My King James Bible Is Inspired

Posted on by nashpublications

My King James Bible is Inspired and Preserved by God…

Anytime we use a dictionary, we must pick the correct definition for the context of what we are doing.

Example: save

noun: (sports) the act of preventing the opposition from scoring (“The goalie made a brilliant save”)
verb: to keep up and reserve for personal or special use (“She saved the old family photographs in a drawer”)
verb: feather one’s nest; have a nest egg (“He saves half his salary”)
verb: spend less; buy at a reduced price
verb: spend sparingly, avoid the waste of (“This move will save money”)
verb: bring into safety
verb: make unnecessary an expenditure or effort (“This will save money”)
verb: refrain from harming
verb: save from sins
verb: retain rights to
verb: save from ruin, destruction, or harm
name: A surname

The Biblical definition would be to save from sins.

What would be the Biblical definition for inspiration?

Webster’s 1828 Dictionary

inspiration
INSPIRA’TION, n. [L. inspiro.]

  1. The act of drawing air into the lungs; the inhaling of air; a branch of respiration, and opposed to expiration.
  2. The act of breathing into any thing.
  3. The infusion of ideas into the mind by the Holy Spirit; the conveying into the minds of men, ideas, notices or monitions by extraordinary or supernatural influence; or the communication of the divine will to the understanding by suggestions or impressions on the mind, which leave no room to doubt the reality of their supernatural origin. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God. 2 Timothy 3:16
  4. The infusion of ideas or directions by the supposed deities of pagans.
  5. The infusion or communication of ideas or poetic spirit, by a superior being or supposed presiding power; as the inspiration of Homer or other poet.

Breathe is not a Biblical definition, but a secular one. Because of choosing the wrong definition, there is now much heresy. All we had to do is look at the Bible.

2 Peter 1:20-21   “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”

God did speak audibly to prophets and the writers of scripture, but not speak audibly every time. According to this verse who spoke? Holy men of God.  How did they speak? As they were moved of the Holy Ghost.

Inspiration is the Spirit of God moving on a person. It is not God speaking in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic so that only those words would ever be inspired or preserved.

If you use the wrong definition of inspiration then you find yourself in a faith shaking heresy that says the Bible is preserved but not inspired because only the originals are inspired.

The Bible is our only authority in all matters of faith and practice because:

1.)  The Bible bears the absolute authority of God Himself.

2.)  The Bible is inspired by God (not just the ‘originals’ but your KJB).

 INSPIRATION – The infusion of ideas into the mind by the Holy Spirit

John 6:63b –  “…the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.”

No human opinion or the decree of any church group or council may usurp the authority of the Bible.

No creeds or confessions of faith, which attempt to articulate the theology of Scripture, can carry the authority of Scripture itself.

Here is what the critics such as David Sorenson, Phil Stringer and Dr. Waite are saying:

“Virtually all fundamental Bible believers accept the view that the Bible is verbally and plenarily inspired. However some proponents of the King James Version have taken the position that the KJV as a translation is inspired. They view the Authorized Version of 1611 as carrying the same inspirational authority as the autographs (i.e., original manuscripts” (pp. 42, 43). David Sorenson goes on to conclude,

“Did He so move through these Englishmen (and the other five companies of translators), so that what they wrote were in fact the very words of God? There certainly is no historical record or Scriptural prophecy that He did or would”

When the translators worked on the King James Bible they were inspired in what word to choose.  In most cases the translators only had to choose one of two words.  The Holy Spirit inspired them or insfused the ideas into their mind of what word to choose.  If God can instill a ‘yes’ or ‘no’, in a decision from a deacon board, how much more difficult is it for his still small voice to instill a ‘yes’ directing them from the Bishops’ Bible’s “win gain” to Wycliff’s alliterative “get gain” in James 4:13 and from the Bishops’ “we the less” to Tyndale’s alliterative “we the worse” in 1 Corinthians 8:8?

In English class, I remember being taught to look at the root word to help with the definition, and then I would ask myself what would that be?

Inspiration – take away the suffix and prefix and you have what? Spir – Inspiration is by the Spirit

You don’t need to use the Greek word, but if you do, here is what you find.

The Greek word there is never translated in the Bible breathe – never!

