For a long time the Catholic church did not allow anyone outside the church to read or translate the bible, at that time they also burned women at the stake in front of their children, burned children to death in front of their mothers, and tortured and imprisoned anyone who challeged them in any way.
You have to ask yourself, if they would do all that, what would stop them from rewriting the bible while it was in their control?
2007-06-05 20:36:51
·
answer #1
·
answered by Daisy Indigo 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
The Bible has undergone many translations. The original Hebrew and Aramic were translted to Greek and Latin (let's not forget the Egyptian contributions that are there somewhere). The Greek and Latin were translated into English almost 1600 years after the death of Christ. That version is known as the King James version. In fact, William Shakespeare's Hamlet is slightly older than the KJV.
Since the KJV, there has been a number of English translations, including the "New International Version (NIV), The Book For Teens (TBFT), the New Living Translation (NLT), the New Believer's Bible (NBB), the Living Bible (LB), and many more." These translations have simply attempted to make the Bible easier to read for most people in the 20th and 21st Centuries.
With every translation that the Bible has undergone, it has had many ommissions and additions. With that said, it's foolish to beleive that the KJV is the "unaltered word of God." It is probably no less perverted than the versions mentioned in the Bible.
If you want to study te "true" Bible, I'd suggest that you brush up on your Hebrew, Aramic, Geek, Egyptian, Latin (I may be forgetting a few of the contributing languages, btw) and try to gain access to the few remaining ancient texts that there are.
The fact is that there were entire books dropped from and added to the "canon" before and during the translation into the KJV. So, is the KJV any etter than these more modern translations that omit a word or change a phrase?
You'd really have a fit if you read the Jeffersonian Bible (written by Thomas Jefferson, which blows a gigantic hole in the idea that the religious right holds the ideals of our forefathers!)
BTW, there are a few parts of this article that I find to be telling. Take this line: "Taylor died in June of 2005 at age 88. It is wicked to corrupt the Word of God (2nd Peter 3:16)." To me, it sounds like death was the punishment for "corrupting" the Bible, yet death comes to this man about 34 years after he committed this great sin, when he was 88! Sounds more like old age than God's revenge.
Addition:
"We don't rewrite Shakespeare because we can't understand the archaic English; rather, we study it in the beauty in which it was written. To retranslate Shakespeare into modern English would be a literary tragedy."
The fact is that the most common reason that people don't read the Bard's work and the reason that people don't read the Bible tends to be the same--It's hard to read (and even harder to understand, or you'd understand that the "beauty" in which the Bard wrote includes a lot of dirty jokes intended for his peasant audience members).
2007-06-06 03:37:27
·
answer #2
·
answered by Celtic 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
"Sodomite", "temple prostitute", and "shrine prostitute" are all the same thing. Just different terms for essentially the same thing.
A little background history for you - worshippers of the god Baal, and also some other pagan gods, worshipped at shrines and temples that had male cult prostitutes, who had ritual sex with other males. So knowing that, you can see that all of these terms refer to the same thing.
You cannot just sit down and read the Bible and make any sense out of it without knowing a little bit about the history of the world, people and cultures involved, and the time in which it was written. I suggest that you take some serious Bible study classes along with some world history that covers that place and time.
2007-06-06 03:24:12
·
answer #3
·
answered by the phantom 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
The list is much longer than that. Did you know the story of Jesus and the prostitute (he who cast the first stone) wasn't originally in the Bible?
edit:
I'm not sure where the person above is getting her information. There are some biblical textual critics that estimate the Bible has as many as 400,000 significant errors between different translations throughout history. Significant meaning changing the meaning of a word or phrase completely. That doesn't include misspellings or punctuation errors.
2007-06-06 03:14:09
·
answer #4
·
answered by robtheman 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
What's the matter? Miss your sodomite friends?
Addendum: "I'm not sure I'm familiar with the word interpolating.." Neither is the OP, judging by the obvious misuse of the word.
Addendum: Phantom: Do you really expect these dogma-parroting zombies to actually do some independent research into their favorite compendium of fariy tales?
2007-06-06 03:15:08
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Tyndale House Publishers.
It says "by Tyndale" could that be
William Tyndale (1494–October 6, 1536)
2007-06-06 03:27:15
·
answer #6
·
answered by hairypotto 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well, I'm glad someone was up all night looking for all the sodomites in the Bible. We can all sleep more soundly now.
2007-06-06 03:16:03
·
answer #7
·
answered by Doc Occam 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
I'm not sure I'm familiar with the word interpolating..
2007-06-06 03:17:03
·
answer #8
·
answered by maphiaLu™ 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
another word for the same thing....whooptie whoop
im tired...no links....SCHolars says that King James is 95% accurate....grammar errors dont bother me....content id what counts
2007-06-06 03:14:03
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