I am a Protestant. Protestants establish the canon by scriptural principles. According to those principles, no translation is canon (meaning in the context of this post -- the precise equivalent of the Word of God). (Of course quotes of a translation within Scripture are canon, but only as much as is quoted, not the entire translated work. The
Catholics use NT quotations of the Septuagint as proof this entire ancient Greek translation is canon -- but Protestants reject this quotation principle for establishing canonicity, as it is not established within Scripture). But you do not address the main issue by Protestants on rejecting a translation as canon because it does not meet Scriptural criterion.

Where in Scripture are principles established for upholding a translation as the Word of God. Or are you using the Catholic argument? Then, do you hold to the Catholic canon? Do you believe the canon is established not by principles of Scripture, but by the Roman Catholic Church? In what way do you believe the KJV is confirmed by Scriptural principles as being the equivalent of the original writings? Or are you saying we must reject the principle of Sola Scriptura in establishing what is Scripture?

I'm not looking for an argument, but only for a more complete explanation of your position. I only browsed your article. It is quite long. So I was hoping you would concisely comment on these questions.

M Paul

I wonder -- did I post with you once years ago in the Jesus Christ Saves Ministries forum run by a Jason someone? The software there was impossible.