Bible translations.

[Whifflingpin]

In another thread, I took issue with “Sword & Shield” over his view of some unspecified modern translation of the Bible.

For various reasons, I generally use the translation the King James authorised for use in churches, but I thought I ought to see what modern translations are on offer.

As I’m sure everybody but I knew already, among the most popular are “The Good News Bible,” “The Contemporary English Version” and “The Good News Translation.” These seem to be closely related to each other, something like successive updates.

On the website http://www.bible-researcher.com/cev.html I read:
“The Contemporary English Version is a simplified version of the Bible designed for children and uneducated adults (at a fourth grade reading level).”

Other websites agreed. The consensus was that the CEV is a watered down version of the Bible. Not only is the language made suitable for children, but the religious and social concepts are also watered down so that they would not unsettle the minds of fourth grade American kids. This calls for a gross perversion of meaning, where the original writing does not happen to suit contemporary taste in thought.

“Shield & Sword” referred to the passage, John 3 verse 16. I’d guess that the CEV left out the word “begotten” because fourth graders aren’t supposed to know about sex.

Various translations of the Bible are online at http://www.biblegateway.com/ Perhaps the one to use in discussion here should be Young’s Literal Translation.

Any views?

[XXdarkclarityXX]

I personally use the New American Bible. The NAB is really good about giving you the most accurate translation possible with the original languages.(Hebrew for OT and Greek for NT) I personally care more about the translation being accurate than the text itself reading well, because I must say the NAB's big flaws is ease of reading.

[Shield&Sword]

Assalamo alaikom
BISM ALLAH ARRAHMAN ARRAHEEM

When we talked about this thing in the other thread, a user wrote that this word is not used any more in english so they canceled it, and my answer was that this is not matter of translation , its matter of canceling and gave u the verses from bible which talk about canceling and adding, and that its forbidden to do it. Now its written here that its canceled in children books, and the reason is that the word is not suitable for kids, strange reason, does ALLAH use NOT SUITABLE words, and who decide its suitable or not, priests?
But the prob is that the words Begotten is canceled also from the other versions not only that kids use. Who canceled it? why? who gave them authoroty? Is God wrote it in his bible, wont the word be suitable, as he know more?
we can answer the first question that priests canceled it (writers of bible, not hindu or any other religion).
The answer of the other question; why they canceled it? well i responded it before, the reason is the word is not suitable for ALLAH, its word that describe an animal action and request SEX, SEX is a low level action made between animals, and CANT IN NO FACE TO BE USED FOR ALLAH. Infact the user who wrote this thread helped alot, coz he wrote that the reason is that this word is not suitable for kids, well u agree in some way its not suitable, and u descided that its not suitable for kid knowledge, well i think that the reason its not suitable AT ALL to be putten in bible and to be used for ALLAH, no?
I give u another example for canceled verses, and u can see if its matter of kids book or its matter of FABRICATION. See John1 (first massege of John) 5:7, in king James version u can see the trinity and that it say they are one, in new versions we dont find this verse as its in King James version.
The propblem is this is the only verse that describe the trinity and that make them one, which mean this verse is the base of christianity. Why its canceled? does it contain not suitable words for children, or that they knew its fabricated verse, and that its wrong, and who is the right bible; the one that contain it or not, and isnt canceling forbidden (we can see that its not matter of translation)? I guess that the writers of new versions used the older scriptures from these that was used to write King James bible.
We can see that going more close to Jesus era more that christianity is wrong in its base, like trinity as we see here, that was canceled, i should check it and bring more explination..
We will never have scriptures from era of Jesus pbuh coz they do not exist.
About the language that used in bible, please check Ezekiel 23:1-49, are these words said by God, can you even read these words infront ur doughter, can the priest read them in public? they are even not suitable for adults.
Check also Song of Solmon, and see the language used there.

Alhamdo LILLAH, thank ALLAH
Assalamo alaikom

[Crusader]

It is a pity that Sword & Shield is expending considerable effort in his attempt to refute Christianity by focusing myopically on translation minutia rather than on the entire Gospel message. The Trinity is not based on a single passage, but on the cohesive interpretation of scripture from Genesis to Revelation.

