Published On: 13 December, 2011|By |

I wrote this post about six years ago while I was in Bible college in Sydney. It was a study that I did for my own benefit, and have not published until now.

The purpose of this paper is to briefly critique the theory that the New International Version (NIV) of the Bible destroys the biblical basis for the doctrine of the full deity of Jesus Christ. It is not my intention to promote the NIV or to defend it on every point, nor is it my desire to denigrate the King James Version (KJV) in any way. It is my desire to clearly lay out the evidence so that those who love truth more than a position may consider the facts. I am not arguing for or against a particular Greek text. I am simply trying to demonstrate that the NIV is not theologically biased against the deity of Jesus Christ.1

The Danger of the “Stronger” Paradigm

It is true that one translation may be stronger than another translation on a particular doctrine. The deity of Christ is a great example. It is one thing to say one translation is stronger than another on the deity of Christ. It is an entirely different thing to say that the weaker translation “downgrades Christ”2 In order to prove that a translation “denies” the deity of Christ, it is necessary to prove that there is a uniform sabotage or bias throughout.

For instance, the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World Translation (NWT) obscures the deity of Christ in all of the key passages.3 Therefore, it is logical and appropriate to conclude that the translators of the NWT allowed their theological bias against the deity of Christ to influence their translation work. In contrast, the presentation of two or three instances where the NIV is “weaker” on the deity of Christ is not sufficient evidence to prove that the translators exercised a theological bias in their translation work. Indeed, it is an assumption to believe that they even had a theological bias against the deity of Christ.

Dr. Kenneth Barker, Executive Director of the NIV Translation Center, in response to liberal criticism that the NIV was too conservative and too strong on the deity of Christ said “If they want to accuse me of being biased toward the deity of Christ, I’m honored!”4 It would seem logical that translational bias against the deity of Christ would be based on theological belief against the deity of Christ, but the evidence to prove that there is unbelief has not been cogently presented. The burden of proof is on those who level the charge to conclusively prove that the NIV translators denied the deity of Christ.5

The danger of the “stronger” paradigm is to think that just because one version is stronger than another, that the weaker version is somehow an attack on the doctrine on which it is weaker.6 The strategy that highlights one or two “weaker” readings in the NIV in order to claim that the NIV attacks the deity of Christ is based on a fallacy and must be rejected by those who love truth. D. A. Carson sums it up well when he says, “It is methodologically indefensible to hunt for the half-dozen worst mistakes or lapses in judgment in a particular translation, and on that basis write off the whole translation. If that method were applied to the KJV, it too would be written off.”7

They Have Taken Away My Lord

One popular stream of thinking advances the concept that “omissions” of titles of deity in the NIV are evidence of a bias against the deity of Christ.8 This view, though not held by all, needs to be dealt with because of the way that its promotion has gone unchallenged for all practical purposes. One author says “In John 20:13, Mary was weeping and the angel said, woman why weepest [sic] thou? She replied, because they have TAKEN AWAY MY LORD.” How much more would she weep today, if she was to look at the modern translations, which delete the Lord 39 times. We should weep also.”9 The author goes on to present 39 “omissions” of the word “Lord,” 87 of “Jesus,” and 52 of “Christ” in the NIV. It borders on absurdity to even point out that the word “Jesus” occurs 292 more times in the NIV than in the KJV. It would be unreasonable to construct a theory of doctrinal infidelity on the part of the KJV based on some sort of “weak emphasis” on Jesus, and it is just as unreasonable when the situation is reversed. Further, even when the word “Jesus” is “omitted,” there is generally a pronoun in its place which unmistakably refers to Jesus. Always the context clearly explains who is speaking and the terms “Jesus,” “Christ,” and ‘Lord’ are used so many times in the NIV10 as to make a claim that the NIV is trying to weaken or remove a doctrine by these omissions untenable. Consider the following “omissions.”

Revelation 16:5
KJV NIV
And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus. Then I heard the angel in charge of the waters say: “You are just in these judgments, you who are and who were, the Holy One, because you have so judged

 

Here the title”Lord” is replaced with a title every bit as clear. Below are cases where Christ is referred to with a pronoun.11

1 Corinthians 15:23
KJV NIV
But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming. But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.

 

Luke 17:5-6
KJV NIV
And the apostles said unto the Lord, Increase our faith. And the Lord said, If ye had faith as a grain of mustard seed The apostles said to the Lord, “Increase our faith!” He replied, “If you have faith as small as a mustard seed”

 

Some have claimed that the NIV attacks the deity of Christ based on the fact that it doesn’t capitalise pronouns referring to deity;12 however such a policy would involved a great degree of interpretation. In other words, there are many places where a pronoun’s reference is ambiguous. For those who charge that the NIV is already too interpretive (dynamic equivalence) in its translation, such a claim is thoroughly inconsistent.

Sometimes an “omission” is really just a matter of chronology.

John 4:1, 3
KJV NIV
1] When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, 1] The Pharisees heard that Jesus was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John,
3] He left Judaea, and departed again into Galilee. 3] When the Lord learned of this, he left Judea and went back once more to Galilee.

 

Since the NIV is criticised for the “omission” of the word “Lord” in verse one,13 should the KJV be criticised for the “omission” of the word “Lord” in verse three? Obviously not.

Another argument used by some is that because the NIV removes “Christ” from the formula “Lord Jesus Christ” several times, it must be denigrating the deity of Christ.14 If we are to follow this logic, we must also condemn the KJV for its “omission” of that very same formula.

1 Corinthians
KJV NIV
5:4] In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 5:4] When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present,
6:11] And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. 6:11] And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

 

We’ll move on with a final quote from D. A. Carson. “The omission of an individual title or phrase or verse does not constitute evidence for theological heresy. Perhaps the omission was part of the original, and the manuscripts that include the title or phrase or verse are guilty of additions.” He goes on to explain that “one would have to ask why the omissions had taken place:  it would be necessary to show that the manuscript or text-type in question consistently tries to suppress or deny that doctrine.”15

A Comparison of the Evidence

It is not possible in a study this size to conduct a full explanation of the technical and textual issues involved in each reading,16 therefore I will be content to present evidence based solely on a translational basis.17 A sincere desire for the truth must result in an honest and unbiased look at the evidence. In the following chart, I have omitted twenty-two references where both the NIV and the KJV are emphatically clear in their support of the deity of Christ.18 The passages below present those places where the NIV and the KJV differ in a passage that deals with the deity of Christ.

