riplingers. Since Riplinger is an influential KJV Only author, however, evaluating her use of doctored quotes is important and pertinent to this blog’s focus.
I quote here from White’s book, pg. 137-138 in the revised edition [he iquotes Riplinger from pg. 454-455 of her 1993 book New Age Bible Versions].
She reports that she was trying to counsel a student who needed spiritual guidance. As Mrs. Riplinger says, “My first glimpse down into this dark chasm full of Christians suffering from ‘mental chaos’ came via a distraught young Christian woman attending a campus bible study.” One of the passages she wished to share was Isaiah 26:3. We pick up with her own words:
A second attempt to arm her (Ephesians 6:17) in her joust with the devil, found the NASB’s sword sheathed hiding the key words, “on Thee.”
These words are immediately followed by this chart:
NASB KJV The steadfast of mind Thou wilt keep in perfect peace. Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee. Isaiah 26:3
If one takes this at face value, it certainly appears that the NASB has indeed “deleted” something. And yet such would be a grand mistake. Notice the actual readings of both versions:
NASB KJV The steadfast of mind Thou wilt keep in perfect peace, Because he trusts in Thee. Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee: because he trusteth in thee.
While Riplinger places a period after “peace” in her citation of the NASB, there is no such period. Instead, the rest of the verse contains the “key words” she alleges are missing! And she also does not indicate that the KJV uses italics for the inserted clause “on thee,” for, quite simply, the Hebrew does not contain it! This kind of flat-out mis-citation of modern versions ins rampant thoroughout the text of her work.
July 1, 2009 at 4:24 pm |
I wish I could say, “unbelievable”, but coming from Riplinger, I sadly concede that I believe it.
As you pointed out, the majority of KJVO would not support Ms Riplinger. But it’s also a wonder why many would. This speaks to the issue of substantiation. Anyone with zeal to defend God’s Word might want to think she’s done her research and that’s that, so we can just follow what she says. But substantiate we must, and thanks, Bob, for pointing this out to us. I guess many don’t bother because that would require looking through a copy of “the devil’s sewage” to see if what she is saying is right.
July 1, 2009 at 5:40 pm |
You should see how she butchers Westcott and Hort. A friend of mine strongly urged me to read “New Age Bible Versions,” so I read as much as I could stomach (about 220 pages of an approximately 700-page book). When he asked me what I thought of it, I told him I checked her “quotes” of W & H and found that she took phrases from them and completely rearranged them to say what she wanted them to say. I told him she was probably counting on her readers not having access to these out of print books and not being able to check her sources. It was the most dishonest thing I had ever read from an author claiming to be a Christian.
July 1, 2009 at 6:47 pm |
The ESV uses the King James reading. And the key words *are* left out of the NASB. They both have trust in thee, but it is stayed on thee that are the key words in question. Italics in the AV don’t mean the words are added willy-nilly by the AV translators, but that they are implied by the Hebrew.
July 1, 2009 at 7:12 pm |
Tim,
very true. Hopefully more Christians will be good stewards of the information age. And thankfully not everyone trusts her, even KJVO like David Cloud have written against her poor research.
dt,
the “key words” according to Riplinger are “on Thee.” Read the article. She lied.
July 1, 2009 at 8:04 pm |
The key words are, as you say ‘on Thee’. That is a much different statement than what follows later in the verse which the NASB has along with the KJV ‘trust in Thee.’
Riplinger was, is, saying that crucial statement was taken out by the translators of the NASB (and NIV, etc.).
Do you see?
What harsh language you use to say she is lying! Trusts in Thee is not the same part of the verse as ‘whose mind is stayed on Thee.’ Again, look at the ESV for comparison.
Your big ‘ah hah’ regarding this is a bit less of an ah hah, if indeed it is an ah hah at all.
And, again, check the ESV. It reads as the AV. That vitiates a bit your statement that the words aren’t in the Hebrew. They are obviously implied, according to the translators of the KJV and the ESV. (The ESV wasn’t around when Riplinger was counseling the student in question, I will add, stating the obvious.)
