Is all 66 Books Bible the infallible, inerrant Word of God?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

Is all 66 Books Bible the infallible, inerrant Word of God?


  • Total voters
    24

Lillywolf

Well-known member
Aug 29, 2018
1,562
540
113
#41
The Apocrypha was never treated or classified by Protestants as inspired.

It was included in the KJV since people had gotten used to seeing it. But it was clearly separated from the OT and NT, and eventually removed.
The Bible predates the Protestant Reformation.
This may help your studies. From the source link already posted in my other reply. And your post there reiterates that prior observation about inerrancy.


A clear history exists of the inclusion of the Apocrypha in the King James Bible:
  • In the year 1615 Archbishop Gorge Abbott, a High Commission Court member and one of the original translators of the 1611 translation, “forbade anyone to issue a Bible without the Apocrypha on pain of one year’s imprisonment”

  • “It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive than the [Protestant Old Testament] . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called Apocrypha or Deutero-canonical books. The use made of the Apocrypha by Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian and Clement of Alexandria is too frequent for detailed references to be necessary” (Early Christian Doctrines, J. Kelly)

  • “In 405 Pope Innocent I embodied a list of canonical books in a letter addressed to Exsuperius, bishop of Toulouse; it too included the Apocrypha. The Sixth Council of Carthage (419) Re-enacted the ruling of the Third Council, again with the inclusion of the apocryphal books… “The Sixth Council of Carthage repromulgated in Canon 24 the resolution of the Third Council regarding the canon of scripture, and added a note directing that the resolution be sent to the bishop of Rome (Boniface I) and other bishops: ‘Let this be made known also to our brother and fellow-priest Boniface, or to other bishops of those parts, for the purpose of confirming that Canon [Canon 47 of the Third Council], because we have received from our fathers that these are the books which are to be read in church.’” (The Canon on Scripture, F. F. Bruce)

  • “The holy ecumenical and general Council of Trent . . . following the example of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates all the books of the Old and New Testament . . . and also the traditions pertaining to faith and conduct . . . with an equal sense of devotion and reverence . . . If, however, any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have by custom been read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be accursed.” (Decree of the Council of Trent in 1546)

  • “In the name of Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church. . . And the other books (as Jerome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners: but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine.” (Articles of Religion of the Church of England, 1563, Sixth Article)


Most early Bibles contained the Apocrypha; here are just a few:
  • 1534 Luther’s German translation of the Bible
  • 1534 The Coverdale Bible
  • 1537 Thomas Matthew Bible
  • 1539 The Taverner Bible
  • 1541 The “Great” or “Cromwell’s” Bible
  • 1551 The “Tyndale/ Matthews” Bible
  • 1560 The Geneva Bible
  • 1568 The Bishops’ Bible
  • 1610 Catholic Old Testament
  • 1611 King James Bible
  • 1615 King James Version Robert Barker at London, England

For readers information, there are still Bibles published today that contain the Apocrypha.
 

Lillywolf

Well-known member
Aug 29, 2018
1,562
540
113
#42
The Bible predates the Protestant Reformation.
This may help your studies. From the source link already posted in my other reply. And your post there reiterates that prior observation about inerrancy.


A clear history exists of the inclusion of the Apocrypha in the King James Bible:
  • In the year 1615 Archbishop Gorge Abbott, a High Commission Court member and one of the original translators of the 1611 translation, “forbade anyone to issue a Bible without the Apocrypha on pain of one year’s imprisonment”

  • “It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive than the [Protestant Old Testament] . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called Apocrypha or Deutero-canonical books. The use made of the Apocrypha by Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian and Clement of Alexandria is too frequent for detailed references to be necessary” (Early Christian Doctrines, J. Kelly)

