Craig does not have that attitude... which is one of the reasons I respect the man. He strongly encourages every and anyone to study out the Scriptures themselves. He is at times pretty adamant about his personal conclusions and commentary but I've never heard him say, "my renderings of Scripture are 100% accurate and fact".
Whilst he may not say this on his Radio show, Steve - he's certainly written it. Questioning Paul is replete with him saying "this is accurate" or "this is what the words say". I don't know whether you've read QP or not, but I demonstrate in QPR- Part 1 that Craig cannot make these bold claims.
Now, whilst ItG may not specifically state that the translations therein are "100% accurate and fact", Craig does however say this: Therefore, accurately presenting God’s Towrah teaching is the primary purpose of this Introduction to God.
So why wouldn't someone assume that therefore he's meaning that his translations therein aren't "accurately presenting God’s Towrah teaching"?
He also says this with regards to Yada-Yahweh: ...Yada Yah is among the best-researched and most-accurate presentations of Yah’s Word...
If that isn't bigging up his own self, what else could he say? (All the above are taken from The ItG Prologue).
Saying that, I found this in ItG - Terms: If you are going to speak for God, quote Him accurately.
This is what I intend to do - and I have found errors in Craig's quotations of Yahuweh's words.
Also, my problem actually isn't with Craig or his writings - it was other
people constantly quoting them, and pushing them in people's faces as if they were
100% fact. It also didn't help that they never mentioned where they got their words from, nor gave a return link to where someone could read them in context. That
was my main problem, and the exact reason why I actually bothered to pitch in on the comments to do with that stupid picture. I usually let idiotic stuff like that go - but not that time.
He'll often give a few different ways and possible renderings of the words and he'll lean towards which seems to flow with the context of what is written around that verse.
I may not've read all the way though ItG, but I've rarely seen this happen. I see but one translation put forth for the words rendered. Although as I've said, not read all the way through ItG - I've got better things to be doing with my time.
As far as Psalm 119... no I have not dissected all 176 verses and compared every Hebrew word in the order they were written against Craig's amplified version of that psalm. (I could not do that at present for a few reasons one being I do not yet have the tools to do so nor have I developed the language skills needed to do that)
Herein lies the problem Steve - whilst Craig says that people should check out his words, who exactly is equipped or able to do so? It would be like a Scientists stating "Hey - if you want to know whether a hadron collider can do what we say it does or not, why don't you build one yourself?" Few people have the ability to do this - and that also comes with being able to check what Craig has written as well. Very few people are able to do so, and those of us who try are ignored, and despite our own writings being a heck of a lot less words than Craig's, we get complained to that our "rebuttals are too long".
If you've got the ability to read QP, or YY, or ItG, then you've surely got the ability to read something else counter to them. It's all just a pathetic cop-out.
But I will say this... even if Craigs rendering of Psalm 119 has a few errors in it... they are not intentional and I strongly feel that he has done the best he can with his current abilities and understanding... and the result is you can see the heart of David and his perspective towards the Towrah. Reading it vs. the KJV rendering is like drinking from a fresh stream vs. a stagnant pond.
I only pointed out those errors in Psalm 119:127 as an example to those who said they hadn't found any errors in Craig's Hebrew translation. It wasn't meant to be an end-all statement about the Psalm itself. Also, if we used the verse as the basis, then 60% of Craig's translation of Psalm 119 is wrong (give or take a few % - I haven't gone through it all). You may argue that that's better than the KJV's 70-80% wrong, but I disagree. Incorrect is incorrect - being slightly less incorrect than someone else, is still incorrect, and no one on the planet should settle for that.
What's wrong with that? It's not like he's pushing some crazy, bent, religious theology based on his renderings.
But that depends on your perspective now, doesn't it? To you he isn't - to others he is.