BTW.... Wifflingpin, I prefer the English Standard Version.... more literal than the KJV, but less stilted than YLT.

Crusader

1Jo 5:6 This is he who came by water and blood--Jesus Christ; not by the water only but by the water and the blood. And the Spirit is the one who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth.
1Jo 5:7 For there are three that testify:
1Jo 5:8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.
1Jo 5:9 If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater, for this is the testimony of God that he has borne concerning his Son.
1Jo 5:10 Whoever believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself. Whoever does not believe God has made him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has borne concerning his Son.

[tidee98]

i primarily use the New American Bible these days, before that i used the New International Version. the NAB is a catholic sponsored translation into english, the NIV is an evangelical translation. they are both good. i am baptist myself, but i enjoy the clear and conscientious work that went into both these. i compare them with King James Version, Revised Standard, New Jerusalem, and others if i wonder about the clarity or meaning of a passage.

i only have one other comment. is it not true that english is a living language? just read a chapter of charles dickens from 150 years ago and ask yourself would he use the same words to write that today. the answer is no, because some have dropped out of common usage, and other, newer words have come about. so honestly, the original text is not changing, in words or in meaning, but english words and usage are, and that is the reason for different translations. my gosh look at the different texts of 'war and peace'. is there one that 'speaks to you' and is easier for you to understand the meaning of? and if there are difficult passages, you may want to look at them all, or learn the original russian to 'get' the nuances of the text. (and we all know there are nuances and shades of meaning in the last conversation you had today with someone) the same with written works.

[cuppajoe_9]

Though I have not routinely read the Bible for many years, I read various translations of 1 Corinthians 13 in English Class. It's interesting that Douay-Rheims and James turned 'love' into 'charity'. I like the prose of the Geneva version, personally.

SEX is a low level action made between animals

Don't knock it, it keeps the species going.

The propblem is this is the only verse that describe the trinity and that make them one, which mean this verse is the base of christianity.

Not all Christians believe in the concept of the Holy Trinity. Tolsoy, for example, came into conflict with the church over it a number of times.

[Whifflingpin]

"is it not true that english is a living language?"

"interesting that Douay-Rheims and James turned 'love' into 'charity'."

A good example of the shift of meaning - 'charity' has diminished in meaning since C17th, to a sort of condescending concern for those less fortunate than oneself. The original use of the word was from Latin 'caritas,' more or less equivalent to the Greek 'agape,' (the word used in the passage) for which no English word exists. 'Love' is an approximation, but erotic love and family love are not included - maybe human-kindness comes close, except that 'agape' derives, in the New Testament at least, from God.

.

[Turk]

It is a pity that Sword & Shield is expending considerable effort in his attempt to refute Christianity by focusing myopically on translation minutia rather than on the entire Gospel message. The Trinity is not based on a single passage, but on the cohesive interpretation of scripture from Genesis to Revelation.

BTW.... Wifflingpin, I prefer the English Standard Version.... more literal than the KJV, but less stilted than YLT.

Crusader

1Jo 5:6 This is he who came by water and blood--Jesus Christ; not by the water only but by the water and the blood. And the Spirit is the one who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth.
1Jo 5:7 For there are three that testify:
1Jo 5:8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.
1Jo 5:9 If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater, for this is the testimony of God that he has borne concerning his Son.
1Jo 5:10 Whoever believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself. Whoever does not believe God has made him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has borne concerning his Son.

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

The ninth verse of the ninth chapter of the Gospel of Matthew reads as follows: “And as Jesus passed forth from thence, he saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose, and followed him.” (Matt: 9-9) Now, please pay close attention to this point: if Matthew himself wrote these statements, why did he use the name Matthew in the third person instead of speaking as Matthew himself? [If the author of this Gospel had been Matthew himself, he would have said, “As I was sitting at the customs place, Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ passed by. When he saw me he told me to follow him, to walk behind him. So I stood up and followed him, walked behind him.”]

In the Gospel of Matthew, every speech quoted from Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ is so long that it is impossible to say any one of them at one sitting, at one time. In fact, the advice and the directions that he gave to the apostles in the tenth chapter, his continuous words in the fifth, sixth and seventh chapters, his scolding of the Persians in the twenty-third chapter, his continuous exemplifications in the eighth chapter are absolutely not short enough to occur within one sitting. A proof of this is that these same speeches and exemplifications of his are divided into various sittings in the other Gospels. This means to say that the author of this Gospel is not Matthew, the customs officer, the faithful companion of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’.

