BIBLICAL TRANSLATION CRITICISM
Next-Generation Biblical Translation Criticism was developed by Dr. Michael Bisconti.
“We are the world leader, defending the Bible since 1949.”
Linked web pages are currently hosted on the L. F. Nexus website.
Friday, January 7, 2011 Update of This Page
The 17 Golden Rules of Smart Biblical Translation Criticism
1. The word “technical” and similar words mean “referring to all aspects of a thing other than the goodness or evilness of that thing.”
2. All knowledge is from God.
3. All instruments of knowledge (experience, books, television, radio, CDs, DVDs, teachers, public speakers, etc., etc.) are technically imperfect.
4. Some instruments of knowledge are technically better than others.
5. Even though the instruments of knowledge are technically imperfect, knowledge is technically perfect.
6. Technical perfectness is not the same as goodness.
7. Wisdom is “good knowledge” where the word “good” is used in its usual and moral sense. Contrary to common belief and contrary to scientific belief, all knowledge is not good. This applies to both knowledge of fact (applies to one situation) and knowledge of principle (applies to all situations), though we are the only ones who can prove that this applies to principle.
8. All wisdom is from God.
9. All instruments of wisdom (experience, books, television, radio, CDs, DVDs, teachers, public speakers, etc., etc.) are technically imperfect.
10. Some instruments of wisdom are technically better than others.
11. Even though the instruments of wisdom are technically imperfect, wisdom is technically perfect
12. Technical perfectness is not the same as goodness (repeat of statement #6 above).
13. The Bible is an instrument of spiritual (relating to supernatural beings), moral (relating to good and evil), and ethical (relating to right and wrong) knowledge and spiritual, moral, and ethical wisdom.
14. The Bible is the best instrument of spiritual (relating to supernatural beings), moral (relating to good and evil), and ethical (relating to right and wrong) knowledge and spiritual, moral, and ethical wisdom.
15. The King James Bible is an instrument of spiritual (relating to supernatural beings), moral (relating to good and evil), and ethical (relating to right and wrong) knowledge and spiritual, moral, and ethical wisdom.
16. The word “foundation” means “a partial instrument.”
17. The King James Bible is the best foundation (relating to supernatural beings), moral (relating to good and evil), and ethical (relating to right and wrong) knowledge and spiritual, moral, and ethical wisdom, in the English language.
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 translation criticism is the only purely scientific approach in the world and, indeed, in history.
The Tischendorf Institute (Chicago Christian University, College of Biblical Translation 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 translation criticism. Because this is a fact site, it follows the same principles as those stated at The TBI-IOTC Principle on our original website). For additional information, reference our articles on our original website at . 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:. We emphasize not the data of biblical translation 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 translation 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 translation criticism followed by a complete discussion of the newer science of next-generation biblical translation criticism. The key principle of next-generation biblical translation criticism is the principle that the Bible is its own translation critic (see
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 seeon 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 aton 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:
The Dus-ti Matrix
The etymology of the term begins with the Greek words for “some things hard to be understood” in II Peter 3:16, which are “δυσνοητα τινα.” The transliteration of the Greek is “dusnohta tina” from which we extracted “dus” from “dusnohta” and “ti” from “tina” to build the word “dus-ti.” We are using the word “matrix” in its sense of “something within or from which something else originates, develops, or takes form.” The term “dus-ti matrix” is pronounced “dus” (rhymes with “must”) – “ti” (rhymes with “bye”) “ma” (rhymes with “day”) – “trix” (rhymes with “bricks”). It is from the Dus-ti Matrix that a Christian derives their power. We note, in passing, that the dus-ti matrix is the subject of the science of idesistemology.
This is a momentous moment for biblical scholarship. But, there is more. We need more than a final authority. We need more than the dus-ti matrix. We need a final pivot point. A pivot point, as used in business, is (you only need to understand that a pivot point is an indicator):
A technical indicator derived by calculating the numerical average of a particular stock's high, low and closing prices.
Furthermore, note the following (you only need to understand that a pivot point sets boundaries):
The pivot point is used as a predictive indicator. If the following day's market price falls below the pivot point, it may be used as a new resistance level. Conversely, if the market price rises above the pivot point, it may act as the new support level.
