Editorial, Review

Thomas Ross’ TRO position

Thomas Ross (of faithsaves.net) is an American cessationist Baptist. However, despite his theological differences to Christian Perfection and Traditional Pentecostalism, he has made some excellent points in defence of the King James Bible. After he made quite a good statement regarding the Scriptural basis of the preservation of the Scripture into English, he then erred into the “original languages only” (Textus Receptus only) doctrine of D. A. Waite, and jeopardised his entire argument. Not unrelatedly, he also elsewhere stated, rather strangely, that “Scripture’s promises of perfect preservation validate that ‘and he went’ is the correct reading in Ruth 3:15.”

TR: I confess that I do not believe that modern Baptist churches should use any other English translation than the Authorized Version, nor do I see any necessity for revising the KJV at any time during my lifetime.

This is the first sign of a problem. Being open to future changes to the King James Bible is to recognise that the King James Bible’s text and translation may not be perfect after all. Changing the KJB is fraught with danger, because even little changes like “alway” to “always” are meaning changes.

It is very important that the conceptual integrity of the KJB be retained, and therefore no changes should be made. English is, in its written form, become fixed. Written English is not changing so as to make the words or parsing and syntax of the KJB unintelligible.

TR: However, I also confess that the promises of preservation are specifically made for Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words, not English words (Matthew 5:18), and that there are no specific promises that state that Scripture would be translated without error.

After having argued that Scripture is in English, and that the nature of inspiration is retained through translation and even given verses that show that preservation is implied to come into English, he now states the opposite, as if the real truth is only in the original languages, and that Matthew 5:18 does not include English, and that it is impossible to have a perfect translation.

First, it is a sign of modernist influence when a person says “Aramaic”. They are obviously meaning Syriack, and what became known as Chaldee.

The assertion that only the Scripture is to be preserved in the original languages is never stated in Scripture.

Only one verse is referred to, and that verse, Matthew 5:18, is not a specific positive reference to Hebrew only (and what about Greek?) Jots and tittles are to be found in English. If it is to be argued that only the Scriptures were in Hebrew (the Old Testament) when Jesus spoke this, then it both misses the Gospel implications of promises of the New Testament (e.g. Jesus saying He is coming soon) and, more importantly, is missing the fact that the entire Bible is in Heaven.

The question then is what language or how is the Bible recorded in Heaven? That is, in Matthew 5:18, Jesus is saying he is to fulfil every jot and tittle of the law. That means every promise. Promises are written. The Bible is a legal document. In law, the very words matter. So then, the very truth is recorded in the Heavenly Volume (Codex).

But Jesus would not be ultimately referring to “Scripture” as being in Heaven without it being on Earth. After all Moses made it clear that the commandment was not far and remote, but at hand. Therefore, the implication is that for believers to know the law, and to ingest it inwardly, it must be available. So then, when Jesus is referring to something which by implication must be the ultimate perfect Scripture, should we then disregard that we have a representation of this for the world in the latter/end times in English, made common?

The words “jot and tittle” are English words, words found in the English turn of phrase and in the dictionaries. We can therefore join together the idea that there is a perfect Scripture with the idea that the Scripture exists perfectly in English here and now as a standard.

So then to limit the truth to Hebrew copies is too shallow, when the whole Scripture is perfect in Heaven, and that there is also something which answers that which is above in Heaven by having a perfect Bible for all in English, to the ends of the earth and for the end of the world.

If there is no perfect translation, then how can the King James Bible be upheld by Thomas Ross. He must just think it is good, maybe an excellent translation, but still, he must admit either to error in English or to less light in English, and it is in this thought where there is a great danger. For, why would God bring the Scripture to English and yet have it missing something? Or, why would He bring it to English in sufficiency, but have something better in the disagreeing and various copies in Hebrew?

Again, why would God do so much as to use imperfections of the Hebrew copyists and all this, only to deny that perfection cannot come via translation? So, one human endeavour of creating a Hebrew Masoretic standard is able to achieve perfection, but bringing the same into English just cannot reach it? No, either God is of power to bring it to English for all, or why even bother giving it by inspiration to begin with.

TR: Since no verses of the Bible promise a perfect English translation, I respect the views of brethren who, while receiving the promises of God concerning the preservation of His perfect Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words, believe that there are places where the English of the King James Version would be better rendered otherwise.

This is even more dangerous backpeddling, and all to do with his peeve about the word “baptism”. There’s a denomination that uses the word “Baptist” to mean “full immersion”. As a full immersionist myself, why doesn’t Thomas Ross recognise that this is what the Bible is teaching, that he wants to change the King James Bible word from “baptize” to “immerse”? This illustrates that wanting to change the KJB is always fraught with maximal danger. This desire to criticise and tamper with KJB words is highly dangerous, because who knows what of even small changes would result. To change now is to corrupt!

TR: Furthermore, I recognize that there can be more than one accurate way to translate a verse from the original language into the vernacular.

