Recommendations to Understand the KJV love.

Status
Not open for further replies.

JimmyH

Puritan Board Senior
My friend google led me to a very interesting article on the OPC website regarding the KJV versus the Geneva. By Leland Ryken, here is a quote that is pertinent to the discussion, but the whole article is well worth reading ;
http://opc.org/os.html?article_id=272

"Even that is not the end of the story of the Puritans and the KJV. As noted in the preceding paragraph, the King James Version had already gone a long way toward supplanting the Geneva Bible during the decade in which the Westminster Assembly held its meetings. But I did not know until Gregory Reynolds sent me a copy of the Orthodox Presbyterian edition of The Confession of Faith and Catechisms that "the language of [the KJV] is at times reflected in the Confession and Catechisms" (p. x). In confirmation, upon further research I discovered that the Authorized Version "immediately superseded the Bishops' Bible for use in [English] churches."[9]"
 

C. M. Sheffield

Puritan Board Graduate
Allow me to suggest a brief article that sums up why I still use the KJV:
  • Practical Reasons for Retaining the KJV by Dr. Joel Beeke
 

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
Allow me to suggest a brief article that sums up why I still use the KJV:
  • Practical Reasons for Retaining the KJV by Dr. Joel Beeke
It seems that the biggest reason would be based upon a preference for using the texts behind the KJV, and its style of writing.
 

Krak3n

Puritan Board Freshman
Joshua, I have walked a few miles in your shoes so to speak. In many of those threads on the debate, where Reverend Winzer and Jerusalem Blade are 'set for the defense of the Gospel' I am present defending the CT.
James White's book, and D.A. Carson's 'The King James Version Controversy: A Plea For Realism' were the primary texts that formed my opinion in favor of the CT.
Over the past few years I've come to embrace the KJV wholeheartedly 'warts and all.' I began reading the KJV 35 years ago, supplementing it with the NIV to clarify portions that I found difficult.
Over the past few years, doing the M'Cheyne 1 year reading plan in the KJV and continuing to supplement that text with NIV, ESV, NASB, and NKJV, I've come to the conclusion that, for me, the KJV is still my main source for Scripture.
Of course I haven't compared every verse between TR and CT translations, but leaving aside the well known controversial CT exclusions, the KJV and the modern translations are so often saying the same thing in different word choices, that I am comfortable with sticking with the former.
To paraphrase a blurb from an old movie, Dr Strangelove, 'How I stopped worrying, and learned to love the KJV.'

This is essentially where I am currently, but I still have much to read as far as the many recommendations in this thread go.

One of the points in Beeke's "Practical Reasons for Retaining the KJV" article stated, "The weaknesses and disadvantages of a particular version of the Bible cannot really be assessed apart from a thorough trial of daily usage over many years."

As you had mentioned with the KJV the "warts and all" are known. Much like the errata in any book, given time people will find these errors, or just awkward phrases, and make a note for the rest of us. The KJV has had over 400 years to work out and note those areas.

Joshua, just wanted to say that you have such a great way and attitude in approaching a controversial subject, especially considering you have the extra distaste of past KJVO to deal with. I can't pass up the opportunity to tell you how refreshing it is and to commend it. I know it's God's grace, and it also serves as a great model to the rest of us. The Lord's blessing on your studies and research!

Thank you, I do appreciate your comment. I wish I could say that this is often how I approach something I am at odds with but that would be a very bold lie. In all honesty it's the attitude others have taken on this very subject being discussed elsewhere that even allowed me to get beyond my distaste for my past. I grouped everyone who was for the KJV as being exactly like I was, and I wanted nothing to do with that or them.

The caliber of people here, their attitude, is what encouraged me to consider that maybe I can still have respect for the KJV, the Received Text, and those who hold to it after all!

Hello Joshua,

Here are some thoughts with respect to Dr. Jan Krans’ critique of Dr. Holland’s defense of Rev 22:19, among other things.

Dr. Krans does seem to be an astute textual critic, although it seems he is an academician and not a church man. I have been able to find no connection between him and any church, and an inquiry to a friend showed nothing to that effect either.

