What's the shortest verse in the Bible?

[brandplucked]

What is the Shortest Verse in the Bible?

This is a question that has frequently been asked over the years as a sort of Bible Trivia question and for centuries the correct answer from anyone who knew their Bible was John 11:35 “Jesus wept.” Just 9 letters in English and a period at the end of the sentence.

But now we have a “second opinion” and another answer. It’s found in the corrupt NIV, Common English bible 2011 and Dan Wallace’s NET version 2006. No longer is the shortest verse in the Bible John 11:35 “Jesus wept”, but, according to the NIV, CEB and the NET version, it is Luke 20:30. In the NIV, Common English bible 2011 and Dan Wallace's NET version 2006 we read simply “The second” without even having a period at the end. It’s not even a complete sentence. All we have there is a subject with no verb and no ending.

Do you think there just might be something missing?

In the context of the passage the Sadducees, who denied that there is a resurrection, came to Jesus and asked him about a hypothetical case of 7 brethren who each in turn took to themselves the same woman as their wife. Each of the 7 brothers died before the next took her to be his wife, and they all died childless. And the Sadduces think they have trapped our Lord with an unanswerable question which they get to in verse 33.

There they ask Him: “Therefore in the resurrection whose wife of them is she? for seven had her to wife.”

But during this line of questioning, we read in Luke 20:30 in the King James Bible - “And the second TOOK HER TO WIFE, AND HE DIED CHILDLESS.”

και ελαβεν ο δευτερος την γυναικα και ουτος απεθανεν ατεκνος

However in the NIV, NET and Common English Bible we read for the whole of verse 30 - “The second”. The ESV, NASB, Holman all have “AND THE SECOND”

και ο δευτερος

The reading in the King James Bible and all Reformation bibles is that found in the Majority of all Greek manuscripts including Alexandrines, W, Theta, Psi, the Old Latin, the Latin Vulgate - “ et sequens accepit illam et ipse mortuus est sine filio”, the Syriac Peshitta, Curetonian, and some Coptic Boharic manuscripts.

The phrase “TOOK HER TO WIFE, AND HE DIED CHILDLESS” is omitted by Sinaticus, Vaticanus and D. Versions that omit these words are the RV, ASV 1901, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NIV, NASB, Dan Wallace’s NET version, the Jehovah Witness New World Translation and the modern Catholic versions like the New Jerusalem bible 1985.

Some critical text versions put the additional words into the text, but [in brackets]. The Voice of 2012 reads like this - “ The second [took her as his wife and then he died childless,]

The Names of God Bible (another critical text version) of 2011 actually goes against the UBS/Nestle-Aland/Vatican Greek text and puts additional words into the text with no [brackets] and no footnotes.

It reads: “Then the second BROTHER MARRIED THE WIDOW.” NO text reads this way. They just made it up. But at least it makes a whole sentence.

Other Critical text versions also add words to the text that are not found in the Critical text they are translating from.

The Message 2002 says: “The second MARRIED HER AND DIED,”

And the Easy to Read Version (another critical text version) of 2006 has: “Then the second BROTHER MARRIED THE WOMAN, AND HE DIED.” (Again, NO text reads this way; they just made it up.)

The Catholic Connection

The earlier Catholic Douay-Rheims 1582 as well as the Douay 1950 both read as does the King James Bible. “And the second TOOK HER TO WIFE, AND HE DIED CHILDLESS.”

However things began to get shorter and shorter as they continued to revise the Catholic versions. The 1970 St. Joseph New American bible says: “Next, the second BROTHER MARRIED THE WIDOW.” Again, NO text actually reads this way.

But now the 1985 New Jerusalem reads just like the NIV, NET and the Common English bible and merely says: “THE SECOND”

Agreeing with the Traditional Reformation text - “And the second TOOK HER TO WIFE, AND HE DIED CHILDLESS.” are the following Bible translations: The Anglo Saxon Gospels 1000 A.D.- Ða nam oðer hig & wæs dead butan bearne; Wycliffe 1395 “and the brothir suynge took hir, and he is deed with outen sone”, Tyndale 1534 - “And the seconde toke the wyfe and he dyed chyldlesse.”, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, Mace N.T. 1729, John Wesley’s N.T. 1755, Worsley Version 1770, Websters 1833, Lamsa’s 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta, Darby 1890, Young’s 1898, the NKJV 1982, Third Millennium Bible 1998, Concordant Version 2006, English Majority Text Version 2009, Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, Holy Scriptures VW Edition 2010, the Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011 - “And the second took her to be his isha, and he died childless.”, the Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011, Conservative Bible 2011, the World English Bible 2012 and the Modern Literal Version New Testament 2015.

