responding to common objections to bible

[Sigurd]

A little selection of commonly used scripture and proposed Pauline teaching of salvation. (KJV = King James Version / NEB = New English Bible)

Acts 11:14

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

KJV:

Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved

NEB:

He shall speak words that will bring salvation to you and your household.

Romans 10:1

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

KJV

Brethren my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.

NEB

Brothers, my deepest desire and my prayer to God is for their salvation.

Romans 10:9

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

KJV:

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

NEB

If on your lips is the confession, 'Jesus is Lord', and in your heart the faith that God raised him from the dead, then you will find salvation.

1. Cor 1:18

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

KJV:

For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

NEB:

This doctrine of the cross is sheer folly to those on their way to ruin, but to us who are on the way to salvation it is the power of God

1.Cor 15:2

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

KJV:

By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

NEB:

On which you have taken your stand, and which is now bringing you salvation.

2 Cor 2:15

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

KJV:

For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish

NEB:

We are indeed the incense offered by Christ to God, both for those who are on the way to salvation, and for those on the way to perdition.

So.. if we go by the NEB translation Paul consistently spoke of salvation as a process that is life long. The Reformationists liked to teach that salvation was attainable whilst in this life, that one could be considered saved or I am saved rather than you await your salvation.

[Slyspy]

I love these threads. Not because of the content, which is frankly rambling and largely unreadable. Not for the purpose, which is futile. But for the completely random punctuation, capitalisation and use of bold letters.

[Brenus]

“Spelling mistakes, wrong punctuation... big deal”:
My father said: The teacher is an imbecile.
My father, said the teacher, is an imbecile.
Not a big deal?

[Kadagar_AV]

On the internet, I try to look past poor grammar and language knowledge. That someone is weak in English does not have to be a sign of a weak brain, at all.

With that said, I am in no way defending the intellect of the OP. I just think we should bash him for the right reasons.

[Rhyfelwyr]

“Spelling mistakes, wrong punctuation... big deal”:
My father said: The teacher is an imbecile.
My father, said the teacher, is an imbecile.
Not a big deal?

Punctuation errors of that sort would I think be pretty rare since the context would be obvious from the surrounding text.

Again - could you just provide some solid Biblical examples please?

[total relism]

jolt you have not given one piece of any evidence against my op or even against god, just unsupported claims. Would you debate me 1v1 in the fight club at twc?

It wasn't only in the modern age that people became gullible. Obviously, back at the time where the bible was written, people were far more supersticious and prone to believing in magical entities entities than in these days. You need only look at how many modern-day religions have took off the ground and compare it with Pre/Proto/Classical Times. Literally each group had its own religion. And none of them were Christian or even close to it.



Haha. It's really mindboggling how a human being can consider the overwhelming lack of proof of the existance of any magical entities unsupported in all areas of science, while thinking their own personal opinions, that were taught to them, about an invisible magical person in the sky is supported, justified, credible and legitimate. Never ceases to amaze me. And the video is related and has English subtitles. Unfortunately for you, contrary to English, which is an irrelevant language as far as historical liturgical scriptures go, Portuguese (Which is the language of the video) is far closer to languages relevant for historical Christianity. Even the title of the video is actually the word "God" written in a language which have been sanctioned by the Church for millenia. It's a pity your magical person did not embue you with the power to learn new languages. Just another thing you need to do it yourself, eh?



You need to realize that your religion's book has zero weight when fundamenting the existance of anything. It has as much weight proving the existance of god magic as the Harry Potter books have weight proving the existance of wizard magic.



"You have to accept God, otherwise he won't talk to you!" Impressive how brainwashed people can become. This is religious sect crazy level.



That's the crap you and other religious people are always spouting off, I'm not claiming anything.



God is your imagination because you have no proof of his existance besides what you're told to believe, and what you imagine.



Alas, this happens oh, so often to people who suffer from delusions. They imagine someone they remembered, and then that someone starts acting in ways they couldn't "imagine". :)



But for someone who's talking about how magic fairies exists, trying to say other opinions are unsupported comes at as particularly hilarious and crazy.

I agree the modern age people are the most gullible yet,they believe anything there told. But i think the belief in magic etc is more know than ever, aliens, witchcraft, horoscopes etc etc. But would we really aspect christian doctrine to arise know? i don't see that as any way possible as it already arose, not sure your point on that.