July 1, 2009 at 8:19 pm |
Here is John Gill on the Isaiah 26:3 verse, or words in question:
***whose mind is stayed on thee; or “fixed” on the love of God, rooted and grounded in that, and firmly persuaded of interest in it, and that nothing can separate from it; on the covenant and promises of God, which are firm and sure; and on the faithfulness and power of God to make them good, and perform them; and on Christ the Son of God, and Saviour of men; upon him as a Saviour, laying the whole stress of their salvation on him; upon his righteousness, for their justification; upon his blood and sacrifice, for atonement, pardon, and cleansing; on his fulness, for the supply of their wants; on his person, for their acceptance with God; and on his power, for their protection and preservation; see Isa_10:20,***
Then here is Gill on “trusts in Thee”:
because he trusteth in thee; not in the creature, nor in any creature enjoyment, nor in their riches, nor in their righteousness, nor in their own hearts, nor in any carnal privileges: only in the Lord, as exhorted to in the next verse Isa_26:4; in the Word of the Lord, as the Targum, that is, in Christ.
The two parts of the verse are not synonymous. They are distinct. See, Isa. 10:20, in the KJV, as Gill directs.
July 1, 2009 at 8:44 pm |
dt, you apparently aren’t comprehending the argumentation here.
We are refuting Riplinger’s false argument, not comparing the translations of the KJV, NASB, and ESV. It wasn’t me who said the words aren’t in Hebrew, it was White, and he wasn’t saying they shouldn’t be rendered, or they are not implied, but simply how erroneous it is to point to a phrase that isn’t a literal rendering.
here’s the deal: Riplinger says she counseled a young Christian woman. She said the woman was reading this verse in Isaiah. She said the words “on Thee” were taken out. She produced a chart to “prove” her point. She added a period where it does not belong. The problem is, the period does not belong. The words in question do exist. This is blatant misrepresentation. I don’t see how this can be any more plain.
July 1, 2009 at 11:07 pm |
I disagree with what you are saying. The words ‘on Thee’ are not the same as the words ‘trusts in Thee’ at the end of the verse. And there is a period also after the end of the KJV verse she gives too which isn’t in the original suggesting that is a formatting thing, right or wrong. Her books seem to be formatted by basic desktop publishing type software and there are quirks in that.
Anyway, I’d impress upon you to reread what you are saying. Riplinger is not talking about the end of the verse, which the NASB and the KJV both have. She is specifically talking about how the NASB rendering totally degrades a powerful statement of Scripture. “Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee.” To actively have your mind fixed on God is not the same as trusting in God. This is why I quoted Gill on this verse.
To call Riplinger a “liar” based on this is not just uncharitable.
July 2, 2009 at 5:28 am |
dt,
I’ll try this one more time.
Riplinger says specifically that the words on thee are taken out. They are not. That is what we call a “lie.” End of story.
July 2, 2009 at 8:30 am |
A disclaimer up front. I am not a KJV-only guy.
But
Those that are go by the 1611 KJV, which does not include the italics feature found in the KJV you referenced. That italics feature is sort of a concession to the “modern” scholarship that the KJV-only folks would tend to consider sinister.
July 2, 2009 at 8:43 am |
TurretinFan,
The 1611 used something similar to italics. The mechanism for showing words not in the Hebrew was different due to restrictions of the font in that day. Also italics were later cleaned up and made more uniformly present in later KJV editions in the mid-late 1700s and beyond. But it is clear from the following scanned image of an actual 1611 KJV Bible that the words “on Thee” were understood to be not in the Hebrew. Click on this link, to see the relevant text. You can see the entire page yourself online available here. Zoom in by clicking 8x view to get the image I shared above.
Blessings in Christ,
Bob
July 2, 2009 at 10:54 am |
DT,
The words “on Thee” do not appear in the NASB, that is true. But leaving out the last phrase of the verse makes it look worse for the NASB, which is Riplingers intent. The verse as a whole clearly teaches that the steadfast of mind are such because the trust in God. The Hebrew does not include “on Thee” but from the context of the verse one could think it implies “on Thee”, not directly but by implication. The words “him” and “whose” are added also to help try to make sense of the Hebrew.
