Answers from all please but.................?

Question

Christians in particular....
We all know 'a man' was paid to translate the bible into the english language !! Agreed !?!

Do you think he intentionally left parts out, hence the inconsistencies we find in the 'good' book today ??

If so why ??

And where 'did' the rest of the 'stories' go to. ??

No pasting please I just want straight answers and please don't just say what is there is the full book because there is 'no way it is'

PS... does this deserve a wee star by any chance ? no !!

First off thanks for the stars guys.

Nice wee mix of answers.

But no 1 gave any name/s for the translator/s.
Whom was/were employed by the vatican to translate the original writings into english. Therefore being responsible for the omissions OR was/were he/they.......
Shall i tell you ?!?!
Naaaaa i think we should keep that for a future debate and give some time to research.............

Answer 1

Ohhhh, im gonna have fun with this. Alright, there are over 800 books taken out of the bible by the catholic church. this was to make christ appear godly. by doing this, the church assured that the people had to go through them to get to christ. NOBODY but creator, knows wat the original bible said. it was written by many people. and translated into many different languages, that book has been changes so much it aint funny. a few books were found, called the dead sea scrolls. the reason "men of the cloth" arent allowed to-for lack of a better word- screw, or get married, is because christ SUPPOSEDLY didnt. when in actuality, the man was married and had a daughter named sarah! Amberwolf, i no i have said all this before, but people need to know.

-Joshua

Answer 2

This is a complex question, but I'll give the shortened answer.

Prior to the Councils of Nicea in 325 AD the various writings of the prophets that became biblical enjoyed a sort of 'scattered' reception. There were too many for easy consumption, added to which fact most people couldn't read and had to have it read to them. Gradually over the course of the 300 years or so previous, certain books became associated with each other and were read 'more often' to congregations.

For example there was a group that believed the four gospels of the New Testament contained all the doctrine needed and should be the only scripture cited.

There was another group that thought the writings of Paul (with his many letters) were the primary source of doctrine and ought to be referenced more than anything else.

That's just a few examples, taken from books that actually made it into the bible. There were many more writings - including the book written by Jesus himself which was oddly excluded.

This resulted in the problem that while there were many christian sects at the time, none of the doctrine agreed very well with each other, and a christian from one area might never have read the four gospels, instead thinking that Paul's letter to the Corinthians was the only scripture available.

There were also political reasons to consolidate the 'official' church position. Remember that christianity became the official Roman religion in 313 AD.

So the Nicean Council got together and voted on what books should be included in 'the bible' (which was still different than the book we recognize today, refined by King James). They also voted on what portions of scripture should be left out (some will argue it was the will of God that certain ceremonies and the importance of women were excised; my own opinion differs, and I think we've suffered a great deal by being ignorant of all of the original true teachings)

There were, and remain, many many many other scriptoral accounts of the teachings and life of Christ, including the many books which are contained within the catholic Apocrypha, and many other sources. The Red Sea scrolls for example were discovered only a few decades ago and appear to contain vast amounts of previously unknown christian scripture.

So your question is quite correct in the premise that there is a lot of extra 'books' that are not contained in the bible, and also that what is contained has passed through not just one man but many different translators, many of which did not believe in what they were translating and many of whom were encouraged to leave out sections or change them to suit political pressure at the time.

Note however that I am a Christian (perhaps not a very good one) and I do believe in the biblical account. I simply believe that there's a whole lot more to it than that and would love to have all of the books and recorded history of Christ translated and widely publicly available. I believe that in time we will as more and more scripture comes forth, and I also believe that we would have a very different vision of who Christ is and what he did if we did have access to those books, and it would give us greater appreciation of how awe-inspiringly divine he was and greater appreciation of what he did (and continues to do).

Answer 3

Yes we know for a fact particular parts are left out of the translated english bible. As a matter of fact the KJV was considered to have such grave flaws and omission by one of it's translations. (I cannot remember which one) it was redone intot he revised standard edition which was adopted by most protestant english speaking Churches.

There is not one book full of stories but many many books all with the scriptural stories outside the bible available and many many more still left to be translated, and are being translated to this day.

I don;t know that the question deserves a star it is rather common knowledge to anyone with real credible knowledge of bible or Christian history. Nothing illuminating or particularly insightful about it.

Answer 4

Not really. Those who translated "the bible" into English had to have a "bible" in some other language to work from. The problem is that there is no one "bible" in any language that represents the original books as originally written.

All of the books of the bibles we now used are based on copies. Most of those copies are based on written versions of oral traditions. Many of the oral traditions existed for generations before they were written down.

The copies we have come from different times and places and are in different languages. Most of the earliest ones are fragmentary. Most of the earliest ones we now know of were discovered in the last fifty years - well after the King James Version and after the Revised Standard Version.

Over time, various churches chose various books for inclusion. They authorized various translations based on various source material. Some of the decisions were based on an attempt to get as close as possible to the original and others were based on politics or theology. It is no wonder that differences between the translations exist.

More importantly, this is why the OT is filled with doublets and triplets of various stories starting with creation as described in Genesis 1 versus creation as described in Genesis 2. They represent versions of the basic stories which were preserved in different oral traditions. Similarly, the NT gospels represent different oral traditions from different communities which don't always agree - from the genealogy of Jesus to his words on the cross to his resurrection appearances.

Answer 5

Amber,
My belief has always been the the information in the bible was misconstrued by a group of men who thought society was out of control and thus created the unhealthy fear of God as opposed to the reality of the awe of God in an attempt to manipulateand control society with the fear. And to make the erroneous statement that only those in the clergy had the ability to speak to God and be an intermediary for the rest of us is far too ludicrous for the truth to permit.Even the son of God said we can all go to the Father.If Jesus said it, why do all of his ministers, priests, etc, deny it??
These poor, delusional fools all need to wake up to the truth--- God does not make too hard terms on those who seek Him ( or Her, or whoever/whatever God may be, but God has no material form ) and is ALWAYS available if we ask; and if we don't ask it doesn't mean we aren't loved and cherished. Have a good day, and if no one else tells you, i love you, sister in being.

Answer 6

A man who is not a Jehovah's Witness translated The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures from the original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic.
The NWT is the most accurate translation in the world today.

Answer 7

Humankind's attempt to put one groups religious, cultural and spiritual experiences down into story. In that context it is a truly amazing work that describes the reality and the hope of human existence.

The rest of the stories were left out and lost. The compilation of the bible was likely a political activity rather than a spiritual one. It was very inspired (witnessed by the socio-political success of Christianity in many guises over many years. There is human truth in the bible. there is also human error.

Answer 8

"a man" didn't translate the scriptures on his own. It was a team of men who had to have been in agreement at all times as to how the original scriptures were translated into: Latin, (originally) then German, then English in that order and from there many other languages. Language is a very complex phenomenon.

Answer 9

THe Bible we have currently and the Bible from well over a thousand years ago are nearly identical. Translators over the years did a good job of putting the Bible in various languages.

Answer 10

Paid? You mean did they pay with their lives, their security, their families, etc?? People died to get us the Bible in the language of the common man. Most religious leaders did not want people to have it and they incited riots and persecution of those who promoted it, sometimes even burning them alive.