WHICH Bible "version" Is Authorized By God?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
14,244
2,927
113
This KJV Onlyism is a terrible cult.
The old "cult" accusation...believing that God has perfectly preserved His words is a cult....unbelievable! We must be in the last days. I guess it's better than being a bible agnostic. Shall I list the giants that went before us who believed the KJV to be the inspired words of God? These giants led the largest world wide revival in history.
 

Angela53510

Senior Member
Jan 24, 2011
11,587
2,744
113
But sadly, it is not in the original autographs,

Why? because we don't have one to know if it is or not. However, the manuscripts do not have the word Trinity either. But the concept is well defined in the Old Testament First. Therefore the "pope" may have been used by God in the context of what was added. it surely doesn't take away from the word of God at all nor does it add to the full biblical context already well established.

I do agree that the original autographs have never been found and may never be. But manuscripts, and there are whole ones, from the 2nd and 3rd centuries are much closer to the original autographs, than corrupt Byzantine versions, copied and recopied for 5 centuries mistakes and all Have you ever played the telephone game? Someone whispers a word in the first person's ear, the first person then whispers into the 3rd person's ear. The 3 says it to 4, 4 to 5, etc. It was a fun game for kids' birthday parties. I remember doing this at a party in grade 5. The word that the last person said out loud, had no vowels or consonants even close to the original word whispered to person 1.

That is what the Byzantine manuscripts are like. They just get further and further from the original autographs, as seen in the manuscripts from the earliest centuries. The earliest manuscripts are all very consistent, I would guess they had the same source - the original autographs, or perhaps some memorizations of those original autographs. Of course, I have no way to prove that. But, lower textual criticism follows each and every manuscripts and charts where words, phrases and even sentences differ from generation to generation. These mistakes are then copied into the next generation of manuscripts, until 15 hundred years from the earliest manuscripts, you have a lot of mistakes. A LOT! The additions are wrong, words are wrong, and words in the margins are copied in the texts. The telephone game became true for the KJV Bible.

The pope was used by Satan. Revelation clearly says do not add to this book. Keeping verses that are not in the manuscripts for many centuries is not being used by God, but rather by Satan.

"I testify to everyone who hears the prophetic words of this book: If anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book." Rev. 22:18

That pope is going to be judged by God for adding to the Bible, esp the Johannine comma. It is only found once, and it is a disgrace that so many non-Christians find out it is not in the bible, and then condemn the Bible for lying. Plus, it is not a good witnessing tool. Why would anyone use a verse that is spurious to witness? Sorry, I am going to stay honest and keep with books that are not tainted and corrupt like the KJV. But if other people feel like that is the best version to read, it is not my business to tell them they are making a big mistake! (OK, I did tell them!)
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
So how much Greek and Hebrew do you read? What kind of hermeneutical tools do you use? It is actually the modern translations that capture Greek the best. Translators understand that making sense in the receiving language is just as more important as the sending language. This creates a huge problem, translating from Greek to English. First, their verbal system is based on aspect, not linear time, like English. Nouns, pronouns and adjectives use 4 (sometimes 5 with the vocative) cases for nouns. The adjectives have to match the noun or pronoun it is describing. Further, this is what the cases mean:

1. Nominative - subject of the sentence.
2. Accusative - Direct Object of the verb
3. Dative - Indirect Object of the verb
4. Genitive - possession of the noun or pronoun. In Greek they say "A ball of the woman." In English, we would likely say, "The woman's ball." That is the genitive case. When you can use apostrophe +s, you have the possessive in English, the Genitive in Greek.

But that doesn't even get into the fact that a nominative can go at the end of the sentence and an Accusative at the beginning. In English, we would assume the subject is the first noun in the sentence, coming before the verb. That is the correct word order in English. So, if you take a Greek sentence, it might be Accusative Verb, Nominative. To translate that word for word, your sentence would say, "The ball throws the women," to get the same word order. But it makes no sense. So, it has to be more dynamic and make actual sense in English, like "The woman threw the ball." How do Greeks know what word is nominative, accusative and so forth? Each word has a different word ending.

