Gail Riplinger and the Bible 3: The Morning Star

This series gives an analysis of Gail Riplingers New Age Bible Versions. This video deals with the second chapter.

My video on Isaiah 14:12:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TRkpTnU8zw

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Jesus
• Christ
• Christian
• Christianity
• Bible
• Biblical
• Scripture
• Scriptural
• church
• Catholic
• Catholicism
• Orthodox
• Orthodoxy
• Anglican
• Anglicanism
• King
• James
• Gail
• Riplinger
• New
• Age
• Versions

[imsavd]

Albert, you appear to be reading someone's script here, and not just speaking of yourself. What are you reading from?

There's an old proverb: If you throw a rock down a dark alley and hear a lot of yelping and barking, you know you hit something.. Mrs. Riplinger definately has hit something- I read the book, and I find it to be in conformity with long documented facts and quite valuable. Gail is certainly anything but stupid.

Albert, if you're sincere, I think you may be in over your head..

[labarum312]

Do you actually think it is acceptable to use an ellipsis (...) to connect random phrases fifty or more pages apart or in entirely different books? Look at her own footnotes! It's there!! Are you that out of contact with reality? Check out the collected letters from Hort (available online) and you will see for yourself my in context quote is correct. You just have bought into a lie and are too far into your conspiracy to see reality.

[5355vbxjbj76rvn]

For Jesus to be referred to as the Morning Star in Rev.22 looks like a correction of the boast of Helel/Phosphoros/Lucifer in Isaiah 14.12 - it's not blasphemy, but a return of a title to its true Owner. It is John's Gospel that calls Jesus the Light of the World.

Morning Star imagery for Jesus echoes many passages & words, in Luke, Malachi, Isaiah, to name a few.

[newagain1977]

@labarum312. I'm not looking to make you my full time teacher or anything , but I have learned a lot of my debate skills from you and that's why I been asking these things

[newagain1977]

@labarum312. What do you think of my baptist nonsense series? How do you think I could improve?

[Bingolly1]

@Mechanized0 I was under the impression that it was two or three. That is something I need to cover in my videos. It should not be difficult to find.

[Mechanized0]

@Bingolly1 Indeed. Please apply a correction where necessary, but I believe that the Church has only officially recognized two occasions where the pope spoke infallibly (Labarum, please forgive the temporary derailing of the subject matter).

[Bingolly1]

@Mechanized0 I will be supplying verses, etc. I will also show some things infallibility does not mean. I believe that is where Protestants miss it most. I feel they are under the impression that every thing the Pope says is infallible. Little do they understand that it only applies to faith and morals. Then only when he speaks from the Chair of Peter. GBU

[Mechanized0]

@Bingolly1 I'm pleased to hear that. Hopefully, you will provide "chapter and verse," if you will, in Catholic doctrine as it pertains to the idea of papal infallibility (for the record, despite some of the content on my channel, I am not Catholic).

[Bingolly1]

@Mechanized0 Actually I am working on a video now to explain that very subject. You are exactly right.  GBU

[Mechanized0]

@Bingolly1 Unfortunately, having been raised as a Fundamentalist Baptist I am all-too aware of how such individuals take information out of context. An example would be the Catholic belief in papal infallibility. They merely assume that Catholics believe that every word that comes out of the mouth of the pope is completely without error. A little research would place this belief in its actual context.

[mapollo]

Woodrow is still an Evangelical...far from Catholic.

Try again.