<body>
Hip and Thigh: Smiting Theological Philistines with a Great Slaughter. Judges 15:8

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Pastor Marc's Mail Box
















mail to:
Pastor Jon Marc Grizzard
from: fundyAV1611
subject: Suggestion for book burning


Greetings Bro. Marc,

I want to first thank you for being the one church during these days of apostasy that stands firm on the things of God. I know you are probably getting a lot of flack from carnal Christians and other worldly-wise people who think you are a crazy Nazi for sending the devil's books back to the hell fires from where they came. Just as the Word of God says, pastor, "all that live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution."

I was wondering if you are taking suggestions for other books to be burned? I am concerned for the church of God, because I believe there are wolves that have crept in among God's sheep even within AV 1611 honoring churches like yours. People who claim they love the KJV, but in truth are really tares in the wheat. I recently discovered that G.A. Riplinger who wrote that monumental work, New Age Bible Versions that exposed all modern perversions as being products of the new age anti-christ, IS REALLY A WOMAN! I was truly shocked.

At first, I learned that her name was Gail Riplinger. I thought that was okay, because I have known some men who are named "Gail." But then I learned that her whole name is GAIL ANN RIPLINGER! And when I did a search on the internet about her, my suspicions were confirmed at her very own website! Mrs. Riplinger has been used by many KJV loving fundamentalists like yourself AND SHE HAS EVEN SPOKEN IN CHURCHES!!!

The Bible says quite plainly that:

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: FOR IT IS A SHAME FOR A WOMAN TO SPEAK IN THE CHURCH!" (1 Corinthians 14:34-35 )

And then the Bible says, "BUT I SUFFER NOT A WOMAN TO TEACH, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." (1 Timothy 2:12)

And the great prophet Isaiah warned, "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and WOMEN RULE OVER THEM!" (Isaiah 3:12)

Additionally, there are serious rumors THAT SHE HAS BEEN DIVORCED TWICE! This makes her a WOMAN OF ILL REPUTE! I am fearful we are going to reap the whirlwind of God's judgment on the independent, fundamental congregations who utilize her works or her their pulpits to teach and preach, even if it is for defending the KJV only. THIS IS NOT RIGHT! It may not be popular with other independent Baptist preachers, but I do pray you will consider adding Gail Riplinger's works to your pile of books to be burnt. If I send you my copy of New Age Bible Versions, will you burn it for me?

Remember, it only takes a little leaven of apostasy to leaven the whole lump. We need to burn it out before we are all in danger of turning away from God.

Thank you,
Cecil Perkins

Labels: , ,

25 Comments:

Blogger The Puritan said...

You're a creep. God's people have been mocked by the creeps of the world and the devil's family from the beginning. God's pure and whole received Word has been mocked by creeps like you are well. The good thing is: creeps like you won't see light in the Kingdom of God. Have fun in hell, creep. You're just another pervert who loves the darkness and who hates God and God's Word. Have fun in hell, creep.

9:49 AM, October 20, 2009  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

Thank You.

But at least I will be a consistent creep and not a hypocrite like most of the Riplinger lovers in the IFB.

9:52 AM, October 20, 2009  
Blogger bugblaster said...

Divorced twice?

"When they were back home, the disciples brought it up again. Jesus gave it to them straight: "A man who divorces his wife so he can marry someone else commits adultery against her. And a woman who divorces her husband so she can marry someone else commits adultery."
-- Mark 10:10 (The Message)

10:16 AM, October 20, 2009  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

Wow, and that passage from the Message reads almost exactly like in the AV 1611.

10:23 AM, October 20, 2009  
Blogger The Seeking Disciple said...

I have often wondered how KJV only churches can ban women preachers but then turn around and by the thousands they go to hear Gail? They criticise women "preachers" such as Joni Erickson Tada, Paula White (okay I will let them pass on this one), and Gloria Copeland. Wait I am shooting myself in the foot here. But you see my point.

