Tares Among the Wheat – A Review

taresI can say right now at the outset of this review that it will be negative. I imagine many will conclude after reading it that it is nothing more than an ungracious and cruel rant rather than a serious and honest evaluation of the product. So be it if that is the case; but as a Christian, I have a duty to the truth.

Anyone who follows my blog knows I have had some rather blunt words for Chris Pinto and his Codex Sinaiticus conspiracy that he has been feeding to the undiscerning Christian community. You can read my initial post about him and Brannon Howse HERE.

I came in contact with Pinto back during the summer after I had emailed Brannon Howse directly to inquire as to why he allowed a KJVO conspiracy theorist into his immediate circle of ministry partners. He forwarded along my email to Pinto and the three of us began to interact a bit.

Pinto was rather adamant that I had no justification to label him a KJVO proponent or challenge his research if I hadn’t seen his documentary. Seeing that I had no real desire to spend hard-earned and much needed funds upon a DVD that I knew without doubt would be outright historical revisionism and amount to nothing more than KJVO propaganda, I stated something like if I he sent me a copy I would watch it. To his credit, Pinto sent me not only his documentary, but another audio version of the same material entitled, Codex Sinaiticus: The Oldest Bible or Modern Hoax? 

I carved out the time: Over two days early on a Saturday and Sunday morning before the family got up. I muscled my way through all 170 exhausting minutes of Pinto’s Tares Among the Wheat.

Let that sink in a moment.

A 2 hour and 50 minute documentary on how the Jesuits manufactured the Codex Sinaiticus legend. To put that in perspective, that is approximately 45 minutes longer than The Avengers and just 9 minutes shy of the Fellowship of the Ring, the non-extended version.

Having now watched the documentary, I can confidently say that Chris Pinto has spent a considerable amount of money and time making for us the first ever, live-action Jack Chick Crusader Comic.

I have dealt at some length with the particulars of his conspiracy in previous posts, so I won’t retread old ground here. However, to summarize his belief, Pinto claims in his documentary that Constantine Von Tischendorf, rather than identifying the oldest known codex of the NT at St. Catherine’s monastery, instead passed off to the unwitting scholarly community a 19th century work by the hand of one talented paleographer, Constantine Simonides.

Tischendorf, working in collusion with the Jesuit order, was able to silence Simonides’ public protests that his work had been in essence stolen. Thus, with Simonides gone, the plan by the Jesuits to undermine the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura was able to go forward, clearing the way for the influence of higher textual criticism and the publication of modern Bible versions based upon the codex that Tischendorf allegedly “found.”

A 2 hour, 50 minute documentary that brings us to that conclusion.

Pinto breaks his documentary up into nine key chapters. One would think the chapters would get quickly to the point, but each one lingers on and on beyond what was really necessary for him to establish what he wanted to say. Honestly, this documentary could be easily trimmed by a good hour and a half or more and still present his case.

He begins by explaining the devotion early Christians had for the Bible and then moves into describing how the Catholics sought to destroy Bible-believing Christians because they refused to submit to papal authority. He then turns to talking about the Reformation and the Reformer’s return to the authority of Scripture.  And then he begins moving to the big build up of his film by introducing the shady nature of the Jesuit order and their intention to destroy Protestants and the solas of the Reformation, particularly sola scriptura.

From about the second half of the DVD (by this point almost an hour and half into the film), Pinto lays out his Sinaiticus conspiracy by retelling how Tischendorf allegedly “discovered” the codex at St. Catherine’s monastery at Mt. Sinai. He then introduces Simonides and tells of the ensuing “controversy” that he generated among the academic community by publishing articles in The Guardian newspaper claiming Tischendorf had mistakenly identified his personal work as an “ancient” biblical text. Then, we are told how Simonides was silenced by the Jesuits because they controlled both the universities AND the news media in Britain at the time (how convenient!). Simonides was painted as a hoaxer and fraud and returned to Turkey in shame only to die a few years later of leprosy as another tragic victim of the Jesuits.

The film is cobbled together with bizarre speculations, dishonest, cherry-picked citations, and a total reworking of the history surrounding the finding of the codex. All of it played out before the viewer between dramatizations and the commentary of alleged, biblical “experts” all punctuated by a soundtrack of spooky music.

Without belaboring my criticisms of this work, let me provide a couple of highlights so as to illustrate what I mean.

First. The documentary format provides Pinto the ability to dramatize key characters and sequences in his convoluted conspiracy theory. That allows him the opportunity to stage how he wants his viewers to perceive the principal individuals central to his thesis.

Tischendorf is portrayed as angry and brooding. He is seen in one scene glad-handing and chortling with the pope and Vatican officials, and then in another scene bitterly muttering to himself as he plots against his academic enemies. Simonides, on the other hand, is portrayed as a handsome, swashbuckling scholar, like some heroic Indiana Jones character, who sadly met his early death going up against the sinister scheming of Tischendorf and the massive Jesuit machine.

