introducing Bible Protector

[bibleprotector]

So God had to speed up the recovery of His Word? Then it was lost, according to 'you'.

It wasn't lost, it was scattered, and the KJB finished the gathering. Whereas modern versions never achieve such a thing because modern textual criticism prohibits it.

Making a story? What story? We have extant manuscripts, even complete Bibles, and we can look at them. You are making up that the KJB is the Only one, we believe God’s Word is preserved in the manuscripts He has kept, just as he said He would. Where as God has never said ‘anything’ about King James.

The story is being made about the few old Alexandrian MSS that they are somehow more accurate, and that what we have had for approx. 1500 years is inaccurate. Whereas, God's preservation has been at work since inspiration, and the modern versionists have attempted to thwart it by new theories of transmission which undermine/neglect/reject the tradition which led to the KJB.

We can and have resolved it. It is you who do not seem to be able to accept the resolve based on evidence or what is evident.

But you have not. There are new "discoveries" being made all the time. There are new critical texts being made every few years, which differ in wording. There are new modern translations being made all the time. The overwhelming evidence is that modern textual criticism and modern versions have not resolved anything, because they can never come to a perfect text or a perfect translation, because their belief system prohibits such an accomplishment.

Your claim is pure fabrication, there is no mention in scripture of One such a translation.

When the Scripture refers to itself, it refers to itself as true and without stating that there is any textual variant, or different translation. The apostle Paul never writes that "a better translation from Hebrew might be ..." or, "I know it says A but it really meant B". He only does this in an interpretative/prophetic mode, not in the grammatical-historic or critical-historic hermeneutic method of modern scholarship. Modern scholarship also rejects the Biblical way of interpreting, for example:

1Co 9:9 For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?
1Co 9:10 Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.

The modernist will say that this Scripture was only true to ancient Israel. It will disconnect any real meaning or application to the Christian Church afterward. They do the same everywhere, so they will say that Psalm 91 could only be taken by the Psalmist himself or the Messiah, not us today, etc. etc.

Further, modernism has a wooden, slavish approach to the Scripture. If it states one thing in one place, it will go to Hebrew or Greek, and look at how that word is used in another place. It will not consider that there are nuances which demand a different English word, but will attempt to impose a strict and rigid uniformity.

Moreover, because of their hypothetical view of the past, when Paul says "servant", they will say, "people had slaves in those days, therefore that word must be 'slave'". Notice that continually modernism is a present day imposition of a moderistic, unbelieving bias-filter onto the past, rather than the reception of lively words into the present.

This also is manifest in their entire paradigm of the reception of Scripture. Man, they say, is fallible and corrupt (as if God has had no hand in history), and since all copies of the scripture today exhibit variations, the modern scholar must go back to the earliest copies and to the same language. This, they thing, will minimise (though not eliminate) error. What is their overarching belief? That error prevails and that human endeavour may to some degree counter this prevailing error, though never fully succeed.

A true Bible believer knows God is in control, not merely the carnal mechanism of entropy in the universe.

[bibleprotector]

So your saying that ‘what God meant by preserving His Word forever’ was by having the originals kept forever?

Where did I say that? I believe that every copy is a part of preservation, and that there has been adequate and sufficient copies, despite corruption.

The point is that from that collective of disagreeing, imperfect copies, the truth in English (as matching the originals) could be recovered.

God could not have meant originals being kept, and copies are never perfect, so your conclusion is that God only meant that in 1600 years He would reproduce One perfect version.

The content of the originals was kept, not the Autographs. The content of the originals was scattered throughout a plethora of disagreeing, imperfect copies.

But it is your view that copies can never be perfect. Whereas the Reformation view was that there was a gathering from the imperfect copies, and that by Providence the proper wording was recovered. Thus, while God in His grace had sufficient copies for His people (e.g. Greek, Latin, etc.), and in the Reformation translations, likewise, but that by the spiritual laws and according to the outworking of His will in time, there was one exemplar which would be the one Bible for all.

The KJBO view says God has not been doing this all along, He only did it once, and that he can’t do it anymore.

Wrong. God worked toward the KJB, and with the KJB. It is the nations which are learning English for that reason.

we are free to examine all the oldest and available texts.

