A short essay on KJBO beliefs

[bibleprotector]

An anti-King James Bible friend of Rick Norris gave fifteen questions concerning the King James Bible only position. These questions have been answered through the following essay:

1. The KJB translators were working from a wide variety of sources, a mass of evidence and a great corpus of witnesses to do their work.

Their work was to finalise the text and translation of the English Bible, to make “one more exact Translation of the holy Scriptures into the English tongue”.

2. The KJB translators employed their judgment as to what was the text, that is, correct, and what was variant, which they rejected either outright, or put into the margin where there was some “probability” of that rendering being correct, though, in the final analysis, not enough to make that rendering stand as the actual Scripture text.

In employing their judgment (the good hand of the Lord was with them) they were able to (by divine providence) select the correct text, and render it fitly and properly into English.

To utilise many sources, and have multiple people doing so, ensured that the so-called chance for error simply is beside the point. This is because they got it right, and commended readers to check their work to see this, and that they were and have been vindicated in this, because we find that their work was perfect, because it was the work of God (see Deuteronomy 32:3, 4).

3. As the translators themselves stated, whatever was halting, superflous, or not quite shining and polished, that which would be better would be found in their work: thus, in Matthew 23:34, the earlier Protestant English Bibles could well be in these places impure, though not overall. No version of this sort should be disqualified from being called the Word of God because of textual or translational impurities. The point is that these things were eliminated and resolved in 1611.

What we are observing with the seven main Protestant English Bibles from 1525 to 1611 is that of the successive gathering, a purification, a refining. It is the culminationary effect described in Psalm 12.

4. As for Psalm 23:6, or any other verse, the King James Bible gives the Word of God. As such, the Word of God has been translated sense for sense to English. Dean Burgon suggested that the translators were rendering in a way as if the original writers themselves were expressing their words in English. Surely, God who is above all languages is able to have His Word exact in English, and that He promised to turn the Hebrews from their language to another (Isaiah 28:11) pure language (Zephaniah 3:9). Thus, the English Bible is the exact expression of the very concepts that God was communicating originally, and is communicating the same today in His true message by the believing Church Remnant to the world.

5. Even modernising King James Bible editor David Norton states that the words missing in the 1611 Edition of the King James Bible at 2 Timothy 4:13 were due a printer’s mistake. Of course, the preserved Word of God was there in 1611 besides printers’ errors, and to account that God could not preserve His Word because of the poor press work is not worthy to stand, especially since God was able to, through His providential workings, get the King James Bible of 1611 correctly printed as we may observe today. See www.bibleprotector.com

The issue here is that the underlying text, that is, the version, was finalised in 1611, and therefore it is the version which is the preserved Word, not the impurities in the presentation of any particular edition. Likewise, the translation into English is that of the preserved Word, and this also is despite any particular edition. The edition issue is nothing to do with the VERSION and TRANSLATION issue, because every proper edition carries and preserves the same VERSION and TRANSLATION, that is, whether 1611 or 1769.

6. And since editions may differ due to purification, such as the correction of typesetting errors, the standardisation of the language or the regularisation of certain issues, there is never a real alteration of the VERSION or TRANSLATION in the legitimate lineage of editions.

Yes, there was editing, and looking over again, which is the proper kind of revising, but only to fix up press errors or grammatical forms or render consistently the italic typeface or such things only.

Let us not be hasty in claiming that there are no changes in words. Of course hundreds of words were changed: my own number is higher than that presented by Rick Norris. But as we examine closely the types of changes in words, we find that the changes are things like changing the spelling of “bee” to “be”, or the grammatical form of “stript” to “stripped”, and so on, and various things which were printing errors, which would account for so-called adding or deleting words. But this number is far less than 24,000. This high number comes from modern revisionary corruptors. 2,400 is a much closer number.

Clearly, God who has preserved His Word to 1611, was caring enough to preserve the King James Bible, and purify it too. This purifying is evident in the editorial work which took place in the editions like that of 1638: wise, conservative and proper.

7. Since we may point to a perfect English Bible, and an exactly prefect representation of it, it is clear that no other historical Bible or extant manuscript is exactly perfect in regards to typography, text and so on. (On Earth, that is.)

