the last of the three was addressed and pb uncharacteristically admitted his error.

but what of accusations 1 & 2? no evidence or examples are presented.

Text is hard to get context around sometimes.

My apologies, if I misunderstood you.

You and I know the law is good (if used in the right way), and we also know the law was not designed for law-abiding people but for lawbreakers and criminals, the ungodly and sin-filled, the unholy and worldly, the father killers and mother killers, the murderers, the sexually immoral and homosexuals, slave dealers, liars, perjurers, and anyone else who acts against sound doctrine laid out in the glorious, holy, and pure good news of the blessed God that has been entrusted to me. (I Tim 1:10 The Voice)

It DOES include the word “homosexuals”, so your imagined “scrubbing” is not there.

What you posted earlier is from I Cor 6:9-10. Most of the major translations do not use the word “homosexual” in this verse, either. Most refer in some way to catamites (young boys kept as sexual partners) or something similar. A number of scholars tie the phrase used here to the temple prostitution practices, which included same-sex and adult-child sex practices. All of which would fit under “sexual deviancy”.

As for MacLaren – he is one of 80 “artistic” contributors, and is not one of the translators (who edited/corrected the second and third passes through each section). While I’m not a big MacLaren fan, I am quite familiar with a number of the other “artistic” contributors, several of whom are rather conservative, and when I go through the seminaries and individuals identified in the historical translation team, they are predominantly from conservative or Reformed seminaries. I’m not going to play the “guilty by association” skubala you so enjoy.

You and I know the law is good (if used in the right way), and we also know the law was not designed for law-abiding people but for lawbreakers and criminals, the ungodly and sin-filled, the unholy and worldly, the father killers and mother killers, the murderers, the sexually immoral and homosexuals, slave dealers, liars, perjurers, and anyone else who acts against sound doctrine laid out in the glorious, holy, and pure good news of the blessed God that has been entrusted to me. (I Tim 1:10 The Voice)

Oddly enough, they still included Leviticus 18:22, as well.

When you’re already bent on hating someone, simple things like logic and charity go out the window. Perhaps “pastoring” still isn’t your thing.

There are no attempts to “weaken the deity of Christ”. Simply laying out the actual translation of “Christ”, rather than transliterate the word, does no such thing. Just because you’ve idolized certain phraseology doesn’t mean that your idolization (in a language that didn’t even exist 2000 years ago) needs to be codified.

As for “sexual deviancy”, the Biblical definition of sexual immorality is fully contained in Leviticus 18, which includes homosexual practice. But this translation, as I noted in the review, is not meant for word-study, but for reading aloud or as a narrative. If you want to do serious Bible study, having multiple versions, along with a good concordance and interlinear Greek/Hebrew texts is the way to go. As for “emergent”, “post-Christian”, etc., etc., you’ve got no clue what you’re talking about, as most of the historical translation team comes from Reformed, Restoration Movement and fairly Fundamentalist seminaries, and there is no Pauline “downgrade”, etc., that you claim.

What nonsense. Sometimes I wonder why we just don’t apply Proverbs 23:9 and just leave you in moderation to avoid your foolishness.

All you’re doing is A) demonstrating that you still have no ability to read for comprehension; B) complaining that a hammer doesn’t make a good screwdriver; and C) proving your ignorance.

Give me a break. Sexual Deviancy is in NO WHERE CLOSE to the Greek ???????????? or ??????? it is a rendering that allows for change in the definition of sexual deviancy, which, by the way, included homosexuality until 1972.