Reviewing “Which Bible Would Jesus Use?” [1]

adventurebiblePreliminary Remarks and the Forward

Today I embark on a new adventure.

I plan to do a chapter by chapter review of the KJVO book, Which Bible Would Jesus Use? The Bible Version Controversy Explained and Resolved, by one Jack McElroy.

Now I can already hear some long time readers saying, with eyes rolled to the ceiling, “Really? Why? Haven’t you beat this subject to death? Come’on. There’s all sorts of important discerning that needs to be going on out there. What about the gay fake Christians and their fawning allies trying to subvert the Church!?”

Yes. I understand that I have written a lot on this topic; but allow me to lay out my reasons.

First, my readership are for the most part, solid, right-thinking believers. They are not easily persuaded by bad teaching. However, there are a number of individuals who are pliable. They don’t attend solid churches nor do they particularly know where to find good material refuting such nonsense. I want to offer them a service.

Secondly, the KJVO issue is, sadly, not going away. It may be slowly waning in some respects as the older generation of KJVO apologists die off, but there is a newer generation that utilizes the internet and social media to keep their apologetics alive. Someone needs to provide them with a rebuttal.

And third, since I began blogging in 2005, I have received a steady stream of complaints, comments, and pronouncements of cursing against me from two radically opposite individuals: atheists and KJVO apologists. It is clear, at least in my mind, that this topic is still strong among a number of Christians. Those who have never been challenged need to be so. Those who watch their Sunday school classes and adult fellowship groups get split asunder by a small number of rabid KJV onlyists need to have a place where they can find responses to those challenges. That is what I hope to accomplish with these reviews.

I am not entirely sure how long the series will last. There are 21 chapters in the book, so potentially I could write up 21 posts. I hope to combine a few chapters into one post, but I will see.

So with that in mind, let me set forth on my journey.

et highwayBackground

How exactly did I come about finding this particular KJVO book to review? Excellent question!

It started back in December of 2013. I was interviewed on a podcast called Theology Matters hosted by Devin Pellew on the subject of KJV Onlyism. I made a post highlighting the interview and in the comment section, a fellow named David took me to task for that interview claiming I was misinformed and sloppy with my facts. He insisted I needed to read some newer, better material than what I had previously read when I was a practicing KJVO apologist.

He recommended two books. The first by a guy named Joey Faust who pastors a church in Venus, Texas, called Kingdom Baptist. I did a search and noticed that he seems to be a Steven Anderson clown clone. (Though it appears he and Anderson are feuding Fundamentalists). He protests stuff in the Dallas-Forth Worth area and back in 2012 he got himself and a church member jailed for a day for disobeying police orders during a gay pride parade by crossing a barricade. He wrote a book entitled, The Word: God Will Keep It. The second book was the one under consideration, Which Bible Would Jesus Use? by Jack McElroy.

At the time, I didn’t know either men, nor had I heard of their books. David, my KJVO comment challenger, insisted they represented the latest and greatest research in KJVO apologetics. I expressed incredulity, because I personally do not believe anyone could bring anything new to the KJVO perspective. My detractor insisted otherwise. He contacted me via email and told me that if I were interested, he would purchase the books and send them to me as a gift. I said sure.

There was no follow up, so a year and half went by and I had all but forgotten about the books. Then, out of the blue a few weeks ago, my detractor contacted me again and offered to send them to me. And again I said certainly I’d receive them and told him I would even review them for my blog. I sent out my mailing address and got them the next week or so. And here we are.

I scanned through them, and my initial, honest evaluation is that McElroy’s book seemed to be — how can I put it — more “scholarly” than Faust’s. Just at first glance, for example, note the covers,

Faust07202015_0001

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mcelroy207202015

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The cover of Faust’s book looks like it was created on his computer by Microsoft Paint. It has the classic KJVO clip art. Notice on one side the little snake coiled up on the modern Bible versions, fangs ready to pierce the hand of any unwitting fool who stupidly picks one up to read it. On the right side are bones piled up among the modern versions.

McElroy’s, on the other hand, looks a bit more professional. Like maybe he paid someone with skills to produce it. Now certainly we don’t want to fall victim to the idea that you “can’t judge a book by its cover,” but sometimes the covers do alert a reader to the quality of material found within it’s pages.

