Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio
You did not use the Bible to define heresy, you used word etymology to define it. This is what you said in your post:
Since you got caught in error by my post, you altered your definition to include your exclusive and errant etymological definition of heresy with the prevailing orthodox definition of heresy.
This is such a common ploy of LSM -- once exposed as being outside of the mainstream, they quickly attempt to attach themselves to orthodox Christianity, which they otherwise regularly condemn.
Folks, I have watched LSM do this for 40 years.
|
This is your typical style to attack the intentions of the poster rather than offer up your own alternatives. I cannot see you attempting to define the word heresy according to the Bible?
If I'm using the meaning of the original Greek word how is that not using the Bible to define it? The original word in Greek means heresies. A number of English versions translates the word in Galatians 5:19-21a as "heresies". One notable version which does that is the English Revised Version which is a late 19th-century British revision of the King James Version. So either way, in English or Greek, I am correct about its meaning.
Cambridge bible commentary says:
heresies] Rendered rightly ‘sects’ by Wiclif, Tyndale, and Cranmer, and also in the Rhemish N. T. The Vulgate has ‘sectæ’. It means the formation of ‘distinct and organized parties’—a further development of ‘divisions’; see 1 Corinthians 11:18. It is applied to the Sadducees, Acts 5:17; to the Pharisees, Acts 15:5; to the Nazarenes, Acts 24:5.
I actually did not "alter my definition" at all. In my first post I only defined it using two verses. In my later post I expounded and included many more verses.
Anyone can see that my first post relates to point 3) in my second post without any alteration of its meaning.