A QUICK RESPONSE TO A BRIEF REVIEW
BRIEF ARTICLE by Manny R. out of South Carolina fails miserably in its attempt to change God’s name to Verbo and to refute the historic Spanish Holy Bibles reading in John 1:1 of Palabra for Word. He never addresses the following main points in Catholics: Changing God’s Word. He cannot, because they are historically irrefutable.
Instead of addressing the first 8 points, Manny resorts to insignificant ‘rabbit trails,’ the ploy of those who cannot face an issue head on. (As a consequence, my responses below, must address ‘rabbit trails.’ See my original article Catholics: Changing God’s Word for the meat, available at http://purebiblepress.com).
1.) p. 7 He surmises why W.A. Park joined Reyes’ church in Mexico. This is "evil surmisings."
2.) p. 7 The church of England, and James as head of it, not the "government," instigated the translation. That church was more Baptist (making infant baptism illegal, rejecting Calvinism, etc.) than many Baptists today.
3.) p. 7 "Hardly anyone is using it"
A church in Tacoma, WA just printed 50,000 of the 1602 Purificada. Brother Lemon in Shelbyville, TN has easily printed that many. Now the BPS in Mt. Pisgah in TN is printing it. 20,000 more were requested in Chili.
4.) p. 7 England is not "Europe."
5.) p. 8 Which edition of the RVG had "the brother of". We can't keep up!
6.) p. 8 "There are more"
7.) p. 8 Donate used the 1960 in a verse in a tract I asked him to translate. Stephen Shutt and I had to point this out to him and Stephen and I fixed it, redoing most of the tract ourselves. Carlos told me personally that he went with the Gómez edition because it matches the 1960 in many places, therefore his friends and supporters, who use the 1960, would be more easily converted to it. This is hardly a spiritual or intellectually honest reason for selecting a Bible. It is characteristic of the bane which has haunted the Spanish Bible for centuries – expediency.
8.) p. 9 "Riplinger is talented in presenting a convincing argument even when she is wrong."
He has not demonstrated that I (or Erasmus, Reina, or Valera, who all agree with me) am wrong.
9.) p. 10 "supposedly".
These are historical facts.
10.) p. 10 "fancy guesswork"
My article would stand up in any academic setting. I had graduate faculty status at KSU and could evaluate M.A. thesis and Ph.D. dissertations. Manny infers that Valera's (Cambridge and Oxford) and Reina's grammar (using Palabra) wasn't as good as Manny's and Gómez' grammar. I find that hard to believe. The old translators understood, as does anyone who knows Spanish, that gender in inflected languages has little or NOTHING to do with sexual gender. Manny is simply not telling the truth.
11.) p. 13 He says "Riplinger is going against Valera". Valera used Palabra! He knew that gender in Spanish (and other languages) has nothing to do with sex.
12.) p. 13 "Bible translators are not at liberty to start changing grammar rules."
Manny has made up his own rules. Valera and Reina knew Biblical Spanish grammar better than Manny and Gómez. But, according to Manny, it's ok to change the Holy Bible and the name of Jesus Christ in Spanish. Valera and Reina knew "basic Spanish grammar" better than Manny, who is just learning Spanish fluently and Gómez, who never went to Oxford and Cambridge, as Valera did.
13.) p. 14. "1602 was a rough draft". This is blasphemy!!!! It may have needed polished, as the English Bible was, but one would never say the "Coverdale was a rough draft." A swan is not a peacock, but both are God’s creations. A swan was not a rough draft of a peacock (sounds like evolution). Neither was the Valera a “rough draft” of the Gómez.
14.) p. 14 "dishonest practices"
This is slander of the lowest sort. To pretend Ruckman is on your side is ridiculous. They use the 1865, and are very much against the Gómez edition. Any personal differences between Breaker and Ruckman have nothing to do with my article. Only someone who is grasping at straws (a non-academic) would haul in such a weak argument. Stay with the article. Critique it. As a card-carrying “busybody”, has Manny gone to Breaker, as a Christian brother is supposed to do, and asked his side of the story? I know neither side, as it is none of my business. But the scriptures certainly denounce ‘tattlers and busybodies’. Why is basic Christian charity allowed to go down the drain when discussing the Bible issue? Manny is not above the scriptures and their demands.
