Bible versions

[water]

Bible versions and faith

Bible versions



Today, we have many versions or editions of the Bible -- The King James Bible, The New International Bible, different "scientific and historically correct" versions, etc., not to mention the many translations into different languages and all the difficulties inherent to translations.

It confuses me.

Which Bible is the right Bible -- which Bible is one to adhere to?

Theoretically and ideally, there is to be one Bible, and one alone. We could say that all those different versions and editions are approximates of this ideal Bible.

But thereby, our practical problem -- which Bible to sit down with and study and consider *the* Holy Bible -- remains.

The only Bible I have at home is a facsimile of the first complete Bible translation into my native language, Slovene, from 1584. (It is huge and weighs some 15 pounds.) The text is separated only into chapters, the verses aren't numbered.
I study the history of my native language, and so I have this Bible for entirely linguistic reasons, as it is one of the not so many documents of my language from that time period. One could say that this Bible is useless, except for linguistic purposes.

But it made me think:

When people cling on to the text of the Bible -- what is it that they are really clinging on to?

Why the KJV? Why the NIV?
Is a German Bible more "accurate" than a Chinese?

Those Christians who cling on to the text of the Bible -- what would happen if they would use some other version or edition of the Bible?
Would their *faith* be diminished? Changed? Questioned?

And what about non-Christians who use the Bible to prove their points?
There are discrepancies between the different versions and editions of the Bible. What about arguments that are based on these discrepancies? Are such arguments valid?


I say that clinging strictly to the biblical text (of whichever version or edition) as the source of one's faith or argument is a try to put the *responsibility* for one's own faith or argument into someone else's hands.



* * *

EDIT:

I ask everyone entering this thread to be patient, and to skip those posts that are about inter-religious disputes -- that was not the topic of this thread.
The topic are Bible versions and the specific consequences this has for the way one conceptualizes one's religious arguments.

 

[§outh§tar]

On review of the power of the Holy Scriptures:

II Kings 24:8 NRSV
Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he became King; he reigned three months in Jerusalem

II Chronicles 36:9 NRSV
Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign; he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem.

But wait! Take a look at these heavenly inspired verses of divine truth from the New Improved Version

II Kings 24:8 NIV
Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he became King and he reigned in Jerusalem for three months.

II Chronicles 36:9 NIV
Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign and he reigned in Jerusalem for three months and ten days.

Glory be! Another error fixed by the invisible hand of God. He has authorized the makers of the Non Inspired Version to make editions as they very well please

----------

Genesis 2:17 KJV
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Genesis 2:17 Good News Bible
[E]xcept the tree that gives knowledge of what is good and what is bad. You must not eat the fruit of that tree; for if you do, you will die the same day.

Genesis 2:17 NRSV
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in that day that you eat of it you shall die.

Blessed be! The NIV commanders have once again recieved most holy inspiration, watch their masterful edition inspired of the Spirit:

Genesis 2:17 NIV
ut you must not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.

And now it doesn't seem so much like Adam is going to die the day he eats of the tree. Have faith brethren, God does not change His Holy Word.

Find the rest of the inspired changes made to the Holy texts here, get your copy now!

But remember our defense folks: These are just changes made by the NIV alone. If someone objects that the copyists could very well have been just as pious as the NIV translators, they are liars reserved for hell fire. Have faith! God's Word is inerrant.

 

[Leo Volont]

If you get a Catholic Bible, you will get more Bible for your money -- Catholic Bibles have more books. The Book of Tobit is even very fascinating -- it tells of the Angel Raphel coming down to earth to help a young man in his journey through life. Protestants miss out on it because of Luther's insistance to follow Paul's lead in maintaining that all Angels of Light are actually demons. But if you still believe in Angels, you might like a Catholic Bible.

Also, Protestant Bibles typically bias their translations in order to reinforce Protestant Doctrines -- 'repentence' is used instead of 'penance' -- with Protestants it is okay to feel sorry for one's Sins, but it is anathema to do anything about it like performing acts of attrition. Salvation is supposed to be Free and every True Protestant would rather be damned to hell then do the least little thing for it.

Anyway, the finest Bible I have found is the "New Jerusalem Bible". It has the "Apocryphal" books folded into the Old Testament. Many Catholic Bibles have them in their own section. Just look for the Books of Tobit, Esther, Judith and the books of Maccabees.

 

[one_raven]

"The Good News Bible"??
Is there really such a thing??

I have never heard of that!

 

[Leo Volont]

"The Good News Bible"??
Is there really such a thing??

I have never heard of that!

The "Good News Bible" was an edition translated down to 4th Grade English and heavily slanted toward Fundamentalist Doctrine.

I guess they thought that instead of teaching children what the Bible teaches, they would give the kids the illusion that they were reading the actual Bible by providing them with a dumbed down and slanted facsimile that they represented as being the same thing.

I don't know about kids nowadays, but when I was a child I would have been embarrassed to be seen with a book made easy enough so that I could read it.

 

[SnakeLord]

I don't know about kids nowadays, but when I was a child I would have been embarrassed to be seen with a book made easy enough so that I could read it.

