One needs strong nerves to go through all the nonsense the man wrote on his website http://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm !

There is so much drivel and bunk, all reflecting a desire to deceive the victim with foolish augments, that one would think the man is only a religious clown and entertainer, living off the benefits his trade accrues him in the self-righteous environment (cultic) he hides in.

We must notice right at the outset that Daniel is, like many others, one more common Bible Thief who writes to STEAL the Bible from INNOCENT VICTIMS, and does not know what to replace THE BIBLE with!

It astounds us that after writing so much gibberish against God"s Book, the man did not one time tell the readers what is then The Bible in English, the Book the innocent Christian (the baby in Christ, the new convert) must read, believe and memorize!

Of course, Daniel does not know The Book! He proves it throughout his maladroit thesis!

Not once did Daniel tell the readers which "bible" version he uses and regards as the Bible in English for the English church!!

What a shocking situation!

Why would a man write so much in anger and rebellion AGAINST THE BIBLE millions loved and memorized (possibly his parents, too!) and NEVER discloses to the public what version he uses to serve in his religious conglomerate?!

If anyone tries to squeeze the whole article to get some spiritual comfort (1 Thes 5:11 " comfort " and edify one another), the output will only be scholastic dust! The whole article is nothing but a lot of dried "substance"!

Besides many, many lies in the long article, he does never tell one time if he uses one, two, or three versions (perhaps a DOZEN!), and does never recommend anything to the readers as The Bible the church should adopt as the standard in these days!

Isn"t that strangely inconsistent of a man who seems to know so much about "the Bible"?!!

Why would he NOT stop to point out "The Bible" to the church, if the church still doesn"t have it, especially those who love & believe the Reformation Bible?!!

HORROR!

That is a clear sign of how CONFUSED in the head a religion adherent of the scholarship CULT can be! It is mentally crushing!

This man is indeed one of those who do all in their power to attempt to DESTROY the Bible just for the applause they can get from colleagues in the same throng.

Just for that act of TREASON (2 Tim 3:4 " "" traitors"") against God and The Bible, the man is to be ALTOGETHER discarded as pathetically/pitifully deceived!

"Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. Be not ye therefore partakers with them", Ephesians 5:6-7.

How can we accept that a Christian raises his voice to DENIGRATE THE BIBLE OF GOD and is still applauded by those in leadership?!

How can we understand this degradation of the spiritual life in the church?!

How can we admit and accept that such BIBLE ROBBERS should live openly in the church, taking advantage of the innocent"s sincerity, those who support them financially, without exposing and REJECTING the cheats?!

Why should a Christian even greet such ENEMIES of the Bible and allow them room to move in the church"s boundary?!!

I just wonder at the obloquy and low level of spirituality in the church, to the point of accepting and applauding ENEMIES who are treasonably doing the Devil"s job of STEALING the Bible from sincere and innocent hearts and babies in Christ!!

"" deceitful workers"", 2 Cor 11:13.

Is STEALING the Bible no longer a terribly dark SIN?!

Daniel does it openly and is rewarded with applause by the church hierarchy!

That"s why many true Christians today do simply distance themselves from dealings with churches: they became (the churches!) dens of thieves of bibles and opportunists living from exploiting the spiritually insecure in their groups!

It is horrendous spiritual cruelty!

Daniel is spiritually unbalanced. Otherwise, why would he lie so much about the Bible, if not to praise the cult he is in! Why?

I say, let us reject such contagious hypocrites like Daniel Wallace!

The first outrageous lie is to pretend that he loves God"s word. He didn"t even show us his preference! If he loved the Bible, nothing on earth would force him to hide it! Did he tell the readers that he loves and believes the Bible?

NOT ONE time in over 13 thousand words!!

Isn"t that a shocking LIE, to dissert so much about "The Bible" and NEVER tell anyone whether he loves and believes it?!! Would not an intelligent Christian observe this initial blunder of any cultic bible juggler?!!!

Why didn"t Daniel start his RUBBISH "thesis" AGAINST the Bible by categorically stating that his bible preference is, say, the NASB?

The truth is that any "DESTRUCTIVE TEXTUAL CRITIC" in the "scholarship circus" avoids at all costs committing himself to ANY bible version. He does that for FEAR of ridicule and ostracism in the CULT! The terror and horror of being rejected by the "scholarship community" is simply unbearable!

Why would a normal Christian open any space to a SECTARIAN INDIVIDUAL who has no conviction to name the Bible he says he reads?!

Man, isn"t it DANGEROUS to open the door of your house to such a vicious antagonist, pretending good intentions?!

Isn"t it DANGEROUS to trust a BIBLE THIEF?!!! Would you trust Ali Baba and his 40 partners?!

The coarsest lie of this "scholarship idolater" is nicely resumed when he states the following:

"First, I want to affirm with all evangelical Christians that the Bible is the Word of God, inerrant, inspired, and our final authority for faith and life. However, nowhere in the Bible am I told that only one translation of it is the correct one. Nowhere am I told that the King James Bible is the best or only 'holy' Bible. There is no verse that tells me how God will preserve his word, so I can have no scriptural warrant for arguing that the King James has exclusive rights to the throne. The arguments must proceed on other bases."     

