introducing Bible Protector

[jriccitelli]

I generally don’t look to other sites, only because I suppose a good answer shouldn’t require a thesis to be answered. But I looked anyways, ‘maybe’ there is some good reason there to believe the KJV is the most perfect translation. I found some interesting assertions, yet I see no evidence for a divine approval on the KJV that could not be applied to many other translations or biblical texts (noting also the many ‘purifications’ the 1611 has had). The following are comments I found at BP’s page, note line upon line especially lesson 3 and 4. I thought I would note them here, before I comment. BP I do not see anything here that gives me reason to believe the KJV has God’s approval, other than what would apply to most any biblical text.

… the scripture shows Gods word has gone through a process of purification on this earth…
… improved upon in a series of purifications …
… were the English Bibles bad, that the KJV had to be made? No, but out of revising many good ones they were able to produce one principle good one… all the learned men had input into it… (most from lesson 3)

True believers who have studied the
King James Bible recognise that it is
the best Bible. It goes further. It is
the best for all time, and it is very
perfectly in English, matching exactly
what was first written in the original
autographs by the prophets, etc…

For example, if a person accuses
that more information has been
discovered since 1611, and that
modern versions would be more
accurate, that person would really be
saying that God’s Word was not
perfectly given in 1611. That same
person would also believe that no
Bible is perfectly right today. But the
Scripture says…

Such people never can point to any
Bible as being certainly perfect, but
King James Bible believers can and
do
When the King James Bible is seen
as God’s provided Bible for today,
then people would understand that it
really is the only one which should
be used now…
“When the enemy shall come in like
a flood, the Spirit of the LORD
shall lift up a standard against him.”
(Isaiah 59:19)

The Scripture which indicates seven
times of purification can also be
applied to the editions of the King
James Bible. There are seven major
Editions.

The translators themselves already
judged. They chose one wording to
stand in the text, and whatever was
inferior, they put into the margin.

Unless we have God’s very words in
a very accurate and correct Bible,
how can we obey this verse?
(Most above from 'lesson 4' at BP's site)

(I was also looking through your other PDFs such as those by Matthew V. I do not see any direct revelation or reason yet to where God approves this idea of yours. Your biblical quotes (I suppose you claim they are 'prophetic' of the KJV) still remind me of the LDS churches defense of Joseph Smiths authority, and this argument for infallibility strikes consistent with Rome’s insistence on Papal authority, or ex cathedra. Anyways, ciao)

[bibleprotector]

Your perception of seeming arbitrariness is in fact just your lack of knowledge at how proper translation was done.

Rather, that there are two different ways (very broadly speaking) in which translation was done: the modern version way and the Reformation way.

Why don't you enlighten me about how proper translation was done?

I am not sure whether you are asking a loaded question there. Are you implying that I have not answered your questions, or are you making a genuine inquiry? In the the first case, I have been plain and open, and have not been fooling about. In the second instance, the fuller resource would be my website, but to give a brief sketch of the answer: proper translation has been accomplished through the gathering process (i.e. based on the spiritual law of gathering) by the outworking of Divine Providence. In Reformation times, it was possible to form a sense for sense translation by adapting English to the Biblical usages, Biblifying English as it were, to the full measure, where the exact concepts in Greek or Hebrew were able to be communicated with the precise force, the exact nuance, into the English language, and communicate to us today God's full truth by a translation that retains the full depth and breadth of conceptual vitality to this very hour. It is, essentially, as Dean J. W. Burgon realised, as if the Bible was being written in English itself.

You have not answered one single inquiry except by generally insulting people either directly or indirectly or claiming "spiritual understanding" that only a very few have.

This is incorrect and hyperbole. I have been full and frank. I have not "insulted" at all, and if you have any offence, consider that it is because of your rejection of the perfection of the KJB, not because somehow merely I have "rubbed you up the wrong way". Neither have I claimed some special spiritual understanding, but what is common or accessible for all true Christians. There are no limits on truth. The only limit is the hearer, that is, to what measure they mete, that is what is measured to them.

Why not just direct people to your website instead wasting our time friend?

If that is what you think, then probably everything I say is going to be coloured as indigent, etc. etc. My honest, genuine answers perhaps are counted as dog's food for some, nevertheless, let me remind you that it is not a waste of time to study these things.

[bibleprotector]

I generally don’t look to other sites, only because I suppose a good answer shouldn’t require a thesis to be answered.

That is not a Biblical rule, though I understand your point. Not looking at "other" sites indicates looking at some. In the area of doctrine, you would need to look at "other" sites, "other" videos or "other" books rather than just to have an arbitrary rule about what "other" is. If I only read KJBO writings, or if I only watched Word of Faith material, I would have been limited to what good things could be learnt. Of course, I am not talking about being a wave driven of the wind, nor of addling ones mind with knowledge.