  • “In 405 Pope Innocent I embodied a list of canonical books in a letter addressed to Exsuperius, bishop of Toulouse; it too included the Apocrypha. The Sixth Council of Carthage (419) Re-enacted the ruling of the Third Council, again with the inclusion of the apocryphal books… “The Sixth Council of Carthage repromulgated in Canon 24 the resolution of the Third Council regarding the canon of scripture, and added a note directing that the resolution be sent to the bishop of Rome (Boniface I) and other bishops: ‘Let this be made known also to our brother and fellow-priest Boniface, or to other bishops of those parts, for the purpose of confirming that Canon [Canon 47 of the Third Council], because we have received from our fathers that these are the books which are to be read in church.’” (The Canon on Scripture, F. F. Bruce)

  • “The holy ecumenical and general Council of Trent . . . following the example of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates all the books of the Old and New Testament . . . and also the traditions pertaining to faith and conduct . . . with an equal sense of devotion and reverence . . . If, however, any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have by custom been read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be accursed.” (Decree of the Council of Trent in 1546)

  • “In the name of Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church. . . And the other books (as Jerome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners: but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine.” (Articles of Religion of the Church of England, 1563, Sixth Article)


Most early Bibles contained the Apocrypha; here are just a few:
  • 1534 Luther’s German translation of the Bible
  • 1534 The Coverdale Bible
  • 1537 Thomas Matthew Bible
  • 1539 The Taverner Bible
  • 1541 The “Great” or “Cromwell’s” Bible
  • 1551 The “Tyndale/ Matthews” Bible
  • 1560 The Geneva Bible
  • 1568 The Bishops’ Bible
  • 1610 Catholic Old Testament
  • 1611 King James Bible
  • 1615 King James Version Robert Barker at London, England

For readers information, there are still Bibles published today that contain the Apocrypha.
Apocrypha
The term "apocrypha" comes from the Greek word meaning "hidden" or "secret". Originally, the term was applied to sacred books whose contents were too exalted to be made available to the general public. Gradually, the term "apocrypha" took on a disparaging connotation, since the orthodoxy of these hidden books was often questionable. [More]
 
Dec 12, 2013
46,515
20,357
113
#43
you thihk Matthew may have been in Hebrew originally?
No, not personally.....I have seen no references that prove that....the N.T. was written in Koine Greek....some phrases by Jesus in Aramic..........
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
16,714
9,095
113
#44
No doubt that many (if not most) of the KJV translators were Calvinists, but above and beyond that, they were men of character, integrity, piety, and outstanding scholarship. The last thing they would try to do is to tamper with the actual words as found in the printed Hebrew and Greek texts. Their task was to TRANSLATE, not interpret (as found in the Calvinist Geneva Bible). They also ensured that any words which they inserted as helps were clearly distinguished from the actual text through the use of italics.

So why should Christians regard the KJV as the very Word of God in English (with the 66 books of the Bible) and continue using it as their sole Bible?
Your post is replete with hogwash and codswollop. Translation is IMPOSSIBLE without interpretation.

1. The KJV was THE (sole) English Bible worldwide for at least 300 years
An absolute lie! The Tyndale, Bishop's, Coverdale, Geneva, Matthews, and Great Bibles were published in English before the KJV... and still exist!

2. It is the only commonly used Bible in English that is squarely based upon the traditional Hebrew Masoretic text and the traditional Greek Textus Receptus (Received Text).
The Masoretic text is from about the 900s AD. Lots of time for things to get mis-copied. The term "Textus Receptus" was an advertising gimmick from AFTER the KJV's original publication.

4. The KJV is a faithful word-for-word translation of the Holy Scriptures
Another lie, because such is impossible! Greek and Hebrew cannot be translated word-for-word into English because the grammatical structures are too different. Plus, it is easy to demonstrate that certain words are NOT accurate translations (yam suph in Hebrew means reed sea in English, not Red Sea). Further, some words are transliterations, not translations.

5. It has stood the test of time, and been used mightily by God to bring millions of souls to Christ, and also to edify millions of Christians worldwide. In other words, God blessed this translation, because it was faithful.
The Latin Vulgate "stood the test of time" for over 1100 years! The KJV is a mere pup in comparison.

6. It is still used by Christians and non-Christians alike, and a recent survey showed that it is used more widely than modern translations.
Irrelevant.

