What’s The Big Deal with Sam Gipp?

On August 7, 2013, I added Gipp’s fourth video, in which he demonstrates ignorance of the English language. Among other misinformation, he says we do not spell trafficked with a k and that the word is spelled in an “archaic” way. This is in fact the only way this way could be spelled. From his presentation, it is apparent that “Dr. Gipp” does not even understand the meaning of the term archaic

We have no need of the originals, even if they were available. (“The Answer Book”)

This is Sam Gipp’s statement about the non-necessity of the original texts of the Scriptures. He openly admits that the King James Version of the Bible has replaced the original texts (and does so with a very poor, allegorical exegesis of Jeremiah 36). This kind of teaching is dangerous. It parades around with a thin veneer of academic respectability.

Over the past eight months or so, Sam Gipp has released three well produced videos supported the King James Version Only position. These videos, available on their own website have been circulating all over the internet.

I have to be honest. When the videos first came out, I had no idea who Sam Gipp was. He runs in camps that I was never a part of, even when I was King James Only. As I have learned more about him, there have been some serious questions that have come to mind.

Sam Gipp’s Questionable Ethics

On the surface, Gipp appears to be a well-intentioned man who just wants people to have the “perfect Word of God”; but underlying most of his argumentation is a distrust of anything or anyone who disagrees with him that manifests in a kind of academic bait and switch. He intentionally oversimplifies things, creating false dichotomies in which only his position has the “right answer.”

What’s more, the staged and often stiff questions presented to him by his interlocutors create straw man arguments for him to demolish. Particularly, his anti-everybody else position becomes evident at the end of his third video. He challenges his listeners and essentially states that if you use any version of the Bible other than the KJV, including Greek and Hebrew, then you are in danger of heresy because you’re clearly just looking for reasons to doubt the Scriptures.

Gipp pulls this bait and switch over and over again, both in the videos and on his website. In his “Answer Book” section, Gipp deals with “If King James did not authorize the Bible for use in churches, who was it translated for?”

Ignoring the fact that Gipp does not acknowledge the rich heritage of translations from which the King James Version was revised and acts like it appeared in a vacuum devoid of accurate English translations, Gipp’s logic works something like this:

  • The Bible belongs in the hands of the common man.
  • The Roman Catholic Church does not want the Bible in the common man’s hands.

(Both are true statements, as far as they go.)

  • The Roman Catholics did not translate the King James Version.
  • The modern versions keep people from knowing God’s Word.
  • The Roman Catholics are using modern versions to brainwash the common man.

Subtly, Gipp pulls the bait and switch. He conveniently ignores that the man behind the Greek text used for the KJV was Roman Catholic. He never mentions that the Anglican Church that produced the KJV was violently opposed to dissenters, like Puritans and Baptists. He never mentions that the Roman Catholic Church openly allows the use of the King James Version of the Bible, even if recommending you use a modern version.

(Incidentally, the Vatican recently held an exhibit of the Catholic roots of the King James Version. Check it out.)

If you watch the way Gipp argues in his videos, he does this constantly. Particularly, in the second video he uses the fact that modern versions are updated from time to time as an argument for trusting the KJV; but he does not acknowledge in any way that there have been several updates of the KJV text for spelling, grammar and word choice.

Sam Gipp’s Dualistic World

His three videos can be distilled to these three arguments:

  1. The KJV comes from the Antioch text. Other translations come from Egypt. Antioch=good. Egypt=bad.
  2. Modern translations cut things out of the KJV. They get updated. KJV=complete. Modern translations=edited.
  3. Using modern versions is looking for errors in the Bible. Only KJVO people don’t question the Bible. Acceptance=faith. Academic rigor=hatred of God’s Word.

Each argument is made in a bait and switch way. For example, in the first video he asks a series of questions about “What do you know about…?” He uses these questions to set a “principle” that anything coming from Egypt is evil and gnostic; and that anything coming from Antioch is good and healthy. He does this using proof texting and questionable hermeneutics.

James White does a great job of destroying these arguments in his response to Gipps’ video, so I won’t respond. I will just post the link.

While I don’t agree with James White on some minor things, I think he does a great job here of exposing the fallacies that Gipp presents.

The reality is that Sam Gipp has created a very Gnostic, neo-Platonic view of the world. While claiming that Gnosticism influenced the church in Egypt, Gipp is unaware that he has himself employed this world view. Since, in his mind, Egypt represents the world and sin, he has marked anything that comes out of Egypt as evil. It is corrupted and broken. Then he proceeds to label anything from Antioch as good and healthy. This is Gnosticism draped in pseudo-history.

A simple study of the Scriptures will refute this dualistic, Gnostic worldview.

And here lies another hint of Gipp’s unethical approach to the topic. While he claims that the Scriptures are for all men, he sets himself up as an authority on the interpretation of Scripture and has developed a scheme for presenting the Scriptures while withholding information through his method of oversimplification as well as bait and switch.

Sam Gipp’s Confusing Academic Situation

On his website, he gives his name as Evangelist Samuel C. Gipp, Th.D. There is very little information about Gipp’s degree, but from all indications, his Doctor of Theology (Th.D.) is an honorary degree from Pensacola Bible Institute, presented to him by Peter Ruckman.

This is a bit confusing since the Doctor of Theology is generally considered to be a research degree and not an honorary one. In most academic fields, it is considered roughly equivalent to a Doctor of Philosophy.

But this is what Gipp has written about honorary degrees, on his own website:

An honorary doctorate is just that. It is bestowed upon the recipient by some college or university as a way of honoring him or her for some outstanding merit, or service to that school. It must be remembered though that an honorary degree cannot bestow an “instant” expertise in the area named…Their opinion on Bible questions certainly wouldn’t outweigh the findings of an earned degree. Or even of someone who holds no degree but has thoroughly investigated all of the available evidence. (“The Answer Book”)

He also makes it quite clear that one does not need Bible college or advanced degrees, and that such things often detract from your understanding of the Scriptures:

A Bible college education seldom strengthens a student’s faith that the Bible is perfect. (“The Answer Book”)

There is a strange irony then that the first of Gipp’s “What’s the Big Deal About the KJV?” videos shows him in a clearly academic setting. Bible college is apparently acceptable if it is 1) taught by someone with an honorary Th.D. and 2) presents the KJV as the only authoritative version of the Scriptures. Otherwise, you should not trust it and you don’t need it.

Fight the Ignorance!

Don’t listen to Sam Gipp and receive what he says passively like his sock puppet listeners do in the videos he is making. He is presenting textual, historical and doctrinal errors. He is teaching a false dichotomy and painting a very complex issue with broad brushes to cast his own position as authoritative and any other position as sinful and evil.

I have no doubt that Sam Gipp believes he is right. He accepts his own oversimplified view of the world and believes in his “research” and his own credentials.

But he is wrong – on many fronts; and he is using deceptive, manipulative practices to make himself look correct.

138 thoughts on “What’s The Big Deal with Sam Gipp?

  1. Bob Hayton September 3, 2012 / 10:50 am

    Great post, Erik. Thanks.

    • Nickolaus A. Pacione July 25, 2014 / 4:42 pm

      I think I also have something that will help Bob, go to my blog on wordpress and use The New Living along with CEV and a Catholic Bible to show where they have their flaws. The biggest flaw with King James Onlyism is they brought us back into a world of superstition and mislead an entire congregation into a lie that needs to be debunked.

  2. Andrew Suttles September 14, 2012 / 9:50 pm

    Does the NKJV pass brother Gipp’s test?

    • Erik DiVietro September 15, 2012 / 4:50 pm

      Andrew, no.

      Gipp is a Ruckmanite. Only the King James Version is the inspired Word of God. They even translate the KJV into other languages.

    • Nickolaus A. Pacione July 25, 2014 / 4:44 pm

      Ruckamite — that’s a new one too; I think I am going to use that in my new story as I have a character named Ruckman. I am trying to keep this clean but when you deal with KJOS you want to swear at them to tell them look at reality in they eyes because as I said on my blog they have a constant fear of the dark.

  3. James Snapp, Jr September 15, 2012 / 4:24 pm

    Speaking of degrees, whether earned or honorary: where and how did James White get his “Dr.” degree?

    Yours in Christ,

    James Snapp, Jr.

    • Erik DiVietro September 15, 2012 / 4:50 pm


      I wrote this article, not Bob. James White’s degree is from Columbia Evangelical Seminary.

      I won’t quibble as to the fact that CES is a non-accredited, non-traditional, distance education institution. I have no frame of reference for the course load involved in his Th.M. degree. Whether or not that course load corresponds to an equivalent degree at a traditional institution is a matter of debate.

      But the fact is that people who receive honorary degrees do not customarily style themselves “doctor.” Honorary degrees are recognition of work, not the granting of a title. I could be named Honorary Mayor of my town, but that does not give me the right to call myself “Mayor DiVietro.”

  4. Davidson Bergeron September 18, 2012 / 8:53 am

    I am familiar with both Peter Ruckman and Sam Gipp. For the record, Peter Ruckman claimed that Sam Gipp earned his Th.D. from Ruckman’s institute based on work that Sam Gipp pursued that would become the basis for “An Understandable History of the Bible.” Therefore, according to the statement I have heard from Ruckman, Gipp’s qualifications to discuss the matter are the equal of James White’s qualifications; an apparently earned degree from a non-accredited academic institution. Whether “An Understandable History of the Bible” is doctoral-level, I will leave it to the reader to decide. It is worth noting, however, that the book underwent a major editorial revision a few years ago that gave it a more scholarly feel than the book had in its earlier incarnation. Hmmm….

    Personally, I hold Gipp and White in contempt for different reasons.

    • Andrew Suttles September 23, 2012 / 6:50 pm

      I think that coloring book counts as post-doctoral research.

    • Eli "Hoss" Caldwell July 7, 2014 / 3:10 pm

      I really don’t know anything about Dr. Gipp’s doctorate, but I have heard him say that he wrote his Acts commentary as his thesis.

  5. Mark September 23, 2012 / 7:28 pm

    Apparently both schools are unaccredited. From looking at these two opponents, I don’t think the argument could be made that both are on the same level academically. In order to be KJVO, you must bypass principles of logic. Scholarship is not based on the quantity of information read, but the ability to use principles of logic to form a cogent argument from the information. This doesn’t permeate Samuel Gipps’ writings.

  6. James Snapp, Jr. October 5, 2012 / 2:22 am


    Regarding the statement in the opening sentence of this entry: Gipp says, “We have no need of the originals, even if they were available.” You then describe this as a statement “about the non-necessity of the original texts of the Scriptures.” However, do you think that another interpretation is plausible, namely, that when Gipp refers to “the originals” he is referring to the autographs?

    If he *is* referring to the autographs, then if his statement were re-worded accordingly, so as to produce the sentence, “We have no need of the autographs, even if they were available,” then would that be significantly different from claims that other, more mainstream writers have stated, to the effect that it is not necessary to possess the autographs to be able to discern the message that the autographs conveyed?

    Yours in Christ,

    James Snapp, Jr.

    • Erik DiVietro October 5, 2012 / 7:50 am

      I would agree, James, but in this case he means the original languages. Gipp believes the KJV replaces the original languages.

  7. Albert October 5, 2012 / 7:35 am

    I have been blogging a series of responses, question by question, to Gipp’s “Answer Book.” Some of the things he writes in that book are absolutely astounding. As much as I disagree with the KJV Onlyist position in general and believe it is intellectually indefensible, it is not fair to paint them all with the broad brush of the Ruckman/Riplinger/Gipp end of the spectrum. That particular group have no problem just making things up to suit their position even when they know it is not true.

    For those interested, my series can be read at:


    • Erik DiVietro October 5, 2012 / 7:51 am

      Indeed, Albert. Gipp is an extremist.

  8. James Snapp, Jr. October 6, 2012 / 4:33 pm


    Exactly where in these videos does Sam Gipp express the belief that you atriiribute to him that the KJV replaces the original languages?

    Yours in Christ,

    James Snapp, Jr.

    • Erik DiVietro October 6, 2012 / 4:40 pm

      It is not in the videos. It is on his website. Click the citation on the quote.

    • Andrew Suttles October 6, 2012 / 9:05 pm


      According to Gipp, in order for peoples of the world to read the Bible, they have to learn English first. A Greek New Testament is NOT the Bible. The Luther translation is NOT the Bible. Only the KJB is the Bible.

    • Albert October 7, 2012 / 12:26 pm

      It’s all over his books. He is a follower of Peter Ruckman who teaches the KJV is “advanced revelation” and superior to any Greek and Hebrew text. He also believes the Septuagint was invented in the third century AD by Origen. In other words, we are dealing with a complete crackpot.

  9. Andrew Suttles October 6, 2012 / 9:12 pm

    According to Gipp, there are inspired translations. Of course, he believes the KJB to be inspired based on 2 Tim 3:16.

    Since all Scripture is inspired, and since the KJB IS the Scriptures, then the KJB is inspired.

    • tim sturm June 17, 2013 / 1:05 pm

      If your NIV is insprired, the Satan is the morning Star as in the NIV. Talk about ignorant scholarship.

    • Nickolaus A. Pacione December 15, 2014 / 5:56 pm

      Andrew — I had to deal with a few like this myself; let me show you this one — you are dealing with pardon the term, they’re bastards. I will tell you why they’re bastards — their sermon examples they pick on the elderly and kids in their sermons but when they have 20-30 somethings we’re the ones who will burn because we are thinking and challenging. Some of us write horror fiction and use KJVO characters just to scare the ever-living put the f between two letters then a k out of them. Sometimes you need to scare the bleep out of them — here’s a question to ask them. When they ask you if you died tonight — ask them this; would you evangelize at gun point drag them through hell to experience heaven as like in the short story Door to Door by Charles Browning within the anthology Coach’s Midnight Diner: Jesus vs. Cthulhu Edition a King James Onlyite got really mad at my language so I cussed even harder at them. Sometimes a well placed “cazzo” will create an effect or sometimes speaking with them via Bing in a different language because they might not tell if you’re being civil or swearing at them

  10. Walter October 14, 2012 / 2:54 pm

    Haven’t been around in awhile, and I haven’t delved back into Textual Criticism for quite some time either, but I did want to stop by and make a quick comment.

    I know I have said this before, but the back and forth on this topic just continues to frustrate me because all we ever hear are the positions of either KJV_Onlyism or the Minority Text. One day the debate is going to move out beyond these two positions, and the Majority Text position is going to get the recognition it deserves. It is my belief that James White and Daniel Wallace are completely satisfied and content to keep this debate on the level of the Minority Text vs. KJVO because it keeps the MT position in the background and even worse, it keeps it in the shadows of the KJVO position where most people still think that if you advocate for the MT then you’re advocating for the TR and KJV.

    James White’s positions are almost as illogical as Gipp’s, but White’s have been glossed with scholarly and academic acceptance over time giving them a false pretense of being settled and fact. As I’ve said many times before, once the lay people in the Body of Christ get a full look at all positions you’re going to see the MT position take off like a rocket, and once the veneer is stripped off the Minority Text position and shone for just how unreliable it is they’re also going to feel like they’ve been duped all this time.

    • Albert October 14, 2012 / 4:44 pm

      I think a case could be made for the Byzantine text but it might depend upon how it is defined. One could, for example, argue that the Alexandrian text has a better chance of being preserved because of climatic conditions in Egypt and hence why it has all the earlier mss. However, the argument must then be to emphasize the earliest state of the Byzantine text and not what might end up as the “majority.”

      Some of the arguments made by some MT supporters are, in my opinion, counterproductive and ahistorical. For example, there are arguments that hypothesize an almost “survival of the fittest” whereby the best text wins out in the long run. This is quite silly as what would win out is determined by historical factors. We will have the most mss from the later centuries simply because something made five to ten centuries ago is more likely to survive than something made ten to fifteen centuries ago. Since the only Christians still using primarily the Greek language in the later period was the Byzantine Empire, the text favored in those areas would predominate. Thus the later mss favor one recension just as the earliest mss (i.e., those in Alexandria) favor another recension. The important thing is that the position favoring Byzantine readings need to concentrate on the earliest examples of the Byzantine tradition.

