View Single Post
Old 07-19-2009, 03:12 AM
Steven Avery Steven Avery is offline
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 462

Hi Folks,

Actually I have not ever seen a "neutral" environment when it comes to the Bible. Much like there is not a "neutral" alternative between capitalizing a word in English or not capitalizing the word.

My purpose was simply to show you how you are trapped in a paradigmic box, virtually compelled to accuse the Bible even when it is pure and true and where you even understand and acknowledge the actual textual/interpretative issue and the superiority of the King James Bible text. That has been done. You were unconcerned about the fact that by your seminary-style training you make such accusations as a matter of habit, and instead went into a deflect mode.

If I felt that you really had an earnest desire to understand the paridigmic issues (related to the sophist exposition of George) I would likely recommend an alternative (not neutral) forum, if it was needful. However from experience I have found that you have simply blocked out the basic and fundamental issues, desiring to clutter your mind with pseudo-issues instead.

To reiterate GreekTim, because of your fundamental error, to be consistent you would have to accuse every single English Bible of "translational bias" .. even if one Bible is the pure and perfect word of God. Yet, in practice, due to the authority and perfection of the King James Bible, you will spew out the accusation the bulk of the time against one Bible, the Holy Bible, the King James Bible. This is because the authority and perfection is a challenge to your muddle no-pure-Bible perspective, (That pent-up defensive animus is why you didn't use a phrase like "translator's understanding" that would have at least had the benefit of masking your own bias.) Thus such accusations you use as an attempted salve -- throwing out little petty accusations against the pure word of God. The irony in this thread, why I took the time, was that you even accused after acknowledging that the Bible showing divinity of the titles through capitalization was 100% sensible. And since this was the forum where your bias and animus was shown, it remains the best thread to discuss the paradigmic box.


Incidentally, for readers who may follow my discussion here, this is very similar to what you are up with in discussions with modern "textual critics". They simply cannot recognize any text as the pure and perfect word of God. It can go so far that not even one single verse can be so recognized. Why ? Their paradigmic box declares that they themselves, and their accepted "authorities", are the ones who determine the "word of God" (which then becomes not the "word of God" at all but the probability calculations of very confused men). And that this can change as their "science" evolves and as new "discoveries" are made, new wastebaskets are unearthed, and new interpretations and theories and conjectures and guesses are offered. So what is considered the likely "word of God" today can become a likely redaction tomorrow, and that can apply to a word, a phrase, a verse, a section, or more. (Once they get it to the level of a full book, they simply change the name of their unbelief to "source criticism" or "higher criticism" from "textual criticism" .. it is all the same skill-set of unbelief.)

Thus, their "science" must always attack any actual text, since if any Bible, in any language at all, even one book, is the pure and perfect word of God, then their "science" must simply close its doors, acknowledge the truth, at least for that book or section.

Thus they are trapped in the same paradigmic box of always attacking the pure word of God, as they have given themselves over to a false science falsely so called.

1Timothy 6:20
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust,
avoiding profane and vain babblings,
and oppositions of science falsely so called:

Steven Avery

Last edited by Steven Avery; 07-19-2009 at 03:42 AM.