[quote author=Mitex]You made statements and refuse to clarify or provide proof for your statements.
The burden of proof (new catchword used by those who drive Dodges) lies with you. [/quote]
You don't actually know what burden of proof is, do you?
I haven't made claims expect to point out very specific cases where the KJV is mistranslated, cases that are easily and readily verifiable in spite of your desire to redefine common English words to minimize these cases. In short, I have proved the claim I have made.
You have stated that all Scriptures are perfect in any translation and every language. You have failed to address how this is even possible when there are clearly identifiable differences in even the English translations of Scripture. You have failed to meet the burden of proof for your claim and believe hand-waving is "proof" enough. It's a pretty consistent tactic for a KJVO-ist so I'm not surprised, even if you won't even own up to the label you clearly wear.
[quote author=Mitex]You stated that the KJV translation is simply
wrong. It is
different...So, actually differences (vs.
simply different phrasing with the same meaning) in the KJV and other translations where the KJV is wrong...Of course you still haven't addressed that pesky problem where translations are
legitimately different...You (Mitex, ed.) stated that all translations are equally valid and without error, a claim that is patently false since the various translations are
clearly different in certain places...
I pointed out that your
absurd argument (Barry's favorite vocabulary word, I think his 6th grade elementary teacher must have written it on one of his paper's and he never quite got over it) that "differences are proof of error" is false. You then fudge with "legitimately different" and "clearly different". I asked:
"I wonder what you mean by 'legitimately different'? The wild-eyed Any Version Will Do Club (AVWDC), which doesn't believe every word of any translation since they all have errors in them, has insisted for years that, 'there are no legitimate differences in translations'. They have insisted that any differences (apparently not of the legitimate variety) have no affect on doctrine, and all versions, despite their differences, are sufficient for the man of God when dealing with issues of faith and doctrine."
You dodge the question and the point without every supplying proof - the burden of proof lies with you. See Scott if you are confused about the definition of
burden of proof.[/quote]
I honestly find it hard to believe that you could possibly be on an translation committee based on the shallowness of understanding of how language works that you have thusly demonstrated.
Tell me: if I tell my kids the story of the three little pigs and one night, the second pig builds his house out of sticks and another night this pig builds his house out of branches, have I changed the story at all?
Now again, if one night I decide the pig is going to build his house out of crushed S-10s he picked up from the scrap yard, is the story different?
One of these is actually different. The other, not so much. I'll assume you can figure out which is which.
[quote author=Mitex]Now tell us, in light of the above, what is the difference, legitimate difference, or clear difference in the meaning of the two phrases:
"the love of money is the root of all evil" and "the love of money is the root of all
kinds of evil"?[/quote]
My oldest is in the third grade. Now I realize that he's reading on a sixth grade level, but he can tell you the difference in these two phrases. Are they giving you that much trouble?
[quote author=Mitex]Is the difference doctrinal? Then the multi-versionist central argument falls on its head.[/quote]
Yes. (I'm curious where you've ever heard me say that differences in translation do not affect doctrine...)
[quote author=Mitex]Is the difference proof of error? How so? See the differences listed above in the Scriptures in any language or time period.[/quote]
Yes. Because the different phrases change the meaning of the text.
[quote author=Mitex]Do the difference negate the authority of the English Scriptures? If yes, proof? O such a burden...
...P.S. Does the presence or absence of either phrase prove that our English Scriptures are no longer
trustworthy? If yes, how so? If not, why do you feel compelled to constantly bring up such things?[/quote]
Earlier:
These questions would be impossible to answer adequately without first discussing the purpose of Scripture, how it is authoritative in regards to these purposes, proper hermeneutical methodologies given the authoritative nature of Scripture, and what criteria would make Scripture "perfect" or less than so in light of these considerations. - rsc2a
[quote author=Mitex]Does your failure to comprehend the meaning of either phrase proof of error? How so? Please explain. [/quote]
I'm not the one struggling with elementary reading comprehension. (Honestly, I don't think you are struggling with it. I believe you know they are different but admitting it would force you to either own up to your KJVO-ism or reject it, neither of which you are willing to do.)
[quote author=Mitex]P.S.S. I'll repeat for the Gentle Reader's sake, I did not, nor have I ever stated, "all translations are equally valid and without error", that's your scarecrow. I have stated that the Scriptures in any language, including, but not limited to English, Greek and Hebrew, are equally valid and without error. [/quote]
Define
tautology.
[quote author=Mitex]I have also stated, that the Standard translation in any language recognized as the Scriptures by a consensus of born again Spirit filled Christians is clearly the word of God in that language. [/quote]
And I have explicitly asked you what the "standard translation" is for English speakers, a question you conveniently ignored.
(You might want to research which translations are most widely used before you throw your KJVo-ism under the bus when answering this question.)
[quote author=Mitex]I'll throw in another one just for you: The Scriptures in any language have just as much authority as the autographs and the originals. In fact, practically speaking, they have more authority. Why? The autographs are no longer extant and the originals are of no practical value to the vast multitude of born again believer who have right unto the word of God in their language. Think before you leap on that last one! I don't want you to break a leg.[/quote]
And you know what...I would agree with this. Of course, it's based on my beliefs concerning
the purpose of Scripture, how it is authoritative in regards to these purposes, proper hermeneutical methodologies given the authoritative nature of Scripture, and what criteria would make Scripture "perfect" or less than so in light of these considerations, beliefs that I would guess are quite a bit different than yours.
but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavour, that our mark."