Best Bible Translations

[E. A. Johnston]

I am reading a book on exegesis and hermeneutics. It explains the choices that translators make in their decision to translate a certain way. I have not, up to this point, given it a great deal of thought.

So, in your opinion - WHAT IS THE BEST TRANSLATION -AND - MORE IMPORTANTLY - WHY?

[James Gibbons]

Novelty Bibles are almost never new translations. In fact, a superstar brand, like NIV, can be “line extended” with the Men’s Study Bible, Purpose Driven Study Bible, Outdoors Extreme Study Bible, Baptist Study Bible, Pentecostal Study Bible, Runners Bible, Fishermans’s Bible, Skydivers’s Bible, Skater’s Bible, Women’s Bible, Life Application Bible, Words-of-people-other-than-Jesus-in-colors-other-than-red-Bible, Spirit Filled Living Study Bible, Aspiring Martyrs Bible…all of which are line extensions of NIV. Anyone who owns the copyright for a translation can do this. It is especially helpful if you’re Zondervan, because then you own both a translation and a distribution channel.

But if you do not own a translation, you can still do this sort of thing, by applying your copyrighted cross reference system, patented typological typography system, and branded (see Scofield for the mac daddy book on this) and copyrighted study note system to a KJV, which is public domain. Which brings us back to where we started.

Man, I hate marketing. But it’s a living.

Marv said:

Interesting point. I'm not sure though that the thing can completely fly with revamped KJV editions. Novelty. We need novelty. The money is really in the products perhaps, niche Bibles, in various flavors.

James Gibbons said:

KJV is public domain. Any publisher can publish its own edition of it. Many publishers do. So the assertion that publishers don’t want us to have KJV is just nonsense. In fact, it is cheaper (a lot cheaper) for a publisher to add a forward and some footnotes and release a “product” by packaging KJV than it is to develop a new translation. So, if profit were driving publishers…they would push multiple flavors of KJV down our throats, not keep KJV out of our hands in favor of new translations.

Don’t get me wrong. I am not in love with many new translations. And I am inclined to line my birdcage with the pages of NIV, but to see it as a conspiracy theory is just goofy.

Marv said:

Not sure if I understand you right, James, but the multiple translations we have in recent years are NOT public domain. Right???

James Gibbons said:

You do realize you are adopting the tone of conspiracy theorists, right? For example, why does a new translation need to be “justified?” Why would publishers “not want us to have” a book? Especially a public domain book, ALL of them publish?

I believe in the coming falling away. I have read 2 Tim. 4. But the addition of new translations is not the reason. It is not even a symptom as nearly as I can see (in looking at the scriptures). The problem is not that Christians are looking at the wrong Bible. It’s that they are not looking at ANY Bible.

Bit Brush said:

First off, you ain't seen a cult like what's going to appear. Second off, has our language changed so radically since the 1970's to justify all the versions we have?

Daniel said:

Great point, Marv.  Entire cults have been built on misunderstanding the KJV.  Revision into modern language should not be seen as a bad thing.  KJV itself did it.  And as the translator notes state, they expected that process to continue.

[Robert Atwood]

Let me take up Bit's comment.  Indeed, Jesus, himself, wonders if he will find faith when he returns.  Indeed, we are warned of a "falling away" in the last days.  The second comment asks "has our language changed so radically since the 1970's to justify all the versions we have?"  In my opinion the answer to that question is no. 

While I do not have a bird cage to line with pages of the NIV, I recognized some years ago that it has a certain "evangelical" theological bent to it. 

Christian publishing is a huge business and people make a lot of money churning out new books.  I bought my NAS in 1980 (about $45, as I remember) and and if there is no natural disaster that destroys it I doubt that I will ever buy another.  My Greek texts, Septuagint, and Biblia Hebracia are even older.  You can't run a profitable publishing business on someone like me. So who is buying all these books?

As I recall, one of the hopes behind the "new" RSV in the early 50s was that an easier text would help bring people back to Christianity -- supposing that the difficulty of understanding the KJV was keeping them away.  Perhaps the major "evangelical" enthusiasm that began about the same time is responsible for the new translations as an evangelistic tool --Good News for Modern Man and that sort of thing. 