With that bit of background, let me move to the book itself.

The Author

According to his bio page [309], Jack McElroy was raised Roman Catholic. He became a Christian in 1978. He graduated with a B.S. in industrial management from Lowell Technological Institute and became a serial entrepreneur. He has been the president of McElroy Electronics Corporation for 35 years.

In addition to writing on KJV onlyism, he also wrote a book on losing one’s fear of dying and another on the soul winning techniques from Adoniram Judson. McElroy Publishing, which I take to be his personal publishing house, has a series of books on how to be the best Christian camp counselor ever.

Now. I am sure Mr. McElroy is a great guy and a fine, upstanding Christian man. However, given his background in electronics and industrial management, along with publishing how-to books on being camp counselors, does he have the theological chops as it were to lecture us about why my NASB is corrupted and Jesus would only use the King James?

Looking over his bibliography, he lists 11 pages of sources he used in his research [311-322]. His list is impressive, but does he cite from those sources accurately and in context? Does he treat the authors with whom he disagrees fairly with his assessments? I am also wondering why he lists two blog articles from Will Kinney, who is a hack when it comes the Bible version issue. Knowing that he is a KJV onlyists like the author, citing one of the more notorious internet trolls as a reliable source doesn’t shine favorably upon his ability to separate the chaff from the wheat regarding the Bible version issue. I guess we will see as we move along in our reviews.

The Forward

Okay. So what’s the big deal about the forward? I mean honestly, who reviews the forward to any book? In this instance, the forward, at least I believe, sets the tone for the quality of research that possibly awaits us in the actual book, and so I feel a need to touch upon it.

finalauthorityThe forward [v-vii] is written by William P. Grady, pastor of Macedonia Baptist church in Swartz Creek, MI. He published his own KJVO book back in 1993 called Final Authority  that has a picture of a judge hammering down a gavel with certainty.

Grady’s biography page follows immediately after the forward. It lists 3 other books he wrote. One large one on American history from his unique (myopic may be a better word) perspective as a KJV onlyist.

His bio further boasts that his books have held consistent, 5 star ratings on Barnes and Noble’s website, but that is because each one has two or three anonymous reviews, all of them submitted by what appears to be gushing fans. Amazon, on the other hand, has many more “positive” reviewers, but there are a few 1-star that bring his overall rating to 4-stars or 3 1/2 stars. But that is neither here nor there I suppose.

Grady begins the forward by recounting his personal journey into KJVO apologetics and all of the horrible translations he has come across over the years like the Living Bible, the Ebonics Version, and the recent Gay Bible. But seriously? Does Grady really believe those are influential Bible versions among solid, Bible-believing Christians? Especially the Ebonics version or the Gay Bible?

He then expresses his appreciation for the publication of Mr. McElroy’s book as Satan’s assaults against Scripture has only intensified since his own book came out in 93. He claims that Mr. McElroy offers “fresh information” and “combined with the author’s lack of traditional ‘seminary credentials'” makes his book a must read.

I have to stop and offer comment upon Grady’s disparaging of “traditional seminary credentials.” Even when I was a KJVO apologist, I’ve never really gotten why the typical KJVO independent fundamentalist Baptists are so alarmist against Christians attending college or seminary. They allege soul damning compromise with “worldly-wisdom” when a Christian attends a seminary, but I never really saw that at all. My thought was if a guy was anchored in his convictions, no amount of worldly scholarship is going to change him, but will only serve to shore up his beliefs and provide him with ammo defending his position.

At any rate, I see a fit of hypocrisy on the part of practically every big name KJVO author who has “Dr.” before his name and proudly lists out all of his degrees earned. Grady does the exact same thing. It’s pathetically laughable. Turning McElroy’s book over to the back cover, you will see listed a group of men singing their praises of his work. The second one is Dr. William P. Grady, B.S., M.Ed., Th.M., Ph.D, D.D. Five degrees! I kid you not.

Grady then comments on the thesis McElroy presents in his book, “Which Bible would Jesus use?” and explains how as the author works through his evidence, each modern version is discredited as a Bible Jesus would use. Grady then provides a couple of convoluted examples that illustrate the thesis.