This is another slippery slide backwards. Let us admit that the pre-1611 Protestant English translations were generally accurate and differ to the KJB here and there. But we are for perfection, for exactness, not just mere sufficiency. This desire to allow variations to what has properly been accepted in English as the standard is to tear down the ensign, withdraw and surrender the high position.

TR: Nevertheless, because the people of God who do not know the original languages should have (a justified) confidence that when they hold the King James Bible in their hands, they have God’s very Word in their own language, and because I respect the high confidence that the Head of the church has led His congregations to place in the English of the Authorized Version, and because I have found in my own language study that, time and again, there are excellent reasons for the translation choices in the Authorized Version, I refrain from criticizing the English of the King James Bible, and when it is appropriate in preaching and teaching to mention a different way the text can be translated, I choose to say, “this word (or verse, etc.) could also be translated as” rather than “this word (or verse, etc.) would be better translated as.”

To say that something could be translated another way is to already give ground that the Word of God is not so fully, pleasingly or properly in English, and tears at the very fabric of our Scripture in English. If the KJB is not right, or could have words replaced, then where is the standard? Is the opinion of Thomas Ross now the standard of what could be the Scripture instead of the KJB’s proper and perfect wording in certain places?

And now to an adjoining point.

TR: Scripture’s promises of perfect preservation validate that ‘and he went’ is the correct reading in Ruth 3:15.

The KJB has had, since the second edition of 1611, “she” in all the main and important editions, at Ruth 3:15. All normal Bibles today have “she”. Yet, that subtle spirit of wanting to turn the truth to error is at work, even (sadly) through a brother who otherwise has some great points in favour of our King James Bible, in that he wants to alter the Bible to an error, even by changing a hairsbreadth. Such changes are highly questionable.

I’ve produced a copy of the Pure Cambridge Edition that specifically made that the “S” at the end of “LORD’S” not a small capital but lower case “s”. Not one person to this day has objected about it, and yet, it is probable that Cambridge was printing copies last century with a small capital “S”. However, it looks like they changed to a lower case “s” themselves with the printing of Norton’s Edition. I am making it very clear that this “s” is in line with the editorial history of the KJB, and is not to be taken as a light thing. This is the Word of God, so we must treat it with the highest of respect. (The small “s” is used because the “s” is a contraction for “his”, and the apostrophe was not use in 1611.) [Note that this formatting does not show the small capitals as actual small capitals.]

Editorial clarity (what I have done) is one thing, but what Thomas Ross proposes or will allow is a quite another thing. The “he” in the first edition was a typographical error in 1611, it should have been “she” at Ruth 3:15 all along. It was editorially responsible for editors to have “she”. But once we move away from God’s providence manifested in English, we are on the grounds of other languages, a misguided emphasis on the lack of printing-house quality of 1611 and Thomas Ross’ opinion that he wants to change away from the pure wording.

It is far better to stand for the King James Bible and accept it as God’s provision than to seek to provide loopholes for making alterations to it.

Editorial, Review

Sayers and Ross on KJB editions

Nick Sayers and Bryan Ross had an interview in May 2025.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvt4fajpYSw

They discussed numerous topics with the King James Bible and the Textus Receptus. The entire interview is informative, but brings up some issues. Much of the discussion revolved around the editions of the King James Bible.

One of the main themes that comes through is that the King James Bible Only movement has a lot of over-simple and sometimes misguided views.

Bryan Ross tries to make out as if King James Bible Only, he actually says “everybody”, has been saying that the King James Bible has not had changes, that the only differences between 1611 and today are printer errors and spelling changes, and that there are four main editions.

Sadly, Ross is misstating the case there, for rhetoric purposes. The reality is that from D. A. Waite until now, the more prolific KJBO writers have indeed recognised there are changes (not in underlying text or translation) in the King James Bible. For example, from 2007, I have been publicly talking about more than “four editions”, and I have made it very clear for years that there was standardisation of the language and editorial regularisation.

Having said that, the facts that Ross mentions about various editions are not incorrect, but in a few examples (such as use of apostrophes) I think his interpretation is not correct.

Sayers also talks about “accompted” being a separate word to “accounted”. While there are two different words, there is also the reality that “accompted” is just the old spelling of “accounted”, which is the case in the Bible. I don’t doubt that there can be a different word, but even the dictionaries also mention that “accompted” can just be an old spelling. (By the way, a word like “comptroller” which today could be its own word, or potentially an old spelling for “controller”, I suspect is a kind of example of the same thing.)

Another issue is that some people have taken a hyper-puritanical approach to spelling and word differences in the King James Bible. On one side, “example” and “ensample” are clearly two different words, which of course we should strive for having exactness. But on the other, “musick” being changed to “music” is not the end of civilisation, though it should be “musick”.