7. All the propaganda against the King James Bible is BOGUS.
This statement itself is nothing but propaganda.

8. The beauty of the language and the spiritual POWER of the KJV has impressed people for ages,
Also irrelevant. The language of the KJV has no spiritual power; such a view is idolatry. The word of God has spiritual power... in any translation, as the KJV translators themselves implicitly acknowledged.
 

preacher4truth

Senior Member
Dec 28, 2016
9,171
2,711
113
#46
Your post is replete with hogwash and codswollop. Translation is IMPOSSIBLE without interpretation.


An absolute lie! The Tyndale, Bishop's, Coverdale, Geneva, Matthews, and Great Bibles were published in English before the KJV... and still exist!


The Masoretic text is from about the 900s AD. Lots of time for things to get mis-copied. The term "Textus Receptus" was an advertising gimmick from AFTER the KJV's original publication.


Another lie, because such is impossible! Greek and Hebrew cannot be translated word-for-word into English because the grammatical structures are too different. Plus, it is easy to demonstrate that certain words are NOT accurate translations (yam suph in Hebrew means reed sea in English, not Red Sea). Further, some words are transliterations, not translations.



The Latin Vulgate "stood the test of time" for over 1100 years! The KJV is a mere pup in comparison.



Irrelevant.



This statement itself is nothing but propaganda.



Also irrelevant. The language of the KJV has no spiritual power; such a view is idolatry. The word of God has spiritual power... in any translation, as the KJV translators themselves implicitly acknowledged.
NAILED!!!
 

Hevosmies

Well-known member
Sep 8, 2018
3,524
2,599
113
#47
Does not matter.....ALL GREEK words come from one source and that is the beauty of a DEAD LANGUAGE.....
I never thought about it like that. I always thought of koine greek being a dead language as a negative.

But atleast dead languages dont change or develop like english is still doing! :D

Thanks dcon i like that.
 

Hevosmies

Well-known member
Sep 8, 2018
3,524
2,599
113
#48
lets play this out:

if a prophet got a message from God and wrote it down in english: repent

Then someone translates it to a bunch of different languages and speaks it: isnt it STILL the same thing in a different language? same MEANING?
MEANING matters

I would say yes.

But the problem is many of the modern translations are not EVEN CLOSE to what the text says, they are not formal but dynamic equivelence translations.

The easy to understand card can only be played so far, until we got people inserting hip hop lines into the bible, where someone shows up and says "Yo paul, ya dig that?"
Im not joking, I promise you THATS COMING SOON, watch me right. Mark it down. Some ultra-charismatic weirdos will make one.

Then we also got some weird "illuminated bible" and other almost occult sounding names like that. WEIRD STUFF going on in bible translation land. This is why I use the KJV, STILL.
If anyone has a good english translation where i can check the translators that they arent some wicked occultists or something, let me know
 
Dec 12, 2013
46,515
20,357
113
#49
I never thought about it like that. I always thought of koine greek being a dead language as a negative.

But atleast dead languages dont change or develop like english is still doing! :D

Thanks dcon i like that.
Exactly......and exactly why we study to see what was meant when written to a 1st Century Greek speaking Gentile believer......
 

Hevosmies

Well-known member
Sep 8, 2018
3,524
2,599
113
#50
Exactly......and exactly why we study to see what was meant when written to a 1st Century Greek speaking Gentile believer......
ive always wondered HOW can people TODAY learn dead languages?

Nobody to speak it with. Dont know how to pronounce it since nobody to hear from.

Oy vey.

Also do we go back to secular writings of that time to find out what words in koine greek meant?
 

NayborBear

Banned Serpent Seed Heresy
#51
Your post is replete with hogwash and codswollop. Translation is IMPOSSIBLE without interpretation.


An absolute lie! The Tyndale, Bishop's, Coverdale, Geneva, Matthews, and Great Bibles were published in English before the KJV... and still exist!


The Masoretic text is from about the 900s AD. Lots of time for things to get mis-copied. The term "Textus Receptus" was an advertising gimmick from AFTER the KJV's original publication.