First, he points out Luke 2:33 which reads in the King James as, And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him. He then warns how every modern Bible removes the proper name “Joseph” at Luke 2:33 and insert the blasphemous reading “his father” so that the passage reads, And his father and mother marveled at those things… See the problem? The implications, states Grady, is that the virgin birth and Christ’s deity are now in question because modern versions proclaim that Joseph was Jesus’ father, not God the father.

Of course, if you were to link over to bibles-online.net, something Grady or McElroy must have failed to do, a person can search many of the pre-KJV 1611 translations. Wycliffe’s NT, Tyndale’s NT, Matthew’s Bible, the 1535 Coverdale’s Bible, and the Great Bible of 1541, all read at Luke 2:33, his father and mother marveled… Uh oh. What exactly does that say in regards to Grady’s condemnation of modern versions? Did those men like William Tyndale and John Rogers intentionally lie when they translated their work as his father and mother… in the same way Grady insists modern Bible translators lied?

A second example is really odd. Grady points to Jeremiah 10:5 and writes,

“… any doubt concerning “which Bible Jesus would use” can be settled by the litmus test of Jeremiah 10:5. Whereas the KJV reads, They are upright as the palm tree…, the 2011 NIV substitutes, “like a scarecrow in a cucumber field…” (see similar readings in the RSV, NRSV, NASB, ESV, and HCSB).”

I am not entirely sure what Grady is getting at with that example. It’s as if he is entirely devoid of what Jeremiah 10 is about. That chapter is addressing the foolishness of idolatry. The prophet is mocking the concept of idols and the idol makers. The idol makers decorate their idols, but in reality, they aren’t really living gods, but or more like a scarecrow in a cucumber field that while it looks like a man, in reality is just a dummy on pole. The word Grady insists should be palm tree can certainly mean scarecrow because the context of Jeremiah 10 is on dressing up dead idols to appear like living gods when in point of fact they are nothing of the sort. Grady’s criticism is way out in left field.

If Grady’s sophomoric forward is any indication as to the nature of the rest of the book, I’m a bit concerned here at the outset. However, I am dedicated to muscling my way through it. Hopefully it will be a fruitful endeavor for both myself and the readers both now and in the future.

Advertisements

24 thoughts on “Reviewing “Which Bible Would Jesus Use?” [1]

  1. Fred I love this as I am seeing KJ Onliests pop up even in Reformed Baptist circles although they call their position Ecclesiastical Text position. So please keep on doing stuff like this as you said it just doesn’t seem to be going away.

  2. Fred Great post. Very fair. I truly appreciate what you are doing and I pray great things come from it.
    I would like to point out a few things.
    1. While I appreciate Grady and his books I thought it not wise to have him do the Forward, because I knew what type of reaction it would be to the start to such a great book. I do not agree with how he communicates sometimes. I think somethings he says I would have to respectfully disagree. As far as Joey Faust is concerned I focus more on his book than on his teachings outside the Bible issue. I would agree theologically more with you than with him on many topics. (It would be incorrect to label him with Steven Anderson who is clearly a kook and lunatic.) My point is Grady, Faust, and McElroy could be spot on on this issue of the Bible despite some theological differences or “crazy,” or “illogical” ideas one may hold. We can’t fall into character assassination.
    2. Joey Faust’s book is primarily a reference book of hundreds of quotes complied throughout the past 400 years or so. (I have also found some quotes like Joey’s in secular authored Books.) You will point that out I am sure. (Don’t get caught up on trying to say something like, “This guy teaches something crazy like, Legos are of the Devil, therefore he can’t be right on the Bible issue.” Just eat the meat and spit out the bones.
    3. In your discussion I recommend you think about why you call someone like me a King James Onlyist. I mean, what is your goal in putting that label on me? In my opinion I have lost so called friends because of their incorrect view of my position. Because they were warned of “King James Onlyist.” At the end of the day it is all about “do we have a Book that is the pure word of God in complete form that we can actually hold in our hands right now?” Most english speaking Christians in the past until about maybe 80 plus or minus years ago believed we could and pointed to the “Holy Bible.” By “Holy Bible” it was meant what we call today the King James Bible. (Technically speaking the title is “Holy Bible,” (Check the title page of the first edition) and not “KJV, AV, Common Bible.” At the end of the day there is no clear definition of a King James Onlyist and it does injustice to so many who hold to the belief that the KJB is given by inspiration.
    Well brother stay the course and know again that I appreciate what you are doing.

