Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
If you are looking for God you shall use the right translation of the Holy Bible
The King James Bible itself is edited and redacted.If you are looking for God you shall use the right translation of the Holy Bible
Leftists distorted the World of God and many important verses lost their True Meaning
Of course you may use even NIV, but don't be amazed if you find yourself in Hell
This tells it all (from the link).If you are looking for God you shall use the right translation of the Holy Bible
Leftists distorted the World of God and many important verses lost their True Meaning
Of course you may use even NIV, but don't be amazed if you find yourself in Hell
For some reason I don't feel the God I believe in will send me to Hell because I didn’t rely on the King James Version of the Bible.If you are looking for God you shall use the right translation of the Holy Bible
Leftists distorted the World of God and many important verses lost their True Meaning
Of course you may use even NIV, but don't be amazed if you find yourself in Hell
The oldest scrap of the New Testament is a part of the Gospel of Saint John. It was found in Egypt, and it is dated to about 120 AD. The informed consensus is that Mark was written about 70 AD, and that Matthew and Luke were written about 85 AD. Moreover, the authors of Matthew and Luke used as reference material Mark, and a more primitive gospel that no longer exists, and which is named Q.So in that effect - only the words of Paul would be ordained by God. Not the Gospels. We have no idea who wrote the Gospels, only that they were written at least 100 - 200 years after Christ left. There is simply no way the "words in red" are an accurate - word by word quote by Jesus.
Just sayin
And I could link scholars who say later. And of course Matthew did not write "Matthew" Mark - Acts is arguable. Traditionally Luke is said to be a physician, however in all of Pauls writing Paul never refers to him as a physician, which would be highly unusual. Collossians refers to Luke as a physician, but few scholars believe that Collossians was written by Paul, and most accept that it is an "imposter" book as well as Timothy I, IIThe oldest scrap of the New Testament is a part of the Gospel of Saint John. It was found in Egypt, and it is dated to about 120 AD. The informed consensus is that Mark was written about 70 AD, and that Matthew and Luke were written about 85 AD. Moreover, the authors of Matthew and Luke used as reference material Mark, and a more primitive gospel that no longer exists, and which is named Q.
The Gospel of Luke, and Acts are believed by many non Fundamentalist scholars to have been written by Saint Luke, who was a traveling companion of Saint Paul. In the second part of Acts there are a number of uses of the word "we" which indicate that Acts was written by an eye witness, who was probably Saint Luke.
I cannot read ancient Greek, but I have read the New Testament in eight English translations. Nothing in Acts persuades me that it was not written when Saint Paul was still alive. When it ends Saint Paul is experiencing a comfortable house arrest in Rome. The reader has been told several times that Saint Paul has not violated Roman Law, and he has not violated Jewish Law. There is no mention of his impending execution. Members of the Jewish community come to visit him. He persuades some that Jesus is the Messiah. Others remain unconvinced, but the encounters seem to be cordial.
Eusebius, was a Christian historian who wrote during the fourth century. He wrote that Saint Paul was executed shortly before the Jewish uprising of 66 to 73 AD began. If, as I believe, Saint Paul wrote the Gospel attributed to him and Acts, Acts was probably written about 62 AD, and the Gospel of Saint Luke was written earlier. That would push the dates for Mark and Q even earlier.
Although the Jewish Revolt of 66 to 73 AD may be alluded to in several verses in the New Testament, it is never specifically mentioned, as we would expect an event of that significance would be. The Gospel of Saint John mentions several buildings that were destroyed during the Jewish Uprising as though they still existed when the gospel of Saint John was written.
The Jewish Uprising of 66 to 73 destroyed written records of the ministry and execution of Jesus. It killed and dispersed eye witnesses. The earlier the Gospels were written, the more likely they are likely to be of a nearly accurate record of the life and death of Jesus.
And I could link scholars who say later. And of course Matthew did not write "Matthew" Mark - Acts is arguable. Traditionally Mark is said to be a physician, however in all of Pauls writing Paul never refers to him as a physician, which would be highly unusual. Collossians refers to Mark as a physician, but few scholars believe that Collossians was written by Paul, and most accept that it is an "imposter" book as well as Timothy I, II
Dammit sorry, I meant Luke not Mark.I thought Luke was a Greek physician from Antioch.
