[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Thanks, Will.

Originally Posted by pneuby

other truths ... the MV crowd insists there's not ONE missing ..

While very much could be said on this, today I just want to share one quote that I recently read.

Henry Allen Ironside wrote at a different time, and he did have weaknesses that were common at that time about the pure Bible question. Yet he wrote very strongly about this 'essential doctrines' issue - that has now become the fallback position for the versions that are full of many errors and corruptions of various types. Pneuby, your 'essential truths' looks like simply another version of this fallback position.


http://www.plymouthbrethren.org/page.php?page_id=5350
The Key To Spiritual Discernment By: Henry Allen Ironside

I have heard Christians refer to certain precepts in the Scriptures as non-essentials. But we may rest assured there are no non-essentials in our Bibles. “The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times” (Psalm 12:6). When people talk of non-essentials in regard to anything in God’s Word, it is well to ask, “Essential or non-essential to what?” Regarding the soul’s salvation, undoubtedly the one great essential is faith in His blessed Son; His finished work alone avails to put away sin and procure peace with God. But if it is a question of what is essential to the enjoyment of communion with God—essential to obtaining the Lord’s approval at the judgment seat of Christ—then it is well to remember that in everything the believer is sanctified to the obedience of Christ. We should seek to imitate Daniel, who had “purposed in his heart” (Daniel 1:8) that he would not defile himself. Paul and Barnabas urged the early Christians “that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the Lord” (Acts 11:23). This is the only way to be kept from defilement. Anything that defiles the conscience breaks the link of communion with God and hinders our advance in spiritual things. There can be no true progress if this inward monitor is not preserved. “Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck” (1 Timothy 1:19) is a solemn word worthy of being carefully pondered.

This is a larger picture that the atomistic modern versionist attempt to justify their corrupt versions because .. they hope .. "essential doctrines" (defined to convenience) can be found in the corrupt versions, trying to ignore the puffery corruption from much leaven.

Now, even just in the Bible discussion, simply one alexandrian error that was placed in the modern version, like the swine marathon from Gerash or Jesus saying he is not going to the feast, creates an 'essential doctrine' problem.

There is no longer the pure word of God as a plumbline for any faith and belief. All of Christendom is reduced to sand and 'personal revelation' once you have eliminated the tangible inspired and pure Bible. If the Bible version that is purported to be God's word is error-laden, how can any Christian stand on the promises within the competing corrupt versions ? The promises of God could similarly be from the same impure types of redactions, scribal errors and textual cornfusions that are the realm of the modern version alexandrian-cult scholar. All is sand.

However, just as importantly, this whole concept of reducing our walk with Jesus Christ to each persons individual 'essential doctrines' (attempted to be enumerated and defended from a doctrinally corrupt, textually incompetent, logically contradictory and eviscerated version) rather than the whole counsel of God through his word, the scriptures .. is modernist pablum Christianity.

Originally Posted by pneuby

... other versions choose another legitimate translation?

Even putting aside the terrible errors in translation in the modern versions, there are, by your words, alternate 'legitimate' Bibles that are from very different underlying source texts. Yet, one or the other is full of error. How can a 'legitimate translation' come from a very corrupt underlying source text ? .. Which is what the modern versions have from their alexandrian MSS. If you actually believed that the alexandrian MSS and versions, with obvious blunders and errors included, were the pure scriptures (God forbid !) .. then you would have to totally reject the King James Bible and could never consider any Bible like the Geneva or Tyndale or King James Bible as 'legitimate'.

However, if you see God's pure words in the King James Bible, then you would never be concerned about entertaining the fantasy that corrupt counterfeits are alternate 'legitimate translations'.

Shalom,
Steven