Bible Protector

[bibleprotector]

Question 1. If we need to have a sound understanding and a faithful manuscript [or better, witness,] tradition, how can we do this without having a manuscript-centric view?

We have a Scripture first and a received tradition providential view. The Word of God is not limited to 10 or 100 or 1000 manuscript copies. God's Word is not limited to the Greek.

The men up to 1611 laboured to ensure that the English was correct. Since that time there has been checking. But now, we true believers are confident, that we do not to yet trawl the Greek or look at umpteen translations. No, it is done, it is finished.

We do not have a manuscript-centric or Hebraio-Graecian-centric view of the truth, primacy or authority of Scripture. We do not need to know about how scientifically plausible our Bible textual tradition is today in order to believe. No, what we need is faith in God's Word, faith in God's presence and faith in God's provision. No one got born again by bibliographing manuscripts. The Gospel is not textual criticism.

And yet, the whole Christian world, including Catholics, apostates and heretics, along with every kind of decent believing Protestant, Puritan or Born Again believer, is supposed to be in subject to a handful of higher critics, scholars and university researchers who are apparently able to dictate to us what is or is not most likely the Word of God. Such a view strikes at the very roots of the Reformation. It takes the power of owning and believing the Scripture itself out of the hands and hearts of the common Christian.

Question 2. How do we determine the truth of Scripture without having a manuscript-centric view?

Scripture is itself its own final authority. We start with what we have at hand on the true foundation that the all-powerful God has deigned to communicate to us today. We start with the Word of God in the present. This is the Scripture, which is given in English, and which us self authenticating in the King James Bible. If God has given Scripture, and we know it, it follows that how it got hear must be in line with its present manifestation. If it says it is true now, it must have been inspired just like it claims. We use history to confirm this also.

Thus, we do not begin by asking silly questions like, “what do we think, from our oldest copies, the original pen-men wrote”, but we demand that it is consistent with the nature of Scripture that God’s Word should be present, and therefore expect that the God who gave Scripture originally also ensured it would not be lost in history.

For a case study, consider 1 John 5:7. Those who a Greek manuscript-centric view will be inclined to reject the Comma. Those who see the entire tradition of Scripture would be open to it, considering the vast Latin witness. However, the truth of Scripture does not merely rest upon whether or not old copies or Church Fathers or whatever attested to it. It is not a debate whether or not 1 John 5:7 belongs in the Bible. The fact that it has been provided, that God’s Church has by a godly tradition kept it, and that most importantly we have, own, posses and defend it today, is significant to show the authenticity of such words.

The problem with the manuscript-centric view is that we only have limited information about the past, and therefore could never perfectly determine the true readings of Scripture in every place. Whereas, a sound understanding and a faithful witness tradition has brought about what we see and hear today as “the Scripture”, a faithful transporting from ancient times till now, an exact text gathered, and an accurate translation.

Question 3. Does the truth of scripture lie in a particular Bible translation?

The truth of Scripture is in all copies, except of course, many copies may have some or other accidental corruption in them, or worse, deliberate corruption. Thus, there is not extant in any place a perfect text of the entire Scripture of either Testament in their respective original languages. We have many versions and translations, but none except one can be said to be exactly accurate. Of course, they are called “Bible”, “Scripture”, “the Word” and are sufficiently so, but when it comes down to textual variants, translation mistakes, typographical errors, etc. not one is going to be the perfect Word of God in finite exemplar form.

Considering that there is no perfect text in the original languages in any single manuscript or printed edition, and considering that the original languages are largely unknown, and are disputed in places as to meaning by the most learned, it follows that there is no final standard there.

Yet, the world is learning English, we have an English Bible which, when examined to the detail, shows itself to be true. Even the particular language of the King James Bible is so accurate when examined minutely.

But most importantly, Bible prophecy itself points to perfect Bible (e.g. Isaiah 34:16), and points to it not being in the original languages (see Isaiah 28:11, Zephaniah 3:9 and Romans 16:26), but another tongue, a pure Bible language. These verses, others, historical facts, and all the present signals of providence indicate that the King James Bible is the perfect Word of God for all.

Thus, ultimately, the truth of Scripture is being given completely accurately, perfectly and wholly in the King James Bible.

Question 4. If so, what is that translation, and how do you know it has a faithful manuscript tradition?

The King James Bible is that one perfect translation, and its underlying witness tradition is authentic, as is borne out by study of both its internal constancy, and its external manifestation in line with the nature of God.

We do not have to catalogue all the Hebrew or Greek or Latin sources today to “prove” the authenticity of the King James Bible. We do not have to scour all the printings of the English Bibles from 1525 to 1602 in order to prove how fitting and in line with the providential continuum the King James Bible was.

And why? Because many learned men from 1611 to circa the year 2000 have winnowed and witnessed, announced and pronounced, discoursed and dispersed, that the King James Bible has come from the correct underlying tradition, and that the witnesses for it are authentic.

In fact, that is why we do not have to learn Hebrew or Greek today, or think that this will aid in our theological studies, foreign witnessing endeavours or any other Christian work: there is ample witness to the truth of the King James Bible, both internally and externally, that we may now safely argue and study from an English-onlyist view, which argues that:
I. God has one law.
II. God’s law is now in English.
III. Man must obey God’s law.
IV. The governance of man must be subject to God’s law.
V. A commonwealth subject to God’s law will therefore have the greatest blessing by God.
VI. The English-speaking Christians in such a commonwealth will be instrumental in furthering good works in the Earth above and beyond all historical examples.
VII. Kindreds, tribes, peoples and nations will be converted by the preaching of the King James Bible on an unprecedented level before the return of Christ.

The focus therefore is on upholding what has been received and attested to as a coming out of the past, not an emphasis and focus on mere “manuscript studies”.

Question 5. Did the truth of scripture lie in the Bibles from Wycliffe, Tyndale, the Bishop's Bible, the Great Bible, the Geneva Bible, for instance?

