Upcoming Interview – Dr. Kirk DiVietro, TR Advocate

As some of our readers may know, my father, Dr. Kirk DiVietro, is a relatively well known TR advocate (and KJV user by default, although he will tell you flat out that he is a KJV user only because he is a TR user). He holds a Ph.D. and several master’s degrees in Biblical languages, and was an adjunct professor at Boston Baptist College for nearly a decade. He is also responsible for the Stephanus 1550 and Scrivener’s 1881 TR editions that are available in Logos Bible Software. He has had interesting exchanges with people on both sides of the KJV Only Debate – from James White to Gail Riplinger.

He and I had a very enlightening conversation today, and I confess that he made some very valid and poignant points from perspectives I had not thought of before – and I grew up in the guy’s house.

He has graciously agreed to an interview with KJV Only Debate. His is a well-reasoned and doctrinally sound position on the debate. While he is not as prominent as some KJV-O Advocates, he holds a far more rational position.

You don’t have to agree with him to truly appreciate his grasp of the material and his well-reasoned arguments. I am looking forward to the interview. It should appear sometime next month.

Incidentally, here is a link to some things he shared about the New King James Version.


32 thoughts on “Upcoming Interview – Dr. Kirk DiVietro, TR Advocate

  1. bibleprotector August 13, 2010 / 10:03 am

    Yes, I look forward to reading this interview. The issue here is between people who use the King James Bible (KJB). When comparing the “purist King James Only” (KJBO) view with the Textus Receptus Only (TRO) position, I think we would find differences like:

    1. The KJBO points to a final correct text, a TRO cannot point to a final correct TR (in the original languages). Their preferred Greek text differs in places to the KJB, especially where the KJB is following the Latin witness.

    2. The KJBO accepts God’s words in English, a TRO talks about the Greek (e.g. the word “theopneustos”), and then talks about what it means (e.g. “God-breathed”), even though this definition likely differs from the KJB’s wording (e.g. in this case “All scripture is given by inspiration of God”), which means that the TRO defies the KJB translation.

    3. The TRO accepts the KJB as a good translation, but without committing to the very sense being fully communicated in one English translation, because, apparently, no translation can be perfect, and all men are fallible (the KJBO can point out, however, that not only did God use fallible men in inspiration, he also used them in gathering the Canon, so why should the textual and translational decision of the KJB men be doubted?).

    4. TROs talk about “Aramaic”, when the KJB only mentions Syraick and in the margins mentions Chaldee.

    5. KJBOs say the KJB is God’s Word. TROs might say something like, “Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek words: that’s the Holy Bible. It’s not a translation in English … God’s Holy Bible is the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek words … not a translation”.

    6. In regard to foreign nations and natives, the TRO is very committed to bringing a TRO translation (or resurrecting one) into that dialect or language, whereas the KJBO would prefer to bring the people into using ENglish so they can use the KJB.

    7. TROs might accuse KJBOs of believing things like that the KJB translators were inspired from 1604 to 1611, and other nonsense held by a few extreme KJBOs, but it is incorrect to smear all KJBOs with these types of accusations.

    • Andrew Suttles August 13, 2010 / 11:12 am

      BP –

      1) What is the final correct Greek New Testament to which the KJV points? It is not based upon any particular GNT, so its readings are eclectic.

      2) I think most TROs use the KJV for an English translation. Would you use the KJV or the TR as a base text for a new translation in another foreign tongue?

      3) The Word of God itself promises that God’s Word was given by inspiration – does it make that claim for translators? Do you believe the LXX or Vulgate could make that claim? Some in history have argued for the inspiration of both of those. If you can make that claim for the KJV based on tradition and logic, why can the Pope not make that claim for the Vulgate?

      6) You would rather teach a native to read an English translation rather than a translation of their own??? Why wouldn’t you teach them to read Greek and/or Hebrew instead of English? You can have a perfect translation, but they cannot? Is this argument based on Scripture or tradition?