There are 3 genders, 4 cases, plus plural and singular. A typical chart for one word, say, the word "the," has 17 different versions. Here are the endings for the word "the," transliterated into English pronunciation, and number two, the letters in Greek.

___________________Singular_______________
Gender Masc Feminine Neuter
Cases
Nom. ho hey taw
Genitive tou teys tou
dative toe tey toe
accusative ton teyn taw

____________________Plural___________________
Nom/Voc hoi high tah
Genitive tone tone tone
Dative tois tais tois
Acc. tous tas tah

View attachment 226548

Any noun or adjective will have the same endings as "the" more or less. τιμἠ, ἡς, ἠ is the feminine. If we use the genitive form, it will turn into τιμἠς. Αdd an adjective like "great" and it will take the same ἡς. You can take the phrase "of the great ending" and put it at the front, the middle or the back, and it will always be describing possession.

So, unfortunately, the KJV translation committee either didn't know this, or King James told it to it his way, or not at all. (There are other areas that King James also told the committee to translate a certain way, even though it was wrong.)

Suffice it to say that you can often NOT translate word for word from Greek to English, or from German or French to English. In French, they say "la Maison blanche." "The house white" is the word for word, direct translation and that is bad English. So, instead we automatically say, "the white house." Not word for word, but dynamic to get the real meaning in real English.

The KJV does this all over the Greek text. It's how we get phrases like "coals of burning fire," instead of "burning coals" which would be a much better translation. Τherefore, if you don't use dynamic, you will get the wrong meaning over and over, by using word for word. Greek is NOT a language that can be translated directly into English. German, on the other hand, is very easy to translate word for word, because it has the noun/pronoun/adjective cases, too! Although verbs can continue to be tricky between languages.

I would be happy to argue the Greek with anyone who has a background in it. Don't bother copy and pasting from Blue Letter Bible or other sites. They are not wrong, but if you have no background in Greek, which is a complex language, you will be no more than a child repeating a word, without knowing what it means, the gender in Hebrew, the use in a sentence, the case and so on.
Amen

Hence why there is no TRUE word for word english translation.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
21,097
11,574
113
Well, I didn't know I was writing and English paper. If you want I can provide you with a complete dialectical analysis, based on all of the fundamental's of English Composition, a dicachronic analysis between all version's and all alteration's and comparison's between all other religious text's to determine the King Jane's Version is the most accurate.
No, you weren't writing an English paper. However, you are writing in English, and there is no excuse for a linguistics specialist not to know how to write.

If you would like to post the information you mentioned, I would read it... provided that it is written properly.
 

CS1

Well-known member
May 23, 2012
10,634
3,433
113
I do agree that the original autographs have never been found and may never be. But manuscripts, and there are whole ones, from the 2nd and 3rd centuries are much closer to the original autographs, than corrupt Byzantine versions, copied and recopied for 5 centuries mistakes and all Have you ever played the telephone game? Someone whispers a word in the first person's ear, the first person then whispers into the 3rd person's ear. The 3 says it to 4, 4 to 5, etc. It was a fun game for kids' birthday parties. I remember doing this at a party in grade 5. The word that the last person said out loud, had no vowels or consonants even close to the original word whispered to person 1.

That is what the Byzantine manuscripts are like. They just get further and further from the original autographs, as seen in the manuscripts from the earliest centuries. The earliest manuscripts are all very consistent, I would guess they had the same source - the original autographs, or perhaps some memorizations of those original autographs. Of course, I have no way to prove that. But, lower textual criticism follows each and every manuscripts and charts where words, phrases and even sentences differ from generation to generation. These mistakes are then copied into the next generation of manuscripts, until 15 hundred years from the earliest manuscripts, you have a lot of mistakes. A LOT! The additions are wrong, words are wrong, and words in the margins are copied in the texts. The telephone game became true for the KJV Bible.

The pope was used by Satan. Revelation clearly says do not add to this book. Keeping verses that are not in the manuscripts for many centuries is not being used by God, but rather by Satan.

