Questions for bibleprotector

[Smellin Coffee]

A couple questions for you, my friend.

1. Why your username for this forum? If the King Jame Bible is perfect and directly from God, why does He need a human "protector"? Isn't God strong enough to allow His word to stand up and demolish any and all scrutiny? Why would He need human effort to "protect" it?

2. Isn't the doctrine of inerrancy an irrelevant point altogether? Suppose the King James (or even the Bible in the canon we have) IS inerrant and directly from God without error. That doesn't change the fact that our hermeneutics are flawed and we cannot accept the Bible as we see it and be 100% right. How can the same "perfect" literary document support JW, Mormon, Evangelical, Catholic, Calvinistic, Lutheran, Unitarian, Adventist etc. theology? Water always seeks lower ground. In the same way, people will always seek to move their Bible in accordance with their own hermeneutic, whether it be passed down to them through the ages or develop their own. There is no way for anyone to interpret the scriptures without some kind of flawed bias.

So it seems to me that since there is NO absolute perfect hermeneutic in which to evaluate God's words, whether or not the KJV (or any other version) is inerrant is a moot point.

 

[bibleprotector]

1. Why your username for this forum? If the King Jame Bible is perfect and directly from God, why does He need a human "protector"? Isn't God strong enough to allow His word to stand up and demolish any and all scrutiny? Why would He need human effort to "protect" it?

It is a wrong doctrine that says that God's will does not require human effort in the places where He has made it our responsibility (e.g. see Matthew 28:18-20).

Ps 24:3 Who shall ascend into the hill of the LORD? or who shall stand in his holy place?
Ps 24:4 He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart; who hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity, nor sworn deceitfully.
Ps 24:5 He shall receive the blessing from the LORD, and righteousness from the God of his salvation.
Ps 24:6 This is the generation of them that seek him, that seek thy face, O Jacob. Selah.

Ps 94:16 Who will rise up for me against the evildoers? or who will stand up for me against the workers of iniquity?
Ps 94:17 Unless the LORD had been my help, my soul had almost dwelt in silence.

It is a fallacy to say that God's words don't require human instruments, or that His works are done without corresponding human will.

2Co 4:7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.

Col 1:28 Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus:
Col 1:29 Whereunto I also labour, striving according to his working, which worketh in me mightily.

2. Isn't the doctrine of inerrancy an irrelevant point altogether?

No, the truth of God is without error. If that's not a major consideration, then Christianity is a farce.

Suppose the King James (or even the Bible in the canon we have) IS inerrant and directly from God without error.

You are mixing together the concepts of having a perfect text and translation today with the work of inspiration which was original.

That doesn't change the fact that our hermeneutics are flawed and we cannot accept the Bible as we see it and be 100% right.

That's another separate issue. Basically, without faith in "the full counsel of God", many believe that there cannot be a central true belief.

Probably the main conflict here is the manifestation between the different approach of some form of Calvinism versus Christian perfection/Higher Life.

How can the same "perfect" literary document support JW, Mormon, Evangelical, Catholic, Calvinistic, Lutheran, Unitarian, Adventist etc. theology? Water always seeks lower ground. In the same way, people will always seek to move their Bible in accordance with their own hermeneutic, whether it be passed down to them through the ages or develop their own. There is no way for anyone to interpret the scriptures without some kind of flawed bias.

This is a natural way of looking. It says, "We see disagreements. We know men are flawed/limited and self-serving. Therefore different denominations and diversity of doctrinal positions are inevitable." But that is not the Biblical view.

Eph 4:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

So it seems to me that since there is NO absolute perfect hermeneutic in which to evaluate God's words, whether or not the KJV (or any other version) is inerrant is a moot point.

Seeing as the doctrine of inerrancy does not apply to text and translation, the whole "logic" there is false. But, more importantly, God's Spirit is alive and well, so thank God we are able to attain perfect knowledge and have proper interpretation. (Again, quite contrary to your natural approach.)

Joh 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

It is a wrong doctrine that says that God's will does not require human effort in the places where He has made it our responsibility (e.g. see Matthew 28:18-20).

So you are saying that the Bible itself cannot protect itself, that it needs humans to protect it else it fail. Got it.

No, the truth of God is without error. If that's not a major consideration, then Christianity is a farce.

Then how can you tie any canon or version as being only and all "the truth of God"?

You are mixing together the concepts of having a perfect text and translation today with the work of inspiration which was original.


I have no idea where you are going with this...

That's another separate issue. Basically, without faith in "the full counsel of God", many believe that there cannot be a central true belief.

Probably the main conflict here is the manifestation between the different approach of some form of Calvinism versus Christian perfection/Higher Life.

Again, you have to prove "the full counsel of God" is a particular version, canon, text. The main conflict has nothing to do with Calvinism other than it is one of the many views can take and still believe it from inerrant texts/versions.

This is a natural way of looking. It says, "We see disagreements. We know men are flawed/limited and self-serving. Therefore different denominations and diversity of doctrinal positions are inevitable." But that is not the Biblical view.

Eph 4:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

So what you are suggesting is that all various paths of hermeneutic, as long as it is from the same source of truth, eventually leads to perfect union in belief.

Seeing as the doctrine of inerrancy does not apply to text and translation, the whole "logic" there is false. But, more importantly, God's Spirit is alive and well, so thank God we are able to attain perfect knowledge and have proper interpretation. (Again, quite contrary to your natural approach.)

Yet you said in another thread inerrancy (word-perfect) DOES apply to a particular translation:

And if you mean having word-perfect perfection without errors and variations, well, only the Autographs could be so, and not even the first copies, but yet we have an edition of the KJB, which you can easily obtain online, which is exactly perfect in this way.

 

[praise_yeshua]

yet we have an edition of the KJB, which you can easily obtain online, which is exactly perfect in this way.

He believes he has been Providentially called to be the protector of the KJV and free it from any printer, copyist, or translator error....

Of course, he can't prove this any more than he can prove much of anything. He just expects people to believe because he says its true.

I've heard that a few times in my life. Its usually comes from a self centered egotist that thinks he's doing something for God that no one else is doing..... or even capable of doing.

He's just trying to be special.... Just another back door to man's selfish pride.

 

[Steven Avery]

How can the same "perfect" literary document support JW, Mormon, Evangelical, Catholic, Calvinistic, Lutheran, Unitarian, Adventist etc. theology?

The JW insisted on their own translation from the Westcott-Hort text.
The Mormons place other books above the Bible, and give a translation caveat about the OT and NT.
The Catholics now push the decrepit Alexandrian texts, along with their Vulgate support.
The Unitarians fought against 1 Timothy 3:16 "God was manifest in the flesh" and the heavenly witnesses.
The Adventists came out with their own "Clear Word" paraphrase disaster.

Noting that the pure Bible does not force the perfect hermeneutic, it simply gives the God-ordained plumbline.

Steven

 

[bibleprotector]

So you are saying that the Bible itself cannot protect itself, that it needs humans to protect it else it fail. Got it.

I am saying that the Bible does not even exist without humans. It wasn't monkeys who put it through the printing press.

Then how can you tie any canon or version as being only and all "the truth of God"?

Clearly, the truth of God is absolute. There is then one canon (i.e. one true set of Scripture itself). But there have been many versions.

I have no idea where you are going with this...

The perfect inspiration of Scripture is different to having a perfect version/translation, because people have had good translations/versions without them being precisely perfect, and this has been sufficient.

Again, you have to prove "the full counsel of God" is a particular version, canon, text.

The full counsel of God means a full set of correct doctrines, it is not a particular version, etc.

The main conflict has nothing to do with Calvinism other than it is one of the many views can take and still believe it from inerrant texts/versions.

The issue is that there is a fully correct doctrine. Calvinism is not. The issue is not Calvinism, the issue is believing that there is a progression to knowing the truth. There are doctrines that some hold, like in Calvinism, where they tend to deny that people can reach any kind of perfect knowledge.

So what you are suggesting is that all various paths of hermeneutic, as long as it is from the same source of truth, eventually leads to perfect union in belief.

The opposite. I am saying that there is really only one right path, and that there is an ultimate, absolute truth which all variety must come into conformity to, which would include perfect union in belief.

Yet you said in another thread inerrancy (word-perfect) DOES apply to a particular translation

No I didn't.

I said that inerrancy means without error in concept. I said that this applies only to Scripture itself.

I said that the perfection of translation and version is not called "inerrancy", even though being perfect would mean without error, but that inerrancy is a particular Biblical word describing the Scripture itself, not its version/text or its translation.

And likewise, that while I believe the autographs were word perfect, which is in line with inerrancy, that to have an exact presentation of Scripture today is not called "inerrancy", though it can be called perfection.

Inerrancy only applies to Scripture itself, not to the version or translation we see today, and not to the edition/presentation today.

