KING JAMES' BLUNDERS

[Buff Scott Jr.]

The Conspicuous Blunders of
King James
​

Q. “Buff, regarding a recent column on the KJV and ‘church,’ I suspect you are also aware that ‘baptize/baptism’ also isn’t a biblical term. It was another one of King James’ inventions. ‘Baptism’ is a transliteration of ‘dip’ or ‘immerse.’ I live in Holland and in the Dutch Bibles the word used is to ‘dip.’ No transliteration here. As to ‘church,’ we call ourselves the ‘community of Christ’ in Dutch.”—Sandi.​

<><><>​

This is all quite interesting, Sandi. The late W. Carl Ketcherside, a scholar among scholars, whose knowledge was not achieved by underwriting the partisan language of Seminaries and Theological institutions, often said the Greek “ekklesia” should have been translated “community.”

It might interest you to know that William Tyndale’s translation of the New Testament scriptures was published in 1525, almost 100 years before The King James Version made its appearance. He translated ekklesia “congregation” and baptizo “immerse” and was condemned to death by the Religious Establishment of the Papal as a heretic. Additionally, Hugh J. Schonfield’s Authentic New Testament (1955) renders Matthew 16:18, “Upon that rock I will found my community.”

If the Greek “baptizo” had been translated accurately by King James’ scholars, or if he had permitted them to translate the term correctly, sprinkling in the place of immersion may never have gotten off the ground. And if the Greek ekklesia had been accurately rendered, “Churchitis” might not have surfaced.

Sects and religious parties will, of course, always be with us, as they were 2,000 years ago, but not the spiritual disease I call “Churchitis.” When man tampers with divine revelation and takes it upon himself to distort the Holy Spirit’s vocabulary, digression is just over the horizon—in fact, it has arrived already, long ago.—Buff.​

 

[Josheb]

There are many translational errors in the KJV. The most obvious is "agape" being translated as "charity" in 1 Cor. 13.

 

[David Lamb]

There are many translational errors in the KJV. The most obvious is "agape" being translated as "charity" in 1 Cor. 3.

That is not necessarily an error, just one of many English words which have changed their meaning over the years since 1611. An online etymological dictionary says about charity:

"benevolence for the poor," also "Christian love in its highest manifestation," from Old French charité "(Christian) charity, mercy, compassion; alms; charitable foundation" (12c.), from Latin caritatem (nominative caritas) "costliness; esteem, affection," from carus "dear, valued" (from PIE *karo-, from root *ka- "to like, desire").

In the Vulgate the Latin word often is used as translation of Greek agape "love" — especially Christian love of fellow man — perhaps to avoid the sexual suggestion of Latin amor). The Vulgate also sometimes translated agape by Latin dilectio, noun of action from diligere "to esteem highly, to love" (see diligence).

Wyclif and the Rhemish version regularly rendered the Vulgate dilectio by 'love,' caritas by 'charity.' But the 16th c. Eng. versions from Tindale to 1611, while rendering agape sometimes 'love,' sometimes 'charity,' did not follow the dilectio and caritas of the Vulgate, but used 'love' more often (about 86 times), confining 'charity' to 26 passages in the Pauline and certain of the Catholic Epistles (not in I John), and the Apocalypse .... In the Revised Version 1881, 'love' has been substituted in all these instances, so that it now stands as the uniform rendering of agape. [OED]

The general sense of "affections people ought to feel for one another" is from c. 1300. Also from c. 1300 as "an act of kindness or philanthropy," also "alms, that which is bestowed gratuitously on a person or persons in need." The sense of "charitable foundation or institution" in English is attested by 1690s. The meaning "liberality in judging others or their actions" is from late 15c. A charity-school (1680s) educated (and sometimes housed and fed) poor children and was maintained by voluntary contributions or bequests.