      Do you believe it was a sin for the Pope to forbid translations of the Word of God other than the Vulgate during the Dark Ages? It seems you are using the same tactic.

      7) I hope no one is using smear tactics here. Some KJVOs have made the argument you list above, but we don’t accuse anyone of believing that unless they say they do. Additionally, the KJV has been revised a few times and to say it was perfect in 1611 and then revised would make no sense.

    • bibleprotector August 13, 2010 / 12:26 pm


      1. The KJBO does not point to a “Greek” NT. The KJB, while “Translated from the original Greek”, has no known Greek entity in existence, but was drawn from Greek TR sources with wide reference, particularly to the Latin. In other words, the KJB is a compiled or constructed exemplar text. Thus, KJBO deals with the Word at hand in English, rather than interpretations of the past with fragments of Greek.

      2. I do not advocate any longer specifically making new translations of the Scripture into other languages, but promote teaching English so that others can use the KJB. This, of course, does not deny the existence of usable Scripture in other languages, nor say that salvation can be by the KJB only.

      3. Translators are not inspired. The LXX and Vulgate were not made by inspiration. The KJB was not made by inspiration, nor were its translators inspired.

      (No points 4. or 5.)

      6. Personally I would aim to teach people English rather than to make a translation. I am not against non-English Bibles, but I would not actively encourage them, though I suppose for the present it might be acceptable for them to use a Reformation-TR translation if available (apparently, it has been sufficient enough for people to be saved with modern versions!). Using English at least gives no grounds to questionable or unknown problems in their translations. And yes, I admit, it also ensures proper doctrine being built up.

      As for having a perfect translation, I do not see any Scriptural grounds for more than one being possible. Especially because Isaiah 28:11 says, “For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.” The prophecy regards “another tongue” as singular, see also Zeph. 3:9, which again is pointing to one Bible language, not Hebrew, and, since the prophecies are unfulfilled, not Greek.

      I think the argument is based on Scripture first, and tradition second.

      Unlike the Popes, I am not forbidding other translations, but see the KJB as displacing other versions as a matter of course (not carnal force). It is reasonable to uphold the perfect Bible so that all nations may have it. The Popes’ aims were opposite, they were designing to keep people from the Word of God (beside the fact that their Latin was a dying language, and their Bible imperfect).

      7. The text and translation of 1611 was perfect. That’s the same text and translation which has been presented throughout all the authentic revisions, because all proper editorial work on the KJB has focused on correcting press errors, standardising the spelling and other regularisation. Thus, the edition I uphold on my website (www.bibleprotector.com) is validly and properly the Bible of 1611, even though it is the product of thorough editing I described.

    • Erik DiVietro August 13, 2010 / 12:53 pm

      Isa 28:11 – “For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people (in context, this people is Ephraim).”
      Zeph 3:9 – “I will change the speech of the peoples (goyim or “Gentiles” in modern parlance) to a pure speech, that all of them may call upon the name of YHWH and serve him with one accord.”

      The Anglicizing of the world is a work of the Kingdom? YHWH has already declared his kingdom and begun his judgment? This is after all the context of these passages. I’m a little concerned that Zephaniah 3:14-20 has not come about yet; but I suppose that will happen when Israel also accepts the English language? But do we need to speak the Jacobean English of the AV translation? Or is modern English sufficiently close?

      Sorry, BP, no offense but I find your interpretation of these verses a bit hard to swallow.

    • bibleprotector August 13, 2010 / 1:32 pm


      I’ll overlook that your interpretations may suffer by not quoting the KJB. I will also, in good spirit, actually answer some specific points you mention, though (and I say this sincerely), I will ignore some of your questionings since they are not what I said (though, actually, in historicist prophecy, God already had a particular session of judgment take place at 1798).

      “Zephaniah 3:14-20 has not come about yet” – generally agree.

