All posts by bibleprotector

Editorial, General

Why is lower case “s” on “spirit” right?

1 Comment

The question is asked, “Why is having a lower case ‘s’ on the word ‘spirit’ right at 1 John 5:8 (and Acts 11:12 and Acts 11:28)?

Here’s an answer I gave someone on a comment on a youtube video:

There’s a lot of info on my bibleprotector website about this, but there is a distinction between the person of the Holy Ghost and His outworking/function/effect particularly in human knowledge.

For example, in Joel it says God will pour out “my spirit” but in Acts 2 Peter says “of my Spirit”. Thus, “spirit” is of the “Spirit”.

Notice also 1 Cor. 2:12, “Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.” And again, Prov. 1:23, “Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you.”

Simply, if you look at this use of “spirit” as received knowledge from the Holy Ghost, you would get how it is being used, like Exodus 31:3 “And I have filled him with the spirit of God, in wisdom, and in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship”.

Importantly, the capital and lower case distinction is there before and in Dr Blayney’s 1769 Edition etc. With this understanding in mind, you can then see how it was and is rightly “spirit” lower case at: Acts 11:12; Acts 11:28 and 1 John 5:8.

The Oxfords in the late 19th century changed from Dr Blayney’s “spirit” to “Spirit” in some places, and when the Concord Cambridge was made in the 1950s, it too followed Oxford. Then from 1985 Cambridge changed normal editions at 1 John 5:8 and in the coming years beyond that silently changed the places at Acts as well. In fact, by the year 2000 some of its new Bibles available for sale still had “spirit” lower case at (at least one of) the Acts places.

Then, an article was written in the Trinitarian Bible Society’s April 2013 magazine, they said that they were going to review all of the places throughout the KJB that ALL editions still rightly had lower case “spirit”, such as at, Genesis 6:3, Exodus 28:3, 31:3, 35:31, Numbers 11:29, Numbers 24:2, 27:18, Nehemiah 9:20, 30, Job 26:13, 27:3, Psalm 51:11, 12, 104:30, 106:33, 139:7, Psalm 143:10, Proverbs 1:23, Isaiah 4:4, 11:2, 34:16, 40:7, 42:1, 44:3, 59:21, Ezekiel 36:27, 37:1, 27:14, 39:29, Joel 2:28, 29, Micah 2:7, 3:8, Zechariah 4:6, 7:12, John 4:23, 6:63, 1 Corinthians 2:12, 2 Corinthians 3:6, 8, 12:18, Philippians 1:27, 3:3, 1 Peter 4:6, 14, 1 John 4:6 etc.

I don’t know what exactly played out, but I would hope they would come back to their roots and to the proper and distinct usage, as was present with Dr Blayney in 1769 and the 20th century Cambridge tradition (i.e. the Pure Cambridge Edition), with the standard use of “spirit” at the places I mentioned.

In short, there are plenty of examples where the word “spirit” is used, and spirit is directly connected with the Holy Ghost, it is His effect and impartation that comes into our soul/understanding. Of course other uses of the word “spirit” include the spiritual realm and of course human, angelic and evil spirits. When “Spirit” is used, obviously that means the Holy Ghost.

Finally, in Romans 8 it says in verse 6 to be “spiritually minded” yet the chapter is talking about the Holy Ghost, and so I want to make it clear that the word “spirit” at places like 1 John 5:8 is not a rejection of the Holy Ghost, but is completely based on Him. Particular knowledge is from God.

Editorial, General, Review

We have gone beyond 1769

With an array of issues in 1769, like “Beer-sheba, Sheba” in Joshua 19:2, or missing out on part of a verse in Revelation 18:22, we are grateful we have a better edition that gets everything right, known as the Pure Cambridge Edition.

We don’t use a 1769. No one does. Well, unless you’d use these ones. But you shouldn’t, you should use the Pure Cambridge Edition.

Here are two examples of a 1769 Folio:

https://archive.org/details/kjv-1769-oxford-edition-full-bible/mode/2up

https://archive.org/details/kjv-1769-1772-blayney-folio/mode/2up

Editorial

King James Bible believers need come to another level of academia

I have seen the need among KJBO to come to another level of academia. There are also dangers with that, because modernist infidelity is everywhere.

