How come Christians are studying the King James version and not the Sinai bible?
A glaring omission in World’s oldest Bible
A glaring omission in World’s oldest Bible
Why King James version, why not the Sinai bible?
- Thread starter Twila
- Start date
“If English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it ought to be good enough for the children of Texas.”
--Miriam Ferguson, Governor of Texas
"The discovery of the Sinai Bible provided biblical scholars with irrefutable evidence of willful falsifications in all modern-day Gospels, and a comparison identified a staggering 14,800 later editorial alterations in modern Bibles"
"The Vatican claims that ‘the resurrection is the fundamental argument for our Christian belief’ (‘Catholic Encyclopedia’, Farley Ed., Vol., xii, p. 792), adding that a resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ is the ‘sine qua non’ of Christianity, ‘without which, nothing’ (‘Catholic Encyclopedia’, Farley Ed., Vol., xii, p. 792). St. Paul agreed, saying; ‘If Christ has not been raised, your faith is in vain’ (1 Cor. 15:17). Yet no appearance of a resurrected Jesus Christ is recorded in the oldest Gospel in the oldest Bible in the world." - from the OP
Christian will not acknowledge the existence on these older gospels because their false beliefs and faith would be shattered and the crutch they use to stand on would break. They have too much time and emotion invested to just change what they believe.
"The Vatican claims that ‘the resurrection is the fundamental argument for our Christian belief’ (‘Catholic Encyclopedia’, Farley Ed., Vol., xii, p. 792), adding that a resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ is the ‘sine qua non’ of Christianity, ‘without which, nothing’ (‘Catholic Encyclopedia’, Farley Ed., Vol., xii, p. 792). St. Paul agreed, saying; ‘If Christ has not been raised, your faith is in vain’ (1 Cor. 15:17). Yet no appearance of a resurrected Jesus Christ is recorded in the oldest Gospel in the oldest Bible in the world." - from the OP
Christian will not acknowledge the existence on these older gospels because their false beliefs and faith would be shattered and the crutch they use to stand on would break. They have too much time and emotion invested to just change what they believe.
Bullsh-t!!! The Greek Bible is a direct from Hebrew translation. It hasn't changed.
Latin to English has.
Latin to English has.
Is the King James Version still popular? It's written in Elizabethan English. Surely people use more readable translations.
yes, way back then. But what about now? How come they don't use a more accurate less error filled bible?
Tradition! Not a good reason but the only one I can think of. People manage to keep all kinds of bs around by just saying its tradition.
Protestants use the Protestant KJV Bible. They are the they. Catholics don't, Lutherans don't, Eastern Catholics don't, Orthodox don't and so on.
Have you noticed how self professed atheists like to discuss the Bible and the Q'uran more than Christians and followers of Islam...
Methinks they have something missing in their lives and feel the need to bash others for what they have....
Something similar to the occupy folks attacking businesses..
I can't even remember the last time I opened a Bible....but these losers seem to read it forwards and backwards...
They have a problem and don't even realise it.....
I was raised Catholic but oddly enough the only copy of a Bible I have in the King James version. It wasnt the one used when I was a kid but it just happened to be the easiest version to find when I went looking for one about five years ago. Another one of the reasons I bought it was it was full of annotations and commentary.
That's Democrats for ya.
Most popular with the Christ and Shakespeare haters. We do, however get a lot of our Eng-lit metaphors and analogies from it.
Last I heard Lutherans are named after Martin Luther the instigator of Protestantism.
And down goes Frazier!
I agree... an emptiness that they cannot seem to fill.
I wonder why they are so afraid.