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!

Featured Spiritually Dead or Spiritually Separated?

Discussion in 'Calvinism & Arminianism Debate' started by Reformed, Feb 25, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Reformed

    Reformed Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Messages:
    4,960
    Likes Received:
    1,694
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Archangel, we cross posted there and said basically the same thing.

    Cheers.
     
  2. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    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.
     
  3. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    21,242
    Likes Received:
    2,305
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    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....
     
  4. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    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.
     
  5. Reformed

    Reformed Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Messages:
    4,960
    Likes Received:
    1,694
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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.



    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.
     
  6. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    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.

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

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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.
    Yes, the TR is too.
    You sound as if that was a God-given title or something.
    That is in question.
    Substanially, but not the only text-type that can be claimed exclusively.
     
  8. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    I didn't say they didn't. Some translations are more reliable than others simply because of the text they are translated from.
    Only to a small degree.
    It was the "received" text down throughout the ages by the "majority" of the churches. That fact cannot be disputed.
    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.
    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.
     
  9. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,371
    Likes Received:
    2,405
    Faith:
    Baptist
    As this thread is delving into text issues, I'm closing it. Take such discussions to the Text andVersion forum.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...