If the accuracy of Bible translation is questionable.. would it be still holly book?

Question

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Aoh1wmGSum.2A4H5tIuS1p1FLxV.;_ylv=3?qid=20070918033350AAQZzLy

Answer 1

The accuracy of the bible is questionable. We only have to read Lucern`s writings about one Paulus the greek, who took over the jewish messiah cult, and made it his own. In turn taken from him by the roman Lucious (funny the first pope). That puts us arround the year 110 and the earliest writings start around this time. If we look at the fact that all jewish prophets kept written books of their sayings, where is the book of sayings of Jesus. Sadly only found in reference with no actual copies around today. All jews were able to read and write in Hebrew, so why is the bible a translation from greek. None of the apostles were greek. So all we actually have is the leftovers of the books compiled by Paul. A man who never knew Jesus, as he was far too young. This we know from the account of the stoning to death of Steven. Paul states that he was too young to participate, so he was under 12 years of age at that time 43AD. So the book is not so much holy as full of holes.

Answer 2

I think a holly book would be limited to Christimas

A Holy Book on the other hand..........I guess if the translation wasn't done properly or was misleading, that would fall into the category of "false teaching" which the Bible tells us will happen.
So, no,,,,,that would not be a Holy Book

Most, well all, authentic translations we have today were done carefully by MANY people who worked together to keep the origianl meaning of the passages intact.

Answer 3

Absolutely not. As for the KJV, I'm getting pretty sick of some individuals that would have you believe that King James wrote it! It's not the first time I've heard this nonsense. It was commissioned by him and translated by scholars - ACTUAL scholars. That can not be said of the NWT. The Watchtower "scholars" barely understood greek and hebrew. For crying out loud, the Watchtower teaches that God the Holy Spirit is only an impersonal force yet alternates between calling Him a "he" and an "it"! Calling someone "he" indicates person-hood. Their own "Bible" is a house divided against itself. Throw them out sister.

Answer 4

I think that part of the problem is that people talk about it being inerrant and all that, when in fact it contains things which were handed down over generations and also a development of belief. In the old testament they believed that ethnic cleansing and polygamy and ownership of women was normal whereas now we know it is not. Despite this you have to look at passages such as the Sermon on the Mount to realise how radical and important Jesus was.

Answer 5

Hi...

The bible's accuracy in translation, is not good.

There have been many changes, from the original texts in Greek and Aramaic, through the earlier changes, from Latin to Old English, to the English language spoken and read today!
There have been 'many' mistakes in translation on each occasion!!


The bible is NOT a 'holy' book, there is NOTHING 'holy'...

Religion is man-made, totally non-divine, it is NOT the word of 'god' and the word 'holy' does not have 'any' meaning!!

Answer 6

I belive that it is used as a tool, which creates negative and posotive reactions.Its not about going to church its about how we conduct our selves in life.
Too much is put into what the bible says, and as much as I belive there is a greater being .
how can we be sure who wrote it in the first place,whos word are we taking for it..........???
so many questions, so little evidence....if we looked with in our selves we would find many answers

Answer 7

i dont think any book is holy nor any text, but i do think the stories in them can be usefull so people remember how to act in accordance with what they believe.
i dont think the bible or any other holy book is accurate but the work of the victor or looser who either exagerated their own prowess or under exagerated it to make themselves look better

Answer 8

holy is only what you make it. Even an accurately translated bible is full of self contradictions and dodgy morals, if that holy to you then great.

Answer 9

Yes, the Bible is a holy book.

Answer 10

Is Our Copy of the Bible a Reliable Copy of the Original?
by Rich Deem

Old Testament - How do we know the Bible has been kept in tact for over 2,000 years of copying? Before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, our earliest Hebrew copy of the Old Testament was the Masoretic text, dating around 800 A.D. The Dead Sea Scrolls date to the time of Jesus and were copied by the Qumran community, a Jewish sect living around the Dead Sea. We also have the Septuagint which is a Greek translation of the Old Testament dating in the second century B.C. When we compare these texts which have an 800-1000 years gap between them we are amazed that 95% of the texts are identical with only minor variations and a few discrepancies.

New Testament - In considering the New Testament we have tens of thousands of manuscripts of the New Testament in part or in whole, dating from the second century A.D. to the late fifteenth century, when the printing press was invented. These manuscripts have been found in Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Turkey, Greece, and Italy, making collusion unlikely. The oldest manuscript, the John Rylands manuscript, has been dated to 125 A.D. and was found in Egypt, some distance from where the New Testament was originally composed in Asia Minor). Many early Christian papyri, discovered in 1935, have been dated to 150 A.D., and include the four gospels. The Papyrus Bodmer II, discovered in 1956, has been dated to 200 A.D., and contains 14 chapters and portions of the last seven chapters of the gospel of John. The Chester Beatty biblical papyri, discovered in 1931, has been dated to 200-250 A.D. and contains the Gospels, Acts, Paul's Epistles, and Revelation. The number of manuscripts is extensive compared to other ancient historical writings, such as Caesar's "Gallic Wars" (10 Greek manuscripts, the earliest 950 years after the original), the "Annals" of Tacitus (2 manuscripts, the earliest 950 years after the original), Livy (20 manuscripts, the earliest 350 years after the original), and Plato (7 manuscripts).

Thousands of early Christian writings and lexionaries (first and second century) cite verses from the New Testament. In fact, it is nearly possible to put together the entire New Testament just from early Christian writings. For example, the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (dated 95 A.D.) cites verses from the Gospels, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Titus, Hebrews, and 1 Peter. The letters of Ignatius (dated 115 A.D.) were written to several churches in Asia Minor and cites verses from Matthew, John, Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus. These letters indicate that the entire New Testament was written in the first century A.D. In addition, there is internal evidence for a first century date for the writing of the New Testament. The book of Acts ends abruptly with Paul in prison, awaiting trial (Acts 28:30-31 (1)). It is likely that Luke wrote Acts during this time, before Paul finally appeared before Nero. This would be about 62-63 A.D., meaning that Acts and Luke were written within thirty years of ministry and death of Jesus. Another internal evidence is that there is no mention of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Although Matthew, Mark and Luke record Jesus' prophecy that the temple and city would be destroyed within that generation (Matthew 24:1-2 (2),Mark 13:1-2 (3), Luke 21:5-9,20-24,32(4)), no New Testament book refers to this event as having happened. If they had been written after 70 A.D., it is likely that letters written after 70 A.D. would have mentioned the fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy. As stated by Nelson Glueck, former president of the Jewish Theological Seminary in the Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati, and renowned Jewish archaeologist, "In my opinion, every book of the New Testament was written between the forties and eighties of the first century A.D."

With all of the massive manuscript evidence you would think there would be massive discrepancies - just the opposite is true. New Testament manuscripts agree in 99.5% (5) of the text (compared to only 95% for the Iliad). Most of the discrepancies are in spelling and word order. A few words have been changed or added. There are two passages that are disputed but no discrepancy is of any doctrinal significance (i.e., none would alter basic Christian doctrine). Most Bibles include the options as footnotes when there are discrepancies. How could there be such accuracy over a period of 1,400 years of copying? Two reasons: The scribes that did the copying had meticulous methods for checking their copies for errors. 2) The Holy Spirit made sure we would have an accurate copy of God's word so we would not be deceived. The Mormons, theological liberals as well as other cults and false religions such as Islam that claim the Bible has been tampered with are completely proven false by the extensive, historical manuscript evidence.