why there's many bible versions?

[RedTent]

there is something else i should point out about the issue of bible interpretations. that is it is no new problem,,as we know the apostles and Christ warned us of false prophets and letters that were circulated by people who said they were offical doctrine.

this was still the same in the early church and is the same today. polycarpus,if you research was responsible for arranging the "approved copies for the church",,he being given authority by the apostle john himself.i say this with "great caution" that is by around 170 ad Irenious(who often speaks of hearing polycarpus preach in public),,,,states many times in his letters "in the approved copies",,,when referring to the book Revelations.,,,,and was attempting to root out all the other translations of Revelations in circulation by 170ad.

the book of Enoch (proven to be written before the birth of christ or the apostles),,,is quoted around 100 times in the "new testament" by both Christ and the apostles but is not contained in any of the books we refer to as the bible.,,,,that is,,in what we refer to as "the new testament" it states,,,,,,"to prove all doctrine to scripture",,,so if it is not in Matthew,mark Luke,john acts,ect. to Revelations it is not accepted by the modern church(to date). but,,,,,,,,,,,,


Matthew mark Luke john acts,,,ect "had not been written yet/were in the process of being written,when these statements were made by the writers of these letters",,,so in fact if Paul James,peter,john ect.,,,made statement that you were to "validate all doctrine with scripture",,,,,,,,,,,,"they were referring to scripture written before they were born",,,to prove the point they said of their own mouths,,,,,,,,"for it was written",,,,"to fulfill",,,,,i am not come to destroy,,,ect.,,,,but to fulfill it",,,,,"as written in the law and the prophets",,,,ect.

so you find men like Paul stating "a new but it was before of old",,,,that is he was confirming it with the scripture already given,and explaining to you to do the same,,,,

the true church,was the first church,,,,,we beg to differ(mankind),,,but Matthew,mark,Luke,john ect. are not explaining anything new,,,they are letters of testament,made by those who witnessed/fulfilled the things written before they were born,weighing them against pure doctrine(scripture) and giving confession of their fulfillment's.

one is witness before it is done,,,,,one is witness of its fulfillment,,,,,,there are two things to consider,,,,a seed cast in the ground has only need of water and heat,,,,,,but the old plant,after it is grown,groans to set it's seed into the wind,,,

the Gospel of,,,the letter to,,,,,the Revelation of,,,,,always compare them to and prove them according to "the scriptures",,,,,they do,,,,were men fall short is understanding they are compared to scriptures written long before they spoke of them,,,,,,,,,,,,,

If I was to believe that these books are better scripture, I would have to take your word for it ahead of thousands of years of men studying these books to determine if they are better. Most have chosen the books we have as better explaining God. The others are good for history and learning, but not scripture.

Many of these writers were part of the very early church after God gave the gentiles the job of leadership. Right away the gentile leaders started saying that because the Hebrews denied Christ as their Savior, all of what they knew of God the Father should also be denied. Within 300 years of the crucifixion it was illegal to hear scripture in a synagogue. I don't think this is what God wants His children to believe. We are to know both Christ and the Father. We are to understand how Christ changed the world and that includes knowing how the world was before Christ changed it.