It is known that the oldest extant manuscripts from the Egyptian area (which were not accessible to us really until the internet made them accessible, i.e. many hundreds of years) are the most varying and corrupted of all. Why would God suddenly have us turn to these old scraps and locked-away copies, when they are far from perfect, and are varying substantially to what has been handed down through the Church through the years?

The argument for "freedom" to go and look at a few very old unreadable copies is not found in the Scripture. The Bible indicates that the truth has come to us in the possession of his people, in the language of the nations.

[bibleprotector]

Your hypothesis ‘insists’ this sort of thing ‘should have happened' when the scribes wrote, in-order to 'prevent' variant texts.

Wrong. The Bible speaks about scattering and gathering. We know full well that scribes made mistakes when copying. The problem is that you uplift their mistakes as though they can never be fully corrected, whereas the providential view is that God was able through the Reformation to bring things together into one standard Bible.

Variant texts ‘do’ happen, and ‘you’ have a problem with that, not us as it can be resolved because of the abundance of texts.

It is the modernist that has the problem with the variations. The KJB view is that such things have been resolved in the great gathering of the Reformation. Whereas the modern versionist can NEVER resolve variations, even with an abundance of texts. They seek abundance because they think that by numbers (human reasoning) they will be able to create a majority or find what they think is best attested to. Such a task is not near complete, and will never be completed by them, because they are

2Ti 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

No, you believe the truth ‘was’ lost, we believe the truth was ‘never’ lost.

Really? Then why do those who uphold the KJB believe the words are recovered and fully known, yet modern versionists are seeking more manuscripts, more studies, and making more versions, because they are never able to arrive? Every few years new critical texts are made because they do believe that to some degree the words of God are lost, at least, lost in the mix, and that is why they say (this is a well known fact) that the Bible is about 98% accurate and that no major doctrine is affected. 98%! Where is that 2% if not lost?

The only solution is the King James Bible, being upheld as fully accurate, and discovering that everything, including a myriad of Bible verses, are pointing to it, and to its prevailing in time.

We do ‘not’ believe the message was changed, because we ‘can’ look back to the earliest copies.

Except that the message changes with every new translation, and that it was only until the modern era that the "earliest copies" were used to undermine and alter what had stood in the Latin, Greek and Reformation traditions for years. And while perhaps no major parts of the message has changed, we find all kinds of changes in the modern texts, such as omitting statements to the blood of Christ, or to the members of the Trinity, etc. etc. There are plenty of lists of what is changed in modern versions. You only need to read the footnotes and other critical notes in the NIV to see verses and parts of chapters chopped out. So the message really has changed to some degree.

And this is because the early manuscripts being looked at are the ones altered by early heretics. They are conforming their ever changing modern versions to the unreliable basis of recently discovered old copies which differ markedly from each other and from the vast majority of manuscripts which came though the Church history (both in Latin and the Reformation).

To read Jesus words, and believe, is not a Gospel approach???

1. To read Jesus' words uncorrupted is the Gospel approach.

2. No where did He say that His truth was locked in Greek.

3. No where did He imply that His truth was locked in a few old copies that 21st century man would be able to finally unlock, though not fully, for scholars are still bring forth doubts and disputing with each others' hypotheses.

Are all the thousands of extant manuscripts to be ignored, given no credence, and all are inconsistent’ with your claim.

The Word of God is not locked in Hebrew, Greek or Latin. You continually point to a few early manuscripts, and downplay the majority of later Greek manuscripts, but you still uphold Greek over English. We speak English, the nations are not going to be evangelised with Greek.

it’s promises fulfilled and every bit of evidence to prove it has stood through time.

Yet you cannot point to a perfect version of it in Greek, nor to a perfect translation into English. Not only do you reject the idea of a perfect translation, you know full well that modernists think that the Greek text of the NT cannot be fully, finally, exactly resolved.

[steve7150]

My vote is for the Geneva 1599 bible since it was authorized by the reformers, not the government. Call me crazy but it strikes me as ironic to pick a government authorized bible as God's perfect word. Of course since i'm a leftist (according to BP) maybe i should go for the government authorized bible.

[jriccitelli]

Yet you cannot point to a perfect version of it in Greek, nor to a perfect translation into English. Not only do you reject the idea of a perfect translation, you know full well that modernists think that the Greek text of the NT cannot be fully, finally, exactly resolved.

Anyone 'could' point to their favorite version and 'say' it is perfect, but most people know better.

