[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Once you learn the techniques of deceptive opponents of the pure King James Bible it becomes much easier to understand their game. One example, well understood, has a carry-over effect to help your spiritual antennae.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

I would like to point out that if we concede that even one printer's error from 1611 persists unidentified or uncorrected to the present, then this opens up the door for doubt upon any word of the Scripture today. But God has had editors care for his Word, and has raised up a large tradition of acceptance of the Bible as it is. Either we maintain what we have as a gift of God, or else follow the whims of those who doubt that we have the Scripture perfectly today.

Those with whims will use the same 'technique' of false accusation (and anachronistic accusation) again and again. As an example, today I just noted that :

Hebrews 10:23
Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering;
(for he is faithful that promised)

is subject to the same type of nonsense as 'strain at a gnat'. Many know there is a big translational discussion about 'faith' or 'hope' in this verse. Thomas Holland wrote about this quite nicely, so we can simply reference his page:

http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/holland_heb10_23.html
Hebrews 10:23 - "profession of our faith" - Thomas Holland

Yet here comes the cornfusenisks. They don't just question the accuracy of the (excellent) translation, they add their whim and tinge.

Scrivener - 'mere oversight of our [KJV] translators'
David Norton - 'this could be a printer's error'

And thus from this a modern anti-KJB, in his leading-question style of deception, asks if the translators -

'overlooked a questionable rendering?' - Rick Norris.

Rick Norris even pulls out a Lancelot Andrewes section supporting the connection with hope. However he omits the following by Lancelot Andrewes:

http://books.google.com/books?id=-ewDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA65
The heart by Lancelot Andrewes

Heb. x.23.
GRANT me always to hold fast
the profession of my faith
without wavering;
For thou art faithful who hast promised.
To this hope set before me

Which of course closes the 'issue' (which never made any sense anyway). While Scrivener and Norton could try the excuse of lack of knowledge, I tend to doubt that is the case with Norris, since the Andrewes reference was easy to find and Norris was specifically looking for such references.

Thus we see another truly insipid idea from Scrivener and Norton and Norris, quite similar to the 'strain at a gnat' misprint canard of many. And we see Norris trying to use it for the same purpose of Bible doubt as with the misprint myth-accusation.

Shalom,
Steven