Double Standards of KJV Onlyists - Erasmus' gay - sounding letters, King James' homosexuality

[KJV1611]

Well there's nothing wrong with taking it in that way either. But to call it an error is incorrect. Those men were extremely careful about how they translated the Word of God.

I did a lot of research on Easter a while back and come to find out there was only one guy that claimed Easter was tied to Ishtar and the fertility goddesses and his reserach from what I saw had no evidence. It's most likely that Easter came from Oester (i think) which is German for Sun rise.

 

[Dino246]

2Ti 3:16 (KJV) All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Al scripture is inspired by God. Anything inspired by God is perfect, it has no error. So either at least one bible around today is inerrant or we don’t have any scripture available to us today.

Would you agree or no?

No. It's a flawed argument, on several levels.

- It asserts or assumes that one translation is inspired while another isn't. In fact, no translation is inspired by God.

- It contains an implied fallacy of equivocation, wherein the translation of Scripture is equated with the concept of "Scripture".

- It's a false dichotomy; you have not established that those are the only two possible options.

- You've made a category error by contrasting "inerrant" with "don't have any Scripture".

- Scripture does not state that "anything inspired by God is perfect".

- It's circular reasoning.

Again, I encourage you to learn about logical fallacies, and avoid them.

 

[Dino246]

The KJV translators used Easter because Easter is the fulfillment of Passover and that verse is the only place in the bible where pascha was used after Passover had been fulfilled.

That's a cultural argument in favour of 16th-century terminology. It's an after-the-fact justification for something which is, on the surface, simply incorrect.

 

[Dino246]

The focus should be on whether the King James Bible is an outstanding English translation was was THE English Bible worldwide for over 300 years. That is sufficient to establish its value.

I don't think anyone is trying to say that the KJV has not served well. However, that comes nowhere near being adequate reasoning for ignoring or rejecting other translations today.

 

[Dino246]

From what I've read and I think this is true, the KJV had a distinct sound even to peoples of that time.

Again, this is a flawed argument, because it completely ignores the fact that the KJV is largely a copy of Tyndale.

But that doesn't even matter, it does nothing to prove that the KJV is the word of God, it's only one characteristic in a line of characteristics that prove the KJV is the inerrant word of God.

It does nothing of the sort. It is merely one of many English translations.
I would encourage you to draw a distinction between evidence that you consider convincing, and evidence that constitutes "proof".

 

[Whispered]

because three are who are testifying [in the heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these — the three — are one; and three are who are testifying in the earth], the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, and the three are into the one.
1 John 5:7‭-‬8 YLT1898
https://bible.com/bible/821/1jn.5.7-8.YLT1898

For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.
1 John 5:7‭-‬8 NASB
https://bible.com/bible/100/1jn.5.7-8.NASB

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
1 John 5:7‭-‬8 KJV
https://bible.com/bible/1/1jn.5.7-8.KJV

Notice how YLT has it in brackets and the NASB don't have that statement at all, while the KJV doesn't even acknowledge that there may well be some question concerning the text.
This adds up to yet another reason I don't even bother with the KJV. The evidence of the motives of King James only becomes more apparent with every study of the subject.

I have yet to hear any reason or proof for the KJVO folks to make their claim that God has some how ordained the KJV as his word. They make the assertion, but never provide any reasoning other than God has to ordain one ( which I don't find necessary either). You have a list.

"The New Testament is based on the best Greek manuscript, Textus Receptus. Modern English translations are based on manuscripts that were older and appeared in better shape, but only because they were not used because of many errors found in them. (Webmaster's paraphrase)"
older and better shape don't necessarily mean not used, it could mean preserved with intent to preserve like mom's good dishes if you will.
Also who found errors in them, and why are they errors? More and older would imply greater consensus.

"It had the most spiritual translators, real believing translators, and therefore the most spiritual and correct translation."

Well that's certainly subjective. We're the Anglicans more spiritual than the Puritans, and the Presbyterians who used the Bishop's Bible? Was placating the papists blood lust spiritual?"

"It's the best known, the most widespread and the most recognisable.--And if you quote it, most people will recognise it and know you're quoting them the Bible."

That's an opinion, ... I don't know what bearing it has on the subject.