    • Erik DiVietro October 15, 2012 / 6:49 am

      Egypt was part of the Byzantine Empire until the Muslims conquered it in the 7th century. The same applies for most of Syria and Palestine. ALL Greek manuscripts were created and perpetuated within the orthodox traditions. Text typing is a poor excuse for the classification of manuscripts. The entire system needs to be overhauled.

    • Paul Anderson October 14, 2012 / 9:51 pm


      Good point again as White is not a text critic either and valid points were raised concerning the Byzantine text position he seems to carefully avoid.

      To Albert, the critical text advocates do not see the Alexandrian text (if there is one in reality) as a recension. But they do see the Byzantine text as one. Also, the earliest preserved or “oldest text” manuscripts are not necessarily the “best manuscripts” contra critical text advocacy claims. See Burgon and later Wisse on this point. The Byzantine scribes were engaged in correcting earlier serious errors even granting possible harmonizations or emendation made along the way.

      The sorting and or classification of continuous text, lectionary groupings and the production of Byzantine critical text editions is exactly the type of work and research we are currently engaged in at CSPMT.

      In Christ,

      Paul Anderson

    • Erik DiVietro October 15, 2012 / 6:45 am

      The Majority Text position is a relatively recent innovation, helped along by the advances in technology of the past couple of decades. Prior to this, collating something akin to a “majority reading” would have required enormous resources. In time, I am sure it will find its place in the menagerie.

      The Majority Text position is a critical text position. it still requires the comparison of manuscript evidence and and textual reading decisions. It is important to note that really it is a variant of the critical text position, not a variant of the Textus Receptus position.

    • Albert October 15, 2012 / 7:04 am


      I am not a critical text advocate as much as a find the best reading advocate. As I mentioned, there can be legitimate arguments that can be made for some Byzantine readings but there needs to be some evidence for those readings. Something that does not show until a millennia or more after the New Testament was written is not that impressive – even if it does end up in the majority of manuscripts.

      On the other hand, something that appears in earlyByzantine texts should be taken more seriously than is currently fashionable. I think it can be legitimately argued that Alexandrian readings have ended up in earlier mss because things are preserved a lot better in the desert than moist climates. The point I made was the “majority” argument is useless as a reason to back a reading since these were selective readings from a particular area.

    • Albert October 15, 2012 / 7:12 am


      Yes, Egypt was part of the Byzantine (Eastern Roman) Empire but the term “Byzantine” for textual types usually refers to the city of Constantinople (Byzantium) rather than the empire as a whole. I don’t think it can be seriously argued that different readings ended up being dominant in different areas of the empire. Constantinople, a capital created out of thin air, may have ended up with texts from different areas of the empire.

    • Erik DiVietro October 15, 2012 / 7:34 am

      Why would texts in Constantinople be different from the rest of the Empire? Washington DC is a capital invented out of thin air, but copies of the Constitution that were made there are the same as the copies of the Constitution made in Philadelphia. That argument doesn’t hold water.

      Be cautious about compressing history to satisfy a theory. I’m not saying that you’re doing that, but it is very common with people who try to interpret the Byzantine Empire and the text that came out of it.

    • Paul Anderson October 15, 2012 / 7:37 am


      This is true. We are working on a complete classification overall as you mentioned. Collation and manuscript digitization has allowed for study of the manuscripts themselves rather than to rely on worn out Hotian text theory and long held critical text bias. This is somewhat of a revolution within the field. At CSPMT we are encountering a large increase in the audience following not only our work but the MT priority position in general.

      One of my two papers to be presented at SBL this year will be the first given by a Byzantine text advocate at he NT-TC session. Though I will be addressing the textual identification of the lectionary manuscripts more specifically, I will deal with some overall MT issues of course to some extent.

      In Christ,

      Paul Anderson

    • Albert October 15, 2012 / 7:43 am


      When Washington D.C was invented out of thin air, they had already produced something called a printing press. It made a big difference.

      Let’s say an early copy of the Gospel of John was then copied for ten different locations. There is one thing I can guarantee: there will be textual variants. So ten different locations will have ten different versions of the Gospel of John; Then these are copied and so on. Now some of these variants (misspellings, etc.) are not that big a deal and cause little confusion. Other variants over the years were the result of (depending on your view) additions or subtractions from the text. At some point the texts in Alexandria and Constantinople did seem to solidify (probably when real scribes rather than just anyone made copies) but there are differences. Now I don’t think any of these differences are critical but they are there and to deny such is to put one’s head in the sand.

    • Erik DiVietro October 15, 2012 / 7:49 am

      I know the theory, Albert.

      What exactly do you think my view is?

    • Albert October 15, 2012 / 7:53 am

      “What exactly do you think my view is?”

      Since I am fairly new to this place I wouldn’t presume to know.

    • Erik DiVietro October 15, 2012 / 8:40 am

      Let me then summarize.

      Too much is made about Alexandrian text types and the Alexandrian vs. Byzantine arguments. Personally, I don’t believe text typing is a valid classification system. The Four Great Uncials (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus and Ephraemi) follow any number of “text types” in various places and yet they are considered “Alexandrian”? It just does not make any sense.

      The inherent issue in discussing the criticism of the New Testament Greek text is NOT age or style or even theology. The real issue is whether one is willing to trust the Greek Church with the preservation of the Greek text or not.

      The so-called Textus Receptus deviates from the text used and copied in the Greek Church. In places, Erasmus’ text follows the Latin Vulgate instead of any Greek text. Why? Because Erasmus believed that the Vulgate was the Word of God. He believed it needed to be redacted to be sure, but he believed that the preservation of the text of the Scriptures had been entrusted to the Western Church.

      By contrast, the so called Critical Text was originally developed from the idea that NO church had preserved the text of the Greek New Testament and therefore the original had to be “discovered” from amongst the textual evidence. It begins with the assumption that we do not possess the Scriptures unless we can somehow reclaim the original readings.

      These are two opposite ends of the spectrum, and they are the basis from which most people will frame their arguments on the Greek text. They both have some merit, but I hold to a middle ground position that has a bias to the Greek Church. By nature a summary will oversimplify, but let me try to distill it. This is a framework for thinking that assumes knowledge of the conversion of the Western Roman Empire from its Latin root to primarily Germanic cultures that picked up Latin as their ecclesiastic and scholastic language after 450 CE. It also assumes knowledge of the ebbs and flows of the Roman Empire after this transition in the West. (I refuse to use the term Byzantine because it was invented by the Enlightenment historians who wanted to claim all things Roman as their own rather than accepting that Roman society had continued.)

      1. The Greek Church (Greece, Turkey) copied and maintained the text of the New Testament in its original language as it was known in the eastern part of the Roman Empire.
      2. The Latin Church (Western Europe) copied and maintained the text of the New Testament in Latin translation from slightly different texts than the Greek Church.
      3. Other smaller Christian groups in Africa ceased producing texts during the period because they were conquered by the Muslims.
      4. As a result, texts found in Africa are generally much older than those found in the northern regions that continued in their majority Christian traditions. This does not make them better, but it does make them a vital resource.

      I caution against historical compression because we must be aware of the intervening events, political changes within the Greek church and the nature of the schism between Greek and Latin churches, as well as the minority position of the African churches.

      I believe the text of the New Testament is the extant corpus of texts from these traditions. The “best” reading is not determined by one’s bias or by counting manuscripts. It must be determined by careful comparison, not by debate and argument. As someone once told me, the problem is not that we have 90% of the text and are trying to figure out what the other 10% is. The problem is that we have 115% and we are not sure what of the 15% does not belong.

      We have the Greek text of the Scriptures. We do not need to “discover” it. I have long called for the type of comparison and study that Paul is working on with CSPMT. I do not believe it should result in a single published text. I believe it should result in a tool for comparing texts.

    • Paul Anderson October 15, 2012 / 12:20 pm


      Your hesitation on strict types is valid as INTF is not supporting this description for the so-called Alexandrian early uncials any more. However, there is no proof the old uncials Aleph and B were produced in Egypt anyway. Much to the contrary, T. Skeat held to a Caesarean origins which I do as well rather than African origins. Origen moved to there in the early 200s locating his library there. Pamphilus and Eusebius of Caesarea his supporters likely carried on his textual proclivities by possibly producing Aleph and B for Constantine.

      On the other hand, the Byzantines or manuscripts on the MT side have far greater unity than Aleph and B or B and the papyri for that matter. Yes they are rather close but far less close than the most distant groupings for the “core” Kappa groups on the MT side i.e 3,000 plus variants in John alone between Aleph & B.

      Regarding the use a related term for Byzantine type, the Greeks occasionally utilize a textual term for description of various textual groupings preserved in their tradition so it is not entirely of Latin Western origins. The main problem with the old uncials especially Aleph and B is that they had inferior or corrupt readings introduced along the way likely from Origen’s exemplars brought from Caesarea and the modern eclectic English versions have incorporated these numerous readings into the text as well.

      In Christ,

      Paul Anderson

    • tim sturm June 17, 2013 / 1:11 pm

      IOf you went to 1 John ch 1 verse 23, This is one of those places where the italicized words show up. Since the translators addeds 10 words to the text in 1611, all ten have been found in Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and 14 others. Not a scholar will point that out. Lead by the Holy Spirit in tranbslating the KJV. Erik has obviously slept through that, and all other seminaries that put out reprobate bibles.

    • Erik DiVietro June 17, 2013 / 1:14 pm

      Tim, your comments have no relevance to the content of this post and are just spiteful trolling because you were ejected from a Facebook group for violating the Rules of Engagement.

      Your behavior is beyond adolescent.

    • Erik DiVietro June 17, 2013 / 1:26 pm

      It is the latter half of 1 John 2:23 that was not found in any known Greek manuscripts at the time of the King James translation.

      Since neither Erasmus or Tyndale included the passage (and it does not appear in the published TR editions), the translators must have included it because it is present in the Vulgate and the Syriac.

      The KJV committees did not have some kind of supernatural, prophetic power to include things without knowledge. They simply followed Erasmus’ reasoning when he included 1 John 5:7. The witness of the church was sufficient, even without Greek manuscript support.

      Anyway, far from proving some kind of prophetic power in the KJV translators, the presence of this reading in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus simply validates them as manuscript support.

      You cannot deny them in one breath and then use them to support your arguments in the next.

    • Albert June 17, 2013 / 3:30 pm

      It was not a supernatural action of the Holy Spirit, it was not clairvoyance, and not some secret pipeline to other manuscripts.

      The reason the KJV included the verse italicized is because it was not in the Greek text the KJV translators primarily used, but it did appear in the Latin Vulgate (it had been dropped in some earlier cycle of transmission of the Greek but not in the Latin), and the KJV sided with Jerome.

      Of course KJV Onlyists don’t want to hear that because they hate Jerome but the KJV Onlyists could not say enough nice things about him in the preface to the KJV.

      The best cure for KJV Onlyism is reading the writings of the KJV translators – including the translators’ preface.

    • Nick September 8, 2014 / 12:58 am

      This is an old thread, but I did want to respond to Walter’s point: the Majority Text position is not ‘new’, is not experiencing a resurgence, and has not been ignored. In fact, Daniel Wallace wrote a 30 page paper on the Majority Text question in the peer reviewed JETS…. all the way back in 1994(!).

      So, the problem is that the Majority Text position was engaged with significantly 20 years ago, and hasn’t actually moved forward at all as a real and defensible position of scholarship since then (Maurice Robinson is STILL the only proponent with standing and some sort of semi-reasonable approach to the question, and even then his position appears to be just as much anti-eclecticism as it is pro-Byzantine).

      Of course, a Byzantine Majority Text is still an eclectic text – it’s just slightly less eclectic because copyist practices became more standardised, and scribes worked harder to harmonise texts, in later centuries (usually 9th onwards)

    • Nick September 8, 2014 / 1:11 am

      Oh, and while I think of it, also worth pointing out that this paper basically exists in almost the same form (with some minor revisions to keep up to date) in the Ehrman and Holmes edited volume ‘The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research’, which is pretty much the all-in-one text book for NT textual criticism.

      His essay is one of maybe 3 or 4 chapters essentially unchanged between the first and second editions of the volume (95 to 2013). If that isn’t telling of the state of NT majority scholarship, I don’t know what is.

  11. Albert October 16, 2012 / 4:26 am


    Thanks for the clarification but humor me as I make a few points you may have answered elsewhere. First of all, it is not true the four great uncials are considered Alexandrian. This is true of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus but Alexandrinus is considered Byzantine (Category III) in the Gospels while Alexandrian (Category I) elswhere in the NT. Ephremi is considered mixed textual type (Category II) throughout.

    On the matter of whether the Greeks could be trusted with a Greek text, I think this is a bit misleading. At best you might ask if the Greeks could be trusted with a Greek text written by Greek speakers not of Greek descent. The point made here is that the center of power and intellectual life in the Church in the first few centuries were not in Greece but in Syria, Israel, and Egypt. These areas were Greek speaking as Greek was the universal language of the early years of the Church. The only reason Greek areas became a center of power later was the whim of an emperor but this did not occur until the fourth century.

    I am in absolute agreement on the state of the TR as the Greek texts in the West were often diaglots or Byzantine texts checked against the Vulgate as it stood at the time (which itself was far from uniform).

    The question here is: Do we have any reason to believe the Byzantine choices as a group existed prior to the founding of Constantinople in the fourth century?

    Note that I am not asking whether individual readings existed but whether the choices between readings that were prominent in the Byzantine text existed as a group prior to that time.

    I also agree in examining the Greek texts as we have it more carefully. My point is that readings that suddenly appear late in the game and ended up in the majority of texts have no priveleged place. I am perfectly willing to take the readings as we have them up to the point where we have a representative sample from different areas. My criticism of the critical text position is they ignore the factor of climate in favoring one set of readings. My criticism of the Majority Text position is their downplaying the bias given by historical factors that limit their choices to one particular area that was not a major player until most of the readings were already on the table.

    • Erik DiVietro October 16, 2012 / 5:11 am

      I think we are essentially in agreement then.

  12. Walter October 30, 2012 / 2:24 am


    I’d like to know an example of what you’d consider “a reading that appeared late in the game” that is in the MT and not the CT?

    • Albert November 6, 2012 / 4:59 am

      The most famous example is the Comma Johannieum that does not appear in any Greek text until the medieval period. Even the earliest appearance (~12th century) is in a Latin/Greek diaglot and was likely rendered on the spot by the Latin scribe (as it was rather poorly done with the Latin use of articles that does not match Erasmus’ later rendering that appears elsewhere). It may have been anaddition to the Old Latin text but certainly was never part of the Greek text. Another example would be the “through his blood” claus in Colossians 1:14 that does not appear until somewhere in the ninth century or so.

    • Albert November 9, 2012 / 6:40 am

      Obviously in the above response, I misread your question. For some reason, I thought you had asked for something that appeared in the TR and not the MT. You can, however make the case in a few readings according to which of the MT editions you use. In this case, the Colossians 1:14 “in the blood” clause is included in the Hodges/Farstad but not the Robinson/Pierpont. My point was more in response to KJV Onlyists who insist on the TR reading no matter how late in the game it arrived. My argument is that the CT should be compared against the earliest form of the Byzantine text rather than just that which ends up beig the majority.

  13. David January 1, 2013 / 6:57 pm

    I really do not understand the position of these KJVO’s that the Greek is somehow not available to us or unnecessary. Even if someone believes the TR is the only legitimate Greek text, we still have the printed editions that the KJV translators worked from (not to mention Scrivener’s edition which “reverse engineered” to cull the readings they chose from these seven editions). Do they believe that even the TR itself is corrupt now?

    • tim sturm June 17, 2013 / 12:56 pm

      1 john 2 verse 23; italicized. but it is found in sinnaticus and vaticannus, and 14 others. Proof of the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Superiority of the KJV.

  14. Truth Preacher July 15, 2013 / 9:45 pm

    Of course they were guided by God. The fruit and power of their work can only come from God. The text is settled. This bother all the clowns who want to keep messing with the book and play “manuscript detective”. God closed the door.

    • Erik DiVietro July 16, 2013 / 4:14 am

      “God closed the door”

      Again, an unsubstantiated and unhistorical statement. There is no evidence for this other than the opinion of KJVO extremists. Clearly, God did NOT close the door to further work on the text since we continue to discover and study new manuscripts of the Greek New Testament. There is no Scriptural evidence for your statement except eisegetical fallacy.

