Search results

Just returning a kindness. :)

While it's fine to note Moffat's choice of source material, that's not something that is going to convince anyone who is not already a TR- or KJV-onlyist. This is a difference of wording, not a "gratuitous change". At? Or after? Without additional evidence, you have no legitimate complaint...

No genuine Christian would tell another person to "Go burn in hell" without their own conscience being pricked. Fortunately you have the opportunity to repent and apologize.

It's you who refuses to see truth! Get some integrity and there will be far less disagreement! The root of the problem is not that there are issues with the text. The problem is that your criticism of other translations is hypocritical. You employ double standards, as most (if not all) KJV-only...

I DON'T NEED TO. I'm not the one making hypocritical assertions; you are. You have absolutely NO moral ground to criticize any other translation for an alleged textual issue when issues of the same kind exist within the KJV. Are you really so brainwashed that you can't see this?

Adding to this, the biggest problem is that Mormons use similar terms that have very different meanings, so uninformed Christians might be taken in by their message.

Irrelevent. Stop harping about issues in other translations when your favourite has the same or similar problems. It's that simple.

And you refuse to consider the truth of the reconciliation in modern translations, but instead keep harping on alleged issues with the plain text. You're the hypocrite here. Get some integrity, and stop being a stubborn, blind fool.

You said in post 43, “Anyone who has studied Shakespeare in high school can understand the KJV.” I responded in post 57, “Just like anyone who has studied Latin in high school can understand the Vulgate.” Given that someone today would likely need some help understanding Shakespeare, and...

Get some integrity and answer my question from post #25.

They are one and the same to someone who has studied the particular language.

Your misrepresentation of my words and criticism of that misrepresentation IS a fallacy. I’ll deal with the rest of your errors later.

Misquoting my words and harping about (your misrepresentation of) them is called a straw man fallacy. There are enough fallacious arguments around here that I do, indeed, find yours boring.

Gee... it seems like we have been quite successful in provoking you to anger... even if that isn't the primary goal.

The apostrophe is unnecessary, as is the attitude.

Wot? A newcomer acting like a Pharisee? Wow... that's never happened before! ;)

The word is "fare".

Y'know, that kind of response makes me want to see what other reactions I can elicit. :cool:

Perhaps there are casual readers who fit your box; however, there are also people who have studied the word and come up with different conclusions than yours. Don't assume everybody who differs is illiterate, for with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

I guess you aren't counting grammatical errors, of which there are at least five in your post. ;)