15.) p. 14 "she adopted this argument from a former missionary named Robert Breaker."
I am an independent researcher. I have never read anything about Palabra vs. Verbo by Robert Breaker. I do not even know his views on the subject. If Manny had done the Christian thing and called me to discuss this issue, I could have saved him alot of embarrassment.
16.) p. 15 "Riplinger has fallen prey to his false accusations and erroneous arguments against the RVG."
Dear Manny: I have been working with the Spanish Bible issue, as well as the 1602P, for MANY years, approximately 16 years. In fact, I was the first one to publically draw attention to the errors in the 1960 on a broad national and international level. I know the resources used by the 1602P people; I know their methodology. They have ALL of the antique editions; Gómez does not. I worked with them. I made all of my own evaluations of it, as well as of the Gómez. What gives you the right to assume my source of information? I do only original and primary research. I have never copied or used anyone else, without a footnote. That is evident in the originality of all of my books, and has been my approach with the Spanish issue.
17.) p. 16 Manny is calling Gómez' 2004 a 'rough draft.' That is not what Gómez told people it was. Instead of receiving the criticisms of Breaker (which Manny admits needed to be changed), as a Christian, he mocks him. He was right and Gómez was wrong. So who's the wrong party.
18.) p. 17 "adopting some of his insane arguments for her own material".
I assure you, if there are any similarities between what I think and what Mr. Breaker has said, it is simply because we both are hitting on the truth. In the mouth of two witnesses... Can Manny document where I 'adopted' anything of Breaker's? He can't, because it doesn't exist.
"This calls into question her credibility and ability to properly discern this issue."
That is quite a sweeping statement, with not a hair of evidence.
19.) p. 18 "What gave William Park the right to change words..."
Words can be debated. Gómez and his Bible-correcting predecessors changed God's name! That is why I wrote an article on that subject alone.
20.) p. 18 Why does Gómez ignore cognate languages? The KJB translators used them. The cognate languages all point to Palabra.
21.) p. 18 "Riplinger has this thing against dictionaries..."
They are made by man. Anyone with half a mind knows that. Where did I say that dictionaries could never be used? Hazardous Materials is against 'lexicons.' I recommend the OED in In Awe of Thy Word. I sell the Webster's 1828. How am I against dictionaries? Manny continually sets up a straw man or he exaggerates.
"Riplinger is very confusing."
I cannot help if Manny has poor reading skills. Pride blinds.
22.) p. 18 Manny says that Gómez and his associates used the "Received Texts." Which one? Give a bibliographic citation. Greek can only be accessed by using corrupt lexicons. I rest my case on the evidence provided in Hazardous Materials.
23.) p. 19 "our God-given Spanish Bible."
So, God didn't give a Spanish Holy Bible until Gómez? Is he claiming inspiration for it alone?
24.) p. 19 "the official Royal Academy" is Catholic. It follows the Roman Catholic Vulgate.
25.) p. 20 "sells his book entitled Crowned With Glory".
This is completely false. I have never read that book, nor has A.V. Publications ever sold it.
26.) p. 20 "supposedly" was repeated 5 times by Manny. I documented the facts. There is no supposition.
27.) "It is only contested by Riplinger...do not have to use a Spanish Bible on a daily basis."
My article was written along with my son-in-law, who taught a Spanish Sunday School class for years and ministered to those people in his bus ministry for many more years "on a daily basis.” Prominent missionary and author, Allen Johnson, who was raised on the mission field in South America, supports the 1602 P.
28.) p. 21 "full of madness"
Name calling is used, like swearing, usually only by those who are powerless in written or spoken dialogue.