Another lie, because such is impossible! Greek and Hebrew cannot be translated word-for-word into English because the grammatical structures are too different. Plus, it is easy to demonstrate that certain words are NOT accurate translations (yam suph in Hebrew means reed sea in English, not Red Sea). Further, some words are transliterations, not translations.



The Latin Vulgate "stood the test of time" for over 1100 years! The KJV is a mere pup in comparison.



Irrelevant.



This statement itself is nothing but propaganda.



Also irrelevant. The language of the KJV has no spiritual power; such a view is idolatry. The word of God has spiritual power... in any translation, as the KJV translators themselves implicitly acknowledged.
Wow! Your reply knocked me over like a speeding Mack truck! :p

And, here I thought you just hammered english composition, and grammar usage.

Wow! Righteous Indignation? That's a BEAUTIFUL thing! (y)(y)
 

jaybird88

Senior Member
Jan 7, 2015
5,507
482
83
#52
No, not personally.....I have seen no references that prove that....the N.T. was written in Koine Greek....some phrases by Jesus in Aramic..........
some early church fathers made reference to it being in Hebrew (200 ad) but there is no early Hebrew text to back it up.
then you have a later Hebrew Mathew that shows up around 1100.
 

Epiales

Junior Member
Jan 21, 2018
291
205
43
davidclark.hearnow.com
#53
Exactly......and exactly why we study to see what was meant when written to a 1st Century Greek speaking Gentile believer......
You know there are over 800 words in the KJV that do not even mean the same thing that we 'think' they mean today?

Closet - The tent where the wife stayed; the wedding tent
Conversation - To them, a way of life, not a dialog b/w two people
Carriages - Meant Luggage
Instant - didn't mean right away, but insistent, being urgent about something
Leasing - Meant lying back then
Meet - Meant proper, fitting, appropriate
Lighting - Meant to come upon

Just a FEW examples. Then we have where the KJV states that God creates EVIL. Yeah right... Unfortunately we have millions of people walking about saying that God created evil. Or what about "God is "TERRIBLE"... So we have now, millions of people saying this.

As for meaning...

EVIL- Calamity or disaster when you read in context to the disobedient children of Israel.
TERRIBLE- AWESOME GOD!

I am not sure why people are stuck on KJV onlyism. Makes no sense to me. It's not that it's a bad Bible, but I find errors in translations in ALL Bibles tbh! Who makes me the authority to be able to make that decision? Well, let me just say...if the word contradicts the WORD, then it's a translation error, and at that point, I call it out. God is HOLY and cannot create evil, so therefore KJV has it wrong. God is NOT a terrible God; He's an AWESOME God! KJV fails again!

2Ti 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.
 

memyselfi

Junior Member
Jan 12, 2017
503
260
63
#54
All of you spoke volumes to me.... And thank you sooo much for posting!
In my mind because I DO BELIEVE THE BIBLE AS IT IS WRITEN TODAY IS STILL THE INFALLABE, ENERRENT WORD OF G-D!!! I need to be more specific.

I still cannot fathom why people who do not believe in its accuracy accept hey must be saved by some guy who died on some cross.... in my mind it is all true or NONE OF IT IS!!??!!
 
Dec 9, 2011
11,711
1,100
113
#55
Is all 66 Books Bible the infallible, inerrant Word of God? If you chose no, can you please explain how Salvation can be true then?
Someone might ask
Since the same GOD that spoke In the Old Testament Is the same GOD that speaks In the New Testament and since GODs WORD doesn’t change,aren’t we supposed to keep the law and at the same time be under grace?

The Bible says also that grace Is a gift and If someone were to try and keep the law to earn Eternal Life they would fail because GOD will accept only perfection and because of the weakness of the flesh all men would come short of the glory of GOD,although they would delight In the law of GOD after the Inward man,they would see another law In their flesh warring against the law of their mind bringing them Into captivity to the law of sin which Is In their flesh

So then you see the law can’t be fulfilled by any man because of the weakness of the flesh ,so then the question would be,why would GOD tell us to do something we could not do that HE would accept.