I think you misunderstand sir, i said your claim that there is somehow no evidence for god is false and you did not support at all. The fact you have been idocrintaed so bad to believe it is not my fault. As far as learning Portuguese and being a idiot for not learning....i guess we all have our opinions. But to claim the language has anything to do with biblical history or needed to understand shows your lack of knowledge of the area.



well if that is your unsupported opinion i care not, it holds zero weight with me, this is for people who object to bible for reasons given on op, if you think there not common read my other thread, over a dozen times they say cant trust bible it was not translated right etc etc. As i said, whenever i answer a objection it turns into something else fast.



well i would say your wrong given what i have said and tried to reference to you, but this just shows your unwillingness to think outside your own worldview.



only if we ignore your last post.



besides having much evidence for creator [another thread] what proof do you have for no god? than it must just be your imagination.


lol, nice dodge, know we cant remember owr own imagination, good way to protect your worldview.


i think you have posted on wrong thread, or replied to wrong one.

Total relism has generally demonstrated a refusal to examine any evidence which he disagrees with, he uses the word "evidence" but he has about as much understanding of its meaning as ATPG has in this context.

If one wishes to examine the matter of translation, for example, one should examine in parallel multiple translation into the same language from the same period. This is easily done in English, and the only conclusion to be drawn is that the translator's bias influences the translation.

If one wishes to examine the stability of the Biblical corpus, one need only examine the variable canons, whereby we see that different Christian cults revere different Books to differing degrees.

If one wishes to consider additions or subtractions to the Books themselves, one need turn only to the Gospel of Mark, which has two extant endings, or to the Lord's Prayer, of which two version exist.

thanks for being on topic

could you support your claims, please show what evidence your referring to.
" demonstrated a refusal to examine any evidence which he disagrees with"


translation
I think you misunderstand, i never said every translation is perfect, in fact no english can really be 100% perfect from herbre/greek. Please reread op.



variable canons
please provide what you are referring to, apocrypha?. Also who cares if some see some books as more important? variety of doctrine in many books all have their fav etc.


mark
i think its generally accepted that marks ending was added on. The ordinal bible is there in full.

"There is also not a single semi-significant point of Christian faith that is challenged as a result of translation differences/errors." Probably why the need of the Orange Bible was not so accurate... And of course, the various streams in the Christianity never happened, nor Religious Wars. Just minors disagreements on Mary (Virgin or not), the holly Trinity, and marriage of the Priests...

orange bible? what is that, not to mention my op is on original bible, not any and all transitional of the bible. Do we have the original bible from witch to translate,yes.

various streams in the Christianity
why does that matter? that comes from theology not bible translation.


religious wars? has to do with?


all believe mary virgin


trinity is legit debate, not based on translation

priest marry is 100% in bible no one rejects that. Many catholic dont do it, i think to be like jeusus unmarried.

*cough*

What about salvation? you only need to compare King James Version (KJV) to the New English Bible (NEB) and you will run into reformation bias on this particular subject.

interesting, i read the kj, i got salvation the same way as any other.

Also, the Norwegian Lutherans just turned the virgin Mary into the "young woman Mary"... And her virginity is kinda important to the catholics, isn't it?

as far as i know virgin=young woman.

[Kadagar_AV]

I think you misunderstand sir, i said your claim that there is somehow no evidence for god is false and you did not support at all.

Wait... You want us to... Prove that there are no evidence?

At all times, I have a invisible leprechaun floating above me. Not only invisible, but ethereal, You can't touch him. Also, he never speaks when others are around, or when there are recording devices on in the vicinity.

Now prove me wrong, mmmkay?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Wait... You want us to... Prove that there are no evidence?

At all times, I have a invisible leprechaun floating above me. Not only invisible, but ethereal, You can't touch him. Also, he never speaks when others are around, or when there are recording devices on in the vicinity.

Now prove me wrong, mmmkay?

Comparing God to invisible leprechauns or unicorns or whatever doesn't work.

The concept of God (as most of us in this thread mean by it) is a response to existential questions like how the material universe came to be - namely his role as a creator that transcends time and space, which (the theory goes) must according to their nature have a beginning. The properties we attribute to God tend to derive from this - his omnipotence, omnipresence etc.

The same does not hold true for your invisible leprechaun. Why has this unique creature taken on the particular form of a leprechaun? How did it come to be? Why does it have such strange properties as invisibility?

To challenge the particulars of various religions is one thing, but the concept of God more generally is not as silly as you make it out to be.

[Sigurd]

This is fun...

Do we have the original bible from witch to translate,yes.

