[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by BrianT

By "original words", I simply refer to the words of what we today call the Bible, as they were first written. I.e. the words Luke himself wrote (regardless of when or what language he wrote them in) that would eventually be called "The Gospel According to St. Luke",

Every strong King James Bible defender, and Reformation Bible defender, has a 100% conviction that Luke's words includes Acts 8:37, written by Luke. You do not. So unless we can settle this question "A" remains the first flaw.

If you allow the "original words" to include the omission of Acts 8:37 then your definition of "original words" includes errant texts, confusions, a book not fully God-breathed. You have already created a textual bifurcation that contradicts the holiness and accuracy and perfection of the word of God. (A confusion that is non-existent to any defender of the Reformation Bible.) You have already lost the discussion by insisting that either alternative, written or not-written by Luke, can both conceptually be the pure and perfect, inerrant word of God. You are already enmeshed in the quagmire of contradiction.

Of course I could give examples within the Gospel of Luke, however since this is critical doctrinally and is well-known, I leave Acts 8:37 as the example.

Braian, overall, you are the one making this far too complicated.

Remember, this problem is at the heart of your confusion and you even went so far as to claim that both the inclusion and omission were the "word of God" (your words in the similar John 1:18 and 1 Timothy 3:16 examples). You start with a basic fallacy and try to build on sand.

================================================

Your multi-comments involving doctrinal difference with King Jame Bible defenders are simply silly misemphasis. Clearly defenders have different interpretations (just peruse this forum) and God knows in every difference, soteriology, eschatology, Messiahology, every doctrine and consideration, what view is approved.

We all simply know and receive and accept the plumbline, the source of doctrinal proof, the pure and perfect Holy Bible, the King James Bible. You have switched to trying to emphasize doctrinal differences (you can see spirited debates here on Calvinism and Arminianism and a dozen other issues as well) simply because the fact that we know the identity of the pure and perfect word of God is too discomfiting. So you try hard to obfuscate and divert.

Let us know when a poster says:

"all King James Bible defenders will see identically on all these doctrines ... Calvinism, soteriology, Messiahology etc."

(Beyond e.g. items like:

the Deity of Messiah == "God was manifest in the flesh.."
the virgin birth, weakened in some versions
the purity and perfection of the Bible, weakened in the versions.

Then you will be welcome to point out that this supposed agreement is not correct, with hearty agreement from myself and others. )

Of course the modern versions really cannot defend the tangible purity and perfection of the Bible, since they are loaded with corruptions, like the swine marathon from Gerasa.

Note, there will be dozens of other agreements among King James Bible defenders, based clearly on the Bible text as written, where the modern versions are over the map. I doubt that you will ever find a defender today talk of the "only-begotten god" -- which you have to find acceptable since you never know which Greek is true. Or say that infants are the individuals subject to baptized (simple exegesis including Acts 8:37 as a primary text). It might be a good exercise to come up with many more of these.

Shalom,
Steven Avery