Thoughts about using a KJV update?

[Grailhunter]

Okay, I'll repeat my post (with emphases)...

Ephesians 2:8-9, "For by grace you are saved through faith, and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God; it is not from works, so that no one can boast."

This verse clearly states that you are saved through faith, which is a gift of God. Notice that baptism is not mentioned, nor is any other ritual. Rituals do not save you, faith does. If you disagree then take it up with God.

Would you like a larger font? The Bible clearly says that faith is a gift of God. Acts 2:38 has nothing to do with faith.

All righty then! I will repeat myself too with boldness....and underlining....and color....and Emojis!

If you can find a scripture that says specifically that Baptism has no part of salvation or the remission of sins...then ya got something.

If not, Acts 2:28 is a process that is not to be dissected. You are not going to find scriptures that say you do not need faith in Christ to have your sins forgiven and to be saved. You are not going to find scriptures that say you do not need to repent to have your sins forgiven and to be saved. You are not going to find scriptures that say you do not need to be baptized to have your sins forgiven and to be saved. The end result of the forgiveness of sins and salvation is the complete process of Acts 2:38. Kind of like a package deal, not to be sold separately....LOL HA HA!

The Apostles spoke in absolutes, They were not tolerating debates. Dissension and disobedience was defined as a sin, if not a curse.

From there all other circumstances and decisions of not completing the process, by choice or death or how you weight them, is between you and Christ on Judgment Day!

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The Devil Tries To Place His Name in Modern Translations
(Where they do not belong):

A simple side by side comparison of the KJV vs Modern Translations shows us that the devil tries to place his name in the Modern Versions where they do not belong. Do you have no idea what I am talking about?

Well, many Bible versions say that it is the dragon who is standing on the sea shore in Revelation. This is just evil and wrong.

See Parallel Version for Revelation 13:1 here...

Revelation 13:1 The dragon stood on the shore of the sea. And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. It had ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on its horns, and on each head a blasphemous name.

See, if you know anything about Bible language, standing on something means that you "own it"; And the devil wants to own you. In the King James, John is standing on the seashore. Yet in many Bible versions the dragon (i.e. the devil) is standing on the seashore.

Why is this a problem?

Let's look at...

Genesis 22:17

"That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the seashore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;"

Did you catch that? God says to Abraham that He will multiply his seed as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is upon the seashore where he will then possess the gate of his enemies (i.e. the devil and his kingdom). The apostle John who wrote Revelation was Jewish and he was the promised seed of Genesis 22 standing on the seashore in Revelation 13. It was not the dragon or the devil standing on the seashore.

For certain Modern Versions eliminate the part of the passage in Revelation 13:1 that says that John is standing on the seashore (When he refers to himself as "I").

In fact, this is not the only time the devil has tried to place his name in the Bible in exchange for something that is supposed to be sacred or holy. We see the devil tries to place his name in Modern Translations in Daniel 3.

In Daniel 3, the Babylonian king says there is one like the "Son of God" in the fiery furnace along with Daniel's three friends. This is Jesus! Yet, in the Modern Translations it says the "son of the gods." In many false religions we can see how certain gods had mated with human females and created a hybrid. This is popular even in Greek mythology. So who saved Daniel's friends? Jesus or some hybrid like Hercules?

Nebuchadnezzar thought this was an angel of God (singular and not plural).

"Then Nebuchadnezzar spake, and said, Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who hath sent his angel, and delivered his servants that trusted in him, and have changed the king's word, and yielded their bodies, that they might not serve nor worship any god, except their own God." (Daniel 3:28).

This was not the "son of the gods (plural) (little "g")!!!
No way Hosea! I mean, "No way José!"
Nebuchadnezzar clearly was referencing the most high God.
The Bible says (even something similar in your Modern Version),

"Then Nebuchadnezzar came near to the mouth of the burning fiery furnace, and spake, and said, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, ye servants of the most high God, come forth, and come hither. Then Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, came forth of the midst of the fire." (Daniel 3:26).

