Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
1 of 2 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Very Sad Indeed, June 20, 2009
This book is just another tired argument in support of the KJV only belief. It does nothing more than regurgitate the same old arguments. It's full of historical and hermeneutic errors. For example, most scholars generally agree that the Alexandrian manuscripts (used in formation of the NIV) are far more accurate than the Byzantine manuscripts (used in the formation of the KJV).
This book is extremely biased and largely ignores valid arguments against the KJV. The KJV, for some, has become an idol, elevated to the status of a god. This book promotes that type of support for the KJV. Very Sad Indeed.
|
|
|
10 of 17 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Which Lie Will I Tell Today?, May 27, 2006
My first interest in the so-called King James Only controversy came when my Sunday School teacher showed a video from Pensacola Christian College about the textual issue and how the Bible had been preserved from Satan's attack. In the eight years since then, I have read over 600 books or articles about this very subject. This book caught my eye because the author claims that it is an expansion of his thesis accepted for his doctorate from Pensacola Theological Seminary. Unfortunately, Sorenson proves that there is nothing new and much old (and long ago debunked) information regurgitated as fact. The book seems to come straight out of the David Fuller-Donald Waite-David Cloud book of hypocritical thinking.
The biggest problem is an unfortunate one that Sorenson may not know. PCC uses the terms Traditional Text and Received Text interchangeably as synonyms. But they are NOT synonyms as any basic read of Traditional Text (as opposed to TR defenders) literature will tell you. Burgon, Scrivener, Pickering, Hodges - all cited as KJV Only men - are Traditional Text men who see the need for correction to the KJV although based on different principles than the Hort theorem.
If the writer can't even get a basic fact like that right, how could his conclusions built upon the fallacy be anything but incorrect? As a strange irony, Sorenson blasts the Majority Texts collated by Hodges-Farstad and Robinson-Pierpont as coming from the same kind of rationalism as the Westcott-Hort text. To call this fuzzy thinking is an insult to the warm little fuzzies. These men do not endorse the W-H theory - but sa mentioned earlier, they would still side with the KJV over the NIV.
RESPONSE TO 'A CUSTOMER'
Dear Sir,
If you do not like my review that is one thing. Engaging in theological war, however, is not very intelligent. Let's consider a few of your allegations towards me.
ACR:
This review is consistent with the liberal theology of such as have been poorly trained.
MAESTROH:
Ah, going right to the ad hominem. Good one - it tells me you have absolutely no argument whatsoever.
ACR:
It is HIGHLY subjective, and can't be taken as a concrete analysis of the book. This book is well written, and in his preface, the author clearly states that the book's intended audience in Fundamental Baptists, which, obviously the reviewer is not.
MAESTROH:
For starters, ANY review is SUBJECTIVE since it is based on OPINION. Your own review of me is SUBJECTIVE, so this is hardly a 'concrete' observation at all. So Sorensen did NOT write his book to PERSUADE but to INDOCTRINATE those who already held a similar position - right?
ACR:
This book does a great job of outlining the position of the author, and the many who happen to agree with him. If someone wishes to blast the author for having no proof for his assertions, then perhaps they should provide some proof of their own, outside of calling names so as to lump groups of people together.
MAESTROH:
Er, excuse me - when you are going to deal with the FACT I listed - namely, the 1,838 DIFFERENCES between the Majority Text and TR - a text that Sorenson calls the same? Apparently, 1,838 differences is the 'same' but 6,500 constitutes 'different.'
ACR:
The fact that some "conservative" theologians would prefer to use the KJV, in spite of their belief that it needs to be corrected does nothing but firm up an argument presented in this book. If we do not have God's Word perfectly preserved for us in the English language, then obviously God has failed to keep His promise of preservation.
MAESTROH:
Can you show me a single passage in the entire KJV that says the preserved Word MUST be in English?
ACR:
In conclusion, I have nothing against the reviewer, and he is entitled to his opinion. However, to blast this book in the manner he did can cause others to be mislead into disregarding the book summarily, which would be a mistake.
MAESTROH:
If a guy doesn't know that the MT is NOT the TR but is in fact quite different, I can only conclude he's either ignorant or dishonest. If he's the former, what else did he get wrong? If the latter, why waste time reading?
|
|
|
10 of 20 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
incredible - could not put it down!, July 18, 2005
The facts in this book are shocking to anyone that has never compared the different versions of the Bible. I spent hours and hours going from my New King James, and my parallel Bible (KJV, Amplified, NIV, and NASB), checking out the verses listed in this book. The best I can say about the new versions is that they are weak, the worst is that they are blasphemy. I have read in other sources about the origin of the new translations (Westcott and Hort), who also started occult organizations such as the "Ghostly Guild, "The Order of the Golden Dawn", and the "Hermes" club(god of magic, lord of death). Read "New Ages Bible Versions" for even more examples of the gutting of the Bible.
|
|
|
|
by G. A. Riplinger
by John F. Walvoord
by Charles Ryrie
by Tedd Tripp
