Christ the King Books

Pay close attention to the Kirkus review above. Hackneyed is the correct description of the work. It goes off on so many tangents that it is very hard to follow at times. But mostly, the work is quite boring.

There are better histories of Utah, the Mountain Men, the Padres, the Mormons, etc, but if what you desire is a quick, very superficial overview of Utah's history, then you will find this work useful.

As someone interested in that region of our country, I found this book compelling . . . and it gave me a new understanding of the Mormons' struggle to find their homeland. I would recommend it to anyone even remotely interested in Mormons or in that area of that country. The story is page-turning, not a dry history at all.

KJ3 Literal Translation New Testament

NOTE: Because of its length and possibly controversial content, I don't expect you to post this review. Nevertheless, it does reflect my present take on J. Green's translation.

Initial Reading, First Impressions

According to its translator, readers can approach this volume with complete confidence in its accuracy:
"Now, at last, all can read in English the very words that God wrote in Hebrew and Greek. For in this KJ3 Bible the reader has every word that God breathed out and had written for our instruction.. [sic] Nothing has been added, and no word has been taken away. There are no substitute words (such as synonyms), no paraphrases, no ignoring of the frequent double negatives in the Scriptures, and no interpretations (for God is His own interpreter, we can know His meanings only by His very words, and no other way)." (p. xii)

Any attempt, of course, to evaluate these sweeping statements within the context of a brief online review of the translation would clearly involve a herculean, if not an impossible feat. A sampling of two or three verses should suffice to highlight the problem.

1.) In the KJV, for example, John 10:16 reads as follows: "And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold [aules]: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold [poimne], and one shepherd." Note that the KJV translators used the same English word, fold, to translate two different Greek nouns. Greek lexicons define aule as "an open, uncovered space enclosed by a wall, a yard for cattle, a sheepfold, a courtyard," etc., and poimne as "a flock of sheep or goats, a herd, fig., of Christ's followers," etc.

The KJ3, by way of contrast, gives this translation: "And I have other sheep which are not of this fold. [aules] I must also lead those, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock, [poimne] one Shepherd." (In this passage Jesus was most likely referring to the aule as the separated, hedged in, protected way of life or sheepfold of His Mosaic/old covenant people and to the flock as including His followers both from this old covenant age-[aion]-of-promise group and those from the nations who would also believe in Him under the new covenant age [aion] of fulfillment of God's promises.) In this instance, the KJ3 translation wins the nod as a more accurate version.

2.) As another example, Hebrews 1:1-2 in the KJV read as follows: "God, who at sundry times [Polumeros {the first word in the Greek text}] and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds [aionas {the accusative plural form of aion; see 1.) above}]."

The same passage in the KJ3 reads: "In many ways [Polumeros] and in various ways of old, God having spoken to the fathers in the prophets; in these last days He spoke to us in the Son, whom He appointed heir of all things; through whom He indeed made the ages [aionas]."
In general, one can plausibly view the letter to the Hebrews as comprising or embodying a series of landmark contrasts pertaining to two methods of revelation, two covenantal ages, Jesus Christ versus the angels, two covenantal systems of law, two high priests, and so forth. The Greek adverb polumeros, from polus, meaning "much, many" and meros. meaning "part, portion, piece, fragment," etc., literally means "in many parts, portions, fragments," etc. (Compare the dictionary definition of the English word "polymer," a transliteration of the same combination of root words.) In this context, prior to the incarnation of the Son of God, divine revelations came in fragmentary bits and pieces spanning many centuries, as when the Spirit would fall upon God's prophets and then depart, sometimes leaving even them without a full understanding of what they had revealed as His instruments: "About which salvation the prophets sought out and searched out, prophesying about the grace for you, searching for what, or what sort of time the Spirit of Christ made clear in them...." (1 Peter 1:10-11, KJ3)

Only after Jesus Christ entered the human realm in the last days of the old covenant dispensation (see Peter's address to his fellow Israelites on the feast of Pentecost following Jesus' resurrection and ascension: "But this is that having been spoken by the prophet Joel; 'And it shall be' in the last days, God says, 'I will pour from My Spirit on all flesh....'" [Acts 2:16-17]) were His disciples permanently all filled of the Holy Spirit, (Acts 2:4) Who then began to lead them into all truth, as Jesus had promised in John 14:26, "but the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He shall teach you all things [panta] and shall remind you of all things that I said to you." Furthermore, within that very same generation, God's once for all (hapax) revelation by His Son into all truth would come to an end. Thus as that period was closing, Jude could write about "the faith once [hapax] given over to the saints." (Jude 1:3) (As an aside, note also in which generation [genea] the Scriptures repeatedly say that the last days would occur: "...this generation [genea] will not pass away until all these things occur...." [Luke 21:32] They would certainly not occur in any twenty-first century generation [genea], as many in our day assert!)

Therefore, in order to preserve this key contrast in methods by which God proclaimed and completed His revelation, a correct translation of polumeros takes on a key importance. For this reason, in the first two verses of Hebrews, both the KJV and the KJ3 appear to fall short with regard to literal accuracy.

