AV1611 Dean Burgon Society Exposes Messianic Claims of Heretic Gail Riplinger Update V: Conclusion
John William Burgon, Dean of Chichester, 1813-1888
The epitome of the English Protestant Reformation is, in fact, “the Monarch of the Books,” The Authorized King James Version of 1611 now in its present edition of 1769. It was born out of the crucible of the Risen Son of God’s Grand and Glorious Protestant Reformation when the Black Pope’s Jesuit-led Counter Reformation sought to destroy every English translation William Tyndale put forth for which work that great Man of God paid with his life. The AV1611 is covered with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus Christ. It is the very foundation for the first Presbyterian Westminster Confession of Faith and the foundation for the London Baptist Confession. According to Sir Winston Churchill (Masonic Knight of the Garter and occult servant of the Pope of Rome though he was), the AV1611 has been translated into 760 different languages and dialects. Further, Its underlying NT Greek and OT Hebrew texts are the Word of God, the very words of God preserved for us at this present hour. The AV1611 is the English translation of that Word of God and thus is the Word of God in English. Period. There are places where the AV1611 needs CLARIFICATION, (presence of the definite article, verbal tense, voice or mood, etc.) for which reason we consult its underlying original language texts. But in no place does the AV1611 need CORRECTION. That BOOK corrects us; it is the final authority for our faith and practice.
Therefore it is my pleasure to recommend the work and videos of the Dean Burgon Society here. One of those videos involves the fantastic critique of the work of Gail Riplinger, the female version of Jesuit Temporal Coadjutor Dr. Peter S. Ruckman (“Wreckman”), he also recommending her work. She advocates the abandonment of the underlying Greek and Hebrew texts of the AV1611, that it even corrects its underlying texts—a wonderful Jesuitism par excellence! For the Society of Jesus, in its wicked Fourth Session of the Council of Trent, utterly repudiates the Greek and Hebrew Scriptures to be the Word of God, holding only to the Pope’s Satanic Jerome’s Latin Vulgate. This video is most excellent and is recommended here.
My only criticism is the speaker’s disdain for all divorce, refusing to differentiate between God-blessed, Biblical divorce and sinful divorce. (The same principle applies to the topic of “racism,” whether it be God-blessed, non-hateful racism (one preferring his own race over all others ad did the Lord Jesus Christ and the Apostle Peter) or Satanic, hateful racism (one hating all other races save his own race)). For it is the position of most AV1611 Bible-Believing Baptists (unfortunately addicted to the Arminian heresy of the “free will” of the unsaved man) that “all divorce is sin”—the very same position of the Jesuit Papacy. And this damnable doctrine of “no divorce” has enthroned the “Christian” woman over the Man of God, the wife hamstringing the husband to her practical dictatorship, she threatening to “ruin his ministry” if he does not submit to her rule in blatant violation of Genesis 3:16. This damnable doctrine of “all divorce is sin” and “all divorce utterly disqualifies the Man of God from being a pastor-teacher” has ruined pastoral-authority in the pulpit (for she is the neck that turns the head) as well as Christian American manhood in the home. Further, it has utterly repudiated the Biblical doctrine of righteous divorce championed by the Martin Luther and other Protestant Reformers without whom we Baptists would still be in the Pope’s Dark Ages. These Baptists should take a lesson from King Xerxes when he put away his Queen for her notorious lack of submission to his God-ordained rule over her, a lack of submission that threatened the very foundation of the Medo-Persian Empire! The result was the blessed Book of Esther! Other than this one point of contention, your divorced and remarried editor heartily endorses this preacher’s exposure of heretic Gail Riplinger!
Enjoy!
Update I—July 19, 2010: “So-called author” Eric Jon Phelps responds to Mrs. Gail Riplinger:
Dear Mrs. Riplinger, I shall review your texts personally and then reply within one week. If I have falsely misrepresented you, I shall issue a retraction and an apology. If not the article will stand.
