First, you completely disregarded my point about faith. I was trying to get you to recognize that you're faith is different than my faith if you believe in Modern Translations as your Word of authority vs. the KJV. For you believe it's not important to cast out demons by prayer and fasting.
Ah, but my basis for that is twofold. One, I do not have to cast out demons as a matter of santification in the same way I have to, say, flee from temptation. At that level alone, it is clearly not AS IMPORTANT as a lot of other doctrines that potentially could have been, but were not, changed.
Two, I believe it is not important to cast out demons with prayer and fasting PRECISELY BECAUSE I do not believe that is what was in the original writings of the gospels, and thus is not what Jesus originally taught.
The Lord did good in casting out demons. People were set free from demonic bondage. Yet you think such a thing is minor and unimportant.
I never said casting out demons was a bad thing. Let me ask you a question - did Jesus pray and/or fast to cast out demons? Did any of the demons that were cast out by the disciples involved praying or fasting?
Okay then what if it was someone you loved who was possessed? You did everything you could but fast and nothing was happening. Would you trust God's Word or think it was a copyist note or error? See for me. There would be no doubt or lack of faith in God's Word. I simply believe it.
I've never been in this situation, nor know anyone who has been, but I would trust in the authority of the Lord Jesus to cast out a demon, because that is what the Scriptures teach. This is why I asked whether you had ever fasted and only then successfully cast out a demon.
As for the Trinity: You really cannot have the same authority in God's Word as me in properly defending God's triune nature against anti-trinitarans. For I have the clearest description of the Trinity in one verse and believe it has power. You don't have that. You have verses that only imply a Trinity.
I think the only logical conclusion from the rest of the Scriptures is that a) the Father, Son and Spirit are all Divine b) that they are one and interrelated) and c) they are distinctive in person. Thus, Trinity is taught.
But still, you have not shown to me why the Comma must be genuine. I urge you to deal with the substance of my post on this matter, particularly the alleged witness of Tertuliian to the comma.
One other question on this matter for you: If I were to take a pen to the Scriptures, and somewhere in there write the words "The Father, Son and Spirit are one in substance but three in person, thus united as a triunity, or trinity", would you include that in Scripture, seeing as it is completel orthodox and is clearer even than 1 John 5:7 in that regard? If clarity of a doctrine is what matters, does that mean we can adjust Scripture to clarify orthodox doctrine?
If you say no, what about if I travelled back in time and made that change 1000 years ago? or 1500 years ago? What about 1900 years ago? Would your answer change then?
As for Romans 8:1. Again. There are only two places the Bible speaks of the Condemnation. John 3:19-21 is one. Romans 8:1 is the second.
Walking after the Spirit is taken out in Romans 8:1 and it is exclusively tied to the Condemnation which is a unique thing mentioned in Scripture.
v.4 is about condemnation too. You can't separate v1 and v4 as if they have nothing to do with each other. This is prooftexting at its absolute worst.
As for your comment on the Dracorex:
It's head looks exactly like the dragons of myth and legend.
As are the heads of most dinosaurs. In any case, if you actually go through dragon mythology, you will see there is quite a variety in how their heads are depicted.
Also by your reaction, I take it you don't believe dragons were once real creatures? If you don't believe they were real, then how is that not turning the Scriptures into fables in this case?
If by dragon you mean flying fire breathing carnivores with a mass muscled body, then no. Just at the level of raw physics, such a large creature would not be able to fly. If you look at something like a pterodactyl, that has a vastly different body composition to that of a typical dragon.
The Bible certainly speaks of large creatures (such as Leviathan), but there is not reason to assume this is the same thing as what we consider today to be a dragon. Most of what the word translated as dragon refers to in the OT is some sort of sea dwelling creature, which rules out the traditional conception of dragon.