View Single Post
  #58  
Old 07-11-2008, 06:34 PM
Steven Avery Steven Avery is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 462
Default

Hi Folks,

An expansion of two paragraphs above, a bit late for changing the post. The mod is welcome to update and combine, or leave as is.

======

I was simply saying the defense of the KJB does not have to ignore the truths of the Greek and Hebrew source texts, or versional (e.g. Latin and Syriac) and ECW supports. So the concept that the AV is the standard and banner of truth (which can be one understanding of triumphalism) is actually fine by me. My objection is simply to an unfortunate attempt to downgrade or even put down the historical, foundational aspects of King James Bible defense such as the Reformation proofs of the Received Text over the Vulgate and the expressions and defense of the purity and perfection of the word of God by the Reformation (including Protestant & Baptist & more) believers.

In fact what I see in the public discussion is that the King James Bible defender weaknesses in expressing the full historical picture often are a hindrance. There is often a compelling need to include a focus on the Reformation victory in the Battle of the Bible (followed up by -- the later attack of the far inferior and more corrupt, even compared to the Vulgate, counter-reformation alexandrian texts and versions -- and now the more forceful and prominent defender's glorious and full understanding and proclamation of the King James Bible as God's pure and perfect word).

And also the need to give context as to how the King James Bible is the refined gold, the majestic 'crown of splendor' Bible, the fruits of this victory over the RCC version. And also victorious today over the ultra-corrupt alex mvs.

Not giving the full picture frequently places the King James Bible defender in an unnecessary position of difficulty in the public discussion. Unaware of the historical and textual and spiritual context we then get the bleating doofus modern version arguments that try to falsely paint the King James Bible movement as arbitrary, dropping out of the sky, a random choice of only a translation. Such an insipid argument. However in presenting the truth of God's pure word we actually have to teach patiently those willing hearts who are not totally numbed-and-dumbed by modern textcrit seminarian agiprop pandering to man's pride and rebellion.

For this teaching it is helpful to give Bible basics, support, history and context. On the issues above, and more. And sometimes the refinement of how "God was manifest in the flesh.." or the "only begotten Son" or "three that bear witness" was given in Greek or Latin in the early centuries is part of that refinement. Before English-time.

If many King James Bible defenders are not involved in that aspect of the defense, that is fine and perfectly understandable. However a King James Bible defender should not piggy-back their own expositions on such defenses on one hand (thank you for refuting that modern versionist error) .. while then turning around and dissing the efforts themselves. Why diss ? Since the efforts can involve disassembling false Greek and Latin and Hebrew and textual/historical arguments of the modern version cornfuseniks. An an ultra-triumphalism declares any discussion of such issues as that of the Greek texts and proper translation and Hebrew idioms as inappropriate. This contradiction of approach is my objection to an AV-triumphalism-only viewpoint. Proclaiming the English AV perfection, building on the edifice of those at the bulwarks, and then writing in a way to disparage those same bulwarks !

Personally I have learned much about this history of late simply by studying the history of one verse, the Johannine Comma, through the centuries. We have tools available (e.g. beautiful writings from t he 1600's through 1800's) at our fingertips that were not available even a few years back ! So much writing today is at best pablum, there were deep and sincere believers with sharp and probing minds and hearts turned towards God in so many of those writings.

Returning to the current battle with the unbelievers in God's pure Bible .. when we are able to give the background, both in full concept and detail verse by verse (e.g. the early church writer supports, the internal consistencies, the versional evidences, the compelling strength of God's one pure Bible) the convoluted and impoverished and deceptive anti-KJB attack can be disabled. And more easily discarded by honest hearts hungry for the pure word of God.


=============

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Last edited by Steven Avery; 07-11-2008 at 07:04 PM.