INTRODUCTION

We need to start from God’s work in history, and the Scripture received, message conveyed by preservation and doctrine understand.

Protestant Christianity confesses that Holy Scripture is the supreme authority for faith and doctrine, yet it has also insisted that Scripture is not self-interpreting in a mechanical sense. Rather, Scripture is given by God to be understood by His people, through the illumination of the Holy Ghost, within the life of the Church.

The King James Bible stands today as the providentially preserved, exact and settled form of Scripture in English, and that theology, doctrine and creedal understanding are now best and most safely expressed in English, as an act of faith in divine providence. This is an explicitly anti-Enlightenment position, rejecting the imposition of human thought over truth, but instead affirming the Word and Spirit as the governing principles of Christian truth.

After arguing that the Scripture is now being accessed by believers in an authoritative form in English, we must then see that interpretation should take place anchored in the English alone, rather than in any of the original language requirements of modernistic hermeneutics. And now, I am suggesting that doctrine, creed and the very fabric of our Christianity exist entirely in English, because the best forms of Christianity have arisen since the days of William Tyndale in English, and that this is built on a middle English foundation of the Lollards which in turn is built on an Anglo-Saxon reception of the truth from the Celtic world. I am going to argue that theology necessarily must exist in English.

The doctrine of the Trinity serves as a proving ground for this approach.

THE KING JAMES BIBLE AS PROVIDENTIALLY PERFECT SCRIPTURE

The Protestant doctrine of Scripture has never ended with inspiration alone. Inspiration without preservation leaves the Church perpetually uncertain. The Reformers understood this, even if they did not systematise it as later generations would.

The King James Bible represents not merely a successful translation, but the culmination of providential transmission. God, who inspired His Word, has also governed its history, ensuring that His Church possesses a stable, authoritative text.

Scripture itself affirms this principle in Psalm 12.

The claim is that God has chosen the English language as the final means of preservation for this stage of redemptive history. The existence of an exact, identifiable text, such as the Pure Cambridge Edition, is its logical outworking. A God who intends His people to know the truth is providing His words in a knowable form.

Without such finality, doctrine becomes provisional, theology unstable and authority endlessly deferred.

THE PROPER PROTESTANT INTERPRETATIVE METHOD

True Sola Scriptura has never meant Scripture isolated from the Spirit. The Reformers were explicit that illumination is necessary.

John Calvin stated, “The testimony of the Spirit is more excellent than all reason.”

Scripture is divine speech in written form. It is therefore understood as divine in origin, not merely analysed as mere human literature. Linguistic examination, genre awareness and comparison of Scripture with Scripture are necessary, as subject components of how to interpret, with deference to the divine will behind and revealed in Scripture.

The Holy Ghost stands above providential tradition, creeds, teachers and commentaries. These serve the Church because they are themselves fruits of the Spirit’s work across history, they are aids to Scripture, and the second way in which God communicates to His people after the primacy of Scripture itself.

After all, Christ promised, “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth.” (John 16:13).

The Protestant confidence that truth is knowable rests not in human intellect, but in divine intention. God intends to be understood, sufficiently and savingly, by His people.

THEOLOGY AND CREED MUST BE EXPRESSED IN ENGLISH

Theology does not exist apart from language. Every doctrine must be spoken, taught and confessed. The Nicene and Athanasian formulations were not timeless abstractions; they were contextual expressions of biblical truth using the most serviceable language available at the time.

That language is no longer Greek.

The continued dependence on Greek technical terms is not a mark of fidelity, but often of intellectual inertia. These terms were never inspired; they were tools. English now fulfils that function more effectively, more universally and more safely.

The English-speaking Church has already proven this. The Book of Common Prayer, for example, demonstrates that creedal and Trinitarian doctrine can be expressed clearly, reverently and precisely in English without loss of substance.

The insistence that theology must remain tethered to Greek categories effectively privileges the academy over the Church and resurrects a clericalism the Reformation explicitly rejected.

