[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

Steven Avery seems to be arguing that the Dean’s work was restricted to the Greek only, and that the Dean was not advocating any change to the King James Bible. If that is more or less what Steven Avery is arguing and claiming, I believe it to be a wrong interpretation of Burgon’s work.

You are doing as poor a job with my words as you did with the Dean's.

Of course a Greek overhaul would manifest in the English, whether the change manifest in margin notes or a reference guide or in the version text.

My point was simple. The "archaisms" and "tenses" plan you gave to the Dean as a "necessity" simply did not exist.

Why don't you give some examples where the Dean actually emphasized such aspects of King James Bible revision ? "this tense should be..." "this word is archaic...".

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

First, Burgon spoke of the necessity of “the removal of many an obscurity in the AV”..

Now this is past patch-quilting and is at the point of deliberate falsehood by Matthew. The comment about "the removal .." never declared a necessity; that is only Matthew's word. There is some deep difficulty in Matthew's writing ethics at this point. And the context was completely different, that such removals only occurred en passant during the disaster endeavor, the revision.

As I indicated, I am now warned more so to be careful about any exposition given by Matthew.
Caveat emptor.

Since the rest of the post simply says that the Dean considered the possibilities of how a revision could be accomplished in a future generation, and tries to morph the Dean's diffuse comments into a "laid out plan" and tries to shift the "plan" away from the TR question (the critical Dean Burgon component) to archaisms and tenses (the original Matthew claim, akin to the PCE) there really is little new added.

Matthew is making good points against a person who says "Dean Burgon never was in favor of a possible future generation revision of the TR-NT which would by nature revise the KJB (at the very least in margin notes)" -- however that is a straw man in this thread, since I never remotely took that view.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

.... how much and to what extent he was for “representing certain words more accurately, — here and there translating a tense with greater precision, — getting rid of a few archaisms”. He certainly thought there were at least a few inaccuracies, a few imprecisions and a few archaicisms in the AV. What exactly, how many, we do not know, and it does not matter.

Please note: I am going to take this as a semi-retraction of the original claim by Matthew that the Dean laid out a plan for this as a necessity.

In fact Dean Burgon was simply saying that he felt some of the Revision work had, in the midst of tons of junque, accomplished a smidgen in this regard. That was the context.

Yes, he thought there were a few inaccuracies, that is far from declaring the necessity and laying out a plan to do a revision finding, delineating and focusing on those few inaccuracies. (The Dean never did any systematic work in this field - zilch.) The only potential revision the Dean ever discussed would be in the future and would focus primarily on the Greek text of the TR. Maybe it would respect his textual theories, which had a bit of a Majority Text component yet ironically seemed to be sympathetic to the TR on all the doctrinally-charged Majority-TR divergences.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

the Septuagint knowledge seems to have been helpful in correcting longstanding typographical errors/variations in names in the AV.

And I am willing to accept this as a possibility, apparently only a secondary aspect. This far more likely had to do firstly with Greek word meanings. This would be a complementary error of the Dean to the error of his concerns about the TR text. My conjecture above about the Masoretic Text on this point omitted consideration of the NT aspect of the quote,. so I consider that conjecture in error, pending more checking. I consider Matthew's view (only names, typography) an example of seeing the Dean's statement with PCE glasses, rather than as involving word meanings. There is certainly no reason to assume that the Dean considered all the Greek-English word meaning translations in the KJB as without error, thus the Ockham's understanding of the Greek OT comment would be that you would modify some translations based on fuller Greek OT word meanings. Of course the King James Bible translators were superb on this element themselves, so this particular concept is without either much sense or any validity, simillar to the Dean proclivity to want to conform the TR text a bit more to a Greek Majority text.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

I stand by my claim that Burgon had the specific aim and wish for the conservative revising of the KJB, which would certainly include, “representing certain words more accurately, — here and there translating a tense with greater precision, — getting rid of a few archaisms”.

And your claiming that this plan was a "necessity" "laid out" by the Dean, in a statement that even ignored the far more consequential aspect of a possible future generation TR update, remains an example of writing designed to deflect and divert (towards the PCE concept) rather than inform the reader about the Dean's views. It is good that the reader is now informed, not so good that you still insist on the same writing misrepresentation.