I think there is also (what seems to me to be) the fact that the text of the Scriptures is incredibly rich.  I have been about this for about fifty years and there are passages that I am not sure that I comprehend their meaning -- and that not for a lack of original languages or study.  For some reason "Bible teachers" sometimes leave their students with the impression that the whole thing is really pretty simple (just buy my 80 page book).

Look on the positive side of all this.  As English-speaking Christians we are blessed with abundant textual resources and a large number of very old manuscripts.  There are clearly some people making a lot of money selling Bibles and other religious books.  In some ways this necessity of making a buck impoverishes the rest of us.  An earlier post of mine mentioning Ugaritic prompted me to see if there might be a Ugaritic grammar out there within my budget.  My Web browser directed me to the Logos Bible Software Web site where I discovered that I could own their 12 volume digital Ugaritic library for a mere $499.95.  Of course one should use this alongside their 16 volume Writings From the Ancient World ($355.99) and their Northwest Semitic Collection (a mere $99.95), and one should also throw in their ... wait a minute does this list ever end? 

[Bit Brush]

MOD-BOT, I have tried to keep this toned down, please be kind.

----

Did I loose something?  I think some have lost sight of what the Bible has clearly warned us against. The forest can't be seen because of the trees. Lots of intelligence can be found on these various threads, lots of insight that keeps me coming back and reading but when it comes to a KJV vs modern bibles the gloves come off as well as the common sense it seems. Including me.

Many know theology, doctrine well enough to teach others those things and even identify heresy when encountered, yet when a new bible appears every few years or even months, the criteria is its readability. Where is the care about how it treats God father, the Lordship of Jesus Christ? Why no questions about how it hides or confuses Satan and his anti-Christ?

I see no concerne that we are being disarmed, confused and blinded by the teaching that comes out of pulpits that use these new bibles. No concern about pastors that knit together sermons based on current events, popular topics. When is the pastor's job to get people into the church? Isn't that the Holy Spirit's job since the church is God's?

When the bible is used in some churches today, it is a pick-up sticks game of version jumping to get the point justified the way they want. Since when are we to make God's word conform to us and our liking?

Some will live in denial of all of this, but I can't keep silent. I am marginalized, laughed off as an extremist but that's ok. My conscience is clear that I've at least spoken. If we are to be watchmen on the wall and have let he beast into the church wearing his best lamb suite, then we have failed in our job. I still don't have answers as to why the Day-star\morning star is both Satan and Jesus in these modern bibles or why the Lord's title is removed so many times and God and his Christ are demoted. There is a disconnect of discernment when the pet modern bible is attacked. There is no reservation of the condoned assault that will be piled on those who are called KJVO. I mentioned this in another thread that I'm about as welcome here as a man attending a gays for Jesus rally holding a sign that says sodomites repent.

However if there are those with a curiosity for the KJV, don't let academics who may just be parroting things they've heard elsewhere prevent you from exploring the treasure found in the KJV Bible. A tried and true friend of mine that will remain in my hands as long as I'm able to hold on to it. Within its covers you will find consistency that will aid in Bible Study. For example a stone mentioned in the OT will be the same stone mentioned in the NT. God has provided many other such tools for study in his word not forgetting the Holy Spirit.

Within it you will find the full strength scriptures that command you to study, that shows you how to discern spirits, that shows you how to make your prayer life more powerful how to be made perfect. You will see the Lord Jesus Christ held in the highest esteem.

You will need a regular dictionary perhaps, even a book like James W. Knox's "By Definition" that gives you the definition of some of the olde words you will come across. However, as I've reproduced on this thread, there is a majority of verses that read nearly identically except where words have been changed to weaken the deity of our God or make it different enough in reading to secure a copyright.

The outcome of regular reading and study of the KJV Bible will be a greater understanding of God, his character, the plan of salvation that is weaved throughout the Word. You will be able to spot the places where the new Bibles fail and places where Satan is trying to become like the Most High.  

You will gain eyes to see the same things our grandparents, and their grandparents once learned but have become obfuscated since by those who are unwittingly playing into Satans hands by changing the word of God...to make it more readable and understandable yet with meanings changed to make it easier to assume the throne of God in the mount of the congregation.

Remember the Anti-Christ's power is given to him. The church will welcome him and his false prophet.

The old paths still exist to those who are willing to look to find it. The only hard thing about the narrow path is enduring those who will try to pull you off it.

OK...let the snappy comeback commence!

