The Cross of Christ Alone Can Save

[Liberal]

Originally Posted by Apprehended

Interesting!

So tell me, why do you believe the cross alone theory?

Well, I would need to explain it scripturally. However, you've already eliminated versions that go against your theology. We all know that any version that doesn't agree with our personal theology must be flawed. So, since you've limited the playing field, is there a version of the bible from which I have your permission to quote? Please make sure and give me the version of the bible that is absolutely, perfectly translated and that is completely unquestioned by any bible scholars. That will probably need to be something different than the King James Version since we know that Adam Clarke repeatedly questioned it...unless, of course, you're more qualified and knowledgeable than Mr. Clarke.

[El Predicador]

Originally Posted by Liberal

Well, I would need to explain it scripturally. However, you've already eliminated versions that go against your theology. We all know that any version that doesn't agree with our personal theology must be flawed. So, since you've limited the playing field, is there a version of the bible from which I have your permission to quote? Please make sure and give me the version of the bible that is absolutely, perfectly translated and that is completely unquestioned by any bible scholars. That will probably need to be something different than the King James Version since we know that Adam Clarke repeatedly questioned it...unless, of course, you're more qualified and knowledgeable than Mr. Clarke.

Clarke was a trinitarian that alone makes him fallible.

[Liberal]

Originally Posted by El Predicador

Clarke was a trinitarian that alone makes him fallible.

As were the 47 translators of the Authorized King James Version of 1611. Since the King James Version is a bible assembled and translated by trinitarians, should we toss it? I think it was those danged trinnys that came up with I John 5:7 anyway.

[El Predicador]

Originally Posted by Liberal

As were the 47 translators of the Authorized King James Version of 1611. Since the King James Version is a bible assembled and translated by trinitarians, should we toss it? I think it was those danged trinnys that came up with I John 5:7 anyway.

Of course not the inference was Clarke was infallible

and so great Apprehended could not be correct.

And yes they added that verse which does NOT appear in the NIV

or any of the newer translations.

[Apprehended]

Originally Posted by El Predicador

Clarke was a trinitarian that alone makes him fallible.

Of course. His personal prejudices were well pronounced through out his commentary.

Originally Posted by Liberal

As were the 47 translators of the Authorized King James Version of 1611. Since the King James Version is a bible assembled and translated by trinitarians, should we toss it? I think it was those danged trinnys that came up with I John 5:7 anyway.

This is getting funny already.

Just like Clark, the 47 translators of the KJV were mere commentators!

Hahaha!

I can see that this is going to be fun.

[James Griffin]

Originally Posted by Apprehended

This is getting funny already.

Just like Clark, the 47 translators of the KJV were mere commentators!

Hahaha!

I can see that this is going to be fun.

Be gentle my friend, he is young. :-)

[Apprehended]

Originally Posted by James Griffin

Be gentle my friend, he is young. :-)

That explains a lot.

I remember when I was in my twenties, I thought I was a genius and knew almost everything and few could tell me anything.

So, I've decided that I never knew anything...not then, not later and have concluded that I really will never know very much of anything at all. The wealth of my knowledge might possibly equate by comparison to one grain of sand in the Pacific Ocean.

Though later, looking back, I became embarrassed at how foolish I was when I was young, I am now entertained by so great of knowledge and wisdom of those of my age back then. They too will look back one day and, they too will feel a sense of embarrassment. Even that is entertaining.

I remember the remarks of Samuel Clement concerning how foolish and unlearned his Dad was when he lived at home with him. He later left home, traveled around the world, experienced many things. Many years later he went home to visit his aged Dad. He was shocked at how much the old man had learned.

... I understand.

[James Griffin]

Originally Posted by Apprehended

That explains a lot.

I remember when I was in my twenties, I thought I was a genius and knew almost everything and few could tell me anything.

So, I've decided that I never knew anything...not then, not later and have concluded that I really will never know very much of anything at all. The wealth of my knowledge might possibly equate by comparison to one grain of sand in the Pacific Ocean.

Though later, looking back, I became embarrassed at how foolish I was when I was young, I am now entertained by so great of knowledge and wisdom of those of my age back then. They too will look back one day and, they too will feel a sense of embarrassment. Even that is entertaining.

I remember the remarks of Samuel Clement concerning how foolish and unlearned his Dad was when he lived at home with him. He later left home, traveled around the world, experienced many things. Many years later he went home to visit his aged Dad. He was shocked at how much the old man had learned.

... I understand.

age and youth are relative my friend, he is only is his 40s. :-)

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Apprehended

Of course. His personal prejudices were well pronounced through out his commentary.



This is getting funny already.

Just like Clark, the 47 translators of the KJV were mere commentators!

Hahaha!

I can see that this is going to be fun.

God has spoken, the rest IS commentary

[Apprehended]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

God has spoken, the rest IS commentary

To this we will agree.

The Word of God is yea and amen.