[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

Steven Avery seems to be arguing that the Dean’s work was restricted to the Greek only, and that the Dean was not advocating any change to the King James Bible. If that is more or less what Steven Avery is arguing and claiming, I believe it to be a wrong interpretation of Burgon’s work.

You are doing as poor a job with my words as you did with the Dean's.

Of course a Greek overhaul would manifest in the English, whether the change manifest in margin notes or a reference guide or in the version text.

My point was simple. The "archaisms" and "tenses" plan you gave to the Dean as a "necessity" simply did not exist.

Why don't you give some examples where the Dean actually emphasized such aspects of King James Bible revision ? "this tense should be..." "this word is archaic...".

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

First, Burgon spoke of the necessity of “the removal of many an obscurity in the AV”..

Now this is past patch-quilting and is at the point of deliberate falsehood by Matthew. The comment about "the removal .." never declared a necessity; that is only Matthew's word. There is some deep difficulty in Matthew's writing ethics at this point. And the context was completely different, that such removals only occurred en passant during the disaster endeavor, the revision.

As I indicated, I am now warned more so to be careful about any exposition given by Matthew.
Caveat emptor.

Since the rest of the post simply says that the Dean considered the possibilities of how a revision could be accomplished in a future generation, and tries to morph the Dean's diffuse comments into a "laid out plan" and tries to shift the "plan" away from the TR question (the critical Dean Burgon component) to archaisms and tenses (the original Matthew claim, akin to the PCE) there really is little new added.

Matthew is making good points against a person who says "Dean Burgon never was in favor of a possible future generation revision of the TR-NT which would by nature revise the KJB (at the very least in margin notes)" -- however that is a straw man in this thread, since I never remotely took that view.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

.... how much and to what extent he was for “representing certain words more accurately, — here and there translating a tense with greater precision, — getting rid of a few archaisms”. He certainly thought there were at least a few inaccuracies, a few imprecisions and a few archaicisms in the AV. What exactly, how many, we do not know, and it does not matter.

Please note: I am going to take this as a semi-retraction of the original claim by Matthew that the Dean laid out a plan for this as a necessity.

In fact Dean Burgon was simply saying that he felt some of the Revision work had, in the midst of tons of junque, accomplished a smidgen in this regard. That was the context.

Yes, he thought there were a few inaccuracies, that is far from declaring the necessity and laying out a plan to do a revision finding, delineating and focusing on those few inaccuracies. (The Dean never did any systematic work in this field - zilch.) The only potential revision the Dean ever discussed would be in the future and would focus primarily on the Greek text of the TR. Maybe it would respect his textual theories, which had a bit of a Majority Text component yet ironically seemed to be sympathetic to the TR on all the doctrinally-charged Majority-TR divergences.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

the Septuagint knowledge seems to have been helpful in correcting longstanding typographical errors/variations in names in the AV.

And I am willing to accept this as a possibility, apparently only a secondary aspect. This far more likely had to do firstly with Greek word meanings. This would be a complementary error of the Dean to the error of his concerns about the TR text. My conjecture above about the Masoretic Text on this point omitted consideration of the NT aspect of the quote,. so I consider that conjecture in error, pending more checking. I consider Matthew's view (only names, typography) an example of seeing the Dean's statement with PCE glasses, rather than as involving word meanings. There is certainly no reason to assume that the Dean considered all the Greek-English word meaning translations in the KJB as without error, thus the Ockham's understanding of the Greek OT comment would be that you would modify some translations based on fuller Greek OT word meanings. Of course the King James Bible translators were superb on this element themselves, so this particular concept is without either much sense or any validity, simillar to the Dean proclivity to want to conform the TR text a bit more to a Greek Majority text.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

I stand by my claim that Burgon had the specific aim and wish for the conservative revising of the KJB, which would certainly include, “representing certain words more accurately, — here and there translating a tense with greater precision, — getting rid of a few archaisms”.

And your claiming that this plan was a "necessity" "laid out" by the Dean, in a statement that even ignored the far more consequential aspect of a possible future generation TR update, remains an example of writing designed to deflect and divert (towards the PCE concept) rather than inform the reader about the Dean's views. It is good that the reader is now informed, not so good that you still insist on the same writing misrepresentation.

