http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090901/...le_translation

http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ct...ng_transl.html

To me, it's just another reason that the King James Version (1611) is the *ONLY* Bible I'll ever read.

Wait... no...

It's just a reminder that a Bible in Englsih is a translation, and any language translation requires interpretation. It is useful to read multiple translations to be aware of areas of controversy in the Biblical scholarship.

But if you are indoctrinated at age 5 or whatever, are you going to be aware of what particular "version" of whatever bible you read? Much less have the ability to compare a few different translations? My guess is no. So you'll probably just take whatever is presented to you at face value. And basically most people who are into Christ are turned on at age 5 approx.

I like to read multiple versions and compare them because I seem to get more revelations of spiritual truth that way.

The funny thing is I've had the most revelations from the cheapest bible I own. It seems like the Holy Spirit is making an invisible to statement about the inherent worth of the humble. Its a paperback version, no fancy lettering, no high quality paper, no leather binding and one of the least recognized versions the CEV. It only cost me $4.95 and because I like additional versions and it was so cheap I bought it.

The best versions are the most honest versions, the King James version translators made a HONEST attempt to allow the reader to see what was and what was not added. That is why the KJV has italisized words.

There are many bibles that have better translations in some areas and are easier to read, but the best bible to use for biblical study is the KJV.

Mainly because of its handling of italisized words, which all the newer versions have taken the liberty to leave out and therefore a new biblical student who is endeavoring to rightly divide the word is at a loss automatically, because they have no clue what words were left out or changed.

A Christian is to STUDY the bible and rightly divide it, most just listen to others or read it only, no indepth study involved at all. So how can they be sure they are being told the truth? They can't unless they learn to study themselves.

The Thessalonians had the right idea, they were NOT skeptacle when they heard the word, as a matter of fact the recieved the word wil all readiness of mind and THEN went to the word itself in the private study and made sure what they were told was correct and actually there and in the correct context ect..........

This is exactly how Christians are to recieve the word and others who are wanting to know, NOT with negativity, mocking, scoffing ect....openb the book and check for yourself. This requires alot of humility on the learners part to not let their pre-concieved ideas and beliefs get in the way of possibly learning something new.....

Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

The core message of the Bible is consistent among all of the major translations. It's not until you start getting into the finer details that the differences in word choice may begin to crop up. Most of the differences are subtle and non-intrusive, but (for example) it does cause more fundamentalist-minded people some heart-ache to discover that there is no Greek word for "deaconess." Mature people have learned to learn about these sorts of things, and immature people tend to do all sorts of crazy things when they discover that their beliefs are not in line with what the Bible actually says.

Your study of the Bible has led you astray. The conclusion you reached is not in alignment with the text that you have quoted.

Yes. That is likely. Because certainly it wouldn't be possible to buy another version of the exact same text in a $20 or $50 Bible. Clearly the Holy Spirit is punishing those who buy more expensive Bibles by hiding revelation from them. This makes sense.

some versions have taken untranslateable phrases and interpreted them to say God doesn't like gays. religioustolerance.org shows how a lot of different interpretations really change text that is unclear to make it clearly against gays. This is man's prejudice being inserted into the Bible. Anyone reading those versions can clearly see that the Bible says its wrong... those who dig a little deeper might be surprised to find its not all that clear.

When text like this effects people they might disagree with you that it is subtle and non-intrusive.

I haven't dug deeper so I'm speculating on something I vaguely remember hearing... but it is my understanding that the Bible had changes over the years too to diminish the role of women in the Bible. If this is indeed true (and its not really worth my time to research it but others may know and be able to support or refute this) then women may also agree that its hardly subtle or non-intrusive.

Finally- If I remember my Bart Ehrman correctly, even ideas like whether or not Jesus was indeed immortal/God are not in earlier versions of the text as well as the concept of the Trinity (which i believe Pletho disputes) is suspect depending on which versions are used.

I don't know if this is true, but it would definitely be ironic.

The Bible records the first witnesses of the resurrection as women. In the first century, a woman's testimony in that part of the world was not admissible in court or considered of value.