(Like 7150 is pointing out)

Anybody could pick ‘any’ bible version and claim it is the One perfect version!
Don’t you see that?

The scriptures you quote could apply to ‘any’ number of translations.
But most people are sensible enough to see the futility of such an argument.
Your arguments still seem to be because the reformation makes it so.
Or for numerous reasons God has chosen the English language.
(your continual testifying that it is so - is not a reason)
Still arguments like these are subjective, not in scripture, vague, and still could be arguments for 'other' versions.
God never promised anything about any specific translation, or that any specific 'one' would be 'perfect'.
God 'knew' scribes make mistakes, everyone knew this, this is no-surprise, thus we didn’t expect His promise of His enduring word to mean we wouldn’t be allowed to compare copies. God does tell us to be wise, discerning and careful.

All your arguments depend on the King James being the One perfect version, but since there is no proof, all your reasoning is pointless.

(Without ‘any’ proof, your claim is completely disrespectful of all other manuscripts, translations and Bibles, and completely disrespectful of all intellectual inquiry and sensibility. This pursuit of yours belittles and puts down all other translations, to justify the one)

[bibleprotector]

Anybody could pick ‘any’ bible version and claim it is the One perfect version!

They could, but there is a difference between objective reality and subjective opinion. Your subjective opinion is that my view of objective reality is merely subjective opinion.

The problem is that you don't have the mechanism to allow you to believe in a perfect Bible because you already have the modus operandi, i.e. a pre-fabricated framework, that says that no such thing is possible. By not approaching the Scripture "as is", you turn to a method of divining what scripture is first (i.e. intelligence first: man must look to the oldest manuscripts, decide what the words are, and what they mean, before we interpret/apply), and by having that a priori doctrine that God is not outworking toward perfection, of course, all you see is the imperfect KJB, imperfect old copies, scholars with subjective (but "reasonable") opinions, and subjective wishful-thinkavists who say the KJB is right.

Don’t you see that?

The scriptures you quote could apply to ‘any’ number of translations.

It is like saying that any prophet sent by God might match the criteria for the one looked for, but there is only one, Jesus Christ, and in this analogy, I am afraid that you have settled for other insurrectionists (because, after all, none is perfect, so what are a few murders of Roman soldiers).

But most people are sensible enough to see the futility of such an argument.

With their spiritual eyes open, they will see how futile modern textual criticism and the continual release of new modern versions is. They are never achieving perfection, but have a newspaper's lifetime.

Your arguments still seem to be because the reformation makes it so.

That is part of a providential argument. Of course, starting from the Scripture itself, what it actually says, is the actual basis of the whole thing.

God never promised anything about any specific translation, or that any specific 'one' would be 'perfect'.

Yet, He said His words should be made known to the nations and obeyed. Jesus also said that we needed to observe His commandments. This is not possible if there is no real Word, or resolution as to what exactly His words are.

While Christianity has done well with imperfect translations, there is every indicator, both in the implication of the teaching of various passages, and the direct symbolism of sound interpretation of Revelation, that there is to be a singular exemplar Biblical standard.

God 'knew' scribes make mistakes, everyone knew this, this is no-surprise, thus we didn’t expect His promise of His enduring word to mean we wouldn’t be allowed to compare copies.

This is the same argument that God knew antichrists would arise, everyone knew this, so... do we expect the promise of His enduring people to mean that somehow we are disallowed from having exactly correct doctrine?

Making the argument for "God knew scribes make mistakes" is an argument for God's will FOR sin, error and corruption. It is argument for God's weakness and inability to show Himself properly.

In reality, because of the spiritual law of scattering and gathering, while God knew about scribal errors, He also knew (i.e. planned, willed and outworked providentially) the gathering together and resolving of such errors.

Your view is that humans must compare together extant manuscripts in order to better, though never finally, arrive at an exact true word perfect Bible.

My view is that God has outworked through His Church the delivery of sufficiency, and that because of the law of gathering, we have already arrived at the exact true word perfect Bible.

Your carnal human "reality" of man being unable to translate properly, or things only really discoverable by the collection of much information in modern times, is a slight and slur on the Christian Church and the Spirit of God through the centuries.

God does tell us to be wise, discerning and careful.

He meant to use human reasoning in SUBJECTION to the Scripture, not the reverse.

All your arguments depend on the King James being the One perfect version, but since there is no proof, all your reasoning is pointless.