With Oxford now making the Bodleian 1602 MS available, we see Tim Berg and his friends now looking at it. I must give a shout out to Bryan Ross and Christopher Yetzer, who are among the few who have been looking at this matter.

At the same time that Tim Berg has been talking about the Bod 1602 MS, Steven Anderson arbitrarily said that the KJB had a persistent typographical error. This has directly led to Mark Ward discussing the Bod 1602 MS, and is leading back to this point: Do we rely on almost 400 years of editing in the KJB as we have it, or are we going to turn back to the Bod 1602 MS, like modernist editor David Norton?

I believe in the Providence of God, that the editing of the KJB, the detection and eliminating of typographical errors is complete, and that we do not need to turn back to any old annotated document to change anything in the KJB as it now stands.

The words, spelling, the punctuation are now fixed, and we don’t need and will not allow any new alterations or corruptions under the guise of “editorial revision”, “discoveries” or so-called “modern scholarship”.

KJBOs say that the influence of academia has been a problem for Bible-believing churches. We recognise that we must reason spiritually and Biblically, not merely on subjective history, rationalism and empiricism, etc.

So a KJBO would ask me to explain why do we need to go to another level of academia? (What’s the assumption here? It is that academia = worldly error.)

It’s a good question, I am only too happy to answer it. When I got involved with KJB discussions online back in 2007 (and having read everything I could from the internet on the subject to that time), I knew there wasn’t the academic rigour from Ruckman, Waite or Riplinger, etc. like what was needed. They made good points, but they all had issues.

KJBO had a lot of holler but not so much book learning (although there were some names like Hills, Holland and Vance). I knew that the movement had to go to a higher level, because anti-KJBO were able to run rings around KJBOs. In fact, most anti-KJBOs today, like J. Burris, T. Berg, M. Ward, etc. are all former KJBOs. But because KJBO believed things like kinda double inspiration, “Antioch stream” and that both “he” and “she” were both correct in 1611 in Ruth 3:15, and other such ideas, once they were shown the errors of those things, they would naturally reject all KJBO. (There are other factors too, around IFB versus Reformed, but that’s another issue.)

When I first tried to find answers around why there were word differences in present King James Bible editions, there was very little info. People were fighting about textual criticism and translation methods, but were not so much knowing about the history of the KJB itself. I read Scrivener, I corresponded with David Norton and read “secular” histories.

When Rick Norris would make some accusation about some word that had been edited in the KJB, I found there were very few that could deal with him, like Steven Avery, Will Kinney, Brandon Staggs, etc. But in the main, Norris, like a fore-runner to Mark Ward, was really quite effective in putting doubts in people’s minds about the KJB.

So what do I mean academic? I mean the fact that it was the KJB men who were the crowning glory of the educational institutions in their day. I mean that it was our people who edited the KJB like Joseph Mede. By academic I don’t mean merely using citations and quoting people in context, and that latter point is a given.

I am advocating for the high heritage. It is very easy to think that the modern scholars and secular studies now rule, but they are both and all usurpers from us. I say just because it appears the enemy dominates the academic field like a flood, we should not reject true scholarship.

Matthew 13:52 Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLfPWY1WEx4

Editorial

Anderson, Ward and the truth

I received an email stating that King James Bible supporter Steven Anderson, who has a rather bad reputation in the USA, has come out and said that the KJB has an error in it.

“And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree:” (Deut. 21:22).

Apparently his going to the Hebrew has led him to reject the words “to be”. (As if the KJB men didn’t translate properly or typographical mistake persisted in the KJB for over 400 years!)

The great enemy of the King James Bible’s perfection, Mark Ward, has come out with a video, explaining why he thinks Steven Anderson is wrong, and why the words in the KJB are right.

We don’t need Mark Ward “helping” people when much of the time he is hindering people.

So, let’s get this straight from a believing perspective:

Most importantly, the entire history of the KJB that has “he be to be”, so it is not a recent edition which has made a change, or some printing error which has arisen. It is not an edition issue, but something which belongs in the entire history of the KJB.

Often people go to the Hebrew, go to the Geneva and the Bishops’ and consult Webster’s dictionary, Gill’s and other commentaries, etc. But that is not our method here.

Let’s look at the plain language, grammar and logical progression in the passage itself.

