Item description for The Facts on the King James Only Debate (The Facts On Series) by John Ankerberg & John Weldon...
Overview John Ankerberg and John Weldon?s popular Facts On books (more than 800,000 copies sold) have new covers and updated material! Known for their extensive research and Bible knowledge, the authors offer readers the essential facts they need to evaluate and discuss today?s issues. The concise, easy?to?follow information helps readers:
understand the basic tenets of each subject evaluate the teachings in light of God?s Word share the gospel more effectively The user?friendly, question?and?answer format of this series gives readers the flexibility to explore the subject fully or look up specific teachings.
Is the King James Bible the most accurate version? Readers will discover what texts the King James Version?s translators used, what they said about their work, how the King James Version compares to other modern translations, and more.
John Ankerberg and John Weldon's popular Facts On books (more than 800,000 copies sold) have new covers and updated material! Known for their extensive research and Bible knowledge, the authors offer readers the essential facts they need to evaluate and discuss today's issues. The concise, easy-to-follow information helps readers: understand the basic tenets of each subject evaluate the teachings in light of God's Word share the gospel more effectively
The user-friendly, question-and-answer format of this series gives readers the flexibility to explore the subject fully or look up specific teachings.
Is the King James Bible the most accurate version? Readers will discover what texts the King James Version's translators used, what they said about their work, how the King James Version compares to other modern translations, and more.
Please Note, Community Descriptions and notes are submitted by our shoppers, and are not guaranteed for accuracy.
Promise Angels is dedicated to bringing you great books at great prices. Whether you read for entertainment, to learn, or for literacy - you will find what you want at promiseangels.com!
Studio: Harvest House Publishers
Est. Packaging Dimensions: Length: 7.7" Width: 4.5" Height: 0.1" Weight: 0.135 lbs.
Release Date Jan 1, 2003
Publisher Harvest House Publishers
Series Facts On
ISBN 0736911111 ISBN13 9780736911115
Availability 0 units.
More About John Ankerberg & John Weldon
John Ankerberg, host of the award-winning John Ankerberg Show, has three earned degrees: an MA in church history and the philosophy of Christian thought, an MDiv from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, and a DMin from Luther Rice Seminary. He has coauthored the 2-million-selling Facts On series of apologetic books, as well as Taking a Stand for the Bible and Israel Under Fire.
John Weldon has authored or coauthored more than 80 books. He has a Ph.D. in comparative religion and a D.Min. with emphasis in contemporary religious movements, as well as master's degrees in divinity and Christian apologetics. With Dr. John Ankerberg, he has coauthored What Do Mormons Really Believe?, Fast Facts(R) on Islam, the -Facts On- Series of apologetic booklets, and others.
Dillon Burroughs is an activist and the author or coauthor of nearly 30 books on issues of faith and culture, including the groundbreaking Undefending Christianity. Dillon has served among at-risk American youth, constructed housing in Mexico's barrios, provided aid relief in Haiti, and was most recently nominated for a CNN Hero award for his efforts to fight human trafficking. His written and edited works have been featured by NPR, MSNBC, ABC News, and other media outlets.
John Ankerberg currently resides in Chattanooga Chattanooga Chat. John Ankerberg was born in 1945.
John Ankerberg has published or released items in the following series...
Reviews - What do customers think about The Facts on the King James Only Debate (The Facts On Series)?
Reads like the Davinci Code Jun 24, 2006
interesting book, full of half truths and shoddy research. Reminds me of the Davinci Code - a nice piece of fiction. This book leaves a lot to be desired other than it gives some information which you can research and refute yourself (any kid in a library could).
Not worth wasting your time or money on. As Romans 1:28 correctly translates "(b)..God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient". Hmmm reprobate means "to refuse to accept"...just like the authors of this book and those who accept this heretical view point.
Do the research yourself, draw your own conclusion, and then as the Lord God says in Isaiah 1:18 "Come now, and let us reason together,.."
THIS BOOK IS GARBAGE ! Feb 8, 2006
Either Jesus Christ, the Son Of God told us the Truth in Matthew 24:35 and that God's Word has been Perfectly Preserved in the Authorized Version (commonly called the King James Bible today) or he lied ... if this book is true then Jesus Christ lied!
Another good one in the series by Ankerberg and Weldon Jun 1, 2005
These authors are trustworthy guides. This is a very good book for the person who wants a good summary of the issues without having to spend a ton of time. The simple truth is that ecclecticism is simply and obviously a much better method of determining what was originally written then just mechanically counting the manuscripts. For, manuscripts that are of different text types found in different locations and dated back to different times which agree are likely to be closer to what was originally written. It is simply impossible not to have to acknowledge the existence of text types. One can group manuscripts according to the types of errors which occur, the same variants at crucial passages and the same general pattern of development. That is simply a fact. There does exist this continuum. As a consequence, one cannot simply count manuscripts. For, it is clearly possible for manuscripts which have all of this in common (the same variant readings, the same types of errors...) to be genealogically related to each other and to have one source. In fact, it is likely to be the case. Whereas, a fewer number of manuscripts which are more diverse in terms of variant readings, types of errors, place, dating which agree are quite likely in their agreement to tell us what was originally written, and infinitely more so than numerous copies of the same text type. This makes it impossible to adopt the KJV only position. For, the KJV readings do not emerge from ecclecticism. This is not mention the fact that the Greek manuscript from which the KJV was translated (that is when it did not rely upon readings from Latin which are attested in no Greek manuscripts at all) all date from 1000 A.D. The KJV has necessarily become less accurate as its language has become increasingly obsolete (see Rom 1:28 where homosexuality is "inconvenient" instead of a sin in the KJV). Further, as a bilingual educator (and bilingual person), the argument that word for word translation is more accurate is simply ludicrous. It is very difficult to conceive of anybody who is truly bilingual to support the latter idea. Certainly, my grandfather, Dr. John Joseph Owens, who was fluent in 26 different languages and a professor of Hebrew for 40 years at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville Kentucky did not hold to KJV only. The beliefs of Westcott and Hort are simply not relevant to the discussion. The question is if their conclusions were largely correct according to the textual evidence. The answer to that question is clearly yes. Moreover, reformed scholars such as Warfield and Machen did not adopt the position of the superiority of the "textus receptus". Warfield and Machen are obviously unimpeachable. The byzantine text type is not the most ancient text type. It is replete with homoeoteleutons (e.g. one passage may refer to the scribes and the copyist may think in his mind "and the pharisees" (by his mind betraying him) and write down "and the pharisees" despite the fact that this phrase was not in the passage he was copying (rather it was in a parallel passage). When the overwhelming weight of textual evidence make it clear that "and the pharisees" was not there in the passage of the text copied and a parallel passage clearly does have both the scribes and the pharisees, then we can be sure that a homoeoteleuton occurred. This is obviously a secondary feature (similar to harmonization). As this occurs way more in the Byzantine texts than in any other text type, the Byzantine texts are clearly both less reliable and not as close to the original in time. One will also notice that KJV only people add rules that the Bible does not have (ie. they are legalistic in the extreme). Therefore, one is much better off outside of a church that promotes the KJV only doctrine.
