View Single Post
  #4  
Old 11-28-2008, 07:05 PM
BrianT
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I am the "man named Brian Tegart" that Brandplucked refers to in the post above. Brandplucked's post was a side tangent from a more important discussion we were having (which he alludes to in the post above), and for some reason he posted his reply on several boards. He says "A man named Brian Tegart openly and unabashedly admits that he does not believe there ever was, much less is now, such a thing as a complete, inspired and inerrant Bible. In fact, he comes right out and tells us that the Bible does not teach that there would BE such a thing!" A man named Will Kinney has yet to explain to us why that's a problem because he believes the exact same thing about the first 80% of church history. What he is really opposing is not my position on no complete and inerrant translation, but rather my reluctance to accept the extra-Biblical unauthoritative idea that things changed doctrinally in 1611. I have explained why I don't accept this (or any extra-Biblical doctrine), and he has yet to explain why I should (or why he does). This is the fundamental problem with the KJV-only position, and the problem he is avoiding. Anyone interested is invited to view the history and participate in the whole discussion by visiting the Bible Version Discussion Board.

God bless,
Brian