Companion Thread for KJV only debate

[dreadknought]

Hello bereancam,

My question didn't directly relate to the One on One, I was just curious.
So, you trust the NASB 1995 as truthful? Are you able to distinguish which words are God's, which are man's, and where the errors are? Which parts can you rest on with the assurance that it's God's word?

Can you do this? Matthew 4:4 KJV

Evening Saul to Paul,

Interesting. Is this a spiritual test on TOL? Are you asking me if God speaks through his Word in the Holy Scripture's? Yes, I honestly believe He does. Now to a Spritually young believer, one might be intimidated or stumbled by questioning one's faith in any translation being able to communicate the Word of God.

STP: Which parts can you rest on with the assurance that it's God's word?
Cam: By study, comparison of Scripture (letting Scripture interpret Scripture) and prayer, His message of Salvation is clear. The rest of it is in the hand's of the Lord to lead by HIS mercy of grace alone through faith in His Christ. Are there man's errors - scribal? Yes... theological? Yes, see the New World Translation for abominations. Can I see them all. Nope, but learning daily. Am I working towards discerning the Word rightly? yep, and studying fervently towards the goal.

STP: Can you do this? Matt 4:4
Cam: Do you mean fast for 40 days with no food or water? No, I am not God.
Have I fasted 40 days? YES
Have I resisted temptation? Yes, but I am imperfect and ask forgivness of my shortcomings daily.
Do I live by the Word of God? YEP, and I'm still learning and growing Spiritually, studying daily, giving all credit and thanks to Him. I can say with all confidence that I have sold everything to follow Christ.

Honestly, I was taken aback by your post, especially in light of all the bickering on TOL. Took some time to decide whether to respond, but as I think Christ would do, I have been forthcoming openly off-topic. I understand why you ask. Then at the same time, I don't. Out of respect, I will not presume to question your integrity.

His grace and peace to you...

bereancam

 

[dreadknought]

Branplucked has admitted that he cannot do what he claimed he would do his opening post. He lured somebody into a discussion so that he could accuse them of not having a real bible with no intentions of ever demonstrating that the KJV is what he claims it to be.

Congratulations to Muz for sticking to the topic and adhering to the rules of debate! :first: Well done!

Good job Muzicman!!!
:BRAVO: :BRAVO: :BRAVO:

 

[brandplucked]

God's Inspired Book - the King James Bible

God's Inspired Book - the King James Bible

Hi all.
The Bible is not "Flawless" in any sense.
Prove me wrong.

The Bible is not "Inerrant".
Prove me wrong.

When you or anyone else can produce any "factual" proof that the KJV is the "Word of God" without a belief that it is so (Because of your ingrained ideas) please feel free to "correct me"

I'll be holding my breath.

We can only hope ;-)

After you get done holding your breath like a child throwing a tantrum, you're going to wake up in the presence of a Flawless and Inerrant God (believing it or not will not change the fact that it will happen). Then what?

Will K

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Did brandplaucked ever announce the answer to the question we all want to hear: here

 

[daveme7]

Hi all.

Just to clear "EVERYTHING" up for you regarding the "Infallible" "Inerrant" word of god (being the 1611 version of King James or any other translation)

There exists no originals of Hebrew or Greek of the New testament and Old testament so why all the "Baseless Argumentation" of something that does not exist?

The Bible is not "Flawless" in any sense.
Prove me wrong.

The Bible is not "Inerrant".
Prove me wrong.

When you or anyone else can produce any "factual" proof that the KJV is the "Word of God" without a belief that it is so (Because of your ingrained ideas) please feel free to "correct me"

I'll be holding my breath.

Until then all that most of you do is waste time on the keyboard typing words that have no meaning whatsoever.

Again prove that I am wrong
Waiting with baited breath.

Inerrancy is a faith thing. Either you beleive it or you do not. Faith is beleiving something is true with no physichal evidance. If you do not beleive the bible, no one can prove it. Best thing to do is ask God to reveal himself in his word, and read the bible 30 days straight. Probably the book of John is the best. If one does this and tells me they still beleive that the bible is errant(the truths taught not true) I would be suprised.

God bless
Dave

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I think BP will say he believes the Pure Cambridge edition to be the inspired and inerrant text for the King James. Folks interested in this topic should start here.