      “but I suppose that will happen when Israel also accepts the English language?” – English is already spoken in Palestine, and also it is talking about the Biblical language, not merely some form of language being spoken in the kitchen in millions of homes. The point here is not on the entire prophecy, but on one aspect of things.

      “But do we need to speak the Jacobean English of the AV translation?” – Biblical English is pure English. No one besides the Holy Ghost actually speaks it, of course, though we can all quote it, if we have a heart to. But the prophecy has something to do with JEHOVAH’s name in a pure Bible made known.

      “Or is modern English sufficiently close?” – it is exactly where it is supposed to be, we modern English speakers read and hear the KJB after all.

      By the way, the context of this Zephaniah prophecy has to do with that “difficult” prophecy of Isaiah 18. I think that it means that the KJB message will be brought forth to the Jews as a present. But you can call that a “one man theory” if you want to.

      P.S. Isaiah 52:7 also reads like a “one man theory”.

  2. Andrew Suttles August 13, 2010 / 11:04 am

    Nice, Eric. I’m looking forward to that. I’d be curious to hear your dad’s impression of some of the recent efforts to create a modernized KJV – MKJV, AKJV, KJV2000, LITV, etc. Also, I’m curious about how a TRO sees their position relative to the MT position. Aside from tradition, what arguments do they have for the superiority of the TR subset over the Byzantine family from which they are drawn?

    • Erik DiVietro August 13, 2010 / 11:08 am

      I will pass his questions along. I am pretty familiar with his positions on those topics, but I will let him answer for himself.

      Anyone else have questions?

  3. Bob Hayton August 13, 2010 / 11:16 am


    I respect your position and all. It is very consistent, I’ll give you that. Although I still don’t see a Biblical expectation or warrant for a perfect text to be given apx 1800 years after the completion of the canon.

    I am a bit taken aback by this:

    “…whereas the KJBO would prefer to bring the people into using ENglish so they can use the KJB”

    In my understanding, I thought that was an extreme KJBO position. It’s interesting to actually see that in print.

    Many KJVO people bristle at the thought that we have to learn Greek and Hebrew in order to have God’s word. That’s a big deal to them that it is available in their English Bible without any need for Greek and Hebrew knowledge. But how are they consistent to demand believers in other language cultures to have to learn English to really have the Bible. I don’t see how that isn’t exactly what they don’t want for themselves. So ultimately, it boils down to thinking of themselves as more favored than other people, and English as better, etc. etc.

    • bibleprotector August 13, 2010 / 1:13 pm


      If the Canon was complete in circa 90 A.D., and the perfect text compiled in 1611, that is only about 1500 years, not 1800. (Remember, KJBO promotes the perfect text and translation as appearing in 1611. Subsequent editing was to get the presentation of the Bible editorially sound. That the internal revision of the KJB was only presentational not actually conceptual can easily be shown by examination of the data.)

      It is difficult to go deep into Biblical explanations, especially in a debate atmosphere, but basically, it is the view of the growing & building Church also coming into attainments through history.

      One Scripture says, “He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.” (Matt. 12:30).

      This would assume that the things of God were in a state requiring gathering (i.e. not gathered). The text of Scripture certainly requires gathering (which is what textual critics and scholars strive for this very day, knowing that there is no perfect Greek New Testament today). The gathering process would take place with the people of God (the NT priesthood), in the house of God (the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth). Thus, by godly tradition through the Reformation, the text of Scripture would be settled, and in a manner consistent with all these things, including what 1 Cor. 1 speaks of, such as that God has chosen the seemingly foolish, weak, despised things of the world to confound the wise. By this I allude to one premier translation and text.

      There are two kinds of “extreme”. One kind is the generally anti-intellectual extremism, which might be a few KJBOs saying “You need to read the KJB to be saved” and other such things, which is heresy. The other kind of “extreme” (which only seems extreme because it is significantly different to contemporary-ism) is the consistent and reasonable application of KJBO internally to its own position, namely, that it would have to regard the King James Bible as God’s special gift for, say, the people of Papua New Guinea, just as someone can say it was for an eighteenth century English gentleman.

