Wednesday, October 28, 2009

5 Version Readability Study: Mark 10:1-9 - Verse 4

Verse 4:
MSG: They answered, "Moses gave permission to fill out a certificate of dismissal and divorce her."

NLT: “Well, he permitted it,” they replied. “He said a man can give his wife a written notice of divorce and send her away.”

NIV: They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away."

NASB: They said, "Moses permitted a man TO WRITE A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY."

ESV: They said, "Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce and to send her away."

"They said" (NIV/NASB/ESV) or "They answered" (MSG) or "They replied" (NLT)?
"They replied" seems repetitive at this point; it is obvious a dialogue is taking place. "They said" is not much better. "They answered" is best here. Although "answer" can be synonymous with "reply," this synonymity relies on an archaic form of "answer." Today's reader understands "answer" as a response to a specific query, and as such it provides more descriptiveness here, I think.
+1 MSG

"He"(NLT) or "Moses"(all others)?
Using the personal pronoun engages the reader to actively make an association with Moses in the preceding verse. On the other hand, "Moses" is in the text, and the difference isn't huge.

"permitted"(NLT/NIV/NASB) or "gave permission"(MSG) or "allowed"(ESV)?
"Permitted" and "gave permission" are slightly less familiar than "allowed," which seems best.
+1 ESV

"he said a man can"(NLT) or "to"(all others)?
Now is the time to deal with the elephant in the room. I'll say it up front; the NLT is excessively wordy in this verse. Instead of a simple construction like "Moses allowed a man to" the NLT goes a does "Well, he permitted it...He said a man can..." I don't like it at all. It doesn't serve increase comprehension; this particular phrase is not that difficult in the first place.
-1 NLT

"fill out"(MSG) or "give his wife"(NLT) or "write"(all others)?
The MSG has me chuckling again; "fill out" sounds like a modern day couple going down to fill out printed forms! Nonetheless, it's not a huge deal, although I don't particularly like it. "Give his wife" actually reflects what the OT text being referred to here is saying- but it interpretive, and not in the Greek at all. Besides being the literal translation, "write" is the simplest, and it avoids the association a modern reader would make with forms.

"written notice"(NLT) or "certificate"(all others)?
When I think certificate, I think of a graduation certificate, or an award certificate- some honor or credential bestowed by a higher authority. As such, "written notice" works better for modern readers.
+1 NLT

"dismissal and divorce her"(MSG) or "divorce and send her away"(all others)?
The latter gets to the point quicker and in a simpler fashion- AND is more literal.

Verse 4 winner: ESV

A look at the old King James

KJV: And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.

The KJV has a case of "and-itis" here, in addition to using the archaic terms "suffered" and "bill." "Divorcement" is also an odd word to modern readers. "Put her away" is archaic as well; to modern ears it sounds like the woman is a piece of clothing!

A compilation of winners so far: Mark 10:1-4 composed of winning verses

Then Jesus left Capernaum and went down to the region of Judea and into the area east of the Jordan River. Once again crowds gathered around him, and as usual he was teaching them. Some Pharisees came and tried to trap him with this question: “Should a man be allowed to divorce his wife?”
"What did Moses command you?" he replied.
They said, "Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce and to send her away."

v.1-2:NLT; v.3:NIV; v.4:ESV

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Wherever You Go...