 

[Mr GLee]

The Conspicuous Blunders of
King James
​

Q. “Buff, regarding a recent column on the KJV and ‘church,’ I suspect you are also aware that ‘baptize/baptism’ also isn’t a biblical term. It was another one of King James’ inventions. ‘Baptism’ is a transliteration of ‘dip’ or ‘immerse.’ I live in Holland and in the Dutch Bibles the word used is to ‘dip.’ No transliteration here. As to ‘church,’ we call ourselves the ‘community of Christ’ in Dutch.”—Sandi.​

<><><>​

This is all quite interesting, Sandi. The late W. Carl Ketcherside, a scholar among scholars, whose knowledge was not achieved by underwriting the partisan language of Seminaries and Theological institutions, often said the Greek “ekklesia” should have been translated “community.”

It might interest you to know that William Tyndale’s translation of the New Testament scriptures was published in 1525, almost 100 years before The King James Version made its appearance. He translated ekklesia “congregation” and baptizo “immerse” and was condemned to death by the Religious Establishment of the Papal as a heretic. Additionally, Hugh J. Schonfield’s Authentic New Testament (1955) renders Matthew 16:18, “Upon that rock I will found my community.”

If the Greek “baptizo” had been translated accurately by King James’ scholars, or if he had permitted them to translate the term correctly, sprinkling in the place of immersion may never have gotten off the ground. And if the Greek ekklesia had been accurately rendered, “Churchitis” might not have surfaced.

Sects and religious parties will, of course, always be with us, as they were 2,000 years ago, but not the spiritual disease I call “Churchitis.” When man tampers with divine revelation and takes it upon himself to distort the Holy Spirit’s vocabulary, digression is just over the horizon—in fact, it has arrived already, long ago.—Buff.​

Baptizo. . . to wash, another Greek word that should have been translated into English. Like the word apostle or sabbath that change the meaning in order to sneak in an oral tradition of men as some sort of outward lying sign to wonder after (I did it, it proves it) Charismatic.

The word baptize is simply "wash" like wash dishes it's never about the procedure dip, sprinkle, immerse, spray.

Water of the word washing of the renewing.

Aaron's two sons found out the hard way violated the commandment not to add or subtract from (sola scriptura) adding to the washing and renewing called strange fire

Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing (Baptizing) of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

 

[Jonathan E. Brickman]

My favorite "blunder" (good word) of the KJV may be the insertion of the word "unicorn", Numbers 23:22 and 24:8, Isaiah 34:7, and several others. The Hebrew has no resemblance to it (neither "single" nor "horn" involved); it is a term of Celtic pagan mythology. It's often thought to refer to the now-extinct wild ox, the aurochs.

 

[Josheb]

That is not necessarily an error...

First, let me not that I meant 1 Corinthians 13, not 1 Corinthians 3. That was a typographical error, and I have amended the original post accordingly.


Yes, it is an error, and necessarily so.

Rationalizations stink. Even if we were to abide by the notion "charity" would have been understood as love 400 years ago that is not a justification for the KJV remaining wrong. However, the irrational appeal to 1611 FAILS because that is the only place the KJV translates "agape" as "charity." The KJV is inconsistent with itself. No amount of sophistry changes that fact. The KJV uses the word "charity" nine times in that chapter. Any one of those verses can be selected and compared to the way the KJV translates the word elsewhere. If we take verse 1, for example, and examine how the KJV translates that word we find there are 33 uses of the conjugation "agapen" in the New Testament and the KJV translates 11 of them as "charity." The other two-thirds are translated "love." No other translation since the KJV does that. The KJV carried over a tradition from the Douay-Rheims and RCC doctrine. That problem is replicated in verses 2, 3, 4, 8, and 14. The KJV is not consistent with the Greek, and it is not consistent with itself.

The same exact problem occurs with the "aionos" of Matthew 13:49. The KJV translates "aionos" as "world," making the verse state the end of the world will come, when what Jesus actually states was the end of the age would come. Not only are the following two sentence radically different from one another in meaning...

• That is the way it will be at the end of the world.
• That is the way it will be at the end of the age.

...the end of the world not supported by the whole of scripture. The world, in fact, will be renewed and restored, not ended. Sadly, the KJV is not alone in that blunder. Many translations have followed the Douay-Rheims/KJV/RCC tradition rather than the Greek. Greek always trumps KJV.