Sincerely in faith,
Brother Eric
—– Original Message —–
From: avnewsletter
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 7:59 PM
Subject: Your error
Dear Mr. Phelps,
You said, “She advocates the abandonment of the underlying Greek and Hebrew texts of the AV1611, that it even corrects its underlying texts…” You will find nothing of the sort written in my books. In fact, Hazardous Materials promotes these texts rather than some of the currently PRINTED editions. It is obvious that you have not read the book and are relying on statements made by men who provided no direct quotations from my material, as there are no places where I would say such a thing. I would expect so called authors, such as yourself, to at least read a book before they pass along false information about it. The book merely showed some historical errors in the PRINTED edition Waite and the DBS follow. This is not the text underlying the KJB, nor is it the originals, both of which I exhault all throughout the book.
Gail Riplinger
—– Original Message —–
From: Eric Phelps
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 5:37 AM
Subject: Greek Text underlying the AV1611
Dear Mrs. Riplinger,
As per your previous email, you referred to “the text underlying the KJB.” Would you please direct me to a source where I can obtain a copy of that Greek text underlying the KJB?
Thank you very much.
Sincerely in faith,
Brother Eric
Update II—July 20, 2010
Heresy One: Teaching men Biblical Doctrine in violation of I Timothy 2:11-15:
“Let the women learn in silence with all subjection.
But I suffer not a woman to teach nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.”
Mrs. Riplinger teaches men Bible doctrine in utter violation of the clear passage above. This disobedience is the source of all her subsequent disobedience and heresy evidenced by her speeches and literary works. If Mrs. Riplinger genuinely thought there was a need to correct an error in the doctrines of inspiration and preservation of the inspired, underlying Hebrew and Greek texts of the AV1611 as well as to defend the English text of the AV1611, then she should have approached a man of God (pastor-teacher, teacher, etc.) and performed her work under his authority. An example of this is found in Acts 18:26 when husband and wife team Aquila and Priscilla together instructed Apollos, they having “expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.”
Heresy Two: The Cultish, Subjective, Unbiblical Excuse given for Entering the Above Arena Reserved only for Men.
Mrs. Riplinger basically states “the Lord told her” to enter this arena. However the Lord would do no such thing as it is in violation of one of His mandates for New Testament believing women. The first video referenced above linked to the Dean Burgon Society fully documents this disobedience and heresy of Mrs. Riplinger.
Heresy Three: The Utter Denial of the Biblical Doctrine of God’s Predestination of His Elect to Salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ.
The following paragraph is taken from Mrs. Riplinger’s In Awe of Thy Word (Ararat, Virginia: A.V. Publicati0ns Corp., 2003) page 82:
“The predestinated and purposed element was not who should be saved, but HOW ‘whosovever will’ may be saved (Rev. 22:17). One is saved by being ‘in Christ,’ ‘in him,’ ‘in the beloved,’ and ‘through his blood.’ These prepositional phrases are repeated in every verse because they are the crux of the discussion. God predestined the means of salvation.
‘Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ . . .’ Eph. 1:5
“How do we become adopted into the family of God? — ‘by Jesus Christ.’ The verse does not say, ‘predestinated us unto the adoption of children. Period.’ It says ‘he . . . predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ. . . .’ Jesus Christ was God’s predestinated plan for the redemption of man. Those who are ‘in Christ’ are in the ‘elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.’ According to 1 Peter 2:5, 6 Jesus Christ is the ‘elect.’ If you are ‘in Christ,’ you are in the ‘elect.’ You do not get ‘in Christ’ by being predestinated; you get ‘in Christ’ by believing on him. God predestinated the method, not the people.”