THE TRINITY AS A TEST CASE

Scripture presents the raw data:

• One God
• The Father is God
• The Son is God
• The Holy Ghost is God
• The Father is not the Son
• The Son is not the Spirit

The doctrine of the Trinity is not an invention, but an interpretative articulation of what the Scripture shows. It is the only formulation that preserves all biblical testimony without subtraction.

The creeds do not explain how God is triune; they establish what must be affirmed and what must be denied. As Athanasius rightly insisted, denial of the Son’s full deity is denial of salvation itself.

English theological language is fully capable of expressing this reality:

God is one being, eternally existing as three distinct persons — Father, Son and Holy Ghost — each fully and truly God.

No Greek metaphysics is required to grasp this truth. What is required is submission to the totality of Scripture.

COUNTERING SCHOLARLY OBJECTIONS

1. Textual Criticism

Modern textual criticism assumes that Scripture exists only as a reconstructive hypothesis, never as a settled text. This assumption is philosophical, not biblical.

The Protestant position insists that God governs history, not merely inspiration. Endless textual fluidity undermines faith and contradicts Scripture’s own claims of preservation.

2. Historical objections

It is often claimed that Trinitarian doctrine developed under political pressure. This confuses clarification with invention. Heresy forced definition; it did not create truth.

The early Church did not impose doctrine on Scripture — it defended Scripture from reduction.

3. Philosophical objections

Enlightenment rationalism demands that doctrine be demonstrable prior to belief. Christianity reverses the order: faith receives revelation, and reason serves it.

“Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.” (Proverbs 3:5).

The Trinity is not irrational; it is supra-rational. It exceeds reason without violating it.

WHY GREEK DEPENDENCE IS NO LONGER DESIRABLE

Greek-based methods (translation, interpretation and theological definitional categories) once served the Church. They no longer do so universally or effectively. Continued dependence on them:

• restricts theology to specialists
• obscures rather than clarifies doctrine
• undermines the Protestant principle of accessibility

The Reformers themselves rejected linguistic tyranny. William Tyndale famously declared his desire that the ploughboy should know more Scripture than the cleric. That vision is fulfilled not by perpetual return to Greek, but by confidence in English theological speech.

The King James Bible stands as the providentially preserved Word of God in English. The Holy Ghost illuminates that Word, guiding the Church into truth. Theology and creed must therefore be articulated in English, as the living language of the Church, regardless of the attacks from Infidelity, and the many inroads Enlightenment-based thinking has made into the academic gatekeepers of modern day Christianity.

The doctrine of the Trinity demonstrates that this approach does not weaken theology but it strengthens it. It exalts Scripture, honours the Spirit, respects providential tradition, equips the Church and safeguards to communication of the very articulation of truth the future of mankind.

THE CHAINS OF PROVIDENCE

True doctrine passed from the Apostles to the Church of Constantine where the Creeds were made. This then informed the insular Latin tradition, as doctrine came up from Gaul, and was in the end of sub-Roman Britain (as it had been since Joseph of Arimathea, St Alban or St Helen had been there) and eventually was seen in Wales in the family of Arthur.

It also went to Ireland by Patrick, to Scotland by Columba and came to Northumbria by Aidan. Thus, we can be sure that there is a direct line through the Celtic church to the Anglo-Saxons that was parallel to the truth also being in the Eastern, Greek-speaking world. I will call this the York line.

The second Canterbury line among the Anglo-Saxons came from Rome, and also reinforced by the Normans, resisted by the Barons (Magna Carta) and the people (the anti-curial movement) and present in the Lollard movement under John Wycliffe. In this line the expression of the Trinity was primarily in Latin.

Thus the Reformation was from the outset taking Scripture from Greek, doctrinal expression from Nicaea that had been in Greek, but moved to English. The doctrine of the Trinity was therefore expressed in English in the Book of Common Prayer, besides it being made common by other means in English, like through the Westminster Confession.