God tells you that He WILL preserve His words (Psalm 12:6-7; Psalm 119:160; 1 Kings 8:56; Matt 24:35, 4:4; 1 Pet 1:33; Prov 30:5)! Don"t you believe it when God tells you that?!! Why do you need to know "How" He does it?! Are you doubting His promise?!!

WHO ARE YOU, doubting Thomas?!!

""be grave, not doubletongued"", 1 Tim 3:8.

Were we aware that "the Bible is the word of God, inerrant, inspired and our final authority for faith and life"? Daniel seems to be very serious about his statement"

How will we check him and find whether he told the truth IN CHRIST, not lied (1 Timothy 2:7 " IN CHRIST " omitted in the NASB/NRSV, etc.), and gave no false witness (Romans 13:9 " "Thou shalt not bear false witness" " OMITTED in the NASB/NRSV, etc)?

WE CANNOT check it!!

He didn"t tell in the whole cluttered article WHAT is "The Bible" and WHERE we can get it! I don"t know why he refused to disclose the site where he saw it!

Well, here we are, having to believe and trust ONE HUNDRED PERCENT what Daniel tells us! Even though he says somewhere that "translations" of "The Bible" are NEVER 100% accurate, it seems that he wants us to believe him all the way! He doesn"t trust God, but he wants us to trust him! Something awful happened to his wits!"

Do you see the synthetic fibre a "scholarship" FANATIC is made of? He never told one time that the Bible was the NASB, the NRSV, the NSRB, or the NIV! If he did, he would be in for a great SPANKING, because the 100 scholars who assembled the NIV, declared it a rotten mess: see the last paragraph in its "Preface", or our other articles on the subject. So, Daniel is not altogether stupid, for he knows that if he declares de NIV that famous "The Bible" he points out in the statement above, he is in for a bit of trouble, something he is very scared of!

You see, this chap says that the Bible is the final authority for faith. Where is "The Bible" so we could also check it ourselves, to see if he was telling the truth or was only playing with words (cheating the audience with lies!)?

What "faith" is Daniel writing about?! He does not have any faith in "the Bible"! He goes up and down in his mean article questioning "The Bible" without ever showing us the volume!

IS HE SICK?!!!

How can a man speak of faith in the Bible without ever telling us where the Bible is, so that others could also check whether he is not telling LIES (1 Tim 2:7; Rom 13:9)?

That is the horror of the whole MESS these CULTIC idolaters of the "Scholarship" goddess are stuck in! The adherents talk about "The Bible" without EVER seeing it one second of their lives! They talk cheaply of "the Bible" without ever thinking that an intelligent person would IMMEDIATELY ask for the book with two covers and pages of paper!

They do not think like that: like a normal person! Their brain is dented, or was subjected to some kind of poisonous substance  (DESTRUCTIVE TEXTUAL CRITICISM!).

One thing is clear in this messed up writing: Daniel detests the Bible of the Reformation, the Book millions loved and MEMORIZED, and heard the gospel from and were saved; even many chose to die than reject it!

The last true scholar departed from the living in the 17^th century, and today there is only the SATANIC counterfeit!

Daniel says: "Nowhere am I told that the King James Bible is the best or only 'holy' Bible".  

Is he, on the other hand, told anywhere that the NASB, the NRSV, the NIV, or the NSRB is the best or only holy Bible?

NO, not ANYWHERE!

So, THERE IS NO GOOD BIBLE anywhere and it is wasting time writing articles about the Holy Bible! Do you need a degree to understand this?

Is he or is he not an imprudent BIBLE THIEF?! What "Bible" is he checking to find whether it speaks of the KJV being the only correct translation?! The "ORIGINALS"?!! Those letters were NEVER "the Bible"!!! What on earth is he talking about?!! Why is he so incoherent and rambling?

He goes on with the FARCE, writing: "There is no verse that tells me how God will preserve his word".

There is no verse where?! In "The Bible"?!!" <">In the   done to be sure, even though every translation is always imperfect, you said! There is also no verse anywhere in the universe that tells me to However, there is one verse that calls them < (because they never speak the truth IN CHRIST " same verse!)  

But if he has "The Bible" that he can read, why does he not tell us where we can also get it, so that we can also check if he is telling the truth IN CHRIST, not lying (1 Tim 2:7)?!

Why does he have "the Bible" and nobody else has it?!"

Daniel states in point 8 that: "Most evangelicals- who embrace all the cardinal doctrines of the faith " prefer a different translation".

Well, if any would prefer the Authorized Version, he would no longer be classified as "evangelical", embracing all the cardinal doctrines of the faith: he would be called an ugly name!

Is it a cardinal doctrine to "prefer a different translation" and is it cardinal doctrine to embrace a doctrine? I never heard before that a Christian EMBRACES doctrine!

