Category Archives: Editorial

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.

Editorial, General

Why a Bible edition can be called pure

The following is a series quotes from 18th and 19th century sources which tie the concepts of editorial and typographical accuracy with the word “pure” or “purity”. Further, that to ensure correctness requires some method of safeguarding and protection. Certain words have been bolded for ease of quick reference.

Report by Dr Benjamin Blayney, 1769

“whereby many errors that were found in former editions have been corrected, and the text reformed to such a standard of purity, as, it is presumed, is not to be met with in any other edition hitherto extant”.

Thomas Curtis’ THE EXISTING MONOPOLY, AN INADEQUATE PROTECTION, OF THE AUTHORISED VERSION OF SCRIPTURE (1831 Tract, 1833 Edition).

Letter from Thomas Turton, Cambridge University Press

“Great pains have been taken in this matter for many years; and although it did not seem expedient that your plan should be persevered in, you may rely upon it, that no effort will be wanting on the part of the Syndics, to secure a supply of Bibles as accurate as possible.”

1831–32 Select Committee Report (British Parliament)

“II. Effect of Monopoly on the Price, Accuracy, and Distribution of the Bible.

“1. Generally.

“The patents have not tended to improve the print and protect the accuracy of the text, … A watchful public, under the circumstances of a free trade, would be much more influential in preserving the pure text, than an unwatched monopoly, … A very great improvement has taken place of late years with respect to the accuracy in the printing of the Scriptures, both in the Universities and by the King’s printers”.

“The Church of Scotland acknowledges the inspired original alone as the standard, … A watchful public, under the circumstances of a free trade, would be much more influential in preserving the pure text than an unwatched monopoly, … There is no book of which it is so difficult to find a very correct edition as the English Bible, … Hardship under which the people of Scotland labour with respect to obtaining copies of the Oxford, Cambridge, and London Bibles”.

“There are very inaccurate editions printed both in England and Scotland; some of the most incorrect editions have been printed in Scotland, … Means which should be adopted for the satisfaction of the Church, to secure uniformity of text, supposing the trade in Bibles to be laid open in Scotland as that in other books, … The Bibles which were more accurately printed at the time of Charles the First and the Commonwealth appear to have been printed by other printers than the King’s printers, … There is no book of which it is so difficult to find a very correct edition as the English Bible”.

“Efforts of the Oxford University press to get their work perfect by keeping up moveable types, … Probable result of throwing the trade in Bibles and Testaments open, as regards price and the accuracy of the text”.

“Granting an exclusive privilege to print Bibles and Testaments does not insure greater accuracy, … A book like the Bible, which has undergone so many editions, if each had received the proper attention, might come as near perfection as possible; monopoly does not secure greater accuracy in the text, … If the printing of Bibles and Testaments were open to the trade, the public could be served not only with a greater variety of editions, but the price would be from 20 to 30 per cent. cheaper, … Probable result of throwing the trade in Bibles and Testaments open, as regards price, and the accuracy of the text, … If the monopoly were removed , and any person allowed to print the Bible, the errors would be fewer, … If the monopoly were removed, many of the errors would be prevented, … The patent has been exercised with a view to profit, and not solely with a view to protect the text”.

1837 REPORT from the SELECT COMMITTEE of the HOUSE OF COMMONS on KING’S PRINTERS PATENT (SCOTLAND); with the MINUTES of EVIDENCE, &c.

The Lord Advocate questioning The Rev. Adam Thompson

“… I think the interest of parties, who meant to print an edition of the Bible, would lead them to bestow all possible care upon it; it would require very great labour and minute attention, and it could not be done so well as by those who are accustomed to that sort of business.

“You think nothing would be gained, in point of accuracy and purity of the text, by any appointment of that nature? — I should think not.”

Mr Chambers questioning Mr Adam Black

“Have you any further observations to make with regard to securing the purity of the text? — Except that, in my opinion, the proposition of Dr Lee, as to employing professors of divinity, or persons appointed by the colleges to examine the text, would have no good effect.

“You think with regard to that, that competition is the best safeguard? — Good practised correctors of the press would be far better than all the professors in the University.”

Mr Hume questioning Mr John Childe

“Then is there any means by which you could suggest the carrying out of the objects of Bible Societies better than that which you have stated? — There can be no plan of carrying out the objects of the Bible Societies so good as to permit them to procure their Bibles and Testaments in any way that they shall think best; seeing that the Bibles and Testaments which they shall publish meet all the objections which are raised to the trade being thrown open. I conceive that the British and Foreign Bible Society, the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, and the Religious Tract Society, would be a sufficient guarantee to persons of all denominations, saving those who claim a version for themselves, to satisfy them entirely of the purity of the text.