Passage KJV NIV
Micah 5:2 Strong Absent19
Matthew 8:2 Stronger Strong
Luke 19:44 Absent Strong
Luke 22:70 Absent Strong
John 1:18 Absent Strong
John 12:41 (Isaiah 6:5) Strong Stronger
Romans 9:5 Weak Strong
Philippians 2:6 Strong Stronger
1 Timothy 3:16 Strong Absent20
Titus 2:13 Weak Strong
2 Peter 1:1 Absent Strong
1 John 5:7 Strong Absent
Revelation 1:8 Strong Stronger

 

One will quickly notice that for every weakness of the NIV, there are more than two in the KJV. Though it is simplistic to base a judgment on mere tallies, the simple fact cannot be ignored—the NIV is as strong as or stronger than the KJV on the doctrine of the deity of Jesus Christ. Compare the following passages:

John 1:18
KJV NIV
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.

 

John 1:18 is one of the clearest references to the deity of Christ in the Bible21 and yet the KJV has “omitted” it. Shall we accuse the KJV translators of attacking the deity of Christ? Certainly not, but that same logic has been practiced in reverse many times to attack the NIV.

Revelation 1:8
KJV NIV
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.”

 

Revelation 1:5 makes it unmistakably clear that it is Jesus Christ Who is speaking in verse eight. While “I am Alpha and Omega” is clearly a divine title being assigned to Jesus, the NIV emphatically states that this Jesus who is speaking is God! For the sake of space, I will not present all the passages but a few minutes looking up each reference in the NIV and the KJV would be time well invested. A final example will suffice.

2 Peter 1:1
KJV NIV
Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ: Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:

 

Here the KJV translation treats “God” and “our Saviour” as two different persons. While the KJV reading doesn’t pose a theological problem, it simply fails to bring out the clear teaching of the deity of Christ that is clear in the original language.22

In this second chart, several translations are compared in those passages where various translations directly call Jesus “God.”23

John 1:1 John 1:18 Acts 20:28 Rom. 9:5 2 Thess. 1:12 Titus 2:13 Heb. 1:8 2 Peter 1:1
KJV Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes No
NIV Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes
NWT No No No No No No No No

 

This chart clearly demonstrates that while the NWT has a great bias against the deity of Christ, the NIV actually rates better than the KJV when compared on these terms.

Conclusion

It is easy to hear a statement so many times that you begin to believe it regardless of the validity of the evidence offered. Many have heard the accusation that the NIV attacks the deity of Christ so many times that they simply believe it. Those who honestly desire truth are urged to read the following passages found in the NIV:

  • “And we are in him who is true—even in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.” (1 John 5:20)
  • “Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped.” (Philippians 2:5-6)
  • “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” (Isaiah 9:6)
  • “The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word.” (Hebrews 1:3)

How then can we view the NIV as an attack on the deity of Jesus Christ? If there was some sort of conspiracy to weaken the biblical support for the deity of Christ, it failed! The evidence stands firm to assert that the NIV is as strong as or stronger than the KJV in support of the doctrine of the full deity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.


1The evidence will be dealt with as translated in the NIV regardless of whether differences originate at a translational level or a textual level.

2Piper, Keith, Serious Omissions in the NIV Bible. NP, 1998, p. 4. David Cloud calls it “The attack upon the Deity of Jesus Christ.” (Cloud, David, ed., O Timothy Magazine, Volume 22, Issue 11, 2005. Port Huron, Michigan: Way of Life Literature, p. 27.) Peter Ruckman makes the same logical jump when he says (regarding 1 Timothy 3:16) “The NASV reading is a blasphemy to the name and honour of Jesus Christ. Ditto the NIV.” (Ruckman, Peter S., The “Errors” in the King James Bible. Pensacola, Florida: Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1999, p. 333.)

3Passages that are obscured include John 1:1, John 1:18, Acts 20:28, Romans 9:5, Philippians 2:5-6, Colossians 1:15-17, Colossians 2:9, Titus 2:13, Hebrews 1:8, and 2 Peter 1:1.

4Barker, Kenneth, qtd. in White, James R., The King James Only Controversy. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers, 1995, p. 216.

5Failure to provide this evidence places the accusers on dangerous ground spiritually. By claiming that a Christian brother is a false teacher without any evidence for doing so, he is guilty of “evil speaking” (Ephesians 4:31, KJV) against a brother. See also 1 Peter 3:16, 1 Peter 2:1, Colossians 3:8, and Proverbs 10:18.

6Note that weaker does not necessarily mean weak.

7Carson, D. A., The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1979, p. 82. It is worth noting that Carson is dealing with the translation as a whole, not just with readings which have to do with the deity of Jesus Christ.

8Referring to the “omission” of “Lord” in Luke 22:31, Waite says “The word, “Lord,” refers to the Lord Jesus Christ. It is a title of deity. By removing it, HIS DEITY IS QUESTIONED, undermined and denied.” (Waite, D. A., Defending the King James Bible. Collingswood, New Jersey: The Bible for Today Press, 1992, p. 175. Emphasis in original.) The irrationality of the allegation is multiplied by the fact that Peter refers to Jesus as “Lord” two verses later (v. 33) in his response to the question in verse thirty-one.

9Piper, Keith, Serious Omissions in the NIV Bible. NP, 1998, p. 98. Emphasis in original. David Sorenson also cites John 20:13 saying “Yet, this is precisely what the New American Standard Bible has done.” Sorenson, David H., Touch Not the Unclean Thing. Duluth, MN: Northstar Baptist Ministries, 2001, pp. 227-228.

10The word “Jesus” occurs 1,275 times in the NIV, the word “Christ” 530 times, and the word “Lord” 781 times.

11Mark Minnick presents a helpful study on titles of the Godhead replaced with pronouns in Matthew’s gospel. See Williams, James, ed., God’s Word in Our Hands. Belfast: Ambassador Emerald International, 2003, p. 263.

12Waite, D. A., Defending the King James Bible. Collingswood, New Jersey: The Bible for Today Press, 1992, p. 255. On this basis, the claim could be made that the KJV attacks the person of the Holy Spirit by not capitalising the word “spirit” in Isaiah 42:1 which is clearly a reference to the Holy Spirit.

13Piper, Keith, Serious Omissions in the NIV Bible. NP, 1998, p. 97.

14Waite, D. A., Defending the King James Bible. Collingswood, New Jersey: The Bible for Today Press, 1992. See pp. 185-187 where Waite cites such passages as Acts 15:11 and 1 Corinthians 5:4.

15Carson, D. A., The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1979, p. 82. Emphasis in original. Though Carson is dealing with omissions at a textual level, the principle is the same. TR Only advocate Charles Surrett concedes this same point when he says “The only way to prove that any version actually denies such doctrines [i.e.: the deity of Christ, the blood] would be to carefully study its renditions of the hundreds of passages that deal with those subjects. If Jesus is never presented as God, then the accusations would seem to be fair. However, that is not the case with the popular modern versions (such as NASV and NIV [sic: no space]), for such doctrines can clearly be found in them.” (Surrett, Charles L., Which Greek Text? Kings Mountain, North Carolina: Surrett Family Publications, 1999, pp. 7-8. Emphasis in original.)