Angels are called the: "sons of God" in Job.

The fourth person in the fire was still Jesus! The son of God. The Scriptures were still correct in their inspiration by God when they say, "and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God." While Nebuchadnezzar did not know it was the second person of the Godhead or the Trinity, the Lord our God who inspired Scripture surely would have glorified the name of the Son of God (Jesus) in this instance. For it was Jesus who was in the fire with Daniel's three friends!

Also, please check out this thread here, as well. It will help to explain this situation a little better, too.

Jesus is the Messenger of the Lord in the Old Testament.
(Please take note: I do not believe Jesus is an angelic being; I believe Jesus is the second person of the Godhead or the Trinity and that He is fully 100% God who took on the flesh of man).

In Isaiah 14:12, the devil's name "Lucifer" is replaced with "Day Star" or the "Morning Star."
Yes, I am aware that "morning stars" are angels in the book of Job.

But Modern Translations also say this is the Shining Star or the Son of the Dawn. Why?

Jesus says,
"I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star." (Revelation 22:16).

So Jesus is the BRIGHT and MORNING star!

Yet, the individual in Isaiah 14:12 in Modern Translations is called the shining (bright) and morning star or the Day Star, etc.

So the devil is trying to be like the Most High God here. He is taking a similar sounding title of Jesus in Isaiah 14:12.

For where is the bright and morning star up in the sky?
It is the sun.
That is why He is called the bright and morning star because the sun is bright and rises in the morning.

Also, Lucifer means "light bearer."
Scripture tells us this is what it means.

"And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light." (2 Corinthians 11:14).

The word "angel" also means "messenger." So 2 Corinthians 11:14 is saying that Satan is a light messenger or light bearer. In fact, when Satan is described with having all kinds of jewelry on him, it was symbolic of who he was. Certain gemstones refract light. They are not light themselves, but they merely reflect whatever light is in existence. Gemstones are like little light bearers. So how fitting the name "Lucifer" is for the devil. Yet, Modern Translations seek to give the devil a name that is similar to Jesus. This is wrong (of course).

Side Note:

While this is not the devil’s name being added into the text where it does not belong, it is a change that favor’s the devil.

Revelation 2:13: changes “Satan’s seat” to “Satan’s throne” (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV, NKJV).

 

[Robert Gwin]

This does not scare you and your loved ones?...

9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,

10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:

11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

13 And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them.


....you are Rambo, my friend.

No sir, not Rambo, it scares the heck out of me. In fact, I think you are going to see a very bad year this year, the scene of this world is changing rapidly. I believe we are on the verge of the great tribulation, but keep in mind what that means in the stream of time, when that hits, our deliverance is near. We have the greatest example ever by observing how Jehovah provided for His people while they were in the wilderness for 40 yrs, He gave them manna and other foods to eat, even providing to the point of their very shoes not wearing out.
(Deuteronomy 29:5) . . .While I kept guiding you for 40 years in the wilderness, your garments did not wear out on you and your sandals did not wear out on your feet.

Those who do not take the mark, will be cared for my friend.

 

[Truther]

No sir, not Rambo, it scares the heck out of me. In fact, I think you are going to see a very bad year this year, the scene of this world is changing rapidly. I believe we are on the verge of the great tribulation, but keep in mind what that means in the stream of time, when that hits, our deliverance is near. We have the greatest example ever by observing how Jehovah provided for His people while they were in the wilderness for 40 yrs, He gave them manna and other foods to eat, even providing to the point of their very shoes not wearing out.
(Deuteronomy 29:5) . . .While I kept guiding you for 40 years in the wilderness, your garments did not wear out on you and your sandals did not wear out on your feet.

Those who do not take the mark, will be cared for my friend.

All I can tell you is when you see these things BEGIN to come to pass...look up, for your redemption draweth nigh.

Not, AFTER these things happen...look up....

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Chances are a KJB Update is going to be influenced by Modernism.
The KJVER Sword Study Bible is one example of this. It gives definitions for words that favors the thinking in the Modern Translation Camp.

