The Absolute Standard


God's Persistent Witness to the Absolute Standard of Written Truth - The King James Holy Bible

I believe in the sovereignty of God in history. "For the kingdom is the LORD'S; and He is the governor among the nations." Psalm 22:28. God has set His mark upon many things in this world that reveal His Divine hand at work in history. Now before you object to the words "sovereign" or "sovereignty" all the word means is literally "to rule over" something, and God is the absolute Ruler of His universe. In fact, the word sovereignty is found in the NKJV (1 Samuel 14:47), and "sovereign" in the NASB (1 Timothy 6:15), the ESV (Acts 4:24; 1 Tim. 6:15 and Rev.6:10) and in the NIV a whopping 294 times!

"the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever He will... And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and He doeth according to His will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay His hand, or say unto Him, What doest Thou?" Daniel 4:32,35.

Why do we use the 7 day week instead of the 10 day week? Why are dates either B.C. (Before Christ) or A.D. (Anno Domini - year of our Lord)? Although the secular world is now trying in vain to change this too to BCE and CE.

England, the country God used to give us the King James Holy Bible, just "happens to be" the one nation from which we measure true Time (Greenwich time, zero hour) and from which we measure true Position on this earth, zero longitude. Just a "coincidence", huh?

I think God must have an ironic sense of humor in the way He bears witness to the Absolute Standard of His written words in the King James Bible, and the bible agnostics just can't get around this silent witness.

The first English Bible translation to divide the 66 individual books that make up our Bible into numbered chapters and verses was the Geneva Bible of 1557. However the Geneva Bible did NOT have the same numbering system we find in the King James Bible.

For instance, I have two hard copies of the Geneva Bible; the 1599 complete Geneva Bible and the 1602 Geneva New Testament. Both have the same numbering system for its chapters and verses.

In Luke 15 the KJB has 32 verses, but the Geneva combined verses 31 and 32 into verse 31 and all it has are 31 verses instead of the 32 found in the King James Bible.

In Romans 1 the KJB has 32 verses, but the Geneva Bible has only 31. It combined verses 30-31 into a single verse 30, and so the Geneva bible only has 31 verses in this chapter instead of the KJB's 32.

In 2 Corinthians 13 the KJB has 14 verses, while the Geneva combined verses 12 and 13 into a single verse 12, and then adds the last verse as v. 13. Thus it has one less numbered verse than the KJB.

In Galatians 1 the KJB has 24 verses, but the Geneva bibles had only 23 numbered verses because they combined verses 21 and 22 into a single verse.

In 2 John the KJB has 13 verses but the Geneva bibles only had 12 numbered verses because they combined verses 11 and 12 into a single verse 11.

And finally in Revelation 12 the KJB has only 17 verses but the Geneva has 18. The Geneva bible took Revelation 13:1, split it into two parts and made it 12:18 and 13:1 respectively.

What is the point of all this? Well, when the King James Bible came out it basically followed the Chapter and Verse number divisions of the previous Geneva Bible but it changed it in a few places and the King James Bible became the Standard.

When the new Westcott-Hort, UBS-Catholic bible versions came on the scene, they omitted many entire verses from the New Testament like Matthew 17:21; 18:11; 23:14, Mark 7:16; 9:44; 9:46, 11:26; 15:28; Luke 17:36; 23:17, John 5:4; Acts 8:37; 24:7; 28:29 and Romans 16:24. So what do these modern "Catholic" bibles like the Revised Version 1885, ASV 1901, NASB, NIV, ESV, RSVs do when they come to these verses? They simply skip the number.

For example, when you look at versions like the ESV or the NIV in Matthew chapter 17 when they get to all these verses they have omitted from their texts, you find them numbering like this: Matthew 17:20, 22. When we read these bogus bible versions we have to conclude one of two things. Either they do not know how to count from one to a hundred and should take a remedial Math class; or they are bearing silent witness to an Absolute Standard of written authority and they fall short of this Standard - "Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found WANTING." (lacking) Daniel 5:26.