It is obvious in Deuteronomy here, that the judicial process is where someone is found and declared to be put to death, and that that’s clearly what the KJB is saying.

Here is the sequence:
1. A man does the deed,
2. He is found guilty and sentenced (i.e. he be to be executed), and
3. He is hanged

And all of that takes place in the past tense, because the actual context is about the body now hanging on a tree, that it doesn’t remain strung up, because that’s the actual point of the passage, which is in verse 23. The passage is written from the perspective of what happened leading to the body being hung.

So then, talking about the present corpse, in the past tense:

1. the “man have committed a sin worthy of death”

2. the judging process declares that “he be to be put to death”

3. and then the executioner “hang him on a tree” …

“His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God;) that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.” (Deut. 21:23).

Which of course explains this:

“Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:” (Galatians 3:13).

The English is plain and clear, Steven Anderson would be wrong to think there is anything wrong in the KJB, it is not a typo. It is, in fact, good and proper grammar.

As for Mark Ward, one must wonder at his real motives, is it to rejoice at Steven Anderson’s error? Is it yet another opportunity for him to make some backhanded comments about those who allegedly make mistakes with the KJB’s perfect grammar and vocabulary?

With Mark Ward not having the KJB as his final authority, there’s every chance he will contort to accept that Steven Anderson’s opening the door to change the KJB is possible and legitimate.

UPDATE:

You can find the usage “he be to be” used out there, for example, in old books here: https://archive.org/search?query=%22he+be+to+be%22&sin=TXT

Mark Ward’s video is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vphp-bJn9GE&t

SECOND UPDATE:

Steven Anderson answered Mark Ward’s video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPcWH20v648

Which has led to Mark Ward retracting part of what he said and altering his opinion in a new video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2GC18_o5zs

There is a whole side issue being discussed as well, which is about whether a person is dead before the corpse is hung. From a New Testament perspective, we know actually that Jesus died while being hung on cross, however it seems usual that in the Old Testament people were stoned before being hung. But to make some sort of theology that Deuteronomy 21:22 was saying people cannot be killed by hanging because of “the Hebrew” is nonsense.

Editorial, General

Amminadib

An examination of the Pure Cambridge Edition of the King James Bible on the specific issue of the word Amminadib in Song of Solomon 6:12, by Matthew Verschuur.

INTRODUCTION

Along with the case of the spelling of “Geba” at Ezra 2:26 in the Pure Cambridge Edition against most other editions, is the issue of the word “Amminadib” in Song of Solomon (Canticles) 6:12, for its obscurity and minuteness.

If we can argue that the Pure Cambridge Edition is right in every other place, then we can argue that it is right in this one also.

Again, if we can argue that Providence has supplied the Pure Cambridge Bible as it is (as presented on the Bible Protector website, bibleprotector.com, no less), then we should trust that God has got the truth to us.

And again, the same Holy Ghost who inspired, the same Holy Ghost who preserved is the same Holy Ghost who is at hand today witnessing and attesting, showing and revealing, yea, interpreting and bringing to heart the knowledge of the certainty that even in this very precise particular, the very letters and marks in the Pure Cambridge Edition of the King James Bible, as we have it in full verity, is correct.

THE PLACE ITSELF

We now step forward, to the passage itself:

12 Or ever I was aware, my soul made me like the chariots of Amminadib.

(Song of Solomon 6:12).

This book is part of the poetic interrelation between the lover and the beloved, which is both the story of Solomon and the Shulamite, and also is said to be a picture of Christ and the Church.

In the narrative, the lover goes to the where the nuts and fruits grow, and then describes the feeling of his soul, saying his soul was like the chariots of Amminadib. We can understand the driving force of chariots, the powerful feeling of them.

The commentators, pre-1611 translations and the margin offers us meanings. There are primarily two, the first is that there was a person called Amminadib who was renowned for driving chariots, the second is that the chariots were of a class or category of being princely/noble or willing. Those who dive into the words and their meanings say that there are two Hebrew words, being “Ammi” (my people) and “nadib” (willing).

There is no problem to suggest that the word Amminadib might mean “my willing people”, but that cannot be derived from Scripture so easily.

Instead, we have to ask the more pertinent question as to why this word is presented to us as a Hebraic-cum-English proper noun, a name, and not “translated”, as is done in many other Bible translations.

