Hello,
The post I bring to you today is very long but VERY INTERESTING and enlightening. If you patiently read it, you will see where today’s new version of the Bible say Jesus is Satan, which is a LIE.

Do you all remember how Satan attacked the word of God in the Garden of Eden? Read the verses below for quick reminder.

Genesis 3:2-5
3:2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden.
3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die.
3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Well, that same Satan who changed God’s word to deceived Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden is still very much at work today. He is still busy changing God’s words – the Bible - to say what it doesn’t say. That is why we have many Bible versions today attacking God and Jesus Christ whom they suppose to be upholding. These new Bible versions have been influenced by Satan to corrupt the word of God.

These versions have changed that occur in specific verses that show that they were intentionally altered to fulfill a purpose of opposing God.

Below is a list of most of the top selling and most used Bible versions in the world today.

1. New International Version NIV
2. King James Version KKV
3. English standard version ESV
4. New Living Translation NLT
5. New King James Version NKJV

Except the King James Version KJV, those other versions in the list are newer and are the corrupted versions I will be pointing out to you today.

The NIV is missing 16 entire verses in the new testament.

Acts 8:37 is missing not only in the NIV but also the NLT and ESV. See how they put it below.

Acts 8:36 NIV
36 As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water. What can stand in the way of my being baptized?”
37 ******
38 And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him.

NOW COMPARE IT WITH KJV BELOW

Acts 8:36-37 KJV
8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
8:38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

Did you notice what’s missing? Verse 37 is missing in the NIV. If you read the passage well, you will see where a certain eunuch was preached to by Philip. After the preaching, the eunuch asked to know what was stopping him from being baptized. Philip replied in 37 that as long he believes with his heart . What did the eunuch do? He said he believes that Jesus is the son of God. After making that statement, nothing else stopped him from being baptized.

But according to the NIV and other translations which omits verse 37, anyone can get baptized, nothing stops you from getting baptized, you don’t need to believe that Jesus is the son of God. That is a deliberate corruption of the word of God.

Asides the 16 new testament verses which they removed, they also out notes in some verses stating that they were not in the original manuscripts. This makes you to doubt God’s word.

1 John 5:7
5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

LOOK AT HOW NIV RENDERED THE ABOVE VERSE.
1 John 5:7
For there are three that testify:

It doesn’t mention the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost. That is an attack on the Trinity. Look at another attack on Jesus deity which can be found in the Jehovah’s witnesses bible (New World Translation).

Hebrews 1:8 NWT
But ABOUT the Son, he says: “God is your throne forever and ever, and the scepter of your Kingdom is the scepter of uprightness

dude bible na bible
i prefer my GOOD NEWS bible...

They changed it from the way it should be as seen below because they don’t want to admit that God the Father called Jesus Christ God. They hate the Trinity.

Hebrews 1:8 KJV
But UNTO the Son he saith , Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

These new versions also attack Jesus’ virgin birth.

Luke 2:33 KJV
2:33 And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.

Notice that the above verse says Joseph and his mother. Let’s see how the NIV and the ESV rendered the verse.

NIV
The child's father and mother marveled at what was said about him.

ESV
And his father and his mother marveled at what was said about him.

What they are basically saying is that Joseph was Jesus father when we know that God is His father. With this, they show that Jesus wasn’t born of a virgin. But does Jesus agree that Joseph is His father? Even when Mary pointed at Joseph as His father, He immediately corrects her in that same chapter.

Luke 2:48-49
2:48 And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.
2:49 And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?
Jesus made her know that He had to be by God His Father’s business, not Joseph’s who is not His father.

They also attack his everlasting nature.
Micah 5:2 KJV
5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

Look at how the NIV puts it.

"But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose ORIGINS are from of old, from ANCIENT times."

They say Jesus has an ORIGIN, meaning He wasn’t always in existence, meaning He is not God. Isn’t that an attack on Jesus?


The below verse is where these new versions really showed their true intentions. Let’s read the King James Version first before we see how other versions put it.

Isaiah 14:12 KJV
14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

Isaiah 14:12 NIV
How you have fallen from heaven, MORNING STAR, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!

You see, instead of Lucifer which is Satan’s name, the NIV and other versions put MORNING STAR there. This means it is the morning star that fell from heaven and cut down to the ground. But who is the Morning Star? Let’s see Revelations 22:16 in the KJV and also NIV which is pretty much the same in other translations.

Revelations 22:16 KJV
22:16 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 NIV
"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."

New Living Translation
"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this message for the churches. I am both the source of David and the heir to his throne. I am the bright morning star."

English Standard Version
“I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you about these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star.”