    David (Challenger)

  3. Fred,

    You and then McElroy, Grady, and Faust both have something very important in common. Neither believe in the preservation of scripture. Both of you take different responses to the same basic theological presupposition. I’m saying that you are the same as them, as it relates to the doctrinal position. Neither of you believe what the Bible says about itself. They resort to an English translation, lost in the original languages, and you resign to essential doctrines in a permanently flawed text. Actually as it relates to you personally, you found the acceptance of grace as a command post for your flesh. You are a medium sized fish in a larger pond and this is another part of what you do to keep in good standing to keep feeling that acceptance. Enjoy that. You’ll still stand before God.

  4. Oh my, well atleast you are getting reactions. If you are going to wade through these books you have more patience than I. And please continue, it seems I do run into those who hold to the KJVO positions more than I care to. Gaining insights from your posts and other resourses has been very helpful.

  5. I have to say, I’m glad to see new posts on this general topic. If for no other reason than that the comment threads never fail to provide interesting (if at times face palm inducing) entertainment.

  6. I’m sure I would be correct in saying that you are against being King James ONLY, not against using the KJV as such. It has some things in its favour such as the majesty of the language that lifts the bible above being an ordinary book, and the fact that you can distinguish between you plural and thou singular – although a look at the original or the context can also decide this.

    Against the KJV stands the number of words that have significantly changed their meaning since it was first published. I read some Shakespeare not long ago with a modern rendering on the opposite page, and was more than a little surprised that although a modern reader can get the gist, the language has significantly changed in the meantime, and a modern version is needed if you really want to get to grips with the text. I’m sure the same is true to some extent of the King James version. Not quite so much, but enough.

    The manuscripts used are another issue, no doubt you will cover this later.

    This whole debate I’m afraid is one where too many Christians appear to commit intellectual suicide. There seems to be a need for absolute certainty about both manuscripts and translation, and I’m afraid this simply isn’t possible. Nearly, but not quite. You have to allow that you cannot always render the source language precisely into the target language, and that you may have to note different but legitimate alternative renderings to the main text.

    Most versions of the bible have both significant manuscript differences and different translations in the margin of the text as ‘helpful notes’, so it is not as though anything could ever be lost, or there is a conspiracy to remove certain doctrines. The number of these is so small relative to the whole text that this gives the lie to the notion that modern versions mean you cannot trust the bible.

  7. Ken

    Once you hear what Fred and many critics of the so called “KJV Only,” crowd have to say about the most influential and most loved book in the world the Authorised Bible, aka, “Holy Bible.” You will have to really be creative to think that they are not against the actual text in some way. Just a thought. (“I am not attacking the KJV, BUT….”) At the end of the day it’s all about asking yourself “Where can this infallible complete Bible called the Word of God be found?” You can’t tell me, Fred can’t, James White can’t, and the same goes for Dan Wallace. Dan is still flying around the world looking for it. I could say with certainty that it is found in the Holy Bible commonly called the KJV. It is funny while Dan Wallace attacks absolute certainty he is guilty of claiming the same while in his debate with Bart Ehrman. (49.00)

    (Dan misleads the crowd to make them think that people like myself think Paul had the KJB. He has know clue that statement is very old and he doesn’t know what it really means.)

    So called “archaic” words don’t stand against the KJB. I will say a few things in regards to this matter.
    1. Get a dictionary. ( I almost dropped out of high school and growing up the only word I ever new how to say was “dude.” It was even my nickname. I hated it.) Just pure laziness on many peoples part.
    2. So called “archaic” words are found in new versions and many modern publications and office buildings.
    3. Last time I checked, having a strong vocabulary is a good thing.
    4. The last time I checked I have seen a decline in Bible doctrine over the past 100 years amongst the Body of Christ. The solution is not to rewrite the English Bible, but to actually read and study it like a “workman.”.

