On a desert Island

TWade,

I think some of us have become over-zealous, and that you have become collateral damage. I do humbly appologize for my brethern.

Unfortunately, when someone jumps right in, we automatically assume the worst. I know I did, until I went back and re-read your posts.

Sorry, dude.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Trotter,

Thank you. This insulting back and forth began when I was accused of not believing the Bible, and it unfortunately has snow-balled from there. Sometimes we have a "put up your dukes" type of response toward each other. I am guilty of it.

Thank you for your apology and I offer mine as well.

 

At least I am smart enough to answer simple questions, which you seem incapable of even understanding let alone answering.

 

Yes. It is an issue of the Greek present participle. We all know the tenses of Greek participles are timeless, but the NKJV seems to give the impression that a process in time is in mind when the present participle is translated.

For instance, 1 Corinthians 1:18 reads, "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." That seems to give the impression that salvation is a process in time. If the NKJV translators would have translated it as the KJV translators did, "us which are saved" I would have no problem, or if they had translated it "to us, being saved, it is the power of God" I would have no problem. But the way they did it seems to me to beg the question.

2 Corinthians 2:15 does the same thing, "For we are to God the fragrance of Christ among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing."

Hebrews 2:11 is another example, "For both He who sanctifies and those who are being sanctified are all of one, for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren,"

Hebrews 10:14 is another, "For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified."

The English versions are a mixed bag. The ERV and ASV get it right, but the RSV has the same problem as the NKJV. The NASB has the same problem as the NKJV as does the NIV. The WEB bible does a good job, as do some other lesser known versions.

 

De nada, mi amigo. Vas con Dios.

En Christo,
Trotter

 

Okay. I see that you cannot comprehend or choose to ignore the replies that I've posted concerning this. You've proven that fact by talking in circles and making the same false accusation over and over. Blind shooting, ears and eyes shut.

See ya later.

 

Well, let's see.

Uh, the answer to the question!

Then why are you wasting your time in a thread predicated on the question you refuse to answer?

The usual reason people ask questions is to get answers, which you seem unable to give.

Then why continue posting in this thread, which is about the "desert island" question?

1. I don't have to stop, you are not my mother. 2. I didn't take scripture out of context. 3. When are you going to answer?

Don't feel intimidated by my, or anyone else's, education and academic achievements. Oh, and, by the way, your saying it is full of holes does not make it so. As of yet you have not shown us the holes in that piece of logic.

So, you are a modern version proponent?

That is because you have not given us any answers. That is the whole point. We are waiting for you to stop complaining and start answering questions.

Yes, that is the question you still have not answered. It is the basis of this entire thread, but you still, and we are up to page 3, have not answered it.

Psalm 119:165 "Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them."

So, you promote the modern versions and those who use them?

Your saying so does not prove it. You have yet to defend any of your silly statements.

Don't run away with your tail between your legs on my account! Just answer the simple question. If you had spent just one tenth of the time answering the question as you have complaining you would have been done a long time ago and saved yourself a lot of trouble.

 

What is your response to the topic question?

 

The original post question is silly, but if it makes you happy, I would choose "A" Now here's the bait -- "if "A" is not available, which of the other choices would you make?" Why include "A" as an option only to make you choose something else? Why not just speak plainly and leave off with the set-up?

I'm asking myself why am I wasting my time responding to someone who doesn't get it.

More proof that you do not read replies or that you simply do not understand. Probably a little bit of both. Go back and read my rebuke concerning your "if you don't obey it, you don't believe it" statement. If you cannot see the holes in such statement, you need help.

You continue to speak in ignorance, or worse, in outright lies.

What did I say? Pretty clear where I stand. But in case you didn't get it, let me say it here:

I don't care what version you or anyone else uses or does not use.

No. I don't promote MV's. But I don't condemn and judge men because they choose to use them.

It's not. And if it was to happen, it wouldn't be on the account that you've made it so, considering your replies thus far.

 

Fair thee well.

 

Phillip,

It was me. I got the impression that TWade was sort of playing 'devil's advocate' but ended up as Public Enemy Number One.

I don't want to run of anyone who actually sounds like they have a mind, and who is willing to use it (unlike myself).

Maybe I was wrong, but I have always tried to be a peacemaker...just don't read all of my posts, please!

In Christ,
Trotter

 

De nada.