Jump to ratings and reviews
Rate this book

Believing Bible Study

Rate this book
Book by Hills, Edward F.

258 pages, Paperback

First published August 1, 1997

26 people are currently reading
24 people want to read

About the author

Edward F. Hills

6 books1 follower

Ratings & Reviews

What do you think?
Rate this book

Friends & Following

Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!

Community Reviews

5 stars
7 (53%)
4 stars
3 (23%)
3 stars
0 (0%)
2 stars
3 (23%)
1 star
0 (0%)
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
Profile Image for A.J. Jr..
Author 4 books17 followers
December 20, 2016
A good introduction to Reformed presuppositional New Testament text criticism. This is E. F. Hills' follow up book to his "The King James Version Defended".
Profile Image for Albert Meier.
200 reviews3 followers
July 26, 2019
I am conflicted by this book. There are aspects with which I heartily agree and those with which I strongly disagree. His basic premise is that there are only two ways to approach science, philosophy and the study of the Bible--the "believing" approach that acknowledges at the outset that their is a God and seeks to conform and submit to his teachings, and an unbelieving approach that denies God at the outset. I agree with Hill that any attempt to be "neutral" is in fact a concession of the major point of debate--the reality of God and his self-revelation in Scripture and nature.

That said, the author equates God's promise that "his Word will never pass away" with the textual superiority of the Textus Receptus (including additions from the Vulgate made with no manuscript evidence!). While believing the promise and with utter confidence in the integrity of the Biblical text, I find his arguments for TR preference convincing. He is spot on in his criticism of utter reliance on other text families. Approaching each variant separately and evaluating the weight of all textual evidence seems a better approach.

Profile Image for Steve.
47 reviews
September 13, 2017
The textual analysis is quite good, but Hills' intent is to promote KJV-onlyism, which seriously detracts from and derails his argument.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews

Can't find what you're looking for?

Get help and learn more about the design.