Archive for category: King James Onlyism

   Very often you will hear a King James Version Only advocate claim that since the majority of Greek manuscripts that are extant today (which is a Byzantine text-form that is substantially behind the KJV translation) therefore the KJV is a superior translation. The following are eight reasons to debunk this fallacious KJV argument.    (1) The Greek text that is behind

   …The textual end justifies the textual means. They are motivated only in defending a modern printed text and any questions of methodology are irrelevant because they are governed by their a priori that the Textus Receptus (the Greek printed edition that lies behind the KJV) is without error.    That is why you will often notice (I will provide a perfect,

   In the past, I have been asked more than once what the correct readings are in Revelation 5:9-10. Once again, today someone emailed me asking whether the King James Version readings are correct, or the modern translations are more faithful to the original reading. So this has prompted me to write a brief post explaining these variants. There are at

   In a recent article, I explained the historical facts that before the fourth century there were no distinct Byzantine readings in any Greek MSS of the papyri, majuscules, and other versions as well that would give for us a suggestion or warrant that the Byzantine textual family (or text-type) existed during that time.    Further, the 800-pound gorilla is that there

Dear Sir: This is in regard to your article on Gail Riplinger. Just over a year ago the leader of the church that I had been attending condemned the AVKJ! This was shocking so ASAP I went into prayer asking our Heavenly Father thru His only begotten Son Jesus Christ of Nazareth to please show me His truth, not the

   It is hard to believe my son, now engaged to be married, was only nine years old when this video was shot. This is from the John Ankerberg series on the King James Only movement (available here). Look at those glasses! Ah, but you can see the hair on the top is thinning, and that quickly. Oh well. This was

   Now it all makes sense. Michael Dries, the KJV Onlyist who melted down on the Puritan Board back in March, is c.t., i.e., owner/writer of Plain Path Puritan. Now it all makes sense, including the desperate dishonesty, the cultic denial of salvation to anyone who rejects KJV Onlyism, etc. I simply didn’t make the connection in reading his one article.

   In the brief citation from Pulpit Crimes posted below I made a very quick comment about the rendering of the KJV at I Timothy 6:10. Here is what I had written on the text a dozen years ago now in The King James Only Controversy: The Root or A Root?    Another favorite passage of KJV Only adherents is found in

Well, I’ve given him more than enough time. I know he has received my e-mails. He simply will not respond. Though I have asked him to back up his strong statements, Dr. Douglas Stauffer, author of One Book Stands Alone, will not do so. Though he has stooped to unsubstantiated, false ad-hominem, he will not so much as respond to

I’ve written to Dr. Stauffer and asked him to stand behind his published statements. I’ve invited him to join me on the DL, and inquired about his willingness to publicly debate the issues. Though a number of days have passed, he has so far declined even replying to my e-mails. I’m wondering if he will end up like D.A. Waite,

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

Dr. Hills’ honesty is a breath of fresh air. If he had not begun with the assumption of the superiority of the TR, he would undoubtedly have been led to a conclusion in favor, at the very least, of the “Majority Text” rather than the modern critical texts. But another argument precluded his coming to any conclusions other than the

Here’s a picture of the sign the KJV Only Street Abusers were carrying in Mesa last week. As the picture is, of necessity, rather small, let me fill in what is hard to read. On the green, good tree you have “KJV Holy Bible,” followed by “Every Vital Doctrine Preserved.” Below this is “Deity of Christ,” “Virgin Birth of Christ,”

After a while it just gets embarrassing. David Cloud is a fellow I had commended for having the guts to stand up and criticize Gail Riplinger, bringing her wrath upon him many years ago. But since he has joined the anti-Calvinism sniping brigade he has shown himself just as willing to engage in the most egregious forms of false argumentation

Download the file. This presentation was explained previously on a Dividing Line broadcast.

Nine years ago now a panel discussion featuring three KJV Only advocates (Sam Gipp, Joe Chambers, and Thomas Strouse) and five non-KJV Only advocates (Dan Wallace, Don Wilkins, Art Farstad, Ken Barker, and myself) was recorded in the studios of the John Ankerberg Show. During the taping of the 4th episode, a complete non-event took place that I knew, given

We have already warned folks about these men (click here). For our efforts in speaking the truth we ended up with even more childish, ludicrous behavior out of these men at the next conference, as this picture notes:     We reported on this on the Dividing Line, playing audio sections of their inane ranting as well. Since that time,