[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

I think it is important to add that many people will adopt unusual theories of the Bible .., not because they are sensible, but simply because they can then try to avoid the authority of the pure King James Bible. So you might get somebody proclaiming Young's translation and grammar theories, an Aramaic Peshitta based NT, Webster's attempts from the early 1800s, the Geneva Bible, the Tyndale Bible, the Modern King James and dozens of other attempts (often TR-based) not because they really have done an examination or esteem these versions as the pure word of God. Instead simply to give an alternative, an "out" .. for not accepting the perfection and authority of the King James Bible.

This also goes to textual and historical theories, such as lifting up the socalled "LXX", or an "original Hebrew NT" or even rcc folks who bring up the vulgate or any rcc-endorsed text.

Often they really do not know or understand or care about the perfection of the word of God, they are simply trying to find an alternative .. any alternative .. to recognizing the purity and perfection of the Holy Bible, the Authorized Version, the King James Bible.

Keep that in mind with this Young's fellow, so that you do not spend too much time on rabbit-trails.

Shalom,
Steven Avery