[bibleprotector]

Steven Avery wrote, "only a few of the 150 referenced in Matthew are likely his own declaration that the TR is not correct -- people 'suggest' all sorts of stuff) which would change the underlying text."

I pointed out that the Dean was labouring to revise the TR, and had 150 (suggested) changes for the Book of Matthew alone. That is 150 changes in the TR of St. Matthew, potentially 150 changes in the King James Bible in the Gospel of Matthew alone.

I said that, "150 corrections to the TR is 150, not 'a few'."

Steven Avery wrote: "Of course not, and to write in this manner is an astonishing misrepresentation of my words. Where did I ever claim that 150 is a 'few'?"

What I meant exactly was that Steven Avery was making Burgon's 150 TR changes down to just a few, i.e. just a small portion of that 150, rather than accepting the plain wording of Miller that there were about 150 Greek textual/English translational changes in the Book of Matthew, Miller writes, "In the Text left behind by Dean Burgon, about 150 corrections have been suggested by him in St Matthew’s Gospel alone."

[bibleprotector]

Was Burgon’s revisionary work with the Greek underlying text merely restricted to the Greek, or was he implying, indicating and revealing that the King James Bible should be altered?

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.

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

Here is the full quotation (from David Cloud):

It is often urged on behalf of the Revisionists that over not a few dark places of St. Paul's Epistles their labours have thrown important light. Let it not be supposed that we deny this. Many a Scriptural difficulty vanishes the instant a place is accurately translated; a far greater number, when the rendering is idiomatic. It would be strange indeed if, at the end of ten years, the combined labours of upwards of twenty Scholars, whose raison d'etre as Revisionists was to do this very thing, had not resulted in the removal of many an obscurity in the A.V. of Gospels and Epistles alike.

In the context of that quote, he 1. agrees that there were obscurities in the English, 2. that the Revisionists of the RV have done well in having thrown important light, specifically by new so-called accurate translation and also by alterations of the English idiom, 3. that there were indeed obscurities in the AV Gospels and Epistles which he expected and agreed should be clarified.

This shows that Burgon was believing that revision to the English Bible was right, proper and good. But he favoured a vastly different kind of revision than what actually occurred.

Burgon’s plan, which was never “formalised” consisted of:
I. gaining a full picture of the underlying textual evidence with special reference to the Byzantine tradition,
II. the developing of scholarship in “sound” textual criticism, including acquaintance with the LXX, etc.,
III. making corrections to the TR,
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,
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.

(I have constructed this outline of a planfrom a general knowledge of Burgon's printed work.)

Thus, when Burgon spoke of, “representing certain words more accurately, — here and there translating a tense with greater precision, — getting rid of a few archaisms”, he was in fact laying out what was part of his own plan. In the context of these words he does not condemn this notion at all, but says that the AV should not be endangered, for the sake of making these changes. He is seeing that these changes are right, but that they should not be used as a pretext for wholesale radical modernisation. In other words, he would rather be conservative and have no revision than to allow the needful revision he really desires, when it would be hijacked and destructive to Scripture (like the RV was).

Burgon wrote, “an authoritative Revision of the Greek Text will have to precede any future Revision of the English of the New Testament. Equally certain is it that for such an undertaking the time has not yet come.” (Burgon, The Revision Revised, page 124.)

Note, he says “will have to”. He believed in not only altering the Greek, but the AV. He then uses the words “not yet come”, meaning that there would be a time when the AV would be somehow revised. He is not against a “future Revision of the English”.

Again, Burgon wrote, “Whenever the time comes for the Church of England to revise her Authorized Version (1611), it will become necessary that she should in the first instance instruct some of the more judicious and learned of her sons carefully to revise the Greek Text of Stephens (1550). Men require to know precisely what it is they have to translate before they translate it.” (Burgon, The Last Twelve Verses of Mark, page 263.)

Note that he believed it inevitable that there would be a revision to the AV, and then says that it would be necessary for it to be done properly, etc. Not only is the Greek to be altered, but then men would “translate it”. That is clearing meaning that he believed and supported and even advocated change to the AV.

Edward Miller recorded that, “we do not advocate perfection in the Textus Receptus. We allow that here and there it requires revision. In the Text left behind by Dean Burgon, about 150 corrections have been suggested by him in St Matthew’s Gospel alone. What we maintain is the Traditional Text. And we trace it back to the earliest ages of which there is any record.” (Burgon, The Traditional Text, page 5.)

These 150 corrections mean 150 changes in the KJB in the Book Matthew! It does not mean less, or just the Greek, as though it would have no affect or manifestation in English. As for even a short catalogue of specific examples of any sort of alterations the Dean suggested, one can probably find allusions to examples in places in his writings.