29.) p. 21-22 Since the Catholic church lies about everything, we will never know the truth about Novatian. Why didn't Manny cite my admission of that fact? The truth is, as I mentioned in my article, Novatian was the FIRST (that we have record of) to CHANGE THE HOLY WORD OF GOD to 'Verbo.' Anyone who changes the Bible is suspect. Novatian seemed to be in error on at least “one point” for sure. He taught “eternal excommunication” from the earthly ‘Church’ for those who had given a pinch of incense to Caesar (to avoid being killed) or for fornication. Repentance by the erring party could not restore them to fellowship, in his view. Even the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia admits that this is contrary to numerous scriptures (eg. 2 Cor. 7-11, Gal. 6:1, et. al.). The opponents of his views (such as Sixtus, Cyprian, and Cornelius) were equally unscriptural, offering restoration through penance. Novatian’s orthodoxy is somewhat questionable, as Hyppolytus, who is said to be a Novatian, said that Novatian believed in baptismal regeneration. The encyclopedia says that Novatian was an “ordained priest” and subscribed to the belief that “through Baptism, in which all sins are forgiven, each individual becomes a member of the body of Christ.” What "Bible believer" thinks like that? He probably was neither a modern day Catholic nor a Bible believer. But many of his beliefs were heresy, it appears. Novatian’s beliefs are somewhat difficult to pin down, since De Cibis Judaicis is his only extant work. Wikipedia says he was Catholic, as do most standard works. The tenets and heresies of Catholicism were rampant before Constantine. Check out the so-called 'early Church Fathers.' We Baptists fall into the same pit as the Catholics do in trying to prove succession, by claiming folks who Manny and I would not fellowship with today. (All Baptist histories are loaded with five point Calvinists, who deny the free will of man, a basic Christian tenet.) (See The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, NY: Funk and Wagnalls Co, 1910, Vol. VIII, pp. 198, 199, 199 footnote, 201, et. al.)
30.) p. 25-26 “mere speculation”
I documented that Tertullian uses Sermo in John 1:1 long before Novatian changed it. I documented that ALL other cognate vernacular Bibles have always used a cognate of “Palabra.” I’m sorry that Manny does not know what cognate languages are or does not think the Spanish should follow the lead of the KJB translators in consulting other vernacular Bibles.
31.) p. 26 My chapter on Erasmus, in In Awe of Thy Word, demonstrated that the Catholics have changed historical quotes. So I am not entirely confident of Manny’s footnote #30 on p. 26. Donate and I collated two Latin editions of the very same text (MS D) and they didn’t even match each other. So I have little confidence in anything the Catholics have interested themselves in.
32.) p. 27 Manny says he has “manuscript evidence,” but it is not for John 1:1 et. al., but for non-biblical commentary. This is not manuscript evidence for the text and would not be called “manuscript evidence.” The fact that NO vernacular Bible EVER followed ‘Verbo’ demonstrates that Christians (the body of Christ and the priesthood of believers) and the indwelling Holy Ghost recognized that it was wrong.
33.) p. 27 “best known”
Hugh Houghton is referring to later writers (Cyprian, etc) who were well after Tertullian, and extant Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate Manuscripts. That proves nothing except that the Catholic church has kept the corrupt citations and burned the pure texts.
34.) p. 27 Houghton again says we “have” 450 manuscripts copied before the year 1000…” These are Jerome’s text. Carlos should know that. Houghton says “No Christian writer quotes John 1:1 with sermo after the year 500 A.D…” Is anyone out there awake? Latin manuscripts after 500 are all Catholic manuscripts, following Jerome’s corrupt use of ‘Verbo’. Latin was fading away in vernacular use and used only by the Catholic church. Latin is the language of the Catholic church.
27.) p. 27 Manny’s pretense that “Verbum” may be the earliest reading demonstrates that he does not know that Tertullian lived long before Cyprian and Novatian. Tertullian cites “Sermo” in John 1:1. Period. Sermo is the oldest attestation. Period.
