Welcome! Start here!
See what the blog “Bible Differences” can provide and how it may be of use to you. I focus mainly on the New Testament, but occasionally look at something from the Old Testament.
A list of Scriptures already studied can be found at “Scriptures“.
In the manuscripts available on 1 Peter, the clause: “…on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified.” is lacking in some. How could this variation originated and how can we discern which would render the original autograph?
KJV: 1Peter 4:14: “If you are reproached for the name of Christ, happy are you; for the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you: on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified.”
NIV: 1Peter 4:14: “If you are insulted because of the name of Christ, you are blessed, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you.” Continue reading
In Luke 2:49 we have an interesting situation. The different translations reveal the two possibilities stated above. Yet there is no confusion or different versions in the source texts or any of the manuscripts. If both the KJV and the NIV use the same words in Greek, why this great difference? As a matter of fact, the very word translated by the one as “business” and the other as “house” is absent from the text. Continue reading
Why would such an important indication as “after the order of Melchizedec” be left out of Hebrews 7:21 in most modern versions of the Bible? When there is an important departure from the King James Version, there should be a good reason for. In the King James Version we read how Jesus became priest: ”For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord swore and will not repent, Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek:”
A verse that troubled me since my childhood days was 1 Corinthians 13:3.
To me the problem was this: Directly preceding this statement, Paul mentions quite a few achievements that could be deemed reachable and really plausible, contributing to the overall growth of Christianity. To speak with tongues, and prophesy, and have faith, and care for the less privileged would all contribute to the growth of the congregation, and its esteem in the world. Even giving up one’s body, meaning one’s life, rather than disown one’s faith during persecution, is plausible. But why the stipulation that it should be by the burning of one’s body? I could make no sense out of this, whether with love, or without. In my mind I could not fathom a person stepping forward and announcing: “here I am, you may give me up to the flames!” For what reason? To achieve what? It just made no sense to me.
On the other hand, if this had to do with being threatened with persecution and possible execution for one’s faith, could you have any say in the method? “Okay, so I am to be executed. In my case, you give me up to the flames!” Does one have any say in the way one would be executed if condemned to death due to one’s faith? Or were people executed that way reckoned of a higher esteem than those beheaded or crucified? Why did Paul add this stipulation? Continue reading
According to the King James Version, Paul gives the direct advice to Timothy to withdraw from difficult people. (1Tim. 6:5) Modern versions do not include this order. What would be the reason?
1Tim. 6:3 – 5 “If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings. Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.” Continue reading
The statement “through his blood” in Colossians 1:14, is not found in most modern versions of the Bible. What would be the reason that such a Biblical truth could be removed?
(KJVR) “In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:“
(NIV) “…in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.”
Let us first look at the manuscripts to our disposal. The oldest Greek manuscript we have containing the words “through his blood”, is Ms. 1912 dating ±950 A.D. and then again in Ms. 35 of ±1050. After that most minuscule manuscripts do have these words. Continue reading
I re-blog this post from Phillip Lang’s blog “Reading Acts”. ( http://readingacts.wordpress.com/)
May you be blessed as much as I had been reading it.
The Gospel of John and the “Other Disciples” – Andrew
December 2, 2014 in Gospels | Tags: Andrew, Apostle Andrew
Phillip writes as follows:
We know far less about Andrew than Peter, James and John, although he is often listed along with these three in the gospels. Andrew and Peter were brothers, as were James and John, working in the same fishing village in Galilee when they are called to be followers of Jesus. But all four seem to have been looking for the coming of the Messiah, as we see from reading John 1.
When John the Baptist was still baptizing in the Jordan, Andrew is following him. They encounter the Lord and John the Baptist announce that Jesus is the Messiah. In John’s gospel, this is the third day, usually significant in the Bible! The witness of John starts a “chain reaction” as Jesus is followed by Andrew and another disciple of John the Baptist (1:35-39). Continue reading