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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which of course explains this:

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

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

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

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

UPDATE:

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

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

SECOND UPDATE:

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

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

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