    The best book on the so called “archaic” issue is Laurence Vance’s book, “Archaic Words And The Authorized Version.” Here is a link to great excerpts from his book. His book has an exhaustive list of “archaic” words in the NKJV, NASB, NIV. http://www.vancepublications.com/archaic.htm
    The book takes away the excuse of “archaic” words. Great read and very educational.

    When it comes to a conspiracy to remove “certain doctrines.” Well there is ample proof that this has happened according to history. I would say though that the word “conspiracy” could cause confusion. Why? Because I believe many who did change the words of God were not doing it out of ill intent. Still versions like the New World Translation seems like a close “conspiracy” to me.
    Paul mentions people corrupting the word of God in his day. We know Marcion is guilty. Thomas Jefferson and Wescott and Hort.

    I hope you read this Ken.

  8. As a young Christian (about 25 years ago) I came to learn about the KJVO controversy, and embraced it somewhat. The thinking I had then (and still do now) is that God spoke to us through the ages, and it was recorded for our admonition; our instruction; the building of our faith; the growth in a body of believers by an adherence to a common Word and a common interpretation of that Word. It didn’t make sense that He would allow it to become perverted by mishandling of His Word.

    I read several books regarding this, and I came to realize that the TWO MAIN differences between the KJV and most of the other modern versions are in the method of interpretation, and the family of texts that are used as the primary source. Those are HUGE differences, and anybody who does not recognize that is not being honest with the discussion.

    Also, I find that there are many people on the sidelines that just don’t appreciate the nuances of the debate, and reach inappropriate conclusions based upon preconceived notions. Oh yeah! Those preconceived notions are definitely gonna get in your way unless you check them at the door.

    After reading your first attack on the forward, I would say that it is evident that the HUGE differences in the approach to Bible translation is also evidenced in stark fashion by your critique of Dr. Grady’s statements. The way that we interpret the Bible is similar to how we view the world, and interpret what we see.

    Good luck in your attempt at reviewing, but remember what an earlier poster (your challenger) stated: “We can’t fall into character assassination” which you seem to do when you use such descriptives as “sophomoric” when speaking about the “competition.”

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

  10. Mark writes,
    I read several books regarding this, and I came to realize that the TWO MAIN differences between the KJV and most of the other modern versions are in the method of interpretation, and the family of texts that are used as the primary source. Those are HUGE differences, and anybody who does not recognize that is not being honest with the discussion.

    Thanks Mark. Please do tell me, what were some of the several books you read? IF you know my blog, you know I was a hardcore KJV onlyist for several years until I was exposed to the truth, so I would probably be familiar with all the books you said you read. So please give me some authors and we can discuss.

    I take it you also read opposing view points, right?

    I disagree that there are HUGE differences as you assert. Maybe you can delineate those differences? You do realize that the KJV is primarily translated from the TR, or the Erasmeian text, right? It was created from just a handful of texts, many of which were incomplete hence the reason the TR has unique readings to it alone and not found any any other text anywhere. But please tell me how I am not being honest with the discussion.

    Also, I find that there are many people on the sidelines that just don’t appreciate the nuances of the debate, and reach inappropriate conclusions based upon preconceived notions. Oh yeah! Those preconceived notions are definitely gonna get in your way unless you check them at the door.

    I take it by your comment you are not familiar with my take on KJV Onlyism. I have a list of articles and a couple of interviews that can be located here so you can get up to speed if you wish, https://hipandthigh.wordpress.com/2010/06/01/answering-the-claims-of-kjv-onlyism/ I am hardly a side line critic.

    And the belief about preconceived notions cuts both ways. KJV onlyists are deeply immersed in them, and to ignore that reality shows that a person is hardly paying attention.

    After reading your first attack on the forward, I would say that it is evident that the HUGE differences in the approach to Bible translation is also evidenced in stark fashion by your critique of Dr. Grady’s statements.

    If you think my remarks about Grady’s statements are character assassination, please, by all means, try to refute me. He is just plain wrong about the phrase Joseph and His father and his reference to Jeremiah 10:5 is weird and out of touch. But again, please prove me wrong.

