Barry Hofstetter wrote:The person cited in the first review, Gail Riplinger, has to be read to be believed (that any sane person could actually write such drivel and get any other sane person to take her seriously).
Having just watched Gail Riplinger's arguements which that blogger refers us to. Let me share my thoughts.
By way of methodology, GR's arguements disolve many distinctions between religious movements, cultural memes (from many times and places) and linguistic data (such as one could find from reference works without actually knowing the languages discussed) in order to construct evidence to make the points that she is trying to. Her discussion of ideas that she doesn't agree with ("heresies") and extensive discussions and examples allows her audience to re-create the the practices and beliefs of groups and individuals that she disagrees with far more easily (and in more detail) than either of the heresiologists Iranaeus or Ephiphanius ever presented for their readers. There are many claims to her discovering the truth of things, but actually most of what she has "discovered" are actually freely available in course about various religious movements - and especially in courses about the context of Early Christianity or about comparative religious movements or 19th century sprititual movements, which are open to students (often at Master's level) in seminaries or the ancient history departments of public Universities. The presentation of ideas at a tertiary institution is made completely without the shock-value
that underpins GR's approach.
I'm glad that I arrived at an inclination towards the TR and the Majority Text tradition for reasons other than those presented by GR. Coherent and non-offensive arguements such as those in the appendix of Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpont 2005 edition of the Byzantine Text would perhaps ultimately proffer the reading of the TR (and hence the Authorised Version) better than GR's "arguements".