I don't have to Vote, I know, what this about.
I am one of Few, who has, figured it out.
Isn't it about when the whole Holy Bible was completed? Which is you know, pretty standard topic for a Bible area.
I don't have to Vote, I know, what this about.
I am one of Few, who has, figured it out.
How?And to omit 30 to 100 AD was a provocation.
Just look at the silly structure of the poll. Would any informed Christian vote that the Bible was completed between 1200 and 1299 AD? Or anywhere between 300 and 1300 AD? And to omit 30 to 100 AD was a provocation. So either this poster is totally ignorant of the facts, or just wants to stir the pot. And all his responses so far are all about himself -- how he voted.
But there is a missing Component here.Isn't it about when the whole Holy Bible was completed? Which is you know, pretty standard topic for a Bible area.
But there is a missing Component here.
A bunch of Scrolls [60-100 AD] VS when the Scrolls were arranged into Order, by the Holy Spirit, for the Council, to obey, and place them in proper Order[mid 300 AD]?
Perfect Example:But there is a missing Component here.
A bunch of Scrolls [60-100 AD] VS when the Scrolls were arranged into Order, by the Holy Spirit, for the Council, to obey, and place them in proper Order[mid 300 AD]?
Evidently you are not aware of three important facts: (1) the Syriac Peshitta from the 2nd century already had the bulk of the Bible in the order in which we have it; (2) the Muratori Canon from the 2nd century also reflects that same order and (3) the Itala or Old Latin Bible was also in existence at that time. "It is generally admitted that long before the end of the second century, Latin translations, though rude and defective, of Tobias, I and II Machabees, and Baruch were in use and that towards the close of the same period, there existed at least one version of the whole Bible, based on the Septuagint and on Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. This was the Vetus Itala, or Old Latin."But there is a missing Component here. A bunch of Scrolls [60-100 AD] VS when the Scrolls were arranged into Order, by the Holy Spirit, for the Council, to obey, and place them in proper Order[mid 300 AD]?
This is not a problem to be solved, but rather a question to be answered.Let's say this is a Troll, It, still presented a Problem, we can find in any Elementary Mathematics.
A Story Problem, with a Question, attached to it.
And for the most, EVERYONE, who spends hours on these Forums, Proved, they DID NOT, grasp, any of it. And even though, the Mathematics, ARE SO S..I..M..P..L..E, None of You, had the first Clue, how to even make it into a Mathematical Problem.
From this Thread ALONE, I have Conducted my OWN Research!
It's a Good thing MOST of YOU have Preachers, WHO tell YOU what the Bible means, because, when it comes to actual Problem Solving, this Group FAILED!
I agree those were before.Evidently you are not aware of three important facts: (1) the Syriac Peshitta from the 2nd century already had the bulk of the Bible in the order in which we have it; (2) the Muratori Canon from the 2nd century also reflects that same order and (3) the Itala or Old Latin Bible was also in existence at that time. "It is generally admitted that long before the end of the second century, Latin translations, though rude and defective, of Tobias, I and II Machabees, and Baruch were in use and that towards the close of the same period, there existed at least one version of the whole Bible, based on the Septuagint and on Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. This was the Vetus Itala, or Old Latin."
https://www.realdouayrheims.com/vetusitala.html
Which means that the complete Bible was already in circulation in the 2nd century. But the Catholic Church wanted to take credit for the completion of the Bible much later on (even though their Bible has a bunch of non-canonical books).
Evidently you are not aware of three important facts: (1) the Syriac Peshitta from the 2nd century already had the bulk of the Bible in the order in which we have it; (2) the Muratori Canon from the 2nd century also reflects that same order and (3) the Itala or Old Latin Bible was also in existence at that time. "It is generally admitted that long before the end of the second century, Latin translations, though rude and defective, of Tobias, I and II Machabees, and Baruch were in use and that towards the close of the same period, there existed at least one version of the whole Bible, based on the Septuagint and on Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. This was the Vetus Itala, or Old Latin."
https://www.realdouayrheims.com/vetusitala.html
Which means that the complete Bible was already in circulation in the 2nd century. But the Catholic Church wanted to take credit for the completion of the Bible much later on (even though their Bible has a bunch of non-canonical books).
Take your ADVERSARY, Pre-Mill, Following selfs, run out the door and don't let the door hit ya on the way out!
I don't care how it's divided as long as it's rightly divided.there is more than 1 meaning to the question. for instance, Doctor John Reynolds, leader of the Puritan Party, made a motion that a new translation of the Bible be undertaken which appealed to King James around 1604. King James ordered the translation to initiate. 54 scholars started the process & it took around 3 years to complete with some lapses. so according to that, it was completed in 1610. another view is this: steven langton, r. nathan & robert stephanus divided the Bible into chapters & verse & that was completed in 1551. the 1st Bible divided into chapters & verses appears in 1560.
Are you Baptist?That was uncalled for.
I have read throughout all of your posts here, and the only thing I have found is that your behavior is in direct violation of the principles Paul outlined in his epistles:
"But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh. For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law. Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit. Let us not become boastful, challenging one another, envying one another." (Galatians 5:16-26, NASB, emphasis mine)
I strongly recommend that before you post anything else here, you might want to go before the Lord in repentance. All you are doing right now is harming others with a cudgel shaped from your own arrogance.
I will not reply back to you unless and until you have done so.
And yes: I am a dispensational, Pre-trib Rapture, Pre-Millennial return believer because Scripture proves it.
Let that keep you up at night.
-Sojo414