View Single Post
Old 07-01-2008, 06:22 AM
Steven Avery Steven Avery is offline
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 462

Hi Folks,

A lot of fine thoughts in this thread.

First, counterpoint. I very strongly disagree with the concept that the issue of the underlying Greek text (the Reformation Battle of the Bible) should be abandoned now as inconsequential or secondary.

The underlying principle is very simple.

"Precept upon precept, line upon line..."

Without first understanding, at least to some extent, the superiority of the Reformation Bible (which can include the gross inferiority of the Vulgate and the utter textual decadence of the alexandrian-based versions) it is difficult to expect that a person will leave the corrupt modern versions for the King James Bible. In seeking information, they will be fighting against an avalanche of agiprop, peer pressure and the version industrial complex, with tentacles throughout public Christendom and academia, such as paid 'critical consultants' shilling for the corrupt versions. All designed all around trying to prop up the decrepit modern versions. Some will see the truth nonetheless, however if one gets informed about the underlying battles and issues it can be very helpful . I speak from personal experience as well.

The main argument used against the King James Bible position is that it is cultist, one-dimensional, unconcerned with the underlying texts, and such. Rarely will textual paradigms be examined on a level playing field. All of these criticisms are wrong, however if we do not helpfully show the truth about the Battle of the Bible it will certainly look like we are defending an underlying source text (the Received Text) that the scholars 'rightfully' reject. Since their arguments will be uncountered. Thus some of us feel one proper calling is to show and describe and expose the false textual criticism paradigms that give the corrupt versions. And how this relates to their futile efforts trying to prop up the false underlying Greek texts and the modern versions against the historic Bible.

And in my view, to be very clear, this does not clash one iota with the work of those defining and declaring the perfect edition of the King James Bible.

On the updating, Connie in a sense answers her own questions. While beginning to talk about some minor 'updating' you then point out how 'Defined' Bibles can be much more a distraction than a help. In my view most all the 'difficulties' with the King James Bible are generally fluff and puff of wrong focus, designed to steer people away from deep and sincere study of the pure word of God. Which includes at times simply confirming the meaning of a word, especially by looking more fully at the context. Nothing wrong with an occasional footnote or margin note, however very rarely an issue.

And Connie, I believe your points about many folks languishing in modern-version-land having an element of scholastic cluelessness is spot-on. Not so much in the Dean Burgon era, but later, from around 1920 to 1980, with the exception of Hills, Wilkinson, Fuller, and a few others, easy to be fringed, the field was largely vacant. (It would be interesting to see how the men you mention, and others like Arthur Pink, related to the Bible question in a period where there was an element of scholastic unawareness. So I may be looking them up, it seems only Spurgeon has been really studied some.) And in the period mentioend the evangelicals were being indoctrinated in dumbed-down seminaries with little opposition. And note, Connie, that the battle did not begin with Westcott and Hort, there were some before their errors and Dean Burgon's refutations, who saw what was on the horizon and issued early clarion warning calls.

Overall, the written material covering pure Bible defense from 1850 to 1950 is spotty. David Cloud has some of the best summaries, yet they could be greatly augmented in order to give a much fuller picture to the reader. I discovered some excellent writers and quotes when looking up their views on the Johannine Comma and on inerrancy and infallibility. Material today is far more available than even five years ago, due to the fact that often the better writing, the earlier writing, is off copyright and now available. A bit of an irony. Even online and free in many cases, at a university library in some others.

Steven Avery

Last edited by Steven Avery; 07-01-2008 at 06:47 AM.