LewisWildermuth
Senior Veteran
Remember Smilin, the Literalists are only a small minority in Christianity, a rather loud and obnoxious minority, but a small one none the less.
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Has The Bible Changed???
- Thread starter Jon
- Start date
Remember Smilin, the Literalists are only a small minority in Christianity, a rather loud and obnoxious minority, but a small one none the less.
Smilin
Spirit of the Wolf
- Jun 18, 2002
- 5,650
- 244
- 60
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
1st April 2003 at 03:51 PM walkaways said this in Post #19
Agreed, Follower of Christ. It seems like everyone is a history expert and they can pretty much convince you fully of anything if you're relying on them to tell the truth historically, and then the next guy comes along and convinces you just as easily of a completely different theory...so yes, definitely take everything with a biiig grain of salt. I'd say Encyclopedias are a good place to start to get your historical facts down before you start venturing into the unknown that is the 'this is the truth!' pages.
Not only History,,, but everyone PLEASE take the time to review and verify the science facts you posts from sites..
That mistake happens a lot in this forum.
Upvote
0
Follower of Christ
Literal 6 Day Creationist<br />''An Evening and a
Romans states the the Jews were ''entrusted'' with the words (oracles) of God.
I believe that God inspired man to write, then entrusted His followers to keep those words.
I believe myself tht the majority texts (NT) and the Masoretic texts (OT) are the ones to be trusted based on what I have read.
But that is opinion.
I also feel that I should add that I believe the original autographs were inspired.
I do not believe in inspired translation (so obviously I am not a KJV only)
Upvote
0
Yahweh Nissi
"The LORD Is My Banner"
- Mar 26, 2003
- 902
- 34
- 43
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
Easy Lewis.
Sure, those that believe that their English translation is the direct literal
word of God is a small minority, but derogetary generalisations like that are not helpful. The few people I know who tend to that view are all pleasent, godly people, and most of the posters esposing this view have seemed to be also. The loud and obnoxious ones are a small minority within a small minority.
Sure, those that believe that their English translation is the direct literal
word of God is a small minority, but derogetary generalisations like that are not helpful. The few people I know who tend to that view are all pleasent, godly people, and most of the posters esposing this view have seemed to be also. The loud and obnoxious ones are a small minority within a small minority.
Upvote
0
Partially.
The fact that the bible has changed over time weighs heavily against creationists.
Creationists claim that the bible is Gods Literal and absolute word that has been unchanged and so is correctly.
However, by showing that the bible has been changed over time, it calls into question wether its correct and all of gods word.
The fact that the bible has changed over time weighs heavily against creationists.
Creationists claim that the bible is Gods Literal and absolute word that has been unchanged and so is correctly.
However, by showing that the bible has been changed over time, it calls into question wether its correct and all of gods word.
Upvote
0
Follower of Christ
Literal 6 Day Creationist<br />''An Evening and a
I agree. I was pointing out that God inspired men to write and basically left His word to us to protect and keep (with a little divine guidance)
THis is shown in passages where adding/taking away from His words are forbidden and in the following passage in Romans.
"What then is the superiority of the Jew? Or what the profit of circumcision? Much every way. For first, indeed, that they were entrusted with the Words of God. "
(Romans 3:1-2 LITV)
I spent 2 years trying to find out which texts were the most reliable.
My ''opinion'' is stated above.
I cannot tell the you the turmoil, sleepless nights and hours in prayer that I spent with this.
I come to the conclusion that It is God and His Holy Spirit that is to be relied on.
The Bible is the perfect Word of our living God, of course, but with sa many texts, Its hard to distinguish which are His exact words.
This is another area where I think He did something intentionally.
Bibliolotry would be assured to happen if we had indeed the originals.
God knows this.
He also knows who is really seeking His face, so Bible versions can be a little different as long as we have the fundamentals.
There are too many texts with too much contraversy to be absolutely sure of anything.
I will say that if in doubt, get a KJV.
400 years is quite a test.
Not to mention some of the other things in its history (cant mention some the more important without surely offending some).
If you get a chance, check out how the Jews copied their texts through the ages.
Upvote
0
tcampen
Veteran
Follower of Christ said:
If that's the case, then shouldn't the whole resurrection account found in Mark 16:9-20 be discarded, as these verses were added later? (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/...age=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on) And how does that affect how the early church of the late second century decided which versions of the gospels to cannonize and which to discard? Where is it written that these early church fathers 150 years after Jesus had the devine knowledge to know what to include and what to exclude? Romans was written more than a century before the bible was put together and cannonized.
Kinda makes you wonder.
Upvote
0
tcampen
Veteran
revolutio said:
Yes, tho that Council was preceded by other early Church fathers in the late second century who tried to recognized some accounts as being more authoritative than others. In fact, Origen and other early writers not long after that, recognized there were lots of versions of the gospels running around the conflicted with one another, and that many of the various accounts attributed to the disciples were at issue. This might account for why the Coucil of Nicaea was alleged to have destroyed many other versions of the gospels that they found objectionable. In other words, the bible relied upon today was compiled from a variety of sources, with most versions rejected. The decisions of what was in and what was out were as much political as anything else, trying to appease the various Christian communities who held onto differenct versions of the story of Jesus.
It's all very interesting.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