Foreign language bibles that have ALL the words in the text of Luke 20:30 are the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602, the Reina Valera’s from 1909 to 2011 - “Y la tomó el segundo, el cual también murió sin hijos.”, the French Olivetan 1535, French Martin 1744, French Ostervald 1996 and the French Louis Second 2007 - “Le deuxième a épousé la veuve et est mort sans enfants,”, Luther’s German Bible 1545 and the German Schlachter bible 2000 - “Und der andere nahm das Weib und starb auch kinderlos.”, the Italian Diodati 1649, La Nuova Diodati 1991 and the 2006 La Bibbia della Gioia - “Il secondo la prese come moglie, e morí anch'egli senza lasciare figli.” and the Portuguese La Biblia Sagrada and O Livro 2000 - “ O irmão dele casou com a viúva, mas também ele morreu. Continuava a não haver descendência.”

Other foreign language bibles that contain ALL the words in Luke 20:30 are the Hungarian Károli Bible, the Romanian Cornilescu bible and the Fidela Bible 2014, the Afrikaans Bible 1953, the Maori Bible, the Norwegian En Leavened Bok 1988 - “Broren hans giftet seg med enken, men de fikk heller ikke barn før han døde.”, the Polish Updated Gdansk Bible 2013 - “ I ożenił się z nią drugi, lecz i ten umarł bezdzietnie.”, the Quichua-Chimborazo Bible 2010, the Finnish Bible 1776, the Russian Synodal Version - “взял ту жену второй, и тот умер бездетным;”, the Czech BKR, the Smith & van Dyke Arabic Bible - “فأخذ الثاني المرأة ومات بغير ولد.”, the Dutch Staten Vertaling bible, and the Tagalog Ang Salita ng Diyos bible 1998 - “Kinuha siya ng pangalawa upang maging asawa at ang lalaki ay namatay na walang anak.”

They are also in the Modern Greek Bible - και ελαβεν ο δευτερος την γυναικα, και ουτος απεθανεν ατεκνος·

And in the Modern Hebrew Bible - ויקח אתה השני וימת גם הוא לא בנים׃

Get the Bible was ALL of God’s inspired words in it - the Authorized King James Holy Bible.

The shortest verse in the entire Bible is still “Jesus wept.” John 11:35

Will Kinney

Return to Articles KJB Articles - Another King James Bible Believer

 

[Strong in Him]

1. These threads of yours are getting really boring - they don't say anything except that you think all other versions of the Bible are corrupt/useless because they are not the KJV.

2. "Jesus wept" and "the second" are equally as long as each other; they each have the same number of letters. I hope you were so keen to to condemn the NIV Bible that you didn't realise this fact. If you did, but thought you'd do it anyway, then that's dishonest and this thread is a non starter.

3. There are NO corrupt versions of the Bible.

4. You can't answer the simple, and undeniable, fact that as the KJV is only 400 years old and Christianity is 2000+, there were obviously Bibles, and Christians, around before it was even thought of.

5. I wonder what you're going to say when you get to heaven and find Christians there who used the NEB/NIV/NLT/Amplified etc Bibles all their lives and who loved and served God?

6 I wonder what you are going to say when you get to heaven and God says, "why did you spend so much time criticising Christians who did not use YOUR preferred version of the Bible, when you should have been loving them and making new disciples?"

 

[Restoresmysoul]

What is the Shortest Verse in the Bible?

This is a question that has frequently been asked over the years as a sort of Bible Trivia question and for centuries the correct answer from anyone who knew their Bible was John 11:35 “Jesus wept.” Just 9 letters in English and a period at the end of the sentence.

But now we have a “second opinion” and another answer. It’s found in the corrupt NIV, Common English bible 2011 and Dan Wallace’s NET version 2006. No longer is the shortest verse in the Bible John 11:35 “Jesus wept”, but, according to the NIV, CEB and the NET version, it is Luke 20:30. In the NIV, Common English bible 2011 and Dan Wallace's NET version 2006 we read simply “The second” without even having a period at the end. It’s not even a complete sentence. All we have there is a subject with no verb and no ending.