You quoted Gill, I can quote Barnes from the same time period. Barnes explains a little of the difficulty of this Hebrew expression:
“Whose mind is stayed on thee – Various interpretations have been given of this passage, but our translation has probably hit upon the exact sense. The word which is rendered ‘mind’ (יצר yeser) is derived from יצר yasar to form, create, devise; and it properly denotes that which is formed or made Psa_103:14; Isa_29:16, Heb_2:18. Then it denotes anything that is formed by the mind – its thoughts, imaginations, devices Gen_8:21; Deu_31:21. Here it may mean the thoughts themselves, or the mind that forms the thoughts. Either interpretation suits the connection, and will make sense. The expression, ‘is stayed on thee,’ in the Hebrew does not express the idea that the mind is stayed on God, though that is evidently implied. The Hebrew is simply, whose mind is stayed, supported (סמוּך samuk); that is, evidently, supported by God. There is no other support but that; and the connection requires us to understand this of him.”
The issue in all of this is that the KJV has the words in italics so they are added to the KJV to help improve the translation and make it sensible to their interpretation. There are other ways of making sense of the Hebrew, it is not that the KJV reading is wrong, but that it doesn’t stick to the strict literal Hebrew. And Riplinger doesn’t let anyone else know this about the KJV. She paints the worse possible picture of the NASB at this point. This is dishonest and a total misrepresentation.
Oh and yes she uses Wescott and Hort’s material very freely, making them say things they never did.
July 2, 2009 at 12:54 pm |
>The words “on Thee” do not appear in the NASB, that is true.
Thank you.
Now, considering the NASB is a translation *based*, in a genealogical sense, on the AV1611, it is very much on-the-mark to say the words were taken out. The NASB (and the ASV before it) is not a stand-alone translation. It’s a revision of the AV using different manuscripts. In this case, unless the Masoretic is different here than in the Hebrew manuscript the NASB uses, it’s a conscious revision based on some philosophy of translation and bias. Riplinger’s whole argument with the modern versions is *death by a thousand cuts.*
July 2, 2009 at 1:08 pm |
Calvin on Isa. 26:3, specifically fixed on God, or the words ‘on Thee’:
***3. The thought is fixed; thou wilt keep peace, peace. 156 As the Hebrew word יצר (Yetzer) signifies both “imagination” or “creature,” and “thought,” some render it, “By a settled foundation thou wilt keep peace;” as if the Prophet meant, that when men, amidst the convulsions of the world, continue to rest firmly on God, they will always be safe. Others render it, “For the fixed thought thou wilt keep peace;” which amounts to nearly the same thing, that they who have fixed their minds on God alone will at length be happy; for in no other way does God promise that he will be the guardian of his people than when they rely on his grace with settled thoughts, and without change or wavering. [[[Since, however, the sign of the dative case is not added, but the Prophet in a concise manner of expression says, “Fixed or steadfast thought,” let my readers judge if it be not more appropriate to view it as referring to God]]], so as to make the meaning to be, that the peace of the Church is founded on his eternal and unchangeable purpose; for, in order to prevent godly minds from continual wavering, it is of the highest importance to look to the heavenly decree.***
Look what I’ve highlighted between three brackets ([[[...]]]). This is how this verse was read during the Reformation. The AV1611 is a Reformation era translation. It is based on Reformation era translations. When this reading is changed it is changed because of a modern prejudice of one sort or another against the Reformation era reading. It is *not* changed because the modern reading is *more literal.*
It is a downgrade, and Riplinger points this out. You can disagree with the Reformation era reading, but you can’t say Riplinger is *lying.* The words were revised out, and it was done along the lines of the common pattern of modern versions revising out various kinds of references to Deity in particular.
July 2, 2009 at 1:47 pm
It’s funny you should mention Calvin, since I looked him up this morning. I think you are not understanding him, or else you are determined to defend Riplinger at all costs, even if you resort to Riplinger’s methods of use of sources. When Calvin says it is referring to God, he means the fixed mind refers to God’s eternal decree and fixed plan. A few sentences later from your quote Calvin says: “It is undoubtedly true that we ought constantly to hope in God, that we may perceive his continual faithfulness in defending us; and believers are always enjoined not to be driven about by any doubt, or uncertainty, or wavering, but firmly to rely on God alone. Yet the meaning which is more easily obtained from this passage, and comes more naturally from the words of the Prophet, is, that it is a fixed and unchangeable decree of God, that all who hope in him shall enjoy eternal peace; for if fixed thought means the certainty and steadfastness of the godly, it would be superfluous to assign the reason, which is —
Because he hath trusted in thee. In short, both modes of expression would have been harsh, that “continual peace is prepared for imagination,” or “for thought.” But it is perfectly appropriate to say that, when we trust in God, he never disappoints our hope, because he has determined to guard us for ever. Hence it follows, that, since the safety of the Church does not depend on the state of the world, it is not moved or shaken by the various changes which happen daily; but that, having been founded on the purpose of God, it stands with steady and unshakable firmness, so that it can never fall.”