This is a rank heresy, an utter departure from Biblical truth and an open repudiation of a key doctrine championed by the very English Reformers whose literary masterpiece of the AV1611—the Word of God in English—she appears to defend but, in fact, logically discredits. God has His unsaved elect who shall obtain salvation in Christ. For this reason the Christian evangelist endures hardship. (II Timothy 2:10). These unsaved elect “who shall be heirs of salvation” are protected by angels until the time of their salvation in Christ (Hebrews 1:14). These unsaved elect were chosen in Christ “before the foundation of the world” (Ephesians 1:4), and were also predestinated “unto the adoption of children,” to receive “an inheritance” by means of that legal adoption (Ephesians 1:5, 11). The Christian believer is not adopted into the family of God; he is born into the family of God, be it in the Old Testament economy (John 3:3) or the New Testament economy (John 1:12-13). Clearly, God foreknew his elect (I Peter 1:2), and that His foreknown elect were predestinated to be saved “in Christ,” to be the brethren of the Lord Jesus Christ (Romans 8:28-33). The doctrine of predestination applies to both salvation and the reception of an inheritance via legal adoption, both of which occur immediately upon belief of the gospel (Ephesians 1:11-14). As an aside, the Counter Reformation, anti-Av1611 Bible, diabolical Society of Jesus champions its doctrine of the “free will” of the natural man (which “free will” does not exist as per II Corinthians 4:4; Ephesians 2:1-3; John 6:44) and hates the Biblical, Reformation doctrine of the predestination of God’s elect to eternal salvation.
Heresy Four: The use of Hebrew and Greek Lexicons, Concordances and Dictionaries being Completely Detrimental to the Study of the AV1611 Reformation Bible and therefore should be Discarded; that the AV1611 has a built-in dictionary and therefore further justifies the abandonment of above named tools.
Mrs. Riplinger writes In Awe of Thy Word, pages 286 and 497:
“If God is going to use a special Bible vocabulary, which is ‘separate from sinners,’ how will we ‘sinners’ understand it? God thinks of everything! The little book manages to fit an entire dictionary inside. This author’s earlier book, The Language of the King James Bible, documents that the King James Bible has a built-in dictionary which defines all of its words.” . . .
“We will be judged by ‘the things which are written in this book’ (Rev. 22:19), not judged by the varieties of words hidden in mounds of men’s lexicons.”
Both statements on their face are true; the AV1611 does define itself throughout, and yes, we shall be judged by the Word of God, not by the lexicons of sinful men. However, a Jesuitical polemic is cunningly developed so as to bring the reader to the conclusion that Gesenius’ Hebrew Lexicon should be completely abandoned along with Strong’s and Young’s Concordances, along with Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, along with Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament—just to name a few. And once the reader accepts that conclusion, logical deduction necessitates there is no need to consult the inspired, inerrant and preserved Greek and Hebrew scriptures underlying the AV1611 English Bible. And no wonder, for we shall later discover Mrs. Riplinger does not believe they are accessible for study today in 2010 i.e., they do not exist! Thus, an attack is made upon language tools (unfortunately fraught with heretical comments born out of “higher textual criticism”—the Jesuit Order’s Hegelian Dialectic applied to the Reformation Bible) so as to justify the abandonment of the underlying Greek and Hebrew Texts no longer of primary importance, the AV1611 Reformation English Bible having taken their place! Since the Av1611 is the perfect translation of the underlying Hebrew and Greek texts, there is no need to consult these texts at all—which conclusion is in perfect accord with the Jesuit Order’s Council of Trent that condemns the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures!
There is no question that men who handle the Word of God dishonestly seeking to establish themselves as a “final authority” or a “Protestant/Baptist pope” have used Hebrew and Greek lexicons for evil. Your editor experienced this first hand in both Bible Colleges he attended. These “educated” men undermine the faith of God’s people who read the AV1611 English Bible, God’s children honestly believing it to be the Word of God for English-speaking people. This duplicity is a sin against the Lord of immense proportions for which they will answer either at the Judgment Seat of Christ or the Great White Throne.
However, there is an honest use for these very same language tools. Like the handling of firearms manufactured by pagans, their use is proscribed by certain rules founded in the doctrines of Biblical inspiration and its twin sister, Biblical preservation. Thus, as to Biblical texts, the Man of God is circumscribed by the AV1611 Reformation English Bible and its underlying Hebrew and Greek Texts—these original language texts being the inspired, God-breathed, Word of God preserved for Christian believers today in 2010. All other texts are heresy for the English-speaking student of the Reformation Bible and should never be studied or memorized as the Word of God.
