Mistakes or Attacks

That's a difference between the dynamic and formal equivalence. Personally, I prefer the more literal rendering, but the question was is it an attack on Jesus. I'm still not seeing how it's an attack. What part of Christ is it attacking? His humanity? His deity? If either, how?

 

Let's call it what I believe SL sees it as- an "attack" on the KJV.

 

Which the translators believe better represents what they hold is an idiom. If they are correct, then translating it as such is perfectly fine. It doesn't affect the doctrine of Christ in any way that I can see.

They gave their reason and it was posted on the other thread. Its a reason which has nothing to do with taking away from Christ or our understanding of Him. Furthermore, you have yet to explain how you even see it as an attack on Christ's nature.

Its blatant only if you ignore the reasoning they give. And since no one (even you as far as I can tell) can determine exactly how it is an attack on Christ's nature, I can see no reason to say it is. Calling a change like this an attack w/o some sound reason and basing your estimation purely on a change that you don't like is unsound reasoning. Try to understand first the reasons they give and work from there. If you can determine that their reasons are w/o any foundation, then maybe we can start talking about an "attack". Otherwise you seem to be leaping to unwarranted and fallacious conclusions over this. More intellectually honest to say simply "I don't understand why they did that."

 

Its not in the Greek though. Thats the key. Some English translations add it (as they add lots of words - just go through a KJV and see how many words are italicized) to make it more clear. Since the Greek has no article where one would expect it in the English reading, an article gets added and which one is up to the best estimation of the particular translator.