Category Archives: General

General

Times New Roman comes back

THE United States is completely right to have their diplomats return to using the Times New Roman typeface in official communications, as that typeface was invented by Stanley Morison of Monotype. He used this typeface at Cambridge University Press for the printing of the Pitt Brevier Edition of the King James Bible in 1936. This contained the Pure Cambridge Edition.

The Pitt Brevier had The Translators to the Reader, sometimes the Apocrypha, no italics or notes. Free copy:

https://archive.org/details/holybiblecontain0000unse_z7h7/page/n5/mode/2up

Editorial, General, Review

The Cambridge Text problem

SUBHEADING: The KJV Store’s pet project, Bryan Ross’ misrepresentation on 1 John 5:8 and why the Trinitarian Bible Society’s text is diverging.

If anyone thinks the 1769 Edition is a standard, they must be made aware that there are ongoing divergences from it.

In fact, there is a problem that there have been divergences made from the proper standard of the Pure Cambridge Edition. This is not good, for where the Body of Christ needs to come to a standard, there are those who are pushing after their own standards.

“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!” (Isaiah 5:20, 21).

The solution is that we need to come to the standard. That requires humility and that requires aligning with divine providence.

Rejecters of the Pure Cambridge Edition

For whatever reasons, the KJV Store, a company based in the USA, has sided with Cambridge’s current text against the Pure Cambridge Edition with their production of their “Sacred Syntax” edition.

Cambridge’s main edition has been in a state of flux since the 1980s, in important ways, with their small but vexing changes to the Pure Cambridge Edition.

In 1985 they began to wrongly implement the change from “spirit” to “Spirit” at 1 John 5:8. From 1990, Acts 11:12 and Acts 11:28 began to be changed.

These are changes to the Pure Cambridge Edition as opposed to the London-Cambridge Edition which was published in the Emerald and Royal Ruby, which has been the base of the Trinitarian Bible Society printings, which themselves have been further changed.

There are examples of Cambridge Bibles printed in that period with various combinations of changes from “spirit” to “Spirit” at 1 John 5:8, Acts 11:12 and Acts 11:28.

There are those out there who explicitly reject the Pure Cambridge Edition. One of the reasons they do this is to align with the in-flux status of Cambridge University Press.

As it is, Cambridge University Press themselves are still making available material which is Pure Cambridge Edition, such as, through sales of old stock, through their preferred second hand vendor(s), and through some new works like the calligraphic Gospels.

The slippery slope

To be clear, Cambridge’s text has been changing since it printed the PCE from about 1910 to 1999/present.

There’s one change that was made in the PCE printings by Cambridge in the late 1940s, which was to change “Hemath” to “Hammath” or “Hamath” in several places. That’s not a significant issue, in that this change is not historical nor accepted by other publishers.

While it should be “Hemath”, I certainly am using Bibles with “Hammath/Hamath” … because I am not on the spectrum and know that God has outworked to rectify that issue.

(You really can’t be worried that your Bible is missing a dot accidentally, and we have knowledge of what is right now, so all things can be rectified.)

Some years ago, the British arm of the Trinitirian Bible Society announced it was going to change the word “spirit” to “Spirit” in a whole list of places. This wasn’t Cambridge, this was the TBS! By taking this misguided decision, they were pushing against even Cambridge or accepted standards as manifest by Divine Providence.

We must be exceedingly careful if we are to undertake to make some change. I have striven to align with the proper Cambridge tradition and the general witness of post-1769 editions, and I have also been honest and open about what I’ve done, for example, in putting it out there about how I have treated the letter “s” on the small capital word “LORD’s”.

We need to come to a standard, to a unanimity, a uniformity, not continual divergence of every man setting up his own idol, which has been a problem in Protestantism.

Without an anchor, it will be like how Bryan Ross has all these variations in American editions of the KJB, and somehow he is reluctant to come to the standard.

Let us have an excursus with Isaiah 59, because it’s not just the modern version/translation issue we see, but the rebellion in some against the PCE:

BEHOLD, the LORD’s hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear:

4 None calleth for justice, nor any pleadeth for truth: they trust in vanity, and speak lies; they conceive mischief, and bring forth iniquity.

9 Therefore is judgment far from us, neither doth justice overtake us: we wait for light, but behold obscurity; for brightness, but we walk in darkness.

10 We grope for the wall like the blind, and we grope as if we had no eyes: we stumble at noonday as in the night; we are in desolate places as dead men.

13 In transgressing and lying against the LORD, and departing away from our God, speaking oppression and revolt, conceiving and uttering from the heart words of falsehood.

14 And judgment is turned away backward, and justice standeth afar off: for truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter.

15 Yea, truth faileth; and he that departeth from evil maketh himself a prey: and the LORD saw it, and it displeased him that there was no judgment.

18 According to their deeds, accordingly he will repay, fury to his adversaries, recompence to his enemies; to the islands he will repay recompence.

19 So shall they fear the name of the LORD from the west, and his glory from the rising of the sun. When the enemy shall come in like a flood, the Spirit of the LORD shall lift up a standard against him.

The layout issue

The KJV Store Reader’s Edition Bible with so called “Sacred Syntax” has some non-traditional elements.

I am not against people doing artistic and other representations of Scripture, but going against the verse by verse layout and blocking the text into a continual running paragraph can be a bit disconcerting.

There’s a place for it, I grant, but not as liturgical literature. I know Schuyler likes these new metrical layouts too, and they’ve been around for a while, for example, with Scrivener’s Paragraph Edition.

I personally don’t prefer that layout, but they say it is to make the Bible “like literature”. I think the Bible has to retain it’s superiority to being mere literature, and have no problem with the flow or pattern in the traditional layout.

Having said that, to make a particular work in that style, like Brandon Peterson’s Story of David, is probably a positive example.

But hidden behind these layouts of Psalms or other Books of the Bible like that often is a modernistic spirit, and it does tend to design to undermine the truth of the Scripture itself by implying something against verse and chapter increments.

One also wonders about these ways people make new layouts or new study systems of the Bible. While innovation isn’t evil, sometimes there is a level of gimmickry. Having said that, words of Christ in red has remained popular even though it was really popularised only in the 20th century. And likewise, having prounciation marks on Bible words, something which I really appreciate, was pushed by Henry Redpath at the same time as the words in red was done at Oxford in about 1901.

Why “spirit” lower case matters

Bryan Ross wrongly said that I said that 1 John 5:8 was not about the Holy Ghost. (The tradition from 1629 is that the King James Bible has “spirit” lower case at 1 John 5:8, including in the 1769 Edition.)