Now by these was doctrine being expressed fully in English, and the successive rise of Evangelicalism, Pentecostalism and so on have all been in English. The best theological progress in the world has been in English.

Yet, many have joined with the lies of Infidelity to try to fight English by trying to make Greek rule over Christian truth.

We see this spiritually-based ideological war, whether in New Zealand, where evil forces have tried to subject English everywhere, and we see it throughout Calvinism where they willingly enslave themselves to Greek.

The opportunity is for people everywhere to burst these bonds and to come into the uplift of the Spirit into the heady clouds of clarity, wide expression and right understanding.

INTRODUCTION

As inheritors of Anglo-Saxon freedoms, Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights and evangelical-influence, we understand that there is rightly an opportunity for Christians to engage in free enterprise. What this does not mean is every man doing what is right in his own eyes.

Limited toleration on expression is vitally important for both the preservation of Christian culture and also the curtailing of dangerous ideas.

Since the Enlightenment, a dangerous trend has come into the English-speaking world, of French and Communistic ideas, which strangely have been associated with the reign of terror, the guillotine, secret police, gulags and forced conformity.

The liberal way has become an enforced global order of world socialism, with man set up as having universal rights, human and associated rights, United Nations dictates and of course the promotion of all kinds of ideas which are against conservative, right-leaning, authority-based Christian morality.

The problem is that these anti-authoritarian notions have infiltrated Christianity. One area where these ideas are noticed are in the King James Bible-supporting Free Grace circle, where there are obvious Libertarian promoters.

A particular circle of these sorts revolve around Bryan Ross. Another author who Ross promotes, whose scholarship in the King James Bible area is quite respectable, is also heavily into Libertarianism. Underlying the Bryan Ross’ differing views to those undergirding the Pure Cambridge Edition is this tension between Libertarianism and Biblical authoritarianism. This also explains the heart behind the “verbal equivalency” ideas.

THE GENERAL PROBLEM

Mixing Libertarianism with Christianity creates a political theology that quietly denies the authority, including political authority, that the Bible requires.

Libertarianism presents itself as harmless with a preference for “liberty”, “non-coercion” and “limited government.” Smaller government and lower taxes are quite fine. Yet beneath this surface lies a full moral system that competes directly with the Bible’s teaching on law, rule, judgment and obedience. Libertarianism is not merely a political opinion, it is a rival doctrine of authority.

This contradiction becomes especially stark when Libertarianism is embraced by those who profess unwavering fidelity to the King James Bible. And yet this Bible is completely linked unapologetically with kings, magistrates, fear, punishment, command and submission.

The question must therefore be asked plainly: Can a Christian affirm the absolute authority of Scripture while rejecting the authority structures Scripture commands? The answer is, No.

AUTHORITY NECESSARY

Scripture does not treat civil authority as a regrettable concession to human frailty. It treats it as a positive good, ordained by God Himself.

“There is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.” (Romans 13:1).

Christ Himself is destined to rule with a rod of iron. The minister in the church is the minister of God, bearing a sword as an instrument … and likewise the same passage can be seen to apply to the divinely-ordained civil power in a Christian government.

“For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” (Romans 13:4).

Libertarianism, by contrast, begins with the presupposition that authority must justify itself to the individual, that coercion is inherently suspect, and that force is immoral except in the narrowest case of personal self-defence. It puts each individual man as a judge of his own destiny without any regard to the sovereignty of God. I’m no Calvinist, but obviously God’s will is being done. Therefore, Libertarianism is not a biblical presupposition but, really, a humanistic one.

Scripture never asks whether authority is consensual. It commands submission.

“Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God.” (Romans 13:2).

THE NON-AGGRESSION PRINCIPLE

At the centre of Libertarian political theory lies the so-called Non-Aggression Principle: the idea that force is immoral unless used in direct response to aggression.