And such deflective historical revisionism works against the laudatory aims of the PCE
And is totally unnecessary.

Shalom,
Steven

Unless I put in prodigious effort I find I'm unable to follow this discussion very far at this point. I hope nobody minds if I pipe up here and try to collect some pieces of my scattered brain by asking a few questions of Steven Avery, perhaps not particularly pertinent ones, hard to know.

Would I be right in thinking, SA, that you and BP agree on what the KJB should look like? That is, you both reject every kind of change at this point?

Do you agree with BP about the finality and perfection of the PCE or Pure Cambridge edition (?) that he favors?

You say he is misrepresenting Burgon. I think I'm following your argument about this but on the other hand I might have drawn the same conclusion BP did about Burgon's hope for a future revision from the very quotes BP put together, even if he shouldn't have put them together without more indication of their context. I haven't read far enough in Burgon to know yet what impression I will have of his own views of the need for a revision. But I might end up agreeing with anything Burgon suggests toward a revision while neither of you would? Is that right?

And here's another question that may seem to come out of the blue at this point but maybe it fits in somewhere. Recently I compared a few paragraphs among the versions just out of curiosity, hardly systematically, and it's led me to a horror of the new versions that I didn't even have before despite being KJB-only for some time now. It's brought me to a sort of fury of indignation at what they did to the Bible that none of the discussions I've read about it so far have done. I haven't done much, a few paragraphs as I said, in Psalms 91 and 23 and Jeremiah for instance, and my impression is that there are a ridiculous number of changes from the KJB in the new versions, ridiculous and utterly indefensible, and they're all in the English or in the translation it seems, not in the underlying texts, just willynilly changes in words to no purpose. "Pinions" for "feathers." "Unreliable stream" for "waters that fail." "Overflows" for "runneth over." And so on. I looked up a few of them in the concordance and found that they had chosen the least representative translation of a particular Hebrew word, as if they were going out of their way to make change for change's sake, anything, just anything at all to destroy the AV. The words are all synonyms more or less but they change the rhythm of the text and make it clumsy without the slightest improvement in clarity that I can see, in fact they make it more obscure: nobody has a problem with the image of feathers, but pinions is a technical term that distances the reader from the text. What on earth is an "unreliable stream" anyway? I'm not completely sure I know what physical reality "waters that fail" refers to either, but "unreliable stream" is no help whatever.

Again, these things have nothing to do with the underlying texts. They aren't even about doctrine. They strike me as vandalism committed against the English pure and simple. Anything to confuse and scatter God's people. If the majority of the changes are of this sort, and let me guess that's what I'll keep finding if I continue with this, I don't feel I need to know much more about the versions dispute, about the Johannine Comma or Mark 16 or any of that, to answer the skeptics. Anyone should reject the revisions based on this mutilation of the English language alone.

I realize this is a separate issue from the issue of whether any revision whatever should be countenanced, and I still think there are probably a few words that could use updating.

[bibleprotector]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

whatever the nature of Dean Burgon TR considerations, since Matthew's primary error was ascribing to Dean Burgon a necessity and laid out plan that involved KJB archaims and tenses, not possible TR textual change considerations.

This is not what I have said. What I have shown is that Burgon had a plan (without specific details) to change both the TR and the KJB, or to agree with such things. It was not just "possible" TR changes, but the design was that some of the suggestions would actually be finally taken. And the changes to the KJB included a desire to alter some minor points, such as archaic words or modifying tenses. We do not have the fine details, because the Dean only broadly promotes this idea in his published works. He says that the TR should be changed, but we don't know fully know what those changes are. He says that the KJB should be revised, but we don't know which verses he particularly means. But we cannot deny that he was a conservative Bible corrector, and much more sound, as when comparing to even the NKJV people.