Bible translations in hundreds of foreign languages all over the world still follow the Chapter and Verse Numbers found in and first established by the King James Holy Bible. Just another coinkidink, huh? That, or it's the sovereign hand of God bearing witness to His true Book, the only one still believed by thousands to be the inerrant words of God.

While we are on the subject of coincidences, let me mention a couple more. At one of the internet clubs a member mockingly asked: "Who authorized the King James Bible?" To whom I responded: "It was the king of England; king James to be exact. Do you have a problem with that? The Bibles says: "Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?" Ecclesiastes 8:4.

The man king James had nothing to do with translating the Bible that eventually was associated with his name, but he did authorize it to be read in all churches. His name was James and James is the English equivalent of the Hebrew name Jacob, who was also called Israel. The name Jacob means supplanter or one who takes the place of another. Jacob was a man with faults as was James, but he was the chosen vessel of God to bring about His eternal purposes and Jacob was a believer in the true God. So too was the man king James. The English language has supplanted or taken the place of ancient Hebrew, ancient Greek and most assuredly ancient Latin, the two formerly widespread languages during the times of the early church. And now English is closest thing to a universal language with no foreseeable end in sight. But this is just a coincidence, right?

Well, there is another coincidence associated with the name of the Bible he authorized and which God has used far more than any other Bible in history. The Bible these men produced was simply called "Holy Bible". It was not referred to as the King James Version/Bible or Authorized Version till much later in history when the other popular versions began to appear. The number 9 in Scripture is associated with the idea of fruitfulness. In the year of jubilee the earth brought forth her new fruits in the 9th year (Leviticus 25:20-22) There are 9 fruits of the Spirit listed in Galatians 5:22-23. Jesus said in John 12:24 "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much FRUIT." When did Jesus die? Scripture tells us that it was at the 9th hour in which He cried with a loud voice and gave up the ghost. See Matthew 27:45-50 and Mark 15:34-37.

The Holy Bible is God's written revelation to mankind. It was not written for the animals nor the plants, nor the fishes in the sea, but for man. And just how long did God design it that the woman's gestation period is before she gives birth to what the Bible calls "the fruit of the womb"? Well, as we all know, it just happens to be 9 months. In the King James Bible the phrase "the fruit of the womb" occurs 6 times, and 6 is the number of man who was created on the 6th day. See Genesis 30:2, Deuteronomy 7:13, Psalm 127:3, Isaiah 13:18, Hosea 9:16 and Luke 1:42. Just another coincidence, huh?

There are 9 letters in the words Holy Bible. There are nine letters in the title "king James". Even when we combine the two to say "King James Holy Bible" we end up with 18 letters, which again brings us back to 9. Oh.. and when was this authorized Holy Bible published and presented to the world? As we all know, it was in the year of our Lord 1611 - and that's another 9, isn't it, and just another "coincidence", I suppose.


I also think the ironic humor of God is seen in how the "No Bible IS inerrant" crowd refer to their own methods of tampering with and continually changing the texts of both the Old and New Testaments. They call this ever changing process the "science of textual criticism" or "the Critical Text". Their “scholarly” shenanigans are about as "scientific" as Witches' Brew and it most definitely is in critical condition.

In 1611 the English language was spoken by a mere 3% of the world's population, but today English has become the closest thing to a universal language in history.

God used the King James Bible to carry His words to the far ends of the earth, where it was translated into hundreds of languages by English and American missionaries for over 300 years. The sun never set on the British empire. It was even taken to space by American astronauts and read from there.

God, who declares the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:10) knew how He would use England, its language and the King James Bible to accomplish all these things long before they happened.

Oh, and by the way, the King James Bible is the all time Number One Best Selling Book EVER, and that BY FAR! No other book in print even comes close. It is the only Bible God has providentially used in these ways.

