[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Matthew has the unfortunate habit of misrepresenting Dean Burgon (placing his theories, conjectures and suppositions into the mouth of the Dean as the Dean's words against other words and actions and non-actions of the Dean) and also continually representing my writings. For now we will look at how Matthew misrepresents my words.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

Those who hold that the King James Bible is perfect in English are not doing so out of lack of knowledge.

Here is a perfect example. Matthew acts as if that is my position, and I never said anything of the sort. I even indicated that it is fine both ways, to be involved or not involved in that sort of apologetics. I never accused anybody of lacking in knowledge, only I pointed out that the refutation of some modern versionist arguments is best done with context, perspective and knowledge .. by those actively involved with that endeavor. Technical skill as well, as e.g. we see with Brandon's 'Magic Marker' demonstration page.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

It is not a blind statement.

Not at all. What is blind writing is ascribing to me, by implication (answering my post in this way) a position I never even remotely took.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

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.

Another straw man. In my studies I first came to the Johannine Comma textual study when I had some unsettlement (three key final issues were the alternate Hebrew/Aramaic name for Jesus, the passover/easter question and the Johannine Comma) and the studies helped me see the purity and perfection of the Received Text and the King James Bible. (e.g. I was flabbergasted by the Cyprian quote, and that it would be denied by men like Wallace, I actually debated that issue on a forum, just using minimal resources and common sense, before knowing of the excellent Marty Shue disassembling of Daniel Wallace).

In contrast, today I go to those studies to:

a) help disassemble the arguments of the opponents
b) learn the historical perspective of the battle of the Bible
c) understand doctrinal dialog and debate over the centuries
d) understand textual dialog and debate over the centuries.
e) to appreciate and to learn how to research the early church writings
f) see the Reformation debate 'live'
g) understand the writings of those who have poured out their heart for the word of God
h) understand the 'fulcrum' position of the Johannine Comma in the battle of the Bible
i) learn the sense and style and import of the Johannine writing
j) learn how to use the new study tools recently available
k) many other edifying reasons.

Not as "if the case were unsettled". Once again Matthew tries to give to me a position I have never taken.

The fact that Matthew does this continually is what often makes his conversation writing so poor .. he constantly talks around the person, to arguments they never gave, and tries to write as if they gave the positions .. classic straw man with some special nuance. This is not so much a problem in studies, it is a major problem in forum writing.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

(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.)

Here Matthew reverses the dynamic. Very few of us come out of the cradle reading the King James Bible. We learn the truth precept upon precept, line upon line .. directly or indirectly. And that is an excellent dynamic.

And those of us who went through a period with the modern versions may well have a clearer understanding of the negative precepts held by the cornfuseniks. Thus we are willing (e.g. Will Kinney, and myself, perhaps Marty Shue used and others used MV's for a season) to work with the underlying issues that can help teach and deprogram those who have been mistaught by the modern-textcrit-seminary agiprop. Rather than simply simply proclaiming AV-triumphalism and leaving their questions unanswered.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

...we are now privileged to get hold of just a few succinct presentations of information

The hypocrisy here is that Matthew is clearly supportive and pleased when we use detail and comprehensive information to rebut and make nil the challenges of Norris and Kutilek and the rest of that crew. Whether he lacks the skill and knowledge and research time to rebut those challenges, or whether he simply can not be bothered because of his conceptual orientation, is between him and God. However he should know better than to speak the drivel that nothing is really necessary than to simply proclaim the perfection of the King James Bible, leaving all the modernist technical challenges intact and unanswered. That road would be an abject failure, yet it is the road proposed by Matthew while he disses the efforts of active and successful King James Bible defenders.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

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.

Matthew here is ignoring the fact that the full Burgon position would not support his position and thus more teaching and understanding is in fact necessary for many.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

In my own writings, I have presented Burgon accurately

A falsehood. The original quote remains very wrong, even deceptive, some of the detail discussion was fine and contradicts your original quote which brought forth the objection.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

and drawn an interpretation from his work.

