introducing Bible Protector

[Homer]

bibleprotector,

You wrote:

For example, the Bible says,

“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.” (Matthew 28:19, 20).

Notice now that in reaching the nations, the nations are supposed to be seeing and doing the commandments of Jesus. Since nations are told to obey His commandments, how can they do it if we do not have full, reliable certainty of His words?

“But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith” (Romans 16:26).

Nations, we are told, are to hear the message of the Scriptures. How can the nations do this with Greek? Surely English is the means of making known, not just generally, but ultimately specifically, perfectly and fully, for complete obedience, the actual full words of God in the English language. The King James Bible alone meets this criteria for the future.

Can you tell us how persons are to know from the words used by the King James translators how baptism is to be done? Is it by sprinkling, immersion, or what? Have you read the instructions King James gave to the translators wherein he forbade the translation of certain words such as baptizmo into English?

[steve]

See also Psalm 12:6, 7, Proverbs 30:5, 6, Matthew 5:17, 18, John 12:48, 1 Peter 1:23, 25, Revelation 22:18, 19.

This is the evidence upon which you base your strange assertions?

Psalm 12:5-7 reads:

5 For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the Lord; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him.

6 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

7 Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

This is, I think, the primary proof text for divine preservation of the scriptures. However, there are two important facts to observe:

1. Verse 7 is not likely to be promising the preservation of His words, but of the righteous poor and the needy (v.5); and

2. Even if it refers to God preserving His "words," this is not referring directly to written words. The Hebrew "imrah" refers to speech, not written words. The "pure" and "tested" words of God, in verse 6, refers to the promise He declares in verse 5—not to a particular set of Hebrew or Greek documents.

It is a mistake to think that God promised to preserve all scripture for all time, since there are at least two letters of Paul that have not been preserved (Paul speaks of them in 1 Cor.5:9 and Col.4:16), and yet Peter says that all of Paul's letters are "scripture" (2 Peter 3:16). This means that at least two whole books of scripture have passed from existence.

Matthew 5:17-18 and 1 Peter 1:23, 25 indicate that the Torah and the Prophets, and "the word" of God will not pass away, but will endure forever (or at least "until heaven and earth pass away"). Yet this tells us nothing directly about the Textus Receptus or about the 1611 King James Version. The former did not exist until Erasmus created it in the 16th century, and the latter came into existence in the 17th century. If "the word of the Lord" refers to these written sources, then the promise was unreliable until Erasmus created the Textus Receptus from various manuscripts available in his day. The Christians of the previous 15 centuries did not have access to these, which means that, if the promise applies to them, the word of the Lord had passed away for 1500 years and God's promise was false to them.

Of course, neither of these passages probably refers to written scriptural documents, per se, but rather to the actual words (as Jesus put it) "that proceed out of the mouth of God." Once such words have proceeded out of God's "mouth," and been heard or revealed to His messengers,the transfer of those words to written text is a human effort. You may wish to claim otherwise, but there will be no scripture—only wishful thinking—for your point.

In John 12:48, Jesus says that those who do not receive His words will someday be judged by those words. This clearly speaks of the need to heed what Jesus says (His words), but makes no mention of a particular manuscript group.

Proverbs 30:5-6 and Revelation 22:18-19 both are exhortations not to add to God's words. They are not promises or guarantees. They are warnings. It is obvious that these warnings were often not heeded in the history of the textual transmission. This tells us nothing about which manuscripts preserve the reading nearest to the original.

Even if we took from these verses (what they do not say) that God has promised to preserve every word of scripture forever as it was originally written, there is no biblical indication that the most correctly-preserved version would emerge in the 16th and 17th centuries. Why couldn't the Latin Church have claimed, using your same arguments, that the Vulgate was the perfect and unchangeable word of God, which had been preserved and translated into the language of the Church?

