HOME PAGE

TOPICS PAGE

Scientific Biblical Studies - Current Articles

Remember The Back Button On Your Browser

The Life Foundations Nexus

 

 

ALL OF THE SUPPOSED ERRORS IN THE KING JAMES BIBLE

WARNING:  THIS IS A PSYOPS PAGE

 

 

Copyright August 9, 2005 2:19 PM CST

By Dr. Michael J. Bisconti

 

Updated September 22, 2005 8:05 AM CST

Copyright September 22, 2005 8:05 AM CST

By Dr. Michael J. Bisconti

 

 

 

 

Click Here

 

Read the Psyops Analysis of this page.

 

 

 

There are two ways to approach all of the supposed errors in the King James Bible:

 

1.      Discover a general principle that addresses all of these supposed errors.

 

2.      Address every individual, supposed error.

 

We have done both.

 

 

PROVIDENTIAL REVISION PRINCIPLE

 

The “Providential Revision Principle” will, no doubt, be rejected by our less supernaturalistic brothers and sisters in the Lord.  Therefore, we want all to know that, even if the Providential Revision Principle were invalid, we would still have the King’s Translators’ Obiter Verbum below to prove the correctness of these so-called errors.  The “Providential Revision Principle” states:

 

IF there were errors in the King James Bible, it would be by the hand of providence.  This would mean that these errors would actually be “providential revisions” implemented by the Spirit of God due to the limitations of his chosen, human translators.  The proof of this would be that God always enforces a final authority and the final authority that has been, continues to be, and will be enforced is the King James Bible.  In addition, the fact of providential revision would further demonstrate that the authority of the King James Bible has never rested in the hands of the human translators and has always rested in the hands of the Holy Spirit of God.

 

 

INDIVIDUAL SUPPOSED ERRORS

 

There has been no small stir regarding the King’s Translators’ Obiter Verbum.  The excitement waned once we (incorrectly) reported that this collection of writings is a friendly hoax.  Well, it turns out that we had a spy in our midst (some people will do anything to defend their position) who tampered with our original investigative report for these documents and then with the documents themselves.  The fact is that the King’s Translators’ Obiter Verbum is NOT a friendly hoax and is not a hoax of any kind.  Dr. Bisconti is now personally handling EVERY aspect of the study and publication of these documents.

 

CRITICAL UPDATE:  READ Critique #1 at http://lfnexus.com/criticscorner.htm.

 

We will be addressing every supposed error over time.  Our principal resource is the newly discovered notes and commentary written in the hand of the King James Bible translators, which have, until now, been lost to history.  These notes and commentary provide explanations for every single, supposed error in the King James Bible.  It is as if the King James Bible translators knew the contention that would arise over these so-called errors.

 

The L. F. Nexus, through its new partner, LIONWRIT, now has within its possession the over ten thousand pages that comprise the one hundred fifty, distinct documents collectively referred to as the King’s Translators’ Obiter Verbum (this name was assigned to these literary treasures by Sir Charles Grissword in 1843).  We will be publishing the KTOV (pronounced “kay-tawv” [King’s Translators’ Obiter Verbum]) in its entirety, over time, on the L. F. Nexus website.  We are preparing transcriptions and scanned images of these, no doubt, divinely preserved documents.

 

Here is an excerpt from the KTOV collection.  This is taken from The Barlow Commentary, which was written by Dr. William Barlow, president of the fifth company of translators.  This excerpt is Dr. Barlow’s linguistic commentary on Hebrews 10:23.  We have paraphrased a portion of Dr. Barlow’s text.  We will be providing the complete, unparaphrased text as soon as possible as described above.

 

We must think that our less learned, Greek brethren are confused by our use of the word “faith” in place of the word “hope.”  Our committees in joint conference have unanimously elected the word “faith” in place of the word “hope.”  Our reasoning springs, first, from the “object of our faith” both in the ancient Greek and the modern [1611] English.  Hope is “the future viewed with expectation.”  Faith is “the future viewed as the word of a faithful friend.”  For us to use the word “hope” would be for us to say that our faith should reside in human expectation.  It is true that this expectation rests upon the very Word of God and is empowered by the very Spirit of God but, in truth, our faith is in “the Most Faithful of Faithful Friends” [this quoted expression is not a paraphrase].

 

Second, there is established precedent for “converting” “hope” to “faith” in translating the ancient Greek.  We have cited more than five score of ancient Greek writ that institute this conversion.

 

Third, even if we were mistaken in adopting “faith,” the message of the “profession of our hope” would be implicit in the phrase “profession of our faith.”  As the Scripture saith, “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for.”  In addition, the words “profession of our faith” express the belief of all of God’s children and, more importantly, the truth of God.

 

Fourth, there is the conquensia of language, which forbids any other interpretation.  This argument alone is sufficient to make our case but we would rather heap a mountain upon all adversaries.  This conquensia is a form of idiom.  It occurs in over forty ancient Greek writings.  [Dr. Barlow is referring to an idiomatic linguistic form known as conquensiation (see Hebrews 10:23 – Bobgun-1)].

 

We trust that our arguments will forestall any future disputations on this conversion, though we fear a bit that the adversary of our Lord will somehow manage to play havoc.