While the Bible in English has changed from Tyndale to the KJB, and the KJB has certain kinds of changes (e.g. spelling) from 1611 to now, we still recognise the Word of God. What is problematic is that if there is no standard, and no exactness, then things are not so clear, and this can impact doctrine.

I wrote a book called “Glistering Truths” (see 2024 edition) which explains why exactness in English is good, and also having a standard edition of the KJB is good.

Bryan Ross has tried to argue that because there are spelling and word differences in American KJBs that there cannot be a standard, or somehow is unwilling to nail concepts down to an exactness, doesn’t make sense. The point is not to belittle American KJVs that don’t conform to standard and proper lettering. They have been used as the Word of God, despite these things. God has sufficiency of grace. But He also has been working towards finality and common knowledge of a standard, which is important, because the law of God and precise thinking require the precision of language down to the punctuation. That’s an advantage of God working through history, it’s not a rejection of old or American KJV copies, rather, this is the crown to them, for what they laboured in so well, we now have the par excellence.

I think that there is no dictionary that is a standard to the English language, though I think the OED is an excellent record of usage. Only the KJB can be the ultimate authority to itself. Dictionaries can be helpful, but you have to always say that the KJB is greater than the dictionary. I don’t think that the King James Bible Only people thought it through properly when they rejected all dictionaries, and there has been a misguided adherence to the 1828 Webster Dictionary. On the other hand, Ross seems to go too far implying that dictionaries are much more of a usable tool than what they should be.

Bryan Ross rightly pointed out that Mark Ward had a point about the potential for people to misunderstand some KJB word, but Nick Sayers was also right to question Ward’s additional motives. I expect that in time, more different “helps” will come available to continue to assist people in understanding the KJB language.

Christopher Yetzer by way of messaging stated that we don’t use a 1769, which is one of my long standing points. People keep saying they use a 1769 when hardly any one does. The editions in use today are a little different to the 1769. Rick Norris has had a field day blowing up KJBO people for it.

Nick Sayers does not have a very good view of Blayney’s italics, as we have them today. This is a product of Sayers’ looking at the original languages and TR editions, when italics are for a variety of reasons, including translation and textual variances. The italics should be kept the way they are because they are essentially universal in editions and they are an accepted tradition, and I suspect that Sayers has not fully entered into the mind of Blayney on how they were executed editorially.

Bryan Ross also makes an unclear statement about italics, trying to claim that these words were not inspired. What he seems to be confusing is the original inspiration with what is needed for accuracy in English today. Therefore, the italics must be conveying the inspired Scripture, and therefore the italic words are part of the Scripture, so they should not be belittled. Now, of course, the KJB translators or Blayney in 1769 was not inspired, and they were not “adding” words to the Scripture.

It is also problematic that Ross seems almost drawn to listen to “critics”, or to give them an undue hearing, whether David Norton, Mark Ward or facebook critics.

I want to make it very clear, regarding the last question in their interview, that if you have a King James Bible you have the Word of God. I promote the Pure Cambridge Edition because I think we need an editorial standard, because we need knowledge of accuracy to the very letter of Scripture and because it’s a widespread edition from a reputable source (Cambridge) which built on a good editorial foundation before it (the 1769 Edition). While there is a danger that someone could thrust in the fire a Bible because it has “Zarah” instead of the correct “Zerah” at Genesis 46:12, I think such an attitude would be too out of line, though I would hope that in time there is more and more alignment to the pure standard. Surely it’s not a problem if people marked with a pencil an “e” instead of an “a’. People don’t go to hell merely for using “Zarah” or Oxford KJBs.

I think Bryan Ross is unconsciously conflating the legitimacy of having the Pure Cambridge Edition with some sort of mystical adherence to the very words and letters of Scripture. I think his attitude is in the same category as an American revolutionary one: he sees the dangers of extremism in power but also bucks against legitimacy because it would mean submission.

27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

(1 Cor. 1:27, 28).

The interview is very good, and there are lots of merits to things discussed. I personally can see the danger of someone mistaking what I say in my book “Glistering Truths” and taking things way too far. In every place where people are using the Pure Cambridge Edition as a representative standard for today for comparing to 1611, yes, that’s good. But really we are most concerned about the Word of God itself, God’s message. Because God’s word is “law” and “sure”, I think it is only good if people know what “ensample” or “throughly” mean in comparison to “example” and “thoroughly”. These words should not be treated as interchangeable now, and in fact, we shouldn’t be open to or allowing any changes to our King James Bible now.

Editorial, General

Bible interpretation battlefront

Bible interpretation (hermeneutics) are central to the ideological war in the church and world today.

Ever since modern Infidelity reared its head from the bottomless pit in the late 18th century, there has been an information war on the Bible.

Some King James Bible only people seem to be fighting a battle about text, about what words are being deleted from the Scripture. However, the issue of translation is far more sinister. Changing words is a bigger problem than the evil of deleting them.

The greatest evil we see manifest all the time however is the ideological war, and that has to do with the program of language itself, that is, what language conveys in meaning and feeling.

