Catholicism versus Protestantism down the centuries

Gosh you're right I haven't studied Metzger, I'm enough familiar with his attitude toward God's word to despise the man and never want to read more than I absolutely have to. Burgon has the preeminent qualification of respecting and believing God's word.

Prejudice acquired by knowledge of the truth versus the lies of the devil is definitely a friend to the truth.

The Lord once "spoke" to me about humility, pointing out that it is not humility to submit meekly to false doctrine.

Not necessarily, which is what I've been trying to get across. It depends on the circumstances. It was when I was having strong inner objections to something a pastor had preached, but was trying to be generous and hunble about it and give him the benefit of the doubt and all that, that God clearly "told" me that stance I was taking was not humility, not audibly but unmistakably in the very words "That is not humility." I knew in my spirit the preacher was wrong but I was ignoring what I knew in the effort to be humble. Sometimes that is what is called for, sometimes not, and in the case of knowing the character of a God-fearing man like Burgon and a man who puts himself above God's word like Bruce Metzger, there is no doubt what is the right position to take. When I know my "prejudice" is solidly grounded in God's word then I have no reason to vacillate on my judgment. This isn't about evidence against ME, some opinion of my own, this is about knowing what GOD's position is, and that is never ever to be compromised. Again, this is not about me, this is about God and that can never be compromised. It's not that hard to know if it's you or if you are being true to God or not, as long as you are committed to God's word above all else.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

But this is silly and completely misses the point. Having an authorized version of scripture simply makes communication easier. It's not that there's a great deal of difference in the meanings, mostly there's an absence of scriptures in the new versions that are in the KJV, and an irritating difference in wording that accomplishes absolutely nothing but unnecessary confusion.How does "diversity" in the sense of diversity of meaning in the scriptures -- or of totally unnecessary wordings -- serve anybody? You are mixing apples and oranges. Having a reliable authoritative version of the scriptures is hardly to be compared to having a Pope.But let me ask: Are there readings in the modern Bibles you think it's necessary to preserve against the KJV's readings?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well, it IS silly to compare religious freedom with having dozens of Bibles done mostly to make money. The point of revising the KJV is to modernize its language. It still needs that revision it never properly got thanks to the 1881 fiasco.However, the KJV is not that hard to get used to. I was dismayed when I realized I was going to have to switch to it a few years ago, but it turns out to be not that hard to adapt to it. HOWEVER, again, the point of convening a committee to revise it is to modernize it so that it will be more accessible to those who think they are allergic to its language.And a third point is to try to get across again what I mean by communication. It is very hard to be in a congregation where everybody has their own translation. Before the sermon we have a unison reading which we have to read from a printed sheet because we all have different translations of that passage. Then an elder gets up to read the passage for the day and it's in some translation you don't have so it's hard to follow along. Then the pastor preaches from his preferred translation which may be different from the elder's and yours. In Sunday School they pass out a printed passage to memorize. It isn't in your preferred translation. It is not easy to look up verses in online Bibles or the concordance because you have a mixture of different translations for that verse in your head. This makes for cacophony and confusion rather than communication. I find the English word choices for the Greek at the back of the concordance sufficient to resolve most such questions myself, or a dictionary can help if necessary, and then commentaries if it's a really difficult passage. Diversity of meaning is very dangerous, diversity of wording is just confusing. This is the word of God we're talking about. The Church is a corporate body that shares this word of God. It only makes sense that we have a translation we can all share, recite, memorize and discuss easily with each other. Again, it is not hard to adapt to a language style if necessary, especially if it's preached from consistently and quoted frequently and so on. But again I'm talking about the need for a modernized KJV which would presumably solve a lot of the language problems. HOWEVER, again, getting used to the KJV as is isn't anywhere near as difficult as you are making it out to be. And once you're convinced, as I have been, that it is trustworthy whereas all the others are not, you simply make the effort. Since you're not convinced you wouldn't of course. I'm sorry, I just find this notion extremely silly. You aren't distinguishing between the Greek text and the English translation. If the KJV were to be updated now as I keep suggesting the idea would be to find the clearest way to render it in English without destroying its universally acknowledged superiority of phrasing that has had enormous impact on the English language, literature and culture. This has nothing to do with the Greek texts and I don't see that you said anything about that anyway.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I wouldn't say nonsense, but it seems it would be preferable to say "the Christ" rather than "Jesus the Christ." Perhaps this is one of the places where the Alexandrians do a better job.

Westcott and Hort, and Metzger and company are the ones putting words in God's mouth, and you too.

I'm sorry, I am not lying. That leaves certain others who may be.;

By accusing me of putting words into God's mouth, and by falsely quoting scripture against me, and by supporting Metzger who supports Westcott and Hort you put words into God's mouth, or let's say you are in danger of doing so although you weren't so circumspect in your accusation of me.Burgon warns that the Revisers were in danger of running afoul of the warning in Revelation 22:18-19 against adding to God's word, on pages 113 and 354 of the Revision Revised.

No, but Faith knows God and you don't.

Yes it is fascinating. It's based on the Bible of course, on a simple natural reading of it, and I never claim anything that doesn't accord with the Bible. If we are believers we have "the mind of Christ" and we should know that we do. Not that we can't still follow the flesh instead of Christ but we have the standard of the Bible to show us when we've strayed off the path. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It's actually your own belief in freedom that guides the choice in my church to let us use our own Bibles rather than impose the pastor's choice on us.About KJV2000 I simply don't support any lone-wolf translation and don't want to be in the position of judging it. If a Church body of the sort I think we need determined that its readings are ideal then I'd be in favor of its being recommended as the authorized version.But I was just reviewing Burgon's book and he says that he didn't think there was good enough scholarship to justify revising the KJV at all, and if that was true in his day it's all the more true in our day. This is a good argument for having the KJV as is for our authorized Bible.And I was very glad to see that statistic that the KJV is the preferred version in the US, even far and away more popular than the next most popular version the NIV. I think this must reflect a recent growth in the popularity of the KJV and it's a very welcome trend if so. The more people are confronted with the serious problems in the modern versions and the known superiority of the KJV despite its need for some minor changes, the more this trend may continue.

It isn't hard to know the Mind of God, just believe the Bible. But apparently that's too hard for most of you.

What, you want me to say I don't understand ALL of God's Mind?. Would that make you happy? Ah yes, well we may not understand why God does what He does, and He doesn't reveal everything either, but what He reveals in His word He wants us to know or He wouldn't have revealed it, but you aren't going to know it unless you believe it and submit to it.