So there you have it. Jesus is the MORNING STAR which they say was cast out of heaven. Instead of Satan, they put Jesus in Isaiah 14:12

Find out which version was d first manuscript to be translated to english n check again.

Isaiah 14:12 NIV

How you have fallen from heaven, MORNING STAR, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!

We all know Satan was cast out of heaven for wanting to be like the Most High. These new versions, after attacking Christ’s Deity, His virgin birth, His Everlasting nature, they are now accusing Him of wanting to be like God. He is God and the Most High.

What Satan is actually doing is disarming us of the weapon which God has given us which is the Bible. It is similar to what evil men do when they want to destroy the people They take their weapons from them so they won’t be able to defend themselves.

I’ll advise you to henceforth read the KING JAMES VERSION and throw away all these other versions which have been corrupted. The KJV was translated from the Textus Receptus and is the last child of the first English Bible translations which all came from the Textus Receptus.
Some people might play smart by saying the Textus Receptus is not the oldest manuscript and that the oldest have been found which are what inspired these new Bible versions. Just because something is old doesn’t make it authentic. Satan has been attacking God’s word right from. The Garden of Eden, what makes you think he didn’t do same during Paul’s days? The Textus Receptus was what was available in the days of the written of king James version. All of a sudden, some codex vaticanus showed up and started inspiring todays versions which directly and boldly attack Jesus.

1. What did Jesus come to earth to do?
Luke 9:57 KJV
For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them . And they went to another village.

NIV just says: And he and his disciples went to another village.

Mathew 18:11 KJV
18:11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.

That verse in NIV is completely missing. This means that they don’t want you to know what Jesus came to earth to do.

2. Is repentance important?

Mathew 9:13 kjv
… for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

The NIV omits TO REPENTANCE. Which means it is sinners Jesus came to call, which also means repentance is not needed.

Mathew 9:13 NIV: .. for I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.

3. In whom must we believe to be saved?

John 6:47 KJV
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth ON ME hath everlasting life.

John 6:47 NIV
Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life.
The emphasis on “ON ME” has been removed in the NIV.


The NIV leaves out 16 entire verses!

1. Matthew 17:21: "Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting."
2. Matthew 18:11: "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost."
3. Matthew 23:14: "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation."
4. Mark 7:16: "If any man have ears to hear, let him hear."
5. Mark 9:44: "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."
6. Mark 9:46: "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."
7. Mark 11:26: "But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses."
8. Mark 15:28: "And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors."
9. Luke 17:36: "Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left."
10. John 5:4: "For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had."
11. Acts 8:37: "And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."
12. Acts 15:34: "Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still."
13. Acts 24:7: "But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands,"
14. Acts 28:29: "And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves."
15. Romans 16:24: "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen."
16. I John 5:7: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

READ ONLY THE KING JAMES VERSION. The NIV and other versions are sponsored by satanic organizations. NIV is done by the same group involved in printing the satanic Bible.

Lomprico2:
Find out which version was d first manuscript to be translated to english n check again.

The Textus Receptus is the manuscript to be translated to English. The first translation led to what we have as the king James version today.

miracood:
dude bible na bible

i prefer my GOOD NEWS bible...

Even when the Bible is attacking Jesus and calling him Satan?

That one is also highly corrupted. Forget that all these versions are easy to understand because of the simple English. They have been corrupted with Antichrist messages.

alBHAGDADI:
The Textus Receptus is the manuscript to be translated to English. The first translation led to what we have as the king James version today.

Ok
Just did a research on it now even. Now let me compare what u just said.

But on d case of morning star issue, all versions mentioned so in revelation. So it cant be a misrepresentation.

what if the omitted verses were not really in the original manuscript?

Lomprico2:

Ok
Just did a research on it now even. Now let me compare what u just said.

But on d case of morning star issue, all versions mentioned so in revelation. So it cant be a misrepresentation.

In the book of Revelations, all versions mentioned Jesus saying He is the Morning Star.

How come in Isaiah 14:12, which speaks of Satan being cast out of heaven, instead of using his name Lucifer, they put Morning Star there?

Doesn't that mean that they are saying it is Jesus that was cast out of heaven?

Kingosytex:
what if the omitted verses were not really in the original manuscript?

Which is the original manuscripts?

The Textus Receptus is the original manuscript. Other manuscripts do exists, but that doesn't make them original. They were found much later. And just cos they appear to be older than the Textus Receptus doesn't mean they are authentic. The same way Satan is corrupting God's word is the same way he did it in the Garden of Eden, even during the days of the apostles.

