1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Minimum support & KJVO

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Bluefalcon, Nov 5, 2004.

Top Posters
Page 2 of 2
  1. manchester

    manchester New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2004
    Messages:
    401
    Likes Received:
    0
    No. If there are two early Greek manuscripts and countless forgeries, one can say that the two Greek manuscripts represent the original. But if there are no early manuscripts at all for verses (eg, the Joseph Smith additions), it is baseless to say that there were early writings to support those verses.

    If I make a Bible translation that includes lots of "missing" verses, it doesn't make just as much sense to assume that my "sources" were God's Word truly preserved as to believe the earliest Greek manuscripts. No, making a false, baseless statement is not the same as making a true, supported statement.

    In addition, it is not merely about numbers or age. It is a field of study that determines what is an early truth and what is a late forgery. A late forgery isn't true just because you wish that it were true, or because it would be simpler if you could put Erasmus ahead of God.
     
    #21 manchester, Nov 6, 2004
  2. manchester

    manchester New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2004
    Messages:
    401
    Likes Received:
    0
    People are not blasted "as" KJVO. If you are "not KJVO," then you seem to define KJVO differently from how the forum defines it.
     
    #22 manchester, Nov 6, 2004
  3. manchester

    manchester New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2004
    Messages:
    401
    Likes Received:
    0
    There is no substantive difference there. Both refer to John's baptism of others. Whether you call it people coming to receive baptism, or coming to receive John's baptism, it is the same.
     
    #23 manchester, Nov 6, 2004
  4. Phillip

    Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    There is no substantive difference there. Both refer to John's baptism of others. Whether you call it people coming to receive baptism, or coming to receive John's baptism, it is the same. </font>[/QUOTE]Excellent responses Manchester. You made a good point in all of your posts.

    I wanted to use your (Bluefalcon) quote here to show why most of us think you is KJVo. ". . . for you NASB lovers. . ." sounds very much like something only a KJVo would say.

    Bluefalcon; This is the reason I think it might be a good idea for you to talk a little about your actual beliefs; otherwise all we have to go by is what little you write.

    You seem to be nit-picking verses to the point that you almost believe that there HAS to be a word-for-word PERFECT set of manuscripts in existance. Otherwise, it is hard for us to understand why you are so concerned about how many manuscripts contain or are missing a single word that has no significant meaning change to the text.

    If you believe that, then just tell us and we can discuss it. If you don't, then why are you bringing the individual verses up?
     
    #24 Phillip, Nov 6, 2004
  5. Bluefalcon

    Bluefalcon Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    957
    Likes Received:
    15
    I do not know one place where the consensus of Greek manuscripts is demonstrably wrong. When the consensus is divided, I sometimes cannot be absolutely certain of the right answer, and am fine with that. Does that answer your question? If you like, we can discuss differences in the consensus of Greek manuscripts from the consensus of Alexandrians (or whatever you prefer) and duke it out that way. That I would actually prefer.

    Yours,

    Bluefalcon
     
    #25 Bluefalcon, Nov 8, 2004
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 2 of 2
Loading...