New Age Versions: Truth or Deception
This work is © Stephen M. Adams, 1994-2005. Permission is given to distribute these texts in any form and in any manner, so long as the entire text is faithfully reproduced and the authors name and address are preserved. This work may not be sold for profit.
If you have any questions or comments please send them to
General Comments & Background:
Throughout the book Ms. Riplinger attempts to paint the new versions as a conspiracy by 'New Agers' to undermine the authority of God's word as revealed in Scripture. Ms. Riplinger maintains that only the Authorized, or King James, Version of the Bible is authentic and that all modern versions are corrupt.
Chapter 1 - The Mandate : Infiltrate
Ms Riplinger wastes no time in taking things out of context. Her first example of 'deception' and 'infiltration' appears on the first page of Chapter 1. This example sets the tone for the rest of the book : she will obfuscate, misdirect, mislead and twist.
Here is the example of a 'problem' with the new versions that she gives:
Phil 3:3 NASB, et. al. worship KJV worship God
As she will in most of her examples, she totally ignores the context of the word or phrase. Let's look at the full verse:
For we are the circumcision which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh. [KJV]
For we are the {true} circumcision who worship in the the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh. [NASB]
For it is we who are the circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh. [NIV]
Ms. Riplinger claims that this "omission" is the work of Satan. But read in context, there is no problem here. There is no question about who we are to worship. While it is true that the AV does say that it is God who should be worshiped, both NASB & NIV say that we should worship in/by the Spirit of God. God is involved in each case.
What is it that drives Ms. Riplinger? It is a theory that there is a conspiracy, begun with Philo's school, to destroy the "true" Christian faith. She builds her case for this by quoting texts that have nothing to do with Christianity, and then trying to shoehorn the New Translations into agreement with these texts. Let's look at the trends that she outlines:
Riplinger Trend 1:
The new versions will exchange proper doctrine for New Age thinking, demonstrated by such things as substituting 'love' for 'charity' in 1 Cor 13, and substituting the spelling 'demon' for the spelling 'daemon'.
Trend 1 refuted:
The word used in 1 Cor 13 is 'agape' (or forms of that word) which is properly translated as 'love' or 'lovingkindness.'
There is no difference in the meaning of the word just because the spelling changes. Color and colour, theater and theatre and numerous other varient spellings a rife in English, espeially between European and American English, and between 17th century English and 20th century. Just look at Shakespeare!
Riplinger Trend 2
The new versions do not use the same terms as KJV, replacing Jehovah with Lord, Holy Ghost with Spirit, supposedly "pointing readers to Satan".
Trend 2 refuted:
The New versions have abandoned "Holy Ghost" for the more modern Holy Spirit, and do occasionally refer to this member of the Trinity as The Spirit. There is no confusion here. No reader would mistake references to the Spirit for references to Satan.
Complaining that Jehovah is replaced by Lord seems somewhat dishonest, especially for someone so interested in accuracy. Most commentators believe that 'Yahweh' is a more accurate rendidtion of the tetragammaton. The important thing here is consistancy and faithfulness to the text, not the bleating of a particular word. She gives no verse citations, so it is not possible to check the text. Poor scholarship at best - intentional decpetion at worst.
On pages 18 to 22 Ms. Riplinger lists a number of so-called New Age insertions or modifications to the text. She gives no verse references for any of these. More poor scholarship. What is worse is that most of her claims are simply false dichotomies or taken out of context. Any careful study of her so-called 'problems' will clearly show that she is wrong.
Riplinger quotes a number of New Age teachers and adherants in this chapter, using quotes that fit her thinking. Whes she does NOT do is take claims from doctrinally sound Christians who use these new versions. Why not? Because she cannot find any problems! She has to cite non- Christians to try and make her points. Who CARES what New Agers say about the Bible and Christianity?
Ms. Riplinger says that the modern Greek texts are suspect because BF Wescott is suspect. She claims that:
Secular historians and numerous ocult books see him as 'the Father' of the current chanelling phenomenon, a major source of the "doctrines of devils" driving the New Age movement. (p 25)
Of course, Ms. Riplinger provides no sources or citations for this claim about secular historians. The only citations she gives are from New Age authors. If there was strong evidence from secular historians, Ms. Ripllinger would cite them in a second. But she doesn't. This is a strong indication that these 'historians' are marginal and or few.
In this opening chapter, G.A. Riplinger displays the poor scholarship that is rampant throughout her book. Examination of future chapters will reinforce this.