In the Gospel of Matthew, miracles (mu’jiza) of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ such as his curing the poor people who were blind, leprous or paralyzed, his feeding large numbers of poor people, are mentioned at two different places each. The Gospels of Mark and Luke, on the other hand, mention each of these events at one place. Hence, the author of the Gospel attributed to Matthew probably consulted two sources when writing the book and saw the same event in both sources. Then, perhaps, thinking the two events were different, he wrote them as such in his book.

It is written in the fifth verse of the tenth chapter of the Gospel of Matthew that hadrat Îsâ commanded his messengers, i.e. the Apostles, not to go to [call] the Gentiles [to their religion] and not to enter the city of Samaria. Further ahead it is said that he cured a pagan captain’s servant and Canaanite woman’s daughter.

On the one hand, the sixth verse of the seventh chapter says, “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, ...” (Matt: 7-6) The nineteenth verse of the twenty-eighth chapter, on the other hand, enjoins, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost;” (ibid: 28-19)

While the fifth verse of the tenth chapter prohibits, “..., Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Sa-mar’i-tans enter ye not:” (ibid: 10-5), the fourteenth verse of the twenty-fourth chapter commands, “And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.” (ibid: 24-14) [This and the preceeding verses are completely contradictory of each other.]

Countless contradictions and oppositions of this sort are repeated in this Gospel. These additions leave no doubt as to the fact that the Gospel of Matthew was interpolated. Some important episodes contained by the other Gospels do not exist in the Gospel of Matthew. For example, the episodes such as the selection of seventy pupils by Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’, his ascension in the Mala-i-hawâriyyûn, his coming to Jerusalem twice for celebrating the Bayram (Holy Day), and Luazer’s resurrection from his grave do not exist in this Gospel. Therefore, it is doubtful that the Gospel of Matthew was written by Matthew the Apostle.

THE GOSPEL OF MARK

All historians agree that Mark was not one of the Apostles. Perhaps he was an interpreter to the Apostle Peter.

Papias states, “Mark was an interpreter to Peter. Mark wrote the words and acts of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ as correctly as he could recollect them. But he did not write the words and acts of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ in a regular order. For he had not heard them from Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’, nor had he ever been with him. As I have said, Mark was only a friend of Peter’s. In order to have a book containing his conversations with Peter and the words of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’, he related the events in a haphazard way, choosing the right time and the appropriate gathering for each event he was to tell about. For this reason, Mark should not be blamed for having written some parts of his book in a manner as if he had learned them from his master, Peter. For Mark did not consider it important to write what he had heard without forgetting or changing any parts.”

The early Christian scholars wrote explanations to the Gospel of Mark daily. Iren, one of them, states: “After the deaths of Peter and Paul, Mark wrote what he had memorized before.” Calman of Alexandria says: “As Peter was in Rome yet, Peter’s pupils asked Mark to write his Gospel. He did so. Peter heard of the writing of the book. But he did not say whether he should write it or not.” Eusebius, a historian, says: “Upon hearing of this, Peter was pleased about this effort of his pupils. He ordered that it be read in the church.” Nevertheless, the Gospel of Mark appears to be an imitation of the Gospel of Matthew, rather than the epistles of Peter. Accordingly, the book that Papias says was written by Mark must be another one, other than the existing second Gospel. The seventeenth and eighteenth verses of the sixth chapter of the Gospel of Mark read: “For Herod himself had sent forth and laid hold upon John,[1] and bound him in prison for He-ro’di-as’ sake, his brother Philip’s wife: for he had married her.” (Mark: 6-17) “For John had said unto Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother’s wife.” (ibid: 6-18) This is completely wrong. For the name of Herodias’ husband is given clearly as Hirius, not as Philippus, in the fifth chapter of the eighteenth book of the history of Eusebius. This error exists in the Gospel of Matthew, too. In fact, the translators who wrote the Arabic version which was edited in 1821 [1237 hijri] and 1844 changed this verse by having excised the word ‘Philippus’ from the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, though it exists in the translations done in other years.

