View Single Post
  #56  
Old 07-11-2008, 02:54 PM
Steven Avery Steven Avery is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 462
Default

Hi Folks,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Connie
asking a few questions of Steven Avery, perhaps not particularly pertinent ones ... Would I be right in thinking, SA, that you and BP agree on what the KJB should look like? That is, you both reject every kind of change at this point?
Essentially yes, in terms of the types of changes that modify the text or really change translation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Connie
Do you agree with BP about the finality and perfection of the PCE or Pure Cambridge edition (?) that he favors?
I respect that work, and consider it anywhere between largely accurate and totally perfect, as time goes on my views on that may solidify (e.g. I could express a conviction that it is totally perfect 100%).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Connie
You say he is misrepresenting Burgon. I think I'm following your argument about this but on the other hand I might have drawn the same conclusion BP did about Burgon's hope for a future revision from the very quotes BP put together,
And so would I, however his original quote tried to give the impression that Dean Burgon was supporting as a "necessity" and "laying out" a plan, for what was little only a minor step beyond a PCE-type of refinement.

Not the full-fledge textual overhaul, and not something that was really for a future generation since the skills and knowledge did not exist at that time.

The original quote was not only patchquilt and rigged, in the sense it was diversionary and even deceptive to the unwary ready.

Matthew switched gears heavily in the middle of the thread, radically changing his position without acknowledgment. I have learned that he does that type of discussion.

Basically I hope that that conversation is over. I see Matthew has two new posts in, unless they offer specific substance, the exposition up to this point should be fine and complete, we are near the point of unnecessary restating. I am now very cautious about Matthew's historical writing, and earlier about his confusing position on the Greek OT, I respect the PCE endeavor and each individual can decide for themselves on any issue.

Most of all I feel he played some shell games with the Dean Burgon discussion, a bit of broken field running, others may not feel that way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Connie
... I might end up agreeing with anything Burgon suggests toward a revision while neither of you would? Is that right?
Yes, you might, but really it is not hard to see the weakness in his positions when it gets down to the verse level. This is a weakness that sometimes comes up with those that are ultra-educated. And they move away from the beautiful and accurate and providential historic synthesis of the Textus Receptus to a more "Majority Byzantine Text" perspective, at least on some verses. The desire to want to "do something" to "enhance" God's perfect word runs very deep, and even men of generally sound judgment and excellent labours sometimes fall into that trap.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Connie
.... a sort of fury of indignation at what they did to the Bible ... in Psalms 91 and 23 and Jeremiah for instance, and my impression is that there are a ridiculous number of changes from the KJB in the new versions, ridiculous and utterly indefensible, and they're all in the English or in the translation it seems, not in the underlying texts, just willynilly changes in words to no purpose. "Pinions" for "feathers." "Unreliable stream" for "waters that fail." "Overflows" for "runneth over." And so on.
You are 100% right abut this .. tampering for man's pride sake.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Connie
change for change's sake, anything, just anything at all to destroy the AV.
A rebellion doomed to failure, with spiritual blood on the hands of the progenitors and attempted disablers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Connie
The words are all synonyms more or less but they change the rhythm of the text and make it clumsy without the slightest improvement in clarity that I can see, in fact they make it more obscure:
You are right about this again, and I try to post verses in a way that more gives the rhythm. The writers in the 1800's had a far greater sense of this than the writers today, even the pro-KJB writers. I believe Matthew does have a sense of this in his writings, although it could be emphasized more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Connie
.. vandalism committed against the English pure and simple... Anyone should reject the revisions based on this mutilation of the English language alone.
Amen.

Shalom,
Steven