  15. Truth Preacher July 15, 2013 / 9:54 pm

    Sam Gipp has “questionable ethics”? Well the whole slew of people involved in overthrowing the Authorized Version are liars, have been lying, and continue to lie and deceive. Westcott and Hort, and that whole Satanically-led crew, LIED to the English people about what they were REALLY doing, and what their intentions were. A bad tree cannot bring forth good fruit. Everything that has ever come from their work cannot be good, but is based on all the same deception and lying. James White is a liar. I have caught him in lies online, on a debate forum, in his chatroom, and his books are full of lies. One has to be dishonest to accept modern textual criticism. One has to be devoid of the Spirit and Fire of God. For thirty years, my encounters with these people, whether academics. PhD’s, pastors, seminary students, etc it has always been the same. Their walk with God is weak, there is no anointing upon them or their “ministries” they are carnal and worldly, and they read phoney bibles to fit in with this powerless Christianity. PATHETIC. When England and America was KJVO, and they were, FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS BY DIVINE DESIGN. they prospered, grew, and were in one revival after another. Since they began to embrace the new PERVERSIONS, look at what happened to them!!!! This is UNDENIABLE TO ANY HONEST OBSERVER. We have more “easy to understand bibles” than one can imagine, and yet we are the most apostate, carnal, biblically illiterate and pathetic generation of Christianity the English nations have ever had. THANK YOU WESTCOTT AND HORT, AND ALL THE REBELS WHO HAVE FOLLOWED THEM. YOU HAVE BEEN LED BY SATAN.

    • Erik DiVietro July 16, 2013 / 4:08 am

      Unsubstantiated opinion – the internet equivalent of saying, “Your momma!”

      It amazes me just how libelous KJVO extremists can be when they have no evidence to support their views. They descend to hurling around serious charges without any consideration or wisdom.

      Please provide historical FACT to support your assertions:

      1. “…that whole Satanically-led crew…YOU HAVE BEEN LED BY SATAN” – what is your evidence for this demonic direction, other than that you don’t like them? I know you will pull out the overused citations from Life and Letters of F.A. Hort, so I am going to warn you ahead of time that I have researched ALL of the misquotations used by KJVO extremists on this topic and will post them below.

      2. “Their walk with God is weak, there is no anointing upon them or their “ministries” they are carnal and worldly…” – please provide your definition of “weak”. Since you define a “weak” person as someone who is not KJVO, of course you hold this opinion. I could cite countless numbers of KJVO people (Jack Schapp, Fred Phelps, etc) who have SERIOUS moral deficits. That does not prove that all KJVO are morally bankrupt anymore than your assertion proves ANYTHING about ANYONE.

      3. “When England and America was [sic] KJVO…” – I would love to see ANY substantiation of this claim. At no time has ANYONE in the UK or the USA stated that the nations were KJVO. It is as unhistorical as claiming the KJV does not have a copyright.

    • Erik DiVietro July 16, 2013 / 4:11 am

      In his book Understandable History of the Bible, the King James Version Only pundit Sam Gipp levels some slanderous attacks against Fenton Anthony Hort – one half of the infamous (to Gipp) Westcott and Hort.

      When someone asked me to review a list of quotes supposedly from Hort, I recognized Sam Gipp’s handiwork immediately. I am going to post my responses to Gipp’s arguments (which can be found on the Chick Publications website – http://www.chick.com/reading/books/157/157_08a.asp – as well as on almost every King James Only board on the internet). That way, those of you who wish to respond to these statements can do so without having to redo a bunch of research.

      Sam Gipp says that Westcott and Hort hated the Textus Receptus!
      “I had no idea till the last few weeks of the importance of text, having read so little Greek Testament, and dragged on with the villainous Textus Receptus … Think of the vile Textus Receptus leaning entirely on late MSS; it is a blessing there are such early ones.”

      This is drawn from Hort’s letter to John Ellerton, 9/29/1851. Hort wrote this in 1851. He was a twenty-three years old graduate student who had read classics, not New Testament. He had not read the New Testament from an academic perspective at that time.You can read my previous respons here: http://www.facebook.com/groups/173339536119889/doc/242540512533124/

      Sam Gipp says that Hort recognized his own text was wrong!
      “The confusion of attestation introduced by these several cross currents of change is so great that of the seven principal MSS, Aleph, A, B, C, D, L, no two have the same text in all four places.”

      I had trouble finding where Hort wrote this. I checked his *The Gospel According to Mark* on this. I ran the phrase through Google Books, and the only quote I found was the one from SAM GIPP’S BOOK. Perhaps Dr. Gipp would be kind enough to tell us which of Hort’s writings contain this statement?


      Sam Gipp says that Hort believed the New Testament was no different than any other ancient document!
      “For ourselves, we dare not introduce considerations which could not reasonably be applied to other ancient texts, supposing them to have documentary attestation of equal amount, variety and antiquity.”

      This is from W-H’s Introduction to *The New Testament in the Original Greek* volume 1 (Paragraph 361). They followed this statement with this one, which never gets quoted:

      “In the variety and fullness of the evidence on which it rests the text of the New Testament stands absolutely and unapproachably alone among prose writings.”

      Far from concluding (as Gipp has) that Westcott and Hort believed the New Testament was no different than Shakespeare, Plato, or Dickens; W-H believed the Greek NT to be UNIQUE among ancient documents in its attestation and preservation.

      Sam Gipp says Hort believed the New Testament is CORRUPT!
      “In the New Testament, as in almost all prose writings which have been much copied, corruptions by interpolation are many times more numerous than corruptions by omission.”

      Not surprisingly this quote is taken out of context. It appears in *The New Testament in the Original Greek* volume 2 (paragraph 313). The statement is a clarification in explaining the unique readings in MSS B. It is not meant to be a universal statement, but a clarification as to the nature of scribal transmission errors in the manuscript tradition.—
      Sam Gipp says Hort rejected the historical place of Eden!

      “I am inclined to think that no such state as ‘Eden'(I mean the popular notion) ever existed, and that Adam’s fall in no degree differed from the fall of each of his descendants, as Coleridge justly argues.”

      This comes from Hort’s letter to John Ellerton, 8/9/1848

      Yes, Hort had difficulty with believing in a literal Garden of Eden – when he was 20 years old! This letter was written in 1848. He was still in college, discussing the popular theological positions of his day with an older colleague.

      Sam Gipp says Hort supported HERETICS!
      “Further I agree with them [Authors of “Essays and Reviews”] in condemning many leading specific doctrines of the popular theology … Evangelicals seem to me perverted rather than untrue. There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, and especially the authority of the Bible.”

      Does Gipp happen to note that Hort turned down the invitation Williams had extended to him to participate in writing the Essays and Reviews”? No.

      Hort’s reason? “…a wide difference of principles and opinions from the body of your coadjutors.” His secondary reason? “There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, and especially the authority of the Bible.” (Hort was saying he relied more heavily on the authority of Scripture than the “coadjutors”.)

      Sam Gipp says Hort denied the infallibility and authority of Scripture!
      “If you make a decided conviction of the absolute infallibility of the N.T. practically a sine qua non for co-operation, I fear I could not join you.”

      “As I was writing the last words a note came from Westcott. He too mentions having had fears, which he now pronounces ‘groundless,’ on the strength of our last conversation, in which he discovered that I did ‘recognize’ ‘Providence’ in biblical writings. Most strongly I recognize it; but I am not prepared to say that it necessarily involves absolute infallibility. So I still await judgment.”

      “But I am not able to go as far as you in asserting the absolute infallibility of a canonical writing.”

      These statements (from a letter to J.B. Lightfoor, 5/1/1860 and a letter to B.F. Westcott the following day) are taken out of context entirely. Hort continues:

      To Lightfoot, he wrote: “I am most anxious to find the N.T. infallible, and have a strong sense of the Divine purpose guiding all its parts…Westcott would say that any apparent errors discovered by criticism are only apparent, and that owing to the imperfection of our knowledge. I fully believe that this is true of a large proportion of what the rasher critics peremptorily pronounce to be errors and I think it possible that it may be true of all, but, but as far as my present knowledge goes, hardly probable.”

      To Westcott, he wrote: “I shall rejoice on fuller investigation to find that imperfect knowledge is a sufficient explanation of all apparent errors, but I do not expect to be so fortunate. If I am ultimately driven to admit occasional errors, I shall be sorry; but it will not shake my conviction of the providential ordering of human elements in the Bible.” Then proceeds to explain to Westcott that he understands if Westcott is not willing to work with him because of his present position.

      Hort upheld the authority and inspiration of Scripture, but held a critical view of the text.

      Sam Gipp says that Hort was a Darwinist!
      “But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with … My feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable. If so, it opens up a new period.”

      Hort wrote this after just reading *Origin of Species*. He was soundly rebuked by Westcott. Hort later wrote to Westcott (10/15/1860): “I do see immense difficulties in his theory, some of which might by this time have been removed, if he had understood more clearly the conditions of his problem.”

      Don’t forget that Hort was still a young man, and Darwin was an academic rage at the time. Westcott for his part dismissed Darwin and never discussed the man other than to note that he had once read the book.


      Sam Gipp says Hort did not believe in eternal punishment!
      “I think Maurice’s letter to me sufficiently showed that we have no sure knowledge respecting the duration of future punishment, and that the word ‘eternal’ has a far higher meaning than the merely material one of excessively long duration; extinction always grates against my mind as something impossible.”

      It should not surprise us at this point that we are reading the words of a 22 year old college student. Hort wrote this to Gerald Blunt on 5/20/1850. And if you read the quote, Hort does not deny eternal punishment at all. In fact, he argues that ‘eternal’ has a HIGHER value – not a lower one. He is saying that the temporal understanding of ‘eternal’ is not sufficient to explain its nature.

      Sam Gipp says that Hort rejected Hell!
      “Certainly in my case it proceeds from no personal dread; when I have been living most godlessly, I have never been able to frighten myself with visions of a distant future, even while I ‘held’ the doctrine.”
      You guessed it – 21 years old. Hort was writing to F.D. Maurice on 11/16/1849 on a number of different doctrinal questions. And who was F. D. Maurice? He was the Chair of Divinity at King’s College London. Hort was writing a blind letter to a man he did not know on matters he was only familiar with on an undergraduate level. There is no way to take this letter and consider it the doctrinal statement of a mature man.

      Sam Gipp says Hort wanted to pay Satan to save him!
      “I confess I have no repugnance to the primitive doctrine of a ransom paid to Satan, though neither am I prepared to give full assent to it. But I can see no other possible form in which the doctrine of a ransom is at all tenable; anything is better than the notion of a ransom paid to the Father.”

      It saddens me that Sam Gipp is oblivious of historical theology. The ransom theory of justification has been around for a LONG time. This is a letter to Westcott from August 1860, and like many of Hort’s summer letters, it is long and rambling. If you read the whole letter, you will see that Westcott and Hort were corresponding about some statements of doctrine in *Essays and Reviews*, denying ANY orthodox view of the atonement.

      One should note the way Hort writes about one of the architects of Essays and Reviews, Benjamin Jowett. While considering Jowett to be a masterful writer and thinker, but Hort dismisses him thus: “His theological conclusions seem to be blank atheism, though he is anything but an atheist. Even the learning and scholarship of the books you must not accept on trust. It is nearly always second-hand, and often quite wrong.” (Letter to Gerald Blunt, 11/18/1855)
      Far from denying orthodox beliefs, Hort attempts to both appreciate the work of his contemporary theologians while also acknowledging the weakness of their positions.

      Here is some more information on misquotes of Westcott and Hort that I wrote to address another KJVO advocate who could not be bothered with doing research (http://youtu.be/tNv-zzpIwBs).

      Accusation: Hort Believed in Purgatory
      I hate to keep saying this, but Veith picks and chooses what he quotes. In quoting this letter from Hort (dated April 2, 1854, so he was 25 years old), Veith ignores the context. Whoever “Maurice” was, Hort feels that he “flings antiquity boldly aside, because it clashes with the modern dogma.”

      In other words, Hort felt that the testimony of the church fathers needed to be considered in the matter of whether there was such a thing as postmortem salvation. Clearly, Veith does not understand the history of theology if he thinks that this question means Hort believed in purgatory.

      Postmortem salvation was a theological hot topic at the time, and Hort was after all only 25 and just out of seminary. Again, are we to judge a man’s life based on what he sad when he was 25? Or is Veith on a Macarthy-esque witch hunt?
      To support his witch hunt, Veith then quotes a letter Hort wrote to an Oxford undergraduate named Brinton in January 1886, more than 30 years later. Hort is responding to specific questions about the Anglican statement of faith, and the question on Article XXII had to do with something written by a professor named Kingsley on the topic. Before the quote that Veith quotes, Hort writes, “Purgatory is not a word that I should myself spontaneously adopt, because it is associated with Roman theories about the future state for which I see no foundation.” Hort goes to great length to say that he considers “purgation” to be the a metaphorical concept – that God cleanses believers in the “natural figure” or in life. He considers the belief in a place called purgatory to be a “very mischievous superstition.”

      Veith says he is a Jesuit – but Hort openly condemned the Roman Catholic position on this topic. It is frustrating that Veith apparently does not read the letters he keeps quoting.

      Accusation: Hort rejected substitutionary atonement
      The first letter quoted is from March 20, 1856. What Hort means by “Protestant theology” is post-Reformation theology. He is not saying he is a Jesuit. He is saying that the man who wrote the book is ignorant of ancient theology.

      Veith’s second quote comes from the first letter he quoted. Remember the one that supposedly proved Hort was a Darwinist?

      Again, Veith is so blinded by his need for Hort to be a Jesuit that he does not read the rest of what Hort said. While I don’t agree with Hort on this particular interpretation, he is not teaching Jesuit doctrine. He is teaching Anglican doctrine. He calls the idea of substitionary atonement “the modern limiting of Christ’s bearing our sins and sufferings to His death. In other words, Jesus’ work was not simply in His death. He believed that Jesus’ work was more than his death. There was more to it than just dying for our sins.

      I’m not sure where Hort was going with that, but it was definitely not Catholic doctrine. If anything, it is a precursor to modern “What Would Jesus Do?” teaching that Jesus modeled a moral life rather than just dying for our sins.

      Accusation: Hort believed that human beings are god
      Veith takes Hort out of context so badly that it is unbelievable. Hort quotes the Scriptures that man is “created in the image of God.” He never says that man is god.

    • Albert July 16, 2013 / 4:32 am


      The specific quote does appear in the into to the Westcott-Hort edition but, as usual, Sam Gipp was in far over his head and did not understand what was being said. The quote does not say his own text was wrong. He was speaking of a specific passage (the cock crowing in the Gospel of Mark, mentioned the Byzantine texts as also being part of the problem as an amalgamation of earlier versions, but also mentioned that even the seven principle mss did not agree fully. Clearly, he thought this was unusual as they generally had wide agreement on key verses. Thus, Gipp has completely misrepresented what was stated and through his own ignorance and/or malice painted the author as giving almost the exact opposite of his actual viewpoint.

      You can find the quote here:


    • Erik DiVietro July 16, 2013 / 4:37 am

      Albert, that would explain why I could not find it. I believe that Westcott is credited as the primary author of the introduction. Just another case of Sam Gipp’s sloppy scholarship.

  16. Truth Preacher July 16, 2013 / 9:58 am

    You said:
    Unsubstantiated opinion – the internet equivalent of saying, “Your momma!”

    Really? Your opinion is unsubstantiated. New Version churches are certainly full of people who speak like the above. But I said no such thing in words or tone. I don’t lower myself to speak in such foolish ways for any reason. I am a new creation, and have left off such behavior. But your immediate mischaracterization of my post is typical, and it is a LIE. Therefore my observation is proven from your very first words to me.

    You said:
    It amazes me just how libelous KJVO extremists can be when they have no evidence to support their views. They descend to hurling around serious charges without any consideration or wisdom.

    Well it amazes me how enemies of the Authorize version will pontificate, without knowledge, and attack the morality of brothers like Gipp, but then whine like babies when their own guns are turned back on them. Further, the accusations against Gipp are LIES, but my remarks are true.

