[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

My goal here will be to make a point, yet not rehash a discusions already hashed.

Those most active in King James Bible defense will use many tools at hand. Many will be historic. I like to show the Reformation Bible perspective and how the Reformation Bible defeated the Vulgate and led to the pure and perfect King James Bible. And how the modern versions are the scholastically vapid and rebellious attempt to promote some sort of counter-reformation text, which led to the modern version disaster.

Many may be in realms of consistency, inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible text. Showing the abject corruptions in the various levels of the counter-reformation texts. Logical, geographical, historical, and other direct errors. Also their lack of internal consistency. And their problems in doctrinal and other realms.

We will also counter the hodge-podge of attacks against the King James Bible. These vary from person to person, some are historical, some are translational, some are anti-Reformation Bible (Textus Receptus), some are English language criticisms and there are many others. Often they are thrown out in the "let's throw out a dozen and see if anything sticks mode" without sincerity from the Bible adversaries. Others are thrown out in the "I don't care that this was already powerfully and cogently answered" mode, reflection the "I will repeat it because my conscience is seared" condition of some adversaries.

To be fair, on rare occasions the questions come forth with some sincerity.

In these attacks we often come across those based on a claim that the King James Bible does not represent the source language texts. Will Kinney could give you dozens of examples of such claims, and they range from vapid to silly to insipid to loony to meshugana to a few that at least are interesting and good studies. (Actually, often even the loony ones lead the Bible believers to good studies, as we learn the word of God more excellently. What was meant for ill is turned to good.)

In our upholding the word of God we will use many tools to disassemble the false attacks. And one of these tools will be showing the inconsistent and erroneous ways in which the opponents have abused source language arguments. In so doing it can be 100% proper to reference the Greek or Hebrew or Aramaic or Latin aspects. Either our own understanding, or those of others who have helped share on the way.

This is an auxiliary aspect of King James Bible defense. It is by no means necessary for any individual, defender or otherwise, nor is it necessary for those studying to show themselves approved. This type of defense logic and truth is simply a reasonable service of some Bible defenders.

Shalom,
Steven