“Do you think there would be any danger that imperfect editions would be printed if societies had the privilege of doing that which you have now stated? That question was admirably answered by Mr Thomson, of Coldstream, the first day, I think, of the meeting of this Committee; the different denominations are so tenacious of their own principles that it is literally impossible for the Scriptures to be mutilated.”

The Lord Advocate questioning the Right Hon. Anthony R. Blake

“Has the free publication of the Scriptures ever given rise to any spurious or imperfect editions being sold in Ireland? — I never heard of any; I am speaking, of course, of the authorized version of the Scriptures; the translation of the Latin Vulgate, which is in use among the Roman Catholics, has nothing to do with it”.

The Lord Advocate questioning The Rev. Adam Thompson (again)

“Are you of opinion that the appointment of a censor, or any other regulations, might be attended with advantage in preserving the purity of the text of the Scriptures? — I think that the appointment of censors would be altogether unnecessary”.

1860 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE taken before SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE QUEEN’S PRINTERS’ PATENT

C. Knight

It is alleged that a pure and strictly accurate text can only be secured by the continuance of the monopoly; that if the trade were free, Bibles would be printed in a slovenly manner; that the text would be corrupted; and that the niceties of typography, now sedulously maintained, would not be adhered to.”

R. Potts

“Seventhly, the daily and weekly newspaper press, both in London and in the country, would doubtless lend its aid to secure our Bible pure and correct, as it does our civil and religious liberties. Here I would remark, that I have written to several newspapers, and I have received two letters, one from a London paper, the other from a Cambridge paper, both of which express a readiness to print any reviews or notices that any person might send to them for insertion of any editions of our authorised version.”

“The more important questions to which I have directed my attention are these: first, whether private printers who possess the necessary means and machinery for accurate printing should be debarred from printing the Scriptures when they are not debarred from printing any other books, either in English or in any other language; and, secondly, whether in case the Bible printing patents are discontinued, there are any securities sufficient for maintaining the authorized version of the Bible in its purity and correctness.”

Editorial

Bible words matter

King James Bible words are very exact, and each word has a precise meaning, which means that changing words and punctuation can and does change meaning.

We are talking about the print history of the King James Bible, and its editorial accuracy today.

So, let’s take a word we find in the KJB. How do we know what that means? Let’s say it’s a challenging word, an unusual word.

The most important thing we can do is see how the word is used at that place (the context), and also at parallel passages what is said, and also how that word is used elsewhere in the KJB.

This is where there is a difference between a consistent KJBO approach and those who look to the original languages. The proper approach is to start with and steer the course in the English.

The problem with going to the original languages is that they aren’t really going to the originals but to what lexicons say those words allegedly “really” mean. In other words, they are definitions in English, and these definitions may vary to or even disagree with the KJB words. So it’s a very dangerous place to go to.

I want to show what happens when you go down that path. There’s a preacher named Bryan Ross. He says he stands for the KJB. But the problem is, he doesn’t believe in any finally fixed English, he doesn’t see the authority of meaning in the distinctiveness of English. He’s a “near enough is good enough” kind of guy. He calls this “ball park” or “semantic matrix” approach “verbal equivalence”, which may as well mean “vibrations in meaning”.

So, instead of seeing “charity” and “love” as two different words with different shades of meaning, he claims they are just synonymous. And he does the same with other words, like “Passover” and “Easter”. (Easter is the Christian word for Passover, but indicates more than just Christ the Lamb, as it speaks of resurrection.)

The word “charity” means “love in action”, which is different from just saying “love”. Once you understand that every Bible word has a distinct meaning, you won’t be just acting like “joy” and “gladness” are the same, or again, “travelling” and “journeying”.

The KJB translators knew that the same original word could and should be translated to different English words. And the meaning depends on this flexibility, because for a variety of reasons “joy” is not “gladness”. The syllables and sounds are different, the subtleties of association, the nuance of difference in the concepts… this means that where each word is used, it is the right word to be used. And if one word, then we should not substitute for it another word.