Chapter 2 - Praying to a New God: Lucifer
In this chapter, Ms. Riplinger attempts to show that the New Versions support and encourage prayer to Satan, and that they try to obscure negative views of Satan. But, as usual, Ms. Riplinger resorts to hyperbole and misdirection, and the scholarship is poor. For example:
The public relations campaign required to transform the public's image of Satan, from his true evil character to one which would inpire worship, is monumental. It pivots upon the transformation of his identity.
Historically, Isaiah 14 has been used as *the* singular biography of Lucifer, shedding unique light upon the "mystery of iniquity." In verse twelve Lucifer is in heaven; in verse 15 Satan is in hell. The intervening verses expose his pride in the five "I wills," each a rung in his descent into hell. ("I will," is the offical motto of the U.S. city sporting the zip code 60606. In 1966, this same city hatched the NIV.)
[Riplinger, New Age Bible Versions, p 41]
This is a textbook example of a non-sequiter. The parenthesized comments do not follow from the text, nor is the argument presented in them even true. The reference to zip code "60606" is spurious. She tries to imply that this is the same as the "mark of the beast" in Revelation. But that is 666, not 60606. And 666 refers to a man's name, not to a city.
The falsehood here is that the city that has 60606 is Chicago - this area is along the river on the west side of The Loop, where the Sears Tower is. The working group that proposed the NIV didn't meet in Chicago, but in the suburbs, away from the "60606" zip code. . Another issue is that the NIV was sponsored by the NEW YORK Bible Society, and the copyright is held by the International Bible Society, in Colorado Springs, CO. (World Book Encyclopedia, "Bible", Volume B, p286, 1993 edition; Preface to the NIV Bible, Zondervan Publishing, Grand Rapids).
Ripllinger's claim is not backed up in any way, and a simply examination of the origins of the NIV shows that it did not come from Chicago, nor the "satanic" zip code she references.. This is an obvious attempt by Ms. Riplinger to incite and inflame, not talk about facts. She is engaging in outright falsehood.
The main point of this chapter is to attempt to show how Satan has taken the place of Christ in the new versions. Riplinger claims that the omission of 'Lucifer' from the new versions is because of new age influence and an attempt to make Satan greater than Christ. She calls the translation found in the NASB and NIV an attempt to "make Jesus Christ the subject of the diatribe in Isaiah 14." (p42).
No honest reading of the text would indicate this, nor would any Christian see the Isaiah text as an assault on Jesus Christ. Ms. Riplinger claims further that the translation of 'helel' MUST be Lucifer, and anything else is Satanic deception.
Of course, 'Lucifer' is a latin translation of the Hebrew word 'helel'. What does 'Lucifer' translate to? "Light bearer." What does 'helel' translate to? "shining one." NIV and NASB translate this as 'star of the morning'. Let's look at the full context of Isa 14:12:
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! [KJV]
How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the morning, son of dawn! You have been cast down to earth, You who have weakened the nations! [NASB]
In both cases, there is no way to see this as a reference to Jesus. Riplinger makes the argument that since Jesus is called the Morning Star, this reference to "star of the morning" makes this verse an attack on Christ. If the AV were true to the Hebrew text (instead of borrowing from Latin) it would have rendered this as 'shining one.' There simply is no case here.
Another example of the type of spurious argument comes in her list of Bible Dictionaries that do not discus Lucifer, or do not address the issue in a way she aproves of. How did she do her research? She went to a few bookstores and churches and checked the books on the shelf. She says of her list
"The following refernce books were not found in liberal or neo-orthodox bookstores but in essentially fundamental-type stores or church libraries. They were the only books offered, for the most part, in the reference section." (p48)
This is hardly a fair, scholarly examination of the literature available. She does not list any of the books that DID address the issue (she found some - her quote says so). This is a highly selective, slanted and misleading list. For example, the Holmon Bible Dictionary and the World Book Encyclopedia, two very commonnly available references do have entries for Lucifer.
Continuing her misleading arguments, she quotes from Lockyer's "All the Doctrines of the Bible", stating that Lockyer "challenges those who profess the changes do not affect any major bible doctrines." (p51). But Lockyer in this citation does not do any such thing. He is attacking those who claim that there is no personal devil, and has NOTHING to say about the new versions of the Bible. What he does say is "One wonders what kind of Bible the genial Archibishop reads." (Lockyer, p 133) This is not an attack on any particular translation, but on the INTERPRETATION of Scripture by Anglican Archbishop Ramsey.
This chapter is replete with misleading arguments, demonstrated falsehoods and non-sequiter arguments. The careful observer will see that the conspiracy theory expounded by Riplinger cannot stand even the slightest scrutiny. The theory falls apart under examiniation, as shown in the reviews of futher chapters.