"It has been time-tested for nearly 400 years, and if you accept what it says and obey it, it works!"

Two part statement; two part answer. It helps stand the test of time when it is thrust on you by force.
YLT is even older and still around.
And as far as working, so does any other translation.

"It was written at the time the English language was spoken and used in its most perfect form."

Well this is certainly a subjective statement. YLT, Bishop's, and KJV are from the same era and the language is very much the same.

"The English of the King James Version isn't nearly as hard to follow as its critics say. In fact, it is in general written in a much simpler vocabulary, with a higher percentage of one and two-syllable words, than almost any of the modern translations."

Except that there is a whole list of words that we don't use or even know what they mean anymore. Someone posted that list in another thread before, even at that it's still not evidence of Devine stamp of approval above all others.


" The King James Version, in fact, is almost universally acknowledged as the greatest of all masterpieces of English literature."

Except for the terrible grammar, and other literary problem like transliteration of many words rather than actual translation.

"It is no longer copyrighted, meaning anybody can reprint it, copy it or publish it and they don't have to pay a copyright fee."

Ok

"The King James Version was not just the work of one man, but the work of a very large conference of the best men of God in England, and every problem was worked out by God's inspiration and the majority opinion."

Best men of God is definitely subjective.
Let's not forget some of the edict rules imposed like the word baptized must be used every time "baptizo" is written rather than a word that would better express the meaning like merced in, saturated by, engulfed, or washed. Also Pastor rather than Shepard.

"The translators decided not to add footnotes and explanatory notes, preferring to let the Word speak for itself."

Or to obscure their intent.

It seems that every time I e of these threads crop up, I do more research, the more research I do the less I like the KJV.

It is my prayer that the links and the video's that I shared concerning the KJV be utilized so as to educate those who are unaware of the KJV history.
If someone only relies on the opponents of the KJV and do not avail themselves of the actual history and educated presentation by a New Testament professor concerning the text, and prefer to believe the detractors , the opponents, those who promote slander against the James the king and Erasmus, they will be unaware of the truth. And therein be misled so as to miss a great Bible version that is the KJV.

A great question at this point is this.
Why would any Christian hate a version of the Bible? And why would any Christian pursue false witness, slander, against those involved with its publishing?
Perhaps because all scripture is "God Breathed".And as such prophecies God's will for this world and its people, gives righteous moral guidance so as to live one's life in the light of our Lord, and forewarns of the enemy of God that seeks to cast away all that is right and good and deceive the world as the father of lies, deceit and slander.

 

[Dino246]

A great question at this point is this.
Why would any Christian hate a version of the Bible? And why would any Christian pursue false witness, slander, against those involved with its publishing?
Perhaps because all scripture is "God Breathed".And as such prophecies God's will for this world and its people, gives righteous moral guidance so as to live one's life in the light of our Lord, and forewarns of the enemy of God that seeks to cast away all that is right and good and deceive the world as the father of lies, deceit and slander.

Those are excellent questions. I encourage you to ask them of the next person who posts such things against the NIV or any other modern translation (NWT and Joseph Smith 'versions' excluded).

 

[CS1]

We know for sure that Erasmus had an effect on the KJV because he created the underlying Greek text.

Actually, we can know which individuals had an effect on what sections, because particular teams worked on specific sections, though.

And, King James commissioned the project.

I agree that it is irrelevant upon the final product, but the point of the entire thread is that two different standards are being used by NIV detractors; one for the KJV and the other for the NIV. If sexually immoral individuals were involved with the NIV, and this contaminated the final product, then we must look at the same thing for the KJV, as two sexually immoral individuals were involved with it, too.

the argument as I see it and I can be wrong is this :

The KJV has what is known as the Inspired word of God from both Hebrew and Greeks manuscripts to provide the context of Salvation in Christ Only and instruction in Righteous living and appropriate worship. It is known the KJV has what is known as copyist discrepancies. Two, the NIV POST 1984 is the liberal translation of persons who changed the context of the Orignal to make it more acceptable to sexual perversions that God has said is an Abomination. Pre 1984 NIV is more contextually in line with the KJV and the NKJV.

The issue here I see is one that is translating the word of God into English and having what is known as copyist discrepancies and the other having a hidden agenda to make sin acceptable.