That’s why it’s wrong to say that varieties of words for any single place are okay in perpetuity. That’s why it’s wrong to allow that the KJB can still be changed. We know that there has been a sufficiency in the grace of God in that there has been a history of some variety, but this is only to do with the past, and not an excuse to allow the same “problem”/”phenomenon” to be perpetuated in the future.

God has a finite message in the Bible, as complex and as grand as it is. So likewise God is outworking in history to have precision of words, a singular standard, as the outcome of all things. We are not living in a perpetual universe of uniformitarianism, rather, we are living in a universe that has a start, middle and end. The end is where English is established through out the world, and people are turning Christianity in some vast numbers before the end of the world.

When Jesus commanded His Church to teach all nations, that included teaching them Bible words, it actually ultimately includes the teaching of English and the KJB.

Investigating, learning and understanding Bible words is a good thing. We also have helpful resources like W. Aldis Wright’s Bible Word-Book and the Oxford English Dictionary. But remember, man can be wrong or ignorant, but God is always right. Therefore, the KJB trumps the dictionary.

To stand for the precision of the KJB words is not to stand for something labelled by Bryan Ross as “verbatim identicality”. That concept is nonsense, since English is not the same as a Greek, and a printing of the KJB now is not the same as a printing in 1611. What we are seeing is a refining and clarifying position through time, after all, people in the past did not conceive how right the KJB actually is. Now that English is global, stable and computer-utilised, it follows that the Scripture has been able to come into its final fixedness.

FURTHER STUDY

Words are important: Isaiah 55, Proverbs 30:5, 6, Luke 4:4

Words are exact: Titus 1:2, John 17:17, Luke 16:17

Teach the nations: Matthew 28:18-20, Prov. 1:23, Rom. 10:18

Editorial, General

Thinking about the entire KJBO debate/controversy

One side in the debate formulates its belief based on Scripture.

The other side does not. The other side formulates its belief based on Enlightenment philosophy.

So when it comes to interpreting the Scripture, one side is interpreting believingly. The other side is interpreting, again, under the influence of Enlightenment philosophy.

It could not be more clear: the King James Bible perfectionist argument is between two sides with very different belief systems.

In fact, we could go so far to suggest that these two belief systems are really a conflict over a view of how far God has an interventionist role in history as relating to the manifestation/presence of the Scripture.

Or to put it another way, how far God has provided a method of interpreting from Scripture how much He reveals in Scripture He has an interventionist role in regards to supplying the same Scripture.

Editorial, Review

Mark Ward: wannabe academic and wasted efforts

King James Bible anti-perfectionist, Mark Ward, has put a lot of effort into trying to argue that it is getting to difficult too understand the King James Bible.

He is trying to create a profile for himself with some books and materials which try to identify words that might be wrongly understood in the KJB.

What Ward did not do is approach the area like he wanted to actually help people. Instead, he approached the area like as if he was being funded by certain sources, with the intent of extending markets of sales. That is, the attempt to break people from solely relying on the KJB and an attempt to sell more people more Bible study “resources” in line with that view.

Further, Ward has been approaching his work not in a “ministry” sense (i.e. to serve the other without being a burden) but in a marketing sense, creating lines of revenue to sustain himself.

I believe in prosperity doctrine, so I am all for ministries giving and receiving. Maybe Mark Ward could learn a thing from Kenneth Copeland and put out his own Reference Study Bible, King James Version, Pure Cambridge Edition. (After all, Copeland himself put out the PCE several times, so his really was a ministry of excellence!)

In Mark Ward’s crusade against certain words in the KJB, he surprisingly didn’t highlight some very significant resources, like W. Aldis Wright’s Bible word-book.

If he’d used that book, and its preceding incarnation, he would have seen what mid-19th century people called “archaic” in the KJB. He would have noticed that the same words that get attacked today were already listed and defined there.

When we hear Mark Ward speak, then, we are not hearing a dispassionate, fair and impartial treatment of the subject. No, we are hearing a propagandist. Ward’s background and interests are much more around visual communication and public relations than about teaching and edifying the dumb lambs of the Body of Christ.

Besides his self-promotion, he has a very clear agenda, and it is about product sales and trying to infect King James Bibles users with modernist thinking.

So there’s no need to buy Mark Ward’s books when plenty of superior information is freely available:

https://archive.org/details/biblewordbookag00eastgoog

https://archive.org/details/biblewordbookag01eastgoog

https://archive.org/details/thebiblewordbook00wriguoft

https://archive.org/details/biblewordbookglo00wrig

https://archive.org/details/biblewordbookglo00wrigiala

There’s no need to reinvent the wheel, the men of old were men of renown.

