Comment on Brandenburg's Opposition to Combs

Kent,

Regarding your post at The Actual History of King James Onlyism pt. 1, I tried to post a comment around April 11, and again on the 13th, but perhaps they didn't make it to you. Below is the substance of it. In the interest of public criticism, as you suggested in your post today, I'm putting this out there to see if it might be of help to you. Here goes...

Your case has a logical flaw. Combs states that there were a few "odd" individuals who claimed perfection for the KJV. In your rebuttal, you quote three sources as if they are not "odd" individuals who support your view of perfection of the KJV. They might not be odd, but they are most certainly not making a case for KJV perfection. If you look at each quote, what they basically say is that each group decided to use the KJV and to circulate it as their standard. The fact that they did not see a need to correct it, nor wanted to use resources to correct it, nor saw a need to add notes or comments, is not proof that they thought it was a perfect translation. They seemed to think it was a very good translation and they focused their attention on things other than re-translating. They were interested in distribution, not translation. Similarly, a church today can decide on a standard translation without necessarily meaning that they believe in the perfection of that translation.

Do you think I am missing something?