So I am out of fundamentalism.
Well, at least the extreme, separatist types. The whole KJVO, hyper-separation, etc., etc. is in my past. Heck, my church doesn't even have "Baptist" in the name.
I have been wont to refer to my church as conservative evangelical, but honestly, I think it falls somewhere between Bob Jones and John MacArthur. John MacArthur, Bob Jones, and John Rice historically represent the three main branches of fundamentalism. As such, it fits very much in the fundamentalist category. My previous "conservative evangelical" estimation was my latent hyper-separatism talking- my John Rice/Jack Hyles "we're the REAL fundamentalists" background. I thought that was gone already! So even as of October 2009, I am STILL rooting out that old hyper-separatist junk from my mind and soul.
So I now I get to deal with me. Darn. A number of blogs have closed recently, that have dealt with problems in certain fundamentalist circles. They, as I, have concluded that leaving is preferable to reforming, and they want to focus on their new spiritual direction. As I do. This is noble; we should all seek to grow in grace. The endless battles over KJV and pants and music and dictator pastors and gimmicky evangelism methods just gets old and realize few are listening and it upsets you more than anything.
But--- you are left with you. That is a scary thing. Do you really want to work on yourself? If you do, be prepared for some depression. God has worked good through it, to establish doctrine and to clear out the excuses for your lack of vibrant spiritual life. OK, now you are at the church of your dreams (more or less). How is your soul now, Christian? You are left with yourself, aren't you? Wherever you go, there you are. Isn't it frustrating?
You still don't know what a victorious prayer life is, do you? You still ask yourself whether that's the voice of God or if that is your own mind? You go even further and sometimes, in the middle of the night, and increasingly during the day, you secretly ask yourself whether God even exists.
You start rationalizing that when Jesus said if two or more ask something in His name, He will do it, whether he really meant two or more of the APOSTLES he was speaking to. Because you and your wife or husband or pastor have beseeched the Lord in prayer together without answer.
Even though you maintain a belief in prayer and the Bible and church you begin to wonder whether the Lord cares less about what you believe and more about your doubts. If he that doubts the food is damned when he eats, is he that doubts the goodness of God damned if he beseeches Him? You secretly know that if your heart was freed of your mind you would never step foot in church again.
Or maybe it's just me.

Friday, October 23, 2009

Noam Chomsky and the Right-Wing

Noam Chomsky, in this video, appears to be seeing the same thing I see:

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

US Residents Must Prepare

I promise I will get back to the version readability posts. I have had a lot on my mind lately and I think it is important that you read what I am about to write. You may have noticed that an ex-Goldman Sachs exec was just named to be COO of the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission). Obama (who I voted for) is doing nothing about corruption and it will hurt us all badly in the years to come as the oncoming crisis is NOT averted.


With the headwinds facing us (corruption, no manufacturing base, declining dollar) it seems amazing anyone can hold off the inevitable, but a cabal of extremely powerful elites will stave off the crisis for their own purposes (and in doing so, make it much worse) until late in the game, no earlier than 2014.
We are in the late stages of the unraveling; this is one last call for personal preparation. One shouldn't assume the US will emerge victorious from the coming armed world crisis; as a matter of fact, there are no structural or strategic reasons to believe this will even be a possibility. Is the chance that a mid-crisis game-changer will give the US the upper hand worth risking your lifestyle and the tranquility of your family? Serious consideration should be given to emigration.
Obama (whom I voted for) is doing nothing to stop the corruption, thereby allowing the US to continue its plunge into crisis. Even his commendable domestic initiatives (health care, financial regulation, environmental issues) are hobbled because of corrupt influence.
In a twist of irony, the very right-wing who are carrying water for these elites and corporate fat-cats will be the beneficiaries of Obama's failure to halt the slide into crisis.
In 2012 or 2016 we are going to get a president that makes G.W. Bush look like a pansy. And America will laud him. He will climb on the back of Obama like Obama climbed on the back of Bush. And we will give him our liberties in exchange for security. And he will take us to war.
Fascism has come to America and will bloom fully in Obama's wake. Our country is divided and will remain so. The right will ascend, and they will assume a mandate to extinguish the so-called "liberal" elements. Having given up liberties, a civilian military force very much similar to the Nazi SA will be tasked with providing for our "security" but will also function as a harassment squad for these "liberal" elements.
A majority of the evangelical and fundamentalist churches will align with this new order mainly in the interest of finally winning the culture war, but also in the same self-interest that will have drawn Americans in general into this state.
And do you think this new, fascist regime will wait to strike? Most certainly not! The idea of "pre-emptive strike" will undergo a revival. Having deployed troops within its own borders to maintain security, it will strike at external perceived threats. And the world will abide this for a time, because we are the US.
The world will eventually strike back at us.

I am about to say a hard thing- if my vision of the US comes to pass, then it is not a country that I want to see win that fight. History will wreak its destructive judgment on this nation- rather, God will have His judgment. Not because of the sins of individuals as many conservatives think, but because of the sins against humanity that are and will be perpetuated by our government, and mostly because of a adulterous American church who has played the harlot by selling herself to the political system in the form of the "religious right." You see, God is not as concerned with our nation as He is with His church. He will truly winnow the church, the chaff will blow away, and the wheat will endure through great tribulation.