Now to the use of the language tools, Hebrew and Greek. Remembering that all dictionaries, lexicons, concordances, thesauruses, and any other language tool was in all probability assembled by a team of unbelievers—including Jewish unbelievers—, these works still have valuable use for the Man of God as tools. As is the case with all tools, they can help you or harm you depending upon their cautious or reckless use. The following method illustrates the point as we review II Thessalonians 2:3-4:
“Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.”
This verse teaches there will occur a future event that will affect the entire Body of Christ then living on earth. That event is termed “a falling away.” Once that event transpires, “that man of sin”—the Man-Beast of Revelation 13:3-10—can then be revealed. The question is “What is this event termed ‘a falling away’ in the AV1611 English text? To answer that question we must first limit ourselves to the AV1611 underlying Greek Text, the Textus Receptus—the infallible, inerrant, inspired Word of God in Greek. No other Greek Text may be consulted as they are all pro-Latin Vulgate Romish heresies. No other English Bible may be consulted as they based upon the aforesaid pro-Latin Vulgate Greek Texts and thus are also Romish heresies.
We discover the underlying Greek word translated “a falling away” is “apostasia.” It is preceded by the definite article indicating this is a specific, one-of-a-kind event. Our tools must now be consulted. We open our The New Englishman’s Greek Concordance of the New Testament and discover on page 76 that “apostasia” occurs only twice in the entire New Testament. In Acts 21:21 it is translated “forsake” and II Thess. 2:3 it is rendered “falling away.” But logic (i.e., Biblical hermeneutics, comparing scripture with scripture) prohibits this definition from being conclusive. What specific forsaking or falling away will enable Satan to bring his man of sin to power? Is there another definition for “apostasia?” We now consult Thayer’s Lexicon and discover on page 67 it is rendered “a falling away, defection, apostasy.” We must ask “What specific apostasy, defection or falling away could enable Satan to manifest his “Wicked” one of II Thess. 2:8? We conclude there is no religious apostasy that could accomplish such a feat. Therefore, we must further search for a clarification to the word “apostasia.” We consult Arndt and Gingrich’s A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. We discover on page 98 the nearly identical definition, and still we are not content. We then consult James Strong’s The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible as to the underlying word for “falling away” of II Thess. 2:3. On page 332 we are referenced to the Greek word #646 in his Greek dictionary located in the back of his work. On page 14 of his Greek Dictionary of the New Testament “apostasia” is defined identically as given in the previously consulted tools. We now consult Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words only to discover on page 73 “apostasia” is given the same definition our other tools have rendered. We then consult Young’s Analytical Concordance and discover on page 327 “apostasia” is merely defined as “The falling away,” but at least the definite article is taken into consideration. Still we are not satisfied. We now consult The New Scofield Reference Bible on page 1294 and discover its definition of “apostasia” as “the rebellion or the departure.” Ah, “the departure!” As we consult Noah Webster’s First Edition of an American Dictionary of the English Language first printed in 1828, we discover the definition of the English word “apostasy” which is derived from the Greek “apostasia.” We find the following:
“1. An abandonment of what one has professed; a total desertion, or departure from one’s faith or religion.” Again we find the word “departure.”
Could it be that “apostasia” preceded by the definite article in II Thess. 2:3 is merely referring to a specific departure that when accomplished will unleash the power of the Devil to manifest his “man of sin?” Indeed, the passage refers to the specific departure of the physical bodies of the believers in Christ as the Person of the Holy Spirit departs this world (into which He entered in Acts 2) with the bodies of the dead saints and then with the bodies of the living saints pursuant to I Thess. 4:13-18. This is “the day of redemption.” Amen!
But does this mean that the AV1611 should really render the “apostasia” as “the departure?” Of course not! The phrase “a falling away” is more melodic, rhythmic, has more cadence and is better for memorization—as Mrs. Riplinger would rightly hold. So, we have not corrected the AV1611, rather we have kept within our bounds; we have clarified a specific verse without altering the sacred text. It has taken work and effort and prayer and determination; and we have not allowed our tools (forged by pagans) to rule over our “rightly dividing the Word of Truth” as we handle the infallible underlying Greek Text of the AV1611. Mrs. Riplinger would have abandoned this entire quest for the meaning of a phrase directly related to understanding “the blessed hope” of the Body of Christ (Titus 2:13-14). She abandons these tools as well as avoids the underlying Reformation’s Byzantine Greek Text which, if she can find it, considers to be only equal and not superior to the AV1611 English Bible. This is heresy.
