NASB is wrong

You've touted your misconception and I have failed to see where you "come" up with your notion. Is your "attack" on the voracity of the KJB unfounded, or is it the norm that your assumption is generally concocted from the use of the corrupt Greek text?

 

He is probably tired of the arguements, limp arguements at best, you people continually put forth,( persistently failing of the conotations of mere simple logic) then again, and this will help those who KNOW God preserved His Word: evil men and seducers ahll wax worse and worse. So by that explicit FACT, the more modern the version, well, the more corrupt due to the FACT of the moral decline of these "scholars" and their liberal "understandings" as they constantly attempt to justify themselves and yet remain in sin, God forbid!!

 

And it just may be he is rather more concerned over the eternal condition of souls, when it seems yall are more concerned with arguementative debates/SIN!!

 

He is probably tired of the arguements, limp arguements at best, you people continually put forth,( persistently failing of the conotations of mere simple logic) then again, and this will help those who KNOW God preserved His Word: evil men and seducers ahll wax worse and worse. So by that explicit FACT, the more modern the version, well, the more corrupt due to the FACT of the moral decline of these "scholars" and their liberal "understandings" as they constantly attempt to justify themselves and yet remain in sin, God forbid!!
</font>[/QUOTE]Ralph who here is saying God has not preserved His Word? Not one person. You again have implied many here don't. You have implied that those who don't hold to your view of "ONLYISM" are evil, twisting scriptures to fit your own idealism. Again, you show your true colors, friend, but offer no solid proof of "ONLYISM". My advice would be to put up, or attempt to argue elsewhere, especially if you have nothing substantial to say.

 

Again you imply people here aren't concerned with souls...how would you know, Ralph? Do you know any of us? You definitely aren't as pious as you would have us believe, friend. This is evidenced in your posts.

 

It seems that those who cannot answer questions regarding their beliefs resort to ad hominem attacks, pseudo-spiritual argumentation, etc.

I think we have a new "ism" to name,

Red-herringism

 

He is probably tired of the arguements, limp arguements at best, you people continually put forth,( persistently failing of the conotations of mere simple logic) then again, and this will help those who KNOW God preserved His Word: evil men and seducers ahll wax worse and worse. So by that explicit FACT, the more modern the version, well, the more corrupt due to the FACT of the moral decline of these "scholars" and their liberal "understandings" as they constantly attempt to justify themselves and yet remain in sin, God forbid!!
</font>[/QUOTE]POR, you are coming dangerously close to slander of the Word of God. I suggest that you no longer generalize modern versions with the word "corrupt" or I will edit it.

Let me be very clear. If you wish to point to a single version that has a specific corruption or mistake, you may do so; but I do not approve of you generalizing modern versions in one lump as corrupt and will not stand for it.

I hope that is all I have to say concerning this issue.

Thank you!

 

Again you imply people here aren't concerned with souls...how would you know, Ralph? Do you know any of us? You definitely aren't as pious as you would have us believe, friend. This is evidenced in your posts. </font>[/QUOTE]AVL's answer should just about cover this topic, also.

Being judgemental of the posters on this website will not be tolerated. No More!

 

Uh, not exactly, especially since some of us understand English to have been at its climax in eloquence around 1611. And to answer your idealogy concerning the Geneva Bible, it was not complete in its content, though it is found to be very reliable, just incomplete.

 

He is probably tired of the arguements, limp arguements at best, you people continually put forth,( persistently failing of the conotations of mere simple logic) then again, and this will help those who KNOW God preserved His Word: evil men and seducers ahll wax worse and worse. So by that explicit FACT, the more modern the version, well, the more corrupt due to the FACT of the moral decline of these "scholars" and their liberal "understandings" as they constantly attempt to justify themselves and yet remain in sin, God forbid!!
</font>[/QUOTE]Ralph who here is saying God has not preserved His Word? Not one person. You again have implied many here don't. You have implied that those who don't hold to your view of "ONLYISM" are evil, twisting scriptures to fit your own idealism. Again, you show your true colors, friend, but offer no solid proof of "ONLYISM". My advice would be to put up, or attempt to argue elsewhere, especially if you have nothing substantial to say. </font>[/QUOTE]I do suppose the Truth has its way of implication. You're trying to "hide amongst the trees" there Adam, deal with it.

