Plea for one true version

[bibleprotector]

If Jesus was reading from the Septuagint of Isaiah 61 in Luke 4, and yet the words which Jesus spoke are true, and the commentary by Luke true, and that they were treated as the words of Isaiah, though presented in a Greek translation which doubtlessly contained version differences, are we to think that God would therefore condone different versions today?

I would suggest that God allowed for different versions and translations from the earliest times, considering that translating Scripture into a particular language often gave rise to a new version, or that there were textual variations within the Scriptures spread out in the Latin language, etc.

Moreover, at the Reformation, we find that there are minor differences in the amassed printed Greek texts, and likewise variations in Protestant translations. Each English Bible could count as a different version. And so this was the situation up to and even beyond 1611.

Since there has been different versions and translations used by God's people, and treated as the Word of God, and even by the Spirit called "the Scripture" in the New Testament (though it is important to say that the Holy Ghost was also "editor" in the New Testament quotes of the Old, and that by inspiration, so that no "variation" within the inspired Scripture is false), we must be aware not to impart full infallibility to all versions and translations collectively, but rather, because they generally agreed, or agreed in specific places, they were during and after the Early Church called Scriptures or Bibles.

The true Scripture, that is, what actually is perfectly the message of God cannot have been present in any single form or manuscript around the time of the Reformation (1517). And certainly not in any translation. Yet to project this forward in time is contrary to the nature of God and the nature of Scripture. To say that the full Word of God with the whole Canon was not fully perfect in any place in any extant roll/book at any time in earth in the years 4004 B.C. to 1610 A.D. does not mean that automatically there cannot be a perfect Bible in one form in 1611.

The argument that there is not a perfect Bible because there never was one is against the nature of God and the nature of Scripture. The argument that all sorts of varying Bibles were considered good enough by God's people does not mean that one can be precluded from being the best and perfect for God's people, or be for all of God's people in the latter times. Indeed, why do translators and textual critics yet labour with the Greek and Hebrew and new English works, unless they desire the state of the Bible to be better than before. If they are coming as near as to perfect truth as humanly possible that reveals the true desire of godly people to have God's very Word fully perfect. However, by saying "humanly possible" and by speaking about "continuing learning and scholarship" and such statements, they have erected a strong doctrine of rejection of final perfection. They are saying, all our works shall never attain to it! Yet, in this time our work is supposed to be of belief (that we may receive the full truth), not of doubt (that we cannot fully attain truth).

Notice that the Apostle Peter, in his writing to all Christians, says, "THIS second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour" (2 Peter 3:1, 2).

The problem is that Christians today cannot remember, nor be mindful of what exactly was spoken by the prophets nor what was written by the apostles, because there is no absolute certainty as to what the Scripture actually is. I mean that while there can be an assent to truth, there cannot be a whole embracing of truth, only truth, and particular truth, unless a person has a defined standard of truth, e.g. the KJB only. (Because even minor variations in various versions ultimately preclude one from being the very words of God where word perfection is required for its full perfection.)

"Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation." (2 Peter 3:3, 4).

Why is the goodness of the King James Bible and AV onlyism the object of scoffing? Because it seems to be completely wrong to a certain class of people. These are people who object and say, "Where is the promise of his coming?" Now, I am not talking about the doctrine of the coming of Christ as such, but the place where such a promise is sure and certain. In other words, "Where is the Scripture that is 100% true in one place?" And the basis for rejecting the full truth of the promise? "for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation." That is, since the time of the Early Church, the Scripture has been scattered, subject to copyist errors and never true in one full Bible, but that this trend will continue from the beginning to the end, namely, that there never shall be a perfect Bible at this time, because ENTROPY which is SUBJECTIVITY TO ERROR is master. (In extreme form: error is god.)

The Apostle then states, "For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men." (2 Peter 3:5-7).

Notice that everything was made by the Word of God. The same Word must be in existence right now, keeping creation and containing (regulating) the events of history, and be the basis for godly judgment, and be the rule which is specifically rejected by some, whereby we should be able to know who is in perdition or ungodly for their non-continuance in the truth.

"But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store" says the Scripture. Are we to think that the Earth is now being kept by only a Heavenly Word? Certainly this is true, but if the Earth is being kept by the Heavenly Word, would not the incorrupt Heavenly Word also allow for, even demand that the full manifestation of the Scripture in perfect form also be on Earth, especially "in the last days" (the context of the passage).

Again, God would not be just to have 99.9 % Scripture, and yet expect His Church to grow up into perfection in the last days (see Ephesians 4), for that full obedience of the Scripture is righteousness, everyone who is subject to only 99.9 % accurate Scripture is therefore in some degree in perdition/error/imperfection or at least not grown up into the full perfection. Is it God's will to keep people from growing up? (A wide knowledge of all variations, yet not having one settled one which is common for all God's people is not the solution. Those who have a wide knowledge also have decided for themselves what is the true meaning, not subjecting themselves to objective truth and that held in common of believing people.)

In conclusion, we should consider the providence of God. Is the providence of God at work in history limited to keeping alive various textual variations, so that we must invest our energies in attempting to discover which one is right? Or is the providence of God at work in history powerfully resolving all issues, from the Canon (God's people recognised that) all the way to having a right version (God's people likewise should recognise that). Even though Canon was not at one time fully known to the mind of men, it was known to God. We can certainly say the same for having one final and perfect form of the Scripture. It is known to God, it is written in Heaven. But I believe that it is consistent with Scripture and with the providence of God that it should also be revealed and acknowledged on Earth.

Even if the variations of Versions were not enough to fundamentally alter the message of Scripture, it would still alter in details that would, in the mind of God, and the mind of believing examination of these things, affect the infallibility and the final authority of Scripture. In the end, the choice is between: "To err is human" or "The King James Bible is God's providentially appointed perfect form of Scripture for the latter days."

It was wrong for the Pope to proclaim his infallibility or that of the Vulgate, but it is not wrong for the true Church to acknowledge the infallibility of the Spirit of God or the King James Bible. The Spirit of God would not fail to give by providence the Scripture in one final true form.

Since the KJB is sufficient, it does not undermine its sufficiency if it is perfect.

Since the Scripture can have a greater meaning than what is known beforehand, and that it does not prohibit a perfect manifestation, there is no grounds to deny the doctrine of a perfect manifestation of the Scripture.

Since God would reveal the truth, He would not have the truth only sufficiently revealed, nor would men study or seek, and yet not attain to knowledge of the perfect.