NationStates Jolt Archive

I have a question for any well informed christians out there.

I was talking to some one once who explained that the reason the believe in the bible so literally is becuase though it was written by men, it was divinely inspired and was the word of god flowing through thier hands. And that word has not been preverted in any way by the series of translations because of the dedication of the early monks and the guiding hand of god.

So my question is, why are there so many different versions of the bible? In my house alone I found three, and on any given page could find multiple differences, some that really change the meaning or tone of the passage.

I have recieved very well informed technical answers to why there are different versions. But I still want to know why this does not bother literal christians. I mean, how do you know which one is the word of god and which one is wrong?

The New Revised Standard Edition is probably the closest to a word-for-word translation from the original Greek texts. Most of the others (the King James version, for example) throw in a significant amount of extra-biblical interpretation. That being said, you still have the question about whether the Greek texts are faithful translations of the Hebrew texts (the Torah being originally written during the Babylonian Captivity about 400 years before it was translated into Greek). Most Biblical literalists point out that the Old Testament was simultaneously translated by 70 different scribes, and they all came up with the word-for-word exact translation (hence the name Septuagent (sp?)). Of course, the Septuagent is used by the Catholics, not the Protestants, who use the same version that the Hebrews decided to call canonical.

Eh, ultimately, unless you believe in many different cases of divine intercession, it's very hard to be a Christian fundamentalist. Unless you ignore all that and call that ignorance faith. Then it's easy. Stupid, but easy.

So my question is, why are there so many different versions of the bible?
Language changes, and as the meanings of words changes, the Bible has to be re-translated so as to be accurate for the new version of English.
For example, you will find various beauties in the Authorised/King James referred to as 'bleary-eyed'. A modern reader will no longer get the correct meaning, as 'blearly' used to mean what we now would describe as 'dewy' or 'glittering'. As the changes build up, the pressure for a new translation mounts. Also, language changes in different places in different ways, which is why you probably have a New *American* Bible, while the rest of the English speaking world would prefer the Modern *English*.
Also, occasionally a portion of text is reworded because it has been found to be frequently misinterpreted - sometimes deliberately. This is why the looney sects don't like modern translations.
Finally, you will indeed find that different modern versions can give different meanings, simply because the original text included two or more meanings. (Several of the writers of and characters within the Bible were fond of such speak - Jesus in particular liked puns). So it's likely that both meanings are accurate.
Hope this helps!

Also many words and quotes were mistranslated becouse they were left in Greek (refering to the real name of god, some figure of speeches, and medifors (Spel?), where all changed a bit becouse origanally they were translated from Athonian (Spel?) Greek, although Modernized Greek was spoken then.

For a slight example is God's real name. Some belive Jahova is (Jahova's Witnesses really insist on this) his name, but it really is Yaway (Spel? That is how it is pronoused), which is in the origanal greek hebrew text of the old testimen, and barely said becouse of respect torwards him.

Please excuse any grammer/spelling mistakes I may not have pointed out, I am just exhusted from sleep.

Well a take on biblical inerrancy and various translations (unacceptable to literalists) is that the Divine would not allow significant error to crop up in translation of His word. Small variations may occur, but they cannot be about anything significant since the Divine would not allow that.

Gods word is pure, even if Kng james translates it. :headbang:

Well a take on biblical inerrancy and various translations (unacceptable to literalists) is that the Divine would not allow significant error to crop up in translation of His word. Small variations may occur, but they cannot be about anything significant since the Divine would not allow that.

And when versions like the King James version leave out significant passages that say things like "it is good to rise up against a corrupt king," that isn't significant error being allowed?

How about the fact that Augustine's entire theory of original sin being passed on was based on what was most likely a mistranslation? You see, the Hebrew word for man is the same (or at least very similar to) as the Hebrew word for Adam. When translating, the translator basically decided whether to write Adam or man.

Let's see, there's the whole Red Sea vs. Sea of Reeds thing. Not all that significant, except that to cross over the Red Sea on the way to Mt. Sinai, you would have to think that God was drunk or something.

Then, of course, there's the fact that anything about slavery, killing rape victims, genocide, etc. is in there at all.

There are *plenty* of errors in the Bible.


Oh, and about the New Revised Standard Version - I don't think they only went back to the Greek texts. They went back to the absolute oldest texts they could find and translated directly to English (making note of any passages that scholars are in dispute over). It is by far the best version I have seen.

Stick to DC Comics, you'll be better off

I have a question for any well informed christians out there.

I was talking to some one once who explained that the reason the believe in the bible so literally is becuase though it was written by men, it was divinely inspired and was the word of god flowing through thier hands. And that word has not been preverted in any way by the series of translations because of the dedication of the early monks and the guiding hand of god.

So my question is, why are there so many different versions of the bible? In my house alone I found three, and on any given page could find multiple differences, some that really change the meaning or tone of the passage.