16Passages which differ between the NIV and the KJV sometimes involved textual variants (see 1 Timothy 3:16) or ambiguous readings (see Romans 9:5). In these cases I have simply gone by the decision of the translators since theological bias is the subject that is being addressed. See endnote one.

17It is imperative that the versions debate be addressed at the textual level as opposed to the translational level. The purpose of this critique is to stimulate the reader to delve into the resources available on both sides of the issue in earnest pursuit of the truth. For a more thorough explanation of the various texts surrounding the doctrine of the deity of Christ from the viewpoint of one who promotes the eclectic text, see pp. 193-221 of James R. White’s The King James Only Controversy. (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers, 1995.) The TR Only viewpoint could be represented by Edward F. Hills, in his The King James Version Defended (Des Moines: Christian Research Press, 1956.) See pp. 136-138. For a concise coverage of the history of the biblical manuscripts, see Williams, James, ed., From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man. Belfast: Ambassador Emerald International, 1999.

18The passages I’ve omitted are 1 John 5:20, 2 Corinthians 4:3-4, Acts 20:28, Acts 3:14, Colossians 1:15-19, Colossians 2:8-10, Hebrews 1:1-10, Isaiah 40:3, Isaiah 7:14, Isaiah 9:6, John 1:1, John 1:14, John 1:15, John 10:30, John 14:8-9, John 18:6, John 20:28, John 5:18, John 8:56-58, Luke 1:17, Mark 2:5-11, Romans 1:1-4, and 1 Timothy 1:13. These passages are merely representative of the strongest texts presenting the doctrine of the deity of Jesus Christ.

19In most places where the NIV removes a significant word or phrase for textual reasons, the evidence for their decision is given in the footnote so that the reader is not ignorant of the variant.

20The pronoun “He” may still refer to God. Piper claims that the NIV “arbitrarily drops the word ‘who’ and invents a new word ‘He’, [sic] which is not found in any Greek manuscript.” While the NIV rendering is admittedly loose, the “He” is clearly understood in the syntactical context. A. T. Robertson renders it “He who.” (Robertson’s New Testament Word Pictures, 1 Timothy 3:16.)

21Unbelievably, Waite comments on John 1:18: “They take away the word, ‘Son‘ and change it to ‘God.’ This is pure HERESY! It is not possible to have an ‘Only Begotten God.’ This is an example of the Gnostic error that teaches Christ was only one of the many ‘gods’.” Waite’s twisting of this clear reference to the deity of Christ to call it “heresy” is unconscionable. (Waite, D. A., Defending the King James Bible. Collingswood, New Jersey: The Bible for Today Press, 1992, p. 168. Emphasis in original.)

22There are no textual variants in the Greek that underlies this phrase. The Textus Receptus (TR) and the eclectic text agree.

23This chart is adapted from a chart by Victor Perry which was simplified by D. A. Carson, The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1979, pp. 63-64.

About the Author: Jason Harris

Jason loves to communicate God's word both in the local church and at conferences and retreats. Jason has been involved with Worship Music since 1996 and InFocus since 2005. Jason has degrees in theology, music, accounting, and research and is currently a PhD candidate and lecturer in the College of Business, Law, and Governance at James Cook University, Cairns. Jason is also a pastor at CrossPoint Church. You can contact Jason at jason@jasonharris.com.au.

43 Comments

  1. PJ 13 December, 2011 at 6:37 am

    Thanks Jason, very interesting. I don’t know enough about this to express a view on your analysis, but I do think the door is opened to theological bias if you move away from formal equivalence in translation.

    What do you think?

  2. Kez 13 December, 2011 at 10:01 am

    Wow. That is really interesting. I’ve heard a lot about the NIV attacking the Deity of Christ so it’s interesting to see that refuted so clearly. Good post, Jay! =)

    • Jeremy Crooks 13 December, 2011 at 10:40 am

      Thanks Jason.

      This is close to home for me. I was a member of Keith Pipers church for 8 years and I use to peddle the very errors you have identified. Some of the documents you referenced, i use to use when ‘soul winning and door knocking’ I still have all the notes from sermons which you reference.

      The KJV only movement errors are built of the false belief that the KJV is infallible or reinspired or a uniquely preserved translation; and therefore any difference to the KJV itself is error. Once I realized that KJV is just a translation – albeit a good one – then it was easy to see the error of the above arguments.

      The whole premise doesnot stand up to logic. What about the people who lived prior to 1611. Did they not have the word of God? What about those who don’t speak English? What about the fact that languages evolve and no one uses 1611 english anymore. what about the original languages in which they were written?

      I give up on trying to convert my old friends on this issue. I have moved on and the NIV and the NLT are great blessings to me. They are Gods Word regardless of what a few fundamentalist fringe preachers might pontificate.

      Also, From my experience, The KJV only issue masks more serious deficiencies in their faith and practice.

  3. Jason Harris 13 December, 2011 at 1:26 pm

    @PJ, Yeah, I think any serious exegete will insist on preaching and studying from a fairly formal translation for the most part. I think it’s difficult to exposit a passage which is not set before the people in a format which seeks to approximate the syntactical and grammatical structures of the underlying text. So, yeah, I agree that the more dynamic a translation, the more interpretive it will need to be in many passages.

    @Jeremy, Yes, I remember the first time I read the NIV at any length and found the flow so devotionally refreshing. I do have concerns about the strength of the translational approach of the NIV and therefore I almost never use it, but I have recommended it at times for those who struggle with reading ability or comprehension and I feel that it has value in more devotional settings as well.

  4. Matt Leys 14 December, 2011 at 12:25 pm

    @Jeremy, a few of your statements including “potificating fundamentalist fringe preachers” and “serious deficiencies in faith and practice” could be seen to dismiss those who hold to the conservative KJV position.

    While I agree with your rationale about why a “KJV = inspiration” approach is neither logical or Biblical, I think that it’s important to make a clear distinction.
    There are obviously those who hold to a “KJV-only-because-its-God’s-Word-inspired-in-English” position. But there are also many churches / ministries both here and around the world that recognise that the KJV is not itself inspired, but there are many arguments for it as a superior translation, and for this reason would highly recommend it’s use for personal and public use.

    Maybe that distinction exists in your discussion? I just wasn’t so sure …

    • Jeremy Crooks 14 December, 2011 at 3:09 pm

      Matt

      You make a good point. I am strong in my language against KJV only because I have felt first hand the damage it has done.

