Psalm 12:6,7

well, perhaps u hope there's a misunderstanding.

but i wldn't be surprised, going by D.A. Waite's pattern of operation, w which i'm quite familiar:

http://www.post1.com/home/amarillo/revDKJB.htm

 

Nope, no misunderstanding. These men have not told the truth. They may be not telling the truth from their own lack of knowledge. Whatever the case, they are not telling teh truth about God's word.

Which do you want to discuss?? Psa 12:6-7 or the doctrine of verbal preservation??? We can discuss one or the other but we cannot discuss both in teh same conversation because Psa 12:6-7 has nothing to do with verbal preservation. It deals with righteous man preservation.

To my knowledge, no one here is arguing for this so inserting this into the conversation is a straw man.

Great verse. I think we all agree here. However, this has nothing to do with which version of hte Bible one uses.

 

Surely you are not under the mistaken impression that the doctrine of Satan is found only in Luke 4:8 are you??? The Doctrine of satan is found in all modern versions. So this would be failure number 1.

Yes. Matt 25:13 uses the phrase "son of man" and this phrase is found in all modern verses. When someone tells you that MVs deny or harm the doctrine of Christ, they are not telling teh truth. Period. Plain and simple. This would be failure number 2.

This doesn't make much sense. I jsut did a quick word search. HEre are the results.

Jesus: NASB 979; NIV 1241; KJV 973

Christ: NASB 516; NIV 530; KJV 555

Lord: NASB 7753; 7484; KJV 7836

So what?? This shows that your numbers above do not make much sense and they prove even less. The NASB and NIV appear to use the name "Jesus" more than the KJV. So why does the KJV disrespect the name of Jesus?? Furthermore, if Luke wrote "Jesus" and some scribe later changed it to "Jesus Christ," even though the name "Christ" gets included one more time, it is still a corruption of the text. The doctrine of Christ is explicit in modern versions. This would be failure number 3.

Bottom line: You have failed three times in your attempt to show doctrine that has been affected. Trust me, if you are using Moorman or Waite for your sources, you will fail one hundred percent of the time. There simply are no changes in doctrine.

 

Moorman has been shown to be wrong on many occasions by many different people. His "evidence" is no evidence at all.

First, you ahve changed the rules. You said "doctrine" was affected. Now you are saying "verses" are affected. That's a whole new ballgame. But as I showed above, your changes make no difference.

About textual transmission?? Certainly. The evidence is there for anyone to look at.

 

Maybe there is a reason for that. Why do you think in all his writing about spiritual warfare, Paul never mentions this tool. He does mention many others -- such as Scripture, faith, righteousness, etc. He never one time mentions fasting, never commands any of us to practice it. Perhaps there is a reason for that ... a reason so simple that it misses those who are too "educated." The reason is that it is not a necessary part of the Christian life. The evidence of this is seen in the very simplest fact that I mentioned above: It is never mentioned in teh church nor commanded for the church.

Fasting is a practice anyway, not a doctrine. Show me a verse that commands it and I will preach and practice it.

 

Those words were written in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. But notice how you add to what this verse teaches. This verse promises that the meanings/thoughts/message will be preserved to all generations... just as some of us believe the mss evidence proves. It does not say that God would inspire Anglican scholars to create a perfect Bible text in 1611.

Then why did you feel compelled to add to the text then quote scripture implying that the Holy Spirit was responsible for your interpretation? Which spirit does adding to the text belong to?

 

If you would check out Matt. 16:23 and Mark 8:33 in the NIV or other MV's, you will see that there is no attempt to deny the doctrine of Satan in this episode. The issue is not doctrinal; rather, it is what did the Holy Spirit moved Luke to write?

Andy </font>[/QUOTE]Why did MV remove the doctrine of Satan on Luke 4:8 is because 21 MSS deleted the doctrine of Satan.

However 32 MSS supported this doctrine of Satan on Luke 4:8.

 

Askjo, I think you're misunderstanding a simple fact: not containing a word is NOT the same as "deleting a doctrine" about that word, or "denying" that word, etc. If that were the case, I could show you dozens of places where the KJV "deletes the doctrine" of Jesus, God, the Holy Spirit, God's promises, etc.

