[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Notice how while this thread took a break, Manny and I shared about the Psalm 12:7 King James Bible margin note -- and how the translators excellently understood the Hebrew grammar. And we know how proper exposition of these truths (e.g. the sticky thread of Psalm 12) can aid in reaching the unsure about the purity and perfection of the refined gold King James Bible. Much as how such expositions helped me some years ago come out of the mire and confusion of unpure versions.

Thanks to my brethren, like Will Kinney and Marty Shue and Teno Groppi and others who were willing to purely and actively defend the King James Bible -- with versatility, clarity and background. Thanks also to men like Thomas Holland who had the (gasp) Greek and ECW and version evidences laid out. Thanks to Brandon Staggs who has the 'magic marker' page readily available for those seeking to know some of what is at stake in the Bible version issues. Thanks also to men like Dean Burgon who even today has the single most detailed early church writer background material. All efforts that Matthew Verschuur now sadly and sickly tries to disparage.

That Psalm 12 discussion is the type of discussion (one of many types) that Matthew feebly speaks against. Except when we disassemble an opponent's argument on a mixed forum, then Matthew is not only strangely silent about the inappropriateness of refuting the cornfuseniks; Matthew even at times Aacknowledges the good efforts publicly. And in fact those efforts clear the air and help him with the PCE presentation without having to deal with doofus unanswered side-issues and claims from the no-pure-KJB crowd.

And despite the fact that we learn more about the excellence of the King James Bible. However we discussed around Psalm 12 (gasp) Hebrew grammar ! And the superb understanding of the King James Bible translators and the false accusations of the opponents who misunderstood even the margin note ! Thus Matthew rails against us, pitifully.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

I find that I am increasingly disagreeing with Steven Avery's assertions.

Since you continually and consistently misrepresent my position, that is to be expected. If I asserted the way you falsely contend, I would disagree with me also.

Since you deceive yourself and the forum readers by defacto calling me an "original language" defender of the King James Bible and therefore prideful and rejecting the King James Bible --

You have given us a shameful GIGO post (garbage in -- garbage out).
One of the most tawdry examples of your manipulations in posting.

And you have exposed more clearly only your own difficulties, Matthew, and placed yourself, at this time, as an enemy of wide-ranging active and truthful and sensible King James Bible defense.

Shalom,
Steven