Respecting others | Page 2 | Advice | Guild Forums

lordstar

Offline

Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 7:05 pm

rillegas08

lordstar

Technically the bible is only a few hundred years old at best if all your counting are the books the vast majority of Christians are reading (king James)

Technically the Bible is different ages. The oldest texts have been found to be about 1500-2100 years for the New Testament and about 3000-4000 years. It can be looked up very quickly. And that is the oldest texts.

How did you come to the conclusion that the Bible was only a few hundred years old? Just curious...

"if all your counting are the books the vast majority of Christians are reading (king James)"

Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 1:26 pm

lordstar

rillegas08

lordstar

Technically the bible is only a few hundred years old at best if all your counting are the books the vast majority of Christians are reading (king James)

Technically the Bible is different ages. The oldest texts have been found to be about 1500-2100 years for the New Testament and about 3000-4000 years. It can be looked up very quickly. And that is the oldest texts.

How did you come to the conclusion that the Bible was only a few hundred years old? Just curious...

"if all your counting are the books the vast majority of Christians are reading (king James)"

I am.

Wait, this is starting to sound like a debate. Let's stop debating and get back on topic.

rillegas08

Offline

lordstar

Offline

Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 11:03 pm

rillegas08

lordstar

rillegas08

lordstar

Technically the bible is only a few hundred years old at best if all your counting are the books the vast majority of Christians are reading (king James)

Technically the Bible is different ages. The oldest texts have been found to be about 1500-2100 years for the New Testament and about 3000-4000 years. It can be looked up very quickly. And that is the oldest texts.

How did you come to the conclusion that the Bible was only a few hundred years old? Just curious...

"if all your counting are the books the vast majority of Christians are reading (king James)"

I am.

the king James is only a few hundred years old
that is the version many many many Christians read (and only read the King James)

you asked
"How did you come to the conclusion that the Bible was only a few hundred years old?"

I had already said
"if all your counting are the books the vast majority of Christians are reading (King James)"

there is no debate here

Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 4:50 pm

lordstar

rillegas08

lordstar

rillegas08

lordstar

Technically the bible is only a few hundred years old at best if all your counting are the books the vast majority of Christians are reading (king James)

Technically the Bible is different ages. The oldest texts have been found to be about 1500-2100 years for the New Testament and about 3000-4000 years. It can be looked up very quickly. And that is the oldest texts.

How did you come to the conclusion that the Bible was only a few hundred years old? Just curious...

"if all your counting are the books the vast majority of Christians are reading (king James)"

I am.

the king James is only a few hundred years old
that is the version many many many Christians read (and only read the King James)

you asked
"How did you come to the conclusion that the Bible was only a few hundred years old?"

I had already said
"if all your counting are the books the vast majority of Christians are reading (King James)"

there is no debate here

Is anyone else seeing this? It's becoming a debate between the two of us, isn't it? I just have this to say: the King James was the translation from the original language into either Latin or English. That was why I included them.

Let's not continue this discussion, lordstar, and get back on topic. Truce?

rillegas08

Offline

-xXGodslayer_RaiXx-

Offline

Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 5:21 pm

rillegas08

lordstar

rillegas08

lordstar

rillegas08

lordstar

Technically the bible is only a few hundred years old at best if all your counting are the books the vast majority of Christians are reading (king James)

Technically the Bible is different ages. The oldest texts have been found to be about 1500-2100 years for the New Testament and about 3000-4000 years. It can be looked up very quickly. And that is the oldest texts.

How did you come to the conclusion that the Bible was only a few hundred years old? Just curious...

"if all your counting are the books the vast majority of Christians are reading (king James)"

I am.

the king James is only a few hundred years old
that is the version many many many Christians read (and only read the King James)

you asked
"How did you come to the conclusion that the Bible was only a few hundred years old?"

I had already said
"if all your counting are the books the vast majority of Christians are reading (King James)"

there is no debate here

Is anyone else seeing this? It's becoming a debate between the two of us, isn't it? I just have this to say: the King James was the translation from the original language into either Latin or English. That was why I included them.

Let's not continue this discussion, lordstar, and get back on topic. Truce?

I think he's just stating the fact that the King James Bible was translated a hundred years ago. And maybe that there could be a mistranslation in the King James Bible. Translating from diff languages to English is not an easy task and there is a possiblity that there could be something that was lost when it translated from Hebrew to English. Just as something could be lost from translating a book written in German to English.

But yeah let's get back on topic.

Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 8:57 pm

-xXGodslayer_RaiXx-

rillegas08

lordstar

rillegas08

lordstar

"if all your counting are the books the vast majority of Christians are reading (king James)"

I am.

the king James is only a few hundred years old
that is the version many many many Christians read (and only read the King James)

you asked
"How did you come to the conclusion that the Bible was only a few hundred years old?"

I had already said
"if all your counting are the books the vast majority of Christians are reading (King James)"

there is no debate here

Is anyone else seeing this? It's becoming a debate between the two of us, isn't it? I just have this to say: the King James was the translation from the original language into either Latin or English. That was why I included them.

Let's not continue this discussion, lordstar, and get back on topic. Truce?

I think he's just stating the fact that the King James Bible was translated a hundred years ago. And maybe that there could be a mistranslation in the King James Bible. Translating from diff languages to English is not an easy task and there is a possiblity that there could be something that was lost when it translated from Hebrew to English. Just as something could be lost from translating a book written in German to English.

But yeah let's get back on topic.

you are right on all points but one
the previous addition was also in English

lordstar

Offline

rillegas08

Offline

Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 5:03 pm

Check Wikipedia.

The KJV was the first English Bible. It was translated from Latin, which was translated from the original Hebrew and Greek.

Wikipedia's not the only place it says it.

greatsite.com

Welcome to Gaia! ::

Gaia Guilds

~Let the Fire Fall ~ A Christian Guild

Quick Reply

More Information

Welcome to Gaia! ::

Gaia Guilds

*~Let the Fire Fall ~* A Christian Guild

Quick Reply

More Information

~Let the Fire Fall ~ A Christian Guild