Again, the two statements in the twenty-fifth and twenty-sixth verses of the second chapter of the Gospel of Mark bear the following meaning: “Hadrat Îsâ said unto his pupils: Haven’t you ever read about how Dâwûd (David) and those who were with him, when they were hungry and in need, entered the home of God and he and also those who were with him ate the sacred bread, which was not permissible for anyone except the rabbis to eat, in the days of Abiathar, the head rabbis?” These statements are wrong, erroneous for two reasons:

First, at that time hadrat Dâwûd was alone. No one was with him. Second, in those days the head of rabbis was not Abiatar, but perhaps his father, Ahimlik. [Members of the Congregation of Seventies that administer the Jews’ affairs are called Rabbi. Their preachers are called Scribes.]

[Turk]

THE GOSPEL OF LUKE

It is a certain fact that Luke was not one of the Apostles. It is written in the beginning of the Gospel of Luke: “Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,” “Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;” “It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent The-oph’i-lus,” “That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.” (Luke: 1-1, 2, 3, 4)

This paragraph has several denotations:

First; Luke wrote this Gospel as many other people contemporary with him wrote Gospels. Second; Luke points out the fact that there is no Gospel written by the Apostles themselves. For he distinguishes the Gospel writers from those who have seen with their own eyes, with the expression “Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; ...”

Third; he does not claim to be a disciple of one of the Apostles. For in his time there were numerous publications, articles and epistles attributed to each of the Apostles; he did not hope that such a documentation, i.e. claiming to be a pupil of one of the Apostles, would cause others to trust his book. Perhaps he thought it a more dependable document to point out that he had observed every fact in its original source and learned everything by personal scrutiny. One point should be noted: recently it has become a customary practice on the part of the Protestant clergy to replace the criticised expressions with some other appropriate expressions, each time a Gospel is reprinted. In fact, with permission, registered with the date 1371 and number 572, given by the (Turkish) Ministry of Education, the British and American Bible companies transformed this paragraph, too. By substituting the expression “As I know all the facts to the most minute details....,” with “having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first...,” they adapted the meaning to their own goals. But the French versions and the versions printed in Germany retain the meaning we have translated above.

In giving the genealogy of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’, the twenty-seventh verse of the third chapter of the Gospel of Luke writes as follows: “Which was the son of Jo-an’na, which was the son of Re’sa, which was the son of Zo-rob’a-bel, which was the son of sa-la’thi’el, which was the son of Ne’ri,” (Luke: 3-27) There are three errors here:

First; the children of Zo-rob’a-bel are written clearly in the nineteenth verse of the third chapter of I Chronicles of the Old Testament. There is no one by the name of Re’sa there. This writing of his contradicts Matthew’s writing, too.

Second: Zo-rob’a-bel is the son of Pe-dai’ah. He is not the son of Sa-la’thi el. He is the son of Sa-la’thi-el’s brother.

Third; Sa-la’thi-el is the son of Jech-o-ni’as, not the son of Ne’ri. Matthew writes so, too.[1]

Again, the thirty-sixth verse of the third chapter of the Gospel of Luke reads, “... Sa’la,” (Luke: 3-35) “Which was the son of Ca-i’nan, which was the son of Ar-phax’ad,” (ibid: 3-36) which is wrong, too. For Sa’la is not the grandson of Ar-phax’ad; he is his son. This fact is stated in the first chapter of I Chronicles (nineteenth verse) and in the eleventh chapter of Genesis [in its tenth, eleventh and twelfth verses].