Therefore, there was never a word or even a jot and tittle perfect New Testament in Greek, but only perfection in those individual Autographs when first written. We find that perfection is now manifest in one whole Bible from Genesis to Revelation in English for the world in the latter days.

We now have not only a VERSION and TRANSLATION perfect Bible, but one with the correct edition, not to be altered.

8. Our correct edition today, which comes from Cambridge and has been printed for the major part of the twentieth century, is correct in capital letters.

However, in 1611 the printers, as well as must be only supposed, the translators, were not going to use capital letters so consistently. Also, some cases are clearly typographical errors in 1611 and/or earlier editions, and were corrected relatively soon.

But we may with all assurance, state that the Pure Cambridge Edition is correct in jots and tittles, and that the use of the term “spirit of God” in Exodus 31:3 is referring to something from the Holy Ghost, which is His operation in imparting knowledge, and is a doctrine completely missed in modern versions in their false zeal to “correct” every time the word “spirit” (lower case) is used, thinking that it must mean the proper noun of the Deity, the third part of the Trinity.

One illustration can be given: Joel 2:28 and 29 says that God would “pour out my spirit”, but Peter says, in Acts 2:17, 18, that God would “pour out of my Spirit”. The message is clearly refined here (I am not discussing why there are differences between the NT and the OT here). But the word “of” clearly makes a difference. In fact, careful study on the use of the word “spirit” lowercase would show that the King James Bible, as was printed by Cambridge for the majority of the twentieth century, is completely correct.

Furthermore, the same meaning was there in 1611. The clarification, which is how we can certainly know the right meaning that was intended, is clear to us because of a correct, standardised and regularised presentation. Clearly, the purification was to bring about the manfiestation of exactness in the presentation, that is, to get the edition to be printed in such a way as would completely align with the level of perfection that God was requiring for His Word in English (which Word was already finally presented in 1611, just requiring certain refinements in the presentational side of things in the printing).

9. The word “Spirit” in 1 Kings 22:24 is exactly correct: Zedekiah is talking about the Holy Ghost. He is not referring to an evil spirit. However, in reality, Zedekiah had been prophesying from an evil spirit, and was actually deceived that this was the Holy Spirit. (I could tell you of hundreds of churches where this is happening today.)

10. When it comes to some point where there appears to be a majority of evidence contradicting the King James Bible for a reading or translation, it is not as if there is no evidence for the King James Bible rendering. This is besides the fact that the King James Bible is with a majority of witnesses a majority of the times, in opposition to the versions based upon renderings from two old Codices.

There are several reasons why any particular rendering of the King James Bible which may be accussed of being a “minority” is not actually so. The most major reason is because of the weight of evidence. Also, it is because the Latin tradition does indeed provide valuable witness to authentic readings.

The point is this: nothing was lost from the Autographs, despite any corruptions that have taken place in any manuscript, and despite the scattering: the truth was gathered from a holistic view of very many witnesses, including the Rabbi’s writings and the works coming out of Rome. In various occasions the Rabbis or the Catholics might be found to attest to the truth.

And there should always be witness in the Hebrew for the OT, or in the Greek for the NT, for any reading like 1 John 5:7, or any other question, like Hebrews 10:23.

If a translational issue, certainly the meaning of any particular word can be expressed in English. Just as one word can have different meanings, so is it possible to translate one word multiple ways at different times. This is because the translators were not locked into the identity of phrasing, but free to use words within the bounds of the Spirit, which was (and is) always right.

11. Sometimes, detractors of the King James Bible find ingeniously to use English words to describe the meaning of their claimed original languages or other witnesses, not admitting that their own rendering is as much a translation, and as potentially subjective, as they falsely claim the King James Bible to be.

Moreover, in some points of seeming uncertainty, or where King James Bible advocates may not know all the specifics of the case, they may affirm that since the King James Bible is right in any other place, it must be so in any place of question, and that inquiry should yield such a faith to be vindicated every time.

12. The claims that the Majority Text (a modern construction of the Traditional Text Family) differs from the Textus Receptus (which is presented in multiple differing editions by different editors from different times) is not exactly anything to do with the King James Bible. (Sometimes this area is mere deception because the accuser has engaged in wordplay as to what is the definition of “Majority Text” or “Textus Receptus”, and shifts the timeframe of when the "Textus Receptus" actually first appeared, i.e. limiting it to a particular printing from 1633.)