Robert Atwood said:

A word of consolation to Bit.  One does not have to be a biblical scholar to be a good Christian.  If one simply obeys the words of Jesus in almost any translation out there then I think you will do just fine.  (I can tell you at the outset, by my wife's prompting, that obeying the words of Jesus is a much more formidable task than learning ancient languages.) 

The difficulty that I keep running into arises when people, particularly some evangelicals, get all puffed up with themselves and suppose they have some secret insight into the text.  Pursuing the truth is the surest road to humility that I have found.  To do that you need other Christians who are on that same road.  Fortunately I have a good friend who is my better in Hebrew and competent to challenge my Greek -- who will call my bluff when I am going too far beyond the text and wandering from fact to fantasy. 

When I read the Bible in a devotional mode I almost never use an edition bloated with "notes" or "helps" because it detracts from the beauty and openness of the text itself.  If you have a question about a particular text during devotional reading, write it down for later consideration and go on reading -- maybe the answer is in the next verse.  Reading the Bible is the surest way I have found to learn to recognize God's Spirit -- and those things in myself that pretend to be God's Spirit and are not. 

[karl kleinpaste]

Bit Brush said:

I am marginalized, laughed off as an extremist

You are being marginalized and laughed off because, on every single contentful point you have tried to make, you have been shown to be flatly wrong.  Not under- or mis-informed -- just plain wrong...as exemplified by the expert testimony of Marv, who said:

Brit [sic], who manifestly misunderstands here the very translation he so eagerly endorses.

Brit [sic] shows us he doesn't understand the 17th century dialect

[Bit] laments the "difference" ...But this is completely false.

Those of you [Bit] who adamantly hold to the KJV, should at least know that version and the language in which it is written well enough not to fall into such basic errors.

Basic errors.

I doubt that you will turn from your misconceptions.  You are too entrenched in what amounts to a folk theology about the supposed-but-imaginary superlative nature of KJV.  You haven't yet addressed, for example, my challenge to explain how it is that the holy spirit either chose or became incapable of guiding any translation more modern than the 17th century.  It is inconsistent, so blandly inconsistent on its face, for you say out of one side of your mouth, "The spirit can intervene in history" so as to lead to production of KJV, and yet also say out of the other side, "but the spirit can't or won't ever do it again."  Who do you think you are, to claim such intimate knowledge of the holy spirit's priorities and choices?

[E. A. Johnston]

Bit, I think there are two, separate issues here. There is the issue of the "best translation." You stand squarely on the side of KJV; others do not. Please note that:

• I think the vast majority of folks here respect, own, and either do read or have read it. . . . and . . . 

• Have legitimate reasons to question your allegations re: translating certain terms. Please note that I did not say they are right or wrong. I said they have legitimate reasons to debate it with you.

Then there is the issue of poor sermons and teaching.

•  It is a non sequitur to equate the use of a modern version of the Bible with pitiful homiletics. There have always been ministers who serve up canned or freeze-dried meals, speak what "itching ears" want to hear, or provide saw-dust filled loaves. This can be done equally well with any translation. 

Bit Brush said:

MOD-BOT, I have tried to keep this toned down, please be kind.

----

Did I loose something?  I think some have lost sight of what the Bible has clearly warned us against. The forest can't be seen because of the trees. Lots of intelligence can be found on these various threads, lots of insight that keeps me coming back and reading but when it comes to a KJV vs modern bibles the gloves come off as well as the common sense it seems. Including me.

Many know theology, doctrine well enough to teach others those things and even identify heresy when encountered, yet when a new bible appears every few years or even months, the criteria is its readability. Where is the care about how it treats God father, the Lordship of Jesus Christ? Why no questions about how it hides or confuses Satan and his anti-Christ?

I see no concerne that we are being disarmed, confused and blinded by the teaching that comes out of pulpits that use these new bibles. No concern about pastors that knit together sermons based on current events, popular topics. When is the pastor's job to get people into the church? Isn't that the Holy Spirit's job since the church is God's?

When the bible is used in some churches today, it is a pick-up sticks game of version jumping to get the point justified the way they want. Since when are we to make God's word conform to us and our liking?