We are reminded of the warning of Revelation 18:4-
"And I heard another voice from heaven saying, 'Come out of her, my people, lest you share in her sins, and lest you receive of her plagues.'"

You can have faith now, and leave. Or have faith later, and endure. Your faith will be tested no matter what. Will you be simple, or prudent?

Proverbs 22:3-
"A prudent man foresees evil and hides himself, But the simple pass on and are punished."

I am not a prophet. If I am anything, I desire to be a prudent man that foresees.
What am I doing to prepare? I am praying that God would open a door for me to escape what is coming to pass. Maybe you can start there. Maybe you need to let go of your attachment to the American way of life. Actually, I know you do. If you don't now, you will later. Even now, millions of people made homeless by the current recession are learning the lesson we all will learn eventually.

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

You Just Want to Do What You Want to Do

I know some of you out there think people just find good-sounding arguments to defend doctrine that lets them do what they want to do.
Stop and think about your mindset for a moment. If you think this way, then what you are really saying is that the more a rule restricts you from things you do like and makes you do things you don't like, the better it is.
Where'd you get that idea? It directly contradicts Colossians 2:20-23. (If you think this passage is speaking positively about ordinances that have a "shew of wisdom" then you need to set down the KJV which you evidently don't understand and pick up a modern version.)

It is the mark of Pharisee to judge your doctrine by it's strictness. If this is you, you are a legalist. If you think legalism is only about salvation, you are a legalist. I make these statements emphatically and unapologetically, and I welcome your dissent and argument in order that I may prove these things to you more fully.

Wednesday, October 07, 2009

5 Version Readability Study: Mark 10:1-9 - Verse 3

Verse 3

MSG: Jesus said, "What did Moses command?"

NLT: Jesus answered them with a question: “What did Moses say in the law about divorce?”

NIV: "What did Moses command you?" he replied.

NASB: And He answered and said to them, "What did Moses command you?"

ESV: He answered them, "What did Moses command you?"

"And He answered and said to them"(NASB) OR "He answered them"(ESV) OR "he replied"(NIV) OR "Jesus answered them with a question"(NLT) OR "Jesus said"(MSG)?
Simple is better here. The NASB is definitely too wordy. The NLT is very wordy too. As with the previous verse, the NIV comes out the champion in simplicity. The ESV is abrupt ("He answered them") and the MSG ("Jesus said") doesn't give any hint that this is an answer or reply. In the NLT's defense, its wording pairs well with the previous verse ("Some Pharisees ... tried to trap him with this question"/"Jesus answered them with a question") but the NLT could have hewed more toward the simpler NIV rendering on these two phrases without losing readability.
+1 NIV

Should the above phrase come after(NIV) or before(all others) the question?
I like the phrase coming before the question because it matches up to the previous verse and draws the contrast better. The NIV's placing of the phrase after the question gives it a more "conversational" feel though, which is nice too. Either is good!

"command"(MSG) OR "command you"(NIV, NASB, ESV) OR "say in the law about divorce"(NLT)?
The NLT is sort of obligated to the longer rendering so that the reader is informed that the Mosaic law is being referred to, since it did not use "legal" or "lawful" in the preceding verse. So for contextual clarity, the NLT does well. Nonetheless, the reference to "Moses command" is a clear reference to the law, so the extra verbiage is not strictly necessary, and the NLT ends up losing the force that the word "command" brings. I don't think the "you" is strictly necessary either, but because it might add smoothness in the eyes of some, and it has the support of formal versions, I think it is a good thing.

Verse 3 winner: NIV

A look at the Old KJV

"And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?"

Except for the word "unto", the KJV reading is equal to the NASB. Like the ESV, though, the KJV gets stuck in the "and" trap, starting 6 out of the first 9 verses of Mark 10 with "and." As I understand it, the Greek sometimes requires a fair amount of "breaking up" to make it good (modern) English.
The word "unto" has fallen into relative unuse today. A simple online search turns up 9003 "unto"s in the KJV, none in the NASB, NLT, or MSG, and only 2 in the NIV and 3 in the ESV.