Muz will need to review Matthew Verschuur's Guide to the Pure Cambridge Edition of the King James Bible that can be downloaded on the same page. About the work, the author claims:

"This dissertation gives a history of the English Bible, and shows how God, by divine providence, brought about a purified text that is perfect to the jot and tittle, prepared for the last days Christian restitution and evangelisation of the world." {underlining mine}
​

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Do I live by the Word of God? YEP, and I'm still learning and growing Spiritually

Matthew 4:4 says every word. Where are they?

 

[adamwaw]

Hi Adam. Please note what I said above about the skeptic who says "prove Jesus...". Thank you for giving us an excellent demonstration, the skeptic mentality applied to the Bible text.

I will assume this is metaphorical and not be concerned about your short-term health.

Shalom,
Steven

Hi Adam. Please note what I said above about the skeptic who says "prove Jesus...". Thank you for giving us an excellent demonstration, the skeptic mentality applied to the Bible text.

It's not being skeptic, it is a fact that there exists no originals.
How is that skeptical?

It is not flawless or there would have been no need for the many different translations throughout the centuries.
Take for example one word "Hell"
Did the oldest existing texts ever use this word?
No.
So why change a "Flawless book"
"Hell" is based on an old Anglo Saxon word meaning "to cover" which would have been fine to describe Sheol or Hades since both meant the grave.
But "certain individuals" had another thought in mind when using the word on the ignorant mass of the time.
Apparently it still works.
How is that skeptical?

I will assume this is metaphorical and not be concerned about your short-term health

If I were a bible literalist I would be dead wouldn't I.

 

[PaulMcNabb]

You fell right into the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy (you had a misguided sequential understanding and built the fallacy on your own false sequencing and adding a false causation element) that I had just warned you about. I had even told you that my studies of the Johannine Comma views preceded and helped trigger my full understanding of the King James Bible as the pure word of God. Thus it is totally false of you to claim that I defend the Johannine Comma because of my King James Bible view. Fallacies are expected, but here you simply ignored my clear exposition and warning.

Once again, you are completely wrong about what I said and any supposed fallacy. You seem to have a wikipedia-based understanding of logic and reasoning.

I did NOT claim that because someone's KJV inerrancy belief preceded their Johannine Comma belief that that was the cause of that JC belief. I have never claimed that there was any particular order to either Brandplucked's or your belief in KJVO or JC authenticity. You have already claimed that your JC beliefs preceded your KJV beliefs. That is fine.

What I HAVE said it that Brandplucked believes in KJVO. It is a fact that KVJO necessarily requires a belief in JC authenticity no matter which came first. My claim is that no matter which came first, a belief that there must exist a word-perfect, inerrant English Bible has resulted in Brandplucked's skewed view of the evidence that let's him NOW believe that JC authenticity is the best interpretation of the facts.

I may be wrong about the JC, but there is absolutely no logical fallacy being committed here on my part.

You still obstinately declared that I had a presuppositional approach to Johannine Comma evidence, and my result was only caused by my KJB view, after I had told you specifically my history which is essentially the opposite.

Your ability to parse posts is as weak as your ability to detect logical fallacies.

I have only been claiming that:

(1) A belief that the KJV is a word-perfect, inerrant Bible includes a belief that the Johannine Comma is authentic (please note: this does NOT imply which came first). One can believe in the JC and reject KJVO, but one can not believe in KJVO and reject the JC.

(2) The belief that a word-perfect English Bible must exist is causing Brandplucked to ignore and/or downplay key evidence and to give unwarranted emphasis to inconclusive and nearly irrelevant evidence.

In my flesh, I was looking for reasons to doubt God's word, studying the Johannine Comma evidence helped the spirit of God to really speak to my heart.

Good for you. I have never questioned your sincerity or your particular spiritual path.

 

[PaulMcNabb]

Maybe you should study the actual materials. The Johannine Comma is clearly referenced by writers in the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th centuries and later. It was strongly referenced at the Council of Carthage in the 5th century, and the Prologue to the Canonical Epistles of the Vulgate has a fascinating reference. Cyprian was the 3rd century. Priscillian was the 4th. I could likely list a dozen more before your 800 AD. And there are strong indications of the Johannine Comma in Tertullian and other ante-Nicene writings such as the Rebaptism tract. Various extant Old Latin and Vulgate MSS were about the 6th century on.

