Posted on 02/19/2010 7:42:49 AM PST by restornu
Just like those missing books from the Bible. Amazing!
Chick has some very rude and nasty things to say about Mormonism. Trust me, restornu, you do not want to go there.
That is not what that passage is saying. Gundry was pointing out that since PEOPLE were involved as well as God, the whole extant documents are still inspired.
AFA citing ehrman as a favorable source, you may well pay heed to Gundry's summary
Earlier, I mentioned Ehrman's purpose "in part" to introduce lay readers to New Testament textual criticism. He makes quite clear his further and ultimate purpose to dysangelize them— in other words, to proclaim New Testament textual criticism as bad news to all who believe the Bible to be God's word.
And that includes mormons.
Interpret...
Really Resty? What do you expect it to reveal that you don't already need to know?
Precisely! I’ve been studying and discussing THAT one for over two decades.
From the Random House Dictionary:
Antagonism: 1. Active hostility or opposition. 2. an opposing force or tendency.
Related verb:
Antagonize: to provoke or incur the hostility of.
I don't know how you can look at the original article and not call it antagonistic. It seems to be a clear shot across the bow of those who hold to inerrancy and sufficiency of the Bible.
You do know that "ecumenical" means something that promotes Christian unity? How can a controversial article be posted as an "ecumenical" thread when the vast majority of Christians would be offended by the implications of it?
I don’t know how you can look at the original article and not call it antagonistic. It seems to be a clear shot across the bow of those who hold to inerrancy and sufficiency of the Bible.
****
If one is sincere one will recognized there are many verses in the Bible that disagree with this Idealist who thinks the Bible is inerrant and sufficient.
This is really not meant to be contentious or a shot across the bow.
There are others who also love the Bible besides the Idealist and are frustrated when reading and comes across references to another book or verse it is not to be found.
Ecumenical means all who love their Bible have a right to defend or address some discrepancy in a cordial matter!
The Word of the God is inerrant!
That is not the same about the manuscripts especially when we don’t even have the originals to compare to the 3 or 4 generation copies of collections of manuscripts that the Bible is composed.
Some like to justify saying God is in Control yet we do not have the original works during the time the Lord gave revelations to His prophets!
When I have quoted scripture to show how the Lord warn His children than some like to tie that warning to another saturation, but if the world can do evil in that situation does it not stand to reason the world can do evil when and where it would like too when the children deny it is impossible to follow the Lord Commandments?
Those who deny the covenants of the Lord have no promise here or in Heaven they have no authority to bind here on earth on in Heaven!
What we have today in the Bible is exactly what our Heavenly Father wanted in there. Nothing more and nothing less. It is he that preserves his word forever, not man.
What we have today in the Bible is exactly what our Heavenly Father wanted in there. Nothing more and nothing less. It is he that preserves his word forever, not man.
***
And who inform you?
I don’t share Gundry’s opinion on the first or the second point. NT textual criticism doesn’t harm the NT, but rather strengthens it. What it does weaken are the false traditions that have arisen around the Bible. Gundry and others tend to conflate the two. Now doubt that is part of Ehrman’s problem. It is not a problem for Mormons. Mormons know alot more about how scriptures are made than traditional christianity. :-)
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
There, I fixed it for you. I don' see how you can say Gundry is counter textural criticism - if anything he is counter the presentation of textural criticism a la ehrman. ehrman's sole purpose is to deconstruct the bible. He misrepresents the traditions surrounding the bible.
Who informs me? Well...how about belief in an all powerful, all knowing God who is able to preserve his word just like he said he would.
Isaiah 40:8 (King James Version)
The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.
Matthew 24:35 (King James Version)
Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.