When you study different versions of the Christian bible?

Question

You can see that parts get omitted and altered, from poor translation, misprints and just leaving out unfashionable bits. My best example would be the changing of 'thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live', to 'thou shalt not suffer a witch to live' by the King James bible.

So how can it be said that it is 100% the word of god? One bible was notoriously sent into print saying 'thou SHALT commit adultery'. Reading translations of Genesis make it pretty clear that some words only have approximate translations into English.

How many commited Christians actually study older bible texts to compare them? How many compare them to the Torah and Qu'ran? Are you just accepting the latest version as gospel?

I'd definitely recommend a look at the Qu'ran, it's interesting to compare it to the OT, and it's view of Jesus. In the Qu'ran he could speak as a newborn!

In the Christian Scriptures (New Testament): a criminal who murders people by secretly preparing and administering poisons. See Galatians 5:19-20. The Greek word here is "pharmakia," from which our English word "pharmacy" originated. Probably because of King James' obsessive fear of evil witches, the Greek word was translated as "witchcraft," in the KJV Bible. "Poisoner" or "murderer" would be less ambiguous terms

Answer 1

The Koran has nothing to do with my Christian Scripture. However, I DO compare translations and refer back to the original Hebrew and Greek often.

Answer 2

If you are so keen then learn greek and hebrew and read the originals yourself. If you have ever learned a language yourself then you will know there are different ways of interpreting a language. For example there is a literal translation ie word for word, then there are translations that convey the overall meaning of a sentance. This is why there are many versions of the bible but apart from the cult bibles like the Jehovahs witnesses use, the overall message of the bible is the same, no matter which translation you use. It's simply a matter of taste.

Answer 3

the torah is also called the pentateuch or the chumasch, and is simply the first five books of the tanakh; genesis, exodus, leviticus, numbers, and deuteronomy. jews use the tanakh (old testament) and the talmud, which is basically a commentary on the tanakh. therefore, no, we don't use the talmud, because judaism and christianity are two extremely different religions. christianity stemmed from judaism, but the two are theologically different in many major ways.

witch/ poisoner;
witches in those days were known to use potions. this is where the confusion comes from. the original hebrew word is ''poisoner,'' but it has come to mean ''witch.'' it's the same in the new testament; there is no greek word that literally means ''witchcraft'' or ''drug use'' in st paul's epistles, yet they are both clearly frowned upon in the new covenenant. the greek word used is actually the word ''pharicaea,'' (spelling?) from which we derive the word ''pharmacy.'' again, this word is intended to mean ''witchcraft,'' because witches were known to use potions in those days. it's interesting to note that drug abuse is actually in the same category as witchcraft.

in my catechism (written by martin luther), it explains that we are to hold the original texts as being divinely inspired, but not the translations. still though, with more than 100 english translations of the bible, and with the manuscript support we're given for both the old and new testaments (the discovery of the dead sea scrolls proved that the old testament had not been changed in at least 2000 years, and there are over 5000 greek and 8000 ancient latin copies of the complete new testament dating back to the fourth century, as well as enough quotations from the early church fathers to put together the entire new testament, some of which date back to the first century), we can trust that SOMEONE has translated these things correctly. i know for a fact that the new american standard version was translated by a group of over forty clergymen, and that it took over ten years for them to agree on every little bit, so i have no problem trusting their translation. still, i study hebrew. what i have found is that the scriptures carry more meaning to someone who understands both the meaning and numerical value of hebrew words and letters. it doesn't change the meaning of anything; it just adds depth.

as i mentioned, the torah is simply the first five books of the old testament. the quran came 600 years after the synoptic gospels (matthew, mark, luke, and john) were written from the testimonies of many eyewitnesses (luke wasn't there. he actually played the role of a historian/ journalist who interviewed witnesses of the life, death, and resurrection.), so the quran carries no weight whatsoever with me. the gnostic ''gospels'' that are so popular today (the gospel of judas, the apocrypha of john, the gospel of mary, etc) were written in the second century by coptic egyptians, so they don't mean much to me either.

i don't study any ''versions'' of the gospel; i study the synoptic gospels themselves. i also study the accounts of Christ written by secular historians of the day, and have found that they only drive home who He was more deeply.

not all of us believe the bible just because the preacher man said to. i am naturally a very skeptical person, and as a result, i was agnostic to the age of twenty-seven. but my endless studies only prove to me the validity of the scriptures, and so they increase my faith.

believe it or not, this is the short version of my answer. ; )

Answer 4

I study and compare the Hebrew, Aramaic and Syriac versions of the bible. My particular interest is in the Syriac gospel tradition which is very ancient and earlier than the Greek text. It has much to say of help to us Christians make sense of our faith.

I have not studied the Qu'ran because I have yet to learn Arabic and this book would not be top of my list anyway because there is no good critical edition of it drawn from old manuscripts. My first reading in Arabic would probably be from the vast corpus of Christian Arabic literature, some of it is as old as the 8th century AD.

I would encourage anyone committed to their faith to make their own efforts to learn a biblical language and study the ancient texts for themselves. It is quite something to handle and read a manuscript 1000 years old or more. You will find much of genuine value that the bibles on your shelf will not tell you. This is a way that you can seek God for yourself and benefit other seekers as well.

Answer 5

Almost any ancient text will have variant readings, which have crept in over the centuries. Depending upon which variants a group of translators decide upon as being most likely closest to the original you will get different translations. Fortunately the variations between different manuscripts are not small enough to have no significant effect on Christian doctrine.

Atheists can sometimes have a pretty naive idea of how ancient texts are transmitted, without so much as a single copyist's error creeping in over the centuries.

Answer 6

Some Christians spend a lifetime studying Greek and Hebrew and the Bible (including the Torah) in those languages, believing that only in this way can they arrive at the truth. No-one who wants to be taken seriously on Bible meaning uses a translation.

There are very few Bible students who think that the Qur'an is worth any attention. It is clear to them that it is only an attempt to re-write the Bible in a way that was easier for people to accept.
.

Answer 7

The King James Version is highly favored and pushed by the clergy because it makes reading it so difficult. The conservative clergy don't like to see many wise guys within the Christian Community. I have many answers deleted by yahoo because they were in violation of the rules. I am telling what is in the Bible! I do not use obsenities, either!

Answer 8

I agree with you. I normally use concordances with the different versions I read. That helps a lot with the translations and with the comparisons you mentioned. Without a background in the original languages one is really hard put to solve some of the problems.

Answer 9

I have in my Library all versions of the Bible and I spend hours researching them and understanding them.
If we don't have the original biblical documents, but only possess copies (that have copyist errors), then how can we argue that the original documents were without error?

We don't need to have the original documents in order to demonstrate their inerrancy any more than a prosecutor needs a body to prove a crime has been committed. Inferences can be drawn from the evidence at hand, and a reasonable conclusion can be argued from biblical principles.

First of all, the copies definitely have errors in them, but whether or not they have errors does not necessitate that the originals did. We don't need to have the original documents in order to demonstrate their inerrancy anymore than a prosecutor needs a body to prove a crime has been committed.
Second, the Scriptures are said to be God-breathed, i.e., inspired. Second Timothy 3:16 says, "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness." The word "inspired" is 'theopneustos', God-breathed. This means that Scripture comes from God. Jesus said in Luke 24:44-45, "These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled." 45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures." Notice At the Scriptures are referred to as the entire Old Testament. Furthermore, Jesus said in John 10:35, “If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken)."

We see that Jesus speak for the entire Old Testament, to which John the apostle refers to Scripture. Then we see that Jesus said the Scripture cannot be broken. This means that it cannot fail. From this we can easily conclude that the position of Jesus is that the Scriptures, the written form, cannot fail, cannot be broken. Logically, this means that they are without error.

Third, Jesus did not deal with the issue of copyist errors. He simply stated that God's word cannot be broken. Likewise, we should take the same stance.

Fourth, Jesus did not possess the original writings, yet he said that they could not be broken and contain error.

Fifth, the New Testament is likewise considered Scripture by the Christian Church. Therefore, it falls under the purview of all Scripture being inspired of God.

Answer 10

Great Question.

It never ceases to amaze me that people are willing to put complete faith in, and base their lives around scripture that is so easily mis understood and so subjective.

If I decided to change my lifestyle of put faith in a being without any tangible evidence, I would do my best to make sure the text I was relying on was accurate and safe.

Most Christians have never read about the lives of the men who chose the books of the New Testament for them.

They would be shocked.