La Mecque
From Kristos Vocabulary Booster
French
Proper noun
La Mecque
Sorry,
I was referring to gpat...@bayou.com Aug 31, 5:15 pm who writes:
Why don't you do like the most of us Christians do, and read scripture
to say what you want it to say? For example, if you don't like the way
Jeremiah 7:22 reads, just read it to say what you want it to say. Use
the same approach to the rest of scripture that you use when you read
Jeremiah 7:22. Problem solved! ;-)
((( 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. )))
Matthew Johnson wrote:
> In article <130.42.13.05.237021000@srcbs.org>, gpatton@bayou.com
says...
> >
>
> [snip]
>
> >> >Oh, by all means, I do reject the legitimacy
> >> > of the Byzantine text as
> >> >the best representation of the original text of scripture.
> >>
> >> Do you _read_ what you are responding to before you click
> >> 'send', George? I said 'legitimacy'. Why are you switching
> >> the topic to 'legitimcay as ... ORIGINAL TEXT'?
> >
> >I guess it is because I don't know what you mean by legitimacy,
>
> Then why didn't you ASK before replying?
>
> > but
> >very much interested in what the writers of the books of the Bible
> >actually said.
>
> We all are. But you miss the point:
Please forgive me for missing your point, but, bear with we, your
points are rather easy to miss. I am sure I miss most of them.
> we today, cannot get any closer to that
Oh, I am so sorry that you all cannot get any closer to that. That does
not see to be very close at all. But, you have to do the best you can
with what you got.
> "what the writers actually said" than NA26. And the people of that
time could
> not get closer than the Byzantine Text.
Oh my, as the old folks said, "It never rains but it pours."
> Yet God's stewardship of His people did
> not vanish from the face of the earth because neither we nor they
could access
> the originals.
Good. No doubt for them that was good enough. I doubt they would have
been much better off if they had the originals.
> >>
> >> > Rather I
> >> >think that all the old texts (including the Byzantine texts) can
be
> >> >used.
> >>
> >> Do you? Even Codex W?
> >
> >I said "all" the old texts. Is Codex W and old text?
>
> Yes. That is why I mentioned it. It is an example of an old text,
with _clearly_
> Gnostic interpolations.
Thank you I did not know that. Is that what the majority of the
textural critics on the continent believe? I am interested in quaint
beliefs about scripture and Biblical trivia. Your Codex W account is a
good one. How about this one? Did you know that there are people who,
because they had "never seen their daddy" are believed to have "second
sight" (whatever that is) and can stop one's hemorrhaging by reading a
verse from Ezekiel (using the King James Bible)?
> This shows how dangerously naive your attitude towards
> "old texts" is.
Oh, I am "dangerously naive" about much other Biblical trivia as well.
I have not yet heard of them all and probably never will. To me the
idea of putting labels of that nature on documents is (as my
grandmother used to say) "not worth a continental".
((( 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. )))