Only a lie has different versions and contradict itself.

alBHAGDADI:
In the book of Revelations, all versions mentioned Jesus saying He is the Morning Star.

How come in Isaiah 14:12, which speaks of Satan being cast out of heaven, instead of using his name Lucifer, they put Morning Star there?

Doesn't that mean that they are saying it is Jesus that was cast out of heaven?

Well, u have to take it like that! Don't forget satan is also an angel n close to God just like Jesus.

Need a good Bible? follow this link to download one. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.barisi.flavio.bibbiacattolica&utm_source=appgrooves&utm_medium=agp_9e3fadf46a653dfb0e1a4fdd3c816764_com.barisi.flavio.bibbiacattolica_us_android_15364794394948

alBHAGDADI:
Which is the original manuscripts?

The Textus Receptus is the original manuscript. Other manuscripts do exists, but that doesn't make them original. They were found much later. And just cos they appear to be older than the Textus Receptus doesn't mean they are authentic. The same way Satan is corrupting God's word is the same way he did it in the Garden of Eden, even during the days of the apostles.

LIAR.
The 15/16th century textus receptus can't be more authentic than older manuscripts which existed before it.
The textus receptus was copied from these older manuscripts & several forgeries/spurious additions found their way into most Bible versions today, notably the KJV & Geneva Bible versions etc.
Those forgeries ( 1 John5:7, 1 tim3:16, Rev 1:11,Exodus 3:14, KJV etc. Google is your friend, deceive others ) U are here passing off as truth were never in the older Greek manuscripts dating as far back to the 2nd century or the Hebrew scrolls which existed before the Greek manuscripts.
This led to many false beliefs in Christianity today.(Google "the soul in the Bible Wikipedia" ) & other research tools are your friend. No dull yourself).


Nobody omitted any verse from the Bible. The issue here is your lies & ignorance on full throttle. A little more research would have unearthed all the facts of this matter.
Shalom.

alBHAGDADI:
Which is the original manuscripts?

The Textus Receptus is the original manuscript. Other manuscripts do exists, but that doesn't make them original. They were found much later. And just cos they appear to be older than the Textus Receptus doesn't mean they are authentic. The same way Satan is corrupting God's word is the same way he did it in the Garden of Eden, even during the days of the apostles.

LIAR.
The 15/16th century textus receptus can't be more authentic than older manuscripts which existed before it.
The textus receptus was copied from these older manuscripts & several forgeries/spurious additions were inserted into the textus receptus.
These forgeries found their way into most Bible versions today, notably the KJV & Geneva Bible versions etc.
Those forgeries ( 1 John5:7, 1 tim3:16, Rev 1:11,Exodus 3:14, KJV etc. Google is your friend, deceive others ) U are here passing off as truth were never in the older Greek manuscripts dating as far back to the 2nd century or the Hebrew scrolls which existed before the Greek manuscripts.
This has led to many false beliefs in Christendom today.(Google "the soul in the Bible Wikipedia" ) & other research tools are your friend. No dull yourself).


Nobody omitted any verse from the Bible. The issue here is your lies & ignorance on full throttle. A little more research would have unearthed all the facts of this matter.
Shalom.

alBHAGDADI:
In the book of Revelations, all versions mentioned Jesus saying He is the Morning Star.

How come in Isaiah 14:12, which speaks of Satan being cast out of heaven, instead of using his name Lucifer, they put Morning Star there?

Doesn't that mean that they are saying it is Jesus that was cast out of heaven?

Let me correct only one thing among many unliteral mistakes made by the writer. He is (sorry if you are the one) not so mature to think deep does you came calling others as Writer-sinners and Luciferic deceivers.

Is `the Bright Morning Star' not different from `Morning Star'?
All Angels are morming star, but the Brightest of them is the First and the Last, the Ancient of Days, the I am That I am.

These is nothing of which the writer need attack. Let us live this word, go to the world and attack the #mighty_minion_former_Angel attacking Gods children.

Can we go...?

OneJ:


LIAR.
The 15/16th century textus receptus can't be more authentic than older manuscripts which existed before it.
The textus receptus was copied from these older manuscripts & several forgeries/spurious additions found their way into most Bible versions today, notably the KJV & Geneva Bible versions etc.
Those forgeries ( 1 John5:7, 1 tim3:16, Rev 1:11,Exodus 3:14, KJV etc. Google is your friend, deceive others ) U are here passing off as truth were never in the older Greek manuscripts dating as far back to the 2nd century or the Hebrew scrolls which existed before the Greek manuscripts.
This led to many false beliefs in Christianity today.(Google "the soul in the Bible Wikipedia" ) & other research tools are your friend. No dull yourself).


