I asked some ardent modernists the following:

What is the Scriptural basis for arguing that the original source texts are more authoritative than present copies, and what in Scripture-based doctrine indicates any specific divine sanction to Greek or Hebrew MSS?

The answer? Basically, they say, it is because the science of textual criticism says so, that the Scripture doesn’t say anything about textual criticism/transmission and that the science is valid because after all, the Bible fails to address elements of things like evolution, Einstein’s special relativity, etc.

My response to these kind of folks is as follows:

You are, incidentally, confirming that this debate is between an Enlightenment-based philosophy versus a Biblical doctrine interpretation of Scripture. That is, the debate is between reasoning as though the Scripture says nothing on Biblical transmission versus an interpretation of Scripture where many such references are identified.

I can also understand how people can then start from some point out of the Scripture, and arrive at all kinds of views such as evolution, Einsteinian special relativity, etc., which are thoroughly un- and anti-Biblical. I do not want to say it belligerently, but I think your side’s modern bible textual criticism view falls into that category, alongside the unbelief of higher criticism.

The foundational issue is to then question why do I see references to the Reformation, perfection of the KJB, nature of transmission of the Bible, etc., in Scripture, while you do not interpret so. I think it is because of a vastly different hermeneutical presupposition.

Continue reading →

Here’s a statement I made recently on an anti-King James Bible only forum,

The Reformation was not about going to the original languages specifically as such, but about believing Scripture was available and to be rightly understood, and that Romanism was corrupt. This means that the emphasis was on the Scripture coming into English above the emphasis of accepting Greek witness of Scripture which had come to hand. It assumed Scripture was available and readings recoverable rather than the modern anguished Greek-centric critical analytical view which is still grappling about with the Greek rather than having any resolution that things are right in English. The modern approach is essentially anti-Reformation because it denies that having a fixed Bible is a common possession, instead, like Romanism, full truth is locked away in another language, and only select individuals are “authorised” to deal with (and expound) it. While Greek was the main vehicle for NT early transmission, neither that language (though used by Apostles) is any more special, nor are surviving MSS any more venerable, than having Scripture common at hand properly in a resolved English form. I know what was communicated in Greek because we believers have a correct text (readings) and translation of it. The real Protestant Reformation-derived view is not “what do we think God said and meant in Greek”, but “what does God say exactly”. This necessarily leads to the conflict between the believing view of Prov. 22:20, 21 versus the “grammatical-historical” (i.e. revisionist) approach of modernistic hermeneutics. Foundationally behind all this is whether one starts from Scripture at hand and the doctrine therein to identify a correct providentially supplied copy, or whether one begins under the influence of Enlightenment-derived philosophy of external investigations into MSS, readings, probability, weight, empirical analyses, rationalisation, subjective opinion and the assumption that error prevails (in transmission and in recovery). This is an ideological battle between faith and antichristian modernism in the Protestant churches. Sadly, many good Chistians have been influenced (e.g. modern versions) by the other side. This is the great conflict for English-speaking Civilisation in our time.

Sadly, those against the King James Bible’s perfection are resorting to a deistic kind of view where perfection was only in the original inspiration, and that error has interfered in both the transmission and the recovery (modern textual critical) process. In other words, they are saying it is basically a law that you can’t have a perfect Bible ever.

It is an honour to be in Kiev, Ukraine as a member of President Poroshenko's International Advisory Council. pic.twitter.com/MxNmPE6GOI

— Tony Abbott (@TonyAbbottMHR) March 20, 2016

It is right to stand against Russian aggression, though we know the Scripture says, “For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom” (Matthew 24:7a).

It is common knowledge that Russia never ended its cold war espionage operations, and that it has been working to expand its influence and sphere of dominion. Ezekiel 38 & 39 shows a near future great expansion of Russian military and economic power for a short period of history.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Heartland.png

Thankfully, we are told, “yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.” (Daniel 11:45b). So we are on the right side.

This is an email I wrote to someone asking questions about the word “spirit” and why it is sometimes lower case in the King James Bible (PCE). My correspondence here is a bit rough and ready, but that’s because it’s real.

Starting from a believing, assured view is going to be a helpful thing for you, rather than just “trying to figure” it out.

First, the examples like Judges 3:10 and many others are where a person has a specific anointing come upon them.

Whereas, the examples like Numbers 24:2 and 27:18 are, in the first reference, where a person has insight from God, but is exercising their own spirit, and in the second reference where Joshua was conformed to a godly heart and attitude.

Continue reading →