View Single Post
  #57  
Old 07-11-2008, 05:53 PM
Steven Avery Steven Avery is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 462
Default

Hi Folks,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Connie
... just thinking that the only change that would be useful would be updating certain words that no longer mean what they meant in 1611. ... (Perhaps there being so few means marginal notes would be a better solution than a revision but most Bibles have way too many such definitional notes as it is.)
Precisely. Those lists vary tremendously. One persons archaic word to be replaced (e.g. stablish) is another's excellent more precise English word with a specific distinction from 'establish' in usage that is very significant in the scripture verse. So just put those notes in the margins.

And we can buy and read editions without those 1000's of diverting notes. Sometimes I like the simple single-column format as well and I especially have an aversion to center-column notes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Connie
what Steven Avery called English-KJB triumphalism.
Hmmm.. let's check my usage.

(For defence of course, all the elements are helpful, as we see when Will and myself and others refute the no-pure-KJB crowds claim that this or that word is translated wrong, an endeavor which you appear to sometimes disdain, since we look show the truth of the source and versional languages instead of simply proclaiming English-AV triumphalism to the skeptics and doubters.)

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.

In fact what I see in the public discussion is that the King James Bible defender weaknesses in expressing the full historical picture, including a focus on the Reformation victory in the Battle of the Bible (followed up by the later attack of the far inferior counter-reformation alexandrian text 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) are continually harming the public discussion. As the doofus modern version arguments then try to falsely paint the King James Bible movement as arbitrary, dropping out of the sky, random. With the background given, both in full concept and detail verse by verse (e.g. the early church writer supports) the convoluted deceptive anti-KJB attack can be disabled. And more easily discarded by honest hearts hungry for the pure word of God.

On the triumphalism .. hope that makes it clearer .
Lest my views be mistaken.

And you share a lot of good thoughts in the post !
Please just allow me to clarify that point above.

Shalom,
Steven

Last edited by Steven Avery; 07-11-2008 at 06:04 PM.