He said, “my object, the establishment of the text on an intelligible and trust worthy basis.” (Burgon, The Traditional Text, page 6.) And, “Let 500 more COPIES of the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles be diligently collated. Let at least 100 of the ancient Lectionaries be very exactly collated also. Let the most important of the ancient VERSIONS be edited afresh, and let the languages which these are written be for the first time really mastered by Englishmen. Above all, let the FATHERS be called upon to give up their precious secrets. Let their writings be ransacked and indexed, and (where needful) let the MSS of their works be diligently inspected, in order that we may know what actually is the evidence which they afford, Only so will it ever be possible to obtain a Greek Text on which absolute reliance may be placed, and which may serve as the basis for a satisfactory Revision of our Authorized Version.” (Burgon, The Revision Revised, page 125.)

Note that once all this was done, “Only so will it ever be possible to obtain a Greek Text on which absolute reliance may be placed, and which may serve as the basis for a satisfactory Revision of our Authorized Version.” He very plainly, clearly supports a “satisfactory Revision of our Authorized Version”. He is wanting to change the AV, not just the Greek, but the English.

What English was he wanting to change? Certainly not wholesale changes like the RV, because he said, “It is idle — worse than idle — to dream of revising, with a view to retaining, this Revision. Another generation of students must be suffered to arise. Time must be given for Passion and Prejudice to cool effectually down ... Partisanship must be completely outlived, — before the Church can venture, with the remotest prospect of a successful issue, to organise another attempt at revising the Authorized Version of the New Testament Scriptures.” (Burgon, The Revision Revised, page 227.)

He wanted someone to have a “successful” venture, and “organise another attempt at revising the Authorized Version”. He was all for changing the AV. All for the success of a conservative revision.

“Then further,” wrote Burgon, “those who would interpret the New Testament Scriptures, are reminded that a thorough acquaintance with the Septuagintal Version of the Old Testament is one indispensable condition of success.” (Burgon, The Revision Revised, page 128.)

Again, Burgon sees that a new interpretation would be exectued, and gave his ideas on what would make it a “success”? He is not just talking about the Greek, but about creating changes to the King James Bible!

“And finally,” Burgon concluded, “the Revisionists of the future (if they desire that their labours should be crowned), will find it their wisdom to practise a severe self-denial; to confine themselves to the correction of ‘plain and clear errors;’ and in fact to ‘introduce into the Text as few alterations as possible.’” (Burgon, The Revision Revised, page 128.) And that “the Authorized Version, wherever it was possible, should have been jealously retained.” (Burgon, The Revision Revised, page 226.)

He is not just speaking of errors in the Greek but errors or changes to be made in the Authorized Version. He said that it should be retained “wherever it was possible” meaning that he thought it was not always possible to do so, indeed, giving his blessing and the most certain implication that the work of his sort would differ to the AV as it was.

I cannot supply specific examples of what Burgon though were corrections, but it might be possible to find various throughout his writings. But I am not making a case in support of Burgon’s revising the AV, rather, that Burgon being on the side of good was not wholly wrong. Namely, that he did see the value in retaining much of the AV, and that there were a few corrections that were needful in the presentation of the AV, nothing like the types of corrections which he implied he required. And in time, the purification of the AV was complete. But so much of the Dean’s projections were never fulfilled, nor should they be, and that is why we should not bother about what exactly were his requirements for revision, 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.

Elements or things of the proper spirit of his requirements were fulfilled, and this can be recognised from the basis of a proper view of the AV itself. This includes that the Septuagint knowledge seems to have been helpful in correcting longstanding typographical errors/variations in names in the AV. And that greater knowledge of the Byzantine tradition connected to TR defence has afterwards confirmed the AV.

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”.

[bibleprotector]

Steven Avery wrote:

And I asked you for even one verse, with this hindsight, where knowledge of the Greek OT was helpful for the Redpath purification. And we still await your example of even one verse.

(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.)

Incidentally, it is possible that the reason the Dean mentioned the Greek OT in that context is that he had similar unsurety about the Masoretic Text as he did about the Greek TR. If that is the explanation (I do not have another, but I am listening for an example from Matthew of how Greek OT knowledge would effect English-AV editions otherwise) then Matthew has misapplied (albeit accidentally in ignorance by not thinking and researching thoroughly enough) the Greek OT statement of Dean Burgon on many articles Matthew has written that highlighted the Redpath Greek OT knowledge as of special significance.

It is clear that the LXX, or knowledge of it, is not helpful nor has had any affect to be able to change even one word of the underlying text to the King James Bible Old Testament. This is simply because no change has been admitted to the underlying text. (It would be contradictory to be stuck upon some issue concerning the underlying text when the AV has been set forth as the final Word for the world.)