Scripture knows nothing of this principle.

God commands:

• Punishment before consent
• Judgment before appeal
• Discipline without negotiation

The law is coercive by definition. Judgment is coercive by nature. Government without coercion is not government at all, it would be mere suggestion.

“If thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain.” (Romans 13:4).

The sword is not metaphorical. It is not voluntary. It is not symbolic. It is real, physical and to be feared. Scripture presents this fear as righteous.

Libertarianism recoils at this.

VOLUNTARISM IS NOT OBEDIENCE

Libertarianism redefines obedience as voluntary association. One obeys only insofar as one consents.

Scripture rejects this outright.

Children do not consent to parents. Subjects do not negotiate with kings. The church does not vote Christ into authority.

“Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake.” (1 Peter 2:13).

Submission is commanded precisely because it is not optional.

A Christianity that teaches obedience only when authority is agreeable has already abandoned obedience altogether.

A PERFECT STORM OF LAWLESSNESS

When Libertarianism attaches itself to Free Grace theology, the result is a Christianity stripped of both external authority and internal restraint.

• Christian grace severed from discipline
• Christian liberty severed from law
• Christian living severed from fear

What remains is a gospel with no teeth, no terror and no throne.

“For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power?” (Romans 13:3).

This is not the gospel preached by prophets, apostles or Christ Himself.

Libertarian Christianity cannot account for divine wrath exercised through earthly rulers, because it denies that rulers have moral authority to act coercively at all.

THE BIBLE IS NOT LIBERTARIAN

The King James Bible was not made nor supplied under Libertarianism. It seems to be absurdity to use the King James Bible as a banner for Libertarian thought.

The King James Bible is a monarchical Bible:

• Translated under a king
• Addressed to subjects
• Filled with kings, thrones, dominions, principalities and powers

It assumes hierarchy as natural and authority as normal.

The language of Scripture is that of rights under duty, not of autonomy, but of obedience and not ofself-determination but divine Lordship (and human lordship).

The master is over the servant, yet should serve; the husband is head over the wife, yet should give himself for her and God is the Father of His children, yet he gave His Son for them.

Libertarianism must constantly reinterpret or soften these terms like “rule”, “bishop”, “command”, “judge”, “obey”, “submit”. Scripture never does.

ANARCHY NOT THE BIBLICAL PATTERN

From Genesis to Revelation, authority flows downward from God, not upward from the individual.

• God rules kings
• Kings rule nations
• Fathers rule households

This is not tyranny. It is order.

Monarchy, as rightly understood, is not the deification of man but the delegation of rule. Even Christ reigns as King, not chairman.

The Bible does not speak against concentrated authority, it speaks against rebellious hearts.

Libertarianism is therefore a political religion that defies proper doctrine.

The issue is not whether Christians should love liberty. The issue is which authority defines liberty.

Libertarianism enthrones the individual. Scripture enthrones God.

The King James Bible leaves no room for a Christianity that rejects the sword, fears authority, or treats obedience as optional. A gospel without authority is not good news. A kingdom without a king is not biblical. And a Christianity reshaped to fit Libertarian ideology is no Christianity at all.

UPDATED ARTICLE

Both “throughly” and “thoroughly” appear in the Bible.

The words cannot be synonyms, because if they just mean the same thing, then why use two different “spellings”? But clearly there is some distinction in meaning. Following a simple process, we find distinction of meanings of words by a two step method:
1. Examining all the places each word is printed using a standardised, pure edition.
2. Then examining dictionaries/records.

In fact, a full examination of this topic needs to be made, because when I wrote a book mentioning this in passing, I didn’t really look into it.

Looking into it tentatively, from the Scripture it could be suggested that THROUGHLY means fully/completely, and that THOROUGHLY means to have gone through, like as a process that penetrates or accomplishes an exacting going right through. However, I think a fuller examination has to be made of the topic.

Also, for assistance, here is the information from the Oxford English Dictionary.