These were sufficiently true, but none was perfectly word-for-word accurate in every last particular. Psalm 12 speaks of a refining process. Clearly, the Reformation Bibles from Tyndale to the KJB have come to their conclusion: something which is very pure.

Question 6. How do you know?

Since God has supplied us in the present with His Word (the King James Bible), knowledge (our study, previous study, tradition), we are in a blessed and able position to be able to discern the truth of the King James Bible.

There is an advance of knowledge, a multiplying of it, so “to fulfil the word of God; Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles” (Col. 1:25b–27a). Our English Bible is key in effectively and powerfully revealing Christ, the doctrine of Christ, the Gospel of Christ, by the Church in the last days.
_________________
Matthew Verschuur — www.bibleprotector.com

[bibleprotector]

More questions answered.

Question 1. Did the KJB translators start from the Hebrew and Greek MSS that they knew about?

The KJB translators held that the current English Versions were the Word of God. They certainly used the Bishops’ and the Geneva on Sundays at Church. Therefore, it is easy to show that they did not have a manuscript-centric view, as though the Word of God was only really in the original languages, and that God had somehow failed the western world.

The manuscript-centric view makes a false assumption that if the KJB men were limited to say 100 manuscripts, that their work could not be as good as if they had access to 1000. The false assumption is that the Word of God cannot be known without all information. And yet, many Christians may have heard or used just a few Bibles, e.g. the Bible at their parish Church, and they did not count have merely one copy as keeping them from having the Word of God.

The problem with the manuscript-centric view is that it tries to turn God’s work into a carnal, natural approach which does not require God’s existence. It all falls to the endeavours of man making extensive studies and discoveries in whatever manuscript copies are left to hopefully gain as best as possible knowledge of what God’s words actual were to begin with. Notice, in this, a subtle change from God’s Word being present to looking to God’s Word as authentically existing only once, in autographs, which are lost. Moreover, all processes for trying to produce the Word of God from the manuscript-centric view are doomed to never quite getting it right. One day, they hope, when Christ returns, we will know, but until then, we are apparently stuck with imperfection and no firm resolution as to what God’s Word actually is. What a poor, weak and beggarly state of affairs.

Now, it is a fact that the KJB men did translate from the Hebrew and Greek they knew about, but this was more than sufficient (even at places where there are also marginal renderings), along with their holistic view of other sources and witnesses, to show and reveal all aspects of what the Word of God was, and how it should be in English.

Question 2. How do you know that the KJB translation is the final translation, when thousands more source MSS have been discovered since 1611?

The King James Bible is final because the Word of God was present in 1610, meaning that no more of the Word of God would be revealed in 1612 and on. If the King James Bible was not the final text and final translation in 1611, and certainly no candidates from before that time can be produced to fit in this category, and as yet none afterward, then it follows that the modernistic idea believes: a. that God has not supplied His Word fully to this day, and b. that there cannot be any finality as to what the Word of God actually is to every last jot or to the very sense.

To argue against any finality is to distrust and attack the doctrine of Scripture which speaks variously of God’s Word as true, identifying it as entity, and passages which show that there are finite words.

Question 3. Why put your faith in the KJB rather than those that came before and after the KJB?

English versions and translations before 1611 reveal an overall refining process, going toward the final mark. English versions and translations since 1611 show a widening or departing from the mark.

When the external factors are considered, the King James Bible is vindicated by the signals of providence. When the internal factors are considered, the King James Bible reveals itself as self-authenticating, accurate in its words, marvellously structured, melodious, fitting, full and in every whit a product of the divine.

Question 4. Did the KJB translators take away the Geneva Bible from the people and give them the KJB translation?

No, they did not “take away the Geneva”, though they did give them the KJB.

Question 5. What do you mean by self authenticating?

There are no errors in the KJB, and when its text and translation are examined, they given infallibly the Word of God in English. Every word order is correct, every word is accurate, every placement of the punctuation is found, in the standard edition, to be precise.

Question 6. How is the KJB able to be self authenticating, and none of the other translations?

While the Word of God authenticates itself in sufficient forms, the KJB manifests that it is precisely the very words and sense of Scripture in every place to the greatest detail. This may not be said of a translation which is in some places inaccurate, or a version which has textual variations in it.

Question 7. How do you know that the KJB is scripture and none of the other translations?

Other translations are Scripture. They are sufficient, but they contain textual, translational and presentational variations. This is easily understood if you consider the variations between Greek manuscripts, for example. There is no perfect Biblical Greek New Testament extant.

Question 8. How do you use history to confirm the authenticity of the KJB?

The Protestant view is to take received tradition, and to study comparing Scripture with Scripture. By all these means, when external factors are considered, they are most favourable to the manifestation of the King James Bible, and indicate its soundness.

Question 9. Why is it silly to ask what the original authors wrote, when they were describing their own experiences?

It is silly to put the inspired autographs on a mere human level. The Scripture was given by inspiration of God, not the invention of ancient Hebrews and primitive Christians.

The wise course is to believe that what we are reading in the Bible today is what God caused to be written there, and that God has not failed to get that through time into our language, so that we possess God’s Word even now.

Thus, we are not trying to go back to look at what Moses or whoever might have written, or might have meant in some sort of subjective hermeneutic, but we expect that the ever-present Spirit of truth is at work, making plain today what Moses wrote. In other words, God’s Word is not hidden, lost or locked back in history.

Question 10. Did God originally gave Scripture to the original authors, not to the KJB translation committees?

This grossly misunderstands the provision of God. God has given us today His Word. “The Lord gave the word: great was the company of those that published it.” (Psalm 68:11). It is not merely that God gave the autographs by inspiration of the pen men writing what God in eternity willed to be revealed, but God intended and has accomplished to deliver these words, and fully, to us today. In other words, God has used providential preservation to ensure His Word would endure and to keep it from being corrupted. Though many copies may have signs of corruption or imperfection, God’s Word is incorrupt, and He has not failed to have His Word gathered together utterly for the end of the world.

