@Chloe #92788
He thinks the King James Version must be utterly and completely correct just like the original texts because it’s based on the Antioch manuscripts, rather than the Alexandria manuscripts. Despite the translators themselves admitting that it probably wasn’t that good.
I’m also surprised that he doesn’t count the earlier Tyndale and Douay-Rheims translations, even if they had Catholic auspices. Maybe he thinks El couldn’t care less about the English (despite the English Anselm of Canterbury being the one to formalize the idea of substitutionary atonement) until Protestantism took root there?
I’m not sure which part(s) of the Bible the mistranslated phrase “mercy seat” appears in, although if not the New Testament, then he’d better be prepared to explain why the Jews don’t have that concept. But he’s of the opinion that after the Crucifixion, Jesus needed to enter Heaven physically to anoint said mercy seat with the blood from his wounds, else El still wouldn’t permit any to be saved.
I don’t pretend to know why even after the “purchase” of humanity with Jesus’s death/shed blood, El still insisted on a ritual like this. How does Stewart think El thinks?