Which Bible

[Willtor]

Yes I understand and confer with your point. Most people are unaware that middle and old English differ so much. Even our modern version changes rapidly. Funny thing when I started high school (year 8) the annual fete or fair as it is called in the US was called Gay Day.

Ha! That's awesome! Yeah, words have a way of altering meaning, over time. I've been told that the internet has actually caused the rate of change to increase. If this is so, it doesn't surprise me. If each little community has a slightly different shade of meaning for a word, it can get picked up very quickly by a large number of people. But I think semantics suffers.

 

[peacefulsoul]

hi

I m not a Christian I m just a seeker and was just wondering how many versions of the bible are there ?

Are they all nearly the same? Can some one explain me y they r different versions? Do they all teach different things?

I m confused

 

[Merlin]

hi

I m not a Christian I m just a seeker and was just wondering how many versions of the bible are there ?

Around 100+/-

Are they all nearly the same?

Yes

Can some one explain me y they r different versions?

They are attempts to get more accurate in translating.
Some try to literally interpret word for word.
Some translate idea for idea.
Some are inbetween.
Some follow tradition more than literal accuracy.
Some are very old.

At http://www.biblegateway.com/ you can read various translations for yourself.

Do they all teach different things?

Not really.

I m confused [/QUOTE]

 

[InquiringMind]

An interesting array of verses. But what if all the words of these people was all a load of bunkum, Every day people use the words "God said to me." If they were the words of a god then all those verses would mean something.

Even the verse "all scripture". So what do you think that refers to? The Bible as you and I know it. It couldn't be becasue they only had the Jewish Bible in those days. There are quite a few inherant problems also with those verses.

The history of the Bible is quite complex, as is how the books which we have now were accepted as the truth. If you Google "Canonized Books of the Bible" you will find a number of explanations. The first site that comes up is an easy to read site that gives a good explanation. Basically the Gospels were written because those who had a personal relationship with Christ were beginning to die, and it became important to preserve Christ's teachings in writing because the apostles were not going to be around any longer to pass on their personal knowledge. Two of the Gospels were written by apostles (those who walked with Christ while He was on earth) and two were written by close friends of the apostles (and I don't remember right off hand which was which). The epistles were letters written to early followers of Christ. Those who wrote the Epistles had divine revelation. A great deal of work went into figuring out what was authentic and what was not. None of the books of the Bible are simply arbitrary writings that were put togehter at random. If you cross reference verses you will find quotes from the Old Testament in the New Testament - maybe not word for word but the meaning is the same. You will also find that the Gospels, though written at different times, are strikingly similar. There are some variations, but this is because they are written from different perspectives by different followers of Christ and with different groups of people in mind. The book of Matthew, for example, was written with the needs of Christians originating from a Jewish background in mind while Luke was written by a Gentile convert. The Epistles are also strikingly similar in what they say, though written at different times and by a number of different men. Many Christians beleive that the Bible does not contradict itself at all. My persoanal opinion is that you can take certain verses and find a contradiction, but what is most important is how God speaks to the individual with those verses. Some things are simpler than others to understand, and for me relying on the Holy Spirit to help me see the meaning as I read the Bible is much more important than picking it apart to find what flaws may exist as a result of errors in translation or, more likely, lack of understanding on my part.

I meant to look at the verse that says "all scripture" but did not. It may be referring to the Old Testament, but I am not sure about that, so if no one else answers that I will see if I can make some sense of it in the next day or so.

I suppose if Christianity was attractive as a life style the Bible might appear to be a relevant book. But since the fruit on the tree is a bit off I have to judge that the tree is not very good. Do you understand my analogy. I think even Jesus is reported to have said something similar.

I honestly do not understand your analogy. Would you be so kind as to help me with that? Thanks!

 

[AgnosticMike]

I meant to look at the verse that says "all scripture" but did not. It may be referring to the Old Testament, but I am not sure about that, so if no one else answers that I will see if I can make some sense of it in the next day or so.

Yes it can only mean the Old Testament or Jewish Bible because that's all they had at that time. There may have been the odd letter but essentially, in the early 1st century church the Jewish Scriptures was basically it.

 

[AgnosticMike]

I honestly do not understand your analogy. Would you be so kind as to help me with that? Thanks!