Heresy Five: There is no further need for the Greek Traditional Text/Received Text/Byzantine Text underlying the AV1611 Reformation English Bible. This leads to the logical conclusion that the AV1611 English Translation is above the Traditional Greek New Testament Text upon which it was primarily based. On page 956 Mrs. Riplinger states in her In Awe of Thy Word:
“Scrivener’s and Berry’s printed Greek editions of the Textus Receptus must be understood to be what they are and nothing more. They are excellent tools to prove that the Received Text readings of the KJV are, in fact, based on a long history of Greek editions. They are also excellent tools to prove wrong the courrupt editions of the Greek New Testament, such as the UBS, Nestle, Westcott & Hort, and Hodges-Farstad Greek Texts, which underlie the new versions. . . .
The topic of Bible inspiration and infallibility can only be discussed with reference to actual words and verses. A fog of emotional steam, that carries no substance, precedes comments such as “I don’t believe the KJV corrects ‘the original Greek,‘” or “I don’t believe the KJV corrects the ‘Majority Text’ or the ‘Textus Receptus.’“ The desire to appear intelligent or superior by referring to “the Greek” and downplaying the common man’s Bible, exposes a naivety concerning the textual history and those documents which today’s pseudo-intellectuals call “the critical text,” “the original Greek, “the Majority Text,” or the “Textus Receptus.” There existed a true original Greek (i.e., Majority Text, Textus Receptus). It is not in print and never will be because it is unnecessary. No one on the planet speaks first century Koine Greek, so God is finished with it.”
This outrageous conclusion tells all. In the first paragraph, Mrs. Riplinger states that the Textus Receptus sold by the Trinitarian Bible Society (Scrivener’s Greek Text improved in 190 places over Theodore Beza’s text of 1598) and Robert Stephens’ Textus Receptus of 1550 (George Berry’s Greek-English Interlinear)—both texts having been the foundation for the translation of the AV1611—, are not the Word of God in Greek but merely “excellent tools.” In the second paragraph, Mrs. Riplinger satirically mocks those who deny the English of the KJV corrects the Majority Text or the Textus Receptus. This proves your editor’s initial charge which Mrs. Riplinger denies: she is holding to the very heresy of Jesuit Temporal Coadjutor Dr. Peter S. Ruckman, i.e., that the English corrects the Greek. This woman then serves her coup de grace pontificating that the Textus Receptus is “not in print and never will be because it is unnecessary. . . . God is finished with it.”
O really? First and most importantly, this is a total repudiation of the biblical doctrine of God’s sovereign preservation of the Holy Scriptures, both the Hebrew and Greek Holy Scriptures. Only the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures were directly “given by inspiration of God” (“God-breathed”) through “holy men of God as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” (II Timothy 3:16; II Pet. 1:21). No translation can claim this specific kind of inspiration and thus, there is no biblical promise that any translation will be preserved—including the AV1611. (In fact, there are past translations of the Received Text that have been totally destroyed by Rome!) The only Holy Scriptures God has promised to preserve and are thus under His own mandate to preserve are His Hebrew and Greek texts. Period.
Therefore, where are these texts for the Church of God today? The Hebrew Text of the Old Testament Scriptures is the Ben Chayyim Hebrew Text that served as the primary Hebrew Text for the AV1611 translators. The Greek Text of the New Testament is the combination of Stephens’ Text of 1550, Beza’s Text of 1598, Elzevir’s Text of 1633—first called “the Textus Receptus.” These Greek texts are in the printed works of Scrivener and Berry slandered above as being merely “excellent tools.“ The fact is these two Greek Texts are the preserved Word of God in Greek and this writer challenges anybody to prove otherwise. We have now not only substantiated the biblical doctrine of inspiration—as defined by the Scriptures above (Scriptures that “cannot be broken”) but also the biblical doctrine of preservation promised in a host of OT passages (Daniel 12:4, 9) and by the living Word of God Himself (Matthew 5:18; 24:15).
