Teaching the Trinity from the NIV

[PappaBear]

Or let them argue the orthodox view of the Trinity without the Johannine Comma (i.e. with the NIV).  That is the ORTHODOX view of all three being the same substance, or consubstantial, not merely appeals in scripture where the 3 are referenced together, which can show the Trinity, but in non-classical modalism or adoptionism.  They should be able to confidently defend the Orthodox view of the Trinity with their modern corruptions... - PappaBear

Funny. Ransom posted a thread for PappaBear and him to precisely do this and PappaBear will not get near the issue.

What is really funny is the reason you did not use the standard quote option that would have linked back to the other thread.  Wonder why you did not want anyone to go read the entire quote?

Here ya go. 

Or let them argue the orthodox view of the Trinity without the Johannine Comma.  That is the ORTHODOX view of all three being the same substance, or consubstantial, not merely appeals in scripture where the 3 are referenced together, which can show the Trinity, but in non-classical modalism or adoptionism.  They should be able to confidently defend the Orthodox view of the Trinity with their modern corruptions seeing their holy father, John Calvin, burned Servetus at the stake for being a Baptist against infant baptism and holding an adoptionist view of the Trinity.  Bring a JW or Mormon for them to debate, limited to using only the NIV, and watch the cultists trash them. 

But it would be pretty impossible for one of us who believes the orthodox doctrines to actually allow an absolute denial of doctrine in these other versions, so when you show their failure in one passage to support right doctrine, they merely run elsewhere to say, "see here, there's your doctrine, so this mv does not teach falsehood."  But it certainly weakens the major doctrines and increases support for cultic heresy.  So don't fall easily for the bait.

 

[bgwilkinson]

Why not agree to number 2?

Because of the reasons I have already stated.  Especially because I believe the orthodox view of the Trinity, so of course it would be easy to prove it to me.  I would be easily convinced, and would be a disagreeable debate point for me to play devil's advocate and argue for a point I do not believe.  No doctrine as important as the Trinity is found only in a single passage.  But it is very much harder to prove it as consubstantial without the Comma, and attempting to debate someone who does NOT believe the orthodox view of the Trinity (from such as the Anasthasian Creed or Nicene Creed) would show that.  Just about any old JW would froth at the mouth to do so knowing that you are not using the KJV.

You are avoiding the point of the OP and trying to talk your way out with meaningless words. Like that famous anti-trinitarian KJVO Avery.

This is so typical of KJVOs.

JWs Mormons SDAs got their false doctrine out of the KJV. The cults favorite version.

 

[PappaBear]

You are avoiding the point of the OP and trying to talk your way out with meaningless words.

Maybe "Hooked on Phonics" would help you to read the time stamps on my post and Ransom's "OP" challenge on this thread.  His OP conditions and challenge to me were doomed from the beginning by my original post. 

Or let them argue the orthodox view of the Trinity without the Johannine Comma.  That is the ORTHODOX view of all three being the same substance, or consubstantial, not merely appeals in scripture where the 3 are referenced together, which can show the Trinity, but in non-classical modalism or adoptionism.  They should be able to confidently defend the Orthodox view of the Trinity with their modern corruptions seeing their holy father, John Calvin, burned Servetus at the stake for being a Baptist against infant baptism and holding an adoptionist view of the Trinity.  Bring a JW or Mormon for them to debate, limited to using only the NIV, and watch the cultists trash them. 

But it would be pretty impossible for one of us who believes the orthodox doctrines to actually allow an absolute denial of doctrine in these other versions, so when you show their failure in one passage to support right doctrine, they merely run elsewhere to say, "see here, there's your doctrine, so this mv does not teach falsehood."  But it certainly weakens the major doctrines and increases support for cultic heresy.  So don't fall easily for the bait.

 

[FSSL]

You are avoiding the point of the OP and trying to talk your way out with meaningless words. Like that famous anti-trinitarian KJVO Avery.

C'mon... leave the guy alone! He said he didn't have time!

 

[bgwilkinson]

You are avoiding the point of the OP and trying to talk your way out with meaningless words.

Maybe "Hooked on Phonics" would help you to read the time stamps on my post and Ransom's "OP" challenge on this thread.  His OP conditions and challenge to me were doomed from the beginning by my original post. 

Or let them argue the orthodox view of the Trinity without the Johannine Comma.  That is the ORTHODOX view of all three being the same substance, or consubstantial, not merely appeals in scripture where the 3 are referenced together, which can show the Trinity, but in non-classical modalism or adoptionism.  They should be able to confidently defend the Orthodox view of the Trinity with their modern corruptions seeing their holy father, John Calvin, burned Servetus at the stake for being a Baptist against infant baptism and holding an adoptionist view of the Trinity.  Bring a JW or Mormon for them to debate, limited to using only the NIV, and watch the cultists trash them. 

But it would be pretty impossible for one of us who believes the orthodox doctrines to actually allow an absolute denial of doctrine in these other versions, so when you show their failure in one passage to support right doctrine, they merely run elsewhere to say, "see here, there's your doctrine, so this mv does not teach falsehood."  But it certainly weakens the major doctrines and increases support for cultic heresy.  So don't fall easily for the bait.

