by niv and rev

You cant subscribe to new translations

2 Now there is in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate a pool, in Hebrew called Beth-za′tha,[a]which has five porticoes. 3 In these lay a multitude of invalids, blind, lame, paralyzed.[b]5 One man was there, who had been ill for thirty-eight years. 6 When Jesus saw him and knew that he had been lying there a long time, he said to him, “Do you want to be healed?” 7 The sick man answered him, “Sir, I have no man to put me into the pool when the water is troubled, and while I am going another steps down before me.” 8 Jesus said to him, “Rise, take up your pallet, and walk.” 9 And at once the man was healed, and he took up his pallet and walked.
Now that day was the sabbath. 10 So the Jews said to the man who was cured, “It is the sabbath, it is not lawful for you to carry your pallet.” 11 But he answered them, “The man who healed me said to me, ‘Take up your pallet, and walk.’” 12 They asked him, “Who is the man who said to you, ‘Take up your pallet, and walk’?” 13 Now the man who had been healed did not know who it was, for Jesus had withdrawn, as there was a crowd in the place. 14 Afterward, Jesus found him in the temple, and said to him, “See, you are well! Sin no more, that nothing worse befall you.” 15 The man went away and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had healed him. 16 And this was why the Jews persecuted Jesus, because he did this on the sabbath. 17 But Jesus answered them, “My Father is working still, and I am working.” 18 This was why the Jews sought all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the sabbath but also called God his own Father, making himself equal with God

All biblical versions of the Bible prior to the revised version of 1881 were dependent upon the "Ancient copies" (those dated at about five to six hundred years after Jesus). The revisers of the Revised Standard Version (RSV) 1952 were the first biblical scholars to have access to the "Most ancient copies" which date roughly four hundred years after Christ. It is only logical for us to concur that the closer a document is to the source the more authentic it is. Upon discovering these "most" ancient copies of the Bible, what did the scholars of the Bible learn about their "King James Version" (KJV) of the Bible? In the preface of the RSV 1971 we find the following:
"...Yet the King James Version has GRAVE DEFECTS.."
They go on to caution us that:
"...That these defects are SO MANY AND SO SERIOUS as to call for revision"
The New Revised Standard Version of the Bible by Oxford Press has the following to say in its preface:
"Yet the King James Version has serious defects. By the middle of the nineteenth century, the development of biblical studies and the discovery of many biblical manuscripts more ancient than those on which the King James Version was based made it apparent that these defects were so many as to call for revision."

Who says so? Who are these people who claim that the Bible in the hands of the majority of today's Christians contains "many" "grave defects" which are so "serious" as to require a complete overhaul of the text? Well, we can find the answer in the very same RSV Bible. In it, the publishers themselves (Collins) mention on page 10 of their notes:
"This Bible (RSV) is the product of thirty two scholars assisted by an advisory committee representing fifty cooperating denominations"
Let us see what is the opinion of Christendom with regard to these scholars and their work in the revision of the Bible (revised by them in 1952 and then again in 1971):
"The finest version which has been produced in the present century" - (Church of England newspaper)
"A completely fresh translation by scholars of the highest eminence" - (Times literary supplement)
"The well loved characteristics of the authorized version combined with a new accuracy of translation" - (Life and Work)
"The most accurate and close rendering of the original" - (The Times)
"Bias" In NT Development
A balanced look at the status and authenticity of the New Testament texts.

dude

everything was run by the jews 1930s onward

thats why its best to just look at the old translation

"Jews"do the deeds for the ashkenazi that run vatican city

all forms of Jewish hatred = serfs or serf culture hatred

European culture throughout history, be it colonial based or mainland European, has a strong history of violence to address for, a even stronger history of dynastic struggles or cultural struggles or insert slogan to fight for and kill millions here as well struggle, and if not it's got Science/Technology as it's major influence globally alongside it's many lines of conflicts

if Europeans can be that racist to each other over petty historical grievances that remained... no wonder they hate each other even today in between market share like a new styled religious system of "blaming the heretic, forming the upkeep"

And no other continent does this?

and mind you, I do like Europeans

well they did yes

but the history is not as conflictive

the Japanese for example did horrible things, but I'd say their restoration policies kept them more in line than today's crashing economy did the European based American modelled societies at large

there is 100% guaranteed here, a problem with who keeps the segregation also among the whites themselves, or Europeans today

because the Trojan War went continuous, in loops

humans just tent to have group loyality

The African Khoi people hated their Bantu neigbours so much, that they teamed up with the Europeans against them

Also the Pigmies are racially discriminated against by other black ppl

Gay is a word

o

There is no possible comparaison between Europeans and Japanese. Unless a pan-European identity is created, then there can't be an European in-group, unless faced by an external threat (and even then defection is always a possibility, and the norm throughout history even amongst what you would consider natural allies). Europeans do not form an in-group, just like humanity doesn't form a group, primates do not form an in-group, or life in general.

Speaking of which, humanity is a made-up concept which has no basis on reality.

Why do people fight against each other? Because they are in competition.