Do you? I think not. Are the various Bible translations on the marked today translated from the original? I think not.

priest marry is 100% in bible no one rejects that. Many catholic dont do it, i think to be like jeusus unmarried.

Was he now? So.. the guy didn't get married in the big gaping hole in his biography (12y - 30y)? A man at the end of his adult life never followed the very first commandment in the bible - to be fruitful and multiply?

interesting, i read the kj, i got salvation the same way as any other.

See my follow up post

[total relism]

This is fun...

Do you? I think not. Are the various Bible translations on the marked today translated from the original? I think not.

Was he now? So.. the guy didn't get married in the big gaping hole in his biography (12y - 30y)? A man at the end of his adult life never followed the very first commandment in the bible - to be fruitful and multiply?

See my follow up post

fun indeed

i think so, i suggest reading my op, and watching those debates i posted with bart herman.Do we have the original copies, no we dont, so how can we know we have original? read op/watch debates.


what do you base his supposed marriage on? when all documents say otherwise? certainly not biblical theology. The man jesus was unique if your aware. He followed all he was to do. Le tme ask you, should i build a big ark as commanded by god?. Do all laws apply to all people all times?did god ever tell jesus to have a wife? very much the opisite. Did paul the apostles have kids? in fact he told he would prefer people to not marry and focus on god.


Genesis 1:28 is not a commandment, but a blessing. It does not refer to what humans must do to please God, but to what God does for and through humankind. The text says, "God blessed them, and God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply'" (RSV). Fertility is not a command but a blessing that God gives to his creatures, to animals as well as humans (Gen. 1:22).
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/...er12/4.58.html


translation
remember i said more differences between 2 translation than manuscripts. But i think there saying same thing, your tacking common langue of the day from 100's of years ago and trying to compare, of course it is diffident,words meant different things, you claimed they said your saved a different way.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

could you support your claims, please show what evidence your referring to.
" demonstrated a refusal to examine any evidence which he disagrees with"

Your refusal to engage with my arguments in a previous thread, or Sugurd's

translation
I think you misunderstand, i never said every translation is perfect, in fact no english can really be 100% perfect from herbre/greek. Please reread op.

Variety of translation demonstrates variety of transmission, which invalidates the Bible as a final authority.

variable canons
please provide what you are referring to, apocrypha?. Also who cares if some see some books as more important? variety of doctrine in many books all have their fav etc.

I direct you to the Council of Trent, the Council of Carthage (Provincial) and the 39 Articles of the Church of England, wherein you will find differences of opinion on what the "Bible" is.

mark
i think its generally accepted that marks ending was added on. The ordinal bible is there in full.

Except that until about a hundred years ago the longer Mark was the more widely read. Only recently has that determination been made - for most of the last 1500 years most Christians having been working from a corrupt text.

orange bible? what is that, not to mention my op is on original bible, not any and all transitional of the bible. Do we have the original bible from witch to translate,yes.

Certain passages are so corrupt that they cannot be recovered from examination of dozens of anciant authorities. The Bible is broken, Thanks be to God.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Variety of translation demonstrates variety of transmission, which invalidates the Bible as a final authority.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you saying that no true 'original' exists? Or are you just saying that they have been corroputed over time? If it's the former, then it is only true for parts of the Bible, if it's the latter, then I don't see why that would necessarily invalidate the original version (or those closest to it) as a final authority.

The Bible is broken, Thanks be to God.

Now that is heretical.

Why would you be thankful that a great source of inspiration in the Christian faith has (supposedly) become so corrupted over time?

[Jolt]

jolt you have not given one piece of any evidence against my op or even against god, just unsupported claims. Would you debate me 1v1 in the fight club at twc?

Why would I waste time debating someone who's major argument is that "You can't see, or hear or otherwise interact with my magical man because you refuse him.". That is what people with pathological delusions say.

I agree the modern age people are the most gullible yet,they believe anything there told. But i think the belief in magic etc is more know than ever, aliens, witchcraft, horoscopes etc etc. But would we really aspect christian doctrine to arise know? i don't see that as any way possible as it already arose, not sure your point on that.

Only that I never made the point that this generation was the most gullible.

So, you agree that a generation which is far in advance the most instructed of human history, taught to think for themselves, is the most gullible generation in history and that we believe anything we're told? More than when you had the whole continent worshipping an invisible man, and hundreds of thousands of soldiers willing to execute massacres and die in the name of something they never saw?