28.) pp. 28-29 In juried articles and dissertations only primary sources are acceptable. Jarrot’s thoughts about Erasmus are meaningless. Jarrot’s quote is out of its context. What did Erasmus say himself? He wrote an entire treatise against the use of ‘Verbum’ in John 1:1. Manny says “Erasmus plainly said there was “no difference” doctrinally between the two words. Evidently Manny has not read Erasmus’ treatise on John 1:1, as it is written in Latin, which Manny cannot read. Until Manny comes up with a direct quote from Erasmus (which does not exist), he cannot make such an absurd statement. Manny even admits Erasmus “wonders why Jerome selected verbum.”
29.) p. 29 “John was written in Greek, not Latin.”
I need a chapter and verse to demonstrate that. The letters on the cross were in the world’s languages of Latin, Hebrew and Greek. If John and the N.T. weren’t written also in Latin and Hebrew (and other languages) by those who got the gift of tongues, how could the rest of the world read it? What was the gift of tongues for?
30.) “I question how familiar Sister Riplinger is with the Spanish language…if she even speaks it at all.” (emphasis mine).
If you have such a question, why didn’t you call me? Your good assistant pastor and his wonderful wife have visited me and stayed with my daughter and son-in-law, on our adjoining property, several times. It’s obvious that the lines of communication are open. I began in Spanish in 1963, which was 48 years ago…that is perhaps before Manny was born. By 1966 I was teaching English to native Spanish speakers FOR A LIVING. I have worked closely with the Reyes group for nearly a dozen years. I understand that Manny is an American, who speaks English and is just now learning Spanish well enough to use it fluently on the mission field. My collation of John in my article attests to the fact that I can collate a Spanish Bible with ease.
31.) p. 30 “her very limited knowledge of ancient Latin.”
When other girls were taking baton lessons, my mother instead hired a private Latin tutor for me when I was around 13. I have had a classical education and was raised by a mother who was the head of all of the hospitals in France, Italy, and Africa in WWII. Language is not foreign to me. When Carlos and I collated Latin MS D editions, I had to correct him several times. He will remember it.
32.) p. 31 “Latin dictionaries define ‘Sermo’ as…”
He is not citing the standard Latin dictionary. The “search engine” he used is not the dictionary I cited. Avoiding it does not make it go away.
33.) p. 32 Manny has demonstrated his weak Spanish in missing the translation of Monasterio. It means ‘monastery,’ as in homosexual “men with men.” It is strictly Catholic. The manuscripts held by this Catholic monastery are (drum roll……) Catholic, matching the official Vulgate text of Jerome! This is merely more evidence on my side, showing that only Catholics used ‘Verbo’ and ‘Verbum.’ Protestants throughout history used Sermo and Palabra, which I proved with visual documentation. I provided scans of all of my history. Manny provides none, but we are supposed to ‘trust’ him.
34.) p. 33 Manny cited some Bibles (including Catholic) which retain ‘Palabra’. This proves nothing, except there are still those who tremble at the word and will not alter it. The Mormons use the KJB. That doesn’t make it wrong, nor should we head our charts (KJB & Mormon Bible).
35.) p. 34 Dr. James Sightler’s book, A Testimony Founded Forever, demonstrates in chapter after chapter that the wicked kabbala was used by the men in the Catholic church. The tenets of this wicked system find their roots in the heresies of the early centuries immediately after Christ (Gnosticism, etc.). My book Hazardous Materials also demonstrates the Catholic use of it on into the Middle Ages and earlier (See Reuchlin, et al.).
36). p. 34 Manny forgets that dictionaries are descriptive not prescriptive. They document usage, they don’t prescribe it. Since Spain and Mexico are entirely Catholic, their usage (and consequently the dictionary) will cite Catholic usage. Hence, Spanish dictionaries match Jerome’s Latin Vulgate and Father Scio’s Spanish Bible regarding the meaning of Verbo and Verbum.
37.) p. 35 The usage by the pagans of ‘sermo’ again proves that it is the Latin original. Lucifer said, ‘I will be LIKE the most high.’ He is a counterfeiter. So the pagan Roman gods would have copied the original ‘sermo.’
38.) p. 36 Again, Manny cites Catholic “Augustine” to defend his viewpoint. Monastery manuscripts and ‘Saint’ Augustine merely serve to prove that ‘Verbum’ and Verbo’ are strictly Catholic in origin and usage.