From this we can conclude that the translators themselves, and the Holy Ghost, intended for us to know that this is a proper name, and that the pertinent information is not in what the rabbis say “Amminadib” means, but what our English teachers, Providence and the Spirit says/shows it to mean.

Very clearly, the chariots are not just chariots, they are qualified into some special class, they are not just chariots, they are Amminadib chariots, and what class that is, we can understand from the context, must be the best sorts, an elite or special class.

The next verse speaks of armies, so we know the chariots are not some jerry-rigged rickshaw contraptions.

THE GRAMMATICAL SITUATION

The word Amminadib, we are told, is made up of two components from Hebrew. We also have another word, which is very similar, which is found multiple times in the Bible, which is Amminadab and Aminadab.

If we use the 1611 King James Bible line brakes as a guide, where the word is hyphenated in such cases, we observe the brake on Ammi-, in Song of Solomon 6:12, and with Amminabab at 1 Chronicles 15:10.

Now, while in 1 Chron. 15:10 we see “Ammi-“, we see the whole word in the next verse.

The issue is that in Bibles, lets say some examples from the late 19th century, the word “Ammi-dabib” is made a compound name thus, but Amminabab is not presented in its places as a compound name.

In the Pure Cambridge Edition we can find those copies which have “Ammi-dabib” and those which do not have a compound, being “Amminadib”.

There are four examples. The first are some early PCEs, which have “Ammi-dabib”. The second are the pronouncing editions, which have “Amminadib”. The third are the clear editions, which have all the pronouncing words listed in the front, and then have the text at that place read “Amminadib”, and the fourth are Collins editions, which are all pronouncing as well, with “Amminadib”.

PRONUNCIATION

While it is listed in commentaries, etc., that the word components are “Ammi-“ and “Nadib”, and we find the pronunciation markings, and that in theological circles, the pronunciation consistently is the same as the Redpath markings in the Collins and Cambridge Bibles, which is like “Ammin’adib” not “Ammi’nadib”.

Even though the first 1611 Edition broke both “Amminadab” and “Amminadib” when at the end of the line at “Ammi”, that is not how it is pronounced by any known source.

THE QUESTION

Some Pure Cambridge Editions have “Ammi-nadib” compounded, and others (primarily pronouncing editions) do not compound the word. Examples of non-pronouncing editions with no hyphen or compound dash exist. There are other contemporary editions to the PCE, like the Cambridge Concord and the London Edition, which also do not compound the word at that place.

The standard representation, which is a critical and precisely correct representation, of the Pure Cambridge Edition is the text files supplied by Bible Protector on the bibleprotector.com website, which does not hyphenate or compound the word “Amminadib” at Song of Solomon 6:12.

Remembering that this a minor variation that exists within the Pure Cambridge Edition printed tradition, it is not a situation where such a Bible is “invalidated”, but indeed such printed editions are used Bible Protector’s chief man Matthew Verschuur and at the church he attends. However, the official, proper text is that on the website, and many of the ordinary every day printed PCE KJBs in use from Collins, Cambridge, Holman and Church Bible Publishers all do not compound, hyphenate or break the word after “Ammi”.

A CHRONOLOGICAL EXAMINATION

The Geneva, and more importantly, Bishops’ translation, which was used as a basis for making the King James Bible, did not have the word “Amminadib” at all, but had translated it various ways, much like the margin of the KJB has it.

In 1611, we find the word at the end of a line, so on that basis we cannot assert whether it is a compound name hyphen at all, and if examining the close word “Amminadab”, one could easily infer no compounding, it was just treated as one word.

