Replies

I included the King James version among the sample translations of Matthew 26:59. That translation, as well as any you might attempt on your own, will arrive at the same general sense. There are occasions where serious controversy arises over the translation of the text, but these are relatively small in number. As far as I can tell, the NASB is one of the better, literal translations. To make a mountain out of minor differences in translation is like making a mountain out of whether Fords and Chevys are both vehicles or not. I would add that “meat in due season” today does not mean what it meant in the 15th Century unless one cares further to explore the text.

I hope I made it clear that my position is not in agreement with yours, and to the point that abandoning the Traditional texts in Hebrew and Greek, as well as departing from the literal equivalency of translation, is leading the Christian churches into greater errors than they think and to which they are now blind.

Out of a hundred translations, which is utterly reliable? In Engllsh, the King James is still the top. The rest diminish the divinity of Jesus, and degrade the standards of their proponents, as well as those of their users.

As you can see.