View Single Post
  #15  
Old 07-02-2008, 02:16 AM
Connie
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Thanks for your thoughts, Steven Avery. I'm not sure I follow what you are saying about the textual paradigms, I'll have to think about that more in order to understand it.

Quote:
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.
I may end up agreeing that there should be no changes of any kind made, but I don't yet have a firm foundation for that view, despite all that has been said on it here. I can say that personally my own reading of the Bible has become enormously easier, clearer, a joy, since I made the commitment to throw out my New King James and go with the KJV, but I don't feel I can say that for everyone else yet. I can argue up to a point of my limited knowledge that the modern versions are all corrupt and their underlying texts are corrupt but I can't yet argue that people need to overcome their balking at the old English of the KJV.

Quote:
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.
I really appreciate the historical information. I doubt I'm going to become very knowledgeable in this area, there's so much to know, but unfortunately we have to know a fair amount to discuss it with people. Yes, AW Pink is another of my favorites and I'd like to know his view on this subject along with the others I listed; I've read most of his books and don't recall his mentioning it. I hope you can find out about all their views on this subject if they are anywhere in print, and will pass them on here. I have been reading a lot of Leonard Ravenhill recently and was so sorry to hear him talk about his and Tozer's acceptance of a couple of the modern versions. And Spurgeon. To have so many of the well known men accepting the corrupted Bibles makes it especially hard to argue for the KJV.