OED -> Throughly. 1. Fully; completely; perfectly. 2. Through the whole thickness, substance or extant; through, throughout, all through, quite through. And a subcategory meaning to that, Through, from beginning to end; for the whole length or time; all through.

OED -> Thoroughly. 1. In a way that penetrates or goes through; right through, quite through. 2. In thorough manner of degree; in every part of detail; in all respects; with nothing left undone; fully, completely wholly, entirely, perfectly.

It used to be said by some KJBO advocates many years ago that “throughly” meant “fully through the inside as well as the outside” while “thoroughly” just meant on the outside. So this implied that the meaning dichotomy was on whether the description was to do with the inside of something. I expect that those old definitions were not based upon a full examination nor were rigorously correct. Moreover, some people have looked into this area since to study further the distinctions.

Someone could just take the first definitions from both entries of the words from the OED, and this already shows, by the differences between them, that these are two separate words with separate meanings.

Simplistic definitions as given by others abound, and the internet is full of all kinds of possibilities of meaning. Rather than confuse the issue, I will make a more comprehensive study, because it is evident that

There are people who try and say that these two words mean the same thing. They do this because they are taking simplistic looks at dictionaries and also trying to make out that 1611 spelling is authoritative over current editions.

While it is true there are very close similarities in both spelling and meaning, they are not the same thing. I also think that definitions given in the past, when the issue had not yet been looked at properly, could give rise to people saying that such things are wrong or unclear, leading some to claim that there is no difference meaning.

Just because spellings in old KJB editions have varied, this does not mean that spelling doesn’t matter or that the words are identical after all. Lack of standardised English orthography, typographical errors, etc. are all possible factors.

We know that the way it is now in our current edition is correct, and that typography and orthography were not always so precise, when we begin from 1611 or from Tyndale.

Thus, the need to better understand and define words or differences, where study needs to be done. So far, in my preparation for a more concerted examination, it is obvious that there is a distinction between “throughly” and “thoroughly”, that they are not just the same thing or a meaningless spelling variation of the same word.

WRONG ASSUMPTIONS

Sometimes people have the wrong ideas, and little wrong ideas can lead to big wrong ideas.

The other day, I saw Bryan Ross (in his attempt to cast doubt on some of my views) try to say that basically the twelve passages that are used to identify the Pure Cambridge Edition were somehow something to do with Pentecostalism, as though the list had been compiled with largely or somewhat Pentecostal intentions.

The idea he has mistakenly thought is that as if I made a list that specifically or secretly is connected to passages about Pentecostalism, and so that allegedly I could say that if a Bible doesn’t match up with it, it isn’t pure. This is nonsense, and is so nonsense that I didn’t immediately realise that Bryan Ross was trying to make this point.

It’s a made up point, of course, because the twelves places to test whether an edition of the Pure Cambridge Edition were made not with reference to or because of Pentecostalism really at all.

It happens that there was a passing reference in the context of one of the places, 1 John 5:8, or rather, why a lower case s “spirit” would even be in the Bible, with a question to its relation to Pentecostalism among other things. But Ross takes that and builds a whole narrative out of it.

Much later, when I did analysis on what the implications would be between different editions on possible doctrinal understandings based on differences, I referenced the work of the Holy Ghost. For example, the fact of Jesus being led into the wilderness to be tempted is not specifically a Pentecostal doctrine, but I might consider a reason about it from a Pentecostal perspective. However, there are many other reasons and issues and facts to consider with that kind of example at Matthew 4:1 and Mark 1:12 which have nothing to do with Pentecostalism.

But then, if I mention Pentecostal once somewhere, that’s a trigger, an alert. This leads to incorrectly framing a case.

MISUNDERSTANDING AND FRAMING

Another of Bryan Ross’ wrong assumptions about me and what I have said is about Historicism. He has hinted that there is a claim that I am apparently making that there was something special in Historicism about the early 1900s, in relation to the rise of Pentecostalism and the making of the PCE and something special about 100 years later, with the discovery of the PCE.

