[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

To try to help the communication here, please understand that when Brian has to try to reconcile Scripture views that appear at face to be contradictory Brian resorts to a 'dual-scripture' doctrine. Thus Scripture can be both the existence and non-existence of a verse. (And one can see how this could be his reasoning to undo the import of the Tyndale-King James Bible differences, even if Brian hesitates to express it here.)

When Brian was asked to conclude what was Scripture in John 1:18 -- where there is "only begotten Son" in the pure Bible while the literal translation of the alexandrian text is "only-begotten God" (or god) as in the NASV and NWT - Brian's unusual response (full text - emphasis added) was:

"Yes, I admit I don't know which was originally written. However, I accept both as the word of God. The meanings do not require different meanings nor different doctrinal understandings, just as various differences in accounts between gospels do not mean contradictions - except only for faithless skeptics who want them to be contradictions. Jesus is begotten. Jesus is Son. Jesus is God. No problem, and I have no burning desire to "know" which is originally written as I have the correct understanding and word of God."

Notice that Brian does not simply "accept both" as true doctrine (insipid and false as that would be) Brian actually "accepts both" as the word of God ! For this to be true, God would have to be behind the variant, deliberately and consciously augmenting the "inerrant autographs" (one of the two readings) with an auxiliary God-breathed alternative complementary Scripture (the other reading). Thus a scribe around the early second century, changing the text acidentally or purposefully, was in fact creating more Scripture ! (in the Brian-in-Wonderland world).

Thus it helps to understand the Brian mindset. Brian believes that two grossly contradictory readings, even on a major doctrinal battleground verse (same on 1 Timothy 3:16) are both the word of God, applying a Brianian dialectic.

Once you understand this, there is simply no surprise that the inclusion or omission of a verse is of no real import to him and Tyndale and the King James Bible are simultaneously both the word of God, even when they disagree. Why even if they differed on Acts 8:37 and the Johannine Comma both could be fully pure 'Scripture' in the amazing world of Brian.

Now we understand that this is an example of the depths of illogic of those whose main Bible text concern is opposition to the purity of the King James Bible. And this is close to being a paradigmic aspect of Brian's confusion ('Scripture' can be defacto contradictory while perceived harmonious). Which is why dozens of posts and discussions will accomplish little. Brian's basic discordance and difficulty runs very deep.

Shalom,
Steven