Do you think there just might be something missing?

In the context of the passage the Sadducees, who denied that there is a resurrection, came to Jesus and asked him about a hypothetical case of 7 brethren who each in turn took to themselves the same woman as their wife. Each of the 7 brothers died before the next took her to be his wife, and they all died childless. And the Sadduces think they have trapped our Lord with an unanswerable question which they get to in verse 33.

There they ask Him: “Therefore in the resurrection whose wife of them is she? for seven had her to wife.”

But during this line of questioning, we read in Luke 20:30 in the King James Bible - “And the second TOOK HER TO WIFE, AND HE DIED CHILDLESS.”

και ελαβεν ο δευτερος την γυναικα και ουτος απεθανεν ατεκνος

However in the NIV, NET and Common English Bible we read for the whole of verse 30 - “The second”. The ESV, NASB, Holman all have “AND THE SECOND”

και ο δευτερος

The reading in the King James Bible and all Reformation bibles is that found in the Majority of all Greek manuscripts including Alexandrines, W, Theta, Psi, the Old Latin, the Latin Vulgate - “ et sequens accepit illam et ipse mortuus est sine filio”, the Syriac Peshitta, Curetonian, and some Coptic Boharic manuscripts.

The phrase “TOOK HER TO WIFE, AND HE DIED CHILDLESS” is omitted by Sinaticus, Vaticanus and D. Versions that omit these words are the RV, ASV 1901, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NIV, NASB, Dan Wallace’s NET version, the Jehovah Witness New World Translation and the modern Catholic versions like the New Jerusalem bible 1985.

Some critical text versions put the additional words into the text, but [in brackets]. The Voice of 2012 reads like this - “ The second [took her as his wife and then he died childless,]

The Names of God Bible (another critical text version) of 2011 actually goes against the UBS/Nestle-Aland/Vatican Greek text and puts additional words into the text with no [brackets] and no footnotes.

It reads: “Then the second BROTHER MARRIED THE WIDOW.” NO text reads this way. They just made it up. But at least it makes a whole sentence.

Other Critical text versions also add words to the text that are not found in the Critical text they are translating from.

The Message 2002 says: “The second MARRIED HER AND DIED,”

And the Easy to Read Version (another critical text version) of 2006 has: “Then the second BROTHER MARRIED THE WOMAN, AND HE DIED.” (Again, NO text reads this way; they just made it up.)

The Catholic Connection

The earlier Catholic Douay-Rheims 1582 as well as the Douay 1950 both read as does the King James Bible. “And the second TOOK HER TO WIFE, AND HE DIED CHILDLESS.”

However things began to get shorter and shorter as they continued to revise the Catholic versions. The 1970 St. Joseph New American bible says: “Next, the second BROTHER MARRIED THE WIDOW.” Again, NO text actually reads this way.

But now the 1985 New Jerusalem reads just like the NIV, NET and the Common English bible and merely says: “THE SECOND”

Agreeing with the Traditional Reformation text - “And the second TOOK HER TO WIFE, AND HE DIED CHILDLESS.” are the following Bible translations: The Anglo Saxon Gospels 1000 A.D.- Ða nam oðer hig & wæs dead butan bearne; Wycliffe 1395 “and the brothir suynge took hir, and he is deed with outen sone”, Tyndale 1534 - “And the seconde toke the wyfe and he dyed chyldlesse.”, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, Mace N.T. 1729, John Wesley’s N.T. 1755, Worsley Version 1770, Websters 1833, Lamsa’s 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta, Darby 1890, Young’s 1898, the NKJV 1982, Third Millennium Bible 1998, Concordant Version 2006, English Majority Text Version 2009, Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, Holy Scriptures VW Edition 2010, the Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011 - “And the second took her to be his isha, and he died childless.”, the Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011, Conservative Bible 2011, the World English Bible 2012 and the Modern Literal Version New Testament 2015.

