Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Avery
Likely every King James Bible poster here will tell you that a Bible that omits the Johannine Comma is not the full and pure word of God. That it is errant in that respect. Luther got caught in a bit of a quaqmire on that issue (e.g. he originally worked with the early editions of Erasmus) and the Luther Bible had a significant omission, an error. You might find one poster on a forum who sort of implies otherwise, but so what ? (You can ask him to explain his position more fully.)
Will, myself and a dozen others will tell you simply : the omission of the Johannine Comma is a significant textual error and problem. As is the omission of any pure Bible verse. If that is not correct, Will or Tim or another can jump right in and say so .... Then you say very specifically that "textual error" is the "word of God" .. whether it is a major doctrinal battle-ground or a missing verse. The same verse variants about which you now say one is a "textual error" you earlier said were both accepted by you as the "word of God". Brian, this is insipid.
|
I'm not sure that "insipid" is the word I'd use, brother; in my understanding, it's "insipid" when Shelton Smith publishes an average of ten pictures of himself in each issue of his so-called newspaper. Apart from that, however, I couldn't agree with you more. The inclusion/acceptance of the Johannine Comma, along with Acts 12:4, are
the acid tests for genuine belief in the Bible. (I do not attach the same doctrinal importance to both verses, of course.) There are others that are just as bad, but those two stick out like sore thumbs in any discussion of the authentic text.
A man or woman who claims to believe 1 Jn. 5:7,
and to believe the marginal note disclaiming its authenticity, is a man or woman with no final authority. I was in that position for the first third of my Christian life. When I pledged allegiance to the NASV, I all too often found myself wondering if I would
ever know what God had really said.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Brian T
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Vendetta Ride
if a propositional revelation is needed, why shouldn't I, using your reasoning, choose the Koran over the Bible?
|
When I want to know how to program a computer, I read a computer manual, not a cookbook. When I want to know what the King's message is, I read a translation of the King's speech, not a translation of the memoirs and philosophies of a violent pedophile. But just because I read the King's speech does not mean I'm going to understand it all correctly, even with the Holy Spirit's help - it still goes through the filters of our bias and limited, fallible comprehension. But I stand a much better shot of getting the King's intended message by reading the King's speech and not something else. |
That's a fine confession of faith, dear brother, but it's an equally fine evasion. You didn't answer my question. The Muslims believe that they have the propositional message, too. Without an infallible, demonstrably inerrant Bible, how do you know (apart from personal experience) that they're mistaken?
This is no debater's trick I'm employing, nor is it a game I'm playing. Thousands are going to Hell this evening for lack of an answer to this question.
12-04-2008, 06:21 PM
Threaded Mode