Which you falsely and unrighteously put into the mouth of Dean John Burgon.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

In fact, the whole battle of comparing to modern versions is really won.

Before God, of course, this is true. In teaching men, he will use instruments like our brothers Will Kinney and Brandon Staggs to give presentations that declare and defend that victory. Matthew's position is adversarial to the major battles of King James Bible defense.

Matthew continues this confusion between our personal convictions and the realm of defense and apologetics throughout the rest of his post.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

There is nothing wrong with dredging through old writings,

Yet once again Matthew misses the point. Studying the early church writers and the Reformation defenders and the Johannine Comma defenders is a labour of love and excitement and edification.

Once again Matthew disses that which he does not know or understand, and where he remains willfully unhelpful, an opponent of the defense of the King James Bible as the pure and perfect word of God.

Matthew claims that my pointing out his clearly misrepresenting the words of the Dean is "irrelevant". I would say that much of Matthew's work and writing about the King James Bible , outside the one place where he has shown skills and understanding, the editions and the details of the King James Bible text, are "irrelevant" ... at the very best.

Matthew also tries to defend the unscholarly, if the heart is right. I understand that, and it is true in some circumstances. However a comittment to defending and continuing an unscholarly presentation approach (as in Matthew actually repeating en passant the initial error without a blink) I believe is also a reflection of the heart towards God of the writer.

Integrity is writing, or the lack thereof, does not take place in a spiritual vacuum.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

[bibleprotector]

I am all for accepting the historical scholarly witness which has upheld the accuracy of the King James Bible. I have laboured to uphold the very words of Scripture, therefore, I submit that these accusations about me cannot be true:

Matthew's position is adversarial to the major battles of King James Bible defense.

an opponent of the defense of the King James Bible as the pure and perfect word of God.

We should see that we have a great colossus of material in defence of the King James Bible, and as we see that it is gathered, and understand it (with the chaff out), it is very easy to understand and teach others the simple truth that the King James Bible has been vindicated in every whit concerning textual and translational questions/points.

Moreover, since the major battles are already resolved, we can yet engage in the greatest wars in history and come out victorious because we have already possessed the truth today, namely, that the King James Bible is very pure, and that it is set now as the final form of the Word of God for the whole world.

If someone is saying that I am "adversarial" and "an opponent", perhaps that person is actually on the wrong side.

"For his God doth instruct him to discretion, and doth teach him. For the fitches are not threshed with a threshing instrument, neither is a cart wheel turned about upon the cummin; but the fitches are beaten out with a staff, and the cummin with a rod. Bread corn is bruised; because he will not ever be threshing it, nor break it with the wheel of his cart, nor bruise it with his horsemen. This also cometh forth from the LORD of hosts, which is wonderful in counsel, and excellent in working." (Isaiah 28:26-29).

Some will find it a strange thing that we should say that the King James Bible is sufficient truth, that persistent quibbling about the original languages actually amounts to nothing anyway. To them it might be like a wheel going over their back or something.

"To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear." (Isaiah 28:12).

We can present the truth and point to signs, but some may yet resist it. But the resisting of some (according to Bible prophecy) cannot be for so long, which is also my wish. Yes, I will provoke to jealousy and say that I am presenting the correct history of the King James Bible, and that I am presenting the correct future of the King James Bible too.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

If someone is saying that I am "adversarial" and "an opponent", perhaps that person is actually on the wrong side.

And .. perhaps .. Matthew, you should reconsider your continual negative aspersions on those who have ably disassembled multiple modern version confusions, patiently demonstrating how the opponents have misinterpreted history, overlooked texts, made false claims about Greek and Hebrew, abused English, downplayed or missed the early church writers, accepted false textcrit indoctrinations, not seen the dissonance between modern textcrit and true evangelical faith, missed the Reformation battle of the Bible, lacked consistency, failed in common sense .... your aspersions against those who have used many tools for this purpose of disassembling the anti-KJB errors, old and new.