It is as self-authenticating as to argue that God is God because He is God. It's a valid argument, and it stands up to internal integrity and proper external spiritual reasoning.

The logic you apply to reject the perfection of the King James Bible is exactly the same as why a Christian would not believe in a literal six day young earth creation, and really, your rationalistic approach does not actually need any place for God in this universe. Think about it, if you are looking at old manuscripts to recover as best as possible what the Scripture says, you don't need a role for God. It is only one more step to say that God didn't inspire the original autographs in the first place.

This pursuit of yours belittles and puts down all other translations, to justify the one)

I wonder if loving one person belittles and puts down all others, or perhaps you are identifying the real spiritual struggle here, that really (I suspect), it is all about putting down that one as a greater cause than accepting anything else. I have seen it elsewhere in debates on the Bible version issue, that some will go to extraordinary and uncharitable lengths because of their hatred of the one as their overriding consideration.

[Jepne]

I have not been following this thread except to listen to my husband discussing some of the arguments. In the church we go to they always read from the King James but I have to follow with a different translation - I never could understand the King James English.

I was reading the preface to N.T. Wright's translation,

('look inside' his translation on Amazon - http://www.amazon.com/The-Kingdom-New-T ... 0062064924 )

and he said that each generation should translate the Bible – “just as Jesus taught us to pray for our daily bread . . . we can never simply live on yesterday's bread, on the translations and interpretations of previous generations.” We learn from those who have gone before us, but ''living faith requires that we do business with God for ourselves. . . to think things through, to struggle and pray and try things out. . . And a new translation. . . is a key tool for that larger task.” And this from a man who has looked very deeply into the issues of the faith.

So, carry on; that's all I have to say. But I will check back to see if there are any responses to this.

[Priestly1]

Here is a post on My Facebook Group :Comprehensive Discussion on all Bible Versions. It has been five days and still no salient response, refutation etc. As you all can see William Verschuur aka Bible Protector, Selector, Detractor and Defector self contradicts like the old Monty Python Skit. He makes claims and accusation, but seeks to shift the burden of proof to those who present problems to his ideology. He makes the claims, accusations, commentaries and observations and it is his burden to validate such blather with proof. He uses every fallacious argument and non sequitur known to man...even inventing terminologies, new definitions and revision of history. In fact he reject education in the original tongues and is well known for prophesying the eventual dominion of Anglo-Saxon Language, Culture and Word of Faith Pentecostalism with his revealed 1900 Edition PCE Bible. Discussing the difference between Original texts and Languages and Foreign Language Approximations is like talking about stellar travel to a kids fixated on buck rogers. I am so done with him and his evasions...so here is my Post:

KJVBO-KJVO HYPOCRISY AND INCONSISTENT ARGUMENTATION

"In view of the inevitable accumulation of such errors over so many centuries, it may be thought that the original texts of the New Testament documents have been corrupted beyond restoration. Some writers, indeed, insist on the likelihood of this to such a degree that one sometimes suspects they would be glad if it were so. But they are mistaken. There is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testament." F.F. Bruce

Given the doctrinal stability of the Biblical Manuscripts, the variants amongst them all present only a minor problem for most serious students. However, for King James Only advocates, who believe that God must have preserved his Word in absolutely perfect form from Autographs to KJV Publishers if he were to preserve it at all, the variants present an obstacle that cannot be overcome.

FALSE PRESUPPOSITIONS AND DEFINITIONS

King James Only defenders have two false presuppositions behind their belief that there must exist an absolutely perfect copy of the Bible upon the earth. The first false presupposition has three main assertions:

1) God has promised a perfect transmission of the written works of His inspired Prophets, Apostles, Evangelists and Chroniclers.
2) A copy of these written works with any scribal blemishes cannot be trusted at all.
3) The English Text of the Church of England's 1611 Bible is the inerrant and the complete fulfillment of God's promise of a perfect transmission of the written works of His inspired Prophets, Apostles, Evangelists and Chroniclers.

