When did I agree that your incorrect assertions don’t change your argument? Quote me. They have to change your argument by the fact they are wrong.

An argument is not just a conclusion. It is a basis that lead to a collection of assertions, presenting some conclusion. If the basis is wrong, the argument is meaningless. If the assertions are wrong, the argument is also meaningless. The conclusion being right doesn’t make the argument any more useful. Your basis of ‘the bible was written in Latin’ was wrong, so you changed it to ‘the bible wasn’t originally written in English.’ You posit that this makes it unreliable to know what it is truly saying, but this is ridiculous.

Another basis you make that is completely wrong is that all English bibles come from a single source, from the Roman Catholic Church. Not only is this incorrect for all English bibles, but it’s not even correct for all English Roman Catholic Bibles! Most of the sources and manuscripts of the bible are not even related to the Catholic Church or the See of Rome pre-schism. Only one version of the bible, the Douay–Rheims version, was directly translated from the Vulgate. All the others were translations of other, completely independent sources. You can get literal, peer-reviewed, high-quality editions of the major sources with extensive notes, and see all the ‘subtle yet deeply reaching’ differences for yourself. Tell me how many you find. All of the OT sources state that the universe was created in six days, by the way.

There are churches that have existed since Antiquity that have continually used the Byzantine Majority Text in its original form liturgically. These churches are in communion with churches that use English bibles liturgically, and bibles of other languages. These churches take communion very seriously. If the Greek bishops had a problem with the English translations, it would be known. Indeed, many bishops did have a problem with the current translations using the Masoretic text instead of LXX, not for dogmatic reasons, but because the Masoretic is a Jewish source, made after LXX, so they made a bible with an English LXX OT and an NKJV NT (based on the Textus Receptus, a version of the Majority Text). The LXX had already been available in a literal English translation for over a hundred years prior to this.

From a historiographic perspective, the sheer volume of textual evidence of the bible outclasses every other written work in existence. Philologists usually only have one manuscript, probably not even complete, to work with. The bible has thousands, most in vernacular languages that have direct lineage to languages spoken today. The more textual evidence you have, the more evidence you have to construct the correct result. If one copy has an error, two others don’t, so it becomes possible to find and proofread errors in the manuscripts. The idea that the true meaning of the bible cannot be known because of translation or transcription errors is beyond ridiculous. We have independent sources of the same set of works. Of the sources, we have several manuscripts to correct errors. The sources were written by different religious bodies with different theologies and motivations, and yet there are few differences between them. (Ironically, the biggest difference is between LXX and the Masoretic Text, both written by Jews, but separated by a couple centuries.) The historical context of the NT is well-known, due to the high-quality sources of Roman times. In addition, there are several writings (mostly by saints) that give context and commentary on the NT since nearly the day the books were written. The historical context of the OT is far less understood. The ‘meaning’ of the OT is thus split into three camps: Christian interpretation is ironically the oldest, since we can trace the tradition to Greek church practices and sources (including the NT itself); post-Christ Jewish interpretation began as a counterpoint to Christianity, in some ways unreliable as the new Jewish scholars were attempting to differentiate themselves from Christianity, but that is a matter of opinion; and modern interpretation that attempts to reconstruct the original meaning as known to the ancient Jews and Hebrews, based mostly on conjecture and the existence of imaginary sources (yes, I do have a disdain for certain ‘schools’ in this field). Indeed, the Dead Sea Scrolls pointed out to us that the LXX is probably the more correct version of the ‘original’ OT.

When did I agree that your incorrect assertions don’t change your argument? Quote me. They have to change your argument by the fact they are wrong.

An argument is not just a conclusion. It is a basis that lead to a collection of assertions, presenting some conclusion. If the basis is wrong, the argument is meaningless. If the assertions are wrong, the argument is also meaningless. The conclusion being right doesn’t make the argument any more useful. Your basis of ‘the bible was written in Latin’ was wrong, so you changed it to ‘the bible wasn’t originally written in English.’ You posit that this makes it unreliable to know what it is truly saying, but this is ridiculous.

Another basis you make that is completely wrong is that all English bibles come from a single source, from the Roman Catholic Church. Not only is this incorrect for all English bibles, but it’s not even correct for all English Roman Catholic Bibles! Most of the sources and manuscripts of the bible are not even related to the Catholic Church or the See of Rome pre-schism. Only one version of the bible, the Douay–Rheims version, was directly translated from the Vulgate. All the others were translations of other, completely independent sources. You can get literal, peer-reviewed, high-quality editions of the major sources with extensive notes, and see all the ‘subtle yet deeply reaching’ differences for yourself. Tell me how many you find. All of the OT sources state that the universe was created in six days, by the way.

There are churches that have existed since Antiquity that have continually used the Byzantine Majority Text in its original form liturgically. These churches are in communion with churches that use English bibles liturgically, and bibles of other languages. These churches take communion very seriously. If the Greek bishops had a problem with the English translations, it would be known. Indeed, many bishops did have a problem with the current translations using the Masoretic text instead of LXX, not for dogmatic reasons, but because the Masoretic is a Jewish source, made after LXX, so they made a bible with an English LXX OT and an NKJV NT (based on the Textus Receptus, a version of the Majority Text). The LXX had already been available in a literal English translation for over a hundred years prior to this.

From a historiographic perspective, the sheer volume of textual evidence of the bible outclasses every other written work in existence. Philologists usually only have one manuscript, probably not even complete, to work with. The bible has thousands, most in vernacular languages that have direct lineage to languages spoken today. The more textual evidence you have, the more evidence you have to construct the correct result. If one copy has an error, two others don’t, so it becomes possible to find and proofread errors in the manuscripts. The idea that the true meaning of the bible cannot be known because of translation or transcription errors is beyond ridiculous. We have independent sources of the same set of works. Of the sources, we have several manuscripts to correct errors. The sources were written by different religious bodies with different theologies and motivations, and yet there are few differences between them. (Ironically, the biggest difference is between LXX and the Masoretic Text, both written by Jews, but separated by a couple centuries.) The historical context of the NT is well-known, due to the high-quality sources of Roman times. In addition, there are several writings (mostly by saints) that give context and commentary on the NT since nearly the day the books were written. The historical context of the OT is far less understood. The ‘meaning’ of the OT is thus split into three camps: Christian interpretation is ironically the oldest, since we can trace the tradition to Greek church practices and sources (including the NT itself); post-Christ Jewish interpretation began as a counterpoint to Christianity, in some ways unreliable as the new Jewish scholars were attempting to differentiate themselves from Christianity, but that is a matter of opinion; and modern interpretation that attempts to reconstruct the original meaning as known to the ancient Jews and Hebrews, based mostly on conjecture and the existence of imaginary sources (yes, I do have a disdain for certain ‘schools’ in this field). Indeed, the Dead Sea Scrolls pointed out to us that the LXX is probably the more correct version of the OT.