The only thing is that both of these things are not overtly part of any Historicist framework. I mean, they could be connected in the big picture in passing, but these events are not pointed to in a vivid way in Bible prophecy. This wrong assumption is probably in part because he does not understand Historicism, but also is actively framing rather than examining the information.

When someone looks at information, not to understand it, but with bias and prejudice to confirm some accusation, then it is likely to get these sorts of strange assumptions and erroneous judgment.

Such a view can of course go wild.

“Behold, how great a matter a little fire kindleth,” (James 3:5b).

SANDY FOUNDATIONS

A lot of the reasons why Bryan Ross does not like what I stand for in these particular matters is because he has an incorrect doctrinal and interpretive framework.

Not only does he reject Pentecostalism, which really isn’t the issue in these matters he makes it out to be. He is, it seems, ideologically committed to a libertarian style approach which is really anti-authoritarian, which is to say, trying not to have a rigid imposition of the New Testament yoke upon believers.

For example, take “he” and “she” from the two 1611 Editions of the KJB, and then tell us whether God’s truth is singular or multiple. Ross pushes a view called “verbal equivalence”, which means he tries to make various differences in the KJB editions as tolerable.

Except Ross knows that only one reading is correct, which is also the truth-based approach that I take. So, obviously his “freedom” to accept different variations as if they don’t matter now doesn’t count because he thinks that “he” was incorrect, which of course is also my view.

In fact, surprisingly, Ross does some correct method in how he finds “he” to be incorrect, he uses logic like, conference of scripture, context of the place, English grammar, editorial processes, historical Protestant Bible testimony and textual criticism/causes of corruption logic.

However, Ross goes further, and mentions other arguments which should be considered secondary, but the big one he puts as his probably most primary, is he goes to the Hebrew, listens to the commentators (in this case Norton), goes to the alleged draft of the 1611, looks at modern versions/translations and applies the general error of modernist-influenced reasoning methodology.

I described all of this because there are so many opportunities for Ross to get things wrong, really, because his foundation is not the Word and Spirit authoritative approach.

Because he doesn’t accept the Providentially supplied authority of the Pure Cambridge Edition and using it for an (obviously) English-first analysis, he will be subject to relatively greater error in his judgments when examining places of the Scripture in regards both to editions questions or to Bible interpretation.

What he is not doing, which I think is vital, is beginning Bible analysis, study and editions examination, all of that, from an KJB-first, English-first and PCE-first perspective. To accept that as a foundation would be to adhere to a good and proper authority.

Opening thoughts

During the Reformation some 500 years ago, William Tyndale laboured to bring the word of God into English. What he began ended with the King James Bible.

Tyndale was not a modern textual critic, neutral academic or unbelieving liberal student of Scripture. He was a professing Christian whose translation work was guided by the strong conviction that the word of God is clear, authoritative and binding because it is God’s word, not because scholars approve it.

Tyndale’s opposition was not merely to Rome’s control of Scripture, but to any system — clerical, institutional or intellectual — that places human mediation between God’s word and the believer. His insistence that Scripture be placed directly into the hands of ordinary Christians was grounded in faith. He believed God was the author and that what God had spoken could be known, trusted and obeyed.

From this starting point, it is historically and theologically coherent to argue that Tyndale himself would have stood opposed to modern approaches that treat the biblical text as unstable, perpetually reconstructible or dependent upon scholarly consensus for its authority. Such approaches do not rest on faith in divine preservation, but on scepticism, that is, naked unbelief.

This unbelief is built upon Enlightenment philosophy and permeates the organisations using Tyndale’s name today, being Tyndale House Cambridge (UK) and Tyndale House Publishers (USA).

