Why is it?

Just going online, something simple.

I put Thou Shall Not Kill, translated it to Spanish than from Spanish to French, and then from French to English

You will not kill

Now then, thou shall not kill and you will not kill. Very similar but will 2 people take them the same? Not necessarily.

Go to your Bible and read, you'll have 2 gospels telling different versions of the same things. Why? Now was Luke, being a physician more adept at writing than say Mark? I would harbor a bit of yet.

A Bible dated 1896 is 111 years old. A nice number, but compared to nearly 2000 years, its a bit small, no?


Just found this and it was rather interesting, as it, I think proves we are both right.

The Bible is made up of sixty-six books. It was written over a period of roughly 1500 years by about 34 men. An exception to this is the Catholic Doughy version, which has seventy-two books. However, these additional six books added to the Bible by the Roman Catholic Church are spurious ,or of doubtful origin, which the Church itself admits. Nonetheless, the sixty-six books of all other versions convey God's message quite adequately.

There are many reasons for different versions of the Bible. Mainly the different versions of the Bible came about because of the codices used to translate them from ... some are lengthy in description others assume you already understand what the subject is. Often the language used does not translate well from one tongue to another. Hence, the old saying, "It loses something in the translation."

As an example of language problems there is a translation of the Bible that was written for Eskimos or the Inuet nation. Now sheep are not something that an Eskimo would find roaming past their igloo. In fact, it is not an animal that an Eskimo would be at all familiar with. Therefore the translators when they came to scriptures in the first chapter of John stating "Behold the Lamb of God", they translated the Lamb of God as "Behold, the animal that looks like a baby caribou of God." (Notice that the saying begins to make sense?)

Now if the first Bible you read referred to an animal that looks like a baby caribou, and you had no idea what a caribou was; cross referencing it with most any other Bible would clearly place the image of a lamb in your mind. So in spite of the fact that there is a big difference between a lamb and a caribou the translation does not effect the integrity of the message. The message itself remains the same.

Most of the codices used are incomplete and are completed from others that are complete in that portion. One codex may be physically missing the beginning, another may be missing the end. However, together they make up the complete manuscript.

Are there errors, accidental or deliberate, in the Bible? Yes there are. It has been stated there are as many as 20,000 errors in the King James Version. Most of these have to do with our indexing system and spelling. The verse of one Bible may begin two or three words above or below the verse of another. But in the end it comes down to this. One Bible might use the word 'water' and another might use the word 'aqua,' but they both clearly mean that wet stuff that fills up the oceans.

Q: The Greek word 'agape' is translated both as 'charity' and 'love' in many places in the new testament in the KJV. What is the difference?


A: Almost all common Greek or Hebrew words will be translated into more than one English word at different places in the Bible. There is no such thing as word for word translation from one language to another. That is, the words of one language do not perfectly correspond to the words of another language. As these words are used in different contexts and with different shades of meaning, a decision has to be made on which English word is the best to use in each case.

Charity is an interesting case in the King James Bible because the 1Corinthians 13 passage (which uses charity 9 times) had been translated using the word love in Tyndale's New Testament of 1526 - 85 years before the King James translation. Certainly, it was not the case that the King James translators did not know that love might have fit. Rather, they purposely chose charity as the word to use there. Evidently, they saw an importance in distinguishing some of the uses of agape in a specific way. We will look at scripture to see if we can discover what specific nuances of the word are being brought out when charity is used. The use of love is the more general use and will not be discussed here in detail.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ut1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">99% of modern theologians agree that the "modern" translations are accurate translations.</div></div>

This just in--65.4% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

Do you have anything to support that claim ut1? Or was it just an opinion that you hold of theologians as you see it, and it just so happened to support the rest of your point by coincidence? Came from a Gallup Poll maybe? [img]/LDPforum/ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif[/img]

Also, they can say they're accurate, but what about a quantity on that accuracy? I'm sure a lot of theologians have seen things they don't feel to be accurate about the Bible. You line up about 10 theologians (note: THEOlogians = experts on religion in general, not just Christian ones), I'd guarantee you at least 5 of them would count the Bible as being less than 80% accurate, and maybe 3 more would count it about 90% or less. That's just a bit of pure conjecture on my part, but when you've got a lot of conflicting stories and you take a historical view on things, the Bible is hard to believe 100% for it's historical accounts.