The KJV can be trusted for the context of salvation only in Christ. The Strongs concordance complements proper biblical interpretation and application.

The foundational truth are not missing in the KJV, or the NKJV or the NIV pre-1984 (liberal theology ) for

• Salvation in Christ alone
• the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ
• The Deity of Christ
• The Eternal Godhead Trinity
• a fallen man needs for a savior
• the reality of hell and eternal torment
• faith, hope, and love
• The Great Commission
• The Power of the Holy Spirit
• and the return of the Lord.
• church order

 

[CS1]

All of the KJV only cultist are morons - Anderson Ruckman and the rest. They have done more to hurt the KJV than anything James White has ever written or said. So no I don't believe anything that comes out of Anderson's mouth.

I've heard the politically correct argument before... where's the evidence? I don't see any when I read the KJV. People come up with asinine arguments like the church of England used the word Bishop to gain political control over people blah blah blah. None of that means anything to me, Christ is the BISHOP of my soul.

From what I've read and I think this is true, the KJV had a distinct sound even to peoples of that time. But that doesn't even matter, it does nothing to prove that the KJV is the word of God, it's only one characteristic in a line of characteristics that prove the KJV is the inerrant word of God.

I read and was preach to in the KJV and was saved. I guess Billy Graham was wrong all those years

 

[fredoheaven]

No. It's a flawed argument, on several levels.

- It asserts or assumes that one translation is inspired while another isn't. In fact, no translation is inspired by God.

- It contains an implied fallacy of equivocation, wherein the translation of Scripture is equated with the concept of "Scripture".

- It's a false dichotomy; you have not established that those are the only two possible options.

- You've made a category error by contrasting "inerrant" with "don't have any Scripture".

- Scripture does not state that "anything inspired by God is perfect".

- It's circular reasoning.

Again, I encourage you to learn about logical fallacies, and avoid them.

Umm...
And I think, there is a circular reasoning here: I’ll challenge your assertion over your fact that “no translation is inspired by God”.

Of course, I have to look what the Bible says more than anything else like circular reasoning of man. Biblically, citation from the Hebrew Old Testament was translated in the New Testament. Greek. Thus the Greek equivalent or translation in so far is given by inspiration and is called scripture. So, the post is already flawed. God indeed use “reasoning” but it must be based on God standard, even Paul had used reasoning “out of the scriptures” and in many times he usually cited Hebrew Old Testament which was penned downed in a Greek language.

Isaiah 1:18 King James Version (KJV)

18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

Acts 17:2

And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,

2 Timothy 3:15, 16, are NOT a reference to the “originals”. They refer to “the holy scriptures,” copies of Old Testament Books that Timothy had known “from a child.” Timothy was from Lystra, not Jerusalem and he was of mixed parentage, i.e. “his father was a Greek” Acts 16:1, not one of “the chief priests” Matthew 26:3, who would have had custody over ‘the originals,’ even if they had existed then. It would therefore have been impossible for Timothy to have had access to them such “that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures” 2 Timothy 3:15a.

Yet Timothy clearly had access to “all scripture...given by inspiration of God.” The term “inspiration,” therefore, applies to copies of the scriptures and to translations,

 

[Whispered]

Those are excellent questions. I encourage you to ask them of the next person who posts such things against the NIV or any other modern translation (NWT and Joseph Smith 'versions' excluded).

No, they're best asked as on topic in this thread.

 

[Locoponydirtman]

Which one do you think it is?

In American English, the American standard.
In old English YLT or Bishop's Bible.

 

[Locoponydirtman]

It is my prayer that the links and the video's that I shared concerning the KJV be utilized so as to educate those who are unaware of the KJV history.
If someone only relies on the opponents of the KJV and do not avail themselves of the actual history and educated presentation by a New Testament professor concerning the text, and prefer to believe the detractors , the opponents, those who promote slander against the James the king and Erasmus, they will be unaware of the truth. And therein be misled so as to miss a great Bible version that is the KJV.