Burgon’s plan, which was never "formalised", which outline I have constructed from a general knowledge of Burgon's printed work, was promoted by the Dean because he clearly indicated the inevitability and the necessity of revision, therefore, he wished the (deferred) revision to be done soundly:

I. gaining a full picture of the underlying textual evidence with special reference to the Byzantine tradition,
II. the developing of scholarship in “sound” textual criticism, including acquaintance with the LXX, etc.,
III. making corrections to the TR,
IV. translating afresh in places, while keeping the KJB as much as possible,
V. alterations of the English idiom of the KJB where obscure or imprecise,
VI. updating a few “archaicisms” in the KJB,
VII. as to how this is to be executed, could perhaps as an auxiliary “handmaid” volume, or perhaps by marginal references, or perhaps as a new edition wherein would be introduced as few alterations as possible into the Text of the Authorized Version.

I cannot produce any particular reference off hand where the Dean said, "this particular archaic, obscure or imprecise word should be altered", etc., but we know Burgon did give hints that this was his thinking. From what he stated, it is clear that he thought some revision in the KJB was necessary. Also, he never says the opposite, namely, he never says or rules out that the King James Bible should not be revised or altered. The closest he comes to that is by pointing out the danger of altering the KJB which is a binding religious link, and a recognised monument, etc. I submit that the presentation of my view of Dean Burgon as a potential corrector of the King James Bible is based on sound reality. I emphasise that he must have been on the right side, because he was kept from actually carrying out his designs in this regard.

[bibleprotector]

Connie wrote:

But I might end up agreeing with anything Burgon suggests toward a revision while neither of you would? Is that right?

After reading Burgon, I strongly recommend reading Edward Hills. This is what he wrote against revision of the KJB:

Why the King lames Version Should be Retained

But, someone may reply, even if the King James Version needs only a few corrections, why take the trouble to make them? Why keep on with the old King James and its 17th century language, its thee and thou and all the rest? Granted that the Textus Receptus is the best text, but why not make a new translation of it in the language of today? In answer to these objections there are several facts which must be pointed out.

In the first place, the English of the King James Version is not the English of the early 17th century. To be exact, it is not a type of English that was ever spoken anywhere. It is biblical English, which was not used on ordinary occasions even by the translators who produced the King James Version. As H. Wheeler Robinson (1940) pointed out, one need only compare the preface written by the translators with the text of their translation to feel the difference in style. (46) And the observations of W. A. Irwin (1952) are to the same purport. The King James Version, he reminds us, owes its merit, not to 17th century English—which was very different—but to its faithful translation of the original. Its style is that of the Hebrew and of the New Testament Greek. (47) Even in their use of thee and thou the translators were not following 17th century English usage but biblical usage, for at the time these translators were doing their work these singular forms had already been replaced by the plural you in polite conversation. (48)

In the second place, those who talk about translating the Bible into the "language of today" never define what they mean by this expression. What is the language of today? The language of 1881 is not the language of today, nor the language of 1901, nor even the language of 1921. In none of these languages, we are told, can we communicate with today's youth. ... But in contrast to these absurdities the language of the King James Version is enduring diction which will remain as long as the English language remains, in other words, throughout the foreseeable future.

In the third place, the current attack on the King James Version and the promotion of modern speech versions is discouraging the memorization of the Scriptures, especially by children. Why memorize or require your children to memorize something that is out of date and about to be replaced by something new and better? And why memorize a modern version when there are so many to choose from? Hence even in conservative churches children are growing up densely ignorant of the holy Bible because they are not encouraged to hide its life giving words in their hearts.

In the fourth place, modem speech Bibles are unhistorical and irreverent. The Bible is not a modern, human book. It is not as new as the morning newspaper, and no translation should suggest this. If the Bible were this new, it would not be the Bible. On the contrary, the Bible is an ancient, divine Book, which nevertheless is always new because in it God reveals Himself. Hence the language of the Bible should be venerable as well as intelligible, and the King James Version fulfills these two requirements better than any other Bible in English. Hence it is the King James Version which converts sinners soundly and makes of them diligent Bible students.