Manuscript evidence. You should NOT decide which manuscripts best represent the original based on what personally sounds good to you. That opens up textual criticism to personal and doctrinal bias. Should we add "Jesus is great!" to every verse of scripture and try to pass that off as genuine scripture? No, of course not. There is more, MUCH more, to textual criticism that just what sounds good and counting up totals.

 

Probably because of the weight of the manuscripts, their relative value. If you get a copy of Metzger's "Textual Commentary on teh Greek New TEstament" it will give you the reasons why. Mine is at my office so I don't have it here to look at.

However, you are mistaken if you think including or excluding this verse determines one's stand on the doctrine of Satan. The doctrine of Satan is found in many other texts that are in the MVs. To omit it here is not to omit the doctrine. It is to omit a questionable reading. Most likely, Luke never wrote it here and so it is adding to the word of God to include it. Why do you not get upset when someone adds to the word of God?? Does that not bother you??

[/qb]Same answer as before. The manuscript evidence shows that it should not be included. We do not include it because we are not to add to God's word.

These doctrines mentioned here are in every modern version. It is simply untrue to say that these doctrines have been omitted or affected.

 

Probably because of the weight of the manuscripts, their relative value. If you get a copy of Metzger's "Textual Commentary on teh Greek New TEstament" it will give you the reasons why. Mine is at my office so I don't have it here to look at. </font>[/QUOTE]Metzger! yes you are right because you defend this unbelieving critic.

 

What's with the trend here lately, where people are calling people unbelievers (who they never met, and know extremely little about) just because they have a different opinion on the value and methods of textual criticism?

 

What's with the trend here lately, where people are calling people unbelievers (who they never met, and know extremely little about) just because they have a different opinion on the value and methods of textual criticism? </font>[/QUOTE]Jesus believed in the historicity and universality of the Noahic Flood (Mat. 24:37-39). Metzger does not believe it.

John 5:46-47 "For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?"

 

Technically, Matt 24:37-39 doesn't say anything about universality. But that's beside the point:

Are you a Baptist? If so, which is the correct answer to the question "how are we saved?":

A. we are saved by grace through faith.
B. we are saved by grace through faith and believing in a universal flood.

Askjo, do *you* have perfect doctrine? Are you relying on perfect doctrine to get you into heaven? Do mistakes in doctrine negate God's grace?

 

For the record. The Bible does nowhere teach truly converted people are heretics. True converts are such who abide in the doctrine of Christ, 2John 9. Heretics manifest by their heresies and hereticalness that they are false converts, spurious Christians. Abiding in the teaching of the Christ is not a condition or prerequisite of either initial or final salvation, but a fruit and effect of true Gospel conversion. Abiding in heresy and hereticalness is a work of the flesh and a fruit of the utter lack of true spiritual faith in the living God and His Son. Those who bring teachings or tenets which contradict revealed Scriptures are always highly suspect. Disbelieving the Genesis account of creation is a clear sign of lack of biblical faith.

Most versions (even MV's) agree in teaching that persons who speak peace to such who do not bring the doctrine of the Christ are themselves partakers in their evil works. 2John 10-11. The OT pronounces woe upon such who call evil good and good evil. These two are in harmony. God hates doctrines which militate against what He has revealed to be truth in His written word. The technical term for such is "HERESY".

Therefore BrianT's argument was a mental fallacy and a straw man.

Harald

 

Lets get this thread back on topic or start a new one.
Murph

 

You obviously missed the point. I am not defending na unbelieving textual critic. I do not know Metzger and do not know anything about him personally so I cannot comment on his belief or unbelief. I cited Metzger as a place where you can get your questions answered about why something was included or left out. If you would study some and quit complaining, you could get answers to your questions. It appears that you don't really want answers; you just want to complain.

BTW, Belief in the literal flood is not a requirement for salvation. Jesus believed in the use of versions other than the KJV and you don't. Does that make you unsaved??? I do believe in the literal flood, but that didn't get me saved and lack of belief in it does not keep someone from being saved.

 

He has revealed in his word that texts other than the TR are the word of God. When you deny that, does that make you a heretic and thus an unbeliever?