A sound "English Scripture" view

[bibleprotector]

A sound "English Scripture" view by Matthew Verschuur

(This statement has been made in order to explain how I view the authority of the Scripture in English.)

I am looking at three areas of information:
a. the past, that is, a proper view of history,
b. the present, that is, what has providentially been afforded, and
c. the future, according to what Scripture indicates.

When I look at the Hebrew and Greek issue, I think:
a. that there was a full transfer from Hebrew and Greek into English in the past,
b. that we have already sufficient evidence as to the accuracy of the KJB in this regard in many books and articles, and that such studies continuing on today seem to take an imperfection view of the Bible, and
c. that since there should be one pure language, there is no need to keep on checking the originals, etc., but to maintain out of the past the body of ideas which have soundly defended the King James Bible, and is ever against any modernist/unbelieving trends.

I AM NOT SAYING THAT IT IS WRONG TO USE THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGES, BUT THAT WE SHOULD WILLINGLY DEVELOP AN ENGLISH AUTHORITY VIEW.

When I look at the foreign translation issue, I think:
a. that while the Word has been brought out in many translations, the King James Bible was the best,
b. that since English is the global language, and other translations now made do not seem to be able to worth the resources and time, and that they seem to have errors or problems, and
c. that since the world would have one standard and one Gospel, this is a prophecy of the King James Bible.

I AM NOT SAYING THAT IT IS WRONG TO USE FOREIGN TRANSLATIONS, BUT THAT WE SHOULD WILLINGLY DEVELOP AN ENGLISH ONLY VIEW.

When I look at the edition issue, I think:
a. that while the King James Bible has been brought and used in various editions, the Cambridge ones were generally considered the best,
b. that since the Pure Cambridge Edition is demonstrably good, and that there is a subverting of the King James Bible by stealth with continuous variations and unauthorised alterations, it is better to have one, and
c. that the Scripture lays out that there must be jot and tittle accuracy of the pure Word, and the very specific factors of purity of the words of the book.

I AM NOT SAYING THAT IT IS WRONG TO USE OTHER EDITIONS, BUT THAT WE SHOULD WILLINGLY DEVELOP A PURE EDITION ONLY VIEW.

It is exactly like the situation with the Geneva Version. It was not instantly dropped. People still owned them. People still had memorised them. Some people just liked things the way they were. But over all, things worked out that eventually there was a full adherence to the King James Bible.

Now, I very well know how much it might seem like a challenge, or how it might seem objectionable, or how saying these types of things could appear to be counter what has been. Yes, I know that some could mistake my convictions, or suspect ulterior motives (though I protest that I am acting in the best interests and good for all). What I am not advocating is:
a. destroying or abandoning good traditions,
b. acting counter to the conscience of any true believer, or forcing something upon them, or
c. departing from Scripture through private interpretations or relying upon merely carnal means of attainment (like Ishmael).