I have explained about this over the years, but it’s very clear that “spirit” has a lot to do with the Holy Ghost. So Bryan Ross is wrong.

Here are some examples to consider:

“Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you.” (Proverbs 1:23).

And yet we also know that the Holy Ghost leads us in truth, in understanding of the Scripture and in things to come.

“And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:” (Joel 2:28).

We know that this is “of” the Holy Ghost when we read Acts 2.

“Teach me to do thy will; for thou art my God: thy spirit is good; lead me into the land of uprightness.” (Psalm 143:10).

God’s “spirit” obvious means the way and work of the Holy Ghost, and that in the heart of a man. Thus, when we read Acts 11:12 we surely can see that “spirit” should be correct.

“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.” (1 Cor. 2:12).

It is obvious that this “spirit” is the impartation of knowledge, of being born again and knowing God. That’s very helpful for seeing why 1 John 5:8 should be lower case, since our born again spirit is witnessing to us of God, that we are wrought of God.

(So, anyone who claims that this is some sort of Pentecostal plot to want to have this in lower case at that place, in fact, there is no specific connection to that, except that proper Pentecostalism should have proper doctrine about being born again! Also, I doubt Cambridge was being motivated by Pentecostal doctrine in 1629, nor Blayney in 1769, when they had “spirit” there too. In fact, if anything, modern Pentecostalism has become very anti-tradition, so they would want to change things up.)

“We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.” (1 John 4:6).

The spiritual way of truth is obviously the way the Holy Ghost moves.

Therefore, one might be very bold, and say that the Pure Cambridge Edition is aligned with the spirit of truth.

General

Theological support for the King James Bible

INTRODUCTION

There are such good arguments for the rightness of the King James Bible, and in this essay I shall also take the opportunity to draw upon ideas expressed by Peter Van Kleeck Jnr and Jeff Riddle who are leading lights from the Reformed and Confessional Bibliology side of the aisle.

Essentially, the primary authority for right theology, doctrine on the Scripture and why the King James Bible is right is the Scripture itself. Scripture of course has to be properly interpreted, but if we begin from Scripture as itself being the revealed will of God and by His intention present with us, then we are beginning from the assumption of Biblical presupposition rather than the assumption of mere evidentialist ideas about phenomena.

Thus, as we look to the question of whether we have Scripture and whether we have it properly, we all come with “biases”. Either we believe that God really has provided us with Scripture which is a feedback loop with what we see in Scripture, making the King James Bible self authenticating, or else, we doubt that, but believe instead that what we see and think must be exercised to work out what might best be Scripture, with no final authority of appeal other than things like the consensus of opinions of learned men.

We live in an age of conflict between the true faith with proper reason versus Infidelity with foolish reason. Much of what is called “theology” and scholarship and so on is sliding on the scale somewhere in between these two poles. No wonder Jesus rebukes this Laodicean age for being lukewarm!

In a practical sense, either you are with the King James Bible or you are with any/all/custom choice “Bibles”.

ACADEMIC MAFIA

The theological academic world is dominated by silos of thought, which push very particular agendas, whether they are Calvinist, Baptist, Fundamentalist, Pentecostal or (heaven forbid) Seventh Day Adventist.

As such, ideas which do not conform to the silos must be pumped out through smaller, independent bodies. We see this within the King James Bible only space, with Bryan Ross’ circle, with my own materials and with those of the Van Kleecks and Jeff Riddle. There are some good sources of information and general discussion from people like Christopher Yetzer, Nick Sayers, Will Kinney, Steven Avery and others.

I believe that it is good to have a kind of network which connects together some different ideas, and that while I have been pioneering in areas, there’s a lot to take from facilitating studies, and also a lot to draw upon from the Van Kleecks and Jeff Riddle.

There’s clearly a concerted effort out there to rubbish the King James Bible itself and to rubbish support for it. I see continually an unwillingness to engage properly about the King James Bible out there, and when engagement does happen, for example with someone like Rick Norris, it is not in a formal sense, and the two sides really talk past each other.

My view is that some of the ideas of the Van Kleecks and Jeff Riddle need to be taken up but shorn of any Calvinistic bias or undue ongoing deference to the original languages.

Further, we hear platitudes from people in their alleged acceptance or professed love of the King James Bible, but if they are really in their heart holding to something else or saying people can choose some other translation that is right for them, then we are dealing with the common problem of mere relativism.

If we view the area as a field of debate or discussion, the King James Bible supporting side does not get a fair representation out there in the theological academic world, and in part, this is because the funds behind the scenes are focused on the money making versions and translations of major publishing companies.

New versions and translations are being done as vanity projects or as funded by some commercial interest that in the end means that the “advertising power” and paid for scholarship is largely arrayed against the King James Bible. But, however, publishers who are selling the King James Bible will at least be keeping alive the viability of the King James Bible, even if it is frowned upon by paid propagandists.

PRESUPPOSITIONALISM VERSUS EVIDENTIALISM

In apologetics (defence of the faith) there are two main schools of thought. Either you start from one or other worldview. In the presuppositional view, that worldview contains pre-conditions, like logic, morality and the God given fact of language, as well as that there is no neutrality, and that God exists as a transcendental reality.

Or else, you start from phenomena (empiricism), reason (e.g. the cosmological/first cause, teleological, ontological, moral argument, degrees of perfection/aesthetic arguments, etc.) and historical records (e.g. the likelihood of the resurrection) then this builds a case for someone starting from an atheistic perspective.

Of course, the apologetic approach that takes both the presupposition and uses the evidential view as confirmation is ideal.

Now this is how to look at the reality of the existence of God, but we must take this to apply to Scripture. Indeed, we have to take the truth of the Scripture as part of the presupposition as well as using arguments to prove the correctness of Scripture, of which there are plenty of proofs for, including fulfilled prophecy, etc.

Just as we cannot approach the Scripture in an atheistic or non-supernaturalist approach (to try to find if it is true without starting from the premise that it is self evidentially true), so likewise we have to take this approach with the Scripture as we have it.

James R. White accuses us of having a circular argument, that we start with the premise that the King James Bible is true, but the reality is that this position is self-authenticating. Therefore, in everything we see in the King James Bible is true, and every investigation we do confirms this. This means of course that such a view is not naturally objective, but it also means that the view is based on an absolute, whereas rejecting the perfection of the King James Bible as a starting point of the other side invariably means that they have no final authority or absolute certainty to appeal to, except things like their own reasonings, which can be entirely subject to the deceptions of the devil.