In November 2023, when this is written, numerous scans of early KJB editions became available online, which were not available for previous examinations on this topic. Here we find at Song of Sol. 6:12:

Barker (London) 1612 “Amminadib” (no break)

Barker (London) 1613 “Amminadib” blackletter (end of line break)

Barker (London) 1617 “Amminadib” (no break)

Norton and Bill (London) 1618 “Amminadib” (no break)

Barker (London) 1618 “Amminadib” (no break)

Barker (London) 1619 “Amminadib” (no break)

Barker (London) 1621 “Amminadib” (no break)

Barker (London) 1622 “Amminadib” (no break)

Barker (London) 1626 “Amminadib” smaller size (no break)

Barker (London) 1626 “Amminadib” larger size (no break)

Norton and Bill (London) 1628 “Amminadib” (no break)

Bill, Hills and Newcombe (London) 1628 “Amminadib” very different setup with clear roman typeface (end of line break)

Missing front page 1929 “Amminadib” (no break)

Barker and Bill (London) 1630 “Amminadib” (no break)

Barker (London) 1631 “Amminadib” (no break)

Barker (London) 1631 “Amminadib” different size (no break)

Barker (London) 1631 “Amminadib” another one (no break)

Missing front page 1631 “Amminadib” (no break)

Thomas and John Buck (Cambridge) 1631 “Ammi-nadib” blackletter (has the break)

Barker (London) 1634 “Amminadib” (no break)

Barker (London) 1634 “Ammi-nadib” blackletter (has the break)

Source: https://archive.org/search?query=holy+bible&page=2&and%5B%5D=year%3A%5B1607+TO+1639%5D

As the Cambridge edition of 1637, and the edit of 1638, had “Ammi-nadib”, we can conjecture that the first Cambridge edition of 1628 and the edit of 1629 pioneered this pattern.

We can conclude on the basis of the 1612, etc., that the end of line break of “Ammi-“ in the blackletter editions was never intended to be a compound name, but that was introduced probably in 1629, as it was certainly there in the Cambridge of 1631 and 37 which are online, and 1638 as is stored in the State Library of Victoria.

Thus we may safely and certainly say that the 1611 Editions and the 1613 Edition would be for the non-compounding of the name.

The name was compounded from the Cambridge Edition of 1629 and that of 1638, through to the 1769 Edition. We now leap forward to the late 19th century, where most editions were compounding the name, as the were directly influenced by the 1769, and yet we find that the PCEs from Cambridge and Collins, which had H. A. Redpath’s pronunciation scheme, did not hyphenate or compound. Neither did the London Edition of the 1950s, nor the Cambridge Concord Edition.

What is interesting is that while early editions would break the word at the end of a line at “Ammi”, there is an Oxford edition, probably from the 1950s, which breaks “Amminadab” at Numbers 10:14 at the end of a column “Ammin-adab”, which is similar to the word in question, which is compounded in that Oxford edition, as “Ammi-nadib”.

CONCLUSION

We can therefore conclude that if an editor was forced to choose the safest course, that he should not hyphenate at all, but have “Amminadib”, and that the evidence is in line with the PCE having no hyphen or dash there.

The fact that some editions of the PCE do have a hyphen there is not a reason to doubt the Bible Protector work, but on the contrary, the Bible Protector work is indicating what is plainly printed in 1612 and other Barker editions, which in turn indicate that the end of line hyphen in 1611 and 1613 was just that, and not a compound word.

The pure word is pure, and it is right, correct and precise to the very jot and tittle.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

(Matthew 5:18).

Editorial, General

Scanned Pure Cambridge Edition available online

Here’s an example of a Pure Cambridge Edition King James Bible online:

https://archive.org/details/holybiblecontain0000unse_z7h7/mode/2up (with the Apocrypha, no italics though.)

Just out of interest, here’s a 1637 Cambridge Edition online:

https://archive.org/details/16371638TheKingJamesBibleCambridgeDarlowAndMouleNumber402/mode/2up

These are both fully, freely downloadable. The second link is only for nerds, scholars and book magpies, the first is the one I want to talk about.

While the correct PCE text is available on my website, to have a historical copies laid out by professional printers is a valuable resource.

There are also some examples of historically printed plain text PCEs, here’s one:

https://archive.org/details/holybiblecontain0000unse_v9q2/mode/2up (Login, no download.)

There are doubtless more, and in time, there will be more.

Also, there are PCEs to buy online, both new (from Holman publishers from and Church Bible Publishers) as well as vintage copies… I’ve just picked up a number of great copies including the huge one photographed below through ebay!

A quarto lectern Bible, pica typeface, with references.

Finally, a bonus, you can obtain scans of an original 1611 printing here.

Editorial

The “middle roaders”

WHO ARE THE MIDDLE ROADERS?