"I testify to everyone who hears the prophetic words of this book: If anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book." Rev. 22:18

That pope is going to be judged by God for adding to the Bible, esp the Johannine comma. It is only found once, and it is a disgrace that so many non-Christians find out it is not in the bible, and then condemn the Bible for lying. Plus, it is not a good witnessing tool. Why would anyone use a verse that is spurious to witness? Sorry, I am going to stay honest and keep with books that are not tainted and corrupt like the KJV. But if other people feel like that is the best version to read, it is not my business to tell them they are making a big mistake! (OK, I did tell them!)

I am not a KJV only type but I do love the version. I too like the NIV pre-1984. I have NASB, and NLT and others.

The point I think many miss with the approach of what is wrong with the KJV over how God preserves HIS word ..... Completely.
Many try to breakdown the KJV and other versions from what they have learned about the version or translation.

They give no grace to the truth that man is imperfect yet God used man to write His words and God got it right. Many seek knowledge about how the word was written yet, attack the version due to human reasoning and arrogance.

From Hebrew, Greek, and some Aramaic, the Word of God was not translated into English first.

the first was Hebrew to Greek, then to Latin and possibly German before there was ever an English translation. Furthermore, the English language is lacking many word translation because it can't even say or know the real word like

ATONEMENT. That was created word because they did not know the word in Hebrew. Yet the full Bible ( books)

provided to us more than enough for 1. righteous living 2. Appropriate worship 3. the plan of salvation.

Does the KJV do that? Absolutely. Does the NIV, NASB, NLT, ESV yes they sure do.
 

Lucy-Pevensie

Senior Member
Dec 20, 2017
6,591
4,867
113
The old "cult" accusation...believing that God has perfectly preserved His words is a cult....unbelievable! We must be in the last days. I guess it's better than being a bible agnostic. Shall I list the giants that went before us who believed the KJV to be the inspired words of God? These giants led the largest world wide revival in history.
If the shoe fits. wear it.

Exclusive devotion to a Bible translation to the point of sustained assault on all others is cultic devotion. That is an accurate appraisal.

"Bible agnostic" gives a false impression that people do not believe the Bible. It's a false accusation.

You are free to choose to remain in the cult. But you are only lying to yourself to pretend it is anything else.
 

CS1

Well-known member
May 23, 2012
10,634
3,433
113
If the shoe fits. wear it.

Exclusive devotion to a Bible translation to the point of sustained assault on all others is cultic devotion. That is an accurate appraisal.

"Bible agnostic" gives a false impression that people do not believe the Bible. It's a false accusation.

You are free to choose to remain in the cult. But you are only lying to yourself to pretend it is anything else.
you make a good point but there are many who hold the gnostics as the word of God
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
21,097
11,574
113
The old "cult" accusation...believing that God has perfectly preserved His words is a cult....unbelievable! We must be in the last days. I guess it's better than being a bible agnostic. Shall I list the giants that went before us who believed the KJV to be the inspired words of God? These giants led the largest world wide revival in history.
I am quite certain that these "giants", as you call them, were smart enough to understand the issues and not close their minds to truth, hard evidence, and sound reasoning. I'm also certain that the way you use "inspired words of God" is not how they would have used the term.
 

Angela53510

Senior Member
Jan 24, 2011
11,587
2,744
113
Why doesn't he use his vast wisdom and knowledge and translate the Bible himself, one that is perfect and without error?
He does! He is on all the major translation and revision committees for the new Bibles. Of course, it is a committee, so he won't always get his choice. But he has been invaluable in new translations and getting them accurate. If you weren't so brainwashed, you would realize the KJV is far from perfect to. There was no God coming down on a machine and dictating the Bible to the KJV committee. God has never worked that way from the beginning of the world. And he is also a person, imperfect like the rest of us. So no perfect Bible, but neither is the KJV perfect.

The trouble is, you have been hooked into a very occult method of writing the KJV down. It is called "automatic writing." It is when the unclean spirit possesses your hands, mind and souls, and then writes everything down, to produce a so called perfectly inspired book. That's what Mohammed did too. Except he could not read or write. Whatever the angel told him, he would relay it to the scribes, and they would write it down. Mohammed literally had no control over what was written, that was how the Qu'ran was written. Automatic speaking into Mohammed's ear. God does not use such methods. Not for the Qu'ran, but also not for the the translation committee for the KJV.

