KJV-Only Author Gail Riplinger

Here is a clip of author Gail Riplinger, a staunch defender of the King James Bible. Notwithstanding that “a large portion of Riplinger’s books and interviews have been found to contain gross errors“,she and her books still have quite a following in some circles of KJVO fundamentalism.

In this clip she explains…well…I’m not really sure what she’s explaining but it sure is entertaining to listen to.

13 thoughts on “KJV-Only Author Gail Riplinger”

  1. I remember the first time I saw this clip. I gotta agree with the guy at the front end – it’s one of the most bizarre, convoluted ramblings ever. It doesn’t get any better with additional viewings.

  2. This woman? Is crazy. No really. I work in the medical field. This type of paranoia, pattern-finding, and rambling (HA! faked you out that I was going to alliterate all that, didn’t I) could be consistent with a number of mental illnesses, chiefly bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. I would bet a lot of money that this woman is bipolar.

  3. HAHAHA! WOW! Funny! I find it hilarious when this happens (especially with politicians). Totally just avoid the question. Not even 1 minute into the discussion, and I forgot the question the guy even asked! …And after only like 2 minutes, I’m totally lost…

    And my question is, why would fundies listen to her? Aren’t women supposed to be keep silent in these things! Gasp!

  4. Where is the Grace in all these attacks against this woman? She obviously believes that the 1611 A/V is the preserved word of God, where all of you do not believe God was capable of doing so. The Lord Jesus died for her as well as for all of us. How about calling for prayer for her instead of putting anethema’s. May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be upon us all.

  5. Darrell,
    Doesn’t taking an lobbyist position a form of excommunication? As well as I mentioned Grace, and the word anethma is what drew an response. I’m not defending what she writes or says, just the fact that she is our sister in Christ and that she needs our prayers.

  6. But Dean, attacking brothers and sisters in Christ because of our differences is one of the founding pillars of fundamentalism (think CCM, the ESV, Calvinists, churches with “modern services,” etc.).

  7. It amuses me, in an odd and disturbing way, that Riplinger’s defenders always begin by accusing those who take issue with her of lacking grace and love. Remember we are talking about a woman who accuses men of heresy on the basis of out-of-context quotes (some created by taking sentence fragments from different books and weaving them together into a paragraph that the accused never wrote), claims that all Bible translations other than the KJV are part of a New Age conspiracy to usher in the Anticharist’s one-world religion, and who refuses to be corrected on simple errors of historical fact.

    Futhermore, I have found that Riplingerites, if one persists in asking serious questions and pointing out that Riplinger’s books are stuffed with errors, finally descend to profanity and vile insinuations. They’re practically cultic in their treatment of this woman.

    Oh, and her latest screed is ‘Traitors’, an attack upon all KJV-Only Fundamentalists who dare to criticise her. Because she believes she’s God’s secretary!

  8. This does make sense, but only if you’ve spent much time on the TimeCube site. 😛
    I suppose she has some amazing theory, but I got lost when she began comparing the Titanic to the NIV. It’s like having a conversation with a hyperactive five-year-old. 🙄

  9. The Titanic went down in 1912, but the American Standard Version appeared in 1901. Madam Blavatsky did not write this stuff or have a meeting of the Theosophical Society “at the turn of the century”, inasmuch as she very decidedly died in 1891.

    As for her reading of “Lucifer” in Isaiah 14:12, this has been hashed about a million times, and only a minority take Riplinger’s position seriously.

    Riplinger has this unfortunate inclination to take black magic and devil worship seriously, as if it had some efficacy. She also denounces dictionaries – and their compilers – if they offer definitions or translations that do not fit her particular belief system — but she never shows that they have made a linguistic error. In so doing, she has badmouthed dozens of men (and at least some women) who devoted their careers to making the Bible more readable.

Comments are closed.