Isn’t it funny that the same words which are said to be “archaic” or difficult or whatever then are the same today… maybe we are reading Biblical English after all, and not “1611 English”. I’d go so far to say that these same words would be ones ploughboys in 1611 would have struggled with.

Editorial, General, Review

An answer to Bryan Ross’ view on Psalm 12 and marginal notes

Bryan Ross is a good man, a believer and he does believe that Psalm 12 is about the preservation of Scripture … but does not see the psalm as specifically prophetic, only generally prophetic. Thus, he does not see that the psalm would have something about the KJB in particular, but takes it about the Scripture in history in general.

Bryan Ross says, “Many King James advocates hold either explicitly or implicitly that Psalm 12:6-7 is referring to the KJB. In other words, they have in their thinking the notion that David is speaking directly about the KJB in this passage.”

Actually, the Holy Ghost is speaking about the KJB, David obviously didn’t know about the KJB.

Ross then goes on to talk about, “The expression ‘as silver tried in a furnace of earth purified seven times’ at the end of verse 6 is taken to be a direct reference to the KJB. This argument is made because the KJB is the seventh translation of the Textus Receptus into the English.”

The correct phrasing is that there are seven major Protestant iterations of Bible translations in English from Tyndale to the KJB. The KJB is the seventh. Even Richard Bancroft, in instructing the KJB translators, told them to look at these six Bible translations.

Ross says, “This assertion is based upon the numerical argument that seven is the number of perfection coupled with King James having been the seventh translation of the TR into English; therefore, it is argued that the King James is ‘perfect.’”

Actually, the reasoning is based upon the fact that the Bible prophecy says seven times, and there are seven major Protestant translations from Tyndale to the KJB.

Ross then suggests that the passage might “necessitate a sevenfold refinement process in any receptor language in order for God’s ‘perfect’ word to exist in that language.”

This does not make sense, since God’s words are perfect, and the process prophesied of in Psalm 12 is about English translation, not about Scripture itself becoming more perfect.

Ross then turns to the modernist view, which says that the words are pure, not that they go through any process. This of course makes no sense since the Scripture is passing through the Earth, and even Ross says the passage is about preservation, so preservation must be a process not merely a state of being.

Ross bizarrely can see nothing of the Holy Ghost as he regards the Psalm being written by someone who did not have “an early 17th century English translation in mind. Rather David is referring to the ‘words’ he is the process of writing in Hebrew.”

Ross then is dangerously locking himself into the modernist mentality, as if Scripture is human, limited to the human mind of its author, and most dangerously, the modernist hermeneutic that Scripture was only for the time it was written in.

Does Ross believe the same thing about Messianic prophecies in Psalms or Isaiah? No, I am sure he believes them. Suddenly he recognises the Holy Ghost being able to know the future, but when it comes to Psalm 12, poor David is only limited to his own mind?! Surely the Holy Ghost is looking ahead to the KJB, and is showing where the process of preservation would lead.

While Ross does understand that David wrote Hebrew and these words went into English, he does not allow the prophecy to be able to talk about the KJB, which is very much how the modernists also think.

Ross also discusses the margin notes in general and in relation to this psalm.

Ross argues that marginal notes are “alternatives” and are often essentially synonymous to the main rendering. This is a wrong approach, in that they are clearly variant, as close as they might be. Ross tries to argue that the textual variants (approx. 20) are mainly saying something synonymous. This approach does not stay with the clarity and certainty of the textual readings of the KJB, but allows ambiguity rather than textual resolution rule. Pastor Ross is doing exactly what the modernists do, in that they think the margins/centre columns are glorifications of uncertainty rather than resolutions on rejected variants.

When it comes to the variant translation in Psalm 12:7, and there are hundreds of these throughout the KJB, and the KJB translators were noting what was a more literal rendering of the Hebrew, but where the sense was to be given as they have it as their main rendering, not the margin.

Marginal material, particularly the “Or” type notes, came from disagreements among the translators, and drawing upon other sources, e.g. other translators, commentators, Fathers, etc. Whatever the majority of the committee(s) decided as the preferable rendering stood as the main text, while the less supported one (i.e. rejected) was put to the margin. In this way, we do not read the KJB margins as any way viable alternatives or as valid possibilities, etc., but as words, which after over 400 years of KJB use, are to be considered as permanently rejected.

