introducing Bible Protector

[bibleprotector]

BP, You agree that there are other translations/manuscripts that are worthwhile,

No I didn't. Relative to myself, no version or translation is worthwhile, but the KJB. Relative to a South American, a Spanish translation is the best they might have at present. Relative to someone living in 1610, the Geneva Version might be the best they had. And if you lived in 500 and spoke Latin, there is no reason why you shouldn't use the insular manuscripts available to you.

What is worthwhile for transmission and what is worthwhile for current and future use are two different things. I believe that for more and more people today, only the KJB is worthwhile because it, after all, has the perfect wording and perfect meaning in English. It is, I think, designed specifically to be the standard or ensign for all nations.

well then, which one/s would you recommend, and why?
(again, besides the NKJV)

I don't even recommend the NKJV. In fact, I think you are attempting to play a game, because I specifically said that I only recommend the KJB. From a spiritual perspective it is not merely my recommendation, I think there is a divine commandment for it. However, that, I say, is a matter of conscience.

[bibleprotector]

Bibleprotector,

You said, "First, I don't believe that the KJB is the one true version of God's Word, I believe it is the best translation and completely accurate to what was originally inspired."

Then you said, "The KJB contains 100% God's words and message, and is 100% God's true Word."

I am not trying to trap you in your words - it is possible that I am misunderstanding you. Could you clarify this seeming discrepancy for me?

God's Word is true.

The KJB is a set of words (a version) and a translation of God's Word, which is true.

These are two different things. God's Word being true is a reality. The KJB being true is in regards to its textual choices and translation, which has only existed as an entity since 1611. The KJB represents God's Word, as in, it is called God's Word, but, God's Word has not been limited to the truthful form of the KJB.

Where other forms present the Word of God today, they are not exactly true in their textual choices, nor in their translation, but still God's Word in general might be there.

However, when the principle of corruption, or the principle of rejection of the KJB is a factor (i.e. modern versions) then that nature or state beings to outweigh its proximity to the Word of God, as might be measured by comparing it to the KJB. This means that the NKJV is in fact to be regarded as grossly corrupt, despite the fact that it is quite near or like the KJB.

One hates to say what one really thinks of the spiritual nature of such works, for the risk of offending delicate and unstrong Christian minds who may think to like the NKJV, NASV, NIV, ESV, etc.

From about the first page or two of this thread, I have had a sense that your theology is Anglocentric.

Not quite: but in examining divine providence, and observing the advance of the Gospel to this hour, it is clear that the work of God has been Anglo-favoured.

You see the great power and significance of the english speaking "empire" and the way that the english language has grown and you have come to think that God must have chosen us (english speaking Christians), in a manner similiar to the way He chose Israel in the OT.

Not quite: God's favour to using the children of Japheth is foretold in the time of Noah. Even today, it is obvious that the Gospel had a stronghold in the British Isles, and that the Jewish people have been most helped by the British Empire and the Americans. The spread of the English language is not only a result of right past choices, but a design for future world evangelisation. In Christ, one's natural heritage is of no factor. However, this is not to ignore the Great Commission which expressly speaks of converting nations, and implies that God would use nations for His purposes, i.e. the sheep nations.

And then, we go looking for evidence of it under every rock (or verse as the case may be). If your understanding of the meaning of the verses you use as proof are accurate, then I would ay you have a valid argument. Trouble is, no matter which version I read, I don't see those verses as saying what you think they do. If we are indeed approaching the latter days, then it seems likely that the english language would not become a dead language like Latin or Hebrew.

This is the providential argument: English is becoming global because it is God's will so that people who know the Gospel can preach it to the world.

However, if human history is to continue for centuries or millenia, it is entirely possible that english is not the "pure" language you think it is.

1. English not a pure language, the KJB's language is pure.

2. The reality that English is widely spoken allows access for the nations to the pure English language (i.e. read and hear the Bible).