Steven,

The problem with all of this is that it completely ignores the real argument. No one is doubting that the tradition of the Johannine Comma can be traced back into the 4th century. There IS disagreement about the single 3rd century reference and whether that was actually a quote from John or from another tradition that had yet to be incorporated into John.

Any and all arguments that talk about the Johannine Comma being accepted in Latin sources in the 5th and 6th centuries and later is utterly meaningless.

The overwhelming consensus and all evidence indicates that the Johannine Comma was NOT part of scripture during the 1st or 2nd centuries and that it almost certainly was not even during the 3rd century, and that it wasn't part of the Greek texts until many centuries later (essentially a millennium) when it was apparently back-ported into a few Greek texts from Latin ones. The debate is about whether there is any evidence that the JC existed in the autographs or any copies created during the first several centuries of Christianity. The answer is that there is no evidence at all that it did and that there is strong circumstantial evidence that it did not (proving negatives is always hard).

 

[Steven Avery]

It's not being skeptic, it is a fact that there exists no originals. How is that skeptical?

Adam, those of us who accept the King James Bible as the pure word of God agree 100% that there are no originals extant, and we add that any doctrine that declares "inerrancy in the original autographs" yet not in an extant, tangible, hold-in-your-hands book is a deficient doctrine.

Thus your case is with the cornfusenisks, the multi-versionists, not with Will, myself and others. We see no compelling scriptural reason, or any sound reason, for inspiration and preservation of the word of God to be dependent on the preservation of original autographs, or to be limited to original autographs.

If that is your view, what is the basis ?

Shalom,
Steven

 

[Steven Avery]

It is a fact that KVJO necessarily requires a belief in JC authenticity no matter which came first.

True. However you falsely strongly implied that we held the KJB view against and despite of clear evidence that we would and could see that the Johannine Comma is not scripture. Yet I explained to you that I examined the Johannine Comma evidence first (and have in fact seen much more pro-Comma compelling arguments since such as the history of the Vulgate Prologue, the Rebaptism quote, internal evidences and more) and came to a totally different conclusion than you about the evidence. You refuse to accept that, and were thus arguing fallaciously in implying causation.

You have basically back-tracked now, so further discussion is unnecessary.

Shalom,
Steven

 

[Steven Avery]

No one is doubting that the tradition of the Johannine Comma can be traced back into the 4th century.

The only concession to the obvious early usages by the anti-Johannine Comma folks is that they know it was used (sometimes, as here, they claim invented) by Priscillian at the end of the 4th century. That would not match your claim above. And the original claim on this forum placed the Comma in the 1500s, and you can find that type of verbal sleight-of-hand implying late creation from Ehrman and others. (Not just for the Johannine Comma, also for the Pericope Adultera and other verses.)

S There IS disagreement about the single 3rd century reference

No, there are multiple 3rd century references, about five, and one other one even makes the very limited and unfriendly to the Received Text NA27 textual apparatus. Cyprian is the point of discussion because to anybody not totally biased and confused his reference is very obvious.

Any and all arguments that talk about the Johannine Comma being accepted in Latin sources in the 5th and 6th centuries and later is utterly meaningless.

This just shows your incredible blindness on textual matters. Not even the anti-TR textcrits would make such an absurd statement, they always include early church writers, Greek or Latin or multi-lingual, in their apparati and discussions. And consider them of real significance in discussing textual matters. I have to conclude that you have never even looked up one verse in an apparatus or read one paper about a verse.

This statement of your is so absurd that I will simply stop here. Whether because of your LDS background, or seminary-type confusions, or your own lack of textual studies, or a personal animus to the pure Bible text, or some combo of reasons, you obviously have nothing to offer this forum.

Shalom,
Steven

 

[Steven Avery]

John 1:18 -- only begotten God ??

John 1:18 -- only begotten God ??

Hi Folks,

I would like to look a bit at the debate. Some things have been quite interesting, some astounding. Right now, I have time for only one tidbit.