[Paidion]

False. It was altered big time. I just downloaded "The Pure Cambridge Edition" from the "bibleprotector" website and began comparing it to the 1611 King James Bible. The 1611 King James Bible contains the deuterocanonical books (also known as "The Apocrypha", but "The Pure Cambridge Edition" has omitted them all. This I noticed immediately. So how can you say that the 1611 King James Bible was not altered?

This comeback cannot be taken as genuine.

1. The Scripture in 1611 is the same today.
2. The Apocrypha is not Scripture, and is rejected in many modern versions as well.
3. The Apocrypha is still available if someone wants to look at it, and yes, it has been printed with the Pure Cambridge Edition by Cambridge University Press.
4. There are tables and other things printed in 1611 KJB that are not printed today, is that also counted as another substantial change (e.g. almanac of how to find the date of Easter)?

This comeback is genuine indeed! Your statement that "The Apocrypha is not Scripture" won't do. You stated that the 1611 King James Bible was not altered in "The Pure Cambridge Edition", but it WAS altered. The Apocrypha was omitted. That is an alteration!

The real reason why no actual textual and translational changes in the KJB are mentioned, is because the simply do not exist. The same translation, the same version of 1611, is the one that is being printed today.

Another falsehood. I give one example to disprove the above statements:

The 1611 King James Bible (Ezekiel 24:7)

For her blood is in the middest of her: she set it vpon the toppe of a rocke, she powred it vpon the ground to couer it with dust...

"The Pure Cambridge Edition" (Ezekiel 24:7)

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...

Clearly we see that each of these versions make a statement which is the opposite of the statement made by the other.
The 1611 King James Bible states "she poured it upon the ground" whereas "The Pure Cambridge Edition" states "she poured it not upon the ground."

So which is true? Did she pour her blood upon the ground or not? God's word is without error, isn't it? But the two statements cannot both be true. So which one of the two versions is the Word of God which He preserved throughout the centuries? (if either).

[bibleprotector]

Can you tell us how persons are to know from the words used by the King James translators how baptism is to be done? Is it by sprinkling, immersion, or what? Have you read the instructions King James gave to the translators wherein he forbade the translation of certain words such as baptizmo into English?

The word "baptism" is a religious word with a religious meaning. It is an English word with an English meaning. Obviously, one looks in the Scripture to define or understand religious words. And one who speaks English generally knows the meaning of English words. Therefore it should be evident within churches what "baptism" means.

As for the allegation that somehow there was a specific mandate from King James to command the use of the word "baptism" is unprovable.

[bibleprotector]

1. Verse 7 is not likely to be promising the preservation of His words, but of the righteous poor and the needy (v.5)

I agree that it is talking about the poor and needy, but that it is also talking about the words. This is due to the basic consideration of the multiple application of Scripture. Then one sees the relationship between the preservation of the words as the means of preserving the "poor in spirit", and the preservation of the humble for the sake of the preservation of the words of God. This would indicate that if a person trusted in God, He would not let them down, i.e. that His promise is enduring. And for the promise to endure, God needs to get it to His people in the future.

2. Even if it refers to God preserving His "words," this is not referring directly to written words. The Hebrew "imrah" refers to speech, not written words. The "pure" and "tested" words of God, in verse 6, refers to the promise He declares in verse 5—not to a particular set of Hebrew or Greek documents.

Not only do we have the Biblical precedent that God's words are written (commonly attested to in Scripture), but this whole notion of going to the Hebrew to make the Scripture mean something else other than what it actually means is telling, because by circumventing the evident communication to the present in our known tongue, one can basically use all kinds of gymnastics to say that the Hebrew means anything at all.

Further, I do not understand any reference to Hebrew and/or Greek documents in Psalm 12. While it has been the origins of preservation, there is no mandate to look for a set of Greek and/or Hebrew documents today. In fact, the Scripture makes no such claim that Hebrew or Greek have any kind of special status.