As we said above, a pivot point sets boundaries. It is necessary to have something that sets boundaries for what constitutes the Scriptures and, as in business, these boundaries are potentially dynamic; that is, they may change. Don’t let that word “change” make you nervous; read on.
The final pivot point for the believer is the 1769 transdialection of the King James Bible. This tells us that the Dus-ti Matrix (see above) involves use of the 1769 transdialection of the King James Bible. As a pivot point, the 1769 transdialection of the King James Bible indicates what the Lord wants us to think. But, also, as a pivot point, the 1769 transdialection of the King James Bible sets potentially dynamic boundaries. It tells us that, depending on the massive and endless flow of scholarship, the Lord may want us to change our understanding. However:
We are not to change the text.
Let us explain what you have just read another way. In the sport of basketball, while holding the basketball, your movement is limited to pivoting on one foot. In doing so, you are limited as to what area you may pivot in. There is a circle that you cannot move beyond. In addition, this circle allows you to change your position. Similarly, with the Scriptures, the 1769 transdialection of the King James Bible, there is a figurative circle beyond which you cannot move and, in addition, this figurative circle allows you to a limited degree to change your “belief position.” Of course, keep in mind that such “changes in belief position” are not a matter of choice but of scholarship. The Dus-ti Matrix defines this scholarship, which in the Bible is called “learning,” and:
The governing rules of scholarship are determined by the Bible.
Note that any changes are minor and so minor that they are almost irrelevant. The reason they are not irrelevant is that, if there were even…say… .000001%…departure from the truth, the “pivotalness” of the Scriptures would be undermined. Let us explain this matter of change further. Conceptually, not actually, here is an example of a change:
A verse might contain the word “house.” Scholarship might reveal that the house was a small house. Was the Scripture wrong? No. The Scripture was simply not providing all of the information that could have been provided. Even though the house was a small house it was still a house.
Now, we know that there will be some who will object to any version of the Scripture that is not perfectly factual. First, we do not acknowledge that this is the case with the 1769 Bible but, even if it were, the believers final authority, the Dus-ti Matrix, would compensate for factual deficit of which one was unaware. Later, if they became aware of the factual deficit, they would, of course, have to take action to insure that the pivotalness of the Scriptures were not undermined. Note that this does not necessarily mean that one would have to reject the 1769 Bible since any factual deficit could be part of a literary device that allows the inclusion of factual deficit. Here’s an example:
Joe won the baseball game with his home run then spread his wings and flew around the baseball diamond.
The statement above uses the literary device of metaphor. The metaphor is technically false because Joe didn’t have wings and Joe didn’t fly. However, it is a rule of common discourse that one is permitted to use such falsehoods.
Now, getting back to our main point, note that the Lord may want us, in understanding and understanding only, to move to the Pure Cambridge Edition. But, we are not to move to the text of the Pure Cambridge Edition until biblical principles of authentication and historicity are satisfied, which may take a lifetime. Now, if it were proven that the Pure Cambridge Edition were exclusively correct, for factual purposes we would have to adopt the understanding of the Cambridge text. However, correctness exclusivity is not enough to make a translation switch from one transdialection to another. There must also be historicity. This means that there must be majority usage; that is, the majority of users of the Scriptures would first have to be using the Pure Cambridge Edition. However:
If correctness exclusivity were proven, one would be responsible to support what could be called the “PCE 1769 Bible”; that is, one would be responsible to support the 1769 Bible with superordination of the Pure Cambridge Edition where the two texts differed. The few Pure Cambridge Edition translation differentiae would have to be provided in the margins of the 1769 Bible along with an explanation of the superordination of the PCE text.
At this point in time, we have no proof of the correctness exclusivity of the Pure Cambridge text. If we were to obtain such proof, we would switch to the PCE 1769 Bible as explained above.
The key to our whole discussion and position is this:
The truth is not a text; a text is a conveyor of thought; thought is always a reflection of more than a text; only in the human mind does that thought exist as truth.