We in fact have to start with God’s mind. We have to start with Theistic Conceptual Realism (see https://www.bibleprotector.com/blog/?p=1329).

I find it extraordinary that a Calvinist could consistently hold to a view that says that humans can certainly know God’s mind, in that it often seems that Calvinists are certain only of their inability to know God’s mind. However, laying that aside, as a Word and Spirit Christian, I believe that we can indeed know the mind of God. I do not mean absolute comprehension, but I do mean that we can attain information we need. My belief is based on many passages, but Proverbs 1:5, 6 is sufficient to mention, along with Paul’s statement in Acts 20:27, “For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.” I remember the old time Pentecostals had the motto, “All the Gospel”.

Might I also interject that it was Calvinists who were pansophists in the 17th century. Pansophism is a view that grew under the reign of King James I, that not only said that the Gospel must go to the ends of the earth (George Abbott), but that knowledge is increasing (Francis Bacon), that we the English-speaking Christians are agents in this (cf. Mede, Hartlib and others), and that we must therefore take practical steps accordingly (cf. Cromwell).

It’s no coincidence that with the rise of the King James Bible, there was also an expectation of the cause of truth.

So, if we begin with the Scripture, specifically the King James Bible, as foundation, we therefore take it as objective, as reflective of God’s mind, as the written source of perfect understanding (not of everything but of what we need to know) and we can therefore with the consistent Calvinist agree that the mind of God is revealed in scripture (the KJB specifically).

As a Word and Spirit Christian, I expect that the Holy Ghost is also illuminating hearts in line with this, in that He is the Spirit of truth, so a personal revelation of God’s thought as concerning our own purpose (and that of the whole Church) is also the other half of this reality. These two sides must be in agreement, for the Holy Ghost will not contradict the Scripture. Also, no one has a monopoly on the Holy Ghost.

On the other side, those who are influenced by modernism, who are against the King James Bible, and who use modern textual criticism and modern translation methods, do not start from Scripture doctrine for their beliefs. How they decide what they think is or isn’t a reading of inspired Scripture is in their judgment about phenomena, about the Scripture copies/documentary evidence as artifacts, and as fitting into certain hypotheses (“theories”) of their own scholarly (human) making.

(Of course, they simply say that our view of the King James Bible is mere opinion too, whereas their opinion is elevated because it is like an idol of their own fashioning.)

THEISM VERSUS DEISM

If we are asking the question about how we can be certain we have God’s actual words, we can appeal to the fact of God’s imminance, His superintendence in history, his promises and prophecies in Scripture, and the outworking of providence, and the assurance God works in our hearts.

But that theistic approach is entirely different to the other side in this debate. Their approach is deistic. They believe that God gave the Scripture by inspiration but then He lifted His hand off it, and it has come down through the ages subject to the naturalistic whims of “reality”.

Because they essentially do not believe in the direct hand of God through the Church giving us the very Bible, they think that they must scrabble about, with human effort, deciding what manuscripts are old and what might be, through their earnest application, the best possible text of the Scripture.

So when a modern version (and modern translator) supporter debates a critic, or an agnostic, or an atheist, or a Muslim tahrif proponent, their views are much aligned. In fact, one could be an atheist and undertake the method of attempting to “reconstruct” and translate the Scripture as is done by the modern version supporters.

There’s nothing in the Bible that would ever hint or lead a person to use such an unbelieving method as pure naturalistic empiricism, reason and critical methods (including reasoned eclecticism, etc.).

We have a God on one side who has a special care about the Scripture, and on the other side, a God who is remote in relation to Bible and has no connection with the transmission of the Scripture, as if that is just all in man’s hands.

Accordingly, the conflict becomes one of belief versus human wisdom (i.e. foolishness). The faith side points to God and to a specific Bible. The other side points to science falsely so called. The other side cannot actually point to God or to anything from the Scripture leading them to their views, because their views are based on the intellectual movement of man rather than true religion.

This nonsense position of those who are subject to modernist ideas leads them to make broad statements like that various different texts and translations are all the Word of God, or that you can just pick the Bible that you favour.

This ridiculous approach is promoted both popularly but also in the highest echelons of theological academia, and no doubt it is driven by the funds that are generated by selling various modern versions/translations.

FAITH VERSUS INFIDELITY

Deism and all the methodology of modern, unbelieving science (as opposed to proper, traditional and believing science) comes out of a movement called the Enlightenment, which of course led to the violent and horrendous French Revolution.

The name for the belief system that encompasses all of that is called Infidelity. For a long time I could detect these problems, but one day I realised what it was called. I always knew that many bad things happened in society 1960s and 1970s, but now I understood that these were the English-speaking manifestations of the same thing that led to the French Revolution.

One of the major doctrines or components of this anti-Christian belief is anti-supernaturalism, as well as an idea of the separation between the secular (or scientific) versus the religious (or believing).

Since the 1960s, we have observed more and more the degradation of belief in the nature of God and also the apparent death of distinctive Christian beliefs. I don’t believe that this is fully actually the future, but it has been a problem for the past and current generations.

So when it comes to the question of the perfection of the King James Bible, one side is promoting all these modern ideas in the debate, with their many versions and translations, and their appeal to philosophical standards or respected ideas that come out of the Enlightenment. The other side is arguing from a believing approach, from the doctrine of Scripture itself.

Both sides therefore are starting from premises, built in assumptions, biases … presuppositions. We can identify what is the basis of the modernist-influenced/anti-KJB/anti-TR side.

They begin from Scripture, or else begin from the philosophical basis of the Enlightenment/Post-Enlightenment. Those on the other side in this debate start in post-Enlightenment philosophy, the begin with phenomena, with empiricism and with rationalism. Their belief system is deistic because they say God inspired but since inspiration the passage or transmission of the Scripture is really by naturalistic/non-supernaturalistic processes. 

In their system, they must look to whatever appeals to Enlightenment thinking, for example, to the rule of entropy. And because entropy prevails, they think, they must go to source languages, to earliest copies and to reconstructions by conjectural emendations of some elusive past perfection.

They implicitly reject the practicality of providence, the superintendence of the Spirit of God in history or that God, by the very hands of His people (the true Church) through time, that God should be able to transmit and dispatch His holy Scripture so that we could receive it intact today.