39.) p. 38 Below are 14 things that need to be addressed from this one page:
39-1.) Gender endings have little to do with sex in any language.
39-2.) Reina follows ‘Palabra’, so he agrees with me.
39-3.) Valera follows ‘Palabra’, so he agrees with me.
39-4.) Spanish Dictionaries merely reflect the overwhelming Catholic mindset of Spain and its use of Verbo in John 1:1.
39-5.) Being quite aware that both sides claim Novatian, I said, “His actual beliefs, whether bad or good, do not negate the historical fact that he introduced the word ‘verbum’ well after the word sermo had been recorded in scripture citations by Tertullian, who said “The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church.”).
39-6.) Novatian is the perpetrator of the change, it appears. That invalidates him since Tertullian preceded him by a long time and uses Sermo in John 1:1.
39-7.) Tertullian uses ‘Sermo’ not Verbum in John 1:1. A non-scriptural usage bears no weight on the discussion of a historically verifiable scriptural citation.
39-8.) I cited my own “Latin scholars.” His don’t negate mine.
39-9.) He gives no citation to demonstrate that Erasmus said this. But Erasmus changed his Bible to say ‘Sermo’ and wrote a treatise to condemn ‘Verbum.’ Manny’s comments here are pointless.
39-10.) See item 4, which is the same for ‘Latin’ dictionaries being totally and completely influenced by Catholic church usage.
39-11.) Not the standard Latin dictionary that I cited.
39-12.) See item 7.
39-13.) The KJB has many, many Latin based words. This has absolutely no bearing on the translation of a word into a Spanish Bible. If Manny wants to ‘compare spiritual things with spiritual’ (i.e. John 1 in Spanish with the KJB in John 1), he should observe that the KJB, just like all old pure Spanish Bibles, uses the same words for ‘Word’ and ‘word’ (Palabra and palabra). Gómez and Manny want to have the only Bible in the world that does not connect the living Word, Jesus Christ, with his written word. They confuse them by having two separate words, Verbo for Jesus and palabra for the written word.
39-14.) See item 9. Manny is getting absurd and purposely avoiding the issue, which is quite direct and simple. The oldest reading is not ‘Verbum.’ All Reformation scholars reject ‘Verbum’ (Erasmus, Reina, Valera, etc). All vernacular Bibles reject it also. The only people who use it in the main are the Catholics. It’s quite simple.
40.) p. 39 If the “multiplication” of editions proves the best text, then the 10,000 Roman Catholic Vulgate manuscripts out weigh any 5 or 6 thousand Greek manuscripts. The NIV is now outselling the KJB. Manny’s theory does not work. The pope and the Crystal Cathedral have been packed with thousands upon thousands. Good independent fundamental Baptist Bible believing churches generally run about 100 if they are lucky.
41.) p. 39 I do not have a “musty study” or a “dusty office.” I am allergic to dust mites, so it is kept immaculate. Derogatory remarks are not scholarly. I am not a pale male; I seldom sit in front of a “computer screen,” to do research, as I have many rooms filled with books and old Bibles. I do not need to scour the internet, as I have the originals at hand. “Fancy guesswork” is a slander on a paper filled with simple irrefutable documentation.
I’m sorry that Deborah, Jael, Hulda (at the college, where God used her to identify the pure Hebrew Bible), Priscilla, Lydia, and Phoebe (whom God used to preserve the book of Romans) are not “MEN” with all caps, as Manny spelled it. This sounds like Manny likes thinking done by “men with men.” This mindset is a precursor to “doing that which is unseemly”. One of your “MEN”, Kerry Junko, has already had the misfortune to be sent to Arizona State Prison for molesting boys. Ask Phil Stringer, who was his best friend. He co-authored (“men with men”) a book with Stringer. Mickey Carter and the faculty at Landmark Baptist College will have nothing to do with Stringer or his male friend. Mickey Carter, his former employer, refuses to speak with Stringer.
