Grieve the Holy Spirit?

^^^

For one, your statement that the 'earliest' manuscripts are 'corrupt' is a violation of BB rules.
Secondly, your baseless assertions haven't been proven. Prove your point without making a charge that you haven't substantiated with proof!

So much for "KJV-only" 'scholarship'....

 

He's right on the first count Bluefalcon. Use something like "less accurate" just to keep all of us in the clean. I think most of us know that you didn't have bad intentions here.


LRL71, Bluefalcon is NOT a KJVo. He simply believes the older Alexandrian texts are not as accurate, which is his right. He has never pushed the mythical KJVo belief on anybody here.

I'm not saying that I agree (or disagree) with him, but he is arguing textual accuracy to the originals and that is all.

 

The Holy Spirit is a BEING, with thoughts and personality, same as are Yahweh and Jesus. Therefore He can be grieved. I sure don't wanna do it!

 

Phillip,

Thanks for the edit & info about Bluefalcon. I assumed that if one calls 'earlier mss' to be 'corrupt', it is easily assumed that such a person is a KJV-only. Such comments are the typical KJV-only modus operandi.

 

No problemo, LRL71.

 

What's this for James? Just curious.

 

9. Certain terms are off limits in this forum.
For example:

* The KJVO crowd will not not refer to the Modern Versions as "perversions," "satanic," "devil's bibles," etc...nor call those that use them "Bible correctors," "Bible doubters," etc.
* The MV crowd will not refer to the KJVOs as "cults," "heretics," "sacrilegious," etc...nor refer to the KJV in derisive terms such as "King Jimmy's Bible," etc.

So this 'rule' now extends to general comments about manuscripts? We just make 'corrupt' a four letter word? Double-plus ungood.

 

^^^^

BlueFalcon,

Do you honestly think that you can insult our intelligence about the veracity of the baseless statements in your first post? Instead of stating that the reading of the verse at hand (Eph. 4:30) in P46 was 'corrupt' (and, to back up your assertions with textual proof!), you said this:

"Just a note that we cannot put our full faith in the earliest manuscripts, for many of the earliest manuscripts are also the most corrupt."

I don't think that you were speaking about just the reading of the passage at hand! The spirit in which you accused 'the earliest manuscripts' was wrong, and now you say that you didn't mean what you said? You made a blanket statement about how you thought the 'earliest manuscripts' were corrupt-- in the nastiest sense. I believe your intentions were NOT as you have just stated them above, and if they weren't, you need to take what you said back with a fully-worded retraction.

 

Perhaps you might have read into something I didn't see, but to make a generalized and blanket statement that BlueFalcon did was NOT in the spirit of the rules of the BV/T forum. To say that the 'earliest manuscripts' are corrupt is 'Double-plus ungood', and will not stand here as becoming of proper etiquette. I am under the impression that BlueFalcon's intentions were other than what he just stated.

 

Perhaps BF could have resolved the problem by saying something like - "In this case this is clearly a corrupt section of this early manuscript."

[ February 14, 2005, 08:10 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

^^^

Thank you, C4K!

That is exactly what I think he SHOULD have said.

 

On the other hand I would have to question the wisdom of questioning another poster's motivation:

Lets all play nice guys. Things have been going VERY smoothly here of late .

Thanks

 

Burgon said it;he wasn't "KJVONLY".
Numerous authors said it not being "KJVONLY."
They were just declairing the obvious.

 

Lets all play nice guys. Things have been going VERY smoothly here of late .

Thanks </font>[/QUOTE]That's why you are the moderator, and to that effect, we commend you for your fairness in being the 'referee'!

 

Also, I hope all of you will please take into consideration that I am a new moderator and I will make mistakes. My view of this is to keep the debate on-track, within the rules of the board and be fair with EVERYBODY regardless of my beliefs (Even though I may post debating a position.)

In this particular case, I felt the word should not be used to describe manuscripts in general and as C4K said, would be better to say that it is "a corruption of the manuscript".

Since there is disagreement with which ARE the best manuscripts, it is not really fair to say that a "manuscript is corrupt", when we know that all manuscripts differ at points.

I stand by my call.

I just wanted to let all of you know where I am coming from and my views of the moderator position. If I am at fault, the other moderators will no doubt correct me and set me in the right direction.

Sorry to go off subject, I just wanted to state my position here where you will see it.

That's all I will say about this and I do commend the posters for keeping these threads quite civil over the past few days.

Thank you!
Phillip

 

Phillip is a very welcome addition to the moderating team.

The proper adn decent thing to do when you disagree with a moderating decision is to PM the moderator rather than dealing with it in the open.

Thanks