None of them. They are all the word of Man.
2007-01-09 07:55:06
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
1⤋
This is the crux of the whole Christian faith. There were two streams of manuscripts that moved foward, one thru Antioch where the bible says they were first called Christian's and one thru Egypt where the 70 of the San Hedran Jewish Counsel fled when Jerusalem fell. The Septuegent translation used classical greek which is different from the common greek used in the NT books. While some think the council of NIcea made the bible this is not true. They did make the Catholic bible which is a counterfeit. The Textus Receptus is the line of scripts that came thru Antioch. Paul even warned of "letters as from us" forgeries.
The gnostic writings and gospels all came from from the line from Egypt. Including the blasphemous gospel of Judas. When the dead sea scrolls were found, there were many things there. but one notable discovery was an entire copy of Isaiah. Which for centuries had been disputed and accused of being written after the fact due to its accuracy. The copy found was identical to one translation. The King James. Their is a clear line going back to the OT and NT books from the KJV. God gave us a copy of his Word in english, translated at the height of the purity of th english language. All the arguments against it are diversionary tactics to disctract from the power of the Word. They all cant be the same bible because they dont say the same things. There are thousands of changes in the newer versions, and the reason for the newer versions came about from the Eccumenical movement, in order to merge all religions and take away offensive doctrine out of the KJV that confronts sin. Praise Ye THE LORD
2007-01-09 08:05:42
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
they're going to say "they all BASICALLY say the same thing, and it's the general MEANING that is important, not the details." but once again, if the painting is made up of yellow paint strokes, the painting will surely be yellow. if the bible is changed and mistranslated on the microcosmic scale then it is only safe to believe that it is changed and mistranslated on the macro.
http://geocities.com/paulntobin/versions.html
Matthew 1:22-23 (refers back to a messianic prophesy in isaiah)
Isaiah 7:14 (KJV writes it as "virgin," but that was a mistranlation, thus the matthew verse is based on a mistranslation of the original hebrew!)
Isaiah 7:14 Good News Bible
Well then, the Lord himself shall give you a sign: a young woman who is pregnant will have a son and will name him Immanuel.
Isaiah 7:14 NRSV
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.
[FOOT NOTE from Good News Bible]
YOUNG WOMAN: The Hebrew word here translated "young woman" is not the specific term for "virgin", but refers to any young woman of marriageable age. The use of "virgin" in Mat. 1.23 reflects a Greek translation of the Old Testament, made some 500 years after Isaiah.
Isaiah 7:14 NIV
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.
very interesting, also, to note that nowhere in the NT is jesus ever actually called Immanuel.
EDIT:
in my example even the "original" greek has issues. read again the footnote from the Good News Bible. that mistranslation lead to the quote in matthew which means that matthew was claiming a messianic prophesy about jesus that wasn't even there! how could "god" make such a mistake in his word?
2007-01-09 08:02:06
·
answer #3
·
answered by Shawn M 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
maximum religious persons study and study the Bible to justify what they already evaluate. If each and every human being all started a study of the Bible with an open mind they could study many truths. The Bible isn't one handbook, that's a range of sixty-six books written by many adult males over many centuries. those books were translated by unique cultures at unique circumstances throughout the time of historic previous. there is without a doubt that transformations were made each and every so commonly. note meanings distinction and educate to be old. The which technique of a line will also be slanted in direction of one concept or one better by determining an commerce defination in translating a list. To conveniently write off the truths of the Bible provided that one are literally unable to take delivery of the shape tale is to forget the aspect thoroughly. those who reject the Bible in accordance with a one-time casual interpreting do themselves a excellent injustice. The Bible does comprise the word of God.
2016-12-02 01:30:08
·
answer #4
·
answered by molander 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
There is only one literal inerrant word of God. The translations (there is only one bible) are just that, translations. The doctrinal belief is that God has communicated exactly what he meant. In fact, Given tht God is infinite and that we are finite, doesn't it make sense that there would need to be many interpretations so that we limited humans could get the full flavor of what He meant to communicate to us?
2007-01-09 08:10:01
·
answer #5
·
answered by epaphras_faith 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
The original language Hebrew - Aramaic Scriptures and the Christian Greek Scriptures.
There is no translation of Scriptures that is without error; however, the most accurate is the modern English easy to understand New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures available from Jehovah's Witnesses. It can be read at the link below:
2007-01-09 07:55:27
·
answer #6
·
answered by Abdijah 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
Not one........ all of them are transcribed by the hand of man after several OTHER men translated it from one language to another.
The Dead Sea Scrolls are the closest thing to the real thing and even that is 800 years out of date. The KJV is the next nearest at 2300 years out of date.
Take your pick.... none of them really stack up and God has never once directed a word-for-word transcription of anything he has ever said.
2007-01-09 07:58:57
·
answer #7
·
answered by wolf560 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
The Hebrew version is the most authentic. There are no good translations -- they are all just interpretations!
That being said, it was the Greek OT that was used by Jesus, the apostles and the early church.
2007-01-09 08:13:09
·
answer #8
·
answered by The Carmelite 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
None.
The bibles are collections of middle eastern tales and legends written by many authors over the years, translated and modified over centuries.
2007-01-09 08:10:21
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
The origonal text in Hebrew and Greek.
2007-01-09 07:55:55
·
answer #10
·
answered by tim 6
·
1⤊
0⤋