[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by BrianT

by definition, any list is extra-Biblical. I accept the 66-book canon, but to claim "66-books" is doctrinally authoritative is contradictory.

And when I asked Brian whether there is any problem with alternate canon lists, Brian simply changed the topic. Clearly since it is all only a matter to Brian of "personal conviction" the inclusion of Tobit, the exclusion of the first two chapters of Matthew (ebionites), the addition of Doctrine & Covenants, are all on a level playing field, simply personal conviction, whim, preferance or brainwashing. There is no absolute truth in regard to the identity of Scripture, no authority is possible, only personal preference. We see that Brian declares that he has no substantive argument with views that offer alternate Scriptures, to Brian they are conceptually just as sound as his own preference.

Originally Posted by BrianT

Similarly, I deny the claim the KJV is the textually inerrant word of God for the same reason I deny the Geneva, or the Vulgate,

Brian's personal conviction (we are aksing him if he calls it is a doctrine) and claim (is it really a conviction, only God knows, personally I think not) is that NO tangible Bible can be the pure and perfect word of God. (This view is only exercised against the King James Bible since that is the only Bible actively proclaimed and defended as pure and perfect.) That was the purpose of his cumbersome and convoluted and faulty A-L, where Brian could not even understand the deficiences in "A" !

What Will and I are asking him is if this claim of his (that no Bible text in any language can be proclaimed as pure and perfect) is itself Bible-based or not. Simple question. I have seen no answer, although Brian claims that he has answeed. Brian you can start simply -- is this view of yours of the impossibility of a pure Bible received and recognized by man a personal conviction or do you claim that this non-pure-Bible-view is itself Bible-based with authority ?

ie. Does the Bible itself claim, according to Brian, an offshoot of the Liar's Paradox:

"There is no such thing as a tangible pure and perfect, preserved Bible text".

Does the Bible proclaim, as Brian asserts, that every Bible extant today must be errant? And if so, can the claim within the Bible that no Bible is pure, when found and proclaimed by Brian, itself able to be errant ?? Or is that the one truly absolute truth in Brian's Bible ?

And how could any claim at all be truly "Bible-based" since you allow each individual to define the Bible and its translations to fit their personal convictions ? (Snip) this verse, this chapter, this book, add this ... it is all only personal whim, like your preference for 66-books based on no authority.

All this appears to be a windy, vaporish "personal conviction" of Brians that he tries to weakly formalize by a very faulty negation logic. Just like the skeptic who declares that the Bible cannot be true because of the reference in Jeremiah 8:8 to "lying scribes" (in the modern versions). Actually the skeptic logic is far sounder than Brians -- except that they are using faulty English translations to make their point . However according to Brian they can surely do that and call it "Bible".

Shalom,
Steven