In their system, they need data, the more the better, in order to come nearer to the unattainable truth, whereas we are warned against those who are ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. Instead, we are those who are able to arise shine because the light is come. We are able to possess and know that the truth is present, that it may be made known, since it has been sent to the ends of the world (see Rom. 10:18 and Rom. 16:26).

CORRECTING THE CONFESSIONAL BIBLIOLOGY BIAS

There are those on the Confessional Bibliology bandwagon who are a lot of the way right, but are dragged down by their Calvinist biases and by their inability to see that the King James Bible is of equal importance to the original languages.

In addressing the modern textual critical approach, the Confessional Bibliology supporters (i.e. the Van Kleecks, Riddle, etc.) try to equate using the unbelieving modern scientific methods with a rejection of their pet doctrine of total depravity.

Total depravity says that fallen men have no power to do the truth, let alone make a decision to receive salvation, whereas the proper view is that fallen man still has some capability of understanding God, and that as best as a man may try, he will always have sin and cannot attain or earn salvation himself. Therefore, God gifts knowledge or insight so that a person may respond to the Gospel, which makes God more generous than the Calvinist view of a remote and unfathomable God.

The Confessional Bibliology approach therefore wrongly conflates the more Arminian perspective with the strivings of the makers of modern versions.

Further, in relation to Christians, the usual Calvinistic perspective is to degrade the believer and say he is but a sinner, barely one rung up from a complete wretch. Such a perspective, of course, is anti-Biblical, but they do boldly push this perspective on every occasion. One can see how holding such a low view of the believer can equate not accepting the perfection of the King James Bible since they would think that any translation, and any Christian work of saved believers is barely one degree above complete contempt. One wonders how they can harbour such admiration for Spurgeon, Sproul or others seeing as they have such a low view of the best Christians, thinking it holy and just to regard them as chiefs of sinners as though the Apostle himself were such a wretch. One wonders what Christ actually has done for them, seeing as they internalise being “sinners saved by grace”.

I argue that the Westminster Confession of Faith is not merely about the authenticity of the Scripture in the original languages as it came to the Reformation times, but that as God’s people don’t know those languages, and that the population of the world knows English the best, that God’s design and favour is with the King James Bible, as the WCF shows, the word of God by translation does represent His word to the people.

WHERE IS THE BIBLE EXACTLY?

So if we are saying the Word of God for the future is specifically for us the King James Bible, what this does not mean is that the Word of God has not existed in other languages.

The King James Bible only existed in 1611, so what was the Bible before that? We have to say that even today if you are a French-speaking Christian, you are accessing the Word of God in French.

But in our view, the King James Bible is for the French people, which means that the language of the French people, such as in New Caledonia, etc., must come to include English. It’s not about banning French, it’s about promoting and favouring and educating with English. The best Bible in the world, the perfect Bible, exists in English. So it is a gift for the French to get the perfect English Bible. But the reality is that historically the French, even to this day, all do not know English.

So the word of God must have always existed, as it exists in Heaven, but it was revealed progressively through the inspiration process, it has existed in multiple old and varying Greek manuscripts, and even in the Vulgate, and in the various Textus Receptus editions, and various Protestant English translations.

How dare anyone ever say that I have implied that if you have an Oxford edition of the KJB, you don’t have God’s word!

We should agree fully with the Confessional Bibliologists when they say, “The words of God that I have in my Bible have always existed. Has the Church always believed like I believe? No. …  Have the words always been here? Yes. So [these are] two separate questions.”

So then, we should understand that because of the scattering and gathering that the words of God have been here since inspiration, but the finality of the textual gathering was in 1611.

We rightly accept the 66 Book Canon without there being one verse stating this. By the same token, we can accept that the King James Bible even though it is pointed to in Scripture rather than expressly named.

JOTS AND TITTLES MEAN WRITINGS

The modernists, modern version supporters and Bryan Ross argue that the jots and titles in Matthew 5:18 refer to the content of the prophecies not the actual writing of Scripture. Even though the word “scripture” literally means writings, these people seek to de-emphasise the exact words of God and focus more on a kind of matrix where the Bible is more a book of meanings/content than specificity of words.

The modernists happily cut out the end of Mark and other parts of the Bible, they change meanings all over the place using their lexicons, so they need to allow looseness in the idea of what actually is the text or a good translation. These people are ardently against the perfection of Scripture.

Bryan Ross tries to argue that we don’t need a letter perfect Bible because of the same slack standards the modernists use. Their view is near enough is good enough. They certainly don’t seem to want God to be a lawgiver and judge measuring people by the precision of His law. There is some ugly libertarian spirit there bucking against proper authority.

Another extreme is Thomas Ross, an ardent Textus Receptus supporter who elevates Greek and Hebrew high above the English, and thinks that the jots and tittles mean specifically Hebrew (even though jot and tittle are English words with English meanings pointing to English characters.

The promise is that not one part of a letter will pass away. That means that the written words of God must exist, and whatever it says must happen.

This means that we must have the actual writing in the King James Bible, and we can then come to rely on every letter.

INTERPRETATION NEEDED

I believe there are a number of Scripture passages and places which support the King James Bible, but the fight is over correct interpretation.

Most people will say that they cannot understand how the Scripture is pointing to the King James Bible, and every place we can show, they will doubt that interpretation because they have an unbelieving model.

Their model of hermeneutics comes straight out of the Enlightenment as is built on the false assumptions, with their empirical emphasis on original language words (led by Ernesti) and their rationalistic emphasis on trying to read the Scripture as if limited to the natural confines of the culture of the historical context (led by the German critic Semler).

Then Keil followed Ernesti, and sought to read the Bible like any other book, taking also the Higher Critical ideas of Semler. This led to the Historical-Grammatical School of Bible interpretation. Schleiermacher, a modern liberal theologian at the beginning of the 19th century, tried to accommodate the rationalist view while rejecting its excesses.

And so the unbelieving approach of how to interpret the Bible littered through to Fairbairn (1859), Doedes (1862), Immer (1877), after which came Farrar (1886), Terry (1890), Tenney (1957), Mickelsen (1963), Ramm (1967), Berkhof (1969), Kaiser (1981), Fee (1983), Carson (1984), Moo (1986), Osborne (1991), Tate (1991), Zuck (1991), Klein (1993), Silva (1994), etc.

This unbelief is worshipped by the anti-King James Bible shills and their allies, including James R. White, Todd Friel, John Piper, Mark Ward, Wes Huff, Tim Wildsmith, etc.

These people have a method of interpreting Scripture which has a central belief that we cannot properly understand the Scripture, and as such, they are already disadvantaged to interpret Scripture properly, let alone, accept that the Scripture could point to the King James Bible.