You come up with this "perfect" KJV nonsense. Not even the KJV Committee said that. The only way for it to be perfect, would have been for God, through the Holy Spirit to walk into that room, and write it with their hands, or hear his voice dictating it. Do you really want to read a Bible that was based on occult practises, which is what you constantly describe.

Instead, realize the KJV committee were the best Greek and Hebrew scholars in their day. They were imperfect people. They could not help but make mistakes here and there, unless they were controlled by demons. God would never do that - except with the original autographs, in which he inspired the authors to write what they wanted, within the confines of his mandate. The original authors of the Bible books were all very different. It doesn't come through much in English, but in Greek, you can tell the educational status of people and their ethnic origins in Greek. John writes very simply. Greek is not his favourite language, he throws in Hebraisms all the time. Words translated directly from Hebrew, which are wrong in Greek. But God let him do that. I was reading 1 John straight through by the end of my first semester of Greek, it is very simple. The gospel of John, and the epistles are very close in vocabulary and writing style. Revelation was written much later, and John seemed to have a better grasp of Greek.

Paul's writing is much more difficult than John's, a broader vocabulary, more complex sentence structures. Then there is Luke. A Greek by birth and culture! A much smoother style in both Luke and Acts. And hard to read, keep your lexicon near! Then there is the mysterious writer of Hebrew. His style is much different, a huge vocabulary, and well versed in Hebrew culture, yet knowing Greek better than even Luke. No one did automatic writing or speaking. God allowed each writer to add a flavour from himself. He did not make them write a dictation, like Mohammed or Jospeh Smith for that matter, and the book of Mormon.

So, imperfect people with a good, but a bit imperfect Bible, OR a perfect Bible using a perfect occult method to say what God wanted in his words, not the writers. No respect for the individuals who wrote the Bible, or letting them be free to communicate what he wanted in their own words.

I pick imperfect people. No occultic automatic writing, taking over my body or any writer's body like a demon. Instead the power and love of God leading the writers to write a totally inspired Book, without losing themselves.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
21,097
11,574
113
How much more then is it impossible to translate thought for thought ?
Actually, it's easier. If you aren't bound to translating every word, you can take the meaning of the whole thought (phrase, sentence, or even passage) and find an equivalent in the target language. "It's raining cats and dogs" might become something like, "We are receiving an abundance of precipitation" rather than, "Small domesticated animals are falling from the sky".
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
14,244
2,927
113
But manuscripts, and there are whole ones, from the 2nd and 3rd centuries are much closer to the original autographs, than corrupt Byzantine versions, copied and recopied for 5 centuries mistakes and all Have you ever played the telephone game?
If we don't have the originals, how do you know which manuscripts are closest to the originals? LOL, your basing your beliefs off the "telephone game?"
 

CS1

Well-known member
May 23, 2012
10,634
3,433
113
If we don't have the originals, how do you know which manuscripts are closest to the originals? LOL, your basing your beliefs off the "telephone game?"
I think you know the answer to that.

it is not that we don't have the Autograph but we do have many things combined that support the Biblical accounts,

  1. we have the eyewitnesses of eyewitnesses 1cor 15
  2. geographical location
  3. historical findings
  4. over 50 thousand manuscripts
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
21,097
11,574
113
He does! He is on all the major translation and revision committees for the new Bibles. Of course, it is a committee, so he won't always get his choice. But he has been invaluable in new translations and getting them accurate. If you weren't so brainwashed, you would realize the KJV is far from perfect to. There was no God coming down on a machine and dictating the Bible to the KJV committee. God has never worked that way from the beginning of the world. And he is also a person, imperfect like the rest of us. So no perfect Bible, but neither is the KJV perfect.

The trouble is, you have been hooked into a very occult method of writing the KJV down. It is called "automatic writing." It is when the unclean spirit possesses your hands, mind and souls, and then writes everything down, to produce a so called perfectly inspired book. That's what Mohammed did too. Except he could not read or write. Whatever the angel told him, he would relay it to the scribes, and they would write it down. Mohammed literally had no control over what was written, that was how the Qu'ran was written. Automatic speaking into Mohammed's ear. God does not use such methods. Not for the Qu'ran, but also not for the the translation committee for the KJV.

