[bibleprotector]

And thus when a bible corrector makes a false claim about Elohim Matthew will be of absolutely no assistance in correcting their error.

Avery prophesies that correctors will mention something. Yes, there are many voices in the world. But Isaiah 42:19 says, "Who is blind, but my servant? or deaf, as my messenger that I sent? who is blind as he that is perfect, and blind as the LORD'S servant?" In other words, error does not move me, truth moves me. I walk by faith, not by sight. Acts 19:20 says that God's Word prevails, so believe that, rather than relying on small-time skirmishes with words of correctors to achieve victory.

Let Matthew himself be silent

Scripture instructs us to publish the truth, "All ye inhabitants of the world, and dwellers on the earth, see ye, when he lifteth up an ensign on the mountains; and when he bloweth a trumpet, hear ye." (Isaiah 18:3).

Because truth arises the false words are consumed. The Hebrew being neglected is not because it is all bad or wrong, but because we have something better. Do not the former witnesses and martyrs cry out? I am not silencing them. God's vengeance upon the enemies is to get His truth out, and as you should be able to tell, I am all for this.

Finally, proper vision is seeing the pitiful and anguishing state that the Jews are in (e.g. their present disavowal of the name of God, etc.), and that they require the blessing. Unless we bless them, how shall they be blessed? Because we have the blessing, we shall bless them. And the greatest blessing is to give them opportunity to hear the truth, that they might have faith. That is, that because we have received mercy from JEHOVAH by Jesus, we might also show them this mercy.

[bibleprotector]

I am driven to interject here for the sake of some level of unity.

Thank you, Brother Tim.

What Matthew appears to claim is that Steven's work is unnecessary and useless.

But we know that in reality that is not the case. All the missionaries cannot just start suddenly preaching in English today. And the labours of those who are showing the accuracy (in regards to the source languages and historical perspective) of the King James Bible is not wrong.

This is the truth: my position in this matter is a vision of the future which is based upon the very thing which has happened today, namely, that the King James Bible has been necessarily and usefully defended.

[Brother Tim]

The problem, Matthew, is that you are seeing the completed truth, while others are seeing the battle as still present. The end result will still be the same.

When WWII was formally ended, there was a piece of paper with the signatures of the heads of state upon it. There were, however, pockets of resistance that continued to exist. Those had to be defeated as well, even though the war was over.

If a KJB apologist approaches his work from the prospective that the KJB has already been vindicated and that he is simply proclaiming that fact, then the truth has not been weakened. The skirmishes are not intended to produce new truth, but to declare it as being already settled. The chore of Steven and others like him is to finish "cleaning up" the resistance. Your chore is to declare the finished work and aid in making it available for the church.

[bibleprotector]

But God has ensured that this would not be a problem.

Let each man do his duty.

Brother Tim, I accept your counsel.

"Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them..." (Acts 15:19a).

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

Avery prophesies that correctors will mention something.

The inappropriateness and spiritual difficulty of calling the mention of well-known corrector themes a "prophesy" should be obvious to most everyone here.

At this point the post of Matthew becomes simply rubbish.

Shalom,
Steven

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Thanks for your thoughts, Tim. They are excellent and well-expressed.

A couple of quick points.

First, I claim no special language expertise. Most of the blunders of the modern versionists and anti-KJB folks are at such a low level that only the expertise of common sense and simple logic and a spot of research is necessary to expose the blunders and errors of the no-pure-KJB crew. And the research is often edifying.

As to folks changing position, I have seen good movement among friends who hear both sides of the issues.

Please understand: we do not engage in these public discussions so much for the hardened and calloused rejectors, it is more for the sincere readers who see their claims refuted and their lack of consistency and faith exposed. And yes, I believe my efforts have been appreciated and helpful to some in the sincere listening crew, perhaps even a poster on this forum who is used to all the Messianic anti-KJB noise. Much like Will's efforts have been so helpful to my own changes and studies.

And, please understand, I do not claim that Matthew is not equipped "to fight the battle that exists". Although in a sense none of us are so equipped, there are many battles we can partake of and we have to seek the most perfect activities. The apologetic battle is not Matthew's primary realm and there is no reason for him to participate deeply in that realm, outside the excellent work of presenting the purity of the King James Bible in fullness. e.g It was very nice to see one detail-oriented no-pure-KJB writer totally flummoxed by Matthew's presentation of the PCE, since the opponent builds a lot of his presentation upon the question of King James Bible editions. Flummoxed, perplexed, in disarray, since his paradigm did not allow simple answers to the question "which KJB ?".