      The question then is “when?” In the case of Papua New Guinea, it would have to be future. Whereas most KJBOs are pessimistic, like, the Antichrist is about to come because Satan has turned just about every Christian away from the KJB; the sound position in line with Scripture is extremely positive, being, the scriptures of the prophets made known to all nations for the obedience of faith, teaching them to observe whatsoever I have commanded you, etc.

      While some KJBOs may have an anti-intellectual position based on stubbornness in a tradition, the actual intellectual and spiritual approach is to neglect Hebrew and Greek because it is no longer needed. Hebrew and Greek have been surpassed, superseded, made redundant and abandoned in favour of God actually speaking the world’s common language. Of course, God’s Word is in a high form in English, but it is accessible to those who know English.

      It is best to have people learn English for a number of reasons, not only for their own economic advantages, but because they are then getting the authentic Gospel. The problem is that the realm of translation is riddled with modernist thinking now, and also, that it is far more effective to spend the time and money and effort on English, than on expending all the resources on translating into some obscure dialect for a few thousand people. This is beside arguments based on providence, and on the “Biblicisation” of English, and the aptness of the apices of English speaking culture as susceptible, examples and conveyers of Christian culture and virtues, because we can argue that since England and English were prepared for the Gospel, and then used for it, that it is not the design to deliberately Anglicify the world, as to Christianise it. In other words, I am talking of the lofty and grand ideals of a united world wide Church believing the proper Gospel and using one Bible, not only in the Millennium (when we all expect such things), but before it come.

      As for various things spoken against English, or receiving English, that is not my problem, and not my care: “But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.” (Acts 5:39). If someone wants mention accusations like “imperialism”, I’ll say, “Christian mission”. In fact, it goes so far as to make nations conform to the KJB which at the moment would seem to be unthinkable (see Romans 11:31 in context).

    • Bob Hayton August 13, 2010 / 2:47 pm

      Thanks BP,

      I still don’t buy your explanation. 1800 or 1500 it’s still a long time. I said 1800 because the PCE wasn’t ready yet until near end of 1800s (not entirely sure on the date on that again).

    • Andrew Suttles August 13, 2010 / 3:56 pm

      BP – Hebrew and Greek are alive and well today, spoken in Israel and Greece, respectively.

      By the way, you use the Union Jack as your pic, but you refer to the KJV as the KJB and not the AV. I’m assuming you are American?

    • bibleprotector August 14, 2010 / 8:43 am


      Biblical Greek is not alive and well today in Greece, and likewise Biblical Hebrew for Israel. It is well known that modern Hebrew is a recent creation.

      While the Union Jack is displayed on my website, it is part of a larger ensign you can see there.

      Various British scholars now call the KJB by that title.

      I am neither British nor American. The cross of stars should be your biggest clue.

    • Andrew Suttles August 14, 2010 / 10:45 am

      > “Biblical Greek is not alive and well today in Greece…”

      By definition, “Biblical Greek” could not be alive and well today, but Greek is and modern Greek is somewhat similar to Byzantine/Koine.

      > “and likewise Biblical Hebrew for Israel.”

      From what I understand, classic Hebrew is very similar (about 80% overlap) with what was spoken in ancient Israel. Modern Hebrew natives can read most of the Old Testament without any extra training at all.

      By the way, Elizabethan English is not spoken today.

      > “I am neither British nor American. The cross of stars should be your biggest clue.”


      > “Various British scholars now call the KJB by that title.”

      I didn’t know that. I thought ‘KJV’ was only used in the US.

      I was going to accuse you of Americo-centrasim, but I guess I can’t do that now, can I? :>

    • bibleprotector August 15, 2010 / 1:02 am


      You say “1800 or 1500 it’s still a long time”.

