![]() |
|
View Poll Results: Why accept the Protestant Bible as canon? | |||
Because it's nearly the inerrant word of God |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
1 | 8.33% |
Because it contains enough of God's word and ferretting out the false stuff is too much work |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
8 | 66.67% |
Because we didn't wish to offend other Christians too much |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
1 | 8.33% |
Because we didn't fully examine the canon, not being professional students of Bible |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
2 | 16.67% |
Voters: 12. You may not vote on this poll |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
![]() |
#1 |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
![]() |
![]()
Why did we accept the Bible insofar as it is correctly translated?
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
I must not tell lies
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,103
![]() |
![]()
I guess I don't fully understand your question.
In the 1830's, the KJV was the most common version in America, and was the one Joseph Smith attempted to translate. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
![]() |
![]()
We had the Geneva Bible, the Douay-Rheims and several other contemporary Bibles. The Douay-Rheims was completely ignored. This also ignores the Tyndale, the Coverdale and the Wycliff Bibles.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
|
|