      I have a great deal of respect for the translation itself. All my bible memorization was done in that translation. I believe it is a fantastic literal translation. I own several copies and still use one.

      But my view is that we need to take the kid gloves of with the heresy that is KJV only.

  5. Stan 9 March, 2012 at 10:06 am

    @ Jason,

    Is it really true that Keith Piper in his book ‘Serious Omissions in the NIV Bible’ says the NIV (in totality) denies the deity of Christ?

    Doesn’t he actually say:

    “The NIV denies Jesus Christ’s DEITY in 1 Cor 15:47…”

    “NIV denies Jesus’ OMNIPRESENCE and hence denies Jesus’ DEITY in John 3:13….” PAGE 6

    “The NIV denies Jesus Christ’s DEITY in 1 Tim 3:16….” PAGE 7 etc

    Have you not misrepresented what Piper has actually said ie that the NIV denies Christ’s deity in the verses quoted, by implying that he said that ALL verses in the NIV deny Christ’s deity?

    Likewise Dr Ruckman’s quote was in reference to ONE particular verse and not the entire NIV! Please give me a page reference where Dr Ruckman says the entire NIV denies the deity of Jesus Christ.

    You have read ‘The “Errors” in the King James Bible’ by Dr Peter S Ruckman (Bible Baptist Bookstore 1980, Revised 1999)in it’s entirety haven’y you, for the sake of truth and honesty?

  6. Jason Harris 9 March, 2012 at 3:19 pm

    Stan,

    I’m quite happy to publish your comment, not because of your email, but rather because the comment contains reasonable questions that merit an answer. Rather than risk misrepresenting your email, I’ve chosen to include it here instead:

    Jason,

    I have just read your article on the NIV and the deity of Christ, and of course being a KJB believer I cannot allow you proclaim such nonsense in the public domain without a come back.

    Since you have accused me of being ungracious in the past and as a result you intend to censor my posts, I will show you some grace by positing several questions on the Team in Focus website to give you an opportunity to redeem yourself.

    Should you chose not to allow my questions then you will leave me no other choice but to place a counter article (which will be placed in the public domain for all to read) exposing you for the “professional liar” that you are.

    “homo apostata vir inutilis graditur ore perverso, pravo corde machinatur malum et in omni tempore iurgia seminat huic extemplo veniet perditio sua et subito conteretur nec habebit ultra medicinam sex sunt quae odit Dominus et septimum detestatur anima eius linguam mendacem !”

    Stan

    I would welcome a public critique for two reasons. First, I may be mistaken and since the important thing is truth, I want to be corrected where necessary. Second, I’ve built my life around the principle that truth can stand on it’s own in the market place. A fair and free flow of ideas will contribute to an environment where people think deeply and wrestle with difficult ideas. That said, I’m also quite happy to respond to reasonable questions right here as well.

    I’ll try to respond to your questions briefly.

    1) My quotation of Keith Piper.

    You are correct that Piper specifies a precise context for this particular comment on p. 6 and looking at it more carefully, I can see that while this quotation presents a true statement of his view, the way I used that particular quotation was flawed. I apologise to Keith Piper and to those who have read this article for my careless mistake.

    In order to correct this error, I will replace the quotation in the subheading on p. 6 with the main heading under which it is found on p. 4: “The NIV downgrades Christ.” That the NIV as a general whole downgrades Christ by denying his deity, among other things, seems to be the conclusion Piper is trying to support in this section.

    Note that I never intended to imply that all the verses in the NIV deny the deity of Christ. Rather, I stated that he feels that the NIV as a general whole denies the deity of Christ. Clearly, this is his view as can be seen in his statement on p. 5 that “The NIV therefore detracts from Christ’s Deity.” This is a general statement about the NIV.

    2) My quotation of Peter Ruckman.

    This quotation is accurate and fair as it stands. You are correct that it is in reference to a particular reading. This is clearly indicated by my explanation “regarding 1 Timothy 3:16” and the inclusion of “the NASV reading” (emphasis added) in the quotation itself.

    As noted above, it was never my intent, nor did I at any point in the article suggest that anyone believes the entire NIV denies the deity of Christ. Rather, my argument is that many believe the NIV as a general whole denies the deity of Christ. This is indeed true both of Keith Piper and of Peter Ruckman and I wouldn’t expect either of these men to be surprised by that statement or to contest it.

    I don’t see how your question about reading Ruckman’s book in it’s entirety is at all relevant to either truth or honesty. Had I presented a public critique of the book or even a substantial portion of it, that would be one thing, but I have instead made one reference to it in a footnote. A reference which accurately quotes Ruckman in a way that fairly represents his intent in the context.

    Thank you for taking the time to raise these questions. It’s important to me that I represent those I disagree with accurately and fairly. I’m happy to respond to any additional points of substance you may raise.

    Grace to you.

  7. Stan 10 March, 2012 at 7:22 am

    Jason,

    I think it would be more honest and helpful to place your corrections in parenthesis (perhaps also in red)so that as I critique your article the brethren can see the typical standard operating procedure of those who attack the KJB.

    This will be especially helpful for those who come across your article on the world wide web without bothering to read the comments section.

    A point of note, why did you wait SIX years to publish this article? Did it have anything to do with the fact that 2011 was the 400th anniversary of the AV1611 and you saw this as an opportunity to “have a go at the KJB”? I also notice that you posted your article on the 13th. The number 13 in the KJB is associated with rebellion.

    Coincidence???? Just curious since I personally don’t believe in coincidences.

    Thank you for allowing the opportunity to comment.

    • Jeremy Crooks 11 March, 2012 at 6:47 pm

      Seriously Stan? Numerology? You can do better than that.

      As someone who attended Keith Pipers church for 8 years, went door knocking with him, preached along side him etc etc, let me assure you that Piper has an unbalanced view in the Bible translation issue. His list of errors in the NIV are based on the faulty assumption that the KJV is the baseline. The KJV is just a translation – albeit a good one using older English.

  8. Stan 13 March, 2012 at 9:23 am

    Jason said….

    “Note that I NEVER INTENDED to imply that all the verses in the NIV deny the deity of Christ”

    “…it was NEVER MY INTENT, nor did I at any point in the article suggest that anyone believes the entire NIV denies the deity of Christ”

    Well, if you “never intended” and didn’t “suggest that anyone believes the entire NIV denies the deity of Christ” why did you admit “my careless mistake”, apologise and then make an amendment?

    So right from the start of your article where you state: “It is my desire to CLEARLY LAY out the EVIDENCE…” you have FAILED!

