Why King James version, why not the Sinai bible?
- Thread starter Twila
- Start date
Everyone knows how to pronounce King James.
There were actually around twenty-four gospels
The church was infighting and settled on the four
which at times don't match up.
Incidentally Jesus Christ spoke Aramaic but then
Texas wouldn't understand that eh?
There were actually around twenty-four gospels
The church was infighting and settled on the four
which at times don't match up.
Incidentally Jesus Christ spoke Aramaic but then
Texas wouldn't understand that eh?
Texas Governor was claiming Jesus spoke English is the point
He did not. He also did not write the bible it was written after his
death. In fact most scholars will tell you he didn't plan to start a
religion named after him. He came to reform the Jews not start
Christianity
He did not. He also did not write the bible it was written after his
death. In fact most scholars will tell you he didn't plan to start a
religion named after him. He came to reform the Jews not start
Christianity
When I read it cover to cover, it was the revised king James version. That was several years ago. If I pick the book up these days which is rare, it's the NIV. No special reason other than it's an easier read .
Totally did not mean to give you a thumbs down. Fat finger syndrome.
Whi said it was superior?
I suppose some stories would be deemed more superior than others. I would consider Shawshank Redemption to be more superior than Mad Maxx Beyond thunderdome.
There's a shyte load of versions of scripture. Thousands of denominations in religion. Who's to say which version is correct? Simply matters of opinion. Best to go grab a cold beer and discuss aliens with the neighborhood drunk down at the ole Ironwood Inn. don
t forget the salted in the shell peanuts.
Koine Greek if you want the spot on version. If your really want to know what a passage was intended to mean Strong's Concordance takes care of that.
Most of the new testament was written decades after he died. The four books
of the bible don't match up because the four had differing views but they had to
hold the church together. They are not the only four Gospels though and some
were left wing and others the main four leaned right.
Timothy apparently was much different in view Even Mary M apparently had a
version according to some scholars.
I was brought up with this stuff
Managed to free my self from the bonds of artificial thought and moved on.
I think some call it a Retired Catholic
With an Irish mother it was of course the church and some of the older faction
of the IRA. No not the provisional wing the beginning folks
Anyway an era gone by.
of the bible don't match up because the four had differing views but they had to
hold the church together. They are not the only four Gospels though and some
were left wing and others the main four leaned right.
Timothy apparently was much different in view Even Mary M apparently had a
version according to some scholars.
I was brought up with this stuff
Managed to free my self from the bonds of artificial thought and moved on.
I think some call it a Retired Catholic
With an Irish mother it was of course the church and some of the older faction
of the IRA. No not the provisional wing the beginning folks
Anyway an era gone by.
Although I would not say it is superior, it is closer to the original and therefore less adulterated. The OT goes back to the Sumerians and the Hindu Vedas (at least). The NT was not a chronicle of a man's life, but an allegory and metaphor for human spiritual development. The Catholic church were the original keepers of the original writings and are responsible for the thousands of changes, additions and omissions over a thousand years. Th authors of the KJV removed 13 books altogether. Any and all versions in use today are adulterated versions, especially that one you like to quote. None are "the written record".