User Tag List

Page 6 of 24 FirstFirst ... 345678916 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 358

Thread: Companion Thread for KJV only debate

  1. #76
    Journeyman PaulMcNabb's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Champaign, Illinois
    Posts
    51
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    125
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Avery View Post
    This site gives the basic situation in a nutshell.
    On the contrary, it definitely does not. It gives a tiny, selective list of quotes without capturing the LDS belief about the Bible or the Book of Mormon.

    To the true-blue LDS the BOM will trump the word of God,
    This is false, and I'm about as "true-blue" as they come.

    there is no concern about "translated correctly" with the BOM, while there is for the Bible.
    Partially true. We believe that the BoM was translated by the "gift and power of God," something we don't claim for any Bible translation. But LDS do not believe that the BoM is without human flaw. In fact, they BoM itself talks about its possible flaws.

    [quote]In fact, the LDS does not really believe that corruption is only in translation.[/COLOR]
    As I said in my earlier post, we believe that the Bible is incomplete.

    In fact the use of the word "translated correctly" today can be considered as only trickery, if it is meant to imply to the Christian hearer that the LDS view is that the underlying Greek and Hebrew/Aramaic texts are pure.
    There is no trickery at all. You are simply unaware of LDS views about the Bible. Tell me, please, which verses in the Bible do the LDS teach are corrupted?

    It is possible that the LDS poster here is not really aware of the view of his own group.
    That certainly always is a possibility, but not likely.

  2. #77
    Journeyman PaulMcNabb's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Champaign, Illinois
    Posts
    51
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    125
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Avery View Post
    Actually, again, there was no ad homiem involved at all in Will's sharing. He did not attack you personally, nor did he say that your position was invalid because of personal failings of yours, either moral or doctrinal. Will simply pointed out en passant a doctrinal connection of interest to the conversation.
    And all this proves is that you, like many people, don't have the slightest clue what the term "ad hominem fallacy" means.

    To begin with, most people use ad hominem to mean name-calling, usually thinking that their use of a Greek phrase gives their complaint added strength. In fact, the ad hominem fallacy is any appeal to the person's character, background, or affiliation as a point to refute the person's argument. It does not have to (and often does not) involve an insult.

    Brandplucked's statement was a textbook example of ad hominem: the other guy didn't believe in the Trinity so his argument about the Johannine Comma was invalid or should be rejected. If you poke around a while on the Internet, you'll find explanations of the ad hominem fallacy that use examples exactly like that of Brandplucked.

    In fact, to link doctrinal views and textual views is not ad hominem at all, whether the linkage is 100% true and accurate and broad-based or not.
    You are quite wrong. Embarrassingly so. The doctrinal views of a poster are relevant only in assessing the value of the poster's "testimony" or the poster's argument as an authority. To use them to as a reason why the poster's reasoning or argumentation is wrong is 100% pure, textbook ad hominem.

    e.g. If we point out that opponents of the King James Bible as fully pure are often textual liberals and higher critics who see 2 Peter and/or the Pastorals (e.g. Bruce Metzger) as defacto forgeries (and maybe even other Bible writings) that is opening up an important discussion and understanding of positions. Yet there is no ad hominem involved in sharing about such a frequent linkage.
    Such "pointings-out" are only relevant if we are relying on the expert testimony of those people. When a scholar says that in his opinion the Johannine Comma is spurious, and does so without laying out sufficient reason for such an assertion, then it is proper to argue that the full reason includes a personal bias, such as a religious belief.

    And it is perfectly proper for the anti-KJB-as-pure-scripture person to give examples that do not fit the frequent mold for counterpoint, and to state their own position.
    Stating one's position is fine. If it isn't presented as a logical argument, then for an opponent to state that the affirmer's opinion is due to a theological bias is NOT to commit the ad hominem fallacy. If, however, the affirmer lays out evidence and reasoning to define and defend his position, it would certainly be an ad hominem fallacy for the opponent to drag in the affirmer's religious beliefs as a counterargument.

