Are some extrabiblical KJV-only assertions based on a form of divination?

Could the KJV-only claims based on claimed numeric patterns in the new 2024 book SEALED BY THE KING by Brandon Peterson involve use of something like divination?

Brandon Peterson wrote: “If there are numeric patterns that verify God’s inspiration of the original languages, what if there are patterns in this Bible [referring to the KJV] that is speaking to me and sanctifying me” (p. 4). Brandon Peterson declared: “The amount of numeric verifications is unreal” (p. 354). Brandon Peterson claimed: “It leaves little to no doubt in the Christian’s mind that God has specifically inserted numeric details in the Bible that have some sort of deeper meaning. And yet the meaning is not revealed in the text” (p. 353). Brandon Peterson appealed to a “ELS-code (Equidistant Letter Sequence)” “that spell out L-O-R-D” (p. 124). Peterson contended that “there are strong cases for them [ELS] in the Hebrew language” (p. 228).

Brandon Peterson asked: “What if we found signs and wonders, even miracles, in the King James Bible that point to God as its author?” (Sealed, p. 23). Peterson again asked: “What if the Holy Bible, and more specifically—the most influential version in history, is signed and sealed by God Himself?” (p. 24). Brandon Peterson claimed: “Every word in the King James Bible is placed by inspiration of God, including the italics” (p. 131). Brandon Peterson asserted: “The Authorized King James stands alone as the pure word of God, down to the last jot and tittle” (p. 340). Brandon Peterson asked: “Is it wrong to conclude that those concealed patterns are all miraculously pointing to God’s inspiration” (p. 478). Brandon Peterson claimed: “God chose to wait until His book was the most printed, read, and scrutinized book in world history before unveiling His perfect design within” (p. 391). G. John Rov asserted: “We have seen that the books, book order, chapters, verses, and words of the King James Bible are all divinely cut like facets of a jewel and set in exact place” (Concealed from Christians, p. 136).

Brandon Peterson wrote: “Several people have accused Bible numerics research as practicing ‘numerology’ or ‘divination’” (Sealed, p. 477). John Weldon maintained that there is a “problem with ‘code bibliomancy’—divination by Bible codes” (Decoding the Bible Code, p. 132). John Weldon asserted: “If the code constitutes a misuse of the biblical text, then it can be misused as a form of divination” (Ibid.). Brandon Peterson himself had seemed to connect Bible codes with numeric patterns. Claims concerning ELS Bible codes do seem to be a form of divination. David Cloud defined divination as “foretelling future events or discovering hidden knowledge through dreams, astrology, magic, etc.” (Concise KJB Dictionary, p.27). Unger’s Bible Dictionary defined divination “as the act of obtaining secret knowledge, especially of the future” (p. 271). According to these definitions, divination is not limited exclusively to foretelling the future since it can also include attempts to discover concealed special knowledge.

Can trying to discover concealed or hidden knowledge be regarded as being divination according to definitions of this term? Could trying to determine for certain the will of God concerning Bible translations by use of extrabiblical numeric patterns be considered divination? Implying that numeric patterns in effect predict and prove for certain the inspiration of the KJV could be regarded as a form of unscriptural divination (Deut. 18:10, 14). Asserting that numeric patterns are in effect God speaking or declaring which Bible translation is inspired could be like false prophets or diviners claiming to speak for God. Diviners and false prophets are sometimes connected in Scripture. Someone claiming God said something that He did not say could be considered a form of divination. Are numeric patterns used to put words in the mouth of God that He Himself does not state in the text of Scripture? When God seems to be declared ex cathedra as being the direct author of the KJV by means of numeric patterns, it could be regarded as an attempt to speak for God. The Scriptures clearly forbid divination (Deut. 18:10, 14; Lev. 19:26). John Weldon noted: “Clearly, if the God of the Bible prohibits divination, he cannot be the author of a Bible code that endorses it” (Decoding, p. 138). It is not the counting of chapters, verses, words, or letters that is considered divination. Instead, it would be any attempts to use the extrabiblical counts or numeric patterns as a means to divine God’s will or as a means to speak for God concerning Bible doctrine or truth that would be regarded as a possible form of divination. It would be the extrabiblical or nonscriptural assertions and claims based on the numeric patterns that are regarded as a seeming form of KJV-only divination. The numeric patterns are being misused to advocate blind acceptance of non-true, extrabiblical KJV-only opinions. Can believers be misled and deceived by extrabiblical KJV-only numeric divination?

In claiming that numeric patterns are a supernatural miracle directly from God, it seems to be suggested that God spoke through some form of numeric divination something that God does not reveal and state in His words of Scripture. Is it implied that divinely instituted numeric patterns are a way besides or beyond the inspired words of Scripture to gain additional direct knowledge and revelation from God? Is suggesting that believers can find “some sort of deeper meaning” in numeric patterns a form of divination, Gnosticism, or mysticism? Is it implied that God intentionally kept hidden the deeper meanings from numeric patterns until the invention of computers? Are the claimed divinely instituted numeric patterns indicated to be a superior revelation to what is in the text of Scripture? Could looking for extrabiblical numeric patterns be a philosophy of man since God did not command it? Does this appeal to extrabiblical numeric patterns in effect deny the sufficiency and completeness of all Scripture already given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles so that it is wrong? Attempting to bind the word of God in English to the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of Church of England men in 1611 would be wrong. Suggesting that God inspired words added by men in the KJV would be wrong according to scriptural truth (Prov. 30:6, Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32). When God and the Bible are silent concerning these “concealed” numeric patterns, perhaps believers would be wiser to stick with the meaning or sense of the words of Scripture. Does God assert in His word that numeric patterns should be claimed to be a miracle of God? Is searching for or believing in numeric patterns a command of God that believers should acknowledge (1 Cor. 14:37)?

 

I think that Peter Ruckman mentioned the man who used an edition of the UBS Greek NT for this, and then he made the following comments.

Peter Ruckman wrote: “The AV is unique in that not only can a numeric system be found in its Hebrew and Greek texts, but also in the chapter and verse numberings of its text, which sometimes extends to the number of words in a verse” (Bible Babel, p. 85). Peter Ruckman concluded: “I am convinced, by common sense, that God had His hand on its numerical divisions, into chapters and verses” (p. 90).

Kevin Mann claimed: “There is nothing accidental about the placement of the numbers, or words, or chapter and verse numbering in the King James Holy Bible” (First Mention Study Bible, Vol. I, p. 48).

 

Brandon Peterson seems to assume that there are numeric patterns or code in the preserved Scriptures in the original languages. Brandon Peterson appealed to a “ELS-code (Equidistant Letter Sequence)” “that spell out L-O-R-D” (p. 124). Peterson contended that “there are strong cases for them [ELS] in the Hebrew language” (p. 228).

On the other hand, Randall Ingermanson carefully checked and tested the claims concerning ELS, and he concluded: “The truth is that there isn’t any scientific evidence for the Bible code in Genesis” (Who Wrote the Bible Code, p. 126). Randall Ingermanson asserted: “The ELSs found in the Torah are precisely those we would expect due to random chance. There is no Bible code in the Torah” (p. 134). He concluded: “Nobody wrote the Bible code. There is no Bible code” (p. 137). Randall Ingermanson noted: “I don’t see any evidence for a Bible code in either the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament” (p. 167).

 

Randall Ingermanson is more qualified concerning statistics and concerning ELS-code (Equidistant Letter Sequence) as he developed tests and computer programs to check for ELS and to test claims for it.

D. A. Carson warned: “There are many methodological fallacies connected with statistical arguments” (Exegetical Fallacies, pp. 141-142). D. A. Carson wrote: “Word frequency statistics are normally calculated on the basis of the null hypothesis. This statistical model figures out how likely various occurrences would be in comparison to a random drawing of words out of a barrel. But writers do not choose words that day” (p. 142). Henry Virkler observed: “Correlation does not prove causation” (Christian’s Guide, p. 144). Randall Ingermanson claimed: “It’s easy to find remarkable patterns in the Bible, patterns that ’couldn’t possibly arise by chance’” (Who Wrote the Bible Code, p. 35). Randall Ingermanson observed: “If you ignore failures and record only successes, you stand an excellent chance of seeing the pattern you want to see” (p. 11). Randall Ingermanson noted: “Remarkable results aren’t enough unless the methods producing them are sound” (p. 25). Randall Ingermanson wrote: “Just look long enough, don’t report your failures, and you can always get ‘amazing results.’ It’s called coincidence” (p. 145). Randall Ingermanson maintained “that paradigm leaves wiggle room, which you can exploit. All you have to do is not report the unsurprising results. If you do find something surprising, then and only then do you report your exciting discovery” (p. 170). Randall Ingermanson maintained that it is easy “to cheat by simply ignoring data” (p. 52). Randall Ingermanson warned: “”We learned how you can manipulate statistics to say just about anything you jolly well please” (Who Wrote, pp. 75-76). Randall Ingermanson noted: “The lesson here is that statistics are useless unless they’re interpreted correctly” (p. 76).

