Elin said:
However, the assumption is that
he did not say them at the end of the Lord's prayer and at the end of Mark.
So why would they be important?
no, I wasn't asssuming that... I understood there were two related issues we were talking about at this point...
both ancient and modern copies of the nt have imperfections...
I said some of the differences were important, I understood you to be saying they weren't
Actually, my only point is
material (altering the
meaning of the NT)
vs. immaterial,
my point is not importance vs. unimportance.
For I consider all Scripture important, excluding none.
But if the alleged differences do not alter the
meaning of the NT, then the divine truth of the NT is not affected.
That is what is material--the divine truth of the NT.
Differences which do not alter the meaning of the NT are immaterial to its divine truth.
None of the differences you have presented alter the meaning of the divine truth of the NT.
does one look only to the nt to understand the nt? if so, I say there are
important questions that can't be answered (one example is which text to use)... again, I think you were saying they weren't important...
And I say in the texts being used, there are no
material differences which alter the meaning of the divine truth of the NT.
So what would make their immaterial differences so
important to the divine truth of the NT?
Would those differences in any way lead me astray, or into heresy?
If not, what is the
material problem with them?