Their whole system has been laced with the leaven of unbelief, and as such, they tend to deny the Scripture’s pointing to things in our times. They deny the fundamental principle that the Scripture was written for and to us.

So instead of believing that God would lead and guide us into all truth, they are too far away in insisting upon imperfect interpretation, thereby missing out of the promises of Scripture.

CLOSING THOUGHTS

The defence of the King James Bible ultimately rests on the very doctrines and presuppositions of Scripture itself. The contrast between a believing, theistic view of God’s providential preservation and the deistic, Enlightenment-shaped assumptions of modern textual criticism could not be starker. While the academic world, driven by commercial interests and shaped by post-Christian philosophy, largely dismisses the perfection of the King James Bible, Scripture teaches that God provides His words with certainty for His people.

This fight between proper theology and false, worldly theology is one which has a long way to go, as the other side has currently made so much inroad into the Christian world.

Editorial, General

The Biblical and Protestant Affirmation of the Sufficiency of the English Bible

Introduction

Are you a person who wants to believe God’s truth is for us today in the Scripture?

Our discussion is about translation and interpretation.

The question is whether the Bible has come into English as a proper translation. Can we rely on it as it is in English?

And the other question is can we interpret the Scripture properly as we read it, or do we need to make recourse to the original languages?

Truth revealed

God has not only inspired His Word but also preserved it for His people in a form they can understand. Therefore, the translations in English grounded in the Protestant tradition — the King James Version — is trustworthy and fully sufficient for understanding and obeying the Scriptures. The modern practice of appealing to Hebrew and Greek meanings derived from modern lexicons to reinterpret Scripture often undermines the clarity, authority and Scriptural promise of the provision of God’s Word.

The Scripture is present in English

“The words of the LORD are pure words… Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” (Psalm 12:6, 7).

“But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith.” (Romans 16:26).

These verses teach that God’s truth is to be preserved and present for us today, and as these words are made known to all nations, it implies that the English translation must be central to this accessibility.

If recourse must be made today to Hebrew or Greek words, to continually correct, expand or somehow bring out more or deeper meanings, then God has failed, for He would have kept hidden aspects of His words and not be manifesting them or His message properly to the nations (e.g. in English).

The Bible must be rightly understood, and be able to be made known to all, so God is promising access, which means it must all be sufficient and clear or interpretable in English.

The Clarity and Sufficiency of Translated Scripture

The Protestant Reformers championed the doctrine of the primacy of Scripture, that is the final authority in matters of faith and practice. But this conviction was built upon another vital doctrine: the clarity and sufficiency of the Scripture. That is, that the Scripture has perspicuity or clarity.

Now, we know that there are hard sayings in Scripture, or things difficult to know. But to get that knowledge means the requirement to connect to the Holy Ghost, to study and to gain understanding.

“A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels: To understand a proverb, and the interpretation; the words of the wise, and their dark sayings.” (Proverbs 1:5, 6).

How are we to study Scripture, except that we have it, which means of course we have it in translation.

William Tyndale famously said he would cause the ploughboy to know more of Scripture than the priest. The Bible was never intended to be the domain of scholars alone. It is for the people and God ensured it would be understandable in their own language.

“The holy scriptures… are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” (2 Timothy 3:15).

This clarity does not depend on technical knowledge of biblical languages but on the faithful translation and illumination of the Holy Ghost.

The Danger of Modern Lexicon-Based Interpretation

In modern practice, it is common for Bible readers and teachers to appeal to Hebrew or Greek “word meanings” using lexicons (e.g. Strongs, Vines, Thayers, BDAG, etc.) to reinterpret or challenge what has already come to us in our correct English Bible.

God has worked with the Reformers and the KJB men and the Protestants and believers to have a great tradition of upholding the rightness of the KJB. To have that as a standard then means we cannot allow an intervening standard to that necessarily challenges it or starts from a different foundation.

The approach of the modern lexicons and their makers is:

  • Inconsistent with believing Protestantism, since lexicons are compiled by scholars with varying theological presuppositions, often shaped by modernist or critical methodologies.
  • Subjective, because unlike the traditional and accepted translations of the KJB, modern users are given a selection of various options and told that ancient languages don’t translate nicely and so they have to use their own modern day human judgment to decide whatever context-sensitive meanings means that they think are best, often allowing them to change meanings to suit the bias of the interpreter.
  • Undermining the manifest truth, because it subtly tells the average believer that the historical and present standard of the English Bible is insufficient, and that God apparently has a special hidden truth only decipherable by specialists.

This creates a functional priesthood of scholars, the very thing the Reformation sought to dismantle.

“Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.” (1 Peter 1:20).

Confidence in God’s Providence and the English Bible

To trust the English Bible is not to disregard the original languages, but to affirm that God has been faithful in preserving His Word through translation, just as He promised.

Think about the old Protestant position of the Westminster Confession of Faith, and what it says about our relying upon translation:

“But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have a right unto, and interest in, the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come; that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner, and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.”

Notice that the Puritans, who were the greatest sticklers for truth, claimed here that the Scripture for doctrine, use and comfort was in English. They rightly acted as if the Scripture was fully in English.

The King James Bible, in particular, was produced by godly scholars with reverence for the Scripture, with unparalleled skill in the original languages and deep theological commitment. It stands as a high point in the providential preservation of Scripture in English.

We do not need to revisit the foundations with every new generation of scholars. Instead, we should stand on the work God has already done, and honour the Spirit-led tradition He has used to preserve His Word for the English-speaking world.

Thus, we do not need to go to the Hebrew or Greek and claim some varying concepts to whatever is already overtly stated in English.

A Call to Confidence and Simplicity

The believer does not need to look beyond their English Bible to know what God has said.

We must reject the creeping idea that truth is hidden in linguistic complexity or scholarly authority. Instead, we affirm with the Reformers and with Scripture itself:

  • That God has spoken clearly,
  • That His Word is preserved faithfully,
  • And that the English Bible is sufficient for life, doctrine and godliness.

“The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.” (Psalm 119:130).

General

How people misunderstand those who use the King James Bible exclusively

One anti-King James Bible only debater asked, What is the biggest mistake people make when debating KJV-onlyism online?

Here’s my answer:

1. Treating the issue as primarily scientific rather than primarily theological.

2. Ignoring the spiritual dimension behind various positions on the issue as a whole.

3. Assuming wrong things about KJBO beliefs and KJBO people, e.g. envisioning KJBO as the specific naive belief the now “enlightened” person is arguing against.

