introducing Bible Protector

[bibleprotector]

I have been invited to this forum by Kenneth Huffman, who is interested in a debate on the subject of King James Bible only.

I am currently writing two books. One is in a draft form on my website on the KJB and its editions. I am concentrating at the moment on a book about Bible Prophecy, which should be ready online somewhere in the first half of 2013.

About me:

Matthew Verschuur runs the website, http://www.bibleprotector.com. He is a founding Elder of Victory Faith Centre, an independent Pentecostal church in Australia. He promotes the standard edition of the King James Bible, called the Pure Cambridge Edition, which is supplied without typographical defect on his website. This edition is being adopted in growing use as the standard traditional form of the King James Bible. He also believes that the King James Bible is a perfect version, and that in time it will be used by all genuine Christians of all nations. His interpretive method of the Scripture includes the idea of relying upon the King James Bible alone without necessary recourse to variant translations or the original languages, and that a focus of the Scripture is (by the Holy Ghost) for its relevance to the present time. He believes in the Multiple Fulfilments of Bible prophecy, which includes the restoration of the Historicist interpretation. In line with this, he stands for Church Restitution, which is essentially the result of Word of Faith and Prosperity doctrine. He also upholds Wesley-Finney Christian Perfection. He adheres to Protestant received tradition, recognises signals of divine providence and maintains the common orthodox views of the Trinity, Young Earth Creation, natural Israel and the pre-tribulation translation of the saints.

[brody196]

I have been invited to this forum by Kenneth Huffman, who is interested in a debate on the subject of King James Bible only.

I am currently writing two books. One is in a draft form on my website on the KJB and its editions. I am concentrating at the moment on a book about Bible Prophecy, which should be ready online somewhere in the first half of 2013.

About me:

Matthew Verschuur runs the website, http://www.bibleprotector.com. He is a founding Elder of Victory Faith Centre, an independent Pentecostal church in Australia. He promotes the standard edition of the King James Bible, called the Pure Cambridge Edition, which is supplied without typographical defect on his website. This edition is being adopted in growing use as the standard traditional form of the King James Bible. He also believes that the King James Bible is a perfect version, and that in time it will be used by all genuine Christians of all nations. His interpretive method of the Scripture includes the idea of relying upon the King James Bible alone without necessary recourse to variant translations or the original languages, and that a focus of the Scripture is (by the Holy Ghost) for its relevance to the present time. He believes in the Multiple Fulfilments of Bible prophecy, which includes the restoration of the Historicist interpretation. In line with this, he stands for Church Restitution, which is essentially the result of Word of Faith and Prosperity doctrine. He also upholds Wesley-Finney Christian Perfection. He adheres to Protestant received tradition, recognises signals of divine providence and maintains the common orthodox views of the Trinity, Young Earth Creation, natural Israel and the pre-tribulation translation of the saints.

If I read the above right, you are a KJOnlyist, Word of faith, Prosperity, pre-tribber?...

[steve]

Welcome bibleprotector,

That's a lot of stuff to get over (I know from experience!). Good thing you're here. You can get started.

[bibleprotector]

If I read the above right, you are a KJOnlyist, Word of faith, Prosperity, pre-tribber?...

Yes.

[Paidion]

He also believes that the King James Bible is a perfect version, and that in time it will be used by all genuine Christians of all nations.

That's quite a belief. I don't think there's much chance of that happening.

Consider one simple text which is neither here nor there theologically:

Revelation 22:19

All known Greek manuscripts here read "tree of life" instead of "book of life" as in the textus receptus (from which the King James was translated). Where did the reading "book of life" come from? When Erasmus was compiling his text, he had access to only one manuscript of Revelation, and it lacked the last six verses, so he took the Latin Vulgate and back‑translated from Latin to Greek. Unfortunately, the copy of the Vulgate he used read "book of life," unlike any Greek manuscript of the passage, and so Erasmus introduced a unique Greek reading into his text. Since the first and only "source" for this reading in Greek is the printed text of Erasmus, any Greek New Testament that agrees with Erasmus here must have been simply copied from his text. The fact that all textus receptus editions of Stephanus, Beza, et al. read with Erasmus shows that their texts were more or less slavish reprints of Erasmus' text and not independently compiled editions, for had they been edited independently of Erasmus, they would surely have followed the Greek manuscripts here and read "tree of life."

