Indeed! An embarrassement to the KJVO position that is regularly overlooked by supporters. Why?
AMR
What are the doctrinal beliefs of those who compiled the UBS Greek NT?
What are the doctrinal beliefs of those who compiled the Nestle's Greek NT?
What are the doctrinal beliefs of the copiests who copied/translated Vaticanus?
What are the doctrinal beliefs of the copiests who copied/translated Sinaiticus?
What was the doctrinal beliefs of the dumb ass that rebuked the prophet?
I've been told by critics of the English Authorized Version of the Holy Scriptures that the doctrinal beliefs of all those above are irrelevant to the current debate. Were any of the above truly born again? If not, is that relevant? Why or why not?
Do you have eternal life (Jn 3:15)? Have you been born again (Jn 3:1-8)? Please take this opportunity to give the reason of the hope that is in you (1Pt 3:15). If you fail to do so for whatever reason, I will have no compelling reason or need to respond to your post.
__________________
Take care,
Scott >>>Minion of BASSENCO<<< as outed by Shiloh
"In the heat of composition I find that I have inadvertently allowed myself to assume the form of a large centipede. I am accordingly dictating the rest to my secretary." - C. S. Lewis
What was the doctrinal beliefs of the dumb ass that rebuked the prophet?
And I like this analogy the most .
Peter does in fact confirm that this was a 'dumb ass'.
2 Peter 2:15-16
Which have forsaken the right way,
and are gone astray,
following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor,
who loved the wages of unrighteousness;
But was rebuked for his iniquity:
the dumb ass speaking with man's voice
forbad the madness of the prophet.
We could set up threads for the beast of burden discussing his Messiahology understandings !
(Unlike Hort, the 'best of our beast' never participated in any seances or developed a decrepit 'revision'.)
Shalom,
Steven Avery
Last edited by Steven Avery; 11-03-2009 at 05:59 AM.
It's always a nice thing to see Mitex come to Avery's aid...
It keeps the record straight as to where Mitex really is on this issue.
I take note that you ignored my point nor did you answer the questions that I raised. I was told years ago by critics of the English Authorized Version of the Holy Scriptures that the doctrinal positions of Wescott and Hort were irrelevant to the translation debate. I agreed then and still do today.
Is it an embarrassement to the Critical Text position that the doctrinal view points of the compilers of the UBS and Nestle's Greek NT are regularly overlooked by supporters?
How is it even relevant? Do you want to take Avery (or anyone else) on in a debate about the Trinity? Great! Start a forum and address that issue. Do you want to take Avery (or anyone else) on in a debate about Salvation? Great! Start a forum and address that issue.
Being right or wrong on any given point of doctrine does not therefore make a person right or wrong on some other point of doctrine. Do the plowboys of history need to know the doctrinal view of the copyists/translators in order to recognize what is and what is not the word of God? If so, then please explain the doctrinal view point of the copyists/translators of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.
Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini is probably correct in his doctrinal belief concerning the Trinity. Does this make him correct on his doctrinal beliefs concerning salvation? Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini is wrong on his doctrinal beliefs concerning salvation does this make him also wrong on his "textual commentary"? That's what I thought.
Do you have eternal life (Jn 3:15)? Have you been born again (Jn 3:1-8)? Please take this opportunity to give the reason of the hope that is in you (1Pt 3:15). If you fail to do so for whatever reason, I will have no compelling reason or need to respond to your post.
What are the doctrinal beliefs of those who compiled the UBS Greek NT?...etc....
I've been told by critics of the English Authorized Version of the Holy Scriptures that the doctrinal beliefs of all those above are irrelevant to the current debate. Were any of the above truly born again? If not, is that relevant? Why or why not?
You completely missed the point of my post. It is not that I am claiming the KJVO position is incorrect. Instead it is that anyone who claims to be a KJVO proponent necessarily must accept the doctrine of the Trinity (think anout it and it will come to you!). Avery does not, and I simply find that bizarre and odd that fellow KJVO supporters let him slide on the matter, given the obvious issue with the judgment of someone who denies the Trinity.
Avery strikes another poster... essentially calling him an unbeliever (i.e., a double-minded man).
"Sawbones, your position is most unusual, and double-minded is as excellent a descriptive word that I can find. You laud the KJB and the TR text at time, then you leave open options to junk the excellence for any version from the alexandrian crapware mss. In so doing you often end up attacking and mocking those who defend the KJB as the pure and perfect word of God. Double-minded is the perfect a way of describing this type of behaviour."
__________________ Simply observing the floccinoccinihilipilification of the KJVO movement.
Avery strikes another poster... essentially calling him an unbeliever (i.e., a double-minded man).
"Sawbones, your position is most unusual, and double-minded is as excellent a descriptive word that I can find. You laud the KJB and the TR text at time, then you leave open options to junk the excellence for any version from the alexandrian crapware mss. In so doing you often end up attacking and mocking those who defend the KJB as the pure and perfect word of God. Double-minded is the perfect a way of describing this type of behaviour."
"We can live together peacefully only when we control our intolerance. Even though there will always be differences of opinion from time to time, we can at any rate come to general understandings, can love one another, and can enter the bonds of peace, pending the day when we shall attain unity of faith."
The views and opinions expressed on this web site are not necessarily those of the Fighting Fundamental Forums management. This is an open and unmoderated forum. The content of each post is the sole responsibility of the poster. Participants are expected to follow the simple rules of the forum. Within these wide parameters various views are welcome to be expressed freely.
The college names used on the FundamentalForums.com web site are trademarks of their respective schools. The forums are not officially sanctioned by any of the institutions represented.
. 
Linear Mode