"Those saying no one has a perfect Bible are really saying that God left us without His preserved Word. The only group claiming to have the perfect Word of God is the King James Version believers. God has not given us the Bible, unless we have it in the King James Version. The other versions are different, and things that are different are not the same. If they are not the same, one is right and the others are wrong; or all are wrong, and God failed to keep His promise." Mickey Carter

"God gave promise concerning His Word that He would preserve it perfectly." Lloyd Streeter

FACT: There is no promise to preserve the written works of His inspired Prophets, Apostles, Evangelists and Chroniclers in which God has defined the exact method, form or location of such preservation. He has not guaranteed that scribal or printed copies precise in every detail would always exist upon earth. It is not the Holy Scriptures, but King James Only advocates have dictated how God must fulfill His promise. The Holy Scriptures do not identify one particular manuscript, text type, text version, or foreign translation as the one and only perfect Bible. Anyone who chooses to call the KJV the one and only perfect Bible does so without any instructions from the God Himself or the Holy Scriptures about how to make his decision.

The second false presupposition behind the belief that God must always preserve a perfect copy of his Word upon the earth, namely that a copy of the Bible is of no value unless it is perfect in every detail.

"If there are errors in the Bible then you can not trust anything that it says because you will not know what is error and what is truth, (Streeter, p. 259).

Here Streeter uses a fallacious argument known as a straw man. His opponents are not claiming that errors exist in the Scriptures as originally written, but only in the subsequent copies. It is a favorite ploy of those who believe in a perfect KJV to accuse all who disagree with them of believing that there are errors in the Scriptures, instead of errors in the copies upon which a translation is based.

In fairness they should accurately state that their opponents believe that the biblical writers made no errors and that God has preserved his Word such that it is sufficient for all practical matters of Faith, Morals and Practices. The blemishes contained in extant copies do not overthrow the Scripture’s essential and fundamental trustworthiness. How can believers know that the Scriptures are trustworthy if errors have occurred in transmission? They can know it by informed faith, and a faith which is consistent with the observable empirical facts. There is no need to play word games to make preservation into something that it plainly is not. History does not need to be falsified in defense of an indefensible theory.

Is Streeter’s idea valid that anything, including a hand copy or printed translation of the Scriptures, which cannot be trusted in every detail cannot be trusted at all? He surely would not claim that his King James Only book is free from all error. Does this mean that nothing in his book can be trusted since we do not know what is error and what is truth? While Streeter’s book cannot be trusted at all, it is not because of a few scattered errors. The book is filled with them from start to finish. Does Streeter claim inerrancy in his sermons? Do the mistakes that he certainly makes discredit all else that he says? Does he inform his congregation that they should not trust anything that he says because he does make errors? Does anyone really believe that if a book cannot be trusted in every detail, it cannot be trusted at all? And there is no need here to say that the Bible should not be compared to sermons or to merely human books. This discussion concerns the impact of generally minor errors in copying, not the quality of the original document. This argument can be taken much further, however. In Ezekiel 24:7, either the KJV of 1611 or the current KJV is in error:

For her blood is in the midst of her; she set it upon the top of a rock; she poured it upon the ground, to cover it with dust; (Ezekiel 24:7, KJV of 1611, spelling modernized)

Versus

For her blood is in the midst of her; she set it upon the top of a rock; she poured it not upon the ground, to cover it with dust; (Ezekiel 24:7, current KJV, emphasis added)

One of these two King James Bibles must be corrupt: She either did or did not pour “it” (her blood) upon the ground. According to Streeter’s reasoning, we cannot trust anything that one of the two says. So which one is faulty? Is the KJV of 1611 totally untrustworthy or is the current edition totally untrustworthy? Streeter would no doubt claim this as a printing error in the 1611. Perhaps. Everyone agrees that there were many printing errors in both printings done in 1611, but the documents from which the printers worked no longer exist, which simply means there is no way to infallibly identify such errors. They can be discerned and corrected only by human reason and the Hebrew Text, not by documentation from the original copies. In their theoretical impact, printing errors are no different than errors made by copyists. Errors are errors. For those who seek to defend the KJV as a perfect Bible, what difference does it make how the errors arose? It must be that the KJV printed in 1611 was an imperfect Bible, or that the KJV as printed today is an imperfect Bible, or that they both are imperfect Bibles.

The Bible teaches that the biblical authors were inspired. Those who made copies down through the ages were preserved from making errors such as would alter the fundamental character of Scripture. The copies and translations that exist today faithfully teach what Christians are to believe and how they are to live. If God has preserved the Scriptures with a degree of accuracy sufficient for all practical issues of theology and Christian living, the people of God have no right to question his wisdom.

Preserved or Restored?