The dramatizations are so absurd that they would be comical if it weren’t for the fact that what Pinto is trying to convey to his audience wasn’t so profoundly in error.  Not only is it dishonest toward the memory of Tischendorf, but viewers will go away from the DVD with a warped view of the real facts and thus remain prejudiced against considering the true history of our Scriptures.

Second. Even worse than the fantasy recreations Pinto presents is the deceitful information contained in the film that he attempts to pass off as “scholarship.”

As I noted in my previous critique (see link at the beginning), Pinto claims in the promotional description of his film that he interviewed leading “experts” in the field of biblical studies. The problem is that those “leading experts” are neither “leading” nor “experts,” but are all KJV onlyists or men favorable to his revisionist theory of textual criticism.

Apparently, no dissenting “experts” were even considered who would certainly disagree with his view. In fact, Pinto, who is also the narrator of his own film, is also an “expert.” So throughout a large portion of his documentary Pinto is essentially interviewing himself as an “expert” to his own outlandish conspiracy.

Such a lopsided evaluation of one of the most important finds in modern Christian history would be enough to raise serious doubts about the credibility of the information presented.  However, it is the intentional mishandling of the historical record that truly demonstrates the fraudulent nature of this work.

I could hit on many key examples, and in point of fact, in my previous article (again, linked above), I wrote about him cherry-picking out-of-context citations in order to exaggerate the person and abilities of Simonides to more than what he really was: a con-artist trying to make a fast buck selling fake manuscripts. Let me highlight another example of Pinto’s deceitful use of historical citations.

In the 5th chapter on the DVD, Pinto makes the wild assertion that it was Jesuits who developed the “scholarly” discipline of higher criticism, the textual criticism that really took root in Germany and treats the biblical text in a rational fashion that concludes the Bible is filled with error.

He begins the chapter by outlining the history of the Received Text as promoted by KJVO apologists and interviews a couple of his “experts,” even showing the official Erasmus library. He then attempts to string together the Jesuit connection of higher criticism by first introducing his viewers to Johann Semler, the 17th century textual scholar who is often considered the father of German rationalism. Semler taught and discipled Johann Griesbach, both men who, according to Pinto, held to unorthodox views of Scripture. Pinto doesn’t explain what that unorthodoxy was.

From that point, the reenactments begin, and you hear Pinto say — with an ominous soundtrack playing under the narration —  that Germany became the concentration of Jesuit activity, most importantly, the introduction of higher criticism — cut to a scene of his Tischendorf character shuffling through a stack of papers, hint, hint.

He doesn’t really provide any genuine documentation to back up that claim, but plays an old recording of Irish minister and politician, Ian Paisley saying the Jesuits were the developers of higher criticism in Germany. No offense to the good minister, but I’d like a little more than just his word on it.

Then Pinto provides the “background” of textual criticism that was developed in the 1600s by a French Catholic, Richard Simon, who is called the “father of higher criticism.” Of course, according to Pinto, Simon was trained as a Jesuit, though he provides no real documentation for that charge except to say he was “affiliated” with particular individuals and institutions that were allegedly Jesuit.  He also doesn’t tell the viewers that a number of other scholars before Simon independently developed ideas similar to his and that secular Jewish philosopher, Baruch Spinoza, is also considered a major influence on higher critical thinking, even being called “the father of higher criticism” in some circles. But an influential Jewish philosopher doesn’t play well into the Jesuit theory portion of Pinto’s film. 

He goes on to explain how it was the plan of the Jesuits to do whatever it takes to destroy the Protestant beliefs about the Scriptures. When he states that, he provides as an example Isaac De La Peyrere, a French theologian who wrote a book entitled Men Before Adam. The book is Peyrere’s theory that pre-Adamic men existed long before God created Adam and Eve.

The Jesuits, according to Pinto, used Peyrere’s book as a means to undermine the literal interpretation of Scripture taught by the Calvinistic Reformers.  A citation then pops up on screen taken from two authors, Jim Bennett and Scott Mandelbrote, who wrote a “Catalogue of Biblical Criticism” and stated how Peyrere, “deployed the hypothesis of men before Adam in order to attack the Calvinist method of interpreting the scripture according to the literal sense…”

Now, for the person who is all into Jesuit conspiracies and is emotionally manipulated by scary horn sounds and dark shadowy images in a film, I can see how he or she can be easily persuaded to believe what Pinto is saying here.  I’m guessing he is banking on the hope no one will actually go to the computer and double-check his claim, because if anyone were to do so, just a quick internet search will reveal that Pinto is only telling his viewers a very small portion of who Peyrere really was. He wants people to get the impression he was a Catholic agent who wrote his work for the sole purpose of attacking Protestant Calvinists, but that is not the case at all.

It took me all of 45 seconds to type in the name of the authors and their work to find the citation Pinto had to have been quoting.  If a person reads the entire online article about Peyrere, he will learn that he was born in a Protestant family and quite possibly had a Jewish ancestry. Moreover, he held to an odd sort of Jewish Messianism and  developed his ideas about pre-Adamic men as a Protestant not as a Catholic, with the intention of evangelizing the Jewish community for Christ.