Now, you can take a number of Christians and ask them to interpret the Scripture, and they seem to come up with different interpretations, because there are a number of presuppositions, frameworks and methods of interpretation (hermeneutics).

The reality of the presuppositions are around the reality or deniability of God’s presence, which is to say, either faith or doubt. Thus, many Christians are more like Deists than Present-Divine-Interventionists. The former being tipped toward doubt, the latter toward belief.

Likewise frameworks are like cosmological models, such as Dispensationalism. Starting with a model, people can try to make everything fit that model. This frankly is the problem of human systems of reasoning.

As Jesus said, “Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.” (Matthew 15:6b). And the extraction from Isaiah 29:13, “But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” (Matthew 13:9).

These issues also have do with willingness of heart and readiness to obey the Scripture and treat it as truth.

And so we come to the issue of hermeneutics. Hermeneutics are the basic method or fundamental elements of how Scripture is to be interpreted.

There are two sides within evangelical (“born again”) Christianity in this battle.

One side is that which is influenced by modern Infidelity, the other side is that which is resisting that. Generally speaking, fundamentalists and Pentecostals have been on this spectrum towards to believing end, while Calvinists of various stripes particularly have been towards the modern Infidelity side. It is ironic, by the way, that these same people might be the champions of young earth creationism!

This leads us to identify the schools of interpretation, specifically, the one called the “grammatical-critical-historical school” and the adjacent “grammatical-historical school”.

It is important here that we are not talking about the mere “critical” schools of Higher Criticism, Literary and Form Criticism and the full plunge into multiple Isaiahs, late prophet authorship, YEDP, M-source document, liberal theology, Modernism, etc. All of this of course is rank unbelief and directly the voice of the spirit of antichrist as promoted by the Enlightenment philosophies which are part of modern Infidelity.

Rather, we are talking here about actual Christians, who believe in the inspiration of Scripture, who nevertheless have been influenced by the same underlying error.

Before addressing the manifestation of error in the “grammatical-historical” categories, we need to establish the truth.

Our common foundation is the inspiration of Scripture. That Scripture came from God and was perfect when first written is not here questioned by the sincere Christians on both sides of this struggle.

There is certainly, however, a division over whether the truth of Scripture can be communicated through time. One position holds that the true words have been preserved/recovered. We would put this under the heading of the Textus Receptus position. Another position goes further and says that a perfect translation is available, which is the King James Bible only position.

There is, however, a further step in communication, which is that perfect interpretation and doctrine is attainable. This is something that needs to be investigated and judged.

In looking at a believing set of hermeneutical basics and related isagogics, which is to say, to look at each book of the Bible and the Scripture as a whole, how it came to be and its purpose, we see two distinct elements: the divine author and the human author.

The problem that arises with modern Infidelity is the absolute war on the divine author, which is why they will emphasise the human author, and even with that, cast doubt on even their reliability.

The right approach is to see God as the divine author of Scripture (i.e. inspiration, infallibility, inerrancy, etc.) and to not segregate the human author from the divine.

Fundamentally in communication, people speak of the “sender”, the “medium” and the “receiver” who then “decodes” (interprets) what is being communicated. The analogy of a World War 2 agent sending messages from occupied France back to headquarters is well known.

We don’t reduce the Bible to just a natural book, as if Paul was just writing his thoughts and sending the letter off to a church in some city, and likewise, people just copied copies over the centuries, until we happen to be able to “peak in” on what Paul wrote then today.

Way too many believers are almost thinking of the Scripture in these low terms. We must truly see that God was speaking via Paul to those churches he wrote to. Now, believers will say that they believe in Paul’s words really being God’s words, and they will go some way in accepting God’s words having something to say to today. But so many have it in theory rather than practice.

You see, the most important fact is that God was speaking to the original audience as well as today. This is the biggest key in this discussion.

“For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.” (Romans 15:4).

The whole “grammatical-historical” hermeneutics go wrong because they are a way that allows so many interferences onto God speaking to us today.

The first way they let interference come in is by looking at the written document in a natural way, in regards to modern textual criticism, fallibility in translation and constraints of the genre of writing itself and being bogged down by original language grammar, syntax and vocabulary.

This means that they might have reason to doubt the words, doubt the meaning, constrain the meaning and be uncertain of the linguistic construction.

The basic assumption is not that the Holy Ghost is giving the reader or hearer today the true meaning, but rather, that we must apply our minds to try to scrape together as best we can an understanding. Worse is that they are letting the doctrines of modern version ontology (some words don’t belong to the Bible) and modern translation alteration of concepts interfere heavily.

The teaching of the Scripture is so clear about being able to know and have God’s words, that is to say, in application to knowing what is the written Scripture.

“19 That thy trust may be in the LORD, I have made known to thee this day, even to thee.