In what might well be “the latter times [when] some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils” (1 Timothy 4:1) and unbelief in the inerrancy of any real, hold it in your hands, read and believe every word type of Bible is now the majority view held by professing Christians ("Yea, hath God said....?" Genesis 3:1) the Authorized King James Holy Bible is the only Bible believed by thousands upon thousands of blood bought children of God to be the inspired, infallible and 100% historically true words of the living God.

If you believe the King James Bible IS the inerrant words of God, then give Him the praise and thanksgiving for it. If you do not, may I suggest you get one, read it and ask God to open your eyes and give you the faith to believe His Absolute Standard of Written Truth.

“Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O LORD God of hosts.” Jeremiah 15:16

Will Kinney

Return to Articles - brandplucked.webs.com/articles.htm

I believe that the King James Bible IS the inerrant words of God.

Thank you Father for allowing me to hold in my hands and read your pure and inerrant words. I give you all the praise for it.

Wow Will, great article!


If it ain't King James Bible, it ain't bible.

Yes, brother. I join you in giving thanks to our heavenly Father for giving us His true "book of the LORD" and for the faith to believe it.

God bless,

Will K

If it ain't King James Bible, it ain't bible.

Amen!

Will K

God promised to preserve His word! Praise the Lord we have God's very words in our hands!!! \o/

Kate Plourde wrote:


Amen! So many today do not believe that, but it is true and God has given us His "book of the LORD" and it's in the English language. We are truly blessed.

Will K

Do you believe that the King James Version is more accurate, less accurate or equally accurate to the Greek and Hebrew version that existed in 1610?

I believe that the King James Bible is equally accurate. God has preserved His word throughout the ages in the language of the age. He saw the future and that English would be the language of the most of the world and, hence, the King James Bible. It would be a cruel God to say that we will be judged by His word and then not preserve it and provide it in the language of the day.

Where in the Bible does it support the notion that God's Word changes from language to language based on the dominantly spoken language of that era or is that a extra-Biblical belief based on your view of God's character as referenced by your mention that God would be cruel to have not done this?

P.S. I'm KJV only also, but I believe that we give a lot of room to the opposition when we promote anecdotal and circumstantial evidence instead of relying on the Bible and the facts to support our beliefs. Let's just say that when we live a Christianity that's not the Christianity found in the Bible, then others have a right to ignore what we say.

Nicholas Cardot wrote:


I believe that the King James Bible is the Preserved Divinely Inspired Inerrant Word of God.

It being accurate to what came before it or after it isn't a question that concerns me.

The problem then becomes what do I tell a bible critic that asks these kinds of questions. Well, in my experience since they don't believe any bible is inerrant or accurate compared to the 'original texts' the question of the KJB being accurate compared to others isn't a question that concerns them.

Continuing,

I hear even KJB only preachers making reference to the greek or hebrew to explain what something in the bible means. You have God's Holy Word right in front of you in english, so why not just make reference to the english?


I understand that in defending the KJB, you may have to go a bit deeper than that. I'm just musing on things.

I totally agree. Why "steal" the words of God from the common people by trying to make them think they cannot "understand the hidden nuances of meaning" supposedly found in "the" Greek and thus set up a separate class of priestcraft Christians?

Will K

Boy am I glad to see you on Baptist Muse, Will K! Thank you for your excellent defense as always of God's divinely preserved and inerrant word in the KJV bible.

Bro. Garry

Hi brother Garry. Thank you for the words of encouragement. I appreciate it.

"Accepted in the Beloved" - Eph. 1:6

Will K

Well, Bro. Nick, let's look at history. Israel had their Scriptures in Hebrew. Granted they were not the major language but they were God's chosen for the oracles. The New Testament was written in Koine Greek, the language of the common people. Then it was in the next major language, Old Latin. England was the hub of commerce and missionaries at the time of the translation into English.

You are right in the fact that the Scriptures don't state that God would preserve His word in the language of the day. However, stop and think for a moment. If we are to be judged according to God's word, it stands to reason that He would make sure that the common man with a common language would have it:

He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. John 12:48 (KJV)

Just my lowly humble opinion

As long as we are musing, I'll add my two cents. Prior to becoming an independent Baptist, I was with another Baptist affiliation until 1996. During my time there, I used a variety of translations including the NIV.