Most friends told him he shouldn’t publish his book, but he was finally persuaded to do so and after he did, he was charged with teaching heresy and arrested. He later converted to Catholicism and repudiated his views. When he was asked to explain his views, he claimed that, “…This method [the literal interpretation of Scripture] led him into his heresy, and that belief in pre-Adamites was indeed consistent with a Calvinist approach to the Bible.”

I hope my readers are tracking along with me.

Instead of this work being a product of Jesuits who wanted to undermine the Protestant view of Scripture by teaching a false interpretation of Genesis and pre-Adamic men, what we really learn from the full article is that Peyrere renounced his former views he developed as a Protestant and blamed Calvinism on his wrong interpretation of Genesis and the false doctrine of pre-Adamic men. That is not what we take away from Pinto’s film.

I would also add that the article goes on to point out that Calvinists were aware of Peyrere’s work and worried about its influence among Christians. But it was not because they feared an attack by Jesuits on sola scriptura. The church at that time was under assault by a number of new sects, like the Quakers, who threatened the authority of Scripture [As an example, listen to Steve Lawson’s second message from the Strange Fire conference that addresses the Quakers]. The Reformers believed Peyrere’s book would embolden their wacky views of personal revelation and prophecies.

However, rather than his book having a weakening effect among Reformed Calvinists and upon their doctrine of Scripture that Pinto suggests in his documentary, according to Bennett and Mandelbrote, they urged a greater concentration upon what Scripture genuinely teaches and a renewed advocacy of a close reading of the Bible. In other words, it strengthened the commitment Reformed Calvinists already had for the Word of God. That is basically the polar opposite of what Pinto says the Jesuits used Peyrere’s book for.

Now, with all of that in mind, folks are sure to ask, “why are you wasting three hours on a weekend to watch such a lame video and then a lot of time over the course of a few days to write up a review on it”?

Pinto is something of an obscure documentarian who makes strange films on conspiracy theories. See for instance his two films playing on the UFOTV.COM youtube channel [UFO TV people!], the Secrets of the Dollar Bill and Riddles in Stone, in which he lays out the influence Free Masons and the Illuminati have had upon the history of the United States.  I am left to wonder which secret society has the more power: the Illuminati or the Jesuits. Do they work together, or are they competitors? More to the point, why on earth should a Bible-believing, Gospel-loving Christian care about Masonic symbols on our dollar bills? How does knowing all the secret symbols in the dollar bill help a Christian in his ability to discern and grow in Christ? But I digress.

Someone who is driven by a conspiratorial world view isn’t taken seriously by most regenerated, sober-minded, Bible-believing Christians.  However, within the last few years, Pinto has gained more recognition by being numbered among Brannon Howse’s Worldview Weekend ministry partners. A conspiracy theorist is featured along with other reputable Christian men including John Whitcomb, pastor Mike Abendroth, Justin Peters, and Erwin Lutzer.  That association provides him some credibility that I don’t believe he deserves, nor is it one the Christian church at large needs.

For a ministry that promotes itself as teaching Christians discernment, only goes about sowing confusion by entertaining an individual whose ideas lack that discernment Christians should be taught to cultivate. Thus, my desire with this rather harsh review is to see believers warned against vain philosophies that are passed off as something valuable to our faith and to exhort the brethren to exercise great caution when the come across it.


64 thoughts on “Tares Among the Wheat – A Review

  1. Christian J. Pinto is an “Award Winning”! Film maker, and for good reason. His godly character has been an encouragement to me and my family for years.

  2. I’m not denying you make some note worthy points. I’m not jumping on either “band wagon”. But your snarky attitude is hateful and offensive. Your NOT funny at all. ~ Linda

  3. And the tone police has entered the building. Tell me when Paul says he wished the judiazers would castrate themselves do you think his tone was too hateful and offensive? Why should Fred talk like Mr. Rogers to someone promoting error?

  4. Well Kimberly, it may be that Chris is a godly guy and all, but he makes abysmal films that are stuffed with horrific error that he passes off as “scholarship.” Those films are misleading people about what is important in our Christian life. Even more to the point, Christians will have a warped understanding of Church history and thus remain ignorant of genuine history.

    So, I don’t know who it was who awarded him for his documentaries, but who ever it was, they didn’t bother to go back and check his claims against the truth. The fact that Chris passes off his cherry-picked citations and sloppy research as “scholarship” and then reacts with hostility when people who know better challenge him also troubles me when you say he is a godly guy. A man with godly character would listen to criticism coming from other godly individuals who have a love and a concern for truth and point out the serious errors that are woven throughout his movies.

    A genuine question: Do you know where he attends church? What denomination and who is his pastor? I couldn’t find anything about that anywhere.

  5. Does Pinto say what in Codex Sinaiticus–that differs from the Textus Reseptus–would lead someone to discard Sola Scriptura?