You come up with this "perfect" KJV nonsense. Not even the KJV Committee said that. The only way for it to be perfect, would have been for God, through the Holy Spirit to walk into that room, and write it with their hands, or hear his voice dictating it. Do you really want to read a Bible that was based on occult practises, which is what you constantly describe.

Instead, realize the KJV committee were the best Greek and Hebrew scholars in their day. They were imperfect people. They could not help but make mistakes here and there, unless they were controlled by demons. God would never do that - except with the original autographs, in which he inspired the authors to write what they wanted, within the confines of his mandate. The original authors of the Bible books were all very different. It doesn't come through much in English, but in Greek, you can tell the educational status of people and their ethnic origins in Greek. John writes very simply. Greek is not his favourite language, he throws in Hebraisms all the time. Words translated directly from Hebrew, which are wrong in Greek. But God let him do that. I was reading 1 John straight through by the end of my first semester of Greek, it is very simple. The gospel of John, and the epistles are very close in vocabulary and writing style. Revelation was written much later, and John seemed to have a better grasp of Greek.

Paul's writing is much more difficult than John's, a broader vocabulary, more complex sentence structures. Then there is Luke. A Greek by birth and culture! A much smoother style in both Luke and Acts. And hard to read, keep your lexicon near! Then there is the mysterious writer of Hebrew. His style is much different, a huge vocabulary, and well versed in Hebrew culture, yet knowing Greek better than even Luke. No one did automatic writing or speaking. God allowed each writer to add a flavour from himself. He did not make them write a dictation, like Mohammed or Jospeh Smith for that matter, and the book of Mormon.

So, imperfect people with a good, but a bit imperfect Bible, OR a perfect Bible using a perfect occult method to say what God wanted in his words, not the writers. No respect for the individuals who wrote the Bible, or letting them be free to communicate what he wanted in their own words.

I pick imperfect people. No occultic automatic writing, taking over my body or any writer's body like a demon. Instead the power and love of God leading the writers to write a totally inspired Book, without losing themselves.
I would add some thoughts gleaned from Michael Heiser: that God prepared each writer throughout his life for the eventual purpose of adding to His written word, and having prepared them, allowed each writer to express His thoughts in his own style. As Heiser puts it, God looks at the finished passage and says, "Yeah, that'll work." It undermines the idea of verbal plenary inspiration, which is a lot like the automatic writing you describe.
 

Angela53510

Senior Member
Jan 24, 2011
11,587
2,744
113
For Greek scholars, yes, but not for God. A translation does not need to be a word for word in order to be the holy, pure word of God. There are examples of this all throughout scripture itself. A translation can be the holy inspired word of God without error. Do you not agree? If not, then there's no need in going further. Keep relying on your education and scholarship.

I call this "magical thinking." You have made up this ridiculous scenario in your mind, that God magically touches the committee and Voilà! You have a perfect translation! God works with people the way they are. Like Peter falling under the water, when his faith wavered, or denying Jesus; or Paul being beaten, shipwrecked, whipped, let down the city walls in a basket. This was no fault of his own, but they certainly weren't perfect missionary trips, but he praised God anyway, and then wrote his epistles. Imperfect, people who wrote the Bible. That was inspired. God did not inspire a late 1600s translation in the way he touched and used the lives of the writers of the books of the Bible.

Also, I was not addressing you as far as "word for word" is concerned. I was addressing someone else. I do agree that word for word is not necessary. But, remember that was the translating ideal in the 1600 hundreds, and the KJV did use that method, which results in a lot of mistakes in English. And many do cling to the need to use word for word, in order for it to be perfect. So, I definitely agree with you on that, just disagree that a translation can ever be perfect!
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
21,097
11,574
113
If we don't have the originals, how do you know which manuscripts are closest to the originals? LOL, your basing your beliefs off the "telephone game?"
Like Angela described, scholars can determine where changes were most likely made, and what the changes were, by examining manuscripts carefully. It seems to me that you want to remain ignorant instead of learning about these things... lest your KJV-only folly be exposed and your opportunity to throw silly, ignorant comments be removed.
 

