[Brother Tim]

I await the Lord's return.

Double amen, Brandon!

I want to be so ready that I hear Gabriel breathe in before he blows the trumpet! I don't think it will be that long.

The book by Burgon is very useful to me, what a powerhouse. I'm also reading around in Will Kinney's website. I've started a blog of my own in which one of my topics is the Bible versions problem. I was inspired to do my own comparison a couple nights ago, of Psalms 91 and 23 and this became the basis of a few posts on the subject. It's just staggering what the new versions do to the text, willynilly changing words for no rational reason, changing them first of all from the KJV but then coming up with different words among the false versions too. Change for change's sake. Diabolical, truly! Yet Westcott and Hort were originally charged to make only the most necessary changes. What a con job they pulled! It's just astonishing what the devil has done with that, and how the churches have been confused and misled by his productions, and how hard it is to convince people.

It's crossed my mind that a major reason the Lord might not bring revival to His remnant before His return may well be the reliance of the churches on Bibles that are not His word. In reading Leonard Ravenhill I've been tremendously impressed and inspired by the man's fiery commitment to the cause of revival, and often wondered why the Lord never used him as kindling for the revival he so persistently sought. I can't know the answer for sure of course, but I look for doctrinal problems as a possible explanation, though he's a terrific man of God in any case. He didn't seem to catch the problems with Billy Graham for instance. And when I saw that he accepts a modern Bible version, that struck me as a sad possible explanation too. Not that there has to be an explanation but I have been wanting revival so much myself that I would love to know if there's a condition God is attaching to it that we aren't heeding. (I also think the current misreadings of 1 Cor 11:2-16, both the hair-as-covering reading and the covering-as-merely-cultural reading, may play a part in this, as it seems to me the last genuine revivals in the west were during the period when women still covered their heads, but this is just my personal ponderings at the moment).

On the side topic we also covered on this thread, Will Kinney has this great article on his site, and I agree with it completely:

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/transinsp.html

He says there:

God's words are like water in a vessel. If the same water is poured out into another vessel, even a vessel of a different shape and size, and there is no addition of foreign matter or subtraction of substance, it is the same water.

Yes, exactly! SO well said!

Let me assure you all that I am ready to defend the King James as is, it is now my Bible, and I know it is inspired and trustworthy. I would defend it for that and a variety of other reasons, but I do believe what Kinney says in this article can also be extended to the question of necessary updating (although --note well please -- I am NOT advocating that now, merely making a point about the principle involved). Yes, a translation done well IS inspired, as Kinney says, of COURSE it is inspired. That includes all the translations into English up to the KJV, and it would also include any updatings that were also done right! NOT what W&H did, NOT what the modern Bible mutilations have done, but done right! Done carefully, done with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Again, I'm only saying this as a matter of principle, not arguing in favor of actually doing it because I've given up on that. There is no reason whatever that a correctly updated version would not be inspired, BUT the last day is nearly upon us and it isn't going to happen, and I agree that as far as a compelling need goes, there is no such compelling need. The KJV is excellent as is.

I hope I got that said clearly.

[bibleprotector]

There is a difference in claiming that the translators were inspired, and that the King James Bible is the inspired Word of God that has come out of the preserved lineage from the time of inspiration.

Revival of religion is based on the heart of the individual believer. There is no way there can be large and lasting conversions merely based on external signs and wonders. Since the heart of the individual must love the law of God, it is important that the Law of God, (i.e. the pure Word of God) be magnified. Without the law set up as honourable, as the standard, there cannot be a true revival of religion. I have heard lots of talk about "revival" for years by people who have little or no idea as to what it means. The modern version issue is really a huge blockage against true revival by many professing Christians. It seems to me that very few so-called "born again" Christians are really even born again.

The King James Bible should be chosen as "our Bible". It is not just a taste/preference thing. It must be because we are willing and ready to recognise that this is God's Word, and that it is written (with all those seeming old or strange word endings) exactly how God wants it. (If the King James Bible is a work of God, what right have we to continue to update it. If God's works are perfect, how is man's input going to be better?) Having a desire to yet alter this is not to defer to God's way, but to think to "change times and laws". The Holy Ghost is not guiding people, nor guiding the circumstances so that there can be a careful, godly new revision of the King James Bible. The Holy Ghost is able to teach and speak to people perfectly, and the language of the King James Bible is not a stumblingblock or hindrance to God's ability. After all, it is His Word.

