But let me bring it closer to the topic:
On my website I mention how John Wesley, no mean Greek scholar, made revisions of the KJV for the benefit of his converts, some 12,000 in all, some of which have been adopted in more recent versions. Was he too a corrupter of the Word of God? Clearly not, since by the very argument used here ("God used him to bring revival") he was indeed blessed of God.

PILUT wrote:
It's interesting that some of the greatest revivals in this World were before modern versions. And tell me where the revivals are today - or in the last 50 years?

What about Wesley, you ask? He was much closer to that position than he cared to admit, and certainly much, much closer than the modern Dispensational Fundie. Just read his sermons and Journal entries.

And also: NONE of them were Dispensationalists: they had never heard of the position. After all, that wasn't invented until the next century.

However, remember that, while his points should be worthy enough to persuade any person of a rational viewpoint, as you put it, we are not dealing on this site with such persons, as I have found to my sorrow. I say this with regret.

JD wrote:
In Chapter 4 the church is taken up, translated and then the judgment of God that has been reserved.

As for the 1425 votes:
I always thought that truth is not determined by counting votes, but perhaps it is in your fundie circles.

But it cuts both ways: you along with others have come over as mean, spiteful, and full of unsubstantiated allegations, from which I have constantly had to defend myself. But if past record is any indication I don't expect an apology any time soon.

As to your latest serve, take heed to yourself: "the measure you use it will be measured back to you" (Matt.7:2).

Just two very quick points in conclusion to this exchange:
1. The two sermons by D.A. Waite - give me a break!
2. No-one ever claimed that the "Translators to the Reader" was Scripture. It's just that Smith disowns on behalf of the Translators things that KJV-onlism claims for them.

I will leave it at that.

One of my posts was indeed removed (it's back on p.2 now), as you point out. Was it you who hit the abuse button? It doesn't matter.

However, I make no apology for my posts, nor do I accept that my contentions have been at all misleading, or deliberately offensive to any person. I have certainly attacked the position you and others hold, to be sure: it is full of fopperies, convolutions, untenable positions, bad scholarship, and wilful ignorance of plain evidence, etc.

You complain about offensive language: until I came on to this board I have never before had to contend with the personal attacks, abusive language, strident in-your-face confrontation, and the like. I have some of this on file on my computer. It has been vicious stuff, but I have taken it in my stride and let it pass. If I have descended to the same level in reply I humbly apologise.

However, be under no illusions: KJVO-types are well aware of what Miles Smith wrote, but twist it around to suit their own agenda. They are masters of that perverse art.

kenny
I press issues strongly and firmly, to be sure, but you take that to mean pride, pique, grumpiness, and all manner of evils - presumably because I don't share your shibboleths about the KJV. Sorry about that! You will have to do better than hurl a few accusations if you want me to accept your position.

Your pathetic attempt at denigrating my spelling and grammar engaged in premature triumphalism, but then fell flat.

The only thing I can be grateful for is that you have looked at my website.

What the quotation shows is that Augustine knew of the passage, that it had been circulating before his time, and he issued a caution about it. However, he himself accepts the passage as authentic. So do I.

At the same time, however, the early manuscript evidence has it at various locations: the traditional place in John 8 (and many of those with asterisks or obeli to indicate the scribe's doubt as to its status); earlier in John 7; at the end of John's Gospel; and even in Luke 21. All of the early manuscripts except Codex D (Bezae) omit it, including P66 and P75.

BTW, appealing to Codex D is not good evidence: there are all sorts of additions in that Manuscript which the most ardent KJVO person would never accept. Hence it is entirely arbitrary to accept the Adulteress story on the authority of D, and not say, the addition in Acts 15:29, "whatever things which you do not want to be done to you, do not do to another." (I am NOT suggesting that we adopt this)

PILUT wrote:
Murray - after your rant about the superiority of the British/Australian English, I am quite surprised you use such new versions of the Bible that degrade and water-down the King's English.
Am I mistaken?
Again, the oldest manuscript doesn't make it the most accurate one.

"The King's English" has moved on a bit from that of King James I - 400 years ago!

As to U.S. English the issue was, I recall, my alleged "errors" of spelling. I pointed out in reply that they were no errors at all, according to accepted British usage.

Superiority? It's a matter of viewpoint, but U.S. English has made many spelling changes, and grammatical changes which I do indeed find irritating, but I'll leave that aside.

Just for information, according to the most recent palaeographic and other dating techniques:
P66: c.140 -160 A.D., possibly even 125 A.D.
P75: c.180 - 200 A.D., possibly earlier.

Sorry to inform you but the "errors" are all in fact correct according to British (and Australian) usage. I am consistent in following these standard conventions. I am NOT an American, and I will use and continue to use British spelling and grammar. that means that "colour", "behaviour", and "favour" etc. I will spell with an included "u".

In that system, after a colon, each item in the subsequent list is followed not by a comma, but by a semi-colon.

As to "judgment", according to my Shorter Oxford Dictionary both "judgement" and "judgment" are acceptable. It used to be that only the latter was acceptable, but not any more.