From what I recall, like you said, women were present in a lot of key points in the Bible. Also, I believe there is a theory that Magdeleine was actually Jesus wife and an important part of the early church. The church took steps to minimize the role of women.

I'm certain there are entire books (and specials on the History Channel) dedicated to this sort of thing though I suspect most of them are ignored by the mainstream. (and I freely admit to only picking up a little here and there and not actually reading it since its only trivially interesting to me.)

I won't comment on this topic specifically, having not read what the website says about it. While I'm in favor of that site in broad terms for getting general information about religions, I do not know whether the level of scholarship when it comes to that type of claim is all that strong. In particular, I think it would be fair to say that the site has a very liberal theology. From the "About us" section:

Again, I haven't spent any time looking at the specifics of their claims in this case, but with this understanding of their position, it may well be that they are inserting man's prejudice into their analysis.

When you say "changes" to the Bible, you're probably talking about "changes to the translation" of the Bible, not changes the to "Bible." This is important because the Bible is always translated into a specific cultural context, and that cultural context affects our ability to understand the Bible.

You're going to have to provide evidence of this claim. It's true that the word "Trinity" is not one used in the Bible, but rejecting the trinitarian concept is a difficult argument to support.

Well, the site represents the scholarship of all sides. It presents all sides/scholarship (or perhaps I should say most of the viewpoints) from liberal to conservative. In the section on homosexuality, for instance, it doesn't advocate one view or the other. It simply says here is the liberal view and here is the text they claim supports them. Here is the conservative view and the text they support them.

So its not their scholarship that you would question as they're just collecting the views of different groups.

again... the site doesn't have a theology. I don't believe its even dedicated to one religion. Its purpose is to present arguments from different viewpoints, presumeably so that we can understand where other people come from.

I think they are liberal in the sense that they hope to promote understanding instead of advocating one viewpoint.

I'm guessing they would argue that man's prejudice is in ALL analysis and present both sides so that you can compare as well as different versions of the text as well as various textual analysis.

Since the vast majority of people only know the Bible as its translation (no one has an original 1st edition straight from god... ) most have translations of translations with multiple layers of cultural context. Since most people only know the Bible through their local translation (as well as any textual alterations made throughout time) (I recall this as I did actually read a Bart Ehrman book)... this is "the Bible" most people know.

Also - to give you an example... I started a thread about this awhile ago when homosexuality came up so I summarized my findings HERE

Point being there are some radically different translations with rathar unsubtle implications.

I mean... when one scholar suggest that the passage may suggest that the passage means not to sleep with another man in a woman's bed (which I mentioned in the thread was first told to me by a Rabbi when we were discussing his studies.)

So "And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman" as a direct translation (which, again the 'lay lyings' has no direct translation and its meaning is debateable) becomes in some versions something like "Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin." (New Living Translation)

By reading the text it is quite clear that there is reasonable debate on what this means (as well as ALL the clobber passages)... but if you only read your english Bible, you likely would not be aware there is any controversy.

If I can find the book and I have a chance I'd be happy too. It is in "Misquoting Jesus" if you happen to have access to the book. Also- I'm sure Pletho would be able to support it since I believe he's consistantly said that any Christians who believe in the trinity are seriously misguided. (my apologies to Pletho If I'm misrepresenting you)

Whatever, I know what I am talking about, meybe you just mis-understand me, any way fill us in on what you think this verse is about....

So you say...... So are you saying that your beliefs are in line with what the bible says?

Let me clarify my claim. My primary contention is that I'm not sure that the "scholarship" of that site is really representative of "scholarship." I don't know the backgrounds and training of the people presenting those positions, so you could just be getting a scholarly-sounding thing that's not very grounded in true scholarship.

Theology was the wrong word to use. But it is fair to say that the purpose of the site is to promote a particular point of view (all-inclusiveness) which may have an influence on the types of documents they are willing to present.

I disagree with your claim of 'promoting understanding' when their goal is explicitly stated to affect a particular outcome of inclusiveness.