4. Confusing different tiers or levels, i.e. difference between Scripture, Text, Translation, Editing and Copy-Editing (e.g. only “Scripture” can be infallible and inerrant).

5. Being ignorant of upstream presuppositions, i.e. deistic philosophy versus divine superintendence.

6. Failing to follow through to downstream issues, viz. the interpretation of Scripture.

7. Non-charitable motives such as pride.

General

A comparison between several places in different editions

Genesis 1:2

1611 London “Spirit”

1638 Cambridge “Spirit”

1682 Cambridge “Spirit”

1682 London “Spirit”

1682 Oxford “Spirit”

1682 Canne Scotch “Spirit”

1767 London “Spirit”

1768 Cambridge “Spirit”

1769 Oxford “Spirit”

1798 Cambridge “Spirit”

1816 London “Spirit”

1817 D’Oyly & Mant (Oxford) “Spirit”

1830 Edinburgh “Spirit”

1833 Oxford “Spirit”

1839 D’Oyly & Mant (London reprint) “Spirit”

Post-Victorian-era TBS Cambridge “Spirit”

mid-20th cent. London “spirit”

mid-20th cent. Oxford “Spirit”

mid-20th cent. Cambridge (PCE) “Spirit”

1971 Concord Cambridge “Spirit”

1992 Cambridge Emerald TBS “spirit”

Genesis 3:10

1611 London “my selfe”

1638 Cambridge “my self”

1682 Cambridge “my self”

1682 London “my self”

1682 Oxford “my self”

1682 Canne Scotch “my self”

1767 London “myself”

1768 Cambridge “my self”

1769 Oxford “my self”

1798 Cambridge “myself”

1816 London “myself”

1817 D’Oyly & Mant (Oxford) “myself”

1830 Edinburgh “myself”

1833 Oxford “myself”

1839 D’Oyly & Mant (London reprint) “myself”

Post-Victorian-era TBS Cambridge “myself”

mid-20th cent. London “myself”

mid-20th cent. Oxford “myself”

mid-20th cent. Cambridge (PCE) “myself”

1971 Concord Cambridge “myself”

1992 Cambridge Emerald TBS “myself”

Genesis 20:4

1611 London “LORD”

1638 Cambridge “LORD”

1682 Cambridge “LORD”

1682 London “LORD”

1682 Oxford “LORD”

1682 Canne Scotch “LORD”

1767 London “LORD”

1768 Cambridge “LORD”

1769 Oxford “LORD”

1798 Cambridge “LORD”

1816 London “LORD”

1817 D’Oyly & Mant (Oxford) “LORD”

1830 Edinburgh “LORD”

1833 Oxford “LORD”

1839 D’Oyly & Mant (London reprint) “LORD”

Post-Victorian-era TBS Cambridge “Lord”

mid-20th cent. London “Lord”

mid-20th cent. Oxford “Lord”

mid-20th cent. Cambridge (PCE) “Lord”

1971 Concord Cambridge “Lord”

1992 Cambridge Emerald TBS “Lord”

Genesis 36:22

1611 London “Hemam”

1638 Cambridge “Heman”

1682 Cambridge “Heman”

1682 London “Heman”

1682 Oxford “Heman”

1682 Canne Scotch “Heman”

1767 London “Heman”

1768 Cambridge “Heman”

1769 Oxford “Heman”

1798 Cambridge “Heman”

1816 London “Heman”

1817 D’Oyly & Mant (Oxford) “Hemam”

1830 Edinburgh “Heman”

1833 Oxford “Hemam”

1839 D’Oyly & Mant (London reprint) “Hemam”

Post-Victorian-era TBS Cambridge “Hemam”

mid-20th cent. London “Hemam”

mid-20th cent. Oxford “Hemam”

mid-20th cent. Cambridge (PCE) “Hemam”

1971 Concord Cambridge “Hemam”

1992 Cambridge Emerald TBS “Hemam”

Genesis 49:26

1611 London “my progenitors”

1638 Cambridge “my progenitors”

1682 Cambridge “my progenitors”

1682 London “my progenitors”

1682 Oxford “my progenitors”

1682 Canne Scotch “my progenitors”

1767 London “my progenitors”

1768 Cambridge “my progenitors”

1769 Oxford “thy progenitors”

1798 Cambridge “thy progenitors”

1816 London “thy progenitors”

1817 D’Oyly & Mant (Oxford) “thy progenitors”

1830 Edinburgh “my progenitors”

1833 Oxford “thy progenitors”

1839 D’Oyly & Mant (London reprint) “thy progenitors”

Post-Victorian-era TBS Cambridge “my progenitors”

mid-20th cent. London “my progenitors”

mid-20th cent. Oxford “my progenitors”

mid-20th cent. Cambridge (PCE) “my progenitors”

1971 Concord Cambridge “my progenitors”

1992 Cambridge Emerald TBS “my progenitors”

Exodus 23:23 (ignoring italics)

1611 London “the Hivites”

1638 Cambridge “and the Hivites”

1682 Cambridge “and the Hivites”

1682 London “and the Hivites”

1682 Oxford “and the Hivites”

1682 Canne Scotch “and the Hivites”

1767 London “and the Hivites”

1768 Cambridge “and the Hivites”

1769 Oxford “the Hivites”

1798 Cambridge “the Hivites”

1816 London “the Hivites”

1817 D’Oyly & Mant (Oxford) “the Hivites”

1830 Edinburgh “the Hivites”

1833 Oxford “the Hivites”

1839 D’Oyly & Mant (London reprint) “the Hivites”

Post-Victorian-era TBS Cambridge “and the Hivites”

mid-20th cent. London “the Hivites”

mid-20th cent. Oxford “the Hivites”

mid-20th cent. Cambridge (PCE) “and the Hivites”

1971 Concord Cambridge “the Hivites”

1992 Cambridge Emerald TBS “the Hivites”

Joshua 19:2

1611 London “Beer-sheba, or Sheba”

1638 Cambridge “Beer-sheba, and Sheba”

1682 Cambridge “Beer-sheba, and Sheba”

1682 London “Beersheba and Sheba”

1682 Oxford “Beer-sheba, and Sheba”

1682 Canne Scotch “Beersheba and Sheba”

1767 London “Beer-sheba, and Sheba”

1768 Cambridge “Beer-sheba, and Sheba”

1769 Oxford “Beer-sheba, Sheba”

1798 Cambridge “Beer-sheba, Sheba”

1816 London “Beer-sheba, Sheba”

1817 D’Oyly & Mant (Oxford) “Beer-sheba, Sheba”

1830 Edinburgh “Beer-sheba, and Sheba”

1833 Oxford “Beer-sheba, Sheba”

1839 D’Oyly & Mant (London reprint) “Beer-sheba, Sheba”

Post-Victorian-era TBS Cambridge “Beer-sheba, and Sheba”

mid-20th cent. London “Beer-sheba, or Sheba”

mid-20th cent. Oxford “Beer-sheba, and Sheba”

mid-20th cent. Cambridge (PCE) “Beer-sheba, or Sheba”

1971 Concord Cambridge “Beer-sheba, or Sheba”

1992 Cambridge Emerald TBS “Beer-sheba, or Sheba”

Editorial, General

Bible interpretation battlefront

Bible interpretation (hermeneutics) are central to the ideological war in the church and world today.