Question 11. So why was it necessary to forge a MS in the 16th. century to convince Erasmus that it belonged in the Bible?

Scripture is not based on such a low view as merely Erasmus’ opinion, nor on the opinions of those who make the unsubstantiated claim that a Greek manuscript was “forged” to include 1 John 5:7. The reality is that many Latin witnesses had the Comma, and that many Christians, yes, true Protestants, accepted these words as true. Thus, without being shackled to a narrow manuscript-centric view, but rather, a proper received traditional view, they accepted that these were authentically God’s words, as true believers also should do today, lest they come in danger of the injunction at the end of Revelation, for adding to or detracting from God’s Word (which is a modernist’s practise).

Question 12. How do you know that that faithful witness tradition and accurate translation is preserved in the KJB and nowhere else?

The faithful witness tradition was not limited to the King James Bible. In fact, all genuine copies, translations and versions bear witness in this way, however, the King James Bible is the most accurate, and therefore, the exemplar. Since there can be only one actual exemplar, therefore the other sources, as good as they may be, inasmuch as they differ to the KJB in singular, unique or particular places, they are not of the “very pure”.

The fact is that there is much preserved, much accurate, much faithful, and it is a lie to imply that only the KJB is the Word of God, and that it is nowhere else. Why, the Scripture is in heaven, and we can only surmise that it is KJB, because we have no empirical access to it.

Question 13. Is the King James Bible language so archaic that nobody speaks like that today?

This misunderstands Bible English. The King James Bible is not foreign, not unrelated to, not different to English. It is English, but it is special. It is Bible English. The language of the King James Bible literally has never been ordinary speech, and it never will be in the history of the world. The reality is that the King James Bible is conducive to, comprehensible to, ordinary English speakers today.

It is an emotive ploy and a lie to claim that the Bible language is “so archaic”. Since in fact the King James Bible is still currently, and quite commonly used, it shows its relevance.

Question 14. Is it a fact that it nowhere says God's word will be preserved only in English, and not in (say) Spanish, French, Arabic or Chinese, all of which are spoken by vast numbers of people?

The Scripture indicates that the Word of God would be translated, as has occurred in many languages. The Scripture also indicates that one language has been chosen, in the providence of God, for worldwide preaching. This means it would be a lie to accuse the King James Bible believers of saying that only it is the Word of God. Indeed, it is the only Bible which should be aimed to be used for the future, and for whatever vast numbers of people, from whatever national or linguistic background. After all, the spread of English around the globe cannot be said to be accomplished by the agenda of King James Onlyists.

Question 15. Is it a fact that nowhere it says that God's word will be preserved in 16th. century English, which is spoken by nobody today?

In reality, the King James Bible is Biblical English. This is hardly locked to the 16th century, which ended in 1599, before the King James Bible was ever made. Moreover, the King James Bible is not locked to the seventeenth century, nor to any time before the year 2000. In reality, it is a supersuccessionary form, which has endured and speaks currently and relevantly today, more so and greater than ever.

Those who try to brush it off as old are resorting to deceptions. The fact is that the King James Bible’s language is comprehensible, and as much as the King James Bible is used, could be said to be “spoken today”. Its design by God’s Spirit is that the King James Bible should remain.

“For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent.” (Zephaniah 3:9).

Question 16. Why is the KJB the perfect one in particular, and not those that came earlier or later?

This is clear to anyone who actually believes the Scripture, which prophetically points to the KJB, and in seeing how the KJB is consistent with the nature of God, and observes both the external (e.g. dominion) and internal factors (word accuracy), showing that it alone is exact, final and exemplar.

Question 17. Why don’t we have to catalogue all the Hebrew or Greek or Latin sources today to "prove" the authenticity of the King James Bible?

Because God’s Word is not limited to Hebrew and Greek, and God’s Word is manifestly in the KJB, that is to say, the King James Bible is God’s Word today. In fact, there is no perfect Hebrew Bible, not even a perfect manuscript containing the entire Greek New Testament. So, of course, it is clear that the King James Bible is authentic.

Question 18. And why did that continuum end in 1611?

The providential continuum has not ended, but the King James Bible endures, incorrupt, even this day. And there are yet signs and manifestations of the King James Bible’s truth.

Question 19. Have many learned men laboured for the other English translations?

The labours prior to 1611 were heading toward that perfection. The labours since, inasmuch as they departed from or rejected the King James Bible, underscore that such persons were not “learned”. Why labour to reject, fight against or differ to the King James Truth?

Question 20. Why that English Bible in particular, and none of the other translations?

As is shown, and by many passages, including Prov. 30:4,5, and so on, that it is God’s plan manifest to produce the King James Bible as it is.

Question 21. Is it true that as more MSS are continually discovered, so we gain a greater understanding of the text coming out of the past?

No, the more discoveries are made, the more confusion increases, the more it solidifies to the modernist that there is no perfection, no finality, and that the King James Bible apparently is wrong.

Question 22. How do you know that the KJB is pure and perfectly word for word accurate, and not any of the others?

Seeing that there are textual and translation differences between the Protestant English Reformation Bibles, only one could be right. Thus, it follows, according to the model of Psalm 12, that a seven-time purification sequence being accomplished, the end is come.

Question 23. How do you decide the word for word accuracy of a particular translation?

Accuracy is not “decided”, it is received. We decide to believe. The signs are all there, prophetically in Scripture, in consistency to the nature of God, in the external providences of the appearance of the King James Bible, and by minute study of its detail. It is the truth of truth.

Question 24. The same argument can be applied to all the other translations as well.

