...another critical text group thinks they can and should revise the King James Version! I found the following from several online sources, as noted.
James F. “Jim” Linzey (b. 1958) is an ordained Southern Baptist minister, a retired Army chaplain (rank of Major, it seems), the lead pastor and president of Military Bible Association, Inc., a private, non-profit ministry to the military which owns and operates Coffeyville Worship Center (in Coffeyville, Kansas). He is originally from San Diego, California, an author, speaker, and he chief editor and executive director of the Modern English Version Bible.
I found several remarkable facts and red flags with Linzey.
Assembly of God background.
Jim Linzey has an Assembly of God background. He is a graduate of Fuller Theological Seminary. Linzey’s mother, Verna Linzey, was an Assemblies of God minister/pastor, and a biblical languages scholar. It was she who led in an updated translation of the original Tyndale Bible in 2001 called New Tyndale Version (NTV). University of Mobile professor Douglas Wilson served on the Old Testament translation committee for the “New Tyndale Version.” Stanley M. Horton, who served as the early senior editorial advisor of the MEV, was a leading Assembly of God professor.
The MEV is a modern translation by 47 unidentified US & UK translators. There is a 2024 edition now, but the 2014 edition is on Bible Gateway: The Holy Bible, Modern English Version. Copyright © 2014 by Military Bible Association. Published and distributed by Charisma House.
Fudges for status.
Around 2016 Linzey was working on a revision of the “New Tyndale Version” (which apparently is available in a NT called ‘The Leadership Bible’). Their now defunct website called Maurice Robinson “Senior Editorial Advisor.” However, Robinson told John Hines that this group was using the Robinson-Pierpont Greek text, but that he (Maurice) was not officially a consultant for them. At that time (2016), he had answered one question they had asked him. He was willing to answer their question, but he was not officially working with them in any way.
That’s a pretty blatant case of name-dropping for promotional purposes in dubbing Maurice Robinson a “Senior Editorial Advisor” in such circumstances.
Prefers critical text.
Tim Nickels of “A Nickels Worth Bible Reviews” interviewed Linzey, in which the following points come out. Listen HERE and HERE.
“I’m Jim Linzey, the chief editor of the Modern English Version. It is the King James Version Bible itself. It is the 2024 English update. And so, if you’re looking for – if you’re a KJV only person, this is what you want. If you are a TR person, this is what you want. It’s even more modern than the New King James Version.”
Linzey: “I believe the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament – and UBS, same thing – I believe those are the most academic. But when it comes to a KJV update, you use the Textus Receptus.
Nickels: “So, if I’m hearing you right you’re saying you actually, from a scholarship standpoint, prefer the critical apparatus?”
Linzey: “Absolutely.”
Linzey believes there are errors in the King James translation and admits they diverged from it in places. “I do believe that there are errors in the King James version that with the TR you can correct and make it more accurate as far as the TR is concerned. And we did that and I’m very proud of that.” This from the man who just shortly before said if you are KJV Only, the MEV is the Bible you want!
Does not hold to the standard “Protestant” canon.
Linzey believes the Book of Enoch and the Apocrypha are inspired.
Linzey: “There are other writings, which means Scripture, that are simply not in the canon, that are equally inspired. The early church fathers considered the book of Enoch to be Scripture. And it should have been in the canon; but it is not...Let’s take the Apocrypha…I do believe the Apocrypha is part of the Bible…”
Nickels: “I don’t want to put words in your mouth…Are you saying that [the book of] Enoch and the Apocrypha are on the same playing field as the 66 books of the Protestant canon?”
Linzey: “Yes.”
Conclusion.
Like other profane paths and wrong ways, “Avoid [the MEV], pass not by it, turn from it, and pass away.”
2 comments:
I admit I was very curious about the MEV until I saw that interview. I have a similar list that I made from the interview of alarming things. The MEV is a no-go!
I was under the impression that the MEV was something very different than it is, until I started looking into it. The chief editor is so far out there on some issues, I certainly would not trust a new Bible he is promoting.
Post a Comment