John UK wrote:
Yes, I can understand your wanting to "win a debate" rather than edify a brother...

So how does Quod Est Demonstrandum indicate a desire for winning a debate?!

Looking through your postings on the textual debate it is apparent to me that you are the one seeking such a victory.

John UK wrote:
It is unfortunate that you are unable to hold up your Bible and say, "This is the word of God", because the "scholars" you trust in tell you not to, because the mss they trust in cannot (according to them) be trusted to be the word of God inerrant.

This

John UK wrote:
..if you regard the Bible as someone's "pet subject"..

John UK wrote:
Just as well.

John UK wrote:
1. Because 5% of poison in a beaker can kill you.

John UK wrote:
2. If you are innocent, you are innocent.

John UK wrote:
3. If that is what he said, then I disagree with you. Why grumble at the facts?

John UK wrote:
5. Are you still interested in learning about the texts at the back of the NASB? Or do you prefer to be hoodwinked by so-called scholars, some of whom are not even born again?

John, ever occured to you that you could be hoodwinked and that you oppose God by your tactics?

Where in the Bible does it say that the KJV or the text underlying the KJV is the only God ordained version?

John UK wrote:
1. Not at all. Some 95% of each modern version agrees with the TR...

John UK wrote:
..But then, you're always spoiling for a fight, picking up on the slightest little thing which you can play with. ..

John UK wrote:
3. The comment by CV was to me unintelligible, and I would have asked him what on earth he meant. But to cast him off as an ignoramus is something you need to repent of.

John UK wrote:
..Of course, if you are an American, this Christian principle will grate, and you will find it hard to accomplish.

Well John, you might care to read the part of his/her post to which I responded. According to him/her I am a supposedly holding to very intelligent Jesuit/German scholarship articulated impressively to which W/H would agree etc.

It is easy to make accusations and assertions. What proof was produced to make the accusation and assertion good? Your bias seems to have overlooked this.

You too, have made a judgement and imputed intellectual pride to me. On what basis? Simply for saying that someone posted something which demonstrated ignorance?! Really!!

And why do you assume that my saying that his/her post was an ignorant rant meant that I would think him/her worthless and not worthy of participating on this forum?

You appear to have a bias against me (presumably for speaking against your revered TR). This wouldn't have anything to do with your accusation now would it?

John UK wrote:
Dependent on God's GRACE, not his "intellect".

Frank wrote:
3:46 PM. Thanks!

Certainly not!

Frank wrote:
I am not familiar with this fellow who uses the moniker "question". I hope he reads my response to him and responds. But, I know it was a blessing to him regardless.

Neil wrote:
...unbelieving scholars often commit childishly simple errors in reasoning, & pose no real threat to Christianity at all

I believe that this was the practice in the better schools and colleges of the day (and carried on into the mid-20th century), which often sought to sharpen student intellects by engaging in debating societies.

John UK wrote:
..Humbling, eh?

John UK wrote:
..MH says that for Christianity to be the real thing, it must be both experimental and experiential, and I agree.

John UK wrote:
Correct. Check out the acquaintance of these simple folks.
Acts 4:13 KJV
13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.

Secondly these unlearned and ignorant men had the direct guidance and leading of the Holy Spirit as well as direct inspiration as they penned the NT.

Thirdly, among the apostles one was a trained pharisee, and although as one born out of due time, he was the one who of whom Peter wrote that there were many hard things to be understood in his writings, and certainly of all the apostles he has contributed most to the NT.

If ignorance were the virtue you try to make it out to be then certainly todays churches are very blessed indeed!

Neil wrote:
You might appreciate this:

It is said of Isaac Watts that he could read greek at the age of 4!

isitonthemenu wrote:
..remember even brother James White is not the last word in textual matters! Look forward to your SA critique after the expected summer publication (D.V.)

BTW James White has studied NT Greek to a high standard and I am sure that linguistically he is able to hold his own.

All that said, textual questions go way beyond linguistics and require an aquaintance of far more than just the mechanics of the language.

I shall look out for brother Hembd's book and shall certainly read it, although I suspect that he will also not have the last word on the subject! If I have the time to critique it for SA readers, I shall certainly try and post up something.

Just in case you should think that all I have read is White and Carson, I should add that I have read extensively from the other side too: which includes stuff from the TBS, Dean Burgon, Scrivener, David O. Fuller, Theodore Letis, Edward Hills etc.

Michael Hranek wrote:
Question
Seems we are getting far afield from Digitizing the Dead Sea Scrolls but your comment made me want to ask you.
30 to 40 years ago a lot of Pentecostal people would have been considered people who feared God and loved the Bible and took it as having authority over their lives, people who believed and preached "Ye Must Be Born Again", people who believed in repentance for the remission of sin, who believed in being holy separate from the world and false religions such as Roman Catholicism, people who believed in believers baptism by immersion like the Baptists, people who believed in praying for the lost until they were saved.
Have you seen their drift into "playing church" with becoming more and more like other denominations with less fiery preaching against sin and hell for 'entertainment', ecumenism, a non-offensive social gospel and their own version of Purpose Deceived emergent mysticism where they seem to avoid the KJV and the Truth of Scripture and Biblical holiness like the plague unless of course it suits their agenda?

Republic wrote:
Boy, have I stepped into a hornets nest.

Republic wrote:
Question,
I guess it depends on what you mean by “flourish� and what you mean by “free.� Capitalism unchecked by Godly principles will lead to control by the largest most powerful companies. Monsanto is flourishing. Other seed companies are dead or dying at monsanto's hand. The dairy industry has successfully made it to difficult for small dairy farms to survive through heavy legislation and regulations.
There will be a demand and there will be a supply. However, it wont be flourishing.
I have no problem with people making lots of money. It is wonderful. May they get it honestly and use it for God's Glory.

CV wrote:
...That's the regulative principle -

CV wrote:
"Question"
Very intelligent Jesuit/German scholarship articulated impressively what you hold to. W/H agrees with you. But every place this has taken hold, God lost out. History and scripture support you, even if it only bears bad fruit.

Christopher000 wrote:
John, you always get these deep, lengthy discussions going. I noticed one on another thread as well. I used to think that the Bible was so simple and clear and I always thought that there was no need for apologetics if people just read the Bible with simple innocense. I guess I was wrong because things can go much deeper than I ever thought. What bothers me sometimes is that both sides of whatever particular argument seem to have good arguments.

Study diligently and as widely as you can, because we live in difficult times and there are many who will want to tie you to their beliefs!

Being brought up a good pentecostal, I started with the KJV. But the more I have studied the less I am convinced about the translation and the underlying texts.

Republic wrote:
Capitalism can only survive if governed by the Word and principles of God.