Which one and of whom and for what deeds? There are something like seven or eight to chose from, eight or nine if you include the English James the first. James VI ( and II of England ) was the gay Bible translating dude whom Guy Fawkes didn't blow up. James VII ( III ) got chucked out or scarpered cos of religion and it was his lad who was Bonnie Prince Charlie.I might have missed out a spare James and it might have been James VIII who was the Old Pretender after the Throne in the 1715 uprising, which would make his lad Bonnie Prince Thingy. It all gets rather foggy in the mists of decent whisky.
One of The Jimmys, something like the IV in 15 oatcake built the Great Michael warship in what was to be my village. He was a bit of a poseur ( ****** ), bankrupted and completely defenestrated Scotland for his wee battleship which didn't do much, not even fight the English. It was nearly contempory with ( the randy English dude who wore out 6 wives ) Henry VIII's ship Mary Rose and had one advantage. it did not sink on its maiden voyage. I think The Great Michael ended up with The French. It was James V who was Mary Queen of Scots old boy. She's the dude who got her head cut off by Queen Elizabeth I, and was the mother of James VI, that gay Bible dude mantioned earlier. Er...Can I go now. I need the toilet...:-)
England had two kings named James. Scotland had six
he was a gay dude tht his people translate the bible u wouldnt know how accurate tht translation is without reading hebrew
James Brown? Super funky. Da' man.
He knew how to sponsor a good translation, didn't he
So do all translations....because they are also reinterpretations. You could always learn and old language so you could read some of the older versions
The ''New World Translation of the Holy scriptures'' version is the most accurate.
how could they? they are all stories about distant past events often by people who only heard the story rather than experienced them. I believe the bible can't be regarded as having ever had some sort of pure state. I mean they just agreed which books they'd have and said the other stuff didn't count..so.....those with the power always decide what the excepted doctrine is.
I only have a new american standard and the king james... The upside of the internet is...that a lot of this stuff is really easy to do additional research on though... even if you don't have a library on hand
Don't mock it until you have read it like I have.
welI, it acknowledges Judaism and the religions that influenced the hebrew peoples in that region even by it's own telling as part of it's origins so it's not like it was created in a vacuum. There are rerefences in it to other faiths that were probably quite obvious to the people of those times.
that wasn't a response to you unquestioned..I was typing while your statement was posted so I couldn't see it
Everything that King James had taken out is in it.
But if you look at my explanations you'll see why I don't believe in a pure version of the Bible. It's not just that I believe the translation itself is intrinsically inaccurate...but that there is no original pure version to draw from.
It is the truth, the only reason I don't follow it is that I don't want to live an everlasting life on earth under Gods law.
I encourage you to research the history of the bible...there is nothing that I've said is particularly remarkable or counter to accepted histories of biblical text..and takes nothing away from the value of the book
I have, it boils down to one thing, God made Adam and Eve to live forever on earth and so their offspring. Gods plan has not changed and why would it. The lie that the good go to heaven and the bad go to everlasting hell is something the various religions made up in order to control and oppress.
I'm not talking about the stories in the bible when I say the history of the bible. I mean there is nothing particularly controversial about how I said the bible came to be. That's pretty much the excepted story from people who do biblical research. There is no original from the time of Christ to draw from and the Hebrew parts of the bible have a history and a context historically too.
What about the dead sea scrolls?
they don't discount what I'm saying either. if you look even at the wiki page you'll see that it's not a just a collection of stuff that one could also find in the bible. And while they are some of the oldest available documents, they are from hundreds of years after the time of Christ. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls
I find this stuff rather interesting myself..I'm really not trying to be controversial or antagonistic. These are just things my little bit of study has taught me.
They were written by one of Christs Apostles Paul, about 60 years after Christs death.
I'm probably wrong about the date of the scrolls then..but I don't think it alters my original point. Those are just copies of texts from the time not some sort of original. they didn't just find the stuff we find in the bible..they found other stuff too. there are missing pieces just like there are things perceived to be missing from our bible. It was never just one thing. why should they be ascribed to one person if they are multiple texts? I still don't think there's any reason to think they were literally written by a apostle no matter their age.
They were letters written by Paul to various priests and others, but that is neither here nor there, the Bible has a theme. I realise you are not being controversial or antagonistic, we just see it different my friend. What is written in the Bible is coming true, Matthew chapter 24, Johns Revelation and others. I wish you well :))
same to you..good night.
He had Gods name taken out of the sc
His name is on a very good book.