bible versions and contradictions

[maty]

I love you all

A question please;
Can anyone tell me why there are many different bibles and why are there so many contradictions in their recitations???!!!!

 

[sojourner]

I love you all

A question please;
Can anyone tell me why there are many different bibles and why are there so many contradictions in their recitations???!!!!

Each version of the Bible has a particular goal in mind. Many of the early ones were to translate the texts into the vernacular. Later ones, to put the texts into more easily-understood, modern vernacular. Some of the latest ones promote a certain theological viewpoint in their choice of words and phrases.

Could you illuminate some of the contradictions, so that they can be addressed?

 

[Scott1]

Can anyone tell me why there are many different bibles and why are there so many contradictions in their recitations???!!!!

The Christian faith is not a "religion of the book." Christianity is the religion of the "Word" of God, a word which is "not a written and mute word, but the Word is incarnate and living". If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."

Hope that helps a bit,
Scott

 

[Tiberius]

Why would the word of God be contradictory?

I'm not talking about contradictions between the various different versions. I'm talking about the contradictions within the Bible itself. I won't post a list of them, but I can if you'd like me to.

As for the question asked in the OP, the most logical and likely answer is that it's because the Bible was written by Man, and was re-written over the years to support various ideals held by different people over the years.

 

[may]

Each version of the Bible has a particular goal in mind. Many of the early ones were to translate the texts into the vernacular. Later ones, to put the texts into more easily-understood, modern vernacular. Some of the latest ones promote a certain theological viewpoint in their choice of words and phrases.

Could you illuminate some of the contradictions, so that they can be addressed?

And some of the latest ones aim to get back to the original thoughts ,without anything added to cloud the thought

 

[Tiberius]

But we don't have the originals, so how can we know if we've gotten it right?

 

[sojourner]

But we don't have the originals, so how can we know if we've gotten it right?

We have many very ancient texts, and we have several different copies of the same texts, which we can use to compare against each other. The King James scholars thought they "had it right." The NRSV, which is the most "accurate" translation to date, does make a few changes, as compared with the king James. As more texts are discovered and scholarship continues to be refined, I'm sure that an even more accurate version will appear.

 

[Tiberius]

And there are many different sources that claim that the moon landigs are fake because there aren't any stars in the photographs. Just because there are many sources saying things, doesn't mean that what they are saying is true.

 

[may]

We have many very ancient texts, and we have several different copies of the same texts, which we can use to compare against each other. The King James scholars thought they "had it right." The NRSV, which is the most "accurate" translation to date, does make a few changes, as compared with the king James. As more texts are discovered and scholarship continues to be refined, I'm sure that an even more accurate version will appear.

this is the version that i like to use , its good and its a word for word translation http://www.watchtower.org/bible/index.htm

 

[Scuba Pete]

What Scott said.

If you are reading an English Bible, then you are reading a translation of a translation of what Jesus taught. Different translators render things differently and this is the case even with scriptures.

Man wants to study the scriptures in much the same way the Israelites studied their laws and for many of the same reasons. But the teachings of Jesus make it plain that the SPIRIT gives life: not the letter! God wants a changed heart and not some rote memorization of a bunch of rules.

 

[sojourner]

And there are many different sources that claim that the moon landigs are fake because there aren't any stars in the photographs. Just because there are many sources saying things, doesn't mean that what they are saying is true.

We weren't addressing the inherent truth of the extant writings, but their accuracy to the original texts. different animal.

However, now that you've brought it up, I posted this somewhere else, but I'll post it again here for you to chew on:

The authenticity of the Bible does not hinge upon the veacity of its factual content, but upon its revelatory nature. The Bible is not revered and has not lasted because it is true, but because it reveals God to us.

 

[Fluffy]

There are many reasons, most of which have already been mentioned, so I shall add one that I consider fairly important and that is the personal and political motivations of the translator.

 

[Tiberius]

The authenticity of the Bible does not hinge upon the veacity of its factual content, but upon its revelatory nature. The Bible is not revered and has not lasted because it is true, but because it reveals God to us.

So you don't care if it is historically accurate or not? if the events mentioned in it - the crucifixion, the plagues of Egypt, creation, etc - are true?

if the Bible is not true, then how can it reveal God? How can something false show God?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

if the Bible is not true, then how can it reveal God? How can something false show God?

That's not a very good argument, Tiberius.

 

[Mike182]

So you don't care if it is historically accurate or not? if the events mentioned in it - the crucifixion, the plagues of Egypt, creation, etc - are true?

if the Bible is not true, then how can it reveal God? How can something false show God?

something does not have to be accurate for it to contain an element of truth

 

[Tiberius]

My point is this:

If the Bible is false, then how can we know that the parts which talk about God are true? If we are going to say that some parts of the Bible are flase and yet other parts are true, how do we make the determination of which parts are which? Besides, if the Bible is not factual, then the God-inspired word contained within it is a lie, and this would make God a liar. The authenticity of the Bible does seem to me to be very much based on how factual the content is.

If you are to claim that the Bible is authentic because it has led people to God, does this mean that you also consider the koran to be authentic? After all, that has led people to a god as well. And what about the Silmarillion? If that book leads someone to worship Iluvatar as the creator of the world, does that mean that Tolkien's book is authentic as well?

The trouble with using revelatory nature as a means of determining authenticity is that many books would be defined as authentic if we did. Are you willing to do that?

 

[Scuba Pete]

If you are to claim that the Bible is authentic because it has led people to God, does this mean that you also consider the koran to be authentic? After all, that has led people to a god as well. And what about the Silmarillion? If that book leads someone to worship Iluvatar as the creator of the world, does that mean that Tolkien's book is authentic as well?

The Spirit of God moves where it will and none can see it coming. It uses the tools it sees fit to use, and we are not asked for our permission.

 

[michel]

There are many reasons, most of which have already been mentioned, so I shall add one that I consider fairly important and that is the personal and political motivations of the translator.

You may well have a point there.

 

[jeffrey]

You may well have a point there.

I agree, Fluffy makes a great point. It's hard not to put a bias swing on anything translated. Human nature. If I'm looking to try and prove a certain point of view, the way I word something will reflect that.

 

[sojourner]

My point is this:

If the Bible is false, then how can we know that the parts which talk about God are true? If we are going to say that some parts of the Bible are flase and yet other parts are true, how do we make the determination of which parts are which? Besides, if the Bible is not factual, then the God-inspired word contained within it is a lie, and this would make God a liar. The authenticity of the Bible does seem to me to be very much based on how factual the content is.

If you are to claim that the Bible is authentic because it has led people to God, does this mean that you also consider the koran to be authentic? After all, that has led people to a god as well. And what about the Silmarillion? If that book leads someone to worship Iluvatar as the creator of the world, does that mean that Tolkien's book is authentic as well?

The trouble with using revelatory nature as a means of determining authenticity is that many books would be defined as authentic if we did. Are you willing to do that?

Fact and truth can be two different things. It is a fact that Washington did not chop down the cherry tree. But the story conveys an important truth about Washington -- his honest nature. In that sense, the story is revelatory with regard to Washington. It doesn't matter whether the story really happened in history. The truth conveyed by the story does not depend upon the factual veracity of the story. It's the same with the Bible.

The Bible has to be read within the context out of which it came. The truths revealed by the Bible are revealed, as well, by the community out of which the Bible came. The Bible does not stand alone, but works in conjunction with the community and the tradition that wrote it. While the Bible is sacred for me, because I am part of the Judeo-Christian community; the Koran is sacred for a Muslim, being part of the Islamic community. Is the Koran authentic? I believe it is, but it has to be applied through the Muslim community that wrote it.

Each faith community speaks truth in its own way, and through it's holy writings and traditions. I would not accept the Koran as sacred for me, because I am not a Muslim. It might contain truth, but that truth is not borne out in my tradition.

God is revealed through the Bible, through the Koran, through the Baghavad Gita, etc. God may also be revealed through extra-Biblical or secular writings. We can see that when these writings are placed beside scripture. However, you have to remember that the Bible has no authenticity of its own -- the Bible does not stand alone. The Bible is authentic, because the community that wrote it claims it as authentic for them, containing, as it does, the writings that most faithfully and truthfully reveal God to that community. It is the community that is the proof of the Bible, not the Bible that is the proof of the community, because it is, finally, the community that lives the Biblical tenets out in the world.

The Mormons ascribe authenticity to several writings that other Christians do not, becauase they are a different tradition and community from mine. The Ethiopian Church ascribe authenticity to several writings that other Christians do not, for the same reason. It is the community that bears the authenticity of its writings.