tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6043971967398769903.post601254628409093238..comments2024-03-27T19:50:47.426-05:00Comments on The Watchman's Bagpipes: “New Age Bible Versions” — Chapter 17Glenn E. Chatfieldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04117405535707961903noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6043971967398769903.post-60037632900335488632014-12-16T08:20:45.897-06:002014-12-16T08:20:45.897-06:00Scott,
I have all the books by all the authors y...Scott, <br /><br />I have all the books by all the authors you cited, and have read them thoroughly. On top of that, I have read all the arguments put forth by Dusty Peterson, John Burgon and Edward Hills.<br /><br />I have found nothing substantial to cause me to agree in any way with the KJVO stance. There are just too many logic fallacies used in declaring one set of manuscripts to be better. The various reasons used by KJVOs to denounce manuscripts older than the TR can get to be quite bizarre.<br /><br />What I find interesting is that it is okay with the KJVO that large portions of the TR were translated from Latin because Greek manuscripts weren't available.<br /><br />Are there bad translations? Of course. The more "dynamic" the translation gets the more interpretive it is. But claims of being New Age or Satanic conspiracies get to be laughable. (If you look under my label "Bible Versions" you will see I often criticize new versions.)<br /><br />On another point (I always check the links associated with comments) I see your church promotes Chick tracts. I'd really recommend against that, because Chick is too offensive in his tracts exposing cults. They amount to throwing acid in their faces, and often have misleading and sensationalist claims (I used to have all of Chick's stuff, and have written him personally about his tactics). I don't think they are good examples of how to represent the Christian faith.Glenn E. Chatfieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04117405535707961903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6043971967398769903.post-19770502130558234382014-12-16T05:23:16.005-06:002014-12-16T05:23:16.005-06:00Not all KJV Only agree with the Riplinger books. T...Not all KJV Only agree with the Riplinger books. There are other resources which do make a very good case that the KJV is the best English translation. Unfortunately, those that desire to prove to the contrary look at Riplinger and Ruckman, which are very public KJV Only, but are also off kilter and not the best defenders of KJV Only. <br />I have not read your previous installments of reviews of her book, but you would be better off reading David Cloud, D.A. Waite, Jack Moorman, and David Daniels. They do a much better job of pointing out the issues with modern translations and are theologically sound -- unlike Riplinger and Ruckman.Scotthttp://firstbaptistfernwood.comnoreply@blogger.com