[bibleprotector]

The Revision Revised is here online:

http://www.archive.org/details/a549037300burguoft

I have some quotes here:

http://www.bibleprotector.com/Burgon_1882.pdf

A condensed version of the book can be viewed here:

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

(Look down the side bar to access the three parts of Burgon's book).

[Diligent]

Originally Posted by Connie

I do have Swordsearcher and use it quite a bit but I haven't learned all the things it can do and sometimes end up going back for some things to the online Blue Letter Bible I had been using before. In searching SS for Burgon's books today I couldn't find them and gave up.

That's because they aren't included by default -- they are available as free add-ons on the web pages I linked in my earlier post. You just need to install them from the pages and then they will appear in the Book panel.

[Biblestudent]

Originally Posted by Diligent

Just an FYI, since there are some people using SwordSearcher here. I have made three of Burgon's books available in SwordSearcher format here:

• The Last Twelve Verses of Mark Vindicated
• Inspiration and Interpretation
• Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text

If you don't have SwordSearcher, you can read these online at CCEL here.

Thank you for these "priceless" additions, Diligent!

Oh, now I get it. I'm so low-tech that didn't register the first time around. Thanks Diligent.

And thanks to Bibleprotector too for all the links to the book. So glad I wasn't able to buy it. Thank you.

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.

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.

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.

[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 that this characteristic is true in many areas, tracing back to the Bible itself. There were honored men of the OT who did things that we today would find absolutely against Scripture (e.g. Abraham, Jacob, David with multiple wives) because in their day, the understanding was absent or hidden by customs of the day. The same was true in the NT. Peter was clearly given evidence of God's acceptance of the gentiles, yet he had trouble seeing the error of his bias against them until he was rebuked by Paul.

Today, there are similar behaviors. When my father was young, everyone smoked. I can remember him sitting in his study with a pipe in his mouth. We participated in halloween, and went along with santa claus at Christmas. But there came a time when his and our eyes were opened and we understood the contradicting behavior.

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.

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.

[Diligent]

As for old commentators: Having read many of them on many topics, I believe it's reasonable to assume that most of them would be utterly appalled at the modern state of things, which has given us 200+ English translations, with some truly Satanic ones like the TNIV and "The Message."

A broad view of the history of Textual Criticism shows that the debates were over issues like whether or not the book of Daniel even belonged in the Bible (since the book of Daniel contains predictions that nobody can deny came to pass, many critics used that as an excuse to question its authenticity!). Good preachers were unanimous in their defense of Daniel and Revelation as genuine Scripture. It seems to me that once this matter "lost steam" the critics moved on to a more nuanced approach to attacking the Bible, like Wescott and Hort did by getting their corrupt text into the revision committee. Burgon saw this for the corruption that it was, but the full extent of their unbelieving scholarship on Christian scholarship wasn't really revealed until much later. Christ's body has suffered greatly due to these subtle attacks on God's word.

I await the Lord's return. I do not look to the Church or any group of men to reverse these tides. God will have his remnant, and many of us grow stronger in God's word despite the majority of Christian scholarship that seeks to erase it from the face of the earth. As far as I am concerned, history shows me that the KJV is final and is "it" until Christ returns.

[bibleprotector]

But there came a time when his and our eyes were opened and we understood the contradicting behavior.

Amen, Brother Tim.

God will have his remnant, and many of us grow stronger in God's word despite the majority of Christian scholarship that seeks to erase it from the face of the earth. As far as I am concerned, history shows me that the KJV is final and is "it" until Christ returns.

Amen, Brandon!

I've gotta say Burgon is a powerful writer, passionate, with all the right concerns, obviously up against devious opponents and ninnies. So glad I got pointed in his direction. I've only read some of the quotes at Dr. Cloud's site, and the Preface and some on the Greek Text and I don't see how anybody who has a sincere desire for the truth could have sided with his opponents after reading only that much. I'll keep reading but I don't expect to change my mind.