"Gary" writes:
>"Stephen M. Adams" wrote:
>> "Gary McNees" writes:
>>
>> The problem comes in that nothing that we currently have was written
>> down until long after Jesus died and rose from the dead. Even the
>> most conservative dating puts Mark earliest, some time in the 60's,
>> with John in the 90's. More likely are around 70 to 110. And the
>> extant copies of those (that are reasonably intact) are much later.
>>
>> If you claim to trust the Scriptures, then you must put your trust
>> in those who wrote them much later, those who preserved and copied
>> those writings, and those who compiled the canon.
>>
>Steve, sorry for the long delay. I have been very busy with other
>things.

No problem. I have done the same myself in the past.

>I guess I have a different view of Scripture and all other writings.
>
>Although it is true that some of the books of the NT were written
>some time "after the fact," I take it that God "brought to their
>remembrance" the truth. (E.g.. John 14:26 But the Comforter, which
>is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall
>teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance,
>whatsoever I have said unto you.)
>
>I take this to be a promise to those who actually wrote the Bible, the NT.

This was a promise to all the Apostles - not just the ones that have
Scripture attributed to them.

>Since the various "church fathers" did not agree on all that they taught, I
>believe that they were not so "inspired" as were the writers of the NT.

It's the consensus of the Fathers - not any individual Father...

-Stephen
--
Space Age Cybernomad Stephen Adams
malchus842SP@AMgmail.com (remove SPAM to reply)



((( 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 <063.22.05.700570000@srcbs.org>, Bob says...

>Matthew Johnson wrote:
>
>> >It would be interesting to know if their version of Gen 1:26 reads
>the
>> >same.
>>
>> It does. It reads (following an ad hoc transcription scheme):
>>
>> WYMR(sg) ELHIM N"SH (ambiguous) ADM BTsLMNU (plural!) KDMNUThNU
>(plural!)
>>
>> And don't let the ambiguous from N"SH fool you. The Jews themselves
>translated
>> it as "let US make" in the LXX translation of this very verse. Even
>Aquila and
>> Theodotion never disputed the correctness of this translation.
>
>Ok, I questioned a Rabbi about this subjec