What a stupid thought!!

A Christian BELIEVES the whole Oracle of God, I say. He believes that it is a cardinal doctrine to have the whole Bible in his hands and that God NEVER lost anything of it! The Christian believes that God Almighty NEVER lost one iota or one tittle of His entire Holy Draft He calls the Holy Scriptures: it goes with His Holy Character!

If "evangelicals" prefer to embrace a doctrine that supports their version preferences, they are APOSTATES and deceived members of a modern CULT, which robs its victims of the precious words of God. Of course, if such a CULT steals the Bible, the cult is satanic!

Funny that Daniel consents that "evangelicals" have the right to propagate their "preferences" and attack those who DEFEND the KJV, while he is angry with those who attack the "preference cult" and FIGHT to protect their Bible! It is a fight of a STEEL sword against a plastic one (Eph 6:17)!

To end his incredible messy article, Daniel writes: "And as such we do a great disservice to a dying world which is desperately in need of a clear, strong voice proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ."

The nerve!

"

A dying world which is desperately in need of a clear, strong voice"! Can you believe this?! He had just said that "evangelicals" PREFER a different translation and he DID NOT " I repeat: DID NOT! " mention which translation he meant!! Is that being CLEAR WITH A STRONG VOICE?!!!"

Daniel Wallace should see a doctor before writing more gobbledygook and waffle like this!

What different translation would an "evangelical" offer a new convert who desperately needed to read about the clear and strong voice proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ?! Would he give the baby in Christ clear directions to "select a preference"?!!

Daniel says that "most textual critics for the past two hundred and fifty years would say that no doctrine is affected by these changes (point 9)."

Well, the Bible never speaks nice words about textual critics " 2 Cor 2:17; 2 Cor 4:2; Jer 23:31! And that is a doctrine that has NEVER been affected! But when textual critics tell us that removing "IN CHRIST" from 1 Timothy 2:7, and "thou shalt not bear false witness" from Romans 13:9 does not affect any doctrine, it will become APOSTATE doctrine to believe the textual critics and forget about the Scriptures!  

And so on, ad nauseam!

Daniel asks a lot of questions like Satan asked Eve (Genesis 3:1), with the intention of DISRUPTING the faith of the innocent victim (the one told to collect "bible" versions but always check with the "scholar" for assurance!), the same faith he says if absolutely established in "The Bible". The man is certainly suffering from some moral disorientation!

Well, I also have some URGENT question for him.

1.      What version do you use mostly and why?

2.      You say that there is no perfect translation of the Bible. Was that some revelation you received from the Holy Spirit, the Author of Scripture, or did you get it from another man?

3.      If no translation is perfect, what is then perfect in Christianity?

4.      If God took care of 98% in the best translation (apparently the NASB!), why did He leave out only two percent?

5.      Was the Holy Spirit, the Author of Scripture, not fully interested in PRESERVING the Scriptures pure in English?

6.      Can the Christians absolutely (100%!) trust what the scholars say?

7.      When a scholar translates from the "original" into English, is his translation ALSO imperfect?

8.      Which bible version would you say I can hold to my heart and be sure is 100% the true Bible in English? If you say "none", is your answer 100% correct?

9.      What bible version would you give a baby in Christ with the recommendation that he would NEVER need another one?

10. Why do scholars discount the Holy Spirit"s involvement in the Authorized translation?

11. Why do scholars never suspect the devil"s interference to corrupt the modern versions?

12. How do you explain to a new Christian that the most successful period of the Church History was when the English church used the Authorized Version?

13. How do you account for the fact that there never was any true revival with the "better" versions available today?

14. If God lost part of His inspired Script, why had He to wait until the 20^th century to attempt to recover it with the help of man?

15. Since a new convert has no chance in any liberal church to stick to the standard Bible in English, which version do you recommend as the best for him and why?

16. If there are two types of bibles, based on two "families" of manuscripts, was the Devil in any way involved in attacking the Bible?

17. Do you believe God lost the original on purpose? Or, was it an accident?

18. Do you believe a Christian should always speak the truth IN CHRIST, not lie, according to 1 Timothy 2:7, in the KJV? Do you believe Satan attacked that particular verse, or do you think Paul never wrote it like that?

19. Do you like the NWT? If not, tell us why.

20. If we live in the Laodicean period of Church History, why would the church need to recover the "original" Bible?

21. When the RV came to life, why was it NOT a perfect translation?

22. When the NASB came to life why did they call it the New American "Standard" without ever been read in any church? Why "standard"? What was wrong with the old standard?

23. Why does the church need one new "re-translation" and/or revision every six months?

24. Where in the Bible is any inference given that textual critics were appointed to do any work for the Lord?

25. What was wrong with the word "STUDY" in the Bible, to be removed from modern versions?

We could ask Daniel another three-dozen questions, but these are enough to leave him wondering why he wrote his NONSENSICAL thesis to attack the Bible of God!