The page you are reading provides the bare essentials of our final, crucial scholarship. As the Lord permits, we will be elaborating on the principles expressed on this page. Finally, those who believe they have found the perfect English text beware! It is the history of thought and scholarship that there has always been a credible challenge (we said “credible,” not “overwhelming”) to any perfect English text. Those who rest primarily in scholarship will, thus, often find themselves at least momentarily thrown off balance. To those who wish to be deep defenders of the truth we say:
Your strength lies in the aurum verses of the Scriptures.
“Pure Old Cambridge Edition”†
Friday, November 13, 2009 12:44 AM (GMT - 6) Update
Before we begin, we wish to point out to everyone that we were the first anywhere to point out the existence and validity of post-1769 transdialectal changes to the King James Bible. On previous web pages we used the following generic term:
Post-Oxford 1769 King James Bible
For a few examples of our use of this term years ago, see the following web pages:
Therefore, what this section of this web page describes is not the discovery and recognition of the fact of post-1769 transdialectal changes but, rather, specific transdialectal changes that have been brought to our attention by other researchers.
Now, we have further researched the Pure Cambridge Edition question and have come to the following conclusions:
· Cambridge University today does not defend the Bible.
· Cambridge University today does not defend the King James Bible.
· Cambridge University today does not defend the Pure Cambridge Edition.
· Cambridge University today no longer excels in the study of the ancient languages of the Bible.
As preliminary proof of the claims above read the following quote from the website at :
At present, we publish only the Bible versions shown on the web pages: KJV, ESV, NASB, NKJV, NRSV, NIV, REB, TNIV and NTL. Other versions may become available in the future.
Note, especially, the references to the NKJV and the NIV. Therefore, we must refer to the PCE, Pure Cambridge Edition, as the “POCE,” “Pure Old Cambridge Edition.” In case it is not clear to you why we must move from “PCE” to “”POCE,” it is because we do not want to encourage the belief that today’s Cambridge University is a reliable source of information and a defender of the whole truth and nothing but the truth. In other words, we support the “Old” Cambridge University and not the “Modern” Cambridge University and we support the scholarship of the Old Cambridge University and not the scholarship of the Modern Cambridge University; hence the “O” in “POCE.”
The following texts are transdialectal changes found in the Pure Old Cambridge Edition:
· “or Sheba” not “and Sheba” in Joshua 19:2
· “sin” not “sins” in 2 Chronicles 33:19
· “Spirit of God” not “spirit of God” in Job 33:4
· “whom ye” not “whom he” in Jeremiah 34:16
· “Spirit of God” not “spirit of God” in Ezekiel 11:24
· “flieth” not “fleeth” in Nahum 3:16
· “Spirit” not “spirit” in Matthew 4:1
· “further” not “farther” in Matthew 26:39
· “bewrayeth” not “betrayeth” in Matthew 26:73
· “Spirit” not “spirit” in Mark 1:12
· “spirit” not “Spirit” in Acts 11:28
· “spirit” not “Spirit” in 1 John 5:8
Since correctness exclusivity has been proven, we are responsible to support what we are calling the “POCE 1769 Bible” (“POCE” is pronounced “pos” [rhymes with “most”]); that is, we are responsible to support the 1769 Bible with superordination of the Pure Old Cambridge Edition where the two texts differ. The few Pure Old Cambridge Edition translation differentiae must be provided in the margins of the 1769 Bible along with an explanation of the superordination of the POCE text.
In short, we hold to the 1769 King James Bible
accompanied by instruction in the transdialectal changes noted above.
While our position is equivalent to that of one who holds to the Pure Old Cambridge Edition, if biblical principles of authentication and historicity are satisfied in the future, we will make the subtle switch to:
The Pure Old Cambridge Edition.
To be clear, whether one holds to the POCE 1769 Bible or the Pure Old Cambridge Edition [formerly the Pure Cambridge Edition by biblical standards]), they are, in the end:
Holding to the same text.
International Authorized Commentary
Monday, November 23, 2009 10:50 PM CST (GMT - 6) Update
We have realized that there is a problem with the idea of the International Authorized Version, our modern version of the Bible. Even though it agrees perfectly with the King James Bible, it violates a biblical principle. It violates the Authority Principle, which states:
There can be only one authoritative text of the Bible in any language.