But such a view would not stand up to the logic of faith. The problems in those versions would have to be defended as truth, and it would be untenable. For example, it is illogical to argue that the Vulgate is accurate because one Vulgate differs substantially to another, and for the internal inconstancies in it, notwithstanding its promotion by an antichrist. Thus, only the King James Bible soundly shows itself and is shown to be right exactly in every way.
_________________
Matthew Verschuur — www.bibleprotector.com

[bibleprotector]

Point 1. I guess you take the position that the KJB stands as the climax to a long tradition.

Answer: Yes.

Point 2. How do you see that widening or departing from the mark shown in the later versions?

Answer: In several ways. First, that they (modernists) obviously reject the KJB as correct. Secondly, that the amount of variations and divergences multiply rather than settle or resolve. Thirdly, that there is a trend away from the proper tradition and toward antichristian views as the modernistic process is allowed: it never leads to “truth”.

Point 3. Against what standard do you measure that correctness, accuracy and precision?

Answer: Itself. If it is the Word of God, and if it is the perfect form of it, it would be entirely self-authenticating.

Point 4. Did the KJB came from some of those imperfect Greek MSS (and from the Latin Vulgate for those verses that were not in the Greek MSS in 1611)?

Answer: It follows that every rendering in the KJB would be found in the Greek language in and prior to 1611. Those renderings which are said to be “Latin”, would in fact be found somewhere in Greek. However, the basis of the KJB NT is not merely “the extant Greek”, but all the valid sources of transmission of the preserved NT.

Point 5. How does comparing scripture with scripture indicate the soundness of the KJB — is that by comparing it with its immediate predecessors (e.g. from the time of Gutenberg perhaps)?

Answer: When comparing the KJB internally it is self authenticating. Therefore, ultimately, to compare Scripture with Scripture only ultimately bears out fully when restricted to the KJB. This is because textual, translational and other variations, impurities or corruptions exist in other extant copies/versions/translations.

Point 6. But why should that exist in a 1611 translation, and not (or not as much) in an earlier or later translation?

Answer: While God’s ways are past finding out, it seems that in order for people to exercise faith, in order for them to actually study, God’s working (in line with the prophetic scheme of events of Church history) was to have the standard Bible manifest in 1611.

Point 7. Again, without further qualification, that could be used to endorse any translation, before or after 1611. I'm sure that the Hebrews believe that they have what Moses wrote.

Answer: Do they? Or are you putting words into their mouths? I could venture that most Jews today would know that textual variations exist in the OT copies, and that none is absolutely certain. I certainly am sure that no single Hebrew OT copy is perfect today. However, I believe that the English OT of the KJB is perfect and exemplar. In today’s context, it is only the KJB can be shown to be true in every last detail.

Point 8. Again, that argument could be used to support any English translation.

Answer: Yet most English translations do not stand up on simple self examination. Only the KJB has a level of detail in it which stands up unlike all others. See my monograph: http://www.bibleprotector.com/glistering_truths.pdf

Point 9. So is it your view that God's word was preserved in the Latin Vulgate?

Answer: The Latin Vulgate was part of God’s preservation.

Point 10. How do you determine the accuracy of the KJB and the relative inaccuracy of the other translations?

Answer: The KJB is measured by its own self: its own words, its own doctrines, its own nature, its own internal characteristics, its own providential manifestation, external signs and prophetic fitness. Other extant forms prior or after are therefore measured by what we know is correct.

Point 11. By what standard do you measure this accuracy?

Answer: If the KJB stands up under the rigorous application of self-authentication, then it is indeed valid, and what it actually claims to be, viz. God’s Holy Truth.

Point 12. Other 16th. century Bibles, or something else?

Answer: Obviously the KJB itself, and the Spirit also bears witness.

Point 13. So if the KJB is not the only word of God, why do you draw the conclusion that the Scripture is the KJB?

Answer: No, the KJB is Scripture, however Scripture is also rendered in other forms, however all other extant forms suffer from textual issues, translational issues or other presentational issues.

Thus, the KJB is the only form of the Word of God to be used, and is really the only form which actually fully, perfectly and utterly is the Word of God, however, it cannot be said that other extant forms are “not Scripture” or “not the Word of God” if they are sufficiently so. However, the difference is between mere sufficiency and total attainment and perfection.

Point 14. What do you say to those who produce versions of the Bible that speak to (particularly) the youth of today in what to them is a more natural sounding English?

It is not the Spirit’s speech, and if “natural”, that might mean “carnal” or “brute beasts”, but the most authentic form, and wonderfully accessible, is where the spirit of any man or child is opened up to attaining God’s words.

Point 15. I'm sure that you would agree that the proportion of believers in the population is much lower now than it was in 1611, so how do we reach out to these unbelievers?

Answer: Evangelism, the fulfilling of prophecy and providences are not merely carnal works. Man’s answers have been to make God’s Word easy. This was a grievous error which has done great damage. In our day of visitation there is all the power of the Spirit to reach unbelievers — even with our KJB — there is no hindrance to God in that!

Point 16. As I see it here in England, people (like me) who grew up with the KJB have learnt a good deal of its language, but we are probably the last generation to do so ... Prince Charles has said that, when he becomes King, he doesn't want to be 'Defender of the Faith' but 'Defender of Faith' (any faith is implied in that title)

Answer: Actually, we are the first of a new generation. Second, God is with the last as much as He was with the first. Third, we have much more to reap for all that has been sown before us. Fourth, the God I serve is more powerful than any King Charles (and, as Milton said, God has yet his remnant).

Point 17. Some of them would claim that it is; and, in the days of the great explorers and missionaries, that may well have been the case. Again, I would guess that the language of the KJB would make it more difficult for a non English speaker to hear the word of God.

Answer: The power which bore the English Bible to the ends of the earth is not dead. It is very much about, though perhaps a sleeping giant. As for the KJB’s language, it is hardly difficult for the Holy Ghost to use the KJB to turn benighted souls to the truth. It is by the KJB that one truly hears the Word of God in clarity. Why would the Holy Ghost have any issue with that?