In summary, since most of Christ's largely passive sheep will no doubt continue to leave "technical/spiritual" subjects such as these to their salaried shepherds rather than make an effort to acquire even a modest familiarity with the original languages of Scripture, the number of competing translations in the marketplace will likely continue to grow. Therefore, until a number of competent believing linguists undertake the tedious task of making a thorough verse-by-verse analysis of the KJ3 NT in light of the original text, an informed jury will have to withhold a final verdict as to its accuracy. On the basis, however, of my own initial reading of this translation, together with a sampling of comparisons with the original text, I would tentatively rate this new translation on a scale of 1 to 5 as a 3 ½.
Bob Guske
b_guske@juno.com

Wonderful. This translation will increase your knowledge of the New Testament significantly. It will be helpful in private study to analyze hidden meanings behind key passages, and for witness encounters with people who scoff at holy scripture.

This version is based on several late, less reliable Byzantine manuscripts of the Middle Age church. Even with these texts, however, Jay Green does a commendable job in giving us literal readings even on passages that seem to contradict established Christian theology. It uses modern English, so don't be repulsed by the "KJ3" title, but be forewarned that the grammar is distinctively Greek, and the word order makes it troublesome for native English speakers to read! Large, clear type. There are also many helpful scripture references included by Jay when the Apostle Paul or others quote the Old Testament.

Here is an example of his fine work: "Watch, then, for you do not know in what hour your Lord comes. "But know this, that if the housemaster had known in what watch the thief comes, he would have watched and not have allowed his house to be dug through. Because of this, you also be ready, for in that hour you think not, the Son of Man comes." (Matthew 24:42,43)

I still read it every now and then, just for a good laugh.

I think it has an excellent thought provoking hypothesis and may well be closer to the truth than other current ideas about christ.

People complain about the writing, which is average at best, but it was never intended to be high literature.
Read it and enjoy . . .

This is a fascinating idea, written in the style of the religious pamphlets people hand out on subways. The grand conspiracy of vampires is entertaining, but the book suffers from poor proofreading, poor characterization, a disjointed plot and absolutely awful writing. Had the author teamed up with another, more talented, writer, and refrained from inserting all the left-wing and anarchist philosophy, this might deserve comparison to the Illuminatus! Trilogy.

As others below note, this is a horribly written novel with a great premise: Christianity was founded by a vampire. Makes perfect sense: isn't communion just Jesus' followers drinking his blood? With tongue in cheek, Eccarius exploits the concept pretty well, then wanders off into a confusing "noble anarchists vs. the Pope and his vampire legions" plot, draining any momentum he's built as surely as a parish priest drains an altarboy of B negative. Eccarius should sell the concept to a competent writer-- what would Dan Brown do with this??

The book has a very creative premise, which offers all kinds of possibilities, but Eccarius' writing style (if it can be called that) seriously undermines any chance this book had at being good. One line that struck me as especially bad came when a group of male anarchists were standing around, "calculating, subconsciously, the probability of getting into their (the female anarchists') respective pants. In a nice manner, of course, fully respective of their humanity." Eccarius' underwhelming talent pretty much wipes out any possibility this book had of being taken seriously. This is a shame, because, as I said, he starts with a great premise.

The Last Days of Christ the Vampire is a book that is more than a little reminiscent of Robert A. Wilson's Illuminatus series. Eccarius gives a less than charitable view of Christianity and its founder, and a vision of a world run by a council of vampires that has members ranging from Aliester Crowley to Genghis Kahn. The book is a little disjointed in spots, and leaves the reader with a lot more questions than it answers, but for some that could be a recomendation in and of itself. If you enjoy paranoid conspiracy novels, I can certainly recommend this book without hesitation. If, however, you are an Anne Rice fan looking for yet another incarnation of Lestat. you would be better off looking elsewhere

James, the Archangel, gives the nine members of the A.W.A. Gang the responsibility of finding a place for Jesus to be born. Their search takes them from the Roman Empire to Bethlehem and from castles to a stable. This is the story of Christ's birth from the Angel's perspective. The story is packed with valuable information for setting both the historical and religious contexts of Christmas. The young angels are today's kids in white garb and with backpacks. The book may be trying to do TOO much. While the search for a suitable birthplace for the King of Kings makes for a viable, effective plot technique, the story (despite all the words) doesn't reconcile the modern-ish angels with an historical event very well.

The lordship salvation belief flies in the face of the grace of God. By grace through faith, and that NOT OF YOUR SELVES.

Lordship salvationists forget at least one piece of advice from God, and that is that ALL (i.e. ALL) of your works of righteousness (even the very best attempts to make Jesus your Lord) ARE AS FILTHY RAGS.

Still, as the old adage says, "there go I but for the grace of God".

Do your self a favor, don't bother buying this book. Read the gospel instead. You'll find the right answers there.

Crenshaw's theological bias is the same old re-hash of Lordship Salvationist heresies. He's simply dead wrong. Its hard to imagine that, after 15 years of thorough refutation of the flawed hermeneutics and exegetics of this ilk that they continue to get up off the mat. If you enjoy being misled about the true meaning of God's Word, read Crenshaw. If you to really know what God is saying, have a look at Dillow's "Reign of the Servant Kings." My credentials? B.A. Moody; M.Phil. Univ. Edinburgh; Th.M. Dallas TS; Th.D. Oxford; post-doctoral work at Dallas and Cambridge.