Chapter 3 - Your Father the Devil
In this chapter, Ms. Riplinger seeks to associate the removal of certain passages of the Lord's Prayer (aka the Disciples' Prayer) from modern versions (NIV, NASB, Living, NRSV, NJB) with the New Age movement. She says:
Perhaps the most shocking discovery of my research was the admission by the New Age movement and esoteric community that there is, in fact, an occult version of the "Our Father" and that it has found its way into Luke 11:12 in the new versions.
KJV NIV, NASB et. al Our Father WHICH ART IN HEVEN
Hallowed be thy name
Thy kingdom come
THY WILL BE DONE, AS IN
HEAVEN SO IN EARTH
Give us this day our daily bread
And forgive us our sins:
for we also forgive everyone
that is indebted to us.
And lead us not into temptation;
BUT DELIVER US FROM EVIL.Luke 11:2-4
Father
Hallowed be your name
Your kingdom come
Give us each day our daily bread
Forgive us our sins
for we also forgive everyone
who sins against us
And lead us not into temptation
Luke 11:2-4
The [uppercase] sections on the left indicate the words and sections which have been removed from the prayer in all modern versions, such as the NIV, NASB, Living Bble, NRSV, Good News for Modern Man, New Century Version, The New American Bible, and The New Jerusalem Bible. They are THE very words which distinguish "Our" Father "in heaven " who "delivers us from evil" from "your father the devil, " who is "the god of...this present evil world.
[Riplinger, New Age Bible Versions, pp 56-57]
Ms. Riplinger is correct in that these verses do not appear in NIV or NASB. What she fails to mention anywhere in her litany of conspiracy is that these verses are still in the text of Matthew 6:9-13! If this " conspiracy" of the New Agers is so thorough as to "corrupt" the text of the modern versions, one would expect that they would be thorough!
The entire chapter is dedicated to attempting to support this theory while ignoring the fact that the contested verses do appear in Matthew's Gospel. Notes in the NIV & NASB state that the verses were added into Luke's Gospel to harmonize the version found in Matthew.
The Lord's prayer in Luke appears in connection with Jesus' own practice and teaching on prayer. Matthew present the prayer in a somewhat different form as part of the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 6:9-13). The prayer fits each context, and the differences indicate separate traditions. It would be difficult to prove that either Matthew or Luke had significantly changed the prayer from the form in which he knew it. The Matthean form is undoubtedly more "liturgical" in that the successive petitions are parallel, are balanced, and in Aramaic may even have rhymed at points. In Matthew 6 the prayer has petitions that may suplement or substitute for some feature of the Jewish prayers of the day. Luke offers a basic prayer to say what is characteristic of Jesus' teaching.
[Expositor's Bible Commentary, Vol 8, p 946]
The above commentary makes clear why different versions might exist. There are certainly countless other reasons, but to claim that the Lucan version was modified by conspirators while they left in the Matthean version is simply unsupportable. This so-called conspiracy must be poorly organized!
Let us now turn to what Ms. Riplinger calls "A Deeper Look" at this issue:
"Our" must be removed since it is a clear witness against the New Age belief in the 'universal fatherhood' of God. The concept that God is Father to all, without the adoption that occurs at the new birth, is the maxim of the New Age and the soapbox on which many liberal churches pose.
The bible, however, speaks of mankind's distinct divisions into two camps, described by Jesus to the Pharisees.
I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your Father...If God were your Father, ye would love me...Ye are of your father the devil. John 8:44
[Riplinger, New Age Bible Versions, p 60]
Of course, first off, in Matthew 6:9 the word "Our" is used. Secondly, for anyone to think that the ommision of "Our" in any way makes this reference refer to something other than Jesus' Father is to read into the text something that is not there. I can conceive of no Christian who would believe that this text refers to anyone other than the Creator God, the Father of Jesus. Hysterical rantings aside, the evidence does not support Ms. Riplinger's claims.
She continues, relating numerous verses that change the AV rendering of "my Father", "our Lord", etc, and attempts to paint these in the same light. [See p 61] She fails miserably! One of the verses she complains about is actually much more problematic in the AV!
Looking at I Thessalonians 1:3 we find the following:
Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father. [KJV]
constantly bearing in mind your work of faith and labor of love and steadfastness of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ in the presenceof Our God and Father, [NASB]
The AV reading has more potential for misreading than the NASB reading. In all fairness, it is unlikely that either version would be misread in the way she believes is intended by the so-called 'New Age' conspirators. There is nothing about the NASB reading that causes a problem. NIV renders the word order differently for the text, but refers to "Our God and Father" just as the NASB does.