20 Have not I written to thee excellent things in counsels and knowledge,

21 That I might make thee know the certainty of the words of truth; that thou mightest answer the words of truth to them that send unto thee?” (Proverbs 22:19-21).

Having the words is the first step, but being able to interpret them is the other.

And that’s where the “Grammatical-Historical method” goes even further awry. They try to interpret the Bible in its so-called historical context, which is to say, that people today impose their opinion of the past, including a constructed scheme of what they call “ancient near eastern culture”. This construction of course exists in the present, in the minds of modern professors and teachers, and may well bear little resemblance to the past.

But more importantly, nowhere are we instructed by Scripture, nor is it even a sure method of interpreting, to caste ourselves across some fictional gulf of cultural difference to another era in history in order to “really” understand the Bible.

While it is obviously true that the Jews were living in an agricultural culture without electricity, we are not dealing with things so different to ourselves. Above all this is the intention of God, in making the Scripture, to communicate specifically to us, and to all mankind!

“But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:” (Romans 16:26).

The Bible has been more designed for the last generations of mankind prior to the translation of the saints (the rapture) than to any other time in history. The Bible’s acceptance across the Earth is for our day, and therefore we should not be looking at the Bible as though it was merely written in the past to past people. No, it is written by God to us and to a glorious future of Church Restitution.

“Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you.” (Proverbs 1:23).

“For the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.” (Hab. 2:14).

Putting things in the way of being able to know and understand Scripture is really doubt, it is allowing the influence of the enemy in interpreting Scripture.

People can talk about “literal” and “context” all they like, but without belief and without the connection to the Holy Ghost, it’s going to be human striving to get some glimmer of a truth rather than confidently receiving from God the clarity of the truth.

Many born again Christians are in fact in bondage in this area. They may recognise some christological truths in the Old Testament or recognise types and symbolism in the New Testament, but are held back in recognising the “sensus plenior” especially in regard to double and multiple fulfilments of Bible prophecy.

In their zeal for the literal, they have lost the old aspects of seeing the allegorical, moral and anagogical.

If we are to enter into the full counsel of God, then we cannot continue in a paradigm which came from the unbelievers of the 18th and 19th centuries, which came via Milton S. Terry and 20th century evangelicals. Rather, we must turn to a believing approach, which is not to endorse personal, crazy charismatic or hyper-spiro views either.

Editorial, General

English translation reliable

When I was younger, my parents would speak in Dutch to keep secrets from my brothers and me, or would tell each other on the opposite side of the meal table something like give him a clip over the ear.

One day my extended family went to a quaint mountain restaurant near Melbourne, and they described the atmosphere there as “gezellig”. I asked them what this word meant, they said it was untranslatable.

I thought to myself that this was not true at all, it was not untranslatable. My uncle, who was Pentecostal Bible college lecturer, should have known better.

Recently, a Dutch-born language expert told me that no word is untranslatable.

I remember around 2000 researching Old English, and finding “gesǽllíc”, which gives rise to the modern word, “seelie”.

So much for being “untranslatable”, the Dutch word, which has no doubt common origin with the old Anglo-Saxon language, had essentially the same word and cognate concept in English.

Thus, not only was the word translatable, the word had a common origin in both languages.

Thus, what was homely and cozy in modern Dutch was blessed, fortunate, felix into modern English without translation, so how much easier would it be to be able to express in English words what was thought of as allegedly special in Dutch, when English is a superior language for many reasons.

When it comes to Bible translation, all the myths and misleading emphasis that is put onto Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Greek, and all the errors taught under the banner of “hermeneutics”, as though linguistic cultural nuance is uncommunicable in English, should be exploded.

“For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.” (Romans 15:4).

Thus, we are able to have an accurate translation in English of what was written of old.

“But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:” (Romans 16:26).

The teachings and truth of Scripture is being made readily known. The Holy Ghost is leading people into truth, and we have an accurate presentation of the Scripture with the King James Bible which is made common around the world.

Editorial, General

Easter is in the Bible

Easter is a Christian word with a Christian meaning.

It seems really difficult for some to understand why the word “Easter” is right in the King James Bible. The modernists say that “Easter” doesn’t belong in the first century. Certain extremists say that Easter still is a pagan festival (a view that in general is supported by Reformed Presbyterians, Seventh Day Adventists and people who hate the Emperor Constantine, etc.)

In recent years I’ve noticed King James Bible supporters who embrace a more Textus Receptus leaning try to explain the situation. They go about looking at the Greek, talking about Pascha, which never appears in the King James Bible. Our starting point should be the King James Bible and believing that the word of God is in English for us.

Well, we can see that Acts 12:4 says “Easter”. Should we start from the assumption that “Easter” means a pagan festival because a bunch of people claim that? No.

Here’s the correct view about the word “Easter”. The Bible talks about the Passover. When it uses the word “Easter”, it is using the Christian word to describe the Jewish Passover, except the Christian understanding of the “Passover” (i.e. Easter) has slightly different connotations.