In 1993 Bible translation piqued my interest, but not from a fundamentalist point-of-view. Yes, I believed the fundamentals of the faith, but I believe a particular translation had little to do with that. At that time I was challenged by an older, wiser pastor. He said, "Marty, look at the churches who have quit using the King James and notice where the rest of their standards have gone." Because of my respect for this man, I picked up the challenge. I did my own informal survey of a number of churches. To my chagrin, I had to confess that my friend was correct. Every church that changed translations, also changed their standards of music, dress, etc. I did not understand. I did not believe that such a change could be blamed on the particular version of the Bible one chose to use. Thus, I began what became a two-year, in-depth study of the translation issue, with a goal of disproving the idea that the King James was the best.

As I approached the study, I devoured everything I could from both ends of the spectrum. I read James White's writings, and I read Gail Riplinger's writings. I read and researched a number of sources from both viewpoints. As I immersed myself into this study, I began to pray that the Lord might show me if I was wrong.

Well, as you can surmise, I arrived at a conclusion other than my objective. My study brought me to the conclusion that God has preserved His Word for English speaking people in the King James. Although I have a number of friends who still differ with me on it, I still stand on my position. I will also say that, when you contend with a professed "scholar," it is difficult to prove every point of the King James position. However, we must remember that we are saved by faith, and we accept the Word of God by faith. So, while I do have sound, academic principles on which to base my King James position, I would argue that "faith" is the larger issue. Do I really believe that the God Who redeemed my soul and promises Heaven for me, is able also to preserve His exact words for me? To this question, I offer a resounding "YES!"

I do agree with Nick that those of us of the King James position must use wisdom and facts when espousing our position. Often we give our critics much fodder to use against us. For instance, when a pastor holds up his Bible, stands and declares "I'll stick with the old 1611 King James Bible 'till I die," he provides the ammunition for the critics to shoot us with. Such a pastor should know that the edition he holds in his hand is not 1611, but 1769. Yes, there are differences between the two. There were copyist mistakes that the translators caught and had corrected. They were not translation mistakes, but simple copyist mistakes. Thus, the 1769 edition was the final of the revisions and it is totally accurate.

We must also be careful when offering critical comments concerning those who would study and refer to the Greek or Hebrew wording. To encourage such study is not the same has setting up a priestly/clerical class. Can any believer read the BIble and understand its message. Most assuredly! However, I like what one preacher said concerning this thought. He said, "It's like watch a black-and-white TV. When you study the Greek or Hebrew underlying words, it is like turning on the color." I often refer to a particular word meaning in my preaching. However, I NEVER say "a better word would have been," or "the translators made a mistake." I would not take it upon myself to try and "improve" the Word of God. Studying the underlying words is something that ANY study of the BIble can do. You do not have to be a preacher or scholar. With the study tools at our disposal today, it is something that anyone can do. Paul told Timothy to "study to shew thyself approved unto God." The word "study" does not mean "to simply read." It means to give an effort to and endeavor. Thus, study is a God-given mandate to each believer.

I am grateful for a totally accurate and trustworthy translation of the Bible in our King James. I am King James by conviction now. However, let us use wisdom and discernment when professing the position. Our position is strong and verifiable. We need not resort to platitudes and anecdotes.

Amen, Pastor!!!!

I respect your position Pastor Wynn, understand it, and appreciate it, but I stand by my statement. When I read and study with only the KJB it isn't in black and white to me, it is in HD.

P.S. I don't consider myself an expert in the matter. My position is my conviction, and the content does not reflect the views of the Baptist Muse.

Scott Brinson wrote:


Amen. I have never seen anything come from "the" Greek or Hebrew that in any significant way gave me any further insight than I get from the straight forward English of the King James Bible.

Will K

Bro. Kenney, in a courtroom a lawyer would then ask you, "So you have gotten insight from the Greek or Hebrew? Just not significant insight? Who defines significant?"