Technically speaking, your aspersions would even go so far as to the magnificent work of Brandon's in the 'Magic Marker' page, since that battle was already won. Unless you feel the victory just occurred after that page was placed on-line -- and now while it is now a fossil, it was prepared before the final victory when apologetics and defense is no more.

As I have made clear, I have great respect for the PCE labour, it has the sense of being in the right time in the right way. And if that is a gift and calling from God it is irrespective of other foibles and confusions you may have. However that does not mean you should not try to grow in other areas, including growing in respect and understanding and perspective, trying to understand the needs of those who have been mistaught about the Bible versions and texts. And learning how to correct errors, avoid historical revisionism and write accurately seeking precision in representation of others.

And simply discarding unsupportable arguments. e.g. That Redpath's knowledge of the Greek OT somehow provided fundamental assistance to Cambridge Edition edition, an argument based on misdirecting the Dean Burgon comment that mentions the Greek OT. Since we know that the Dean felt that the Greek might in some future day actually be changed and retranslated (whether placed in margin or text) we can now have a common sense understanding of his comment. An understanding which has nothing to do with PCE-type refinement. Thus while Redpath's Greek OT knowledge would not be a hindrance, we have absolutely no indication that it did anything whatsoever for the Cambridge edition issues. And to assert otherwise without many examples, or even a single example, being available is to place a tint on your own scholastic efforts. Why make an assertion that simply hangs in the air ? When you learn more context, remove the assertion.

When an issue like that arises you are painfully slow to really grasp hold of the real issues. Apparently feeling that since you had written otherwise you have to stay with the program.

Shalom,
Steven

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.)

There are those who do have this confidence in the KJB as the word of God, who do not follow you into the belief that therefore there is never going to be a need for the occasional updating of words. 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. (Perhaps Will Kinney wouldn't like my use of his metaphor, I'll have to read more of his writings.)

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).

I do not see why we cannot hold to the position that we do in fact have God's Word, and that there is nothing more to seek for, while yet also believing that 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.

This argument that if we think any such change is necessary we are therefore rejecting the KJB as God's Word or seeking God's Word elsewhere is not valid.

Strictly speaking, this is off topic, so I don't want to pursue it beyond this post, but as long as this keeps being asserted I feel I have to answer it. This position that rightly-done changes in the English are changes in God's Word itself is probably the most alienating idea I encounter in the KJVO camp. Even now I myself can argue against making any changes whatever, but I can only argue this on practical grounds at this point. That is, I can argue for it on the ground that it would be impossible to get together the right men for the job who would all agree on which changes are necessary; I can argue for it on the ground that any new edition would be lost in the confusion of all the versions; I can argue for it on the ground that people can be taught the meaning of any old words that confuse them; I can even argue for it on the ground that it would shake the brittle faith of the KJVO people who place their faith in the letter of the text rather than in its meaning. But I can't argue for it on the ground that the English of the current text is perfect for our day. It might be that Steven Avery or Will Kinney could convince me of this, but Bibleprotector's way of talking about it leaves me unconvinced.

[bibleprotector]

I find that I am increasingly disagreeing with Steven Avery's assertions.

I believing in perpetuating the historical witness that supports the King James Bible until the end. However, the "original language" defender of the King James Bible can be in all sorts of troubles, not just pride, but because they fundamentally are rejecting that the King James Bible is the Word of God itself in its final form. This can be seen because they continue to uphold foreign Bibles, and because they continue to think that the battle for the Bible is on the grounds of underlying texts/translations, and because they continue to think that they are contributing positively by investigating the sense and style and import of the original language basis to the King James Bible.

I. Since the King James Bible is the final form of the Word of God for the world, promoting it should excel beyond and replace other foreign Bibles.

II. Since the King James Bible is the final form of the text and translation of the Word of God, standing for it as settled is the way by which we observe signs and show the wonders of it, rather than merely just defensive counter-arguments and attacks against modern versions. Standing for the King James Bible as true is like a plough that goes through everything, to the point that there is no need to point out the 64,000+ errors of the NIV, etc. (Heavenly time is spent studying the truth, not merely identifying multitudes of error.)

