Quote:
Originally Posted by armourbearer  Please research this further, perhaps utilising a history of how the AV translators went about their work. Yes, they consulted other translations -- what translator doesn't? In fact the AV men utilised a whole range of translations ancient and modern, in various languages. This does not prejudice the fact that what they translated was the original Hebrew and Greek Scriptures, as the histories will plainly show if one took the time to read them rather than scurrilous and prejudiced remarks. |
Matthew,
I'm sorry if you are offended at what i have said. It would be benifitial for me to do what you have asked. I will take some time out as well to see the process that the AV translators took.
I have still given out the facts, so how is it then, that the NASB and ESV translators, supposedly doing a translation of a translation(when in fact they used the old manuscripts... referring more to them then the english translation), makes them "the devil", yet, the KJ translators also took the older english texts and referred to them as well; does that not make them "the devil"? Calvin's argument was to make the NASB and ESV less credible by using the old "it's a translation of a translation" routine. When you actually have the facts, I understand it's hard to swallow(being sincere). I was just pointing out the obvious Matthew, I wasn't being predjudice.