I have recieved very well informed technical answers to why there are different versions. But I still want to know why this does not bother literal christians. I mean, how do you know which one is the word of god and which one is wrong?
That's funny. How could anyone possibly assume that any of the words in the Bible are inspired by god when all the concepts and stories in the Bible are just stolen from the civilized peoples surrounding the tiny and politically irrelevant clans in the hill country of Palestine? Has none of you ever thought that the Bible was only assembled to pretend that there was ever something like an independent Hebrew and later Isaraelite entity in the Levant? The patriarchs of the Hebrew tradition are not glorious leaders of a great unified nation, they are just tribal chieftains marauding at the doorstep of mighty Egypt, always fearing the punishment from the land's overlord.

That's funny. How could anyone possibly assume that any of the words in the Bible are inspired by god when all the concepts and stories in the Bible are just stolen from the civilized peoples surrounding the tiny and politically irrelevant clans in the hill country of Palestine? Has none of you ever thought that the Bible was only assembled to pretend that there was ever something like an independent Hebrew and later Isaraelite entity in the Levant? The patriarchs of the Hebrew tradition are not glorious leaders of a great unified nation, they are just tribal chieftains marauding at the doorstep of mighty Egypt, always fearing the punishment from the land's overlord.

Aymen brother, you and me have it all figured out, let's go party. The rest of these morons can dwell in the spirit world with Jesus and Allh for the rest of their lives.

Stick to DC Comics, you'll be better off

Only if they are Vertigo. =)

The Bible should not be attacked as an institution. I do not believe it to be holy writ, but it does give exellent instruction in how to live life. Do not kill. Valid. Do not steal. Valid. Respect those that came before you (loose interpretation). Valid. There are many that attack the bible as overly-religious, and then put up the flag of Taoism. Yet, both Christianity and Taoism support the parable of the oak and the reed (somewhere in Matthew for Christianity, and smewhere in Tao Te Ching in Taoism).
I am not trying to attack or defend either faith/ philosophy, as I adhear to neither, instead I am trying to point out that even though they are, at their base, different they are still very much the same.
Religion needs to reexamine itself. Jews are not that dissimilar from Christians, Muslims, Pagans, or Taoists. They all have roughly the same ethics. For the most part, all religions and philosophies on the planet embrace the "live and let live" concept of living. It is only in the details that the groups differ.

I believe that indeed the bible should be take literally and is infallible that is the original anyway no translation from the original is perfect in fact just compare say luke 7:28 in NIV and KJV versions and countless other verses and you will notice differences the best english version is KJV

I believe that indeed the bible should be take literally and is infallible that is the original anyway no translation from the original is perfect in fact just compare say luke 7:28 in NIV and KJV versions and countless other verses and you will notice differences the best english version is KJV

This is sarcasm, right?

The KJV is the worst, most biased (towards good ole' King James) version of the Bible ever made - and it may also be the one translated the most times.

For a slight example is God's real name. Some belive Jahova is (Jahova's Witnesses really insist on this) his name, but it really is Yaway (Spel? That is how it is pronoused), which is in the origanal greek hebrew text of the old testimen, and barely said becouse of respect torwards him.

Please excuse any grammer/spelling mistakes I may not have pointed out, I am just exhusted from sleep.

YHWH in Hebrew. Hebrew has no vowels.

However, God's True Name is Unpronouncible for Humanity.
This is a safety check, for the Name of God is equivalent to turning the key to unlock the destruction of creation.

(Several of the writers of and characters within the Bible were fond of such speak - Jesus in particular liked puns). So it's likely that both meanings are accurate.

Wait a minute.

How do we know if Jesus liked puns, or if the author of that particluar book, happened to like puns, and thought that showing a touch of humour, might be a good idea?

I have a question for any well informed christians out there.

I was talking to some one once who explained that the reason the believe in the bible so literally is becuase though it was written by men, it was divinely inspired and was the word of god flowing through thier hands. And that word has not been preverted in any way by the series of translations because of the dedication of the early monks and the guiding hand of god.

So my question is, why are there so many different versions of the bible? In my house alone I found three, and on any given page could find multiple differences, some that really change the meaning or tone of the passage.

I have recieved very well informed technical answers to why there are different versions. But I still want to know why this does not bother literal christians. I mean, how do you know which one is the word of god and which one is wrong?


the reason is that i believe the bible was intentionally left to be vague. as no two people are the same, people have different views on certain things based on circumstance. so a different opinion can be formed based on circumstance while at the same time retaining its original values. the very fact that we have so many versions explains that without doubt. also, the original bible was translated from hebrew then, arameic, then latin, then english. so alot of the original text was changed to fit a language barrier. well the king james version was the standard for a long time and as such, certain practices became tradtion. and these traditions actually contradict the original meanings sometimes. for instance, the book of leviticus in the old testiment means, "for the priests" and was not a guidline for the average person. but it is seen that way by modern christians. And the original descrption of hell was actually a place just outside of jeruselem, called gahella or something like that. it was a dump used for incinerating garbage and dead bodies. part about hell being a place of fire emerged. so to put it simply, is that the original writings were lost in translations so to speak. and the new versions are simply interpritations of the original meanings.