  6. Not really. Hopefully the debate/discussion he has with James White in a few weeks will address that. In the exchanges I have had with him in the comments under various blogs, he appeals to liberal scholars who use the corrections in the codex text to bolster their historical critical ideas, but he doesn’t provide any specific examples of doctrinal heresy per se found in the codex and comparable to the TR. .

    Apparently he is working on a third installment that will address the manuscripts in the 20th century. Maybe he will hit on that then.

  7. Thank you for writing this article, Fred. This is a topic that is near and dear to my own heart, having briefly been seduced myself, early in my Christian walk, into the conspiratorial mindset. This came about because of my very real involvement with occultic activities prior to salvation, so I was probably a very natural candidate to be overly sensitive to a focus on occultic symbols. And make no mistake, there is a veritable cottage industry of these scaremongering videos that lurks within Christendom, ready to prey upon Christian’s fears. Illuminati! Bilderberg! The all-seeing-eye! Oh my! It’s a real moneymaking endeavor, in that if the producer of a video can convince his audience that he alone is the decoder who can help them Connect The Dots, well, they will just keep coming back for more…and more…and more.

    What I eventually realized, through God’s grace, and the Holy Spirit growing me in discernment, was that God never meant for us to walk in fear of Satan’s schemes, but by being undergirded with the truth of God’s word which commands us to fear ONLY the Lord (Prov 1:7 “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom”).

  8. I second the thanks to Fred, and also second the experience you had, Christine; although I wasn’t quite into the occult before salvation, I too fell for the tin-foil hat theology for a while (and cringe at how goofy it is in hindsight). The doctrine of sovereignty blows it to bits. My comfort from the Lord comes in the fact that He’s continuously dragging me out of stupidity and sticking me back on the way to Him–I’m great at making a train take a dirt road.

    Fred, I have this mental image of your eye twitching like Commissioner Dreyfus’ after watching this video. :p

  9. You wrote, “All of it played out before the viewer between dramatizations and the commentary of alleged, biblical “experts” all punctuated by a soundtrack of spooky music.”

    Something tells me that if this movie had no spooky music, it would instantly become impotent. We both know it has no factual basis behind the claims, so the spooky music seems to be the only leg it is left standing on.

    Hope you have a great Thanksgiving and thanks for publishing this!

  10. Thanks Fred for slugging your way through 3 hours you’ll never get back.

    And to Linda, it’s “You’re not funny.” If you are going to monitor tone, at least use good grammar. ;)

  11. I agree with you Kimberly. The church doesn’t want to accept that there is any hidden agenda from the Jesuits, and in effect they deceived themselves (especially under this current pope).

  12. Shannon Haas, I think you have somehow mistaken Fred’s article to mean that he (and perhaps others?) somehow find it “frightening” when Jesuits are discussed. That’s not true. What Fred is pointing out, I think, is that balanced, mature Christians don’t focus on conspiracies which may or may not exist, as that is not a mindset modeled or taught in Scripture.

  13. Thanks a bunch for addressing this tinfoil hat stuff Fred. I know it’s not as cool as addressing other things (like academic atheism or creation science or pointing whatever stupid thing Mark Driscoll recently said), but this stuff is thr kind of stuff that the popular pastors/academics ignore…and yet it’s the stuff that far more people “on the street” get into.

    Your contributions here are far more useful than you realize.

  14. I agree wholeheartedly with mennoknight here. I know that scaremongering videos with spooky, manipulative music don’t even hardly seem worth dealing with because, on the surface, they would seem to be patently obvious for what they are (sensationalistic items designed to captivate the flesh and prey upon Christian’s fears). And then of course, there are those 3 hours of your life that you’ll never get back. And yet, these types of teachings DO have a way of working their way into evangelicalism, to disastrous effect. I have dealt with Christians completely ensnared to this kind of teaching, and if you try to lovingly and gently point out why this type of material isn’t edifying to the Christian walk, ah well, then, *you* must therefore be part of The Big Conspiracy. You’re not a fellow Christian, you’re One Of Them. It’s very tidy, how this whole cottage industry first preys upon people’s fears and then answers back to the naysayers who would attempt to bring in a reasoned, biblical response to those ensnared by the teachings being peddled.

  15. You say:

    “Someone who is driven by a conspiratorial world view isn’t taken seriously by most regenerated, sober-minded, Bible-believing Christians.”

    Find out who said this:

    “The Jesuits play a prominent part in these transactions, as they do in most Catholic affairs. Father Gaggi, we are told, put the authenticating seal to the false relics, some of which were in shrines, and others in settings of gold or silver. Brother Benoit was the great wholesale dealer in them, and during the trial, with their usual cunning, the Jesuits took care that he could not be found. It was confidently believed that he was secreted in the head-quarters of the Jesuits at Lyons. No means whatever were taken by the pope, or his court, to make known the existence of this legion of forged relics, so that, so far as they were concerned, the thousands and tens of thousands of dupes might go on for ever worshipping the bones of sheep and hares, and carrying them to the sick in the hope of their being healed by them.”

