The Answer is that other people have been MISLED about what KJVO really is.

 So Princeton had long ago stopped being either doctrinally sound or theologically conservative. In other words, it was a a liberal seminary which rejected Jesus Christ, and a paradise among Textual Critics – But While Ankerberg trumpets Metzger, his background and its implications are nicely passed over).

[But if your church adhered to what Princeton Seminary believes, would you actually Want to attend ? But of course, since its "only the Bible", which is what church life will be based on for 52 Sunday sermons and 52 weeks a year...then that is somehow LESS significant ????]


We are not surprised about Metzger, since he does not believe in the same Canon of Scripture that Protestants do. Additionally, Metzger himself appointed Virginia Mollenkott to a Protestant Revision Committee, to work on Church Lectionaries in higher protestant denominations. This committee was a committee that Metzger was heading for the World Council of Churches. While you or others might not know that Mollenkott is an avid Feminist lesbian, that argument is not one that Metzger could make.

Carlo Martini is the overseer for all Catholic Theological Training at the Vatican (Pontifical Institute of Rome), in addition to being Archbishop of Milan. How many of Ankerberg’s protestant readers to you think are really receiving quality and truthful information that is faithful to the Reformation and Protestant teachings, by citing Carlo Martini -  without disclosing his  Roman catholic point of view ?

Ankerberg in his last sentence (of part 5) makes a telling statement about manuscripts and Bible versions, where he states about them "that it is how theologians misinterpret words that cause denominational differences".

Maybe he actually believes this. But for the record, what caused denominational differences historically – is that the RCC used one group of manuscripts (Codex Vaticanus) and the protestants used another (the other 98% of the Bible manuscripts that disagree with Vaticanus).

In the same last paragraph, Ankerberg asks if Conservative Protestants have any desire to promote "Catholic Doctrine" ? Obviously, if we are including Bruce Metzger and Kurt Aland (& Nida) in the question, the answer must be YES – since they invited Official Roman Catholic Theologians to play a part in the translation work that they knew would be so foundational to the training of almost All future Protestant theologians.

But Ankerberg does not expose his readers to THOSE facts. In addition, it should be noted about the Nestle-Aland Revision Committee (which controls the Greek Text used in all Modern Protestant Versions) – that this Revision Committee and the UBS (which publishes them) entered into an Official Agreement with the Vatican in the 1960s, giving them VETO over aspects of the Nestle-Aland text that they had a problem with.

That is Not Only "addressing" the issue of whether or not the Nestle Aland is Catholic (which version it would have to be in anycase, since Codex Vaticanus is only used to support Catholic Bibles and Catholic Doctrines), it is proof that the answer to the question of whether or not Protestants are actively working to cooperate with the Vatican can be answered affirmatively, and the answer is clearly "Yes".

Ankerberg calls those Protestants he refers to  "conservative", but a small clue about the truth of this...is that protestants who are truly Biblically and theologically conservative do not appoint Lesbian Feminists to their committees.

Oh, and if you’re wondering when Metzger appointed Molenkott to the Lectionary Revision Committee, it was in the late 1980s and 1990s. By then, her pro-homosexual book had already come out (in 1978). This is a secret to no one, except to Evangelicals who defend so-called Modern Versions of the Bible. Since 1978, many more of her books have also been published, each more intense than the last one. (Just check this out at Amazon.com)

Where Ankerberg is one of the sources material used, it will explain some of your conclusions – about this issue.

For him, It may possibly...potentially...theoretically...perhaps...some day...in the future...be worth re-examining some of the facts that surround the Actual merits of the issues.

But it seems that it was a lot easier to rely on so-called experts, rather than having to do the research for himself. It is time for us to us to do our own research, and stop taking the word of experts, who are not investigating some of these issues enough...

We can only hope and pray that Ankerberg will come to the point where he understands that he erred in his research and in his conclusions. Pray for him in that regard.

What are you doing for Jesus ?

Distributed Content Agreement -

Yes this page - and all others here unless cited differently are @