A new King James Bible defense book

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Will J. Kinney, Mar 25, 2004.

  1. Will J. Kinney

    Will J. Kinney
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    0
    This sounds like a good book to have. I just ordered one by phone and it is only 13 dollars. 10 dollars each if you order three copies. Praise God, He is raising up more Bible believing Christians.

    Will Kinney

    This info from David Cloud

    THE BIBLE TRANSLATION CONTROVERSY AND THE PRINCIPLE OF SEPARATION

    Republished March 25, 2004 (First published June 11, 2003)
    (Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port
    Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, [email protected]; for instructions
    about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the
    information paragraph at the end of the article) -

    The following is Don Jasmin's review of the book Touch Not the
    Unclean Thing by Dr. David Sorenson (Northstar Baptist Ministries,
    1820 West Morgan Street, Duluth, MN 55811. Phone: 218-726-0209). This
    review first appeared in Brother Jasmin's paper The Fundamentalist
    Digest, Nov.-Dec. 2001:

    This "explosive new" book is a powerful defense of the KJV, as well
    as a thoroughly documented expose of the modem versions and their
    inextricable links to religious apostasy. An adaptation of a doctoral
    dissertation, it is "written in a style so that almost anyone can
    understand the issue." The promotional leaflet claim that "the author
    has put the truth on a shelf where all can reach it" is not an
    overstatement!

    In the reviewer's opinion, this book is not only the newest release
    on the market on this important issue, it is the most logical
    presentation and most thoroughly documented treatise since the
    publication of Dr. D.A. Waite's excellent treatise several years ago
    Defending The King James Bible.

    FILLING A NEEDED VOID

    This book fills a much needed void because it centers around a vital
    theme that has been vastly neglected in many otherwise excellent
    studies in this area: the application of the Scriptural doctrine of
    separation to the Bible textual/translation issue. Because of its
    logical order, reading format style and extensive documentation, this
    book can be equally used in a seminary classroom, as a college or
    Bible institute I text, or as resource for church adult training
    unions. The 296-page book contains 11 information-packed chapters,
    plus five extensive appendixes, a selected biography divided into two
    sections citing books and articles. The back section also contains a
    general index, plus a listing of all Scripture texts used, along with
    their corresponding page numbers in the book. Sorenson has superbly
    woven the difficult twins of scholarship and simplicity into a
    treatise that can be readily grasped not only by full-time Christian
    vocational workers, but also by the average layman in the pew if he
    will seriously ponder the book's contents.

    A TIMELY INTRODUCTION

    In the book's introduction, (chapter one), the author indicates that
    he is a "convert" to the TR/KJV position, having accepted the
    critical text without question during his college and seminary
    training. He began his pastoral ministry adhering to that position.
    After a friend gave him a copy of Dr. David Otis Fuller's book Which
    Bible, however, Sorenson began to see that "the critical text had
    connections with apostasy" which made him, as a Fundamentalist,
    "quite ill at ease."

    The crux of the book is stated on pp. 4-5 when the author relates
    that the history of the Received Text is associated with "persecuted,
    martyred brethren", while the "lineage of the critical text" is
    "linked to apostasy at virtually every step of its history." As the
    book unfolds it becomes readily apparent "that one lineage is linked
    with apostasy, and the other with true believers."

    On p. 7, Sorenson makes a potent statement that zeroes in on the
    heart of the issue. Sorenson's quote is the reason why the
    Fundamentalist Digest (FD) editor has become so vitally involved in
    this issue: It is because leading Fundamentalists are standing now at
    apostasy's door but are seemingly unaware of where they stand!
    Sorenson discerningly writes: "As the debate regarding the textual
    issue continues, those supporting the critical text come perilously
    close to the position of 'thought' inspiration. "