 

Again you imply people here aren't concerned with souls...how would you know, Ralph? Do you know any of us? You definitely aren't as pious as you would have us believe, friend. This is evidenced in your posts. </font>[/QUOTE]Now I am guilty of making an observation, which is thereby substanciated by the frequency of those like you who are obsessed with this forum, it would seem more acceptable that your time was rather redeemed, but instead you ionsist on this "arguement".

All I have done is observe, offer logic, that refutes the mv's decsively. I use your arguements against you, that is all, then I am threatened, typical, just typical.

 

Is your herring have a name, like "Touche' " ?

I simply introduce the well-known fact that the Greek has been tampered with to dweduce the mv's, and it is now called "ad-hominem"

 

Is your herring have a name, like "Touche' " ?

I simply introduce the well-known fact that the Greek has been tampered with to dweduce the mv's, and it is now called "ad-hominem"

 

He is probably tired of the arguements, limp arguements at best, you people continually put forth,( persistently failing of the conotations of mere simple logic) then again, and this will help those who KNOW God preserved His Word: evil men and seducers ahll wax worse and worse. So by that explicit FACT, the more modern the version, well, the more corrupt due to the FACT of the moral decline of these "scholars" and their liberal "understandings" as they constantly attempt to justify themselves and yet remain in sin, God forbid!!
</font>[/QUOTE]POR, you are coming dangerously close to slander of the Word of God. I suggest that you no longer generalize modern versions with the word "corrupt" or I will edit it.

Let me be very clear. If you wish to point to a single version that has a specific corruption or mistake, you may do so; but I do not approve of you generalizing modern versions in one lump as corrupt and will not stand for it.

I hope that is all I have to say concerning this issue.

Thank you! </font>[/QUOTE]No, Sir, I am coming dangerously close to provoking you to study this out for yourself, and you have reacted in the flesh. It is well known the mv's have used the corrupted Greek text to deduce contradictory and CORRUPT versions of the Word of God, yes, some use the Textus Receptus, Schrivners text, etc., but when it comes to dynamic equivelency, they ALL go to the COORRUPT!!! W/H text for, shall we say, "enlightenment"?

 

Again you imply people here aren't concerned with souls...how would you know, Ralph? Do you know any of us? You definitely aren't as pious as you would have us believe, friend. This is evidenced in your posts. </font>[/QUOTE]AVL's answer should just about cover this topic, also.

Being judgemental of the posters on this website will not be tolerated. No More! </font>[/QUOTE]Try "anymore" Philip, use proper English, but first, understand the words prior to your JUDGEMENT: "it may be that..."

To STAY on topic, the nasV, is wrong to offer to the reader that God can be deceived in Psalm 78:36.

In consideration of what is laid out before anyone who visits this website, Askjo simply offered a link, yall have went off in a tizzie over this, that shows us all your character, Now learn from your mistakes!!

 

Not really, but it does have to do with some one standing up to yall for your attacks against Askjo for being what yall label those who know what the Word of God is, (yall still guessing) as KJVO, the term as you use it is negative in its conotation, an "insult" is how those of you use the term, that DOES speak much of the character of those who devised that use, learn something.

 

He is probably tired of the arguements, limp arguements at best, you people continually put forth,( persistently failing of the conotations of mere simple logic) then again, and this will help those who KNOW God preserved His Word: evil men and seducers ahll wax worse and worse. So by that explicit FACT, the more modern the version, well, the more corrupt due to the FACT of the moral decline of these "scholars" and their liberal "understandings" as they constantly attempt to justify themselves and yet remain in sin, God forbid!!
</font>[/QUOTE]Ralph who here is saying God has not preserved His Word? Not one person. You again have implied many here don't. You have implied that those who don't hold to your view of "ONLYISM" are evil, twisting scriptures to fit your own idealism. Again, you show your true colors, friend, but offer no solid proof of "ONLYISM". My advice would be to put up, or attempt to argue elsewhere, especially if you have nothing substantial to say. </font>[/QUOTE]I do suppose the Truth has its way of implication. You're trying to "hide amongst the trees" there Adam, deal with it. </font>[/QUOTE]Again an ad hominem attack. Is that all you can do, Ralph. You know little of my stand on the issue, much less your own. You're "version" of the truth (and I don't mean the Bible) has a way of making it's way to the top of every issue, with not substantive answers proceeding from you. It's a shame.

 

"yall"? Please show me where I attacked Askjo or where I went off in a tizzie. If you can't, perhaps you should be more careful in the future about generalizations.