There are people who use the original languages to defend the King James Bible, and there are those who defend the original languages at the basis of the King James Bible.
I am not saying that Steven Avery is of the Textus Receptus Only type of position. (Not everything I say, or every point I raise should be read as if I am applying it to Steven Avery, even though such things may be related.) I just saw in another post that he said (something like) that he believes that the English gives a clear expression of the meaning. The English is clear, where there may be less clarity with the (current knowledge of the) originals. Of course, this is true.
We agree that the King James Bible is presenting the Hebrew grammar accurately. That is not the issue.
The issue is concerning whether or not the English itself is sufficient alone to be the very Word of truth to every man in the world. Again, whether or not the "simple faith" that the vast historical tradition which under girds the true King James Bible position may be reduced to simple teachings in this regard, rather than a complex and continuing system of focussed investigation. And whether or not the battle to convince the modern versionists must be waged from relying upon comparing to their position, etc., rather than to primarily having a self-authenticating monolith.
|