    You said:
    Please provide historical FACT to support your assertions
    1. “…that whole Satanically-led crew…YOU HAVE BEEN LED BY SATAN” – what is your evidence for this demonic direction, other than that you don’t like them? I know you will pull out the overused citations from Life and Letters of F.A. Hort, so I am going to warn you ahead of time that I have researched ALL of the misquotations used by KJVO extremists on this topic and will post them below.

    No you have not done remotely the “research” you claim. Your views and the ignorance you utter proves this.

    If you don’t know WHY I said what I said about Westcott and Hort, then you are not qualified to speak on this subject whatsoever. Dean Burgon and many other of his contemporaries, told us that Westcott and Hort were engaged in DECEPTION. The PUBLIC statements Westcott and Hort made were that they were SIMPLY REVSING the Authorized Version with as few changes as possible. Was that the truth about their work. NO. What were they really doing? They smuggled in two corrupt Greek texts, in order to REPLACE the Textus Receptus and the AV. And they made THOUSANDS OF CHANGES, removed words, verses and passages, and just MANGLED the whole thing. Scrivener, who was on that committee, came out and TOLD THE TRUTH ABOUT IT. Burgon told us about this whole “wretched affair” Miller, Dabney and others warned us what was happening.

    These are all WELL-KNOWN and DOCUMENTED FACTS in the literature of many Bible-believing Publications. The fact you don’t know this, or PRETEND not to know, and hope no one else finds out that WESTCOTT AND HORT WERE LIARS AND DECEIVERS FROM THE VERY BEGINNING does not bode well for you or your position. A bad tree CANNOT bring forth good fruit. 140 years later, what FRUIT do we have with the new versions? Apostasy. Laodicea. Destruction.

    So, who was a liar from the beginning and the father of lies? Who led Westcott and Hort to PERVERT THE WORDS OF THE LIVING GOD, AND TO ENGAGE IN DECEIT IN SO DOING??? And why did they have an ARIAN on the committee, which when it was objected to by others, Hort, that snake, said he would shut the whole thing down if they tried to remove the Arian named Vance??? Why would any REAL, BORN AGAIN believer want a FULL-BLOWN UNITARIAN HERETIC on a Bible committee??? Was the Spirit of God leading him, or was it THE DEVIL? Answer please!!!!

    You see, in our world, one plus one is two, and these things are not hard to figure out, and you can’t explain them away. Westcott and Hort were raised up by the Devil to do damage to the English people and they did.
    Let me ask you, why did Hort, upon hearing Moody speak once, say that he would not care to go hear him again??? Here is an anointed Evangelist that God was using mightily, and Hort didn’t care for him! Oh I am sure Moody’s words stung and convicted that snake! And then we read of Spurgeon’s take of hearing Mooody, and WHAT A DIFFERENCE! It was the difference between the reaction of an impenitent sinner and deceiver hearing an anointed preacher, vs a believer hearing him. One didn’t like it, the other loved it

    I have merely scratched the surface of the evidence that Westott and Hort were of the Devil, and their work was built on deception and lying, and they had HERETICS in their midst helping them corrupt the Word of God. Hort admired Darwin and his writing! Hort admired another tool raised up by Satan. You say Westcott rebuked him, but don’t produce the quote, while claiming Gipp takes these two “out of context”. How could Darwin “engage” any real Christian? He would be REVOLTING to a believer, and the Holy Ghost within! Yes he was young. SO WHAT? When he was YOUNG, before he had “studied” all the texts, he called the Textus Receptus “vile and villainous”. Did he change his views decades later? NO. Hort’s character, or lack thereof, and his propensity to be deceived and then form unalterable opinions early on is evident. Only someone unregenerate could have so many leanings towards what is evil.

    Also, I noticed you deceptively defended Hort on his rejection of propitiation. His quote said he could accept the idea of a Ransom being paid to Satan. He said anything was better than the idea that a ransom was paid to God. Well that is the whole idea of propitiation! That Christ paid FOR MAN the debt he owed TO GOD for his sin!

    You simply cannot defend Westcott and Hort. And Gipp’s UNDERSTANDABLE HISTORY OF THE BIBLE has been largely expanded, with quotes in much fuller context. The book is now 500 pages, but easy and a pleasure to read. I suggest you consult the book, rather than what is on Chick’s site. You’ll see.

    I also know SOME KJV defenders have certainly strained at gnats in trying to prove their points about Westcott and Hort, and I have rebuked them for this. I have told them not to make mountains out of mole-hills and not to try to paint things they said in any exaggeration. I have the biographies of Westcott and Hort, 4 volumes total, if memory serves, available from googlebooks. I checked a number of Gipp’s quotes because I certainly don’t want to misrepresent anyone, anytime, ever. The ones I checked were exactly as Gipp gave them in his expanded book.

    You said:
    2. “Their walk with God is weak, there is no anointing upon them or their “ministries” they are carnal and worldly…” – please provide your definition of “weak”. Since you define a “weak” person as someone who is not KJVO, of course you hold this opinion. I could cite countless numbers of KJVO people (Jack Schapp, Fred Phelps, etc) who have SERIOUS moral deficits. That does not prove that all KJVO are morally bankrupt anymore than your assertion proves ANYTHING about ANYONE.

    Exhibit A: Rick Warren. He is New Version fruit. Exhibit B: Bill Hybels. He is New Version fruit. These people, and there are MANY, MANY MORE LIKE THEM, are all new version people, and they have helped produce the weak, carnal, worldly evangelical state in American churches. Christianity Today. How about their articles and attitudes over the years ? O how unlike the Bible believers of days gone by are they! Look at what the advent and acceptance of the new versions have produced! ARE YOU BLIND???? DO YOU NOT SEE THESE FALSE TEACHERS AND MEGA CHURCHES ALL AROUND, FULL OF THE MOST CARNAL, UNSPIRITUAL PEOPLE IMAGINABLE???

    Such a state CANNOT be produced by those who preach and teach from a King james Bible. This happens when that Bible is rejected for the counterfeits. Of course Christians and even ministers can sadly, fall, and fail God, like the examples you give. and many more can be given from the KJV side. But this is not the same. The mindset and godlessness of New Version churches is epidemic. The messages preached there fit right in and produce it. The phoney bibles are a weak as the people there. THIS IS A TRAGEDY I HAVE NO JOY IN RECOUNTING. It pains me. I have watched for 30 years the church in America fall so low and away from truth, it is painful. But I am not ignorant of Satan’s devices, and HOW he did this.

    So my assertions are proven. Do they describe you and those you know? TV addicted, internet addicted, movie- addicted, secular music addicted types of “Christians” who spend most of their free time entertaining themselves sinfully, and with sin. No holiness, no COME OUT AND BE SEPARATE SAITH THE LORD, TOUCH NOT THE UNCLEAN THING, AND THEN I WILL RECEIVE YOU. No, none of that. These idolaters sit in front of their talking idols, fellowshipping with the wicked, and laughing at things that makes heaven weep. They listen to the name of their Lord taken in vain and used as a cussword, they watch people fornicate, swear, commit evil, mock God, and are entertained by it. Their idiot pastors play clips from these evil movies IN CHURCH and preach their effeminate, godless, WEAK, POWELESS sermonettes to the mass of false converts in their mega churches.

    What planet are you living on??? How do you not know these things, and how is it that you don’t see the connections?

    You wrote:
    3. “When England and America was [sic] KJVO…” – I would love to see ANY substantiation of this claim. At no time has ANYONE in the UK or the USA stated that the nations were KJVO. It is as unhistorical as claiming the KJV does not have a copyright.

    No, my ignorant friend. From 1611 to 1881, both nations were KJVO by CIRCUMSTANCE! There were no other Bibles!!! The Authorized Version gained acceptance in both nations, and for 270 years that is all they had! It wasn’t by DOCTRINE OR FORCE that this happened, but by the Providence and plan of God. He so ordered it, and what happened during that time??? The greatest missionary movement in the history of the church, one revival after another. Nations raised up and impacted. Millions of conversions! High literacy in the nations. Biblical literacy. Morality. A Christian worldview even amongst the unconverted!

    There are MANY BOOKS that further document all these things. I suggest you read them all.

    • Erik DiVietro July 16, 2013 / 10:05 am

      Like I said, you provide no evidence – just opinions. You will dismiss anything I write, so I see no point to engaging you.

    • Erik DiVietro July 16, 2013 / 10:09 am

      Oh, and by “research”, I meant that I actually take the time to read things instead of just accepting whatever I am told. That’s why I spent quite a bit of time actually READING Life and Letters of F.A. Hort instead of just citing Sam Gipp as if he is gospel.

      You would have known that if rather than going on and on with your baseless accusations, you would have read the comment I posted above: http://kjvonlydebate.com/2012/09/03/whats-the-big-deal-with-sam-gipp/#comment-95104

  17. Truth Preacher July 16, 2013 / 1:48 pm

    No evidence? I certainly did give evidence, and I rebutted your lies. You lied again. I know you don’t like hearing that, but why do you do it???

    Anyone reading my previous response can see WHO and WHAT my evidence is. Shall I list ten books that document this further? As if you read them, or would read them.

    And notice the fallacy. You don’t believe whatever you read—like I do. That is yet another indirect LIE, and it is Ad Hominem, because it paints me as a dimwit who believes what he is told. I have over FIFTY BOOKS on this one issue, accumulated over THIRTY YEARS of study on it, and I have all sides. I have over 2000 books I have purchased since becoming a believer on every topic and doctrinal position under the sun, because I want to know who believes what and WHY. I read primary sources. I don’t sit here and pretend to do that, like you do.

    Of course it is EASIER for you to dismiss all my points, not answer my questions, and face the examples I gave. You can’t. You aren’t going to listen. You are not teachable, and you have slandered Gipp, and are trying to paint me as an ignoramus. You ADMIT you have no answers to me by your ungodly behavior. It is a concession, though you will deny it.

    PROVE my points are baseless, don’t assert it. I have taken on your points and refuted them. And that was just a little effort on my part.

    Anyone who has read Dean Burgon knows full well the story of Westcott and Hort, and their lying ways. He was there. He confronted them publically, and refuted them. Westcott and Hort, being two cowards as well, never answered him. And F.A. Scrivener, another textual scholar ON WESTCOTT AND HORT’S COMMITTEE, when he could take it no longer, PUBLICALLY WROTE OF THE DUPLICITY OF THE PROCEEDINGS and what Westcott and Hort were really up to.

    They had a Unitarian on the committee. FACT. His full name was George Vance Smith(1816-1902). He was pastor of St. Saviourgate Unitarian Chapel in York. He was outspoken in his denial of Christ’s divinity. The uproar of having this man on the committee, and Hort refusing to get rid of him, caused Bishop Wilberforce, John Jeff, Christopher Wordsworth, Edward Plumptre, and Charles Merivale to resign.

    Christopher Wordsworth, the Bishop of St. Andrews refused to sign a testimonial of thanks to the Chairman of the committee because he was so discouraged by the “number of unnecessary changes made in DIRECT VIOLATION of the instructions under which the work was undertaken”

    One of the pioneers of the 1881 revision was Charles Ellicott. HE told the English people that the revision would only affect about one in 5 verses, approx. 1400 changes, and that most of those would be “Of wholy unimportant character”, from Consideration of Revision, May 23, 1870, p.99. And so they then made THIRTY SIX THOUSAND CHANGES to the New Testament text! And many were significant!

    David Brown, one of the translators later confessed ” For when the ITCH FOR CHANGE took possession of the company, I was infected by it.” He then tells us that later he saw the changes were “far too many” and that they were “destroying the purity of the English”.(Memoir of David Brown by James Brown, p.222)

    And on page 44 of the same proposal by Ellicott, he DENIED they would introduce a new Critical,Greek text, claiming ever so piously, “we have certainlyt not yet acquired sufficient critical judgment for any body of revisers hopefully to undertake such a work”. So what happened??? A few weeks later Ellicott allowed Westcott and Hort too introduce their unpublished, apostate Greek text CLANDESTINELY into his committee! The did this on THE FIRST DAY THE COMMITTEE MET! What a LIAR!!!! What LIARS!!!!

    So the new version, based on Hort’s Greek texts, were introduced to us with LIES, by LIARS. Good CANNOT come from this, and it has not. These men were evil.

    • Albert July 16, 2013 / 3:48 pm

      Yes, we saw your “evidence.” It consisted of the following:

      1) Claiming the text was settled. Nothing to support that statement but spoken as though you were an infallible source. Are you trying to be some Protestant pope perhaps?

      2)Claiming everyone who supported another Bible translation was a liar and possibly satanically inspired. With all the KJVO screaming about things missing from the Bible one would suspect the part about bearing false witness must be missing from theirs.

      3. Responding to pointed criticism that Gipp has no idea what he was talking about and misled his readers with the bizarre assertion that Eric must prove they weren’t satanic or something of the sort. This is the typical convoluted logic that KJVO’s employ. They make wild assertions without a smidgeon of evidence and insist that their quotemines and distortions must be taken as fact unless everyone goes out and disproves it. Sorry, but the fact is that the positive assertion must be proven. You claim everyone who disagrees with you is in league with the devil, then it is your job to provide the evidence.

      Given that you are KJVO, I do realize those things called logic and evidence are not something you concern yourself with much if at all. Far better if you just spew unsubstantiated claims from Gail Riplinger’s book of lies where she takes pieces of sentences from four different books covering varied topics and strings them together as though they were in the same paragraph and leaves the reader to believe they said something they never did.

    • Erik DiVietro July 16, 2013 / 3:50 pm

      Not worth the time, Albert.

    • Erik DiVietro July 17, 2013 / 6:17 am

      I already know how you’re going to respond, but I just have to ask this question.

      It is true that some of the members of the 1881 revision committee were unitarian and some of them denied what we would consider basic tenets of the faith. If a version is to be judged by the beliefs of those who put it together, then why do you stop at the 1881 committee?

      1. Desiderius Erasmus (the compiler of the textus receptus) was a faithful Roman Catholic who acknowledged papal authority and baptized infants.
      2. The translation committee of the KJV was composed exclusively of paedobaptists who also affirmed consubstantiation of the body of Christ in the Holy Eucharist.

      By your own standard of evidence, the KJV should also be rejected for having “heretics” on its translation committee. But you would not go that far, and I am sure you are already fuming that I would suggest such a thing. You will reject this statement because you have an a priori assumption that the KJV is an absolute standard. This prohibits you from seeing the evidence, and unlike you, I don’t feel the necessity of tirades to prove my point. Acknowledging this a priori deficit is sufficient.

      Now, just to be clear – I don’t advocate the 1881 RV or the Westcott-Hort. I believe that Hort was carried away with the academic and theological fads of his age. The foundation of their text was weak to begin with, and it was grounded in a lot of German higher criticism, including the concept of text families – which is grandly insufficient for the understanding of the text of the New Testament and needs to be discarded or at least greatly revised.

      You continually demand that I answer for the 1881 translation committee, but I don’t represent them. I have not been, and never will be, a supporter of using the Westcott-Hort text as a basis for translation.

      I do, however, believe that we should not deny ourselves access to all the manuscript evidence available to us. To my knowledge, there is not a published edition of the TR with the textual apparatus necessary to evaluate readings based on manuscript evidence. Thus, I find it necessary to use what I might consider a somewhat inferior (a relative term to be sure) text in order to have access to the necessary tools for reading the Greek New Testament.

      I am not anti-KJV. I love and use the KJV often, and I tell anyone who wishes to be a student of the Scriptures that they should own one and be familiar with it. It is a masterpiece, but it is old and it is based on only a fraction of the manuscript evidence.

      I have repeatedly made calls for modern translation that embraces a new approach to the manuscript evidence:


      Having written all of this, I know full well that you will just respond with more fallacious accusations of deceit and attacks on my character. People behaving in this kind of petulant way – screaming and foaming at the mouth if someone disagrees with them – are the reason I left extreme fundamentalism and KJVO. One who is confident in his beliefs does not need to resort to insult and accusation. He speaks the truth and then moves on.

      I don’t know the first thing about you outside of your comments on this site, and since you hide behind an anonymous screen name, it is clear that you don’t want readers to know your identity. If that works for you, that’s just fine; but I live my life out in the open because I have no reason not to be associated with my views. I don’t need to scream and yell or insult people to prove my point. You can take that however you wish.