Foreign language bibles that have ALL the words in the text of Luke 20:30 are the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602, the Reina Valera’s from 1909 to 2011 - “Y la tomó el segundo, el cual también murió sin hijos.”, the French Olivetan 1535, French Martin 1744, French Ostervald 1996 and the French Louis Second 2007 - “Le deuxième a épousé la veuve et est mort sans enfants,”, Luther’s German Bible 1545 and the German Schlachter bible 2000 - “Und der andere nahm das Weib und starb auch kinderlos.”, the Italian Diodati 1649, La Nuova Diodati 1991 and the 2006 La Bibbia della Gioia - “Il secondo la prese come moglie, e morí anch'egli senza lasciare figli.” and the Portuguese La Biblia Sagrada and O Livro 2000 - “ O irmão dele casou com a viúva, mas também ele morreu. Continuava a não haver descendência.”

Other foreign language bibles that contain ALL the words in Luke 20:30 are the Hungarian Károli Bible, the Romanian Cornilescu bible and the Fidela Bible 2014, the Afrikaans Bible 1953, the Maori Bible, the Norwegian En Leavened Bok 1988 - “Broren hans giftet seg med enken, men de fikk heller ikke barn før han døde.”, the Polish Updated Gdansk Bible 2013 - “ I ożenił się z nią drugi, lecz i ten umarł bezdzietnie.”, the Quichua-Chimborazo Bible 2010, the Finnish Bible 1776, the Russian Synodal Version - “взял ту жену второй, и тот умер бездетным;”, the Czech BKR, the Smith & van Dyke Arabic Bible - “فأخذ الثاني المرأة ومات بغير ولد.”, the Dutch Staten Vertaling bible, and the Tagalog Ang Salita ng Diyos bible 1998 - “Kinuha siya ng pangalawa upang maging asawa at ang lalaki ay namatay na walang anak.”

They are also in the Modern Greek Bible - και ελαβεν ο δευτερος την γυναικα, και ουτος απεθανεν ατεκνος·

And in the Modern Hebrew Bible - ויקח אתה השני וימת גם הוא לא בנים׃

Get the Bible was ALL of God’s inspired words in it - the Authorized King James Holy Bible.

The shortest verse in the entire Bible is still “Jesus wept.” John 11:35

Will Kinney

Return to Articles KJB Articles - Another King James Bible Believer

One of the longest posts in the forum to discuss the shortest verse in the bible. Have a good day brother.

 

[faroukfarouk]

Interestingly, in Spanish, 'Thou shalt not kill' = 'No matarás', which is shorter than 'Jesus wept' = 'Jesús Lloró'.

 

[Knee V]

"Pray without ceasing" has the fewest number of letters in Greek.

 

[Restoresmysoul]

"Pray without ceasing" has the fewest number of letters in Greek.

Im sure you would know better than i because i dont read Greek, but i counted the letters and Pray without ceasing has far more letters that Jesus wept, however Jesus wept contains 3 words and pray without ceasing contains only two words, so Pray without ceasing is shorter in that way. If im not mistaken, i may be.

 

[dysert]

3. There are NO corrupt versions of the Bible.

Are you aware of the NWT?

 

[Strong in Him]

Are you aware of the NWT?

Yes, and it's not a recognised, Christian translation of the Bible - it changes who Jesus was and denies his divinity. In fact, it was translated by a man who, on his own admission, knew no Greek.
Jehovah's Witnesses are a cult, not a Christian church.

 

[Restoresmysoul]

0-

Yes, and it's not a recognised, Christian translation of the Bible - it changes who Jesus was and denies his divinity. In fact, it was translated by a man who, on his own admission, knew no Greek.
Jehovah's Witnesses are a cult, not a Christian church.

I think some newer translations are corrupt. Im not an expert, but it seems, if im not mistaken, that some translations seem to erase all lines of gender, and its as if they have decided that they would do our thinking for us and tell us what the scriptures mean, rather than allowing us to decide for ourselves. If any translation does this then its corrupted in my opinion.

 

[Strong in Him]

0-

I think some newer translations are corrupt. Im not an expert, but it seems, if im not mistaken, that some translations seem to erase all lines of gender,

You mean that they say things like, "all people" instead of "all men", or say, "brothers and sisters" instead of just "brothers"?

If so, I think that's right. It's not that only men have sinned, can be saved, filled with the Spirit and so on; everyone has sinned and can be saved.

and its as if they have decided that they would do our thinking for us and tell us what the scriptures mean, rather than allowing us to decide for ourselves.