  9. Stan 13 March, 2012 at 9:41 am

    Jason said:

    “I don’t see how your question about reading Ruckman’s book in it’s entirety is at all relevant to either truth or honesty”

    Oh, I think it’s very relevant. By only quoting someone else’s quote of Ruckman’s book without actually reading it is prejudiced to say the least, especially since you claim that you are only trying to present the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Have you actually read any of his books on Manuscript Evidence, Biblical Scholarship, The Monarch of the Books?

    Have you read James White’s book in it’s entirety?

    [You may also be interested to know that you can purchase Mr White’s book ‘The King James Only Controversy’ from Dr Ruckman’s book store, but I don’t believe Mr White sells ANY of Dr Ruckman’s books-I wonder why that is?]

  10. Stan 13 March, 2012 at 9:56 am

    Jason said:

    ” nor is it my desire to DENIGRATE the King James Version (KJV) in any way”

    Really?

    This is the standard operating procedure of a dishonest KJB correcting/denying “scholar”.

    PREFACE-REVISED STANDARD VERSION

    “…The KJV has with good reason been termed “the noblest monument of English prose”…It entered, as no other book has, into the making of the personal character and the public institutions of the English-speaking peoples. WE OWE TO IT AN INCALCULABLE DEBT [emphasis mine]”

    Well so far so good, but let’s carry on reading

    “Yet the KJV has grave defects…the New Testament was based upon a Greek text that was marred by mistakes,containing accumulated errors…”

    If you have read James White’s book in it’s entirety (as I have) he uplifts the KJB to begin with and then denigrates it in the next 270 plus pages.

    Sound familiar Jason?

  11. Jason Harris 13 March, 2012 at 1:03 pm

    @Stan,

    You need to read my article and my correction more carefully. My careless mistake was in how I handled that quotation, not in any matter of substance to the argument (nor indeed did I misrepresent Piper’s position). My alteration to the article made no alteration my argument whatsoever. None. If you don’t see that, perhaps you have not yet understood the logic of my argument. Indeed your comments suggest that this is the case.

    Re: Ruckman’s book. You seem to assume that if I did not read Ruckman’s book in its entirety that I must have used a quotation from someone else. Had I done that, my citation would have ended with “Quoted in [source of the quotation].” That is standard academic practice. But you’ll note that I did not do that. How can I be sure that I’m accurately quoting and representing a man if I take someone else’s word for what he said?

    As far as the KJV, I do indeed value it highly and honour it as a masterpiece of Scripture translation. I do indeed have no intention or desire to denigrate it. To suggest that because I do not believe it is a perfect translation that my first statement is somehow dishonest is simply not reasonable.

  12. Stan 14 March, 2012 at 8:59 am

    Jason said:

    “Re: Ruckman’s book. You seem to assume that if I did not read Ruckman’s book in its entirety that I must have used a quotation from someone else. Had I done that, my citation would have ended with “Quoted in [source of the quotation].” That is standard academic practice. But you’ll note that I did not do that. How can I be sure that I’m accurately quoting and representing a man if I take someone else’s word for what he said?”

    So have you read it or not?

    A simple Yes or No answer will do.

    Jason said:

    “I do indeed have no INTENTION or DESIRE to DENIGRATE it. To suggest that because I do not believe it is a perfect translation that my first statement is somehow dishonest is simply not reasonable”

    ARTICLE CONCLUSION
    “The evidence stands firm to assert that the NIV is as STRONG as or STRONGER than the KJV in support of the doctrine of the full deity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ”.

    I think your conclusion tells us exactly what you REALLY believe about the KJB.

    James White says:

    “This book [The KJO Controversy] is NOT against the KJV”

    What conclusion did you draw after reading his book-was he telling the truth?

    As the saying goes “birds of a feather flock together”.

  13. Stan 14 March, 2012 at 9:27 am

    By the way you didn’t answer the question why you waited SIX years to publish your article?

    Can you really say with your hand on your heart that it had NOTHING to do with the 400th Anniversary of the KJB?

  14. Jason Harris 14 March, 2012 at 11:46 am

    @Stan,

    I have made it quite clear that I read enough of the book to be confident that I was accurately representing the author’s view in that quotation. Though it is not your business, I’ll answer your question. I estimate I’ve read somewhere between 50-80% of that particular book.

    Re: The KJV, the statement you quote was a quotation about the NIV, not the KJV. How you can reasonably deduce my view of the KJV from that I cannot imagine.

    I’m not sure how my opinion of James White’s book matters. I want the truth. If that comes from James White, great. If it comes from you, great. That is why I responded like I did to the substantive points you raised. The truth is that the KJV-only position is heresy. It is a false teaching and a divisive one. I have made no secret of my view on that.

    I published the article when I did because, due to dozens of factors, I felt that was the right time to publish it.

    Stan, you started by raising a few substantive points. I received your critique and made correction where necessary. I thanked you for raising those points and I remain appreciative. But you have not raised a single substantive point since that first post. Not one. Numerology? Seriously? I am not superstitious. What I planned for the 400th anniversary of the KJV was a series of posts honouring the KJV and a giveaway of an excellent book on the history of the KJV.

    If you have other substantive issues to raise, please raise them. Alternatively, as I mentioned at the start, I would be more than happy to see you publish a critique of my work. That is constructive. But this flow of inane comments is not constructive.

  15. Stan 14 March, 2012 at 1:37 pm

    Thanks for finally answering my questions.

    “Numerology”

    That’s another subject but to suggest that it has something to do with superstition is quite ludicrous.

    God himself placed a book in the Bible called “NUMBERS” but of course those who only believe in the “originals” have no chance of finding the deeper doctrines of the KJB.

    I will continue critiquing your article shortly, but before I do can you please give me some substantive evidence for your comment:

    “The truth is that the KJV-only position is heresy. It is a false teaching and a DIVISIVE one”

    The “divisive” comment is also thrown out by James White in his book, of course he doesn’t give us any evidence to substantiate his claim.

    Please give me some documented evidence that believing the KJB is perfect, inspired, inerrant and the infallible word of God has caused a DIVISION in any Church in Australia you would care to mention.

    • Jeremy Crooks 14 March, 2012 at 8:53 pm

      @Stan

      Deeper doctrines within the KJV?

      You are treading the similar ground as Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. There is no new revelation through the KJV. To suggest such is Wrong.

  16. Stan 16 March, 2012 at 6:30 am

    Fourth book of Moses called “NUMBERS”, doesn’t the NIV call it Numbers as well?

    I asked you to give an example of a Church split or division in AUSTRALIA caused by someone who believes the KJB is perfect and inspired.

    Keep watching for I have now throughly (KJB word)dissected your so called search for the truth.