      I just want to inquire here, but isn’t it the view of those on the non-KJBO side of this debate that there is in fact no perfect extant Bible or Testament in the original languages (or in any version or translation) today, some 1900 years after the writing of the Book of Revelation?

      If I say that the perfect text and translation appeared all together for the first time in one volume in 1611, I find that most on your side of the debate will say “we cannot know fully what is the perfect text, and certainly cannot have a perfect translation”.

      If it seems like a negative to say it was gathered in 1611, how much more of a negative is it to say that scholarship is indefinite and ongoing?

    • Bob Hayton August 15, 2010 / 4:08 pm

      You make an interesting point, Bibleprotector. The reason I say 1500 years is important is this. If it was okay for 1500 years that the Church not have a perfect Bible, why should we conclude that it is imperative that we have one now?

    • bibleprotector August 15, 2010 / 10:04 pm


      I am sure you realise that textual criticism has the primary desire to reconstruct the Scripture as it was inspired. If you say that it was not complete in 1611, you are implying agreement with the ongoing labours of (some/many) scholars to ensure an as-correct-as-possible text. That would mean that you would have to justify God allowing or willing the present time labours in this field (though, I realise, not all labours).

      So either God providentially used time processes to get it done in 1611, or else, since we see centuries of merely sufficient copies in transmission, we rationalise that today’s labours are likewise imperfect. In other words, if we do not have a perfect Bible today, it is not God’s will, and therefore all who labour to have a better Bible may actually be defying God’s will, who has not planned (according to that view) for us to have a perfect Bible.

      I personally see it as God’s will for Christians to gain knowledge of His perfect Word in time, and I believe that this has occurred with the KJB, and is continuing to occur as people understand what it really is. In my thinking that also puts all modern attempts, whether TR related, MT/Byz. related or CT related, in the category of either departing, resisting or ignorance of the true text and translation.

      As for it being imperative to have a perfect Bible now, that is not exactly so, because we all know that many people before 1600 did not even hear the Gospel, just as plenty of people today still do not know the Bible (in any form). If God is just and there are many even today who do not have the Bible, it follows that it is consistent to have God supplying the perfect Bible at some point in Church history according to His plan, and to have it eventually established throughout the Earth in time, even hundreds of years AFTER 1611.

      Thus, many people who after 1611 did not have the perfect Bible (even though it existed) were covered by the sufficiency of God with their other Bibles, just all believers before 1611 did not have a perfect entire Bible (even if they had autographs in their hand, they never had access to all perfect copies of all books simultaneously).

      “He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.” (Deut. 32:4).

  4. Bob Hayton August 13, 2010 / 11:16 am

    I’m looking forward to this interview, too…

  5. Andrew Suttles August 13, 2010 / 11:16 am

    Eric –

    Regarding the NKJV – Art Farstad was the editor and he is a MT guy. Perhaps he was not a huge supporter of the TR, but clearly, his goal was not a bridge translation to Modern Translations. Thomas Nelson is a business and it is a poor business model to use your product to siphon customers away to your competitors. I think Nelson and Farstad wanted to publish a Bible people would buy and use.

    • Erik DiVietro August 13, 2010 / 11:22 am

      True; but remember that Farstad was a bit frustrated with the NKJV, which is why he started the HCSB project.

      My dad’s recollections were from a meeting with representatives and not with Farstad. Undoubtably, it was the opinion of those sitting there. Whether or not it was shared by the majority of those working on the project cannot be stated.

      I share it only as a precursor to the interview. Until you actually see his position and his reasons for it, it is hard to really understand him. Like myself, he is notoriously misquotable (must be genetic) so I’d rather let his own words stand when he shares them.

    • Erik DiVietro August 13, 2010 / 11:24 am

      I should note also, that I believe (and I have not confirmed it, so don’t crucify me) that Nelson originally had some plans to do another translation after the NKJV which would serve as a ‘more accurate translation.’ Obviously, for reasons I’ve shared elsewhere, translation is an expensive project and the NKJV proved to be wildly popular with both users and conservative preachers, so the expense really would not have been worth it.