Point 18. Why do you say that the language of the KJB speaks more currently and relevantly today than it ever has?

Answer: It is God’s design. English is more widely spoken than ever. The internet and other media connect everywhere. The KJB is here, there and in the air.

The truth of the KJB has not changed. Therefore, the KJB intrinsically is able to speak most currently and relevantly.

Point 19. It is only 'spoken today' by those who read from the KJB.

Answer: This proves that the KJB is not “archaic”. Moreover, it also shows that the KJB should be more used than ever. This is our aim. We do not expect to fail on the strength of Psalm 68:11.

Point 20. That could be said to apply to modern English much more than KJB English.

Answer: KJB English is far superior to modernist English, and KJB English can be shown to be “pure”, unlike modernist English. Again, see my monograph: http://www.bibleprotector.com/glistering_truths.pdf

Point 21. How does Scripture prophetically point to the KJB and not to any other translation?

Answer: It is important to realise that there are prophecies of Scripture in general (e.g. Romans 16:26). However, there is also some SPECIFIC inferences which could only apply to the KJB, or be consistently only found to match with it rather than anything else.

For example, if we are commanded to seek out of the book of the LORD and read according to Isaiah 34:16, what exactly is this “book of the Lord” today, but the KJB.

Again, what fits in with the “purified seven times” of Psalm 12 but the KJB?

Etc.

Point 22. Again, I don't see how that applies to the KJB and not to any other translation from the Hebrew and Greek.

Answer: Since all Greek and Hebrew copies differ, and since all versions and translations differ, only one could be perfect and correct. If it is not the KJB, what is it?

Point 23. What are those signs and manifestations?

Answer: Massive acceptance, many conversions, powerful advancing Christianity, sound doctrines, miracles, providences, statements by believers, etc.

Point 24. They certainly did not (and do not) believe that the KJB is the final true translation.

Answer: Yes they did. They said that there should indeed be one more exact translation of the holy Scripture into the English tongue, meaning their work, and they said that people should not reject it, only to seek great fairs afterward, etc.

Point 25. Again, that does not specifically point to any particular translation, in any particular language.

Answer: Nowhere does the Bible actually say, “It shall be only the King James Bible”, etc. No, all doctrines are taught by understanding the meaning of Scripture and its application and outworking. Since the KJB is directly, distinctly, fully and perfectly in line with this, no matter what verse is examined, the KJB can be soundly shown to be God’s favoured and chosen manifestation.

IF YOU TOOK EVERY BIBLE IN EXISTENCE ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS, ONLY THE KJB WOULD MATCH UP TOTALLY IN ALL ASPECTS.

Point 26. So what about those (for example) who argue that the older MSS are purer, and the later MSS have introduced corruption to the text?

Answer: That is a natural (carnal), unscriptural and actually logically fallacious argument which does not actually stand up. The case is not whether or not older or new MSS copies are better. The case is whether or not what we have right now called “The Bible” is true. It says it is. Why would we start from an outside position to try and find out whether we have or how we can get God’s truth (which would be impossible) when we should start from having God’s truth, and see that these things are so by searching the Scripture, and finding how the KJB is true.

Point 27. Much of secular history (for example) depends on this.

Answer: The principle of “time begets error” is not Scriptural. It is anti-Scriptural. Given time, the Bible does NOT corrupt, because it is incorruptible.

Point 28. It could equally be argued that none of them are correct, because they were based on later MSS.

Answer: This illustrates beautifully that a non-KJB position ultimately will lead to an antichrist view that there is no Word. To accept the maxim that time begets error, that man is incapable of actually coming to purity, that there is no final true resolution, is exactly an anti-Bible view. Anti-KJB and anti-Bible are really the same thing.

Point 29. There are those who argue for modern translations that “accuracy is not ‘decided’, it is received.”

Answer: If modern translations are “received”, they are done so from an anti-traditional source. Such a stance for modernist accuracy would doubtless be self-deception or gross ignorance. Whereas, to receive the KJB accuracy is by a Scripturally-consistent enlightenment, that God is true, and that His Word is true. That is why the modernists attack “tradition” and attack the “simple faith” of those who do not use humanistic rationalisations to support their new version.

Point 30. But (as I said above) where there was no Greek MSS available, the Greek was translated from the Vulgate. That is one of the criticisms that is levelled against the KJB.

Answer: Even if this were true, it would not negate the truth that God has supplied His Word. However, this, like many other criticisms against the KJB, does not stand up. The truth of the KJB is not based on which Greek manuscripts, or even, whether the Latin was used. God’s truth is not somehow limited to scraps of Greek or Latin. God’s power has been to have His Word present, and to have it gathered and turned into English. It follows that God’s Word must have been there in Greek, but that is because we have God’s truth right now, and as we explore, we can see that is how it was transmitted. The simple fact is that it was transmitted, and for most people, that is a fact they believe without ever thinking about it. Thus, it is obvious that such “criticisms” are designed to destroy people’s simple and reasonable faith.

“And that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men: for all men have not faith” (2 Thess. 3:2).
_________________
Matthew Verschuur — www.bibleprotector.com

[bibleprotector]

And yet, even more questions answered.

Question 1. In what way are the modern translations anti-Christian?

In as much as they reject the clear doctrines of Scripture and depart from them.

Question 2. But (it seems to me) it takes an external standard to determine that any translation is the perfect form of the Word of God.

Actually, internally the KJB shows itself in its depth of perfection. Some details of this is shown in my “Glistering Truths” monograph.

Question 3. The claim against the KJB is that it's based on later MSS in Latin and Greek, so (without further evidence) it cannot be said to go back to the original NT.

When starting from what we have right now, after all, the word of God “is” truth, and “is given”, what we then might do is inquire how it came to us today. Of course it is logical and easy to understand that it must have come from the very hands of Moses, David and Paul, etc.