So would Matthew Verschuur believe that God miraculously prevented Erasmus from obtaining the Greek text for Revelation 22:19 because He wanted to have the phrase "book of life" in His inspired, infallible Bible? Also, I am curious about Verschuur's having settled on "the Pure Cambridge Edition". Does he believe the original 1611 edition of the Bible was flawed, and that God inspired those who formed "the Pure Cambridge Edition" so that it was perfect and without error?

[bibleprotector]

All known Greek manuscripts here read "tree of life" instead of "book of life"

Actually, there is old witness for "book of life". But then you are limited to what is "known" to you. But I think we shouldn't be limited by what we know or don't know about Greek, but what we can easily, commonly and certainly know is at hand in English.

And I am sure that this is what God said when John wrote in his inspired, infallible original of Revelation. (One of the foundational tenets of resolving the proper interpretation of Revelation is by first having a proper basis of what is to be interpreted. This dynamic would be exactly opposite of something like H. B. Swete, who commentated on Revelation in reference to the Greek language. I don't think that such a work resolved or edified very much at all. And so when C. Marvin Pate put the four views by paraphrase in parallel columns, adding the fifth column of Greek, that was like locking the door of understanding on the matter.)

As for "the original 1611 edition of the Bible", it is not "flawed" in its text and translation. And I certainly do not believe that God somehow made the KJB by inspiration any more than "God inspired those who formed 'the Pure Cambridge Edition'". Having a perfect text and translation is achieved in line with Divine Providence, not by some sort of "inspiration", just as having an edition today free from typographical errors is perfect without any need for any further "inspiration" beyond what happened the first time with Moses, David or Paul. (By beginning with the King James Bible, already numerous issues in interpreting Revelation are resolved, no longer does a strange eagle fly instead of an angel, no longer is God's "shalt be" denied, etc.)

[Candlepower]

But I think we shouldn't be limited by what we know or don't know about Greek, but what we can easily, commonly and certainly know is at hand in English.

Just checking, brother, but you are aware that the oldest Greek & Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible predate the oldest English manuscripts, right?

[Paidion]

The King James Bible was altered throughout the years since the original 1611 version. See the link below:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon10.html

You can also see from this site those who formed the Oxford edition of 1769 included in their marginal notes, references to various Greek manuscripts. Clearly they understood that the Greek texts better reflected the original autographs than the Oxford edition of 1769. Yet the King James translators did not possess the early Greek manuscripts which are available in our day. Some of the manuscripts discovered in the 20th century are thought to have been copied around 150 A.D. One example is Papyrus 46, and another is Papyrus 66. Both of these papyri read "only-begotten God" in John 1:18 rather than "only-begotten son" as the King James has it.

[bibleprotector]

But I think we shouldn't be limited by what we know or don't know about Greek, but what we can easily, commonly and certainly know is at hand in English.

Just checking, brother, but you are aware that the oldest Greek & Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible predate the oldest English manuscripts, right?

Manuscripts exist in the present. Yes, they might be older, but are you saying that our English manuscripts are unreliable or not Scripture? Since when is "age" or "Greek" the touchstone of truth? The Bacchae is old and in Greek.

[bibleprotector]

The King James Bible was altered throughout the years since the original 1611 version.

Wrong. The same version, that is text and translation, from 1611 is present here today. It was not altered. What has changed is merely the correction of printing errors, the standardisation of spelling in English, etc.

See my website: http://www.bibleprotector.com

You can also see from this site those who formed the Oxford edition of 1769 included in their marginal notes, references to various Greek manuscripts.

1. Marginal notes existed in 1611.
2. We are not using the 1769 Edition today.
3. The marginal material in 1769 were taken from previously printed Bibles, most of which are cross references.

Clearly they understood that the Greek texts better reflected the original autographs than the Oxford edition of 1769.

This is non sequitur. We have no real citations from 1769 as if they were specifically looking at Greek in regards to marginal material.

Yet the King James translators did not possess the early Greek manuscripts which are available in our day.

This assumes that the Word of God is somehow trapped to/limited to/in deference to early Greek manuscripts.

Some of the manuscripts discovered in the 20th century are thought to have been copied around 150 A.D. One example is Papyrus 46, and another is Papyrus 66.

This seems to be implying that the Church did not have the Word of God for 1800 years or something, or that the Reformation was woeful for not having these few old 20th century discoveries.

Both of these papyri read "only-begotten God" in John 1:18 rather than "only-begotten son" as the King James has it.

There is a lot of assumptions there. First, that old fragments are somehow able to change things. And second, that it is ignored that bad copyists or deliberate corrupters could be making copies at that time. One needs to consider why such aberrant readings did not survive in general through the Church, and why such things never were upheld in the Reformation.