It is you who has your definitions reversed sir. You and a who lot of other people. When we say the bible is living we are saying that it is not changing with us but that is perfectly applicable to all times. This is a compliment. Why is it not understood the same way when we discuss the constitution. If it really were living then it would actually apply to today, which it often seems not to do.
Does the fault lie in the words, or the understanding?
I think not, sir. Perhaps you failed to see my point.
When we say the bible is living we are saying that it is not changing with us but that is perfectly applicable to all times. This is a compliment.
Of course. However, one aspect of the living Word of God is that a man can read it a sixty-second time and have something totally new revealed to him, something which he missed the previous sixty-one times. The "living" Constitution takes that concept and makes it say something different than what it actually says.
When applied in this way, it's a perverted sort of "living"; whereas the Bible is living in the sense that the Holy Spirit can and does gradually reveal truths contained in it, people who try to make the Constitution do the same thing are dealing in lies. Thus, calling it a "living" Constitution is a slam at those who believe it to be, precisely because they have the audacity to present it in that way.
Fair enough?