There are plenty of Evangelicals (and Pentecostals in particular) who are genuine born again people, who believe a lot of good things well, but have need to know things more perfectly. This reminds me of Apollos, “And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.” (Acts 18:26).

The “middle of the road” Evangelicals/Pentecostals are the kinds who don’t compromise the Gospel on one side (e.g. reduce Church worship to entertainment or doubt the literalness of Bible narratives), but don’t go far enough with their views to align with “perfection” on the other.

These are the well meaning Evangelicals/Pentecostals who shouldn’t be disparaged for being “lukewarm”. Why? Because there is a great chance these people can hear the Spirit of God, and do as Smith Wigglesworth did, and “come out” of their current condition. He said, “Unless Pentecost wakes up to shake herself free from all worldly things and comes into a place of the divine-likeness with God, we will hear the voice of God, ‘Come out’ and He will have something far better than this. I ask every one of you, will you hear the voice of God and come out? You ask, ‘What do you mean?’ Every one of you knows without exception, there is no word for Pentecost, only being on fire. If you are not on fire, you are not in the place of regeneration. It is only the fire of God that burns up the entanglements of the world.”

One of the views of these “middling” Evangelicals/Pentecostals is that people shouldn’t get caught up in side issues. Now I agree there is a problem where some people go way off the track on unimportant issues, and get into dangerous extremes of doctrine.

The middling types console themselves that they are not “off the track”, “in the weeds”, because they are in the middle, but being in the middle can still be a dangerous place, because it can lead to compromise and the eventual slide out of orthodoxy and truth.

Being sensible is good, but those with a middling attitude are in danger of being fence sitters. There are black and white doctrinal positions where believers must take a polar position.

There is a big opportunity for all of us to assess and discern where we are at. Jesus said, “Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.” (Revelation 3:20).

BIBLE VERSION/TRANSLATION ISSUE

Recently, an Australian Pentecostal ministry effectively said that people shouldn’t get hung up on side issues (they would say using the King James Bible alone is one of these issues), yet at the same time put out a teaching on their website that made it very clear that modern versions/translations are good, and the King James Bible is not so good. In fact, the particular Pentecostal theologian who wrote the article spent over half the time talking down the King James Bible.

I’d like to respond to that, not with a point by point refutation of their many alleged criticisms of the King James Bible, but on an appeal to the work of the Spirit.

The background to this issue is really about the rise of Infidelity. Infidelity is the spiritual condition of being not only unfaithful to God, but of rejecting God. Infidelity was popularised and promoted in the Enlightenment which led to the French Revolution. However, the creeping work of Infidelity was afterward seen slowly coming in through science, education and the churches of the English-speaking world. It is now marching though Evangelical Christianity.

Old time Pentecostals were among those most against Infidelity, but sadly, Infidelity has been creeping into Pentecostalism too.

Politically speaking there is a view called modern conservatism. This is the same attitude as is seen with the middling Pentecostals. It is often likened to being “less progressive” and “having your foot on the brakes while heading towards the political left (or, worldliness)”.

The problem then is in time middling Pentecostalism while arrive to the same position that the fake modern entertainment so-called Pentecostals now inhabit. But possibly, the middling Pentecostal could actually go the other way, and come to stand for all the right doctrines, including the use of the King James Bible.

SOME REASONS IN FAVOUR OF THE KING JAMES BIBLE

When I was very young, the King James Bible was the main Bible used in Australian Pentecostalism. However, cracks had begun to appear. Pastors would turn to a paraphrase, or talk about what the Greek “really” means, and by time of the late 1980s, the KJB was largely replaced in Australian Pentecostalism.

Older people still had their KJBs, and some American preachers still used it, and some even used it when Rodney Howard-Browne rolled through in the mid-1990s.

The old time Pentecostals, including the fathers of Richmond Temple in Melbourne, all used the King James Bible, so why sell this birthright for a mess of pottage? Why abandon good meat for dainties?

When middling Pentecostals complain that tongues and gifts are vanishing out of Pentecostal churches, and bemoan the rise of smoke machine Sunday clubs, shouldn’t they have the same desire for the old Bible?

There is a danger in the seductive message about getting in on the “new thing” that “God” is apparently doing, where people abandon what was good in the old ways.

