Matthew Johnson wrote:
> In article <127.04.10.05.678068000@srcbs.org>, gpatton@bayou.com
says...



> > Of course, I am not stupid, so it is quite OK with me
> >if others accept any of the other endings as a part of the original
> >gospel. One would have to be a real egomaniacal bone-head to think
he
> >could historically prove which endings were in the minds of the
various
> >Christians who established the Gospel of Mark as a part of the canon
of
> >the NT. But, sad to say, the woods are full of such narcissistic
> >quacks.
>
> And especially so among those who cast doubt on the legitimacy of the
Byzantine
> Text of Scripture.

Oh, by all means, I do reject the legitimacy of the Byzantine text as
the best representation of the original text of scripture. Rather I
think that all the old texts (including the Byzantine texts) can be
used. And a literary study of the various texts can lead to an
accurate reconstruction of the original documents.

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))

Stephen M. Adams wrote:
> lsenders@hotmail.com writes:
>
> >But the other four place you in bed with the RC and with
> >the Arminian so really, #4 is moot.
>
> It was once said that "Arminian" is a Calvinist cuss-word for those
> who disagree with them....
>
Be that as it may or may not be, you still provided not even discussion
but no answer to any of the 4 or 5 points.

I'm going to start a heresy sub thread dealing specifically with the
Genesis record. You say you do not believe in a literal 6 day
creation. Fine. I asked you to present some scientific observation
which would support such a position. You've presented nothing, in
fact, you've ignored the point all together.

I ask you, then Stephen, why reply at all if you all you're going to do
is drop little barbs as you have done above and then make yourself
invisible. If you're going to express a position, why do you, like
Matthew, never defend it or actually make a clear statement as to what
you actually do believe. Drive on over to this new thread if for no
other reason that to reassess your belief that Genesis cannot be taken
literally.

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))

In article <0DC3C7E4-70F2-A7C2-B04F-604336B56185@srcbs.org>, Bob Felts says...
>
>Gary wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>
>> How do you know what infants believe or can believe?
>> Further, I believ