Arubian Baptist said:
Euh...you read more than I wrote, please refresh my memory and tell me, give me the link where I said that, if you cannot do that
Suppose I changed this to read, "the word of God, the New American Standard Bible," and so on throughout. What do you think of that?
Mormon ah? Well well, you said it...not me
And not me either. I believe if you dig far enough back in the archives you will find someone telling me exactly that. If not, I have had this claim emailed to me more than once by KJV zealots who lack the imagination to consider any position apart from total KJV-onlyism or total relativism.
Refute me biblicaly
I have already refuted you by Biblically affirming a contrary position: that the New American Standard Bible is God's perfectly preserved Word in the English language. You have not answered my argument. I take this as an admission that I am right.
If you dispute this, then refute my Biblical argument . . . if you dare.
Biblical Defense of NASBO Beliefs
Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Ransom, Jun 1, 2003.
Page 2 of 2
-
Hmmm...not exactly, but it will come to a realy redefining in the details of what I said and ment...let me state this, as I have stated it before: I do not exclusivly think that The King James Bible is the only perfect Word of God, it just happen that I cannot find no other bible still that pass the same standards. So I do believe that it is possible that God may have another Bible which is perfect...but can you show it to me? I did not find it.
And...I told you before...I am a reasonable man, and I said that since bot are based on the same text, both are the Perfect word of God...since you did not refute me either, I can say that we are both right and we both agree and believe that The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures and the NASB are the perfect word of God!!
Thank you , thank you...we finally reached a agreement! -
-
The Watchtower, to my knowledge, has never released a complete list of translators (most people suspect that there weren't many if any original language scholars involved), they have never identified their methodology, nor have the publicized their source documents.
If you have differing direct information, I would like to hear it. -
Okay, I've seen enough.
Page 2 of 2