    So the linkage is simply an attempt to place views in wider context. You would do well to understand logical fallacies a bit better before you repeatedly falsely accuse.
    Before you come onto the board and start in on someone, I would suggest that you more carefully understand the overall situation. I am going to guess here, not knowing for certain of course, that I will be adequately able to reference any logical fallacy issue you would like to raise.

    Returning to the Johannine Comma, in fact one of the strongest stances historically for the Johannine Comma was by a biblical unitarian who saw the Johannine Comma as God's pure word. So we should avoid assuming too much all the time about doctrinal linkages, they are often helpful but can be overdone in textual matters.
    So you are saying that a non-Trinitarian supported the authenticity of the Johannine Comma? That, of course, is irrelevant except that he may have been less likely to falsify his evidence.

    But since the Johannine Comma is a great proof-text for modalists as well as Social Trinitarians, and since it can easily be interpreted by Biblical Unitarians to fit their doctrine as well, I don't put much weight on the religious views of the people on either side of the argument. The Johannine Comma fits in perfectly with LDS doctrine too, something that Brandplucked can't seem to understand. So not only is his frequent reference to his opponents' religious beliefs ad hominem, it doesn't even support his contention.

    The fundamental issue is whether God has given us his pure and perfect word, the plumbline for all doctrine and faith. If we do not have his pure word, ultimately everything is negotiable.
    Yes, that is exactly what I said. You and Brandplucked are starting out assuming that the evidence MUST point to the Johannine Comma being part of the autograph. That explains why the evidence is being ignored and why certain conclusions are being drawn in the absence of, or in contradiction to, evidence.

    Interestingly, in my case, it was actually studying the Johannine Comma closely, textually and historically and grammatical and seeking consistency and reading the church writers and comparing the paradigmic theories of the text -- that helped bring me to the acceptance of the King James Bible as the pure word of God.
    I'm glad for you that you had that experience. My experience was exactly the opposite. I started out believing absolutely that the Johannine Comma was authentic, and I was led by the evidence to conclude that it was a later addition.

    So your fallacy claim above (as often used by many) would be towards me, would be a form of the post hoc ergo propter hoc, fallacy.
    No. You seem to misunderstand that fallacy as well.

    By the way, welcome to the board...

  3. #78
    Veteran brandplucked's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    330
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    68555

    God's Inspired Book - the King James Bible

    Quote Originally Posted by PaulMcNabb View Post
    No. There is no particular instance in which LDS Christians believe the Bible to be more corrupt than most other Christians (KJV Onlyists not included).
    You gotta love it! Even a stopped clock is right twice in a day!

    Will K

  4. #79
    Veteran brandplucked's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    330
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    68555

    1 John 5:7 and the true Bible

    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Again, you are just too loose with what you think are the facts.

    I will take this entry from the NET bible on the matter over your own:
    Mr. Religion. Why am I not in the least bit surprised you are a fan of Daniel "scribal error" Wallace? He has got to be one of the most deluded bible correctors out there in scholarland. He is constantly questioning the Hebrew texts and changing them at his own will, and some of his comments on the New Testament are pure buffoonery.

    Neither you nor Daniel Wallace believes that any Bible in any language is the pure and infallible words of God.



    I have many of his priceless quotes mentioned in my Bible studies in the sections that deal with the "science" of textual criticism and in the articles showing where the modern versions like the NASB,NIV, ESV, Holman all reject the Hebrew texts.

    Of course, you will never read them, so you can go right ahead and follow guys like Daniel Wallace. You reap what you sow. Are you also a Bart Ehrman fan too?

    By the way, here is what the 1380 and 1395 Wycliffe bible say in 1 John 5:7. Just once it would be refreshing for one of you Bible correctors to admit you were wrong about something instead of hardening yourselves in pride and refusing to admit you blew it. But I don't expect that to happen anytime soon.

    I John 5:7 in the 1380 Wycliffe Bible - "For thre ben, that yyuen witnessing in heuene, the Fadir, the Sone, and the Hooli Goost; and these thre ben oon."