It is a mistake to think that God promised to preserve all scripture for all time, since there are at least two letters of Paul that have not been preserved (Paul speaks of them in 1 Cor.5:9 and Col.4:16), and yet Peter says that all of Paul's letters are "scripture" (2 Peter 3:16). This means that at least two whole books of scripture have passed from existence.

It is evident that Scripture does not mean autographs. Nor does Scripture mean a hypothetical list of tentmaking materials Paul wrote one day. So, if Paul wrote something to Laodicea which was not Scripture, that is quite acceptable, since we have what Peter referred to as "in all his epistles", meaning, all the inspired epistles. And, there is no doubt, that he wrote good things in uninspired epistles.

How else do we approach the Scripture in 2 Peter? Do we look for reasons to prove it wrong?

Matthew 5:17-18 and 1 Peter 1:23, 25 indicate that the Torah and the Prophets, and "the word" of God will not pass away, but will endure forever (or at least "until heaven and earth pass away"). Yet this tells us nothing directly about the Textus Receptus or about the 1611 King James Version.

I agree that the words "King James Bible" are not expressly referenced in Scripture. But then, we use various words which are not in Scripture, like "rapture", "trinity", "Bible" and so on. And further, words like "Pentecostal", "Methodist", "Anglican" etc., are not in Scripture. Even "creed", "doctrinal statement", "pew" and "cathedral", "steeple", "alter call" and "Christmas". The point is that the King James Bible really is Scripture, and by examining Scripture, we look to see how it aligns with statements about itself. By this, the King James Bible can be vindicated and is exemplary as fitting every criteria of what the Scripture points to should be manifest.

The former did not exist until Erasmus created it in the 16th century, and the latter came into existence in the 17th century.

The King James Bible was not made from thin air. It was made, and is recognised (by some!) to be representing in English what actually was originally inspired in the original languages by the apostles and prophets.

If "the word of the Lord" refers to these written sources, then the promise was unreliable until Erasmus created the Textus Receptus from various manuscripts available in his day. The Christians of the previous 15 centuries did not have access to these, which means that, if the promise applies to them, the word of the Lord had passed away for 1500 years and God's promise was false to them.

Clearly, the Word of the Lord was in existence since inspiration. The KJB is just the accurate set of readings of it, and the accurate translation of it in English. There is certainly no perfect Hebrew or Greek Bible extant on earth today.

Of course, neither of these passages probably refers to written scriptural documents, per se, but rather to the actual words (as Jesus put it) "that proceed out of the mouth of God." Once such words have proceeded out of God's "mouth," and been heard or revealed to His messengers,the transfer of those words to written text is a human effort. You may wish to claim otherwise, but there will be no scripture—only wishful thinking—for your point.

The doctrine of infallibility says that what was written in the Autographs was exactly correct, and that those words were from God, and that God "inspired" (i.e. put His power into) them.

In John 12:48, Jesus says that those who do not receive His words will someday be judged by those words. This clearly speaks of the need to heed what Jesus says (His words), but makes no mention of a particular manuscript group.

And this is why having the exact words of God rather than entertaining rival manuscript groups is the solution. Since His promises and words are to endure, we ask, "Where are they now?" We ask that question even as we read the Bible today. Put two and two together: the Bible today is the means by which His words are preserved. Since there is only one fully accurate set of readings and one perfect translation, it must be that. And how do we know what that is? Simply by honestly observing the internal consistency, the divine providence in the supply of and every facet (honestly appraised) of the King James Bible which is vindicated on every grounds.

Proverbs 30:5-6 and Revelation 22:18-19 both are exhortations not to add to God's words. They are not promises or guarantees. They are warnings. It is obvious that these warnings were often not heeded in the history of the textual transmission. This tells us nothing about which manuscripts preserve the reading nearest to the original.

