Which New Testament Text has been kept pure?

[Jack Koons]

When discussing the preservation of the Text of the New Testament, a question is always put forth about which Text has been preserved since the original autographs? It is my opinion (whatever that is worth) that, while this seems to be a truly valid question on the surface; is it really nothing more than a question designed by textual criticism, to force their opponents to prove this via MS evidence, which they know doesn't exist. The problem is that EVERYTHING about the Bible has everything to do with FAITH. Faith in the WORD of God. Not the 'story-line' of the Bible, but faith in each and every 'word of God' given and counted as Scripture.

Depending on who you might ask, some 90 to 99% of the Bible is supposed to be pure. It is also stated that those parts which are in doubt are nonessential to any Bible doctrine. (I for one would hate to be the person standing before God explaining that point.)

So the question of this thread is simply this: Keeping Proverbs 30:5 (Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.) in mind, Where has God preserved His Words, and kept them pure?

Jack

 

[cubanito]

The context is not about all the prophecies, but about the commandments of the OT, else why would He then say "whoever annuls or teaches another to annul the least of these commandments/"

All does not always mean all, just as world does not always mean the entire planet or universe. In the beatitudes JC is presenting commandments, and He is making it clear that every commandment, from the minutest ceremonial point of the Mosaic Law to the most basic moral commandment will be fulfilled. By His life, JC did fulfill every commandment. For example, when He did not stone the woman caught in adultery, it was NOT because He was refusing to follow the Mosaic statue she be stoned, rather He was following it as it said that when caught in adultery, both the woman AND THE MAN involved were to be stoned TOGETHER.

Full preterism is heresy, I fully agree w you that all the prophecies and prophecies of the OT have not come to pass, as a mid-trib pre-mill futurist I heartily agree. But here all is conditioned by the context, which is devoid of any of the promises and prophecies.

I commend you for answering in a thoughtful restrained fashion to my provocative post. I like to shock people out of complacency by stating truth a manner many would consider irreverent and even blasphemous. It is a stated fact that JC hid the full Truth of the Gospel, and much about Himself, from the crowds intentionally, so that many Jews would NOT convert during His earthly ministry (as Isaih said, He will speak to them in parables SO THAT they would NOT understand, SO THAT they would NOT repent and be healed). This message is as plain as it is shocking, and it makes total sense considering that JC was here to be forsaken and consigned to a lonely horrible death. Thousands of converted Jews in Jerusalem would have complicated that goal So JC kept the Truth to a very few, and AFTER pentecost, THEN the Gospel was clearly preached to the effectual salvation of thousands.

I truly commend you Koonzy, for your thoughtfulness.

Now the ball is back at you. All refered to commandments, which He DID fulfill, not to all the promises that are His (and ours through Him) in the future.

JR

 

[1watchman]

Professing Christians need to be very careful how they regard the Lord Jesus, the Christ of God, and be much afraid to even imply His failure in anything.

 

[a pilgrim]

When discussing the preservation of the Text of the New Testament, a question is always put forth about which Text has been preserved since the original autographs? . . .

Try this one on for the "original autographs" issue. It is where I stand:

"For ever, O LORD, thyword is settled in heaven." Psalm 119:89

Heaven is where the REAL "original autographs" are kept. God knew he couldn't entrust them to "scholars," so he gave his word to the common people. That is why SO many great copies are kept in the vernaculars.

"Thyword is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever." Psalm 119:160

The issue really lies in the integrity of God, i.e., Did He do what He said He'd do? Harping on "a version" is a sidetrack. Did God send it from His library in heaven, is it true from the beginning, will every one of his judgments (words) endure forever?

It's really nuts and bolts. Scholars cloud the issue with their Codex This and Papri That. Did God keep His word? You really can't get beyond to which until you decide those issues there.

 

[Jack Koons]

Try this one on for the "original autographs" issue. It is where I stand:

"For ever, O LORD, thyword is settled in heaven." Psalm 119:89

Heaven is where the REAL "original autographs" are kept. God knew he couldn't entrust them to "scholars," so he gave his word to the common people. That is why SO many great copies are kept in the vernaculars.

"Thyword is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever." Psalm 119:160

The issue really lies in the integrity of God, i.e., Did He do what He said He'd do? Harping on "a version" is a sidetrack. Did God send it from His library in heaven, is it true from the beginning, will every one of his judgments (words) endure forever?

It's really nuts and bolts. Scholars cloud the issue with their Codex This and Papri That. Did God keep His word? You really can't get beyond to which until you decide those issues there.

Let me begin by saying that I absolutely agree that God does indeed have His Word perfectly preserved in Heaven. The problem I have is that men, (or shall I say many scholars), believe that God have mankind His Word without error (via inspiration), but then relied upon the ability of men to keep it 'mostly' pure.

The problem with that idea is that God (in my opinion) has never done, or desired for us to do, anything 'mostly' pure. That just isn't the character of the God I read about in my Bible. The God I read about in the Bible is particular about details. Many of the stories in the OT are full of repetitious details. I heard when I was in high school, "repetition is the best teacher". When I entered the Marines it was repetition, repetition, repetition; details, details, details. On my second enlistment I became a Drill Instructor and Physical Training Instructor, and guess what? It was more repetition, and more details!

I received Christ as Saviour just before going to DI School in San Diego. When I began studying God's Word, I took the same approach; repetition, repetition, repetition; details, details, details. I was told that Marines never do a job half way. How much better is God than the Marines? Is it really in the character of God to not empower men to keep His word without error, somewhere? I think not. The scholars may believe that God has entrusted this job to them; but without empowerment by God, all their intellect will not achieve the task before them.

Jack

 

[a pilgrim]

Oorah!

 

[cubanito]

1- God's Word being perfectly preserved in Heaven is definitely True.

2- God's Word being preserved sufficiently pure on Earth so that no point of doctrine is in question is also True. I have been taught the overall copy error rate to be 2-5%, and this is reflected in the NASB which remains my favorite translation. This is an astonishingly low error rate for any manuscript with more than a couple of centuries, let alone millenia! For example, much more of Shakespeare's works are in question than the entire Bible, and that was long after the printing press. No other book has anything like this level of preservation, the unholy Koran's claim being fabricated lies enforced by the sword.

3- Koons and I disagree on wether the copies of original autographs available to us today can be reconstructed to a text that is 100% accurate and precise.

4- I am a layman, and my understanding of textual criticism is minimal, I can not hope for discourse with Koons on the available manuscripts owing MY ignorance and unwillingness to educate myself. For his part, the Koons has spoken very graciously to me that for a layman I at least am trying to keep up.

5- As a response to the OP, I have sidestepped the entire technical issue and have made a claim that Jesus spoke of the day soon after His Ascension where every EXACT word of the OT would no longer be available to man. This is a bold claim, which I have made solely on Scriptural grounds, contra every commentary about this verse I have ever read. As with many of my ideas, they seem to run counter to everybody elses.

6- As to God doing things half-way, that is in fact common. "It is not Good for the man to be alone." we read prior to the fall. Hard to get more half-way than that. "Moses allowed divorce for your hardness of heart." again shows God giving half-way commands (at least not giving an absolutely perfect standard). The idea of "progressive revelation" where God unveils things over time is inescapable.

7- Even as willing to defend #6 above, it has no relevance. I believe there was a time where there was a perfect copy of the OT available to man. This is what was to be lost AFTER all would be fulfilled as prophesyied by JC. I think that the Temple's 70AD destruction is likely the point in time when it occured.

JR

 

[Jack Koons]

1- God's Word being perfectly preserved in Heaven is definitely True.

2- God's Word being preserved sufficiently pure on Earth so that no point of doctrine is in question is also True. I have been taught the overall copy error rate to be 2-5%, and this is reflected in the NASB which remains my favorite translation. This is an astonishingly low error rate for any manuscript with more than a couple of centuries, let alone millenia! For example, much more of Shakespeare's works are in question than the entire Bible, and that was long after the printing press. No other book has anything like this level of preservation, the unholy Koran's claim being fabricated lies enforced by the sword.

3- Koons and I disagree on wether the copies of original autographs available to us today can be reconstructed to a text that is 100% accurate and precise.

4- I am a layman, and my understanding of textual criticism is minimal, I can not hope for discourse with Koons on the available manuscripts owing MY ignorance and unwillingness to educate myself. For his part, the Koons has spoken very graciously to me that for a layman I at least am trying to keep up.

5- As a response to the OP, I have sidestepped the entire technical issue and have made a claim that Jesus spoke of the day soon after His Ascension where every EXACT word of the OT would no longer be available to man. This is a bold claim, which I have made solely on Scriptural grounds, contra every commentary about this verse I have ever read. As with many of my ideas, they seem to run counter to everybody elses.

6- As to God doing things half-way, that is in fact common. "It is not Good for the man to be alone." we read prior to the fall. Hard to get more half-way than that. "Moses allowed divorce for your hardness of heart." again shows God giving half-way commands (at least not giving an absolutely perfect standard). The idea of "progressive revelation" where God unveils things over time is inescapable.

7- Even as willing to defend #6 above, it has no relevance. I believe there was a time where there was a perfect copy of the OT available to man. This is what was to be lost AFTER all would be fulfilled as prophesyied by JC. I think that the Temple's 70AD destruction is likely the point in time when it occured.

JR

JR,

For simplicity, I will say that I have been a 'student' of the Word for over 25 years. However, I have found in this life that giving ones resume usually does more harm than good. I do my best to be gracious to everyone, at all times. There are times however, that even I loose my cool. What keeps me from loosing it most of the time is that I know it is Christ I am representing.

Allow me to say that many of my former fellow classmates and I see things very differently. That's not always a bad thing!

Jack

 

[Jack Koons]

I think I will start a new thread addressing your 6th point.

Jack

 

[cubanito]

JR,

...However, I have found in this life that giving ones resume usually does more harm than good. ...
Jack

Jack, I do not understand the above sentence at all.

As for being gracious, you have been that to me, as well as to others you have debated on this forum. I try to also be gracious, though I have a quirky sense of humor that is often misunderstood, such as: I do not study because:
the more I study, the more I learn,
the more I learn, the more I know,
the more I know, the more I forget,
the more I forget, the less I know,
so why study? (proof text: Ecclesiastes)

JR

 

[Jack Koons]

JR,

I have spoken to many people over the years. All having varying levels of formal education. What I find interesting is that a farmer with no formal education knows as much as some who have several years (and degrees) of formal education. While he does not know the terminology that comes with formal education, he knows his Bible as well as, if not better than some with formal training. He is the only man I have ever met that was able to expound through first hand knowledge characteristics in the relationship between a shepherd and his sheep, along with information about sheep that shed new light on us being likened unto them in the scriptures.

For this reason I dislike both receiving, and giving 'religious resumes'. Do not misunderstand me, I believe in formal education, but formal education without actual 'experience' with some 'hands on' work in the ministry, produces intellectuals without a need to depend on the Holy Spirit.

I find it much easier to state what you believe, and why; than to give a resume in order to try to impress very person in the room. I have read some of the 'signatures' of my opponents in previous threads, and find they they are nearly always 'wanting'. I enter the arena making no boasts, and therefore have nothing to live up to. Others brag about what they know, and are soon silenced.

You actually enter as a layman, and are honest about what you have, and have not studied. My definition of study is to not only see what the scholars say, but to actually research those things said, making sure what is, and isn't factual.

Quoting a scholar is not studying, it's quoting a scholar. That is where many people fall short. Don't give me a resume that consists of the ability to quote a scholar. Just study the material, then tell me what you believe and why you believe it.

Jack

 

[Emmy]

Dear Jack Koons. I do believe what Jesus told us about the two Commandments in Matthew 22: 35-40: is still as important as it always was.
1) Love God with all our hearts, with all our souls, and with all our minds.
2) Love our neighbour as we love ourselves. God still wants our Love freely given and No conditions asked. Jesus told us: " On these two Commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets. The expositor`s New Testament tells us:
in Mathew 22: 37: " This is the foundation of all the Law, and as well, applies to the present Day of Grace."
Paul also tells us in 1) Corinthians: 13:13: And now abides Faith, Hope, Love,
these three, but the greatest of these is LOVE. I sincerely believe that Love is a Christian`s great weapon, Love will overcome all enmity and all wrong behaviour. I say this with love, Jack. Greetings from Emmy, your sister in Christ.

 

[DeaconDean]

1- God's Word being perfectly preserved in Heaven is definitely True.

2- God's Word being preserved sufficiently pure on Earth so that no point of doctrine is in question is also True. I have been taught the overall copy error rate to be 2-5%, and this is reflected in the NASB which remains my favorite translation. This is an astonishingly low error rate for any manuscript with more than a couple of centuries, let alone millenia! For example, much more of Shakespeare's works are in question than the entire Bible, and that was long after the printing press. No other book has anything like this level of preservation, the unholy Koran's claim being fabricated lies enforced by the sword.

3- Koons and I disagree on wether the copies of original autographs available to us today can be reconstructed to a text that is 100% accurate and precise.

4- I am a layman, and my understanding of textual criticism is minimal, I can not hope for discourse with Koons on the available manuscripts owing MY ignorance and unwillingness to educate myself. For his part, the Koons has spoken very graciously to me that for a layman I at least am trying to keep up.

5- As a response to the OP, I have sidestepped the entire technical issue and have made a claim that Jesus spoke of the day soon after His Ascension where every EXACT word of the OT would no longer be available to man. This is a bold claim, which I have made solely on Scriptural grounds, contra every commentary about this verse I have ever read. As with many of my ideas, they seem to run counter to everybody elses.

6- As to God doing things half-way, that is in fact common. "It is not Good for the man to be alone." we read prior to the fall. Hard to get more half-way than that. "Moses allowed divorce for your hardness of heart." again shows God giving half-way commands (at least not giving an absolutely perfect standard). The idea of "progressive revelation" where God unveils things over time is inescapable.

7- Even as willing to defend #6 above, it has no relevance. I believe there was a time where there was a perfect copy of the OT available to man. This is what was to be lost AFTER all would be fulfilled as prophesyied by JC. I think that the Temple's 70AD destruction is likely the point in time when it occured.

JR

Vindication on my part.

One persons great emphasis on the "RT" verses what I have said all along, "look to the Greek", is confirmed in the book: "Jesus and the Gospels, by:Craig Blomburg" Broadman and Holman Publishers, Nashville, Tenn., 1997.

Here it says:

-the surviving manuscripts demonstrate the same complex history of formation and development of textual variants and traditions as do the Hebrew and Greek New Testament.

The importance of the Septuagint for New Testament studies, though, can be scarcely overestimated. In a substancial majority of cases, the LXX (as it is customarily abbreviated) is often the version quoted in the NT, even when the Greek rendering varies from the Hebrew in some signficant way. The Septuagint was clearly the Bible for most first century dispora Jews. An important area of scholarship which is only beginning to receive the attention it deserves involves the relationship among the different versions of the Septuagint and the ancient copies of the Hebrew OT. Until the copies of the Masoretic Text (MT) from the ninth and tenth centuries after Christ, while protions of the Septuagint were half a millennium older. Now, however, we have copies and fragmernts from pre-Christian times of most Old Testament books in Hebrew. Occasionally, these older readings differ from the MT but support the LXX. So not every instance of a New Testament author apparently taking liberties with the Old Testament text is that at all; in some cases the LXX seems more accurately to translate the underlying Hebrew than we first thought. But there are many other reasons for the distinctive uses of the Old Testament by the New Terstament writers and much profitable study yet to be undertaken in this field.

Ibid, Part 1, Historical Background for Studying the Gospels, Chapter 1, Political Background-An Overview of the Intertestamental Period, Greek Rule under Alexander (331-323 BC), page 12-13

And at the time of Erasmus, he had access to the Septuagint, and yet there isn't a reference to him using it.

So excuse me if I don't take Erasmus' word for it.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

2- God's Word being preserved sufficiently pure on Earth so that no point of doctrine is in question is also True. I have been taught the overall copy error rate to be 2-5%, and this is reflected in the NASB which remains my favorite translation. This is an astonishingly low error rate for any manuscript with more than a couple of centuries, let alone millenia! For example, much more of Shakespeare's works are in question than the entire Bible, and that was long after the printing press. No other book has anything like this level of preservation, the unholy Koran's claim being fabricated lies enforced by the sword.

Note here, I am not debating you. Rather, I'm clarifying.

I have always maintained "Olde Tyme Fundamentalist" views. As well as Baptists.

In the past, I have come under fire because I have upheld the Fundamentalist belief:

the result of the extraordinary, supernatural influence exerted by the Holy Spirit on the various writers, by which their words were rendered also the words of God, and therefore, absolutely infallible in the original autographs

The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible by B. B. Warfield, 1948, p. 420

I also have come under fire because of my reluctance to accept the TR.

I have started reading a book entitled "Jesus and the Gospels" by: Craig Blomberg.

In it, he also points out what I have been saying all along.

Only rare are entire sentences in dispute. Two well known examples that probably reflect later scribal additions are the doxology to the Lord's prayer (Mt. 6:13b) and the legend of the angel stirring up the water of the pool of Bethesda (Jn. 5:3b-4). On the other hand, Luke 22:19b-20 is missing from some early texts but is probably original.

Only two lengthy passages in the entire New Testament are textually disputed; both of these come from the Gospels. The longer ending of Mark 16:9-20) is almost certainly not what Mark wrote. The two oldest and most reliable complete copies of the Gospels do not contain it (Coexes Sinaiticus and Vaticanus). The style is quite different from the rest of Mark Gospel, and some of the theology is potentially both heretical and fatal (see v 18)! These verses contain an inordinately large number of textual variants, and several manuscripts reveal still other endings. Either the original ending of Mark was lost or the author deliberately ended abruptly with verse 8. Either way, early scribes tried to compensate for the abruptness by giving the Gospel a "proper" ending.

John 7:53-8:11 is missing from even the oldest and most trustworthy texts.

Jesus and the Gospels, Craig Blonburg, Holman and Broadman Publishers, Nashville, Tenn. 1997, Part two, Critical Methods for Studying the Gospels, Textual Criticism, p. 74-75

And concerning the KJVOnly debate which still resides today, he comments in a footnote:

Occasionally some Christians still insist God did inerrantly preserve the original autographs in the so-called Textus Receptus tradition of the the New Testament manuscripts on which the KJV translators relied heavily. But at every stage of the history of the transmission of the text there have been revisions and variant forms that have competed for "authoritative" acceptance. Belief in inerrant preservation is an act of sheer fideism in defiance of all relevant evidence, including the fact that there is no "Textus Receptus" for the Old Testament. For details see D.A. Carson, The King James Version Debate, (Grand Rapids, Baker, 1979); James R. White, The King James Only Controversy, (Minneapolis, Bethany, 1995)

While I do agree that at best, the KJV is probably 97-99% accurate, but it is not "inerrant" as some people say.

And there is great benefit from studying in the Greek.

I plan on buying for myself, the Septuagint.

I can translate the Greek for myself, and since somebody faults me for soing so, I can translate for myself and see what the intent of the orginial authors was and not rely on solely on any "Authorized Version".

Nuff said, I am butting out now.

Good Bye and...

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[cubanito]

While you guys can argue Greek manuscripts, I can not. However, When Jesus declared that the text of Word of God would remain free of any error UNTIL the Beatitudes were fulfilled and thus God's Wrath appeased (at which point the construction implies that textual errors would creep in, just as Mary remained a virgin UNTIL after she gave birth to Jesus); JC was referring to the OT, not the yet to be written NT. He said Law and Prophets, which is very much a reference to the OT.

It is my impression that the OT Hebrew text is for the most part a settled matter (well, dead sea scrolls aside).

So, who killed Goliath? According to the HEBREW of 2 Chronicles 21:19 it was Elhanan. The KJV adds in italics words WHICH ARE NOT THERE to remove the TEXTUAL ERROR of the Hebrew that Elhanan slew the brother of Goliath, but the Hebrew does not have that.

See 2 Samuel 21:19 - Just Who Killed Goliath?

20 years ago I had a Bible where I had written a list of these textual errors, and I can not find it. It is however easy to find these "contradictions" in the Bible which, to someone like me that allows for textual errors, are no contradictions at all.

But for you that believe a 100% pristine transmission, who killed Goliath?

JR

 

[DeaconDean]

While you guys can argue Greek manuscripts, I can not.

It is important for Christians today brother.

Studying in the Greek, one realizes that this one verse:

"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." -Mk. 16:16

Changes everything we know. It changes everything we believe.

If as Jack says, it was in the original manuscripts, then the Catholics, Lutherans, Orthodox are correct in saying that without baptism, you cannot be saved.

When comapred to what Paul said and taught, most especially his own actions, puts this in direct controversy.

It means Jesus' death on the cross wasn't sufficent. His death was not all encompassing. It lacked something.

Paul said, bevieve in your heart, confess with your mouth, Mark says believe and be baptized in order to be saved.

Mark adds a "condition" to salvation: i.e. baptism.

If baptism was that important to salvation, how come Paul refused to baptize more than the three people scriptures record?

How come Paul disobeyed the command to baptize?

And let me remind you of what Fundamentalists said between 1910-1920:

The believer is not saved because he is baptized; but, baptized because he is saved. We are saved through faith alone, but not the faith that is alone, because “Faith without works is dead, being alone.” Water baptism is a divinely ordained ordinance whereby the believer witnesses to the world that he died with Christ, and is risen together with Him,”

The Fundamentals, A Testamony to the Truth, L. W. MUNHALL, M. A., D. D., Volume III, Chapter XII, Doctrines That Must Be Emphasized In Successful Evangelism

The Greek is important!

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[canisee]

I guess I am like the farmer mentioned in the former post.

I (By His Grace) have a childlike Faith, that the Most High
watched over His Word.

I have pulled up the Greek, Wycliffe, Geneva, Tyndale etc.

To me, most all say the same thing.

Go figure if one doubts my education and background.

I am a computer tech responsible for 950 computers systems.

Yet I take His Word, the Bible, as yes and yes and believe all
66 books.

Again by His Grace.

 

[DeaconDean]

I guess I am like the farmer mentioned in the former post.

I (By His Grace) have a childlike Faith, that the Most High
watched over His Word.

I have pulled up the Greek, Wycliffe, Geneva, Tyndale etc.

To me, most all say the same thing.

Go figure if one doubts my education and background.

I am a computer tech responsible for 950 computers systems.

Yet I take His Word, the Bible, as yes and yes and believe all
66 books.

Again by His Grace.

So...just taking you post at face value, would it be safe to say that since you accept it "as is", you also believe that you canot be saved without being baptized?

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[cubanito]

It is important for Christians today brother.

Studying in the Greek, one realizes that this one verse:

"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." -Mk. 16:16

Changes everything we know. It changes everything we believe.

If as Jack says, it was in the original manuscripts, then the Catholics, Lutherans, Orthodox are correct in saying that without baptism, you cannot be saved.

When comapred to what Paul said and taught, most especially his own actions, puts this in direct controversy.

It means Jesus' death on the cross wasn't sufficent. His death was not all encompassing. It lacked something.

Paul said, bevieve in your heart, confess with your mouth, Mark says believe and be baptized in order to be saved.

Mark adds a "condition" to salvation: i.e. baptism.

If baptism was that important to salvation, how come Paul refused to baptize more than the three people scriptures record?

How come Paul disobeyed the command to baptize?

And let me remind you of what Fundamentalists said between 1910-1920:



The Fundamentals, A Testamony to the Truth, L. W. MUNHALL, M. A., D. D., Volume III, Chapter XII, Doctrines That Must Be Emphasized In Successful Evangelism

The Greek is important!

God Bless

Till all are one.

I never meant to imply textual criticism is not important. I am stating I will not train myself in textual criticism. There is a limit to the hours in my day. I am content to let others do this work.

I do think it a wise rule that if there is any controversy on the legitimacy of a passage, that it NOT be considered in determining doctrine.

As to baptism being required, again DeaconDean, I am with you. In my own PCA there is a heretic pastor named Peter Leithart whose mockery of a trial (the prosecution was conducted by a Roman Catholic!) who has been allowed to remain in the PCA. The requirement of some sort of magical power at the hands of the clergy for salvation is abomination, disgusting and contrary to the Gospel. In the PCA this is referred to as the "Federal Vision" and between it and how other celebrity pastors are openly shredding Genesis I am much in doubt I will long remain in the PCA. Where I might go next I have no clue. Lutherans I say nothing about because I have never put in the time to understand their theology. Where I do not know, I should remain silent.

JR

 

[DeaconDean]

I never meant to imply textual criticism is not important. I am stating I will not train myself in textual criticism. There is a limit to the hours in my day. I am content to let others do this work.

You know, I was 42 years old when this door was opened to me.

Fortunately, work provides some quiet time in which as long as my duties are taken care of, I can study.

I learned in seminary, that while its okay to lean on or let others do the work for you, but that just opens the doors to the possibility of following the wrong doctrines and theology.

I'd rather find out for my self.

That's just like Calvinism, I was Calvinist and didn't know it.

I studied it in seminary and came to believe that except on two positions, I agreed with Calvin's theology.

Even though I was raised in an Independent Baptist church, I am not Baptist, and Fundamental because of that, I am Baptist and Fundamental because I believe they they are right.

And that came though my own research, not trusting in somebody elses work.

God Bless

Till all are one.