Never in the King James Bible – it is in the NIV.

It is almost always translated as “spirit” (322 times), “Ghost” or “ghost” (91 times), “wind” (1 time), “life” (1 time), but never as “breath” or “breathed.”

Sorenson closes his discussion of inspiration by chiding those with what he calls an “emotional attachment” to the idea that “a given translation of Scripture” might be called inspired (p. 210). He concludes with a faith shaking saying, “Though the King James Version as a translation is not inspired…Though technically the King James Version is not inspired as a translation, we can still effectually say, “I hold in my hands the inspired word of God…” (p. 211). This is Semler’s theory of accommodation at its craftiest to accommodate the “emotional attachment” of the man in the pew.

Really Scary Stuff

The liberals have written reams to pretend that Psalm 12:7 cannot be used to support the doctrine of preservation. Yet Sorenson agrees with the liberals saying that Ps. 12:7 does not support preservation. He says,

“The reader will notice that this author has not appealed to Psalm 12:7 regarding the greater matter of preservation. There the psalmist wrote, “Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” Because this follows directly after psalm [sic] 12:6, referring to the words of the Lord [sic], many have assumed the them of verse 7 to refer to the words of God. In fact, for many, Psalm 12:7 has become the proof text for verbal preservation.”

He continues saying, “However, in the view of this writer, Psalm 12:7 is not a proof text thereof. There are six reasons why.” He goes on to give a word-for-word liberal textbook explanation of why he agrees with the unbelievers that this verse does not promise preservation of the scriptures. He claims, “The greater context of the first section of the book of Psalms (chapters 1-41) deals repeatedly with how God preserves, protects, and delivers His people” not his words (p. 213). Dragging his reader to his lair of lexicons he then gives them the supposed real meaning of “preserve” as “to keep secret” (p. 214). (In his discussion of preservation he is quick to point out that the word “endureth” in Ps. 119:160 is an “interpolation” by the King James translators. p. 72).

Ron Minton was fired from his position as a professor at Bible Baptist College, in part, because he espoused this same heretical position about Ps. 12:7, but could not defend it against the following facts from Answers Minton I, when it was read by the BBF governing board:””Is Given by Inspiration” (2 Tim. 3:16)

In order to divest your current Holy Bible of its inspiration, Sorenson continually changes the Bible from its present tense statement (“is given”) to a past tense verb. He says “God spoke,” “has spoken,” “wrote,” and “inspired” are all past tense words. To him the word of God “has been inspired,” and its words “have proceeded.”  Inspiration “was a one-time operation” (pp. 29, 30, 33, 40, 45).

But the Bible says, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God.” That is, the Spirit of God gives all scriptures. My Holy Bible is the word of God, not the words of men. It couldn’t be simpler. How can the KJB be the “words of God,” if the Spirit of God did not lead them (p. 138)?

The word “Inspiration,” which merits large print and a prominent place on his cover, should surely be given a Biblically wrought definition. Bound by his former seminary education, he cannot use the simple word ‘inspiration.’ So he must strain his natural mind to come up with the following words to describe the process.

He asks questions about the KJB, inquiring if perhaps, “God had something to do with it.” He feels it “seems” that “God so-ordained it,” “God has had a direct and providential hand in the development” and “God has providentially worked behind the scenes” (pp. 135, 136). He asks, “The question remains, did God have anything to do with that? If we believe that God is active in matters pertaining to His purposes and His work, the answer must be yes” (p. 145). I don’t want a book that God had something to do with. I want the very words of God.

He believes God “has worked through various editors in the original languages as well as in later translations” (p. 145). “Or, perhaps, has the unseen hand of God quietly promoted the proper transmission of His Word…” (pp. 145-46). He says, “Precisely how God’s Spirit has providentially guided a given editor or publisher, only God knows” (p. 115).

The Bible tells us. “All scripture is given by inspiration of God…” He did it by his Spirit, whom he promised would lead us into all truth. It’s quite simple. No “active” “unseen hand” is flipping pages “behind the scenes.” If Bible teachers are ashamed to use the words of the Bible to describe the Bible, God will be ashamed of them at his coming. The words of the Bible best describe the Bible.Preserved Greek and Hebrew?