Nobody omitted any verse from the Bible. The issue here is your lies & ignorance on full throttle. A little more research would have unearthed all the facts of this matter.
Shalom.

So says a Jehovah's witness who has written his own Bible the way he wants it.

Just because is something is older doesn't mean it is reliable.

Now, let's examine the verses he says are forgeries. Let's compare them to how they are in his JW NWT bible.

Below are the verses as seen in the KJV.

1 Timothy 3:16
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

1 John 5:7

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one

Revelations 1:11

Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.

Exodus 3:14

And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.


Now LET'S SEE HOW JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES BIBLE rendered the above verses.

1 John 5:7 NWT

7 For there are three witness bearers

**Their Bible failed to state who the three witness bearers are. They intentionally omit it like the NIV as a way of denying Jesus is God.****


1 Timothy 3:16 NWT

Indeed, the sacred secret of this godly devotion is admittedly great: ‘He was made manifest in flesh, was declared righteous in spirit, appeared to angels, was preached about among nations, was believed upon in the world, was received up in glory.’

***Instead of God was made manifest in flesh, they wrote He. This is another attempt to deny Jesus is God****


Revelations 1:11 NWT

saying: “What you see, write in a scroll and send it to the seven congregations: in Ephʹe·sus, in Smyrʹna, in Perʹga·mum, in Thy·a·tiʹra, in Sarʹdis, in Philadelphia, and in La·o·di·ceʹa.”

***they removed "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last". That is another attempt at denying Jesus is God****


Jehovah's witnesses don't believe Jesus is God. So they altered the Bible and removed places that show clearly that He is God. Same thing with most Bible translations today.

Their argument is that they got their own bibles from translating directly from OLDER MANUSCRIPTS. Just because they are older doesn't mean they have not been tampered with. Satan tampered with God's word in the Garden of Eden. He must have done the same during Paul's time, because Paul warned against listening to another gospel. That same Satan is why today's Bibles say Jesus was cast down from heaven, whereas it was Satan.

If this Jehovah's witness says those other bibles were translation from more older manuscripts than the Textus Receptus, how come they contain grave errors which I'm still not done pointing good out?

People need to stay away from the Bible completely. It's only a book of iron age mythology and folklore.

Dnockeror333:



Let me correct only one thing among many unliteral mistakes made by the writer. He is (sorry if you are the one) not so mature to think deep does you came calling others as Writer-sinners and Luciferic deceivers.

Is `the Bright Morning Star' not different from `Morning Star'?
All Angels are morming star, but the Brightest of them is the First and the Last, the Ancient of Days, the I am That I am.

These is nothing of which the writer need attack. Let us live this word, go to the world and attack the #mighty_minion_former_Angel attacking Gods children.

Can we go...?

Sorry bro, you got it wrong.

All stars are bright. Jesus said He is the bright morning star. He didn't say He is the BRIGHTEST morning star.

Except you want to tell me that other stars aren't bright.

Dalam0n:
People need to stay away from the Bible completely. It's only a book of iron age mythology and folklore.

Rather only the truth is challenged with different versions of lies.

Satan is the brain behind the versions of lies.

Seun lalasticlala FP

Dalam0n:
People need to stay away from the Bible completely. It's only a book of iron age mythology and folklore.

Prove that the Bible is what you said, and not a Book that documents true history.

Moreover, the person who wrote that thing on the picture you posted in relation to the Bible is not intelligent. First off, there may be many versions of an incidence like the Holocaust, but that does not mean that the Holocause is a lie. Second, the many versions of the Bible today are only translations of older text, which may be traced to an original. Granted, some were translated from copies of the original which may have been corrupted, but the versions of the Bible are not "versions" in the sense of many people retelling an event to which all of them claim to be eyewitnesses.

alBHAGDADI:
In the book of Revelations, all versions mentioned Jesus saying He is the Morning Star.

How come in Isaiah 14:12, which speaks of Satan being cast out of heaven, instead of using his name Lucifer, they put Morning Star there?

Doesn't that mean that they are saying it is Jesus that was cast out of heaven?

If you translate Lucifer to English what does it mean?

DoctorAlien:


Prove that the Bible is what you said, and not a Book that documents true history.

Moreover, the person who wrote that thing on the picture you posted in relation to the Bible is not intelligent. First off, there may be many versions of an incidence like the Holocaust, but that does not mean that the Holocause is a lie. Second, the many versions of the Bible today are only translations of older text, which may be traced to an original. Granted, some were translated from copies of the original which may have been corrupted, but the versions of the Bible are not "versions" in the sense of many people retelling an event to which all of them claim to be eyewitnesses.

