About Us
Favorite Links
Contact Us
Home: Questions and Answers

I am impressed with your series of lectures on KJV Onlyism.
Praise GOD for your liberation from this disease.

I have two quibbles with it though. In the fourth lecture, you referred to the Living Bible and it's weaknesses. However, you opined that it was translated by a "Liberal Christian". I have the Living Bible, and Ken Taylor, wrote in the preface that he wrote from a "rigid evangelical position." I doubt this is liberal. However, he may have changed his views since the Living Bible's release in the 70's.

Another point you spoke of is a distrust of translations from Europe. Amongst these was the Revised Standard Version. It was translated in the USA and not Europe. - Joshua H.


It is my profound desire to be as accurate as I can be and I never wish to pass along misinformation of any kind, even if it is unintentional, so if and when I make a mistake, and I am alerted to it by a listener, I want to take a moment make any necessary corrections for the benefit of all.

The comments about translations can be heard at the end of 5th audio lecture entitled "The Historical Revision of the KJV only Advocates." Toward the end as I was wrapping up my talk, a few folks asked questions pertaining to Bible translations. Now the problem of answering questions from off the top of my head can be dangerous for the very reason that Joshua pointed out: there is a big chance of throwing out misinformed statements. In my case, The Living Bible being a liberal translation and the RSV being an european translation.

It is true that Ken Taylor is not a liberal as we would understand liberal. His paraphrase edition of the Bible is frought with many theological problems, however; but Mr. Taylor's intention was not to provide a Bible that departed from sound orthodoxy. A fuller discussion about Mr. Taylor and his Bible can be found here: [The Living Bible] What I had in mind as I answered that question was "The Good News for Modern Man," also known as "Today's English Version." It is a translation, not a paraphrase like The Living Bible, but it was translated by a man who was opposed to conservative evangelicals. You can read more about the Good News Bible here: [Today's English Version] I remember the "Good News Bible" well, because it was the version of choice used by the Methodist Church I attended when I was a kid.

As for my comments about the Revised Standard Version being a European translation, I am partially correct, but I still need to make a clarification. The original Revised Standard Version was meant to be a revision of the American Standard Version, which in turn was an American revision of the Revised Version published in the 1880s by the KJV only boogey men, Westcott and Hort. The RSV was initially translated and published in the United States, but, it also has a handful of editions that were prepared by a consortium of American and European translators. Those editions included a Roman Catholic edition, the Ecumenical Edition, and eventually the New Revised Standard Version that included the use of gender-inclusive language. The RSV and its off-spring are thoroughly and unashamedly liberal. There is more on the RSV to found here, [Revised Standard Version] and also here, [More on the Revised Standard Version]

Please let me know about new Articles & Bible Studies from Fred's Bible Talk.

© Copyright 2002-2007 Fred Butler All Rights Reserved