You mean KJV (King James Version) set against NIV (New International Version) is fundamental underlying reason of what this thread is all about? And here I thought it was supposed to be about hypocrisy.[smile]
That makes little to no sense under caucus designation guidelines under religion forum rules, unless you are really trying to make fools out of King James Only, uh, adherents, perhaps...
You had said in comment #38;
No. We can't. It would be impossible. Already, in comment #57 the NIV was discussed, even criticized. Not that that breaks my puny suffering heart, or something...
Picking on the "nearly inspired version" is nothing new.
If we were to have a number of different 'caucus' designations protecting different English language translations of Holy Writ, then, as Wyrd bið ful aræd made observation in reply #44;
He's already been proven correct -- if not before, then at the least by now.
'King James only' caucus designation is inherently problematic. A person couldn't even bring reasons why they thought KJV was superior to other English language translations -- if that's what they truly believed.
Hypocrisy is merely the topic for today. Because Caucus rules state that KJB verses be used when posting scripture, that in no way gives credence to any of your personal suspicions.
No. We can't. It would be impossible. Already, in comment #57 the NIV was discussed, even criticized. Not that that breaks my puny suffering heart, or something..
If we were to have a number of different 'caucus' designations protecting different English language translations of Holy Writ, then, as Wyrd bið ful aræd made observation in reply #44
Is freedom of association dead in our Free Republic? What business is it of yours or any ones, who members of this Caucus associate with, no one is forcing you to click on the link, no my friend you did that of your own freewill, and then because you object to what you read, you want to ban others who want to participate. Shame on you, this is not Red China.