tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8353719.post3233246296442272078..comments2024-02-02T09:08:38.643-05:00Comments on The White Man Blog: News, Views, and Reviews on topics of ancient and contemporaty interest: In which the White Man is Quoted by a ScholarThe White Manhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06732782601569135839noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8353719.post-57870440843131612922010-01-20T14:06:28.450-05:002010-01-20T14:06:28.450-05:00Sorry, let me try again:
The originality & ca...Sorry, let me try again:<br /><br />The originality & canonicity of the 1 Cor 14 passage is completely relevant and does make a difference just like the originality & canonicity of 1 John 5:7 makes a difference. We've removed one from our Bibles.Mike Aubreyhttp://evepheso.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8353719.post-85099875042666555882010-01-20T09:47:35.143-05:002010-01-20T09:47:35.143-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.The White Manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06732782601569135839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8353719.post-86319891016831450142010-01-19T23:23:42.274-05:002010-01-19T23:23:42.274-05:00But does it matter? Those evangelical scholars lik...<i>But does it matter? Those evangelical scholars like Drs. Payne and Fee, who consider the Pericope Adultera an interpolation, nonetheless recognize it as an authentic record of Jesus' words and deeds. So, if this passage accurately reflects Pauline doctrine, it makes no difference to us today whether it was originally canonical or not--or does it?</i><br /><br />This isn't consistently true for evangelicals -- for example Daniel Wallace categorically refuses to accept Pericope Adultera as canonical and wants it completely relegated to a footnote like 1 John 5:7.Mike Aubreyhttp://evepheso.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.com