my understanding is that some what of you say and, what i have said in the past is a erroneous assumption. Some is based on the Latin text of Jerome and to be precise that is different then Textus Receptus.,,Such is the case with Simon that is called Niger and the name lucifer by the way they should have remove the word ni*** in the latter additions
How many here believe the literal Word of God in the Bible
- Thread starter Roar
- Start date
-
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.
I took your question to mean do you believe the Bible is literally the Word of God.. Meaning do i believe that the Bible is a Message from God.. So i selected Yes..
On the other hand, The Bible uses a lot of symbolism in the message delivery.. This is more often used in the books of prophecy.. The Book of Revelation and the Book of Daniel probably being the best example of this.. So i don't believe there will be a literal multi headed beast with many horns and eyes rising up out of the earth, that scripture is a symbolic representation of an end times great empire..
On the other hand, The Bible uses a lot of symbolism in the message delivery.. This is more often used in the books of prophecy.. The Book of Revelation and the Book of Daniel probably being the best example of this.. So i don't believe there will be a literal multi headed beast with many horns and eyes rising up out of the earth, that scripture is a symbolic representation of an end times great empire..
Because the further back we go, as we find older manuscripts and fragments, nothing of significance has changed. Of course you can argue that somewhere between the 1st and 3rd centuries the New Testament took a quantum leap; someone removed or changed important doctrines. It can be argued, but based on the evidence, that's not what we find.
KJO advocates argue that it is the only uncorrupted version out there; however, even the Textus Receptus doesn't differ that significantly from Siniaticus or Vaticanus. That is, in ways that will lead a person astray and keep them from being saved and living a Godly life. Modern interpreters have corrupted the Bible more than any ancient manuscripts.
KJO advocates argue that it is the only uncorrupted version out there; however, even the Textus Receptus doesn't differ that significantly from Siniaticus or Vaticanus. That is, in ways that will lead a person astray and keep them from being saved and living a Godly life. Modern interpreters have corrupted the Bible more than any ancient manuscripts.
That is exactly what I did. I find it a marvelous translation full of poetry and beauty. I find it reflects the thought of the majority of Christians in 1600 that was anti-semitic so I make allowances for this flaw. It is one of the main translations I check as I study, and usually use the KJV when I memorize scripture.