    And what about this definition for Jesuitic, find out whose it is. I’ll give you a clue, it was from a dictionary written in 1828:

    JESUIT’ICAL, a. Pertaining to the Jesuits or their principles and arts.
    1. Designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating.

    Also have you read Augustus Toplady’s short pamphlet called Arminianism: The Road to Rome?

    Also you say:

    “Then, we are told how Simonides was silenced by the Jesuits because they controlled both the universities AND the news media in Britain at the time (how convenient!)”

    But why don’t you tell people what respected protestant historian he mainly referenced to make this claim? He wrote The History of Protestantism Volumes 1, 2 & 3.

    The men I refer to are Charles Spurgeon; Noah Webster; Augustus Toplady; and J.A. Wylie. But you say:

    “Someone who is driven by a conspiratorial world view isn’t taken seriously by most regenerated, sober-minded, Bible-believing Christians.”

  16. Sorry I posted that in the wrong tab. I meant here to address keachfan.

    Keachfan. There is a massive MASSIVE difference between what Paul did in warning against the Judaizers, and what Pinto did. I don’t know what you might base it upon that Pinto is a Gospel destroying heretic. If you have nothing solid, then you should consider apologizing for your comment.

    Also, what gives you the right to comment so harshly and not in keeping with the spirit of Galatians 6:1 to Linda? Is she a believer? Or an unbeliever? In either case, you are most surely to speak with meekness and love; not harshness and malice; not with such a derogatory and cold and unloving manner. Is Linda promoting heresy? If not, then why would you emulate Paul’s harsh talking against the heretical Judaizers?

    Do NOT twist the scriptures in order to justify behaviour which God hates. Meekness. Galatians 6:1 also says you who are SPIRITUAL; not you who are walking after the flesh. Your comment does not line up with Galatians 5:22-23 at all. It also says IF a man be over taken in a fault. What is Linda’s fault that you so harshly rebuke her without even a hint of meekness?

  17. This article is either written from a standpoint of ignorance of duplicity; I cannot imagine another thing to call it. Also, how many of ye readers cried foul to Pinto’s comments about Kirshner? If you are one such person, and yet you amen this article (one of the most ungodly and densest collection of ad hominems I have read in a long time) then you are one who has a severe case of double standards; I hope you realize that. Godliness ought to be in all of our interactions, and this article is so completely devoid of it; and you talk about a brother with such contempt.

    I advise you all to read 1 John, paying particular attention to what John there says about hating your brother. This article and it’s author displayed such ungraciousness. If Pinto were to speak even 1/10th as ungracious as this; ye would be crying foul for it so vehemently. This is truly a disappointment. May God grant you who lack humility this all important and necessary grace, for it is contrary to the nature of our flesh; though glorifying to our God.

    I should hope if any choose to respond, that you would remember Galatians 6:1 and act accordingly before doing so. It saddens me that so few posting replies are rebuking your slander and ungodly approach.

  18. While I agree that there are some factual errors in Pinto’s latest movie and in some places it seems to be a little weak, I am still worried about what he is right about in the movie. I am a Bible believer who believes the King James Bible is given by inspiration by God and I hope my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus will open their eyes and see that the KJB is God’s word before you leave this earth dead or alive. I know many of you who would be labeled as ANTi-KJV only, are probably great Christians and probably trying to live Godly lives. I am sure that many of you love the truth. It is a shame that because I associate and love and appreciate and learn from men like Pinto, Ruckman, and Chick that I would be labeled as a danger and threat and a nut by other Christians. My hearts desire is that we be united and at peace. If anyone wants to read two excellent books defending the King James Bible check out Gail Riplingers website AVpublications.com and search for “The Word: God Will Keep It” by Joey Faust and “Which Bible Would Jesus Use?” by Jack Mcleroy. These are probably the best books I have ever read on the subject.


  19. You do make some valid points and I wouldn’t wish to deny that you know more about the original languages than me.

    However, I do wonder if the time you spend on this issue would not be better spent on reaching the lost for Christ. After all, what is more important, proving that one version is better than the other, or telling Hell-bound sinners that Jesus died for them and calls them to follow Him?

  20. Yes James, my time would be better spent on other things like reaching the lost and ministering to the body. But the Bible also calls us to confront error within the church (Ephesians 4:11-16 for example) and I would be delinquent in my duties as a Christian to just ignore the dishonesty Mr. Pinto is passing off on the unwitting Christian community. Hence the reason for the time I do spend on this.

  21. Pingback: Answering the Claims of KJV-Onlyism | hipandthigh

  22. Pingback: Reviews | hipandthigh

  23. Fred

    I have been study and reading your articles today and will continue to do so. If it at all possible I would hope you would read the two titles I have mentioned,“The Word: God Will Keep It” by Joey Faust and “Which Bible Would Jesus Use?” by Jack Mcleroy.
    As a student of Ruckman, Grady, Gipp, and Riplinger I have found these two books to be the most edifying and helpful for me in this debate. Will you get them? I will purchase them for you.

