Quote:
Originally Posted by Diligent
Hm.
There are dozens of posts in this very thread alone that explain why only the reading in the KJV can be correct so the "begged question" has been answered already. There's nothing circular about pointing out that a translation that disagrees with the KJV translation in this case is inferior. The correct reading has already been proved here, so it can easily be used as a standard by which to judge other translations.
Now, to the rest of your message:
1. I'm not sure what it is you think you "deserve" from me. I am not in any way in your debt and I am not the type of person who responds positively to presumption on my time and will. You can take or leave what I say but I don't owe you anything.
2. This thread has over 90 posts in it now. This website (start at http://av1611.com/kjbp ) has tons of articles and more than one of them on this very passage. This forum has close to 15,000 posts. If you think you deserve (whatever that means) more than one argument, there is plenty here for your perusal. |
I have yet to see one post that proves the KJV is superior to the Geneva or any other Bible of that time period. I am certainly no critic to the KJV. It is an outstanding Bible but I see no true argument against that which I posted. The KJV agrees with the Geneva and Bishops. It is easily misunderstood. That was my point. Hammer it if you like but you have little proof on this and I have other translation taken from the same text to back me up.