Tuesday, October 06, 2009

Laying it Out There

So I am over on the Internet Monk blog reading about the church offering. I try to give a little during the benevolent offerings, which are taken maybe 4-5 times a year? I don't tithe. I believe tithing was a command to Israel and not the church. I do not give to my church regularly. There. I said it.
Would I if I could? Sure. Do I feel guilty for not giving more? Should I?
Currently my family has a laundry list of needs:

-Our mattress was purchased used two years ago and has gotten to the point where it is mostly gone and needs to be replaced,
-The car needs a brake job, four new tires, transmission/radiator fluid changes, wiper blades.
-I need more clothes, and so does my wife, although she doesn't want to admit it.
-We are going to need a 2-bedroom apartment next year- our son will be turning 1 year old.

I make a nominal $14.40/hr. (Would be $16 but our company implemented at 10% across-the-board pay cut earlier this year.) Health insurance drops that to $11.41/hr. To support a family of 3 in San Diego. The fact that we make it at all is due primarily to the goodness of God and that we have -zero- debt or tax liability.

With the needs above I have a problem with diverting money away from my family especially since Scripture calls those who do not take care of their families "worse than infidels."

I am not complaining. Just saying. And before you whip out Malachi 3 on me, you should know I have been down that road before.

5 Version Readability Study: Mark 10:1-9 - Verse 2

Verse 2

MSG: Pharisees came up, intending to give him a hard time. They asked, "Is it legal for a man to divorce his wife?"

NLT: Some Pharisees came and tried to trap him with this question: “Should a man be allowed to divorce his wife?”

NIV: Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"

NASB: Some Pharisees came up to Jesus, testing Him, and began to question Him whether it was lawful for a man to divorce a wife.

ESV: And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"

"And Pharisees came"(ESV) or "Pharisees came"(MSG) or "Some Pharisees came"(All others)?
The only version that begins this with "And" is the ESV. Looking back, the ESV starts both sentences in v.1 with "and" as well. It's getting long in the tooth.
The MSG's "Pharisees came" is ok, but too abrupt.
"Some Pharisees came" makes for the smoothest reading here.
-1 ESV And, and, and...

"came"(NLT, NIV) or "came up"(MSG, NASB, ESV) or "came up to Jesus"(NASB)?
It is interesting here that the most formal (NASB) would be the most explanatory. To me, the word "up" isn't entirely necessary. As far as the NASB reading "Jesus" here, all versions have a personal pronoun later to refer back to "Jesus" in v.1. However, having "Jesus" in v.2 is makes comprehension easier.

"and" (All but the NASB):
A transitional word is needed here for smoothness. A really great reading here would be "Some Pharisees came up to test/trick Jesus," which I would have liked best of all. That said, the NASB isn't bad here, just not smooth.

"in order to test him asked"(ESV) or "testing Him, and began to question Him"(NASB) or "tested him by asking"(NIV) or "tried to trap him with this question" (NLT) or "intending to give him a hard time. They asked"(MSG)?
All our versions go different ways here. The ESV's "in order to" is unwieldy. The reading of the MSG makes me want to chuckle, it's too much of a paraphrase. The NASB and NIV are similar; a difference basically between "came and tested" vs. "came testing." The NASB is concise but too abrupt while the NIV is smoother. The NLT is definately a paraphrase here, but while it doesn't go beyond bounds in the way that the MSG does, it's sort of wordy. The NIV, though, is simple and smooth.
+1 NIV

"whether it was lawful for a man to divorce a wife"(NASB) or "is it legal for a man to divorce his wife"(MSG) or "should a man be allowed to divorce his wife"(NLT) or "is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife"(NIV, ESV)?
Lawful, legal, or allowed? The Pharisees are asking this question concerning the Mosaic law, so any of these would do. However, the modern reader would get the wrong idea from the word "legal" and possibly "lawful." "Allowed" fits in the context and helps focus the reader's attention on the issue of divorce better than the others.
+1 NLT

Verse 2 winner: NLT

The NIV and NLT tie with three points. The NLT's use of "allowed" in the wording of the Pharisee's question is the tie breaker for me, though, as it directly avoids the confusion of what the Pharisees meant by "legal" or "lawful". As we will see in the next verse, the issue of the Mosaic law comes out in all versions, so the NLT isn't "hiding" anything from the careful student of Scripture.
The NLT is wordier here than the NIV but it works to good purpose in aiding ready comprehension.

A Look at the Old KJV

And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.