Now, at the same time, we have realized that the text of the International Authorized Version of the Bible is the result of the implementation of another principle of the Bible, the Clarity Principle, which states:
The truths of God must be communicated in language that the average person believes they can understand.
We have begun the production and promotion of the International Authorized Commentary of the Bible – the IAC. The IAC is not another version of the Bible. It is:
The first Bible commentary written in the format of the Bible.
The IAC is subordinate to the Bible. It uses language that the average person believes they can understand. It is subject to the review and criticism of the entire Christian community to be sure it does, indeed, agree perfectly with the King James Bible. This review and criticism will be transparent and “published everywhere.” It will be included with the text of the International Authorized Commentary. The IAC will yield a huge blow to the opponents of the King James Bible Only movement.
Now, though we have defended the King James Bible longer than everyone else, we now formally declare ourselves:
Full and complete members of the King James Bible Only movement.
In addition, in bringing forth the International Authorized Commentary, we begin a momentous undertaking.
Now, we realize that there are a few flavors of the KJVO movement. Therefore, our precise position is:
Complete Scholarship KJVO
Friday, November 13, 2009 10:43 PM CST (GMT - 6) Update
There can be only one authoritative text of the Bible in the English language and this text is the King James Bible unless and until a universally accepted, modern transdialection of the King James Bible is produced. In addition, the King James Bible is to be understood in the light of the 1611 – 1679 English Dictionary (see http://lfnexus.com/kjvfinalauthority.htm on our original website; note that we no longer allow the use of “subsidiary translations”).
Now, the work of the KJVO movement must be extended to attempting to provide a single, subordinate, transparently, “universally” ratified commentary of the King James Bible in the format of the Bible. This commentary will look like a Bible, though it will not be a Bible, and will read like a modern version of the Bible, though it will not be a modern version of the Bible.
Also, the King James Bible does not supersede the Bible in the original languages in which it was written and, if there were any argument over which had priority, if, impossibly, there were an absence of definitive proof that it was the latter, the “Principle of Commonality” would dictate that the King James Bible was superordinate. The Principle of Commonality is a biblical principle and states:
God ministers his truth through common means unless those means be absent.
God does not provide a Chinese text to a Russian or an English text to a German except in the absence of a Russian text or a German text.
Furthermore, the KJVO movement must confront old and new scholarship head on, in the knowledge that no scholarship of any kind will ever undermine the King James Bible. Finally, we now know with absolute certainty that if there were any errors in the King James Bible, which is not the case, their “threshold of impact” would place them in the category of thought that would be absolutely benign and that the threshold of impact of the corresponding missing truth, of which there is none, would place it in the category of thought that would be absolutely benign. In other words, even if there were errors and missing truth in the King James Bible:
It would make no difference.
Furthermore, God, our Great Creator, has built into the Bible a translation redundancy such that it is impossible for the human race to fall short of the knowledge and wisdom that He intended to communicate to mankind. In other words:
God has created a translation backup within the very words of Scripture so that, if any word of Scripture were ever to fail through the meddling of man, the truth could still be retrieved.
The Devil’s Bibles
This will come as a shock to many of you but the chief of the Devil’s Bibles is the NIV, the New International Version of the Bible. Here is the quickest and easiest proof of this fact:
What follows are, incredibly, verses that the creators of the NIV dropped from the Bible. Compare these Bible verses in the King James Bible with the corresponding sections in the NIV to confirm this horrible fact for yourself:
Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.
For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretense make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.
Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.
And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.
Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
(For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast.)
For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.
And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still.
But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands,
And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves.
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.
I John 5:7
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
†We would like to thank Mr. Peter W. Fuhrman of Canada for bringing to our attention the source of the transdialectal changes discussed in this section of this web page. Mr. Fuhrman is thoroughly informed in the King James Bible debate/movement and is a long-time and a preeminent defender of the King James Bible. His most conspicuous contributions to the defense of the King James Bible consist of many thousands of blogs in numerous forums across the internet.
WEBSITE COPYRIGHT NOTICE
Copyright 2000 – 2009 The L. F. Nexus All rights reserved.
United States of America