|
Excuse me, Kevin, I did it to you
again.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 11:37
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perverting the
words of the living God
Okay, Terry, I'll do that in my quiet time, while
reading, meditating upon, and loving God's Word.
Bill
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 11:29
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perverting the
words of the living God
Rhetoric LOL
Open your eyes and look at the shameful condition of these
Manuscripts.
They are full of additions subtractions blank spaces, big ugly blotches
from erasing.
VATICANus & Sainaiticus are tainted on almost every page. It is the
product of hundreds of years of tampering. Whay all the fixes?
Ps 119:140 Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth
it.
"Wm. Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 6:56
AM
Subject: [TruthTalk] Perverting the
words of the living God
I don't know that I would phrase it like that
Bill. When I was born again I know that God sealed me with the
Holy Spirit of promise but it was only when I layed aside all of the
doctrines of men that had gotten me confused (because there are so many
of them) [Judy, that's like saying you are now the
only one among us who is not confused, yet you gobbled up Kevin's mss
rhetoric yesterday--that is before we began to talk and you backed off a
bit. I say this simply to say that you are as influenced still by the
world as is the next mature Christian. It's when we are honest
about this that we are paidia -- children, because me
are paideai, formable.] and came asking God for wisdom that things came
together for me [that is when things began
to come together for me also]. I no longer need to cut out some
parts of the Bible out because they don't fit into
my doctrine [What are the implications of
this statement: that I do have to "cut out" portions of
the Bible "because they don't fit into my doctrine"? Can you give me
examples of where I have done this?]. I love every Word, they are all life-giving,
better and more satisfying than my necessary food. You, John, and
Lance cheer each other on because you have all read and follow some of
the same theologians [I don't know that I have ever
heard John mention the name of any theologian]. I recognize
God's Word when it is spoken in balance and in context. For eg; I
don't know what Kevin has been into or what he reads but when he posts
God's Word in balance and in context I know he has been with the
Lord. Does this make any sense to you? [Yes, Judy, it makes a great deal of sense to me. You
agree with Kevin because his theology is close to your own. You disagree
with others of us because your theology is less compatible with ours.
This, however, is a reflection and demonstration of our own limitations,
our own theologies, and not a reflection or
demonstration of the absence
of Spirit guidence on the part of us with whom you do not
agree. Godly, obedient, Spirit filled, turth seeking Christians can
have sincere and honorable disagreements concerning matters of
truth, without that necessitating an either/or scenario on behalf of any
of us. Bill] judyt
Judy, in all respect and candor, how do you
know you are "from the Spirit of Truth"? I'll speak for my self here,
when I go to Scripture, I go in prayer, earnestly, inwardly, desiring
that the Spirit lead me to truth. Yet I sometimes (most times?) come
away with a "leading" different from the "leading" you receive. Does
that necessarily mean I am the one in
error, the one deceived, the one perverting the words of the living God?
Does it necessarily mean the same about you? Of course not on both
counts. Please listen to what Lance is saying, look to his words for
their intended meaning, try to understand him. This is an important
distinction and one which gets to the heart of any discussions of
fellowship (see parallel thread). Bill
What about the HS
giving understanding Lance? Believers!! Ppl believe in all
kinds of doctrines and ideas and not all are from the Spirit of Truth.
Those with opposing meanings should be able to show in balance and in
context why the scriptures I post are being wrongly used.
By intrinsic do you mean "inward"? (In the person or in the
Word)? Both should be the same. I wouldn't want to be in the shoes of
the latter at the 'eschaton' because without understanding they will
be the ones walking in lawlessness who will say "Lord, Lord!!"
judyt
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Check archives re:the role of the HS in interpretation (my
understanding). Given: Some on this site are actually "believers". They quote scriptures intended to support an opposing meaning to those
you've quoted. This, at its worst is the "O Ya" factor and, at its
best is simply an indication that some can't or won't be lead by the
Spirit to a correct apprehension of the "intrinsic
meaning" therein.I believe everyone is and will be reflective
of the latter position this side of the eschaton. Lance
Correct me if
I'm wrong Lance but I'm reading you stating that I misread
scripture because of outside influence (you have already said that
you don't believe the Holy Spirit is involved in this) so IYO I am
led away from what is "intrinsically true and right" However, in
saying this you are setting yourself (or some theologian that you
respect and follow) up as the standard of what is true and right
rather than God's Word. If I am perverting truth here, you
have the responsibility as a fellow believer to show me in balance
and in context why you think I am doing so (in love), so that I may
walk in all truth. judyt
Kinda yes and kinda no. The "no" part"
has to do with your scripture quotations.
Every one of them is believed by yourself to
refer to a meaning that makes whatever
point you are about in that conversation. Sometimes that
meaning is the real meaning. But, you too are"influenced". Sometimes
that "influence" (folks you study with, books you
read etc) can be seen to have lead you
away from that which is intrinsically
true and right. Please don't respond by asking me if I
believe myself to always reflect one over the other 'cause just like
you and all others on TT, I don't. Lance
Are you being
funny Lance? Yes some matters do influence others, (where is
discernment these days)? Bad company corrupts good morals and we
are not ever exhorted to seek out the devil in order
to receive wisdom from God.
Read the Preface to the KJV and compare that with what these other
theologians were about. judyt
Jt provides "worldview analysis"
Whoda thunk it. Yup, convictions arrived at concerning some
matters influence others. Lance
Now Bill, got
to tell it like it is. I'm just reading how Nestle and Aland
were evolutionists and Westcott and Hort were only nominally
orthodox in theology, both denied Biblical inerrancy and
promoted spiritism and racism. Nestle and Aland, like Kittel
were German theological liberals... What's so good about all
that? As the old saying goes, no smoke without
fire...jt
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Oh please. When new manuscript
evidence is discovered, a new edition is released with notes in
the lower margin explaining the nature of the discovery. It's
only when the evidence contains a very high degree of
probability concerning authenticity that the actual text is
changed, reflecting the updated evidence. The variant is then
placed in the margin, with explanatory details as to why the
change. You guys should be journalists for CNN; you can
make anything sound seedy. Bill
Please do, I
will be looking fwd to that. I don't know a whole lot about
German theologians
other than things began to change for
the worse when their textual criticism began to
permeate the Seminaries in this
country. I had heard of Westcott & Hort but not
this
Nestle/Aland pair.
jt
From: Kevin Deegan < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> I
have a lot of problems with the NA text. When they finally
get it right I will give you a critique. Right now we are
at revision 26 - revised corrected new improved edition and
counting, right? You should avoid like the plague, the Wescott & Hort
text - Nest/Aland any edition
Kevin. A true scholar is one who can separate
his personal views from the task he is qualified
to perform. The guy who cannot do that is just a
well educated sectarian. All you have proven
is the former. So you don't agree with Aland
in theory. That does not change the fact that he
and others did a monumental work in this most recent text
(and the others). Do you have
some textual criticism. I was quoting the text with
no reference to Aland's theology. Aren't you
the guy who thinks the KJ is the inspired
version? John
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo!
Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway - Enter
today
|