And such deflective historical revisionism works against the laudatory aims of the PCE
And is totally unnecessary.

Shalom,
Steven

Unless I put in prodigious effort I find I'm unable to follow this discussion very far at this point. I hope nobody minds if I pipe up here and try to collect some pieces of my scattered brain by asking a few questions of Steven Avery, perhaps not particularly pertinent ones, hard to know.

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?

Do you agree with BP about the finality and perfection of the PCE or Pure Cambridge edition (?) that he favors?

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, even if he shouldn't have put them together without more indication of their context. I haven't read far enough in Burgon to know yet what impression I will have of his own views of the need for a revision. But I might end up agreeing with anything Burgon suggests toward a revision while neither of you would? Is that right?

And here's another question that may seem to come out of the blue at this point but maybe it fits in somewhere. Recently I compared a few paragraphs among the versions just out of curiosity, hardly systematically, and it's led me to a horror of the new versions that I didn't even have before despite being KJB-only for some time now. It's brought me to a sort of fury of indignation at what they did to the Bible that none of the discussions I've read about it so far have done. I haven't done much, a few paragraphs as I said, 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. I looked up a few of them in the concordance and found that they had chosen the least representative translation of a particular Hebrew word, as if they were going out of their way to make change for change's sake, anything, just anything at all to destroy the AV. 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: nobody has a problem with the image of feathers, but pinions is a technical term that distances the reader from the text. What on earth is an "unreliable stream" anyway? I'm not completely sure I know what physical reality "waters that fail" refers to either, but "unreliable stream" is no help whatever.

Again, these things have nothing to do with the underlying texts. They aren't even about doctrine. They strike me as vandalism committed against the English pure and simple. Anything to confuse and scatter God's people. If the majority of the changes are of this sort, and let me guess that's what I'll keep finding if I continue with this, I don't feel I need to know much more about the versions dispute, about the Johannine Comma or Mark 16 or any of that, to answer the skeptics. Anyone should reject the revisions based on this mutilation of the English language alone.

I realize this is a separate issue from the issue of whether any revision whatever should be countenanced, and I still think there are probably a few words that could use updating.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

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.

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%).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

[Steven Avery]

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

[bibleprotector]

Steven Avery said:

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.

This is not the case at all. All along I showed (just look through the draft of my book) that Burgon was attempting and/or supporting a revision of the KJB. I have, in this series of postings, been able to give both a series of quotations and draw an outline of the Dean’s plan.

The question is, how could Burgon get it right, when he was actually a Bible corrector?

Then I realised that Burgon, like anyone at the time, was thinking that some revision to the King James Bible was needful. Burgon says as much.

And what kind of revision, that is, what types of things needed to be changed? Read various writers from the mid-1800s, and you will find that there were a few obscurities or so-called archaic words that could or should be revised. Burgon himself gives several indications that he agrees with this. Several times he implies and even plainly agrees that the Authorized Version of the Bible should be revised, and indicates obscurities and tenses of the English as a part of this "revision".

In my thinking about the matter, I wondered how this wrong desire for revision could fit in with what actually happened. And I saw that there was a need for revision in the 1800s, just not the kind of revision that was being advocated. But there needed to be just a tiny revision to correct a few dozen obscure names and some other points where typographical errors had lingered, and some other points of regularisation.

Thus, Burgon's desire for a revision did come about, but on a much less scale, though with some interesting similarities or inputs from the Dean's requirements, which have indeed rightly led into the King James Bible movement today.

I. gaining a full picture of the underlying textual evidence with special reference to the Byzantine tradition,

Although largely accomplished by Burgon, this had no affect upon the text of the King James Bible, but served to confirm and vindicate it, and that general knowledge of it has aided the King James Bible movement, which this very day does not have the complete and full knowledge of this. When the PCE was executed, various factors (i.e. tradition) were indicating that no changes in the underlying text were required.