I like what the KJV does in this verse, putting the issue of temptation by the Pharisees after the question. Newer versions, by putting the issue of temptation before the question, make more work for themselves in having to mesh coming, tempting, and asking in the first part of the verse.
Two personal pronouns before the question and the phrase "put away" make this rendering a poor choice for reading, however.

Additional Note

It might seem to some of you that with a moment's worth of attention any of these differences are trivial so what's the point? The Scripture talks about the "twinkling of an eye," which I have heard referred to as the time it takes for your eye to go from one letter to the next. That's fast! If the words and grammar on the page fit the framework of language you use on a daily basis, the concepts appear in your mind instantly.
If they do not, or only fit to a point, your brain will signal you to slow down and study the text- but not always. Sometimes your brain will make an assumption that is false.
The point being, if you are intending to read as opposed to studying, you will either be slowed down or given the illusion that you get it when you don't. And that means less opportunity to reflect on the truths of the Bible and more time spent picking through words or just plain being wrong until you realize your mistake.

Monday, October 05, 2009

5 Version Readability Study: Mark 10:1-9 - Verse 1

I am going to do a readability study of 5 versions using the first nine verses of Mark 10. The five versions are the New Internation Version, the New Living Translation, the Message, the New American Standard Version, and the English Standard Version. I chose this passage because it appeared today in my daily NRSV bible reading email. I am not going to be engaging in textual-critical matters except where I must, but I will be concerned with accuracy as well, relying on formal translations (NASB/NKJV/NET) primarily to determine this.
Today I start with verse 1.

Verse 1:

NIV: Jesus then left that place and went into the region of Judea and across the Jordan. Again crowds of people came to him, and as was his custom, he taught them.

NLT: Then Jesus left Capernaum and went down to the region of Judea and into the area east of the Jordan River. Once again crowds gathered around him, and as usual he was teaching them.

MSG: From there he went to the area of Judea across the Jordan. A crowd of people, as was so often the case, went along, and he, as he so often did, taught them.

NASB: Getting up, He went from there to the region of Judea and beyond the Jordan; crowds gathered around Him again, and, according to His custom, He once more began to teach them.

ESV: And he left there and went to the region of Judea and beyond the Jordan, and crowds gathered to him again. And again, as was his custom, he taught them.

"there"(MSG, NASB, ESV)/"that place"(NIV) or "Capernaum"(NLT):
Capernaum adds clarity here.
+1 NLT: "Then Jesus left Capernaum..."

Adds clarity here as regards direction.
+1 NLT: "...and went down..."

"area"(MSG) or "region"(all others):
"area" is the more familiar word, but...

One area "region of Judea across Jordan" (MSG) or two "Judea and..." (All others)?
Unless I am mistaken, Judea is west of Jordan. Crossing Jordan coming from Capernaum would put you east of it. Clearly Christ visited two areas. The MSG doesn't appear accurate. On the other hand, the NLT clarifies by adding that it was "east."
-1 MSG: Inaccurate!
+1 NLT: "...the region of Judea and into the area east of the Jordan..."

"River" (NLT):
Just in case you didn't know Jordan was a river, the NLT lets you know, but the way I see it, it isn't really necessary.
+0 NLT: 6 of one, 1/2 dozen of another...

"Once" (NLT):
I don't see the purpose of this additional word in the NLT. I am disappointed.
-1 NLT: Wordy!

"Gathered"(NLT, NASB, ESV) or "Came"(NIV, MSG):
"Gathered" draws the picture much better than "came" and has the support of formal versions.
+1 NLT: "...crowds gathered around him..."
+1 NASB: "...crowds gathered around Him..."
+1 ESV: "...crowds gathered to him..."

"Usual"(NLT) or "custom"/"accustomed"(NIV, NASB, ESV) or "as he so often did"(MSG):
"Usual" is the more familiar word. "As he so often did" is wordy.
+1 NLT: "...and as usual he was teaching them."
-1 MSG: Wordy!

Verse 1 winner: NLT.

KJV Confusion

In looking at the question of whether Jesus went into one region or two I took a look at the old KJV. It reads:

"And he arose from thence, and cometh into the coasts of Judaea by the farther side of Jordan: and the people resort unto him again; and, as he was wont, he taught them again."

