Touche, Johann!

That's a false accusation.

You switch from one side to another, from manuscripts to translations to English to your own preference for words. I asked about the KJV. You talked about the Textus Receptus. How am I to know if that's a switch or not you are making?

Looked like you were talking about the TR to me.



Now you switched back to disputing English words.

It means, to dash in pieces. Just because the translators used one word more often than another doesn't mean they should only use that word. Again, you are using another version of the "more is better" fallacy.

Why don't you go back to the original Hebrew and give the meaning of the word instead of attempting to distinguish between English words?


As far as you choosing one English word over another to feebly attempt to justify your presumption, it appears Tom's effort in describing God's character has been lost on you. You are doing nothing more than picking a English version, saying it's right and correct because it agrees with your belief system. And that is not a correct method.

Is there anything wrong with cheating a little bit here and a little bit there as long as you are fighting for a cause you are convinced is right?

Adam thought he could cheat just a bit to save Eve, a cause he certainly felt convince was right, and bit the apple.

That is an assumption/opinion that cannot be supported by the text.

Or, if you can, please do so.

It's been awhile, but perhaps I will yet address this, for the record. I was away for some weeks, and have been too busy following my return to consider this until now.

Let's start with a review of the posts that led us to here, first mine, then yours. I'll emphasize the key points in those posts for clarity.



You asked me about the KJV. I answered about the KJV. You then claimed that I had made an admission about the TR. That twisted what I was saying into something that I did not say. How you can, in light of this, still say that my claim that you have twisted what I said is false is beyond me. Let the posts speak for themselves.

I didn't make the switch. You did.

I will admit that there are errors in the KJV translation. The translation was "edited" in places. That is obvious. I would actually hope that any translation is edited. An unedited manuscript just might have more egregious errors in it, as had the KJV when it was first produced with the wording "Thou shalt commit adultery." Perhaps I need to say, for clarity, that this egregious error was NOT in the TR.

I have never said that the TR was edited. I have no proof that it was. I tend not to say things for which I do not have documentable support on matters like this.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Is there a pure unadulterated translation anywhere?

Do we live in a perfect world?

Is His kingdom of this world?

How many problems do people face because they reach for something "perfect" in this world?