CS1

Well-known member
May 23, 2012
10,634
3,433
113
I call this "magical thinking." You have made up this ridiculous scenario in your mind, that God magically touches the committee and Voilà! You have a perfect translation! God works with people the way they are. Like Peter falling under the water, when his faith wavered, or denying Jesus; or Paul being beaten, shipwrecked, whipped, let down the city walls in a basket. This was no fault of his own, but they certainly weren't perfect missionary trips, but he praised God anyway, and then wrote his epistles. Imperfect, people who wrote the Bible. That was inspired. God did not inspire a late 1600s translation in the way he touched and used the lives of the writers of the books of the Bible.

Also, I was not addressing you as far as "word for word" is concerned. I was addressing someone else. I do agree that word for word is not necessary. But, remember that was the translating ideal in the 1600 hundreds, and the KJV did use that method, which results in a lot of mistakes in English. And many do cling to the need to use word for word, in order for it to be perfect. So, I definitely agree with you on that, just disagree that a translation can ever be perfect!
there are what is known as copiest discrepancies in the KJV and others. That is because of language not evil intent.

God breath is on the KJV and others because the power of Salvation has confirmed HIS word.

The book of Mormon did not, the Koran did not, the Gnostics DID NOT. The Book of Enoch did not.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
21,097
11,574
113
For Greek scholars, yes, but not for God. A translation does not need to be a word for word in order to be the holy, pure word of God. There are examples of this all throughout scripture itself. A translation can be the holy inspired word of God without error. Do you not agree? If not, then there's no need in going further. Keep relying on your education and scholarship.
I have addressed this more than once, and yet you cling to your ignorance, fantasy, and folly.

Just because God incorporated translated passages in the Bible, it does not mean that He inspired a complete translation. Could God do such? Yes. However, there is absolutely no evidence that He ever did. This discussion has never been about what God could potentially do, but rather about what was actually done.
 

notuptome

Senior Member
May 17, 2013
15,050
2,532
113
Nehemiah, Gordon Fee is one of the top Bible translators in the world. His Greek is excellent AND he knows the principles of translation inside out. backwards and forwards. He has also written some helpful pamphlets against the Word Faith. Every seminary I ever took a course from (some for transfer credit) recommended this book. It is pretty arrogant for you, someone who does not read Greek or Hebrew, to put down one of the acknowledged top translators in the world, and pretend you know more than him. When you get your PhD in hermeneutics, then maybe you can carefully explain using the Greek, why you disagree with him. I don't agree with him on everything, but he is an irenic and open person. Not narrow minded to the point of insanity like you are about KJV Onlyism. The sign of a real scholar is being able to re-examine your beliefs and be able to change them. This KJV Onlyism is a terrible cult. They have a short list of memorized verses and scripture saying things in the Bible only apply to the KJV Bible. In fact, every one of those verses, like "being refined 7 times," can apply to any translation, in any language.

I feel very bad for you. You have good theology in many areas. You are honest and stand up for Biblical truth. But somehow, you got deluded and ended up in this terrible, irrational cult, and you are literally drowning, tied to the bottom of the ocean. If you ever need to come up for air and really want to talk about the truth of this nightmare of dishonesty and brainwashing, feel free to PM me and we can talk privately or on here. There is no fault for changing your mind, when all the facts are against you.
Careful you do not find yourself worshipping the man. He is A o G so he is in an apostate denomination. He supports and teaches women are approved by God to preach which no doubt is dear to your heart.

God has been and continues to oversee His word so that man has it in a form that he can read and understand. Even before Jesus set foot upon the earth God saw the OT translated into common Greek so the common man could hear it.

Now that we have the gospel what becomes important is what we do with it. We have heard about Jesus now we must do something with that information. It is not important if you understand the gospel in Hebrew, Greek of pigeon English the gospel requires a response.

I will take an old hillbilly KJV only type who loves the Lord and preaches hell fire and damnation over a PhD progressive that denies the literal truths of the bible and teaches that there was no literal Adam or literal Eve.

Continue the ego stroke while souls are in danger of eternal condemnation and many perish by the moment.

For the cause of Christ
Roger