III. Since the King James Bible is the final form of God's Word, everything sufficient is available to everyone to know it, which excludes the need for delving into the original languages, examining the margin notes, etc. The sense, style and import of the writings of Scripture are manifest in the English Bible, so that we may plainly access the truth without need of props. The Holy Ghost has ministers enough and provision enough that we may study the fullest depth and gain the fullest certainty of the Scripture by proper study without any excursions to the cloudland of misuse of tools, i.e. biased "contextualism", weighted "hermeneutics" and unjust balanced "interpretations".

Do we reject the original languages, margins, context, hermeneutics and interpretations? Only when they are used (as they often are) to deny the validity of the Scripture as manifest at hand. There is much that can be taken from Reformers, Puritans, Missionaries, Scholars, Teachers and Counsellers which aligns to the central maxim that "the Word is nigh".

I would that everyone in the world believed the English Bible rather than only a few, and I would that of the many people that must be saved, they would accept that King James Bible doctrine, even by simple faith in simple knowledge, rather than to have the Church slave to those who have the "higher learning". The true higher learning is that Christ is in every true believer, and that God has given every creature the Word.

There is a place for knowledge of the originals, etc., which must be in subjection to the truth that the English Bible is manifestly the final form of the Word for the world. Only then would we really be built upon the foundation of the godly men who came before us, and would we be properly be furnished with what God has used them to supply to us.

[bibleprotector]

while Redpath's Greek OT knowledge would not be a hindrance, we have absolutely no indication that it did anything whatsoever for the Cambridge edition issues.

I said that Redpath's Septuagint knowledge would be helpful. I am not talking about where words were changed on the basis of the LXX (?!). I am talking about having good scholarly knowledge. Linguist knowledge was mandatory for the placing of proper pronunciations on English words. Moreover, I am showing that Dean Burgon, even though mistaken in his desire for revision, was not wholly mistaken, and his requirement that a reviser should be acquainted with the Septuagint was fulfilled, though in another way. I am only pointing out that this is a sign.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Notice how while this thread took a break, Manny and I shared about the Psalm 12:7 King James Bible margin note -- and how the translators excellently understood the Hebrew grammar. And we know how proper exposition of these truths (e.g. the sticky thread of Psalm 12) can aid in reaching the unsure about the purity and perfection of the refined gold King James Bible. Much as how such expositions helped me some years ago come out of the mire and confusion of unpure versions.

Thanks to my brethren, like Will Kinney and Marty Shue and Teno Groppi and others who were willing to purely and actively defend the King James Bible -- with versatility, clarity and background. Thanks also to men like Thomas Holland who had the (gasp) Greek and ECW and version evidences laid out. Thanks to Brandon Staggs who has the 'magic marker' page readily available for those seeking to know some of what is at stake in the Bible version issues. Thanks also to men like Dean Burgon who even today has the single most detailed early church writer background material. All efforts that Matthew Verschuur now sadly and sickly tries to disparage.

That Psalm 12 discussion is the type of discussion (one of many types) that Matthew feebly speaks against. Except when we disassemble an opponent's argument on a mixed forum, then Matthew is not only strangely silent about the inappropriateness of refuting the cornfuseniks; Matthew even at times Aacknowledges the good efforts publicly. And in fact those efforts clear the air and help him with the PCE presentation without having to deal with doofus unanswered side-issues and claims from the no-pure-KJB crowd.

And despite the fact that we learn more about the excellence of the King James Bible. However we discussed around Psalm 12 (gasp) Hebrew grammar ! And the superb understanding of the King James Bible translators and the false accusations of the opponents who misunderstood even the margin note ! Thus Matthew rails against us, pitifully.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

I find that I am increasingly disagreeing with Steven Avery's assertions.

Since you continually and consistently misrepresent my position, that is to be expected. If I asserted the way you falsely contend, I would disagree with me also.

