Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Avery
Hi Folks,
Gord, The modern versions leave the text in, often in brackets or some other restricted method, while teaching that this is actually man's corruption. Read the footnotes and such. Of course this is sheer hypocrisy. If they really believed it was man's corruption, and they were honest before God, they would not have the text. Confused textcrit pseudo-evangelicals (textual apostates) like Daniel Wallace have their own movement afoot to actually remove the text, as it is most modern versions will only leave you doubtful and confused.
Nothing subtle there, doctrinal quicksand has been built on the difference. Oh, actually their Greek does not say "he", it says "which" or "who", grammatically dubious, but they know that would expose the text to ridicule so they usually change it to "he" in the text.
Who told you you should be making deals to include corruption with the word of God ?
False dichotomy. You could actually reject the modern version blunders and corruptions and not be "sold on KJV-only". Many of us actually moved precept upon precept, line upon line. The first thing we realized was that the modern versions were abysmally corrupt and we switched to Received Text based Bibles only.
Make that proper movement, and be refreshed. You can then look at King James Bible issues without the fuzz and buzz of the abject corruption of the modern versions.
And if you want about 180 missing links, to start, Brandon has a "magic marker" page.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
|
Deal Breaker Definition: any issue or factor that is significant enough to terminate a negotiation, so why can you be so literal in some of your arguments, and generic in others.
For Example: here you point out
Quote:
|
Gord, The modern versions leave the text in, often in brackets or some other restricted method, while teaching that this is actually man's corruption. Read the footnotes and such. Of course this is sheer hypocrisy. If they really believed it was man's corruption, and they were honest before God, they would not have the text. Confused textcrit pseudo-evangelicals (textual apostates) like Daniel Wallace have their own movement afoot to actually remove the text, as it is most modern versions will only leave you doubtful and confused.
|
but that does not answer the literal claim of missing verses, and here you point out
Quote:
|
Nothing subtle there, doctrinal quicksand has been built on the difference. Oh, actually their Greek does not say "he", it says "which" or "who", grammatically dubious, but they know that would expose the text to ridicule so they usually change it to "he" in the text.
|
a literal comparison between he and God. To me you change the argument to change your need, but I detect where the real problem may lay that may show why I haven't grasped this yet...
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gord
that's not a deal breaker
Who told you you should be making deals to include corruption with the word of God ?
|
you really need to relax, that is just a figure of expression by me about this issue, and you take it soooo literal. I take the Gospel literal as that is what the Holy Spirit has imparted upon my heart, through the words I read out of a Good News Bible to accept my salvation, according my take on what the KJV-only argument is, that should never happen as I didn't read perfectly preserved words from a KJV bible.
I am going to try and spend more time in study on this topic rather then continue this (to me) never ending redundant argument. I'm wasting time here where I should be arming myself with truth. I thank everyone for there input, it has opened my eyes to a very real topic for study, thank you all who contributed to causing me to think.