  18. Truth Preacher July 16, 2013 / 5:22 pm

    That’s right Eric. Better to ignore your foe when he is tanning your hide and hope no one notices.

    Albert’s response is TEXTBOOK disinformation tactics. He ignores everything I said, the proofs I gave, and then revises history on the spot, like a democrat, and then PRETENDS to have refuted me. You lied about what I wrote. You gave no examples. And then you want to pretend I think I am a Protestant Pope. All based on nothing. You are your own Pope. You won’t submit to any written authority from God, that’s why you want a hundred bibles that all contradict. This way you can believe alittle from thione, and a little from that one, and reject this and reject that. Pure relativism.

    And of course, he has to insult me and pretend KJV people and I in particular aren’t into “logic”. ANOTHER LIE from the Bible-Correctors Club. Everyone like you that has ever tried to debate me in person found out rather quickly that Logic is my strong-suit, as are FACTS. Not a one ever sought to attempt it again, esp in front of others, because I embarrassed them easily, including two PhD’s.
    For example, I gave EVIDENCE that Westcott and Hort LIED about what they were doing, and what they were going to do. I PROVED MY ASSERTION THAT THEY WERE LIARS AND DECEIVERS. Men resigned their revision committee. Men later told what went on. Men lamented their participation in it. A UNITARIAN HERETIC WAS ON THE COMMITTEE. What about all this??? Why not a peep from Eric and Albert. The truth is too hot for them. So they bypass it all.

    Care to ANSWER THESE THINGS and the rest of the facts I presented? No, you won’t, because you are DISHONEST, as every response to me proves that the enemies of the Authorized Version are under the influence of a lying-spirit. Why have you and Eric engaged in Ad Hominems, false accusations and lies? Why can’t you handle ONE POINT I made? The proofs I gave? A lying spirit is at work.

    So you two DON’T THINK liars who smuggled in corrupt Greek texts, lied to the English people, had an Arian heretic on the committee, who later bragged, by the way, that the RV reflected changes in doctrinal passages in line with his Arainism—you don’t think these things are Satanic??

    So was it God, or the Devil who led these men to be deceptive, and to have an Arian on the committee??? Simple question. But you won’t answer it. Because if you do, then your whole house of cards falls. These men were led by the Devil. Everything that has been built upon their work is the Devil’s work, no matter how many “good, godly” Christian scholars fell for this and developed it further. The foundation was ROTTEN. A man’s profession to godliness cannot counter evidence and facts.
    You have this “debate” blog here, but are unable to defend your position when a real challenger appears. So Eric runs, and Albert posts disinformation. You two would make great Democrats

    • Erik DiVietro July 16, 2013 / 5:40 pm

      Comedy is not your forte.

    • Albert July 16, 2013 / 6:36 pm

      Again, you are the one with something to prove – not me. The one example I gave (referring to Gail Riplinger) is well documented. Throughout her book she created fake quotes by stringing together things from 50 or more pages apart in different contexts to create a fake quotation. In one case, she took four phrases from different books and strung them together as though it were a single quote. That is the strategy of the major KJVO advocates. They can’t win on facts so they make things up.

      Eric documented the errors of Sam Gipp but you have yet to respond to a single one. The reason is you can’t because you are all bluster and no evidence. All you can do is call other people names like a petulant child. The documentation Eric gave is there – you have yet to supply anything other than your own ignorance.

    • Albert July 16, 2013 / 6:40 pm

      I am in the process of documenting Sam Gipp’s dishonesty in his “Answer Book” here:


      I give the documentation and show why he is a complete fraud. Go ahead and try to respond. But supply evidence and not just blowhard tactics. That means you will have to actually read something besides the propaganda of the Ruckmanite liars.

  19. Truth Preacher July 16, 2013 / 6:27 pm

    These subjects are not funny, but grievous. Perhaps you enjoy your hellavision too much to understand.

    • Erik DiVietro July 16, 2013 / 6:30 pm

      Self-righteousness was unbecoming in the time of Christ and remains so.

  20. Truth Preacher July 16, 2013 / 7:59 pm

    So then don’t practice it. It would be good for you to first make sure the beam is out of your eye, before, once again, responding with Ad Hominem. What is worse, if you are wrong about me, you are guilty of bearing false witness. Is your conscience so seared this doesn’t concern you?

    To Albert:

    Your language is crude. Another fruit of the new versions. I suppose you cuss as well. So you are not documenting Gipp’s errors. His “dishonesty”. Ok. So you know for sure his motives, do you? You surely don’t, because ONCE AGAIN you LIED, and falsely said I didn’t provide evidence–but my posts here have documentation and specific things that if you could rebut, you would, but you can’t so you don’t. And you LIED and insinuate I only read from Ruckmanites. Why must you lie? I am far more widely read on this issue than you or Eric, that is obvious to me. You sir, are nothing more than a partisan hack. No truth will come from you. You are the fraud, and I say this from the limited interaction with you here. I know this is only the surface of what you are like. Why don’t you repent hypocrite?

    • Erik DiVietro July 16, 2013 / 8:15 pm

      How’s it feel to have all the answers? Must be nice. Are you going to just keep railing on how superior you are?

      If you posted something it was possible to respond to, I would but all I see so far is self-aggrandizing and attacks.

      Your arrogance is getting annoying. The worst part of it is that you keep accusing me of the behavior you are guilty of and you don’t even see it.

    • Albert July 16, 2013 / 10:04 pm

      As far as Sam Gipp’s “dishonesty” is concerned, there is ample evidence for that fact. He has made numerous errors over the years that have been responded to dozens if not hundreds of times and yet he carries on with the same disproved assertions as though nothing had happened. He is quite aware his fanbase will never venture outside the KJV Only camp and so he just spews the same nonsense.

      He once claimed a scholar had “lost his voice” on a debate on the John Ankerberg Show. The incident was not on the program and he claimed they had purposely edited it out. Others at that event stated that the individual in question merely had a frog in his throat for a few seconds and they stopped taping and picked up with a repeat of the same question a few minutes later. Gipp claimed that was a lie and the man had lost his voice completely. The Ankerberg people then went back and found the unedited tape and released the tape of the incident and Gipp was shown to be a liar. His answer: Not there was a SECOND loss of his voice that were hiding. Even when confronted with videotape of his own blatant lies, he couldn’t admit it!! He is a liar through to the bone.

  21. Albert July 16, 2013 / 9:52 pm

    It is fascinating that someone who shows up and starts ranting about satanically inspired translations then defends criticism of his baseless claims with “so don’t practice it.” I assure you neither I nor Erik lose any sleep about someone using the KJV. It is KJVO like yourself (and not KJV users in general) who feel the need to go around to random websites and start spewing their propaganda sans evidence. Apparently it is you who cannot “just not practice” something with which he disagrees. Face it, you are part of a rather demented conspiracy theorist cult and cannot wrap your warped thinking around little things called evidence.

    It is equally strange that someone who calls everyone with whom he disagrees a satanically led liar and a disinformation agent would complain that someone else used crude language. Does your head spin from the circles you must go around to defend your distortions of facts?

    You are the one who has initiated personal attacks. You will find the exchanges on this site, while sometimes heated, have generally been civil. It is polemical blowhards like yourself who give KJV supporters a bad name. But go on thinking, as I am sure you will, that it is the rest of the world’s fault. You obviously think you are above the standards you wish to set for others.

    By the way, you should learn what an ad hominem is before you use the term. Being called on your distortions is not an ad hominem; even being insulted is not an ad hominem; the fallacy is something along the lines of X is a bad person, X believes Y, therefore Y is wrong. An example of an ad hominem fallacy is what you did when you referred to Westcott and Hort as liars and then claimed this reflected on the accuracy of their translation. There has thus far been one person using ad hominems – you. By the way, the misuse of this term is also a sure sign you are dealing with a conspiracy theorist who insulates himself behind a wall of ignorance so steep no amount of common sense can breech its borders.

    • Truth Preacher July 16, 2013 / 10:27 pm

      No distortion has been proven. You have yet to interact with ONE SOLITARY POINT I brought out. That proves the rest of your rant to be sinful and worthless.

      “Random” website??? Surely you jest. This site is here to debate. But you don’t understand English very well. My response about “don’t practice it then” is totally misunderstood by you, or misrepresented. The latter is more likely.

      And I made no personal attack upon you. I didn’t even address you. My first post was against Westcott and Hort, and the fact that Gipp is being accused of being “unethical” while liars and deceivers like Westcott and Hort, and a whole army after them, get a pass, because after all, they are on your side. Such unrighteousness is the basis of my remarks.

      And of course, you play the cultist card. Another shameless lie from a person with a seared conscience and no fear of God. The whole goal of this Satanically inspired movement you area part of is to attack one book and overthrow a Christian’s faith in it. What a pathetic “calling”.

      As for the rest of your fictional remarks, you could be indicted for impersonating a psychologist, whom you might do well to go and see. The level of lying and delusion you live in is pathological. Such is the fruit of following liars and joining in with them. Repent hypocrite

  22. Albert July 16, 2013 / 10:51 pm

    As per the course so far, you are wrong again. You said you gave no personal attacks but claimed I was using disinformation tactics. Is that not a personal attack? The hypocrisy is so thick in your responses one needs a knife to get through it.

    The random website comment refers to KJVO who show up at some website disagreeing with their position, shoot off a random number of accusations without evidence, and expect everyone to take their claims at face value. Not once have you given any reason that a translation using around a dozen very late mss in the seventeenth century should be considered the only standard after which it was closed. You just make a statement and leave it there. Erik gave numerous examples of Gipp’s difficulties with facts and I have added others. You have addressed none.

    As for your “points” – they are accusations – not points. You have not given any evidence of any of it. You seem to think that if W&H were bad people or did something wrong, that vindicates the KJVO view. Wrong, that IS an ad hominem fallacy. Have you ever considered that the KJV and W&H could have faults (which both do)? Considering not a single major translation of the last three decades is based on W&H, it shows that KJVO are stuck in arguments of the 19th century. That is why they appeal to Burgon, etc. The evidence has changed greatly since then but they don’t seem to realize it.

  23. Truth Preacher July 17, 2013 / 4:30 pm

    You see, this is like arguing with Bill Clinton. Albert parses words, and plays every deceitful, fallacy-game he can. No truth in his posts. All lies.

    For example, He said My first post was full of personal attacks. LIE. I surely didn’t attack him. When I make that plain, and then, after he wrote somemore disinformation, I called him on it. He calls THAT a “personal attack”. How ungodly and shameless it is. His accusation is akin to accusing me of a personal attack against him for calling him a thief, after I saw him lift someone’s wallet. Criminals don’t like to be told what they are and what they do. Stop posting disinformation, if you don’t want to be called on it.

    As for the rest of that drivel, it has all been refuted so many times by so many others, it is pointless to waste time here doing it again.

    The funniest thing is the blatant lie that no recent translations are based on Westcott and Hort. You see, that kind of lying is epic. It is demonstrable that ALL THE NEW PERVERSIONS follow Westcott and Hort’s THEORIES, and their text, albeit SLIGHTLY modified. So to them, a SLIGHT MODIFICATION means they don’t follow them anymore. You can’t actually believe everyone is stupid enough to fall for this, do you?

    Now, one point of many I made, which Albert can’t address. Why did Ellicott, Westcott and Hort desire an Arian heretic on their committee?? He was there, this is a HISTORICAL FACT. Explain this. Explain how it reflects on them and WHO they were being influenced by. My thesis is they were under the influence of the Devil, and FACTS LIKE THIS support it. Now, let’s see Albert try to counter this, or better yet, CONCEDE THE OBVIOUS

    • Albert July 17, 2013 / 6:34 pm

      Anyone who has read this can easily see you are a complete fraud. Erik provided numerous pieces of evidence of Gipp’s dishonesty and you have answered none of it. I provided more and you answered none of that. Again, you float all over the landscape without EVER ADDRESSING THE POINT MADE IN THE POST which is the comments of Sam Gipp.

      Like all KJV Onlyists, your only answer to everything is to launch personal attacks because you have no facts – just the conspiracy theorist quackery of an addled mind. You keep bringing up W&H even though both myself and Erik have made it clear we think their GNT is inadequate. Yet that is all you can ramble on about since once you leave the nineteenth century the evidence is all against your position.

      You’re contention that all the new translations follow W&H’s theories just shows how completely ignorant you are of the current state of the argument. For example, few take seriously their claim that the Byzantine was an amalgamation of other textual types. Also few would consider any one type to be a “neutral text.” Of course, since you only read the propaganda of KJV Onlyists, you are likely a century or more out of date and seen through the lens of crackpots.

      As for conceding the obvious, I do concede the obvious: You are a complete loon not worth any further time.

      It is amazing that in this day and age someone would actually think a Bible translation is “perfect” that contains a reading (Rev. 16:5) that appears in a total of ZERO manuscripts in any language.

  24. Truth Preacher July 17, 2013 / 11:10 pm

    You just can’t stop lying, can you?

    • Albert July 18, 2013 / 12:44 am

      Just point out the manuscript of Revelation in any Greek, Latin, Syriac, etc, ms that matches the KJV reading. All you need is one and you will prove me wrong. Otherwise the KJV simply cannot be perfect and all your delusions won’t change that simple fact.

      Just explain why Sam Gipp’s lame excuse should be taken seriously after the video exposed him as a liar.

      It should be easy if Sam Gipp is not dishonest and the KJV is perfect.

  25. Truth Preacher July 18, 2013 / 1:52 pm

    You have changed the subject, and all the subjects I addressed, to Rev 16:5. No thanks. New Version Peddlers always use this tactic. Endless Red Herrings. Endless avoidance of the real issues. You didn’t even ask if I was a TR man or a KJVO man. It doesn’t matter to you. Its easier for you to cast your opponent so you can try and win worthless points.

    But as an aside. I will not trade 1Tim 3:16, the greatest verse on the Incarnation, for the TRASH the new perversions changed it to because of your weak, and desperate example from Rev. 16:5. ONE WHOLE ERROR is all Lying-James White can come up with in the whole AV1611. And based on that, I am supposed to give up the Deity of Christ in 1Tim. 3:16, Micah 5:2, Rom 14:10-12, Rev. 1:8 and the Trinity in 1John 5:7. NO THANK YOU. Keep your gnat-straining rendering of Rev. 16:5, but I won’t give up those other verse, and many more, FOR THIS GNAT-STRAINING CON JOB.

    Gipp is more ethical than the two of you put together, which isn’t saying much

    • Erik DiVietro July 18, 2013 / 1:57 pm

      Insult after insult from someone who believes so strongly in his position that he hides behind a screen name.

      For the record, Albert’s comments do not represent me, and I do not represent Albert. I would appreciate it if you would not confuse the two of us since we are making different statements.

      I cannot help but notice that you have not responded to my comment and have focused on Albert’s comments – apparently (and erroneously) assuming we are somehow working together.

    • Albert July 18, 2013 / 10:44 pm

      More of your lying since you are the one throwing out the red herrings. If you notice, the subject of this post is SAM GIPP – a point you have avoided from your first post. You continually focus on W&H when that is not the subject of the blog post and neither Erik nor myself support their work. You are such a hypocrite that you cannot even see the beam in your own eye. I have on multiple occasions tried to get you to comment on Gipp’s record of dishonesty – the SUBJECT OF THIS BLOG POST – and one that in your typically cowardly fashion you have avoided. So defend Gipp against the charges. More spewing of personal attacks and KJV propaganda that has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SUBJECT OF THIS POST only provea yourself the empty blowhard. So let’s get back to the actual subject of this post – Sam Gipp. You asked for evidence of his lies and I gave it to you and could give more. Again, prove me wrong. If you cannot, then you are every bit the user of “red herrings” you wish to pin on everyone else. Again, STICK TO THE TOPIC OF THE BLOG POST!

  26. Truth Preacher July 18, 2013 / 2:45 pm

    What “insult after insult”? Albert is a liar, false accuser and con-man. He is a hypocrite to accuse Gipp of being a fraud, when he is a fraud. What is wrong with pointing these sad truths out? Nothing.

    Now if you want to distance yourself from Albert, I say GOOD!