And yet now you're an adult, not embarrased by a book made easy enough so that you can read it...

Adults nowadays....

 

[§outh§tar]

If you get a Catholic Bible, you will get more Bible for your money -- Catholic Bibles have more books.

Remember kids, the number of books in a Bible determines how good it is. Praise the Catholic Bi--.. err, I mean praise God.

Also, Protestant Bibles typically bias their translations in order to reinforce Protestant Doctrines

Only following in the footsteps of Catholics.

 

[one_raven]

Remember kids, the number of books in a Bible determines how good it is. Praise the Catholic Bi--.. err, I mean praise God.

LOL

 

[Leo Volont]

And yet now you're an adult, not embarrased by a book made easy enough so that you can read it...

Adults nowadays....

You do realize that publishers nowadays beg their authors to dumbdown their books because it has been found that many adults are put off by books that they consider 'hard'.

And, yes, I would be embarrassed to read such books. I prefer to read books published before such policies were adopted. Find any 'scholarly' book written fifty years ago, and one published recently. The one may require you to pay a bit of attention, but the other will seem silly next to the other.

It just seems to me that one should enjoy allowing intelligent people to express themselves freely, as though they are with their equals, and not force them to pretend they must always be explaining themselves to children.

But I suppose some people are just grateful that the publishers are catoring to their special needs. I guess the guidelines are to edit the books down until even George Bush could understand them.

 

[Leo Volont]

Remember kids, the number of books in a Bible determines how good it is.

Well, yes, for the same price, all other things being equal, you would want to have a larger selection, no?

When you consider the Apocrypha a complete section of the Bible which is entirely edited out of the Protestant Bible, it seems like a rippoff to pay the same price as for a Catholic Bible that would include the material.

And it is not as though the Protestants dropped the Apocrypha because it was trivial. They simply did not want to bother with the translation and printing costs. They were cutting corners. But without Maccabbees there is no Hanukka Story, for those who would be curious. And the other books are bazaarly facsinating in places.

But I suppose illiterates wouldn't care... not reading 73 books is much the same as not reading 65.

 

[SnakeLord]

You do realize that publishers nowadays beg their authors to dumbdown their books because it has been found that many adults are put off by books that they consider 'hard'.

And, yes, I would be embarrassed to read such books. I prefer to read books published before such policies were adopted. Find any 'scholarly' book written fifty years ago, and one published recently. The one may require you to pay a bit of attention, but the other will seem silly next to the other.

It just seems to me that one should enjoy allowing intelligent people to express themselves freely, as though they are with their equals, and not force them to pretend they must always be explaining themselves to children.

But I suppose some people are just grateful that the publishers are catoring to their special needs. I guess the guidelines are to edit the books down until even George Bush could understand them.

My point had little to do with this. It was more along the lines of how modern day religious folk rely on watered down versions of god's word. To stay with complete relevance to the thread, how many people do you know that are capable of, or have ever read god's word in it's original language? Very very few. The rest, all of you adults, cling to a "dumbed down" version of it and consider it the 'facts' when they do not even understand the originals, and can only assume that a comparison can be made. Would Adam have died the same day or not? These things may seem trivial to the guy that cannot answer them, but when concerning the activities of god I would consider them of the utmost importance. And yet an alarmingly few modern day adults even consider it, but are more than happy to accept the "dumbed down" version, (whichever version that might be).

They will then profess a knowledge of it, when they haven't even actually read the real article, so to speak.

What I would then ask is why you would consider a "dumbed down" version suitable for youngsters as "embarrasing" when it is no different for you? So theirs has pictures and a slightly differing translation... So does yours.

 

[§outh§tar]

Well, yes, for the same price, all other things being equal, you would want to have a larger selection, no?

When you consider the Apocrypha a complete section of the Bible which is entirely edited out of the Protestant Bible, it seems like a rippoff to pay the same price as for a Catholic Bible that would include the material.

And it is not as though the Protestants dropped the Apocrypha because it was trivial. They simply did not want to bother with the translation and printing costs. They were cutting corners. But without Maccabbees there is no Hanukka Story, for those who would be curious. And the other books are bazaarly facsinating in places.

But I suppose illiterates wouldn't care... not reading 73 books is much the same as not reading 65.

Au contraire, the Protestants dropped the Apocrypha because certain books are addled with contradictions and blatant inaccuracy. That's why its no rip-off.

 

[Michael]

I read that a computer program sifts through the pop newspaper/magazines (ie: USA Today/Time/Newsweek . . .. ) pre-print, removing any words that may seem to be too complicated for your average joe. and the articles themselves are dumbed down as well. this actually has seen a dramatic rise in the number of papers/mags sold. I think the USA Today even puts in pretty pictures? (I haven't actually seen the USAToday in years)

I hope The Gardian or Economist never goes this way . . .

PS: The posts of the corrections made to the modern Bibles as well as the Protstant leanings is very interesting. I wounder why they never do a doco on this sort of thing?

