Author Archives: Dr. Peter Van Kleeck, Sr.

The Hebrew translation of “them” in 7a, is interpreted as people following Rabbi Kimshi in the Great, Geneva, and Bishops’ Bibles, not based on a change in the Hebrew grammar or diction but because of the choice of antecedent. For these three versions, the single reading assigned to the pronoun “them” refers to the largerContinue reading “The King James Bible, 1611, and Psalm 12:6-7”

Just before being shipwrecked, the Apostle Paul gives this testimony of his faith in the promises of God. “Wherefore, sirs, be of good cheer: for I believe in God, that it shall be even as it was told me.” Acts 27:25

This is the third and last installment of the “The unquantifiability of the historic canonical collating process” series. This post argues for the traditional Protestant orthodox understanding of Matthew 5:18 based on Isaiah 59:21 and scientific support for the traditional orthodox rendering. OPTION 2: Supposition: The last received iteration of Matt. 5:18 is accepted asContinue reading “The unquantifiability of the historic canonical collating process, part 3”

In part one of this series, we argued that the historical critical method’s failure after 150 years of scientific discovery to identify the canon is sufficient grounds to say that the historic collation of canonical words is unquantifiable which agrees with Protestant orthodoxy, but of course for obviously different reasons. Consider this agreement the comingContinue reading “The unquantifiability of the historic canonical collating process, part 2”

Why are variations within the manuscript tradition raised as a prima facia defeater to Matt. 5:18? Acknowledging that no two manuscripts are identical is enough for almost everyone to say, “Turn off the lights on your way out.” How then, does the historical record confirm the truth of Matt. 5:18 for the Canon of Scripture?

The books of the Scripture are therefore called Canonical, because as they have had their Prime and Sovereign Authority from God Himself, by whose divine will and inspiration they were first written, and by whose blessed Providence they have been since preserved and delivered over to posterity, so have they been likewise received, and inContinue reading “John Cosin (1594 -1672) on Canonical Authority”

Translations that are fundamentally formal translate what the word says, while translations that are fundamentally dynamic translate what the word means. I say fundamentally because no translation is solely one or another, but rather fundamentally formal or dynamic. On one occasion when asked to speak about the superiority of the Received Text and King JamesContinue reading “The 1568 Bishops’ Bible and 16th century dynamic equivalence”

Since my first speaking introduction by Dr. David Otis Fuller to present the defense of the King James Bible in 1987, the CT/MVO position has hardly budged from its original 19th century moorings. Like a boat that has never seen open water the position is so tied to a narrow interpretation of the evidence thatContinue reading “God makes the facts what they are”

John Owen, with erudite precision makes the following observations dealing with the role of the Spirit in the confirmation of the Authority of Scripture. Owen argues that in reading the Scripture the covenant keeper hears the Authority of the Holy Spirit’s testimony in the word, and the self-authentication of the Truth spoken by the Spirit.Continue reading “John Owen, 1658, and the Bond between the Spirit and Word”

Edward Stillingfleet was a British theologian and scholar, considered an outstanding preacher as well as a strong polemical writer defending Protestantism. In his work Origines Sacrae he argues for the truth of Scripture in history. What he published in 1680 rings true for us today. Must the extent of God’s omnipotent power “pass the scrutinyContinue reading “If you say the evidence doesn’t support the promises of God, you are misinterpreting the evidence”