Quote from: admin on January 08, 2014, 02:57:19 PM
Charging God with sloppiness in the autographa puts you soundly in the realm of liberalism.
Please do not misrepresent my
unequivocal beliefs as stated concisely and clearly above.
Your attitude towards and attacks upon the extant Scriptures identify you as a skeptic, critic and purveyor of doubt of the word of God. When you insist that archaic or obsolete words are "proof of error" it calls into question the very words of God as found in the Scriptures in any generation or language, including the original. When you call for people "to abandon the English Scriptures" it places you
in the realm of skeptics. When you make up silly and self-contradicting phrases like, "Scripture is Scripture, even with errors" it places you
in the realm of the silly, weak-minded and ridiculous. When you continue to insist that your self-contradicting phrase applies to all extant Scripture, but never ever to your unidentifiable non-extant autograph it places you
in the realm of inconsistent superstitious zealots overcome by their brand of "Onlyism". When you insist that the extant Scriptures are in error, because they don't follow the original, knowing full well "the original" is no longer extant, it places you
in the realm of deceptive equivocators hell-bent on causing the plow-boys of our day to doubt and disbelieve all the words of their God given Bibles. Your contempt for the liberal, who, like you doubts some of the words of the extant Scriptures, but not all of them, puts you
in the realm of hypocrites. The difference between you and the liberal is word count. Be of good cheer, you stand in the grand company of Thomas Jefferson.
Let the reader be clear in our positions:
My position states unequivocally that the extant Scriptures, by virtue of being the Scriptures are indeed given by inspiration of God and thus perfect, pure, infallible, without error - true in all parts - and the final authority in all matters of faith and practice. The extant Scriptures in any language or generation is completely trustworthy and to be received without doubting. The Scriptures - given by inspiration of God - are available, can and should be believed, read, searched, preached and trusted.
Your position is diametrically opposed to mine. You don't believe any extant Scripture "is given by inspiration of God", that all extant Scriptures are replete with errors, that no extant Scripture is completely trustworthy. You obviously don't stand with Bunyan, but rather clearly with the scholar calling for the cessation of the preaching of Bunyan's English Bible having divorced yourself from it long ago. It is your stated mission to take over churches founded and built by belief in Bunyan's Bible and replace Bunyan's Bible with your modern preference. Of course, your modern preference is also, according to you, "replete with errors" and not to be trusted completely either, but in your scholar's world anything is better than Bunyan's Bible. You will continue to find fault with all the extant Scriptures with your non-extant unidentifiable original based upon your private interpretation.
When your britches cool off we'll continue.
