Scientific Biblical Studies - Advanced Studies

Remember The Back Button On Your Browser

The Life Foundations Nexus







Copyright September 22, 2005 7:41 AM CST

By Dr. Michael J. Bisconti


Updated July 5, 2008 3:38 PM CST

Copyright July 5, 2008 3:38 PM CST

By Dr. Michael J. Bisconti




The following is a Psyops Analysis (black-on-white text) of the page titled All of the Supposed Errors in the King James Bible.  We expect a few of our sillier critics to be clueless on this point and that they will, therefore, distort a part or all of our analysis.  This is alright.  It is alright because their clueless criticism will bring more visitors to our website.





------ SECTION 1 ------

Everything in this section is true.

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.


------ SECTION 2 ------


The following statement is true and has been confirmed by the response that it has elicited.  Please note that the words “less supernaturalistic” do not refer to a dishonorable characteristic.

The “Providential Revision Principle” will, no doubt, be rejected by our less supernaturalistic brothers and sisters in the Lord.  The next statement is false.  Remember that this is a Psyops page, which is designed to include NLP disinformation (see the Psyops page for an explanation).  From this point on, we shall use the word “falsehood” and related words (like “false”) to refer to NLP disinformation but keep in mind that this use of these words is neologistic.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 following statement is technically true.  This is because it simply provides an explanation of a principle.  It does not actually state that we believe in the principle.  Also, noting that the statement includes a CONDITIONAL statement (“IF there were errors”), based on the necessity of an error-free Bible, we acknowledge that it is a true statement.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.


------ SECTION 3 ------


The next statement is technically false.  However, at the time the statement was published, there were those who were excited by the imaginary King’s Translators’ Obiter Verbum; so, it is true that there was “no small stir.”

There has been no small stir regarding the King’s Translators’ Obiter Verbum.  The next statement is a mixture of truth and falsehood.The excitement waned  (the previous is true) once we (incorrectly (the previous is false)) reported that this collection of writings is a friendly hoax (the previous is nonsense but would be true if the collection of writings existed).  Well, it turns out that we had a spy in our midst (the previous is false) (some people will do anything to defend their position (the previous is true)) who tampered with our original investigative report for these documents (the previous is false) and then with the documents themselves (the previous is false).  The fact is that the King’s Translators’ Obiter Verbum is NOT a friendly hoax (the previous is nonsense because there is no King’s Translator’s Obiter Verbum) and is not a hoax of any kind (the previous is technically nonsense because there is no King’s Translator’s Obiter Verbum but effectively it was a [justified] Psyops hoax).  Dr. Bisconti is now personally handling EVERY aspect of the study and publication of these documents (the previous is nonsense because there is no King’s Translator’s Obiter Verbum).

------ SECTION 4 ------

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

The previous is now nonsense because the update has been deleted.

We will be addressing every supposed error over time.   The previous is true.  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.  The previous is false.  These notes and commentary provide explanations for every single, supposed error in the King James Bible.  The previous is false.  It is as if the King James Bible translators knew the contention that would arise over these so-called errors.  The previous is technically uncertain.


The L. F. Nexus, through its new partner, LIONWRIT (the previous is true; that is, LIONWRIT was, at the time of the writing of the original Psyops page, a new partner), 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 (the previous is false) (this name was assigned to these literary treasures by Sir Charles Grissword in 1843 (the previous is false)).  We will be publishing the KTOV (the previous is false) (pronounced “kay-tawv” [King’s Translators’ Obiter Verbum]) in its entirety, over time, on the L. F. Nexus website (the previous is false).  We are preparing transcriptions and scanned images of these, no doubt, divinely preserved documents (the previous is false).


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

------ SECTION 5 ------

The following quoted passage is technically nonsense.  This is because it is not a quoted passage.  However, some of the statements in the passage are inherently true (true in themselves).

We must think that our less learned, Greek brethren are confused by our use of the word “faith” in place of the word “hope.”  The previous is inherently true (true in itself).  Our committees in joint conference have unanimously elected the word “faith” in place of the word “hope.”  The previous is possibly, inherently true (possibly true in itself).  Our reasoning springs, first, from the “object of our faith” both in the ancient Greek and the modern [1611] English.  The previous is possibly, inherently true (possibly true in itself).  Hope is “the future viewed with expectation.”  The previous is true.  Faith is “the future viewed as the word of a faithful friend.”  The previous is true.  For us to use the word “hope” would be for us to say that our faith should reside in human expectation.  The previous is true.  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” (the previous is true) [this quoted expression is not a paraphrase (the previous is nonsense since the expression is not a quoted expression)].


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


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 (the previous is true).”  As the Scripture saith, “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for (the previous is true).”  In addition, the words “profession of our faith” express the belief of all of God’s children and, more importantly, the truth of God (the previous is true).


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


We trust that our arguments will forestall any future disputations on this conversion (the previous is technically false but, if only the true content above is referred to, the previous is true), though we fear a bit that the adversary of our Lord will somehow manage to play havoc (the previous is true).