Question 4. How do you know that the KJB is free of those errors, and all other translations are not?

On the strength of the totality of the argument which takes into account:
1. The Scripture itself, its doctrines
2. Internal structures, conference of Scripture exact
3. Exact details in its finite form
4. The fulfilment of prophecies about itself
5. The alignment with tradition
6. The signals of providence
7. The witness of the Spirit
8. The many facts and details offered by those who have studied Hebrew and Greek properly and other textual studies to our day, allowing us to safely take the word of the brethren for the KJB’s accuracy

Question 5. Why that date in particular? Why is the 'standard Bible' the one translated in 1611, and not earlier or later?

That’s just the plan of God. It fits well with the Reformation, the fulness of the refining, preparation for the last days, etc.

Question 6. Again, without external evidence, how do we know that the KJB is 100% correct, and all others wrong? Proponents of the other versions could (on the face of it) make the same claim.

See the answer to Question 4. Also, consider that other versions, even old good ones, do not match up so well with the KJB in its supersuccessionary manifestation.

Question 7. If the other translations are allowed to authenticate themselves, then they could make the same claim.

Other translations do not match up as well as the KJB according to the criteria listed in the answer to Question 4.

Question 8. What other forms are you talking about?

All copies, versions and translations, as long as they are not manifestly corrupted, or manifestly of a different spirit, are sufficient. Obviously things like gnostic corruptions, modernistic/liberal theology/cultic works would not really be good. While some element of Scripture may be in the NIV, for example, it is throughly corrupt.

Question 9. So, by what standard do you measure perfection?

See the answer to Question 4.

Question 10. And I would say that that is more difficult to do when using the archaic words that I listed earlier.

You need to read my “Glistering Truths” monograph. Now, the fact is that there are difficult words in the Bible. Whether they are names (Beth-horon), concepts (propitiation) or just unusual words (neesings), does not mean that we should “dumb down” the language. On the contrary, the Holy Ghost uses His own use of English to convey the truth that He wants man to know. We must come up to His desired level for us, not to bring the Word of God down to the dunghill (as is the intent of the spirit of antichrist).

Question 11. I think there is great hindrance in using 16th. century English to attempt to reach the youth of today.

Nothing is to hard for the Holy Ghost.

Question 12. I would not presume to speak for the Holy Ghost.

Those who are of the spirit would know spiritual things. Thus, they may be judged to be speaking rightly. Are you judging that I am wrong in saying that it is easy for the Holy Ghost to give the comprehension of His Word? Perhaps you are arguing it is hard for God to get His own Word across?!

Question 13. So are the translations in modern English.

But it is obvious that the KJB really is everywhere, able to be sought out, unlike modern versions in which you have to buy unlocks for in Bible software programs.

Question 14. But (I would argue) less clearly.

The KJB was as mysterious to a fool, heretic or unbeliever in 1611 as it is today. The problem is not God’s Word, the Holy Ghost is still getting it through to those in darkness. The problem is to judge God’s Word from the position of darkness (e.g. a fool, heretic or unbeliever) today.

Question 15. Again, nothing about the English language there.

Prophecies are applied, not explicit. The prophecy of Ps. 68:11 does apply to the KJB, whether or not it says the word “English” in the Bible.

Question 16. So why don't people speak KJB English (or anything like it) in everyday conversation?

While the world has its way of speaking, God is in control despite their sin, and the English of today is not so removed from the KJB. In reality, an English speaker can understand the KJB, and also we know that the Spirit of God awakens souls and gives understanding. While Bible English is distinct to Modern English, nevertheless, they have very much in common.

Question 17. It could refer (and, in my view, it does refer) to the Old Testament of Isaiah's time.

It would be merely natural thinking to limit Isaiah 34:16 to the prophet’s own day. After all, he was speaking prophetically (prophecy is about the future) by the Spirit (who inhabits eternity).

Question 18. How does the 'seven times' apply to the KJB ? I'm always wary of numerological arguments.

If you reject proper Biblical use of numbers, you would have to reject a lot of Bible passages, including seventy years captivity, seventy weeks, the age of Christ and all the genealogies, the prophecy of the 1260 years of the Papal States free rule, the time period of the Turkish invasion, etc. etc. all of which are given in Bible.

The purified seven times applies to the KJB in that there are in fact seven major English Reformation Bible Versions: Tyndale, Coverdale, Matthew, Great, Geneva, Bishops’ and the KJB. This is not a coincidence, it is not trying to change historical facts to mash into a Scriptural timeline.

Question 18. None of the above. We don't have it yet. I don't believe that we had it in the 17th. century. Within a generation after the KJB, England was embroiled in civil war, so why should they have been blessed with the only perfect and correct translation at that time?

There is ONE perfect Bible. The English civil war was a fight which related to it. In the 1650s, Cromwell was supporting the KJB. All attempts to keep the Geneva or revise the KJB failed. The KJB endured. Then, in the Restoration, the KJB was obviously supreme.

Question 19. Great fairs? What are those?

The KJB men said, “Others have laboured, and you may enter into their labours. O receive not so great things in vain: O despise not so great salvation. Be not like swine to tread under foot so precious things, neither yet like dogs to tear and abuse holy things. Say not to our Saviour with the Gergesites, Depart out of our coasts; neither yet with Esau sell your birthright for a mess of pottage. If light be come into the world, love not darkness more than light: if food, if clothing, be offered, go not naked, starve not yourselves. Remember the advice of Nazianzene, It is a grievous thing (or dangerous) to neglect a great fair, and to seek to make markets afterwards”.

If the KJB is a great fair, the modern versions are attempts to rival it.

Question 20. If they said there should be one more exact translation, that implies that at least one of the predecessors of the KJB was exact.

Yes, there are six “exact” translations, but the KJB is “more exact” then they. See the answer to Question 18.