The injunction of the Lord not to add or take away would be nonsensical if there was nothing to add to or take away from in time. Unless there is a standard, or one day a standard, it would have made it pointless to say such a thing. Furthermore, since the Scripture does not specify textual traditions, it follows that the equipment to discern how to know the Word of God is in the Church itself, that is, that it must pass down through proper tradition, and be received. In other words, it negates the entire field of higher criticism, etc., since the focus of Scripture is on the reality that it is present. (Whereas those who are unsure about or arguing about textual criticism are acting as if it is not present, making the Word of God into a lie.)

Even if we took from these verses (what they do not say) that God has promised to preserve every word of scripture forever as it was originally written, there is no biblical indication that the most correctly-preserved version would emerge in the 16th and 17th centuries. Why couldn't the Latin Church have claimed, using your same arguments, that the Vulgate was the perfect and unchangeable word of God, which had been preserved and translated into the language of the Church?

There are those who have claimed that the Latin Vulgate was indeed the perfect standard, but the problem is that it did not match up on internal and external grounds. Externally, it was being upheld by an anti-Christian system (i.e. Romanism). Internally, it was found that there were multiple different Vulgates. Furthermore, Latin was a dying language. Therefore, on every ground, of its external circumstance and internal nature, it cannot be found to have been perfect or an enduring standard. Whereas, the King James Bible is, and is being shown self-consistently so on every ground.

Of course, when someone approaches the KJB from a point of view to reject it, with the modern critical view that error is prevailing, of course they are just seeing the KJB as any other book. This is because modern criticism has ways of interpreting Scripture and looking at the past which thwarts and prohibits any perfection whatsoever. It, sadly, is an approach of adding humanistic reasoning to the Scripture. It says that God has failed to bring it to pass. It says that this weakness is somehow God's will, and even implies God is a liar. [Note: Not everyone is implying this, but some are. The ministry of Steve Gregg seems genuine to me.]

[bibleprotector]

This comeback is genuine indeed! Your statement that "The Apocrypha is not Scripture" won't do. You stated that the 1611 King James Bible was not altered in "The Pure Cambridge Edition", but it WAS altered. The Apocrypha was omitted. That is an alteration!

You are attempting to make a "gotcha" by deliberately misinterpreting what I said. When I said that the KJB had not been altered, you full we know I meant the readings and the translation of Scripture. Since the Apocrypha is not Scripture, it cannot be counted. But I even pointed out that there are copies of the Pure Cambridge Edition with the Apocrypha from Cambridge University Press.

The 1611 King James Bible (Ezekiel 24:7)

For her blood is in the middest of her: she set it vpon the toppe of a rocke, she powred it vpon the ground to couer it with dust...

"The Pure Cambridge Edition" (Ezekiel 24:7)

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...

Clearly we see that each of these versions make a statement which is the opposite of the statement made by the other.
The 1611 King James Bible states "she poured it upon the ground" whereas "The Pure Cambridge Edition" states "she poured it not upon the ground."

So which is true? Did she pour her blood upon the ground or not? God's word is without error, isn't it? But the two statements cannot both be true. So which one of the two versions is the Word of God which He preserved throughout the centuries? (if either).

This is absolute patent falsehood. Let us examine the real case.

The King James Bible is a version and a translation that was made in 1611.

When it was printed in 1611, the printers accidentally made a few mistakes (i.e. typographical errors).

One such known example is in Ezekiel 24:7, where they accidentally omitted the word "not".

This was corrected in the press in 1613! That is, within 2 years this error was identified and corrected.

So to say that somehow there are two different King James Versions or somehow a contradiction is so absurd, that it makes the entire argumentation against it appear desperate (which it really is).

The case is truly strong: we are using the same King James Bible version and translation right now.

[steve]

Bibleprotector,

I don't mean to insult you, but your answers are not faithful to what the scriptures say. You import meanings out of thin air. While Peter says that all of Paul's epistles are "scripture," you "add" to the word of God by saying that Peter means something he did not say—namely, all of Paul's "inspired" letters. Where did you get this new revelation about Peter's meanings? You say that he must mean this, because otherwise, it would contradict "the doctrine of infallibility." First, please show me where this "doctrine of infallibility" is actually taught in scripture. Second, why should I allow a doctrine not taught in scripture to trump actual statements of scripture?