For example, to understand about views on Bible prophecy is not going to come down to just one sentence or one paragraph. You would really need to read a book like Steve Gregg's to start to get a thorough understanding. I was once only a futurist because that is all I knew. I then became a futurist and a historicist. And I only came to accept a form of Preterism (as one of the Multiple Fulfilments) by listening to Steve Gregg's lectures (which are not King James Bible only or Word of Faith).

But I looked anyways, ‘maybe’ there is some good reason there to believe the KJV is the most perfect translation.

That's right: in our spirit we have some leadings, and we go to the Scripture to look at doctrine.

I found some interesting assertions, yet I see no evidence for a divine approval on the KJV that could not be applied to many other translations or biblical texts (noting also the many ‘purifications’ the 1611 has had). The following are comments I found at BP’s page, note line upon line especially lesson 3 and 4. I thought I would note them here, before I comment. BP I do not see anything here that gives me reason to believe the KJV has God’s approval, other than what would apply to most any biblical text.

Obviously Scripture itself (i.e. regardless of version/translation) is going to have signs attached to it because it is Scripture.

I was also looking through your other PDFs such as those by Matthew V. I do not see any direct revelation or reason yet to where God approves this idea of yours.

The approval of God is not based on whether merely I said it or not, but whether things today are the result of divine providence and match up with the statements of the Scripture.

Your biblical quotes (I suppose you claim they are 'prophetic' of the KJV) still remind me of the LDS churches defense of Joseph Smiths authority, and this argument for infallibility strikes consistent with Rome’s insistence on Papal authority, or ex cathedra. Anyways, ciao)

Yet the Mormons are uplifting something not Scripture, and the Papacy lifted up something by wrong authority. Whereas the Scripture itself within Protestant tradition is recognised by Christians. Just because the Muslims might claim perfection or inspiration for something, just because the Papists claimed authority for perfection or inspiration or something, just because the Mormons or Seventh Day Adventists or anyone else might do the same, is not in anyway to nullify the true, that is, that if they all are making false claims for something false, that has no bearing on true Christians recognising the genuine authority of that which is exactly true.

I can see that this idea of Christian weakness, this God somehow wills imperfection doctrine, this triumph of error is designed to drown out the idea that there is or could be a perfect Bible today. The predisposition among modernist-infected Christianity needs to be spewed out. "I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see." (Rev. 3:18).

[steve7150]

but to give a brief sketch of the answer: proper translation has been accomplished through the gathering process (i.e. based on the spiritual law of gathering) by the outworking of Divine Providence. In Reformation times, it was possible to form a sense for sense translation by adapting English to the Biblical usages, Biblifying English as it were, to the full measure, where the exact concepts in Greek or Hebrew were able to be communicated with the precise force, the exact nuance, into the English language, and communicate to us today God's full truth by a translation that retains the full depth and breadth of conceptual vitality to this very hour. It is, essentially, as Dean J. W. Burgon realised, as if the Bible was being written in English itself.








OK then please tell me re "biblifying english" , what is the process that communicated to these KJB 1611 translators the exact english words to be written. To my knowledge the translators never claimed any divine providence in the process in fact didn't they suggest the opposite in the preface.

[SteveF]

Steve7150 wrote:

OK then please tell me re "biblifying english" , what is the process that communicated to these KJB 1611 translators the exact english words to be written. To my knowledge the translators never claimed any divine providence in the process in fact didn't they suggest the opposite in the preface.

Steve7150, the writers of the KJV were clearly heretics. They refused to believe the translation they put together was perfect and inerrant.

[steve7150]

OK then please tell me re "biblifying english" , what is the process that communicated to these KJB 1611 translators the exact english words to be written. To my knowledge the translators never claimed any divine providence in the process in fact didn't they suggest the opposite in the preface.



Steve7150, the writers of the KJV were clearly heretics. They refused to believe the translation they put together was perfect and inerrant.

User avatar
SteveF






BP, Were they heretics or just lacking in spiritual understanding?

[jriccitelli]

This is saying that while we have certainty that the Bible is about 98% accurate, the 2% of no major consequence is basically God's plan too. That makes God weak and puts so much a level of uncertainty as to be the leaven which leaveneth the whole lump. (BP, Page 7)

I meant that there are some very difficult phrases to translate, namely Hebrew. It would be very simplistic to think we absolutely have discerned what every single little Hebrew or biblical line actually said or meant in the original. Some cause great difficulties even for the Hebrew reader, it is simply unreasonable to assume every line of the OT is exactly translated or understood. Do you never concern yourself with checking to see what could be an accurate or comparable understanding in the Hebrew or Septuagint of an OT passage? Are you saying you never had any difficulty with the Hebrew in any verse? You may well not have dug deep enough; there are some texts that almost defy translation. Yet as a whole they do not affect any basic biblical doctrines detrimentally.