    Will K

  5. #80
    ☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) ☜☜☜☜☞☞☞☞ A Calvinist! ☜☜☜☜☜ Ask Mr. Religion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona USA
    Posts
    5,700
    Thanks
    2,799
    Thanked 2,559 Times in 1,573 Posts

    Blog Entries
    142
    Mentioned
    73 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)



    Rep Power
    2084629
    Quote Originally Posted by brandplucked View Post
    Mr. Religion. Why am I not in the least bit surprised you are a fan of Daniel "scribal error" Wallace? He has got to be one of the most deluded bible correctors out there in scholarland.
    Well, of course he must be since he would disagree with your "inspired KJV" assertions.

    "How can one argue that the Comma Johanneum goes back to the original text yet does not appear until the 14th century in any Greek MSS (and that form is significantly different from what is printed in the Textus Receptus (TR); the wording of the Textus Receptus (TR) is not found in any Greek MSS until the 16th century)?"
    WARNING: Embedded link content that may be in my post above or the many embedded links my sig below are not for the faint of heart.



    Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
    AMR's Randomata Blog
    Learn Reformed Doctrine
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
    Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
    The best TOL Social Group: here.
    If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
    Why?



  6. #81
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    13
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by PaulMcNabb View Post
    No. There is no particular instance in which LDS Christians believe the Bible to be more corrupt than most other Christians (KJV Onlyists not included). I am not aware of any instance of LDS doctrine or apologetics being based on a claim of a corruption of the Bible. LDS Christians DO believe, however, that the Bible does not contain all the inspired words ever written.

    The Book of Mormon does not "correct" the Bible any more than the Gospel of Luke "corrects" the Gospel of Matthew. The Book of Mormon is not inerrant, does not trump the Bible, and is not considered somehow more canonical or more inspired than the Bible.
    Then why does the LDS church take more of their doctrine from the book of Mormon then the bible? Which one is given more weight for teaching and doctrine, the bible or the book of Mormon?

  7. #82
    Over 1000 post club dreadknought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    just outside the forrest
    Posts
    1,314
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 11 Times in 11 Posts

    Blog Entries
    90
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    8028
    Quote Originally Posted by brandplucked View Post
    By the way, here is what the 1380 and 1395 Wycliffe bible say in 1 John 5:7. Just once it would be refreshing for one of you Bible correctors to admit you were wrong about something instead of hardening yourselves in pride and refusing to admit you blew it. But I don't expect that to happen anytime soon.

    I John 5:7 in the 1380 Wycliffe Bible - "For thre ben, that yyuen witnessing in heuene, the Fadir, the Sone, and the Hooli Goost; and these thre ben oon."

    Will K

    Evening Will,

    Since you skipped over the post which already revealed your mystery of Wyclif. It's translated from the LATIN VULGATE! Not Greek! Round and round and round and round.

    bereancam

  8. #83
    Over 1000 post club dreadknought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    just outside the forrest
    Posts
    1,314
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 11 Times in 11 Posts

    Blog Entries
    90
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    8028
    Quote Originally Posted by brandplucked View Post
    Just once it would be refreshing for one of you Bible correctors to admit you were wrong about something instead of hardening yourselves in pride and refusing to admit you blew it. But I don't expect that to happen anytime soon.

    Will K

    Beware of the Leaven.......

  9. #84
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    61
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    172

    post hoc ergo propter hoc

    Hi Folks,

    First, Paul, you can fight it out with Joseph Smith about where he and mormon doctrine view the Bible as corrupted, or potentially corrupted subject to examinations of the moment. Since I never claimed the LDS views are consistent about the Bible, it is not my need to try to make sense out of an essentially unbelieving position, as clearly expressed in the quotes above from LDS sources. The quotes above are condemnation enough of the LDS view of the Bible as corrupted, your protestations not changing anything.

    And personally I have run into the corruption argument, clearly it can be used very flexibly, for the particular moment. That is how it was used by LDS missionaries towards me when they were uncomfortable with some verses from the Bible for which they did not have a ready response.