In the fifth place, modern speech Bibles are unscholarly. The language of the Bible has always savored of the things of heaven rather than the things of earth. It has always been biblical rather than contemporary and colloquial. Fifty years ago this fact was denied by E. J. Goodspeed and others who were pushing their modern versions. On the basis of the papyrus discoveries which had recently been made in Egypt it was said that the New Testament authors wrote in the everyday Greek of their own times. (49) This claim, however, is now acknowledged to have been an exaggeration. As R. M. Grant (1963) admits (50) the New Testament writers were saturated with the Septuagint and most of them were familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures. Hence their language was not actually that of the secular papyri of Egypt but biblical. Hence New Testament versions must be biblical and not contemporary and colloquial like Goodspeed's version.

Finally, in the sixth place, the King James Version is the historic Bible of English speaking Protestants. Upon it God, working providentially, has placed the stamp of His approval through the usage of many generations of Bible believing Christians. Hence, if we believe in God's providential preservation of the Scriptures, we will retain the King James Version, for in so doing we will be following the clear leading of the Almighty.

AND:

It is possible, if the Lord tarry that in the future the English language will change so much that a new English translation of the Bible will become absolutely necessary. But in that case any version which we prepare today would be equally antiquated. Hence this is a matter which we must leave to God, who alone knows what is in store for us. For the present, however, and the foreseeable future no new translation is needed to take the place of the King James Version. Today our chief concern must be to create a climate of Christian thought and learning which God can use providentially should the need for such a new English version ever arise. This would insure that only the English wording would be revised and not the underlying Hebrew and Greek text.

As I've been reading along in this site for the past few months and thinking through all this I have gradually changed my position from thinking a new translation would be needed (I was influenced in that direction at the time by a discussion I think I posted a link to some time ago, between Douglas Wilson and James White), to just thinking that the only change that would be useful would be updating certain words that no longer mean what they meant in 1611. Since I can't make a comprehensive list of such words all I can do is guess that it wouldn't be many -- a dozen, two dozen? (Perhaps there being so few means marginal notes would be a better solution than a revision but most Bibles have way too many such definitional notes as it is.) I understand the argument about the thees and thous and verb endings and accept it.

So I am very far from wanting a "modern speech version" at this point. I just can't go with what still seems like a superstitious clinging to the letter of the text, or what Steven Avery called English-KJB triumphalism. But since I've been gradually moving toward less and less change, who knows, I may still end up agreeing with those who argue for absolutely no change. I just haven't been convinced yet.

I haven't followed the discussions about the underlying texts but I don't see any need for a change there until someone convinces me there is one, which I doubt is going to happen. I trust the KJB translators to have had the knowledge and especially the spiritual judgment to choose the right texts and I know the texts that were found later and underlie the new versions are corrupt, so that ends the subject for me. But changes in the English language are a different kind of problem. The translators had no way of anticipating such changes or doing anything about them. And again I don't mean the thees and thous, I mean particular words. I'll try to remember to start a list of such words.

And yes, one thing that bothers me a lot about the new versions is how they discourage memorization and make congregational unison reading impossible and in general create a chaos in the churches. But that's because they made those thousands of absolutely unnecessary nuisance changes.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by Connie

asking a few questions of Steven Avery, perhaps not particularly pertinent ones ... Would I be right in thinking, SA, that you and BP agree on what the KJB should look like? That is, you both reject every kind of change at this point?

Essentially yes, in terms of the types of changes that modify the text or really change translation.

Originally Posted by Connie

Do you agree with BP about the finality and perfection of the PCE or Pure Cambridge edition (?) that he favors?

I respect that work, and consider it anywhere between largely accurate and totally perfect, as time goes on my views on that may solidify (e.g. I could express a conviction that it is totally perfect 100%).

Originally Posted by Connie

You say he is misrepresenting Burgon. I think I'm following your argument about this but on the other hand I might have drawn the same conclusion BP did about Burgon's hope for a future revision from the very quotes BP put together,

And so would I, however his original quote tried to give the impression that Dean Burgon was supporting as a "necessity" and "laying out" a plan, for what was little only a minor step beyond a PCE-type of refinement.

Not the full-fledge textual overhaul, and not something that was really for a future generation since the skills and knowledge did not exist at that time.

The original quote was not only patchquilt and rigged, in the sense it was diversionary and even deceptive to the unwary ready.

Matthew switched gears heavily in the middle of the thread, radically changing his position without acknowledgment. I have learned that he does that type of discussion.