  24. Hey again David,
    Thanks for the recommendations. I am familiar with those books, but haven’t read them, but I don’t know what they could possibly tell me that DA Waite, David Cloud, William Grady, and a host of other KJVO apologists haven’t already. Of the other folks you mention – and I will be blunt, so forgive me – I believe they are incompetent to handle the Word of God, let alone tell me how the Bible was transmitted.

    If you are reading my articles, I do pray you will consider the research of Doug Kutilek, http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/index_doug.html and others listed at his website, kjvonly.org, particularly James May and Rick Norris. All of them are fine men who love the Lord and His Word, but have written important material that really exposes the error that is KJV onlyism. Rick Norris has probably one of the better books in print (next to James White) who lays out and interacts with the key KJVO arguments. I would also encourage you to check it out. http://www.unboundscriptures.com/

    Don’t read on just one side of the issue. When I was a KJV onlyists, I was a bit afraid to do so because of what I may find. You can’t have that attitude. Let those men who are Bible believing, God loving Christians who have tackled this issue yet reject it outright explain why and consider their arguments.


  25. I hate to pull the ‘academic’ card here, but the majority of commentators supporting (I presume) Chris Pinto in his assertions presented in the documentary do not interact with the arguments Fred offers against them. Jokes about Jesuit conspiracies aside, Sinaiticus and the earlier manuscripts discovered after the publication of the Textus Receptus have only served to demonstrate that God has preserved His Word, and that we can trust it. Beyond that, they also give us (most assuredly) the readings closest to the original autographs, which means we can translate with even greater accuracy. I’m not saying the KJV offers anything short of the Gospel, or that any major doctrine can’t be derived from reading it, but I’m a Classicist, and if in our discipline we’d be excited about earlier manuscripts (than what we currently have) of Caesar or Thucydides, and eager to ‘get to work’ learning as much as we can about the original texts, and striving for absolute accuracy in language and translation, why shouldn’t we as Christians do so with the Bible? Especially when the evidence shows us we have nothing to fear, because the Lord has preserved His Word, and especially when Holy Writ is so much more precious than Vergil? From the perspective of someone whose bread & butter is ancient languages and text & transmission, Sinaiticus only increases our confidence in the authority of scripture. Even if the Jesuits had had such a plan [that would require accepting that Sinaiticus was a forgery, while the corrections in it help us to determine its date beyond doubt] as Pinto asserts, they obviously failed. And that’s beyond the fact that the dates don’t add up; how could Simonides have ‘anticipated’ readings much more ancient than the Byzantine manuscripts he must have been ‘copying’ in this text he ‘invented’, and done so at 19 years old (H/T James White)?

  26. I ought to have put ‘corrections’ in quotes, or else used ‘notations’, glosses, etc. One final thought: while liberal ‘textual critics’ may misuse & abuse textual criticism and manuscripts to attack the authority of scripture and either overawe or intimidate the ignorant, even Christians, the fact they use it/them does not mean that what they appropriate as ammunition (in this case, Sinaiticus) is inherently flawed or detrimental to the doctrine of sola scriptura, nor does it demonstrate that Sinaiticus originated in Jesuit conspiracy to undermine the doctrines of the Reformation.

  27. Pingback: Do Not Be Surprised…This ‘n’ That (06 December 2013) | Truth2Freedom's Blog

  28. Pingback: Tares Among the Wheat by Chris Pinto – A Review | ALAN KURSCHNER

  29. Fred

    You said about yourself “I am familiar with those books, but haven’t read them, but I don’t know what they could possibly tell me that DA Waite, David Cloud, William Grady, and a host of other KJVO apologists haven’t already.” Trust me those books have major information that is totally original and unknown. I said I would buy you the books. Have it your way.
    “Don’t read on just one side of the issue.” I don’t. How do you think I found your website? I got the link through James White. Also I read your other blog a few years back. 14 years ago I purchased John Ankerberg’s little book about the debate. (I even purchased from Sam Gipp the complete Debate done in the early 90’s.) Since then I have collected books, articles, and anything I can that opposes the King James Bible. To the left of me as I type I have “King James Onlyism A New Sect.”

    Both the websites you have mentioned I have visited frequently in the past. In fact if I had a class on the KJB I would make my students read James White’s book. It would be a great tool to only strengthen the KJB argument.



  30. Perhaps, then, Chris Pinto would be better off spending his time reaching the lost for Christ instead of proclaiming conspiracy theories and proving that one version is better than the other? Why does this sort of criticism only seem to get leveled against those who expose error and rarely against those who promote it?

  31. David,
    Okay. Please give me a couple of examples of “originality” found in those two books. But again, seeing that I have read practically every major KJVO work in print up until maybe 2001, I can’t imagine what more could be said. Present me something that would honestly move me to want to check them out.

