[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by kjvisit

You encouraged me to visit your debates on other forums.

I simply pointed out that I had been quite involved on the skeptic forum (IIDB) after you made a puzzling claim about what a skeptic would accept. You can look up 'ending of Mark' or 'Johannine Comma' or 'Pericope Adultera' or Mark's geography or the Luke historicity topics or Asaph or many other topics there if you want to see a bit of how the discussion works on their home turf. Even with the one-sided 'moderation' I was able to share a lot, and I learned a lot as well in my research into the claims of the skeptics. Who were very insistent on using the modern versions. (I even explained to them why this was a conceptual error, how the modern textcritical view is fundamentally flawed from a Bible believer's perspective, as it was designed to actually fabricate errors into the resulting text.)

Then, looking at the way you misused scripture to try to assert that no refutations should be made of any modern-versionist or skeptic false claims that involve Greek or Hebrew, I felt it would be better to simply close out the discussion.

If you really are seeking to learn about the skeptic debate and don't find posts, you can contact me (I just activated my email in the User Profile section) and I will send you some URLs.

And if you are looking for other doctrinal discussions, probably they are best placed in the 'Doctrine' section of the forum. The first two threads you link to you falsely imply are a discussion of the Greek. And in the third discussion I point out that all the grammatical issues involved are fully recognizable in English, Greek is totally unnecessary, although it took a few posts for me to really get a handle on that issue and express it properly. On the first post, any good discussion of the Johannine Comma as scripture will recognize the writing of Cyprian (extra-biblical sources) as of primary importance. That topic is where King James Bible defender Marty Shue very aptly refuted the confused writings of Daniel Wallace. However I realize now that you are not very aware of the discussions involved in King James Bible defense.

Shalom,
Steven