Different English translations of the Bible.

It's a business scheme like those pokemon rubbish: you have to collect (and read) them all!

 

I buy older King James Bibles when I find them at flea markets. Same with the old Duay (catholic) versions. All pre-1980, if possible. I don't care for the modern translations at all, but I recognize that not everyone can read 16th century english without getting confused. The cure for this, rather than having multiple translations, is to get a copy of Strong's Concordance for the version you have. Every word in the Bible is in it, including where and how it's used and what that word means in context.

A lot of folks don't realize that the pilgrims came here with a different version of the Bible called The Geneva Bible. I don't have one, but I hear there are notes and explanations in the margins next to the text for those unfamiliar with the meanings thereof. Kings and Pope were exposed before the people for their corruption, and they were aghast at this version and for that reason alone they created the so-called "Authorized", or King James version.

I should point out that William Tyndale translated the Bible from Latin into English, and was burned at the stake for it. It was so good that Martin Luther used it to create his German version, and together they both set fire to the reformation in Europe. By the time the catholic church murdered Tyndale there were already several thousand copies of it, and many more thousands of pirated editions in circulation. Years later, the catholic church plagiarized his work to create the King James version.

I wouldn't get too tied up about having a particular version of the Bible, unless it was translated by some modern cult such as the watchtower society (jehovah's witnesses), which is considered one of the most inaccurate and perverted translations ever created.

 

Everyone is entitled to their own viewpoint. However, you should know that, whenever given the opportunity, the Bible proves true. Every time. Archeological sites continue to turn up verifying the Bible as true and uncannily accurate. I find this to be fascinating, as it also says that there were many infallable proofs regarding the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ Himself, and evidence continues to verify this as well. Still, there will always be those who deny even in the face of irrefutable evidence.

We live in very interesting times.

 

God's a capitalist

 

God didn't publish the Bible

There's evidence of Jesus Christ's resurrection? And birth?

 

What? You didn't get the memo...?

 

Please enlighten me.

 

Surely no one would use a bible for dishonest purposes...

 

Ah! I stand corrected. And I don't mind this at all. I keep forgetting that England had their own government-authorized version of Christianity. Hence the "Authorized" version of the Bible. One thing is still certain: kings and priests, popes and bishops alike where aghast when they saw Tyndale's translation of the Bible. Neither of these groups appreciated the idea of commoners being able to read the Bible for themselves, thereby laying bare every error promulgated by kings and pope alike. The notes included along with the previous version embarrassed them, as well. It would've been akin to modern politicians getting caught with proof on video.

So, true to your point, the King James version was created by the English, while the Duay-Rheims (catholic) version was created largely by catholics who fled the persecution by England's protestants. Brings new meaning to the word "denominations" meaning "divider of nations", which is an altogether different topic.

 

I'm sure you're just as capable of looking up whatever you're truly interested in as I am. Go for it. After all, I'm at a point where I do forget a lot of what I found, and have to go back and look it all up again. This is something I'm getting rather tired of doing every time someone doesn't want to do their own search.

My I suggest googling this like you do everything else? For instance: "Infallable proofs of death, burial, and resurrection".
While the bible mentions these being given to the disciples during the 40 days before Jesus ascended into the clouds, all of them are obviously not listed. However, we still to this day conclude trials based on eye-witness testimony, and Jesus Himself said, "If they will not believe the prophets, neither will they believe one who is raised from the dead"

 

I don't think jesus ascended into the clouds. There's literature about him after the ressurection. He lived until like 70 and had a wife and kids..

Or did they keep that one out of the bible?

 

There's a lot of rubbish to wade through on the internet. But I'm willing to do other research, no problemo. I'm just asking in what direction to look. What kind of evidence you mean. Other than the scriptures themselves. Recent discoveries you say?

 

Some people spend literally decades researching the integrity of biblical translations. But the real question is: if there is a God that asked humans to record His word in a book then would He also be capable of preserving that book? Or if there is a God that sent His only Son to the earth and accounts were written about Him, would God be capable of preserving those accounts? I don't think that there are any translations of the bible that are bad as long as it hasn't been changed from the internationally accepted consensus.

 

To be honest the first early bibles were hand written. Copied by Monks by hand. And translated into different languishes . Often words or sentences were changed because there wasn't a direct meaning of a word or phrase. I am sure at some point that, the translated word changed meaning here and there. Just by the nature of that way that the bible was copied by hand. The first known printed item was around 868 AD in China. It took many years after that before the printing press found its way to Europe

 

Yeah, I think they kept it out of the bible. Where did you get it? The History Channel? Or are you talking about Dan Brown's book?

 

Translated: you were talking out of your ass and can't back up what you said so you're dodging the question by shifting the burden. He who asserts must prove. I googled your suggestions and came up with lots of fallible nonsense.

 

I'm not asking to look up the exact sources if you don't recall, but were they archeological discoveries, or a reference in another written source etc. Not giving you shit if you forgot the details of that neither but don't act like it's common knowledge then, and we somehow 'missed the memo'