The remainder of the stuff that really shouldn't matter whether it's accurate or not are the things that give us guidance in times of need. The things that give us comfort, that give us insight into a Christian lifestyle and how to have a relationship with God daily.

To say the Bible isn't 100% accurate isn't blasphemy, it's common sense. What's really needed to be remembered by all of us is that it's the inspirational things in the Bible that need to be focused on, the things that uplift others and teach us how to live better lives for God. That's what's important.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CoeburnCane</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[quote=ut1]99% of modern theologians agree that the "modern" translations are accurate translations.</div></div>

This just in--65.4% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

Do you have anything to support that claim ut1? Or was it just an opinion that you hold of theologians as you see it, and it just so happened to support the rest of your point by coincidence? Came from a Gallup Poll maybe? [img]/LDPforum/ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif[/img]


I agree with UT 1... but anyway here is a statement that you made:"To say the Bible isn't 100% accurate isn't blasphemy, it's common sense". My question is this: Do you believe that the Word of God was inspired by God? Do you believe that the Word of God is infalliable?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Pac-Man</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do you believe that the Word of God was inspired by God? Do you believe that the Word of God is infalliable? </div></div>

First question: Yes...anything spoken in prayer to you or anything that you read that you feel the presence of God in was inspired by God. Any "word of God" is inspired by Him--it's His words. If it doesn't have his inspiration and you as a believer can't feel his presence in it, I don't care what man claims it as a "Word of God", it's not.

Second question: The Bible? No, I don't believe in it's infallibility due to the fact that it's had too many men's hands and interjected opinions over hundreds of years of development & translation. Any true "word of God" would be infallible though.

That's the critical answers to both questions using a bit of common sense.

The answers of someone that's been indoctrinated from birth and afraid to use their common sense or knowledge of history would go like this...

First question: Yes, of course, it's His word.

Second question: Yes, it's God's word, He's perfect in all ways.

See the difference? THINK a little bit people. God created brains too. Don't forget to use them.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CoeburnCane</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Pac-Man</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do you believe that the Word of God was inspired by God? Do you believe that the Word of God is infalliable? </div></div>

First question: Yes...anything spoken in prayer to you or anything that you read that you feel the presence of God in was inspired by God. Any "word of God" is inspired by Him--it's His words. If it doesn't have his inspiration and you as a believer can't feel his presence in it, I don't care what man claims it as a "Word of God", it's not.

Second question: The Bible? No, I don't believe in it's infallibility due to the fact that it's had too many men's hands and interjected opinions over hundreds of years of development & translation. Any true "word of God" would be infallible though.

That's the critical answers to both questions using a bit of common sense.

The answers of someone that's been indoctrinated from birth and afraid to use their common sense or knowledge of history would go like this...

First question: Yes, of course, it's His word.

Second question: Yes, it's God's word, He's perfect in all ways.

See the difference? THINK a little bit people. God created brains too. Don't forget to use them. </div></div>

Good answer.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sup-rbeast</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Since we have the original texts...maybe someone will eventually translate them into contemporary language straight from the Hebrew and Greek texts sometime soon...the difference in my opinion would be quite signifigant. </div></div>

So, you're now a language expert...and I thought you were a mere English teacher! lol

Well..to major in English you have to have a "History of the English Language" class. And if English can morph as much as it has in 900 years, surely other languages morph as well. And I still think the difference would be quite signifigant.

You "think", huh? Based on conjecture? Bias? opinion?

Nope...based on common sense...and the ability to deduce.