3. To claim that the earth is to continue on is exactly the unbelief prophesied of in 2 Peter, which indicates an evolutionary, chaotic, haphazard and chance view of the world. Like, English is just changing by "natural forces", God is not in control, and the Church will probably be extinct soon.

You seem to see references in the bible as signifying that the KJV was destined by God to be the one translation that could unify believers around the world.

Yes, but there is more, there is a great latter days outpouring of the Spirit prophesied of. It is not merely having "the KJB" that is some major factor. Everyone could have that book downloaded or sitting on a shelf, but that is not in itself enough.

I see those scriptures differently than you, even when I read the KJV. The purpose of my questions was to establish whether you would reject the views of partial preterists who see one of your favourite passages (Zephaniah 3) as being secondarily fulfilled in the church age.

It is not partial preterism that is the issue here, but that there is a false idea that says that their interpretation is mutually exclusive. That is, there is a higher paradigm of interpretation than the narrow confines of partial preterism, and more particularly, above the hermeneutic method by which might limit the meaning and fulfilment of Scripture.

If Zephaniah is not prophecying about the "latter days" but rather, the current age of the church, then how could you be so certain that another culture and their language would not rise up and the english language fade away into obscurity?

The question does not make sense. Zephaniah is prophesying about the latter days. And the current age of the Church went from Preterist times to now to the future. We are in the latter days, but not yet seeing the final part of it.

As for being certain about why something else is not being raised up, it is evident on two grounds: Providence and that reality is not perennial. Providence is showing that we are living in the time of increase, where English is becoming global, therefore nothing can displace it. As for the future, you seem to have no framework for the general confines or mechanisations of time. We simply cannot have added on unforeseen events, when the Scripture indicates when and where things are to occur, which I might lay out briefly that the events concerning Syria, Egypt, Russia, the Jews and so on in this present time appear not long to fulfil, and that the period of the following latter day glory cannot be of too great length, lest we accomplish converting all nations before the return of Christ. While it is impossible to say when Christ will return, it is possible to be able to see the upcoming events and how much the world is moving toward them. Therefore, the fulfilment of Zephaniah is fairly imminent.

Empires and languages have indeed risen and fallen, according to the humility and faithfulness (or lack thereof) of their citizens. I would suggest that this could (and likely will) happen again if the western world does not change their ways. In the coming decades, we may find that the dominant economy on the planet is Chinese. I suspect that the language would follow likewise. What then? Is there anything in scripture that suggests that another perfect(er) translation will come about? Written in Chinese?

Your speculative view about the Chinese has little credence based on the Bible, except that I expect one day when the Jews are strong Christians, they will have good success with converting plenty of Chinese. I expect that the Gospel can already have a major impact in places like that in the near future, and I expect that Sth America, East Asia and so on are harvest fields.

[steve7150]

You know BP the Pilgrims brought with them to America the 1599 Geneva bible instead of the KJB 1611. Were they confused or ill informed?

[SteveF]

You know BP the Pilgrims brought with them to America the 1599 Geneva bible instead of the KJB 1611. Were they confused or ill informed?

The Geneva Bible was the Bible of choice for almost all Christians over the KJV early in the 17th century. When the KJV was first released it barely made a whimper. Largely the Christians who preferred the Geneva Bible saw the KJV as being too closely linked with the Church of England and the King. Hence, they didn’t trust it.

In order to ensure the KJV would be the official Bible of the Church it was ordered to be the only Bible allowed to be read in the Churches (Hence the term Authorized Version) and the Geneva Bible was banned from being printed.

After the Thirty Year War between Protestants and Catholics in the 17th century Christians warmed to the idea of a Bible (the KJV) that was composed with compromise between the different Christian groups. They were tired of religious war.

Anyone who still had a Geneva Bible still preferred to use if for personal reading. Since there were no printing presses available to print it the Geneva Bible was slowly replaced by the KJV almost entirely as old copies of the Geneva Bibles wore out.

