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.