  11. Mark

    A great article discussing Fred’s misleading view of the “TR,” can be found here
    http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/q-wasnt-the-textus-receptus-based-on-just-a-few-manuscripts

    An excellent book that would assist you is “The Corruption Of The Word: The Failure Of Modern New Testament Scholarship,” by Kevin James published in 1990.
    Fred has never read it:(

    I recommend surfing
    kjvtoday.com

    Also though Fred claims to have been a “hardcore KJV onlyist,” his critical articles show a lack of true depth when it comes to the authors he claimed to have “studied” from. Either his memory failed him or he never really dug deep or for that matter never really read the whole book. (For which we are all guilty.) Fred shows evidence of a piece meal reader. He never even read “Blind Guides,” by Riplinger. If he would have read that book he would have saved him some time.

    I thank God that when I teach my kids Bible doctrine they can actually hold the very words of God and have absolute certainty. Fred only has “relative certainty.” Funny those 2 words together sound confusing.

    One more thought. So many now of the reform/augustinian way talk about God’s providence through history. Vision Forum was big on this. Now Landmark has taken the torch. It blows my mind when men like Potter and Morecraft just completly leave out God’s providence when it comes to the King James Bible. Just backwards and straight up dishonest.
    The King James Holy Bible was literally part of the founding of America. It was the actual Book America was founded and raised on.
    1. It was on the Mayflower
    2. It was the Bible that has sworn in most Presidents.
    3. It was the Bible of the American Revolution
    4. It is the most influential Book in the World.
    5. It was the Bible that was used in all the major Revivals in America.
    6. It was the only book to have a world wide celebration. 400th Anniversary. This will never happen to the New Versions.
    7. It was the Book that made 20,000 Africans shout for joy and cry. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/05/05/gene-hood-bible-papua-new-guinea/26944301/

    And all the “original onlyist” say, “so,” and yawn:(

  12. Mark,
    Contrary to what David wrote, that article he linked is fraught with errors. For example, the author claims that Erasmus was “upright” when his contemporaries were corrupt. Well, he conveniently leaves off the fact that Erasmus was a Catholic priest in competition with other priests to get his work published first. It is just a fact of history that Erasmus, in his rush to publish before his main challenger, used only 10 Greek manuscripts to compile his NT. That’s a problem.:(

    The author doesn’t tell you that that TR went through at least 25 revisions, just 3 shy of the current NA28. You would do yourself well to read David Daniell’s “The Bible in English,” for it will give you a more robust, historical telling of our English Bible, not the revisionism that is at the KJVToday site.

    However, the most glaring problem is that that the author doesn’t put his name on that article. In fact, popping around on that site, I don’t see any authors listed on a number of the articles posted there if not all of them. I can only imagine it is probably Will Kinney’s work, and he is hardly a reliable expert on the matters of translations.

    As for me “reading” KJV works, I do find it amusing that my commenter thinks he knows what I have and have not read. I have read nearly everything Ruckman published, as well as DA Waite, Jack Mormon, David Cloud, Sam Gipp, and a host of other old timer KJV apologists have written, including Kevin James, who was not really that good to begin with. I once had an entire shelf length of their books, not to mention file folders of articles. I’ve since tossed them. GA Riplinger’s book, New Age Bible Versions changed my life, because it was the book God used to show me how KJV apologetics were bankrupted. I only read a little bit of her Blind Guides, because by the time that book was published, even KJV apologists were rejecting her and exposing her as a kook.

    While every Christian I know recognizes the influence of the KJV in English history (It is really William Tyndale we need to thank, not the political playing Anglicans), that does not mean it is the Only Bible Christians have to read, nor that it is without serious need of revision. I appreciate the recounting of various factoids in that list, but the first one is wrong. It was the Geneva Bible that was on the Mayflower, not the King James. :(

    Remember your history. The Pilgrims were fleeing persecution from who? King James. Hence, they would never read the translation that was published by His crown printers. The Geneva was the main Bible translation used for decades by the English colonists. Even today, when you visit historical colonial sites, the reenactors will use the Geneva Bible in their history lessons for the visitors.

    Hopefully, as I move along in my review, you see that KJVO apologetics are woefully misguided and that God’s Word is faithfully preserved even today in modern translations.