  32. David writes,
    Are you saying that you have only read pro KJB books from 2001 and older?

    Yes. And the problem with that is…? I have read practically every major KJVO book that has been published before 2000 or 2001. That would include authors like DA Waite, David Cloud, William Grady, Peter Ruckman, Samuel Gipp, Gail Riplinger, Jack Moorman, Edward Hills, etc. That also includes a number of books by individuals who are not KJVO per se, but hold to the MT or TR position. I have also interacted with a number of key bloggers who are KJVO, including Jeffrey Nachimson and Will Kinney. So I am rather well informed as to the apologetics employed by the KJVO folks.

    You make it sound as if there is something new being offered that hasn’t been offered before. But I honestly do not see any true indication of that.

    For example, I went and checked out that Joey Faust guy you mentioned above. In the product description mentioned with his book, I saw nothing “new” as to what he was attempting to present that had not already been presented by other authors I had already read. Ironically, he has a section in his book allegedly dealing with Catholic plots against the Bible. However, I’d venture a guess that him being a big KJVO guy and promoted by Riplinger, that he is also a hardcore anti-Calvinist. But the key line of demarcation during the Reformation between Catholics and Protestants was the nature of salvation and the sufficiency of the Gospel to save men. KJVO fundamentalist unwittingly side with the Catholics on that issue.

    I can also say the same about Jack McElroy’s book you link. Just reading over the table of contents, what is new in his argumentation that has already not been laid out by any of the key authors I noted? He seems to present the same talking points that I have read from folks like David Sorenson, Cloud, Waite, and a ton of other guys who argued the exact same talking points.

    Now I honestly wish YOU would give me something. Pick your best new and original argument and briefly summarize it here and we can talk.

  33. The problem is that you miss out on great books like Hazardous Materials by Sister Riplinger and the two books I recommended.

    Joey Faust’s book focuses on the history of KJV debate. There is no book that I know that focuses on the history of the debate from a strictly KJB side. If so let me know.

    Jack Mcelroy’s book focus on which Bible would Jesus use. I know of no other book that focus on this question. If so let me know.

  34. Great books by Sister Riplinger? Yikes.

    Reason and discernment are slain on sight by lovers of Riplinger.

  35. “Chris Pinto has for us the first ever, live-action Jack Chick Crusader Comic”

    Hot coffee nearly shot out of my nose when I read that. But in a spiritual way.

    AND it was decaf …so back off Tone Cops.

    I’m looking forward to the Pinto/White debate. The critical text type represented by Sinaiticus has much support and many extant witnesses other than Sinaiticus. The critical text type does not stand or fall on Sinaiticus even if it was a fake.

    I disagree with Pinto that Sinaiticus was a fake, associated with a Jesuit plot to destroy Sola Scripture. He’s just wrong on this issue, and now he’s dug in lick a tick on a hound. But some of Pinto’s other work is praiseworthy. Especially when he goes after David Barton’s revisionist distortion of America’s Revolutionary Founding Fathers’ beliefs (Jefferson, Franklin, Washington etc.).

    The Jesuit Order? Anyone who thinks that bunch is spiritually benign simply hasn’t done their homework. What have they done for us lately? Let’s see: a Jesuit just recently took the lead over the Vatican bank.. the last pope resigned (unprecedented) and was replaced by the first-ever Jesuit pope. Work your way through the Fuel Project’s, Know Your Enemy documentary. Check out the chapters on the Jesuit Order’s occult history. Then drill down & try to prove it’s all wrong (as I tried).

    I’m amazed at many believers'(?) comments on this thread, suggesting that any consideration that a conspiracy _might_ be true is the hallmark of spiritual immaturity. Tin foil territory.

    So let’s be spiritual & forget the Warren Commission, JFK’s magic bullet, Hitler’s Reichstag, the Gulf of Tonkin false flag. Ignore old newsreels of Hoover testifying to Congress that there was “no Italian mafia” in 50’s America (where it later turned out he was blackmailed & on their payroll.) Never research . And don’t ever investigate WTC Tower 7. Forget about Weapons of Mass Destruction. Fast & Furious. Benghazi. Climategate. And remember: You Can Keep Your Doctor.

    Seems to some that any talk of CoNSpIRaCy (Pinto’s or others’) is automatically work of the flesh. Christian Tin Foil Cops may begrudgingly acknowledge that Christ, Peter, Paul, Jude & John did staunchly warn believers about a coming mega-deception, about a globalist Mystery Babylon, one-world Satanic buy/sell system. BUT these Tin Foil Cops think that system will drop out of the sky overnight, thousands of years from now. And those NT warnings were ‘prolly meant for those Left Behind unbelievers. You know: after our early boarding pass called the rApTuRe. Yeah, supposedly we wrestle against invisible powers in high places, and Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.. but could UFOs, Luciferian globalist banksters, Bilderberg & Bohemian Grove have anything to do with that?

    Nah, what the church needs today is to focus on the really devastating stuff that’s eroding the Faith. You know: militant Islam, man-made Global Warming, atheism, Darwin & birth control. Let’s fight to keep, ‘In God We Trust’ on those Fed Reserve Notes too.

    OK all that said, I wouldn’t mind visiting any Textus-Receptus-Only church on Snake Night, providing Chris Pinto’s preaching on Mark 16’s long ending.

