If you read everything we have previously published on our website on the subject of textual ambiguity, you will conclude that we contradict ourselves and, in terms of our published words, you would be right. We said that science declares there is (irrelevant) textual ambiguity and later we said that science indicates that there is no textual ambiguity.
So which is it? Well, the science that declares that there is textual ambiguity is old science and the science that declares there is no textual ambiguity is new science. The old science is incomplete. The new science is complete. Thus:
The new science – biblical textual calculus – overrules the old science – biblical textual criticism.
This means, scientifically (and truly) speaking:
There is no textual ambiguity in the original languages text of the Bible.
This article will be permanently posted on our home page at http://internationalauthorizedversion.com/ so that there will be no more doubt and no more confusion in this matter.
Everyone else posits that the “Textus Receptus” (note quotes; to be precise, the level-2 authority is the TR-CSR10, the “Scrivener text” [note quotes]) or other ancient Greek text is the final authority for the English New Testament. This is wrong. The final authority is the Textual Super Matrix, which is the final authority for the Textus Receptus (see above). This means, among other things, unlike others, that we do not destroy the Alexandrian texts but, rather, demote them.
The NIV New Testament and NKJV New Testament are translations based on the principle that an older ancient Greek manuscript is more reliable than a younger ancient Greek manuscript. However, as is easily proved and as we have proved elsewhere, this principle of “greater age priority” is unreliable. This means that the NIV New Testament and NKJV New Testament are unreliable. This, in turn, means that the NIV and NKJV are unreliable.
Ancient Greek is a more flexible language than modern English. In ancient Greek, there is no requirement (rule) that adjectives come before or after nouns. Therefore, the following two sentences can be (not must be) translated the same.
I live in a red house.
I live in a house red.
However, the word order can (not must) affect emphasis. Thus, there can be (not must be) this difference (capitalization indicates emphasis):
I live in a RED house.
I live in a HOUSE red.
Therefore, if there are no indicators of emphatic intention (intention to emphasize something), the following two statements are, indeed, translated the same:
I live in a red house.
I live in a house red.
PS: This would be an instance of no-pass-through construction (see Complete Explanation Of The Absence Of Textual Ambiguity).
First, no amount of data and information is going to convince anyone that we have a perfect Bible if they do not believe that God has given us the Bible. Likewise, no amount of data and information is going to convince anyone that we have an ambiguity-free Bible if they do not believe that God has given us the Bible.
Now, science does not regard the Bible as a gift from God. Therefore, it gives no credence (mental acceptance as true) to the message of the Bible. Therefore, it concludes that there is textual ambiguity in the Bible. Note, in passing, that the handful of instances of so-called textual ambiguity are no-pass-through constructions (see How Textual Ambiguity Can Be Irrelevant); that is, the ambiguity is fixed (resolved [solved]) by the translation process. In other words, no matter what original-language textual fragment is used the translation is the same. In other words, the textual ambiguity of the fragments cannot pass through to the translation. In other words, the translation is the same no matter what.
Now, if all we needed were perfect results, we could stop where we are and relax. However, we need more than perfect results, we need perfect means. And this is provided by the Bible itself. Do you remember those long passages of seemingly useless and tiresome Scriptures in the Old Testament – I Samuel, II Samuel, I Kings, II Kings, I Chronicles, and II Chronicles? Well, it turns out that they provide the underpinnings for a science of textual ambiguity resolution. This is what we call textual calculus and, as it pertains to the Bible alone, biblical textual calculus. In conclusion:
Textual calculus and, more specifically, biblical textual calculus resolve (the handful of instances of) textual ambiguity.
For an introduction to textual calculus and biblical textual calculus, see our Biblical Textual Calculus website. Please note that we have volumes more to write and explain. A simplified form of Biblical Textual Calculus will be found on our Manuscript Hermeneutics website (at http://manuscripthermeneutics.com/ with short address http://manunetics.com/). We trust that, in years to come, Manuscript Hermeneutics (called also “Manunetics”) will be taught alongside Biblical Hermeneutics.
God’s written message, the very words of the Bible, in the original languages does not change. However, God’s written method may change. Most people believe that God’s written message has always been preserved over the centuries as a single volume of writings. However, that is not so. At times, the Bible existed as scattered writings. Now, copies of individual scattered writings would be made at various times and, during the copying process (though virtually not at all among the Jews with regard to the Old Testament) minute mistakes would be made but mistakes nonetheless.
God had a purpose in allowing these mistakes, which we will discuss in a future article. The important thing is to know that God provided text-correcting mechanisms to deal with these mistakes. Now, these TC mechanisms introduced the concept, which has been given different names over the centuries, of the “preword.”
A preword is a “candidate word,” a word that is a candidate for identification as a part of the message of God. Prewords fall into two categories: biblical prewords and nonbiblical prewords. Biblical prewords are eventually identified as biblical words.
Now, the MT10-TR-CSR10, which replaces the MT9-TR-CSR9, is identical to the MT9-TR-CSR9 word for word. The difference is that its source, the “Father of All Bibles, ”the Textual Super Matrix, has been expanded to include over two thousand, additional, ancient, biblical manuscripts. This means that the preword pool (the collection of prewords) has grown. We will explain the importance of knowing this in a future article.
Dr. Bisconti is involved in humanitarian projects that consume his time and, thus, indirectly, delay publication.
You may download a free copy of the Bisconti-Webster Bible, the immediate forerunner of the IAV, by clicking here or by clicking on “Textual Authority*/Bisconti-Webster Bible” in the menu at the top of our website.
Note that we do not yet know whether the Bisconti-Webster Bible has the stamp of final authority; that is, we do not yet know whether the Bisconti-Webster Bible is fully and completely a transdialection of the King James Bible.
In 1961, when I was twelve years old, I first became aware of multiple translations. I found this confusing and troubling. Thus, began my life-long quest for the true text of the Bible both in the English language and the original languages of the Bible. This is a short history; so, I will only concentrate on major developments in the history of the IAV.
The King James II Version was completed in 2000 (King James II Version). It had a number of shortcomings.
The King James III Version was completed later in 2000. It was an improvement on the King James II Version but did not have the stamp of final authority (King James II Version and King James III Version).
The InterClued KJV Bible, neither a translation nor transdialection, was completed in 2003. It was a successful study aid.
Next, still later in 2005, we began an in-depth study of the Webster Bible by Dr. Noah Webster. This was followed, in 2010, by the supercomputer-collated Bisconti-Webster Bible, which is the immediate forerunner of the IAV and which we have provided on our website at “Textual Authority*/Bisconti-Webster Bible” in the menu at the top of our website. Note that we do not yet know whether the Bisconti-Webster Bible has the stamp of final authority; that is, we do not yet know whether the Bisconti-Webster Bible is fully and completely a transdialection of the King James Bible.
The IAV was under development concurrently with all of the preceding versions, often being influenced by what was learned from those earlier efforts.
Finally, much of the history of the IAV is yet to be written.
Dr. Michael J. Bisconti
We have added the menu item “Textual Authority*” to the menu at the top of our website and subsumed under it the Textual Baseline, the English-Greek Interlinear, the Masoretic MT10, and the Word List.
God has opened the windows of heaven for us in terms of our ability to earn money at our night jobs. We are now earning ten times what we were earning previously. As a result, we can now move forward at a faster pace both with regard to the publication of the IAV and the expansion of our website.
The publication of the IAV (International Authorized Version) and the expansion of our website have slowed down to a snail’s pace due to limited time. This is because more of our time is now taken up raising needed money by working longer hours at our night jobs. However, at least, we and the other members of the Chicago University Church are benefiting from the IAV.