I don't think we should decide for ourselves what it means. It means whatever the authors intended it to mean. We decide how, and whether, to apply it in our lives - it can have many applications, but not meanings

If any translation does this then its corrupted in my opinion.

I'm not sure God would allow any corrupt versions of his Holy word to exist.

 

[Restoresmysoul]

You mean that they say things like, "all people" instead of "all men", or say, "brothers and sisters" instead of just "brothers"?

If so, I think that's right. It's not that only men have sinned, can be saved, filled with the Spirit and so on; everyone has sinned and can be saved.



I don't think we should decide for ourselves what it means. It means whatever the authors intended it to mean. We decide how, and whether, to apply it in our lives - it can have many applications, but not meanings



I'm not sure God would allow any corrupt versions of his Holy word to exist.

You mean that they say things like, "all people" instead of "all men", or say, "brothers and sisters" instead of just "brothers"?

Yes that's what i meant. I dont think they should be doing that.

I don't think we should decide for ourselves what it means. It means whatever the authors intended it to mean. We decide how, and whether, to apply it in our lives - it can have many applications, but not meanings

I agree, and that's why i object to any translation which changes the definitions of words. If it says brothers then it should be translated as brothers. We must keep the scriptures accurate.

I'm not sure God would allow any corrupt versions of his Holy word to exist.

You yourself have admitted that that the NWT exists, and doesn't the NWT take whole chapters out of the bible? If so then its corrupted. However putting that aside, lets consider that scripture itself warns of changing Gods scriptures, so if the warning exists then it must be for a reason. God wouldn't need to warn about something that he would never allow to happen, He wouldn't need to waste his breath on a useless commandment would He? Unless i just misunderstand what this scripture actually means, which is possible.


Revelation 22:19King James Version (KJV)

19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

 

[Strong in Him]

Yes that's what i meant. I dont think they should be doing that.

Why not??
It's not as though it's only men who sin, need to be saved, can follow God, be filled with the Spirit etc.

I agree, and that's why i object to any translation which changes the definitions of words.

But language constantly changes. Ask a teenager today what "wicked", "sick" "cool" and "hot" mean - I guarantee it won't be, "evil", "unwell" or anything relating to temperature.

When I was a child I could write, and read, the statement, "I feel gay today" and understand that the author meant happy.

You yourself have admitted that that the NWT exists, and doesn't the NWT take whole chapters out of the bible? If so then its corrupted.

Which is why the JWs aren't recognised as Christians and the NWT not accepted as a Christian Bible.
Anyone can write a variation of the Bible and call it a Bible - the word Bible means books, or library, and refers to the fact that there are many books in Scripture. But it doesn't mean that what THEY call Bible is recognised by the Christian church as the inspired, holy and inerrant word of God.

However putting that aside, lets consider that scripture itself warns of changing Gods scriptures, so if the warning exists then it must be for a reason,

If you are referring to the verse at the end of Revelation, it warns against adding to the words of this book. Does "this book" mean all 66 books of Scripture, or only the one scroll in which John detailed the revelation he received? Either way, changing words to clarify, draw out and explain the words of the original Greek/Hebrew and for which we may not have an English equivalent is not the same as adding, or changing, teachings and prophecies, watering down/changing the Gospel or trying to ADD to the finished work of Jesus Christ.

 

[Restoresmysoul]

Why not??
It's not as though it's only men who sin, need to be saved, can follow God, be filled with the Spirit etc.



But language constantly changes. Ask a teenager today what "wicked", "sick" "cool" and "hot" mean - I guarantee it won't be, "evil", "unwell" or anything relating to temperature.

When I was a child I could write, and read, the statement, "I feel gay today" and understand that the author meant happy.



Which is why the JWs aren't recognised as Christians and the NWT not accepted as a Christian Bible.
Anyone can write a variation of the Bible and call it a Bible - the word Bible means books, or library, and refers to the fact that there are many books in Scripture. But it doesn't mean that what THEY call Bible is recognised by the Christian church as the inspired, holy and inerrant word of God.



If you are referring to the verse at the end of Revelation, it warns against adding to the words of this book. Does "this book" mean all 66 books of Scripture, or only the one scroll in which John detailed the revelation he received? Either way, changing words to clarify, draw out and explain the words of the original Greek/Hebrew and for which we may not have an English equivalent is not the same as adding, or changing, teachings and prophecies, watering down/changing the Gospel or trying to ADD to the finished work of Jesus Christ.