 

[Jim B]

Chances are a KJB Update is going to be influenced by Modernism.
The KJVER Sword Study Bible is one example of this. It gives definitions for words that favors the thinking in the Modern Translation Camp.

So you want to pretend that you live 400+ years ago under the rule of James 1? One of the reasons that the Pharisees missed the coming of the Messiah is that they clung to their (mis)interpretations of what they believed God's Word said. This applies in your case as well. Your lavish devotion to an out-of-date translation is tragic.

Hebrews 13:13a, "Let us, then, go to him outside the camp" Let us go to Jesus and not be trapped by the traditions of a long dead secular ruler.

Once again, the King James translation is not the word of God. It is a translation only. It wasn't the first and it should not, by any means, be the last.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Explaining The Problem of the Footnotes

in Modern Translations

That Cast Doubt on the Accepting

Mark 16:9-20, &

John 7:53 through John 8:1-11

as the Word of God.​

Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-John 8:1-11 include a forward footnote in certain Modern Translations and some say that it may not be in the original manuscripts. This is problematic because it casts doubt on whether God preserved His Word or not or that His Word is trustworthy.

As for Mark 16:9-20:

Well, there are two major problems with this footnote on this passage that leads to unbelief in God’s Word.

First problem: If we cast doubt on whether Jesus said for us to preach the gospel to every creature, then it no longer becomes a necessity. The devil would love nothing more than for us to not to have a desire to preach to every creature or person. This is far different than Paul saying “I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.” Paul did not say to go out and preach the gospel to every creature. Jesus did. This is important because it is a part of our great commission. If we lose focus of that, we lose focus of spreading the love of the truth to ALL others that can save them. Jesus wanted all to be saved by the gospel by us preaching to every creature (person) the good news of salvation. This aspect of the great commission shows also the scope of our mission. Should we just preach to some or a few and that’s good? Jesus says to preach to every creature.

Second problem is that if we believe the footnote and doubt the truth of the disciples not believing the account of the women and the two men on the Road to Emmaus, then we can fall prey to thinking that we can never fall into unbelief on certain things involving what God says, too. We may think we are infallible and know it all. Therein lies the danger because they are an example to us today to always be listening closely to what God’s Word says.

As for John 7:53-John 8:1-11:

I have run into a Christian online before who believes the beginning part of John 8 is not in his Bible. No doubt this was the result of him believing either the footnotes in Modern Translations or from believing a scholar who is in the Modern Translation camp.

Is he correct? No.

For I can prove to you the beginning part of John 8 is in your Bible.

What did Jesus write on the ground in John 8?

John 4:14 says,

"...the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life."

John 7:37-39 says,

37 "In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.
38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)"

This relates. We can know what Jesus was writing in the ground when the Jews tested him in regards to the woman caught in the act of adultery by looking at other Scripture. By Scripture, we see a reference to the LORD [Jesus], the fountain of living waters [the Holy Spirit].

Jeremiah 17:13 says,

"O LORD, the hope of Israel, all that forsake thee shall be ashamed, and they that depart from me shall be written in the earth, because they have forsaken the LORD [i.e. Jesus], the fountain of living waters [i.e. the Holy Ghost]."

Note 1: The words in brackets in light blue (above) is my commentary to the text.

Note 2: Words in bright red are references to the Holy Spirit. Words in green is in reference to the Tree of Life, the door (wood, tree), who is Jesus.

Note 3: In the words in the above verse, you will notice that they (the Jews) that were accusing Jesus in regards to the woman caught in the act of adultery, their names were written down in the earth. This is what Jesus was writing in the Earth. Jesus was writing down the names of those who had forsaken the Lord. I highlighted the words in purple above in Jeremiah to show that their names written in the earth as we behold in the scene in John 8.

Note 4: We tie this together because of the words, "the LORD, the fountain of living waters" in Jeremiah 17:13 is tied to John 7:38 that says, "out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water."