    • Jeremy Crooks 16 March, 2012 at 7:51 am

      Stan.

      You are self-obsessed and deluded. There are dozens of church fractures and broken fellowships due to the KJV issue.

      Your approach is concerning. I have found that a disproportionate number of people who harp on fringe issues such as versions or numerology often do so to compensate for secret sins – sexual or otherwise.

  17. Stan 16 March, 2012 at 12:08 pm

    Jeremy,

    I didn’t realise the previous comment was from you and not from Jason-I will be more careful in future.

    Thank you for your concern about my spiritual well being.

    If you are interested a group of us are going street preaching tomorrow you are welcome to join us-please let me know and I will give you the details. The only prerequisite is that you get involved with the preaching. We don’t encourage passive armchair bystanders!

  18. Stan 16 March, 2012 at 12:20 pm

    Critique of Harris’ article: “The NIV and the deity of Christ”

    INTRO

    It is interesting to note that Jason Harris admits that he wrote his article six years ago but decided to post it on the 13th December 2011. Could this have something to do with 2011 being the 400th anniversary of the publication of the King James Bible? Also, the number 13 is the number associated with sin and rebellion in the King James Bible. Lest we be accused of superstition when it comes to Bible numerology, we would suggest that the Bible agnostic is showing his ignorance of the Scriptures (Matthew 22:29).

    Harris starts his article titled “The NIV and the deity of Christ” in such a way as to give the impression that he is truly a Bible believer and that he is simply seeking the “truth and nothing but the truth”, however, as we will show he uses the tactics of a typical Bible agnostic, the archetype being James White the author of “The King James Only Controversy” (notice he omits the word “Bible/Version” from the title, is he trying to focus your attention on the person of King James I of England?). White begins his book by stating that “This book is not against the King James Version” and in the ensuing 271 pages he attacks the very word of God (the King James Bible) with an onslaught not seen since World War II. Harris does exactly the same in his article! Before we go on let us give you the definition of a “Bible agnostic”, this is a professing Christian who believes that only the original manuscripts were given by inspiration of God and therefore logically and practically cannot tell us where a Christian can find and read the perfect, inerrant, inspired and infallible word of God TODAY. Logically, because the original manuscripts do not exist and practically because the 200 plus (and still counting) English translations differ from one another by omitting words and entire verses. Harris is not after the truth but is prejudiced against the King James Bible. By his own admission he has only read 50-80% (which is it 1/2 or more than 3 1/4?) of one of Dr Ruckman’s books, even though Dr Ruckman has written over half a dozen books addressing the exact issues that Harris raises in his article. One would expect that a sincere seeker of the truth would examine and read all available evidence from cover to cover. One may argue why single out Dr Ruckman’s literature, well we believe even Harris would acknowledge the fact that Dr Ruckman is accepted as the foremost and staunchest defenders of the King James Bible only position.
    James White states in his book that King James Bible Only believers are divisive and Church splitters, without giving any documented evidence, Harris follows suit (see comments page TeaminFocus). So right from the start we can see the standard operating procedure(s) of a Bible agnostic in action.

    We would suggest and will prove that when Harris says “I am simply trying to demonstrate that the NIV is not theologically biased against the deity of Jesus Christ” he is, in fact, bearing false witness Romans 13:9 (omitted from NIV).

    To be continued…

  19. Stan 16 March, 2012 at 12:24 pm

    FALSEHOOD #1

    Harris claims that Keith Piper in his book “Serious Omissions in the NIV Bible” and Dr Ruckman in his book “The “Errors” in the King James Bible” say the NIV denies the deity of Christ “It is one thing to say one translation is stronger than another on the deity of Christ. It is an entirely different thing to say that the weaker translation “denies Jesus Christ’s DEITY.”
    Neither of these authors said anything of the kind, what they actually said was that certain verses in the NIV deny the deity of Christ which any honest person can see is not the same as claiming the entire NIV denies the deity of Christ, which is exactly what Harris is priming the reader to believe.

  20. Stan 16 March, 2012 at 12:26 pm

    FALSEHOOD #2

    Harris quite correctly states that the New World Translation obscures (we are not sure why he didn’t use the word denies?) the deity of Christ and that this is of course reflected by their (JW’s) theological bias which has affected their translation, then he claims that the NIV, in contrast is “weaker” (why quotation marks. Either it is or it isn’t weaker?) in only TWO or THREE instances. Harris should know better than that, if he was really seeking after the truth he would know Satan is always subtle (Genesis 3:1), the attack on Christ’s deity in the NIV is also subtle and not always overt as in the NWT.
    We will show below that Harris is again bearing false witness when he says there are only TWO or THREE instances where it is weaker.
    We note that Harris didn’t point out that the NWT is translated from the exact same manuscripts loved so much by Bible agnostics.

    To be continued…

  21. Stan 16 March, 2012 at 12:28 pm

    FALSEHOOD #3

    Harris quotes Kenneth Barker saying that he believes in the deity of Christ and then goes on to conclude “It would seem logical that translational bias against the deity of Christ would be based on theological belief against the deity of Christ, but the evidence to prove that there is unbelief has not been cogently presented”. Just because Barker says he believes in the deity of Christ doesn’t make it true? “Good” and “Godly” men are not immune from lying. The old nature is still alive and well! Harris has not given one iota of evidence that the NIV translators personally believe in the deity of Christ, he just assumes they do because they say so.

    He goes on to say “The burden of proof is on those who level the charge to conclusively prove that the NIV translators denied the deity of Christ” No one said the NIV translators denied the deity of Christ, but the NIV certainly attacks and denies the deity of Christ in many verses, not just TWO or THREE!

  22. Stan 16 March, 2012 at 12:33 pm

    FALSHOOD #4

    Harris says “D. A. Carson sums it up well when he says “It is methodologically indefensible to hunt for the HALF-DOZEN worst mistakes or lapses in judgment in a particular translation, and on that basis write off the whole translation…”

    So is it TWO or THREE or HALF-DOZEN worst mistakes or lapses? Who is telling the truth Harris or Carson, or is it just a matter of how you look at it? A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump (1Corinthians 5:6)! I guess Carson and by extension Harris are admitting that we have no perfect Bible.

    To be continued…

  23. Stan 16 March, 2012 at 12:39 pm

    FALSEHOOD #5

    Harris says “It borders on absurdity to even point out that the word “Jesus” occurs 292 more times in the NIV than in the KJV”

    What he fails to tell you is that the word “Jesus” is Christ’s earthly name, His “human” name if you will. There are thousands of South Americans named “Jesus”. So what. In the Koran the word “Jesus” occurs more than twenty times, but as we all know it denies Christ’s deity. We are interested here in THE LORD JESUS CHRIST or JESUS CHRIST (ie His deity)and not His earthly name.

