[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

And I expected this type of response from Matthew.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

What I have stated is correct ... the broadest possible view of the Dean's position ... it is what the Dean said, when giving the essence of his whole message.

And I strongly disagree and to me your writings now lose much credibility. At this point I will have to consider quotations that you give as under a level of suspicion for context and quotation sense and accuracy, always needing my personal checking to accept and to use.

Creative license in quoting, patch-quilts to place your conceptions in the mouths of others -- against their very words and bypassing their contrary words -- will undermine your own work. One of the greatest banes of the current King James Bible movement is inaccurate quotations and representations. And you are deliberately and consciously making a leap to the wrong side of that divide.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

As for Burgon, I suspect that some folk may not agree with my view of interpreting him in a prophetic context.

No problem with that, as long as you separate your prophetic context from mish-moshing the words and ideas of Dean Burgon or others.

Here is a quote from the Dean, which I liked because it showed that he maintained a sense of the prophetic vision and purpose about the pure and perfect and majestic Holy Bible, the King James bible, even if he at times had an mixed approach.

http://books.google.com/books?id=eK1u8R5UNRMC&pg=PA41
Revision Revised - Quarterly Review

it speedily becomes evident that, at the bottom of all this, there existed in the minds of the Revisionists of 1611 a profound (shall we not rather say a prophetic ?) consciousness, that the fate of the English language itself was bound up with the fate of their Translation.

Shalom,
Steven