� David Miller wrote:
> David Miller wrote: > > What you seem to be overlooking is that the Bible > > warns against ADDING to the Bible, > > DAVEH: > > It is curious that in times past, DavidM has stated that > > those passages are referring to the specific books that > > are included in the Bible as we know it, not that it is > > referring to the Bible as a whole. > > Technically, you are correct.� I agree that the admonitions apply > specifically to those books.� However, the concept can be broadened to > include other books and even other compilations of books. DAVEH:� IF you do that, then you would have to exclude a good portion of the Bible......specifically, everything post Deuteronomy! > The idea is that > we should not usurp a position whereby we presume to add to or take away > from a work of God.� It seemed to me that you were doing this kind of > extrapolation when you argued from these passages that God would not warn > against removing parts if it were not possible.� I assume that you were > referring to other parts of the Bible besides just Deuteronomy and > Revelation.� I agree with your point and your extrapolation, and added a > reminder that the admonition warns against additions as well as exclusions. > Now I am the one confused why you are going back on your extrapolation when > it suits your cause. DAVEH:� Because the Bible is an "arbitrary" collection of books.� What we call the Bible today, is different from what was thought of as the Bible many years ago.� Missing material is a problem, whether it is a single word, passage or book.� If the Lord revealed something and it inadvertently had a single word or two 'overlooked', that could be ascribed to a translational error.� If a whole passage were 'dropped', then it might lead one to suspect that it was done to put a certain spin on the Word of God.� If a whole book is neglected, it could be for a variety of reasons:� 1)� the message of the book presents doctrinal problems, 2)� the book is simply lost or unavailable, or 3) the book is of a questionable source or contains suspect material.� (There are probably other reasons I can't think of at the moment.) ��� The instances you mentioned (Deut & Rev) we both agree pertain to said books.� However, the BofM's comment does not refer to a specific book, but to Scripture as a whole, which the Bible is not---in a complete sense.�� Does that make sense, DavidM?� I'm not sure I'm even saying it right, or conveying what I'm thinking.� But I think you are trying to equate the comments in the Bible with the comments in the BofM, and I don't think they are necessarily directly related.� That may confuse you.....and if it does, I'll try to explain it in a different way.� Just let me know. > Peace be with you. > David Miller. � -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ � ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