Tradition, doctrine and holiness are not bad, in fact, they are works of the Holy Ghost. Pentecostals have too often attacked “tradition” as being “religious”, when there is clearly and evidently good traditions and true religion.

“If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man’s religion is vain.” (James 1:26).

“Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.” (2 Thessalonians 2:15).

CLAIM THE LAODICEAN PROMISES!

Jesus pointed to three areas that were problems with the Laodiceans. We can also take a spiritual interpretation of the same passage as applying to the Church today, and on these three areas, the middling Evangelicals/Pentecostals must take heed.

17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:

18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.

19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.

(Revelation 3:17-19).

The first problem is that the middling Evangelicals/Pentecostals can claim spiritual richness, like “we have a superabundance of scholarship, we have many modern versions and translations”. Yet, Jesus says we ought to obtain the real richness, which is His pure word.

His pure word is available today, it is the King James Bible!

The second problem is that middling Evangelicals/Pentecostals have issues with upholding holiness standards. The Evangelicals often disparage themselves as “sinners saved by grace”, and the Pentecostals often talk about not judging people and how God is apparently wavering his standards. That type of view is a reaction against uncharitable legalists and old fashioned rigidity. They say that people got caught up in holiness standards in the past (about fashion and cultural behaviour) that they got their eyes off Jesus. But now the opposite is the problem, they have their eyes on all these perceived slights of alleged “Pharisees” and “condemners” that they are not looking so intently at Jesus at all. Preaching sermons against “being religious” and making a religion out of “I’m in a relationship” is probably a worse condition than the alleged problems of Charles L. Greenwood “women ought to wear hats” culture, and has become anti-legalism legalism. Free grace is not licence.

The old Holiness of Wesley, Finney, Wigglesworth and Greenwood is still here today, it is an integral part of Faith Pentecostalism!

The third problem is that middling Evangelicals/Pentecostals are being blinded by what they think is good hermeneutics and exegesis. They are in danger of not understanding doctrine properly because when they look to the Scripture, there is a filter on that says, “know the Greek”, “bow to Jewish culture” and “follow Gordon Fee’s methods”. But the haze of error and the fog of the devil can roll in.

When Jesus said to hear what the Spirit is saying to the churches, He meant we can hear clearly without all these interventions and contrivances when we interpretate Scripture. And we can perceive clearly today!

14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:

15 For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

16 But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.

(Matthew 13:14–16).

SOME MORE IN FAVOUR OF THE KING JAMES BIBLE

Middle type Pentecostals are not bad Christians, they are not false brethren or heretics. They certainly have good doctrines, they use the Scripture in their teaching and they believe it to be the inspired, infallible Word of God.

But on the Bible version/translation issue, too many are ignorant or misled.

When they say that textual variants in the old manuscripts don’t matter, it is strange, because there are a lot of important Pentecostal doctrines in the end of Mark, and for a long time many Pentecostals knew modernism was attacking them by minimising those verses.

The charge that King James Bible words have changed meaning since 1611 is wrong, in that the old meanings of words still exist and are still known. We are able to educate people on the meaning of doctrinal words, why is it suddenly bad that people have to be aided in knowing some King James Bible words? Also, we actually believe that the Holy Ghost is helping people to understand the Bible, since when should we act like He is not at work, and are therefore obliged to lay aside our King James Bibles?

Since the Holy Ghost has been at work through history and present since the day of Pentecost, we should believe that by the Church practice and by divine providence, proper copies of the Scripture have passed down to us, and that the translation was able to be made right in 1611, and that God has prepared the English language to be capable to spread His exact words and meanings to a global audience for the latter days. God is good, awesome and able to bring about perfection, right?

I have to shake my head if some Pentecostal theologian says that “the KJB has been revised three times” and that “there is not just one version of it”. As a Pentecostal, and having done a lot of study on this, I can confirm that the KJB has in fact gone through many different editions. Yet in all that, no one could honestly say that the 1611’s underlying text and translation has been changed in the KJB. Yes, there’s been errors of the press and corrections of them and yes spelling and grammar has been standardised, but no the King James Bible today is not a different “version”.

I note the irony that the middling Pentecostals and in full agreement with the McArthurite anti-Pentecostalists on the Bible version/translation issue.

Evangelicals and Pentecostals will be doing well if they turn towards the King James Bible, and stop this strange drive of producing unedifying materials against the KJB (blogs, videos, etc.)