So, then, logically, you can have inerrant Scripture in an imperfect translation, and, also, quite logically, we should stick with having a perfect translation.

I am surprised that modernists are so against these ideas, as though there is no inerrancy at all. I just cannot understand their unbelief, which is tantamount to denying that Scripture really exists at all today. I would expect atheists to be arguing with me about this, not modern versionists.

And if you mean having word-perfect perfection without errors and variations, well, only the Autographs could be so, and not even the first copies, but yet we have an edition of the KJB, which you can easily obtain online, which is exactly perfect in this way.

I never said that inerrancy is used in any other way, but to mean Scripture, and also criticised modernism for saying that only the autographs are inerrant. Scripture itself is inerrant.

Unless you truly believe that Jesus told lies.

 

[bibleprotector]

He believes he has been Providentially called to be the protector of the KJV and free it from any printer, copyist, or translator error....

This is a false accusation, because I didn't translate the Bible. I didn't copy or publish the Bible until recent years. How on earth could I be called to be the "protector of the KJV" for all that I didn't do?

Of course, he can't prove this any more than he can prove much of anything. He just expects people to believe because he says its true.

This is false, and also an unjust slur since I am not proud.

 

[FSSL]

Bibleprotector claims apostolic authority for the preservation of Scripture and that claim is bogus.

Bibleprotector has compiled his own edition of the Cambridge. There is no other edition like it. He will not identify a single dated Cambridge edition. He exalts his own compilation as the standard WITHOUT noting the places where his own modifications occured. It took another poster (Logos) to highlight the changes in his particular edition.

He purchased his domain (www.bibleprotector.com) in 2007 and made it available in digital format then.

The protection he affords his own edition is tenuous.

• It relies on the consistent and timely renewal of a domain name.
• It relies on a computer server to perform without fail.
• It relies on a man-made username and password.
• It relies on the continued existence and widespread use of Adobe Acrobat software.
• It relies on money to continue those resources.
• It relies on a webmaster who can prevent malicious virus/malware attacks.
• This "protection" comes with an expiration date of 01-22-2017. Which, at that time, money, ability and the will of Bibleprotector must exist to renew the date another couple of years.
• This "protection" assumes that another benefactor of the domain name and server will be present upon the demise of the human who calls himself Bibleprotector.

So... when you contrast what protections/promises God has afforded His word throughout millenia with that of Bibleprotector's efforts, it is clearly obvious that this man-made self-designation of apostolic authority to protect the word of God is spurious and deceiving.

ONLY God can claim to be the Bibleprotector because His protection is promised forever, comes with no expiration date and is not succeptible to 2015 website technology.

 

[bibleprotector]

Bibleprotector has compiled his own edition of the Cambridge.

This is misleading, because there are many different editions from Cambridge. Further, it is a tricky use of language to use "edition" without defining its meaning, which means (in this context) a set of editorial choices which are presented in a series of different impressions.

He will not identify a single dated Cambridge edition.

This is utterly incorrect. In fact, specific examples of many printings of the PCE have been identified, ranging in date between 1931 and 1984 from Cambridge, let alone other setting-forths of it right up to the present.

He exalts his own compilation as the standard WITHOUT noting the places where his own modifications occured.

This also is incorrect. First, I have not changed anything. And second, very comprehensive information about varieties in editions has been on my website beginning from 2007.

It took another poster (Logos) to highlight the changes in his particular edition.

These are misrepresentations, seeing that I had already had all kinds of information on my website, and of course, do not have my own particular invented edition.

He purchased his domain (www.bibleprotector.com) in 2007 and made it available in digital format then.

Around the internet, several different files of the KJB which are the PCE had already been in existence for years.

ONLY God can claim to be the Bibleprotector because His protection is promised forever, comes with no expiration date and is not succeptible to 2015 website technology.

This is akin to saying that "free" Sunday School Lessons are not really free, because it costs internet connections (for example) to obtain them. "freely ye have received, freely give." (Matt. 10:8b).

1Th 2:9 For ye remember, brethren, our labour and travail: for labouring night and day, because we would not be chargeable unto any of you, we preached unto you the gospel of God.

2Th 3:8 Neither did we eat any man's bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you:

Will you give folks computers and pay their internet bills, so that they may truly obtain teachings for free?

 

[FSSL]

So then... if this isn't your compilation, what edition and date is the Cambridge text in your site?

 

[bibleprotector]

So then... if this isn't your compilation, what edition and date is the Cambridge text in your site?