Some will live in denial of all of this, but I can't keep silent. I am marginalized, laughed off as an extremist but that's ok. My conscience is clear that I've at least spoken. If we are to be watchmen on the wall and have let he beast into the church wearing his best lamb suite, then we have failed in our job. I still don't have answers as to why the Day-star\morning star is both Satan and Jesus in these modern bibles or why the Lord's title is removed so many times and God and his Christ are demoted. There is a disconnect of discernment when the pet modern bible is attacked. There is no reservation of the condoned assault that will be piled on those who are called KJVO. I mentioned this in another thread that I'm about as welcome here as a man attending a gays for Jesus rally holding a sign that says sodomites repent.

However if there are those with a curiosity for the KJV, don't let academics who may just be parroting things they've heard elsewhere prevent you from exploring the treasure found in the KJV Bible. A tried and true friend of mine that will remain in my hands as long as I'm able to hold on to it. Within its covers you will find consistency that will aid in Bible Study. For example a stone mentioned in the OT will be the same stone mentioned in the NT. God has provided many other such tools for study in his word not forgetting the Holy Spirit.

Within it you will find the full strength scriptures that command you to study, that shows you how to discern spirits, that shows you how to make your prayer life more powerful how to be made perfect. You will see the Lord Jesus Christ held in the highest esteem.

You will need a regular dictionary perhaps, even a book like James W. Knox's "By Definition" that gives you the definition of some of the olde words you will come across. However, as I've reproduced on this thread, there is a majority of verses that read nearly identically except where words have been changed to weaken the deity of our God or make it different enough in reading to secure a copyright.

The outcome of regular reading and study of the KJV Bible will be a greater understanding of God, his character, the plan of salvation that is weaved throughout the Word. You will be able to spot the places where the new Bibles fail and places where Satan is trying to become like the Most High.  

You will gain eyes to see the same things our grandparents, and their grandparents once learned but have become obfuscated since by those who are unwittingly playing into Satans hands by changing the word of God...to make it more readable and understandable yet with meanings changed to make it easier to assume the throne of God in the mount of the congregation.

Remember the Anti-Christ's power is given to him. The church will welcome him and his false prophet.

The old paths still exist to those who are willing to look to find it. The only hard thing about the narrow path is enduring those who will try to pull you off it.

OK...let the snappy comeback commence!

Robert Atwood said:

A word of consolation to Bit.  One does not have to be a biblical scholar to be a good Christian.  If one simply obeys the words of Jesus in almost any translation out there then I think you will do just fine.  (I can tell you at the outset, by my wife's prompting, that obeying the words of Jesus is a much more formidable task than learning ancient languages.) 

The difficulty that I keep running into arises when people, particularly some evangelicals, get all puffed up with themselves and suppose they have some secret insight into the text.  Pursuing the truth is the surest road to humility that I have found.  To do that you need other Christians who are on that same road.  Fortunately I have a good friend who is my better in Hebrew and competent to challenge my Greek -- who will call my bluff when I am going too far beyond the text and wandering from fact to fantasy. 

When I read the Bible in a devotional mode I almost never use an edition bloated with "notes" or "helps" because it detracts from the beauty and openness of the text itself.  If you have a question about a particular text during devotional reading, write it down for later consideration and go on reading -- maybe the answer is in the next verse.  Reading the Bible is the surest way I have found to learn to recognize God's Spirit -- and those things in myself that pretend to be God's Spirit and are not. 

[Robert Atwood]

As I posted my last note Bit's most recent posting arrived in my email.  Let my "snappy comeback" begin with a real apology for the condescending tone of my posting. 

I have spent many years studying the Bible, primarily in an academic environment.  I am not a theologian by trade, but a philosopher.  That's a tough league to play in and one needs to have one's ideas in order because for the most part those folks will show no mercy to a poor Christian. 

In my responses it was not my intent to overwhelm anyone with my "superior knowledge".  Sometimes I get tied up in details and facts.  Let me repeat, the KJV is my "home" version, the version I have known and loved from my youth.  Unfortunately, if one consistently uses the KJV then one sometimes incurs the scorn of those "who know better" and one ends up defending a textual reading rather than reading a text.

I think Bit is right when he says that there is something wrong in many churches.  He may also be right that it is connected to the "many translations" that create a notion that one may pick and choose among them to make one's point -- often a very secular non-biblical point. 

[Marv]

I bet there's not even ONE Ugaritic translation of the Bible, either.

