>New international version

We see in the first section that the Pharisee Christians believed in adherence to Mosaic ritual law, but Paul's faction opposed such and believed in the ease of converting gentiles.

How trustworthy.

@Chaiske So it dosen't come from the original bible in any sense, and was published in 1978, thousands of years after everything went down.

Thanks rabbi, this version of the bible really made me look past my hatred.

Feel free to switch versions.

Have the Vulgate, for example.

5 surrexerunt autem quidam de heresi Pharisaeorum qui crediderant dicentes quia oportet circumcidi eos praecipere quoque servare legem Mosi

10 nunc ergo quid temptatis Deum inponere iugum super cervicem discipulorum quod neque patres nostri neque nos portare potuimus

11 sed per gratiam Domini Iesu credimus salvari quemadmodum et illi

Or the KJV

5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

@Chaiske And it came out in the 16th century.

The Latin Vulgate is the official bible of the Catholic Church and also says as much.

You can doubt the translation if you want, so feel free to read the Vulgate yourself.

At this point, I understand you're attacking the validity of the specific translations I've singled out as biblical examples narrating the fact that early Christianity had a strong Jewish bent.

In that case, you're more than free to browse the many other translations, or even the original Koine, if you'd like to yourself.

And what I am pointing out is that as the translations have come and gone as time goes on, they have lost the original point that christianity had, for the most trustworthy source you would have to get it from perhaps the first bible.

Which is why I pointed out you're free to read the Latin Vulgate or the Koine New Testament.

Which happened thousands of years later after so much.

Er... no, the Koine is the original and the Vulgate is the 4th Century Latin translation officially used by the Catholic Church.

The vulgate wasn't even recognized as legitimate until the 1500's.

And what? I see nothing stating that the koine version of the bible even existed.

The only koine version I see is a greek translation.

You sure you know what you are talking about?

You know that Koine is Greek, right?

Yep, and I am fairly certain that jesus didn't live in athens.

I'm also fairly certain that the Bible was never claimed to be written by Jesus.

When did I claim that?

' I see nothing stating that the koine version of the bible even existed. '

The warrant here is that the Koine version is a Greek translation,

And?

Which is false, because the original New Testament was written in Greek.

What?

The original New Testament was written in Koine Greek.

Mmm, I doubt that.

Do you have any citations?

Do I need a citation to doubt something?

dude it literally was lmao

Yes, you do.

Doubt must have reasonable evidence.