  6. Erik DiVietro August 13, 2010 / 6:54 pm

    I need to self correct. I spoke with my father again, and I need to clarify which texts actually appear in Logos.

    My father’s PhD work involved a digital formatting of the Stephanus text, but it was not published through Logos. The Stephanus is listed as “public domain” while the Scrivener is still listed as protected by his copyright.

    Here is a capture from Logos

  7. Nazaroo August 13, 2010 / 10:44 pm

    Just curious: How can Scrivener still hold his copyright? Isn’t he in heaven?

    signed, “weak on international (c) laws”

    • Erik DiVietro August 13, 2010 / 10:50 pm

      Scrivener’s text is in the public domain but my father’s work (the underlying format and organization) on Scrivener is, according to Logos anyway, under copyright. If you read the text in the screen cap, it is spelled out.

  8. Nazaroo August 14, 2010 / 12:26 pm

    By the way, I am really impressed with Erik’s honouring of his father. That’s a big deal to me, because Jesus made it a central gem in His platform against the Pharisees.

    I am reminded of the story of the Rechabites. It was good enough for them that their father told them to do something. They did what he said, because they believed in him.

    Honouring you parents is LIFE, as the Bible says, and rebellion is as bad as Moloch-worship.

    Stay loyal to your dad. You are so lucky to have such a father. I wish I had a father who was strong on the Bible. Mine was not.


    • Erik DiVietro August 14, 2010 / 8:00 pm

      Thanks, Nazaroo. He is a truly great teacher of the Word. He has some physical challenges that have limited him in recent years, but I still respect him even if we don’t always agree.

      My father and I have journeyed together on the same road and taken opposing roads at other times. All along, it has been an interesting walk and we look forward to what turns we will take next.

  9. Keith Whitlock August 18, 2010 / 12:30 am

    Sorry I missed the chance to ask a few questions on your show. First, What does DiVietro’s Colleague Donald Waite president of the Dean Burgon Society mean when he wrote in Defending the King james Bible (1996 edition). “…that which is not God breathed is not profitable. It’s only that which God has breathed out in Hebrew or Greek that is his word.
    The heresy of Originals Onlyism is a recent invention promoted by B.B. Warfield, a Calvinist Princeton scholar circa 1858 at the Niagra Conference.
    No one can point to ANY Greek or Hebrew edition of the New or Old Testament and say this is the preserved originals.
    Scrivener’s TBS TR is a reconstruction using the KJV as his guide. Scrivener held the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts abovbe the TR and KJV. Funny, Beza, who Scrivener and the KJV translators relied heavily upon called the Greek language “barbaric” and actually used a LATIN translation of a SYRIAC and ARABIC New testament by Tremellius for his Greek edition.
    The Greek Orthodox church, from which we get most of the Greek manuscripts, altered their texts to line up with their doctrinal heresies.
    I have read Hazardous Materials Greek and Hebrew Study Dangers The Voice of Strangers Burning Bibles Word by Word by Mrs. Gail Riplinger and Her daughter Mrs. Bryn Riplinger Shutt and find it on the level as all their previous books. Head and shoulders above any other work on the history of the Bible and it’s texts and very enlightening.
    Apostate Bible scholars are again desparately trying to refute it using their straw man arguments and ad hominum attacks,
    I have personnally checked over 400 quotes from their new book and found them all to be accurate and in context.
    Their books, and others like them, only confirm what I have known in my heart for a long time. That mainline Christian scholarship is a joke.
    Any one want to debate me in public? I’m down with that.
    Are you picking up what I’m putting down?
    Thank you
    Keith Whitlock

    • Andrew Suttles August 19, 2010 / 6:27 am

      > The heresy of Originals Onlyism is a recent invention promoted by B.B. Warfield, a Calvinist Princeton scholar circa 1858…

      By the way, Warfield was 7 in 1858.