Robert Atwood said:

Let me take up Bit's comment.  Indeed, Jesus, himself, wonders if he will find faith when he returns.  Indeed, we are warned of a "falling away" in the last days.  The second comment asks "has our language changed so radically since the 1970's to justify all the versions we have?"  In my opinion the answer to that question is no. 

While I do not have a bird cage to line with pages of the NIV, I recognized some years ago that it has a certain "evangelical" theological bent to it. 

Christian publishing is a huge business and people make a lot of money churning out new books.  I bought my NAS in 1980 (about $45, as I remember) and and if there is no natural disaster that destroys it I doubt that I will ever buy another.  My Greek texts, Septuagint, and Biblia Hebracia are even older.  You can't run a profitable publishing business on someone like me. So who is buying all these books?

As I recall, one of the hopes behind the "new" RSV in the early 50s was that an easier text would help bring people back to Christianity -- supposing that the difficulty of understanding the KJV was keeping them away.  Perhaps the major "evangelical" enthusiasm that began about the same time is responsible for the new translations as an evangelistic tool --Good News for Modern Man and that sort of thing. 

I think there is also (what seems to me to be) the fact that the text of the Scriptures is incredibly rich.  I have been about this for about fifty years and there are passages that I am not sure that I comprehend their meaning -- and that not for a lack of original languages or study.  For some reason "Bible teachers" sometimes leave their students with the impression that the whole thing is really pretty simple (just buy my 80 page book).

Look on the positive side of all this.  As English-speaking Christians we are blessed with abundant textual resources and a large number of very old manuscripts.  There are clearly some people making a lot of money selling Bibles and other religious books.  In some ways this necessity of making a buck impoverishes the rest of us.  An earlier post of mine mentioning Ugaritic prompted me to see if there might be a Ugaritic grammar out there within my budget.  My Web browser directed me to the Logos Bible Software Web site where I discovered that I could own their 12 volume digital Ugaritic library for a mere $499.95.  Of course one should use this alongside their 16 volume Writings From the Ancient World ($355.99) and their Northwest Semitic Collection (a mere $99.95), and one should also throw in their ... wait a minute does this list ever end? 

[Robert Atwood]

Marv wrote:

I bet there's not even ONE Ugaritic translation of the Bible, either.

Goodness, I hope not.  As I recall Ugaritic dies out pretty early, "The Ugaritic language is attested in texts from the 14th through the 12th century BCE."  That would be a fine kettle of fish, a Bible before there was a Bible.

[Marv]

'Twas a feeble attempt at humor.

Robert Atwood said:

Marv wrote:

I bet there's not even ONE Ugaritic translation of the Bible, either.

Goodness, I hope not.  As I recall Ugaritic dies out pretty early, "The Ugaritic language is attested in texts from the 14th through the 12th century BCE."  That would be a fine kettle of fish, a Bible before there was a Bible.

[Robert Atwood]

Marv replied:

'Twas a feeble attempt at humor.

Humor!?!  What are we coming to?

[Daniel]

LOL.  I'm not for selling sponsorship or logos on Bible covers.  I don't really care what we call a translation.  If I did, I definitely wouldn't endorse the King James or Wycliff, Luther, or any other translation named after someone.

Marv said:

What if some other company comes along and picks up sponsorship, like naming rights for stadiums. Can the HCSB become, overnight, the GEICO Christian Standard Bible, or something.

[Marv]

Oops and sorry for typo-ing your name...

 

Okay I thought I'd touch on a few of your substantive points which you mention as not having been answered:

Many know theology, doctrine well enough to teach others those things and even identify heresy when encountered, yet when a new bible appears every few years or even months, the criteria is its readability. Where is the care about how it treats God father, the Lordship of Jesus Christ?

 

I agree "readability" is not the lone factor, not the most important, though it is a factor in any translation of anything, or original composition. But doctrinal integrity is very important. This is a function of semantic integirity, that is, that the translation means the same thing as the original. There are some obvious technical challenges with this priniciple, but MEANING let us say, is always more important than "readability" or style etc.

 

Why no questions about how it hides or confuses Satan and his anti-Christ?

 

Huh? This the morning star thing? I think you return to this below.

 

I see no concerne that we are being disarmed, confused and blinded by the teaching that comes out of pulpits that use these new bibles. No concern about pastors that knit together sermons based on current events, popular topics. When is the pastor's job to get people into the church? Isn't that the Holy Spirit's job since the church is God's?