Come on sister, seriously, we cannot just change the language of the bible to fit what we think it means, or what we want it to mean, because it has implications, we must not change one word, not one. And it matters not that Revelation is talking about Revelation, its still scripture and still proves the point.

 

[Strong in Him]

Come on sister, seriously, we cannot just change the language of the bible to fit what we think it means, or what we want it to mean, because it has implications, we must not change one word, not one. And it matters not that Revelation is talking about Revelation, its still scripture and still proves the point.

I'm sorry but I think you're taking that way too literally.
Are you telling me that if a translation of the Bible used a particular word in a verse and later, new manuscripts were found which showed the original to be something else, we'd have to stick with what our first Bible said? Or that people who translate the Bible today, who may know a lot more about the original languages than they did in the 1500s, are bound by their knowledge and findings? Or that words and certain verses in the KJV which are clearly wrong have to STAY wrong because they cannot be changed?

It's the truth about God, his nature and character, that can never change; the truth about our human condition (sinners), the consequences of sin, the Gospel of salvation, the works of God, teachings of Jesus and his return as Lord and King which can never change and must never be added to or watered down. As I said, language changes and new discoveries are made; that's why we have so many translations of the Bible. If we insist that every single word, phrase, tense and so on that we have in English has to remain absolutely unaltered, no matter what, then that is quite close to worshipping the Bible itself and making IT an idol.

 

[Restoresmysoul]

I'm sorry but I think you're taking that way too literally.
Are you telling me that if a translation of the Bible used a particular word in a verse and later, new manuscripts were found which showed the original to be something else, we'd have to stick with what our first Bible said? Or that people who translate the Bible today, who may know a lot more about the original languages than they did in the 1500s, are bound by their knowledge and findings? Or that words and certain verses in the KJV which are clearly wrong have to STAY wrong because they cannot be changed?

It's the truth about God, his nature and character, that can never change; the truth about our human condition (sinners), the consequences of sin, the Gospel of salvation, the works of God, teachings of Jesus and his return as Lord and King which can never change and must never be added to or watered down. As I said, language changes and new discoveries are made; that's why we have so many translations of the Bible. If we insist that every single word, phrase, tense and so on that we have in English has to remain absolutely unaltered, no matter what, then that is quite close to worshipping the Bible itself and making IT an idol.

I think you are taking it too seriously, i also think you're taking this discussion past the original context.

Allow me i remind you that its against forum rules to accuse anyone of idolatry.

 

[Strong in Him]

There was even an edition of the Bible produced once that had the command "thou shalt commit adultery". Are you saying that should have remained because we cannot change any words of Scripture?

 

[Restoresmysoul]

There was even an edition of the Bible produced once that had the command "thou shalt commit adultery". Are you saying that should have remained because we cannot change any words of Scripture?

All im saying is that we cannot mistranslate the original Greek language.

 

[Strong in Him]

Allow me i remind you that its against forum rules to accuse anyone of idolatry.

I wasn't accusing YOU of idolatry, I said that it could happen if we rigidly uphold all the individual words of Scripture; examining every jot and tittle and insisting they cannot be changed or altered in any way, ever.
I don't say that this is what you are doing; I'm just saying it could happen.

 

[Strong in Him]

All im saying is that we cannot mistranslate the original Greek language.

Well I think people probably can and have, by mistake, but I don't think this is the place for such a discussion.

 

[Restoresmysoul]

I wasn't accusing YOU of idolatry, I said that it could happen if we rigidly uphold all the individual words of Scripture; examining every jot and tittle and insisting they cannot be changed or altered in any way, ever.
I don't say that this is what you are doing; I'm just saying it could happen.

Yes but that's not even the definition of Idolatry. Idolatry is serving other Gods besides the Almighty. To suggest that obeying or upholding the scriptures is Idolatry, in any way, is just absurd. It is, im sorry but i cannot stand the Phrase Bibleolatry. I can understand words like idolatry, hypocrisy, heresy, apostasy, blasphemy, but not Bibleolatry.



Mathew 4 But He answered and said, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’”[a]

7 Jesus said to him, “It is written again, ‘You shall not tempt the Lord your God.’”

10 Then Jesus said to him, “Away with you,[d] Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only you shall serve.’”[e]