You say that the ability to recognize the word of God is inherent in the church. Which church? You will, no doubt, say, "The true church," but which one is that? I know of some very large churches that use the NIV almost exclusively. Some use ESV and some use NKJV. Do these churches possess the ability to discern the correct translation? If not, then what is there about your church (or the English Church of 1611) that guarantees the accuracy of its intuitions above those of other churches? Are you an Anglican or a Congregationalist? If neither, then why trust those churches to produce the only true English Bible (I doubt if either of these English denominations still use the KJV anyway).

You give, as one reason for rejecting the Vulgate as the perfect Bible in the Middle Ages the fact that Latin was a "dying language." And what is Elizabethan English—a living language? "I trow not!" (Luke 17:9 KJV).

[Paidion]

This is absolute patent falsehood. Let us examine the real case.
The King James Bible is a version and a translation that was made in 1611.
When it was printed in 1611, the printers accidentally made a few mistakes (i.e. typographical errors).
One such known example is in Ezekiel 24:7, where they accidentally omitted the word "not".
This was corrected in the press in 1613! That is, within 2 years this error was identified and corrected.

So? The fact is that "The Pure Cambridge Edition" is not identical to the 1611 King James Bible as you have claimed. The fact is that there are many more differences IN MEANING between the two versions, but I can see that bringing them forth will make no difference to you. As the saying goes, "My mind is made up; don't confuse me with the facts." You will simply explain them away.

You appear to have no interest in the ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. You seem to believe that these do not reflect the original autographs, but that your "Pure Cambridge Edition" does, even though the New Testament of the latter was translated from much later Greek manuscripts which clearly have been altered.

Your view reminds me of those who wished to cling to the old phlogiston theory of burning even after Joseph Priestly discovered oxygen and explained burning in a different way.

Those who postulated phlogiston had been saying that flammable substances contain phlogiston, whereas non-flammable substances do not. As a flammable substance burns, it loses its phlogiston. For example, if you set on fire a piece of wood it begins to lose its phlogiston. When all the phlogiston is gone, the fire goes out, and the remaining ashes contain no phlogiston at all.

The oxygen explanation is that that when wood burns, oxygen combines with the carbon of the wood to form carbon dioxide which escapes into the air. When all of the carbon is united to oxygen and passes into the air as carbon dioxide (a gas), the fire goes out.

Phlogiston believers did not give up that easily. They said that the very fact that the ashes are lighter than the original wood proves that phlogiston has escaped.
When asked why in a wood heater, if you open up the draft in front, the fire burns faster, phlogiston believers had a "logical" answer. Isn't it because opening the draft allows oxygen to reach the wood. "Oh, no. Not at all. The reason is that opening the draft allows the phlogiston to escape up the chimney. When it cannot escape it tends to smother the fire."

Finally, it was found that when magnesium is set aflame, the remaining ash is HEAVIER than the original magnesium. This is because when magnesium burns it unites with oxygen to form magnesium oxide, which forms the remaining ash. Unlike the burning of carbon, there is no product which escapes into the air.

"No. That is not the explanation. Let's examine the real case, " said the phlogiston believers. "The fact of the matter is that sometimes phlogiston has negative weight!"

And so the matter rested. Phlogiston faith continued ——— until it eventually died out.

[paulespino]

Hi Bibleprotector,
Iam a filipino, I have many friends and relatives in the Philippines who
Are Christians but do not know the English language therefore they use a Tagalog version of the bible. Tagalog is the official language in the Philippines does this mean that they Are sinning because they can't read the English version of the bible.

[bibleprotector]

You import meanings out of thin air. While Peter says that all of Paul's epistles are "scripture," you "add" to the word of God by saying that Peter means something he did not say—namely, all of Paul's "inspired" letters. Where did you get this new revelation about Peter's meanings?

