It was authorized by a King, now wasn't it!
Do I carry the MT? Nah, but I use it.
Well, what edition of the TR do you use.
As for the onus. I think it is your papal pronouncements of infallibility of translation that requires substantiation since the translators made no such foolish claim. So hop up off of yer onus and document.
Once again, you are the one saying it isn't so you prove your point.
In our system of law a man is innocent until proven guilty.
So make your case against the King James.
If you cannot, then admit it and depart.
peace and charity (is that more inspiried ?)
I do not know from whence the quote comes from so how would I know how inspired it is.
What is certain is that you do not what you are talking about and cannot prove the King James to be in error.
In popular Christian culture, the King James translation is seen to possess a dignity and authority that modern translations somehow fail to convey. Even four hundred years after the six companies of translators began their long and laborious task, their efforts continue to be a landmark for popular Christianity. Other translations will doubtless jostle for place in the nations booksstores in the twenty-first century. Yet the King James Bible retains it place as a literary classic, by which all other continue to be judged (emphasis given) (In The Beginning, Alister McGrath, p.300)
Who is this 'Ruckminite' McGrath?
He is the editor of the NIV Thematic Study Bible.
Where the word of the King is, there is power
So, King James imprimatur on the translation reflects divine sanction? Sounds like a fine Catholic approach.
Apart from his sexual preferences, are you claiming he had any proficiency in Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic to make this endorsement? Or does hs authority arise ex-officio? If the later... Sounds like a fine Catholic approach.
What do you think of Luther's German trandslation? It was published with the approval of Elector Frederick and has received high praise.
Or does God reserve his Pure Word for English readers?
Frieden und lieben