      As to whether Warfield was a fool or a ‘tard’, I would strongly caution against such sophomoric argumentation. Everyone who disagrees with you is not an idiot. Warfield was a professor at Princeton back in the good ‘ol days. He was a great theologian and a crusader for inerrancy when that was the big battle. He is a brother and a hero and shouldn’t be dismissed so cavalierly.

      Now, regarding ‘Originals Onlyism’ –

      The Westminster Confession of 1646 states, “The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.”

      The 1689 Baptist Confession agrees.

      In fact, it was the Roman ‘Church’ that decreed at the council of Trent that a particular translation was in fact ordained of God and the only one viable to serve the people of God. The ‘Originals Onlyism’ heresy (as you state it) is at least as old as Protestantism itself, but the error of inspired translation is as old as Romanism.

      Out of curiosity, can you provide me a source for Warfield being at the Niagara Conferences? I’m not doubting you on this, I’m curious what he spoke on, since the Niagara conferences were primarily dispensational.

      Can you provide a quote for Beza calling the Greek language Barbaric? I doubt you on this.

    • Erik DiVietro August 19, 2010 / 6:52 am

      Well said, Andrew and a timely reminder of the facts concerning Westminster and the Baptist Confession.

      As for Beza, it was not uncommon for Renaissance scholars to refer to the New Testament Greek as “barbaric” but it meant something different to them. “Barbaric” meant a form of Greek that was not classical Greek, the Greek of the barbar or Hellenized non-Greeks. It is the Renaissance equivalent of calling it koine or common. Samuel Werenfels refers to the New Testament this way in his Dissertation on the Style of New Testament Writing.

      Obviously scholars like Beza did not fully understand the nature of the koine forms. They recognized its uniqueness but did not attribute it to koine which has really only been understood in the past century and a half or so. They were educated in Classical Greek literature, which the Greek New Testament most definitely is not.

      So did he refer to it as barbaric? Probably. Did he mean what Keith took it to mean? No.

  10. James Snapp, Jr. August 18, 2010 / 9:09 am


    Greetings. If you would make a series of premises to defend about the KJV, and if Bob and the other moderators/supervisors here would be amenable to the idea, perhaps you and I could have a short moderated debate here about the claims being promoted by Gail Riplinger. This blog is called the King James Only Debate Blog, after all, so it might not be an entirely novel idea to actually host a debate now and then. But it’s completely not up to me.

    Yours in Christ,

    James Snapp, Jr.

    • Erik DiVietro August 18, 2010 / 9:28 pm

      Technically, I think the site is ‘about’ the debate and not the debate itself. But that being said, I think if you guys would be willing to conduct an orderly and well-supported debate on the merits of your positions, we could probably arrange it. I would suggest that you interact either through email or recordings or youtube videos or maybe even face to face and present us with the debate. We would be willing to post it as it stands and allow discussion on the merits and sources of the discussion. Bob has the final say.

  11. Nazaroo August 18, 2010 / 10:25 pm

    “The heresy of Originals Onlyism is a recent invention promoted by B.B. Warfield, a Calvinist Princeton scholar circa 1858 at the Niagra Conference.”

    I just have to mention, that Warfield was a dunce as a Textual Critic. He rejected the Pericope Adulterae (PA = Jn 7:53-8:11) and offered the implausible theory that it was “accidentally inserted into John”…

    Even hardcore forgery-enthusiasts acknowledge that the PA must have been custom-composed for insertion, if it is an addition.


    I guess that brings us to point 2:

    “That mainline Christian scholarship is a joke.
    Any one want to debate me in public?”

    Will anyone with an IQ over 120 seriously defend mainline Christian scholarship, or any bandwidth of philosophy all the way to secular humanism?

    I dare say that most people do, and should, hold that academics are pure ‘tards.

    As the Proverbs assert, a good man (with brains) is 1 in 1000.


Comments are closed.