Basically I hope that that conversation is over. I see Matthew has two new posts in, unless they offer specific substance, the exposition up to this point should be fine and complete, we are near the point of unnecessary restating. I am now very cautious about Matthew's historical writing, and earlier about his confusing position on the Greek OT, I respect the PCE endeavor and each individual can decide for themselves on any issue.

Most of all I feel he played some shell games with the Dean Burgon discussion, a bit of broken field running, others may not feel that way.

Originally Posted by Connie

... I might end up agreeing with anything Burgon suggests toward a revision while neither of you would? Is that right?

Yes, you might, but really it is not hard to see the weakness in his positions when it gets down to the verse level. This is a weakness that sometimes comes up with those that are ultra-educated. And they move away from the beautiful and accurate and providential historic synthesis of the Textus Receptus to a more "Majority Byzantine Text" perspective, at least on some verses. The desire to want to "do something" to "enhance" God's perfect word runs very deep, and even men of generally sound judgment and excellent labours sometimes fall into that trap.

Originally Posted by Connie

.... a sort of fury of indignation at what they did to the Bible ... in Psalms 91 and 23 and Jeremiah for instance, and my impression is that there are a ridiculous number of changes from the KJB in the new versions, ridiculous and utterly indefensible, and they're all in the English or in the translation it seems, not in the underlying texts, just willynilly changes in words to no purpose. "Pinions" for "feathers." "Unreliable stream" for "waters that fail." "Overflows" for "runneth over." And so on.

You are 100% right abut this .. tampering for man's pride sake.

Originally Posted by Connie

change for change's sake, anything, just anything at all to destroy the AV.

A rebellion doomed to failure, with spiritual blood on the hands of the progenitors and attempted disablers.

Originally Posted by Connie

The words are all synonyms more or less but they change the rhythm of the text and make it clumsy without the slightest improvement in clarity that I can see, in fact they make it more obscure:

You are right about this again, and I try to post verses in a way that more gives the rhythm. The writers in the 1800's had a far greater sense of this than the writers today, even the pro-KJB writers. I believe Matthew does have a sense of this in his writings, although it could be emphasized more.

Originally Posted by Connie

.. vandalism committed against the English pure and simple... Anyone should reject the revisions based on this mutilation of the English language alone.

Amen.

Shalom,
Steven

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by Connie

... just thinking that the only change that would be useful would be updating certain words that no longer mean what they meant in 1611. ... (Perhaps there being so few means marginal notes would be a better solution than a revision but most Bibles have way too many such definitional notes as it is.)

Precisely. Those lists vary tremendously. One persons archaic word to be replaced (e.g. stablish) is another's excellent more precise English word with a specific distinction from 'establish' in usage that is very significant in the scripture verse. So just put those notes in the margins.

And we can buy and read editions without those 1000's of diverting notes. Sometimes I like the simple single-column format as well and I especially have an aversion to center-column notes.

Originally Posted by Connie

what Steven Avery called English-KJB triumphalism.

Hmmm.. let's check my usage.

(For defence of course, all the elements are helpful, as we see when Will and myself and others refute the no-pure-KJB crowds claim that this or that word is translated wrong, an endeavor which you appear to sometimes disdain, since we look show the truth of the source and versional languages instead of simply proclaiming English-AV triumphalism to the skeptics and doubters.)

I was simply saying the defense of the KJB does not have to ignore the truths of the Greek and Hebrew source texts, or versional (e.g. Latin and Syriac) and ECW supports. So the concept that the AV is the standard and banner of truth (which can be one understanding of triumphalism) is actually fine by me. My objection is simply to an unfortunate attempt to downgrade or even put down the historical, foundational aspects of King James Bible defense such as the Reformation proofs of the Received Text over the Vulgate.

In fact what I see in the public discussion is that the King James Bible defender weaknesses in expressing the full historical picture, including a focus on the Reformation victory in the Battle of the Bible (followed up by the later attack of the far inferior counter-reformation alexandrian text versions and now the more forceful and prominent defender's glorious and full understanding and proclamation of the King James Bible as God's pure and perfect word) are continually harming the public discussion. As the doofus modern version arguments then try to falsely paint the King James Bible movement as arbitrary, dropping out of the sky, random. With the background given, both in full concept and detail verse by verse (e.g. the early church writer supports) the convoluted deceptive anti-KJB attack can be disabled. And more easily discarded by honest hearts hungry for the pure word of God.