the reason is that i believe the bible was intentionally left to be vague. as no two people are the same, people have different views on certain things based on circumstance. so a different opinion can be formed based on circumstance while at the same time retaining its original values. the very fact that we have so many versions explains that without doubt. also, the original bible was translated from hebrew then, arameic, then latin, then english. so alot of the original text was changed to fit a language barrier. well the king james version was the standard for a long time and as such, certain practices became tradtion. and these traditions actually contradict the original meanings sometimes. for instance, the book of leviticus in the old testiment means, "for the priests" and was not a guidline for the average person. but it is seen that way by modern christians. And the original descrption of hell was actually a place just outside of jeruselem, called gahella or something like that. it was a dump used for incinerating garbage and dead bodies. part about hell being a place of fire emerged. so to put it simply, is that the original writings were lost in translations so to speak. and the new versions are simply interpritations of the original meanings.
The Bible is not "vague".

I wouldn't dwell too much on the different translations of the Bible. The fundamentals of Christian beliefs are the same across the various translations. The same holds true for the different denominations. The practices may be a bit different, but the love of Christ and the acceptance of him as our one and only saviour is there.

I wouldn't dwell too much on the different translations of the Bible. The fundamentals of Christian beliefs are the same across the various translations. The same holds true for the different denominations. The practices may be a bit different, but the love of Christ and the acceptance of him as our one and only saviour is there.What exactly would be the "fundamentals of Christian beliefs" ?

However, God's True Name is Unpronouncible for Humanity.
This is a safety check, for the Name of God is equivalent to turning the key to unlock the destruction of creation.
So when along comes the right kind of animal or alien species that can pronounce it, the whole universe is destroyed? Or just Earth and humans, since that's what God created.

YHWH in Hebrew. Hebrew has no vowels.

And I believe that some of the Hebrew letters can be more than one of our English letters. So it could be translated as either YHWH or JHVH, which is where Yahweh (sp?) and Jehovah come from.

I think, anyways.

And when versions like the King James version leave out significant passages that say things like "it is good to rise up against a corrupt king," that isn't significant error being allowed?It is called hubris, to dictate to the Divine what the priorities of the Divine must be. Those portions which are different in different versions are unimportant to the Divine, since if they were important then they would be the same as the Divine is guiding the various translators, the Divine would make them so. Or do you in fact believe that you know more than an omniscent being and can therefore presume to tell him what should be important to It? You have a pretty big ego there fellow, going arround dictating to the Divine what the Divine should consider important.How about the fact that Augustine's entire theory of original sin being passed on was based on what was most likely a mistranslation? You see, the Hebrew word for man is the same (or at least very similar to) as the Hebrew word for Adam. When translating, the translator basically decided whether to write Adam or man. Not really. Augustine's concept of original sin owns it's origin to Romans 5 (and there is a controversial translation there), but even here the doctrine is supportable under either translation. Mostly this comes from Romans 5:12 and whether to translate it as saying death through sin passed onto man [from Adam] or death passed on to man through sin [of Adam]. Perhaps a review of Agustine is in order, the only Hebrew original text Augustine relied upon for his Doctrine of Original Sin is Genesis 3, and there is no disputable translation confusion over man and Adam - They are in fact the same word, adam, and the distinction is that Adam was refered to in Genesis as the man instead of man, and Agustine used man as man and the man as Adam, like the rest of us English speakers do.Let's see, there's the whole Red Sea vs. Sea of Reeds thing. Not all that significant, except that to cross over the Red Sea on the way to Mt. Sinai, you would have to think that God was drunk or something.If you accept that Mt. Sinai of the Sinai pennisula is the MT. Sinai of Moses, this is true. Sea of Reeds is a possible interpertation of the Hebrew term sea at the end of land, but it could have easily refered to the Red Sea in the Strait of Tiran (which lies between the Sinai and Arabian penisulas). Most of the theory about the Reed Sea is a way of reconciling the modern Mt. Sinai with the Mt. Sinai of Moses, long ago they knew the Mt. Sinai of Moses was on the Arabian Pennisula. In modern times we have varying translations, which to my mind indicates that the Divine doesn't give a hoot about whether or not man thinks the Mt. Sinai of Moses is on the Sinai or Arabian pennisula, although it may have been important in the past. So then, why should it be important to the Divine that man know with certanty in this era whether the Isrealites crossed the Reed Sea or the Red Sea after leaving the land of Egypt?Then, of course, there's the fact that anything about slavery, killing rape victims, genocide, etc. is in there at all.Once again you know more than the Divine about what is important and what is not. Goodness the ego you must have, to be more perfect in your knowledge than a being with perfect knowledge. I shudder to think how you came by this perfect knowledge, do you hear voices telling you what is the absolute truth? I have to recomend a trip to a psychologist, if we accept the basic premise that the Divine is guiding the translations of the bible (required for the purposes of this thread), you seem to believe you know more than the Divine. In case you cannot tell, this is sarcasm, I doubt you are accepting the basic premise of the thread (that the translation of the bible is guided the Divine).