Sorenson says, “Nevertheless, the Holy Spirit has worked behind the scenes in providentially guiding editor as well as modern language translations such as the King James Version. The result is that we hold in our hands today a purified and perfectly preserved copy of God’s words whether in Hebrew, Greek, or English” (pp. 170, 171). The perfectly preserved English Bible is the KJB, but his identification of the “perfectly preserved” Greek and Hebrew texts is mistaken, as is much of his work. A thorough examination of the Greek and Hebrew texts which he recommends to “hold in our hands” and to which he ascribes the words “perfectly preserved” reveals that they are not, in fact, the precise Greek and Hebrew texts underlying the KJB. They soundly disagree with the KJB in a number of places.

To be specific, the locus of preservation for Sorenson is “heaven” and “Scriveners [sic] Greek text of 1881” which he calls “a careful reflection of the text which underlays the King James Version” (p. 79). It has been demonstrated that Scrivener’s text disagrees with the KJB and the pure historic Greek text in scores of places, all of which have been documented (See Hazardous Materials, ch. 18, particularly pp. 653-682, ch. 17, et al.). Which is correct, Tyndale’s and the KJB’s “word of God,” or Scrivener’s “word of the Lord”? Which is perfectly preserved, the KJB’s ‘Beelzebub,’ which perfectly matches the Hebrew spelling, or Scrivener’s “Beelzebul’?  Is it Scrivener’s “we will appoint” or Elzevir’s, Tyndale’s and the KJB’s “we may appoint”?  Does “Amen” belong in Eph 6:24 as the KJB has it? Or should it be omitted as Scrivener does? Does the word ‘Jesus’ belong once in Mark 2:15, as Scrivener has it, or twice, as the KJB has it? Such differences shake the Bible college student’s faith, when they are shown such ‘supposed’ departures from ‘the’ Greek of Scrivener – a man who acted as if he despised words in the Holy Bible (See Hazardous Materials, ch. 17). Sorenson’s pabulum will only be swallowed by the babes in Christ or by those who find a meal of such verbiage to be political healthy.

Sorenson says God “worked through believing editors” (p. 117). He footnotes Scrivener’s Six Lectures which he must not have read, since it clearly presents Scrivener’s heretical denial of many doctrinally critical words, phrases, and verses in the KJB (p. 156). How a true believer could deny so many vital parts of the Bible is beyond me.

Sorenson points to the ben Chayyim Hebrew text, but we’re all learning that the ben Chayyim text was not, in fact, the Hebrew text in which the KJB translators put their trust. Its currently available form, as edited by the occult cabalist C. Ginsburg and sold by the Trinitarian Bible Society, has been demonstrated in great detail to be untrustworthy. (See Hazardous Materials, ch. 28 (and 27). But Sorenson is still repeating this old, out-dated Waiteism (p. 79). (Waitism: A superficial guess or generalization made by D.A. Waite which cannot be backed up with word-for-word research.)Historical Errors

www.cookingworld.info One quickly gathers from Sorenson’s book against the inspiration of the KJB and Sorenson’s other book, Touch Not the Unclean Thing, that he is not a student of primary sources and gathers information second-hand from the writings of others, much like a high school paper. Secular universities would sneer at such a lack of genuine research and scholarship. Characteristic of his writings are out-dated and bungled facts, such as his reference to a “Romanut” language, which should be the “Romaunt” language (p. 131).

For example, he repeats the out of date notion that the “Traditional Text” “can be traced back to the mid-second century” only. The discovery of the Magdalene papyrus, dated A.D. 66, vindicates the Greek text underlying the KJB and its rendering hekastos auton in Matt. 26:22 (G.A. Riplinger, The Language of the King James Bible, Ararat, VA: A.V. Publications, 1998, p. xv). He even adds that there is “not strong textual evidence of the Traditional Text prior to the fourth century” (p. 2). The former President of the University of Chicago, Dr. Ernest C. Colwell, collated the early papyri (e.g. P66 and P75 etc.) and demonstrated that these and other second and third century documents did indeed match “Traditional Text” readings (G.A. Riplinger, New Age Bible Versions, Ararat, VA: A.V. Publications, 1993, chapter 35). Because of the research of Colwell and others, the critical Greek text (Nestle-Aland 26th edition) was forced to make 470 changes from their 25th edition, back to the readings of the KJB.  He repeats the time-worn tale that Erasmus “never officially left the church of Rome.” He has apparently never read The Tome of Erasmus Paraphrases Upon the New Testament in the original Latin or the English edition translated by Coverdale and others (available on In Awe of Thy Word CD-ROM Set).

