Monthly Archives: March 2025

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.