Is it inconsistent...

There is nothing that would be found in those passages that disagreed with what is alrteady seen by all has being scripture, so not adding nothing novel and new here. Now if say the passage about Baptism being done for the dead was in the same condition, not attested to by any early sources though?

 

Even if it is not real scripture I don't see a problem to preach from it. As long as the story is biblical why not use it to preach a good sermon, right? That is just my opinion.

 

Would it be OK to preach from this text?

It's not "real scripture," but seems to be consistent with the scriptures, nothing found in this passage that disagrees with what is already seen as being scripture, not adding anything novel and new here; I suppose one could make a good sermon out of it.

Where do you draw the line?

 

Definitely not.

At archaic grammar and vocabulary ... who uses the word 'diadem' anymore? :)

 

Everybody that hasn't quit singing "All hail the power of Jesus name"!

 

Ha, poll the twenty-somethings and see how many know what it means. ;)

 

OK. Found this newer translation:

Would it be OK to preach from this text?

 

Perhaps they need a little education.

 

Here is a plot of the use of the word "diadem" over time. I think it is just a word fading from common usage. [Sorry.] :(

 

Droll, but ultimately beside the point of the OP, and the specific question -- revised for you with a newer translation that might suit.

The real question is not about how many people might use the word diadem, but whether we should preach and teach from texts that the preacher or teacher does not think is inspired scripture.

 

Since you went to all this trouble ... No, it would not be OK to preach from this as scripture. Fortunately for non-Greek speaking (reading) dullards like me, the heavy lifting in the question of "What is Scripture" was done long before I was born. I have been handed down "The Bible" by "The Church" which has come before me. They have the manuscripts that I cannot read. What I can do is compare the English Translations from the time of the KJV through the multiple from around 1900 with those being made today. Different teams of experts living in different times with different goals and agendas and personal doctrinal beliefs all striving to do their best to render what they believe is the closest to the original to the then current English language.

That some manuscripts include it (enough that some expert translators chose to include it), is enough to allow me to accept it as 'scripture' ... original or not. That some manuscripts do not include it (enough that some expert translators chose to exclude it), is enough that I will not base any personal doctrine exclusively on that text. When and if the original autographs are discovered (an unlikely event) or a very early manuscript is found (a possibility) we may have a more definitive answer. Until then, I will trust in the Bible that I have been given, believing that God has been able to preserve what is important and defend his word from gross error.

I have no problem preaching from anything that God has given me (except for the part where I don't generally preach because I am not a preacher). However, I have a very large problem preaching from any 'new revelation' and claiming that is the word of God.

Sorry, I can't preach from even your new translation.

 

I don't know. I can't get them off their iPhones to actually communicate verbally rather in texts.

... But most are probably not familiar with words whose popularity peaked sometime before 1800.
Do you see many flocking to churches that still sing "All hail the power of Jesus name"? :Coffee

 

I loved the rest of your post. Just a quick clarification (since I was unclear) that I meant do you see lots of twenty-somethings flocking to churches that sing that (and other old) songs? Old music tends to appeal to older church members and young church members tend to be drawn to more contemporary worship music. (Based on my admitted limited sample size).

 

As to the OP, I would never personally think of teaching any of the verses that are overwhelmingly considered to be later additions as scripture in my books or personal teaching. I just have a problem with my conscience to do so, since I would never consider the section of scripture you mention as authoritative for my own life.

 

Even if so, often the old hymns get new garments in CCM arrangements, such as Chris Tomlin's All Hail the Power.

 

The problem with the introduced text is not that is an old translation or new translation, but that it is not and never has been a biblical text (it's from Polycarp's Letter to the Philippians). But I think your point about the texts such as Mark 16:9-20, John 7:53-8:11, etc., having been long regarded as scripture is a good one that should give pause to those who reject them.

 

Thanks for the interesting source. My position on this level of textual criticism is the same as the primary qualification for singing in the choir. I know when to keep my moth shut and let the experts take over (well at least in that area).