I confess that I have not read all of the posts, so if this query has been answered, please direct me to it. As there are no original autographs (what I would consider the reference to the complete clearing up of this controversy), I am unable to comprehend what standard would be used to affix a stamp of infallibility to any translation or version. I do read the KJV (for the majesty and poetry of the language), but also refer to other versions. I have no authority to make sovereign pronouncements. I would suppose my understanding of the theology implied by certain differences would be helpful in making these determinations.
Ordinarily, I try not to beat dead horses; but I'm still waiting for a rep[y to the absolute obliteration of the existence of the 'pope', by the inspired interpretation of Matthew 16, contained in the epistle to the Ephesians. I need someone to 'answer this fool (me) in his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceits.'
Yes, John UK, without the Spirit they will never know the truth; but there is the possibility of discovering error; howbeit, with much difficulty. It is almost impossible to let go of one branch without a firm grasp on another. A fearful crisis.
The problem that I have with Obama's Christianity is not so much with what he has done politically (although it is that, too), but that he can promote, nay, exalt, another religion (Islam). How does a true Christian uphold and solidify someone's belief in a system which he believes will eternally separate that person from God?
The reason for this 'irrationality' is not far to seek. In a word, to those ignorant of, nay, blind to, true religion, Islam poses no 'spiritual' threat. This sort of activity is a relief to the atheist, whose battle is only with Christ Jesus. Even an aberrant Christianity is an offense.
How ironic that Islam, noted for their, let us say (ahem) 'vehement stand', on certain non-negotiables, are looked upon as benign; while we, striking the same moral posture, are considered hate-filled, and of unjust judgement.