Again, John 7:38 says,

"He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water."

Here is the scene with Jesus writing in the ground with the Jews in regards to the woman caught in the act of adultery:

John 8:4-6 says,

4 "They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. "

What is interesting is that the very previous chapter (John 7), we are told that anyone who believes in Jesus out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. Yet, in Jeremiah 17:13, we learn that this fountain of living waters is what these Jews rejected and their names were written in the ground because they forsaken the Lord.

So yes. It's true. John 8:1-11 (along with John 7:53) belongs in our Bible.
The testimony of the whole of Scripture confirms this.
Therefore, in conclusion: The whole “footnotes thing casting doubt on John 8 belonging in our Bible” is erroneous. The same is true for Mark 16:9-20, as well.

Believe your King James Bible.

 

[Grailhunter]

You can keep saying that the King James Bible is not the Word of God all you like but that does not change the fact that it is the Word of God.

To the same extent all are the Word of God....just some are more accurate than others.....and God has not signed off on any of them.

 

[Robert Gwin]

All I can tell you is when you see these things BEGIN to come to pass...look up, for your redemption draweth nigh.

Not, AFTER these things happen...look up....

Amen to that Truth, we are, and we believe it is very near. Do you recognize the stream of time we are in sir?

 

[Truther]

Chances are a KJB Update is going to be influenced by Modernism.
The KJVER Sword Study Bible is one example of this. It gives definitions for words that favors the thinking in the Modern Translation Camp.

I am sure of that.

They should call it "Bible for Dummies".

 

[Truther]

Amen to that Truth, we are, and we believe it is very near. Do you recognize the stream of time we are in sir?

Yessir, I watch closely.

Especially the events that have transpired in the middle east....yikes!

 

[Jim B]

You can keep saying that the King James Bible is not the Word of God all you like but that does not change the fact that it is the Word of God.
So what’s your real beef in a person believing the Bible that existed for hundreds of years? What is it to you? Why get all bent out of shape that a person believes the Bible? You do realize that if we were living in the mid 1600’s to mid 1800’s we would not even be having this discussion. The King James Bible would be the most popular Bible in wide use at that time and other bibles were Textus Receptus bibles. So you are believing something that came way later.

I am not saying that the King James Bible is not the Word of God; that is a clear (and deliberate) distortion of what I have been posting. I have said one thing clearly, over and over: the King James Bible is just an English translation, one of many. You are the one claiming that it is the pure Word of God.

The rest of your post is nonsense; deliberate distortions. Of course the English(!) Bible has existed for hundreds of years. There were translations before the KJV and there have been translations after the KJV. "You do realize that if we were living in the mid 1600’s to mid 1800’s we would not even be having this discussion" is foolishness. Apparently you've never heard of the Tyndale and Geneva Bibles, which preceded the KJV and caused many to flee from King James. Also, there were the Darby, Douay–Rheims Bibles, Robert Aitken's Bible, Noah Webster's Bible, The Illuminated Bible, and others.

If you can't be truthful, why are you even discussing the issue???

 

[Grailhunter]

I am not saying that the King James Bible is not the Word of God; that is a clear (and deliberate) distortion of what I have been posting. I have said one thing clearly, over and over: the King James Bible is just an English translation, one of many. You are the one claiming that it is the pure Word of God.

The rest of your post is nonsense; deliberate distortions. Of course the English(!) Bible has existed for hundreds of years. There were translations before the KJV and there have been translations after the KJV. "You do realize that if we were living in the mid 1600’s to mid 1800’s we would not even be having this discussion" is foolishness. Apparently you've never heard of the Tyndale and Geneva Bibles, which preceded the KJV and caused many to flee from King James. Also, there were the Darby, Douay–Rheims Bibles, Robert Aitken's Bible, Noah Webster's Bible, The Illuminated Bible, and others.

If you can't be truthful, why are you even discussing the issue???

