FAQ |
Calendar |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#71
|
||||
|
||||
individual words make up the message
Excellent points brother. And, Yes, the "message" is very confused among the modern bogus bibles. End result? Most Christians no longer believe in the inerrancy of Scripture (ANY Scripture in ANY language) and read their "made for modern men bibles" less and less. Modern Christianity is about as deep as a parking lot puddle.
Will K Quote:
|
#72
|
||||
|
||||
God's perfect Book - the King James Bible
Excellent points,Steve. Thanks.
Will K Quote:
|
#73
|
||||
|
||||
God's perfect Book - the King James Bible
Quote:
When caught in an indefensible lie, it is good strategy to accuse the other side of being unreasonable, and hope others will buy into it. Nice display, Brian, of where your Biblical unbelief is leading you. Will K |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
I bless you Will, and pray God will bless you richly. I mean it.
|
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Hi Folks,
To try to help the communication here, please understand that when Brian has to try to reconcile Scripture views that appear at face to be contradictory Brian resorts to a 'dual-scripture' doctrine. Thus Scripture can be both the existence and non-existence of a verse. (And one can see how this could be his reasoning to undo the import of the Tyndale-King James Bible differences, even if Brian hesitates to express it here.) When Brian was asked to conclude what was Scripture in John 1:18 -- where there is "only begotten Son" in the pure Bible while the literal translation of the alexandrian text is "only-begotten God" (or god) as in the NASV and NWT - Brian's unusual response (full text - emphasis added) was: "Yes, I admit I don't know which was originally written. However, I accept both as the word of God. The meanings do not require different meanings nor different doctrinal understandings, just as various differences in accounts between gospels do not mean contradictions - except only for faithless skeptics who want them to be contradictions. Jesus is begotten. Jesus is Son. Jesus is God. No problem, and I have no burning desire to "know" which is originally written as I have the correct understanding and word of God." Notice that Brian does not simply "accept both" as true doctrine (insipid and false as that would be) Brian actually "accepts both" as the word of God ! For this to be true, God would have to be behind the variant, deliberately and consciously augmenting the "inerrant autographs" (one of the two readings) with an auxiliary God-breathed alternative complementary Scripture (the other reading). Thus a scribe around the early second century, changing the text acidentally or purposefully, was in fact creating more Scripture ! (in the Brian-in-Wonderland world). Thus it helps to understand the Brian mindset. Brian believes that two grossly contradictory readings, even on a major doctrinal battleground verse (same on 1 Timothy 3:16) are both the word of God, applying a Brianian dialectic. Once you understand this, there is simply no surprise that the inclusion or omission of a verse is of no real import to him and Tyndale and the King James Bible are simultaneously both the word of God, even when they disagree. Why even if they differed on Acts 8:37 and the Johannine Comma both could be fully pure 'Scripture' in the amazing world of Brian. Now we understand that this is an example of the depths of illogic of those whose main Bible text concern is opposition to the purity of the King James Bible. And this is close to being a paradigmic aspect of Brian's confusion ('Scripture' can be defacto contradictory while perceived harmonious). Which is why dozens of posts and discussions will accomplish little. Brian's basic discordance and difficulty runs very deep. Shalom, Steven Last edited by Steven Avery; 12-04-2008 at 01:08 AM. |
#76
|
||||
|
||||
Steve Avery:--- Yep! I recall him posting that about John 1:18...
CRINGE!! For 20 some years when I would read that verse, I would say: "Why oh why did the NAS folks do that to that verse"... Of course the Kitchen table never answered ... (All they had to do [If not sure] was to turn over to Is. 9:6 and get a clue: ..." unto us a Son is given..." ) Which was one of the reasons I stated that Brian T is either "confused or confusing"... He uses a Cross for his avatar { Wish I coulda found that one.. and figured out how to put one up.} , so I assume he believes like me in what Jesus did on the cross at Calvary... What Brian T doesn't seem to understand--- at least from what I've read of his posts--- is that a major reason for King James to Authorize a Standardized Bible in the English language was so that the confusion of various translations would be avoided. In other words: Get the folks "on the same page". { BTW--- Brian T, if you read this Post--- I said "Bugle" because for years the Army, Marines, and the swabbies used Bugles... Not trumpets. Trumpets have valves and would get stuck and be worthless in some of the places where our Troops have gone over the centuries. Have you never seen "The Horse Soldiers" ? } |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Hi Steve,
Quote:
I note that at least one KJV-only supporter in this thread has claimed (and I have heard it claimed numerous times in the past) that Luther's translation is "the word of God". Yet it has similar textual differences (e.g. Luther's translation does not have Mark 11:26, Luke 17:36 and 1 John 5:7, it is "missing" entire phrases from John 19:38, James 4:6, 1 John 2:23, Revelation 18:23, and Revelation 21:26, it has "morgenstern" (morning star) in Isa 14:12, etc.). Some editions have "fixed" some of these things since Luther's death (i.e. without his knowledge or approval). My view on Tyndale's (and Luther's) translation is no different than other KJV-only supporters view on Luther's (and others). Quote:
Quote:
God bless, Brian |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Hi PB1789,
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
God bless, Brian |
#79
|
||||
|
||||
John 1:18
A Quick Post before I head off to work...
I said "Cringe" , because as a gent who used to have a radio program called "The Mission to Utah" Broadcast ( John Henry Yount) told me: "That is an unfortunate Gnostic reading/interpretation of the Text." Beware of Alexandrian influences Brian T. Stick with Antioch! |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Hi Folks,
Quote:
Will, myself and a dozen others will tell you simply : the omission of the Johannine Comma is a significant textual error and problem. As is the omission of any pure Bible verse. If that is not correct, Will or Tim or another can jump right in and say so. In fact you yourself say that in such situations one side or another must be a "textual error" right below. How in the world can a "textual error" be part of the pure and perfect word of God ? It is simply an error. Tyndale and Luther were generally working with the superior text, their Bibles were generally very superior to the Vulgate and vastly superior to the corrupt alexandrian texts used today by many in the deluded and deceived Christian public, their Bibles had many marks of excellence. And these two Bibles were used mightily of God (Tyndale's excellent work was mightily used by the superior English Reformation Bibles, including the Geneva and King James Bible) they were moving in the right direction .. however they simply were not the pure and perfect word of God. Quote:
You take one position, and then another. Yes, you are almost forced to do so by the lack of a pure Bible combined with your desire to pretend that you actually have a consistent, sensible position. However the dance is an ugly, stumbling shuffle. Also it is a bit boring after awhile, since you refuse to comes to grip with the problem, and bumble the same stumble from post to post, forum to forum, thread to thread. And you are surprised that you are not taken as somebody who can have an earnest, significant, edifying, profitable discussion ? First come to grips with your fundamental disharmony, seek the root of the difficulty rather than the fluff and puff. Shalom, Steven Last edited by Steven Avery; 12-04-2008 at 05:59 PM. |
|
|