John 1:18 (KJB)
No one has seen God at any time.
The only begotten Son,
who is in the bosom of the Father,
He has declared Him.

themuzicman made a major factual erros and took a very surprising position here.

Muzicman
"The NASB (and all other modern translations) say:
John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him."

Anybody can open the modern versions and see that "only begotten God", although literal to the modern version alexandrian minority text, is almost always rejected, despite the Muzicman claim above, which is apparently part of his doctrinal positions (in favor of a begotten God).

e.g the NIV plays with the translation of the text to give us:
"No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known."

While Holman makes a different attempt to avoid the literal translation of the minority alexandrian reading:
"No one has ever seen God. The only Son-- the One who is at the Father's side-- He has revealed Him."

Beyond that error, is a more basic point. "only begotten God" is a minority alexandrian gnostic corruption that generally only somebody with a JW-Arian type perspective would endorse (that is why the Holman, ESV, NIV etc do not translate literally their minority text). Yet not one Christian on this forum has even commented on the very strange position taken by Muzikman, not only embracing a false doctrine in a textual corruption, but actually attacking the beautiful and clear:

John 1:18 (KJB)
No one has seen God at any time.
The only begotten Son,
who is in the bosom of the Father,
He has declared Him.

I wonder if all the little political rah-rah crew on the forum here accept the minority reading of "only begotten God" ("only-begotten-god" in the NWT and strongly endorsed as a doctrinal JW mainstay position verse).

Overall, I found lots of interest in the dialog between Will Kinney and the Muzicman. However I was truly astounded by this position of Muzicman as I have seen evangelicals who use the modern versions bend over backwards to distance themselves from the NASV-NWT translation.

So I felt we could examine this verse first, in the peanut gallery, as a true doctrinal battleground. Do all the anti-pure-KJB folks here endorse his attack on John 1:18 and the "only begotten Son" and accept his claim that the KJB is false because, he says, the minority text of "only begotten God" is accurate.

Shalom,
Steven

PS.
Those who want to go deeper into the historical textual and interpretative matters might appreciate the Tim Warner piece on this verse. You will have a lot of the early textual history and church writer references include.

http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/john1n18.html
The Gnostic & Arian Corruption of John 1:18

 

[PaulMcNabb]

True. However you falsely strongly implied that we held the KJB view against and despite of clear evidence that we would and could see that the Johannine Comma is not scripture. Yet I explained to you that I examined the Johannine Comma evidence first (and have in fact seen much more pro-Comma compelling arguments since such as the history of the Vulgate Prologue, the Rebaptism quote, internal evidences and more) and came to a totally different conclusion than you about the evidence. You refuse to accept that, and were thus arguing fallaciously in implying causation.

You have basically back-tracked now, so further discussion is unnecessary.

You need to take a reading course if you think I have backtracked instead of you being the one who jumped in and stuck his foot in his mouth. But if it makes you feel better to say so and you are ready to move on, I'm more than willing to get to real substance.

In any case, I would like to see the evidence for why you believe:

(1) the Johannine Comma existed in the 2nd century despite the fact that it was never used by Trinitarian apologists who grasped at every other possible piece of evidence to support their belief against the heretics. The single most powerful piece of evidence seemed to have been missed for a few hundred years.

(2) the Johannine Comma was "removed" from all known Greek texts until over a thousand years had passed.

(3) the Johannine Comma is missing from all other ancient translations of the New Testament: Coptic, Syriac, etc.

There are other issues, of course, but this is a good start.

 

[daveme7]

Hi Folks,

I would like to look a bit at the debate. Some things have been quite interesting, some astounding. Right now, I have time for only one tidbit.

John 1:18 (KJB)
No one has seen God at any time.
The only begotten Son,
who is in the bosom of the Father,
He has declared Him.

themuzicman made a major factual erros and took a very surprising position here.

Muzicman
"The NASB (and all other modern translations) say:
John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him."

Anybody can open the modern versions and see that "only begotten God", although literal to the modern version alexandrian minority text, is almost always rejected, despite the Muzicman claim above, which is apparently part of his doctrinal positions (in favor of a begotten God).

e.g the NIV plays with the translation of the text to give us:
"No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known."

While Holman makes a different attempt to avoid the literal translation of the minority alexandrian reading:
"No one has ever seen God. The only Son-- the One who is at the Father's side-- He has revealed Him."

