Is the Bible biased?

[Inviolable]

Well, is it?

 

[danielseeksGod]

yes, but not inaccurately!

 

[lux et lex]

Of course. Inspired by God, but written by fallible man. And then translated by lots of other men to fit their needs.

 

[wayseer]

Of course.

Does it matter?

 

[Streampaws]

Yes, I do believe it has some biased parts.

 

[dayhiker]

I don't think our modern day concept of imbiased existed in ancient times. They knew everyone had an agenda back then. So the writers of the Bible had an agenda. I like that word better than bias.

 

[Jase]

Well, is it?

Absolutely, particularly the English translations. Tyndale was accused of changing the Bible to attack the church. King James ordered the translators to intentionally alter it to make sure it complied with Church of England teaching, as well as to "Christianize" it. All the passages talking about witches and gays have been altered in the English Bibles, particularly in the last 50 years.

 

[Jase]

Of course.

Does it matter?

It does for those who believe in the inerrancy and infallibility of every Bible translation.

 

[Inviolable]

Absolutely, particularly the English translations. Tyndale was accused of changing the Bible to attack the church. King James ordered the translators to intentionally alter it to make sure it complied with Church of England teaching, as well as to "Christianize" it. All the passages talking about witches and gays have been altered in the English Bibles, particularly in the last 50 years.

That's a lot of history to go over.
But as far as I know, the "only" bible to "ever" have William Tyndales exact translations was the Mathew Bible.
Which was the first English translation of the bible to be printed and published before the KJV was completed.
And Tyndale died before the Matthew Bible was completely translated.
I do know for certain, that his technique was used to translate the KJV and that some words weren't translated word for word.
I also know that the Matthew bible had notes attached to the passages explaining the translations in some places.
But when King James ordered the translation of the KJV he also ordered
that there be no additional notes from the translators added to the passages.

I thought this was real cool when I found it.

http://www.gospelhall.org/bible-teaching/history-of-the-english-bible/history-of-english-bible-translation-15-the-1611-king-james-version.html

An actual page of the original 1611 KJV
http://www.gospelhall.org/images/stories/bible-history-013-king-james-bible-lg.jpg


http://gospelhall.org/bible-teaching/history-of-the-english-bible/history-of-english-bible-translation-10-matthew-thomas-bible-1537.html

An actual page of the Matthew Bible.
http://www.gospelhall.org/images/stories/bible-history-007-matthew-thomas-lg.jpg

 

[wayseer]

It does for those who believe in the inerrancy and infallibility of every Bible translation.

I don't know if inerrancy or infallibility are examples of bias.

I am not sure what the OP is trying to get at but I suspect there is some other issue at stake here and until the OP expands a little the question is more like a non-question.

 

[ebia]

All texts have an agenda - nobody writes anything without a reason for writing that informs what he or she writes.

 

[Inviolable]

I don't know if inerrancy or infallibility are examples of bias.

I am not sure what the OP is trying to get at but I suspect there is some other issue at stake here and until the OP expands a little the question is more like a non-question.

Right, and I should expand on my OP.
Thank you Wayseer for helping to expedite the meaning of the OP.

There are "several" reasons we can contribute to the translation of the bible. Any number of these can be considered biased.
I would like to examine these reasons from different perspectives and these forums have a wide variety of potential opinions.

I also thought that, (who translated the bible) and for what reason, might very well be a moot point. Considering it is the breathed word of God and no man can change that.

 

[wayseer]

Right, and I should expand on my OP.
Thank you Wayseer for helping to expedite the meaning of the OP.

There are "several" reasons we can contribute to the translation of the bible. Any number of these can be considered biased.
I would like to examine these reasons from different perspectives and these forums have a wide variety of potential opinions.

I also thought that, (who translated the bible) and for what reason, might very well be a moot point. Considering it is the breathed word of God and no man can change that.

I think important that it is not so much that the Bible has a bias but it us who have bias - very often unrecognized - we come with our experiences and read the biblical texts wearing those set of glasses. In other words, we read the texts from our own perspective.