Question 21. How can one do this without examining every verse in every translation?

You don’t have to. You can receive that the KJB is right straight away. Then, you can see, if others were studied in detail, that they would fail miserably. I do not focus on tearing down other translations and modern versions, I focus on showing the perfection of the KJB. It is there, I have not found one problem in it. I believe that all honest inquiries will always find it true.

Question 22. Match up totally with what?

The KJB, in every detail, matches up with perfection. It vindicates itself. It is self authenticating. Without external sources it is possible to prove its consistency.

Question 23. So how do you know that the KJB is true, and none of the other translations, except by comparing every verse in every translation?

See the answer to Question 21.

Question 24. So how do errors arise in Biblical MSS?

There are no errors in the KJB. There were errors, problems and variations in other copies because the spirit of antichrist has been present, that accidental mistakes may have occurred in copying, and that people had incomplete copies (also, considering that copies have been actively destroyed at times). Moreover, attempts at compiling versions and making translations may have done well, but it was only by the sequence of events of the 1453 that things clicked together, viz., English loss of possession of France, solidifying English the national language, the first commercial use of Gutenberg’s press to produce a Bible, and that the Turkish conquest of Constantinople brought Eastern preserved learning and many sound copies of the NT into Western Europe. Thus, the Reformation, the sequence of improving English Bibles, the right providential climate, having the right people at the right places at the right time with the right learning and access to the right information, meant that there was a completion of the gathering process from a holistic view (including the sequence of gathering together the text in instrumental/critical editions) so that the KJB was freed from any and all textual and translational errors, problems and variations, giving one exemplar. Thus, the work of God.

“He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.” (Deut. 32:4).

Question 25. It is not my position that there is no Word, but that we only have a close approximation of it. I see that as being pro-Bible, as an illustration of man's attempts to reach perfection. I don't believe that we have reached that point yet.

That is a no actual perfect Bible position. In other words, God has failed to have an exact truth. God’s words, according to that low view, are sullied by unknown errors of transmission. This contradicts everything right and good.

“For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.” (1 Cor. 14:33).

Question 26. I accept the tradition of the chain of MSS from the 5th. to the 15th. centuries. We don't have anything like that chain of evidence for any other book.

If your chain starts in the 5th Century, it sounds suspiciously like the Roman Catholic tradition to me. Proper tradition dates all the way back.

Question 27. If people's simple and reasonable faith is based on a modern translation, who are we to criticise that?

That would have to be corrected, because it would be ignorance and foolishness.
_________________
Matthew Verschuur — www.bibleprotector.com

[bibleprotector]

Refutations abound.

Point 1. Please let me know where (e.g.) the ESV and NKJV do that.

Refutation: The NKJV differs to the KJB in translation in various places. If the sense differs between the NKJV and the KJB, only one is correct.

Point 2. So how do you know that the words of Moses, David, Paul etc. are preserved in the KJB and not (or not as much) in the other translations?

Refutation: Since other translations differ to the KJB, only one can be exactly correct.

Point 3. Many (arguably most) of those who have studied the Hebrew and Greek MSS have vouched for the accuracy of the modern translations.

Refutation: Actually many have vindicated the KJB, and there is much to show that modern versions are corrupt, especially since they all differ to each other.

Point 4. Preparation for the last days in 1611? Seems like a l-o-n-g preparation to me.

Refutation: Jesus said “soon” almost 2000 years ago. Another verse says that a thousand years is like a day to God.

Point 5. Please explain supersecessionary manifestation. I have never hard of that term (and nor has my spell checker)

Refutation: It is a portmanteau word describing that the KJB is essentially greater than and replaces all other extant Scripture copies.

Point 6. So which modern translations are (in your opinion) not thoroughly corrupt?

Refutation: The only incorrupt translation in the modern era is the KJB. Other translations in line with the proper tradition may be okay, but really, we are in a time when the KJB is displacing ALL Bibles in any language. That is what “supersuccessionary” entails.

Point 7. So why do we not see many young people coming to church (except those that come with their parents) ? Perhaps it's different where you are.

Refutation: You are looking at the Church as if it is almost extinct. That is the wrong view of the working of God in history.

Point 8. It is much harder for people to get His Word across if they use archaic language.

Refutation: The KJB is not archaic as you imply. It is the Spirit which actually speaks and uses the Word, not merely the efforts or strivings of men.

Point 9. That is absolutely untrue. I can type in any book, chapter and verse into Google, and get a host of ancient and modern versions.

Refutation: The KJB is still the most prevalent, and will be.

Point 10. Again, I would contend that He is not getting His Word across to anything like the same extent today as in 1611. The world has changed, and the English language has changed with it.

Refutation: According to that pessimistic and God-limiting view, Satan is basically calling the shots, controlling nations, changing the language and blocking the Gospel. Well, the reality is that God is in control, that God has providential designs and the Gospel is as powerful as ever.

Point 11. How do you know that it applies to the KJB?

Refutation: Clearly, Psalm 68:11 fits more with the KJB than with anything known to this point. It is a historical fact. Moreover, we can take it also prophetically for the future.

Point 12. Not nearly enough, as is shown by the dramatic decline in the number of church goers (at least here in England)

Refutation: See the refutations of point 7 and point 10.

Point 13. How do you know he was speaking prophetically about the 21st. century?

Refutation: Isaiah 34:16, like other verses, are true now as they were at the time they were written.

Point 14. How do you deduce that the 1260 years applies to the Papal states? How do you deduce the date of the Turkish invasion from the Bible?

Refutation: If you read Joseph Mede, Isaac Newton, Thomas Newton, Adam Clarke, Albert Barnes, John Gill, Jamieson-Fausset-Brown, Uriah Smith, B. W. Johnson and my own website, you would find out about this (traditional views of Puritans, Anglicans, Methodists, millenarians, Church of Christ and some Traditional Pentecostals). It’s called the historicist interpretation of Bible Prophecy.