    JESUS
    NIV=1277 KJB=942

    JESUS CHRIST
    NIV=242 KJB=258

    LORD JESUS CHRIST
    NIV=84 KJB=106

    Does the NIV deny Christ’s deity throughout it’s entirety? Obviously not, but it certainly attacks His deity by omitting Jesus Christ/Lord Jesus Christ 38 times!

    Harris says: “It is not possible in a study this size to conduct a full explanation of the technical and textual issues” Why is that Mr Harris could it be because you don’t want your readers to be aware of the following facts?

    The NIV has the word “Jesus” in it more than the KJB because the translators simply ADDED it when it is NOT there in any texts. You might want to take a look at the NIV complete concordance for yourself. In it you will find by their own documentation that the NIV has added the name of Jesus to the New Testament a total of 336 times when it is not found in the Greek texts they themselves are using. That’s three hundred and thirty six times!.

    Mr Barker should have heeded the King James Bible’s warning where it says in Prov 30:6 “ADD thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a LIAR.”

    It is obvious to any honest seeker of the truth that by adding the word “Jesus” the NIV is not only being deceitful but it is elevating Christ’s humanity and attacking His deity in line with the New World Translation, New Age Belief and is no different in its use of the word “Jesus” (in many verses) than the Koran.

    To be continued…

  24. Stan 17 March, 2012 at 7:33 am

    A Critique of Jason Harris’ Article

    INTRO

    It is interesting to note that Jason Harris admits that he wrote his article six years ago but decided to post it on the 13th December 2011. Could this have something to do with 2011 being the 400th anniversary of the publication of the King James Bible? Also, the number 13 is the number associated with sin and rebellion in the King James Bible. Lest we be accused of superstition when it comes to Bible numerology, we would suggest that the Bible agnostic is showing his ignorance of the Scriptures (Matthew 22:29).

    Harris starts his article titled “The NIV and the deity of Christ” in such a way as to give the impression that he is truly a Bible believer and that he is simply seeking the “truth and nothing but the truth”, however, as we will show he uses the tactics of a typical Bible agnostic, the archetype being James White the author of “The King James Only Controversy” (notice he omits the word “Bible/Version” from the title, is he trying to focus your attention on the person of King James I of England?). White begins his book by stating that “This book is not against the King James Version” and in the ensuing 271 pages he attacks the very word of God (the King James Bible) with an onslaught such as not seen since World War II. Harris does exactly the same in his article! Before we go on let us give you the definition of a “Bible agnostic”, this is a professing Christian who believes that only the original manuscripts were given by inspiration of God and therefore logically and practically cannot tell us where a Christian can find and read the perfect, inerrant, inspired and infallible word of God today. Logically because the original manuscripts do not exist and practically because the 200 plus (and still counting) English translations differ from one another by omitting words and entire verses. Harris is not after the truth but is prejudiced against the King James Bible. By his own admission he has only read 70-80% of one of Dr Ruckman’s books, even though Dr Ruckman has written over half a dozen books addressing the exact issues that Harris raises in his article. One would expect that a sincere seeker of the truth would examine and read all available evidence from cover to cover. One may argue why single out Dr Ruckman’s literature, well we believe even Harris would acknowledge the fact that Dr Ruckman is accepted as the foremost and staunchest defenders of the King James Bible only position.
    James White states in his book that King James Bible Only believers are divisive and Church splitters, without giving any documented evidence, Harris follows suit (see comments page TeaminFocus). So right from the start we can see the standard operating procedure(s) of a Bible agnostic in action.

    We would suggest and will prove that when Harris says “I am simply trying to demonstrate that the NIV is not theologically biased against the deity of Jesus Christ” he is, in fact, bearing false witness Romans 13:9 (omitted from NIV).

    To be continued….[IF NOT BLOCKED]

  25. Jonathan 17 March, 2012 at 3:43 pm

    Jeremy,

    The approach of Stan is very Biblical (John 5:39, Acts 17:11). Proverbs 14:15 says “The simple believeth every word…” Stan has read and researched Jason’s article. Compared to yourself who has just obviously read it and believed it to be true.

    Why don’t you take your head out of your Nutty Idiot Version and stop proving to all of us what an idiot you really are for coming up with absurd statements!

    If you are going to delete this Jason then at least delete where Jeremy labelled Stan as “self-obsessed and deluded”.

    • Jeremy Crooks 17 March, 2012 at 8:54 pm

      Jonathan

      I don’t know you and you don’t know me

      My assessment of Stan’s approach and position was developed from his series of posts (published and unpublished) and emails. I stand by my assessment.

      Regarding the issue. I use to be KJV only. I know the issues and arguments well

  26. Jonathan 17 March, 2012 at 10:05 pm

    Jeremy,

    You are right I don’t know you and I have no intention of knowing you. Who knows what sin/s you are hiding behind?? Come on mate grow up and stop trying to be the Holy Ghost! It is a shame that you are willing to stand by your “assessment” but can’t stand on the word of God.

    It will be a shame when you get to heaven and you see the blessed King James Bible there (Revelation 5). I bet you won’t find that in your Nutty Idiot’s Version.

    • Jeremy Crooks 18 March, 2012 at 6:24 am

      Who is teaching you this stuff?

      We must not make an idol out of any version. It is possible make the Bible a god and miss the God of the bible.

      Your absolutist assertions are actually hurting the reputation of the KJV – which is a very good translation.

      BTW I am a sinner and I am hiding behind the blood of Jesus.

  27. Kezia Dennison 18 March, 2012 at 8:53 am

    This whole argument from Stan and Jonathan seems to me to be pointless. As far as I see Jason made it clear at the beginning of this post that he wasn’t here to put down the KJV or even to claim the NIV was better. He’s not really talking one version verses another at all. As far as I can tell, he simply addresses whether or not the argument about the NIV denying the deity of Christ (an oft circulated statement throughout our churches) is true. The conclusion he drew was that it isn’t true and that in some respects the NiV is almost stronger on the deity of Christ. Perhaps I’m missing something but that to me doesnt say he endorses the NIV or the KJV or really any version. All it says is this one topic – the deity of Christ – is not a legitimately true argument against the NIV. There is no present defense of the NIV as a whole in this post and no offense against the KJV either so these two gentlemen seem to have read that into it. What am I missing?

  28. Stan 19 March, 2012 at 7:38 am

    Kezia,

    If Jason Harris was really after the truth he would have allowed my critique (point by point) of his article to remain, but he keeps deleting my posts.

    He doesn’t want YOU to know the truth!

    But that’s OK I will use another forum to expose his deliberate lies.

