Anonymous ID: 8e9b53 April 12, 2020, 6:22 p.m. No.8773785   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>8772892 (PB)

>Your dismissal of the KJV is risible. One might now legitimately question some of the original textual base available in the first decade of the 17th century, but one cannot dispute the extraordinary theological, philological, and literary achievement of the translation committee.

GIGO – and I don't trust your "no true Scot" claim regarding competent scholars. The KJV had access to virtually NO original texts … certainly not of the age and brevity available later. It is FULL of scribal emendations … text clearly added because the copyist thought it would be nice if the Bible said that in disregard for the original texts.

FWIW, I am an EX-JW.

Try again. Having read multiple translations multiple times, I am more than comfortable with the NWT in the previous editions and also used whatever other translations, including the former and current Catholic Bibles, to discuss scripture. Whenever possible, I would invite the homeowner to read along in their own Bible. One of my students was a retired Baptist minister who had spent his life preaching from the KJV (which is the Bible translation I began reading ~age 7).

 

Nice try, but your appeal to authority fails for lack of authority.