What do you think?
Rate this book
Editing God: Textual Criticism and Modern Bibles Analyzed
(Version 1.4 March, 2023) The KJV Only (KJO) believers accuse modern Bibles of being corrupt because they remove many words and phrases and even whole verses, removing enough text to equal 1st and 2nd Peter, and make many other changes. So the author investigated the issue.The question he set out to answer was, are the claims of the KJO believers accurate, or are the modern Bibles more accurate than the KJV? The author never expected his investigation to turn into a book, because there are already several books supporting both sides. However, his skill-set is thinking outside the box and figuring things out, as seen in his other books. As such, he has some new insights and surprising discoveries to offer.The reader will learn that the Greek text of the KJV is not as corrupt as we have been told and that modern Bibles are far more corrupt than you would ever imagine. Westcott and Hort, the creators of the questioned Greek New Testament text, both despised evangelicals and their literal view of Scripture. There are many quotes from them proving their liberal unbelief. Though they were officially Anglican bishops, they were actually secret Unitarians because only members of the Church of England could be college professors or hold a government job. So they kept their liberal unbelief a secret, but it was revealed after their deaths by the publication of their private letters. Their purpose was to produce a liberal Bible that Unitarians, then and today, love.The advocates for the modern Bible versions want us to believe that all the modern Bibles are the authentic Words of God, even though they are all different. The modern translations pretty much include or leave out what they want, since that was how the Greek master-text was created. It causes people to doubt the reliability of the Bible, and to doubt the truth of Christianity. Apparently, God cannot make up his mind what he wants to say, so he says whatever these "experts" want him to say, and it changes with each new edition of the Greek master-text, and each new translation that comes out.If you don't like this book you can return the eBook OR the print book to amazon for a full How John Wycliffe died has been updated.
245 pages, Kindle Edition
Published January 1, 2019
17 people are currently reading
9 people want to read
About the author
Michael D. Fortner
26 books19 followersMichael is an investigative journalist, and historian with a god-given ability to figure things out and think outside the box.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
February 28, 2023
A real eye opener!
More and more people are becoming aware of how corrupt the modern Bibles are. This is due in large part to so much information that is now available to the general public.
The author shows that while people used to trust the scholars and seminary professors, they are now more skeptical and don't swallow things whole cloth the way they used to.
If you wonder why there's so many differences among the modern Bibles, this is a great overview of the topic. It will open your eyes to what Satan has always done - cast doubt on God's Word.
The issue is so widespread that it will likely not be squared away until the Lord returns
More and more people are becoming aware of how corrupt the modern Bibles are. This is due in large part to so much information that is now available to the general public.
The author shows that while people used to trust the scholars and seminary professors, they are now more skeptical and don't swallow things whole cloth the way they used to.
If you wonder why there's so many differences among the modern Bibles, this is a great overview of the topic. It will open your eyes to what Satan has always done - cast doubt on God's Word.
The issue is so widespread that it will likely not be squared away until the Lord returns
January 9, 2025
Where to begin with this book? Fortner takes the seat as the judge of all things Bible translation, textual criticism, theology, church history, and manuscript evidence. The most disturbing part about this book is that he pretends to engage in analyzing textual criticism with reading Greek, and without citing his sources properly. Most of the book is actually a textbook example of learning to spot logical fallacies. He makes claims that people say or believe certain things about the Bible, without ever backing up his claim. His method of citing sources obscures from the reader, who is being quoted, what they actually said, what their position really is, where he got his information, and that is in the places he bothers to cite his work at all. A large percentage of the sources he cites in defense of his position (against the Wescott and Hort Greek Text) are actually writings from before the Wescott Hort text was even published. He regularly engages in anachronistic sourcing, representing authors of believing things they could not have believed because of the time when they wrote it.
The book is not written well either. Some examples include "LOL" and "duh" being included as affirmations of his own arguments without providing real evidence. Other fun ones include that he has found more ways to spell Metzger than I could have ever imagined possible. Spelling errors aside, the author makes regular use of fragments instead of full sentences and incorrect usage of vocabulary.
The author is self-contradicting on many points. In one chapter he claims that the Wescott Hort Greek text was published after the Revised Version (of course without any kind of citation to prove this), then in the rest of the book he claims they were published on the exact same day.
Another contradiction: He claims that the Eastern Orthodox church is the bastion of textual preservation, gives concrete examples of only eastern heretics in the early church who corrupted the text. He claims that nothing good can come from Egypt, but only from the Eastern Orthodox church, then when Sinaiticus is discovered in St. Catherine's, lo and behold it is a Greek Orthodox church, just like he requested.
He claims that 99% of the Byzantine Text type can be reproduced simply by quoting the early church fathers (of course without providing any citation or research). Then he proceeds to turn around and say that most of the early church fathers were Alexandrian and shouldn't be counted. I am at a loss with what to do with this guy.
While Fortner rejects the Textual-Critical principles of Wescott and Hort, he never provides the reader with what those principles actually were. Then if you're left wondering how we should reconstruct the text of the New Testament, he provides you with no principles to guide you along the way either.
Fortner's primary argument seems to be that something like the Textus Receptus, Byzantine Text type, and Majority Text are the best text for the New Testament, and everyone who disagrees with him is obviously liberal, a heretic, or Satanic. I wonder if he knows the difference between the three text types he loves so much. If I could boil this book down, it's this: take a standard King James Only rant, and replace KJV with MEV, and replace TR with Majority Text, and there you have it folks.