A great question at this point is this.
Why would any Christian hate a version of the Bible? And why would any Christian pursue false witness, slander, against those involved with its publishing?
Perhaps because all scripture is "God Breathed".And as such prophecies God's will for this world and its people, gives righteous moral guidance so as to live one's life in the light of our Lord, and forewarns of the enemy of God that seeks to cast away all that is right and good and deceive the world as the father of lies, deceit and slander.

I am very aware of KJV history from both sides of the argument and from the secular history surrounding the argument. King James was bent on forcing his translation on others. And force he did use, so he could placate the blood lust of papists, and win favor with a man who sees himself as set upon the the Earthly throne of God.

 

[oldethennew]

What is S&G entities? Not sure what you are talking about.

=====================================
Sodom and Gomorrah...

 

[Magenta]

You have an issue with not accepting when you are wrong.

Given your history of refusing to admit when you are in error, I found this comment funny. Carry on...

 

[Locoponydirtman]

I gonna find out which version will stop a bullet and read that one exclusively.
This will be the Bible God has endorsed. Because it that's as good of a reason as any I have been given for the KJV, I mean come on it sounds cool when quoted.... I think bullet energy displacement it a better reason than sounds cool.
That thing the guitar player from Ledzepplin did with the violin bow on his Les Paul sounded cool, but it wasn't inspired of God.

 

[Whispered]

I am very aware of KJV history from both sides of the argument and from the secular history surrounding the argument. King James was bent on forcing his translation on others. And force he did use, so he could placate the blood lust of papists, and win favor with a man who sees himself as set upon the the Earthly throne of God.

I would not concur with the claim of force or placating papists.

Furthermore, it was not king James who saw himself as set upon the Earthly throne of God therefore that is another misnomer. The "Divine Right of Kings", established that identity well prior to king James taking the throne.


"The reign of Queen Elizabeth I (1558–1603) succeeded in imposing a high degree of uniformity upon the Church of England. Protestantism was reinstated as the official religion of England after the short reign of Mary I (1553–58), who had attempted to restore Roman Catholicism in the country. In 1604, soon after James’s coronation as king of England, a conference of churchmen requested that the English Bible be revised because existing translations “were corrupt and not answerable to the truth of the original.” The Great Bible that had been authorized by Henry VIII (1538) enjoyed some popularity, but its successive editions contained several inconsistencies. The Bishops’ Bible (1568) was well regarded by the clergy but failed to gain wide acceptance or the official authorization of Elizabeth. The most popular English translation was the Geneva Bible (1557; first published in England in 1576), which had been made in Geneva by English Protestants living in exile during Mary’s persecutions. Never authorized by the crown, it was particularly popular among Puritans but not among many more-conservative clergymen.


Preparation and early editions

Given the perceived need for a new authorized translation, James was quick to appreciate the broader value of the proposal and at once made the project his own. By June 30, 1604, James had approved a list of 54 revisers, although extant records show that 47 scholars actually participated. They were organized into six companies, two each working separately at Westminster, Oxford, and Cambridge on sections of the Bible assigned to them. Richard Bancroft (1544–1610), archbishop of Canterbury, served as overseer and established doctrinal conventions for the translators. The new Bible was published in 1611.


"Not since the Septuagint—the Greek-language version of the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) produced between the 3rd and the 2nd centuries bce—had a translation of the Bible been undertaken under royal sponsorship as a cooperative venture on so grandiose a scale. An elaborate set of rules was contrived to curb individual proclivities and to ensure the translation’s scholarly and nonpartisan character. In contrast to earlier practice, the new version was to use vulgar forms of proper names (e.g., “Jonas” or “Jonah” for the Hebrew “Yonah”), in keeping with its aim to make the Scriptures popular and familiar. The translators used not only extant English-language translations, including the partial translation by William Tyndale (c. 1490–1536), but also Jewish commentaries to guide their work. The wealth of scholarly tools available to the translators made their final choice of rendering an exercise in originality and independent judgment. For this reason, the new version was more faithful to the original languages of the Bible and more scholarly than any of its predecessors. The impact of the original Hebrew upon the revisers was so pronounced that they seem to have made a conscious effort to imitate its rhythm and style in their translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. The literary style of the English New Testament actually turned out to be superior to that of its Greek original. "
Source
King James Version Sacred Text - Britannica




PDF King James Onlyism: A New Sect By James D. Price


I've come to the conclusion my first instinct was always correct. My thought was those who despise the KJV and wish to slander James or any part of its history would never be persuaded otherwise. While I imagined adding pertinent information concerning the actual history of the KJV may help assuage the campaign here that seeks to slander the sum total of its history.