You need to be very careful about this analysis. The "Bible" stayed in relatively static forms for a long time. The original Greek and then the Latin translation were the only "Bibles" in existence for an extended period of time in history. Talking about "translations of translations" suggests a misunderstanding of how (at least modern) translations are done. None of the major translations of the Bible are translations of translations.

I looked at religioustolerance.org and that site is preposterous. The contortions they have to go through to get scripture to stop condemning their positions are extreme. They've reduced prohibitions against homosexuality to mere sanctions against male-male rape, or child molestation, or ritual homosexuality in temples, or most ridiculous of all, a prohibition against heterosexuals engaging in homosexuality against their nature. Absurd.

The original text needs to be translated by the publishers. It needs to be interpreted by the readers. What we have with some of these publishers are people interpreting the original text which forces the reader to do the translating back to the original meaning. If no English word exists, print the original word, as is the case with "anathema", "maranatha", "Selah" and "Abba". If the reader is curious he can investigate himself.

I'll interpret my own scripture, thankee very much.

At least someone on here has there eyes wide open............good job!!!!!

I'll just go with the fact that the Thessalonians were not being commended in this verse. It's the Bereans who were being commended as the "these" who were "more noble than those in Thessalonica." Just go backwards one verse in whatever translation you're using and you'll see.

Oops your right, I meant the bereans, thanks for the qualification and correction, I was in such a hurry posting I did not pay attention, my bad, i usually do not do that, but when your wrong your wrong.

All the same applies but about the Bereans.........

except we don't have an original master copy of the bible(or any of the specific books iirc), so we don't know what the true bible actually said

God says in the word that he will protect and watch over His word, so if you are a believing Christian you have to decide if you believe this or not?

As for me I do, I know that it is possible to get back to the original God breathed word and understand exactly what was intended to be conveyed.

You have to know HOW to rightly divide the word to get back to the original God breathed word......

If you are referring to the NT, then I have to disagree. There are literally thousands of source documents of the original texts of the NT. That is FAR more than another other book of antiquity.

And just to add, they collaborate and mention every other old testament book, by reffereing to prophecy, which help validate the older ones that they belong in the bible canon as we have them today...

We do not have the "original" texts. But we do have a large number of copies of the texts, and if you ignore the errors such as spelling errors or transpositions of words that do not affect the meaning, there is a very high correlation between the them. And for those errors that do affect the meaning, there is a significant level of agreement in the majority which strongly suggests that it is the most likely to be correct.

Imagine that you have an important document that you send to a friend that has important information that you believe is worth sharing. That friend receives this, and copies it by hand and sends it to 5 of their friends, and those friends do the same. After some amount of time, the original document is lost. But it can be pieced together with a relatively high level of accuracy because of the abundance of copies. Now, it's true that errors will creep in over time, but if you have 5 copies that have a particular error, but 100 copies that don't, it's fairly reasonable to think that the 100 copies are more likely to be correct transcription than the 5. It's highly unlikely for the same transcription error to occur in distinct lines of propagation. Even if intentional changes were introduced, they would still only be seen in the descendants of that particular text.

In this way, we have a very strong case that the texts that are being used to create translations of the Bible are very likely to be accurate to the original.

Well.. ultimately what is relevent is that they are presenting (and I believe they provide source notation) different viewpoints from different churchs, scholars, etc., often presenting quite contrary views. What is not in doubt is that scholars disagree on much of what passages mean, how they should be interpreted, etc. And the passages I presented was presented simply to show that the changes are not subtle and have deep repurcussions for some people.

That's fine... they may be excluding documents (which is why I clarified in the first that they don't include ALL views)... Again, what is relevent is that there are different translations from Bible to Bible with what may be radical implications, contrary to what you suggested earlier.

I don't agree with this. First off, much of the stories of the bible was originally preserved through the oral tradition before being recorded. Second, there is a long list of textual changes (many minor, many not), some believed to be accidental, some believed to be intentional by different groups trying to alter the text to reflect their beliefs. (I belief many 'good' Bibles acknowledge some of this, for instance, that some passages did not appear in early editions of the Bible). Without going into a long expose, I've read Ehrman's work and short articles with similar discussions. There is no complete first edition in the original language.