Luke, who wrote the Book of Acts, was describing Peter in prison during Easter. Peter, being a Jew, came from the tradition of celebrating the Passover, however, Luke and Peter, being Christians had already understood a different meaning to the Passover, which connected to it Jesus’ death and resurrection.

Thus, the timeframe was the Passover, but the meaning much more was to do with a Christian slant of the Jewish festival.

Herod was waiting for Easter to finish because obviously the Jews and Christians were celebrating Passover each in their own way, one the Jewish way and the other the Christian way.

Now we come to the etymology of the word “Easter”. The word arises in English from the Anglo-Saxon language, which we understand from Bede, was the title of a goddess associated with the dawn, springtime and fertility. The origin of the word “Easter” is therefore the same word as what the heathen used for their own feast Eostre, and the meaning of that word means “dawn” and “East” and therefore the idea of sun-rising. Eostre and Passover occurred around the same time of year.

With the Christianisation of England, the word “Easter” then came to be used for the Christian festival about Jesus’ death and resurrection (as derived from the Jewish Passover festival). All the symbolism of course aligned as well, being that Jesus rose on Sunday, etc. However, in the minds of Christians, the word fully transformed in meaning from paganism to Christianity, which means that this is an example of Christianisation of the culture.

Thus, when the Reformation Christians spoke of Easter (e.g. the Anglican Book of Common Prayer) they clearly meant the Christian understanding of Passover. The word that once had been used by pagans now was fully sanctified and had its proper present meaning.

Thus, when Acts 12:4 states the word “Easter”, it was not referring to a pagan festival, nor was it denying the Jewish festival, but was recorded by inspired Luke as a Christian understanding of the Jewish holidays.

The word is not merely synonymous for Passover, because the fact that the KJB translators chose to use it means it had a purpose. All words in our Bible have a purpose, and this Biblical English is special and has meaning which is so precise and precious.

Easter is a Bible word with a Bible meaning.

Editorial, General

Problems with “Verbal Equivalence”

A PODCAST AND AN ARTICLE

VERBAL EQUIVALENCE VERSUS PSALM 40

“Verbal equivalence” is a hypothesis taught by US Baptist teacher Bryan Ross (and co-author David Reid). It argues that because the Bible does not quote itself verbatim, and because there are good Reformation translations that differ and because there are tiny variations in the printed history of the KJB, that God must have worked by “verbal equivalence” rather than by exactness/precision. They term the view that they are opposing as “verbatim identicality”. However, they are unclear what exactly this means, because it is critical of anyone insisting on an exact extant text of the Bible today as much as it is critical of someone insisting that we have an exact replica of the original autographs today.

This “verbatim identicality” notion seems like a straw man. Mark Ward, an ardent attacker of the perfection and future usage of the King James Bible attacks an idea that he claims and implies that King James Bible supporters hold, namely, that we hold to a line of perfect Bibles through history or perfect manuscripts going back to the autographs. In a way, it seems like this “verbatim identicality” attack is similarly false.

To be clear, the King James Bible is in English, and the autographs were in Hebrew and Greek, so they cannot be “verbatimly identical”. The English can only match for readings/text (the version) and can match for sense/meaning (the translation). And it is the King James Bible supporting position that the KJB is indeed representing in its version and translation the words and meanings of the original autographs.

Of course, we cannot compare the KJB to actual existing autographs so the view about the KJB is not based on empiricism, etc., but this is the problem for the modernist, who is reliant only upon post-Enlightenment philosophies of modern Infidelity.

“For the bed is shorter than that a man can stretch himself on it: and the covering narrower than that he can wrap himself in it.” (Isaiah 28:20).

How then can a perfect KJB have arisen from imperfect sources? The answer is that the true Scripture, though subject to “scattering” through history, has also been gathered. This means that from among the variations, corruptions or possibilities which existed on a textual level, and likewise on a translational level, a good Bible could be formed that represents for us the same as autographs.

More than that, since the Scripture is in Heaven and was in Heaven before any inspiration took place on Earth (see Psalm 40), then we can assert that the KJB is representing for mankind what position the perfect Bible in the heavenly tabernacle represents in Heaven.

So then, to have Bryan Ross’ verbal equivalence means that the King James Bible is just like or near to what is in the heavenly book, but may not be the same. Whereas, for God’s promises to be exactly true, it does require that His exact words are manifest. (There was exactness in the inspiration, why would we not have a more excellent exactness now?)

“Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me,” (Psalm 40:7). This passage speaks of Jesus in Heaven, and His fulfilling of the prophecies and doing of the commands written in the book. This book is the Heavenly Bible. How can we know if we cannot check something which represents this Bible exactly? Moreover, how can Jesus do things if the Bibles on Earth are just an approximation or maybe simulacra of the Heavenly master volume? This is because Jesus is not just fulfilling an unknown, hidden Heavenly book, He is fulfilling a revealed and manifest Earthly.