Hmmm. "Coasts" of Judea! So Christ went to one destination, the east side of Jordan on the "coast" of Judea.
The problem here is that "coasts" is an archaic way of saying region or area- it isn't referring to the waterside. If all you had was the KJV, you might get the wrong idea.
Even knowing that, you might still be tempted to stick with a such a conclusion based on the presence of the word "by." If He came near to Judea "by" the "farther side of Jordan," he would be approaching it at its coast.
Again, "by" is used in an archaic sense; John Gill in his commentary indicates that this is best understood as "to." So in today's language, the KJV is to be understood as saying, "and cometh into the region of Judaea to the farther side of Jordan" which would reflect what really happened: Jesus traveled from Capernaum through Judea and crossed Jordan.

This illustrates why I do not believe the KJV is good for casual/daily/devotional reading.

Every Day with Jesus

"Every day with Jesus is sweeter than the day before.
Every day with Jesus, I love Him more and more;
Jesus saves and keeps me, and He's the One I'm waiting for.
Every day with Jesus is sweeter than the day before."

Really? Be honest now is this true for you? EVERY day Jesus is a little sweeter for you? Because it just doesn't seem to work that way in my experience...

Friday, October 02, 2009

Extremist KJVOism

So, having access to some of the Sword of the Lord archives, it has become apparent to me the progression from not-KJVO to TR-Only to KJVO.
- Not-KJVO is represented by Dr. John R. Rice's March 30, 1979 article "Some Questions for King James Fans."
- TR-Only is represented by Ev. Gary R. Hudson's March 17, 1989 article "Ruckman's Unscriptural Claims for the K.J.V."
- Full-on KJVO is represented in the position of the Sword today.

The following three statements are in the editor's note at the end of the TR-Only 1989 article:
"The King James Version, in our opinion, is without peer and need fear no competition."
"We cannot agree that one can take the English Bible and correct the Greek from which it was
"And we certainly disagree with Peter Ruckman's statement, ''Mistakes in the AV 1611 are advanced revelation." That is adding to the Word of God, which is strictly forbidden in the Scriptures. If the KJV contains advanced revelation, as Ruckman claims, then where was the inspired Bible before 1611?"

Notice the editor did not say there were NO mistakes. He merely said the KJV is best but it doesn't correct the Greek as "advanced revelation".
They would not be willing today, to admit to ANY mistakes in the KJV.

John R. Rice understood that KJVO promoters are extremists. From his 1979 article:

"Why Cannot Fans and Extremists About the King James Version Be Good Christians Also?

"It is a sad thing that those in some heresy often err greatly inmatters of righteousness also. They write mean letters; they make slanderous charges; they ignorantly jump to conclusions about people; they have suspicions and innuendoes. No, if a man is a good enough Christian to be right on the matter of inspiration, he ought to be a good enough Christian to control his tongue. The Bible says plainly:
'Make no friendship with an angry man; and with a furious man thou shalt not go: Lest thou learn his ways, and get a snare to thy soul."—Prov. 22:24,25.'"


"And we think it is almost blasphemous to say that if God didn' t guarantee every word translated in the King James Version to be correct, then He is "either careless or impotent to keep His Word pure thru the ages." God could have preserved all the original manuscripts, but did not. God is not either "careless or impotent" if He does not do just as some extremist or radical demands."

This understanding of the extremist nature of KJVOism is not Rice's alone. I remember when I first come to my current church. I emailed the pastor a number of questions, one having to do with KJVOism. (He did not know for sure at the time that I was not KJVO.) He let me know that while the church uses the KJV, they are not KJVO. Most striking was statement that "this has been the most divisive issue I have faced in my 17 years as pastor. I don't argue it with anyone anymore."

Extremism and divisiveness go hand in hand. If you attempt to cater to or appease an extremist, a line in the sand will be drawn for you very quickly. And you will be expected to take a side.

The line got drawn for the Sword in the years after Rice's death by the conversion of Hyles and his crowd to KJVO in 1984. The Sword straddled somewhat until going full-on KJVO with the publication of Riplinger's New Age Bible Versions and the death of Curtis Hutson.

Now THEY are extremists also.

Thursday, October 01, 2009

New KJV Issue Link in the Sidebar

I have obtained and posted the article "Some Questions for King James Fans" written by John R. Rice in 1979 in the sidebar to the right.