Only the Originals Are Inspired

True. So what are the implications for this discussion? The term "Scripture" (lit. "writings") has a wide usage. Christ used it many times for the OT, which would have been copies, of course. I have no problem calling copies "Scripture." But that does not address my point about the grammar of theopneustos (sing.).

 

Hebrews 10:29-31 seems clear to me!

 

YES!

 

this opens up a can of worms!

 

Some seem to be saying that we must have a perfect text to have the word of God to us....

 

can you use this with a JW for the Trinity?

 

Just as long that we all agree that scriptures just means the Bible....

 

I tend to use the Titus one about the great God and savior Jesus!

 

Well, would say that it is superior to the TR!

 

I mean the Trinity?

 

NO

 

Are you saying that the Nas and Esv do not support the doctrine of the trinity?

 

Good job. Thanks.

 

Okay, let's go fishing.

 

yes it is....

 

The Nestle/Aland Greek New Testament had these "scholars" who helped complile the "text". Here are some of their beliefs.

CARLO MARTINI, who joined the UBS Greek N.T. editorial committee in 1967, is the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Milan. He was a professor at the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome, which, in addition to Roman Catholic heresies, promotes the theory of evolution and the heretical documentary views of biblical inspiration, etc. He is past president of the Council of European Bishop’s Conferences. A Time magazine article reported that Martini brought together a syncretistic convocation of over 100 religious leaders from around the world to promote a new age, one-world religion. In addressing this meeting, Mikhail Gorbachev said, “We need to synthesize a new religion for thinking men that will universalize that religion for the world and lead us into a new age.” Martini is a radical ecumenist and syncretist who is striving to bring all denominations and religions into a “Catholic” unity. The Bible calls this “Mystery Babylon.”

EUGENE NIDA is the father of the heretical dynamic equivalency theory of Bible translation. He believes God’s revelation in the Bible “involved limitations” and “is not absolute” and that the words of the Bible “are in a sense nothing in and of themselves” (Nida, Message and Mission, 1960, pp. 222-228). He does not believe the Bible is written “in a Holy Ghost language.” He believes the record of Jacob wrestling with the Angel was not a literal event. He denies the substitutionary blood atonement of Christ (Nida, Theory and Practice, 1969, p. 53). He denies that Christ died to satisfy God’s justice. He believes the blood of the cross was merely symbolic of Christ’s death and is never used in the Bible “in the sense of propitiation.”

BRUCE METZGER believed Moses did not write the Pentateuch, Deuteronomy was not written until 700 years before Christ, the Old Testament is a mixture of “myth, legend, and history,” the record of the worldwide flood of Noah’s day is exaggerated, the book of Job is a folktale, the miracle accounts about Elijah and Elisha contain “legendary elements,” Isaiah was written by Isaiah plus two or three unknown men who wrote centuries later, the record of Jonah is a “legend,” Daniel does not contain supernatural prophecy, Paul did not write the Pastoral Epistles, Peter did not write 2 Peter, etc. All of these unbelieving lies can be found in the notes to the Reader’s Digest Condensed Bible, which were written by Metzger, and in the New Oxford Annotated Bible, of which Metzger is a co-editor.

KURT ALAND denied the verbal inspiration of the Bible and wanted to see all denominations united into one “body” by the acceptance of a new ecumenical canon of Scripture which would take into account the Catholic apocryphal books (The Problem of the New Testament Canon, pp. 6,7,30-33).

MATTHEW BLACK is another modernistic editor of the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament. Black co-edited an edition of Peake’s Commentary in 1982. Peake’s was originally published in 1919 and boldly opposed fundamentalist doctrine. The editors openly reject the doctrine of the infallible inspiration and preservation of Holy Scripture. Note the following excerpt: “It is well known that the primitive Christian Gospel was initially transmitted by word of mouth and that this oral tradition resulted in variant reporting of word and deed. It is equally true that when the Christian record was committed to writing it continued to be the subject of verbal variation, involuntary and intentional, at the hands of scribes and editors” (Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, p. 633). Peake’s Commentary also casts doubt upon Trinitarian baptism: “This mission is described in the language of the church and most commentators doubt that the Trinitarian formula was original at this point in Matthew’s Gospel, since the NT elsewhere does not know of such a formula and describes baptism as being performed in the name of the Lord Jesus (e.g. Acts 2:38, 8:16, etc.).”

 

Does all of that affect their finished product though?

 

I take it that you speak from experience in Textual Criticism, and have examined the Greek texts for yourself? Quoting from books is one thing, doing the research for yourself, is a different matter!

 

Most certainly!

 

I don't wish to sound rude to you, but I get the impressions from your exchanges especailly with myself, that you hardly know anything about the text of the Hebrew or Greek Bible? I apologise if I am wrong