Explain how? I don't find all Bibles agree and King James I was a gay man who made a lot of changes, not to mention the fact that even the gospels don't always agree on places, times, people present, and the order and importance of events.
2006-11-09 04:17:49 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0402/biblefactquiz.html
It would appears to have some other issues as well...
2006-11-09 04:20:38 · answer #1 · answered by mmd 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
James the First wasn't the scholar who did the work of translation. He commissioned a work to be done and had NO editorial authority on the product. If he had such power there wouldn't be the anti gay parts of the translation left in. I don't know one person who believe any translation we have today in beyond reproach. What most Christians say is the the Bible is inerrant in the original language. We have had some very good translations over the years but you know as well as I that sometimes the real meaning just can't come thru in translation. All the translators I have ever studied have been Honest in their work. Their integrity unblemished. The have help the work of translation as a sacred responsibility. The NIV, the NAS, even the KJV are wonderful works that struggled to say as close to the original intent as possible... Jim
2006-11-09 12:48:15 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
There are thought to be many corruptions in New Testament text. Some were from honest translation errors (Moses parted the Reed Sea not Red Sea, honest error.) While others are blatantly intentional corruptions (misspelled Jewish names are the most common; Isaac should be Yitsac.)
As for differing recalls in the gospels they were all written by different people and in any situation every witness will recall an occurrence differently. (Ask any police investigator, they go through this all the time.)
As for order of events only Luke even tried to get everything Christ did in full chronological order, Matthew did as well somewhat. The difference in the birth-lines of Christ in these two Gospels are thought to be one of Mary and the other of Joseph. Again one is looking at one side of things while the other is looking at the other. The other two Gospels are only trying to show the divinity and greatness of Christ with less attention to the details.
Even the last words of Christ on the cross are different because Christ spoke to different disciples at different times of day (he was on the cross at least 6 hours, and perhaps as long as 10 hours.) This is also a very normal occurrence in life.
Now finally about different translations be wary of most non-main-steam Bibles (Watch-Tower Society, and Mormons especially) as the founders of these groups had personal agendas to "prove" from scripture. Others have tried to rid the scriptures of these corruptions (Revised Bibles in particullar.)
2006-11-09 12:36:10 · answer #3 · answered by my_iq_135 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The original bible is called the Outographa. Old testament is in Hebrew and the new testament is in Greek. Some of the trouble with translating these books is the language of that time. Greek today is much different than it was 2000 years ago. Same with Hebrew. Just look at English now and a meer 200-400 years ago, all that elizabethian and shakespearean language. I can't even understand it. If I read the kings James Version of the Bible, my head is spinning. Matthew Mark Luke and John do not always agree because they wrote it as they saw it. They were there with Jesus, walking with him. The importance is to have three different but related percpectives. The 3 books of Matthew Mark Luke and John are identical in meaning. All explain the birth, the life and death of Christ. They all explain his miracles and his love and devotion to his people and his Father. The Bible is infallible. It is without error and complete and full. No other revelation can be made today. Everything you need to know about God is in there and exists in all His Creations.
God Bless
PS the orginal is not lost. Look it up.
2006-11-09 12:32:06 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Of course not. Going from the original scriptures to the modern bible took no less than five translations, and the original is now lost. During each of those translations, mistakes were made and (especially in the case of King James) alterations were made purposefully. This is a major part of why I don't buy into the whole thing... would a perfect and loving god allow his word to be so corrupted? I think not.
2006-11-09 12:21:22 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
You say James I was a gay man.
Witch trials and Sodomy Act
James returned from Denmark via Leith on 1 May, and soon after, he attended the North Berwick Butt Trial, in which several people were convicted of having used witchcraft to create a storm in an attempt to sink the ship on which James and Anne had been travelling. James became obsessed with the threat that witches and witchcraft might pose to him and his country. During this period, he wrote a treatise on demonology, as a result of which hundreds of Scottish men and women were put to death for witchcraft, their bodies later being found in what was then called Nor Loch, now Princes Street Gardens in Edinburgh.
Intent on strengthening the Church of England and reaffirming the Buggery Act 1533, James adopted a severe stance towards sodomy. His book on kingship, Basilikon Doron 1598, lists sodomy among those “horrible crimes which ye are bound in conscience never to forgive.”
Source: Wikipaedia
2006-11-09 12:20:31 · answer #6 · answered by CHEESUS GROYST 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
"Literary corruption?" Depends on just exactly what you mean. You would have to learn koine Greek and ancient Hebrew in order to know. Most all modern translations are much more accurate than older ones. All versions use different words, but mean the same thing.
If you use one of the following, you will be as close as possible in English:
NIV
NASB
HCSB
NKJV
ESV
These are probably toe most accurate and popular. The NASB is probably the most used text in Bible colleges.
2006-11-09 12:28:04 · answer #7 · answered by Desperado 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Literary corruption? I'm giggling on the inside... stories in the bible were taken from Sumerian tales. The whole thing is a literary corruption.
2006-11-09 12:33:03 · answer #8 · answered by jennyrascal 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Not sure.
We'd have to go back in Time and give it to a person there with a College Education and see how the react.
Have you ever read RAW writings from the American Revolution?
You would be amazed as how iffy the writing is from a Medical Doctor and Cheif Physician in George Washington's Army can write!
It's scarey how they wrote back in 1776.
It's almost like reading ebonics!
So, what is 1600 writing like?
What is 300 AD writing like?
What's NOT literate to US could be very literate to someone back then!
2006-11-09 12:25:50 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
The 18 verse of the 22nd chapter of Revelations says...If any man add unto these things,god will add unto him the plagues that are written in this book,19,And if a man take away from the words of the book of this prophecy,God shall take away his part out of the book of life......Now don't you think God knew there would be people do this?
2006-11-09 13:06:21 · answer #10 · answered by jackiedj8952 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
- King James was gay, but think about it he decreed that the scholars translate the Scriptures exactly as close possible to the original meaning.
- Why would he leave in the Scriptures that condemn his lifestyle if he supposedly changes the Scriptures.
- Where is it that the Scriptures do not agree?
2006-11-09 12:31:45 · answer #11 · answered by righton 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