[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Matthew has the unfortunate habit of misrepresenting Dean Burgon (placing his theories, conjectures and suppositions into the mouth of the Dean as the Dean's words against other words and actions and non-actions of the Dean) and also continually representing my writings. For now we will look at how Matthew misrepresents my words.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

Those who hold that the King James Bible is perfect in English are not doing so out of lack of knowledge.

Here is a perfect example. Matthew acts as if that is my position, and I never said anything of the sort. I even indicated that it is fine both ways, to be involved or not involved in that sort of apologetics. I never accused anybody of lacking in knowledge, only I pointed out that the refutation of some modern versionist arguments is best done with context, perspective and knowledge .. by those actively involved with that endeavor. Technical skill as well, as e.g. we see with Brandon's 'Magic Marker' demonstration page.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

It is not a blind statement.

Not at all. What is blind writing is ascribing to me, by implication (answering my post in this way) a position I never even remotely took.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

The point is this: we do not have to yet continue investigating various issues, such as 1 John 5:7 as if the case were unsettled.

Another straw man. In my studies I first came to the Johannine Comma textual study when I had some unsettlement (three key final issues were the alternate Hebrew/Aramaic name for Jesus, the passover/easter question and the Johannine Comma) and the studies helped me see the purity and perfection of the Received Text and the King James Bible. (e.g. I was flabbergasted by the Cyprian quote, and that it would be denied by men like Wallace, I actually debated that issue on a forum, just using minimal resources and common sense, before knowing of the excellent Marty Shue disassembling of Daniel Wallace).

In contrast, today I go to those studies to:

a) help disassemble the arguments of the opponents
b) learn the historical perspective of the battle of the Bible
c) understand doctrinal dialog and debate over the centuries
d) understand textual dialog and debate over the centuries.
e) to appreciate and to learn how to research the early church writings
f) see the Reformation debate 'live'
g) understand the writings of those who have poured out their heart for the word of God
h) understand the 'fulcrum' position of the Johannine Comma in the battle of the Bible
i) learn the sense and style and import of the Johannine writing
j) learn how to use the new study tools recently available
k) many other edifying reasons.

Not as "if the case were unsettled". Once again Matthew tries to give to me a position I have never taken.

The fact that Matthew does this continually is what often makes his conversation writing so poor .. he constantly talks around the person, to arguments they never gave, and tries to write as if they gave the positions .. classic straw man with some special nuance. This is not so much a problem in studies, it is a major problem in forum writing.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

(I suspect that the people who do so often begin with the case unsettled in their own mind, and place the authority of the case upon the "Greek" and "men" until they are convinced of the genuineness.)

Here Matthew reverses the dynamic. Very few of us come out of the cradle reading the King James Bible. We learn the truth precept upon precept, line upon line .. directly or indirectly. And that is an excellent dynamic.

And those of us who went through a period with the modern versions may well have a clearer understanding of the negative precepts held by the cornfuseniks. Thus we are willing (e.g. Will Kinney, and myself, perhaps Marty Shue used and others used MV's for a season) to work with the underlying issues that can help teach and deprogram those who have been mistaught by the modern-textcrit-seminary agiprop. Rather than simply simply proclaiming AV-triumphalism and leaving their questions unanswered.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

...we are now privileged to get hold of just a few succinct presentations of information

The hypocrisy here is that Matthew is clearly supportive and pleased when we use detail and comprehensive information to rebut and make nil the challenges of Norris and Kutilek and the rest of that crew. Whether he lacks the skill and knowledge and research time to rebut those challenges, or whether he simply can not be bothered because of his conceptual orientation, is between him and God. However he should know better than to speak the drivel that nothing is really necessary than to simply proclaim the perfection of the King James Bible, leaving all the modernist technical challenges intact and unanswered. That road would be an abject failure, yet it is the road proposed by Matthew while he disses the efforts of active and successful King James Bible defenders.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

As a "triumphalist", I am not attacking the foundation of our position. Our triumphal position is based upon the witness of the facts which men like Burgon, etc. have presented.

Matthew here is ignoring the fact that the full Burgon position would not support his position and thus more teaching and understanding is in fact necessary for many.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

In my own writings, I have presented Burgon accurately

A falsehood. The original quote remains very wrong, even deceptive, some of the detail discussion was fine and contradicts your original quote which brought forth the objection.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

and drawn an interpretation from his work.

Which you falsely and unrighteously put into the mouth of Dean John Burgon.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

In fact, the whole battle of comparing to modern versions is really won.

Before God, of course, this is true. In teaching men, he will use instruments like our brothers Will Kinney and Brandon Staggs to give presentations that declare and defend that victory. Matthew's position is adversarial to the major battles of King James Bible defense.

Matthew continues this confusion between our personal convictions and the realm of defense and apologetics throughout the rest of his post.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

There is nothing wrong with dredging through old writings,

Yet once again Matthew misses the point. Studying the early church writers and the Reformation defenders and the Johannine Comma defenders is a labour of love and excitement and edification.

Once again Matthew disses that which he does not know or understand, and where he remains willfully unhelpful, an opponent of the defense of the King James Bible as the pure and perfect word of God.

Matthew claims that my pointing out his clearly misrepresenting the words of the Dean is "irrelevant". I would say that much of Matthew's work and writing about the King James Bible , outside the one place where he has shown skills and understanding, the editions and the details of the King James Bible text, are "irrelevant" ... at the very best.

Matthew also tries to defend the unscholarly, if the heart is right. I understand that, and it is true in some circumstances. However a comittment to defending and continuing an unscholarly presentation approach (as in Matthew actually repeating en passant the initial error without a blink) I believe is also a reflection of the heart towards God of the writer.

Integrity is writing, or the lack thereof, does not take place in a spiritual vacuum.

Shalom,
Steven Avery