On the triumphalism .. hope that makes it clearer .
Lest my views be mistaken.

And you share a lot of good thoughts in the post !
Please just allow me to clarify that point above.

Shalom,
Steven

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

An expansion of two paragraphs above, a bit late for changing the post. The mod is welcome to update and combine, or leave as is.

======

I was simply saying the defense of the KJB does not have to ignore the truths of the Greek and Hebrew source texts, or versional (e.g. Latin and Syriac) and ECW supports. So the concept that the AV is the standard and banner of truth (which can be one understanding of triumphalism) is actually fine by me. My objection is simply to an unfortunate attempt to downgrade or even put down the historical, foundational aspects of King James Bible defense such as the Reformation proofs of the Received Text over the Vulgate and the expressions and defense of the purity and perfection of the word of God by the Reformation (including Protestant & Baptist & more) believers.

In fact what I see in the public discussion is that the King James Bible defender weaknesses in expressing the full historical picture often are a hindrance. There is often a compelling need to include a focus on the Reformation victory in the Battle of the Bible (followed up by -- the later attack of the far inferior and more corrupt, even compared to the Vulgate, counter-reformation alexandrian texts and versions -- and now the more forceful and prominent defender's glorious and full understanding and proclamation of the King James Bible as God's pure and perfect word).

And also the need to give context as to how the King James Bible is the refined gold, the majestic 'crown of splendor' Bible, the fruits of this victory over the RCC version. And also victorious today over the ultra-corrupt alex mvs.

Not giving the full picture frequently places the King James Bible defender in an unnecessary position of difficulty in the public discussion. Unaware of the historical and textual and spiritual context we then get the bleating doofus modern version arguments that try to falsely paint the King James Bible movement as arbitrary, dropping out of the sky, a random choice of only a translation. Such an insipid argument. However in presenting the truth of God's pure word we actually have to teach patiently those willing hearts who are not totally numbed-and-dumbed by modern textcrit seminarian agiprop pandering to man's pride and rebellion.

For this teaching it is helpful to give Bible basics, support, history and context. On the issues above, and more. And sometimes the refinement of how "God was manifest in the flesh.." or the "only begotten Son" or "three that bear witness" was given in Greek or Latin in the early centuries is part of that refinement. Before English-time.

If many King James Bible defenders are not involved in that aspect of the defense, that is fine and perfectly understandable. However a King James Bible defender should not piggy-back their own expositions on such defenses on one hand (thank you for refuting that modern versionist error) .. while then turning around and dissing the efforts themselves. Why diss ? Since the efforts can involve disassembling false Greek and Latin and Hebrew and textual/historical arguments of the modern version cornfuseniks. An an ultra-triumphalism declares any discussion of such issues as that of the Greek texts and proper translation and Hebrew idioms as inappropriate. This contradiction of approach is my objection to an AV-triumphalism-only viewpoint. Proclaiming the English AV perfection, building on the edifice of those at the bulwarks, and then writing in a way to disparage those same bulwarks !

Personally I have learned much about this history of late simply by studying the history of one verse, the Johannine Comma, through the centuries. We have tools available (e.g. beautiful writings from t he 1600's through 1800's) at our fingertips that were not available even a few years back ! So much writing today is at best pablum, there were deep and sincere believers with sharp and probing minds and hearts turned towards God in so many of those writings.

Returning to the current battle with the unbelievers in God's pure Bible .. when we are able to give the background, both in full concept and detail verse by verse (e.g. the early church writer supports, the internal consistencies, the versional evidences, the compelling strength of God's one pure Bible) the convoluted and impoverished and deceptive anti-KJB attack can be disabled. And more easily discarded by honest hearts hungry for the pure word of God.


=============

Shalom,
Steven Avery

[bibleprotector]

Steven Avery said:

And so would I, however his original quote tried to give the impression that Dean Burgon was supporting as a "necessity" and "laying out" a plan, for what was little only a minor step beyond a PCE-type of refinement.