Point 15. So where does the Bible say that there would be seven versions?

Refutation: Psalm 12 is applied to see how God’s Word could be purified. Obvious God’s Word is already pure, so it would have to be the forming/editing/scholarship of the text and translation where the purification takes place. There are seven major steps like this in the Reformation English.

Point 15. Of course, Cromwell was rightly executed, and the monarchy restored.

Refutation: Cromwell was not executed. And he was not the fanatic that some anti-authoritarians and Catholics make out.

Point 16. They may not have ever corrected those 24000 errors in the KJB if the monarchy had not been restored.

Refutation: Gross ignorance. There are no errors in the text and translation of the KJB. Don’t you realise that much editing of the KJB had already taken place by 1638 before Cromwell and the Puritans were in power?

Point 17. the modern versions have been translated on the basis of those ancient MSS that have been discovered since 1611. Pretty good rivals, for the most part.

Refutation: Modern versions are poor rivals. I don’t even have to say anything more, because it is so manifest how inferior they are. The fact is that there is not one error in the KJB.

Point 18. Those who believe in the modern versions would say the same.

Refutation: Really? Which modern translation is free from internal inconsistencies? Which modern version is 100% true? Which one is totally correct? The answer is NONE. Only the KJB is fully right.

Point 19. Which has now been further refined and improved on the basis of the ancient MSS that have been revealed to us since 1611.

Refutation: Why look at ancient, disagreeing, partial and manifestly corrupted, limited and failing copies when we have the pure Word of God in our hands?

Point 20. We only had a (not very) close approximation in 1611. The refining process continues to this day.

Refutation: Unless you have arrived, or will arrive to perfection before Christ returns, you have failed, and would therefore be showing a failed God. It is right to say that God has already supplied His Word in one historic perfect exemplar form made common for all the world, according to the revelation of the Scripture itself, e.g. Matthew 24:14, etc.

Point 21. Sorry, as per my breakdown of the dates of various forms of MSS, I should have said from the 2nd. to the 15th. centuries. We have a whole host of papyri from the 2nd. 3rd. and 4th. centuries.

Refutation: You have a missing link from before the 2nd Century. Those who uphold the Pure Word right now do not have missing links, nor anything missing or added in the Scripture. The KJB is it.

Point 22. Who are you to tell these people that their simple and reasonable faith is based on ignorance and foolishness ?

Refutation: Modern versionism is not “reasonable” and is not the “plain truth”. It requires non- and anti-Biblical arguments to prop it up.
_________________
Matthew Verschuur — www.bibleprotector.com

[bibleprotector]

Anyone who repeats statements like "we cannot know" or “how do you know?”, etc., shows their lack of knowledge and wilful ignorance. Thus, bypassing the more foolish questions, or ones I have already answered, I will highlight several points.

Question 1. What do you mean by saying that the KJB is greater than all others?

Since there is no perfect or final text in the original languages, since all versions vary and translations differ, the identifying of the actual Word of God must be accomplished by receiving whatever has been provided by God. Everything is pointing to the KJB as greater than all other extant copies, versions and translations for its perfect exactness and accuracy.

Question 2. What evidence do you have that the KJB is the most prevalent?

What Bible is more prevalent than the KJB throughout the world? None.

Question 3. On what evidence do you base the claim that the Gospel is as powerful as ever? It seems to me that it is less powerful than it was in 1611.

Only a backslider, unbeliever or atheist would make such a claim, as though God has diminished.

Question 4. He was executed posthumously.

Hello? How can anyone be killed after they are dead?

Question 5. So why do people here say that the text was not finalised until 1769?

Who are these people? The fact is that the text and translation of the King James Bible were complete in 1611.

If you merely refer to the editing of the English, then it would be incorrect to claim that it was finalised in 1769 in that all editions today differ slightly to 1769.

Question 6. I'm sorry, but you do have to justify your claim that the ancient MSS are inferior to those late MSS that were known in 1611.

I didn’t make that claim. I said that the KJB was reliable of itself, without having to attempt to vindicate it yet again by turning back to any Greek MS tradition.

Question 7. You will have to demonstrate that (e.g.) the ESV / NKJV are in error, and the KJB is totally correct.

No, rather, if the KJB is demonstrated to be correct in various places, then if and where modern versions differ, they will obviously be in error, and this has already been shown by many people, meaning that it is not my duty to attempt to pull down modern versions.

Moreover, it would be silly to have to prove the KJB is correct in every last place, since most arguments may be made by using a sufficiency, that is, if it is demonstrated that the KJB is correct in several places, and every time it is tested it is vindicated, it follows that it must be correct in every place, in that such a criteria for exhaustive examination is NOT honest or logical, in that no man alive would ever accomplish to investigate every last word. Thus, it falls to us to receive the truth and to study it.

On the other side, every last error in modern versions do not have to be exposed in order to show how corrupt they are. Such endeavours would be a waste of time. If general studies has shown that there are errors in modern versions, and that the KJB is true, that is quite enough to settle the case.

Question 8. How do you know that it was fulfilled by the KJB when the end has not yet come?

Because I have faith that it will be fulfilled by the KJB when the end does come.

Question 9. Please explain how you know that the KJB corresponds exactly to the Bible that existed before the 2nd. century.

We do not require carnal evidences such as copies dated or marked “autograph” in order to prove the authenticity of Scripture. What we have is the Word right now, and that shows that it was written by inspiration. All we have to do then is trust that the God who speaks and reveals now is the same one who brought it to pass. Therefore it is quite simple to see how the KJB today is linked exactly to what was being written by Peter or Paul or John.

Question 10. I certainly don't use anti-Biblical arguments.

Honestly, things like, “we cannot know” are anti-Biblical, especially since the Bible has both stated and shown the spiritual way of knowing.
_________________
Matthew Verschuur — www.bibleprotector.com