He repeats three times that “the Modern Critical Text is approximately 90% Vaticanus” (pp. 130, 105, 154). Apparently he has never read Vaticanus and the critical text side by side. His statistics are unfounded conjecture and not based upon statistical analysis.

Just as in Sorenson’s commentary on the Bible, the reader is dragged through the same corrupt lexicons which were mined to find words for the new versions. Consequently, his definitions of KJB words match the new versions perfectly. Anyone in the pew with an NIV will swell with pride as he announces that ‘that word means’ the very word in their NIV. How could he later convince them of the errors in their NIV? (e.g. p. 16 “complete”). Through his Greek analysis the reader is transported to Greece to hear that “It is written” really means “it has been written and still is written” (p. 85). God’s inspired Bible is so much quicker with “is.”

“Them” in verse 7a cannot refer to the people of verse 5 because proper syntax demands the antecedent to a pronoun be adjacent (verse 6) without another antecedent intervening. The “them” of verse 7a clearly refers to the “words” of verse 6. All Hebrew grammars from the historic Gesenius to the contemporary Waltke agree that masculine suffixes (them) are frequently used to refer to feminine substantives (“words) (e.g. Job 31:11). The double occurrence of “words” parallels the double occurrence of “them.” This parallelism of thought is a basic feature of Hebrew poetry. The second “them” coming from a Hebrew masculine suffix, added to a Hebrew verb, may parallel “silver,” a singular masculine antecedent. It is apparent to any student of the Bible that Psalm 12:1-8 is setting up a comparison between the words of men (“speak,” “lips,” “tongue,” “said,” “puffeth”), their characteristics (“vanity,” “flattering,” “double heart,” and “proud”) and their longevity (“cut off”) against “the words of the LORD, their character (“pure”) and longevity (“keep,” “preserve,” “for ever”).” (G.A. Riplinger, Answers Minton I, Ararat, VA: A.V. Publications, pp. 7, 8).

Study the true Holy Bible as God commands, “line upon line, precept upon precept.” It will give you the “sense.” When they gave the sense in Nehemiah 8:8, they had only one book in front of them. That was the Holy Bible, not a row of commentaries. In fact, it was the Hebrew commentaries that prodded the apostasy of Israel and affirmed the rejection of their Saviour (e.g. Rashi (Rabbi Soloman Yitzhake), the Zohar, etc.).

When Sorenson is not putting on his tights and playing KJB translator, his general comments are orthodox, but no more illuminating that what any Christian could garner from simply reading the Holy Bible.

Summary

The most problematic aspect of Sorenson’s views on inspiration and his methodology in teaching the Bible is that both lowers one’s view of the holy scriptures in hand and casts a shadow of doubt over the words in one’s Holy Bible. “Yea, hath God said” those words in English? Could it be “literally” ‘Yes! Did God say that!? Every man did that which was right in his own eyes. Such a translation exercise is used in ALL colleges that teach Greek and Hebrew. Spurgeon warned of ‘popelings, fresh from college.’

Sorenson’s two reviewed books bring into clear focus WHY some men, such as Sorenson, D.A. Waite, Phil Stringer, Jack Schaap, the small remaining membership of the Dean Burgon Society, and all liberal scholars do not believe that Holy Bibles, such as the KJB, are the very words of God. If they are God’s very word-choices in English, then men, such as Sorenson cannot write 8,000 page commentaries suggesting variant readings. Colleges cannot generate tuition by promising to teach what the Bible really meant in Greek, and pulpiteers cannot pretend to have magic spectacles whereby they can bring to their audiences insights which are not available outside of a wall full of expensive reference books.

British trained Dan Wooldridge of Australia demonstrated the Bible’s own dictionary in his lengthy video series. Barry Goddard of Great Britain has proven in his book, The King James Bible’s Built-In Dictionary that God “gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading” “line upon line” (Neh. 8:8). That makes sense. The other only makes cents.