Ever since modern Infidelity reared its head from the bottomless pit in the late 18th century, there has been an information war on the Bible.

Some King James Bible only people seem to be fighting a battle about text, about what words are being deleted from the Scripture. However, the issue of translation is far more sinister. Changing words is a bigger problem than the evil of deleting them.

The greatest evil we see manifest all the time however is the ideological war, and that has to do with the program of language itself, that is, what language conveys in meaning and feeling.

Now, you can take a number of Christians and ask them to interpret the Scripture, and they seem to come up with different interpretations, because there are a number of presuppositions, frameworks and methods of interpretation (hermeneutics).

The reality of the presuppositions are around the reality or deniability of God’s presence, which is to say, either faith or doubt. Thus, many Christians are more like Deists than Present-Divine-Interventionists. The former being tipped toward doubt, the latter toward belief.

Likewise frameworks are like cosmological models, such as Dispensationalism. Starting with a model, people can try to make everything fit that model. This frankly is the problem of human systems of reasoning.

As Jesus said, “Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.” (Matthew 15:6b). And the extraction from Isaiah 29:13, “But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” (Matthew 13:9).

These issues also have do with willingness of heart and readiness to obey the Scripture and treat it as truth.

And so we come to the issue of hermeneutics. Hermeneutics are the basic method or fundamental elements of how Scripture is to be interpreted.

There are two sides within evangelical (“born again”) Christianity in this battle.

One side is that which is influenced by modern Infidelity, the other side is that which is resisting that. Generally speaking, fundamentalists and Pentecostals have been on this spectrum towards to believing end, while Calvinists of various stripes particularly have been towards the modern Infidelity side. It is ironic, by the way, that these same people might be the champions of young earth creationism!

This leads us to identify the schools of interpretation, specifically, the one called the “grammatical-critical-historical school” and the adjacent “grammatical-historical school”.

It is important here that we are not talking about the mere “critical” schools of Higher Criticism, Literary and Form Criticism and the full plunge into multiple Isaiahs, late prophet authorship, YEDP, M-source document, liberal theology, Modernism, etc. All of this of course is rank unbelief and directly the voice of the spirit of antichrist as promoted by the Enlightenment philosophies which are part of modern Infidelity.

Rather, we are talking here about actual Christians, who believe in the inspiration of Scripture, who nevertheless have been influenced by the same underlying error.

Before addressing the manifestation of error in the “grammatical-historical” categories, we need to establish the truth.

Our common foundation is the inspiration of Scripture. That Scripture came from God and was perfect when first written is not here questioned by the sincere Christians on both sides of this struggle.

There is certainly, however, a division over whether the truth of Scripture can be communicated through time. One position holds that the true words have been preserved/recovered. We would put this under the heading of the Textus Receptus position. Another position goes further and says that a perfect translation is available, which is the King James Bible only position.

There is, however, a further step in communication, which is that perfect interpretation and doctrine is attainable. This is something that needs to be investigated and judged.

In looking at a believing set of hermeneutical basics and related isagogics, which is to say, to look at each book of the Bible and the Scripture as a whole, how it came to be and its purpose, we see two distinct elements: the divine author and the human author.

The problem that arises with modern Infidelity is the absolute war on the divine author, which is why they will emphasise the human author, and even with that, cast doubt on even their reliability.

The right approach is to see God as the divine author of Scripture (i.e. inspiration, infallibility, inerrancy, etc.) and to not segregate the human author from the divine.

Fundamentally in communication, people speak of the “sender”, the “medium” and the “receiver” who then “decodes” (interprets) what is being communicated. The analogy of a World War 2 agent sending messages from occupied France back to headquarters is well known.

We don’t reduce the Bible to just a natural book, as if Paul was just writing his thoughts and sending the letter off to a church in some city, and likewise, people just copied copies over the centuries, until we happen to be able to “peak in” on what Paul wrote then today.

Way too many believers are almost thinking of the Scripture in these low terms. We must truly see that God was speaking via Paul to those churches he wrote to. Now, believers will say that they believe in Paul’s words really being God’s words, and they will go some way in accepting God’s words having something to say to today. But so many have it in theory rather than practice.

You see, the most important fact is that God was speaking to the original audience as well as today. This is the biggest key in this discussion.

“For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.” (Romans 15:4).

The whole “grammatical-historical” hermeneutics go wrong because they are a way that allows so many interferences onto God speaking to us today.

The first way they let interference come in is by looking at the written document in a natural way, in regards to modern textual criticism, fallibility in translation and constraints of the genre of writing itself and being bogged down by original language grammar, syntax and vocabulary.

This means that they might have reason to doubt the words, doubt the meaning, constrain the meaning and be uncertain of the linguistic construction.

The basic assumption is not that the Holy Ghost is giving the reader or hearer today the true meaning, but rather, that we must apply our minds to try to scrape together as best we can an understanding. Worse is that they are letting the doctrines of modern version ontology (some words don’t belong to the Bible) and modern translation alteration of concepts interfere heavily.

The teaching of the Scripture is so clear about being able to know and have God’s words, that is to say, in application to knowing what is the written Scripture.

“19 That thy trust may be in the LORD, I have made known to thee this day, even to thee.

20 Have not I written to thee excellent things in counsels and knowledge,

21 That I might make thee know the certainty of the words of truth; that thou mightest answer the words of truth to them that send unto thee?” (Proverbs 22:19-21).

Having the words is the first step, but being able to interpret them is the other.

