View Single Post
  #17  
Old 07-02-2008, 09:36 AM
Connie
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
with respect to those far-past Godly men whose writings and teachings were so strong, yet they seemed to embrace alterations to the Bible of their day without awareness
I'm hoping that's true, I guess because I'd rather not have to doubt their spiritual discernment. But I'd like to know for sure and I wonder if there is any way to find out. Maybe Steven Avery will find some more information about these men's knowledge of the situation.

On the subject of the updating, just to try to be as clear as possible, I do fine with the old English myself, but nobody has yet convinced me that it's really necessary. I just don't see the argument that says a little updating must necessarily lead to all the corruptions, because what brought about the corruptions in the first place was Westcott and Hort's not sticking to the plan to update but introducing the corrupted Greek texts. ALL the new versions are now based on those corrupted texts and even some KJV's have been affected by them at least in footnotes. So we've never had a merely updated KJV. The New King James would have been fine with me, I think, if it had truly been only an updating of the English, but changes were made beyond updating and the constant footnote references to different sets of Greek texts are infuriating. SO I'd like to see a REAL update done by Godly men that absolutely ignores the corrupted Greek texts and sticks to the KJV alone.

As for the Defined King James I just think the definitions should be less in-your-face. Maybe simply a list of the terms they feel need defining should be put at the front or back of the Bible where anyone can go to look them up when they have a question without having to be constantly made aware of them during reading.

I'm still open to the argument that no updating should be done at all, but so far I'm not convinced.