    One point you make I can accept, is that LDS folks do not necessarily have a consistent position on the BOM either. However that does not change anything I wrote above.

    Quote Originally Posted by PaulMcNabb
    you, like many people, don't have the slightest clue what the term "ad hominem fallacy" means.... In fact, the ad hominem fallacy is any appeal to the person's character, background, or affiliation as a point to refute the person's argument.
    And I actually showed you in some depth, using the Bruce Metzger and higher criticism examples, that arguments about a person's beliefs are not ipso facto a fallacy in the textual discussion and can be very relevant (more below on this). And beyond that Will never claimed that your Johannine Comma opposition was false because of your doctrinal views, he simply noted your views in context and we watched you go a bit haywire.

    And in fact a short summary of the ad hominen position is given as :

    http://krypton.mnsu.edu/~tony/course...ic/Logic4.html
    "Ad hominem (“personal attack”)—“If you can’t argue the case, argue against the person making the case”

    And of course there was no personal attack against you, and Will Kinney has written superbly against a variety of attacks on the purity of the Bible in general and the scriptural authority and truth of the Johannine Comma in particular. Every sincere forum reader, agree or disagree with his positions, can see that.

    And clearly there is a major point of the actual fallacy that you deliberately omitted in your incomplete definitions above.

    http://www.fallacyfiles.org/examples.html
    "A debater commits the Ad Hominem Fallacy when he introduces irrelevant personal premises about his opponent. Such red herrings may successfully distract the opponent or the audience from the topic of the debate."

    And most everybody should understand that our doctrinal views are not irrelevant to our textual views. And there was no attempt to distract the audience, as Will has replied in depth to any actual attempted substance from posters from all sorts of doctrinal positions.

    Your whole complaint on this account was less than much ado about nothing, you were the one who gave us the red herring of a false fallacy claim as a smug diversion.

    Clearly you want to take an atomistic view of textual questions here, and would like to claim that every overall discussion about doctrines and views are irrelevant to textual issues, and you do not want larger views examined. In fact the paradigmic issue are actually primary throughout the textual discussions, e.g. how Bart Ehrman and Bruce Metzger and others view the Bible as corrupted directly effects their argumentations. They have basic viewpoints that both create and support an errant text, and the attempt to examine the underlying viewpoints is foundational to this whole discussion. I would be happy to go into this more, since this addresses the basic fallacy of pseudo-scientific modern textual criticism.

    Quote Originally Posted by PaulMcNabb
    You and Brandplucked are starting out assuming that the evidence MUST point to the Johannine Comma being part of the autograph.
    It is strange watching you make the same fallacious accusation about my position that I just warned you about gently.

    Quote Originally Posted by PaulMcNabb
    No. You seem to misunderstand that fallacy as well.
    Since you seem to be struggling on this I will spell it out.

    This is your fallacy on the last post.

    a) Steven believes the King James Bible is the pure word of God.
    b) Therefore Steven believes the Johannine Comma is truly scripture.


    Post hoc ergo proctor hoc, your wrong position, says that I defend the Johannine Comma because of the (presuppositional) acceptance of the King James Bible as fully scripture, and that (a) is the cause of (b).

    In fact, it was studying the Johannine Comma itself which helped bring me to the King James Bible position. In the last post you simply claimed as your own the fallacy that I had gently warned you about.

    Shalom,
    Steven Avery

  10. #85
    ☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) ☜☜☜☜☞☞☞☞ A Calvinist! ☜☜☜☜☜ Ask Mr. Religion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona USA
    Posts
    5,700
    Thanks
    2,799
    Thanked 2,559 Times in 1,573 Posts

    Blog Entries
    142
    Mentioned
    73 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)



    Rep Power
    2084629
    Has brandplucked stated which version of the King James he believes to be inspired? The 1611 first edition (the "he" version- Ruth 3:15), the 1611 second edition (the "she" version), Blayney's 1769 version, Scrivener's update, the Pure Cambridge version, etc?
    WARNING: Embedded link content that may be in my post above or the many embedded links my sig below are not for the faint of heart.



    Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
    AMR's Randomata Blog
    Learn Reformed Doctrine
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
    Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
    The best TOL Social Group: here.
    If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
    Why?



  11. #86
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    61
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    172

    "when all the facts are known"

    Hi Mr. Religion,

    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion
    ...the original can be recovered from the materials that exist.
    Where is this recovered original ? And how do you claim to know this recovered text = the original ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion
    The Evangelical Theological Society affirms: “The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs.”
    And where could we see the entire autographs which are inerrant ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion
    ... I claim that when all the facts are known
    And when will all the facts be known ?

    Since the modernist versions today have obvious blunders like Jesus not going to the feast and the swine marathon from Gerash, when will you know all the facts and find true scriptures ?

    Do you even know if Mark wrote a resurrection account of the Lord Jesus Christ, or whether that was only an add-on of man ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion
    and proper interpretations are applied, the Scriptures are completely true in all that they assert or affirm, including doctrine, morality, social, life, or physical sciences.
    What actual text is doing the asserting and affirming ? And does the ethereal text you support also affirm any logical and geographical and historical errors while it is theoretically fine on the realms you mention ? And how do you know the Scriptures do all those fine things above if there is no actual text that you can point to, in any language, that does this asserting and affirming ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion
    ..do not jeopardize any salvific doctrine.
    If you and the ploughman do not have the tangible and readable pure word of God, how do you know that the real "original autographs" when you find them, might not teach much of discomfit. And is the perfection of the word of God itself "salvific" ? How can salvation be pure and perfect and 100% if God's word is corrupted and lacking in transmission? Perhaps the lacks would be in the salvs, however you define those ?

    Shalom,
    Steven Avery

  12. #87
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    61
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    172

    inerrancy in the original autographs.

    Hi John Calvin Hall,

    Enjoyed looking at your blog.

    Quote Originally Posted by johncalvinhall
    .. Bart Ehrman is a well recognized Bible Scholar, yet he has come out and publicly claimed to no longer have faith in Scripture. ... Bruce Metzger repeatedly wrote that even the original autographs contained errors (read his commentaries)....
    This is very true. However an interesting irony is that even Benjamin Warfield, who is considered the prime founder of the currently fav concept of "inerrancy in the original autographs" actually had the position that the original autographs contained errors.

    In a sense Bart Ehrman is the most honest of the modern textcrits, as he follows their theory of corruption of the word of God to its inevitable downhill conclusion, faithlessness.

    Shalom,
    Steven Avery

  13. #88
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    61
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    172

    Cyprian and the Comma Johanneum

    Hi Ask,

    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion
    I will take this entry from the NET bible on the matter over your own...
    Since the Daniel Wallace article on the Johannine Comma is full of omissions and assertions that range from slippery to crafty to wrong, may I suggest you study just one element first, the reference from Cyprian.

    Daniel Wallace actually wrote an article on just this quote, which is left totally unmentioned in the article you shared. Unmentioned along with more than a dozen other early church writer citations, including the incredible references from the Council of Carthage in the 5th century and the Vulgate Prologue to the Canonical Epistles. And Daniel Wallace also gives us massive omissions about the Old Latin and Vulgate MSS lines through the early centuries. (His confused take on the Reformers can be discussed separately.)

    So, suggestion .. why not simply read Cyprian for yourself, as this has been the subject of some rather fascinating comments over the years by men like Coxe and Scrivener. Here is a chunk, and you can read more of Cyprian at the URL.

    http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.v.i.html
    The Treatises of Cyprian. - Treatise I. - On the Unity of the Church.
    The Lord warns, saying, “He who is not with me is against me, and he who gathereth not with me scattereth.” Matt. xii. 30. He who breaks the peace and the concord of Christ, does so in opposition to Christ; he who gathereth elsewhere than in the Church, scatters the Church of Christ. The Lord says, “I and the Father are one;” John x. 30. and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, “And these three are one.” 1 John v. 7. And does any one believe that this unity which thus comes from the divine strength and coheres in celestial sacraments, can be divided in the Church, and can be separated by the parting asunder of opposing wills? He who does not hold this unity does not hold God’s law, does not hold the faith of the Father and the Son, does not hold life and salvation.