The final of the last days are not yet upon us, because, as we see from examining the historicist interpretation of Bible Prophecy (continuing from the Reformers, Isaac Newton, etc.) we see that we are yet in an age of darkness. Numerous things must be fulfilled BEFORE Christ's return/the final tribulation period. For example, we are yet to see the fulfilment of pre-tribulation portions of Daniel (the full transgression of the Grecian line), Ezekiel (the first coming of Gog and Magog), Joel (darkness over Israel and the defeat of the northern army), Revelation (the destruction of Turkey/Islam), Isaiah (true revival), Romans (the beginning of the conversion of the Jews by true Christians) and Acts (great restitution blessing poured out by God). There are specific prophecies which require and/or indicate the raising up of the King James Bible, e.g. Isa. 59:19, Eze. 38:17, Hab. 2:14, etc.

I believe that we are and should advance forward from Burgon into greater power yet.

And why did God "allow" the revisionists to do their evil? "Its effect will be to open men's eyes, as nothing else could possibly have done, to the dangers which beset the Revision of Scripture. It will teach faithful hearts to cling the closer to the priceless treasure which was bequeathed to them by the piety and wisdom of their fathers. It will dispel for ever the dream of those who have secretly imagined that a more exact Version, undertaken with the boasted helps of this nineteenth century of ours, would bring to light something which has been hitherto unfairly kept concealed or else misrepresented."

You might think that Burgon's assessment and prediction is wrong, because you have seen so many good Christians, even ones you looked up to, using modern versions. But the Scripture stands sure, "But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was." (2 Tim. 3:9). The darkness cannot continue. Modern versions have a used by date. The light of the King James Bible cannot be hidden, no matter what. (Yes, there is a great process out there supporting and promoting modern versions, and all the wrong ideas, and darkness. But that cannot not quench the light of God, just as night cannot stop the sunrise.)

Yes, apparently we agree about the modern versions being a block to revival. It makes sense. I've read a LOT about revival and know that it usually comes when people are praying for it at length, perhaps only a few getting together at first, often praying all night. There are good books on the subject and some good sermons on it at Sermon Audio.com as well. Duncan Campbell on the Welsh revival is very inspiring. When revival comes it is a move of the Holy Spirit that can't be mistaken and He generally comes first with tremendous conviction of sin. This describes just about every genuine revival. People are bowed down with grief for their sins. In some revivals unbelievers may be drawn from the surrounding area by a power they can't explain. True revival is a move of God and it is wonderful. It has NOTHING to do with signs and wonders of the charismatic kind, and in fact when those occur it's often a sign of a counterfeit and it will bring a genuine revival to a halt, or it may be the devil's work on the fringes of a true revival.

Yes, I recognize the King James as God's word, I thought I was clear about that. No, it's not a matter of taste. I would assume an updating would be prompted by the Holy Spirit who wants the word to be accessible to all, and I also thought I'd been clear about that. I've tried hard to be clear that I know the difference between the profane alterations by the likes of W&H and a work done by God. Yes, there is not much in the King James that needs updating anyway. It is possible I will yet come to see this more as you see it, although I doubt I will go all the way in that direction, but please don't mischaracterize me at this point.

As I understand the scripture, what remains to be fulfilled before Jesus returns is the revelation of the Antichrist. I could be wrong about this too. There could be more, but your understanding of it sounds like something I haven't heard before.

Burgon is a powerful thinker it seems to me, and he is an expert in the field, and his writing was done when the problem was just getting started. I don't know what further power you might have in mind. The passage of time should allow others like yourself to improve the argument if that's what you mean.

But the power the church needs is the power of God Himself in revival, for God to come down and convict us of sin and change us into people who can do exploits in the last days. Blockages to a move of God need to be recognized. I have to suppose that a church that has women elders is a blockage for instance, as well as a church that allows the modern Bibles, as well possibly as women's not covering our heads in worship and prayer, as well as an equation of a move of the Holy Spirit with a certain kind of signs and wonders.

I appreciate the quote from Burgon. All things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

However, it's been over a century since then and the problem has spread throughout the church. Such a disaster comes as God's judgment, and judgment begins at the house of God. The new versions are part of the engine of the Great Apostasy it seems to me, a darkness that will probably continue and get worse until the last day. But for the called I hope the Lord will open the eyes of great numbers and soon.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by Brother Tim

Connie, 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 believe it was the same with men like Spurgeon. They were caught up with the newness of the matter, and may have even innocently thought (like someone near and dear) that some slight changes would be beneficial. I would hope that if these men were transported to today's environment, they would have wisdom to see what has happened and that they would be on the forefront of the defense for the purity of the KJB.

Spot-on. A great pitfall is to judge too harshly men by the light that we see clearly today. Tozer, Pink, Spurgeon and others had been the recipients of a century-long agiprop campaign against the pure and perfect Bible. And remember that the versions that were published masked the actual confusions of alexandrian texts, tampered with the corruptions, hid the theoretical omissions, and this may have obscured for awhile the poverty of the revision. The truths that Dean Burgon shared were not easy for all to receive.