Essentially I simply request that Matthew not continue to harass those who do fight other essential and complementary battles. This negative attempt undermines his own Bible purity work by placing Matthew in an unfavorable light, opposing very solid King James Bible defense.

And I do believe, Tim, that you do express a good heart to the matters at hand in your post above.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

[Brother Tim]

Matthew and Steven,

I appreciate you each responding as you did. I only seek to mediate between two very serious and important soldiers in the battle who are fighting so hard they sometimes swing too far around and strike one of their fellows.

p.s. Steven, I would enjoy seeing you have a go at the confusniks at the forum that I referenced in post #11 above. They wore me out, but I sure would like to see someone break through their hard hearts, if it's not too late.

PRESS ON!

[Diligent]

Originally Posted by Brother Tim

What I would say is that each has his own God-given arena of warfare,

Hear, hear! This one sentence sums it up quite nicely, IMO.

[bibleprotector]

"Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary:" 1 Corinthians 12:22.

"For the LORD shall rise up as in mount Perazim, he shall be wroth as in the valley of Gibeon, that he may do his work, his strange work; and bring to pass his act, his strange act." Isaiah 28:21.

[Cody1611]

Someone posted these KJV "errors" in another forum.



1. The scripture specifically mentions seven nations that the Israelites were forbidden to enter into covenants with. All seven are listed in Deuteronomy 7:1. But for some reason, when these "seven" nations are repeated in other parts of scripture, the KJV deletes one of them, the Girgashites, whereas the Septuagint retains all seven of them (Exodus 23:23; 34:11). Likewise, Genesis 15:21 lists five nations, but the King James deletes one of them, the "Evites."

2. In Acts 7:14, Stephen relates the story of the Israelite nation and refers to 75 people who traveled from Canaan to Egypt in the emigration of Jacob's family. Genesis 46:27 and Exodus 1:5 in the King James falsely state "70." Genesis 46:27 and Exodus 1:5 in the Septuagint correctly read 75, which agrees with Acts 7:14. The Old Testament books, in most bibles, is translated from a corrupted Masoretic Text, which is why "70" is mistranslated at Genesis 46:27 and Exodus 1:5 in most bibles.

3. In the King James bible, 2 Samuel 24:13 says there would be seven years of famine, but 1 Chronicles 21:12 says three years of famine. In the Septuagint, both verses accurately read three years of famine.

4. In the King James bible, 2 Kings 8:26 says Ahaziah was 22 years old when he began his reign, 2 Chronicles 22:2 says he was 42 years old. The Septuagint accurately reads 22 years old for both.

5. In the King James Bible, 1 Kings 5:16 says there were 3300 overseers, and 2 Chronicles 2:18, speaking of the same thing, says there were 3600 overseers. In the Septuagint, both verses accurately read 3600 (3600 is also confirmed in III Kings, chapter 3, first paragraph, in the Septuagint).

6. Speaking of the same exact event, the King James Bible says there were 700 horsemen in 2 Samuel 8:4, but 7000 horsemen in 1 Chronicles 18:4. In the Septuagint, both verses accurately read 7,000 horsemen.

7. In the King James Bible, 1 Kings 7:26 says there were 2000 baths, and 2 Chronicles 4:5 says there were 3000 baths. In the Septuagint, 1 Kings 7:26 does not exist, so there's no contradiction.

8. In the King James Bible, 1 Kings 9:23 says there were 550 people that bear rule, and 2 Chronicles 8:10 says that 250 people bear rule. In the Septuagint, 1 Kings 9:23 does not exist, so there's no contradiction.

9. In Joshua 10:15, where this verse is omitted in the Septuagint, it can easily be seen that this verse, in the King James, does not belong and is out of place. Because the Israelitish army did not return to the camp at Gilgal till after the hanging of the five kings and the destruction of their cities. This is sufficiently evident from the subsequent parts of this chapter. When all this business was done, and not before, is when they returned to the camp to Gilgal (see Joshua 10:43). This verse is omitted by the Septuagint; and it does not appear to have existed in the ancient hexaplar versions; it stands in its proper place in Joshua 10:43, and is not only useless in Joshua 10:15, but appears to be an encumbrance to the narrative. Should it be considered as genuine and in its proper place, I would propose that the camp at Gilgal should be read instead the camp at Makkedah, for we find from Joshua 10:21 that Joshua had a temporary camp there, after which we may suppose that Joshua having secured the cave, sent some detachments to scour the country and cut off all the remaining straggling Canaanites; when this was done they also returned to the camp at Makkedah, as is related Jos 10:21, and when the business was completed they struck the camp at Makkedah, and all returned to their fortified camp at Gilgal (Joshua 10:43).