Also, the first and second verses of the second chapter of the Gospel of Luke, “And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Cæsar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.” “(And this taxing was first made when Cy-re’nius was governor of Syria,)” (Luke: 2-1, 2) are wrong. The Romans never dominated the whole world; how could they have issued a firman concerning a worldwide taxing? In fact, the Protestant priests, in order to dodge this question as usual, changed these statements in the Istanbul-1886 edition of the New Testament and wrote it as, “In those days a firman concerning the registering of the whole world was issued by the Kaiser Augustus.” On the other hand, in the Turkish version issued by the British society in Paris in 1243 [A.D. 1827], this passage is written as, “In those days it befell so that a firman concerning a census of the world was issued by the Cæsar Augustus.” “And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; ..,” “To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, ...” (Luke: 2-2, 3, 4) Afterwards, when scrutinies on the passage about the taxing began, it was seen that neither the historians contemporary with Luke nor those a short while before him said anything concerning the taxation. As for Cy-re’ni-us; he became the governor of Syria fifteen years after the birth of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’; it is an obvious fact, therefore, that the so-called taxing could not have taken place in his time, supposing after all the doubtful taxing did take place.
THE GOSPEL OF JOHN

As for the Gospel of John; as is known, till the emergence of the fourth Gospel which is attributed to John, the religion of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ was based on the principle of unity, no different from the canonical laws of Mûsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ in its fundamentals. For it is the Gospel of John that first mentioned the word ‘trinity’ and which misled the believers of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ by inserting the doctrine of trinity (believing three Gods) into their belief. For this reason, it is extremely important to search into the facts about the Gospel of John. Various quotations from the books of early Christian men of religion about the Gospel of John have been given above.

This book does not belong to John the son of Zebedee. It was written by an anonymous author after the second century. Contemporary European orientalist historians have proved this fact by various evidences.

First evidence: It is written as follows at the beginning of the Gospel of John: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John: 1-1) These words are of the subtle matters of the knowledge of Word and do not exist in any of the other Gospels. If these words had been heard from Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’, they would exist in the other Gospels, too. Hence, the author is not John the apostle but another person, who must have studied the Platonic philosophy of three hypostases in Roman and Alexandrian schools. As a matter of fact, this will be explicated below.

Second evidence: The writings about the adulteress, from the first verse to the eleventh in the eighth chapter of the Gospel of John, are repudiated by all Christian churches, who say that those writings are not Biblical. This means to say that the author compiled a number of Gospels he came across, adding many other things he happened to find here and there; or someone after him added these verses. According to the first case, the author wrote a compilation without distinguishing between the true and the untrue. So the compilation he wrote consists of unacceptable things. According to the second case, it must be admitted that this Gospel was interpolated. In either case, it is of doubtful origin and does not deserve trust.

Third evidence: Some examples, occurances and miracles narrated in the other Gospels do not exist in this Gospel, which in its turn contains a number of things non-existent in the others. Episodes such as Luazer’s coming back to life, the water’s changing into wine, his (Jesus) confiding his beloved disciple and his mother to each other, exist only in the Gospel of John and not in the others. Later on we shall give detailed information in this respect.
Fourth evidence: Of the early Christians, neither Papias nor Justinien mentioned seeing this Gospel. Justinien, especially, who admitted that the author of the Gospel of John was not John himself, did not say anything about this Gospel.

Fifth evidence: The way of expression in the narration of the events compiled in the other three Gospels is quite contrary to the style of discourse used in the Gospel of John. For example, in the other three Gospels Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’, like a tutor who wants to train the people, disapproves the hypocritical behavior of the Pharesees. He commands to purify the heart, to approach Allâhu ta’âlâ, to love people, to form beautiful habits, and prohibits inclinations contrary to the sharî’a of Mûsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ (Mosaic laws). His teachings and advice to the people are quite clear, natural, and comprehensible to anyone. Although these three Gospels contradict one another in some of their narratives, they are apparently based on common sources in those that agree with one another. The Gospel of John, on the other hand, is quite dissimilar and uses an altogether different style both in its discourse and concerning the moral and habitual conduct of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’. In this Gospel, hadrat Îsâ is represented as a person who has knowledge of Greek philosophy and whose elegant and eloquent language expresses his personal nobility rather than such values as the fear of Allahu ta’âlâ and beautiful morality. And the way of expression chosen is not the Messianic style common to the public but the lexical and syntactical dialect peculiar to Alexandrian schools....
-------------------------------------------------------------
Today i researched for this book on net. And i've found it. If anyone wants i'll send the other parts of this book via e-mail or on this thread. I've read this book around 2 years ago and found it enough not to believe to Christianity. My intention is not offend you but to discuss about this.