[bibleprotector]

You know BP the Pilgrims brought with them to America the 1599 Geneva bible instead of the KJB 1611. Were they confused or ill informed?

And in time, the Puritans used the KJB.

[Priestly1]

Wow!!
Hi Steve et all!
Your first remark to BP, Steve, had me in convulsions laughing!!!!! I swear by all that I deem Sacred that I did not invite Matthew Verschuur aka Bible Protector to this Courtyard or any other. I once thought I might see if you n he would like to debate KJVOism on air....but I do not wish to give him anymore exposure to the world than he already has. He is like invasive Bamboo that asks for donations on his Website. He claims to be an expert on all things 1611 Authorized Version, as well as prior and later English Versions. He has been on many internet forums and in many Facebook Groups....and is in many of mine. As you know me, you know he and I are like oil and water. But as you all can see, he does cause much discussion. I did mention You, Your Radio Shows and our friendship - as well as agreements and disagreements. I am not shocked he joined here really - he digs the attention.

Congrats on your new marriage, and blessings upon you are your new Bride.

In Christ,

Rev. Ken Huffman

PS
Ask BP what the name of the Christian Institution of Higher Education he states he attended and graduated from in Australia. He absolutely hates that!!! LOL!!

We keep telling him that the reason that I and others want him to disclose the name of the Christian Institution he did or did not attend, is not to puff ourselves up as better educated than he is, which is a false charge...a red herring....but we want verification of his claims because all he has stated makes us curious. In point of fact, it is no different from asking: Where did you get that information? BP publicly publishes on his own website, where he asks for and receives income, that he is Christian College Trained....there is a calculated reason for this published claim. We want to know what is the name of the Institution. He made the claim and it is his obligation to validate that claim or it can be dismissed as puffery at best or deception at worst.

His only reply to our desire to know what the Institution's Name and Location is a litany of disingenuous self deprecation of his educational efforts, the institution itself and a general dismissal of higher Christian Education with a classical anti-intellectualism argument...another canard used by those who have either chosen not to accept some form of further educate or who just hate challenging their minds and their "god in a box" system of assumptions."
1. He is openly critical of all other English Translations of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures - Yet has no knowledge of these ancient languages personally. He even dismisses them as unnecessary since we have the Inspire 1611 Authorized Version. He is critical of other Translators - Yet has no ability to Translate. The very subjects he claims expertise in he fails to even show a working grasp of the elemental and historic facts of.
2. He claims that the Anglican Church's Textual Revision and Translation Committee, when Hebrew and Greek Scholarship in Western Europe was in it's infancy, was the best in the world and better than any since - yet he has shown the absolute lack of logical deduction and evidence for such a bold and baseless claim (As the Committee itself rejects this notion in it's Preface and Dedication).
3. He claims to proclaim Historical Protestantism in it's Purity - Yet his beliefs are eclectic at best and many are well outside the Tenets and Practices of THE SCHOLARS WHO ESTABLISHED THE PROTESTANT REFORMATION IN THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE OF THE GERMAN PEOPLE, HOLLAND, LUXEMBOURG, BOHEMIA, ENGLAND, SCOTLAND, WALES, NORTHERN IRELAND, FRANCE, SWITZERLAND, DENMARK, NORWAY, SWEDEN, FINLAND AND ICELAND.