In the critical article you linked to Krans made it clear that he is no friend of the doctrine of divine preservation, and he says, “Let me state from the start that the entire enterprise of trying to defend the Greek Textus Receptus is pointless. . . The defence of the sixteenth-century text can only be inspired by an—unfortunate—theological a priori, not by the historical facts.”

This view goes against your own confession (the 1689), which says at 1.8,

“The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic…”.​

This is virtually identical to the WCF at 1.8. The framers of our confessions operated on the presupposition that what God had inspired He would preserve, and they based this on Scripture, not human reasoning. For all I know Krans is not a believer.

I have tried to contact Dr. Holland to see if he would respond to Krans, but it may be he is agèd now, or even gone to be with the Lord. I had contacted him some 10 or 12 years ago, and he responded then. As with Jakob van Bruggen, he seems to have dropped out of sight.

Further, I would consider Krans an academic elitist, from his saying, “As his [Holland’s] Th.D. is from ‘Immanuel Baptist Theological Seminary’, it can probably not be considered academic. I will therefore refrain from using the title ‘Dr.’ which he himself consistently uses.”

We have seen what many supposed Hebrew and Greek “experts” think to do to the church's Bible (as well disagreeing among themselves), and some of us will have none of it, instead gathering materials to help understand the original languages so as to not be under “the tyranny of experts” (to quote J. Gresham Machen's pertinent phrase). The experts and scholars all too often have been enemies of the faith, and we do well to learn to live without them. The rare Hebrew or Greek scholar who supports the faith and its Scriptures is a treasure, and we do have a few of them, by the providence of God.

At any rate, in the absence of a rebuttal by Dr. Holland, I am of a mind to hold his particular defense of Rev 22:19 with suspended judgment. It can be defended otherwise!

Regarding Erasmus’ manuscripts, and later editors and their editions using them, Dr. F.H.A. Scrivener writes,

“He [Erasmus] had seen the Complutensian Polyglott in 1522, shortly after the publication of his third edition, and had now the good sense to avail himself of its aid in the improvement of the text, especially in the Apocalypse, wherein he amended from it at least ninety readings” [in preparation for his 4th Edition]. – A Plain Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the NT, 4th Ed, Vol II, p 186.​

John Gill said in his commentary:

God shall take away his part out of the book of life; by which is meant eternal election, which is the meaning of the phrase throughout this book, in which whoever are written shall certainly be saved. The worshippers of the beast, or the antichristian party, who are chiefly regarded here, are not written in it, Revelation 13:8 wherefore taking away the part of such, is only taking away that which they seemed to have; see Luke 8:18. “Take heed therefore how ye hear: for whosoever hath, to him shall be given; and whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he seemeth to have” and the sense is, that such shall be cast into the lake of fire, which is the second death, and will be the portion of all that are not written in the book of life, Revelation 20:15. The Alexandrian copy, one of Stephens's, and the Complutensian edition, read, "the tree of life".​

Gill stated that “one of Stephen’s” reads tree of life. In other words, other manuscripts that Stephens employed contained “the book of life” in Revelation 22:19, and there were at least 16 manuscripts employed by Stephanus. (source)

Steven Avery’s research on this verse has shown that church writer references that support the reading “book of life” are:

Ambrose (c 390 AD)
Bachiarius (c 420)
Andreas of Cappadocia (c 500)
Primasius of Adrumentum (552 AD) - Commentary on Revelation
Speculum treatise (mss c. 8th century, many consider as Augustine 427 AD origin)
Haymo of Halberstadt (9th century) - Commentary on Revelation
Pseudo-Augustine (1160)

Among the ancient Bible versions that also support "book of life" are the following:

Bohairic Coptic
Old Latin line
Latin Vulgate (some read "book" and others have "tree") auferet Deus partem ejus de libro vitæ, et de civitate sancta,
Syriac
Armenian
Ethiopic
Arabic
Tepl

Latin Manuscripts

Codex Fuldensis (~ A.D. 545)
Codex Karolinus (9th century);
Codex Ulmensis (9th century);
Codex Uallicellanus (9th century);
corrector of Codex Parisinus (9th century)
Codex Oxoniensis (12th to 13th century)
Codex Sarisburiensis (thirteenth century)

