How else am I to discuss the Bible unless I reference it? The prophecies cited are varifiable in secular history and are known to have been written down prior to the event.
Your referencing differing translations of the same original is even more spurious, it's like asking which Bible is more accurate, the French or the English.
And frankly, I have no idea what the 1948 comment is about. Do you mean to say that re-establishment of Isreal was not prophesied? Or that its rebirth is merely a fluke of history unconnected w/ the book that defines its existence?
"The prophecies cited are varifiable in secular history and are known to have been written down prior to the event."
Please back up this statement with verifiable secular facts please.
"differing translations of the same original"
And just where is a copy of this original New Testement text? Original as in....John's actual letters. Sorry, but what we read in the Bible are translated copies of translated copies, each translated with bias by the translator.
Oldcats