Magic belief strong than ever? Haha, you do not that the precise definition of magic is a force that does not exist right? Belief in whatever god was the required norm of Western societies. You think everyone is believing in aliens, or in witchcraft or in horoscopes, all of which have around the same level of proof of existance with your God (Only that supposedly alien ships have been sighted thousands of times throughout the world - far more times than any god - and in the age where you need to see something to believe it in, it obviously gives a greater cause for belief then your "You can't see, or hear or otherwise interact with my magical man because you refuse him.". The other two come from a placebo effect. Nevertheless, the simple fact that you are making such a statement based on a percentage of folks who believe in magical things to then claim it as a "whole generation that believes in magic" shows you have a pretty distorted view of reality. Which isn't surprising.

I think you misunderstand sir, i said your claim that there is somehow no evidence for god is false and you did not support at all.

It's not a claim. A claim would be "I think I'm the smartest man alive.". The lack of proof in something unprovable is only a logical fact. A bothersome fact that ultimately contributed to the downfall of religion in parts of the world where people are not constrained by the tradition of forcing kids to believe in something.

The fact you have been idocrintaed so bad to believe it is not my fault. As far as learning Portuguese and being a idiot for not learning....i guess we all have our opinions. But to claim the language has anything to do with biblical history or needed to understand shows your lack of knowledge of the area.

Yes, I admit it. I have been indoctrinated by my own experience and self-meditation and arriving at my own metaphysical conclusions, without anyone else forcing their own visions, their own dogmas and their own gods down my throat.

well if that is your unsupported opinion i care not, it holds zero weight with me, this is for people who object to bible for reasons given on op, if you think there not common read my other thread, over a dozen times they say cant trust bible it was not translated right etc etc. As i said, whenever i answer a objection it turns into something else fast.

The bible in itself has no value besides as an historical and philosophical document. The fact that the bible is mistranslated is just another nail in the coffin.

well i would say your wrong given what i have said and tried to reference to you, but this just shows your unwillingness to think outside your own worldview.

Never forget your position in relation to me. You're the one that is talking about invisible men here.

only if we ignore your last post.

Nope, with or without my last post.

besides having much evidence for creator [another thread] what proof do you have for no god? than it must just be your imagination.

Are you seriously repeating the same fallacy as in the previous reply? There is no proof that it exists. Your proof consists of becoming crazy and needing to start imagining stuff, otherwise, I'll never be able to find that one god you're talking about.

lol, nice dodge, know we cant remember owr own imagination, good way to protect your worldview.

Hahaha. A guy who consistently employs fallacies, quotes fallacies, and ultimately believes in an invisible man that only talks to those who believe in him, thinks I'm protecting my world view. :D As to your "we can't remember our own imagination", without even going into the semantics of it, it is wrong on a great many different levels.

i think you have posted on wrong thread, or replied to wrong one.

Nah, you have your own God, that communicates to you because you believe in him. I have my magical fairies that help me out in my tasks in Valhalla, and I go there on my white diamond unicorn. You can also get a similar set if you accept them.

[Brenus]

“please provide.as i said before, today's age people believe anything they hear.” So you are ignorant of the Councils of Latran followed by Trento (the series of).
From a quick research in internet: “According to the book The History of the Franks by Gregory of Tours, in a local Synod in France in the year 585 one or more bishops expressed the view that the word "homo" (meaning mankind) did not include the female gender, and that a woman is not an authentic person in the sense the male is. It was thought by some that she did not possess the divinely-imaged soul of her male counterpart. The belief goes back to the creation story in the Bible, as you described it (and other references in the Bible which indicate the female is not equal to the male).”
Landover Baptist Creation Scientist, Dr. Jonathan Edwards, announced findings related to his research into the female soul early this week. "The absence of either salvation or condemnation for women finds extensive support in the Word of God." He reported. "Jesus said that the sole reason God created women in the first place was to provide company and service to men (1 Corinthians 11:9), God determined that men would be lonely living alone, so he created women purely to keep men company and serve their needs (Genesis 2:18-22). Women are therefore completely subordinate to men (1 Corinthians 11:3). It stands to reason, though, that once men enter the Kingdom of Heaven, they will be one with God, and will no longer be lonely and in need of mortal companionship. Thus, the reason behind having women will no longer exist. Women, like the members of the animal kingdom, will fall by the wayside."

My usual sources are in French, so inaccessible for you, sorry.

