Quote:
Originally Posted by Brother Tim
Tony, I was involved in a lengthy debate with Barry (FSSL) on FFF regarding Origen. I had believed some erroneous information at the beginning. Through a fair amount of research I was able to get a better picture of Origen's involvement with the texts. I am not an expert by any means, but I would suggest that you do some independent research before responding to others about Origen. A lot of what you have attached to Origen is actually about Eusebius, and much of what is known about Origen is based on Eusebius' writings, himself not being a model of true Biblical doctrine by any stretch.
One reference that I am currently reading is a very lengthy historical paper by Dr. Fredrick Nolan, from the mid-nineteenth century. I would let you know ahead of time that Dr. Nolan writes on a very sophisticated level. Barry threw in the towel without making it very far, because of Dr. Nolan's " convoluted" and " confusing" writing, in Barry's opinion, of course. Dr. Nolan's writings are difficult to say the least, but it is possible to follow his line of argument. The greatest flaw that I find with the essay is that there are no references given by him for follow-up examination. |
I stand corrected on any erroneous information Tim. I'm rusty on my manuscript evidence, not having any reference works, which is why I approach it from, to me, the correct Scriptural standpoint. That is not rebuke to those who wish to discuss the manuscript evidence my friend. I don't really have time for FFF and would prefer to concentrate on any online work being confined to this forum. I entered into several of those years-long debates with little to no effect.
I have three of my own spears, so to speak. One is Romans 10:17 and inspiration. If there are no words given by God today by inspiration, then there is no salvation. The second is the "...word of God is in ALL versions" but not inspired. Why God preserves uninspired words is beyond me. The third is why there are 45 Alexandrian manuscripts, and not thousands, and why did they not compete with the Majority text;if the Alexandrian is the correct text, then why is there no evidence of it being as widespread as the Majority? The Islamic invasions of the West is no excuse, the Islamic invasions of the West caused the Majority text manuscripts to grow, if anything. That's common sense. It's common sense also to see that the Alexandrian text was rejected as corrupt.
I am going to correct any errors of mine on FFF, I don;t have time right now to play over there. The best thing that has happened to me this year was the gift of Swordsearcher, there are too many little "nuggets" from the Scriptures popping up than I have time to mine right now.
I can forgive 2000 of my books rotting in a dump right now because of a corrupt local and state government, I won't forget it. I hope if I am alive to see the Calling Out, it's as a citizen of Mexico.
If I can assist you in any way, do not hesitate to ask. I'm going to do what I was called to do and those with no inspired Scriptures know better and are going to have to fend for themselves.
Grace and peace brother
Tony