Deborah_

These earlier texts are available in museums. They're not figments of anyone's imagination; people have read them. If I can't make an "absolute" statement of the accuracy of one text over another, then neither can you. But most of the experts in such matters DO believe that they are more accurate - and that IS a statement of fact.

There are dozens of them. Why can you not just explain in a sentence or two which of their many arguments you found so convincing?

Why did you become an atheist?

The people who "made the changes" were the scribes who copied the manuscripts in the early centuries after Christ. They didn't set out to "change God's word"; they simply made errors. Sometimes they missed words out; sometimes they added them. "Newer" Bible versions are based on older texts because these are believed to be more accurate (i.e. closer to what was originally written). So we should think of the new versions as pre-dating the KJV, not the other way round! I personally stay away from the KJV and only read new versions.

Millions of Christians, all over the world, take medications for long-term illnesses. I've been on one for 30 years. Very, VERY occasionally, God tells someone to stop medication for some reason. But there are some ground rules: 1) You need to be very sure that it's God who wants you to do it, and not some healer or preacher trying to influence you (or something you've read in a book somewhere). If God ever wants you to do anything risky, He will give you clear, personal guidance. If in any doubt, don't! 2) Be clear about your motives. Are you wanting to appear more 'spiritual'? (It's not unspiritual or immature to follow good medical advice, and taking medication is nothing to be ashamed of) Are you trying to 'blackmail' God into healing your illness? (This is called "putting God to the test", and is a serious sin) 3) You should never stop any prescribed medication without consulting your doctor. At the very least, they need to be warned that you're going to do it! And it can be dangerous to stop some medications suddenly. It's true that "God didn't create us to be dependent on medications". But we are not as He originally created us, are we? We are subject to both sin and sickness. Therefore medications (and surgical operations) are sometimes necessary for us to function as near as possible to God's original intention. To summarise: taking medication is not a sin, and you won't lose your salvation because of it. If anything, stopping your medication might be a sin, depending on the circumstances .

The real issue is: can demons cause disease? Because we know that migraines are a perfectly 'normal' type of headache, and the tendency to get migraines is genetic. There are some people who believe that all illnesses are caused by demons - not just migraines, but asthma, cancer, etc, etc. Are they correct? I don't think so. I think it's part of a temptation to blame everything on Satan, and a desire to turn every problem into a spiritual warfare issue. It's true that in the gospels there are a few instances of people being exorcised by Jesus and being healed as a result - of epilepsy (Mark 9:18-27) and deaf-mutism (Matthew 12:22,23). But these were exceptional cases - the vast majority of sick people were healed by Jesus, not exorcised!

This happens because the Greek is ambiguous - it could mean either "evil" or "the evil one". This is not uncommon when translating one language into another (English has its ambiguities as well). When translating, we have to make a choice (sometimes only one meaning makes sense, but in this case both would fit). The original author probably had both meanings in his mind. Unfortunately the neuter is the same as the masculine - so it could just as easily be "the evil" (Greek often adds "the" to abstract nouns). Incidentally, "ponerou" is genitive, not nominative

And here is the problem: second-class research and poor quality data (such as the VAERS data, which is often misused by anti-vaccination campaigners) is easy to find on the Internet. The good stuff is hidden away in academic journals behind subscription walls. A few months ago, on another forum, I was asked to come up with some evidence to support my position that was (a) freely available and (b) understandable by the average lay person. I tried. In the (relatively short) time available, I failed. Now that I'm retired, I don't have academic access any more. But during my career I've learned who I can trust. I'm trusting them now - that's why I've had the vaccine. The proof of the pudding is always in the eating. The vaccine isn't perfect, I know - it doesn't prevent all infections - but we didn't have time to wait for a perfect one. Over time, the evidence we want is coming in, and it's becoming ever clearer that it's better to have the vaccine than not to have it. It's understandable that many people were reluctant to be vaccinated at the beginning of the year, when the vaccine really was new. But we know a lot more about the vaccines now - and the personal experience of the millions of happily vaccinated people is surely as deserving of consideration as the negative experiences of the unfortunate few who have had serious problems with it.

The fact that these translations were earlier than the Latin is beside the point. The monks who brought Christianity to England were from Rome, spoke Latin, and used the Latin Bible. The New Testament was originally written in Greek, and the writers had no problem with altering Hebrew names where necessary to make them pronounceable in Greek. They did this under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, so I suspect that God Himself is not too bothered by this. Why should we be?

My advice would be that, unless you have some personal medical contra-indication, you SHOULD have the vaccine. That's not "giving in to what everyone else wants". It's common sense. Not to have the vaccine would be "giving in" - giving in to fear induced by reading too many online articles. It's much too easy to find the handful of "immunology experts" giving frantic warnings about this or that complication, which gives an entirely false impression. In fact, the vast majority of doctors and immunologists in the world think the vaccine is a good thing - don't their opinions count for anything? I'm a doctor myself. I've had the vaccine, as has virtually everyone else I know. We're all alive and well, months later. The vaccine is not totally without risk (no vaccine or medicine is), but the risks are MUCH LESS than the risks of catching the virus itself - and yes, I also know people who have died or have long-term ill-effects from the virus.

The Gospel was brought to England by monks from Rome in the 6th century. They were using the Latin translation of the Bible - this was hundreds of years before the first English translation direct from Hebrew and Greek. By then, people had got used to the Latin versions of the names - and so they stuck.

The steward took action in his present "life" (employment) to ensure his wellbeing in the next "life" (unemployment)

The names didn't come directly into English from either Hebrew or Greek, but via Latin. Apparently that accounts for a lot of the changes.