[Rhyfelwyr]

A little selection of commonly used scripture and proposed Pauline teaching of salvation. (KJV = King James Version / NEB = New English Bible)

....

So.. if we go by the NEB translation Paul consistently spoke of salvation as a process that is life long. The Reformationists liked to teach that salvation was attainable whilst in this life, that one could be considered saved or I am saved rather than you await your salvation.

Maybe we have a language barrier somehow, but for me, the first three do not show any difference on whether salvation would be an event or a process.

The last three though, I will grant.

How far this is down to mistranslation I cannot say - the poverty of language means that not each and every language may be able to make a direct translation.

I am not aware of what was said in the original language, if you know we might be able to see whether the tense used was somehow ambiguous - ie not indicating whether salvation was immediate or ongoing.

In such cases, the most honest thing to do would be to analyse the meaning from the context provided elsewhere in the source - in this cause the particular Epistle, followed by the Pauline Epistles more generally.

I trust that that is what the Reformationist translators did, hence the bias in the KJV. But it is also worth noting that these examples are passing references to the inferred established doctrines - not the basis of the doctrines themselves (since naturally, debates on such matter always address the original language).

Thank you though for providing the examples, they make the basis for meaningful debate.

[Sigurd]

interesting, i read the kj, i got salvation the same way as any other.

Maybe we have a language barrier somehow, but for me, the first three do not show any difference on whether salvation would be an event or a process.

The last three though, I will grant.

Sorry to bring this up again at such a late stage in the discussion.

I do not know what type of Christianity TR adhere to. It seems to me to be some sort of evangelism according to his sourced material, but he doesn't appear to be using typical evangelist rhetoric with the words that are actually his.

There is a clear difference of meaning in all of the verses I quoted, even the first three.

In Acts the difference is the assurance of IF you will be saved or not. KJV claims its is certain. The Words shall save you. You are saved. The NEB is more reluctant and says the words will bring salvation, but you are not in the clear.

The Roman verses (incidentally, major sources for evangelist teaching) are on the same line. WHEN will you be saved? the first simply reinforces the teaching that it can happen today. The NEB says it might happen in the future.
The latter... THE evangelist verse... the one they hinge their salvation belief on - says in the KJV that as soon as you say the words - You are my Lord, Jesus - you are considered saved. While the NEB clearly states that it will lead to this.. you find the path to salvation through the Lord Jesus, meaning it starts with Faith in the Lord and if you are valiant he will save you.. in the future.

Me thinks many of the Christian denominations don't particularly like the New English Bible translation. But as TR likes to believe there are originals out there, the NEB claims to be translated from original sources by competent scholars which were not under pressure of a King with a religious agenda.

[total relism]

Sorry to bring this up again at such a late stage in the discussion.

I do not know what type of Christianity TR adhere to. It seems to me to be some sort of evangelism according to his sourced material, but he doesn't appear to be using typical evangelist rhetoric with the words that are actually his.

There is a clear difference of meaning in all of the verses I quoted, even the first three.

In Acts the difference is the assurance of IF you will be saved or not. KJV claims its is certain. The Words shall save you. You are saved. The NEB is more reluctant and says the words will bring salvation, but you are not in the clear.

The Roman verses (incidentally, major sources for evangelist teaching) are on the same line. WHEN will you be saved? the first simply reinforces the teaching that it can happen today. The NEB says it might happen in the future.
The latter... THE evangelist verse... the one they hinge their salvation belief on - says in the KJV that as soon as you say the words - You are my Lord, Jesus - you are considered saved. While the NEB clearly states that it will lead to this.. you find the path to salvation through the Lord Jesus, meaning it starts with Faith in the Lord and if you are valiant he will save you.. in the future.

Me thinks many of the Christian denominations don't particularly like the New English Bible translation. But as TR likes to believe there are originals out there, the NEB claims to be translated from original sources by competent scholars which were not under pressure of a King with a religious agenda.

i believe the bible, not any man made doctrine or theological perspective. So i would most likely have opinions that fit and put me outside all groups. Could you please re-post the versus your referring to? i could only find brenus that posted a few.


I have actually not heard of the New English Bible translation, but i gurentee its not 100% the word of god,the original. Yet i say we do have the original 100% today, confused? please read my op, no english translation could be 100%. But just to let you know,jahovahs witness and the new world translation,also claim to be word of god and translated by scholars.

[Sigurd]

i believe the bible, not any man made doctrine or theological perspective. So i would most likely have opinions that fit and put me outside all groups.