Take your meds PappaBear.

 

[PappaBear]

Like that famous anti-trinitarian KJVO Avery.

btw ... if you are so convinced of that (and judging from the one linked thread that admin supplied, it may be), then he may be the IDEAL person for such a debate.  Why not go over and invite him?  I suspect the admin would cringe, remembering how Avery took him to Sunday School and gave him some free lessons on the Gergasenes thread.  But it sure sounds like he would be the best man to argue that position, if indeed he is non-trinitarian.

(Note:  from what I read of that xref'd thread, it sounded more like he did not feel it important enough to argue the point with you, not that he rejected it.)

 

[PappaBear]

I have a valid believer's baptism AFTER my conversion experience at age 8.  Philip's challenge to the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 8:37 pretty well establishes the qualifying need of being born again BEFORE.  Do you understand the Baptist's definition of "Believer's Baptism" as opposed to your modern versions teaching of pedobaptism?

Did I mention that Acts 8:37 is missing from the NIV?  Hmmmmm?? 

 

[christundivided]

I have a valid believer's baptism AFTER my conversion experience at age 8.  Philip's challenge to the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 8:37 pretty well establishes the qualifying need of being born again BEFORE.  Do you understand the Baptist's definition of "Believer's Baptism" as opposed to your modern versions teaching of pedobaptism?

Did I mention that Acts 8:37 is missing from the NIV?  Hmmmmm?? 

Its not missing...... Acts 8:37 was added long after Luke wrote it. The evidence is overwhelming.

 

[rsc2a]

I have a valid believer's baptism AFTER my conversion experience at age 8.  Philip's challenge to the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 8:37 pretty well establishes the qualifying need of being born again BEFORE.  Do you understand the Baptist's definition of "Believer's Baptism" as opposed to your modern versions teaching of pedobaptism?

Did I mention that Acts 8:37 is missing from the NIV?  Hmmmmm?? 

Strange...I just checked the NIV I keep on the bookshelf by my desk and it was in there...

 

[Ransom]

I already have.  Please see reply #3 on this thread.

• Paragraph 1: ad hominem, directed at me
• Paragraph 2: ad hominem, directed at my testimony
• Paragraph 3: complaint about "antagonism" and an announcement that your time on the forum will be limited
• Paragraph 4: An in-passing mention of the athanasian creed and a suggestion that I debate someone else
• Paragraph 5: "Remember, pray daily"

So no, you did not answer either of my questions.

Of course, after decades of listening to KJV-only clowns bloviate, we all recognize this as standard procedure: your typical KJV-only loudmouth will be asked a question, after which he will filibuster for multiple posts, and when pressed, claim that the original question was answered well back in the thread, even though it wasn't.

Silly PappaBear. You made the mistake of telling us which specific post you pretend had an answer in it. It was too easy to go and look.

Can we chalk this up to the usual KJV-onlyist love of honesty? *snort*

 

[Timothy]

I have a valid believer's baptism AFTER my conversion experience at age 8.  Philip's challenge to the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 8:37 pretty well establishes the qualifying need of being born again BEFORE.  Do you understand the Baptist's definition of "Believer's Baptism" as opposed to your modern versions teaching of pedobaptism?

Did I mention that Acts 8:37 is missing from the NIV?  Hmmmmm?? 

Call 911!!!! Someone stole Acts 8:37 and we want it back!!!!

 

[FSSL]

I have a valid believer's baptism AFTER my conversion experience at age 8.  Philip's challenge to the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 8:37 pretty well establishes the qualifying need of being born again BEFORE.  Do you understand the Baptist's definition of "Believer's Baptism" as opposed to your modern versions teaching of pedobaptism?

Did I mention that Acts 8:37 is missing from the NIV?  Hmmmmm?? 

Call 911!!!! Someone stole Acts 8:37 and we want it back!!!!

PappaBear's eyesight is in a bit of disrepair.

 

[bgwilkinson]

You are avoiding the point of the OP and trying to talk your way out with meaningless words.

Maybe "Hooked on Phonics" would help you to read the time stamps on my post and Ransom's "OP" challenge on this thread.  His OP conditions and challenge to me were doomed from the beginning by my original post. 

Or let them argue the orthodox view of the Trinity without the Johannine Comma.  That is the ORTHODOX view of all three being the same substance, or consubstantial, not merely appeals in scripture where the 3 are referenced together, which can show the Trinity, but in non-classical modalism or adoptionism.  They should be able to confidently defend the Orthodox view of the Trinity with their modern corruptions seeing their holy father, John Calvin, burned Servetus at the stake for being a Baptist against infant baptism and holding an adoptionist view of the Trinity.  Bring a JW or Mormon for them to debate, limited to using only the NIV, and watch the cultists trash them. 

But it would be pretty impossible for one of us who believes the orthodox doctrines to actually allow an absolute denial of doctrine in these other versions, so when you show their failure in one passage to support right doctrine, they merely run elsewhere to say, "see here, there's your doctrine, so this mv does not teach falsehood."  But it certainly weakens the major doctrines and increases support for cultic heresy.  So don't fall easily for the bait.

Your statements are illogical.

 

[bgwilkinson]

I have a valid believer's baptism AFTER my conversion experience at age 8.  Philip's challenge to the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 8:37 pretty well establishes the qualifying need of being born again BEFORE.  Do you understand the Baptist's definition of "Believer's Baptism" as opposed to your modern versions teaching of pedobaptism?

Did I mention that Acts 8:37 is missing from the NIV?  Hmmmmm?? 

I just checked in my Oxford New Scofield  NIV  the one my wife gave me for Christmas 1984.

It is deceptive to say it is missing from the NIV Bible. It is there.

You say it is missing because it is not included in the body of the text, half truth, half lie.

The complete verse and the text critical explanation of why it is doubtful are on the same page in the notes.

It is not possible to read this translation without seeing that there is a verse missing in the text body and also seeing the note.

Here is a quote from Bruce M. Metzger's Textual Commentary on the Greek NT. p. 315.  I hope you can see the irony.

"Although the passage does not appear in the late medieval manuscript on which Erasmus chiefly depended for his editions (ms. 2), it stands in the margin of another (ms. 4), from which he inserted it into his text because he "judged that it had been omitted by the carelessness of scribes (arbitror omissum librariorum incuria)."

I think it is fitting for this verse since it got in the TR from the margin we should put it back in the margin from whence it came.

PappaBear I am praying that you will repent and stop disparaging the Bible.

Your humble servant. B G Wilkinson

 

[PappaBear]

You are neither humble nor a servant. 

It had enough textual support that the King James Translators, one of the greatest body of Bible language scholars ever assembled, included it.  For 400 years, along with the Johannine Comma and hundreds of other verses, it was blessed of the LORD and embraced by God-fearing Christians.

Today, we are in need of revival both in the society around us and also in the churches.  So many have abandoned the faith once delivered and new agers, apostates, and cults are growing significantly.  But we no longer have the quality of Christian in the pew that former generations did, and we certainly preach a different "new and improved" Bible.  Trouble with it is that it does not have the same power and effectiveness the old King James had. 

Maybe, just perhaps mind you, the scholars and people wise in this world really do not know more than God.  Maybe, just maybe, God was right, and He had the right Bible all along.

Anyway you look at it, what you have today IS a different Bible.  How's that working out for ya?

 

[rsc2a]

So many have abandoned the faith once delivered and new agers, apostates, and cults are growing significantly.  But we no longer have the quality of Christian in the pew that former generations did, and we certainly preach a different "new and improved" Bible.  Trouble with it is that it does not have the same power and effectiveness the old King James had. 

How ethnocentric of you. Do you not know that Christianity is spreading faster than it has since the very first days of the Church?

 

[PappaBear]

So many have abandoned the faith once delivered and new agers, apostates, and cults are growing significantly.  But we no longer have the quality of Christian in the pew that former generations did, and we certainly preach a different "new and improved" Bible.  Trouble with it is that it does not have the same power and effectiveness the old King James had. 

How ethnocentric of you. Do you not know that Christianity is spreading faster than it has since the very first days of the Church?

No, I don't know that because it is not true.

Do you know that the days are getting increasingly evil, men are more deceptive and being deceived?  That it should be so is expressly stated by the Spirit of God.  You would such if you had an authoritative Bible you held to instead of your New Age apostate mumbo jumbo you frequently spout across these forums.

 

[bgwilkinson]

You are neither humble nor a servant. 

It had enough textual support that the King James Translators, one of the greatest body of Bible language scholars ever assembled, included it.  For 400 years, along with the Johannine Comma and hundreds of other verses, it was blessed of the LORD and embraced by God-fearing Christians.

Today, we are in need of revival both in the society around us and also in the churches.  So many have abandoned the faith once delivered and new agers, apostates, and cults are growing significantly.  But we no longer have the quality of Christian in the pew that former generations did, and we certainly preach a different "new and improved" Bible.  Trouble with it is that it does not have the same power and effectiveness the old King James had. 

Maybe, just perhaps mind you, the scholars and people wise in this world really do not know more than God.  Maybe, just maybe, God was right, and He had the right Bible all along.

Anyway you look at it, what you have today IS a different Bible.  How's that working out for ya?

My dear PappaBear you sure are drunk on KJVO dogma. I pray that you will open your eyes and repent and stop being so vindictive.
You refuse to see the evidence.
Show a little love.

I am praying for you.

We have an embarrassing wealth of the Word of God today, in manuscripts and versions, unlike any time in the last 2,000 years.

My ministry and my family's ministries (I have a very large family, almost 50 of us) have seen unprecedented manifestations of God's blessings.
Many saved and great moving of the Holy Spirit.
It is working out real well especially for the many new Christians we are training who do not have to strain to understand Elizabethan English.
We do not have to teach a course on Latin to understand the English.

Your humble servant B G Wilkinson

 

[rsc2a]

http://www.pewforum.org/2011/12/19/global-christianity-exec/

 

[bgwilkinson]

http://www.pewforum.org/2011/12/19/global-christianity-exec/

Praise the Lord!