The bible documents which true history? Let's start from the very beginning. You believe Adam and Eve were historical people abi? Tell me their race and the name of language they spoke. Let's begin from there.

Number 2 where did Mark state that he was an eye witness to anything written inside the book of Mark?

Where is the original version of Mark? Where is it and which of the English translation of the bible was translated from it?

alBHAGDADI:


Rather only the truth is challenged with different versions of lies.

Satan is the brain behind the versions of lies.

So Satan is behind all the different versions of the bible abi?

adelee777:


If you translate Lucifer to English what does it mean?

Are names translated into English?

Dalam0n:
.

*I have removed your own post because I cannot make long posts now.*

Remember that you came claiming emphatically that the Bible is all mythology and folklore. When I asked you to prove your claim, you started asking me to prove Adam was historical? Why not go ahead and prove your assertion?

The picture you posted had different Bible versions in it. Why have you narrowed down the argument to the book of Mark now? Have you realized how foolish it is to claim that "only a lie has different versions" in the first place, not to talk of in relation to Bible versions?

How does Mark's not being an eyewitness help your argument that the Bible is all myth and folklore? Mind you, Peter most probably dictated the gospel to Mark.

Why are you asking me for the original version of mark? That there are many translations of Mark(from other languages to English) does not mean that there was not an original gospel of Mark, written by Mark.

DoctorAlien:


*I have removed your own post because I cannot make long posts now.*

Remember that you came claiming emphatically that the Bible is all mythology and folklore. When I asked you to prove your claim, you started asking me to prove Adam was historical? Why not go ahead and prove your assertion?

The picture you posted had different Bible versions in it. Why have you narrowed down the argument to the book of Mark now? Have you realized how foolish it is to claim that "only a lie has different versions" in the first place, not to talk of in relation to Bible versions?

How does Mark's not being an eyewitness help your argument that the Bible is all myth and folklore? Mind you, Peter most probably dictated the gospel to Mark.

Why are you asking me for the original version of mark? That there are many translations of Mark(from other languages to English) does not mean that there was not an original gospel of Mark, written by Mark.

The bible is a book of mythology, I said let's begin from the beginning. Adam and Eve are mythical figures. If you disagree then tell me their race and the language they spoke.

Where is the original book of Mark and which of the various English translations was translated from it?

Dalam0n:
The bible is a book of mythology,

This is a claim. Why not prove it?

I said let's begin from the beginning. Adam and Eve are mythical figures.

This is another claim. Prove it, oga. I can as well say "Adam and Eve were historical figures".

If you disagree then tell me their race and the language they spoke.

There is only one race: the human race. Adam and Eve must have contained enough potential in their gene pools for the variations which have led to the (inconsequential) differences in physical characteristics of individuals in the human race today such as skin thickness and color, iris color, hair texture, etc.

Where is the original book of Mark and which of the various English translations was translated from it?

How does this question help your unfounded claim that the Bible is all mythology and folklore?

DoctorAlien:

This is a claim. Why not prove it?

It talks about mythical things like a man surviving inside a fish for 3 days. Stars in the sky fighting wars along side humans, sun stabding still, snakes talking, dead people coming back to life and walking around a city, global flood etc.

This is another claim. Prove it, oga. I can as well say "Adam and Eve were historical figures".

That's why I asked you to tell me the color of their skin and the language they spoke.

There is only one race: the human race. Adam and Eve must have contained enough potential in their gene pools for the variations which have led to the (inconsequential) differences in physical characteristics of individuals in the human race today such as skin thickness and color, iris color, hair texture, etc.

Ogbeni what was the color of their skin and what language didn't they speak? Stop speaking empty English. Which language did they speak?

How does this question help your unfounded claim that the Bible is all mythology and folklore?

Where is the original boOK of Mark and which of the English version was translated from it? Answer the question ogbeni.

Dalam0n:
.

On what objective grounds do you call these things mythical? Just because you have not seen them occur? Do you realise that there is a concept in the Bible called prophecy, and that things like stars may symbolize other things? And where does the Bible say that stars fought in the sky alongside humans?

LOL. Whether their skin was white or black or blue, does it negate their historicity? This is just like asking evolutionists the color of the first goat that evolved. Meaningless. Besides, asking someone a question is not a proof of a claim you made.

I never expected you to understand the explanation I gave in respect to human race. However, more directly to your question: Adam and Eve must have been middle brown. See https://creation.com/skin-colour-surprises for a scientific look at it.

You're yet to tell me what the original gospel written by Mark has to do with this argument.