You see then that the law,GODs perfect standard of righteousness Is good but man Is carnal,sold under sin.

So then If man cannot fulfill the law even though GOD tells us to fulfill the law and then In the New Testament the Bible tells us that salvation Is by grace and not anything we do,then you would have to say that since the Old Testament Is GODs WORD then I need to TRY and keep It,but you really have to learn what the Bible means by ,line upon line,line upon line,here a little,there a little.
 

Endoscopy

Senior Member
Oct 13, 2017
4,028
399
83
#56
As preserved by God in the King James Bible? Yes.
ROFL
KJV is 400 years old and the language has changed plus the animal kingdom is much better understood!!

Problems with KJV!!

For example, because of the changes in the English language, a number of words occur in the King James that make zero sense to most people today. These include the following nuggets that you will find scattered here and there:

Almug
Algum
Charashim
Chode
Cracknels
Gat
Habergeon
Hosen
Kab
Ligure
Neesed
Nusings
Ouches
ring-straked
sycamyne
trow
wimples, ….
The King James translators also translated some animal names into animals that in fact we now have pretty good reason for thinking don’t actually exist:

unicorn (Deut. 33:17)
satyr (Isa 13:21);
dragon (Deut 32:33) (for serpent)
cockatrice (Iswa 11:8),
arrowsnake (Gen 49:11, in the margin).
Moreover,, there are phrases that simply don’t make sense any more to modern readers: Phrases that no longer make sense:

ouches of gold (Exod. 28:11);
collops of fat (Job 15:25);
naughty figs (Jer 24:2);
ien with (Jer. 3:2);
the ground is chapt (Jer 14:4);
brazen wall” (Jer 15:20);
rentest thy face (Jer. 4:30);
urrain of the cattle (Exod. 9:2);
And there are whole sentences that are confusing at best, virtually indecipherable (or humorous)

And Jacob sod pottage (Gen 25:29)
And Mt. Sinai was altogether on a smoke (Exoc. 19:18)
Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing (Ps. 5:6)
I trow not (Luke 17:9)
We do you to wit of the grace of God (2 Cor. 8:1)
Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels (2 Cor. 6:12)
He who letteth will let (2 Thes 2:7)
The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened by the masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd (Eccles. 12:11)


Other sentences make sense, but would today be considered somewhat problematic – at least for the sacred Scripture. My favorite is the one that refers to a man who: “Pisseth against the wall:…. 1 Sam 25:22, 34, I Kings 14:10!

What are ouches of gold?
 

Endoscopy

Senior Member
Oct 13, 2017
4,028
399
83
#57
The Bible predates the Protestant Reformation.
This may help your studies. From the source link already posted in my other reply. And your post there reiterates that prior observation about inerrancy.


A clear history exists of the inclusion of the Apocrypha in the King James Bible:
  • In the year 1615 Archbishop Gorge Abbott, a High Commission Court member and one of the original translators of the 1611 translation, “forbade anyone to issue a Bible without the Apocrypha on pain of one year’s imprisonment”

  • “It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive than the [Protestant Old Testament] . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called Apocrypha or Deutero-canonical books. The use made of the Apocrypha by Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian and Clement of Alexandria is too frequent for detailed references to be necessary” (Early Christian Doctrines, J. Kelly)

  • “In 405 Pope Innocent I embodied a list of canonical books in a letter addressed to Exsuperius, bishop of Toulouse; it too included the Apocrypha. The Sixth Council of Carthage (419) Re-enacted the ruling of the Third Council, again with the inclusion of the apocryphal books… “The Sixth Council of Carthage repromulgated in Canon 24 the resolution of the Third Council regarding the canon of scripture, and added a note directing that the resolution be sent to the bishop of Rome (Boniface I) and other bishops: ‘Let this be made known also to our brother and fellow-priest Boniface, or to other bishops of those parts, for the purpose of confirming that Canon [Canon 47 of the Third Council], because we have received from our fathers that these are the books which are to be read in church.’” (The Canon on Scripture, F. F. Bruce)