The Edition you refer to has been found in print since the early part of the 20th century. It is called the Pure Cambridge Edition. Many instances of it can be produced from over the years.

Any individual files I have produced may be identified by timestamps in the metadata.

If you were to compare the files on my website with files of the same Edition from around 1990, you would find that there are a few typographical errors in those early files. Each file represents the same Edition, even though its own typographical errors make it unique, e.g. a missing comma somewhere.

It is dishonest to claim that, with numerous different examples, any one must be different because it might have accidentally missed a comma or something. That's the whole point of what I have done: I am responsible for the exemplar, by having that comma where it should be. There's nothing different or new or made up or invented about typographical accuracy. The only "new" thing is that it was actually accomplished.

 

[FSSL]

You are the one who established that the PCE is punctuation, spelling and capitalization perfect.

The glaring fact that you cannot identify the one edition demonstrates that you compiled your own edition from various editions.

So... here we are. You have admitted to making corrections. This is your own work which you deem punctuation, spelling and capitalization perfect.

Since your website began in 2007, I will view this as the Bibleprotector 2007 edition.

 

[FSSL]

Perhaps you would give us a list of punctuation changes and corrections that you made in your compilation.

 

[bibleprotector]

You are the one who established that the PCE is punctuation, spelling and capitalization perfect.

It was all there in previously existing impressions of the previously existing Edition.

The glaring fact that you cannot identify the one edition demonstrates that you compiled your own edition from various editions.

There are numerous, absolutely numerous examples of the Pure Cambridge Edition. I have listed many such examples on my website, including Cambridge Ruby from various year dates, Cambridge Pitt Minion from various year dates, Cambridge Minion, Sapphire, Emerald, Amethyst, Cameo, etc. etc. Besides plenty of instances from other publishers.

So... here we are. You have admitted to making corrections. This is your own work which you deem punctuation, spelling and capitalization perfect.

I did not make corrections to previously existing materials, I made corrections in light of any variations in individual past printings. For a hypothetical kind of example, if you took 10 different impressions, and found a unique typographical error in each of them, I simply had a file which had none of those 10 typographical errors.

 

[FSSL]

I made corrections in light of any variations in individual past printings. For a hypothetical kind of example, if you took 10 different impressions, and found a unique typographical error in each of them, I simply had a file which had none of those 10 typographical errors.

Yes.... and those corrections were??

 

[bibleprotector]

Perhaps you would give us a list of punctuation changes and corrections that you made in your compilation.

I didn't make any changes to the Pure Cambridge Edition, which means my analysis was of the consensus of previously existing material. I ensured that there were no typographical errors in the files I supply, which means that I didn't change any punctuation or anything, but in regards to comparing to any particular copy with a typographical error in it, mine is the exemplar.

Now, if you want to understand about the copy-editing work as indicating what I am saying is true, and factual, have a read of this document: http://www.bibleprotector.com/norris.pdf

Based on convention, the first word or words in a chapter are in capital letters. Based on consistency the Hebrew letters are removed from Psalm 119 (even though most KJB editions do have them). And based on editorial accuracy, the last small cap "s" after the apostrophe in a word like LORD's is reduced to lower case.

 

[bibleprotector]

Yes.... and those corrections were??

Irrelevant, too many and self-evident.

Here's just one: The University of Virginia copy omits the comma after Adam in Genesis 2:21. Am I really correcting or changing anything, when a host of copies, including non-PCE copies, have the comma? Or are you so unjust as to claim that either I have made a change because I made a choice, or that the University of Virginia copy was not a PCE?

 

[rsc2a]

The Bible corrector didn't correct anything in the inerrant King Jimmy. He just changed some words, added commas, removed others, capitalized some parts, changed a few words, etc..

 

[FSSL]

"Too many"... really? You think that defense works in your favor?

Are we just to take your compilation and false 12 test standard and just accept it because you claim to be an apostle with a particular charge from God to protect His word?

... there we are... there are too many changes to list...

 

[bibleprotector]

The Bible corrector didn't correct anything in the inerrant King Jimmy. He just changed some words, added commas, removed others, capitalized some parts, changed a few words, etc..

False. First of all, many copies have a few erroneous typos, which are individual and unique to that impression. Clearly, not having those is not a change.

Second. I didn't change any words, but am in full conformity to the witness of the Pure Cambridge Edition as set forth in many previously existing copies.

Third. I didn't add commas or remove any, but what is there in the KJB, specifically, in the PCE.

Forth. I didn't change "a few words", I changed zero.