 

[Leo Volont]

I read that a computer program sifts through the pop newspaper/magazines (ie: USA Today/Time/Newsweek . . .. ) pre-print, removing any words that may seem to be too complicated for your average joe. and the articles themselves are dumbed down as well. this actually has seen a dramatic rise in the number of papers/mags sold. I think the USA Today even puts in pretty pictures? (I haven't actually seen the USAToday in years)

I hope The Gardian or Economist never goes this way . . .

PS: The posts of the corrections made to the modern Bibles as well as the Protstant leanings is very interesting. I wounder why they never do a doco on this sort of thing?

It is not only the big words that I would miss, but the complicated and extended sentense and paragraph structures that are typical to intelligent thought -- semi-colons and parethesis and even dashes would be swept out to be replaced by single clause periods.

How dreadful!

 

[Leo Volont]

Au contraire, the Protestants dropped the Apocrypha because certain books are addled with contradictions and blatant inaccuracy. That's why its no rip-off.

Is that what that fat lying stupid perverted insane drunk Luther told you, or are you just guessing?

 

[water]

But can't you see where knowing that all these versions and editions exist leads?!


1. One should not base one's whole faith on a text, and treat that text as the *source* of one's *faith*.
Faith must transcend the text, whichever version the text is.


2. Even though we could say that there is this ideal, original Bible, *the* Holy Bible -- fact is that nowadays we have only approximates. And these approximates should not be treated as if they actually were that ideal, original Bible.
Which once more leads to the argument under 1: One's faith is to be more than just *depending* on a certain text.


3. As for few people being able to read the old writings in the old languages: I do not think this matters at all. Those of old were people, we are people, and we cannot do as if one were more or better than other.
Thinking them as "knowing better", we thereby also say that we are less then them, and with that automatically put ourselves into a position of false piousness.
Thinking ourselves as "knowing better", we discredit the people of old and we also discredit what they left us. So what is the point in calling upon a text from their times and their language anyway?!


4. The previous three arguments go both for believers, as well as for non-believers who try to make their case by disproving what the Bible(s) say.

 

[Leo Volont]

But can't you see where knowing that all these versions and editions exist leads?!


1. One should not base one's whole faith on a text, and treat that text as the *source* of one's *faith*.
Faith must transcend the text, whichever version the text is.


2. Even though we could say that there is this ideal, original Bible, *the* Holy Bible -- fact is that nowadays we have only approximates. And these approximates should not be treated as if they actually were that ideal, original Bible.
Which once more leads to the argument under 1: One's faith is to be more than just *depending* on a certain text.


3. As for few people being able to read the old writings in the old languages: I do not think this matters at all. Those of old were people, we are people, and we cannot do as if one were more or better than other.
Thinking them as "knowing better", we thereby also say that we are less then them, and with that automatically put ourselves into a position of false piousness.
Thinking ourselves as "knowing better", we discredit the people of old and we also discredit what they left us. So what is the point in calling upon a text from their times and their language anyway?!


4. The previous three arguments go both for believers, as well as for non-believers who try to make their case by disproving what the Bible(s) say.

You are telling Protestants NOT to put their faith in their Bibles. That creates a problem. They have become quite the Idolators and have no God except their dubious Bibles.

The Catholics can always fall back on the Teachings of their Saints and the Revelations of their Marian Apparitions... they have a Living Religion and can make due with God's continuous Communications through whatever channels. But the Prots, on the otherhand, must hang on every word of their Paper God, and just hope, or have Faith, that the words are true... which isn't very likely or you would have thought that the Prots would have had their first Saint by now. Its been 500 years. They must be doing something wrong.

 

[§outh§tar]

Is that what that fat lying stupid perverted insane drunk Luther told you, or are you just guessing?

If it wasn't for Luther, you Catholic vermin would still be stealing money from the poor and selling indulgences, something that is NEVER Scriptural and something that your idiot papacy was clearly using to fatten their own pockets. Think again!

EDIT: I can also show you these inaccuracies if you challenge me, but I doubt you want to face the fact.

 

[§outh§tar]

You are telling Protestants NOT to put their faith in their Bibles. That creates a problem. They have become quite the Idolators and have no God except their dubious Bibles.

The Catholics can always fall back on the Teachings of their Saints and the Revelations of their Marian Apparitions...

And the Catholic religion is no less idolatrous in venerating human beings and hallucinations than the Protestants? Do you forget how 'dubious' these too are, or are you just having another of your silly double standards?

 

[The Devil Inside]

any religious activity that involves anyone or anything as an intermediary between you, and G-d qualifies as idolatry. period.
jesus was a great man. he was not G-d. he never claimed to be G-d. so, in fact....you are both guilty of idolatry. the contents of the new testament should not even be focuses for worship.
allow me to quote to you something from the Hebrew text of deuteronomy

If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and offers to do a sign or a wonder for you, and the sign or wonder comes about, and if he then says to you "Come, then, let us follow other Gods whom you have not known, and serve them." you are not to listen to the words of that prophet, or the dreams of that dreamer. ELOHIM your G-d is testing you to know if you love your G-d with all your heart and soul. You must banish this evil from among you.
----Deuteronomy 13:2