(Avery source)

Regarding using manuscript evidence from languages and versions other than the Greek, consider these quotes (from another thread),

[Holland saying to James White re Luke 2:22] …as for "secondary language(s)" not being "relevant," I am afraid that modern textual scholars would not agree with your statement. Kurt Aland wrote:



“The transmission of the New Testament textual tradition is characterized by an extremely impressive degree of tenacity. Once a reading occurs it will persist with obstinacy. It is precisely the overwhelming mass of the New Testament textual tradition, assuming the hugainousa didaskalia of New Testament textual criticism (we trust the reader will not be offended by this application of 1 Tim. 1:10), which provides an assurance of certainty in establishing the original text. Even apart from the lectionaries (cf. p. 163), there is still the evidence of approximately 3,200 manuscripts of the New Testament text, not to mention the early versions and the patristic quotations--we can be certain that among these there is still a group of witnesses which preserves the original form of the text, despite the pervasive authority of ecclesiastical tradition and the prestige of the later text.” (The Text of the New Testament, p. 291-292)
Please note that Aland believes the “tenacity” of a reading can be found not only in the evidence of the Greek manuscripts, but also among the “early versions and the patristic quotations.” He states that we can be CERTAIN that, “among these there is still a group of witness which preserves the original form of the text. . .” Therefore, early versions are to be used and considered evidence in the science of textual criticism.

Dr. Alexander Souter noted:

"The second (source of the NT text) is translations made from this original Greek, especially if directly made from it, and not through the medium of another language, which is itself a direct translation from the original Greek. If such a translation was carefully made, and has survived in the precise form and text in which the translator himself issued it, what we possess in it is tantamount to the Greek copy in front of the translators when he made his translation." (The Text And Canon Of The New Testament, p.10.)


Since the Old Latin manuscripts are almost unanimous in their reading "of her" and since the Latin Vulgate likewise possesses the reading "ejus" (of her), it is highly likely that there was an early Greek text with this reading which we no longer possess, at least according to the logic of textual criticism as just expressed by Souter. I do not believe that there is any reason to continue with additional citations which agree with this point. However the same may be found in the writings of Metzger, Geisler and Nix, Jack Finegan, and others.

In the first and later letters Holland questions White as to why he made the allegation that in Luke 2:22 Beza made a “conjectural emendation” as Beza knew of the early Latin readings, and this would show it was rather a well-informed textual decision.​
[End Holland]

All this to show, Joshua, that attestations from “secondary languages” and versions (other than the Greek) are legitimate in discerning how God “by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages” our Bible texts.

We have seen above from Scrivener’s testimony that Erasmus had access to other MSS which he used to correct his later editions (eliminating the charge he got a bad reading from the Vulgate), and also John Gill’s testimony that Stephanus had a number of MSS with the book reading, and it was also in Beza’s edition. So the AV translators had a number of Greek MSS with the reading, as well as other language versions descended from ancient sources, such as the Waldenses.

I’m sorry to go on so long like this, but the attack on Holland and Rev 22:19 by Krans warranted some defense. I still hold Holland’s book a classic in the field, highly recommending it, and will simply suspend judgment on his stand re Rev 22:19, finding support for it elsewhere.

Thank you, I do appreciate your time and effort here. If I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying that you stand by the "book of life" rendering, but not on the grounds that Holland gives, or not because of Holland's arguments. You went a step further and gave your "alternate" reasons for the "book of life" view. That's great!

I had a thought while reading through the portions you posted concerning using direct translations as a valid argument for a text. Would you say that the KJV, or even the Geneva, would be better versions to translate from, supposing we didn't have a Greek Text or couldn't read Greek, because it retains the thee's and thou's?
I know that could sound strange, let me say it another way. If the singular/plural distinction matters then that is information that is lost in all modern translations. (So if we needed that information, as far as English translations go, that is something that is missing regardless of underlying textual preference.)

I still have much to read on all of this, and eventually I'll get Holland's book. Even if I don't understand every argument that each "side" makes regarding the underlying text of the Bible, I have found comfort from this thread that there are good arguments beyond the KJVO cult shrieking.
 

