[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

I am amazed that Matthew still argues this, although at least in this post we can parse some specifics more clearly.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

That interpretation of the Dean is not what he said, nor meant.

The Dean made it very clear that neither the skills nor the colaltions were anywhere near available for a TR-revision-text in his day. That means a far future day.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

I have laid out that Burgon's view was that it was necessary for the eventual correction or alteration of the King James Bible.

And the quotes show very clearly that the interest was a TR revision, not archaisms and tenses, as you falsely put into the Dean's mouth.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

he was not settled on how it should be finally done,

And your statement that the Dean spoke of laying out a plan was very wrong.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

so he suggested a system of marginal notes as a possibility.

Which of course, from our pro-KJB perspective, would be no revision at all.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

The fact is that he was aiming, not only for adjustments in the TR, but that there should be (minor?) adjustments in the English also.

Note that you have not even given a single example of this.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

Those who see the Dean as a champion of the King James Bible need to take this realistic view: that while Burgon does tend to support the AV, yet he does not give it his full support.

An obvious point that anybody who studies the Dean understands, especially as he was not settled that the TR was the pure source text.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

As for thorough acquaintance with the Fathers, Versions and with the Septuagint, it is clear in hindsight that this was not required for any textual correction to the AV, however, the use of this knowledge has been in another way, namely, that it has been useful for the defence (e.g. Hills) and purification (e.g. Redpath) of the King James Bible as we now have it.

And I asked you for even one verse, with this hindsight, where knowledge of the Greek OT was helpful for the Redpath purification. And we still await your example of even one verse.

(For defence of course, all the elements are helpful, as we see when Will and myself and others refute the no-pure-KJB crowds claim that this or that word is translated wrong, an endeavor which you appear to sometimes disdain, since we look show the truth of the source and versional languages instead of simply proclaiming English-AV triumphalism to the skeptics and doubters.)

Incidentally, it is possible that the reason the Dean mentioned the Greek OT in that context is that he had similar unsurety about the Masoretic Text as he did about the Greek TR. If that is the explanation (I do not have another, but I am listening for an example from Matthew of how Greek OT knowledge would effect English-AV editions otherwise) then Matthew has misapplied (albeit accidentally in ignorance by not thinking and researching thoroughly enough) the Greek OT statement of Dean Burgon on many articles Matthew has written that highlighted the Redpath Greek OT knowledge as of special significance.

The irony here is that none of this is necessary for the PCE purity and history and acceptance, however if the presenters make conceptual errors that remain uncorrected their work then receives an unnecessary taint, similarly to that of misreprsenting the Dean at the beginning of this thread. For purposes that are totally unclear, since a true representation would not hurt the PCE one smidgen.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

.. those who are somewhat learned in these matters should tend to support the AV, even though they may not believe it to be fully perfect. Thus, we have the favourable witness of people in this stream, which has turned to the defence of the Textus Receptus.

Right, the more knowledgable and aware they are, the more they will support the Masoretic Text (OT). And the Byzantine Text (NT), even more so the Textus Receptus (NT) and even more so the King James Bible.

Precept upon precept, line upon line, both historically and even among scholars and thinkers today. Thus, as an example even tody, Professor Maurice Robinson, albeit stuck a bit back in Byzantine-Majority-Text-land and vocal against the KJB position, writes articles that can be a tremendous support to the pure Bible since he disassembles myths and untruths of the alexandrian texts and modern versions. Similarly, those who support the TR often do incredible work, or those who support the King James Bible with a softer, derivative from the original languages, approach

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

...To claim that Burgon's argument was basically "come back in 50-100 years and we can see what is the story" is a whitewashed view at best. While Burgon implied that another generation should arise beyond the Revised Version,

At least a generation, since the skills and collations that he required were nowhere near in existence, thus confirming my understanding.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

. he did not have just a passive "wait and see" approach. It was all hands on deck in doing the hard work to prop up, what he hoped to be, the foundation of a needful revision.

He simply applied his textual views to an extent to the Greek NT TR (not to the OT) with 'suggestions'. You can say that he hoped his views would be the base, or at least considered, in some far-off Revision. That's it, and to call that "all hands on deck" is simply silly, mangling English by turning words and idioms on their head.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

.The Dean Burgon Society seems to be a major proponent of the Burgonist view, which rather than revising the underlying texts, accepts Scrivener’s TR as the benchmark for continuing translations of the Scripture.

While the DBS has weaknesses, you are, by implication combination, misrepresenting the Burgonist view yet again. Dean Burgon clearly did not accept the Scrivener TR (nor did Scrivener) at all, and that was the heart of the matter. The 150 'suggestions' of TR revision, at least a few being cases where he felt the TR was actually wrong, in Matthew, proving this point. After all that is written on this thread, by both of us, why you say the Burgonist view would accept the Scrivener TR as the benchmark is a super-perplexity.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

It seems that Donald Waite’s Defined King James Bible has been made on the very principle of the necessity of “the removal of many an obscurity in the AV”, which by a series of footnotes is for the “representing certain words more accurately”. This, in the main can be helpful, but it is not perfect.

It may be helpful, and at times it can be unnecessary, distractive, or unhelpful. Clearly not perfect.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

I tender that this is the conservative implementation of Burgon’s plan, which had the (relatively more) radical idea of adjusting the underlying text of the English Bible.

Definitely it is similar to the Burgon 'marginal footnote' idea, and conservative in that respect, and acceptable to most all King James Bible supporters. However, would you show some cases where Dean Burgon spent efforts defining or refining the English as a major endeavor (tenses, archaisms, etc) since you continually contend, from the first quote on, that this was a major concern of the Dean.

So please list a few cases where the Dean stated e.g.

" The English word would better be ____ replacing the archaic/obsolete _____ ".

Now understand, they may or may not be many such cases at hand, I am curious myself as to the answer. However Matthew's case has been all along that this was a major part of the nature of the Dean's English update concerns. So at least a few examples (3-5) would be helpful to see to what extent he worked in that field that was supposed to have been declared by the Dean a "necessity" (Matthew's word given to the Dean about the Dean's view of such relatively minor, compared to the TR issues, considerations).

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

IHowever, in reality, the actual "revision" that took place to the King James Bible was that a few dozen words were restored to their 1611 presentation, and a few other minor grammatical or editorial points. I believe this to be the kind of revision that was actually necessary, and that the Dean was mistaken to think that his indexing of the old evidence would contribute something more.

Yes, on this we agree, no 'revision' (in the sense most of use the word, a substantial altering) was at all necessary, and the Dean was mistaken in thinking that some future generation might have the tools and purpose to move in that direction. Which would have been a TR overhaul. The Dean simply was wrong, his being super-skilled in the languages and texts was actually a hindrance for him on this point.

Matthew's second post simply confirms that Matthew is unwilling to properly separate out his claims that the Dean was 'archaism oriented' rather than the truth that all his potential revision quotes were about potential TR-changes. His sort-of-correction-attempt in that post is simply agreeing with my view.

Shalom,
Steven