The way to read the Scripture is that it must be interpreted properly. That is, that the words it contains have meanings. Meanings are implied or understood on a proper basis. For example, the gospel being preached to all creatures did not mean mice and birds. Or again, the cup that Jesus offered His disciples is not literally the new testament. So, the same proper interpretive approach, when we read Peter refer to all of Paul's Epistles, we know it actually means the ones we have, not the epistles that never made it into the Canon.

You say that he must mean this, because otherwise, it would contradict "the doctrine of infallibility." First, please show me where this "doctrine of infallibility" is actually taught in scripture. Second, why should I allow a doctrine not taught in scripture to trump actual statements of scripture?

The word "infallibility" is not in Scripture. Those who believe in the doctrine of inspiration (i.e. the traditional, full and fundamental view) would believe that what the Scripture says and contains is absolutely the truth and unfailingly so. (Including, if it contains an express lie, that it is true that it is a lie, and it is true that a person said it, see 1 Kings 13:18.)

Having a view of "express statements" of Scripture would undermine and deny all proper Christian doctrines, because the Scripture says "rightly dividing the word of God", meaning that there are parts which build together. There is no Scripture that expressly says, "sovereign God", yet that is a doctrinal statement. No Scripture says "Trinity", or "God is in one sense 'one'—yet He is, in a different sense, 'three.'" Yet, we believe it, because that is what the Scripture teaches by bringing verses together, and properly understanding its component parts. By adding the caveat "properly understood" to believing that the Scripture contain all things necessary, suddenly it all is clear... this "proper understanding" needs to be objectively true, that is, God's proper understanding. On this basis, to object to the doctrine of the infallibility of Scripture would be weak, since you would have to prove that there is no such thing.

You say that the ability to recognize the word of God is inherent in the church. Which church? You will, no doubt, say, "The true church," but which one is that? I know of some very large churches that use the NIV almost exclusively. Some use ESV and some use NKJV. Do these churches possess the ability to discern the correct translation? If not, then what is there about your church (or the English Church of 1611) that guarantees the accuracy of its intuitions above those of other churches? Are you an Anglican or a Congregationalist? If neither, then why trust those churches to produce the only true English Bible (I doubt if either of these English denominations still use the KJV anyway).

When you ask which one church, you are using the word "church" as a synonym for "denomination" or "assembly", but we know that the True Church is made up of believers who constitution some portion of who may be in various of those churches. Thus, total specific doctrinal loyalty cannot be to all or perhaps any single Protestant denomination, yet there were measures of truth among them all. It means something new, and it means the old.

The Pentecostal pioneer Smith Wigglesworth prophesied, “I believe that this Pentecostal revival that we are now in is the best thing that the Lord has on the earth today, and yet I believe that God has something out of this that is going to be still better.” “I can see even in this Pentecostal work, except we see there is a real death, God will say to us, ‘Come out.’ Unless Pentecost wakes up to shake herself free from all worldly things ... we will hear the voice of God, ‘Come out’ and He will have something far better than this. I ask every one of you, will you hear the voice of God and come out?”

You give, as one reason for rejecting the Vulgate as the perfect Bible in the Middle Ages the fact that Latin was a "dying language." And what is Elizabethan English—a living language? "I trow not!" (Luke 17:9 KJV).

Ha ha, the KJB is not in "Elizabethan English". 1. It was made after the Elizabethan Era. 2. It was made in a form of language which is comprehensible and spiritually relevant to today. 3. The English of the KJB is "Biblical English", and the English language is not dying, therefore the KJB by English is communicating powerfully into the future. ("Biblical English" was never spoken in 1611, nor today, in that it is exclusively the language of the KJB. It has its own grammar etc., which provides a means of discerning the perfect sense. It is by no means "foreign" to any ordinary/normal English speaker, though it is different to the common way in which people may communicate. It is, in short, special, and dare I suggest it, sanctified.)