, just one of many English words which have changed their meaning over the years since 1611. An online etymological dictionary says about charity:

"benevolence for the poor," also "Christian love in its highest manifestation," from Old French charité "(Christian) charity, mercy, compassion; alms; charitable foundation" (12c.), from Latin caritatem (nominative caritas) "costliness; esteem, affection," from carus "dear, valued" (from PIE *karo-, from root *ka- "to like, desire").

In the Vulgate the Latin word often is used as translation of Greek agape "love" — especially Christian love of fellow man — perhaps to avoid the sexual suggestion of Latin amor). The Vulgate also sometimes translated agape by Latin dilectio, noun of action from diligere "to esteem highly, to love" (see diligence).


The general sense of "affections people ought to feel for one another" is from c. 1300. Also from c. 1300 as "an act of kindness or philanthropy," also "alms, that which is bestowed gratuitously on a person or persons in need." The sense of "charitable foundation or institution" in English is attested by 1690s. The meaning "liberality in judging others or their actions" is from late 15c. A charity-school (1680s) educated (and sometimes housed and fed) poor children and was maintained by voluntary contributions or bequests.

Sophistry!

I am familiar with the apologetic efforts to defend the KJV. The fact remains: the KJV is not perfect. It was good for its time, and it can be used today as a fairly accurate formal translation, but it contains "blunders" that should (and could easily) be corrected. It can be defended on other grounds, but its obvious errors should never be defended. They should be acknowledged (and corrected).


.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Baptizo is a far reachign greek word that sadly was transliterated into English and not translated causing alot of confusion.

In the greek. to baptize means to plunge, to immerse, to place into. to overwhelm.

a baptizer was usually one who dyed garments, as another form of the word to baptize was the process of dying fabric to different colors.

baptism was the process of this procedure to dye.

it is a derivitive of the greek word bapto, which means to dip. in revelations, we are told Jesus will return with his robe dipped (bapto) in blood.

as for the word agape, it is one of the 4 different greek words for love

Agape
Phileo
Storge
Eros

sadly, KJV and other english bibles translate all 4 with one word. love.

 

[Arial]

Baptizo is a far reachign greek word that sadly was transliterated into English and not translated causing alot of confusion.

In the greek. to baptize means to plunge, to immerse, to place into. to overwhelm.

a baptizer was usually one who dyed garments, as another form of the word to baptize was the process of dying fabric to different colors.

baptism was the process of this procedure to dye.

it is a derivitive of the greek word bapto, which means to dip. in revelations, we are told Jesus will return with his robe dipped (bapto) in blood.

as for the word agape, it is one of the 4 different greek words for love

Agape
Phileo
Storge
Eros

sadly, KJV and other english bibles translate all 4 with one word. love.

Welcome to the forum. I look forward to your input.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Welcome to the forum. I look forward to your input.

thank you

 

[Buff Scott Jr.]

Baptizo. . . to wash, another Greek word that should have been translated into English. Like the word apostle or sabbath that change the meaning in order to sneak in an oral tradition of men as some sort of outward lying sign to wonder after (I did it, it proves it) Charismatic.

The word baptize is simply "wash" like wash dishes it's never about the procedure dip, sprinkle, immerse, spray.

Water of the word washing of the renewing.

Aaron's two sons found out the hard way violated the commandment not to add or subtract from (sola scriptura) adding to the washing and renewing called strange fire

Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing (Baptizing) of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

Mr Glee, you posted above, "The word baptize is simply 'wash' like wash dishes it's never about the procedure dip, sprinkle, immerse, spray."

It is apparent the early believers understood and practiced baptizo as immersion—or complete covering. "And he (Philip) commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized (immersed) him. And when they both came out of the water..." (Acts 8:38-40).

"Going down into the water" and "coming out of the water" entails far more than dipping, sprinkling, or spraying. See also Acts 10:47. It is interesting that when Jesus was immersed—covered over or overwhelmed—"He went up from the water..." - a strong indication He went down into the water, for one cannot come out of the water without first going down into the water. Again, sprinkling, spraying, or dipping are not implied.

Believers are "baptized" with the Holy Spirit. If "baptizo" can be translated dipped, sprinklered, or sprayed, which of these did you receive when you gave your life to the Lord? I could share more and more, but this is enough again to counter King James.​

​

 

[Josheb]

Mr Glee, you posted above, "The word baptize is simply 'wash' like wash dishes it's never about the procedure dip, sprinkle, immerse, spray."

It is apparent the early believers understood and practiced baptizo as immersion​

No, it is not "apparent."

—or complete covering. "And he (Philip) commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized (immersed) him. And when they both came out of the water..." (Acts 8:38-40).​

That begs the question. You cannot put the word "immerse" into the sentence you are trying to prove means immerse. The facts of the passage are insufficient to tell whether the eunuch was immersed or not. There isn't much water in Gaza City. There is a wadi deep enough to immerse a person in the Gaza region but it is about 3 miles (5 km) from the city. If Philip and the eunuch were in the city then it's not likely the eunuch was immersed. The same holds true if they were outside of Gaza on the road to and from Jerusalem (north and east of Gaza City. It is desert. The term used in the passage is "hydor," a generic term for water. There's no mention of what type of body of water that may have been and the failure to identify the water as a stream, river, pond, lake, etc., is odd if it was in fact such a body of water. As far as the text of Acts 8 goes, it could have been a puddle. Note the Greek does NOT state anyone went down into the water. What the Greek states is they (Philip and the eunuch) went to the water, not into it. The Greek transliteraion reads "they went down to the water both Philip and the eunuch and he baptized him. No actual mention of anyone going into the water to any degree (part or whole). It's a bad verse to use to prove immersion. Something like Matthew 3:13 with John and the Jordan (river implied) are much better for making that case.



There is a lot of good content in the posts above but 1) (mods take note) this op is not about immersion versus dipping, sprinkling, or being pour upon, and 2) there's very little about the Jewish practices from which baptism was taken. Baptism was a Jewish conversion ritual. It was practiced when a new convert, a goy, became a Jew. That is one of the reasons the Jewish leaders declared they didn't need to be baptized; they were already Jews, already sons of Abraham. The Jewish ritual of baptism was a cleansing ritual and sometimes it entailed immersion and sometimes it entailed having water poured over the object being cleansed (as described throughout the Law of Moses). While it is valid to examine the Greek use of baptizo (such as a garment dyer), it is not valid to do so at the expense of whole scripture. Scripture is the best interpreter of scripture, not pagan practices and pagan linguistics. Blessedly, the two are reconcilable in this instance.


Nod to @Jonathan E. Brickman. There could have been unicorns back then .
James W. Dale wrote a series of books on baptism covering the Judaic origins and practices, the New Testament usage and practices, the post-NT views and practices of the early Church, and a volume specifically on the Greek usage. They were expensive and hard to find for a while, but Amazon has them. Most of the older paperbacks can be found for about $20. They are dense reads. Dale did his homework.

 

[Buff Scott Jr.]

Josheb: "You cannot put the word 'immerse' into the sentence you are trying to prove means immerse. The facts of the passage are insufficient to tell whether the eunuch was immersed or not."
________

Oh, but I can, if the oldest Greek documents confirm, and they do. Tell me, if the passages are not sufficient enough to inform us the eunuch was immersed, or a similar term that means the same, perhaps you won't mind quoting the event in such a manner that we can better comprehend where you're coming from. Tell us exactly what you think the passages are saying in Greek. Otherwise, I suggest you do a little more biblical research.

And this statement of yours is completely off the wall, in my opinion, "Note the Greek does NOT state anyone went down into the water. What the Greek states is they (Philip and the eunuch) went to the water, not into it." Even the KJV says "they went down into the water" and "they came up out of the water." As well the Revised Version.

Perhaps you won't mind telling us the Version you are quoting from. Is it among the Standard Versions, or a Version invented and devised by a well-known sect? Only asking, no offense.​

 

[David Lamb]

First, let me not that I meant 1 Corinthians 13, not 1 Corinthians 3. That was a typographical error, and I have amended the original post accordingly.


Yes, it is an error, and necessarily so.

Rationalizations stink. Even if we were to abide by the notion "charity" would have been understood as love 400 years ago that is not a justification for the KJV remaining wrong. However, the irrational appeal to 1611 FAILS because that is the only place the KJV translates "agape" as "charity." The KJV is inconsistent with itself. No amount of sophistry changes that fact. The KJV uses the word "charity" nine times in that chapter. Any one of those verses can be selected and compared to the way the KJV translates the word elsewhere. If we take verse 1, for example, and examine how the KJV translates that word we find there are 33 uses of the conjugation "agapen" in the New Testament and the KJV translates 11 of them as "charity." The other two-thirds are translated "love." No other translation since the KJV does that. The KJV carried over a tradition from the Douay-Rheims and RCC doctrine. That problem is replicated in verses 2, 3, 4, 8, and 14. The KJV is not consistent with the Greek, and it is not consistent with itself.

The same exact problem occurs with the "aionos" of Matthew 13:49. The KJV translates "aionos" as "world," making the verse state the end of the world will come, when what Jesus actually states was the end of the age would come. Not only are the following two sentence radically different from one another in meaning...

• That is the way it will be at the end of the world.
• That is the way it will be at the end of the age.

...the end of the world not supported by the whole of scripture. The world, in fact, will be renewed and restored, not ended. Sadly, the KJV is not alone in that blunder. Many translations have followed the Douay-Rheims/KJV/RCC tradition rather than the Greek. Greek always trumps KJV.

Sophistry!

I am familiar with the apologetic efforts to defend the KJV. The fact remains: the KJV is not perfect. It was good for its time, and it can be used today as a fairly accurate formal translation, but it contains "blunders" that should (and could easily) be corrected. It can be defended on other grounds, but its obvious errors should never be defended. They should be acknowledged (and corrected).


.

I would just say that I wasn't intending to use sophistry, nor defending the KJV. (I apologise if I gave that impression). Indeed one reason I favour the NKJV is the fact that many words have changed their meanings since 1611. For example, "quick" meant "living, but now it means rapid, fast. "Prevent" meant "go or come before," but now it means to stop something happening, "Carriages" meant "equipment" but now it's a word associated with transport, as in "railway carriages."

 

[Mr GLee]

Mr Glee, you posted above, "The word baptize is simply 'wash' like wash dishes it's never about the procedure dip, sprinkle, immerse, spray."

It is apparent the early believers understood and practiced baptizo as immersion—or complete covering. "And he (Philip) commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized (immersed) him. And when they both came out of the water..." (Acts 8:38-40).

"Going down into the water" and "coming out of the water" entails far more than dipping, sprinkling, or spraying. See also Acts 10:47. It is interesting that when Jesus was immersed—covered over or overwhelmed—"He went up from the water..." - a strong indication He went down into the water, for one cannot come out of the water without first going down into the water. Again, sprinkling, spraying, or dipping are not implied.

Believers are "baptized" with the Holy Spirit. If "baptizo" can be translated dipped, sprinklered, or sprayed, which of these did you receive when you gave your life to the Lord? I could share more and more, but this is enough again to counter King James.​

​

Thanks, I would offer.

I received the washing (baptizo) and renewing of His Spirit.

Water all forms is used to represent the Holy Spirit inspiration coming down like rain (Deuteronomy 32 :1-2)

Again, not how (dip, sprinkle, spray) But what does it do . . . . washes and renews.

Like husband wash your wives with the water of the word doctrines of Christ that fall like rain and cause growth. In the same way Christ washes his bride.

Ephesians 5:25-27Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

Used in carnal ceremonies as a sign or shadow to the unbelieving word. Not a sign unto themselves. I did it, it proves it

Hebrews 9:10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation; Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.

Adding personal touch. "I did it, proves it. ended up in disaster when Aaron two sons were baptized (washed by the Holy Spirit.

Leviticus 10:1-310 And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the Lord, which he commanded them not. (no false prophecy) And there went out fire from the Lord, and devoured them, and they died before the Lord. Then Moses said unto Aaron, This is it that the Lord spake, saying, I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me, and before all the people I will be glorified. And Aaron held his peace.

Eternal God Simply will not share his eternal glory with the rudiments of this temporal world

Adding to the living word (strange fire). Same kind of false prophecy introduced in the garden of Eden. "neither shall you touch"

Swallowed the whole hook, line and sinker. . . . . the fall

 

[David Lamb]

Thanks, I would offer.

I received the washing (baptizo) and renewing of His Spirit.

Water all forms is used to represent the Holy Spirit inspiration coming down like rain (Deuteronomy 32 :1-2)

Again, not how (dip, sprinkle, spray) But what does it do . . . . washes and renews.

Like husband wash your wives with the water of the word doctrines of Christ that fall like rain and cause growth. In the same way Christ washes his bride.

Ephesians 5:25-27Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

Used in carnal ceremonies as a sign or shadow to the unbelieving word. Not a sign unto themselves. I did it, it proves it

But baptism in water is a command in Scripture:

“"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” (Mt 28:19 NKJV)

We find several examples of people being baptized in water when they had become Christians. The Ethiopian whom Philip baptized, the jailer at Philippi, Cornelius, and others.

Hebrews 9:10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation; Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.

So why do we read in Scripture of people being baptized in water, if water baptism is merely a carnal ordinance, and no different to the Jewish special way of washing before meals:

“For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash [their] hands in a special way, holding the tradition of the elders.” (Mr 7:3 NKJV)

Adding personal touch. "I did it, proves it. ended up in disaster when Aaron two sons were baptized (washed by the Holy Spirit.

Leviticus 10:1-310 And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the Lord, which he commanded them not. (no false prophecy) And there went out fire from the Lord, and devoured them, and they died before the Lord. Then Moses said unto Aaron, This is it that the Lord spake, saying, I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me, and before all the people I will be glorified. And Aaron held his peace.

Eternal God Simply will not share his eternal glory with the rudiments of this temporal world

Adding to the living word (strange fire). Same kind of false prophecy introduced in the garden of Eden. "neither shall you touch"

Swallowed the whole hook, line and sinker. . . . . the fall

 

[Rella]

There are many translational errors in the KJV. The most obvious is "agape" being translated as "charity" in 1 Cor. 13.

About 20 plus years ago I knew a Greek Orthodox mom who named her first born girl Agape.

 

[Mr GLee]

But baptism in water is a command in Scripture:

yes, as a ceremonial shadow sign to the unbelieving world not a sign. I did it, it proves it to the beliver .

Walk or understand by faith (power) the unseen eternal things not seen. Not the temporal seen H20.

s Corinthians 4:18;While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

 

[David Lamb]

yes, as a ceremonial shadow sign to the unbelieving world not a sign. I did it, it proves it to the beliver .

Walk or understand by faith (power) the unseen eternal things not seen. Not the temporal seen H20.

s Corinthians 4:18;While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

I agree that baptism is an outward sign. I certainly do not believe that baptism in water makes a sinner into a Christian, as some teach. Rather, it is a sign of what Jesus Christ has already done in saving that sinner.

 

[Josheb]

Perhaps you won't mind telling us the Version you are quoting from. Is it among the Standard Versions, or a Version invented and devised by a well-known sect? Only asking, no offense.​

Perhaps you would read with greater attention to detail because I linked everyone to the Greek. Don't ask me questions I have already answered.

MOD HAT ON: Violation of the Rules & Guidelines. Address the issue, topic, or argument, not the person.

 

[Buff Scott Jr.]

Perhaps you would read with greater attention to detail because I linked everyone to the Greek. Don't ask me questions I have already answered.

I hear you, brother. I, too, link my sentiments to the Greek.