I am disappointed that he never even mentions the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine text project, which would be a much better route to pursue as far as defensibility of his position. I am disappointed that this book contains blatant errors of fact. If you are wanting to study how we got the Bible, or even how translation or textual criticism work, this is probably the last book I could ever recommend for that study.
I did not purchase this book, it was given to me. I read it because I care about the person who gave it to me.
The book is not written well either. Some examples include "LOL" and "duh" being included as affirmations of his own arguments without providing real evidence. Other fun ones include that he has found more ways to spell Metzger than I could have ever imagined possible. Spelling errors aside, the author makes regular use of fragments instead of full sentences and incorrect usage of vocabulary.
The author is self-contradicting on many points. In one chapter he claims that the Wescott Hort Greek text was published after the Revised Version (of course without any kind of citation to prove this), then in the rest of the book he claims they were published on the exact same day.
Another contradiction: He claims that the Eastern Orthodox church is the bastion of textual preservation, gives concrete examples of only eastern heretics in the early church who corrupted the text. He claims that nothing good can come from Egypt, but only from the Eastern Orthodox church, then when Sinaiticus is discovered in St. Catherine's, lo and behold it is a Greek Orthodox church, just like he requested.
He claims that 99% of the Byzantine Text type can be reproduced simply by quoting the early church fathers (of course without providing any citation or research). Then he proceeds to turn around and say that most of the early church fathers were Alexandrian and shouldn't be counted. I am at a loss with what to do with this guy.
While Fortner rejects the Textual-Critical principles of Wescott and Hort, he never provides the reader with what those principles actually were. Then if you're left wondering how we should reconstruct the text of the New Testament, he provides you with no principles to guide you along the way either.
Fortner's primary argument seems to be that something like the Textus Receptus, Byzantine Text type, and Majority Text are the best text for the New Testament, and everyone who disagrees with him is obviously liberal, a heretic, or Satanic. I wonder if he knows the difference between the three text types he loves so much. If I could boil this book down, it's this: take a standard King James Only rant, and replace KJV with MEV, and replace TR with Majority Text, and there you have it folks.
I am disappointed that he never even mentions the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine text project, which would be a much better route to pursue as far as defensibility of his position. I am disappointed that this book contains blatant errors of fact. If you are wanting to study how we got the Bible, or even how translation or textual criticism work, this is probably the last book I could ever recommend for that study.
I did not purchase this book, it was given to me. I read it because I care about the person who gave it to me.
August 6, 2019
Before you open a Bible, read this book
Would you read a Bible that was written by a gnostic? Would trust a Bible that was edited by a non-believing heretic? If your a Christian, your first reaction might be 'of course not you got to be kidding'! Would you buy a Bible that was based on manuscript that was loaded with corrections, errors, and self contradictions? Well you might of done just that if you bought a modern Bible translation. This book is much needed in the Christian community. The author makes a convincing case against modern Bible translations. He is not a "King James only ' type either. However, the one sticking point of this book that motivated me to give it 4 stars instead of 5 has to do with John Wycliffe dying of a stroke, rather than be murdered. (See "John DeWycliffe: The First of the Reformers, and What He Did for England" by Emily S. Holt pages 143-144). Maybe I missed a detail, and I have no intentions of getting into a fight over one detail). Read the book.
Would you read a Bible that was written by a gnostic? Would trust a Bible that was edited by a non-believing heretic? If your a Christian, your first reaction might be 'of course not you got to be kidding'! Would you buy a Bible that was based on manuscript that was loaded with corrections, errors, and self contradictions? Well you might of done just that if you bought a modern Bible translation. This book is much needed in the Christian community. The author makes a convincing case against modern Bible translations. He is not a "King James only ' type either. However, the one sticking point of this book that motivated me to give it 4 stars instead of 5 has to do with John Wycliffe dying of a stroke, rather than be murdered. (See "John DeWycliffe: The First of the Reformers, and What He Did for England" by Emily S. Holt pages 143-144). Maybe I missed a detail, and I have no intentions of getting into a fight over one detail). Read the book.
December 2, 2023
One of the best books on Textual Criticism
Fortner is very thorough, yet mostly abstains from the demagoguery so common in books on this subject. Also refreshing is his balanced view on the correct text and best translation. While on the side of the Byzantine text, he is not KJV only, but recognizes improvements can be made to both the Textus Receptus and the KJV. I heartily agree with his handling of this difficult subject.
Fortner is very thorough, yet mostly abstains from the demagoguery so common in books on this subject. Also refreshing is his balanced view on the correct text and best translation. While on the side of the Byzantine text, he is not KJV only, but recognizes improvements can be made to both the Textus Receptus and the KJV. I heartily agree with his handling of this difficult subject.
January 5, 2022
Very well written!
Very well written and comprehensive in substance without delving into minutia.
Very good book for an overview of the corrupt New (per)versions. And the main thesis of the Bible version controversy: It was not to clarify, simplify or update archaic King James English but to purposely distort and pervert the Word of God.
Very well written and comprehensive in substance without delving into minutia.
Very good book for an overview of the corrupt New (per)versions. And the main thesis of the Bible version controversy: It was not to clarify, simplify or update archaic King James English but to purposely distort and pervert the Word of God.
December 25, 2021
Great information
What's missing from your Bible? Why were verses omitted? Why do textual critics reject the majority of existing manuscripts in favor of a couple of corrupted manuscripts from Alexandria?
What's missing from your Bible? Why were verses omitted? Why do textual critics reject the majority of existing manuscripts in favor of a couple of corrupted manuscripts from Alexandria?
December 22, 2022
Good book. It supports Bibles that use the Textus Receptus Greek New Testament, which I agree with. I like the book and the author's work here.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews