With over 3000 different interpretations of the Bible, which interpretation is true?

Question

Faith brings people together and religion divides. Why do good people personally and psychologically identify with a certain interpretation of the Bible to the extent of waging wars against their friends, family and neighbors over differing opinions? Which church is the true church? Are all the other untrue churches going to hell?

Addition: Which of the approximately 3000 different Protestant and Catholic religions is correct? If they all agreed on one interpretation of the Bible, would not there be only one church?

Answer 1

There is no true interpretation of the Bible,Many parts have been added and deleted to fit the whims of those who wanted to control the masses In archaic times many stories and teachings were passed down orally since many or most of the populace could not read nor write ,just like I cant type worth a hill of beans.

Answer 2

It was written that "not one jot or tittle would be lost". Those funny words are each small marks in the Hebrew text which can completely change a word. But the point is, that the written word would not change.

That is not about interpretation, but about the voice of the scripture. In Chapter 11, par. 5D (pg 341), "Exact Words" of The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict (Josh McDowell), it says,"Inerrancy does not demand that the logia jesu (the sayings of Jesus) contain the ipsissima verba (the exact words) of Jesus, only the ipsissima vox (the exact voice).

There are many translations (not interpretations) of the Bible. We have many in the English language alone, besides the thousands of languages and dialects worldwide. But, God promised that the written word would remain intact.

Now, there are interpretations of some scriptures which lead to some dogmas and/or doctrines. Often, if they don't line up with the other scriptures, it is because they are taken out of context.

From what I know of the English language translations, one is not better than the other. Each one has some issues in interpreting certain words, which some lose the thrust or impact while others miss out on a complete idea. But, the voice remains intact.

The only translations, or versions, I have found to be innacurate are any modern ones which water down certain words in the name of political correctness. I also do not believe that the Catholic Version is totally correct in adding the other books as canon - there are canonical guidelines which don't line up.

One translation, which could be considered an interpretation, is the Jehovah's Witness' New World Translation. They claim that it is from original Greek, which no Greek scholar would agree with. Their version has passages completely changed in order to agree with their doctrine. In so doing they built contradictions with scripture which would otherwise support the ones they changed.

This is a topic with much explanation. I recommend looking up McDowell's book.

Answer 3

Use a complete bible such as the NAB or the Douay Rheims.The true church is the church Jesus established in 33 AD and placed into Peter's hands, The Holy Roman Catholic Church. It is the only church that preaches the truth of Christ and has done so for over 2000 years

Jesus said his Church would be "the light of the world." He then noted that "a city set on a hill cannot be hid" (Matt. 5:14). This means his Church is a visible organization. It must have characteristics that clearly identify it and that distinguish it from other churches. Jesus promised, "I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18). This means that his Church will never be destroyed and will never fall away from him. His Church will survive until his return.

Among the Christian churches, only the Catholic Church has existed since the time of Jesus. Every other Christian church is an offshoot of the Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox churches broke away from unity with the pope in 1054. The Protestant churches were established during the Reformation, which began in 1517. (Most of today’s Protestant churches are actually offshoots of the original Protestant offshoots.)

Only the Catholic Church existed in the tenth century, in the fifth century, and in the first century, faithfully teaching the doctrines given by Christ to the apostles, omitting nothing. The line of popes can be traced back, in unbroken succession, to Peter himself. This is unequaled by any institution in history.

Even the oldest government is new compared to the papacy, and the churches that send out door-to-door missionaries are young compared to the Catholic Church. Many of these churches began as recently as the nineteenth or twentieth centuries. Some even began during your own lifetime. None of them can claim to be the Church Jesus established.

The Catholic Church has existed for nearly 2,000 years, despite constant opposition from the world. This is testimony to the Church’s divine origin. It must be more than a merely human organization, especially considering that its human members— even some of its leaders—have been unwise, corrupt, or prone to heresy.

Any merely human organization with such members would have collapsed early on. The Catholic Church is today the most vigorous church in the world (and the largest, with a billion members: one sixth of the human race), and that is testimony not to the cleverness of the Church’s leaders, but to the protection of the Holy Spirit.


The Bible, sacred Tradition, and the writings of the earliest Christians testify that the Church teaches with Jesus’ authority. In this age of countless competing religions, each clamoring for attention, one voice rises above the din: the Catholic Church, which the Bible calls "the pillar and foundation of truth" (1 Tim. 3:15).

Jesus assured the apostles and their successors, the popes and the bishops, "He who listens to you listens to me, and he who rejects you rejects me" (Luke 10:16). Jesus promised to guide his Church into all truth (John 16:12–13). We can have confidence that his Church teaches only the truth.

Answer 4

Due to the fact that these
Christians use the Protestant Old Testament which is lacking 7 entire books 2 (Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus/Sirach, Baruch, I Maccabees, and II Maccabees), 3 chapters of Daniel and 6 chapters of Esther may be one of the reasons they ask catholics so many questions.

For the Sola Scriptura this is too bad .
In the 16th c., Luther removed those books from the canon that lent support to orthodox doctrine, relegating them to an appendix. Removed in this way were books that supported such things as:

prayers for the dead (Tobit 12:12; 2 Maccabees 12:39-45),

Purgatory (Wisdom 3:1-7),

intercession of dead saints (2 Maccabees 15:14),

and intercession of angels as intermediaries (Tobit 12:12-15).

The lesson, though, is this: relying on the "Bible alone" is a bad idea; we are not to rely solely on Sacred Scripture to understand Christ's message. While Scripture is "given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16-17), it is not sufficient for reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness. It is the Church that is the "pillar and ground of Truth" (1 Timothy 3:15)! Jesus did not come to write a book; He came to redeem us, and He founded a Sacramental Church through His apostles to show us the way. It is to them, to the Church Fathers, to the Sacred Deposit of Faith, to the living Church that is guided by the Holy Spirit, and to Scripture that we must prayerfully look.

Answer 5

That is mainly translations into different languages. There was a time when the Western church only wanted the bible to be in Latin, but thankfully that time is gone, and people can read it in their own tongue.
You also get new versions as time passes as language phrases and words change.
They also have more manuscripts than they used to have, so can make a more accurate translation.
Also you get different emphases - paraphrases, eg trying to translate very loosely to make it easy to understand. Translating in simplified language. Translating as literally as possible (not very readable as Greek sentence construction is different from English; some metaphors they used require historical knowledge). Bringing out all meanings of words (amplified version) etc etc.

Answer 6

3000 interpretations? Are you referring to the different translations of the Scriptures? I have to guess that you are confused by the difference. I am unaware of major differences that the translations have caused over the 2000 year history of the old/new testament. You are welcome to discuss those in your next question, but for now the question is based on an assumption that is nonsense. Dave

Answer 7

What 3000 interpretations are you talking about? Go to www.carm.org and read up on the Bible. You will get many of your questions answered there.

Answer 8

Having many distinctive human beings tell an identical tale, as interior the 4 Gospels, enables corroborate the events. in case you could desire to in basic terms discover one person to provide help to recognize on the subject of the character of someone, the events that occurred, and what somebody mentioned, it does no longer carry as lots weight as 8 human beings telling you...

Answer 9

listen! over thousands of yours the english language has changed. We must revise the words for understanding.

The KFV it says slay or smite, instead of kill.
tell me what child will understand this or regular young american?

And if anytime we are wondering about a passage we have the dead sea scrolls

Answer 10

3000??? are you drunked?

get you facts straight