MyVILLAGEpeople:


Oga go and make research.
The complete Bible is in the Vatican city. The Catholic Church have it. Why do the Ethiopian Orthodox Church have 88 chapters of the Bible??

Avizizo:
Quran can never get a new version or different writers even any write. Please who go write am? Proudly Muslim

Jcole2022:
See recent winning Below

VictorRomanov:
I take this guy less seriously by the day. With each post every Sunday, his ignorance, low capacity to reason, and lack of understanding of basic English language becomes more obvious. Much more, it proves he has no single understanding of the bible.

If he does read, he would have know that the KJV is one of the most adulterated translations of the bible, with spurious texts flying in here and there. These days neither does the catholic church nor the church of England have monopoly to early bible manuscripts from which translations into various languages can be done. And the more people translate, the more they see the errors in translation in the KJV.

alBHAGDADI:


Those additions of apocryphal books which have been seen to be lies. All those nonsense gospel of Barnabas, gospel of Mary etc.

alBHAGDADI:
LIES.

Catholic Church is not the root of christianity. It is a Roman invention which went about persecuting the original Christians.

The Bible wasn't compiled by the Catholic Church but was prevented from spreading by them because they didn't want people to have access to the truth of God.

Sunday worship wasn't instituted by Catholic but by the disciples who met on the first day of the week which was when Jesus resurrected.

Acts 20:7
And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

My allegiance is to Jesus Christ in heaven, not to Rome. Basing your allegiance to Rome shows you do t believe in Jesus. That's why you bow down before statues.

Mass means a lot of things. Christmas means gathering i.e Jesus gathering, not Catholic gathering. Mass also means weight; will you now say it is Catholic as well?

mabea:
Now the word of God has nothing to do with the understanding of english language it is the spirit who grants us the revelation of the word . So with the little knowledge i have about God i believe the op.

MyVILLAGEpeople:


This is problem with religion. Anything ur pastors tell u is the truth. mtcheeew

ukaface:
this is what baffles me about christainity.
Why do we have different denominations? preaching different doctrines? having different sets of bible versions?hating on other denominations?
yet we say we have one God,una well so?

alBHAGDADI:

Those books deny Jesus, that's why we reject them.

adams123:
I was discussing with one pastor who is an advanced learner of Bible yesterday and he posited that, bible came into being 40years after Jesus was crucified. Secondly, he told me that, Apostle Paul who had 13 books authored in the bible doesn't know Jesus Christ physically. Please, are these narration true

VictorRomanov:


Well we can believe what we like. But God gave us a brain for a reason. And from what I know about God and his word, I know the Op is totally wrong.

ollah2:


See how bigotry and hatred has finished some of you. He wrote about only the Quran and his love for it and proud to be a Muslim but inferiority complex, hatred, bigotry and intolerance made you to attack Quran yet you all claim to be good spirited and attack the Muslims. Look in the mirror man.

alBHAGDADI:


You mean God is the author of all those different manuscripts which contradict each other?

God is not the author of confusion.

You say you no longer take me serious? Why can't you prove the wrong in my post?

mabea:
With the examples he gave he cant be wrong because those are key and vital truth about the christian faith. Again you cant understand God's word with the brain.

23And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli

Olabenjamen22:

You mean in a Christian related topic?

why can't you people just cage yourself inside your cult page instead of talking rubbish here. and mind you know one ask to know about He's passion for his so called Quran. so bluff off.

ollah2:



Like I told the other guy, you guys are worst and you don't look in the mirror. You want people to accept your jargons but can't tolerate others. Don't you write usual nonsense on Muslim threads?

Olabenjamen22:


well, I will be waiting for you to show me where I poke my nose into Islamic topic unless they look for trouble first. and wait, what is wrong with this braindead, I don't see where anyone is forcing Muslim or atheist to accept Christian believe before. and if you mean that me trying to teach my believe equate to forcing my believe in you. then you are free to commit suicide because I will never stop preaching my believe because of some troll like you.. so you can as well Bleep off.

