Why the persistent evasion?

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. </font>[/QUOTE]No. I think she just blew the cover off of your double standard.

 

Well, that is probably the most inane statement you have made the whole time. Trying to incite again? Why? It seems you have no real proof nor cogent arguments. Your only effective tactics are to delay, evade, and trying to slip your double standards by.

Your lack of relevant answers to legitimate questions speaks the volumes.

That's a questionable opinion if I ever "read" one! Your interpetations? Ha!ha!ha! </font>[/QUOTE] And once again, I am overwhelmed by your proof and evidence . I have posted plainly what I believe. You have not proven it to violate any of the 4 principles I listed above. All you have done is blab and bluster without any substance at all.

It is you that don't have the Bible. You carry any Bible you like but if it doesn't cause you to love truth more than your vain, man-made false doctrine then you don't really have a Bible at all.

I have never been KJVO and your "if" leaves open the possibility of the impossible. KJVO is false labeling and you know it, except for the extreme few who believe a person can only be saved using the KJB.</font>[/QUOTE] KJVOnlyism is not limited to your definition. It is defined by a false belief that the KJV is the only valid version of God's Word available today in English demonstrated by a persistent and baseless habit of comparing other versions to the KJV as if the KJV were the standard. If this is not what you believe then please clarify your position. I haven't read all of your posts but none of the ones I have read are inconsistent with the belief commonly known as KJVOnlyism.

I ask for proof. Not circular arguments. Not dodge the issues. Not obscure or distort the facts. Just give me the plain proof.

Uh, verbal equivelency, Scott, something your heroes , w/h, threw out the window and invented their own form of equivelency.</font>[/QUOTE] Nope. They used words that were contemporary to their time to translate an entirely different phrase. Just accept the facts. They used dynamic equivalency.

You bet . The way he thinks you could probably get him to write a KJVO book called "Duh King James BIBLE in duh Balance."

Nope. After all of this wrangling, all you have managed to do is apply standards to the NASB that if applied to the KJV would likewise bring it down.

Your real problem is that you despise the Bible. Your afraid that if it exists in today's language you won't be able to make it say what you want it to say. You can't stand the notion that someone might have the Bible is simultaneously more literal than the KJV and more understandable to the modern reader. I bet it really gripes you that the NASB stands alone as the only translation ever made by uniformly conservative, evangelical (read historic fundamentalists) scholars that were required to affirm biblical inerrancy and salvation by grace alone before being allowed to contribute.

 

I some how believe you do think that. Yall argue that the KJB is archaic and the words don't mean the same today and are irrelelvant, but then you take what yall say is relevant by today's standards and relate it to mean the same thing then as it doesn't now, talk about C O N F U S I O N !

</font>[/QUOTE]You know, I consider myself pretty confused at times but currently, in this thread, the only thing I am confused about is what you might possibly have meant by the statement above.

 

With a belief system like that no wonder I run into so many people who say the Bible is written by men and ther is no God.</font>[/QUOTE] You failed to make that connection. Just because you decide to make some antagonistic charge doesn't make it true... since the rest of us don't consider your opinion the final authority.

The church has never been dependent on a word for word perfect copy of the scriptures. The evidence says that variants crept in very shortly after the originals were given.

Then the orthodox, fundamentalist, Bible believing, Bible cherishing Christians throughout history have been nothing but fools... because the belief I hold falls within the bounds of historic Christian belief. Your belief is the very recent aberration.

Interesting anecdote... that however does not prove the generalization that you made.

Bait and switch! Bait and switch! Now I supose we'll have to argue vowel points? Hey, Scott? Is it G-d, YhWh, Yahweh, YHWH, or God? </font>[/QUOTE]Nope. Just asking whether you are really interested in applying the standard uniformly that you set up for the NASB. Obviously from your answer, you are not. If your standard is not a valid test for the KJV then it is not a valid test for the NASB.

 

The really hilarious part is that he said he would pray for me because his statement was written like that.

 

Oh you mean like when you said:

That's the secondary application, the primary application is made clear in verses 11-13 (Eph 2) see also Eph 3:6
</font>[/QUOTE]Yes, I can see where your type makes Jesus second in every appilcation you make.</font>[/QUOTE]If you can't take it, don't dish it out.