I was very wrong.

I will remain at peace knowing my efforts will at least be available for those who would seek their own study of the KJV and its history. Rather than accept the dark contrast against the light of God's word as credible perhaps those sincere of heart to search the truth will then not follow the effort exercised in this thread with the intention of turning hearts away from the KJV. If they were ever inclined to hold it as worthy of study prior to finding this discussion.

May God's peace continue to bless the journey of all His regenerate children. And may his spirit continue to open the hearts of those who's heart and minds are currently enshrouded by the illusions of this world.

 

[Locoponydirtman]

I would not concur with the claim of force or placating papists.

Furthermore, it was not king James who saw himself as set upon the Earthly throne of God therefore that is another misnomer. The "Divine Right of Kings", established that identity well prior to king James taking the throne.


"The reign of Queen Elizabeth I (1558–1603) succeeded in imposing a high degree of uniformity upon the Church of England. Protestantism was reinstated as the official religion of England after the short reign of Mary I (1553–58), who had attempted to restore Roman Catholicism in the country. In 1604, soon after James’s coronation as king of England, a conference of churchmen requested that the English Bible be revised because existing translations “were corrupt and not answerable to the truth of the original.” The Great Bible that had been authorized by Henry VIII (1538) enjoyed some popularity, but its successive editions contained several inconsistencies. The Bishops’ Bible (1568) was well regarded by the clergy but failed to gain wide acceptance or the official authorization of Elizabeth. The most popular English translation was the Geneva Bible (1557; first published in England in 1576), which had been made in Geneva by English Protestants living in exile during Mary’s persecutions. Never authorized by the crown, it was particularly popular among Puritans but not among many more-conservative clergymen.


Preparation and early editions

Given the perceived need for a new authorized translation, James was quick to appreciate the broader value of the proposal and at once made the project his own. By June 30, 1604, James had approved a list of 54 revisers, although extant records show that 47 scholars actually participated. They were organized into six companies, two each working separately at Westminster, Oxford, and Cambridge on sections of the Bible assigned to them. Richard Bancroft (1544–1610), archbishop of Canterbury, served as overseer and established doctrinal conventions for the translators. The new Bible was published in 1611.


"Not since the Septuagint—the Greek-language version of the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) produced between the 3rd and the 2nd centuries bce—had a translation of the Bible been undertaken under royal sponsorship as a cooperative venture on so grandiose a scale. An elaborate set of rules was contrived to curb individual proclivities and to ensure the translation’s scholarly and nonpartisan character. In contrast to earlier practice, the new version was to use vulgar forms of proper names (e.g., “Jonas” or “Jonah” for the Hebrew “Yonah”), in keeping with its aim to make the Scriptures popular and familiar. The translators used not only extant English-language translations, including the partial translation by William Tyndale (c. 1490–1536), but also Jewish commentaries to guide their work. The wealth of scholarly tools available to the translators made their final choice of rendering an exercise in originality and independent judgment. For this reason, the new version was more faithful to the original languages of the Bible and more scholarly than any of its predecessors. The impact of the original Hebrew upon the revisers was so pronounced that they seem to have made a conscious effort to imitate its rhythm and style in their translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. The literary style of the English New Testament actually turned out to be superior to that of its Greek original. "
Source
King James Version Sacred Text - Britannica




PDF King James Onlyism: A New Sect By James D. Price


I've come to the conclusion my first instinct was always correct. My thought was those who despise the KJV and wish to slander James or any part of its history would never be persuaded otherwise. While I imagined adding pertinent information concerning the actual history of the KJV may help assuage the campaign here that seeks to slander the sum total of its history.

I was very wrong.

I will remain at peace knowing my efforts will at least be available for those who would seek their own study of the KJV and its history. Rather than accept the dark contrast against the light of God's word as credible perhaps those sincere of heart to search the truth will then not follow the effort exercised in this thread with the intention of turning hearts away from the KJV. If they were ever inclined to hold it as worthy of study prior to finding this discussion.

