[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

He rejected the Westcott/Hort work, all the while labouring for his own.

Would you share some pages from this revision upon which you say Dean John Burgon laboured ? At least some lists of corrections, some lists of updates, some lists of verses to be modified or archaic words that he laboured to update .. the very basics .. something substantial and tangible ?

And would you give any evidence that Dean Burgon ever supported a revision that would end up being a change of text. Something much more than marginal notes and references, as the Dean specifically discusses in the quotes above.

And not simply a few scattered places where Dean Burgo thought the Received Text, and therefore the King James Bible, had the improper text. We are well aware that there were some of these. Places where he put together such elements to labour on a revision, as you assert.

Thanks.

Shalom,
Steven