Beyond that error, is a more basic point. "only begotten God" is a minority alexandrian gnostic corruption that generally only somebody with a JW-Arian type perspective would endorse (that is why the Holman, ESV, NIV etc do not translate literally their minority text). Yet not one Christian on this forum has even commented on the very strange position taken by Muzikman, not only embracing a false doctrine in a textual corruption, but actually attacking the beautiful and clear:

John 1:18 (KJB)
No one has seen God at any time.
The only begotten Son,
who is in the bosom of the Father,
He has declared Him.

I wonder if all the little political rah-rah crew on the forum here accept the minority reading of "only begotten God" ("only-begotten-god" in the NWT and strongly endorsed as a doctrinal JW mainstay position verse).

Overall, I found lots of interest in the dialog between Will Kinney and the Muzicman. However I was truly astounded by this position of Muzicman as I have seen evangelicals who use the modern versions bend over backwards to distance themselves from the NASV-NWT translation.

So I felt we could examine this verse first, in the peanut gallery, as a true doctrinal battleground. Do all the anti-pure-KJB folks here endorse his attack on John 1:18 and the "only begotten Son" and accept his claim that the KJB is false because, he says, the minority text of "only begotten God" is accurate.

Shalom,
Steven

PS.
Those who want to go deeper into the historical textual and interpretative matters might appreciate the Tim Warner piece on this verse. You will have a lot of the early textual history and church writer references include.

http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/john1n18.html
The Gnostic & Arian Corruption of John 1:18

Here is where I start to have problems with Modern versions as well as the Wescott and Hort Text as well as the NA27.

My question is, was God "born" or was he always God as is the orthodox beleif within Christianity.

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
The Holy Bible : King James Version. 1995 (electronic ed. of the 1769 edition of the 1611 Authorized Version.) (Jn 1:14). Bellingham WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

14 And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world. 15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.
The Holy Bible : King James Version. 1995 (electronic ed. of the 1769 edition of the 1611 Authorized Version.) (1 Jn 4:14-15). Bellingham WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
The Holy Bible : King James Version. 1995 (electronic ed. of the 1769 edition of the 1611 Authorized Version.) (Jn 3:16-18). Bellingham WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

I am quoting these to show one thing, the begotten Christ is the Son. You will often find the word son with the word begotten. How I see it, if we sta beleiving in the begotten God, then what was Christ before he was born. I do not see it as strengthening the deity of Christ but weakening it.

Surely, you could point to the first few verses of John to show his pre-existance but those who do not want to come to Christ will still point at that verse. God was not made. He has always been in pre-existance. To call Christ, the begotten God, is to say that God was created. People will point to what they want to-and this gives people an excuse to not be saved by grace through faith.

22 All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him.
The Holy Bible : King James Version. 1995 (electronic ed. of the 1769 edition of the 1611 Authorized Version.) (Lk 10:22). Bellingham WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

.9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.
The Holy Bible : King James Version. 1995 (electronic ed. of the 1769 edition of the 1611 Authorized Version.) (1 Jn 4:8-9). Bellingham WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. 5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? 6 And againa, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. 7 And ofb the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire. 8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousnessc is the sceptre of thy kingdom. 9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
The Holy Bible : King James Version. 1995 (electronic ed. of the 1769 edition of the 1611 Authorized Version.) (Heb 1:4-9). Bellingham WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

Now with all these passages, and many more not quoted here teaches the Son was begotten(the physichal Christ) and a few manuscripts uses Theos when all the rest uses uios, which one is aligned with the rest of scripture and which one is not?
I would have to say Uios(son) is what is the word of God.

God bless
Dave

 

[adamwaw]

Adam, those of us who accept the King James Bible as the pure word of God agree 100% that there are no originals extant, and we add that any doctrine that declares "inerrancy in the original autographs" yet not in an extant, tangible, hold-in-your-hands book is a deficient doctrine.

Thus your case is with the cornfusenisks, the multi-versionists, not with Will, myself and others. We see no compelling scriptural reason, or any sound reason, for inspiration and preservation of the word of God to be dependent on the preservation of original autographs, or to be limited to original autographs.

If that is your view, what is the basis ?