    Sorenson staunchly believes "the integrity of the Word of God is at
    stake" (p. 9) over this matter, a statement with which the reviewer
    heartily concurs! Another timely observation by Sorenson is that he
    believes that loyalist graduates of Fundamentalist schools that
    promote the critical texts are in danger of moving in a direction
    that violate Biblical
    Principles. For Sorenson, as well as this reviewer, "the issue at
    hand is the "integrity, accuracy, and trustworthiness" of "the Word
    of God" (p.13)

    THREE MAJOR POSITIONS DELINEATED

    In chapter two, Sorenson delineates and explains the three major
    positions on the Bible text issue: (1) The KJV Only Position [KJV as
    "advanced revelation"], (2) the Critical Text Position and (3) The
    Preserved Text Position. Chapter three contains some very helpful
    pages as the author defines and explains the basic terminology used
    in this debate.
    In chapter four, the author discusses the two streams of Biblical
    texts: The Received Text [RT] and The Critical Text [CT]. The RT is
    "based in belief of Providential Preservation," while the CT is
    "based in scientific reconstruction of the text." The RT is "guided
    by usage of believing churches," while the CT is "guided by the
    philosophy [of] rationalism." These two streams center in (a) two
    contrasting types of Bibles, (b) two different textual bases, and (c)
    two different undergirding philosophies.

    Chapter five reviews the early history of the Received Text, while
    chapter six reveals the early historical background of the
    Westcott-Hort text. This chapter also exposes Westcott and Hort's
    theological liberalism in the crucial areas of inspiration and
    inerrancy, theology proper, evolution, the resurrection, salvation
    and Christology. The apostate beliefs of the noted textual critics of
    the 20th century are also factually documented.

    EXPOSING THE FLAWS OF THE CRITICAL TEXT

    Chapter seven exposes the flawed logic and logical fallacies of the
    critical text advocates. Their intellectually untenable positions are
    exposed as deceptive and misleading. Citing numerous passages,
    chapter eight delineates the Scriptural principles of separation from
    apostasy, while chapter nine applies these passages to the Bible text
    issue. This chapter documents Westcott and Hort's (a) theological
    liberalism, (b) liberal associates, (c) occult activities, (d) their
    fondness for Charles Darwin & his evolutionary views and (e) their
    defense of Unitarianism.

    REFUTING THE DIVERSIONARY CT TACTICS

    Chapter ten refutes the diversionary tactics of the Critical Text
    advocates. Sorenson skillfully handles the attacks that CT critics
    raise concerning Erasmus. Sorenson intriguingly divulges Erasmus's
    theological shift and shows that by the time of his death, Erasmus
    was a Catholic in name only, with close ties to the Anabaptists, even
    advocating baptism by immersion--and only after conversion! Sorenson
    lays the historical axe to the critics who slander King James I's
    moral character, proving that he was a faithful husband, godly
    father, and ardent Bible student.

    In this chapter, the author also rehearses the godly character and
    superior scholarship of the KJV translators. To those who charge that
    the King James translators and Westcott and Hort were all Anglican
    Church adherents, Sorenson adroitly notes that there was a vast
    difference between the spiritual and theological condition of the
    Anglican Church in 1611 and 1881!

    In his final chapter, Sorenson discloses the reasons why, despite the
    strong evidence, some Fundamentalists still tenaciously cling to the
    CT. Sorenson closes his book with this stimulating and unanswerable
    question: "Why would God hide the best representation of His Word in
    such places of spiritual darkness [such as in the pope's library and
    in an apostate monastery near Mt. Sinai] for 1500 years if it in fact
    most closely represents the autographa?" (p. 223)

    THE HELPFUL APPENDIXES

    Appendixes A, B and C deal with the problems of the NASV, NIV and
    NKJV [deletions, alterations, footnotes, etc]. Appendix D exposes the
    "weakened doctrine in the Critical Text" and discloses how the CT
    weakens the doctrines of heaven and hell, salvation, and the doctrine
    of Christ. Appendix E is a fascinating addition, citing evidences of
    a historical connection between the Waldenses and the King James
    Version. In the reviewer's opinion, Touch Not the Unclean Thing is
    one of the most valuable literature tools published in Fundamentalist
    circles in recent years. Don't just secure one--purchase several for
    your Christian friends as well. Order from: Northstar Baptist
    Ministries [NBM] 1820 West Morgan Street, Duluth, MN 55811. Phone:
    218- 726-0209 (Contact NBM for multiple discount prices)
     
  2. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Uh, 'scuse me. Is a person who believes the NASB is the Word of God, "NOT a Bible believing Christian"? :confused:
     
  3. TC

    TC
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,225
    Likes Received:
    10
    Exactly the same thing the Vulgate only crowd said waaaaay back when Tyndale, Luther and others began to translate the Bible into their own language instead of latin.



    And the Anglo-Catholic, baby baptizing, baptist persecuting CoE got it perfect.

    And yet, it's ok that some of God's words (1 John 5:7) were hidden in Catholic latin MSS where the greek speaking church didn't have access to them for ?hundreds? of years - but were restored when RCC priest Erasmus put them back in.
     
  4. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is a must for everyone who want to know the evidences/facts concerning the KJV and MVs.. I recommend anyone to get this book and read it. [​IMG]
     
  5. TC

    TC
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,225
    Likes Received:
    10
    It's not a must for me.
     
  6. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Interestingly, this book tells you something. It quoted, "Modern textual critics thus consciously 'weight' texts; that is, they purposefully designate some manuscripts as being more important than others."

    Dr. Bob Griffin quoted:
    This book will explain why "weight." Get this book and read it! [​IMG] :D
     
  7. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    If you wish, I can recommend a lot more factual books concerning the history of the KJV and other translations. [​IMG]

    In fact, based on the outline, it contains absolutely nothing that cannot be found by reading the posts of the KJVO's on this board. Nothing is new. Just composed in a different sequence. I can give you fifty links to the appendices where he shows the "alleged" left-out words" of the MV's,

    Why waste your money on the same ole' rhetoric? Just read the posts here, save your dollars to buy a good MV to give to a lost person (so they can understand it).

    Let me be CLEAR: I am NOT saying the KJV is bad (far from it, I love the KJV), it is just not the language used by people who have not grown up in church and therefore I do not recommend it for non-christians. They will only get frustrated.
     
  8. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Please name them for me. Who wrote them? :D
     
  9. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Please name them for me. Who wrote them? :D </font>[/QUOTE]I am at my work office, don't have my Biblical Library here. I'll get you some names tomorrow.

    By the way, read the post above, it has been edited since you read it. The same information that is in the book that you refer to is scattered all over this site by the KJVO's. Of which I am not one. [​IMG]
     
  10. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Looks like yet another rehash to me-same KJVO garbage in a newly-painted dumpster.

    Still no legit support for the KJVO myth.
     
  11. Pastor KevinR

    Pastor KevinR
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2001
    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    0
    I rec'd the book in the mail sent free to me last year. I skimmed it and realized it was another same ole same ole biased book based on certain assumptions. I do not know even where the book is unless it's buried in my library, or perhaps I gave it away.
    For a much, much, much better book, may I recommend Unbound Scriptures by Rick Norris? The book is fair, balanced, well documented, and if certain folks would read it with an open mind, maybe they'll realize their myth is just that! :D [​IMG]
     
  12. Baptist in Richmond

    Baptist in Richmond
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    5,075
    Likes Received:
    4
    Oops, you seemed to have omitted the words "1769 Revision" between "more" and "Bible."

    If David Cloud is peddling it, I am undoubtedly sure of the conclusion.
     
  13. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    I rec'd the book in the mail sent free to me last year. I skimmed it and realized it was another same ole same ole biased book based on certain assumptions. I do not know even where the book is unless it's buried in my library, or perhaps I gave it away.
    For a much, much, much better book, may I recommend Unbound Scriptures by Rick Norris? The book is fair, balanced, well documented, and if certain folks would read it with an open mind, maybe they'll realize their myth is just that! :D [​IMG]
    </font>[/QUOTE]I don't know about this. If you gave it to somebody and they read it, I think maybe you should at least ask for forgiveness.
    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  14. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Fearless God?
     