Secondly and finally, the outrageous conclusion of Mrs. Riplinger recited above is a diabolical departure from the historic doctrinal position of the Protestant Reformers and the churches born out of the Reformation as per the final authority of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures. In the Presbyterian Westminster Confession of Faith ratified by the General Assembly at Edinburgh in 1647, we read in Chapter I, Section VIII:
“The Old Testament in Hebrew, (which was the native language of the people of God of old,) and the New Testament in Greek, (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations,) being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them. But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto and interest in the scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and, through patience and comfort of the scriptures, may have hope.” [Emphasis added in bold]
In conclusion, God has directly inspired and preserved his Hebrew and Greek Scriptures and will continue to do so. They served as the primary basis for the 47 learned and godly men who gave to the Church of Jesus Christ the greatest English translation in history, the Authorized King James Version of 1611, later taken to the ends of the earth via the British Empire and translated into 760 languages and dialects. The AV1611 is the Word of God, the Holy Scriptures for all English-speaking peoples and is never CORRECTED but rather CLARIFIED by its underlying and infallible Greek and Hebrew Texts. That Hebrew Text is the Ben Chayyim Hebrew Text in its present printed form. That Greek Text is the Textus Receptus in its present printed form of Scrivener’s and Berry’s Greek Texts. There are no mistakes or errors in the AV1611, only slight, difficult-to-understand passages that can be readily CLARIFIED by comparing Scripture with Scripture or by consulting its underlying original language texts.
Mrs. Riplinger is a heretic of first rank, a denier of the doctrine of the preservation of the Hebrew and Greek texts given to Israel and the Body of Christ upon which every true translation has been based for the last 1900 years. This woman is a denier of the present existence of printed Greek and Hebrew texts by which the Man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works during this entire dispensation of the grace of God, and by which original texts he may cautiously CLARIFY certain difficult passages within the English Word of God, the AV1611. This woman has raised the translation of the AV1611 above the Hebrew and Greek Words of God directly inspired and preserved by the Spirit of God, and, by definition, she has become a promoter of a cult that places the work of man—a translation—on an equal level (in fact a superior level) to the historic Hebrew and Greek texts with which God is now “finished.” (The learned and godly 47 men were indeed “led by the Spirit of God” in their translation work (Romans 8:14), but they were not “moved by the Holy Ghost” being given direct, special revelation as were the “holy men of God” (II Peter 1:21) and as was the Apostle Paul (II Peter 3:16) as well as the other seven writers of the New Testament.) Mrs. Riplinger’s brilliant polemic ensnares the true lover of the Word of God by rightly defending King James I, by vindicating the translation of “JEHOVAH” over “YAHWEH,” by defending the lives of the wonderful, brilliant and godly AV1611 translators, and by marvelously illustrating the cadence, rhythm and poetic prose of the AV1611. But the deadly hook concealed in this bait is her rank heresy of the denial of God’s preservation of the words He first gave as to the record of His beloved Son, now sitting at His right hand. God help her to repent.
—– Original Message —–
—– Original Message —–
Dear Mr. Phelps,
I have just read your diatribe on your web site (June 23, 2010). It is obvious that you have still not read chapters 17 through 20 or chapters 27 and 28 of Hazardous Materials. For one, I said that the Hebrew text is preserved today. In addition, you said Scrivener and Berry’s text were the original. You have never seen a collation of these two editions, as exists in chapters 17-20. Everyone knows that they are not the same and that they both contain sometimes small but different errors. God has certainly preserved his word to the Greeks in the modern Greek Bampas (Vamvas) Bible. Please read the book before you embarass yourself further. Regarding your false statement about God telling me to do something, I have said no such thing. See the attachment for proof.
Gail Riplinger
—– Original Message —–
End