Categorized lists of links to many arts and entertainment web sites in Utah.

"zach" wrote in message
news:F57CE946-9002-FA34-6ED4-33EF6CF21414@srcbs.org...
>
> Bart Goddard wrote:
> > gkmcnees@comcast.net wrote:
> >
> > > So nothing. Just wanted to mention that most
evangelical
> > > Christians,
> > > who believe the Bible, and take it to be the only rule
of
> > > faith, reject
> > > the Calvinist position.
> >
> > And that underscores the fundamental flaw with the "neo-
> > evangelical" position. They do not, in fact, _take_
> > Scripture to be inerrant (in whatever sense of the word)
> > but, have considered Scripture, and _judged_ it to be
> > correct. To neo-evangelicals, Scripture gets its
validity,
> > not from what it is (God's Word) but from the faith
which
> > the neo-evangelical places in it. Since this amounts to
> > having a higher standard than Scripture, (namely, the
> > ruler by which one _decides_ that Scripture is correct)
> > it should be clear that neo-evangelicals are not
Scripturally
> > based, but rather base their doctrine on their own
judgement.
>
> What is a "neo-evangelical?"

Anybody that disagrees with Bart.

Gary














((( 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 , ARBermudez3@yahoo.com
says...

>Matthew Johnson wrote:
>> >1739 is not Byzantine either, but it is hardly pure and also does
>not
>> >fit into a specific type.
>>
>> Again, so WHAT? If we _had_ the autographs, they would not fit into a
>specific
>> type, either.
>
>Are you sure? Can you prove that?

Yes. Read the section on text-types in almost any introduction to New Testament
Textual Criticism, such as Amphoux or Metzger.

In particular, as I _already_ pointed out to you, Amphoux points out that ALL
the surviving text-types are recensional. Now if you understood textual
criticism, you would understand that just by being 'recensional', they are
guaranteed to be significantly different from the autographs. This is WHY
Amphoux called for more study of the 'Western' text, with its 'split' between
recensional and pre-recensional readings.

>> >Again, Jerome went with the best text available - available being
>key.
>>
>> No, this isn't true either. And how _could_ you know that it is true,
>anyway? He
>> never did tell us which manuscripts he used, nor have scholars been
>able to
>> reconstruct his Vorlage.
>>
>> So you must be talking through your hat, making things up out of the
>whole
>> clot