[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

I was going to spend a little time discussing Scrivener and 1611 KJB and 1769 KJB (a fascinating discussion) but I do want to simply note a false accusation, similar to those that seem to be the main modus operandi of soph against Matthew. Integrity first.

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

2) F.H.A. Scrivener approached the text with much confusion personally. Matthew has discussed this some, with emphasis properly on the Revision, I will simply mention that Scrivener did not consider Acts 8:37 and the Johannine Comma as scripture, and thus was involved in the direct attack on God's word. Even if in many other places he defended the Traditional Text against corruptions.

Originally Posted by sophronismos

.. your objection here is a lie. Now, what you say may be true in one sense, but it is a lie in another because you are implying that Scrivener's "The Greek text underlying the Authorised Version of 1611" leaves out Acts 8:37 and the Johannine Comma

However I was making no such implication. This is an informed forum and it never even remotely entered my mind that what I wrote above would be interpreted in that way, yet you falsely jump to accuse me of lying. I even contextualized my discussion by pointing out the analogy with the fact that he worked with the Revision, albeit with much known disapproval. And that his Greek text we are discussing was a reversed-engineered KJB, which of course would include Acts 8:37 and the Johannine Comma.

So my point was very sound. F. H. A. Scrivener did not approach the King James Bible with eyes of faith, as the pure word of God, and this would affect his work in a number of ways (such as discussed in point #1). And any King James Bible believer should of necessity be very cautious with the analysis conclusions of men like Scrivener or Norton's edition. (Incidentally, I have a Zondervan Scrivener-based KJV Study Bible that I find helpful for study issues, purchased a few years back.)

You may disagree with this point, in the sense that you do not think that KJB belief and acceptance is relevant in the scholarly work. In a similar way that modern textcrits say that belief in the Bible is not relevant to 'reconstructing' the Bible text. That is your right, and deficient as I might view such a view, I would never accuse you of lying for so stating.

Soph, this forum operates on a very high level scholastically and, more importantly, respectfully. That is one reason we post here. You likely have the scholastic smarts to keep up with the forum, and let iron sharpeneth iron, however you would do well to examine your respectfulness quotient. False and political accusations of lying are the bane of any discussion forum. The rest is up to the mod.

Shalom,
Steven Avery