    -all typos intentional

  36. Pingback: Textual Criticism and Sola Scriptura | Possessing the Treasure

  37. Pingback: Wrapping up the Reformed Rap? | Watch Your Life and Doctrine Closely...

  38. Hi,

    “Beyond that, they also give us (most assuredly) the readings closest to the original autographs, which means we can translate with even greater accuracy.”

    ” The critical text type represented by Sinaiticus has much support and many extant witnesses other than Sinaiticus.”


    Do any of you realize that Sinaiticus is such a blunderama manuscript that it has thousands of variants away even from Vaticanus, and away from the Critical Text?

    Whether this is an argument for or against a 20-year-old Simonides participation in its creation is hard to say, however it is basic information obscured in the Hortian fog. Even Tischendorf talked of its “many obvious blunders”. Many blunders simply never make even an apparatus. And there has never been an English translation of even one book of Sinaiticus. (The translation given on the Codex Sinaiticus site is bogus, it is a hybrid.)


    Please give the exact title, with some documentation, of the proposed debate that you assert was declined by David Cloud to have with James White.

    You know, I hope, that everybody and their brother makes loaded “debate” challenges in order to try to gloat when they are dismissed.



    Steven Avery
    Bayside, NY

  39. Steven writes,
    Do any of you realize that Sinaiticus is such a blunderama manuscript that it has thousands of variants away even from Vaticanus, and away from the Critical Text?

    Huh, and this is relevant how exactly? So, what?… BTW, can you supply us first hand examples of what you mean? Oh, I’m sure you can depend upon 2nd and 3rd hand sources telling you it’s a “blunderama,” but show us some examples that proves such a dramatic declaration about an ancient manuscript. I mean, when I think of “blunderama” I am thinking of something coming from the pen of Peter Ruckman or Gail Riplinger.

    Whether this is an argument for or against a 20-year-old Simonides participation in its creation is hard to say, however it is basic information obscured in the Hortian fog.

    Well if that is the case, you just unraveled Pinto’s entire conspiracy, because it hinges on his claim that Simonides was some brilliant paleographer, so brilliant that he could fool even university level critics. He can’t be a blunderama AND a brilliant paleographer at the same time, so which is it?

    Please give the exact title, with some documentation, of the proposed debate that you assert was declined by David Cloud to have with James White.

    Go back to the mid-2000s and listen to some of the DLs where Dr. White suggested a debate on the subject, as well as on Calvinism, and you can find it.

    You know, I hope, that everybody and their brother makes loaded “debate” challenges in order to try to gloat when they are dismissed.

    Oh, I’m sure they can.

  40. Re: Pinto’s attempt to revive Textus-Receptus-Onlyism. This thing rears its head every generation, it seems. This TR-Only battle was fought & essentially settled decades ago: by conservative Christian scholarship. Hence the widespread acceptance of the so-called Critical Text, as well as the Majority Text (not to be confused with TR), and a generally cautious & eclectic approach to textual criticism.

    While Pinto’s argument is not KJV-Only, his method, presuppositions & approach to textual criticism IS essentially the same i.e. built on unsupported theological presuppositions, logical fallacies, ad hominem arguments & guilt-by-association. TR-Only will undoubtedly produce KJV-Only Lite, but why stop there? Will there be a sequel to Pinto’s attack on Sinaiticus, that goes after the Dead Sea Scrolls? They can’t help us authenticate the original text because that would mean (from the gitgo) that God kept them hidden, out of general circulation for two thousand years(!) Now, we KNOW He wouldn’t do something sneaky like that, would He? Maybe the Qumran community was an early form of ….the Jesuit Order?

    The question isn’t whether God preserved His word down through the ages. The question is HOW, and where.

    Beware of Pinto’s ‘Saints vs. Sinners’, guilt-by-association, scoreboard approach to the debate e.g. the ‘liberal’ Westcott versus TR champion Erasmus (the humanist!). All the textual families were transmitted, handled & compiled by sinners. Quite often liberal & even unbelieving scholars produce incredibly reliable work that benefits conservative scholarship. J.H. Thayer (an unbeliever) produced one of the best NT Greek lexicons in history. Check out the background of NT exegete Henry Alford. His exegesis & academic research set a standard to this day (150 yrs later), although I wouldn’t have gone to him for spiritual advice.

    God can & has preserved His word, yes even through infidels & unbelievers.

    (a great read, even after 35 years!):
    Modern Textual Criticism and the Revival Of The Textus Receptus:
    -Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 21:1 (March 1978).

    Excellent books on Textual Criticism:
    -Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament, by Daniel Wallace, editor. (Takes on Ehrman!)
    -Studies in the Theory & Method of New Testament Textual Criticism, Epp & Fee.
    -Rethinking New Testament Textual Criticism, David Alan Black, editor.
    -New Testament Textual Criticism-A Concise Guide, by David Alan Black.
    -The Text of the New Testament: It’s Transmission, Corruption & Restoration (4th ed.) Metzger

Comments are closed.