II. the developing of scholarship in “sound” textual criticism, including acquaintance with the LXX, etc.,
III. making corrections to the TR,

Scholarship in this direction failed. Someone like Henry Redpath had the tail end of that learning. Modernism took over the entire field. People like Edward Hills were the most sound executors of this, yet their conclusion was to advocate no changes in the underlying text, and were extremely cautious to the point of almost prohibiting any changes at all with the KJB. Since then, the King James Bible movement has (largely) a prohibitive view of any changes.

IV. translating afresh in places, while keeping the KJB as much as possible,
V. alterations of the English idiom of the KJB where obscure or imprecise,
VI. updating a few “archaicisms” in the KJB,

Although some small measure of editorial changes in the English occurred with the PCE, which did follow the rule of making as few changes as possible, other than that, and since that time, the idea of changing any words, especially the idea of merely “modernising” the language, has been unpopular and often prohibited by King James Bible only supporters. The fact is that once the PCE was made, there has been a strengthening and settling and fixing of the position.

VII. as to how this is to be executed, could perhaps as an auxiliary “handmaid” volume, or perhaps by marginal references, or perhaps as a new edition wherein would be introduced as few alterations as possible into the Text of the Authorized Version.

Unhindered, Burgon’s position leads to something like the NKJV. But in reality, Burgon’s position has been thwarted, and rather useful for:
a. supporting the textual basis of the King James Bible as it is, and
b. allowing for and now keeping the purity of the presentation of the King James Bible.

I hold that Steven Avery’s claims of where I have supposedly misquoted, or supposedly changed my opinion, or supposedly played games etc. is entirely irrelevant. Even if someone was unscholarly in their approach, yet had a simple desire for God’s truth, it would be better to agree with God’s truth than to reject it based on the person’s lack of worldly of learning. On the other side, someone like Burgon shows that a person with a desire for God’s truth can be tainted by worldly learning.

[bibleprotector]

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 !

Those who hold that the King James Bible is perfect in English are not doing so out of lack of knowledge. It is not a blind statement. No, it is the very opposite. It is made on the basis of knowledge of the Word of God. Since we know that "their works do follow them" (Rev. 14:13b), we acknowledge that John William Burgon, Edward Hills and many others historically and presently have highlighted the superiority of the textual basis, the translation and the very English of the King James Bible.

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. (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.)

But there is now a shift in the view: since everything is going toward English being common throughout the world, since the King James Bible is clearly the best of all Bibles, why should the authority of the King James Bible yet rest upon the Hebrew and the Greek, when the translators and a massive testimony since that time shows that they got it right? In other words, we are now privileged to get hold of just a few succinct presentations of information to gain an understanding of the doctrine that the vast opinion of so many witnesses is greatly and fully in favour of the King James Bible as it now stands.

Just as we accept that the translators got it right in 1611, so that there does not need to be any more textual gathering and translating, so likewise, we should now accept that godly people to this time have presented enough for us to accept the finality that the King James Bible translators got it right in every particular.

We should be able to say now, "I accept the English as is, that it is presenting the autographs exactly, and that this is God's very message, down to the very jot and tittle, for the whole world for everyone".

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. In my own writings, I have presented Burgon accurately and drawn an interpretation from his work. However, it is really the gathering of the case as a whole, rather than each part of it, to see that all worked together (in a providential continuum) building up and contributing toward one central and final position, namely, that the King James Bible is the standard and only Bible for the whole world.

We are at a point of history where we may gather and reap of what all came before us. Just as the translators were able to get the KJB right in 1611, so we should be convinced from, say 2007, that they actually did get it right. (That is, that God ensured that the right men at the right time with the right learning etc. all came together for the KJB, but also that the right things have all come together that we now be confident in the English Bible as it stands today. This is called practical faith in the providence of God.)

So, the English is final. The meaning of the God's Word is there in English. The certainty is there in English. We don't have to go anywhere else to find the "real" meaning. We don't have to harbour any uncertainty as to various textual or translational questions at any point. In fact, the whole battle of comparing to modern versions is really won. (I walk by faith, not by sight.) We shouldn't be reacting to modern versions, because we are on the rock and we cannot be moved. Modern versions are dashing themselves in vain on this rock. Thus, our triumphalist position is to hold the victory that we actually have God's Word, and not that we are still trying to find it (as many seek in all the wrong ways and places).