Yes sorry I said, and it was a bit hurried and cumbersome: I suppose if Christianity was attractive as a life style the Bible might appear to be a relevant book. But since the fruit on the tree is a bit off I have to judge that the tree is not very good. Do you understand my analogy. I think even Jesus is reported to have said something similar.

I am saying that Christianity is not that attractive as a religion or lifestyle. If it was more attractive people might consider the Bible more as a book with credibility and authority.

I use the anology of the tree because Jesus is supposed to have said that you can judge a tree by its fruit. So I am saying that generally speaking the fuit is not all that good. Mind you I have seen some good pieces from time to time.

Is that better? Sometimes the hurried replies make for awkward reading. The mind is quick but the fingers are slow.

Regards

Mike

 

[prophecystudent]

I believe that the foundation documents for the bible were inspired by God. That is, God inspired the writers to put on paper (parchment?) the words and thoughts that God wanted there.

The problem is that thru the millenia since that process began, some of those source documents were written in various languages. Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, for example.

Translators did their best to try to convey the most accurate translations but were often limited by their own skills and capabilities. Further, the number of scholars doing the translations was somewhat limited. This meant that relatively few knowledgeable people actually reviewed the material before it was approved.

As years passed education and dedicated research has provided more knowledgeable scholars. Further, computers have made it easy to review hundreds of documents in remarkably short times.

With many more people reviewing the source material and the final product for accuracy and context we end up with more accurate documents. (Having spent several years in an information development operation I figure I am qualified to speak to the process).

What we have now are several translations the adherents of which claim is the most accurate. If one really does the comparisons between the modern versions, I suspect you will will find that the differences are largely ones of semantics, not substantive content.

I read various versions of the bible. I like the KJV because that is what I grew up with, and I kind of like the poetic nature.

Currently I am re-reading the bible in the NLT, which I find to be written more in line with current English.

I guess the basic point here is pick a recognized version that you find easy to study and read and study it diligently.

One other point, before any version of the bible is released for publication by any reputable publishing house, like Zondervan, it has been throroughly reviewed by dozens, if not hundreds, of reputable scholars. Thus, that version has been accepted as accurate recognized and reputable scholars.

I believe that we Christians too often let ourselves get entangled in disputes about minor stuff that distracts us from our commission to spread the word of Christ.

I submit that we stay with "accepted" versions of the bible that fit our needs at the time, and quit arguing about NLT vs KJV, etc etc etc ad nauseum.

Fred

 

[Willtor]

Yes it can only mean the Old Testament or Jewish Bible because that's all they had at that time. There may have been the odd letter but essentially, in the early 1st century church the Jewish Scriptures was basically it.

This is correct. If the current theories about the New Testament are accurate, Paul's epistles weren't written until the fifties or sixties. That's 20-30 years after the events in question. Also, the book of Acts indicates that the apostles were "reasoning from the Scriptures" in the synagogues they visited. I sincerely doubt that if the New Testament were available, the other Jewish sects would have bought into any of it.

 

[ebia]

Yes sorry I said, and it was a bit hurried and cumbersome: I suppose if Christianity was attractive as a life style the Bible might appear to be a relevant book. But since the fruit on the tree is a bit off I have to judge that the tree is not very good. Do you understand my analogy. I think even Jesus is reported to have said something similar.

I am saying that Christianity is not that attractive as a religion or lifestyle. If it was more attractive people might consider the Bible more as a book with credibility and authority.

I use the anology of the tree because Jesus is supposed to have said that you can judge a tree by its fruit. So I am saying that generally speaking the fuit is not all that good. Mind you I have seen some good pieces from time to time.

Is that better? Sometimes the hurried replies make for awkward reading. The mind is quick but the fingers are slow.

Regards

Mike

Spot on. Christians are supposed to be the best advertisment for Christianity, but are more frequently the worst.

 

[AgnosticMike]

I believe that the foundation documents for the bible were inspired by God. That is, God inspired the writers to put on paper (parchment?) the words and thoughts that God wanted there.

......

Fred

G'day Fred

That's the hard pill to swallow. Personally I can't make a statement that I believe or don't believe they were inspired by God. So what we have is a proposition. As a proposition, in my mind, there has to be some sort of confirmation. It's all too easy to claim that your God inspired your scriptures. There's nothing unique about that amongst world religions.