Other assertions about the excluded texts of "Father," "Which art in Heaven" and "Hallowed be thy name" have no support other than quoting some New Age texts which have no real relevance here. Again, the verses in question appear in the Matthean version, so if this is a conspiracy, it is a poor one at best.
Ms. Riplinger states, in the section on "Thy kingdom come" that the new versions are a product of the battle between the kingdoms of God and Satan. But her texts in these sections are no more convincing than those in previous ones. She claims that Luke 12:31 is a corruption and that the earliest manuscript (P45) and the majority of the texts support the KJV rendering. But she is grasping at straws and spliting hairs. In context, there is no real difference between the readings:
For all these things do the nations of the world seek after; and your Father knoweth that ye have need of these things. But rather seek ye the kingdom of God; and all these things shall be added unto you. Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom. [KJV, Luke 12:30-32]
For all these things the nations of the world eagerly seek; but your Father knows you need these things. But seek for His Kingdom, and these things will be added to you. Do not be afraid little flock, for your Father has chosen gladly to give you the kingdom. [NASB, Luke 12:30-32]
Verse 31 must be read in context. It is also important to remember that verse divisions are late additions. The meaning of the NASB rendering is absolutely clear. If the subject of the preceding sentence is God the Father ("your Father") then the pronoun 'He' in the next sentence, referring back to the subject of the previous sentence, means God the Father. Even if we accept the evidence of the earliest rendering, it simply does not matter.
In this case, the AV is clearer, but the NASB is not wrong. Nor is the NIV. There simply is no support for the claim that the new rendering of this verse is problematic. Another thing to note about textual scholarship is that Ms. Riplinger has the benefit of 16 years (NIV) and 23 years (NASB) more research into the texts. Several pages are devoted to discussing the textual differences. Even giving her 100% of the benefit of the doubt on this evidence, her conspiracy theory falls flat on its face. The verses ommitted in Luke are preserved in Matthew.
Here is a section of Riplinger's conclusion:
Legions of mainline churches, which are Christian in name only, recite the Lord's Prayer every Sunday as a part of their liturgy. As the apostacy of the last days reaches its culmination, these church members will pick up their new 'Bibles' provided in the pews, and recite Luke 11:2, so artfully carved by Marcion to match his diabolical theology. They will finally fulfill the biblical prophecy....
[A]nd they worshiped the dragon. Revelation 13:4
[Riplinger, New Age Bible Versions, p73]
Of course, if they open to Matthew 6, there isn't a problem! In most churches I have been in, the Bible is not used for the liturgy, a printed version of the liturgy is used (having been in Roman Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran and Easter Orthodox churches, I know this to be true.) Given that the Matthean verses match the traditional use of the Lord's prayer, I find her belief about the results of this change to be far-fetched and unlikely.
Chapter 3 is a lynchpin in Ms. Riplinger's claims that the NASB, NIV et. al. are New Age Bibles, part of a conspiracy to form Satan's one world religion. It's a lynchpin that is so weak that it cannot stand up to even the slightest scrutiny.
Chapter 5 - The One vs. the Holy One
In this chapter, Ms. Riplinger seeks to associate the use of the word 'one' in modern verions (NIV, NASB, NRSV, NJB, etc) with Satanism and various eastern religions, and of course, her favorite, the New Age movement. She says:
'The One' is being smuggled into Christianity, concealed under the cover of new bible versions like the NKJV. 'The One's' masquerade is betrayed by the 800 blanks which occur where the underlying Greek or Hebrew word should be given in the "NASB Exhaustive Concordance." If 'the One' does not come from the original Greek or Hebrew, what is it's source? The " Encyclopedia of Mysticism and Mystery Religions [Mystery Babylon?] unravels the 'mystery':
"One: Term for the Ultimate...in many mystical religions and philosophies."
The New Age ressurects the mystery religions revealing 'the One's' three fold meaning.
- 'The One' or 'the Only One' is Lucifer, the angel of this planet's evolution.
- 'The One' or 'the Living One' is all of reality as described in pantheism or monism.
- 'The Coming One' or 'The Mighty One' is Lord Maitreya's New Age Christ [antichrist].
- New versions harbor all three aspects of the 'Mysteries.' This section will show some of these 'stowaways' and displays the New Age piracy piloted by new version editors and currently floating under 'the bible' banner.
[Riplinger, New Age Bible Versions, pp 77-78]
While Ms. Riplinger is correct in that these words appear in the modern versions, she is assigning to malice what is simply a function of language. This conspiracy theory goes hand-in-hand with the one in chapter 3, which was addressed above.