This wasn't an ordinary battle but a "holy war". One of the rules of a "holy war" was that the Israelites were not to get any material benefit from the defeat of their enemies. So no captives were to be taken (in order to get ransom) and all plunder was to be destroyed - including the animals.

But this isn't the beginning of the story. And if you don't start at the beginning, you may well get the wrong end of the stick. Why did God command Saul to wipe out the Amalekites? Because the Amalekites had already been enemies of God and His people for centuries before - from the time of the Exodus. In Exodus 17:8-16 we read how they attacked the Israelites shortly after their escape from Egypt, and in Deuteronomy we learn that they went for the weakest members of the community. (Deuteronomy 25:17-19) The Israelites defeated them only with great difficulty at that time. So God passed a judgement upon the Amalekites: they were to be destroyed as soon as Israel had sufficient military strength - which wasn't until the time of Saul (and even then he didn't do the job properly - there were still lots of Amalekites left!). In other words, the Amalekites were the initial aggressors, not the Israelites. And it wasn't just one generation of Amalekites; as we read in I Samuel 30:1, they made a habit of attacking and robbing their neighbours in every generation. Haman was just being "true to type".

Technically, all forms of investment are a gamble - but some are much safer bets than others. Putting your money in a bank is failsafe, but (certainly in the UK) interest rates are so low that you might as well not bother. With stocks and shares you can win 0r lose - but you're more likely to 'win' if you put your money into some kind of investment fund where a professional does the actual picking of the shares. Then there's gold or bitcoin. Personally, I think that a Christian should put their money where it's going to benefit somebody else as well as themselves. If you put it in a savings account, the bank will lend it to someone who needs a loan. If you buy stocks and shares, the company that you invest in uses the money to expand and run their business. But who benefits from bitcoin? To me it seems rather like hoarding your wealth under the mattress.

Are you sure? Only God is eternal (I Timothy 6:16); we are created, and therefore we have not always existed. As far as I know the Bible says nothing about the existence of souls prior to conception, so I presume that is when our souls 'begin', along with our bodies.

1) Better than either is the person who does both. 2) Obviously it's possible to attend church regularly and yet not be born again. On the other hand, it's hard to imagine someone spending a lot of time with Jesus without being born again (although Judas managed it). So the answer to your second question - statistically - is "the person who spends time with Jesus". But it doesn't follow that attending church is somehow less important - let alone an optional extra. We are born again into the family of God, and if our faith is genuine we won't be able to ignore our brothers and sisters for long.

What do you mean when you talk about the Bible "working" or "working for me"? What are you expecting it to do? Reading the Bible regularly is always a good thing, but we don't necessarily see the effects straight away. God's word doesn't "return empty" (Isaiah 55:11) - but if you read the whole passage God's Word is being compared to rain watering the earth and making crops grow - which isn't an instant process, it takes many months! Obedience is, of course, an essential part of the process. Are you trying to put what you read into practice (you won't always succeed, of course)? I've been reading the Bible for nearly 50 years now. It's been a rare occasion when God has spoken to me directly, but His Word as a whole has percolated into my mind over the years and done its work slowly and steadily.

I believe that the gifts of the Spirit are for today, but it isn't necessary (let alone critical) to have a particular gift. I often pray in tongues but have never prophesied. Paul says that not everyone speaks in tongues and not everyone has the gift of prophecy (I Corinthians 12:29-30). So you can be baptised in the Spirit without ever doing either. The Spirit will give you the gift(s) that He determines. Of course you can ask for particular gifts, but you won't necessarily get them!

I've had two doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine. Felt a bit flu-ey after each one, but nothing major.

It's something rarely commented on, but miraculous healings of Christians in the New Testament are rare - the only cases I can think of are Aeneas, Dorcas and Eutychus. In Acts, healings are almost invariably associated with evangelism (most strikingly, the cripple in Acts 14:8-10); they are signs of the Kingdom that back up the message. It's not that Christians are never healed, but NT believers are not generally encouraged to expect personal healing. (In James 5:14,15, the sick person's recovery is not inevitable; it's linked to a prayer of faith, which to me implies a specific gift of faith for that situation.) When Epaphroditus was sick (Philippians 2:27), Paul was obviously not expecting him to recover, and was overjoyed when he did.

Interesting point... but actually they weren't in Israel at the time. Jesus was on the east side of Lake Galilee, in Decapolis. It was a thoroughly Gentile area.

This has a always been a problem - which is why Scripture tells us to test the prophets (e.g. I Corinthians 14:29). We are so very easily self-deceived, in many areas of life. The people who say "God has told me such-and-such" probably genuinely believe that. But be suspicious if what God has personally told them conveniently lines up with their prior beliefs.

The same vitriol gets dished out on social media to all successful women. Many women MPs have complained about it. It's basically misogynistic, but obviously if these people can spot any other card to play (such as race) they will play it. I refuse to go on Twitter for that reason, but I've no reason to suppose that Meghan received worse than other women in the media spotlight. Meghan is not the only "outsider" to marry into the royal family. Most of the others have knuckled down, learned the ropes, and survived the initial trauma. Even Camilla (who was the 'other woman' supplanting Princess Diana) is now accepted and even popular with the general public. When Meghan and Harry got married there was a great deal of good will towards her. But a lot of that has been squandered by their refusal to play by the rules of the game. And some of the things that were said in the interview (such as "getting married" 3 days before the official wedding) are not quite true, which will generate more bad feeling.