Tyndale’s Theology of Scripture

Tyndale translated Scripture under persecution because he believed God had already given His word and that it could be faithfully received and rendered in good English. His confidence rested not in the recovery of an original autograph but in God’s providential preservation of His word for His people.

This is the fault line between Tyndale’s theology and modern textual criticism.

The modern critical approach as refined and institutionalised in places such as Tyndale House Cambridge operate on the assumption that:

• the biblical text exists in a state of uncertainty,
• preservation is partial and uneven and
• authority must be reconstructed through scholarly comparison of manuscripts.

This approach, however sophisticated sounding, begins not with faith in God’s promise to preserve His word (see Psalm 12:6–7), but with methodological doubt. Such doubt is not neutral because it assumes a deistic posture that contradicts the doctrine of preservation.

This unbelief is a serious problem. Faith, according to Scripture, operates through confident hearing and speaking of the word (see Romans 10:17). A text surrounded by scholarly uncertainty cannot function as a stable object of faith. One cannot boldly confess what scholars themselves treat as tentative.

We are told that the word is nigh us (see Romans 10:8), but this is not what modern EVANGELICAL scholarship teaches. And this problem is permeating Baptist, Pentecostal, Presbyterian and Reformed Churches.

This is a spiritual problem that continually injects uncertainty in the text and translation of Scripture.

Tyndale’s Provision of Scripture

It is well known that William Tyndale was making a profit out of providing the Scripture, but that profit was for funding the Scripture. He had to be paid for his labours.

While Tyndale House Cambridge represents scholarly mediation like the Catholic priests, Tyndale House Publishers represents editorial mediation. This is the other end of the same continuum.

The rise of paraphrases and dynamically equivalent translations, most notably The Living Bible, rests on the assumption that the biblical text, as historically received, is insufficiently clear or effective on its own.

The assumption of paraphrase, with all its doctrinal expansion and doctrinal smoothing, would have been foreign to William Tyndale. Such a concept undermines verbal authority and the accuracy of the communication. Scripture’s power is inseparable from its written form.

Since words are important, then altering the words of Scripture alters its expressive force. To change Mary from a virgin to a maiden is dangerous. A believer cannot “stand” on the legal language of God’s law and promises if the Scripture’s words have been dumbed down and altered.

The problem is that market forces and commercial interests are manipulating the provision of Bibles. There is no need for new translations or new versions but these are pushed as consumer products.

Sadly, Scripture is being treated as dependent on human expertise for its clarity, authority or usefulness.

William Tyndale rejected precisely this model because he actually believed:

• God had spoken clearly,
• God preserves His word and
• believers could trust and obey it without institutional filtration.

Closing thoughts

Ironically, both institutions mentioned appeal to the legacy of William Tyndale, yet neither fully embodies his conviction.

Tyndale’s passion was not deistic scholarship or market consumerism, but people’s direct access to the word of God in a stable, authoritative form. His goal was not endless revision but final clarity so that even the ploughboy could know and declare Scripture.

At least Tyndale House Publishers provide Hendricksons KJVs, whereas figures associated with Tyndale House Cambridge have been openly against the King James Bible, such as, D. A. Carson (who wrote a whole book essentially attacking the KJV) and John Piper (who has preached against the KJV).

As such people lay claim to the Tyndale legacy while attacking, rejecting or otherwise trying to undermine the KJV they are sadly working in an opposite direction to what Tyndale stood for, and to what actually perpetuates his legacy, which is the King James Bible itself.

There are Roman Catholics who try to argue that Protestants should come back to the supposed real and original Church, but actually, Christians should be invited to come back to the authoritative English Bible.

This year we celebrate the 500^th anniversary of Tyndale’s translation. This anniversary marks a turning point in the history of the English Bible. Because of the pioneering work of Tyndale, the word of God was able to come into the hands of the hands of ordinary people. It’s now time to make sure that all who use the banner of Tyndale are not working to undermine his legacy. The KJV is the Bible for the all people: prince or pleb.