Bible versions-Is there only one?
- Thread starter Aerials1978
- 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 think it's a barometer for the believer as to whether they believe the word or not. The bible is clear through the wording in Genesis that the earth is about 6000 years old.
Again this shows the folly of believing that one can arrive at the truth of God when all bibles contain mistakes.
Again this shows the folly of believing that one can arrive at the truth of God when all bibles contain mistakes.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
The following two verses pertain to Saul’s conversion from the Book of Acts, KJV:
9.7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.
22.9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.
Contradictory testimony as per the KJV.
9.7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.
22.9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.
Contradictory testimony as per the KJV.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Did you ever encounter Chaucer's Canterbury Tales in college? That's your middle English. We can sort of recognise it as English by then.
It has some words we still use. "And of his craft he was a Carpenter. With him ther was dwellinge a povre scoler"
Shakespeare or Elizabethan is usually classified as early modern English.
With Old English we don't stand a chance. It looks & sounds like a foreign language. Even if I could read it I couldn't type it as we don't have all the characters we need for it on the keyboard.
It looks like this.
It has some words we still use. "And of his craft he was a Carpenter. With him ther was dwellinge a povre scoler"
Shakespeare or Elizabethan is usually classified as early modern English.
With Old English we don't stand a chance. It looks & sounds like a foreign language. Even if I could read it I couldn't type it as we don't have all the characters we need for it on the keyboard.
It looks like this.
-
1
- Show all
Did you ever encounter Chaucer's Canterbury Tales in college? That's your middle English. We can sort of recognise it as English by then.
It has some words we still use. "And of his craft he was a Carpenter. With him ther was dwellinge a povre scoler"
Shakespeare or Elizabethan is usually classified as early modern English.
With Old English we don't stand a chance. It looks & sounds like a foreign language. Even if I could read it I couldn't type it as we don't have all the characters we need for it on the keyboard.
It looks like this.
It has some words we still use. "And of his craft he was a Carpenter. With him ther was dwellinge a povre scoler"
Shakespeare or Elizabethan is usually classified as early modern English.
With Old English we don't stand a chance. It looks & sounds like a foreign language. Even if I could read it I couldn't type it as we don't have all the characters we need for it on the keyboard.
It looks like this.
-
1
- Show all
Probably started in the garden as far as the corruption and disarray but I think there are translation errors and the like, I like the KJV yet I know there are issues with it no big big deal with me, through the one that’s stands out to me is acts 12:4 and the use of the word Easter the scrolls and manuscripts before that translation don’t use the word Easter but Passover.
-
1
- Show all
L
I think that taking God at his word is a good idea. Now there is some room for debate at to what a day constituted during the 6 days of creation, but you can't come to millions of years so as far as my understanding of day, I'm going with literal interpretation and am satisfied with a regular old 24 hour day. Why not, God is so beyond our understanding in so many ways. If he had chosen it could have been 6 minutes.
Now I will answer what the scientist call millions of years. God is eternal, and the creation story is what is relative to us. What he did in eons past we have no idea. Is it possible he used the same molecules and materials over and over building, breaking down, and building again. Who knows but God himself. I'm sure when we are with him in his kingdom we will learn these things. What I am sure of is that God being eternal means it is not likely that he did nothing for the eternity prior to creating this heavens and Earth.
Now I will answer what the scientist call millions of years. God is eternal, and the creation story is what is relative to us. What he did in eons past we have no idea. Is it possible he used the same molecules and materials over and over building, breaking down, and building again. Who knows but God himself. I'm sure when we are with him in his kingdom we will learn these things. What I am sure of is that God being eternal means it is not likely that he did nothing for the eternity prior to creating this heavens and Earth.
-
1
- Show all
It's the same as what happened here:
Joh 8:43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.
Those guys heard every word coming out of Jesus' mouth, but they didn't understand a word he was saying. The same is true with Acts, they heard a voice but they could not understand what he was saying.
Joh 8:43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.
Those guys heard every word coming out of Jesus' mouth, but they didn't understand a word he was saying. The same is true with Acts, they heard a voice but they could not understand what he was saying.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
The wordage in acts right before is talking about the Jewish festivals, in three there’s the mentioning of the days of unleavened bread so the wordage should of been Passover the NKJV corrects the error.
Easter started as a pagan festival though later Christians adopted the festivals as a celebration of the resurrection which happened three days after the Passover the use of easter within those verses of the KJV is wrong.
Easter started as a pagan festival though later Christians adopted the festivals as a celebration of the resurrection which happened three days after the Passover the use of easter within those verses of the KJV is wrong.
-
2
-
1
- Show all
Must be a mistake then I guess. Obliviously the KJV translators knew nothing about translating.
Or God has something hidden there that if you would only believe it, it would help you out understanding other things.
It’s up to the reader to decide but to think that the KJV translators were clueless doesn’t make sense to me.
Or God has something hidden there that if you would only believe it, it would help you out understanding other things.
It’s up to the reader to decide but to think that the KJV translators were clueless doesn’t make sense to me.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Well most of us without an agenda to protect lol, we call the fulfillment of Passover Easter. But again, you may be right. The KJV translators knew nothing about translating. I mean to think that they were so inept as to translate Passover correctly in every other place but this one very specific and unique spot.
To me it’s almost like God inspired the translators to make that verse a stumbling stone and rock of offense to doubters.
To me it’s almost like God inspired the translators to make that verse a stumbling stone and rock of offense to doubters.