May God's peace continue to bless the journey of all His regenerate children. And may his spirit continue to open the hearts of those who's heart and minds are currently enshrouded by the illusions of this world.

I was referring to the pope as a man who sees himself as sitting on the Earthly throne of God.

 

[CS1]

what is a pope?

 

[maxwel]

At this point I would hope my sisters and brothers in Christ are asking themselves question or two. At least I have. Why would one member constantly criticize our faith, sacred texts, verses, and now pursue the King James Bible and those who prefer that translation on the paper thin premise KJV only Christians are hypocrites? A less than loving accusation in itself.

Who benefits? Qui Bono, literally means, "As a benefit to whom" .

Those who would like to learn about the KJV version and its history I would with respect suggest the following. And please consider, if you've read this thread bearing no good fruits intention at its inception and to this point of page 5 and beyond, you would benefit greatly if you would invest equal or more time in reading what we should all be focused on as people of our Lord. That which nourishes our spirit and feeds our intellect and community of Holy Spirit filled faithful.
Nourish yourself with good food and you will prosper in health. Nourish yourself with positive affirming spiritual posts and you will prosper in communication one among another. "Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life. " The Book of Proverbs chapter 4 verse 23.
Just my thought.

If you are what has been called, as if it is a bad thing, a KJV Onlyist, be not insulted or concerned you may be wrong about that preferred version. There's a reason it is one of if not the best translation.

Dr. Wallace is an American professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary as well as the founder and executive director of the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts. He's not "biased". He's highly educated. God bless him.

(copied from the site linked to this title) Summary Why The King James Version Is Superior To All Modern English Translations

1. The New Testament is based on the best Greek manuscript, Textus Receptus. Modern English translations are based on manuscripts that were older and appeared in better shape, but only because they were not used because of many errors found in them. (Webmaster's paraphrase)
2. It had the most spiritual translators, real believing translators, and therefore the most spiritual and correct translation.
3. It's the best known, the most widespread and the most recognisable.--And if you quote it, most people will recognise it and know you're quoting them the Bible.
4. It has been time-tested for nearly 400 years, and if you accept what it says and obey it, it works!
5. It was written at the time the English language was spoken and used in its most perfect form.
6. The English of the King James Version isn't nearly as hard to follow as its critics say. In fact, it is in general written in a much simpler vocabulary, with a higher percentage of one and two-syllable words, than almost any of the modern translations. The King James Version, in fact, is almost universally acknowledged as the greatest of all masterpieces of English literature.
7. It is no longer copyrighted, meaning anybody can reprint it, copy it or publish it and they don't have to pay a copyright fee.
8. The King James Version was not just the work of one man, but the work of a very large conference of the best men of God in England, and every problem was worked out by God's inspiration and the majority opinion.
9. The translators decided not to add footnotes and explanatory notes, preferring to let the Word speak for itself.

Also see some specific errors in modern translations.



Bible History - Erasmus


If you love to read your KJV Bible, be glad of it. The greatest power anywhere at all inspired what is written. Thank God for the Bible and the printing press. One of the signs of Jesus second coming is that of His words reaching the whole world so as to deliver the blessed grace filled Good News of eternal Salvation and Redemption from sins. And with the Internet reaching the world is even more likely.
God is love! Why would His people thrive on conflict? Or seek to generate it concerning all things that matter to our faith.
Stay in the Light.

Confusion:

I'm very confused about the point you're trying to make here.... I just have no idea, at all, what you're trying to say.


1. Your personal statements in this post appear to defend the KJV.

2. But the videos you posted, by showing problems with the text, do the opposite of defending the KJV.

3. Now, I'm not terribly concerned about anyone's view on this issue. We have so much confusion in modern Christianity that people can't even comprehend the most basic, rudimentary tenets of the faith. So when it comes to your favorite Bible translation... I'm just not terribly concerned.

4. However, I AM concerned when someone is talking in a debate forum, and I just have no idea what they're trying to say.

5. That's how I feel after reading your post... I just have no idea what you're trying to say.

6. I have no idea what kind of point you're trying to make.


It would be appreciated if you would clarify your point in the above post.


..