TrustGzus

Puritan Board Freshman
Joshua, you’ve got a good feel for where I’m at. Give me a CSB, NIV, ESV, NASB, NKJV or KJV....whatever. I prefer a committee based translation across denominational lines.

I’ve been reading the KJV more lately than I have in recent years. Here’s some of my thoughts.

I’m not saying the KJV is better. I think the CT is more accurate than the TR. But here are some reasons why I grab it more often lately and they are minor.

First, I have Sproul’s Reformation Study Bible and Beeke’s Reformation Heritage KJV Study Bible. I love Sproul’s. The ESV reads a lot like a KJV. It’s my least favorite of the primary CT versions. If Sproul uses a different CT text the pull might be stronger to me. I like his notes better. I like the articles. But Beeke in the Creeds and confessions section includes the proof texts and I like the formatting better of the creeds and confessions in his study Bible. Also, Beeke includes the Athanasian Creed. Sproul doesn’t.

Second, as you and I talked privately a bit, I look at forests more than the trees. The “blood” being supposedly “omitted” in Colossians 1:14, for an example, doesn’t change anything really. Besides, blood is in the parallel Ephesians 1:7 and it’s in Colossians just a mere six verses later at Colossians 1:20. The differences don’t change meanings of paragraphs, chapters and books. So I can read the KJV and Galatians doesn’t have a different message in the KJV compared to the NIV. This isn’t a reason I’m reading the KJV more lately than in the last 20 years but number three will show where this point number two is relevant a bit.

Third, I bleed KJV. I spent my first 9 years of my walk or so in KJV and NKJV. So I memorized much in it. So since I’m programmed with a lot of KJV in my head it’s comfortable to me. This makes my second point above more meaningful. Since I don’t see the differences being a big deal, I can comfortably use a KJV. I know what the differences are. I know where I think new versions are more accurate. And as I said 1 Corinthians isn’t teaching something different in my KJV and my CSB.

Fourth, I like using memory apps. The problem is most of them charge extra for modern translations. The KJV is usually free. Maybe I’m cheap, but I don’t want to spend $5-10 for each version. Apps that used to have them free at some point stop being free and charge for the new versions.

Fifth, in memorizing, the KJV isn’t changing. The ESV just did revisions in 2016 from the 2011 which had been revised not too long before that. I have an ESV from when it was released in 2001 or so and my Max McLean MP3 CDs are that version. So if I recite while listening to him it’s 2001 but apps have updated to 2016. Memorizing the HCSB in 2005? Here’s the 2009 update! Wait! Here’s the 2017 CSB!!!!!

I understand why updates happen.

So, as you can see memorizing is a big part of my recent trend to grab my KJV more.

I think there are much bigger issues than what translation we use. I think it’s a shame that Christians draw some pretty hard lines on Bible versions. I want my family and friends reading the Bible. Whether it’s TR or CT or functional or formal are much more secondary or tertiary to me.
 
Last edited:

Jerusalem Blade

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Hello Joshua,

You said,

I had a thought while reading through the portions you posted concerning using direct translations as a valid argument for a text. Would you say that the KJV, or even the Geneva, would be better versions to translate from, supposing we didn't have a Greek Text or couldn't read Greek, because it retains the thee's and thou's?
I know that could sound strange, let me say it another way. If the singular/plural distinction matters then that is information that is lost in all modern translations. (So if we needed that information, as far as English translations go, that is something that is missing regardless of underlying textual preference.)​

When I am preaching, I will often “modernize” the KJV text to read as modern English, changing the ye to you or you all, the “thee”s and “thou”s to you, and omit the “eth”s, and like. I pray that way also, sometimes addressing the Lord God as Thou and Thee, and sometimes as You.

Sure, if there were no original-language Greek and Hebrew texts available to translate into another tongue, I would approve using the KJV. But if the NASB, for all its faults, were the only available Bible, I would approve of using that also, for in the main it – and the other modern versions as well – are also preserved.