[Priestly1]

Just what is the difference between the Medieval Catholic Church's claim that the Latin Vulgate was the best, most pure and perfect Translation of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures because it came from the best, most pure and perfect Manuscript Evidence and that of the present KJVO position about the Church of England's 1611 English Version? Both claim the same things for their Translation. Both prohibit their Translations to be produced in the common and up to date language of the English Speaking World. So, would you not say that the KJVO are Crypto-Papists in this sense? I do.
In print, In recordings, In videos and live behind pulpits the KJVOists burn at the stake all those apostates and infidels who would dare make Modern English Versions, as well as all who espouse and use them. Yet some say it is not a matter of Salvation, but if that be the case why even establish a Movement with such fever and personal investment? They even have been "Translating" the redacted and standardized 1769 Edition of the Authorized Version into Foreign Languages as if it were the perfect autographs!!!!!!!!! Each group does so in accordance to it's own theological and sectarian opinions....yet they all hate "The Living Bible" because it is not a Translation but one Presbyterian Minister's personal paraphrase of their Sacred 1611 KJV!!!! How is that for cognitive dissonance!!! Oh, Well....it is a dark Jack Chick world for them.

[Candlepower]

I was listening to a Narrow Path radio program from the past, and Steve Gregg was discussing with a caller criticism of Moses’ authorship of the Pentateuch. During that call, he made the following comment:

There’s a funny thing about evidence. Once you’ve decided what you want to believe, evidence can often be made to support it…those arguments presuppose something that doesn’t need to be presupposed. Once you presuppose...,then you can come up with these theories and try to make them look good. And they can look good to a certain degree once you’re looking through a certain lens. But the question is, why look through that lens?

I think this statement applies to the KJVO theory as well. Some years ago, someone decided what he wanted to believe, and KJVO was hatched. This presupposition became the “lens” through which its advocates sought Scriptural and historical evidence to support their presupposition. The Book, you might say, was cooked by means of KJVO eisegesis. The result has been that KJVO followers, because they read Scripture and history through the KJVO lens, think their theory looks good. But I don't think it looks good, because (exegetically speaking) I see that it lacks actual Scriptural support. In fact, it has none.

It’s not surprising that someone who has fallen for Darby’s Dispensational dream would also fall for the KJVO presupposition. Both KJVOism and Dispesationalism rest on the thin ice of their prejudicial eisegesis (“The process of interpreting a text in such a way that it introduces one's own presuppositions, agendas, and/or biases into and onto the text”). The Dispensational system is a cluster of half-baked hypotheses devised and popularized in the early 1800’s primarily by John Darby. It has become the distorted lens which warps most evangelical Christians’ view of the future. But careful Christians overcame such aberrations in the past, they are doing it today, and they will in the future.

That aberrant teachings have arisen throughout Church history is disappointing, but it’s more disappointing that so many people have believed them. This happens because too many Christians are insufficiently familiar with Scripture and are prone to sensationalism. They are, therefore, at great risk for falling victim to bizarre, man-made doctrines that pass for the real thing.

Brother BP, I intend for this posting to be my last on this thread. I have read all of your posts, and by your own words you have proven you are teaching for doctrine the commandments of men. In the light of Scripture, your arguments are not at all compelling; they are balderdash. There’s no sense beating a dead horse, and you have certainly shown me, again and again, that KJVO is such a nag.

And I do love the KJV.

[SteveF]

Priestly1 wrote

when Hebrew and Greek Scholarship in Western Europe was in it's infancy

I’ve heard the KJV translators needed to rely on the Latin Vulgate at times to try and understand what a Greek word meant. This would make sense since they would have encountered words that only appeared in the Bible, sometimes only once, with no other reference point. We’ve since found extra-Biblical documents containing some of those words which have shed light on what those Greek words meant. Scholars understanding of ancient Greek grammar has improved as well.

[bibleprotector]

I’ve heard the KJV translators needed to rely on the Latin Vulgate at times to try and understand what a Greek word meant.

Sure.

We’ve since found extra-Biblical documents containing some of those words which have shed light on what those Greek words meant. Scholars understanding of ancient Greek grammar has improved as well.

You are therefore arguing that the Church has not really had the Bible properly for many hundreds of years, and that modern scholarship is essentially raised up of God. Why is it that the same modern scholarship was pioneered and promoted by people who do not actually believe the Bible? The higher critics were unbelievers. And you have the leading Nazi scholar on your side too.