11:46 AM, October 20, 2009  
Blogger James Kime said...

Puritan, cheering that people will go to hell?

WHERE DO YOU SEE THAT KIND OF LANGUAGE ANYWHERE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT?

Hard to believe you are KJVO with that hate.

12:04 PM, October 20, 2009  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

James,
"hate" and "KJV-onlyism" tend to go together like a hand in glove.

12:14 PM, October 20, 2009  
Blogger donsands said...

That was well done.

"..like a hand in glove."

Yep. Been there done that. After arguing a bit with one fellow, he finally said to me with his last two words, "Good-bye heretic." Amazing!

I always like to ask the KJVOnly people, what about the other languages: Spanish, Nepali, Hebrew, Greek, Chinese, Hindi, Farsi, and not to mention the 6,000 and some odd other languages, are they to have a King James Spanish? I trow not.

12:33 PM, October 20, 2009  
Blogger MSC said...

Don,
Don't you know about the divine command to teach all nations the King's English so they can read the King's Bible? I can't remember where the verse is, but I'm sure it's in there.

2:04 PM, October 20, 2009  
Blogger P.D. Nelson said...

I'm surprised that you have only gotten 9 response besides mine. I mean where is the offend person talking about the Nude Blue MAILBOX!

8:11 PM, October 20, 2009  
Blogger Mike Felker said...

Fred, dude, you're so good at this that it scares me sometimes ;-)

8:59 PM, October 20, 2009  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

Peter,
First, its a woman, the theme of my post. Then it's mannequin nudity. I didn't think that really counted.

9:16 PM, October 20, 2009  
Blogger The Puritan said...

>Puritan, cheering that people will go to hell? WHERE DO YOU SEE THAT KIND OF LANGUAGE ANYWHERE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT? Hard to believe you are KJVO with that hate.

Mat 23:33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

Rev 6:9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:
Rev 6:10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?

Saying it's "good" that mockers of the end time won't see light in the Kingdom of God is not the same as "cheering."

12:50 AM, October 21, 2009  
Blogger The Puritan said...

>I always like to ask the KJVOnly people, what about the other languages: Spanish, Nepali, Hebrew, Greek, Chinese, Hindi, Farsi, and not to mention the 6,000 and some odd other languages, are they to have a King James Spanish? I trow not.

And after the nth Christian answers you that any sound translation of the Hebrew Masoretic and Greek Received Text is the pure and whole Word of God what, then, do you say? You repeat what you've repeated above. Perhaps then you add: "If the KJV was good enough for Paul...!!!"

12:54 AM, October 21, 2009  
Blogger donsands said...

"any sound translation of the Hebrew Masoretic and Greek Received Text is the pure and whole Word of God"

So the thous, thys, and thees don't realy matter then?

So the NKJV is a good version. See, I didn't know that about you guys.

If we're on the same page that is.

3:32 AM, October 21, 2009  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

And after the nth Christian answers you that any sound translation of the Hebrew Masoretic and Greek Received Text is the pure and whole Word of God what, then, do you say? You repeat what you've repeated above. Perhaps then you add: "If the KJV was good enough for Paul...!!!"

Interestingly how most KJVers, including Pastor Jon Marc, would disagree with you and label your comment apostasy and heretical. Once the KJV was translated, God's word was forever settled and fixed in one, never to be altered in any way translation. Hence, the people groups Don lists are better off spending several years learning English, then another few years learning the nuances of Elizabethan English, in order for them to finally be able to know scripture.

7:00 AM, October 21, 2009  
Blogger MSC said...

Fred,
How do KJVOers handle the issue of borrowing langauge from Wycliffe and Tyndale verbatim? Were these inspired words and phrases before the inspired version? This is curious since many of the words and phrases were coined by these men and were not part of the common language of the day.

9:56 AM, October 21, 2009  
Blogger The Puritan said...

>How do KJVOers handle the issue of borrowing langauge from Wycliffe and Tyndale verbatim? Were these inspired words and phrases before the inspired version? This is curious since many of the words and phrases were coined by these men and were not part of the common language of the day

It continues to amaze me (though it shouldn't) how ignorant of the history of the English Bible followers of Critical Text scholars and their industry are. The AV1611 is unique because it is a refinement of the English Bible started even before Tyndale. This is part of the shepherding done by the Holy Spirit to bring God's Word into the English language (a unique language, as unique as the Greek of Jesus' day, a language destined to be, as it is today, the second language of the world).

An unremarked upon fact is this: if critical text scholars and translators of the modern versions based on the corrupt manuscripts didn't have the English Bible, the culmination of which is the Authorized Version, to crib from and copy and 'revise' their products would be babble.

2:16 AM, October 23, 2009  
Blogger Highland Host said...

And the New King James is a revision of the AV. So is it all right? It seems to me that the KJVO crowd is guilty of begging the question. That is, rather than demonstrating from the Bible that the AV alone is today the inspired Word of God in English, they assume it and then go fishing for anything they can use to 'prove' the conclusion they want to end up with. This is peculiarly self-serving and wrong-headed.

And may I ask 'The Puritan' where in the Bible it says that it is acceptable to accuse men of gross immorality because they disagree with you on the matter of Bible versions and write long essays proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that Gail Riplinger is a liar?

4:51 AM, October 23, 2009  
Blogger The Puritan said...

The NKJV doesn't use the Masoretic Hebrew text. In one way or another projects to make a modern version based on the received texts *always* deviate.

10:17 AM, October 23, 2009  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

The NKJV doesn't use the Masoretic Hebrew text

Yes it does. Every English translation uses the Masoretic text. Do you even know what a "Masoretic" text is?

10:28 AM, October 23, 2009  
Blogger The Puritan said...

You very well know what I said and meant. You are engaging what in the secular academy by post modern academics is called the tactic of disingenuous bewilderment. You are a liberal Christian who hates any Bible that has the authority of God in it rather than the authority of man (scholars). Again, you have a pride issue.

6:27 PM, October 23, 2009  
Blogger The Puritan said...

The ben Chayyim text and the 1967/1977 Stuttgart edition of the Biblia Hebraica are not the same texts. You knew that, you know that, yet you write dishonestly to dupe innocents as all Critical Text proponents do, and as you have to considering what you defend is indefensible.

Masoretic traditionally refers to the received stream the ben Chayyim text is from (you knew that), not to the amalgamation of sources the modern Hebrew text is drawn from in modern versions.

Redefining words is something liberals do, and something liberals have to do. It's all false witness and a terrible danger to your soul. Wake up.

6:46 PM, October 23, 2009  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

Masoretic traditionally refers to the received stream the ben Chayyim text is from (you knew that), not to the amalgamation of sources the modern Hebrew text is drawn from in modern versions.

No it doesn't. Your wrong. D.A Waite from whom you got this information is wrong. Go back and try again.

7:00 PM, October 23, 2009  
Blogger Highland Host said...

King James Only tactic - redefine words to suit what you think they ought to mean. Thus 'Godhead' in the AV MUST refer to the Trinity wherever it appears, never mind the serious problems that will cause.

I don't expect 'the Puritan' to respond to this. He left a comment that is probably legally actionable on my blog before declaring he would never read anything I say again.

It's probably on-topic to note that in her latest book Mrs. Riplinger refers to the case of the Shapira Strips as if the Shapira strips were genuine witnesses to the Old Testament text. Given that they contained a text of parts of Deuteronomy that differed wildly from the Masoretic (but rather nicely confirmed some Higher Critical speculations), and an 11th commandement (sadly the sources available to me did not say whether it read 'Thou shalt not squeal to the cops', or 'Thou shalt not get found out), I think she was unaware of the actual nature of the manuscripts. All of which goes to show that careful research is rather necessary, even on minor points.

5:09 AM, October 24, 2009  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home