Wasn't going to write a review. . . Mar 5, 2005
. . .but reading the "Another Red Herring" made me do so. The reviewer above who states that new versions are "New Age Bible versions" etc. is basically parroting everything that Gail Riplinger said in her poorly researched and poorly documented book, _New Age Bible Versions_.
In Isa. 14:12 the Hebrew word there is "halel." The KJV translators got "Lucifer" *not* from the Hebrew OT, but from the Latin Vulgate which reads, "Quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes." (Vulgate)
So tell me, just because translators (not the KJV translators) were honest with the Hebrew word (*not title*) and translated it "O star of the morning, son of the dawn!" (NASB), how is that "evil"? The Hebrew word means "shining one, morning star" and not "lucifer." If of course you come to think that Isa. 14:12 speaks of Satan that is fine, but others believe it speaks of the King of Babylon.
Please, get your facts straight and stop listening to a "woman preacher" named Gail Riplinger. 1 Thessalonians 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
"Another Red Herring" Jul 16, 2004
"the Facts on the KJV only debate". Is a seriously misleading title. When I bought this book, among others, to decide for myself on this debate and to get both sides of the issue, I have been thoroughly disheartened on my search. The debate is not about which greek text to use per se... and all their derivations, it is about why one should/should not trust most other Authors and their translations. The issue is over the translator's themselves, who they are, and the new/old greek Egytian text's unearthed in the desert, "Philo" ring a bell? This book completely avoids the debate and the Author deals, as all others, with the "Red Herring" of greek texts only, thereby devoiding the debate entirely. The issue is the validity of the claims that Wescott and Hort are spiritualist, deviners, and into the accult. These facts are not addressed by any detractors of KJV only. Why not? Another fact never addressed by this book is the, purposeful, change in Isaiah 14. Where Lucifer is correctly translated and then called "son of the morning. All New age bible versions take out Lucifers name and then refer to "HIM" as "the morning star". Problem: Jesus Christ is called the "morning star" in Revelations. Why is this signifacant? Because Wescott and Hort were leaders in the nineteenth century accult revival and founders of the New Age Movement with Luciferian Helen Blatavsky. Why was Isaiah 14 changed to make Lucifer look like the messiah and savior? Because these New Age versions flow perfectly with Luciferian and Accult beliefs. As Satanist change their language to be more acceptable to everyone, they are openly using Christian terms to do so and go unquestion by most Christian leaders today. Again I ask, where are the rebuttals to just a few of the thousands of arguments made by the KJV only believers and why do they believe that way? This book claims to answer the debate and the debate is not even mentioned nor is it in any other scholarly book you will find written. To be fair to the scholars, if we believe Jesus' words, we are warned about the scholars and scribes. It takes the spiritual to understand the spiritual, for they cannot properly understand the debate, and wisdom cannot be gained from knowledge, so it makes sense that they have alot of knowledge yet little wisdom to discern that knowledge. They cannot properly deal with the debate at hand because scripture itself states, "a little leaven spoils the whole loaf" I do not have to be a linguist to figure out, given the fact of who these translators ARE, that I am to have no association with them. " Can evil and holy have agreement" or "can a bad tree bare good fruit" Remember the death of the fig tree. So if you truely understand the KJV only side you will find no help in trying to hear the other side of the debate and you certainly won't get it from this book. All you'll get is some smooth talk that evades the issue entirely. You will do better to research Wescott and Hort, who all your new versions are based off of. Also, research Strongs concordances and the miriad of Lexicons out there so that you can discover for yourself who "Kittle" is, a nazi, and how his accult greek dictionary is the same one that translates all your greek words for you and you will be amazed and you will find no rebuttals or arguments on these issues because they are true. Then decide for yourself who you should trust. I will quote Moody for you, he say's it best when writing about today's christians. "They are unaware that they are repeating the errors of the past because they do not understand Greek philosophy or Oriental mysticism, or nineteenth century theosophy ie... Luciferianism. They do not know how seriously they have been affected by such thinking (moody press, the agony of deceit 1990} This has infiltrated your bible, it is a fact and most scholars cannot adequately address this issue because the have not the wisdom to understand or discern it. Pray and fast on your journey and may the Lord Jesus Christ bless you with wisdom.