  13. The article I linked
    http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/q-wasnt-the-textus-receptus-based-on-just-a-few-manuscripts
    Is not “fraught” (archaic word??) with errors. Here is another amazing article related to the topic http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/book-of-life-or-tree-of-life-in-revelation-2219

    The big error is the one where Fred tries to assassinate Erasmus for being “catholic.”
    If you visit and read ALL from these four links I am sure you will get a more deeper understanding of this “catholic.” (Should I discard all what one believes and teaches? If they follow Augustine who was a catholic and heretic. Fred is an augustinian. The answer is “no.”)
    http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Erasmus
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_first_tome_or_volume_of_the_Paraphrase_of_Erasmus_vpon_the_newe_testamente (I have this so if you want a photo a verse just request)
    http://www.biblicalscholarship.com/erasmus.htm
    God can still use Erasmus just like he used unsaved messiah denying Jews to preserve the Hebrew Scriptures. Also even if what Fred claims about Erasmus supposdley rushing to get his Greek text published (Fred do you have primary source documentation to prove this?) and if he had a few Greek manuscripts doesn’t mean his text and the following editions were not correct. God is in control.
    It is totally fine to have a website and post articles with no author mentioned. KJVToday.com is by far an excellent website.

    While I know Fred has “read” many KJB authors I will say again, “Either his memory failed him or he never really dug deep or for that matter never really read the whole book.” To bad he just looked at Blind Guides. It answers many of her critics objections to the so-called “mistakes,” in NABV.

    I thank Tyndale and I thank John Reynolds the Puritan for petitioning King James to create a new and better English translation. Fred said “(It is really William Tyndale we need to thank, not the political playing Anglicans)” Political playing Anglicans, really?? I thank God for all the translators. The english speaking Church should all be thankful for them.
    My “factoids” were evidence of Gods hand in the King James Bible. The fruit is overwhelming. Fred sees the KJB as human literature and I view the KJB as God’s literature. Why fix something if it is not broken? Why try to replace the KJB when it’s fruit show Gods hand all over it? The New Versions are in no way in the same league. Just look at what the NIV and New World Translation has produced. The fact the KJB is the most influential book in the world should stop and cause people to think about not revising it.

    Now Fred said “It was the Geneva Bible that was on the Mayflower, not the King James. :(”
    Totally, the Geneva was on the Mayflower, but so was the King James Bible.
    Visit these links
    http://www.wnd.com/2007/02/39977/
    http://www.pilgrimhallmuseum.org/pdf/Early_Bibles_PHM.pdf

    Also Fred said “Remember your history. The Pilgrims were fleeing persecution from who? King James. Hence, they would never read the translation that was published by His crown printers.”
    1. William Bradford used the King James Bible
    2. Joey Faust research demonstrates the error in Fred’s statement.
    What evidence do we have from primary source documentation stating they left England because they were being persecuted by King James?

    Does this sound like the Pilgrims were fleeing King James? “In the name of God, Amen. We whose names are under-written, the loyal subjects of our dread sovereign Lord, King James, by the grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland King, Defender of the Faith, etc.
    Having undertaken, for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith, and honor of our King and Country,”-Mayflower Compact

    After reading that I would think case is closed on my so called error on factoid #1. It is not:(

    Fred said “Hopefully, as I move along in my review, you see that KJVO apologetics are woefully misguided and that God’s Word is faithfully preserved even today in modern translations.”

    Who is the one who is really “woefully (archaic old english) misguided?”
    At least I can say with absolute certainty that I have a Book that is the pure word of God in complete form that we I actually hold in our hands right now.

  14. Pingback: Reviewing “Which Bible Would Jesus Use?” [2] | hipandthigh

  15. Fred,
    A few suggestions:
    (1) Will Kinney (not “Kinny”) is a human being, not a troll. I know what you mean when you call him a troll; nevertheless the term could be easily misunderstood as uncharitable.
    (2) The phrase, “Knowing that he is a KJV onlyists like the author” needs editing.
    (3) In terms of evidence-citations, Will Kinney generally *is* reliable. That does not mean that he knows how to analyze the evidence. But in simple terms of evidence-descriptions, Kinney is among the most accurate evidence-description-providers among the KJV-Onlyists. I’m sure some inaccuracies exist but that is par for the course when one considers the sheer volume of the materials Kinney has written.