    Also note that he allows his “brother in arms” Jeremy to make personal attacks on me by accusing me of harbouring some sort of secret sin because I believe the KJB is perfect

    I trust you will see through this hypocrisy.

  29. Stan 19 March, 2012 at 7:46 am

    Jeremy,

    “My assessment of Stan’s approach and position was developed from his series of posts (published and unpublished) and emails”

    Unpublished posts?????????? How can YOU read something that I hasn’t been published???? So now you are a mind reader. Is that a spiritual gift mentioned in the NIV??? Perhaps it’s in the 2011 edition or did I miss it in the 1984 edition?

    Emails PLURAL???????????

    My one and only PERSONAL email to you was to invite you to do some Street Preaching which interestingly you didn’t accept.

  30. Stan 19 March, 2012 at 11:57 am

    OK Jason,

    You have managed to try my patience and make me out to be a fool by deleting my critique and then reposting it.

    You want to play games that’s fine by me.

    The truth will prevail one way or another.

  31. Jason Harris 19 March, 2012 at 3:03 pm

    Stan,

    I have not deleted anything and I have not reposted anything. Your previous comments on this site resulted some time ago in your comments being placed on moderation. That means that when you comment, it is not publicly available until someone on the team approves it (this explains why Jeremy is aware of everything you’ve posted). I explained my approach to this to you in an email in August last year:

    Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 10:37 AM
    Subject: Re: Thanks

    Stan,

    I’d chosen to let the matter drop after your initial email and comments, but since you’ve brought it back up, I’ll respond.

    This is not a difference of theology or philosophy. This is simply a matter of Christian obedience. Galatians 5:22-23 gives us some of the fruit of being filled with the Spirit of God: Love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. These things don’t characterise your interactions on my site.

    That you’ve somehow justified this modus operandi is a matter between you and God. But when you bring this approach to my blog, it becomes a matter for me to deal with. And I’m telling you that I will not tolerate it.

    If you want to join the discussion, you are free to do so. You may present your views and defend them. But you will need to do so in tones of reasonable moderation and Christian grace. If you do that, your comments will be published and welcomed, regardless of the views you present.

    Grace to you.

    Jason

    Nothing has changed.

    Your review was not public because I had not yet decided whether to post it. I have decided I will post it here in comments, but I want to be clear that my reticence to publish it is not based on fear of what it says (I’ve only looked at one or two paragraphs), but rather concern that what I have read is not in keeping with the spirit of Christian discussion here at InFocus. Nevertheless, because this is no longer an active post, I will go ahead and post it and let the reader judge.

    Your review is included above in the order that you posted it.

    jh

  32. Jeremy Crooks 19 March, 2012 at 3:23 pm

    Stan,

    To answer your questions/accusations.

    1. Jason has already explained how I read your unpublished posts.
    2. You did send me 1 email regarding this post. You did invite me to go soul-winning with you. However, you provided that disingenuous invitation after an email insult. (which you conveniently did not mention)
    3. Previously you have sent other abusive emails to other In Focus bloggers.

    I have 3 problems with your positions.
    1. You are incorrect on doctrine and dishonest in your presentation.
    2. Even if you were correct, you are ungodly in the way you speak. Maybe you and Jonathan can’t see it, but you don’t advance your cause by insulting people – particularly when you don’t even use your real names.
    3. Given your attitude, I doubt your witnessing at Sexpo would have demonstrated the love of Jesus

    Until your approach changes, I am not planning to respond to you further because you are a fool and a wolf. Proverbs instructs us not to answer a fool in his folly.

    Praying that you will see the light.

  33. Kezia Dennison 20 March, 2012 at 2:52 am

    @Stan,

    It seems you have wrongly accused Jason of deleting your comments and publicly judged him for “hiding the truth” based on that wrong assumption. Perhaps you owe him an apology…

    I don’t really see in the above comments any indication of Jason’s approval or disapproval of Jeremy’s alleged “attack” on you. Perhaps i missed it, but I think perhaps you may be projecting on to Jason what you are already predisposed to believe of him. Many of your accusations and judgements do not seem to have much basis in either this post or his comments. IMHO. (And fwiw, I think we all have our “secret sins” regardless of whether we are KJVO or not. An accusation of such should just be a reminder of how aware we must be of our innate weakness and how much we need to keep running back to God for rescue from those secret sin strongholds.)

    As for your comments to me in general, InFocus has never discouraged open and reasonable debate on truth and error. As I believe Jason said above, truth can stand on it’s own in the marketplace. If something isn’t true, it will not stand up to the microscope of controversy and the questions and arguments brought against it. If it is true, then it will stand. Simple as that. Hiding truth or fearing disagreement is pointless. Truth will always out in the end.

    P.S. You speak of your intended expose’ on this post as if it is something to be feared by Jason and the team. It’s quite an amusing threat to be honest with you. A) This is the Internet. A blogger expects to receive critics. And anything you do end up writing is basically free publicity one way or the other. B) Truth is foremost for the INFOCUS site and team. They have nothing to fear from disagreement or debate. =)

  34. Kezia Dennison 20 March, 2012 at 1:39 pm

    P.S. I have read through your critique above and I believe your “argument” is somewhat lacking. Although you repeatedly claimed that you could prove Jason wrong on this topic, much of your arguments are based on your opinion verses his, or slight differences in way things can be said rather than any real proof. You repeatedly make assumptions based on your perceptions of where Jason is coming from or what his motives are and provide little if any real admissible proof for the KJV supremacy or against the NIV in general. To be honest, as far as I can see, your critique is more a rant than a properly formulated argument and you fail to really “prove” anything – for or against this post.

  35. Stan 22 March, 2012 at 9:33 am

    Jeremy said:

    ” Previously you have sent other abusive emails to other In Focus bloggers”

    Really, please name them.

    As far as I am aware I have only ever sent personal emails to Mr Harris and to you.

    Your perception as to whether they were in anyway abusive means nothing since ALL of you folk on this forum believe in everything being RELATIVE eg “all bible versions are OK just go with what feels good. I started with the KJV then gravitated to the NKJV then to the NIV then the ESV now I’m going to teach from the NLT….”

    Yes us KJBO believers have got your number and so has Satan.

    So just because you say something is abusive is simply your personal opinion-you have no FINAL AUTHORITY!

  36. Jason Harris 22 March, 2012 at 1:03 pm

    Stan, it seems to me that you’re extending your condemnation to a very broad audience (“you folk on this forum”). I appreciate your zeal for truth, but I cannot condone your tone, your spirit, and your personal attacks. They are not only logically careless; they are sinful.

    This thread is closed.

Comments are closed.

Share This Article!