Why my KJV love? I’ve said elsewhere,

Some background on how I think. I came out of the early 1960s counterculture with its sorcerous drugs and smokes, made quite vulnerable to the demonic realm. When converted to Jesus Christ in 1968, after I got my bearings to a small extent, and realizing that I was going to have to depend on the words of the Bible being exactly true when I stood against my spiritual adversaries the evil spirits—for uncertainty as regards their reliability would be disastrously exploited by them—I began to search for understanding concerning the true text. For I had already gotten hold of the first edition of the NASB with its margin notes indicating there were seriously differing readings of the NT. So I had my KJV, and the NASB. I also had the old Living Bible paraphrase to help me understand difficult passages.

Half a century later, after much inquiry and careful study, I have come to treasure that word I know is true. By God’s grace I will not be shaken, as He hath said, “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled” (Matt 5:18), and “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away” (Matt 24:35). Our Lord spoke plainly and profoundly.​
 

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
Joshua, you’ve got a good feel for where I’m at. Give me a CSB, NIV, ESV, NASB, NKJV or KJV....whatever. I prefer a committee based translation across denominational lines.

I’ve been reading the KJV more lately than I have in recent years. Here’s some of my thoughts.

I’m not saying the KJV is better. I think the CT is more accurate than the TR. But here are some reasons why I grab it more often lately and they are minor.

First, I have Sproul’s Reformation Study Bible and Beeke’s Reformation Heritage KJV Study Bible. I love Sproul’s. The ESV reads a lot like a KJV. It’s my least favorite of the primary CT versions. If Sproul uses a different CT text the pull might be stronger to me. I like his notes better. I like the articles. But Beeke in the Creeds and confessions section includes the proof texts and I like the formatting better of the creeds and confessions in his study Bible. Also, Beeke includes the Athanasian Creed. Sproul doesn’t.

Second, as you and I talked privately a bit, I look at forests more than the trees. The “blood” being supposedly “omitted” in Colossians 1:14, for an example, doesn’t change anything really. Besides, blood is in the parallel Ephesians 1:7 and it’s in Colossians just a mere six verses later at Colossians 1:20. The differences don’t change meanings of paragraphs, chapters and books. So I can read the KJV and Galatians doesn’t have a different message in the KJV compared to the NIV. This isn’t a reason I’m reading the KJV more lately than in the last 20 years but number three will show where this point number two is relevant a bit.

Third, I bleed KJV. I spent my first 9 years of my walk or so in KJV and NKJV. So I memorized much in it. So since I’m programmed with a lot of KJV in my head it’s comfortable to me. This makes my second point above more meaningful. Since I don’t see the differences being a big deal, I can comfortably use a KJV. I know what the differences are. I know where I think new versions are more accurate. And as I said 1 Corinthians isn’t teaching something different in my KJV and my CSB.

Fourth, I like using memory apps. The problem is most of them charge extra for modern translations. The KJV is usually free. Maybe I’m cheap, but I don’t want to spend $5-10 for each version. Apps that used to have them free at some point stop being free and charge for the new versions.

Fifth, in memorizing, the KJV isn’t changing. The ESV just did revisions in 2016 from the 2011 which had been revised not too long before that. I have an ESV from when it was released in 2001 or so and my Max McLean MP3 CDs are that version. So if I recite while listening to him it’s 2001 but apps have updated to 2016. Memorizing the HCSB in 2005? Here’s the 2009 update! Wait! Here’s the 2017 CSB!!!!!

I understand why updates happen.

So, as you can see memorizing is a big part of my recent trend to grab my KJV more.

I think there are much bigger issues than what translation we use. I think it’s a shame that Christians draw some pretty hard lines on Bible versions. I want my family and friends reading the Bible. Whether it’s TR or CT or functional or formal are much more secondary or tertiary to me.
The good news on this discussion is that those here who prefer the KJV are free to keep on using that translation, while those of us here who prefer one such as the NASB are free to keep using that translation Its only becomes a problem when anyone tries to make their own preference the only standard one that can and should be used..
 

