Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
For those of us in the cheap seats could you perhaps explain why? Such an explanation could be very useful.... actually, two:
- Don't.
- If you're too too cheap, too lazy, and or too disinterested to acquire a decent Tanakh, at least consult a reasonably good translation from a Jewish source, e.g., Sefaria
For those of us in the cheap seats could you perhaps explain why? Such an explanation could be very useful.
For those of us in the cheap seats could you perhaps explain why?
Hateful? How?I think he is just being hateful.
... actually, two:
- Don't.
- If you're too too cheap, too lazy, and or too disinterested to acquire a decent Tanakh, at least consult a reasonably good translation from a Jewish source, e.g., Sefaria
Its proper title is the Authorised Version because it was authorized by King James I for worship in churches. Not sure how that's prideful?The King James Version (I mean honestly, even the title is prideful) is among the worst translations of the Bible. It's creation is fraught with controversy and contradiction. What's more, pretty much all biblical tellings of several things in the Old Testament corrupt the original source; for example a rabbi friend of mine told us that Leviticus in it's original was nothing more than ethic rules for the priesthood and common folk during worship. The bible turns it into "The Very Long List of Things God Hates".
I would advise the opposite. I believe that the Christian Bible is authentic and the Jewish version to have been changed after the fall of the second temple in AD 70. I do not believe the Apostles would have put their stamps on an inauthentic version of the Bible.
The King James Version (I mean honestly, even the title is prideful) is among the worst translations of the Bible.
You do realize the Apostles never had a version of the Bible? Right?
Too many too's, and Tanakhs are expensive. They can cost 100's of dollars. Bible's are practically free of charge. People give them away.too too cheap, too lazy, and or too disinterested to acquire a decent Tanakh
You do realize the Apostles never had a version of the Bible? Right?
I think you should rethink that.They did have the New Testament letters.
And yet much of the DSS antedates Christianity by at least a decade. Neat trick!I would advise the opposite. I believe that the Christian Bible is authentic and the Jewish version to have been changed after the fall of the second temple in AD 70.
That's nice.II do not believe the Apostles would have put their stamps on an inauthentic version of the Bible.
And yet much of the DSS antedates Christianity by at least a decade. Neat trick!
Which is entirely irrelevant to this thread. Pay attention.They did have the New Testament letters.
For example?That wouldn't prevent changing it, though. And it didn't.