In an age of gross darkness, where the saints ask “how long O Lord?” We find that the patience of the saints is to POSSESS, to keep the Word of God and the testimony of Christ. We must therefore OBTAIN by faith, knowing that all who came before us have contributed to us: "their works do follow them" (Rev. 14:13b). That these things are already supplied to us shows that we are in the privileged position to ATTAIN the blessing.

Thus, God's providence has been to give us the King James Bible, and God's providence has been to allow for us a foundation of vindication of that Bible, which is such a mountain of victory, that we find that we have the fruits of those who came before us in the great provision of the Almighty. Thanks be to God who has graciously multiplied such wisdom to us!

There is nothing wrong with dredging through old writings, or yet discussing the various things to do with the underlying text. The point is that it is not necessary to pursue the details of this when we have a gathered form of witness. It is exactly the same as saying that we do not know how exactly the King James Bible was made, though we have some idea, but we accept the result. In like manner, we do not have to know the entire body of evidence which vindicates or yet delves into the Greek and Hebrew, etc., to know this simple thing: God’s Word is fully true, right, accurate and exact here and now in this book.

In other words, “we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.” (Rom. 8:37b).

[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

[bibleprotector]

I am all for accepting the historical scholarly witness which has upheld the accuracy of the King James Bible. I have laboured to uphold the very words of Scripture, therefore, I submit that these accusations about me cannot be true:

Matthew's position is adversarial to the major battles of King James Bible defense.

an opponent of the defense of the King James Bible as the pure and perfect word of God.

We should see that we have a great colossus of material in defence of the King James Bible, and as we see that it is gathered, and understand it (with the chaff out), it is very easy to understand and teach others the simple truth that the King James Bible has been vindicated in every whit concerning textual and translational questions/points.

Moreover, since the major battles are already resolved, we can yet engage in the greatest wars in history and come out victorious because we have already possessed the truth today, namely, that the King James Bible is very pure, and that it is set now as the final form of the Word of God for the whole world.

If someone is saying that I am "adversarial" and "an opponent", perhaps that person is actually on the wrong side.

"For his God doth instruct him to discretion, and doth teach him. For the fitches are not threshed with a threshing instrument, neither is a cart wheel turned about upon the cummin; but the fitches are beaten out with a staff, and the cummin with a rod. Bread corn is bruised; because he will not ever be threshing it, nor break it with the wheel of his cart, nor bruise it with his horsemen. This also cometh forth from the LORD of hosts, which is wonderful in counsel, and excellent in working." (Isaiah 28:26-29).

Some will find it a strange thing that we should say that the King James Bible is sufficient truth, that persistent quibbling about the original languages actually amounts to nothing anyway. To them it might be like a wheel going over their back or something.

"To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear." (Isaiah 28:12).

We can present the truth and point to signs, but some may yet resist it. But the resisting of some (according to Bible prophecy) cannot be for so long, which is also my wish. Yes, I will provoke to jealousy and say that I am presenting the correct history of the King James Bible, and that I am presenting the correct future of the King James Bible too.

We are at a point of history where we may gather and reap of what all came before us. Just as the translators were able to get the KJB right in 1611, so we should be convinced from, say 2007, that they actually did get it right. (That is, that God ensured that the right men at the right time with the right learning etc. all came together for the KJB, but also that the right things have all come together that we now be confident in the English Bible as it stands today. This is called practical faith in the providence of God.)

There are those who do have this confidence in the KJB as the word of God, who do not follow you into the belief that therefore there is never going to be a need for the occasional updating of words. Such changes if correctly done are not changes in God's word at all, merely the provision of a new container for God's word. (Perhaps Will Kinney wouldn't like my use of his metaphor, I'll have to read more of his writings.)

