Spiritually Dead or Spiritually Separated?

[Reformed]

Archangel, we cross posted there and said basically the same thing.

Cheers.

 

[DHK]

Believe it or not your last comment is exactly the argument made by the KJVO sycophants. If you believe God has preserved His word only in the TR, then you are KJVO. If you believe that God has preserved His word in the Critical Text also then you are not KJVO. Do you believe God's word is preserved in the CT?

No, I believe that the CT is made up of more than 80% of just two manuscripts. Those two manuscripts are A and B. If those two manuscripts are badly flawed, then the entire text is unreliable. Of course only the originals are inspired, we both know that. And we both believe that God has preserved his Word. The how and where are two questions we both may answer differently and that is a matter of soul liberty.

However, as you can see the thread title (no matter who started it) is:
Spiritually Dead or Spiritually Separated?

A subject on textual criticism has derailed the thread. That is why it belongs in the version forum and not here. This type of thing has happened many times on this board. We should keep to the OP.

 

[Iconoclast]

No, I believe that the CT is made up of more than 80% of just two manuscripts. Those two manuscripts are A and B. If those two manuscripts are badly flawed, then the entire text is unreliable. Of course only the originals are inspired, we both know that. And we both believe that God has preserved his Word. The how and where are two questions we both may answer differently and that is a matter of soul liberty.

However, as you can see the thread title (no matter who started it) is:
Spiritually Dead or Spiritually Separated?

A subject on textual criticism has derailed the thread. That is why it belongs in the version forum and not here. This type of thing has happened many times on this board. We should keep to the OP.

It was your wrong ideas about the word corpse that caused any disruption. The posters even he who started the op are okay with it.
Admit you were mistaken. Your ideas were responded to and corrected over and over....

 

[DHK]

It was your wrong ideas about the word corpse that caused any disruption. The posters even he who started the op are okay with it.
Admit you were mistaken. Your ideas were responded to and corrected over and over....

It is fine with me Icon. That rabbit trail was started on page four. That is all it was--a rabbit trail. If they want to follow them all There are 131 more.

The word nekros is used 132 times in the Bible, and of course they all aren't corrected by other texts. We know that. I have already used the word in other texts that seemed to have gone unanswered.

That is a lot of scripture to answer to.

 

[Reformed]

No, I believe that the CT is made up of more than 80% of just two manuscripts. Those two manuscripts are A and B. If those two manuscripts are badly flawed, then the entire text is unreliable. Of course only the originals are inspired, we both know that. And we both believe that God has preserved his Word. The how and where are two questions we both may answer differently and that is a matter of soul liberty.

Then you are KJVO; if not be self-admission then by process of elimination.

You are also confusing inspiration and inerrancy. Only the original autographs are inerrant. That does not mean the Word of God we have today is not inspired, or God-breathed. If the Word of God is not inspired then it is not trustworthy.

However, as you can see the thread title (no matter who started it) is:
Spiritually Dead or Spiritually Separated?

A subject on textual criticism has derailed the thread. That is why it belongs in the version forum and not here. This type of thing has happened many times on this board. We should keep to the OP.

DHK, since the word nekros is a central point in the topic of spiritual death it is germane to the discussion. You said a few posts back that you are not concerned about textual criticism. My suggestion? Avoid that part of the discussion. I am not trying to be cheeky in saying this. I do it all them time.

 

[DHK]

Then you are KJVO; if not be self-admission then by process of elimination.

You are also confusing inspiration and inerrancy. Only the original autographs are inerrant. That does not mean the Word of God we have today is not inspired, or God-breathed. If the Word of God is not inspired then it is not trustworthy.

Go here:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=51920&postcount=1
I probably follow in category #2.

No. God took certain men and used them to write His words down. Those words are His words, inspired by the Holy Spirit of God. They were written but one time. We don't have those originals anymore. They were the original inspired words of God. The Word of God was inspired in its original MSS. It is the words, not the individuals that are inspired.
As God has preserved his word we don't hesitate to say that we have the inspired Word of God since in "inspiration" God in his providence has enabled His Word to be in essence the same as it was in the first century. But technically only the originals are inspired and can only be inspired. If you believe otherwise then you are taking a position very close to the KJVO.

DHK, since the word nekros is a central point in the topic of spiritual death it is germane to the discussion. You said a few posts back that you are not concerned about textual criticism. My suggestion? Avoid that part of the discussion. I am not trying to be cheeky in saying this. I do it all them time.

It is an observation that it is off topic--a rabbit trail really. But carry on.

 

[Rippon]

I don't take very kindly to textual criticism,

Well then, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Every translator of any Bible version has to use textual criticism in their work.

The entire text is eclectic in nature.

Yes, the TR is too.

The TR is what it says it is: "received,"

You sound as if that was a God-given title or something.

I am not KJVO,

That is in question.

but I do believe God has preserved his word in the what is commonly called the TR.

Substanially, but not the only text-type that can be claimed exclusively.

 

[DHK]

Well then, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Every translator of any Bible version has to use textual criticism in their work.

I didn't say they didn't. Some translations are more reliable than others simply because of the text they are translated from.

Yes, the TR is too.

Only to a small degree.

You sound as if that was a God-given title or something.

It was the "received" text down throughout the ages by the "majority" of the churches. That fact cannot be disputed.

That is in question.

No it isn't. To call names is against the rules. I gave you a link and identified my position. That is all that is required.

Substanially, but not the only text-type that can be claimed exclusively.

I am not sure what you mean by "text-type."

But I ask again, what does this have to do with the OP?
Nothing. You are off topic.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

As this thread is delving into text issues, I'm closing it. Take such discussions to the Text andVersion forum.