[pneuby]

Will, I've been lurking here for a few months and researching this issue. I just want to say that I am appreciative of your ability to debate your position without resort to innuendo, epithets, or outright character assassination.

Originally Posted by Will Kinney

The Bible version issue is not a salvation issue.
This central truth is found even in the poorest of bible translations. I do not deny this, but affirm it to be true.

I'm glad to see that you acknowledge this. Tell me, is it really a stretch to agree that there are other truths also "even in the poorest of bible translations"? Indeed, the MV crowd insists there's not ONE missing, though both camps obviously don't agree as to the level of support for those truths in the various versions.

Originally Posted by Will Kinney

All these modern versions are put out by men who believe the Hebrew Scriptures have been corrupted in numerous places, and yet they don't agree among themselves as to where nor how.

Wasn't this the same debate faced by the AV commitee? Didn't they have to come to some level of agreement about the texts available to them in their day? Indeed, it's acknowledged that the AV holds no word-for-word allegiance to Erasmus', Beza's, etc. Rather, there is some from each.

Originally Posted by Will Kinney

..they constantly refer to "Some Hebrew manuscripts read", "two Hebrew mss. read"; "A few Hebrew mss. read", "Dead Sea Scrolls read", "Some Septuagint mss. read"; "a few late manuscripts of the Septuagint read", "Many other Hebrew mss. read" etc.

Having now viewed the 1611 reproduction that's available, I see the very same thing. Obviously, with MUCH more ms. evidence available in our modern era, there are more such notes in the various MV's.

Since I've not been able to pin this down in searching here, I'll ask. In what year's edition-revision-update were these marginal readings and notes dropped from the AV?

Originally Posted by Will Kinney

ORIGINAL WRITINGS
..both Mr. Price and this confession talk about something they have never seen a day in their lives, and that they all know does not exist, and yet..

Does this not equaly apply to the AV team? Did it take a millenia and half for God to provide us with an inspired Bible? Were the prior translations not also complete, nor inspired?

Originally Posted by Will Kinney

.. both Mr. Scrivenir and James Price are perhaps ignorant as to why many translations have legitimately rendered this phrase as "the word of GOD”. .
There are a variety of readings here with some Greek texts..reading "the word of God".. the well know manuscript D actually reads "the FAITH OF GOD"..The word is literally Kurios, which usually in the N.T. is translated as Lord. ...particular Greek translation, but merely want to show how the Greek language itself works.

It's interesting that you have no difficuty doing so in support of the AV's choice. However, when other's do so in support of the choice/s of their MV's translation team, this is not seen as equivalent.

Originally Posted by Will Kinney

In any case, both the Hebrew and the Greek words can legitimately be translated as both God and Lord, and many Bible translators have done this very thing.

Exactly. So, why is it such a great deal when other versions choose another legitimate translation?