Challenging Riplinger: The Controversy over “Hell” and the “Blood”
Posted by Michael A. La Framboise on Wednesday, November 23, 2011
(2006)
Dear Jeremy,
I have been diligent of late to develop a comprehensive answer to the Riplinger accusations against major modern translations. More specifically, I have taken her to task concerning the comments she made about “Hell” and the “Blood” being removed maliciously from the Biblical text. I will try to be concise in my argument, yet thorough in my evidence.
First let me dismantle Riplinger’s case as it pertains to the Blood.
In the KJV O.T. the Hebrew word “dam” (strong’s #1818), is translated as “blood” 342 times. The discrepancy of 4-- as the KJV has 346 references to “Blood” in the O.T.-- is due to 3 unsupported uses (strong’s 9999), and another instance where “Blood” is used to translate a different Hebrew word (Is 63:3/ strongs #5332).
In the KJV N.T. the Greek word “Haima” (strong’s 129) or a derivitive (strong‘s 130; 131), is translated as “Blood” 101 times; which is every instance the word is used.
Now, what’s the deal with the modern translations? Is there a conspiracy to cover up the “blood”? Let’s see.
In the NKJV, every instance where there is blood in the KJV is accounted for, and in every instance the translation is valid, accurate, and truthful.
In the NIV, the same may be said, with two exceptions. The first, In the O.T., Ezekiel 16:6. Here, there is missing the final and redundant clause which repeats a reference to “Blood”.
However, the NIV does have textual support:
[Five manuscripts, the LXX (Septuagint), the Old Latin, and the Syriac omit the second,
"yea, I said unto thee when thou wast in thy blood, Live".]
From The Wycliffe Bible Commentary
The second omission is found in the N.T., Colossians 1:14.
Because of this verse, the context and understanding of verse 14 remains the same in both the KJV and the NIV. If Gnostics tampered with the text, they didn’t do a very thorough job. If Westcott and Hort meddled with the doctrine of the Atonement, they were not only unsuccessful, but even unnoticeable; as they still left the message very much intact.
All in all, these two “omissions” are hardly worth any one’s time. They are both meaningless in doctrine and worthless for criticism.
The topic of “hell” is even less relevant as we shall see.
Riplinger supposes that serious attention needs to be given to the blatant removal of “Hell” from modern translations; however, in both the NKJV and NIV all references are accounted for, and properly translated. If there is a problem, it lies in the KJV’s indiscriminate use of “Hell” as it translates the original words. I think this creates confusion in understanding the nature and doctrine of “Hell”.
If there is a debate, it probably lies with the NIV’s O.T. use of the word “Grave” instead of “Hell”. Yet, the KJV uses the same term to translate the same word 31 times. So, I don’t think that is a valid argument.
I have invested much time and research into this very brief synopsis; and I have complete paperwork, including all verse references, on all that I have suggested and declared. Feel free to e-mail me, and I will send it to you.
Dear Jeremy,
I have been diligent of late to develop a comprehensive answer to the Riplinger accusations against major modern translations. More specifically, I have taken her to task concerning the comments she made about “Hell” and the “Blood” being removed maliciously from the Biblical text. I will try to be concise in my argument, yet thorough in my evidence.
First let me dismantle Riplinger’s case as it pertains to the Blood.
In the KJV O.T. the Hebrew word “dam” (strong’s #1818), is translated as “blood” 342 times. The discrepancy of 4-- as the KJV has 346 references to “Blood” in the O.T.-- is due to 3 unsupported uses (strong’s 9999), and another instance where “Blood” is used to translate a different Hebrew word (Is 63:3/ strongs #5332).
In the KJV N.T. the Greek word “Haima” (strong’s 129) or a derivitive (strong‘s 130; 131), is translated as “Blood” 101 times; which is every instance the word is used.
Now, what’s the deal with the modern translations? Is there a conspiracy to cover up the “blood”? Let’s see.
In the NKJV, every instance where there is blood in the KJV is accounted for, and in every instance the translation is valid, accurate, and truthful.
In the NIV, the same may be said, with two exceptions. The first, In the O.T., Ezekiel 16:6. Here, there is missing the final and redundant clause which repeats a reference to “Blood”.
'Then I passed by and saw you kicking about in your blood,
and as you lay there in your blood I said to you, "Live!"
NIV
And when I passed by thee, and saw thee polluted in thine own blood,
I said unto thee when thou wast in thy blood, Live;
yea, I said unto thee when thou wast in thy blood, Live.
KJV
and as you lay there in your blood I said to you, "Live!"
NIV
And when I passed by thee, and saw thee polluted in thine own blood,
I said unto thee when thou wast in thy blood, Live;
yea, I said unto thee when thou wast in thy blood, Live.
KJV
However, the NIV does have textual support:
[Five manuscripts, the LXX (Septuagint), the Old Latin, and the Syriac omit the second,
"yea, I said unto thee when thou wast in thy blood, Live".]
From The Wycliffe Bible Commentary
The second omission is found in the N.T., Colossians 1:14.
“in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.”
NIV
“In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:”
KJV
19. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him,
20. and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
NIV
NIV
“In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:”
KJV
This of course, goes back to the whole debate between the two schools of Greek text: the Byzantine text (TR) and the Alexandrian texts. But, rather than doing all that, I simply draw your attention to verse 20 of Colossians chapter one, in the NIV:
19. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him,
20. and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
NIV
Because of this verse, the context and understanding of verse 14 remains the same in both the KJV and the NIV. If Gnostics tampered with the text, they didn’t do a very thorough job. If Westcott and Hort meddled with the doctrine of the Atonement, they were not only unsuccessful, but even unnoticeable; as they still left the message very much intact.
All in all, these two “omissions” are hardly worth any one’s time. They are both meaningless in doctrine and worthless for criticism.
The topic of “hell” is even less relevant as we shall see.
Riplinger supposes that serious attention needs to be given to the blatant removal of “Hell” from modern translations; however, in both the NKJV and NIV all references are accounted for, and properly translated. If there is a problem, it lies in the KJV’s indiscriminate use of “Hell” as it translates the original words. I think this creates confusion in understanding the nature and doctrine of “Hell”.
If there is a debate, it probably lies with the NIV’s O.T. use of the word “Grave” instead of “Hell”. Yet, the KJV uses the same term to translate the same word 31 times. So, I don’t think that is a valid argument.
I have invested much time and research into this very brief synopsis; and I have complete paperwork, including all verse references, on all that I have suggested and declared. Feel free to e-mail me, and I will send it to you.
blog comments powered by Disqus