And remember that many of these men had been imbued with an idea of the superiority of the Greek, and as men of learning they could be subject to the same seminarian-elitist-wisdom weaknesses that we see contribute to so much textual apostasy today. Even Dean Burgon's view was tainted some by the elements that I mention here, even while he totally disassembled the whole Revision piece-by-piece and the phoney textcrit theories behind the revision as well.

The first tendency is "new..good". When I came to belief in the Lord Jesus Christ we said the same thing about the NIV (compared to the NAS). That shows how easy it is to be tricked and conned by the "new" and how reluctant people are to be viewed as stodgy folks not with it.

Now today we have much more light on the Bible issue, we can see the glass far less darkly, the jig is up for the alexandrian cult, we know 100% to reject the counter-reformation corruptions and versions.

And we know more clearly the superb majesty and truth and purity and power and authority of God's perfect word, the Holy Bible, the King James Bible.

Thus, let us remember a bit to see the men in the context of their times. Not to excuse error (there had been some warnings, and yes they should have understood better) -- to allow their legacy to remain intact despite their slips on the pure Bible.

Shalom,
Steven

That's a great explanation, Steven Avery. The degree of deception is staggering, isn't it? You are right, given the deception we shouldn't judge others who fall for it, should we? Even those today. Many good Christians are still in its thrall. It makes me very sad to see men like Spurgeon and Pink and Tozer and Ravenhill caught in it. It makes me especially sad to think their effectiveness might have been unknowingly restricted by it. It makes me even sadder to think that the church today might have to limp along in a state of weakness and confusion without revival until the Lord comes back.

Besides reading the Burgon excerpts at Pastor Cloud's site I've looked at other writings on the subject he has posted there. Whoever pointed me to this site really answered my questions, thanks.

Very interesting to see that by 1924 the new versions seemed to be losing in popularity, according to Philip Mauro. Also interesting that it seems to have been widely accepted that the AV needed some corrections although it was also recognized by some at least that the revisers had gone way beyond any such requirement.

Somewhere yesterday or today, not sure if it was on this page or not, I also read that it was Dean Burgon who first recognized that the revisers had not stuck to their promise to do a minimal revision but had in fact produced a completely new Bible. Apparently at first it passed as a mere revision. That's how sneaky this whole thing was. It really helps to know this history I think.

http://www.wayoflife.org/articles/truefalse/index.html

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by Connie

I also read that it was Dean Burgon who first recognized that the revisers had not stuck to their promise to do a minimal revision but had in fact produced a completely new Bible. Apparently at first it passed as a mere revision. That's how sneaky this whole thing was. It really helps to know this history I think.

Amen.

Also the issue that swayed me most was understanding that the whole textcrit game was false, and the issue that highlighted that for me was the abject corruption of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

(We could use a page that builds on Brandon's Magic Marker concepts yet includes more of their corruptions, which are often hidden.)

This I read from the Dean, and I approached James White personally and various forums with scholarship folks involved. The answers were either thunderous silence or sad yet humorous disheveled attempts at propping up the absurd. e.g. James White telling me who wonderful it was that there were a dozen hand correcting Sinaiticus because with spectragraphic, or some type of super-xray, techniques .. we can get back to the original .. (corrupt, rejected, written over) .. text. When I heard that .. the game was over, wrapped up, finito.

Shalom,
Steven

I didn't know the texts were corrected like that. Sounds like the White camp think whatever was corrected has to be the best. Kind of the way some people think the gnostic gospels have to be the truth just because the church suppressed them. Well, in fact the very way the revisionists figured if it's older and it contradicts the AV it has to be better. Weird assumption they have.

I'll eventually get to that in Burgon I suppose. Right now I'm reading around in a lot of things, probably not a good idea, makes the head spin.

Now I'm wondering what happened after 1924 when according to Mauro the new revision was not very popular. (Or is the AV still more popular than the revisions, seems unlikely but does anyone know?). Something happened after that to make them very popular it seems. Publishing companies doing their different versions maybe? Of course I'm continuing to read in my haphazard way and the question may be answered as I go.

Another question I'm looking to answer is exactly what they thought needed revising in the AV. I know that question is anathema for many here, or at least the idea itself that it needed revising is, but it seems important to know what they thought they wanted changed when they convened the revising body for that purpose.

Mauro concedes that the AV needed revising, so does Burgon I think though just for the purposes of private study or something like that? Exactly what did they think needed changing? Again, I may find the answer as I continue to read but if anyone simply knows it and would post it I'd appreciate it.

I've been praying by the way that the Lord would show me if it really is an affront to His word to think any revision at all is necessary, as so many here maintain. So far I continue to think that a revision done right would simply be a new container for the same word, to use Will Kinney's wonderful metaphor (although I'm not expecting or even wanting such a revision to happen any more).