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
Hello Joshua,

You said,

I had a thought while reading through the portions you posted concerning using direct translations as a valid argument for a text. Would you say that the KJV, or even the Geneva, would be better versions to translate from, supposing we didn't have a Greek Text or couldn't read Greek, because it retains the thee's and thou's?
I know that could sound strange, let me say it another way. If the singular/plural distinction matters then that is information that is lost in all modern translations. (So if we needed that information, as far as English translations go, that is something that is missing regardless of underlying textual preference.)​

When I am preaching, I will often “modernize” the KJV text to read as modern English, changing the ye to you or you all, the “thee”s and “thou”s to you, and omit the “eth”s, and like. I pray that way also, sometimes addressing the Lord God as Thou and Thee, and sometimes as You.

Sure, if there were no original-language Greek and Hebrew texts available to translate into another tongue, I would approve using the KJV. But if the NASB, for all its faults, were the only available Bible, I would approve of using that also, for in the main it – and the other modern versions as well – are also preserved.

Why my KJV love? I’ve said elsewhere,

Some background on how I think. I came out of the early 1960s counterculture with its sorcerous drugs and smokes, made quite vulnerable to the demonic realm. When converted to Jesus Christ in 1968, after I got my bearings to a small extent, and realizing that I was going to have to depend on the words of the Bible being exactly true when I stood against my spiritual adversaries the evil spirits—for uncertainty as regards their reliability would be disastrously exploited by them—I began to search for understanding concerning the true text. For I had already gotten hold of the first edition of the NASB with its margin notes indicating there were seriously differing readings of the NT. So I had my KJV, and the NASB. I also had the old Living Bible paraphrase to help me understand difficult passages.

Half a century later, after much inquiry and careful study, I have come to treasure that word I know is true. By God’s grace I will not be shaken, as He hath said, “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled” (Matt 5:18), and “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away” (Matt 24:35). Our Lord spoke plainly and profoundly.​
Just curious as to what you see the many faults of the Nas would be, as many have spoken highly of it being a very good translation?
 

Jerusalem Blade

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
After all these many discussions, David, you do not know? Simply, it is based on the Critical Text, and holds to its variant readings.
 

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
I believe though that even the KJV translators use different variants, had to render a decision on which to use, correct?

The NKJV used the same source texts in the greek as the KJV, so you do see it as being an updated KJV, correct?
 

Jerusalem Blade

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
David, the words vary / variant mean to diverge from, depart from. Textually, the Reformation texts are what is varied from in the Critical Text, and the readings in the Greek Textus Receptus (TR) and Hebrew Masoretic Text – which underlie all the translated Reformation editions – are the Reformation’s standards. The Greek CT readings vary from them. The TR readings are not considered variants, being the standard Reformation texts referred to in the WCF and the Baptist 1689 at 1.8, which latter is your confession.

Yes, the NKJV used the Reformation Greek TR to translate from, but used other texts for the OT besides the Masoretic. Some of their translation choices in the NT are questionable (you can google that to see which). I would not go so far as to call it an updated KJV, though it is close. When in Africa teaching for MERF (Middle East Reformed Fellowship) I distributed some NKJV NTs to offset the ESV someone had given out; and my church plant in Cyprus, when offered ESVs or NKJVs for the church (we didn’t have much money to buy our own) I opted for the NKJVs as far superior.
 

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
David, the words vary / variant mean to diverge from, depart from. Textually, the Reformation texts are what is varied from in the Critical Text, and the readings in the Greek Textus Receptus (TR) and Hebrew Masoretic Text – which underlie all the translated Reformation editions – are the Reformation’s standards. The Greek CT readings vary from them. The TR readings are not considered variants, being the standard Reformation texts referred to in the WCF and the Baptist 1689 at 1.8, which latter is your confession.

Yes, the NKJV used the Reformation Greek TR to translate from, but used other texts for the OT besides the Masoretic. Some of their translation choices in the NT are questionable (you can google that to see which). I would not go so far as to call it an updated KJV, though it is close. When in Africa teaching for MERF (Middle East Reformed Fellowship) I distributed some NKJV NTs to offset the ESV someone had given out; and my church plant in Cyprus, when offered ESVs or NKJVs for the church (we didn’t have much money to buy our own) I opted for the NKJVs as far superior.
I do not think that the Reformed position advocates for the TR/KJV though as the KJVO insist, but do see it has supporting the superiority of the Greek texts and KJV , but not to the point of denying the validity of modern versions either.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top