From: eje@irenaeus.mlo.dec.com (Eric James Ewanco)
Subject: Re: TANGENT:  Interpretation
Reply-To: ewanco@kalvin.enet.dec.com
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 15:44:11 GMT


In article <1992Sep9.165040.12693@news.cs.brandeis.edu>, aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron) writes:

> From: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron)
> Subject: Re: TANGENT:  Interpretation
> Reply-To: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
> Organization: Brandeis University

> In article <1992Sep8.185717.25673@newshost.unh.edu>, ss1@kepler.unh.edu (The Rink) writes:
> >Look at the evidence.  Especially the internal contradictions which
> >prove by themselves that the new Bibles cannot be the Word of God.
> >Isn't it obvious that the King James Bible is the only true Word
> >of God in the English language?

> I take it then that you are not bothered by the fact that a) the KJV
> is not in English but in a foreign language (unless you've studied
> Old English extensively) and b) that there are errors in the KJV,
> for example the Johannine comma in 1 John 5 that is not to be found
> in the original manuscripts but was added in the 15th or 16th
> century.  

Wow, considering how many genuin manuscripts we have of Church Fathers quoting
the Johannine Comma in the 3rd century, that's pretty remarkable.  Call it a
gift of prophesy, I guess.  I offer as an example Tertullian, Against Praxeas,
25,1 A.D. 213 and St. Cyprian of Carthage, The Unity of the Catholic Church, 6
(251 - 256 A.D.).  Other quotes of the Johnannine Comma appear in the 5th and
6th century.

> Isn't that the same as saying the Bible is the Word of God because
> the Bible says it is the Word of God?

Why do you believe the Bible is the written Word of God?  I am asking for the
reasoning you have used to conclude this; you obviously reject this argument
you've mentioned, which seems to be the common one.

> Some Christians need to let go of tradition and let some fresh air
> in.  It gets pretty stale after hundreds of years!

No more than the Bible gets stale; after all, it's just as old as tradition.

Modern Christians have been letting even more fresh air in this century,
freeing us from the stifling effects of traditions that say that the
Resurrection really occurred, that Mary was in fact a virgin when Christ was
born, that Scripture is infallible and inerrant, and many other things all
designed to give us some fresh air.

No, thank you, I'll keep my traditions, no matter how stale they may seem.
It's the only way I can keep from falling into error.  Truth never becomes
stale.  If it was true back then, it's still true now.

>   -- Scott @Brandeis

Eric
--
/=============================================================================\
| Eric Ewanco - Software Engineer     For the rash and outrageous opinions ex-|
| Digital Equipment Corp, Maynard MA  pressed herein I alone am responsible;  |
| ewanco@kalvin.enet.dec.com          they do not belong to DIGITAL(TM).      |
\==============================- 2 Th 2:15 -==================================/
    "...[T]he greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and
    organized at Rome by [] Peter and Paul, [is] that Church which has the
    tradition and faith which comes down to us after having been announced
    to men by the Apostles.  For with this Church, because of its superior
    origin, all Churches must agree ...  and it is in her that the
    faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition."
       -- St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, c. 180 A.D., 3,3,3.

Newsgroups: rec.music.christian