  • “The holy ecumenical and general Council of Trent . . . following the example of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates all the books of the Old and New Testament . . . and also the traditions pertaining to faith and conduct . . . with an equal sense of devotion and reverence . . . If, however, any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have by custom been read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be accursed.” (Decree of the Council of Trent in 1546)

  • “In the name of Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church. . . And the other books (as Jerome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners: but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine.” (Articles of Religion of the Church of England, 1563, Sixth Article)


Most early Bibles contained the Apocrypha; here are just a few:
  • 1534 Luther’s German translation of the Bible
  • 1534 The Coverdale Bible
  • 1537 Thomas Matthew Bible
  • 1539 The Taverner Bible
  • 1541 The “Great” or “Cromwell’s” Bible
  • 1551 The “Tyndale/ Matthews” Bible
  • 1560 The Geneva Bible
  • 1568 The Bishops’ Bible
  • 1610 Catholic Old Testament
  • 1611 King James Bible
  • 1615 King James Version Robert Barker at London, England

For readers information, there are still Bibles published today that contain the Apocrypha.
Early on in many churches there was upper and lower pulpits. The upper pulpit was for reading the Word of God. The lower pulpit was for reading good information but not the Word of God. The Apocrypha was originally read in the lower pulpit. Then in the middle ages the Catholic Church moved it up because it contained issues that the Catholic Church wanted to be the Word of God since it was advocating those issues.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
11,745
2,172
113
#58
ROFL
KJV is 400 years old and the language has changed plus the animal kingdom is much better understood!!

Problems with KJV!!

For example, because of the changes in the English language, a number of words occur in the King James that make zero sense to most people today. These include the following nuggets that you will find scattered here and there:

Almug
Algum
Charashim
Chode
Cracknels
Gat
Habergeon
Hosen
Kab
Ligure
Neesed
Nusings
Ouches
ring-straked
sycamyne
trow
wimples, ….
The King James translators also translated some animal names into animals that in fact we now have pretty good reason for thinking don’t actually exist:

unicorn (Deut. 33:17)
satyr (Isa 13:21);
dragon (Deut 32:33) (for serpent)
cockatrice (Iswa 11:8),
arrowsnake (Gen 49:11, in the margin).
Moreover,, there are phrases that simply don’t make sense any more to modern readers: Phrases that no longer make sense:

ouches of gold (Exod. 28:11);
collops of fat (Job 15:25);
naughty figs (Jer 24:2);
ien with (Jer. 3:2);
the ground is chapt (Jer 14:4);
brazen wall” (Jer 15:20);
rentest thy face (Jer. 4:30);
urrain of the cattle (Exod. 9:2);
And there are whole sentences that are confusing at best, virtually indecipherable (or humorous)

And Jacob sod pottage (Gen 25:29)
And Mt. Sinai was altogether on a smoke (Exoc. 19:18)
Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing (Ps. 5:6)
I trow not (Luke 17:9)
We do you to wit of the grace of God (2 Cor. 8:1)
Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels (2 Cor. 6:12)
He who letteth will let (2 Thes 2:7)
The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened by the masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd (Eccles. 12:11)


Other sentences make sense, but would today be considered somewhat problematic – at least for the sacred Scripture. My favorite is the one that refers to a man who: “Pisseth against the wall:…. 1 Sam 25:22, 34, I Kings 14:10!

What are ouches of gold?
Here's my advice:

2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
 

Endoscopy

Senior Member
Oct 13, 2017
4,028
399
83
#59
I find this thread on a Christian site insulting!! All Christians will say yes!!

Only atheists will disagree!!
 

Endoscopy

Senior Member
Oct 13, 2017
4,028
399
83
#60
Here's my advice:

2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
Didn't answer the question. What are ouches of gold?

My smartphone is my Bible. I have biblegateway.com on the chrome web browser. I select book and chapter and then can switch translations easily.

In modern English the spelling is different for the part of the word shown. ooches, it starts with br.