Shalom,
Steven

We see no compelling scriptural reason, or any sound reason, for inspiration and preservation of the word of God to be dependent on the preservation of original autographs, or to be limited to original autographs.

In other words "You believe" The God of the Old and New Testament "Preserved" his word in the KJV regardless of ANY original manuscripts.
And this is all done purely by faith.

What ancient manuscripts does the "Pure Cambridge Edition" rely on to say it is Gods preserved word?
Is the Cambridge Edition dependent on these ancient copies to be Gods preserved word?
Again all of this is taken purely by faith.

 

[adamwaw]

Inerrancy is a faith thing. Either you beleive it or you do not. Faith is beleiving something is true with no physichal evidance. If you do not beleive the bible, no one can prove it. Best thing to do is ask God to reveal himself in his word, and read the bible 30 days straight. Probably the book of John is the best. If one does this and tells me they still beleive that the bible is errant(the truths taught not true) I would be suprised.

God bless
Dave

Thats a funny thing.
I read the bible for four years straight "every day" asking God to reveal the truth.
He did.
He said it's not his word but mans.

 

[Steven Avery]

You need to take a reading course if you think I have backtracked instead of you being the one who jumped in and stuck his foot in his mouth.

Paul, such nonsense. You are very obtuse. It's trivial to see the sense of your fallacious original claim, from which you almost half-backtracked.

"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."

This was complete and utter nonsense, since I studied the Johannine Comma issues without such assumption, almost wanting the facts to point the other way, (similarly with a couple of other issues like the Hebrew name Yeshua) as I was not committed to the King James Bible. Your claim was insulting and simply false. And fallacious since it was based on your post hoc ergo procter hoc assumption (KJB folks like me accept the Johannine Comma, therefore they look at the Johannine Comma and they only decide for the Johannine Comma because they are pro-KJB, not because of sincere inquiry around the Johannine Comma itself). It is a totally false imputation of intellectual dishonesty, an accusation against my spiritual and intellectual integrity and I find your inability to get right on this very telling.

Your false accusation is doubly nonsensical and insulting since I have enjoyed tremendously researching the Johannine Comma battleground in depth the last year, from 1 John through Cyprian through Jerome through the Councils through Fuldensis and Fulgentius and Facundus, through Aquinas and Echkart, through the Reformation and Erasmus and Stunica and Lee, through the Confessions, through Isaac Newton and Matthews Poole and Matthew Henry and the Anabaptist David Martin and through the Porson-Travis debates, Burgess and Orme, through Tyndale and Luther and Calvin and Nolan and Bull and Wesley and the Unitarians, through Middleton and others on the grammar,through Locke and Jonathan Swith and Milton and Coleridge and Abbot, through Ben David (John Jones) and other maverick-position writers, through Dean John Burgon and F.H.A. Scrivener, through Wiseman and Forster and Armfield and Abbe le Hir, through the papers of the late 19th and 20th century, through Michael Maynard, and much more. And, considering this verse beautiful and majestic and amazing and the centerpiece of the battle of the Bible .. to put it bluntly, I found your whole dismissive and accusing attitude a stench. Unworthy.

I even told you, time and again, that I examined the evidence without such an assumption in my early days examining the Bible issues. You have been falsely accusing on this point from the beginning. Now I had thought you had half-backtracked and were ready to drop it, but apparently your obtuseness and arrogance wins over any logic and sense.

=======================================

Whether it is worthwhile to go more into Johannine Comma details with you at this point, as I was doing above with the textual and early church writer histories, is very questionable, based on your mishandling of issue after issue.

Time is precious, and must be used where it is touching hearts interested in sincere discussion.

Shalom,
Steven

 

[Steven Avery]

Now with all these passages, and many more not quoted here teaches the Son was begotten(the physical Christ) and a few manuscripts uses Theos when all the rest uses uios, which one is aligned with the rest of scripture and which one is not? I would have to say Uios(son) is what is the word of God. God bless Dave

Amen. Thank you Dave for an edifying and sensible scriptural discussion. And for responding simply and clearly to my request for the forum thoughts on the John 1:18 question which is a forum debate centerpiece.. May we always be lifting up the Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, and your sweet and earnest tone above was nice to see and to read.

Shalom,
Steven Avery