<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DavidH:
I hope you understand that my conviction about this matter is based on authority to determine and rule, not on a scholary dissertation of languages, sentence structure and verb usages.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This may be part of the problem because you have a faulty foundation. You want the fountain head to be the church. However, the truth which the church is to guard is the truth that is communicated in "languages, sentence structure and verb usages" as you say. Therefore, the church must defend the very thing you abhor. And to boot, the majority of the church (or churches) today rejects your position. The church that is defending the truth rejects the position you hold. If the church being the fountain head of truth, you should bring your views in line with it. The orthodox belief on Scripture is that the originals were inspired, the copies partake derivitavely of inspiration so far as they are accurate copies, and translations are authoritative inasumuch as the accurately communicate the message of the original language texts.
God has preserved his word in the multitude of manuscripts. The oft quoted "received text" argument was new in the 15th century. Early on in church history, there was no "received text." Most of the early evidence that we have today was unknown to churches from AD1000-1800. Had they known of it, the "received text" would have been much different.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I may write a post on "how to know if your church speaks the truth of God" in the future.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'll save you the trouble. Your church speaks the truth of God if what they say lines up with Scripture.
I hope you understand that my conviction about this matter is based on authority to determine and rule, not on a scholary dissertation of languages, sentence structure and verb usages.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This may be part of the problem because you have a faulty foundation. You want the fountain head to be the church. However, the truth which the church is to guard is the truth that is communicated in "languages, sentence structure and verb usages" as you say. Therefore, the church must defend the very thing you abhor. And to boot, the majority of the church (or churches) today rejects your position. The church that is defending the truth rejects the position you hold. If the church being the fountain head of truth, you should bring your views in line with it. The orthodox belief on Scripture is that the originals were inspired, the copies partake derivitavely of inspiration so far as they are accurate copies, and translations are authoritative inasumuch as the accurately communicate the message of the original language texts.
God has preserved his word in the multitude of manuscripts. The oft quoted "received text" argument was new in the 15th century. Early on in church history, there was no "received text." Most of the early evidence that we have today was unknown to churches from AD1000-1800. Had they known of it, the "received text" would have been much different.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I may write a post on "how to know if your church speaks the truth of God" in the future.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'll save you the trouble. Your church speaks the truth of God if what they say lines up with Scripture.