My point is that knowledge of the LXX would be (i.e. was) helpful, in that it would be a great asset to having understanding of textual and translational details, second, that this knowledge would not be a hindrance if it was rejected or not utilised in regards to making any change, third, that in purely editorial work, that is, criticism that related to English printed textual history, LXX knowledge would be an asset in identifying typographical errors/variations in obscure names (regardless of the specific LXX witness in regards to those names), and that LXX knowledge would be an aid to regularisation, especially if a person were an LXX editor, therefore in the practice of being an editor, better equipped to deal with the English.

The cause and affect between Burgon and the Pure Cambridge Edition is not literal, but signal (i.e. as a sign). It is not that Burgon said that the LXX would be helpful, and then when an LXX editor worked on the AV, that he made changes from the LXX or on the basis of the LXX, etc. Rather, Burgon, while misguided, was still very good, and had something prophetic about him, in that as little as possible changes to the AV was really his rule, and it worked out that few was far fewer than what he thought. It is not about trying to draw or disavow LXX connections between the editing of the Pure Cambridge Edition. It is about seeing the kind of spirit involved and seeing the kind of learning that would be used by God. (In mentioning Redpath’s knowledge of the LXX, I am doing so highlighting that he was scholarly and learned.)

The very reason why concentrating on the TR and underlying texts is a waste of time is because the KJB is settled now. The very reason why we go beyond Burgon, building upon him, is because we can see where he was wrong and uncertain. Therefore, to yet be labouring with the Greek is to be somewhere where things have not yet been recognised as final.

For example, those who are yet labouring with the Textus Receptus, those who support other translations yet being made from the TR, and so on, which is better than Burgon’s position, is still not fully the final position, because such people may still regard obscurities, etc. in the KJB (e.g. that the English language may alter so that another edition of the KJB be needful), and/or else think that it is obscure, etc. for people in other nations (e.g. to doubt that God is turning the world to English in time).

It is as a sign that there is a connection between those who tend to uphold Burgon in a slightly wrong light themselves tend to be slightly wrong in their view of the perfection of the King James Bible in English. The right light is to see Burgon as good (e.g. learned, prophetic), but mistaken; as furthering the principles of the cause (as few changes as possible), while misapplying the practise (the right view is that the AV is fixed for the world now since its final purification).

[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,

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

I pointed out that the Dean was labouring to revise the TR, and had 150 (suggested) changes for the Book of Matthew alone. That is 150 changes in the TR of St. Matthew, potentially 150 changes in the King James Bible in the Gospel of Matthew alone.

And I pointed out that the wording from Miller had some ambiguity. And it has been pointed out by others that one has to be careful that Miller doesn't superimpose his interpretation upon Burgon in "Traditional Text". Thus a suggestion of an alternate text or reading or a margin notation from Burgon could quite easily morph into a "correction" by Miller, if Edward Miller is wearing correction glasses.

This was clear in my original post (although I add a smidgen here) yet ignored by Matthew.

According to the Miller Preface to "The Text" Dean Burgon was making margin notes in a Scrivener NT edition.

http://books.google.com/books?id=Be5JAAAAMAAJ&pg=PR5
The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels Vindicated and Established
"as marked in the margin of one of Scrivener's editions of the New Testament"

And margin notes are notoriously able to be read with various glasses. And remember the Dean himself indicated textual revision could well be only margin notes. Afaik, Miller never makes clear the 'positive iinstructions solely for the publication of his Text of the Gospels' nor do we have readily available the actual Burgon Scrivener-margin material, although they may be in the British Library, since his unpublished early church writer (patristic) collations (color-coded!) I understand do reside in the British Library, as mentioned on the Evangelical Textual Criticism forum and perhaps earlier the web forums.

None of this helps Matthew's earlier error, whatever the nature of Dean Burgon TR considerations, since Matthew's primary error was ascribing to Dean Burgon a necessity and laid out plan that involved KJB archaims and tenses, not possible TR textual change considerations.

And unless we really read some pages of the Matthew-Scrivener texts it would be hard to tell whether the Dean was trying to write a new Greek TR or whether he was doing collation and scholarship work indicating the variances. Again, we do have a few places where the Dean unambigiously indicated his idea that a TR reading was actually incorrect, afaik we only have a few of that nature. When this discussion takes a lull, by the grace of God and time willing, I will be happy to try to document what we actually have. So far I have only seen individual references given on some forums and articles, if there is a group verse listing somewhere, determined by reading through the various Dean Burgon books, that would help the effort.

Shalom,
Steven