Grantley McDonald - the leftie anti-Evangelical agenda

Steven Avery

Facebook - Textus Receptus Academy
Nick Sayers - June 15, 2020

But it would seem to me, and most I know, that your concerns about Steven are a case of the pot calling the kettle black. You are forgetting the “first shots” you have fired many years ago accusing people like myself and other people labelled fundamentalists of being dangerous. Here are your own words from your dissertation

RGA - p. 434-435

“... In the first half of the twentieth century, the evidence of the manuscripts finally led to the virtually universal rejection of the comma’s authenticity amongst professional biblical critics. However, the resurgence of biblical fundamentalism over the past forty or fifty years, especially amongst Evangelicals in the United States and elsewhere, has given new life to the question of the comma. The fundamentalist defence of the comma culminated in a critically inadequate but widely cited account of the question by Michael Maynard (1995). Now that the debate has moved to the Internet, it has become easier for conservatives, relying on unreliable guides like Maynard, to question the scholarly consensus on matters of textual criticism like the comma, and to cast suspicion on the entire philological project of higher criticism. According to many Evangelical fundamentalists, biblical criticism has fallen prey to a destructive secularism bent on casting doubt on the literal truth of the bible (that is, the textus receptus and the Authorised Version). Prominent fundamentalist leaders and educators thus actively encourage their followers to treat the advances of biblical scholarship with suspicion and hostility. As a consequence, the gap between the findings of professional biblical critics and popular conviction is growing; within these discussions, the question of the comma has taken on a kind of iconic status. Fundamentalist resistance to the biblical sciences goes hand-in-hand with resistance to the natural sciences and a conservative social program hostile to the rights of women, non-whites, gays and non-Christians. Within the last decade, fundamentalist activists have lobbied governments in the United States, Australia and the Netherlands to promote anti-scientific explanatory models such as Intelligent Design in schools, and to influence policy in other ways according to the agenda of the religious right. It is argued that the simultaneous attack on biblical criticism, scientific method and civil rights currently being mounted by Evangelical fundamentalists, which threatens to roll back many of the gains of the last two hundred years, is a matter of grave concern...”

So we, who are like Maynard, resist “... the natural sciences and a conservative social program hostile to the rights of women, non-whites, gays and non-Christians...”
So basically in layman’s terms, if you support 1 John 5:7-8 like Maynard, you are racist, anti science, misogynists, homophobic, and disobedient to the biblical commands to live enemies, non believers etc. Your claims are wildly slanderous.
Do you personally think myself and Steven, who respect the scholarship of Maynard, and believe 1 John 5:7-8 are these things? Am I a racist because of this? Would you personally like to talk to my wife and ask “if” the beatings have stopped?
I also must conclude that you do not subscribe to intelligent design. Would you consider yourself an atheist, agnostic, or theistic evolutionist? Do you conclude that the science is settled with Evolution being the most logical answer anthropological issues? Are we holding the evolution of society back by our backwards concepts?

Steven Avery

Nick Sayers - this was a superb post.
This real Grantley Robert McDonald agenda came up in another thread recently, focusing on what Grantley considers "progressive etc" and I appreciate that you also focused on the superb heavenly witnesses book by Michael Maynard, the game-changer!.

"scholarly consensus on matters of textual criticism"
"philological project of higher criticism"
"the advances of biblical scholarship "
"findings of professional biblical critics"
"Fundamentalist resistance to the biblical sciences"
"resistance to the natural sciences"
"conservative social program hostile to the rights of women, non-whites, gays and non-Christians."
" promote anti-scientific explanatory models such as Intelligent Design "
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Facebook - Textus Receptus Academy
Steven Avery - Jan 29, 2024

Grantley's goal is far more to be against Christian evangelical faith, including elements like creation over evolution, than his attempt to make a very difficult theory (total failure) of interpolation for the verse.
He is swinging wildly at all sorts of Christians, who have no position defending our pure Bible verse.
Dyson Hague, Harold Greenlee, Hal Lindsey, Josh McDowell, Matt Slick are examples, attacked for their Christian faith, regardless of their lack of support of the heavenly witnesses verse. Grantley does NOT tell his readers these are contras, or silent.

Also Wayland Hoyt, who Grantley has as William Hoyt, can be added. He wrote on inspiration, milquetoast, and NOT the AV

Grantley tried to keep his motives slyly hidden, but here you can see clearly:
Raising the Ghost of Arius - p. 310

The resurgent biblical literalism of the last half-century, which has injected the question of the comma with new life, is driven by an aggressively conservative view of Scripture which rejects biblical criticism as a conspiracy against the truth. This retrograde movement likewise undermines empirical science while advocating Creation Science and Intelligent Design, and promotes a conservative social order in which pressing issues of social justice are publicly denounced as abominations, and are actively opposed through the mobilisation of the religious right. The question of the comma is thus not merely a dusty chapter in the annals of biblical scholarship, but a microcosm of the religious tensions in which we find ourselves right now.
“pressing issues of social justice”
Let’s guess:
climate scam
open bordersj
jabs for all, mandated
Last edited:

Steven Avery

BCEME - p. 9-10
But adherence to the textus receptus and translations based upon it, notably the Authorised Version, is not simply a textual or literary preference. It frequently underlies a conservative social and moral program. In recent decades, some who hold such views have attempted to influence public education policy, such as the teaching of evolution in schools, and the regulation of sexual and reproductive issues, such as the availability of abortion and the legality of same-sex relationships. In the last few decades, the Johannine comma, one of the clearest instances of a conflict between academic critics and biblical conservatives, has thus regained its power to raise considerable passions.


Last edited:

Steven Avery

BCEME-p. 205

Charles Forster, preacher at Canterbury cathedral, published a defence of the textus receptus in 1867.70 Forster was particularly perturbed by the rejection of the comma by 'progressives’. He identified Richard Simon as the fountainhead of critical opposition to this passage, and blamed Porson for bringing the issue to the attention of a wider public. Their arguments had weighed heavily on Forsters heart for some thirty-six years, but he had finally been motivated to write a defence when he saw the ‘mutilated text’ of Wordsworth’s Greek Testament (1866), which excised the comma on the authority of Griesbach, Scholz, Lachmann and Tischendorf. But Forster warned that Wordsworth’s ‘very learned, and very elaborate, edition was jeopardised by ‘a false first principle of Scripture criticism’, namely ‘the rejection of a common Textus Receptus’. According to Forster, any departure from this textus receptus ‘makes every man, at once, the manufacturer of his own Bible, and the dictator of that Bible as the standard for all others’. For Forster, there was only one answer: ‘as the rejection of the Textus Receptus is the sole cause of the evil, so the restoration of the Textus Receptus is its only remedy. Biblical scholarship based on critical editions risked exposing tender consciences to ‘the sport of every novelty-loving scholastic speculatist’.71 But by this time, critics like Forster were swimming against the tide.

70 Forster 1867, 1-2.
71 Forster 1867, vii-xii; C. Wordsworth 1866, 2

Here is more psycho-babble "tender consciences".
Grantley plays this childish game everywhere.

And Forster never refers to 'progressives'.
Last edited: