[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Matthew, you have played three ends against the middle in trying to make some justification for your original quote misrepresentation.

Originally you tried :

Burgon spoke of the necessity of “the removal of many an obscurity in the AV”, which he laid out as, “representing certain words more accurately, — here and there translating a tense with greater precision, — getting rid of a few archaisms”.

You ignored what the Dean really said, e.g. about marginal notes. And now you take his discussion of needing hundreds of experts and new detailed collations and large-scale early church writer analysis and new linguistic skills in the wrong way.

Essentially the Dean was saying :

"come back in 50-100 years and we can see what is the story"

Worse, you have now switched to his own textual 'suggestions' (whatever that actually means, only a few of the 150 referenced in Matthew are likely his own declaration that the TR is not correct -- people 'suggest' all sorts of stuff) which would change the underlying text.

Totally different than what you wrote about above.
Push comes to shove because those were :

http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/DBS...y/deserves.htm
Fourteen requirements for any revision of the Textus Receptus

And a potential revision of the TR woud be a totally different labour than that indicated, created by your initial words - the words that you tried to put in the Dean's mouth about an AV update.

So it becomes a bit tiresome to dialog with a broken field runner. None of those requirements related to the potential revision you tried to put in his mouth by patching quotes and adding words he never said, it is like comparing kumquats and bicycles.

Please, you do realize, I hope, that any of his (mistaken) correction ideas about the TR are totally different than :

"representing certain words more accurately ...tenses .. anarchisms" .

They were potential or proposed textual 'corrections' to the TR itself !

To be a bit blunt, the problem here is more spiritual than logical. You have been clearly misrepresenting Dean Burgon, your original quote was wrong, and in attempting to support it you brought in totally different issues from here and there. Perhaps ther proposed or potential prophetic mantle on the pure Bible prevents you from simply acknowledging something so simple. So you go far and wide, despite the fact that your original pseudo-quote was simply wrong, the Dean did not speak of a necessity, nor did he lay out plans for the revision you tried to put into his mouth. The closest to plans was to offer a bunch of requirements that were of the "let's consider it 50-100 years from now" type, for a TR revision, discussed nicely at:

http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/DBS...y/deserves.htm
The Dean Burgon Society Deserves Its Name -Ten Reasons Why

The section on the 14 requirements.

==================================================

The Greek OT aspect I discussed with you once before, asking you for even one verse where you believe that the Greek OT expertise would be necessary and helpful, since you emphasized that in relation to Henry Redpath's labors on the Cambridge edition. You did not offer even one verse. I will ask you again, give one example where the world's greatest Greek OT experts (e.g. Emanuel Tov, Karen Jobe, Moises Silva, if they were sympathetic, or Henry Redpath a century ago) could offer a new, helpful insight of any kind to updating any King James Bible from 1611 on. Even one example would be helpful.

The idea is simply mistaken, yet it has become an unnecessary, auxiliary them of your writing about the Cambridge Edition. If you cannot give verse examples, it is time to drop the theme.

I'll decide later, maybe shortly, whether I feel there is any purpose in spending more time on this aspect of the thread. Overall, it is excellent to read the Dean. And I would rather go into his concepts, the multi-dozens of verses where his analysis is foundational and expert and unsurpassed even today and 100% true -- as well as those lesser import verses where he was mistaken, than work with your trying to patch up a patchquilt misrepresentation.

Shalom,
Steven Avery