Still waitin’ on that OT scripture telling Simeon he’d see the Messiah before he died to substantiate your personal definition of God’s Word.
What’s it been Quix: three, four years?
I think time must have mangled your expectations.
I don’t recall that one.
The Scripture I recall about Simeon seeing the Messiah is in the Gospels.
I think there was an Old Testament verse of similar ilk but I don’t recall for certain.
I’ve certainly been wrong before and will be again.
You are not the least bit obligated to believe me . . .
unless what I say is congruent with and speaking forth God’s Word born truths as affirmed by Holy Spirit.
I don’t see what the Simeon thing has to do with the current topic, however.
See how they wait years for an answer from ‘man’ and never bother to seek God’s Word for themselves.
That argument sounded familiar, and so i searched and found that i had addressed it a couple years ago, (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2404901/posts?page=93#93), the answer basically being that Lk. 2:26 does not refer to oral revelation being passed down thru eons of time,, but to revelation which was subsequently written. And which is the norm, as i know of no place in Scripture where “the word of God/the Lord refers to revelation which was not subsequently written.
http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Bible/2Tim_3.html#Partial
While it is Scripture which attests that the Word of God can refer to information or revelation beyond what it written, (2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 10:4; Jn. 21:25) yet Scripture is the assured word of God, being wholly inspired, and is the supreme judge of all, while oral tradition by nature is supremely subject to unverifiable corruption, and is used by a self-proclaimed assuredly infallible esoteric office of men to channel this amorphous revelation into doctrine. And in which they disagree with another body which likewise justify themselves as being the OTC based on Tradition, and their infallible interpretation.
And while attacking evangelicals for their lack of assured infallibility, RCs themselves make a fallible decision to trust in their infallibly proclaimed assuredly infallible magisterium, and engage in fallible interpretation of the nature of multitudes of pronouncements, and to some degree their meaning, in addition to other teachings and the Bible.
Yes, I know. Though it has been thouroughly explained to you many times in the past, it would appear you simply can not seriously entertain the idea your fundamental approach to heurmanutics is in error, and so will not retain the particulars that prove it.
Simply stated, unless you can show a specific prophesy of the Old Testament addressed to Simeon, informing him that he would not see death until his eyes beheld the Messiah, then your entire formula for making our modern Bible synonymous with the "word of God" spoken of in the Scriptures, and all the doctrines of man that spring from it, is proven to be a lie.