This is not the case at all. All along I showed (just look through the draft of my book) that Burgon was attempting and/or supporting a revision of the KJB. I have, in this series of postings, been able to give both a series of quotations and draw an outline of the Dean’s plan.

The question is, how could Burgon get it right, when he was actually a Bible corrector?

Then I realised that Burgon, like anyone at the time, was thinking that some revision to the King James Bible was needful. Burgon says as much.

And what kind of revision, that is, what types of things needed to be changed? Read various writers from the mid-1800s, and you will find that there were a few obscurities or so-called archaic words that could or should be revised. Burgon himself gives several indications that he agrees with this. Several times he implies and even plainly agrees that the Authorized Version of the Bible should be revised, and indicates obscurities and tenses of the English as a part of this "revision".

In my thinking about the matter, I wondered how this wrong desire for revision could fit in with what actually happened. And I saw that there was a need for revision in the 1800s, just not the kind of revision that was being advocated. But there needed to be just a tiny revision to correct a few dozen obscure names and some other points where typographical errors had lingered, and some other points of regularisation.

Thus, Burgon's desire for a revision did come about, but on a much less scale, though with some interesting similarities or inputs from the Dean's requirements, which have indeed rightly led into the King James Bible movement today.

I. gaining a full picture of the underlying textual evidence with special reference to the Byzantine tradition,

Although largely accomplished by Burgon, this had no affect upon the text of the King James Bible, but served to confirm and vindicate it, and that general knowledge of it has aided the King James Bible movement, which this very day does not have the complete and full knowledge of this. When the PCE was executed, various factors (i.e. tradition) were indicating that no changes in the underlying text were required.

II. the developing of scholarship in “sound” textual criticism, including acquaintance with the LXX, etc.,
III. making corrections to the TR,

Scholarship in this direction failed. Someone like Henry Redpath had the tail end of that learning. Modernism took over the entire field. People like Edward Hills were the most sound executors of this, yet their conclusion was to advocate no changes in the underlying text, and were extremely cautious to the point of almost prohibiting any changes at all with the KJB. Since then, the King James Bible movement has (largely) a prohibitive view of any changes.

IV. translating afresh in places, while keeping the KJB as much as possible,
V. alterations of the English idiom of the KJB where obscure or imprecise,
VI. updating a few “archaicisms” in the KJB,

Although some small measure of editorial changes in the English occurred with the PCE, which did follow the rule of making as few changes as possible, other than that, and since that time, the idea of changing any words, especially the idea of merely “modernising” the language, has been unpopular and often prohibited by King James Bible only supporters. The fact is that once the PCE was made, there has been a strengthening and settling and fixing of the position.

VII. as to how this is to be executed, could perhaps as an auxiliary “handmaid” volume, or perhaps by marginal references, or perhaps as a new edition wherein would be introduced as few alterations as possible into the Text of the Authorized Version.

Unhindered, Burgon’s position leads to something like the NKJV. But in reality, Burgon’s position has been thwarted, and rather useful for:
a. supporting the textual basis of the King James Bible as it is, and
b. allowing for and now keeping the purity of the presentation of the King James Bible.

I hold that Steven Avery’s claims of where I have supposedly misquoted, or supposedly changed my opinion, or supposedly played games etc. is entirely irrelevant. Even if someone was unscholarly in their approach, yet had a simple desire for God’s truth, it would be better to agree with God’s truth than to reject it based on the person’s lack of worldly of learning. On the other side, someone like Burgon shows that a person with a desire for God’s truth can be tainted by worldly learning.

[bibleprotector]

a King James Bible defender should not piggy-back their own expositions on such defenses on one hand (thank you for refuting that modern versionist error) .. while then turning around and dissing the efforts themselves. Why diss ? Since the efforts can involve disassembling false Greek and Latin and Hebrew and textual/historical arguments of the modern version cornfuseniks. An an ultra-triumphalism declares any discussion of such issues as that of the Greek texts and proper translation and Hebrew idioms as inappropriate. This contradiction of approach is my objection to an AV-triumphalism-only viewpoint. Proclaiming the English AV perfection, building on the edifice of those at the bulwarks, and then writing in a way to disparage those same bulwarks !

