The book by Burgon is very useful to me, what a powerhouse. I'm also reading around in Will Kinney's website. I've started a blog of my own in which one of my topics is the Bible versions problem. I was inspired to do my own comparison a couple nights ago, of Psalms 91 and 23 and this became the basis of a few posts on the subject. It's just staggering what the new versions do to the text, willynilly changing words for no rational reason, changing them first of all from the KJV but then coming up with different words among the false versions too. Change for change's sake. Diabolical, truly! Yet Westcott and Hort were originally charged to make only the most necessary changes. What a con job they pulled! It's just astonishing what the devil has done with that, and how the churches have been confused and misled by his productions, and how hard it is to convince people.
It's crossed my mind that a major reason the Lord might not bring revival to His remnant before His return may well be the reliance of the churches on Bibles that are not His word. In reading Leonard Ravenhill I've been tremendously impressed and inspired by the man's fiery commitment to the cause of revival, and often wondered why the Lord never used him as kindling for the revival he so persistently sought. I can't know the answer for sure of course, but I look for doctrinal problems as a possible explanation, though he's a terrific man of God in any case. He didn't seem to catch the problems with Billy Graham for instance. And when I saw that he accepts a modern Bible version, that struck me as a sad possible explanation too. Not that there has to be an explanation but I have been wanting revival so much myself that I would love to know if there's a condition God is attaching to it that we aren't heeding. (I also think the current misreadings of 1 Cor 11:2-16, both the hair-as-covering reading and the covering-as-merely-cultural reading, may play a part in this, as it seems to me the last genuine revivals in the west were during the period when women still covered their heads, but this is just my personal ponderings at the moment).
On the side topic we also covered on this thread, Will Kinney has this great article on his site, and I agree with it completely:
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/transinsp.html
He says there:
Quote:
|
God's words are like water in a vessel. If the same water is poured out into another vessel, even a vessel of a different shape and size, and there is no addition of foreign matter or subtraction of substance, it is the same water.
|
Yes, exactly! SO well said!
Let me assure you all that I am ready to defend the King James as is, it is now my Bible, and I know it is inspired and trustworthy. I would defend it for that and a variety of other reasons, but I do believe what Kinney says in this article can also be extended to the question of necessary updating (although --note well please -- I am NOT advocating that now, merely making a point about the principle involved). Yes, a translation done well IS inspired, as Kinney says, of COURSE it is inspired. That includes all the translations into English up to the KJV,
and it would also include any updatings that were also done right! NOT what W&H did, NOT what the modern Bible mutilations have done, but done right! Done carefully, done with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Again, I'm only saying this as a matter of principle, not arguing in favor of actually doing it because I've given up on that. There is no reason whatever that a correctly updated version would not be inspired, BUT the last day is nearly upon us and it isn't going to happen, and I agree that as far as a compelling need goes, there is no such compelling need. The KJV is excellent as is.
I hope I got that said clearly.