July 2, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Also, the KJV itself was a revision of the Bishop’s Bible. You claim the historic rendering includes “on Thee”. Compare the Bishop’s Bible and the Geneva Bible, which both predate the KJV.
Bishop’s: “By an assured purpose wylt thou preserue perfect peace, because they put their trust in thee.”
Geneva: “By an assured purpose wilt thou preserue perfite peace, because they trusted in thee.”
Notice neither of these Bibles, the Geneva Bible certainly representing Reformation thought, contain “on Thee”. This is no modern conspiracy. It is just part of the difficulty of translations. The Geneva, Bishop’s, KJV, NASB and ESV are all good translations. The Hebrew idea doesn’t have a 1 for 1 correspondence in the English language. This is why no translation into any receptor language will ever be as good as the Hebrew or Greek because no translation can ever capture all the nuances of those languages completely.
Your stubborn refusal to see Riplinger’s game illustrates the severity of the KJV only problem. People refuse or cannot think through this issue anymore now that they’ve been predisposed to think that every change and any change is somehow a tampering of God’s word. It just isn’t.
July 2, 2009 at 2:30 pm |
I don’t know if you’re a Calvinist (maybe you’re associated with MacArthur?), let alone one who holds to classical Covenant Theology, but ‘God’s decree’ and ‘God’ being synonymous is hardly a rejoinder to anything I’ve posted in this thread.
I’d already run through the Bishop’s and Geneva, and all it tells me is the AV is the crown and standard. Isaiah 26:3 in the AV is a powerful, memorable, practical verse. It speaks to Christians who know real spiritual warfare. The other renderings are watered down and thin. The AV got it right (no surprise) and the NASB typically reverted to a lesser rendering.
Taking out what was there, from the translation they were basing their work *on.* This was Riplinger’s point.
This, from the Calvin quote: “Since, however, the sign of the dative case is not added, but the Prophet in a concise manner of expression says, “Fixed or steadfast thought,” let my readers judge if it be not more appropriate to view it as referring to God…” is rather clear, and was my point.
July 2, 2009 at 2:33 pm |
I’d like to know the motivation of the ESV translators in going back to the AV rendering of Isaiah 26:3. It just may be the efforts of Christians like Gail Riplinger that forces people to acknowledge such changes.
July 2, 2009 at 2:38 pm |
Here is the passage in question, Isa. 26:3, from the American Standard Version:
Thou wilt keep [him] in perfect peace, [whose] mind [is] stayed [on thee]; because he trusteth in thee.
You can see the NASB wouldn’t even follow its immediate predecessor.
The ESV is the same in the verse as it’s immediate ancestor the RSV.
July 2, 2009 at 4:37 pm |
DT,
It’s been interesting trying to see how you’re thinking here. Someone reminded me that we had banned you from the blog early on because of an unkind round of comments. We’ll give you another chance. You’re welcome to share your views but lets not denigrate others.
My point stands about Calvin’s intent. He is not saying the expression should refer to God in the sens trust in God. Instead he is saying the expression fixed mind refers to God, i.e. His fixed mind. Not our mind fixed on God. He starts off his section addressing how many take the passage to mean hope and fix your mind on God. He sees their view but thinks the passage is better to be seen as teaching that the steadfast mind is God’s determined decree to keep in perfect peace those who trust in him (the last part of the verse).
July 2, 2009 at 6:17 pm |
Hmm. God’s decree is a ‘mind’ that is fixed on me? Well… I think Calvin is a bit clearer than that, and that is not what he is saying. More importantly, and thankfully, the Word of God in that verse is clearer and it’s obvious what it is saying.