In one of many inconsistencies, defenders of a perfect KJV almost uniformly argue for a doctrine of infallible preservation, while frequently presenting material in support of a doctrine of perfect restoration. They do not appear to perceive the inherent contradiction in these mutually exclusive concepts. If they argue for perfect preservation, they cannot account for the variants in the majority manuscripts and in the various editions of the NT Greek Text and the resultant and dependent English Text of the 1611 King James Version.

If they argue for perfect restoration, they can no longer appeal to various Scripture passages that allegedly teach perfect preservation. The fallacy of the argument is easy to see.

For God’s Word to be perfectly preserved, it must be preserved just as it was inspired, that is, in regard to every detail, (Matthew 5:18). For this argument to be valid, it must be thus preserved during its entire history, which precludes completely the idea of any restoration whatsoever. If God’s Word has to be restored in any sense for a perfect copy to exist, then by definition, it was not perfectly preserved. The dilemma is illustrated in the following self-contradicting quotations from King James Only apologist David Sorenson:

"The contention of this author is that the Word of God is inerrant in its original inspiration and that God has providentially preserved an infallible transmission of it to this very hour. ... Furthermore, hand-copied manuscripts were prone to unintentional slips of the pen by scribes. Thus, no two manuscripts are identical. . . . However, scribes would on occasion make variant spellings or unintentionally leave out a word. There also were other discernable types of scribal variants of this nature which will not be noted here, " (Sorenson, p. 21, bold added). " Because there are literally thousands of New Testament manuscripts and because no two of them are exactly alike . . . , " (Sorenson, p. 22, bold added) "Opponents of the Received Text position will quickly point out that each of these Renaissance scholars [Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza] practiced textual criticism. And that they did. However, in each case, these scholars were all strong believers in the verbal inspiration of the Bible and its infallibility. Moreover, their basic rule when dealing with the relatively few variants found in the manuscripts of the Received Text was that the Received Text had been providentially preserved by God. They therefore fell back on the usage of the text by believing churches in the centuries long before the Reformation, " (Sorenson, pp. 70-71, bold added).

His wordiness cannot hide or erase his logical paradox and smooth over his contradictions.

Passing over the statement concerning the textual methodology used by Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza as well as the unproven and unprovable claim of usage by believing churches, it must be noted that Sorenson admits that a process of restoration was necessary for the production of the Textus Receptus, Dr. Sorenson cannot have it both ways. If no two Greek manuscripts are identical because scribes made mistakes and if the supposedly perfect Textus Receptus was the synthetic product of Textual Criticism, then God did not infallibly preserve his Word in every detail. This is no small point. Their inability to apply a standard to themselves which they apply to every other viewpoint on Bible manuscripts and translations is the great undoing of King James Only advocates.

Some KJVers attempt to deal with this very obvious problem by supposing that the KJV (and the TR?) gained its perfection over time as it went through various editions in which errors were removed. Since the Textus Receptus also had its wording changed through various editions, the same purifying action of God would, no doubt, be alleged for it as well. David Sorenson, in response to the question, “Do you believe that the KJV translators made errors in their work?” stated,

They may have, though I am not specifically aware of such. The early editions of the KJV certainly had errors of printing. However, with succeeding editions, these errors were corrected. I believe that preservation of God’s Word, in part, is a process whereby God corrects and purifies human errors whether by translation or typesetting. The KJV today has no errors because God has providentially seen to it that they were all cleaned up by the several editions over the years.

So where is Sorenson’s perfectly preserved Bible prior to the fabrication of the Textus Receptus and translation of the KJV, in all or any of their respective editions? While even the smallest deviations cannot be tolerated under Sorenson’s theory of the text (“infallible transmission”), it should not be supposed for one moment that all of the variants occurring in the Greek manuscripts that he favors are insignificant or that all of the variants between editions of the Textus Receptus are insignificant. They involve entire verses such as Acts 8:37 and I John 5:7, as well as the blood of Christ in Colossians 1:14, being washed from our sins in Revelation 1:5, and having our names in the book of life in Revelation 22:19. Each of these verses contains important variants which will be examined later in this paper, and variants which a King James Only view of the text cannot consistently harmonize with the false theory. Sorenson leaves out many details in his misleading book, as he certainly must to maintain his arguments.