I don't think this matters in the way in which you imagine.

I like the reader-response critique which is an exegesis of the text that accounts for 'how' the reader receives the texts. And very often we receive that text in different ways depending not only on our individual experience but also from a cultural perspective. An America will not read the Bible the same way as someone from the mountains of South America or from the slum townships of South Africa - our very affluence middle class culture is not the only one going around.

So, yes, we all read the Bible in different ways.

I guess that then raises the issue of 'conformity'. Do we all sing off the same hymn sheet?

Again, No - but the central issue is Christ and not what others may or may not say. Listening to Christ, ie, Holy Spirit, is not all that easy with the many distracting pervading the airwaves.

It is here one needs some balance and while I rail against the institutional church almost as a matter of course, we need some overarching authority to direct the more extreme interpretations back on track.

Which is why I'm an Anglican for we use scripture, tradition and reason to work out those parameters and often competing tendencies.

 

[onemorequestion]

Of course. Inspired by God, but written by fallible man.

And then translated by lots of other men to fit their needs.

Expound upon this notion please?

How do you have "faith in Christ?"

Since scribes are just goofballs that are tainted by their personal feelings, where does the bases of your declaration for Christ come from?

 

[lux et lex]

Expound upon this notion please?

How do you have "faith in Christ?"

Since scribes are just goofballs that are tainted by their personal feelings, where does the bases of your declaration for Christ come from?

No, the scribes are not goofballs, but they are men who are tainted by their personal feelings. If they weren't then why are there so many versions of the Bible? Why do people translate and retranslate when some words have many meanings in English? It's foolish to believe that the Bible has not been tainted by man. It is very apparent.

But that doesn't change my faith in Christ. Taking the Bible as a whole and finding the repeating and overarching themes, those can be taken as true.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

If you actually read the bible in its entirety, you will see that the bible is more showing of grace then bias. Because the people in scripture, with the exception of few, are not shown in a positive light all the time. It does not hide our sins and it certainly doesn't show God being bias. God tells us that He'll have favor on He chooses, and God has every right to do what He wants to do.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

No, the scribes are not goofballs, but they are men who are tainted by their personal feelings. If they weren't then why are there so many versions of the Bible? Why do people translate and retranslate when some words have many meanings in English? It's foolish to believe that the Bible has not been tainted by man. It is very apparent.

It doesn't amaze you that many "scholars" used different manuscripts and they come up with virtually the same things??? Look at NKJV/ESV/NASB, if I am not mistaken they use different manuscriptures but it almost read the same especially NKJV and ESV.

And there are some versions we should know to stay clear away from. Like no one in the world should have "The Message" as their personal study bible.

But that doesn't change my faith in Christ. Taking the Bible as a whole and finding the repeating and overarching themes, those can be taken as true.

What in the world does "overarching themes" mean?

 

[lux et lex]

What in the world does "overarching themes" mean?

Well I'm not a dictionary, but when you read the Bible as a whole you will see themes repeated. These would be "overarching themes". It's those themes that I put the most stock in because they have not been perverted by the biases of man.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

Well I'm not a dictionary, but when you read the Bible as a whole you will see themes repeated. These would be "overarching themes". It's those themes that I put the most stock in because they have not been perverted by the biases of man.

I'm confused. If you claim that man have some how created their own bias when writing and translation the bible, what makes you think that those repeated themes weren't part of the bias? Why is it not considered "overarching theme bias?"

What makes those repeated themes stand out but other scriptures do not? For example, the description of Heaven is only stated once and its in Revelations, should I consider it a bias because the description of Heaven is only mentioned once? I just don't get why if something is a perpetual theme in scripture than it means its untouched by bias, but if it's only mentioned once, then the likelihood is that it's bias.


The funny thing about the bible, for the most part, almost everything is repeated. The bible does a great job of constantly reminding us of itself.

 

[Phinehas2]

Biased to God. of course.
What I think is actually being discussed is, it is true.