I do not ask, nor would I ever expect anyone to wade through well > 8500+ posts I have made, over a 3 yr. 4 mo. period (Yeah, I've seen a few hundred disappear in BB reformattings, and deletions of entire threads, but they have been made, I assure you.). No brag, just fact, although I might be tempted to brag a bit had I amassed 42K+ posts as has
I Am Blessed 20. 
However, I believe you are entirely off base, in your conclusion of what version or versions you have assumed I "dislike effectively", regardless of what you may find amusing. In fact, on the Baptist Board,I have approvingly cited, referred to, and/or quoted more than 3 doz. (and very possibly as many as 50) different English translations and/or versions and/or editions for over 6 1/4 centuries, including (but not necessarily limited to) in general chronological order, the WYC, WYC-P, TYN, MCB, MATT (sp.?), GRT, BIS, GEN, D-R, KJ-1611, KJ-1769, multiple other KJVs (of which I am not sure of exactly what flavor, even though assuming it to be that of 1769, for the site from which I copied the verse did not give this specific information), WES, WEB, YLT, RV, KJ-1873, DBY, ASV, JBR, Phillips, MLB, KJ-1967, NASB, LIV, KJII, NLV, NIV, NKJV, NCV, KJ21, NLT, NET, ESV, MSG, HCSB, TNT, WEB, TNIV, and TMB. Occasionally, I offered my own rendering of a NT passage, and identified this as such, as well. I have not done this for any OT verse, however, as that would be totally inappropriate, as I do not even recognize on sight, any Hebrew aside from the letter 'Aleph'.
While I have expressed my personal preference, generally, for 'formal equivalence' translations, I have not hesitated to cite any of the above, which do not fit the general overall characterization of 'formal equivalence' when a version gave an especially good rendering of the verse or verses in question. Likewise, I have not hesitated to suggest that some other version gave a better rendering than whatever particular version another had suggested for a given text, when appropriate. I have done this without any "disparaging 'cracks' or insinuations" directed at any other versions, users of such, or translators of a version. [FTR, the reason I most often cite the NKJV (as opposed to the KJ-1967, which I would actually prefer) is that the former is on-line, and I would have to painstakingly type out what the KJ-1967 says, as I am not aware that it is on-line.] Would you not consider my citings and procedure to be a completely even-handed approach? If not, why not?If you happen to be referring to the above question I asked, then thanks for the response, for that touches on my original question I asked you, on this thread. If this is a 'sarcastic comment' directed to my "FTR" remark (since I believe you noted you do not like sarcasm), what is the occasion for this? I still would like the formal confirmation of an answer to the question I initially asked on this thread, but I don't think I shall 'hold my breath' while waiting for a straight answer to the question, for I sense that might take a while.
BTW, as one who was not particularly 'fleet-of-foot' when I was in school, I was never all that good at 'dodge-ball' unlike some others I have encountered. And I move even slower, today, at 60.
Ed