  16. Thanks for the suggestions,

    – 1 I meant my comments to be uncharitable.
    – 2 Sure. I’ll revisit it sometime. But he is a kjv onlyist, like the author.
    – 3 It has nothing to do with reliability, but the poor analytical skills he applies with his apologetic. Over all good assessment of why Kinney (with an E) is not worth considering as a source on biblical matters.

  17. Hey Fred. If I am such a Hack and my arguments are so easily refuted, then why do you keep deleting all my posts? If you are right about this issue and I am so wrong, then let’s be fair about it and let me respond to what you have to say. Then you can easily refute me, right?

    Why not be open about it instead of just blocking me or deleting my posts?

    If you come to KJB Debate on Facebook, I would let you express your views and allow you to be heard. Then I would tear your silly arguments pieces;-) Oh, wait. That is probably why you delete me, isn’t it.

  18. i wonder if you have interacted with any of the information TBS puts out. that is the Trinitarian Bible Society. they are not sideshow fundamentalist freaks. they are a respectable group that has been around since the mid 1800s. they translate only from the TR and not the CT. they completely reject new english versions based on the CT. they are strong advocates for the KJV but I’m not sure they fall into the KJVO camp though i do not see how you can be one without being the other.

    i read james whites book many years ago and i remember he mentioned riplinger and ruckman but i don’t recall him engaging the TBS. KJVO books are a dime a dozen you could say. most of them seem to come from IFBs. riplinger’s books is quite atrocious with its absurd rhyme scheme. TBS articles are well written almost scholarly pieces engaging in facts and not hyperbole.

    here is a list of their articles: http://www.tbsbibles.org/articles. now in case you are wondering whose side i am on….i do not believe god hid his word in the desert for 1500 years until tischendorf came along and literally snatched it from the fire. the greek church has been using the same text for 2000 years and it is not the CT. its the byzantine type text and though its not exactly the TR its still in the same family.

    you have made up your mind on this subject it is clear. we all have. i just want to know if you have engaged TBS because when i read about this issue or talk about it in public its as if no one has ever even heard of this very respectable and educated group that has been doing bible translation from the TR exclusively for 100+ years.

  19. Will writes,

    Hey Fred. If I am such a Hack and my arguments are so easily refuted, then why do you keep deleting all my posts? …. Why not be open about it instead of just blocking me or deleting my posts?

    There are two primary reasons I delete your posts,
    First, as I have already told you in the comments of another similar post somewhere, I don’t particularly like you. I told you with no uncertain terms I wasn’t going to allow your comments through onto my blog then and I am not about to change that now.

    Secondly, rather than actually interacting with what I wrote in the post, you mock me as ignorant and then document bomb the comment thread with cut and paste selections of your own articles you have at your own page that deal with topics unrelated with what I wrote here.

    Moving along,
    If you are right about this issue and I am so wrong, then let’s be fair about it and let me respond to what you have to say. Then you can easily refute me, right?

    I spent nearly a year or more back in the early to mid-2000s interacting with you on a Yahoo group devoted to KJVOnlyism. Not sure if any of those interactions are even around, but I refuted you enough then.

  20. Anastasiya,

    TBS is a great society. I have purchased some Holy Bibles from them. I thank God for TBS. While TBS won’t go as far as me and say the Holy Bible is given by inspiration of God I am still one to point to TBS for assistance.
    By the way I think if you met me and spent time with me, you wouldn’t describe my family and I as a bunch of “sideshow fundamentalist freaks.”
    The big thing about the TBS is that you would have to ask which Greek edition do they use? Both Fred and I know that technically the TR has gone through many editions and wasn’t called TR until the 1600’s thanks to Abraham Elzevir press. Correct me if I am wrong Fred.

  21. Pingback: Reviewing “Which Bible Would Jesus Use?” [3] | hipandthigh

  22. Hi Fred,
    There are a lot of books on the Bible version debate.
    Thanks for considering my book, WHICH BIBLE WOULD JESUS USE?––The Bible Version Controversy Explained and Resolved worth of the time and effort it takes to write a review.
    If you’re interested, you can find more information about me here:
    http://www.jackmcelroy.com

  23. Pingback: Reviewing Jack McElroy’s Which Bible Would Jesus Use? | hipandthigh

Leave me a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s