▼

Friday, August 20, 2010

Dan Wallace’s “The Conspiracy Behind the New Bible Translations”

by 7
Dan gives a good introduction to KJV-onlyism here, and deals with the conspiracy theories behind it: http://bible.org/article/conspiracy-behind-new-bible-translations

I’m not sure when the article was first written, but TC-Alternate-List implies it is new and offers a counterpoint here: http://adultera.awardspace.com/AE/Wallace-Conspiracy.html
Tags: ,

7 comments

  1. Stephen C. Carlson8/20/2010 2:08 pm

    I could be wrong, but I have this feeling that this essay has been around for a while, a couple of years.

    ReplyDelete
  2. bulbul8/20/2010 3:02 pm

    Stephen,

    the Word document version of the essay has October 19th 2001 as the date of the last edit.

    ReplyDelete
  3. James Snapp Jr8/20/2010 3:06 pm

    This material is old, and I have already answered some of the specious arguments and inaccurate claims that it contains.

    Notice the references to "almost 100" papyri and to Noll's "Scandal of the Evangelical Mind" as a recently-published book.

    Yours in Christ,

    James Snapp, Jr.

    ReplyDelete
  4. James Snapp Jr8/21/2010 5:14 am

    James Leonard,

    I have a reply to Dr. Wallace's essay -- a trimmed, edited version of something I wrote earlier -- but it's much too long to post here. I'll put it at TC-Alternate for you.

    Yours in Christ,

    James Snapp, Jr.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Nazaroo8/29/2010 10:22 pm

    Oh Bill:

    Thanks for the needless, discourteous, personal attack. Was there a reason for it?

    For your information, I only wrote a small portion of the PA-site article. Mr.Scrivener also contributed, gathered, edited, and formatted that page, and should be given full credit for a good, well-rounded and diversely represented review.

    Since I can't take the credit you have slandered me for, perhaps you can withdraw your personal attack.

    Thanks in advance,
    Nazaroo

    ReplyDelete
  6. Tommy Wasserman8/30/2010 7:50 am

    I have removed the comment that "Nazaroo" refers to, since it contained inappropriate remarks.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Nazaroo8/31/2010 1:20 am

    Dear Mr. Wasserman:

    Thank you for your fairhanded and timely response.

    I for one greatly appreciate your neutrality such as is possible, and your caution in handling internet problems that crop up.

    I hope you know that I don't like taking scientific investigations to any kind of personal level, and believe that facts can defend themselves, provided they are heard, and expressed appropriately.

    thank you for your continued generosity regarding free opinion and discussion, in spite of the obvious problems that arise from time to time.

    peace
    Nazaroo

    ReplyDelete