Randall Ingermanson observed: “Redundancy is a natural feature of any language” (p. 67).

Could it be “wiggle room,” confirmation bias, sampling bias, or even coincidence or random chance that may result in claimed miraculous numeric patterns?

Extrabiblical numeric patterns do not determine nor establish sound Bible doctrine about the Scriptures and their inspiration.

 

In contrast to some KJV-only authors who suggest that the chapter divisions in the KJV are inspired, E. W. Bullinger asserted: “We cannot recognize any human arrangements or divisions of books, chapters, or verses, etc. We can take only that division, order, and arrangement which is Divine” (Number in Scripture, p. 93).

E. W. Bullinger noted: “The Book of Genesis is Divinely divided into twelve parts (consisting of an Introduction and eleven Tol’doth)” (Ibid.). Bullinger wrote: “It is instructive to notice these divine divisions, and see how different they are from either man’s chapters, or man’s theories as to the Jehovistic and Elohistic sections” (p. 35).

E. W. Bullinger observed: “Besides Genesis, the Book of Psalms is the only book which is marked by any similar Divine divisions. It consists of Five Books” (p. 94).

 

It was not suggested that a physicist is more qualified in understanding and teaching doctrines of the Bible. You were already answered.

It was clearly stated that Randall Ingermanson is more qualified concerning statistics and concerning ELS-code (Equidistant Letter Sequence) as he developed tests and computer programs to check for ELS and to test claims for it. He is more qualified concerning matters relating to math, statistics, and numeric patterns.

Brandon Peterson was unwisely using claims relating to extrabiblical matters involving numeric patterns to make assertions concerning Bible doctrine. He made no case directly from the Scriptures themselves for his KJV-only assertions.

 

In one example of claimed numeric patterns, Brandon Peterson asserted: “Both of these verses [Genesis 1:1 and Revelation 22:21] have exactly 44 letters” (Sealed, p. 340). Brandon Peterson claimed: “The first and last verses of the KJB are perfectly identical by number of consonants and vowels” (Ibid.).

Concerning “heaven” in Genesis 1:1, G. John Rov declared: “Every other Bible adds the letter ‘s’” (Concealed, p. 137). G. John Rov added: “This artificially added letter ‘s’ of all other Bibles destroys the perfect ‘letter, consonant’ count match that the first verse of the Bible has with the last verse of the Bible in the King James Bible alone” (Ibid.). John Rov alleged: “These other Bibles which have added the letter ‘s’ do not pass the geometric test of God” (p. 138).

In his 1530 English translation, William Tyndale translated Genesis 1:1 as follows: “In the beginning God created heaven and earth.” Tyndale’s translation of this verse does not have 44 letters, and it is on the KJV-only view’s pure stream of Bibles. Would a consistent, just application of the claims of Peterson and Rov condemn William Tyndale, God’s primary translator of our English Bible? The 1535 Coverdale’s Bible, 1537 Matthew’s Bible, and 1539 Great Bible render Genesis 1:1 the same as Tyndale’s. When the Hebrew noun translated “heaven” at Genesis 1:1 in the KJV is plural in number, how are other English Bibles supposedly artificially adding the letter “s” when they translate it as a plural in English? The KJV itself translated the same Hebrew noun as a plural [“heavens”] at Genesis 2:1 and 2:4. William Tyndale had consistently translated this plural Hebrew noun as “heaven” at these three verses [Genesis 1:1, 2:1, 2:4]. The KJV kept Tyndale’s singular “heaven” at Genesis 1:1 but changed the other two to a plural “heavens” in agreement with the 1560 Geneva Bible. Did the Geneva Bible and the KJV introduce an unnecessary inconsistency between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 2:1? Would the faithful, literal, accurate rendering “God made the earth and the heavens” at Genesis 2:4 be considered wrong since it has “heavens”? If this claimed “44” numeric pattern at Genesis 1:1 was directly given and intended by God, then God would be expected to have given a Hebrew noun that was singular in number?

 

I quoted Tyndale's Old Testament from a modern spelling edition since I wanted it to be comparable to a present KJV edition. In original spelling and in modern spelling, Tyndale's does not have 44 letters in Genesis 1:1.