[George]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

This is easy to see in the Bible version discussion. There was a great fascination and interest in the Revision prospect, the Authorized Version was not appreciated in the scholastic circles, even the textual giant Dean Burgon fell down on this on occasion. As time went on, as Revision Revised demonstrated the textual shenanigans, as others began to see the whole picture clearer, precept upon precept, line upon line, it has become far easier to see the truth of the purity and perfection of the King James Bible.

An evangelist in the late 19th and early 20th century may be less accountable for a loose view of the identity of the pure Bible. Men who wrote beautiful evangelical books (e.g. David Baron and Adolph Saphir, even before the revision disaster) may have looked through a glass darkly at the identity of the pure and perfect Bible.

Shalom,
Steven

Right on - Again - brother.

I believe that God's people are responsible to stand up for the "light" that is given them, and that they must defend against attacks aimed against specific "doctrines" from the scriptures. Over the centuries, church history has demonstrated that at different times specific "doctrines" have come under attack and certain saints of God have arisen and have met the "challenge" of their time and contended for the faith - i.e. the virgin birth; the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ; and the Godhead ("Trinity" - I don't use the word myself) - All "vital "doctrines" from the scriptures - and all ably defended by God's saints in the distant past.

In the last 500 years or so for instance: the 12th. to 15th. century "issue" of "the just shall live by faith" {declared by Martin Luther, Zwingli, etc.} as opposed to works (Roman Catholic doctrine); from the 16th. through the 19th. century, the "issue" of "which Greek text" - The "Textus Receptus" as against the "Eclectic Text" i.e. Westcott & Hort-Nestles-United Bible Society, etc., etc. - {ably defended by Burgon, Miller, Scrivener, Hoskier, etc.}; and the latest "issue" from the 19 to the 21st. century i.e. "Which Bible" (especially in English) The King James Bible (A.V.) as against the NIV, NASV, NJKV, ETC., ETC., ETC., and who knows how many at this time? {ably defended by Hills, Ray, Fuller, Ruckman, etc., etc.}

I believe that, just like the "issues" of the "virgin birth", the "Deity of Christ", and the "Godhead" have been settled by God's people; the issue of "which text" has been "settled" {by those who went before us} and those who spend a whole lot of time on the issue are going over "plowed ground". For those unfamiliar with the issue, by all means check out the "which text" issue, but the battle now is over "Which Bible" in English Is God's Holy word - perfect and without error - that is: "the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." 2 Timothy 3:15

After spending 40 years on the "issue" of "Which Bible" (20 years-intensive & exhaustive, and the last 20 years keeping abreast); I have have found that after the study all of the various subjects entailed in this issue, the single most effective study is the verse by verse comparison between the King James Bible and whatever "bible" someone "thinks" or "believes" is equivalent or even "superior" to it.

With the exception of getting saved, there is nothing in the world to compare with the reaction of some believers, who, after even a cursory comparison between the Holy Bible and their "version" exclaim that: "I can't believe the difference"; or "why didn't I see this before?"; or "How could 'they' do this"?; or "How did 'they' get away with this for so long?"