Why the persistent evasion?

Naw, yall just won't admit my proof just blows yall out of the water and then try to mock and ridicule me in the effort to make yourselves look good and you know it, I'm right and yall can't stand it.

I never said the NasV doesn't contain portions of the Word of God, I just don't look at it as worth reading whem I've got the AV 1611 KJB right in front of me.

I mean, why go to New York to buy fresh peanuts @ $4.50 a lb. when I live in Ga. and can buy them fresh for $ 2 a lb.? I ain't for sale.

 

"Think I'll go somewhere and cry myself to sleep"

 

Scott, I quoted the following in a post by the honourable Will J Kinney in a similar thread:

Would you be willing to post the exact scriputres from the NasV , considering I don't own one, and won't on top of that?

Now please deal with the above scriptures directly and leave all else aside so as to help us all move on to bigger and better things.

Will this also become a "bee" in your bonnet?

 

Okay, here is Psalm 78:36 in the KJV:

Nevertheless they did flatter him with their mouth, and they lied unto him with their tongues.

and the NASB:

But they deceived Him with their mouth And lied to Him with their tongue.

Here's where you see the KJVO double standard at work. The objection is that the NASB says that God can be deceived. They are not arguing whether or not the word in found in the Hebrew text is translated properly, but simply arguing that the NASB must be wrong because it seems to imply that people can actually deceive God.

But what happens when you apply that same standard on the wording in the KJV? According to that same standard, then the KJV says that God can be flattered. So, if I were really blockheaded, I could complain that the KJV says that it is possible to praise God excessively, or to beguile Him (which, by the way, is what the word flatter meant back in 1611), and so can't possibly be the word of God. But I won't do that, because I understand what the wording REALLY means--that they were trying to beguile Him, just like the NASB wording means they were trying to deceive Him.

Out with the double standards....in with objective standards applied fairly.

 

BTW, QS, you can look the NASB up here.

 

Can't you just do as I asked instead of resorting to the same ol'remedial acts?
I never said I haven't read a NasV, I just don't own one and won't. You've jumped to a conclusion without any facts, that's the sin of presumption.

I've found Brother Will to be quite informative and have yet to see any substancial proof he is wrong about anything, besides, hasn't anyone proven one thing wrong with the KJB only presumptions and that without knowledge.

Your statements about Bro. Will are subjective, and you consider yourself objective? Snicker, snicker.

Do I detect a sense of insecurity here? I mean anyone who would stop and consider a turtle to sing is ,uh, somewhat a little deranged.

Yall try to say that "God forbid" doesn't belong in the Word of God, yet God has forbid we should disobey His commandments and yet so that is found a misnomer to say the least.

Anyone who believes the KJB to be wrong in defining "theos" as God and not defining "kurios" as God are more than mixed up and bent to do nothing but discredit the KJB, uh, The Lord is God. My 6 year old son knows that, he is very smart for his age, he is writing in cursive now and quite legibly.
I even used your type of reasoning to try and snag my wife on the use of Greek to discredit the KJB, she didn't catch on at first, but then she just smiled and said, "If anyone can't understand the Lord is God they should probably just need to get saved."

Why is it the greek scholar stumbles all over this simple truth, while a "dumb ol'hillbilly" understands it perfectly and w/o error?

As I said before, lay all the superfluity aside and just deal with plain old common sense, your Greek will suddenly loose it's sheen and we'll get the biscuits back on the table and off the top shelf.

I await your reply.

 

If you really believe that then why bother? You'll be ever learning and never coming to the knowledge of the truth.

I believe also the whole of God's Word are in the MSS that is why we hold to the least disagreeable, but then the problem ther lies when common sense is cast to the four winds and a dogmatic approach is enlisted as authoritive, that's what is called the "lunatic fringe".

I've got to go to our local dump, i'll try to get back later and deal with the rest of your rebuttal.

 

Psa 78:36. But they deceived Him with their mouth And lied to Him with their tongue. (NASB 1995 Update)


The KJV translates the same Hebrew word “flatter” in Psalms 78:36 and “deceive” in other places:

Psa 78:36 Nevertheless they did flatter him with their mouth, and they lied unto him with their tongues.

2Sa 3:25 Thou knowest Abner the son of Ner, that he came to deceive thee, and to know thy going out and thy coming in, and to know all that thou doest.

Pro 24:28 Be not a witness against thy neighbour without cause; and deceive not with thy lips.

Jer 20:7 O LORD, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived: thou art stronger than I, and hast prevailed: I am in derision daily, every one mocketh me.

Eze 14:9 And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel.

The KJV translates a very different Hebrew word “flatter” in Psalms 5:9.

Psa 5:9 For there is no faithfulness in their mouth; their inward part is very wickedness; their throat is an open sepulchre; they flatter with their tongue.

 

Uh, Scott, I have no problem understanding the verse. No man hath seen God at any time: the human eye, but only with the eyes of understanding can one "see' God. The only Begotten Son is the express image of the Father, yet in the Godhead bodily, manifested before us. In the bosom of the Father in that direct unity between Father and Son that can only be conceived in the mind of men as the relationship of them. The declaration by Jesus would be read something as simple as, "Hey, my dad can do .... And your dad can't" All the while Jesus' Father can, and your dad can't.

I'm sure you've seen the lists, the last one I just looked at would take up a whole page of bandwidth on BB in just this one section, Genesis to Revelation, dealing with many mv's, but the NasV being in nearly every one. I'll find the link and post it later.

I'll admit many of the changes are minor, but some are, well, we'll just call them, major.

Your statement proves once again on the part of the NasV translators that none of the Hebrew MSS are completely accurate, that, sir, smacks right in the face of literal preservation of the Torah,the Talmud, and the Tenach. It's no wonder the majority of the Messianic Jews reject the NasV O.T. alltogether.

The wisdom and preciseness of the Masoretic Hebrews have given us the preserved Word of God in our O.T. The NasV translators are just one more instrument to deny Divine Preservation, uh,and they are rooted in hog wallow.

The biggest difference in what the promoters of mv's and us is the fact we believe we have the Bible, yall simply are still guessing.

 

Young lady, the NasV is supposedly using updated and relevent language of today in it's contexual meanings, you just blew the cover off that arguement.

 

Uh, Scott, I have no problem understanding the verse. </font>[/QUOTE]Neither do I. I have no problem believing that Christ is begotten (eternal generation of the Son) nor that He is God. Which aspect do you have a problem with? </font>[/QUOTE]Uh, none.