Since you deceive yourself and the forum readers by defacto calling me an "original language" defender of the King James Bible and therefore prideful and rejecting the King James Bible --

You have given us a shameful GIGO post (garbage in -- garbage out).
One of the most tawdry examples of your manipulations in posting.

And you have exposed more clearly only your own difficulties, Matthew, and placed yourself, at this time, as an enemy of wide-ranging active and truthful and sensible King James Bible defense.

Shalom,
Steven

[bibleprotector]

There are people who use the original languages to defend the King James Bible, and there are those who defend the original languages at the basis of the King James Bible.

I am not saying that Steven Avery is of the Textus Receptus Only type of position. (Not everything I say, or every point I raise should be read as if I am applying it to Steven Avery, even though such things may be related.) I just saw in another post that he said (something like) that he believes that the English gives a clear expression of the meaning. The English is clear, where there may be less clarity with the (current knowledge of the) originals. Of course, this is true.

We agree that the King James Bible is presenting the Hebrew grammar accurately. That is not the issue.

The issue is concerning whether or not the English itself is sufficient alone to be the very Word of truth to every man in the world. Again, whether or not the "simple faith" that the vast historical tradition which under girds the true King James Bible position may be reduced to simple teachings in this regard, rather than a complex and continuing system of focussed investigation. And whether or not the battle to convince the modern versionists must be waged from relying upon comparing to their position, etc., rather than to primarily having a self-authenticating monolith.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

And whether or not the battle to convince the modern versionists must be waged from relying upon comparing to their position, etc., rather than to primarily having a self-authenticating monolith.

And the problem is that you make this an either/or proposition.

We can fully accept the self-authentication of the King James Bible as our own faith conviction. God's word has proved itself over and over, daily and beautifully and majestically.

Yet that by itself will generally flop in the apologetics and defense arena, where the questions are asked "why" ... "how about this 'mistranslation' " .. "isn't my NIV based on all wonderful new MS discoveries" etc. Self-authentication has a very limited shelf-life in Christian apologetics and defense.

Ironically, when you wanted to defend your mistaken ideas about the textual value of the Greek OT and even accuse the Masoretic text of being tampered (apparently not understanding that that theory would make the King James Bible errant) you went back into historical study, such as appealing to Josephus (although you did not know he is actually a strong testimony against an early full-text circulating Greek OT) and the Aristeas letter. Your case was done poorly (ie. you were basically taking an untenable and inconsistent position and there was no way to get from A to Z) however at least you understood that such background can be significant in explaining and defending our views. (Exactly what you say the the current crew of active internet and book KJB defenders should not do.) And hopefully you learned from that discussion and have studied the issues more thoroughly. (Ezboard - Who's your Final Authority - 07/2007).

My view is that it would be helpful for you to really learn and understand the basics of King James Bible defense and understanding on such matters as the purity of the Masoretic Text and the fealty of the MT scribes, the MT's place as the KJB textual source, and the overt tampering (e.g. Psalm 14) and abject corruption of the Greek OT text. We understand you may forgo being involved in the apologetics, since you feel your work is in other realms, and I do not think anyone would object to your decisions on your priorities.

The key issue ... you would do well to finally end your attacks and dissing of full King James Bible defenders who offer wide-ranging discussions and explanations, like those discussions we see on this forum; and those defenders who have ably handled the modern versionists and no-pure-KJB crew. And you should not try to paint or taint solid KJB defenders as "original language" rejectors.

In many ways we are your greatest support, whatever our exact position on the PCE. As we clear the field, leaving the no-pure-KJB and modern versionists littered and hopefully laundered. Then from that position it is far more easy to consider Pure Cambridge Edition views.

Shalom,
Steven

Wow, that was very interesting, Steve you are very well spoken, and a great defender, Matthew, I think you have something with a pure KJB, how be it the PCE, you may well be correct. The both of you I think need to remember that you are on the same side, the issue you are discussing is important, and to remain focus and not accusatory, I think Steve had the upper hand in the debate, but Matthew may well articulate his position better.
God Bless you both and looking forward to read both of your comments in the future.
Scott