Gail Riplinger and Isaiah 26:3

This is in the “I just couldn’t resist” category. Stating that Gail Riplinger’s “New Age Bible Versions” is poorly researched is to cast aspersions on shoddy research everywhere. Today as I was preparing a post on Isaiah 26 for this blog (which will be in the next entry), I recalled her use of Isaiah 26:3, so I took a quick look on the internet to see if there was anything more recent.

(There’s no particular reason to actually track Riplinger’s work in any detail. The errors are too widespread and pervasive to merit serious discussion.)

For those who may not be aware, in a chart (she loves charts) on page 455 of my edition (identified as 5th printing) Riplinger quotes the first part of Isaiah 26:3 in the KJV and the NASB. She then supplies a period where there is actually a comma in both versions. This prevents one from noticing either that the verse is only half quoted, or that the point of her chart is completely destroyed if the entire verse is quoted.

Her claim is that the NASB is saying that it doesn’t matter who one trusts in, that it is the steadfastness of mind that results in peace. She goes so far as to claim that people would not seek psychologists so much if the translators of the NASB had not translated as they do.

Now look at the two translations of the full verse, side by side:

NASB	KJV
“The steadfast of mind You will keep in perfect peace, Because he trusts in You.	Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee: because he trusteth in thee.

Now notice that the claim that the “steadfastness of mind” is somehow presented as adequate for perfect peace is completely false. The fact of dependence on God is made clear by two factors: 1) God is the one who keeps the person in perfect peace, and 2) the reason for the peace is that the person trusts in God. Of course these very plain statements are removed in Riplinger’s deceptive chart.

Now on the internet today I find her response to White. This isn’t terribly recent, but it just caught my attention. The response is just as deceitful as the original:

White hopes his readers are as weak in grammar, syntax and theology as he is. He tells easily noted outright lies, which only the “simple” (Rom. 16:18) will swallow. He begins his lambast, storming:

“[T]he rest of the verse actually contains the ‘key words’ she alleges are missing!…This kind of actual miscitation of the modern versions is rampant throughout the text of her work.”

If White can find the missing words “on thee” in that verse in his NASB, I’ll give him $1 million dollars. He is lying, the rest of the verse does NOT “actually contain the key words she alleges are missing!” His accusations fall under the category of “false allegations” (not “fair comment”) in the courts.

Actually, as I’ve pointed out, those words are there. But Riplinger apparently believes that by blustering and using strong terminology she can intimidate people into missing them. Of course they are not in her chart. But they are in the NASB.

After ranting about psychology in the church (you can read the whole thing here), Riplinger continues:

One cannot pretend, as White does, that because the words “in Thee” are a part of the next subject (he), verb (trusteth), and prepositional modifier (in Thee), that they have any grammatical connection to the earlier sentence and its syntax. The KJV has BOTH “on thee” in part one AND “in thee” in part two. The NASB omits one, thereby changing the meaning. White misses, not only the grammatical differences and hence the factual differences here, but he misses the basic biblical distinction between the heart, which trusts in God, and the mind which thinks on God. The “because” phrase tells WHY it works; it does not tell WHAT works.

Considering how much she rants about White’s English comprehension, Riplinger should perhaps study a bit of literature herself. In poetry, words can pull double duty, but even that is not the point here. The NASB correctly translates the Hebrew phrase “in you” precisely the number of times it occurs. It carries additional freight in this verse because of the Hebrew parallelism, but that is very clear in any of the major versions.

This is a case of misrepresentation, and that misrepresentation is stubbornly maintained down to the present by Riplinger. James White is correct in his analysis of the passage.

Note: Updated 3/30/08 to place blockquotes around this section. I respond to the issue of italics elsewhere. These words are quoted.

The KJV uses italics when the theological sense of a verse demands the insertion of English words to accurately complete a Hebrew thought. It is the only translation that is honest in this way. Both the NIV and NASB insert 1000’s of words, but give the reader no clue as to which words are inserted. One NIV editor’s article “When Literal Is Not Accurate” gives expression to the frequent use (6000 in the NIV) of such insertions.

The veracity of the italics in the KJV have been proven true to such a degree that this author feels no need to pick them out and set them apart as uninspired. The ten words in italics in 1John 2:23 have since been vindicated by ancient manuscript discoveries. Note the following ‘miraculous’ coincidences:

* The italics of Ps. 16:8 are quoted by Paul in the Greek text of Acts 2:25.
* The italics of Is. 65:1 are quoted by Paul in the Greek text of Rom. 10:20.
* The italics of Ps. 94:11 are quoted by Paul in the Greek text of 1 Cor. 3:20.
* The italics of Deut. 25:4 are quoted by Paul in the Greek text of 1 Cor. 9:9.
* The italics of Deut. 8:3 are quoted by Jesus in the Greek text of Matt. 4:4.

I miscited nothing; my allegations regarding the NASB’s omission are true. White’s wrong again.

Update 3/30/08: Note that even though I did not respond here at the time I wrote this post, this issue of the use of italics, and the very suggestion that the italics are quoted in Greek is ludicrous.