[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by BrianT

My view on Tyndale's (and Luther's) translation is no different than other KJV-only supporters view on Luther's (and others).

You simply deceive yourself. 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.

In fact you yourself say that in such situations one side or another must be a "textual error" right below. How in the world can a "textual error" be part of the pure and perfect word of God ? It is simply an error.

Tyndale and Luther were generally working with the superior text, their Bibles were generally very superior to the Vulgate and vastly superior to the corrupt alexandrian texts used today by many in the deluded and deceived Christian public, their Bibles had many marks of excellence. And these two Bibles were used mightily of God (Tyndale's excellent work was mightily used by the superior English Reformation Bibles, including the Geneva and King James Bible) they were moving in the right direction .. however they simply were not the pure and perfect word of God.

Originally Posted by BrianT

I do not believe both variations are God-breathed. I believe one of them is a textual error. I am simply saying that both can be understood in a doctrinally correct way, and thus both convey the King's message.

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.

You take one position, and then another. Yes, you are almost forced to do so by the lack of a pure Bible combined with your desire to pretend that you actually have a consistent, sensible position. However the dance is an ugly, stumbling shuffle. Also it is a bit boring after awhile, since you refuse to comes to grip with the problem, and bumble the same stumble from post to post, forum to forum, thread to thread.

And you are surprised that you are not taken as somebody who can have an earnest, significant, edifying, profitable discussion ? First come to grips with your fundamental disharmony, seek the root of the difficulty rather than the fluff and puff.

Shalom,
Steven