There are early versions of the Bible available in their original language - Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic. So many people are convinced that the original scripture has been tampered with but so few then take the time to research the original material. You can even get modern Bibles with the translations and dictionary sections included for those languages. I think you'll find that the meaning hasn't changed all that much. What's lost in translation isn't as signigicant as what you stand to gain. Can't devote that much time and effort? Try just one book or gospel.
2006-08-13 16:35:01 · 11 answers · asked by luvwinz 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
they can go to www.e-sword.net and download a Bible with a concordance for free.
2006-08-13 16:38:02 · answer #1 · answered by Samuel J 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You can go all the way back to the person writing the book if you would like but that still does not mean that he heard any revelation from god. People can write anything but that does not make it the truth. Besides have you bothered to study that we don't know how the language was spoken back then, nobody does. Even your Jesus did not speak Greek or have you bothered to study that? Did you know that some languages did not have vowels? Why do you want me to believe that people today know more about those books than I do? Because they studied them? If some idiot today said he wrote a book about how to live your life because God told him to do it, you and all the other Christians would laugh him right out of town. And yet you "choose" to believe that some person thousands of years ago actually heard God speaking to them and that's why they wrote all those letters. Did you know they were letters, not books and that they did not have chapters or verses? A lot has been changed my good fellow and you and the other Bible specialist can't prove any of it.
Bravo whozethere. Well said.
2006-08-13 16:48:41 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
And you've read it in these languages? And, studied the historical context of when the Book was compiled? And, still believe that politics and power and the thinking of man had no influence?
Sorry, Christianity lost me with claiming 100s of years later that Mary was a virgin. Oh sorry, that's based on historical record, not the Bible. Gee, see what happens when you look at the broader picture. When you study history. It all has a different context, and it's mostly one of men seeking power. There's wisdom and good in the Bible, but it tends to get lost in all the rhetoric.
And, as Speak Freely so correctly points out, the stories were handed down word of mouth before any of the texts we have today were put to paper.
2006-08-13 16:46:43 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Meanings and translations change over time. The earlier texts so far has not proved anything about the Bible. Many so-called earlier texts originated after the so-called Jesus was born. How can they relate to the Bible then? Then again, it is all in what you want to believe.
2006-08-13 16:40:31 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
first of all- you do do not ignore that the financial disaster/verse breakdown in the Tanakh varies from the Christian scriptures, so that's actually Yehsayau 9:5. the Hebrew is: ????-????? ??????-?????, ???? ??????-?????, ???????? ???????????, ???-????????; ?????????? ?????? ?????? ??????, ??? ????????, ?????-???, ????-???????. Now a suited translation for that is: for a baby has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the powerful God, the eternal Father, referred to as his call, "the prince of peace." The transliterated Hebrew for the call is "Sar Sahalom"- Sar= officer/prince Shalom= peace. This refers back to the actual undeniable actuality that in the reign of Hezekiah there grow to be peace- no longer that his actually call grow to be Sar Shalom as for the KJV translation- it truly is laughably undesirable to every person who actually reads the unique Hebrew textual content. It grow to be no longer base don the unique Herew- yet grow to be a translation og th latin that grow to be itself a translation of the Greek which grow to be a translation of the Hebrew. talk about a damaged telephone!
2016-11-24 23:49:33 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
By the "bible", assume you mean the "new testament".. Just because someone wrote "stories" about the death and resurrection of Yehoshua bin Yosef al Nazareth in a "ancient" language doesn't give any of the information written therein any more credence..
2006-08-13 16:43:18 · answer #6 · answered by Furibundus 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
They should also study the Masorah. You can not mess with the Masorah, it is fixed. The Bible is true. Read the originals. I agree with you.
2006-08-14 12:16:59 · answer #7 · answered by LP S 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What about the books that were tossed out when the Bible was being compiled? How do we get our hands on those? It wasn't exactly a divine decision on what books would and would not be included.
2006-08-13 16:38:25 · answer #8 · answered by whozethere 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Actually you speak in error.
The original texts are in Hebrew/Aramaic, Chaldean, and Koine Greek.
(:-o)
2006-08-13 16:43:42 · answer #9 · answered by Tim 47 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
the orginal bible text are all lost to time. none are the orginal! we only have copies of copies, and before the stories were put to print they were handed down by word of mouth
2006-08-13 16:41:49 · answer #10 · answered by Speak freely 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