Blog

There have been only a few responses to my book, The King James Only Controversy. Aside from one privately written and published response by Dr. Kirk DiVietro (my reply), and Dr. Ruckman’s wild-eyed articles in the Bible Believer’s Bulletin (which, as I understand it, ended up in a “book” as well), there has been little in the way of substantive

The June, 1996 edition of Back to Genesis contains a short, 3-page article titled, Should Creationists Abandon the King James Version? The article, unfortunately, repeats the same erroneous arguments that KJV Only advocates have been putting forth for a number of years now. It is regrettable that Dr. Morris would lend his weight to these kinds of arguments. I was

At times it seems like an epidemic. It’s always the same tired arguments, refuted a hundred times before, that are being presented as some “new information,” some great new insight into the truth. How could “Christian scholars” have missed such obvious errors on their part? Who knows? But another Christian writer has fallen for KJV Onlyism, and is helping to

Some people don’t seem to mind looking silly. Comics will often employ absurdity as an agent of humor in their routines. But when a person claims to be a minister of the gospel, and yet engages in the most egregiously ridiculous thinking and arguing, something is seriously wrong. Texe Marrs has gained quite a reputation for himself over the years.

Some Words About the Following Information: The following materials represent our best effort to convert what was originally a printed booklet into html format so that this information, so often sought by people throughout the land, and in fact, the world, can be more readily available. The booklet, New Age Bible Versions Refuted, was, at last printing, 54 pages long.

See also The Debate that Never Was Upon the publication of my book, The King James Only Controversy, I wrote to Dr. Peter S. Ruckman, sent him the book, and challenged him to a debate. The correspondence that ensued, the behavior exhibited by Ruckman, and his eventual unwillingness to engage in the debate, is documented fully on our web page.

Continued from Part I In Conclusion…. It is not joyous to have to engage in the kind of task that requires you to dwell upon mistakes, errant conclusions, and mis-citations. I would much rather take my time to speak of the wonders of God’s providence in preserving His Word through the centuries, not in the way the KJV Only folks

See also A Response to Dr. Ruckman A few words concerning this file: For quite some time we offered scans of the correspondence that took place between James White and Peter Ruckman regarding a proposed debate. However, many people could not view the scans, due to a lack of proper software capacity, and the scans themselves took up a very

So reads the advertisement for a paper delivered by Dr. Kirk D. DiVietro, now being published by Dr. D.A. Waite’s The Bible For Today. Dr. DiVietro delivered this paper at the 17th Annual Meeting of the Dean Burgon Society, July 12-13, 1995. This paper is not the first response to my book, The King James Only Controversy. A smaller paper

The following 270K document contains excerpts from a “debate” which took place in June and July of 1995 on the Theonomy-L mailing list. I have taken the time to put this together due to the fact that I have recently been sent a couple of “lectures” by Dr. Theodore Letis in which he makes numerous disparaging, and false, remarks about