Mike wrote: I think you missed the point. But your response is telling enough. Interesting how different it is when others use the same method I did(words without context) to "prove" a version brings confusion, or false doctrine. Funny how the argument can shift from the need for each word to be precise to "..mindless individuals who have to be spoonfed every morsel." No double standard there, is there? Of course, you can always run away to the text issue. It's so much easier to hide there, than deal with what the version's words actually say and mean in context of other verses. Even a naughty fig is understood in proper context.
I think your whole line of argument is telling!
You should get yourself an OED which shows the full etymology for each word. "Naughty" (from naught) in Elizabethan times meant "worthless, bad" as well as "wicked". So your argument is a red herring!
Mike wrote: Just for fun, thought I might try presenting evidence as the only folk do: ...See how the KJV takes the fig metaphor for Judah, but is written as though the moral conditions (naughty, evil) applies to the fig? This causes confusion.
Only to mindless individuals who have to be spoonfed every morsel.
Is this the best you can come up with?!
It is interesting that you concentrate on matters of translation, rather than on the underlying texts where the differences are innumerable, and not inconsequential!
8/31/09 10:29 AM
