[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by BrianT

Forrest...Thank you for being the first KJV-only supporter I have ever met that admits that the doctrine of KJV-onlyism is not authoritative.

It looks like you twisted Forrest statement to your own purpose.

If I share with a skeptic that Jesus is the Messiah of Israel and I am redeemed by the blood of the lamb, my statement to the skeptic or infidel is not "authoritative", nor would I declare it so, even though it is truth.

If I share with an agnostic that God has given us a clearly defined Bible ("66 books") that is the word of God, the Scriptures, my word and sharing, while true, is not authoritative.

Similarly if a person lacks the faith to accept that God's word is fully pure and perfect, my word to him that God's word is pure, while true, is not authoritative.

That looks like what Forrest shared with you (Forrest can correct me if I misunderstood) and you were so anxious to deceive yourself that you twisted it for your own purposes of unbelief.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steve,

It is possible I misunderstood Forrest, but I did not intentionally "twist" his comments. But thanks for assuming the worst.

Brian

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by BrianT

I accept the Reformation Bible canon with conviction, but I don't accept it s authoritative doctrine.

So a person with another conviction about the canon is not "wrong" in terms of truth ? Your spiritual brethren can choose other books as their personal conviction ? Since they are not on the wrong side of any doctrinal truth, by your view.

Shalom,
Steven

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by BrianT

It is possible I misunderstood Forrest, but I did not intentionally "twist" his comments. But thanks for assuming the worst.

Most welcome. I was pretty amazed at the effort you had to go to try to place his position as unique. Since you are perhaps understanding a bit better, I will be happy to retract the intentional part of what I shared above, twisting to deceive.

However now we are seeing that you have your own private vocabularly on terms like "authoritative". All of us would likely share that we consider the doctrine of the Reformation Bible (66 books) as "God's authority" and sure and true. As is the fact that Jesus was born of the virgin, rose from the dead and that can we have in our hands the pure and perfect word of God. Available to the ploughman and even the seminarian.

You define as "authoritative" only those items you find in "Scripture" yet you define "Scripture" only through the lens of your personal conviction, allowing others to have different "Scripture" from differing convictions. And thus they would have different "authoritative" doctrines, with no transgression.

It is rather interesting, I must admit, to see the quagmire you are in, and I do hope that you can see the need to get out and onto solid ground.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steve,

The concept is very simple: if you claim doctrine can only come from scripture, you can't also claim a doctrine (any doctrine) that doesn't come from scripture, at least not without contradicting yourself. Also, there is a difference between a conviction and an authoritative doctrine.

Let me know when you are finally able to grasp this, instead of reading things into my words that I am not saying. Until then, adieu!

Brian

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by BrianT

Please quote me where I made such a statement. I do not believe both were "originals"

Both were to you the word of God. Those were your words. Later you called one a textual error.

You figure it out. To me it is nonsense.

(Better yet, comes to grip with the underlying difficulty.)

Shalom,
Steven

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by BrianT

The concept is very simple: if you claim doctrine can only come from scripture, you can't also claim a doctrine (any doctrine) that doesn't come from scripture

How do you know what comes from "Scripture" ?

What if a person says that Tobit is Scripture, their personal conviction, and develop a doctrine therefrom. Or Doctrine & Covenants, or the Urantia Book. Or that the first two chapters of Matthew are not Scripture. Or cuts out the Pauline epistles. All their personal conviction.

Clearly, there is nothing authoritative for you against their positions. Do you see anything wrong with their views ? Why ? On what basis ?

How can you claim any significance that doctrine "comes from Scripture" if each person only develops their concept of Scripture from "personal conviction" or personal whim and preference or personal brainwashing ?

Why it is easy to cut-and-snip "Scripture", or put in add-ons, and find the texts and translations and redaction theories you want to result in your desired doctrine. Folks do it every day.

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

Hort even developed a theory of "primitive corruptions" that he thought were Scripture, even though they could have no support in any known manuscript in any language. What if one of those personal conviction primitive corruptions leads to a doctrine that even you find discomfiting ? (If such exists.) Do you have any base to be concerned ? After all the doctrines would be based on "Scripture". To you lots of contradictory doctrtines and contradictory geographical and historical "facts" would be okay, as long as they all purport to be based on Scripture.

Shalom,
Steven

What if a person says that Tobit is Scripture, their personal conviction, and develop a doctrine therefrom. Or Doctrine & Covenants, or the Urantia Book. Or that the first two chapters of Matthew are not Scripture. Or cuts out the Pauline epistles. All their personal conviction. There is nothing authoritative for you against their positions.

None of what you are saying has anything to do with the core contradiction. If a person believes only the 2007 New York City Yellow Pages is scripture, and claims doctrine can only come from scripture, then he contradicts himself if he proclaims a doctrine that is not found in the 2007 NYC Yellow Pages. This is not rocket science, this is grade 1 logic. I'm not going to waste any more time helping you get to grade 2.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by BrianT

If a person believes only the 2007 New York City Yellow Pages is scripture, and claims doctrine can only come from scripture.

Personally I never say that (B) "doctrine can only come from Scripture" without first declaring (A) clearly and fully what is Scripture, the pure and perfect word of God.

(B) without (A) would be of course a silly claim, one without substance. Brian's telephone book might end up being the "scripture", what a quandary.

Oops.. oh yeah ... that is exactly what you do, Brian ... say all doctrine is dependent on Scripture without the absolutely necessary prelim .. the postulates and convictions of faith that identify Scripture, the full books and text. (And to the true believer such postulates and convictions have equal or more authority than the resultant doctrines, which are derivative.) So your claim is meaningless.

And that is why you refuse to answer my post right above.

The identity of Scripture is the first priority, the first "doctrine of the faith", all other doctrine is derivative.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

PS.
One of the most fascinating verse studies is Jeremiah 8:8, precisely because in many modern versions it represents the "liar's paradox", 'scripture' undermining its own authority. The Jewish versions and the King James Bible have no such problem.

The only solution to your problem is to have an outside authority declare what your definition of scripture is in the first place. Which of course is also a contradiction to your position of only your scripture being authoritative. But that's grade 3, so don't worry about it for now.

OK, really, last post. Have the last word, I have better things to do like clip my toenails.