Introduction

Critical Update

As of Thursday, February 11, 2010 around 8:00 P.M CST, we have established that all other defenders of the King James Bible are making a critical error regarding one passage of Scripture.  Their error is so egregious that, while we remain defenders of the King James Bible, we can no longer ally ourselves with other defenders of the King James Bible.  We will continue to love and encourage other defenders of the King James Bible but we cannot and will not stand with them in their specific formulations of the KJVO (King James Version Only) movement.  We refer to our formulation of the KJVO movement as CS-KJVO (see below).  Finally, remember, our approach to biblical textual criticism is the only purely scientific approach in the world and, indeed, in history.   The Tischendorf Institute (Chicago Christian University, College of Biblical Textual Criticism), under the leadership of Dr. Michael J. Bisconti, is the first and only institution in the world and in history to examine all existing evidence bearing upon the question of the correct ancient languages text of the Bible.

This website deals with the subject of biblical textual criticism.  Because this is a fact site, it follows the same principles as those stated at http://lfnexus.com/indexeinstein.htm.  We emphasize not the data of biblical textual criticism, which we shall include on this website, but, rather, the correct interpretation of the data.  We have discovered over the decades that traditional biblical textual criticism has failed.  It has failed in that it has not been decisive in identifying the true text of the New Testament.  We will provide a full discussion on traditional biblical textual criticism followed by a complete discussion of the newer science of next-generation biblical textual criticism.  The key principle of next-generation biblical textual criticism is the principle that the Bible is its own textual critic (see The TBI-IOTC Principle on our original website).  For additional information, reference our articles on our original website at http://lfnexus.com/biblicalscience.htm.  A handful of these articles need to be updated with more current information and more current low-level conclusions but the high-level conclusions of all of the articles, which support the Textus Receptus and the King James Bible, are still true and valid.  More specifically, with regard to the English Bible, our research supports:

The English family of Bibles that culminated in the 1611 King James Bible followed by a number of transdialections of the 1611 King James Bible ending with the POCE 1769 transdialection of the 1611 King James Bible.

With regard to the debate over the “Pure Cambridge Edition” (circa 1900) and, more generally, over the correct King James transdialection, we provide the required scholarship below, which is provided nowhere else, either elsewhere on the internet or anywhere else.  Discussions we have read on the internet violate several aurum (golden) verses.  For a discussion of the Aurum (Golden Verse) Principle see http://lfnexus.com/seminaronthetruetextlessonone.htm on our original website.  Since everyone needs an answer now, we will tell you that the 1769 King James Bible transdialection is the standard Word of God

(see the discussion at http://www.lfnexus.com/authoritativelycorrecttransdialectionofthekingjamesbible.htm on our original website).  We know, of course, that the last statement will defy the understanding of the more informed among our readers.  Let us add that other transdialections of the King James Bible may hold commentary status but, as such, they are subordinate to the 1769 transdialection.

Now, in reality, the last paragraph is only an approximation of the truth.  The final authority for the believer is found in II Peter 3:16, which states:

As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

In this verse, you find an analysis of the believer’s final authority.  The believer’s final authority includes:

·        Learnedness, the opposite of unlearnedness, as reflected in the word “unlearned.”

·        Stability, the opposite of instability, as reflected in the word “unstable.”

·        The Scriptures, as reflected in the words “all his epistles” and “the other scriptures.”

Contrary to what multitudes have said for centuries, the believer’s final authority is a complex (a group of interacting elements).  The believer’s final authority is the complex of learnedness, stability, and Scripture.  This complex of three elements we are calling:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *