What was done to Leviticus?
The entire nature of the laws set down for the Tribe of Levites was changed in the bible to that of Laws for All. As well, what began as conditions that made one
ritually unclean were then twisted to be absolute sins and "abominations" to be avoided at all costs, of which Christians have cherry-picked to their own political ends. (Ref. homosexuality) In the Torah, there is no such notion of
abomination, but rather that of
impurity, and the
only effect it has on oneself is that one must be ritually purified
before entering the temple.
The KJV has errors and the good thing is that many errors have been fixed in the KJV.
No, they really aren't being fixed, as they are still inherent.
1. Studies of the New Testament manuscripts were woefully incomplete at the time the KJV was commissioned and written. The translators of the KJV only had the Textus Receptus and the Latin Vulgate. Sure, modern translations remove the verses that were
added to the KJV, but that does not resolve the poor translations that were done using already inaccurate translations through the Greek texts and the Latin Vulgate.
2. To add to this poor translation, there are instances where words are introduced as a "best guess" using contemporary language and imagery, such as "unicorn" and "witch". Elements which were not present in the original texts, and have led to massive political and cultural conflicts.
3. There were conscious political changes to the text issued from King James himself. At the bottom of the issue, the KJV is a political commission, and infringes on the veracity of the biblical text and claims by altering wording to allow for numerous loses of cultural and linguistic nuance, and better instill the message that King James wanted the bible to tell.
your concentration on the KJV seems unwarranted. It is just another translation with errors like other translations.
Gee, almost like I've never stated that the bible itself is a horrible mismanagement of culture and language...
This ex cold case cop says that the differences (or many of them at least) indicate witness reports which vary between witnesses.
I don't think you're quite understanding. This is not something that's a "difference of witness reports" because, by most accounts, Judas was alone. Who was there to witness it? As well, it's not a matter of "Person A says Judas poisoned himself, Person B says Judas was poisoned" no; Did Judas:
- Hang himself in guilt over his betrayal of Jesus, after which his bowels split open?
- Fall on his plow while plowing his new (and cursed) field?
- Get stoned to death by the other Apostles?
These three deaths bear nothing in common, and mar the veracity of the Gospel accounts in their contradiction. And they're not alone.
The story of Jesus birth and early years can be harmonised along with other things in the gospels that look like contradictions to some.
With enough mental gymnastics and blind faith, anyone can make "sense" of anything. That does not make it less a contradiction.
The gospels that were not accepted were the ones written later
No, they weren't. Several were written around the same time, and some - like the Gospel of the Hebrews - were written before the canonical gospels. All gospels - including the Big Four - were an ongoing process over and during the Second Century. Mark is regarded as the earliest in it's
beginning, dated at 70 CE, but it was not completed until around 110 CE. The other three range around 110 CE for their authorship, though some - like Luke - saw revisions and additions throughout the early and mid-Second Century. The Apocrypha are not accepted because the contradict the message that the Council of Hippo decided upon in 393 CE.
The authors of the gospels we have can be worked out from the internal evidence and Church tradition. It appears to be the false gospels, written late, that are not anonymous and I would say, that is a good way of identifying them as forgeries that the authors wanted to be accepted as real by adding their names.
"This text that we have that doesn't have an author and could be several people is more valid than this known person telling their experience, because they were obviously in it for the fame." Make it make sense. Especially as you laud the
KING JAMES Version Bible.