The New Testament talks about faith being like the smallest of seeds, a mustard seed. The faith that I hear about has to be as large as Everest in comparison. This is what I mean when I talk about faith in God not being enough. It has to be in a long list of things, the Bible, the writers of the books, the process that brought the books together as well as its selection, as well as in Jesus, what he has done etc etc.

 

[LilLamb219]

This is what I mean when I talk about faith in God not being enough.

Faith is definitely enough, and it's up to God to fill us with more faith...and more faith...and more faith.

Maybe it would be helpful for you to define what YOU think faith is?

 

[AgnosticMike]

Faith is definitely enough, and it's up to God to fill us with more faith...and more faith...and more faith.

Maybe it would be helpful for you to define what YOU think faith is?

OK. In the context of Biblical Christian definitions I think that blind belief is a good starter. The words belief and faith are interchangable from the Greek word pistis (transliterated). Jesus (allegedly) said blessed are those who don't see and still believe. Dont see (blind) believe (faith). Obviouly there is that well known definition in Hebrews about things hoped for etc.

As far as an interpretation on the definition: I feel that faith is used as a tool to opress and control people who don't have or have not learnt to think critically and openly.

Sounds harsh, I know, but I have seen this displayed in many religions, both cults and mainstream ones. The Cults are particularly skilled at using mind control and forbidding criical and open thinking.

Regards

Mike

 

[LilLamb219]

The words belief and faith are interchangable from the Greek word pistis (transliterated).

They really aren't interchangeable in meanings according to context. Even the demons believed in Jesus, but were not granted salvation as we have according to faith given to us as Christians. Belief in the context above means that there is an acknowledgment whereas faith is a trust in things unseen.

 

[Willtor]

OK. In the context of Biblical Christian definitions I think that blind belief is a good starter. The words belief and faith are interchangable from the Greek word pistis (transliterated). Jesus (allegedly) said blessed are those who don't see and still believe. Dont see (blind) believe (faith). Obviouly there is that well known definition in Hebrews about things hoped for etc.

As far as an interpretation on the definition: I feel that faith is used as a tool to opress and control people who don't have or have not learnt to think critically and openly.

Sounds harsh, I know, but I have seen this displayed in many religions, both cults and mainstream ones. The Cults are particularly skilled at using mind control and forbidding criical and open thinking.

Regards

Mike

I think this is a problematic definition of faith because it turns quite a lot of what the apostles (and Jesus) say about faith into nonsense. In the cases of Paul and James (opposite sides of the fence, if I can be a little dramatic) both say things about the implications of faith which don't follow from an understanding that is consistent with what you have said.

No doubt, you've heard it from Christians and Atheists, alike, that this understanding is correct. But that's what you get for growing up in a dualist culture. It's certainly the only understanding I ever grew up with. And you are correct that critical thinking adamantly opposes itself to such a notion.

However, I would like to point out that Christianity, at its inception, was a Jewish sect. Hence, an Hebraic philosophy. Although the NT texts are written in Greek, it might be better to explore Hebraic understandings of certain terms (faith, righteousness, justice, etc.).

 

[AgnosticMike]

The earliest records of complete Bibles included books like Clement 1 & 2 as well as the Gospel of Barnabas. It is interesting how each era has a different combination of books in the New Testament.

 

[Willtor]

The earliest records of complete Bibles included books like Clement 1 & 2 as well as the Gospel of Barnabas. It is interesting how each era has a different combination of books in the New Testament.

I don't know what you mean by "complete Bibles" since codexes were not common until centuries after these things were written. It may be that the Gnostics were binding books before the Orthodoxy was. I don't know. At any rate, I'm fairly certain you will not find that the Gospel of Barnabas was a part of it. There is some debate within the scholarly community as to whether the Gospel of Barnabas is a 14th century forgery. That's not to say that it is. That's to say that if they were finding ancient codexes containing this book, there would not be debate.

 

[AgnosticMike]

I don't know what you mean by "complete Bibles" since codexes were not common until centuries after these things were written. It may be that the Gnostics were binding books before the Orthodoxy was. I don't know. At any rate, I'm fairly certain you will not find that the Gospel of Barnabas was a part of it. There is some debate within the scholarly community as to whether the Gospel of Barnabas is a 14th century forgery. That's not to say that it is. That's to say that if they were finding ancient codexes containing this book, there would not be debate.

