Quote:
Originally Posted by Diligent
The goal is to elevate scholarship by ensuring doubt in the believer. If the reader can be "sure" of a reading in his Bible, what need does he have for them?
|
Satan's first lie to us - Gen 3:1-5. I agree with you but I continue to fail to see the point of the modern translations needing to show me where a potential reading comes from. I can only assume then, as you have stated and most King James Only people are attacked for, that the purpose of doing this is to cast doubt upon the validity of the scripture in question. To me this is a logical and dare I say scholarly line of reasoning: you want me to suspect the validity of the scripture by reminding me that only a few mss have this particular text.
I absolutely love the story of the adulteress found in John 8. I cannot wait to ask Jesus exactly what he wrote on the ground. And how powerful is this: "...
Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more."
Quote:
|
People simply don't want an authority. Most people aren't interested in an immutable text of God's word, because once they have it, they have to submit to it.
|
Guilty as charged, there have been times in my life when an authority is the last thing that I want. That is up until I really make a mess of things and then I need an authority to help me out of the bind that I'm in. The Word of God is truth and even the parts that make me squirm uncomfortably because of the convicting power of the Holy Ghost come with comfort because I know that once I "get right" with God my sin is (already) forgiven and I experience the peace again (Php 4:7).
Besides, the King James is still much more concise than these other translations. I don't know who said it first, but less is more.
Peace,
Harley