So, the English is final. The meaning of the God's Word is there in English. The certainty is there in English. We don't have to go anywhere else to find the "real" meaning. We don't have to harbour any uncertainty as to various textual or translational questions at any point. In fact, the whole battle of comparing to modern versions is really won. (I walk by faith, not by sight.) We shouldn't be reacting to modern versions, because we are on the rock and we cannot be moved. Modern versions are dashing themselves in vain on this rock. Thus, our triumphalist position is to hold the victory that we actually have God's Word, and not that we are still trying to find it (as many seek in all the wrong ways and places).

I do not see why we cannot hold to the position that we do in fact have God's Word, and that there is nothing more to seek for, while yet also believing that some of the old English terms have lost their value as containers for God's Word and should be replaced by terms that people recognize today. The old terms were perfect containers in their day, correctly chosen new terms would be the same for our day.

This argument that if we think any such change is necessary we are therefore rejecting the KJB as God's Word or seeking God's Word elsewhere is not valid.

Strictly speaking, this is off topic, so I don't want to pursue it beyond this post, but as long as this keeps being asserted I feel I have to answer it. This position that rightly-done changes in the English are changes in God's Word itself is probably the most alienating idea I encounter in the KJVO camp. Even now I myself can argue against making any changes whatever, but I can only argue this on practical grounds at this point. That is, I can argue for it on the ground that it would be impossible to get together the right men for the job who would all agree on which changes are necessary; I can argue for it on the ground that any new edition would be lost in the confusion of all the versions; I can argue for it on the ground that people can be taught the meaning of any old words that confuse them; I can even argue for it on the ground that it would shake the brittle faith of the KJVO people who place their faith in the letter of the text rather than in its meaning. But I can't argue for it on the ground that the English of the current text is perfect for our day. It might be that Steven Avery or Will Kinney could convince me of this, but Bibleprotector's way of talking about it leaves me unconvinced.

[bibleprotector]

I find that I am increasingly disagreeing with Steven Avery's assertions.

I believing in perpetuating the historical witness that supports the King James Bible until the end. However, the "original language" defender of the King James Bible can be in all sorts of troubles, not just pride, but because they fundamentally are rejecting that the King James Bible is the Word of God itself in its final form. This can be seen because they continue to uphold foreign Bibles, and because they continue to think that the battle for the Bible is on the grounds of underlying texts/translations, and because they continue to think that they are contributing positively by investigating the sense and style and import of the original language basis to the King James Bible.

I. Since the King James Bible is the final form of the Word of God for the world, promoting it should excel beyond and replace other foreign Bibles.

II. Since the King James Bible is the final form of the text and translation of the Word of God, standing for it as settled is the way by which we observe signs and show the wonders of it, rather than merely just defensive counter-arguments and attacks against modern versions. Standing for the King James Bible as true is like a plough that goes through everything, to the point that there is no need to point out the 64,000+ errors of the NIV, etc. (Heavenly time is spent studying the truth, not merely identifying multitudes of error.)

III. Since the King James Bible is the final form of God's Word, everything sufficient is available to everyone to know it, which excludes the need for delving into the original languages, examining the margin notes, etc. The sense, style and import of the writings of Scripture are manifest in the English Bible, so that we may plainly access the truth without need of props. The Holy Ghost has ministers enough and provision enough that we may study the fullest depth and gain the fullest certainty of the Scripture by proper study without any excursions to the cloudland of misuse of tools, i.e. biased "contextualism", weighted "hermeneutics" and unjust balanced "interpretations".

Do we reject the original languages, margins, context, hermeneutics and interpretations? Only when they are used (as they often are) to deny the validity of the Scripture as manifest at hand. There is much that can be taken from Reformers, Puritans, Missionaries, Scholars, Teachers and Counsellers which aligns to the central maxim that "the Word is nigh".

I would that everyone in the world believed the English Bible rather than only a few, and I would that of the many people that must be saved, they would accept that King James Bible doctrine, even by simple faith in simple knowledge, rather than to have the Church slave to those who have the "higher learning". The true higher learning is that Christ is in every true believer, and that God has given every creature the Word.

There is a place for knowledge of the originals, etc., which must be in subjection to the truth that the English Bible is manifestly the final form of the Word for the world. Only then would we really be built upon the foundation of the godly men who came before us, and would we be properly be furnished with what God has used them to supply to us.