RLT63
Well-Known Member
I never said the KJV was the best translation. You didn’t read my post and you are making assumptions. I call BS on you. If you want to go with the majority of academics then do that. But some people have different opinions. You have confirmation bias on this issue you are only reading material that agrees with your opinion. There’s just as much possibility that the Alexandrian texts were corrupted as there is that the Byzantine have been corrupted. Origen wrote that the Alexandrian texts had been corrupted in his time. But you’re not interested in hearing another viewpoint other than your own.No thanks. The premise that earlier manuscripts, undergoing fewer revisions-rewrites-copying is somehow less accurate is not logical.
My BS meter is finely tuned these days and I am leery of anyone who requires such volume, 46-paragraphs, such quantity to obviously compensate for quality. This is why I asked for the Cliff Notes version. It caused you to condense the volume to the basic premises, which are fatally flawed. They are fatally flawed for two reasons: the FROM and the TO of the KJV translation.
I don't need to become an expert in linguistics. I don't need to substitute KJV for Byzantine and non-KJV with Alexandrian text references to make myself appear more erudite. The TO of the KJV translation is archaic, obsolete. Claiming it is the best translation is false on its face given the fact that no one speaks Middle English anymore.
So, you retreat to the FROM part of the translation. I thank God that the majority of people, the majority of Christians, the majority of academics recognize the newer translations are from more reliable manuscripts.
Last edited: