because we made a pact that we would only use the KJV for debates...which only proves your word means nothing ....

In just the average reading/studying the bible you can not stick to one translation Funches.

I don't remember/know what you're talking about anyways.

Different translations were made at different times by different cultures, therefore their words themselves do not mean the exact same thing.

Cowboy the pact took place when I used a passage from the "NIV" and you starting whining about it, so we made a pact to only use the KJV ...but now that it's ok to use any version of any bible...things will be interesting

I'm disappointed in you for violating the pact my young jedi padawan...

I did not violate anything. This was all brought up because you were taking things out of context using two different translations again taking them out of context trying to refute the other. For that time being we chose just to use the KJV, but that did not mean that was the ONLY one we were ever going to use. Cause again, you can not restrict yourself to just one translation. One should read multiple different translation and use a concordance to find out what is truly ment in the scriptures in question.

And again, this was brought up, because one instant you would use one translation, then try to say their was a contradiction because it said this or that in a totally different location of a totally different translation with you again taking what was said out of context.

because people jump from Bible to Bible is the very reason why we made the pact to only use the KJV

if you wish to violate the pact...then that is your choice, but don't blame anyone but yourself for not sticking to your word

Even with sticking to KJV, it says God made "man and woman". It does not say a man and a woman. Does not signify any singular meaning in the word "man" and "woman".

Cowboy, you might be a tad bit confused...my point was that "Man" was a singular noun that referred to a race of people just as The Word" was a singular noun that referred to "all" those that has yet to come in the flesh ...and that this is why everyone was once "The Word"

so I'm not disputing what you said about "Man" because it proves my point

my disappointment was the fact that you violated the pact and "your word" to only use the KJV

it wasn't even a need to violate the pact since I wasn't disputing that Man meant Mankind.....you became your own Judas Goat

What are you talking about Funches?

Man/Mankind is not a singular noun, it is a singular noun as it refers to a singular group of people, but man does not mean 1 man. It does not say God made A man, God made A woman. Says God made man and woman.

In no possible can "Word" be ment in the same way. "Word" does not refer to a group of people.

And no pact was violated Funches. That "agreement" was made in response to you using two different translations and taking their wording out of context trying to say their was a contradiction between the translations. That's where the "agreement" laid. But again, to truly understand the scriptures one can not limit the study to one translation. Takes all the translations.

But again, that has absolutely nothing to do with the reason we chose to stick to the KJV, again we chose to do that because of your word twisting.

And still regardless of all that, it says the same exact thing Funches.

God created man, not A man.

And no pact was violated Funches.