And that’s where the “Grammatical-Historical method” goes even further awry. They try to interpret the Bible in its so-called historical context, which is to say, that people today impose their opinion of the past, including a constructed scheme of what they call “ancient near eastern culture”. This construction of course exists in the present, in the minds of modern professors and teachers, and may well bear little resemblance to the past.

But more importantly, nowhere are we instructed by Scripture, nor is it even a sure method of interpreting, to caste ourselves across some fictional gulf of cultural difference to another era in history in order to “really” understand the Bible.

While it is obviously true that the Jews were living in an agricultural culture without electricity, we are not dealing with things so different to ourselves. Above all this is the intention of God, in making the Scripture, to communicate specifically to us, and to all mankind!

“But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:” (Romans 16:26).

The Bible has been more designed for the last generations of mankind prior to the translation of the saints (the rapture) than to any other time in history. The Bible’s acceptance across the Earth is for our day, and therefore we should not be looking at the Bible as though it was merely written in the past to past people. No, it is written by God to us and to a glorious future of Church Restitution.

“Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you.” (Proverbs 1:23).

“For the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.” (Hab. 2:14).

Putting things in the way of being able to know and understand Scripture is really doubt, it is allowing the influence of the enemy in interpreting Scripture.

People can talk about “literal” and “context” all they like, but without belief and without the connection to the Holy Ghost, it’s going to be human striving to get some glimmer of a truth rather than confidently receiving from God the clarity of the truth.

Many born again Christians are in fact in bondage in this area. They may recognise some christological truths in the Old Testament or recognise types and symbolism in the New Testament, but are held back in recognising the “sensus plenior” especially in regard to double and multiple fulfilments of Bible prophecy.

In their zeal for the literal, they have lost the old aspects of seeing the allegorical, moral and anagogical.

If we are to enter into the full counsel of God, then we cannot continue in a paradigm which came from the unbelievers of the 18th and 19th centuries, which came via Milton S. Terry and 20th century evangelicals. Rather, we must turn to a believing approach, which is not to endorse personal, crazy charismatic or hyper-spiro views either.

Editorial, General

English translation reliable

When I was younger, my parents would speak in Dutch to keep secrets from my brothers and me, or would tell each other on the opposite side of the meal table something like give him a clip over the ear.

One day my extended family went to a quaint mountain restaurant near Melbourne, and they described the atmosphere there as “gezellig”. I asked them what this word meant, they said it was untranslatable.

I thought to myself that this was not true at all, it was not untranslatable. My uncle, who was Pentecostal Bible college lecturer, should have known better.

Recently, a Dutch-born language expert told me that no word is untranslatable.

I remember around 2000 researching Old English, and finding “gesǽllíc”, which gives rise to the modern word, “seelie”.

So much for being “untranslatable”, the Dutch word, which has no doubt common origin with the old Anglo-Saxon language, had essentially the same word and cognate concept in English.

Thus, not only was the word translatable, the word had a common origin in both languages.

Thus, what was homely and cozy in modern Dutch was blessed, fortunate, felix into modern English without translation, so how much easier would it be to be able to express in English words what was thought of as allegedly special in Dutch, when English is a superior language for many reasons.

When it comes to Bible translation, all the myths and misleading emphasis that is put onto Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Greek, and all the errors taught under the banner of “hermeneutics”, as though linguistic cultural nuance is uncommunicable in English, should be exploded.

“For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.” (Romans 15:4).

Thus, we are able to have an accurate translation in English of what was written of old.

“But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:” (Romans 16:26).

The teachings and truth of Scripture is being made readily known. The Holy Ghost is leading people into truth, and we have an accurate presentation of the Scripture with the King James Bible which is made common around the world.

Editorial, General

Easter is in the Bible

Easter is a Christian word with a Christian meaning.

It seems really difficult for some to understand why the word “Easter” is right in the King James Bible. The modernists say that “Easter” doesn’t belong in the first century. Certain extremists say that Easter still is a pagan festival (a view that in general is supported by Reformed Presbyterians, Seventh Day Adventists and people who hate the Emperor Constantine, etc.)

In recent years I’ve noticed King James Bible supporters who embrace a more Textus Receptus leaning try to explain the situation. They go about looking at the Greek, talking about Pascha, which never appears in the King James Bible. Our starting point should be the King James Bible and believing that the word of God is in English for us.

Well, we can see that Acts 12:4 says “Easter”. Should we start from the assumption that “Easter” means a pagan festival because a bunch of people claim that? No.

Here’s the correct view about the word “Easter”. The Bible talks about the Passover. When it uses the word “Easter”, it is using the Christian word to describe the Jewish Passover, except the Christian understanding of the “Passover” (i.e. Easter) has slightly different connotations.

Luke, who wrote the Book of Acts, was describing Peter in prison during Easter. Peter, being a Jew, came from the tradition of celebrating the Passover, however, Luke and Peter, being Christians had already understood a different meaning to the Passover, which connected to it Jesus’ death and resurrection.

Thus, the timeframe was the Passover, but the meaning much more was to do with a Christian slant of the Jewish festival.

Herod was waiting for Easter to finish because obviously the Jews and Christians were celebrating Passover each in their own way, one the Jewish way and the other the Christian way.

Now we come to the etymology of the word “Easter”. The word arises in English from the Anglo-Saxon language, which we understand from Bede, was the title of a goddess associated with the dawn, springtime and fertility. The origin of the word “Easter” is therefore the same word as what the heathen used for their own feast Eostre, and the meaning of that word means “dawn” and “East” and therefore the idea of sun-rising. Eostre and Passover occurred around the same time of year.

With the Christianisation of England, the word “Easter” then came to be used for the Christian festival about Jesus’ death and resurrection (as derived from the Jewish Passover festival). All the symbolism of course aligned as well, being that Jesus rose on Sunday, etc. However, in the minds of Christians, the word fully transformed in meaning from paganism to Christianity, which means that this is an example of Christianisation of the culture.

Thus, when the Reformation Christians spoke of Easter (e.g. the Anglican Book of Common Prayer) they clearly meant the Christian understanding of Passover. The word that once had been used by pagans now was fully sanctified and had its proper present meaning.

Thus, when Acts 12:4 states the word “Easter”, it was not referring to a pagan festival, nor was it denying the Jewish festival, but was recorded by inspired Luke as a Christian understanding of the Jewish holidays.

The word is not merely synonymous for Passover, because the fact that the KJB translators chose to use it means it had a purpose. All words in our Bible have a purpose, and this Biblical English is special and has meaning which is so precise and precious.

Easter is a Bible word with a Bible meaning.