Continue reading →
Editorial, General, Review

Exegetical fallacies abound

D. A. Carson, a typical modernist, wrote a book about hermeneutics (modernist Bible interpretation methodology) called Exegetical Fallacies.

He tells this story, “Occasionally a remarkable blind spot prevents people from seeing this point. Almost twenty years ago I rode in a car with a fellow believer who relayed to me what the Lord had ‘told’ him that morning in his quiet time. He had been reading the KJV of Matthew; and I perceived that not only had he misunderstood the archaic English, but also that the KJV at that place had unwittingly misrepresented the Greek text. I gently suggested there might be another way to understand the passage and summarized what I thought the passage was saying. The brother dismissed my view as impossible on the grounds that the Holy Spirit, who does not lie, had told him the truth on this matter. Being young and bold, I pressed on with my explanation of grammar, context, and translation, but was brushed off by a reference to 1 Cor. 2:10b–15: spiritual things must be spiritually discerned — which left little doubt about my status.

“Genuinely intrigued, I asked this brother what he would say if I put forward my interpretation, not on the basis of grammar and text, but on the basis that the Lord himself had given me the interpretation I was advancing. He was silent a long time, and then concluded, ‘I guess that would mean the Spirit says the Bible means different things to different people.’”

Notice how Carson casts multiple areas of doubt on his brother in the faith:

  1. That the Lord could have shown a brother a thing,
  2. That the KJB’s language misleads a brother, and
  3. That the KJB’s text/reading misleads a brother.
  4. Although not stated, probably also, that the KJB’s translation misleads a brother.

The right approach of interpreting the Bible today is to start with the KJB and to approach the message of it believingly. If we believe the KJB is God’s standard for us, and we interpret properly, then the next step comes to pass:

“Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:” (Ephesians 4:13).

Editorial, General

Advancing from Peter van Kleeck’s TR defence

The Textus Receptus is a collection of collated, printed Greek texts of the New Testament, which process began with Erasmus around the time of the Reformation. Erasmus sought to improve the Latin text of the Bible of his day by bringing in improvements from the Greek, and he also presented a constructed Greek text with his improved Latin translation.

The Textus Receptus therefore properly represents the body of work beginning with Novum Instrumentum omne, which is to say, that the TR is properly a combination of both the Latin and Greek texts. (Besides the Vulgate, there are various examples of good or better-than-Catholic traditions of usages of Latin scripture, including the old Latin, Celtic and Wycliffite traditions. The Vulgate itself is pre-medieval Catholic, as Jerome died way back in 420 AD.)

Peter van Kleeck argues for the Textus Receptus. However, what he says rightly about the TR really should apply to the KJB. I am probably paraphrasing or restating his arguments in my own language, but I trust I am representing the point fairly.

He says that the Bible refers to itself in autographic terms. When you are reading the TR you are therefore reading the word of God. The Bible doesn’t say that something is a copy or a translation, it just says it is the word of God or the prophet said this, etc.

My view is that this just as much applies to the KJB as the TR.

Second, he says that the Reformers used the TR as if it was representing the word of God. This is evident in how they used the TR, including for translating and also what they expressly said about the word of God, the Scripture, which was at hand represented to them by the TR.

My view is that the Westminster men also said that the Bible translated was the word of God, meaning that the KJB represents the TR, which is to say, that the KJB actually is, as Edward Hills said, an independent variety of the TR.

Peter van Kleeck argues that the TR tradition is essentially a church usage tradition as opposed to the modern critical view which has arisen out of a specialist pocket of academia.

If looking at Church usage, then look no further at the best doctrines and best denominations in the world, have been using the KJB. The fact is that the KJB has been common to Anglicans, Calvinists, Baptists, Methodists, Salvation Armyists, traditional Pentecostals, etc.

One argument that is made against the TR is that since all TR editions differ, and there are over 30 of them, which one is exactly right? It has been reported that Peter van Kleeck thinks that the best TR representative is Scrivener’s, which closely aligns to the KJB.

However the best form of the received text is the final form, the KJB, which is a translation. Being a translation is not an issue since it is fully accurate and exact. The Authorized Version’s translation is in the world’s most popular language, English.

Finally, Peter van Kleeck has tried to argue that on probabilities, the TR represents the best text. If we are to count manuscripts, then yes, and if we are to look at church history, then yes, but it is somewhat subjective to mathematically quantify.

The KJB has the universality and availability that is unmatched, therefore the KJB is better than any other TR copy or translation.

Editorial

Wikipedia and evangelical hermeneutics part of the same conspiracy

In the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, the government controls the population by controlling thought. The ruling regime removes words from the dictionary or changes their definitions from time to time, all with the purpose of moulding the cultural narrative and keeping the population from formulating certain thoughts and holding certain opinions.

If a certain word does not exist then how can the concept be described and articulated?

I remember for a long time seeing a certain set of thoughts and ideas prevailing in entertainment, political discourse and culture, but I couldn’t find the word to describe it.

