if we are using that word in the same vein as the "12." So
- there is much that remains, not the lest of which is the ancient
message. I have yet to see any accepted doctrine effected by textual
problems. I am sure we disagree on much of what I have said above
--- Why are you concerned by such an "omission?"
DAVEH: I've been criticized for my belief in the Bible as far
as it is translated correctly. Yet it seems there is a vast difference
between some translations. Why some folks would be bothered by my
comment seems strange when one looks at some of the differences between
the various translations.
Again, you have a received teaching that is differenct
from mine. I see not a single imprtant variation in translation that
proport to be language translations as opposed to thought
translations.
Just a few days ago, somebody who didn't know me other than I am
LDS suggested I read the last few paragraphs of the Bible, trying to
get me to realize that one should not add to or subtract from the Word
of God. (In fact, I think Izzy has made similar remarks in the past
here on TT.) I do not understand the thinking of many
people -- Linda Shields, Kevin, Judy and DM are only a few of the
many who remain a mystery to me. The prohibition against adding to
the "words of this book" have to do with the Revelation only, IMO.
At the same time, I believe the biblical message to bear the mark of
inspiration and providential protection and supply. It contains God's
message, His spoken word, for us today. More than that -- it is a
part of the vehicle God uses to cause spiritual growth and maturity
-- victory over pe rsonal and destructive error. I need nothing
else, in terms of revelation, than this ancient message and its
confirmation in the lives of those with whom I fellowship.