[Whifflingpin]

"My intention is not offend you but to discuss about this."
I expect that your account of the authorship of the scriptures is substantially true, and your account would not surprise any Christian reasonably educated in the faith. Only the conclusion would differ.

If you believe, as I think you do, that holy scriptures have to be brought from heaven on tablets of stone, or sheets of gold, then you will reject the Jewish and Christian scriptures for the reasons that you have given. Fair enough, it is a matter of belief, and no-one can argue with that.

Christians, however, and Jews, as far as I know, are perfectly happy to accept that their scriptures (the word simply means "writings") have been written by humans, over a long period of time. They recognise that God inspires humans to write, and enables humans to judge the truth of what is written.

Whoever wrote the various books of the New Testament does not matter (except to scholars and historians.) The books are not the origin of the faith, but the expression of it.
Christ is the origin of the faith, and the early Christians had no need of books about Him, because they had known Him, and experienced Him. Most of all, they experienced Him as a living presence after He had been crucified. The Gospels, contradictions and all, are the records of the memories and traditions of His life, and (particularly John's account) a view of the significance of his life.

To you, this may make the books corrupt and worthless, but non-Moslems consider Moslem claims about the divine origin of the Kur'an to be totally unfounded also. Arguments, discussions even, on the lines of "my Book is better than your Book" are completely fruitless.

.

[Scheherazade]

Arguments, discussions even, on the lines of "my Book is better than your Book" are completely fruitless.

On that 'wise' note, I will ask everyone not to turn this thread into yet another 'whose religion is superior?' argument. Any future posts which persist in similar fashion are likely to be deleted.

Turk>Are your last two posts your own summaries or copied from some other resource? If they are copied, please do state the source.

Now, please let's go back the discussing different translations of the Bible.

[rufioag]

Ironically, if the books were identical in all forms and nature, one would say that each was written either by the same person or by four people together and therefore cannot be true. On the other hand, since they are not identical in every facet, those same people will now say, see look, they do not tell the story the same, therefore they cannot be true.

Suppose an accident occurs on a street corner. One person saw the accident from the front, one saw the accident from the side and one saw the accident from a distance. The person who saw the accident from the front said that the truck had hit the car after speeding through a red light. The person who saw the accident from the side said that truck had grazed the car and said nothing of the lights but did say that the truck was speeding. The person who saw the accident from a distance said that the truck had smashed into the car and it looked like he didnt see it coming. Now, each one of these are describing the same incident but becuase of their perspective of the incident, none are the same. Now who is lieing? No one because unless the 3 witnesses agreed on a common story before hand, their stories would be obviously different!

Now as far as interpretations of when the Gospels were written, I have seen sources that date their writting to as early as 15 years after Jesus's death.

As for myself, I think its important to use several interpretations of the Bible because it does allow for a rounded understanding of what the original language meant.

[grace86]

I've never heard of those versions...

The bible I use is King James, it is a parallel so it also has the amplified version as well.

For easier study when I am at school or something..I read the New International Version. My first Bible was New Living Translation...and they all vary.

I still prefer King James though.

[cuppajoe_9]

Ironically, if the books were identical in all forms and nature, one would say that each was written either by the same person or by four people together and therefore cannot be true. On the other hand, since they are not identical in every facet, those same people will now say, see look, they do not tell the story the same, therefore they cannot be true.

Who says that, exactly? I've never heard anybody claim that conflicting accounts of a particular event are evidence that the event never took place. This seems like pre-emptive apologetics to me.

A good example of the shift of meaning - 'charity' has diminished in meaning since C17th, to a sort of condescending concern for those less fortunate than oneself. The original use of the word was from Latin 'caritas,' more or less equivalent to the Greek 'agape,' (the word used in the passage) for which no English word exists. 'Love' is an approximation, but erotic love and family love are not included - maybe human-kindness comes close, except that 'agape' derives, in the New Testament at least, from God.

Interesting stuff that, although I'm sure that, given the context, nobody could possibly interpret the word 'love' in the erotic sense. I've heard that the Geneva is a more 'direct' translation than the King James, although I'm certainly no authority on it. The James seems a bit more flowery to me, from the comparitave excerpts I've read.

[Whifflingpin]

"The James seems a bit more flowery to me,"

You could say that, if you thought that giant redwoods were flowery