    Now what “comment”, SINGULAR, was I supposed to respond to, of the MANY you have made? Specify. Is it this one:

    “How’s it feel to have all the answers? Must be nice. Are you going to just keep railing on how superior you are?”

    Am I supposed to respond to that LIE? You should know I have not presented myself as superior, nor said anything remotely like that, BUT you make such lying accusations. I am sorry, but until you stop talking like that, which is what Albert-the-liar does, it is hard for me to distinguish the two of you. You should take all those kinds of remarks back. They were uttered in retailiation, and you MADE IT UP.

    • Erik DiVietro July 18, 2013 / 3:08 pm

      You truly are amazing, whoever you are. You seem to be completely unaware of just how abrasive you are. You have done nothing but throw around insults – calling people ignorant and liars.

      From the moment you first commented on this site, you have attacked people you know nothing about with no evidence other than your own opinion. You cannot even make a statement of fact without somehow being condescending and abrasive.

      As to the comment I am referencing:

    • Albert July 18, 2013 / 10:51 pm

      While you’re at it, why not respond to something that has some bearing on the subject of this blog post. The post questions Sam Gipp’s honesty and scholarship. You claimed there was no evidence of such. I pointed out that Gipp once claimed a scholar working on the new Bible versions had “lost his voice” on a debate on the John Ankerberg Show. The incident was not on the program and he claimed they had purposely edited it out. Others at that event stated that the individual in question merely had a frog in his throat for a few seconds and they stopped taping and picked up with a repeat of the same question a few minutes later. Gipp claimed that was a lie and the man had lost his voice completely. The Ankerberg people then went back and found the unedited tape and released the tape of the incident and Gipp was shown to be a liar. His answer: Not there was a SECOND loss of his voice that were hiding. Even when confronted with videotape of his own blatant lies, he couldn’t admit it!!

      That is certainly evidence that Gipp cannot tell the truth even when it was videotaped. Why not respond instead of changing the subject to W&H to avoid answering or throwing around insults behind anonymity like a coward?

  27. James Snapp, Jr. August 29, 2013 / 1:39 am

    I notice that you said “I don’t advocate the 1881 RV or the Westcott-Hort” and “The foundation of their text was weak to begin with.”

    Considering how similar the NA28’s text of the General Epistles is to the WH text of the General Epistles: (1) do you advocate the text of NA28, and (2) do you consider the foundation of NA28 to be better than the foundation of WH1881? (And, if so, how do you account for the similarity between the two compilations?)

    Yours in Christ,

    James Snapp, Jr.

    • Erik DiVietro August 29, 2013 / 2:42 am

      I don’t have NA28 and have no immediate plans to purchase it so I cannot comment on its content.

  28. James Snapp, Jr. August 29, 2013 / 1:42 am


    Before bearing down on that fellow for advocating the KJV even though it has a reading (in Rev. 16:5) based on a conjectural emendation, you might want to take a look at Second Peter 3:10 in NA-28.

    • Albert August 29, 2013 / 3:16 am

      While I do not agree with the reading for NA-28 for that verse, it is not without any support in any language as I stated of the KJV reading of Rev 16:5. Both early Syriac and Coptic mss have that reading, but no Greek mss. do. Still, I think it is a mistake to move away from Greek witnesses since it is just as likely that Greek and Syriac copyists tried to “fix” a difficult reading as Greek ones. I think it just as likely that the word εὑρεθήσεται had an idiomatic meaning in the verse that has been lost and this led to later changes to κατακαήσεται and ἀφανισθήσονται for clarification.

      You can read a good article about the issue here:


      However, this is certainly not the same as removing a word and replacing it with another that is found in no manuscript in any language and first appears in the modern era. The NA-28 reading does have ancient witnesses – including relatively early ones – just not Greek ones.

    • Albert August 29, 2013 / 3:24 am

      I should also add that you cannot simply point to a reading in NA-27 (and presumably NA-28) and claim that the editors believed this was the correct reading without noting the perceived degree of certainty. For example, the reading for II Peter 3:10 in NA-27 was given a very low degree of certainty and alternate readings and their occurrences were supplied. I have not examined NA 28 so I am not sure what they claim for this altered reading.

  29. James Snapp, Jr. August 29, 2013 / 11:11 am


    How is the NA28’s action in II Pet. 3:10 (and NA26&27’s action in Acts 16:12) meaningfully different from the KJV-translators’ decision about Rev. 16:5 (which, it seems, they inherited from T. Beza)?

    Regardless of how certain or uncertain the compilers of NA28 may have felt, the fact is that they’ve introduced a conjectural emendation into the text. That is really no different than what the KJV reflects in Rev. 16:5 — except that the NA28 text of II Peter 3:10 disagrees with more Greek MSS than the KJV text of Rev. 16:5 disagrees with, since there are more Greek copies of II Peter than
    there are of Revelation.

    Perhaps the thing to take away here is your admission, “I do not agree with the NA-28 reading for that verse.” I wonder how often something similar would be said if we had time for a thorough examination of the hundreds of passages where NA28 has adopted the reading of a very small minority of witnesses.

    Yours in Christ,

    James Snapp, Jr.

    • Albert August 29, 2013 / 11:45 am

      The difference is that there are ancient witnesses to the reading – just not Greek ones. I happen to think the reasoning is weak, but they can at least point to something. They also have the advantage that there is no reading that has any degree of certainty. It would be hard to explain why a copyist would change κατακαήσεται to εὑρεθήσεται and ἀφανισθήσονται but quite easy to explain a change from εὑρεθήσεται. Thus I think an idiomatic understanding of εὑρεθήσεται is likely. The NA-28 editors chose to believe the Coptic and Syriac mss had copied a ms that included the negation, but I think it more likely they either “fixed” it themselves.

      The situation with Rev 16:5 and Beza’s emendation is not even close to being analogous. In the relevant portion of II Peter 3:10 there are at least four different readings – and early mss (prior to the sixth century) are divided among them. Thus one could argue the earliest reading (that in NA-27) was an accident of climate.

      The situation in Rev. 16:5 is completely different. In the disputed word (there are other differences elsewhere in the verse), there is only one reading in every single language. All versions of the TR except Beza’s contain this reading. For whatever reason, the KJV translators used Beza. Had they used Stephanus, you would not be questioning this verse.

      Thus, you have in II Peter 3:10 a disputed word that has many early readings and little certainty as to which one is correct. With Rev 16:5, you have one reading in every language and the only ones who support it are KJV Onlyists. Advocates of the TR, by the way, have no reason to argue as the reading currently used appears in all but two editions (if we count Scrivener) of the TR. Even those who think the KJV is the best version can allow a change here or there. It is only those who insist upon the perfection of the KJV that would be threatened.

    • Albert August 29, 2013 / 11:52 am

      As for the “admission,” I think you misunderstand my position. I believe there should be a reconsideration of verses anew but one not governed by defending your own favorite textual tradition. As I wrote in an earlier comment above:

      My criticism of the critical text position is they ignore the factor of climate in favoring one set of readings. My criticism of the Majority Text position is their downplaying the bias given by historical factors that limit their choices to one particular area that was not a major player until most of the readings were already on the table.

  30. The Pookster October 21, 2013 / 8:04 pm

    Respectfully, as a mere layperson, I ask you: It doesn’t take even a complete high school educarion to see obvious differences in, for example, the NIV and The KJV. What most of you are missing (in your very heady discussion) is that I am basing all of my life and life hereafter on The Book. But, citing the differences, can they ALL be right? What do you suggest I take to face Jesus Christ as my Holy judge? Has God lost His Word, unable to preserve each jot and tittle, for we mortals to help Him out? I contend that one day each one of us will have to answer Jesus Christ face to face. All accredited titles will burn away in an instant, as naked we stand before the Righteous One. Mockery and ridicule and slander will burn. As scholars, I NEED eternal answers from you–not intellispeak based on years of man-made, man-centered, man-serving guesses and estimates. I NEED ABSOLUTES. Ultimately, our soul’s destiny depnds on God’s Word, does it not? Well, which one is it?

    • Erik D October 21, 2013 / 8:10 pm

      Respectfully, you appear not to understand how language works. The Scriptures were inspired in languages other than English, and the English language is fluid.

      There are over 6,000 manuscripts of the New Testament specifically, and there are variations in those manuscripts. The KJV was translated from a published Greek text done from less than a dozen of them, all of which dated within a couple centuries of the publication – none of which were even remotely close to ancient.

      Respectfully, there ARE differences; and there are very valid reasons for those differences.

  31. The Pookster October 23, 2013 / 2:06 pm

    Not quite as respectfully (sensing the pharisaical overtone in your response…), you appear not to understand how GOD works. “Psalm 119:89 (KJV), “For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven.” Why did He allow that into ANY manuscript if He knew He was incapable of preserving His Word for us; that it was not timeless for the ages; that He would need man to update it every whipstitch to…to…fulfill whatever reasoning you’ve conjured up that demands we revise it? Did it slip His maybe-not-so-omniscient mind? Will we EVER have it right? What do we do until then? And how did Billy Sunday ever manage without the NIV? How did C. H. Spurgeon ever get along without “The Message”; George Muller without “The Living Bible”? (…Yeah…and you call Sam Gipp’s belief ‘illogical’…[really??]—bet he’s willing to lay his life down for his; and all you could tell me when I specifically asked was, “Respectfully, there ARE differences; and there are very valid reasons for those differences.”

    I already told YOU there are differences. I don’t make claim to any advanced education; YOU do–YOU’RE the ‘expert’, here. So, please, will you answer my questions? I asked you to explain to me that if the KJV is so fallible–if Sam Gipp is so wrong– will you please reveal which one really is THE WORD OF GOD? Are they ALL correct? Considering their differences (some blatant), how can they ALL be THE WORD OF GOD? Or do they ALL have ‘issues’? What version will you have hidden in your heart as you face Jesus Christ, O Learned One? Which version are YOU depending on for YOUR salvation? In which ‘bible’ have you invested your faith? And why?

    It would appear to this reader (I, of the Unwashed Masses) that you are depending on your education—like an idol— to carry you through life on this earth. Why does it matter if some choose to be KJVO? Not everyone is as smart as you are, you know. What translation should some practically illiterate sinner like me trust? Should I just get the one that’s easiest to read? The one with pictures? “The Easy-to-Read Version”?

    I don’t give a flying fig if you are NIVO, or ERVO or GNTO. I’m just asking if your faith is in your ability to dissect and assemble dates and historic records instead of where one’s faith should safely be settled–in the Eternal God of the Universe Who is perfectly capable–always was–always will be–of supplying His complete, infallible Word as our perfect, tangible guide to living…and dying. Ps 119:103 (KJV) “How sweet are thy words unto my taste! yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth!” Which words? Which version, if not the KJV? What/who turned you from the KJV?

    “But without faith it is impossible to please him:” Heb 11:6 (KJV). Tell me, scholar. Where is YOUR faith?

    • Albert October 23, 2013 / 2:27 pm

      You do realize that no one hear cares if someone uses the KJV. It is the KJVO types who are upset that anyone would dare use another translation. The Word of God was written in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic – not English and so the argument that the KJV (or any English translation is the default is wrong from the start.

      For example, take a look at Revelation 16:5. The reading of the KJV disagrees with every single handwritten manuscript in every language: Greek, Syriac, Latin, Coptic, Ethiopian, etc. It was based upon a conjecture by Theodore Beza in the 16th century in his edition of the TR (Erasmus and Stephanus used what appeared in the mss.) and his conjecture turned out to be wrong. Thus the KJV clearly has a mistake in it. So if you are insist on a perfect English Bible, keep looking – you don’t have it.

    • Erik DiVietro October 24, 2013 / 6:32 am

      1. There was no pharisaical overtone.
      2. I am relying on the completed work of Jesus Christ for my salvation, not a translation of the Bible.
      3. You continue to demonstrate a hostility that is simply not warranted, and it flows from the ignorance you are so proud of.
      4. It does not require an advanced education to know that the English of the 16th and 17th centuries is not the same as that of the 20th-21st.
      5. I acknowledge the differences in translations because they are present. I couldn’t care less about your opinion on them because you are ill-informed and rabidly so.

  32. The Pookster October 26, 2013 / 12:07 pm

    Albert: no, I don’t realize that at all. I don’t sense inflammation toward anyone but those who are KJVO; specifically Sam Gipp, who is being ripped to shreds, BTW, without mercy by the same ones who, based on Matt 5:7 (KJV), expect to obtain mercy. Everyone else is treated as more enlightened, more honest, by far more advanced, more tolerant; part of the gang. But why do you care what version the KJVO folk embrace above all others? Why all the fuss? Why aren’t you dogging the NIVO crowd? If what God said about His Word being forever settled in heaven is true, Albert (is it?–or is it a ‘mistake’ too?), then what is it?—if it’s not the KJV, which has stood through the ages, then WHAT IS IT?? All of the variations cannot be correct, can they? So…which one is? That’s all I’m asking.

    –Further, Albert, is that the best you could do to find a ‘mistake’? Really? And…even if it’s imperfect in YOUR eyes, could it not be perfect—THAT IS, AS GOD WANTS IT SPECIFICALLY FOR US–in His eyes? Do you believe God could do that, in spite of all our human manipulation of all the manuscripts and texts?

    E.D.: Yes, I’m afraid you can’t see your pharisee’s touch because you’re the source. You come across as so much more…enlightened than everyone else…even those in your sweet little peanut gallery. That’s what prompted me to respond. You are far above us in your vast knowledge. But I’m still awaiting your answers to my questions: if God’s word is forever settled in Heaven, then WHICH VERSION ARE YOU BASING YOUR LIFE/ETERNAL DESTINY ON? Perhaps that verse about God’s Word was a ‘mistake’? Are you going to stand before Jesus Christ with a whole box of versions? And when He burns them all away, and you stand alone before Him, in all of His glory and righteousness–fire in His eyes–what are you going to say if you’re depending on the wrong one(s)? Are you going to don that cute sheepish little grin and say, “Oh, sorry, Jesus – my bad!!” and have a nice buddy-to-Buddy fist bump and all is well? I think not.

    You see, it really IS a matter of which version you will rely on. Is it one that preaches THE Jesus Christ, or one that preaches A Jesus Christ. Without the Word, our salvation is only based on man’s feelings, which are fleeting and inaccurate too often. If we didn’t need the Word of God for our salvation (Rom. 10:17 (KJV), “17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”), we could easily pick up the muslim text, the book of morman, or any other ‘word of god’ and rely on it to carry us through. However, we can base our salvation on God’s PERFECT, HOLY Word (not what I say; what HE promises in His Word!!). Are you saying there is no such thing? Are you saying that God could not rise above the shifting of the language from the 16th century to now to give us the more sure word of prophesy He promised? This concept is far above human logic; it involves FAITH. FAITH in Abraham’s God Who gave him the son He promised in his old age, defying science, logic, human comprehension (ask Sarah!!). WHERE ARE YOU INVESTING YOUR FAITH, BROTHER??

    I hope you’ll bear with my ‘hostility’; but I am very anxious about where I should place MY faith; I’m desperate, in fact. And your attitude is not helping me a bit, although I know ALL versions speak about love for our fellow man. Where’s your LOVE, scholar? Perhaps the version you DO like says it’s ok to belittle your debate partner by calling me ignorant and rabidly ill-informed. That must be why you’re so hot under the collar now and you’re wishing I’d never learned how to type, let alone read big words. I’m just asking questions you’ve asked yourself, and never had the wherewithall to answer…just like now.

    Tell me which version is the accurate picture of “The Word”. Is it the (KJV) John 1:1-5 Jesus (“1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and THE WORD WAS GOD.

    2 The same was in the beginning with God.

    3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

    4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

    5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness COMPREHENDED IT NOT.,”)

    … or the Living Bible Jesus in John 1: 1-5 (“1 1-2 Before anything else existed,[a] there was Christ,* WITH GOD. He has always been alive (BUT DIDN’T HE DIE ON THE CROSS? – COMPARE THE TWO VERSIONS ON THAT VERSE) and is himself God. 3 He created everything there is—nothing exists that he didn’t make. 4 Eternal life is in him, and this life gives light to all mankind. 5 His life is the light that shines through the darkness—and the darkness CAN NEVER EXTINGUISH IT.”).