The truth is that while there were a number of differing gathered Textus Receptus editions, such as multiple differing ones printed by Erasmus, and some by Stephanus, and a number by Beza, the translators of 1611 were in fact gathering out of all the various Textus Receptus editions, as well as considering other sources, to form what Edward Hills called an independent variety of the Textus Receptus. (It is accepted that there is one "Received Text" which is specifically represented by the King James Bible as superior to any particular isolated extant Greek manuscript or gathered or critical edition. There are numerous reasons why the King James Bible is super-successionary to all other Bibles, including the original languages, but this is not to say that the King James Bible created "new" concepts: it is conceptually equal to the Autographs, but superior on prophetical grounds, such as the providential outworking of it in line with Psalm 68:11 or Matthew 24:14.)

In fact, it is plain to the King James Bible only believer that the KJB is the final form of the received text, and that it is the Word of God which has been given for the Church to reach the world in the latter days.

Moreover, the finite action of inspiration can only be attributed to the Autographs, after which the Almighty God ensured that His Word would be preserved in Earth, despite evil and sin being present, and cause the Word of God to be gathered, notably in the various Textus Receptus editions of the Reformation, and in various English Bibles, and all in one final one in 1611. Thus, the Word that is today is inspired, but not that it was still being inspired after the closing of the Canon, but that its quality of having been inspired has endured, preserved by God, see 1 Peter 1:23, 25.

None of these men who have laboured with the Scripture since the Apostle John were inspired, though they were handling the inspired Word of God. Editors did make mistakes. Printers made mistakes. But because of God’s providence, wise believers were able to get it right in 1604-1611, and so we have provided for the world the English Bible, not as though it were made by inspiration in 1604-1611, but that it is the inspired Word given by God, and now manifest at this season for us.

13. To question differences in readings or translations in any place with the express purpose to doubt God’s providence, and to attempt to undermine the truth of the King James Bible becomes a vain and evil exercise. One should ask now, why is the King James Bible right at this place, and while it may be acceptable for people to investigate all kinds of differences, to do so with the proper scholarly foundation of having the King James Bible as infallible is the only way to make any study on the Word now.

This would always be vindicated by God. It is a self-authenticating position because God has given a book which is perfect, and which He is backing up, and showing all kinds of signs in support thereof.

14. The unbeliever starts with no Bible, and yet claims or thinks that he can find truth.

This is the doctrine of the French Revolution: the rights of man. In direct contradiction of John 10:35, these people make themselves gods and reject the Scripture that Christ has supplied.

The unbeliever, who may profess all kinds of Christian things, will yet ascribe to the doctrine that he is the authority, his reason and wit is his guide, and he shall be able to discern truth for himself. This irrational and unreasonable approach (which disguises itself as neutral and scientific) does not lead to the King James Bible as the truth. The same person will admit that he is no god, but subject to error, yet he will think that he can satisfy himself as to what is truth, and he smuggly rejects the King James Bible only position.

This approach keeps a person in error.

But the logic of faith is reasonable (see 2 Thess. 3:2).

Therefore, any accusation of multiple “emendations” in the King James Bible with apparently “no ancient authority” is the symptom of a wrong kind of inquiry, which has no foundation in truth, but is seeking to and fro, ever learning, but never coming to the knowledge of the truth. It will go to the east (Syriack) and to the north (Russia), but never to the truth.

If we were to hear or read every one of these objections, we would find that they would dissolve instantly under the first scrutiny, because the truth of the Scripture itself, and the Spirit who backs it up, should always show to the sincere and honest inquirer that God was right.

15. Finally, we must uphold our English Bible, as our heritage, which has been bequeathed to us by our forefathers in the faith, and continually blessed by the Holy Ghost, that whether any particular rendering in it happens to agree to the Vulgate, we must see that God was so powerful to actually preserve portions of His truth in the antichrist’s own den, and that it is far from the truth to consider that the Latin Vulgate was the only source for some of the readings of the King James Bible. (We find that 1 John 5:7, for example, was in Greek manuscripts.) We should uphold the King James Bible in every line, and live it out as our directive of truth.

In short, the King James Bible is the Word of God, and we have it, exact to the jot and tittle, as God has intended, this very day.