43.) p. 41 “His word”
Why is Manny using NKJV orthography?
44.) Manny does not like the connection of Jesus, the Word (John 1:1) and the written word. This is odd. I think he is making the dangerous mistake of a man who is driving on ice and jerks his car to ‘overcorrect’ the skid. He will flip the car. Manny’s crowd says God’s word is his breath. How is his breath not a part of him? Consistency, please.
45.) p. 41 “Furthermore, we know how to read.”
The Spanish community in mass has rejected Jesus Christ for centuries upon centuries. That is why their Bible is in the state it is. God gave them a pure text, which they have allowed their Catholic leaders to ruin. I should think that they would be happy for any defense of their traditional readings. Such an attitude is precisely why their Bible has been in such a state.
46.) p. 42 “God’s true words have always been around.”
The words in the Gómez often come from the corrupt 1960, which has not always been around, but was a modernization by the wicked Bible Societies.
47.) p. 42 “through the preservation of the Traditional Text”
Where is this text? Which Traditional Text? Give me a bibliographic citation, so that I can secure a copy. You have no such preserved entity. Scrivener’s TBS text does not match the KJB, nor does Berry’s edition of Stephanus. I have documented all of the places in Hazardous Materials. You have only an imaginary preserved text. God preserves his word in Holy Bibles for people, not in conflicting critical editions used by ‘scholars.’
48.) p. 42 Why does the Gómez have so many 1960 words and phrases, if it came from the 1909? We can read too.
49.) p. 43) “she is simply repeating.”
You do not document where I repeat anyone else. Talk is not substance.
50.) p. 43 “more thorough work”
The Gómez was started because the Purificada team was taking too much time for Gómez. So he left that good group of MEN, taking much of their good work and calling it his own. They were so thorough that Donate couldn’t wait for them either. The result was a myriad of Gómez editions (you called them “rough drafts”; he called them perfect, each time.) The KJB translators only came out once and so did the Purificada. Since the 1602 P group spent over a decade on the edition, any typos or corrections (which are being fixed now) are microscopic.
51.) p. 43-44 I did not say that the chart would document the Gómez. The heading is the head of the section, not the chart. You must have an earlier edition of the article, as I changed that, anticipating that poor readers might jump to conclusions and miss the discussion of the Gómez which follows the chart. I wrote about it saying, “The Gόmez missed or modernized almost half of the verses checked in the chart. My word-for-word examination of just four chapters in John indicates that Mora and Pratt (1865) and Gόmez did not use the oldest, most original and most precise Spanish readings, but picked a mix of other later readings. The Purificada restores the pure exact readings.” The Gómez does not match the KJB, no matter how strongly Manny claims it does. He boasts of agreement with the “TR”. He needs to identify this TR in a bibliographic citation. No printed TR matches the KJB, so how could they be “in agreement with the KJV and TR”?
52.) p. 46 “picked up from Robert Breaker”
He gives no proof; this is merely slander.
53.) p 46 “full development of the Castilian language”
If Manny thinks the wording in the Gómez, taken from the 1960, is a “full development,” instead of a corruption and watering down, he’s sadly mistaken. He has no citation by a linguist.
52.) p. 48 “hear him out as to his reasons for why he did what he did and how he did it.”
I wrote to Gómez before I sent my article to anyone, asking if he might be interested in my research. He never answered, so how am I supposed to hear him out? He wrongly told Brother Fellure that he answered me, so obviously he did get my email.
53.) p. 49 He charges me with “no experience in Bible translation and revision work.” Yet this year alone I have published verse comparison articles and done collations for Bible printers in Swahili, Chinese, Thado-Kuki, Tamil, Urdu, Kayah, Miskito, Farsi, Syriac, Modern Greek, and others. Wayne Holder, the translation coordinator of FirstBible (Dr. Keen’s group) asked me to evaluate most of these for him. I am in communication daily with translators, nationals and missionaries, through our http://www.holybiblefoundation.org and http://www.purebiblepress.com. This week I am examining the French and Russian, and hope to do something with the Idoma and Turkish soon. I ‘re-discovered’ the best Farsi Holy Bible (Martin 1837) and sent my collation of it to 80 Farsi-speaking churches to show them the errors in their current Persian text. Now 5000 copies have been printed and we have personally sent 2,000 to Iran and Afghanistan and around the world. The Persians love their new pure text, which does not take away the Sonship of Christ or the Trinity!
