In article <167.06.14.05.483904000@srcbs.org>, Paul Chapman says...

>Matthew Johnson wrote:
>> In article <165.15.13.05.126519000@srcbs.org>, Paul Chapman says...

>>>Matthew Johnson wrote:

>>>

>>>>That reminds me to ask: what translation ARE you following? And
>>>>why are you breaching netiquette by failing to follow the
>>>>guidelines of the FAQ and Charter? You are supposed to indicate
>>>>which translation you are following, using the standard
>>>>abbreviations.

>>>I notice you don't always indicate that your following the AV when
>>>quoting from it.

>> What are you talking about? I almost never use the AV.


>Matthew, there are quotes by you from the scriptures in this and
>other threads where you have not indicated the version.

What _are_ you talking about? If you really want to pursue this, give
specific message-id numbers. For your comments below show that you
must have misread something.

> The quotes I read appeared to me to be from the 'authorized'
>lineage, based on the FAQ http://srcbs.org/faqs/biblelist.html If it
>wasn't the AV you quoted then it may have been another translation in
>the same lineage.

No, it was not. I never quote the KJV w/o attribution, and rarely
quote it at all in the first place. So again: what _are_ you talking
about?

[snip]


>So you will too? Great! Naturally, you'll replace 'AV' in the tagline
>with your preferred translation's standard abbreviation ;)

No, I have configured my Bible browsing software to automatically add
the abbreviation everytime. So that is what I do.

>>>

[snip]

>>>The Sadducees denied there was any ressurection.(Luke 20:27) Jesus
>>>spoke those words to show "that the dead are raised" (Luke 20:37).

>> You miss the point. By speaking those words, he proved _MORE_ than
>> "that the dead are raised". He proved that the reposed saints are
>> still, in some important sense of the word, alive.

>Yes, but not in the sense you make it.

No, it really IS in the sense I make it.

[snip]

>One can not be raised unless he is first DEAD. If he is ALIVE then he
>can not be subject to the resurrection, and therefore can not be said
>to "rise".

How can you not see that this is unsatisfactory? For Christ called
Abraham ALIVE.

>But, in his discussion with the Sadducees, Jesus affirmed "that the
>DEAD are raised" (Luke 20:37)--not that those who are ALIVE are
>raised.

You miss the point: He also referred to at least _some_ of these
'dead' as ALIVE. Your exegesis overlooks th