 

Wrong teaching from the pulpit. Sermons knit together from current events or popular topics. Pastor trying to "get people into the church." Nothing whatever to do with KJV vs "modern translations." One can very effectively preach false doctrine using the KJV.

 

When the bible is used in some churches today, it is a pick-up sticks game of version jumping to get the point justified the way they want. Since when are we to make God's word conform to us and our liking?

 

That's a good point. It is one of my pet peeves too, when I preacher goes to a certain translation just because it allows him to say what he wants. On the flip side, we want to say what the Bible truly says. If one translation gets the translation of a particular passage better than another, then it is reasonable to read it from that translation. But this is based on study of the original languages and exegesis, not just finding wording in one version which one happens to prefer.

 

I still don't have answers as to why the Day-star\morning star is both Satan and Jesus in these modern bibles

 

This, I'm afraid, is a very odd thing, but it seems dear to your heart. The morning star, technically is the planet Venus, as I understand it. But it is referred to in the Bible.

 

Isaiah 14:12 contains an oracle against the king of Babylon, in which an apostrophe is made to (in ESV) the "Day Star." Hebrew is helel. LXX renders it eosphoros (dawn-bearer) And of course, the Vulgate renders this lucifer (light-bearer), all of which I take it are the respective names for this planet (as morning star) in the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. The KJV follows the Vulgate and renders it "Lucifer."

 

Now a traditional interpretation holds that this passage addressing the king of Babylon is talking about Satan. This may or may not be valid. But what is NOT stated here by the Bible is that Satan's name used to be Lucifer. This has been picked up in popular conception, Milton, etc. The Bible, i.e. the prophet Isaiah here, addresses on behalf of God, the king of Babylon as "morning star." MAYBE this king of Babylon is Satan. It doesn't come within miles of referring to Satan with the name LUCIFER, since this is a translation that comes centuries after the writing of Isaiah (done by a Roman Catholic, by the way. Just sayin')

 

Now 2 Peter 1:19 also refers to the morning star. He uses the word phosphoros (light-bearer, in Greek--not Latin). Now this is a curious phrase, and he uses it, not for anything sinister, but for something good. perhaps it even refers to Christ. It isn't the word helel, esophoros, or Lucifer. So it isn't confusable with the king of Babylon or Satan. It is unlikely Peter ever heard the word lucifer in connection with Satan. The KJV translates this word "day star."

 

In Rev 2:28 Jesus promises the morning star, but here it is a different phase aster ton proinon (star of the morning). Rev. 22:16 uses essentially the same phrase to refer to Christ.

 

Now what do we have? The day star or morning star is used in the NT to refer to Christ or something associated with Christ. In the OT it is referenced in a taunt against the King of Babylon, as something glorious in the sky which is to be cast down.

 

Maybe, MAYBE this refers to Satan.

 

So can the same word refer sometimes to Satan, and sometimes to Christ?

 

Satan is called theos in 2 Cor 4:4. and Christ is also referred to as theos in John 1:1, to cite one example. But it is pointless.

 

Now the NIV uses "morning star" in both Isaiah and 2 Pet. Presumably this is the objection.

The NLT says "shining star" and "Morning Star" respectively.

The ESV says "day star" and "morning star."

The NASB "star of the morning," and "morningstar."

 

I can see that someone might say the NIV can lead to confusion, though the others have different phrases. Again, it is pretty unsure that the Isaiah passage refers to Satan at all, and if one were to object, we should equally object to "god" which the KJV uses both for Satan and for Christ.

 

It really is not a very substantial point.

 

or why the Lord's title is removed so many times and God and his Christ are demoted.

 

The Lord's title is not "removed." If the evidence shows that the original writer said Iesous Christos instead of Kurios Iesous Christos, though the word Kurios was ADDED by later scribes, then we wouldn't even want the extraneous word--not inspired AT THAT PLACE by the Holy Spirit in our text or our translation.

 

Christ demoted??? Not sure what that one is.

 

I mentioned this in another thread that I'm about as welcome here as a man attending a gays for Jesus rally holding a sign that says sodomites repent.

 

NOT TRUE! You are perfectly welcome here. But just like anyone else if you espouse a view which really is untenable (KJV as perfect translation and TR as perfect Greek text, for example) then what you say will probably meet with some resistence. (If you or anyone is is particularly rude, a moderator may say something.)