Before we even start with her 'evidence' of such a thing, let's look at Ms. Riplinger's revered text, the King James Bible. She decries 'the Mighty One' as New Age or Luceiferian. Unfortunately for her, the King James contains just such langauge! For example:
Therefore saith the Lord, the Lord of hosts, the mighty One of Israel, Ah I will ease me of mine adversaries, and avenge me of mine enemies [Isa 1:24, KJV]
...and all flesh shall know that I the Lord am thy Savior and they Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob. [Isa 49:26, KJV]
This phrase is also found in Isa 60:16. If, as Riplinger maintains, the modern versions are corrupt because they refer to God as the 'Mighty One', then the KJV is equally corrupt. She applies a totally different standard to the modern versions than the KJV. This is unscholarly and dishonest. Any claim to 'good scholarship' she might make falls before such grave error.
Another thing that jumps out right away is that Ripplinger does not concern herself with context when citing her lists of 'problems'. This is a sign of poor scholarship. Let's look at some examples that demonstrate her lack of understanding. For each example I will give her exact rendering, and then show the proper context.
NASB (NIV et al) KJV Luke 10:16 rejects the One despiseth him
Ok, let's look at the full context:
The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me.[NASB]
He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despisheth you despiseth me, and he who despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.[KJV]
Any honest reading of this text shows that the two versions are saying the exact same thing! While it is true that NASB says "one" instead of "him", the meaning is still clear.
Why not use him? Because even Textus Receptus, which is Ripplinger's basis has neither "he" nor "one". Here is the relevant Greek:
ho de eme atheton athetei ton aposteilanta
me he and me rejecting rejects the having sent me
I see no malice in inserting either 'One' or 'He.' Ripplinger has set up a false dichotomy. A gullible reader, not checking the full context might be taken in by this kind of falsehood.
Another thing to note about this verse is that the word translated " despiteth" in the KVJ is 'atheteo' which means 'to disregard, nullfy or reject" according to Hendrickson's Greek/English concordance. Ms. Riplinger should really choose her proof-text verses more carefully. The NASB rendering is actually clearer and more accurate.
NASB (NIV et al) KJV the one who endures he Matthew 24:13
The full context:
But the one who endures to the end, he shall be saved. [NASB]
But he who shall endures to the end, the same shall be saved. [KJV]
This is even worse!!!! Where NASB has 'he' KJV has 'same', the generic term being used in the other phrase. This is simply dishonesty on Ripplinger's part. The NASB is a proper rendering, just as the KJV is. Modern usage would render a sentence like NASB's, although some might prefer the more simple (and 'gender neutral') "But the one who endures to the end shall be saved." or " "But those who ensure to the end shall be saved."
This use of the word 'one' has nothing at all to do with the New Age movement, the mystery religions or any other such thing. It is simply modern usage. Ripplinger is tilting at windmills. Some might object to gender leveling in the text, but that is the direction the English language is going. To use a neuter collective is very common in everyday writing and speech.
The examples go on and on. Here is a list of verses to look at. The heavy weight of evidence is that she is wrong:
Luke 12:5; John 4:25; John 6:46; John 7:18; John 9:37; 1 Pet 1:15; Col 3:10; 1 Cor 15:28.
All of these are in her list of 'errors.' Other complaints are made throughout the chapter, but most of them are baseless. Here is another example of her dishonest scholarship:
LUCIFERIAN NEW VERSIONS KJV "the One and Only God" "the one and only God "God" John 5:44
In this case, KJV *omits* a word that is in the Textus Receptus! Yet, Ripplinger maintains that the NASB is the fraudulent text! The Greek word 'monon' appears before 'Theos'. The word 'monon' means 'one' or 'only' or 'alone'. A literal translation might read "the only God". Saying the 'one and only God' is not wrong, and is, in fact, more accurate than the KJV! The KJV does have the word 'Only' in the sentence, following the word God. KJV reads "from God only" whereas NASB reads "from the one and only God." My Greek grammar texts support the NASB reading over the KJV reading.
It goes on and on. Rippliner selectively quotes the texts and assigns malice to the modern versions while holding the KJV to be absolutely perfect. Any careful examination of the use of 'one' in the modern versions will show that it does not change the meaning of the sentence read in context.
This chapter is another lynchpin in her argument that the modern verions are products of Satan and the New Age. Her evidence does not stand up.
Excerpts and citations taken from:
New Age Bible Versions By G. A. Riplinger AV Publications Monroe Falls, OH Copyright 1993
The AdamsSuggestions/questions about this website: