MatthewDiscipleofGod
Senior Veteran
- Feb 6, 2002
- 2,992
- 267
- 48
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
"No, it's not" ?? And we go back and forth like a couple kindergartners for the life of the thread? I'm not going to do that.
KJV Only adherents believe a lot of wrong things about the extant manuscripts, and you are apparently going to believe that Romans 8:1 originally contained wording that is actually part of v. 4 and was never part of v.1. Go ahead and believe that, if you wish. But the truth is evident for anyone who wants to investigate for themselves.And short of hauling the manuscripts to your house, how would you like me to do that? Investigate it for yourself, and stop relying on the wishful thinking of a group of pseudoscholars who cling to error for the sake of ego and being "right."
I already gave you evidence so I don't think it is too much to ask the same of you. I'm not KJV only so I didn't quote from KJV sources. I quoted from a Majority Text English translation which is not based off the same texts as the KJV even though they end up being similar in many cases. Also I quoted off the Greek Majority Text. This family is from the majority of Greek manuscripts we have, not just what was used for the KJV. Also an interesting note is that this whole verse, as I posted it, was quoted in whole by John Cassian around the fourth century. You can read it for your self at this link. You may want to do a search for the phrase "but after the Spirit.". I'll respond to any more posts in PM if they are made in this thread since I believe we are going away from the OPS original post.
Upvote
0