  15. TC

    TC
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,225
    Likes Received:
    10
    What's your point? I have Rip's book, other KJVO authors books, and have read tons of KJVO articles from many people. This book contains nothing new. It's the same old KJVO arguments repackaged in a new book - so the author can make more money. I have no reason or desire to waste any more resources on more of this type of stuff.
     
  16. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    You talk about the KJV men; I talk about the KJV Bible. I do not care about these men such as Riplinger or Ruckman, but I care about the Word of God such as John 17:8. That's how we got the Bible, namely the KJV for English-speaking tongue such as Romans 16:26.
     
  17. tinytim

    tinytim
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    " The RT is "guided
    by usage of believing churches,"

    What, when was the RCC church considered a believing church by a KJVO?

    While the book seeems from the outline to be the same stuff repackaged, there is something new (or at least highlighted) that seems to be destroying churches.
    Satan's desire to divide and conquer.
    Notice the emphasis this book puts on separation.
    Separation is not a bad thing if it is done for biblical reasons, but if you separate yourself because you believe a false doctrine (like KJVO) then you are playing into Satan's hands.

    I would be interested in having one, just to know what the KJVO crowd will be debating next year.

    BTW a good book -- Robert Joyner's "King James Only"!!!
     
  18. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    You talk about the KJV men; I talk about the KJV Bible. I do not care about these men such as Riplinger or Ruckman, but I care about the Word of God such as John 17:8. That's how we got the Bible, namely the KJV for English-speaking tongue such as Romans 16:26. </font>[/QUOTE]I do not understand your statement: "That's how we got the Bible, namely the KJV for English speaking tongue such as Romans 16:26?"

    Yes, indeed that is how we got the OLD English Speaking Bible approved to be published by printers in 1611; what does this have to do with a modern translation? We also got the 1769 version in "younger" OLD English--any many versions in between.

    Later we got the ASV inmodern English", wouldn't you say that is a reasonable statement?

    I do not understand your reference to Romans 16:26 (or John) as related to this; however. Could you explain?

    Both scriptures are pulled out of context, but having read the Bible I think we are all familiar with what is being said. For instance: "What is made manifest?" in Romans. And, Jesus appears to be in the middle of a prayer to the Father in the Gospel of John, saying that the people heard the Words of the Father (referring, I'm assuming--since it was out of context again--to the diety of Jesus). What is your point? What are you trying to say?

    Reference:

    Romans 16:26 KJV 1769 Version:

    But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:
    ===============================================
    Romans 16:26 NIV:

    but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all nations might believe and obey him---
    ================================================

    Or John:

    John 17:8 KJV

    For I have given unto them the words which though gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.

    ==============================================

    John 17:8 NIV

    For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them. They knew with certainty that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me.

    ==============================================
    ==============================================
    Looks pretty much like the NIV is also God's Word in MODERN English. In fact, it appears much clearer, while saying the exact same thing. :confused:

    (Note: I am not degrading the KJV by saying the NIV is clearer. The KJV is OLD English, it will not be as clear since it was written in the 1700's rather than the 1900's. Simply because we do not speak the Old English today.) ;)
     
  19. mioque

    mioque
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    3,899
    Likes Received:
    0
    " I do not care about these men such as Riplinger or Ruckman,"
    Riplinger is a woman actually.

    And speaking as proud graduate of Erasmus university who has read most of the man's work, I can securely state that Desiderius Erasmus van Rotterdam believed quite strongly in the concept of the papacy, despite the fact that he thought that many individual popes were a disgrace to the office.
     
  20. Refreshed

    Refreshed
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    901
    Likes Received:
    0
    Phillip,

    Not to derail this thread or anything, but the KJV is not written in old English or even middle English. It is written in what is referred to as early modern English.

    Jason
     

Share This Page

Loading...