View Single Post
Old 05-21-2008, 07:32 AM
Steven Avery Steven Avery is offline
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 462

Hi Folks,

My disagreement with Matthew's view here is that he is giving a one-sided position of convenience, more theoretical than practical.

When we are on a forum and somebody like Rick Norris or some of the posters here falsely claim that the King James Bible has wrongly translated this Greek or that Hebrew or the other Aramaic, many of us will take the time to carefully show the fallacies in the accusation. Readers can note this happening again and again on this forum and I can point it out on other forums as well.

Yet I do not see Matthew objecting to our refutation of the false accusations, showing the improper language claims and pseudo-scholarship that is common from the anti-pure-KJB group. In fact my memory is that Matthew acknowledges and appreciates the refutations of false accusations, which posts are often very complementary to his specialty of the precision and accuracy of the English of the King James Bible.

And if we did not refute the false language accusations there would be left hanging a false impression about the particular verses and words, the errors would not be corrected. It can be a stinging rebuke to the Bible correctors when they are shown to be totally in fabrication-land in their accusations, and that demonstration often involves exposing the false aspects of their appeals to the Greek and the Hebrew, or the Aramaic and Latin may come to play.

To make the corrections it is imperative to do a little lexicon checking, sometimes the forums like b-hebrew and b-greek are of solid assistance. Other resources as well, with those skilled in the languages like John Hinton and Thomas Strouse being of assistance.

Yet, writing as above, apparently Matthew would prefer that this playing field be vacated, and the inquiring readers be left with the sense that the King James Bible has made certain errors in translation. Leaving this vacuum I believe would be KJB-defense error.