Sorenson is only one of many authors who fill their King James Only books and correspondence with self-contradicting paragraphs. William Verschuur does this quite well himself as the self styled Bible Protector in Cyber Forums,Chat Rooms, FB Groups, YouTube and from His own Website.


William Verschuur....I have been reading you glut of vacuos nonsense here and the kind patience of these folks in trying to shed some light upon that mushroom plantation you call a mind. Answer this Post Salently and expalin this paradox away. You have yet to do so inthe FB Forum for days of silence. Now you call me a heretic for saying the Name of the Triune God is YHVH (Jehovah)...and all three Persons of the Deity share this Name above all names. Stop evading and deal with this Post. I am sure we'd all like to here about your wisdom on Divine Preservation and Divine Reconstruction. Do tell.......I await.

[bibleprotector]

As I read the wide-of-the-mark and somewhat bizarre post above, I call to mind the Scripture which says, "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit." (Proverbs 26:5).

It is strange to demand that I answer questions concerning positions which I do not hold. Especially the author's insertion of "Stop evading and deal with this Post", which seems manic or somehow out of touch with reality.

But I do not have to spell out the obvious for the discerning reader.

Basically the accusations can be reduced to a simple straw man: "God said he would keep the Word of God fully perfect through the years, therefore we must have a perfect Bible today."

Of course, everyone knows that copiers and printers have made mistakes in transcribing the Scripture. There is simply no Scriptural reason to expect that the Bible must have existed somewhere on Earth in, say Constantine's reign, in a perfect form, being 66 Canonical books altogether proper, whether in the original tongues, or by a perfect Latin translation.

What my accuser does not understand is that there is a spiritual law in the Scripture called the law of scattering and gathering. By this law, the Scripture, which was perfect at the inspiration, was scattered through time and space by various means, whether deliberate or accidental. Textual criticism is the methodology of gathering back together those separate parts (i.e. readings) to re-form an exact text. The proper kind of believing study was done in the Reformation, whereby great accuracy was possible, especially because the New Testament was now linking to the Constantinopolian text. The Reformers allowed the Byzantine influence to enrich the standing Latin tradition, thereby embarking on the new heights of Reformation scholastic recovery.

As for the King James Bible itself, its text and translation of the Scripture (the Canonical 66 books) has not altered or changed since 1611. Printing errors have been cleared up, spelling and grammar standardised and editorial regularisation enforced, but the same English Bible still exists today. In the last ditch attempt to make as if there have been changes (after harping on about the apocrypha) the detractor will say, "but some words are in italics now that were in roman font before", as if the change in typeface has actually caused words to appear or disappear from the text and translation.

As for the Trinitarian defense of God the Father being Jehovah (my detractor is an Eastern Orthodox believer, who has a different conception of the Trinity to the Protestant), I can only point to the view as held commonly by Protestants, that every member of the Trinity is God, (and I say most particularly that Jesus Christ the Son is God, co-eternal, co-equal, with the Father), and that God the Father is rightly referred to as JEHOVAH.

John Calvin was overstating the facts when he hyper-zealously attempted not only to call Jesus as by the title of the Father, but also said that the Angel of the LORD in the OT was Jesus Christ, when clearly an angel is a created being and not God. So too was Granville Sharp overzealous when he also attempted to argue that the reference to LORD in the Old Testament (e.g. Isaiah 8:13) must mean Jesus Christ the Son, when the plain sense is that the Father is intended. After all, we know this, for Psalm 110:1 shows the interplay between the persons of the Trinity (even though there is one God) "The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool."

And even Tertullian bears witness of this idea, saying concerning the Jews, "The name of 'God the Father' had been published to none." Surely he was referring to the divine name of God the Father, and he was not confused between the members of the Trinity.

Is the King James Bible inaccurate because it displays the Trinity? Is it inaccurate because it properly says "JEHOVAH" and not some other modern form like "YHWH"? Is the King James Bible an inaccurate translation because sometimes it was sloppily printed, and those printing mistakes were later rectified?

Finally, it is amusing that the detractor of my position has obviously gone somewhere to some anti-King James Bible source (probably from Rick Norris' writings), cut and pasted some slabs of quotes from some King James Bible thumping baptists, and then attempted to "refute" my position by this straw-man methodology.

And my detractor evidently has issues (I am not talking about his obsessive facebook group which is dedicated to calling me every kind of heretic), but because he frequently gets my name wrong, even though he sometimes (in moments of lucidity) gets it right.