[jriccitelli]

jriccitelli wrote:I generally don’t look to other sites, only because I suppose a good answer shouldn’t require a thesis to be answered.

What I meant was: That since you are somewhat learned on the matter, could you please at least formulate a simple sentence that could indicate a defense or at least a direction (?) in which to pursue the answer. I have yet to glean a dot or tittle from your answers to ‘where or how’ one can be assured the KJV is perfect or approved by God, over and above other translations, or texts (again like your quote of Rev. 3:18, this can apply to most all of the biblical texts and translations, it does not specify a specific translation).

On my shelves I have multiple copies of at least 12 different translations, not including a couple Greek NT translations, some books on the Dead Sea scrolls, some photos thereof, multiple books on translations and definitions, etc. I will also mention my oft referenced and beloved ‘New Analytical Bible’ (AKJV) by Dickson publishing, and of course I seem to be hoarding KJV bibles, as I am sure I own at least 40 different copies, as I collect and distribute them too.

I do like the KJV alot, yet I keep at least 5 of my different preferred translations at arms reach. And although I rarely find any disagreement within or between them, I generally refer to the NASB first because in debating and teaching I find the NASB usually always comes through as the closest to a word for word agreement, and unity with the abundance of available, and defendable extant texts.

… that if they all are making false claims for something false, that has no bearing on true Christians recognizing the genuine authority of that which is exactly true (BP)

Exactly, but I do not see your ‘claim’ (the KJV only ‘claim’) being any more supported, nor having any more reason to accept as true than say these other claims. The Mormons and Islamists at least recognize such a claim needs a sign or biblical prophecy to endorse the claim (Maryism at least postulates visions to endorse their claims). You should have to provide at least a sign or miracle to defend the KJV only claim (since I do not see any reasonable argument). All biblical promises of His Words endurance do not specify any ‘specific’ translation; the promise was a promise of the general safe keeping of His Word. I am sure the understanding is for the whole collection of texts, as even in Ezra and Isaiah’s time they had variant copies and texts that they were aware of. This is no cause for alarm, they were not dummies, we also can put 3 copies along side each other and search for the correlation.

I recognize Gods word as true. And that God divinely protects His Word in print, and we procure the result. Men can attempt to modify it and define it here and there, and even corrupt it, but His Word never suffers as the result. The efforts are generally found out and identified and understood.
I have written concerning this same argument before on this forum regarding the NWT, and regarding Papal authority etc., somewhere…

[jriccitelli]

In my testimony I mention that I had only a NWT to read when I first became a believer, but it would be foolish to continue reading a version produced by a cult, and trust a cult to 'not' tamper with their bible version. I also use my NWT, which is well outlined and marked up, to lead a JW to Christ because as I have said no matter how much man tries to mess with Gods scriptures the meaning and story are so interwoven through-out it is almost impossible to remove the truth without removing every single page of scripture.
Grace, salvation, and even the Deity of Christ is undeniable, even when reading the NWT.
I clipped out and pasted together a few dozen pages to use as tracts when witnessing to Witnesses, using only their own NWT scriptures (photocopied from their own bible) to show them salvation is by Grace, hell, heaven, false prophets, and a few other topics including some showing the deity of Christ contained in the NWT, by showing them the NWT speaks of Jesus as the Shepherd, the King, the Judge, the Rock etc. etc. (posted under thread: ‘Whats wrong with the New World translation’)

My point was that; as many times as man continues to purposefully, or un-purposefully make mistakes in translating and copying Gods Word, God will keep the truth available in some form. Even if the form you hold in your hand may have errors, there are resources and other translations to verify the accuracy, or inaccuracies. Sure, It would be nice if we had such a stamp of approval on one copy, but wouldn’t we still have to check that copy with another ‘original’ to determine if what we held was an exact, say KJV version, and not a fake? There is no proof but research itself, and a promise that I can trust God will get me ‘good’ copies if I am sincere in my pursuit.
"I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see." (Rev. 3:18) Tried means tested.

[bibleprotector]

OK then please tell me re "biblifying english"

Biblifying English is just obviously my description of the process well recognised: words were brought into English and invented in order to communicate fully. So, for example, words like "bishop", "baptism", etc. came into English long ago, and words like "scapegoat", "atonement" and so on were invented. Also read Burgon here: http://www.bibleprotector.com/Burgon_1882.pdf

what is the process that communicated to these KJB 1611 translators the exact english words to be written.

Divine providence, Reformation learning, the common faith, etc. It was not by inspiration. They were the right people at the right time with the right knowledge that had access to right things to make the right choices.

To my knowledge the translators never claimed any divine providence in the process in fact didn't they suggest the opposite in the preface.

They of course accepted Divine Providence. The prefatory material to the KJB shows this, and actually states it.