One of the documents I refer to is the Codex Sinaticus. I will double check but the Gospel of Barnabus was used in the early church before the 5th century and considered to be a part of the inspired books. Can you forward me to that debate as I am interested about what is being said either way?

The point you should be aware of is that early Christians were using these books as part of their collection of authorative books. Even the book of Jude quotes the book of Enoch. that was never included in the canon and yet a so called inspired book quotes it. Interesting!

Regards

Mike

 

[Willtor]

One of the documents I refer to is the Codex Sinaticus. I will double check but the Gospel of Barnabus was used in the early church before the 5th century and considered to be a part of the inspired books. Can you forward me to that debate as I am interested about what is being said either way?

The point you should be aware of is that early Christians were using these books as part of their collection of authorative books. Even the book of Jude quotes the book of Enoch. that was never included in the canon and yet a so called inspired book quotes it. Interesting!

Regards

Mike

That last point is most definitely true (about Jude and Enoch). I was fairly interested to research that topic when I discovered it, too. I think that was about the time I began to ask what was meant by Canon? If a book can be inspired but not canonical, then what is Canon? As far as "new Scripture," there are certain commonalities between all of the New Testament books: precisely, they all attest to Christ as Lord. There is a lot more that unites them, but this is the strongest basis I can find to connect them. Enoch (and the deuterocanonical books) were written before the Revelation of God in Christ. As such, if they were not treated as Canonical by the Jews, it would follow that a Jewish sect (like Christianity) would not treat them as Scripture. Origen argues (I don't think he's the first, but I haven't read any other non-Scriptural references, to my recollection) that all of Scripture (including the Hebraic Canon) testifies to Christ.

As for the Gospel of Barnabas, the Wiki site is fairly informative. It has a list of textual copies of Barnabas, and anachronisms contained therein. This is not, of course, to argue that the case is closed (perhaps additions were made in the Spanish and Italian), but that there are a lot of questions as to its authenticity.

Also when you mention the Codex Sinaiticus, it's not the Gospel of Barnabas, but the Epistle of Barnabas. They are extremely different documents. The latter is widely accepted as a work of antiquity (even if its Apostolic origins are not).

 

[AgnosticMike]

That last point is most definitely true (about Jude and Enoch). I was fairly interested to research that topic when I discovered it, too. I think that was about the time I began to ask what was meant by Canon? If a book can be inspired but not canonical, then what is Canon? As far as "new Scripture," there are certain commonalities between all of the New Testament books: precisely, they all attest to Christ as Lord. There is a lot more that unites them, but this is the strongest basis I can find to connect them. Enoch (and the deuterocanonical books) were written before the Revelation of God in Christ. As such, if they were not treated as Canonical by the Jews, it would follow that a Jewish sect (like Christianity) would not treat them as Scripture. Origen argues (I don't think he's the first, but I haven't read any other non-Scriptural references, to my recollection) that all of Scripture (including the Hebraic Canon) testifies to Christ.

As for the Gospel of Barnabas, the Wiki site is fairly informative. It has a list of textual copies of Barnabas, and anachronisms contained therein. This is not, of course, to argue that the case is closed (perhaps additions were made in the Spanish and Italian), but that there are a lot of questions as to its authenticity.

Also when you mention the Codex Sinaiticus, it's not the Gospel of Barnabas, but the Epistle of Barnabas. They are extremely different documents. The latter is widely accepted as a work of antiquity (even if its Apostolic origins are not).

There are many disputed books that were accepted by early Christians. That is what is interesting. When I hear Christians saying they wish to return to first century Christianity they probably don't realise how fragmented the church was even then. With so many different ideas on who Jesus was the picture of early Christianity is not as rosy as people think.

Regards

Mike

 

[Willtor]

There are many disputed books that were accepted by early Christians. That is what is interesting. When I hear Christians saying they wish to return to first century Christianity they probably don't realise how fragmented the church was even then. With so many different ideas on who Jesus was the picture of early Christianity is not as rosy as people think.

Regards

Mike

There was certainly the group that became known as Orthodox Christianity (whether it is actually the Orthodoxy is another question), and the group that became known as the Gnostic Christianity. Besides this, to what are you referring?