    First I suggest you read the section above, and then the two articles below, simply trying to understand this controversy over the word of God.

    http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1185
    The Comma Johanneum and Cyprian By: Daniel B. Wallace

    http://home.carolina.rr.com/theshuecrew/wallace.html
    Response to Daniel Wallace Regarding 1 John 5:7 by Martin A. Shue


    This debate about Cyprian, and the attempt to misrepresent his clear sense and source, had a tremendous effect on my studies, I think most everyone can profit from teh studies.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion
    the KJV translators... popularized the Comma for the English-speaking world.
    One point is small in a sense, yet it shows the Wallace proclivity to tinge his writings. Wallace says it was the King James Bible that popularized the Johannine Comma for the English world (which is true in one sense, since the KJB is historically and majestically the English Bible) yet Wallace never mentions that every English Bible for over 500 years, including the incredibly significant Wycliffe, Tyndale and Geneva Bibles, all had the Johannine Comma ! (Will pointed this out, however I think it is helpful to counterpose it against the Wallace tinged anti-pure-KJB writing above which you gave the forum.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion
    the Comma Johanneum has been a battleground for English-speaking Christians more than for others."
    Amen ! On this Daniel Wallace finally hits the nail on the head. The Battle for the Bible has revolved around this one verse.

    As John Wesley wrote.

    http://wesley.nnu.edu/john_wesley/notes/1John.htm
    The seventh verse 1Jo 5:7 (usually so reckoned) is a brief recapitulation of all which has been before advanced concerning the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. It is cited, in conjunction with the sixth and eighth, 1Jo 5:6,8 by Tertullian, Cyprian, and an uninterrupted train of Fathers.

    And, indeed, what the sun is in the world,
    what the heart is in a man,
    what the needle is in the mariner's compass,
    this verse is in the epistle.


    By this the sixth, eighth, and ninth verses 1Jo 5:6,8,9 are indissolubly connected; as will be evident, beyond all contradiction, when they are accurately considered.


    Shalom,
    Steven Avery

  14. #89
    Journeyman PaulMcNabb's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Champaign, Illinois
    Posts
    51
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    125
    Quote Originally Posted by daveme7 View Post
    Then why does the LDS church take more of their doctrine from the book of Mormon then the bible? Which one is given more weight for teaching and doctrine, the bible or the book of Mormon?
    The Bible is used more. Both are considered of equal "weight," just as both Matthew and Luke are of equal "weight".

  15. #90
    Veteran brandplucked's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    330
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    68555

    NET version is typical Every Man for Himself versionist

    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Well, of course he must be since he would disagree with your "inspired KJV" assertions.
    And you love the guy because he, like you, does not believe there is such a thing as a complete, inspired and inerrant Bible in ANY language. It is not just "my inspired KJV" you refer to that you guys disagree with, but the whole idea of an inspired Bible in any language.

    He often 'corrects' the Hebrew texts thinking they have either been corrupted through scribal errors or even lost in parts. Then for his ever-changing New Testament he follows no single Greek texts nor editions, not the ever changing Nestle-Alands, nor the UBS, but often makes up his own readings as he merrily goes along his errant ways. You guys are kindred spirits. No wonder he's your hero.

    Folks, please realize the simple fact that not one of these people who are not King James Bible onlyists believe 'The Bible is the inspired and inerrant word of God'. So why do some of them still stand in the pulpit and parrot this pious sounding phrase - 'The Bible is the inspired and inerrant word of God' - when they don't really believe it?

    You can falsely slander and accuse the King James Bible believer as being an ignorant, backwater hick, or a heretic, or demon-possessed (as I have been called), but we are not hypocrites when we tell people The Bible IS the inspired and inerrant words of God Almighty and He has preserved His precious words for us today.

    Will K

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us