    Which Jesus are you going to present to me with the Gospel? There are obvious differences; not just the few differences I highlighted in CAPS. So…which One? Jesus said, (John 14:6 KJV) “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” Which “me”, scholar?

    Almighty God is–always was– perfectly more than capable of providing humanity with His Word. What kind of God would He be if what He provided was not EXACTLY what He wanted us to have; what we need? Because of the blatant differences, they cannot logically ALL be correct. I’m asking you: what is your faith in?

    So, far, all I’m getting from you is that it’s NOT just the KJV–and it’s questionable. Oh yeah, and that my rabidly ‘ill-informed’ disposition bothers you. YOU ARE THE EXPERT. TELL ME WHERE TO PUT MY FAITH. Because this high-minded whooey you’re giving me just ain’t enough, fellas. Not to hang my eternity on. Give me more. WHERE IS GOD’S WORD, IF NOT THE KJV? IS GOD OMNIPOTENT AND OMNISCIENT ENOUGH TO GIVE US WHAT HE WANTS US TO LIVE BY PERFECTLY OR NOT?

    • Erik DiVietro October 26, 2013 / 12:58 pm

      Faith in Christ – not a version, “Pookster.”

      Frankly, I don’t have the time or the inclination to waste answering your ramblings. You’ve made it clear that you are coming to the issue from a completely biased and misinformed position. (There is no such thing as NIVO. Only KJVO extremists make the ludicrous claim that a translation somehow supersedes the original languages.)

  33. The Pookster October 26, 2013 / 12:28 pm

    ….And think about it for a minute, E.D.

    The Pharisees probably didn’t think they sounded pharisaical either…but they did…John 8 (KJV) gives us a PERFECT example.

    • Truth Preacher October 31, 2013 / 11:18 am

      Don’t expect real answers, just condescension and insults from the Bible-Corrector’s Club. They have NO BIBLE. They have NO INFALLABLE SCRIPTURE-BOOK they can hold up and say THIS IS THE INFALLABLE WORD OF GOD, EVERY WORD IS TRUE. They can’t say it about any text IN ANY LANGUAGE. They are Bible-Agnostics, and really, Bible-atheists.

      You know far more than Eric. You are more educated, and importantly, more spiritual than he and those like him. They are deceived by the Devil and are engaged in deceiving others. That is why they are SO BLIND to their own sin and hypocrisy.

  34. The Pookster October 29, 2013 / 1:25 pm

    So…E.D…how would you even KNOW there is a Christ to put faith in—let alone all the history, promises and prophesy surrounding this planet Earth and all of humanity thereon…WITHOUT AN ENGLISH VERSION of God’s Word?? The question you CANNOT answer– which slays me– after reading all of the hate speech you’ve heaped on Sam Gipp— is — if not the KJV — then WHICH ONE?

    While Sam Gipp would lay down his life for the Word of God—you can’t even tell me which version ordinary, ‘biased, uninformed’ people like me should read, memorize, and trust to lead us to life more abundantly; life everlasting.

    You rail KJVO folks, yet in all your being, you have NO answers to the questions that matter most for eternity, and if you do, you’re not willing to share them, and that ain’t good, either. If you believe that it’s still necessary to find, dissect and revise the original texts to achieve God’s finished Word, then you are clinging to the wrong god. The Great I Am doesn’t need you or anyone else to do better than what He’s already settled in Heaven. In time, you will answer for your evil heart of unbelief. But for now, scholar, you owe Sam Gipp an apology, big time.

    YOU are wrong – on many fronts; and you are using deceptive, manipulative practices to make yourself look correct.

    • Erik DiVietro October 29, 2013 / 1:44 pm

      Take the blinders off, “Pookster” and you will realize that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is present in any faithful English translation of the Scriptures. My faith is in the Christ of the Scriptures, and your willingness to pass judgment on me speaks volumes about where your faith is.

      To have to restrict God’s work to a single English translation? That’s just sad and narrow-minded.

  35. The Pookster October 30, 2013 / 2:39 pm

    Why, oh why won’t you answer my questions? You refuse to tell me which ‘faithful’ translation, if not the KJV? You’ve already admitted there are differences…are they ALL inspired Scripture? Or do they just contain inspired Scripture in them, “given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Tim 3:16,17 [KJV]), and we have to figure out what words therein really are and what really aren’t the inspired Word of God on our own?

    Being ‘narrow-minded’– is that a bad thing, E.D.??

    Jesus said,
    (Matthew 7:13-15 [KJV])
    “13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

    14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

    15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.”

    Your fangs are showing, E.D. Let me know if you need help with the ‘archaic’ words. Always glad to help!

    • Erik DiVietro October 30, 2013 / 3:45 pm

      The only thing about you that is more impressive than your inability to bait me into an argument is your smug sense of self-importance.

    • Truth Preacher October 31, 2013 / 11:21 am

      He can’t answer you questions because his position is unbiblical and irrational. He wants to HIDE IT. People who aren’t forthright about their beliefs, and who won’t state them and allow examination of them, are deceivers. Eric is a deceiver who CAN ONLY use Ad Hominem as his argument and “answers”.

      People like this are gutless cowards, who don’t have the manhood to even state their position, but insult those who ask.


    • Erik DiVietro October 31, 2013 / 11:24 am

      “Truth Preacher”
      You don’t know the first thing about me, and your insults and lies fall on deaf ears.

  36. The Pookster October 30, 2013 / 5:16 pm

    Have you an argument, E.D.?

    Of course not. Must save face, somehow. Much better to feign superior intellect, right? Superior enough to question God in the divine preservation of His Word—and in doing so—you mar the incorruptibility that is one of God’s hallmark characteristics—that people like you won’t even try to comprehend or invest your faith in. That’s why you’re leading such a small, colorless life, and you’re so miserable. All your hope is in…YOU, who has managed only to pass a few tests in school in your pitiful quest for success. Alas, you’ll remember this discussion for eternity, scholar. “Yea, hath God said?”


    • Erik DiVietro October 30, 2013 / 5:27 pm

      Your obsession with your own superiority is truly dizzying.

    • Truth Preacher October 31, 2013 / 11:25 am

      He is no scholar. Real scholars actually know things that are so. He doesn’t. The New Version crowd knows nothing, except to promote the corruptions of the Scripture and the LIES INVENTED by Westcott and Hort to defend SUCH PERVERSIONS.

      The NIV is a favorite of every cult and apostate Protestant denomination out there. I wonder why? Meanwhile all these same groups HATE the 1611 and rail against it. I wonder why? A spiritual person KNOWS the answer to this question. Dimwit New Version “scholars” never even think of these questions, let alone answer them! They live in their own little world of academia and make-believe

    • Erik DiVietro October 31, 2013 / 11:39 am

      Cults use the NIV?

      Mormons? nope, KJV only

      Seventh Day Adventists? Nope. Ellen G. White did a paraphrase but they use a number of translations. Most I know use the KJV.

      Jehovah’s Witnesses? Nope. They use the New World Translation.

      Christian Scientists? Nope. KJV

      That’s the four big cults…which “cults” are you talking about?

      For someone willing to criticize my scholarship, you don’t do much research or present many FACTS.

      That’s why I don’t lower myself to your level of drivel. There’s no reason to. You demonstrate your own shortcomings without my assistance.

  37. Jason October 31, 2013 / 4:15 pm

    I’m a Majority Text Proponent, so of the better known versions I would prefer the New King James Version, but the English Version I use most would be Gary Zeolla’s ALT 3 Translation which is a Literal Translation of the MT that is built off the YLT.

    But most of all I prefer reading the New Testament in the Original Greek which was directly inspired by the Holy Spirit.

    The Jehovah Witnesses I’ve debated love the KJV because of how it renders 2 Peter 1:1

    2 Peter 1:1 KJV
    1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:

    compared with how the NKJV and most other translations have it:

    2 Peter 1:1 NKJV
    1 Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:

    The KJV has a similar translation in Titus 2:13.

    I may regret going down this rabbit hole, but I’ll ask anyway. For the KJV Only crowd, where do they believe the infallible Word of God was say in the 1200’s? As a MT proponent that is very easy for me to answer without any nuances or slight of hand.

  38. Truth Preacher November 1, 2013 / 8:24 am

    One of the sad facts about New Version peddlers and defenders is that most are not soul-winners. They are not in the real battlefield. Those of us who do witness to people KNOW FOR A FACT that the Jehovah’s Witnesses love the NIV, and use it to contradict the KJV when discussing the Deity of Christ. Catholics do the same when defending their errors, esp. infant baptism and Mariolatry, which the new versions protect, but the 1611 exposes. Islam? They hate and rail against the 1611. Mormons? They “correct” the 1611 all the time, like modern day apostate scholarship. The only reason they HAVE TO “use” the KJV is because it reads like Joseph Smiths writings, seeing he PLAGUIRIZED the 1611 and made his “additional testament of Jesus Christ” to sound like the 1611.

    Rome has BANNED the Textus Receptus, putting it on the Index of Forbidden Books and MADE IT CLEAR that their goal was to undermine and destroy faith in the “Protestant” Bible, the 1611, which they admit, in their own words from the 17-1900s that the English people held to the 1611 as if it was as inspired and perfect as the originals. I can provide QUOTE AFTER QUOTE from Papists of those times stating this. THEY HAVE SUCCEEDED!!! They duped Protestants; they infiltrated the major denominations and Seminaries, and brought in Textual Criticism, which was the MEANS to destroy faith in GOD’S ONLY GREEK TEXT AND ENGLISH BIBLE.

    So the CULTS, and the MOTHER OF ALL CULTS, ROME, HATES THE 1611 AND HAS ATTACKED IT EVER SINCE IT CAME OUT. Apostate Protestants and now, dopey, undiscerning, and uneducated non-soul winning Evangelicals are apostatizing and doing exactly what the traditional denominations have done–given up their Bible and so they are falling away from the faith, but in love with “scholarship” the most POWERLESS THING in all dead religion. No “scholar” can cast out demons, lay hands on the sick and see healings, nor do they operate in the GIFTS OF THE SPIRIT. They deny all of this, because they are DEAD RELIGIONISTS.

    TO Jason:

    Those two verses in the 1611 PLAINLY TEACH the Deity of Christ. They are in the form of hendiadys. Look that up and you will see. The “scholars” know this, yet they hide the truth and PRETEND there is a problem here. Th New Versions ATTACK THE DEITY OF CHRIST PLAINLY in Micah 5:2, 1Tim. 3:16, Rom 14:10-12, all the places in the Gospels where it says that people came and “worshipped” Christ that are changed to “bowed down to” or something like that. Those are REAL EXAMPLES and all the LIARS can do is PRETEND the 1611 has the same problems in Titus 2:13 and 2Peter 1. These are lies and a RED HERRING to avoid the salient verses, ESP. the fact that the NIV teaches ARIAN HERESY in Micah 5:2! Yes sir! Instead of teaching the Eternal pre-existence of Christ, LIKE THE 1611 DOES, it teaches He has an “origin”! And this “origin” was from long ago. THIS IS WHY THE WATCHTOWER LOVES THE NIV. It is an apostate, feminist, ever-changing, anti-man, anti-male, anti-masculine PHONEY BIBLE.

    You also don’t see the personalization’s that are there in the Greek, and shown in the 1611. The appearing of the Great God is what it will be to the entire world. But it is the appearing of the great God AND OUR SAVIOR, Jesus Christ that tells the whole story. To them, the appearing of God will be terror, to us, SALVATION!

    2Peter is the exact same thing. We obtain like precious faith through the righteousness of God AND OUR SAVIOUR Jesus Christ. We are not just saved by the righteousness of God. We are saved by the righteousness of God AND OUR SAVIOUR. Without Christ, there is not salvation. And these renderings PERSONALIZE our relation to GOD, who is also our Saviour. Anyone reading Rom 3:25-26 can see EXACTLY why Peter wrote it this way.

    Now, you say you can answer where the Word was in the 1200s? But you DON’T SAY. You CANNOT. If it was so easy, you would have done so. Now, back up your assertion with CONCRETE FACTS AND EXAMPLES. Thanks you

    • Erik DiVietro November 1, 2013 / 10:48 am

      Please don’t pretend to have superior knowledge because you think you are the only one who speaks to Jehovah’s Witnesses about the gospel. One of the elders of our congregation came to Christ out of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, so I have first hand knowledge of this issue.

      Until the completion of the New World Translation, the Jehovah’s Witnesses used the King James Version. (The Watchtower, 1 November 1959, p. 672) Thereafter, they use the New World Translation as the best English translation of the Bible. Some that you spoke to might have appealed to the NIV because they were told to do so with people like you, but the Watchtower would NEVER approve using the NIV because of the way it translates John 1:1 and other passages that clearly demonstrate the divinity of Christ.

      Frankly, I am a little tired of your abusive, condescending attacks. Your knowledge of history, language and doctrine is limited to a very small clique – a tiny little corner of the Christian world that exalts KJVO “scholars” above everything else – including facts. Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean they are not faithful disciples of Jesus Christ. And just because you were spoon-fed some kind of pseudo-doctrine and revisionist history does not make you an expert.

      I will make no further replies to the garbage you continue to spew.

  39. Truth Preacher November 1, 2013 / 12:46 pm

    Nice assertions! All you do is assert WITH NO PROOF EVER! You couldn’t back up a thing you say with any facts! You can’t even answer simple questions posed to you by pookster and myself. You can’t even tell us WHERE the infallible Scripture is to be found, even though you were told it can be IN ANY LANGUAGE! Coward! Admit you DON’T BELIEVE ANYTHING IS AN INFALLABLE BOOK FROM GOD ANYWHERE ON THIS PLANET. Admit your assertions to believe the Bible IS–present tense, A LIE. You do not believe any Bible in any language IS the inspired, infallible word of God. ADMIT IT.

    As for the JW, you don’t say you witness to them regularly, like I have, nor did you say you have anything to do with that man coming to the Lord. Interesting how vague you are. You have little to NO PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE about the matters I brought up. I learned all these things by witnessing to hundreds of people over the years, hundreds of JWs dozens of Mormons, Muslims, papists, Wiccans, etc. AND THEY ALL ATTACK THE 1611, like New Version heretics do.

    Your FALLACY, which is NOT TRUE, but you engage in it is MAJORITY OPINION IS RIGHT. Even if we were some small clique in a corner, that would have no bearing on facts and truth-claims. Your argument amounts to majority rules. HOW STUPID. And it is not so. We WERE THE MAJORITY OPINION IN ENGLAND AND AMERICA FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS. FACT. That it is not so NOW is explained by APOSTASY. This is no point for your view, but ours. The Bible predicted this.

    And of course, I don’t expect you to think Biblically, as in REMNANT TRUTH. The truth is WITH THE REMNANT during days of apostasy. That point favors us, not you. One thing about KJV people is that you find no liberals within their groups, and they all believe in soulwinning.

    You ignored my examples of the SALIENT VERSES about the deity of Christ, like every Alexandrian Cultist does. You won’t discuss them for they expose you and your error.

    Nothing to say about the Arian Heresy in Micah 5:2 in the NIV? What’s the matter sonny? Can’t you engage the verses and issues?

    So you TELL ONE LIE AFTER ANOTHER, like Westcott and Hort did, and you can’t BACK UP ANYTHING YOU SAY, and now you want to RUN AWAY LIKE A COWARD by PRETENDING I am spewing garbage? LOL! What a joke new version peddlers are! Every one of them I have debated with in person, be they layman or PhD always acts he same. They always get angry because they are not used to being refuted, let alone SO EASILY, they are not used to having no answers, so they raise their voices, complain like babies, and RUN AWAY LIKE COWARDS. The 1611 always produced MEN. The New versions produce spineless jellyfish like you.

    • Erik DiVietro November 5, 2013 / 6:51 am

      No, “Truth Preacher”. I do not believe that the majority opinion is right. I believe that the position with the most evidence supporting it is correct.

      In all of your flailing around, you have not presented a single piece of evidence for your view that stands up to scrutiny. I have been around this block time and time again with people like you.

      1. You begin with a bias.
      2. Then you seek out evidence that supports your bias
      3. You create a category into which you can push anyone who disagrees with your bias.
      4. You ignore anything presented to you that might show flaws in your argument.
      5. You accuse others of the behavior you exhibit yourself.