Unfortunately Bryan Ross has a non-exactist or non-precisionist view of the KJB words, and seems to give more current and future credibility to other words that are not actually the main text of the KJB than what should be given to them.

Editorial, Review

Tim Berg and David Daniell

Tim Berg, a young rejector of the perfection of the King James Bible, on increasing his scholarly repertoire, was reading David Daniell.

David Daniell, a literary scholar who has now passed away, much preferred the Tyndale Bible to the King James Bible and wrote quite negatively of the King James Bible.

In the Preface to his book, The Bible In English, he bemoans the collapse in knowledge of the Scripture. One might offer to him the solution to the problem: reinstate the King James Bible. But it is apparent that DD did not want to do that, because he wanted to tear it down.

I want to focus on one paragraph, called “Lighting”. He writes, “Some of the work in this book has to be the switching-off of special lighting, to reveal an illusion for what it is.” He is trying to say that the King James Bible has been wrongly exalted and loved, that the KJB is really false light and its beauty, power and magnificence is merely an illusion.

DD exhibits absolute blindness to the achievements of the KJB, and is clearly fighting against the Providences which are with it.

He writes, “The sudden elevation of that 1611 ‘AV’ (KJV) to near divine status in 1769, and, for many people, for ever after, so that ‘Avolatry’ went hand in hand with the mindless adoration of Shakespeare (‘Bardolatry’) for two hundred years and more, is a strange phenomenon, especially as it went with the radical alteration of both texts.”

This statement is packed with lies. It seems strange to assert that the KJB suddenly was elevated in 1769. He doesn’t provide documentary evidence for this assertion. (Why isn’t it a good thing that the KJB has been upheld?)

Second, he exhibits his cynicism towards Shakespeare, but links the KJB and Shakespeare — something which ordinary Christians haven’t gone out of their way to state, though some literary types will praise the KJB and Shakespeare, but this seems quite mad to question.

Third, he charges the KJB with having been radically altered. This is a clearly delusional charge, as the KJB has barely changed at all, except mainly in orthography.

He goes onwards, writing, “Stranger still is a twentieth-century insistence in large parts of the United States of America that this version, imagined to be the personal work of King James the First, and known. often as the ‘Saint James Version’, is the ‘inerrant Word of God’, unchallengeable even to its merest dot and comma.”

Here is conflates two different things, one is that there are some people who ignorantly think that King James made that Bible, and they even call the Bible the “St James”. The other is that the KJB should not be changed even in a dot or comma.”

Well, those two things are completely unrelated, yet for propaganda purposes he affixes them. In reality, the second position is a real one, and has found expression in the doctrine of the Pure Cambridge Edition, which came to world attention after DD wrote his book in 2003.

But to make it clear, the purity of the KJB to the dot and letter is not based upon some special “revelation” or special inspiration or something, which is what DD is really implying is being believed. He doesn’t describe the believing side well at all, here or in other places in his book.

DD really is the same as the rest of the unbelieving scholars who hold a low view of the King James Bible, such as F. H. A. Scrivener, C. Hill, M. Black, D. Norton, D. McKitterick, A. Nicholson, etc. (Three Davids among their number.)

DD’s desire to bring back the Bible is good, but he could not have been trusted to do it since he quite unscholastically believed that the KJB had suffered “radical alteration” of its text since 1611.

There is of course no proof of that. The same readings and translation that is there in 1611 is there today. We have a history of editorial work, but that is not designed to change the actual work of 1611, just do things like correct printing errors, standardise spelling and other such editorial regularisation.

Tim Berg would do well to not uphold David Daniell as a guide or hero. Notwithstanding DD did make some good points about the need to recognise the Bible in 16th century history and the importance of the KJB over the Geneva in the minds of mid-17th century Christians, he nevertheless had many negative and blindingly bad views of the KJB.

One cannot wish for the permeating knowledge of the greatness of the KJB on one hand, and yet pull it down and delegitimise it with the other. That is why I say DD was mad.

Near the end of DD’s book is a whole section dedicated to ridiculing those who use the KJB, mischaracterising the exclusive use of the King James Bible and making some very strange, ignorant and downright untrue charges, all of which is designed to make a Bible lover look a maniac. (There have been actual extremists and problems of course.)

DD shows his colours in making out that the lovers of the KJB are “anti-communists” while drawing a quote from the heretical Dietrich Bonhoeffer. This is the early 2000s way of saying that KJB precisionists (to draw on the old name for Puritans), are worse than a certain political ideology of the 20th century.

