Archive for year: 2006

A lot of you were a bit shocked at the vitriol expressed by Mr. Dries a few days ago. Believe me, in the years since I wrote The King James Only Controversy I’ve seen it all before. “You God-hater! You Bible-hater! You are trying to destroy people’s faith!” etc. and etc. Emotionalism is an ever-present part of dedication to that

Evidently Dr. Stauffer is a hyper-dispensationalist, limiting the NT Scriptures that are “for the church” to the Pauline epistles, etc. No wonder his “exegesis” of Titus 2:13 is next to impossible to understand. David Cloud writes, According to Stauffer, Paul is THE spokesman for the church age (p. 17); the general epistles of Hebrews to Revelation, while containing some church

First impression: absolutely nothing new here, nothing beyond what KJV Onlyism has been offering for forty years. Not a smidgeon of meaningful interaction with my own work. Same ol’ same ol’.     But, there are a few almost humorous things, and some completely absurd things. You will find this book filled with standard KJV Only “loaded language” throughout. In the

The gentleman on the Puritanboard (since banned) that I replied to Tuesday on the DL–the one who referred me to Stauffer’s book–has informed me of his views of me and my replies to his statements. I post this to illustrate the spirit of KJV Onlyism and as evidence, since some seem to need it, in support of my statement that

I promised to continue responding to Sean McDonald (who called the DL) and the article he posted on the Puritanboard. He asked, 3. Is it just defense of the Johannine Comma which earns your stern rebuke, or do you include Byzantine priority and (general) defense of the TR in said rebuke? I think I’ve been very clear that this entire

I did a little looking around the net for materials by Dr. Stauffer, and very quickly ran across this article. And it took just a moment to read this: The Codex Vaticanus (discovered in the Pope’s library in 1481) and Sinaiticus (discovered in 1859 in a trash can at St. Catherine’s monastery on Mt. Sinai) were the two texts that

Today on the DL I responded to a series of posts that appeared on the Puritanboard web-board, and then took two calls, one from one of the folks on the Puritanboard itself (though not the fellow who I invited to call in). We even went a little long to get our second caller in. Here’s the program.     One of

I was just reading a post by Michael Dries of Christ Community Church, Folsom, CA, which likened me to an atheist and refers to my “sophistry.” I think I’ll respond to Mr. Dries on the DL this morning, and if perchance he should be made aware of this (I looked for an e-mail address, but could not find one), I

The discussion continues in articles posted on the Puritanboard by my fellow Reformed believers regarding the Comma Johanneum. Two immediate things: I have been asked why I don’t just join the Puritanboard and post there. Simple answer: I don’t have time to join all the web boards out there where relevant conversations are taking place. However, I have received a

I would like to offer some replies to those commenting on the textual issue on the “Puritanboard.” However, it’s unfortunate that White has a bee in his bonnet about the Greek Text. What heresy is one imbibing if one holds to the Johannine Comma? That 1John 5:7 is true is beyond dispute. Why all the fuss? I believe I have

I had not intended to spend so much time on this, but those who have been following the topics on this blog for the past few months realize how very relevant to my current work the issue of textual criticism, and in particular, the Comma Johanneum, really is. That is, given that I have been dealing with Islamic attacks upon

A few days ago I just happened to see a series of posts on the topic of the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7, KJV) in a mail list I scan through (but rarely read). Someone was asking for information on the topic as a lady in a Bible study had “freaked out” to discover the variant. I was once again