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 18^th 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 18^th and 19^th centuries, which came via Milton S. Terry and 20^th century evangelicals. Rather, we must turn to a believing approach, which is not to endorse personal, crazy charismatic or hyper-spiro views either.

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.

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.

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.

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.