Review

Mark Ward attacks English

Mark Ward seems to have turned his attention somewhat to both the idea of translating the Bible into every dialect, and yet in arguing that, is also venomously arguing that English is not special, there is no perfect English translation, etc.

I am sure God has a lot to do with English. Interestingly, for someone who claims usage determines meaning, there is a blindness to English usage for the Gospel determines or indicates God’s providence.

That God both made and designed all languages, yet somehow God has not designed English in any special way any more than any other, does that make sense? The same God who designs is the one who can use one above another. The clay cannot backchat the potter.

Providentially, we see both the wide use of English and that we have such a good Bible, the King James Version. How much better it is that we have English as a means of reaching more people everywhere, and how much benefit is it for this to occur, both naturally (i.e. for commerce) and spiritually (allowing others access to the best Bible in the world)? English has been used of God, and that the KJB is perfect, are not statements based on arrogance, but providence and, more importantly, Bible doctrine. Yes, there are verses and passages which point to these concepts. (I know full well that the modernistic methods of hermeneutics will of course seek to dissuade of this truth.)

And yes, while it has been laudable to bring translations and Bible teaching to the various nations and tribes in the past, it is true that the best Bible and the BEST THEOLOGY exists in English. So the nations of today into the future are being served better by this. God does choose instruments. You know very well that Jacob was preferred over Esau. So likewise the Jacobian Bible over the pride and so called “wisdom” of Edom.

Just because God used Hebrew, Syriack and Greek once upon a time does not mean or require continuous favour with those languages or manuscripts. No Scripture teaches that, and Providence itself shows the opposite. The Reformation was in fact all about translation, not retention of Latin or Greek, for then would not the Gospel preaching have been accompanied by teaching Greek and Latin etc. to the masses? But now those former things are left behind, they have waxed old and are ready to vanish away. What was before in multiple languages of Hebrew and Greek is now in one, English. The twain are made one, better than what we had before. The God who is able to speak any language (Acts 2) is also the God who has one message to be made known to the nations, and, as it says in Zephaniah 3:9, turn them to A pure language. Again, while Isaiah 28:11 is taken (as by Paul) to speak of the speaking in other tongues, it is also shown that the same passage says ANOTHER tongue, meaning one language. Ironically, the Pentecostal movement today both has arisen and perpetuates from one language group, being the English-speakers.

Also seeing that the languages of Hebrew, Syriack and Greek (and those places in the Gospel where it is clearly Hebrew not alleged “Aramaic”) are not spoken today, how more obvious is it to have God’s words in a living, present and powerful language: English?

Mark Ward admits, “You have to encounter God’s Word in translation.” And there is one key, blessed language: Biblical English. (This is not to say that other translations are evil, no, the God of grace has allowed imperfect translations, and that which has been helpful for the various non-English speakers of the world is not to be anathemised though the progress towards the universality of one English Bible as a final standard is coming to pass.)

To argue that other language groups have “claims on our conscience” is a perverted doctrine. Yes, the Gospel should go to nations, but that should not be a reason to disparage or wear a black arm band about English. That’s what woke people do, they apologise for English, they try to “revive” neo-Hebrew, Welsh or Australian Aboriginal constructs in line with an antichristian anti-English view. So to call God’s plan of the excellence of the Bible and the spreading of the Gospel in English as “arrogance” or “chauvinism” is surely misguided. As if to prove the common foundation of Infidelity behind wokery and this attack on English, we have Mark Ward suggesting something that sounds suspiciously like open borders and promoting illegal immigrants. This indicative leftwing ideology is antithetical to what is found in the proper interpretation of Scripture.

We note the reality of foreigners learning English, and the education of people who interact with Biblical English (the KJB), yet Mark Ward, driven by something (?!) admits that such views make him angry! All families/nations of the Earth are to be blessed, and Christ Jesus coming to the nations today is going to be a unitary Gospel which has, under God, its highest expression in the English-speaking peoples. This is evident both historically with missionary endeavours in recent centuries, but is also evident as far as what is the Holy Ghost destiny evident (or “manifest”) among us. Mark Ward’s call to arms to try to topple the supremacy of English is an attempt to attack the power of the truth in English in its world reaching power.