He is driven to label the KJB “already archaic in 1611, often erroneous, sometimes unintelligible”, and he seems perplexed that people still uphold the KJB in present day America.

Tim Burg has chosen his side, aligning to those who would dethrone the KJB and to besmirch those that uphold it. It’s a sad thing to see that Tim Burg didn’t instead think that he could promote and uphold the KJB better than those he saw doing a bad job of it, and instead has shaken his fist at it.

Editorial, Review

Ruckman and Riggs

SETTING THE SCENE

There are two examples that enemies of the King James Bible’s perfection like to bring up. The first is Ruth 3:15 and the second is Jeremiah 34:16.

In Ruth 3:15, the First 1611 Edition read at the last part of the verse, “and he went into the citie.” Compare that to today, where it says, “and she went into the city.”

The change from “he” to “she” happened in the Second 1611 Edition. Sometimes it has been printed “he” over the years, but most editions have “she”, and that is by far the common wording seen today.

The other example is Jeremiah 34:16, where today’s Cambridge Editions read, “But ye turned and polluted my name, and caused every man his servant, and every man his handmaid, whom ye had set at liberty at their pleasure, to return, and brought them into subjection, to be unto you for servants and for handmaids.” But Oxford Editions have, “whom he”.

Enemies mention these two examples because they ask, “which one of these two words are inspired? Is it ‘he’ or ‘she’? Is it ‘he’ or ‘ye’?” Etc.

RUCKMAN

Peter S. Ruckman was a well known King James Bible only teacher in the second half of the twentieth century. He even wrote several articles on these issues.

“Our problem text today is from Ruth Chapter 3. This is one of the ‘last resorts’ used by the Cult to prove a ‘contradiction’ in the AV. The thinking behind this is that some editions of the AV had ‘SHE went into the city’ while others said ‘HE went into the city’ … Now the fact is, they BOTH ‘went into the city.’ Observe Ruth 3:16 — Ruth’s mother-in-law, Naomi, is IN THE CITY. Observe Ruth 4:1 — Boaz had to go into the city to get to ‘the gate.’ Either reading would have been the truth of God without contradiction.”

“’She went into the city’ has been corrected from ‘He went into the city’ (Ruth 3:15), which constituted no error for both of them went into the city, which is perfectly apparent to anyone who can read two-syllable words.”

Ruckman approaches the King James Bible as if it literally is the truth of God, and if he finds it saying “he”, then he says that that is true, and if he finds it saying “she”, he will say it is true, and now he finds that some editions have “he” and others “she”, he is forced to say that both are concurrently correct, that both must be right.

He does the same when holding an Oxford and a Cambridge on his desk. I wrote to Peter Ruckman years ago about this issue, his secretary wrote back saying that either are correct, though that he preferred the Cambridge.

“Well, BOTH variants in the AV (Jer. 34:16) were correct grammatically, if one deals with the English text or the Hebrew text. They (‘ye’ in the Cambridge) were being addressed as a group (plural, Jer. 34:13; as in Deut. 29), but the address was aimed at individual men (‘he’ in the Oxford edition), within the group. Either word would have been absolutely correct according to that great critic of critics, the word of God (Heb. 4:12-13).”

Ruckman did not seem to insist on the idea that there was one true set of words, or that one reading should be preferred over another. In fact, he went as far as D. A. Waite did, and talked about the Hebrew.

MY RESPONSE TO RUCKMAN’S POSITION

God’s word is truth. When it comes to Ruth 3:15, this was clearly a typographical error, because it was corrected straight away the same year.

Now I know that Scrivener thought that “she” is the typographical error, but even his fellow scholars disagreed with him on that point.

The reality is that we are to regard the very words of God.

But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Matthew 4:4.

God does not speak in contradictions, and he does not have alternative readings to what He said.

But as God is true, our word toward you was not yea and nay. 2 Corinthians 1:18

God’s true word in Heaven is an absolute set of words, there is no shadow of turning with them. Purity demands the right words, not two differing and opposing words!

Thus, it is madness to think that “he” and “she” could both be correct, when it has to be one or the other.

Again, truth compels us not to serve two masters, but we must choose between Cambridge and Oxford.

Importantly, since the Cambridge can be shown right at all such places of difference between it and the Oxford, it must be right here also.

One simply does not have to go to the Hebrew to explain or find any truth.

Continue reading →