What is a True Christian?

I'm going to assume that Phat has the perspective to know you're blowing hot air.

What on EARTH do you think you are saying? Do you actually think Paul would have called anything other than scripture itself "God breathed" or "inspired" -- which means breathed by the Holy Spirit? The same Paul who calls human wisdom "foolishness with God" (1 Cor 1:20, 3:19)? Human beings may be capable of some wonderful things even in our fallen condition, but nothing that Paul or any other writer of scripture would call "God breathed." If it's God-breathed it is authored by God Himself and therefore inerrant. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No you weren't, you were denying the inerrancy of scripture. Which you were also doing when making it seem like Moses' could have said anything as if under his own power rather than God's inspiration.

I agree with you in principle of course. I believe it quite possible to reconstruct the originals from the collection of old manuscripts available today. But not if you are working from the wrong collection of old manuscripts, and from what you are saying you do accept the wrong collection as authentic. That is, you accept the current scholarship about the history of the manuscripts that comes down from Westcott and Hort, which is understandable since the major seminaries and a lot of good teachers and preachers do also.I'm no scholar of course, and I'm sure you know tons more about these issues than I do or ever will, but I got my mind changed some years ago by reading some of Dean John Burgon's book "The Revision Revised" and some of his "Last Twelve Verses of Mark" plus some other books, mostly by KJV-onlies, although I don't consider myself one of them. I consider myself a "Burgonian" I suppose. He was a contemporary of Westcott and Hort's and their better as a scholar, who criticized them for replacing the Traditional Greek text with some Greek manuscripts known already by the Church to be corrupt, also for their lousy Greek and lousy English. The lousy English I can judge for myself, the rest requires me to trust Burgon and the others who agree with him, and Burgon himself particularly impresses me with his knowledge and integrity.I started a blog on the subject some years ago (The Great Bible Hoax of 1881) where I collected bits of information about the issue. Basically, the idea that the "Church" made additions to the text down the centuries is Westcott and Hort's own totally made-up theory without a shred of evidence for it. Their substituted Greek texts are known for what is left out of them, passages historically revered by Christians, such as the one you mention about the woman taken in adultery. There are even huge obvious gaps in the text of their preferred mss where something used to be, such as the last twelve verses of Mark in Sinaiticus. This is a huge hoax they pulled off on the Church, and it's continued to deceive for over 130 years. Consider just for starters that the accusation that the Church made additions to the text is an accusation of tampering with God's word against the very commandment of God not to add to it. It's amazing how they got away with all that. The Church must have come seriously under God's displeasure for all that to happen, and we are no doubt still under God's judgment.I wish I could be an instrument to change anyone's mind about the validity of the revision of 1881 but there's such an array of powerhouse Christian "scholars" and teachers against my point of view it would take a miracle. I do recommend the documentaries made by Chris Pinto, particularly his three lengthy documentaries about the history of the Bible, and his latest, that just came out, that I haven't even seen yet (I'm sure it's out in the mailbox, I just don't get out there very often), is titled Bridge to Babylon and is specifically focused on what Westcott and Hort did. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.