You are right Jim B,
Technically, "the Word of God" came out of God's mouth.
Old and New Testament is the physical act of men documenting it. Ink to the parchment....
Various translations have "translated" that.
The translation process in the 1600's and older were looking at newer manuscripts and the work of other men that had translated before them...Textus Receptus, the Vulgate, and newer manuscripts.

Well if you get into the study of the history of the manuscripts as they moved through the centuries you can see that people "men" felt so strongly about the beliefs of the time periods, that they felt that the Bible should confirm those beliefs. And they wanted the Bible to support their beliefs, so they would add their beliefs to the manuscripts....the Johannine Comma Addition is one of the more famous examples of this as well as the story of the adulterous woman brought before Christ.

So the older manuscripts that were copied shortly after the originals are considered more accurate...and there is no reason to translate from the work of other translators that occurred through history. As far as the Old Testament the Dead Sea Scrolls are confirming the accuracy of them.

So the modern translations are working with more accurate copies of the scriptures and do not rely on the work of past translators. Their interests are only the translating of the words of the scriptures. And just as importantly they are not taking into the consideration all the beliefs of our time period....nor the doctrines of the various denominations.

 

[Jim B]

You are right Jim B,
Technically, "the Word of God" came out of God's mouth.
Old and New Testament is the physical act of men documenting it. Ink to the parchment....
Various translations have "translated" that.
The translation process in the 1600's and older were looking at newer manuscripts and the work of other men that had translated before them...Textus Receptus, the Vulgate, and newer manuscripts.

Well if you get into the study of the history of the manuscripts as they moved through the centuries you can see that people "men" felt so strongly about the beliefs of the time periods, that they felt that the Bible should confirm those beliefs. And they wanted the Bible to support their beliefs, so they would add their beliefs to the manuscripts....the Johannine Comma Addition is one of the more famous examples of this as well as the story of the adulterous woman brought before Christ.

So the older manuscripts that were copied shortly after the originals are considered more accurate...and there is no reason to translate from the work of other translators that occurred through history. As far as the Old Testament the Dead Sea Scrolls are confirming the accuracy of them.

So the modern translations are working with more accurate copies of the scriptures and do not rely on the work of past translators. Their interests are only the translating of the words of the scriptures. And just as importantly they are not taking into the consideration all the beliefs of our time period....nor the doctrines of the various denominations.

Very accurate and informative post. Thanks!

 

[Michiah-Imla]

@Grailhunter said:
“they wanted the Bible to support their beliefs, so they would add their beliefs to the manuscripts.... the Johannine Comma Addition is one of the more famous examples of this as well as the story of the adulterous woman brought before Christ. …So the older manuscripts that were copied shortly after the originals are considered more accurate...and there is no reason to translate from the work of other translators that occurred through history.
…So the modern translations are working with more accurate copies of the scriptures”

So it’s entirely impossible that these “older” manuscripts were corrupted by scholars deleting some scriptures to align them with their beliefs and were rejected long ago until discovered later? This is impossible to you @Grailhunter ?

And it is only possible that all the late manuscripts are corrupted by additions?

How can you believe such nonsense?

So the established text handed down for hundreds of years has to suddenly be thrown aside because of some new discovery of manuscripts that don’t even agree between themselves in many places?!

You’d be wise to heed this quote:

“Going back to the time of the early church we find the Coptic Versions, the Latin Versions and Syrian Versions. These Bibles were in circulation before the Vaticanus was written. It is hard to see how God would allow the true text to be hidden in the Vatican Library and in a waste paper basket in a cave for 1,500 years and to be brought to the light of day by two Cambridge Professors who did not even believe in the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures.” “Which Bible” and True and False, edited by David Otis Fuller.

 

[Grailhunter]

So it’s entirely impossible that these “older” manuscripts were corrupted by scholars deleting some scriptures to align them with their beliefs and were rejected long ago until discovered later? This is impossible to you @Grailhunter ?