So, you don't belong to a denomination? you don't go to church or have been baptized?

Could you please re-post the versus your referring to? i could only find brenus that posted a few.

I can link the post.

I have actually not heard of the New English Bible translation, but i gurentee its not 100% the word of god,the original. Yet i say we do have the original 100% today, confused? please read my op, no english translation could be 100%. But just to let you know,jahovahs witness and the new world translation,also claim to be word of god and translated by scholars.

Well... you are talking to one who doesn't have a particular bias against any honest attempts to translate an ancient text. If you belong to a evangelist denomination, you would of course have bias towards any translations that disagrees with your particular flavor of Christianity. That would be the Catholic bible (with more books), the JW New World Translation or the LDS inspired version of the Bible and any other scripture not in the KJV.

edit: re-reading your post... You say that no translation is 100% true towards the bible. Have I understood you correctly?
And I have read your OP and it is only section 7 that I find interesting.
I have many objections towards what you presented, but it would take days to explain my position in detail.

[total relism]

So, you don't belong to a denomination? you don't go to church or have been baptized?

I can link the post.


Well... you are talking to one who doesn't have a particular bias against any honest attempts to translate an ancient text. If you belong to a evangelist denomination, you would of course have bias towards any translations that disagrees with your particular flavor of Christianity. That would be the Catholic bible (with more books), the JW New World Translation or the LDS inspired version of the Bible and any other scripture not in the KJV.

edit: re-reading your post... You say that no translation is 100% true towards the bible. Have I understood you correctly?
And I have read your OP and it is only section 7 that I find interesting.
I have many objections towards what you presented, but it would take days to explain my position in detail.

i have been drinking so well see how this goes.



I do go to church but that means nothing to following any set of doctrine etc i debate the pastor on many things etc. I attend a baptist church. I was baptised as a baby in catholic church, i do not consider myself catholic at all, yet i may agree with them over majority of protestants on a few issues, i feel the catholic church led me to atheism when young.


acts
as i said before, this is differences in english language from hundreds of years, not diffident translation/change meaning. I think that is clear. The neb says " bring salvation" salvation is brought by these words in both passages.


romans
i would say clearly same thing,your comparing language over hundreds of years, no doctrine differences.


translation
you assume their is some bias towards matching my personal beliefs, the bias is towards what the original says. I have no bias towards the catholic bible, or any translation that translates accurate from original. I dont like the kj best, i do like the nkj, that does not mean it best.


jw and Mormons are not christian.as far as i know Mormons use same bible,those movements are modern,not christian.


yes i do not see any one translation as 100% accurate.

[Sigurd]

i have been drinking so well see how this goes.

*cough*

I do go to church but that means nothing to following any set of doctrine etc i debate the pastor on many things etc. I attend a baptist church. I was baptised as a baby in catholic church, i do not consider myself catholic at all, yet i may agree with them over majority of protestants on a few issues, i feel the catholic church led me to atheism when young.

Right... I guess one of those debates with your pastor goes along the dogma of baptism. Since you was baptised as an infant and not the proper way (according to them). They don't believe in infant baptism and that a baptism must be done by immersion.

acts
as i said before, this is differences in english language from hundreds of years, not diffident translation/change meaning. I think that is clear. The neb says " bring salvation" salvation is brought by these words in both passages.

romans
i would say clearly same thing,your comparing language over hundreds of years, no doctrine differences.

I don't think you understand the subtleties in the differences of dogma that I am pointing to. Question: Do you consider yourself saved?

translation
you assume their is some bias towards matching my personal beliefs, the bias is towards what the original says. I have no bias towards the catholic bible, or any translation that translates accurate from original. I dont like the kj best, i do like the nkj, that does not mean it best.

jw and Mormons are not christian.as far as i know Mormons use same bible,those movements are modern,not christian.

Not saying that you have bias... just saying that evangelists have bias against any bible not supporting their dogma. I have encountered this many times. Even here when I pulled verses from the New World Translation in a discussion.
I do like the KJV because of its beautiful English.
About the JW and Mormons being christian or not. I don't think you qualify to make any judgement on this. I do know the Mormons claim to be christian but I am unsure if the JW do so.

yes i do not see any one translation as 100% accurate.

Right... so how are we to be inspired or enlightened by the original bible - if it does exist, but is not available to us?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I...I was baptised as a baby in catholic church, i do not consider myself catholic at all....

But we Catholics do. One dunk-a-baby moment and we gotcha forever.




Specifics.