Trinitarian Commentaries vs. Discourse Analysis (E

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Of course not. They are not using the methodology that you were praising.

Thanks for making clear for the readers a bit of the seminarian, modern version, Critical Text, Wescott and Hort recension, approach and tude.

You should however, be honest and tell your people that you believe the Mark ending, the woman caught in adultery, the baptism testimony of Acts 8:37, "God was manifest in the flesh..", "Father, forgive them...", and the heavenly witnesses, are dastardly interpolations. (I accept them all as pure and perfect scripture.) You might as well be honest with your position, right or wrong.

Unless you view all the variants in your edition as simply probability variants, in which case you can say "probably dastardly interpolations."

Steven

*You once again betray that you don't understand text-critic issues like you feign (which I already knew). For the 2nd time now, textual-variants are weighed, not counted & merely being consigned to a particular genealogical MS family in a sweeping broad brush.

*Incidentally, I never praised the CBGM, but am excited about the collations forthcoming from the world's greatest text-critics.

*Oh, & BTW, I argue in favor of the LEM (cf. Snapp) & "God" in I Tim. 3.16 (cf. Burgon). So, once again, you're merely swatting at shadows....which is why I simply do not take KJVO's seriously (they simply don't know what they're talking about & are cult-like in their esoteric nature). Carry on .