      I am not running away like a coward. I am just not answering a fool according to his folly.

  40. Jason November 1, 2013 / 1:23 pm

    If you cannot answer where the pure, infallible, inerrant Word of God was before 1611 then I do not believe it is valid for you to pose that question to others now. God’s promise to preserve His Word did not come with a time limitation. It is an eternal promise.

    • Andrew Suttles November 1, 2013 / 6:06 pm

      Jason –

      I’m surprised they are dodging your question. I’d be curious to know where the INFALLIBLE translation was in 1610, also.

      I’d also like to know if Pookster and Truth Preacher believe the priests and bishops that made the translation were inspired.

      Also, since Truth Preacher refers to the KJV as the 1611, does that mean that only the original translation produced in 1611 is the Word of God or are the modern editions published by Cambridge, Thomas-Nelson, Hendrickson, etc. the Word of God, also.

    • Truth Preacher November 1, 2013 / 6:35 pm

      Jason, you said:
      “As a MT proponent that is very easy for me to answer without any nuances or slight of hand.”

      Since you made that claim, and asserted that it is VERY EASY, It is quite proper for me to ask you to DEMONSTRATE this easy answer. SO PLEASE DO IT THEN.

      Don’t claim my request for you to do this is not “valid”. It surely is. I simply know BALONEY when I hear it. You have NO TANGIBLE, CONCRETE answer. You will offer a concept, if you answer at all. You don’t have a Bible in your view, in ANY CENTURY, including this one. If you do, tell me what BOOK you call the SCRIPTURE–the inspired, infallible Word of God. This should be VERY EASY for you.

    • Eli "Hoss" Caldwell July 7, 2014 / 3:19 pm

      The question, “Where was the word of God before 1611?” seems to be a moot point of the person asking it can’t produce the answer to “where is the word of God right now”.

      But I would say the word of God was in the original tongues with other translations compared. At least that is what the first page of the AV say.

  41. Truth Preacher November 1, 2013 / 6:39 pm

    Andrew, NO ONE is ducking Jason’s question. We have been waiting for DAYS for Eric to answer our questions, which are similar, and he can’t. As a matter of fact, I have been waiting FOR YEARS by some New Version peddlers and apologists to answer my questions, and they still haven’t.

    James White, for example has NEVER ANSWERED THE QUESTION OF WHERE EXACTLY IS THE INFALLABLE BIBLE HE SUPPOSEDLY BELIEVES IN MIGHT BE. He has dodged this question and CANNOT ANSWER IT. He had it put to him several times in a debate, and he refused to answer, other than to say “everyone knows my position and the answer to this question”, yet the liar refused to answer! He is a LIAR!

    • Erik DiVietro November 2, 2013 / 5:01 pm

      There is a difference between WON’T and CAN’T. There is no reason for me to offer anything to you, “Truth Preacher.” Your biased mind is already made up. No matter what I say, you will just jump and down and scream about how right you are.

      Facts are meaningless to people like you – as are reason and history. So, there is no reason to answer you in your folly.

  42. Jason November 1, 2013 / 6:54 pm

    KJV Onlyists are the ONLY ones who claim that God preserved His infallible and inerrant word in a translation. Therefore if that is what they’re going to assert then they must tell us which translations God preserved His word in before 1611. Either that or drop the argument that God preserves His word in an infallible translation.

    Truth Preacher, If you don’t want to provide the answer that is fine. But by not providing an answer you agree that God in fact DOES NOT preserve His word in translations. That would be helpful to the discussion, and then we could get to the real debate which has to do with manuscripts and not translations. I actually have respect for those who believe the Textus Receptus is the manuscript where God has preserved His Word and don’t claim that translations from the TR are infallible. I don’t agree with the TR position either, but I do believe the TR is more accurate than the CT based off of Westcott and Hort.

  43. Truth Preacher November 8, 2013 / 5:32 pm

    Jason, you said:

    “For the KJV Only crowd, where do they believe the infallible Word of God was say in the 1200′s? As a MT proponent that is very easy for me to answer without any nuances or slight of hand.”

    Anyone making that kind of claim just needs to do so, since it is “VERY EASY”, according to you. If you don’t, then, like many others, you are bluffing. New Version peddlers ask this question KNOWING THEY CAN’T ANSWER IT! Yet they demand we do! Nor can they answer where the Word of God is AFTER 1611? Nor can they tell us where it is TODAY. Please notice that all Eric can do is lie and slander me. He has yet to tell us WHERE his supposed “infallible Scripture” might be found, since all new version peddlers claim they believe the Bible IS–PRESENT TENSE the inspired, infallible Word of God.

  44. bibleprotector January 2, 2014 / 12:58 pm

    I’ve said before, but that whole “Alexandria versus Antioch” argument is really quite weak.

    The problem is that to argue for a received text, it has to have come from more places than just Antioch. After all, it is logical to expect that books like Ephesians and Revelation came from Asia Minor, not Antioch.

    The problem likewise is not Alexandria, but the corruption of manuscripts by heretics, and that potentially took place anywhere, not simply because there were some heretics in Alexandria, or that some tampered copies of the Scripture have been discovered in the Egyptian desert.

    The real battle is that modernists reject the idea of having a perfect King James Bible. That really has nothing to do with Antioch at all, except that there was a strong Church there in the days of the Apostles.

  45. bibleprotector January 2, 2014 / 1:07 pm

    By the way, to claim that applying “academic rigor” to the Scripture, as though that (an external method) is superior (to internal content/spiritual nature), is an unbiblical method.

    The Scripture advocates studying, but the reduction of Scripture to be a long line of copied and collated readings from ancient times is to reduce Scripture to a mere natural, human entity, not the words of God supplied by the Providence of God.

    Examining the transmission of the Bible may in itself be a morally neutral pursuit, but too often it is used as a means to deny or doubt that the full exactness of the Scripture has been supplied to the present day.

    In short, there is no credence to elevate “academic rigor” above the teaching of Scripture concerning its own preservation through time and space.

  46. The Pookster February 4, 2014 / 2:43 pm

    Andrew Suttles says:
    November 1, 2013 at 6:06 pm
    Jason –

    I’m surprised they are dodging your question. I’d be curious to know where the INFALLIBLE translation was in 1610, also.


    I’d also like to know if Pookster and Truth Preacher believe the priests and bishops that made the translation were inspired.


    Also, since Truth Preacher refers to the KJV as the 1611, does that mean that only the original translation produced in 1611 is the Word of God or are the modern editions published by Cambridge, Thomas-Nelson, Hendrickson, etc. the Word of God, also.


  47. Jason September 8, 2014 / 2:47 am

    Not sure if anyone is still reading this blog. It looks like it’s been awhile since there was a new topic or post. I see that no one from the KJVO crowd was able to answer where the pure Word of God was before 1611. For my own knowledge I’d like to research some time at what point the KJV became the predominant English version replacing the Geneva. I would think it would have been after the Revolutionary War but not sure.

  48. Jason September 8, 2014 / 3:18 am

    I see that someone left a late note stating that there was no movement toward the MT Position. In my opinion that’s because this debate has not moved into the arena of lay people and been fully understood. Of course it is not going to make progress in Academic Circles. This debate has been shut down there to the same degree that the Global Warming debate has been shut down in Scientific Circles. In my opinion there is a lot of parallel between the two.

    If the CT Proponents really wanted to test how well their view of Textual Criticism would be received then all they have to do is produce a Bible that is actually based on it, and let’s see how it does. Leave out the ending of Mark 16 and the beginning of John 8 and see what lay people think of that.

    Just discussing those two instances alone would shed a lot of light on the topic that most have no idea about. I am convinced that 95% of Christians think ALL of the Versions come from the same Manuscripts and are just different English Translations, and the 4% who do know there is a difference in the manuscripts of the different versions only know what they are told in those versions that the different readings are based on the “oldest and best” manuscripts.

    If they truly knew how few witnesses there are two the many variant readings included in CT Versions and how little support there is for them they would be astounded. Yes, I know a scholarly case is made for why those readings should be considered more reliable even though there are few witnesses, but when you start looking at each variant and examining the evidence for each one you could make a very good case on the other side as well.

    I am convinced that the guidelines that Hort produced for determining the best reading were simply reverse engineered to favor his preferred text. In other words he determined what text was the most accurate in his opinion and developed rules to lead to that conclusion.

    I think James Snapp summed it up quite nicely when he said that he wondered what would happen if we took each variant reading and examined it based on its own merit and just how many questions would arise as to which one was truly the best. I believe you would see in most cases good points raised on each side and people would split evenly on some while preferring the MT more than the CT on the rest.

    It will take some time though before this debate takes place openly and we can have that kind of open discussion. At least for now this is a debate that is only among Academics and the few lay people who are interested. I would love to do a series of video presentations putting forward a summary of the CT, MT, and KJVO positions and explaining the rationale for each. The problem is that before I could do such a thing I’d have to delve head-long into a lot of research to become a lot more conversant on the topic. And for now I’ve got other projects that are higher priority. I’m working on a book entitled “Winning the Battle against Sin”, and then once that’s done I’m going to do some video presentations on each chapter. Once that is done I want to do some videos on basic doctrines of the Christian faith.

    And I have other projects as well. So while I’d love to get this topic out there in the hands of the average Christian it’s just too much right now to think about. And I don’t consider it critical. I don’t know what the percentages are, but I’d guess the differences between the ESV and the NKJV are less than 2% due to the fact that the ESV includes the disputed passages in Mark 16 and John 8.

    And Gary Zeolla has done an excellent job of summarizing this topic in his book “Differences between the Bible Versions.” So the information is out there.

    • Nick September 8, 2014 / 5:56 am

      Hi Jason,

      I assume that was me you are referring to. I think you do lay people a disservice, especially seeing as I am one. I have no formal or informal training in textual criticism, and all I know is from reading the literature and familiarising myself with the manuscripts.

      As for CT translations, there are several. The NIV, NET, HCSB, NASB and ESV all essentially footnote Mark 16:9-20 and John 8 with a big massive disclaimer. I have never heard a church refer to or teach from Long Mark except one that was a KJV Pentecostal church. Really, apart from those two passages, and the Comma in some cases, they are all basically NA texts.

      I’m interested, though – have you read Wallace’s paper, Jason? What are your thoughts on the particulars of it? The only reply I’ve ever seen is a two page review from the CSPMT which mostly took issue with Wallace accusing them of a priori assumptions, and that was in reply to the 2013 edition. Robinson wrote a paper that referenced Wallace’s paper before that, but does not really engage with it on a substantive level (it was certainly not intended as a full scale review or rebuttal) I’m not aware of him writing anything more directed.

  49. Jason September 8, 2014 / 2:45 pm

    I have read Wallace’s paper, but it has been a few years. My recollection is that it was heavily based on presuppositions that the Academic community considers settled, but in my opinion is flimsy in its roots.

    The biggest presupposition I see is that copyists were more likely to add things in then leave things out. This is assumed as fact, and I find it to be illogical. They then assume things were added in order to beef up Orthodox Theology or to harmonize and thus beef up inerrancy. You will hear statements all the time “we know scribes did this” in terms of the changes. No they don’t know that. This is a major assumption.

    Just from a common sense point of view I can come up with very good reasons things were left out in the long end of Mark, or the woman in adultery in John 8, or the lame man by the pool with the stirring of the water, or the many Scriptures dealing with the person of Christ. It jumps out at me as to why those were altered. Have you ever read the Net Bible’s explanation of 1 Tim. 3:16? It is a terrible argument.

    If all of the currently accepted presuppositons were set aside and we just took each reading and looked at the evidence on all sides then I believe most lay people would either come down on the side of the MT or admit there’s a much better case to be made then what they were led to believe. There is early outside quotations of some of the various MT renderings that show that MT readings were around before 350AD which is when the supposed rescension would have began.

    Have you ever tried reading the end of John 7 into John 8 leaving out the story of adultery? It doesn’t flow at all. It’s like someone said, ok we’ve got to remove this but what’s the best way without making it look too jagged of a cut. And they couldn’t really find a good place so they did they best they could, and it’s still a very jagged cut.

    I’m really hesitant to dive into this debate because it’s been over a year since I was reading on this subject again, and it takes a lot of time to get into all the literature and be conversant on the many different topics. Before I get into textual criticism again I want to have become more fluid in my Biblical Greek, and I want to have ready Harry Sturz’s book “The Byzantine Text Type and New Testament Textual Criticism.” My understanding is that this book provides even more examples of the evidence of how early the Byzantine readings are.

    I won’t promise how much I’ll engage here because again it’s very time consuming. I’ve read and studied enough to convince myself, but I don’t yet know enough to help convince others.

    The one thing I’d say is that I believe if we started the debate today fresh and free from all prior assumptions the debate would look a lot different then it did toward the end of the 1800’s where it has been basically stagnant ever since. If we dropped the assumption that scribes altered Scriptures to make them more orthodox and were more open that things were left out to make them more palpable to the non-orthodox I believe the discussion would look differently.

    • Nick September 8, 2014 / 10:37 pm

      Actually, having read both the 95 and 2013 versions of the paper within the last week, the shorter-longer readings axiom is one that only rates a mention a handful of times in the entire paper, and is certainly not a fundamental underpinning of the paper. In fact, Wallace makes the point that the Majority Text (which in this case I assume to be the Hodges-Farstad text) contains some six hundred shorter readings than the then-current NA26. Shorter-preferred is a helpful guideline and principal in otherwise marginal cases, but is not used as a central principle.

      It would be much more accurate to say that one of Wallace’s chief contentions is the unreasonableness behind the utter rejection of internal evidences in text critical work by many (though not all) Majority proponents (it is these internal criteria that leads the NA to prefer longer readings in some places).

      But yes, please, get back up to speed. I’m not all that interested in a debate, rather I’d just like us to all be up to speed on the issues. Re-read Sturtz. I’d also recommend reading Robinson’s discussion of this topic, in order to have a perspective that is contemporary and reflects the current state of the argument. But it has to also be remembered that the likes of Wallace are VERY familiar with the work of these men (Wallace was a student of Sturtz at Biola Uni, and basically got started in textual criticism because of Sturz’ urging), and their works are very much a part of the rejoinders from those in the eclectic camp. Again, Wallace in particular replies specifically to ”The Byzantine Text Type and New Testament Textual Criticism” in the aforementioned ’95 paper. If you re-read Sturz, it would also be worth re-reading Wallace at the same time.

  50. Jason September 9, 2014 / 1:36 am

    It will be quite awhile before I dive into the subject again. It requires a big time commitment, and as you know none of the reading is light.

    What I’m seeing on the web though in different message boards and just in talking to a few people on this issue is that I see time and again people saying something along the lines of “I was told one thing on this issue, but when I started looking into it myself I realized there was a lot more to it then what I had been led to believe.” And what they mean by that is that they were basically told that the subject was closed and had been closed for quite some time. And yet they discovered there was more to the MT position than they had been taught.

    I think that’s my main quarrel with today’s state of Textual Criticism. There is a very strong case that can be made for MT Readings, and the overall case can be quite compelling in my opinion. Yet because most all Christian Academia is locked down on the CT Position there is not a very open debate on the topic. It is just assumed that scribes changed the text in favor of the MT Readings for various reasons rather than asking if the reverse could be true. And rather than assuming a conspiracy, or recension, or conflation what if the Majority of Greek manuscripts were the majority just because they were the ones that were the most copied and most used based on being considered the most accurate? What if the NT Authors really did write in a smoother Greek than is present in Aleph and B? What if the supposed harmonizations weren’t human but God? Rather than assuming that things were added based on an agenda what if things were actually left out because of an agenda?

    I think the problem is that one set of presumptions has been accepted as fact while the other side of those presuppositions have been dismissed out of hand.

    And I’m still trying to figure out exactly how important of an issue this is. If I were to rate my top 10 of issues that need to be emphasized in the Body of Christ today, I don’t think Textual Criticism would make that list. And yet I think the work of people like Dr. Robinson and Paul Anderson of the CSPMT is very important and of great value. I think this issue will rise in importance at some point in the future, and when it does it will be people like them that will have helped lay the groundwork.

Comments are closed.