One day I found out what it was, and where it came from.

It was “Infidelity”. Nothing to do with unfaithfulness in a relationship, Infidelity is the name of a kind of anti-religion religion. It came clearly on the scene in the lead up to and through the French Revolution.

Infidelity describes the kind of belief system that led to all kinds of other wrong belief systems: Infidelity came about through Enlightenment philosophy, and one of the best understandings of it is expressed by Thomas Paine who says, to effect, that his own mind is his own church (or religion).

Infidelity is opposed to God, the Scripture and to religion. It is empowered by the spirit of error, and is clearly an antichrist ideology.

All the different sciences and bodies of ideas, where they have disconnected from truth and connected to the error of Infidelity have produced all kinds of bad results. Just look at Communism, Evolution, Psychiatry, Liberationism, Modernism and Post-Modernism. The list is much longer.

Western culture has been nearly destroyed by Infidelity.

The problem was that Infidelity also entered the churches, first with the German Higher Critics, and on down the line through different lines, reaching through to very bad examples who are often upheld as heroes, like Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Martin Luther King Jnr, etc.

Sadly today, the long march of Infidelity has passed through the seminaries, into their original language studies, textual criticism, hermeneutics and so on, right through all kinds of flavours of Evangelicalism such as Calvinism and modernist Pentecostalism.

Various Fundamentalist types have been somewhat resisting Infidelity, but not to full success. You can’t resist things in a silly way, which some have done, in a certain zeal to resist “worldliness” some have tried to fight with carnal weapons. It’s a big topic.

The point I want to get to, though, is that while Infidelity exists, the nearest concept, which is not exactly the same, is “secular humanism”.

I have not been able to find “Infidelity” in Wikipedia, for example, and yet this is a major movement and “Infidelity” is much referred to in 19th century theological literature.

If no entry and no acknowledgment of this belief system exists, then how do people identify and resist it?

It’s pretty logical that you need to know you enemy to defeat him. Otherwise are we beating the air?

The world doesn’t know what Infidelity is, but the Christian should know.

Secondly, Christians should know what Infidelity has done to Christianity.

Infidelity has obscured the meaning of Scripture and made it seem hard, remote and distant. It has made it non-immediate.

In the area of getting the Bible to us, Infidel influences have made out as if the transmission of Scripture is just natural, that God has no special hand in it.

In the area of interpreting the Bible, Infidel influences have made out like the Bible was just for its original audience and we can just pick up scraps of “application” to us today.

Psalm 12 and Psalm 94 are examples of Scriptures which are about Infidelity and are about the times we live in.

Of course, the Christian influenced by Infidelity will say that it is not so and could not possibly be so. He has had Bible College training and that is certainly not how to interpret the scripture!

Psalm 12 speaks of false Bibles and false interpretations, and yet the pure Word of God is at hand!

Psalm 94 promises believers right interpretation of Scripture despite the workings of enemies all about.

Scripture was written for us, even us, and the promises are seen in our day. The King James Bible is right and for us, and by God we can understand and know the truth. There are so many verses to back up this view, but there are many agents tainted by Infidelity that will have none of it!

“A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels: To understand a proverb, and the interpretation; the words of the wise, and their dark sayings.” (Proverbs 1:5, 6).

Are you attaining? You can attain. You should attain. So attain.

Jesus said, “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” (John 8:32). Do you believe it?

Thomas Scott said, in his old commentary on Psalm 12, “He will cut off the flatterer as well as the slanderer, and the proud infidel as well as the covetous oppressor. He waits, till his people are sufficiently tried, and till his enemies have filled up their measure: but he hears the sighs and prayers of his afflicted people; and he will defend their cause, and deliver them from the generation of the wicked, and from the wicked one, and that for ever. He will also rise to revive his church from the ruins, with greater glory: he hath promised, and his word is more pure and precious than the finest silver. Let us rest upon it, and comfort our souls with it; though we cannot but grieve to see the degeneracy of the times, and the abounding of iniquity and infidelity. And even should we witness the advancement of the vilest of men to the highest dignities in church and state, and the consequent triumphs of error and wickedness over the cause of truth and holiness; still let us wait and pray: the Lord will yet make his cause triumphant; and the prayers of the remnant of his people are an appointed means of ushering in those better and more glorious days, which cannot now be very far distant.”

Although the problems of Infidelity really raced ahead in English-speaking societies in the 1960s, both in the secular space and in the religious space, yet for all that, the best believing movements existed at the same time.

It could be easy to think everything has gone bad, but the fact that people know and stand for right ideas today is a miracle, because the pervasive spirit of antichrist has in some ways touched everywhere and everyone, and yet, it did not win.

Pray for the deliverance and triumph of God’s people. In Psalm 12, a time comes when God arises, in Psalm 94, a time comes when the wicked fall.

Pure Cambridge Edition of the KJB!