VictorRomanov:


How come you understood what he said, since you can't understand God's word with your brain? Did you use your kidney to understand him.

One of the claims he made is that the KJV never called Jesus Joseph's son.

Take this:

King James Version
Luke 3:23

Mikora:
Wrong theory

Petersamuel8:
the truth is always bitter, the king James version as always being the authentic BIBLE all this new versions are only out for business purposes, I only read the holy bible which is the king james

alBHAGDADI:


The passage was talking about his human genealogy. Even the king James put in parenthesis (as was supposed).


Luke 3:23-38 King James Version (KJV)
And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,
Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,
Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,
Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,
Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,
Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,
Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,
Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,
Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,
Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,
Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,
Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,
Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,
Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,
Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

And all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth. And they said, Is not this Joseph’s son?

καὶ (And) ἦν (was) ὁ (the) πατὴρ (father) αὐτοῦ (of it) καὶ (and) ἡ (the) μήτηρ (mother) θαυμάζοντες (wondering) ἐπὶ (upon) τοῖς (the [things]) λαλουμένοις (being spoken) περὶ (about) αὐτοῦ.

Καὶ (And) αὐτὸς (he) ἦν (was) Ἰησοῦς (Jesus) ἀρχόμενος (commencing) ὡσεὶ (as if) ἐτῶν (of years) τριάκοντα, (thirty), ὢν (being) υἱός, (son,) ὡς (as) ἐνομίζετο, (it was being opined), Ἰωσήφ (of Joseph) τοῦ (of the) Ἡλεί (Heli)

Olabenjamen22:

Lol. next time you want to show your foolishness online, make sure you did that in your cult page and.not in a Christian page OK?

well let me educate your illiteracy,
1. Muhammad Asad version
2.M. M. Pickthall version
3. Yusuf Ali (Saudi Rev. 1985) version
4. Yusuf Ali (Orig. 1938) version
5.Shakir version
6. Wahiduddin Khan version
7.Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar version
8.T.B.Irving version
9.The Clear Quran, Dr. Mustafa Khattab version
10. Safi Kaskas version

Let me stop at number 10, lol
Google is your friend sha.

so can you help yourself by vacating the page for a sane people?

VictorRomanov:


So that means many people who knew Jesus supposed that his father was Joseph. So it is not out of place to say Jesus was Joseph's son.

King James Version
Luke 4:22


Saying Jesus is Joseph's son does not mean that Joseph was his biological father. People refer to foster fathers and the fathers of the children they foster. Joseph was such.


Secondly. Which translation would you rather have? A translation where the translators stay faithful to the original text or where they infuse their own understanding.

Here a word for word translation of the Greek text from which Luke 2:33 was translated



Notice that the Greek word πατὴρ here translated father is different from the word Ἰωσήφ, Joseph at Luke 3:22 below



From the foregoing, it is obvious that the later translators were more faithful with the original texts than the translators of KJV

Chukazu:


Oga the Original versions of the Bible is Hebrew and and Greek any other one is translation.

If you have read the entire KJV you won't position this ignorance

VictorRomanov:


So that means many people who knew Jesus supposed that his father was Joseph. So it is not out of place to say Jesus was Joseph's son.

King James Version
Luke 4:22


Saying Jesus is Joseph's son does not mean that Joseph was his biological father. People refer to foster fathers and the fathers of the children they foster. Joseph was such.


Secondly. Which translation would you rather have? A translation where the translators stay faithful to the original text or where they infuse their own understanding.

Here a word for word translation of the Greek text from which Luke 2:33 was translated



Notice that the Greek word πατὴρ here translated father is different from the word Ἰωσήφ, Joseph at Luke 3:22 below



From the foregoing, it is obvious that the later translators were more faithful with the original texts than the translators of KJV

VictorRomanov:


The language I quoted, was it Russian? Isn't that Greek? I have the KJV and many other translation and of them all, the KJV drifts more from the original text than most.