Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianT
I do not pretend my view is authoritative. However, if using a plural is wrong, than scripture was broken for millennia, which I cannot accept. Also, it means the KJV is not a preservation of scripture, but a correction of scripture. The NKJV agrees with the Hebrew in this verse, and I cannot call it an error without saying scripture was always in error. If you can do that, that's your choice, but I don't see why my reluctance to say scripture was always in error until 1611 causes some here to oppose me, and take threads off topic just so they can be spiritually condescending, call me names and misrepresent my views.
God bless,
Brian
|
No one is misrepresenting your views.
Here is your EXACT QUOTE, word for word:
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianT
So yes, I 'deny the doctrine of an inerrant Bible composed of 66 books as having ever existed and certainly not now"
There it is, like a dead blowfish on dock.
LOL, Brian, don't make me pin you to the wall again.
Here you are trying to "challenge" real Bible Believers about errors. Yet, because you do not accept the existence of an inerrant Bible, you have ALREADY STATED YOU THINK SCRIPTURE IS IN ERROR. We pulled the cover off your rusty wagon weeks ago, and the snake oil you are peddling is becoming an embarrassment to you, please stop.
Throughout this thread, you have been patiently shown the problems in the NKJV, I have put up many references myself. If you want it, it's yours, have at it. But please, play with it outside!