It is the evolution of it that shows what they did and the correlation to period beliefs as the manuscript moved through history.
As far as a conspiracy that over the early centuries the older manuscripts were modified it would take a group with the intent to corrupt the manuscripts. It would out live any person to coordinate such a sacrilegious attempt....and back then they would burn you for it.

And then were did these additional scriptures and stories come from....thin air? Extra-biblical?

 

[Michiah-Imla]

It is the evolution of it that shows what they did and the correlation to period beliefs as the manuscript moved through history.
As far as a conspiracy that over the early centuries the older manuscripts were modified it would take a group with the intent to corrupt the manuscripts. It would out live any person to coordinate such a sacrilegious attempt....and back them they would burn you for it.

And then were did these additional scriptures and stories come from....thin air? Extra-biblical?

You’re so brainwashed that you’re deaf to any other possible scenario.

Here are the fathers of what you believe:

Hort as well as Westcott rejected the idea of the infallibility of the Bible, and Hort called the doctrine of the substitutionary atonement “immoral”, Westcott denied the historicity of Genesis 1 through 3 and Hort praised Darwin and denied the divinity of Christ.

 

[Grailhunter]

You’re so brainwashed that you’re deaf to any other possible scenario.

Here’s are the fathers of what you believe:

Hort as well as Westcott rejected the idea of the infallibility of the Bible, and Hort called the doctrine of the substitutionary atonement “immoral”, Westcott denied the historicity of Genesis 1 through 3 and Hort praised Darwin and denied the divinity of Christ.

I said nothing of the sort.
There is a character flaw that you are showing here.
Twisting someone's words and not speaking the truth.....some people could call that a liar!

 

[Michiah-Imla]

I said nothing of the sort.

I didn’t say you did.

I was showing you what Hort and Westcott believed.

After all, you repeat the same nonsense about the late manuscripts being corrupted as they did back then.

In connection with Westcott and Hort’s theory Dean Burgon writes:

“We oppose facts to their speculation. They exalt B and Aleph and D(8) because in their own opinions those copies are the best. They weave ingenious webs and invent subtle theories, because their paradox of a few against the many requires ingenuity and subtlety for its support. I am utterly disinclined to believe… so grossly improbable does it seem - that at the end of 1800 years 995 copies out of every thousand, suppose, will prove untrustworthy.”

 

[Jim B]

@Grailhunter said:
“they wanted the Bible to support their beliefs, so they would add their beliefs to the manuscripts.... the Johannine Comma Addition is one of the more famous examples of this as well as the story of the adulterous woman brought before Christ. …So the older manuscripts that were copied shortly after the originals are considered more accurate...and there is no reason to translate from the work of other translators that occurred through history.
…So the modern translations are working with more accurate copies of the scriptures”

So it’s entirely impossible that these “older” manuscripts were corrupted by scholars deleting some scriptures to align them with their beliefs and were rejected long ago until discovered later? This is impossible to you @Grailhunter ?

And it is only possible that all the late manuscripts are corrupted by additions?

How can you believe such nonsense?

So the established text handed down for hundreds of years has to suddenly be thrown aside because of some new discovery of manuscripts that don’t even agree between themselves in many places?!

You’d be wise to heed this quote:

“Going back to the time of the early church we find the Coptic Versions, the Latin Versions and Syrian Versions. These Bibles were in circulation before the Vaticanus was written. It is hard to see how God would allow the true text to be hidden in the Vatican Library and in a waste paper basket in a cave for 1,500 years and to be brought to the light of day by two Cambridge Professors who did not even believe in the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures.” “Which Bible” and True and False, edited by David Otis Fuller.

"So the established text handed down for hundreds of years has to suddenly be thrown aside because of some new discovery of manuscripts that don’t even agree between themselves in many places?". Exactly! New discoveries -- the Dead Sea scrolls come to mind immediately -- of ancient manuscripts (including non-Biblical ones that shed light on the Biblical language and cultures) and a greater understanding derived from those discoveries have given us the best understanding so far of the what the ancient writings actually say and what they meant to the earlier peoples.