[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Why not a really tiny little update ?

Essentially, that is the question Connie asked on the Westcott-Hort flim-flam thread.

http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...0&postcount=64
When was the Westcott-Hort flimflam first recognized?

Originally Posted by Connie

Such changes if correctly done are not changes in God's word at all, merely the provision of a new container for God's word... some of the old English terms have lost their value as containers for God's Word and should be replaced by terms that people recognize today. The old terms were perfect containers in their day, correctly chosen new terms would be the same for our day.

And the question deserves a helpful response. And Connie gave a true part of the answer -- such an attempt will surely fail. Connie gave a bunch of very solid reasons, and here are three that she gave.

Originally Posted by Connie

I can only argue this on practical grounds at this point... impossible to get together the right men for the job who would all agree on which changes are necessary ... any new edition would be lost in the confusion of all the versions .... people can be taught the meaning of any old words that confuse them

And Joseph C. Philpot pointed out similarly even before the Revision flim-flam disaster.

http://members.aol.com/libcfl2/keep.htm
The Desirability of Keeping the Authorized Version - by J. C. Philpot
(Written in 1857 when the Revised Version was contemplated)

Even the more moderate attempts, as we saw recently with the KJ/21 - Millenium © versions, here and there they goofed real bad even though they told us they would be real careful .

Yet there is an other element. Again and again there appears to a wisdom, and even a providential design component, in every word in the King James Bible. Including in the verses that some would want to brand as archaic or obsolete or whatever is the update flair du jour.

One of my favorite examples is stablish, surely high up on most or all such lists, so the word could be merged into establish under the itchy fingers of a new update. Yet in fact stablish clearly has a meaning and purpose distinct from establish, one that fits precisely in the verses where it is used in the King James Bible translation, even when the Hebrew word is identical. (A type of example where Peter Ruckman is right that the English can shed more light on the Bible, and 'improve' through translation, bypassing limitations of the underlying languages. The distinction may be unexpressible or difficult to express in Biblical Hebrew yet God has let it come through in the English Holy Bible, the AV.) Will the 'updaters' understand that they are lessening God's word .. I doubt it, the KJ/21 folks failed miserably, and after all, The Updaters are there to update !

Let's take another, studying by example. One that is surely on most every list. "I trow not" which we discussed on this forum, rarely used today. Yet in fact "I trow not" has a special, concise and precise meaning.

Let's envision "The Updaters" around the table ?

Suggestions ?
---
I think not - hmm.. a personal preference, not conviction
I know not - nope.. only an intellectual knowledge
I affirm not - sounds like legalese
I believe not - lacking conviction, ambiguous as the term is also used as faith term
certainly not, surely not, suppose not, consider not
my measured view not
----
nothing is working ! - thats almost 10 tries - any other ideas ?

Are any of these superior ?
I trow not !

In fact they are all inferior.
Back to "The Updaters" show, in process.

A man with some wisdom speaks ..

"How about .. 'I trow not' "

A corrector speaks .. I said no, no, no, no, no, no.. that will never do. Don't we have to choose .. something.. aren't we here to update ? How can the King James Bible word be the most perfect ? Are we just here uselessly and aimlessly? Let's correct..something.

Then repeat this scenario 100-fold.

Ok .. you might say :

"Yes I understand on those examples .. but how about my update here.. isn't that different ?".

The answer, my friend, is in God's providential hand.
Wait upon the Lord, seek his face, and he will show you on that verse as well.

FYI, an aside: technically "I trow not" is precision writing,

"a deflective verb, only in the first person singular of the present indicative"
The Grammar of English Grammars by Gould Brown (1858)

Precision English in 1611, in 1854 (when many called it obsolete) and today.

We discussed this a bit on this thread.

http://av1611.com/forums/showthread.php?t=260
Luke 17:9 "I trow not"

When the word 'trow' was 'obsolete' in the 19th century (and archaic words have a powerful place in literature and poetry and skilled, precise writing, including the Bible which has all of those elements and more) the translator of Augustine knew where "I trow not" was the best expression, needing a similar type of concise force and conviction.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf...v.v.xviii.html
Augustin: The Writings Against the Manichaeans and Against the Donatists

For if "those only may baptize who are set over the Church, and established by the law of the gospel and ordination as appointed by the Lord," were they in any wise of this kind who seized on estates by treacherous frauds, and increased their gains by compound interest? I trow not, since those are established by ordination as appointed of the Lord, of whom the apostle, in giving them a standard, says, "Not greedy, not given to filthy lucre."

Returning to the scripture.

Luke 17:7-10
But which of you, having a servant plowing or feeding cattle,
will say unto him by and by,
when he is come from the field,
Go and sit down to meat?
And will not rather say unto him,
Make ready wherewith I may sup, and gird thyself, and serve me,
till I have eaten and drunken;
and afterward thou shalt eat and drink?
Doth he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him?
I trow not.
So likewise ye,
when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say,
We are unprofitable servants:
we have done that which was our duty to do.

Here is a commentary that understands the sense and force of the expression.

http://books.google.com/books?id=ezENAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA231
The Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of the Heavens, as Seen in the .
by Francis B. Harris -

"I trow not," Represents, Jesus' disapprobation of Israel Ridden Priesthood. Job 20:5; Mark 12:15; Mark 12:15; II Tim. 3:13.

"I trow not," how searching, and significant. No, the tendency is downward — Earthly Cursed. We try to step one step up, and slip two steps down. So we cry "Lord how long?" The answer comes, "till Iniquity is full." Eze. 21 :25 ; 35 :5.

Ultimately much will come down to the infamous Vaticanus note among bumbling correctors.

"Fool and knave, can't you leave the old reading alone and not alter it!"

And with the King James Bible text, the more you study and appreciate the beautiful and majestic word of God, the more you sense that every single word has the providential element, representing its divine appointment.

Shalom,
Steven