His pretense that my being Caucasian limits my mental capacity to discern good and evil is unscriptural and racism at its worst. In Acts 2 the Holy Ghost sent Jews to preach the gospel to “every nation” under heaven “in their own language” - yellow, brown, black and white. The New Testament says, “Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all and in all.” Jesus told the Jewish (Hebrew-speaking) disciples to go into “all the world.” Should not the world (black, brown, yellow, white) receive the holy scriptures at the mouth of these Jews? British “Caucasian” Henry Martyn translated the Bible into many Indian dialects, as well as into Persian. Caucasian missionaries, as well as missionaries from other races out of every nation, have been translating the Bible for thousands of years into a language which is secondary to their native tongue. Caucasian William Carey did likewise. Manny is suggesting something that is totally foreign to history and scripture.
As Manny’s pastor said, ‘let the chips lie where they fall’ (p. 49). I’m sorry that the chips fell on Manny. That’s what happens when a Christian skips the Biblical mandate to go to his brother or sister FIRST. His snowball has melted and missed the perpetual target, not me, but God’s historic, pure holy word.
I sent this response personally to Manny in October of 2011. He never responded, just as Mr. Gómez never responded to my personal email to him, which was sent to him long before the article was made public (not by me, but by someone else). I felt it was the Christian thing to do to wait and give him time to respond. I am only now, four months later, in Feb. 2012, making this response public, since Manny and Mr. Gómez are evidently unwilling to engage in gracious and Christian scholarly dialogue with me personally. They are instead giving their feeble and inconsistent responses via the internet. A weak opponent will not engage in one-on-one dialogue, but instead will hide behind blogs, Facebook posts and web sites. The Bible is too important of an issue to let insecurities and swelled egos smother it. This has been the statue quo for the Spanish Bible for much too long.
Go not forth hastily to strive, lest thou know not what to do in the end thereof, when thy neighbour hath put thee to shame.
What a shame.
BELOW IS GIVEN A COPY OF THE LETTER WRITTEN BY GAIL RIPLINGER TO MR. MANNY RODRIGUEZ in OCTOBER OF 2011:
P.O. Box 280
Ararat, VA 24053
October 7, 2011
Greetings in the name of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. The last time I looked, Matthew 18 was still in your Spanish and English Bibles. So are the admonitions to “restore such an one in the spirit of meekness” (Gal. 6:1) and ‘entreat him as a brother’ and “the elder women as mothers” (1 Tim. 5:2). I received no entreaty, nor even a “rebuke.” How is sending your rebuke regarding me to D.A.Waite or Phil Stringer for mass distribution following the scriptural mandates? Why did I never receive a copy? Why battle for God’s word and not follow it?
I would understand if we hadn’t known each other earlier. We have corresponded and if I remember correctly, I sent you a free copy of In Awe of Thy Word. Your wonderful assistant pastor and his wife have even been to my home several times and stayed with my daughter overnight also. Your home church had my son-in-law in to speak on the KJB and you and he became friends (or so we assumed).
I still contend that the Spanish version issue controversy (1602 Purificada vs 1865 vs Gomez vs 1960) could be handled word by word, with each group calmly, spiritually, and intellectually, bringing forth their strong reasons for each word, one word at a time. That is what my article attempted to do. It appears that many cannot go that route (as Coverdale did, who worked with Tyndale and the Geneva group).
I am not your judge. But know that the Bible is true. And he who returns evil for good….I’ll let you finish the verse.
Evil communications corrupt good manners. I realize that you may be a young Christian and may be simply and unwisely following the pattern you see in a few other older Christians. I suggest that in the future, you follow Jesus Christ, as men will ever fall short of the glory of God.