Those who hold that the King James Bible is perfect in English are not doing so out of lack of knowledge. It is not a blind statement. No, it is the very opposite. It is made on the basis of knowledge of the Word of God. Since we know that "their works do follow them" (Rev. 14:13b), we acknowledge that John William Burgon, Edward Hills and many others historically and presently have highlighted the superiority of the textual basis, the translation and the very English of the King James Bible.

The point is this: we do not have to yet continue investigating various issues, such as 1 John 5:7 as if the case were unsettled. (I suspect that the people who do so often begin with the case unsettled in their own mind, and place the authority of the case upon the "Greek" and "men" until they are convinced of the genuineness.)

But there is now a shift in the view: since everything is going toward English being common throughout the world, since the King James Bible is clearly the best of all Bibles, why should the authority of the King James Bible yet rest upon the Hebrew and the Greek, when the translators and a massive testimony since that time shows that they got it right? In other words, we are now privileged to get hold of just a few succinct presentations of information to gain an understanding of the doctrine that the vast opinion of so many witnesses is greatly and fully in favour of the King James Bible as it now stands.

Just as we accept that the translators got it right in 1611, so that there does not need to be any more textual gathering and translating, so likewise, we should now accept that godly people to this time have presented enough for us to accept the finality that the King James Bible translators got it right in every particular.

We should be able to say now, "I accept the English as is, that it is presenting the autographs exactly, and that this is God's very message, down to the very jot and tittle, for the whole world for everyone".

As a "triumphalist", I am not attacking the foundation of our position. Our triumphal position is based upon the witness of the facts which men like Burgon, etc. have presented. In my own writings, I have presented Burgon accurately and drawn an interpretation from his work. However, it is really the gathering of the case as a whole, rather than each part of it, to see that all worked together (in a providential continuum) building up and contributing toward one central and final position, namely, that the King James Bible is the standard and only Bible for the whole world.

We are at a point of history where we may gather and reap of what all came before us. Just as the translators were able to get the KJB right in 1611, so we should be convinced from, say 2007, that they actually did get it right. (That is, that God ensured that the right men at the right time with the right learning etc. all came together for the KJB, but also that the right things have all come together that we now be confident in the English Bible as it stands today. This is called practical faith in the providence of God.)

So, the English is final. The meaning of the God's Word is there in English. The certainty is there in English. We don't have to go anywhere else to find the "real" meaning. We don't have to harbour any uncertainty as to various textual or translational questions at any point. In fact, the whole battle of comparing to modern versions is really won. (I walk by faith, not by sight.) We shouldn't be reacting to modern versions, because we are on the rock and we cannot be moved. Modern versions are dashing themselves in vain on this rock. Thus, our triumphalist position is to hold the victory that we actually have God's Word, and not that we are still trying to find it (as many seek in all the wrong ways and places).

In an age of gross darkness, where the saints ask “how long O Lord?” We find that the patience of the saints is to POSSESS, to keep the Word of God and the testimony of Christ. We must therefore OBTAIN by faith, knowing that all who came before us have contributed to us: "their works do follow them" (Rev. 14:13b). That these things are already supplied to us shows that we are in the privileged position to ATTAIN the blessing.

Thus, God's providence has been to give us the King James Bible, and God's providence has been to allow for us a foundation of vindication of that Bible, which is such a mountain of victory, that we find that we have the fruits of those who came before us in the great provision of the Almighty. Thanks be to God who has graciously multiplied such wisdom to us!

There is nothing wrong with dredging through old writings, or yet discussing the various things to do with the underlying text. The point is that it is not necessary to pursue the details of this when we have a gathered form of witness. It is exactly the same as saying that we do not know how exactly the King James Bible was made, though we have some idea, but we accept the result. In like manner, we do not have to know the entire body of evidence which vindicates or yet delves into the Greek and Hebrew, etc., to know this simple thing: God’s Word is fully true, right, accurate and exact here and now in this book.

In other words, “we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.” (Rom. 8:37b).