How many Bibles are there?

[Member3]

Hey big J good to see you again!

 

I got some issues in another thread perhaps you could help me out there.

 

I'm going to need a link. I'm omnipotent but I'm not a mind-reader.

[Porn_Guy]

Reputable historians agree King James was Homosexual. There is no other explanation for his behavior and or being buried next to a man and not his wife.

hmmm...interesting. He did pass that strict law against sodomy to make it appear he was straight.

[Topper]

King James and the " buggery Laws" I can't recall who it was but Basically someone at the time thought that King James would be safe because he could always give himself a pardon for his sin of buggery.

[Rooster_DAR]

How many Bibles are there?

 

Too many!

 

I think the first one originated from "Our Lady of the Worthless Miracle" or something like that.

[Topper]

Mark Twain said " The Bible has noble poetry in it and some morals and a wealth of obscenity, and upwards of a thousand lies."

He also said " It ain't the parts of the bible I don't understand that bother me, it's the parts I do understand.

 

Lets see on one hand we are told not to kill on the other we read that God commanded that the Israelites Kill every last one of their enemies including Children and live stock. In another war You were told to rip open a mothers stomach and tear out the fetus. Moses was commanded to kill all men and woman that have known men and to take all the virgins as your own to use as you will right down to the sucklings. I would think a suckling would be a baby of two years old or so.

there are some other passages that actually tells a priest how to tell if a woman is lying to her husband about her pregnancy. He is to make her drink a mixture that includes dust from the temple floor. If she miscarries then that mean she was unclean and it is not her husbands baby. She would then be taken out the gate and stoned to death. If not she is a good woman. She and hubby can go home and have the baby. Is this God commanding abortion? I wonder if stoning to death outside the Maury Povich studios would improve ratings?

There are other passages that ask for the sacrifice of your first born as well as the best of your live stock and fruit and grain.

Animal sacrifice goes on right up untill the fall of the Temple about 70 years after Jesus.

God ask moses to take a census of the people. By his count there are about 600,000 Jews wandering around the desert. That many people would leave a big impact and there would be some evidence of their camp sites. Archaeologist and anthropologist can find remains 4 million years old but no trace of the Jews? There also isn't one word on a massive migration of slave from Egypt in any egyptian writings from that time period.

The Sumerians were the first people to develop writing.

clay tablets found in Mesopotamia written by the Sumerian civilization tell of a flood story that is very much like noah's arc. But with a different name and a different god. A Flood story would be a logical legend for a people living along the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.

What I see in the Bible is a story of people who are learning to deal with the world around them. They have some passed down oral traditions. the are moving from a culture of many gods to one that has one supreme God. As they advance the concept of this God changes. Fora Good part of the Old testament this is not a merciful God he is vengeful and cruel. this god dispenses out rather hash punishments and rewards some pretty bad behavior on the part of his righteous men. He rewards David with all the wives and concubine of the King he over throws. Others are rewarded by God allowing them to marry 1/2 sisters and 1st cousins. There is a lot of incest, Rape, Lust, Infanticide. There are about 200 different things that you could do wrong and be punished by death. God kills one guy because he would not impregnate his dead brothers wife. Seems he made an early withdrew and spilled his seed.

now there is also some very erotic poetry and some odd behaviour by some profits like walking around Prophetizing for 3 years naked. You will miss most of this in Sunday school. I would say a great deal of the bible is not suitable for children. if i were to say i wanted to teach kids about rape murder burning people alive and ploygamy. i would be arrested yet there it all is in the Good Book.

It is a narrative of people coming to terms with who they are . They deal with the world as best they can. They area small group of people with a lot of pride. They have to make their God bigger and better then the gods around them. It was away for them to feel good about themselves, despite their circumstances. For a great part of their history they were under the control of other People the Egyptians Syrians and Romans.

[Island Girl]

Too many!

 

I think the first one originated from "Our Lady of the Worthless Miracle" or something like that.

 

Ahahaha too funny!

 

As to the gayness of King James - Wikipedia has quite an article detailing the journals where this is mentioned.

 

And here's quite an article about it - first link of many that came up about gay King James:

 

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/history/king_james_gay.html

 

He was known as "Queen James" in his time apparently.

[Topper]

Thanks for those links. I did not know that the King James Bible was not the first english translation of the Bible. seems like a lot of people had their hand in putting a personal spin on the Bible.

[Moai]

This is certainly a valid question. It is important to remember that just because there are different versions of the bible, doesn't mean all of them are invalid. In terms of translations, the aims are sometimes different. And some are almost certainly more accurate than others.

 

It is true that just because there are many Bibles it does not follow that all of them are valid. But it also doesn't follow that any one of them is valid, either. Most often validity is determined by how it fits with the readers preconceived notions.

 

But here are some examples. There are children's bibles, written in simple language. They are more concerned with accessibility to the child than verbatim accuracy. Does this make them false?

 

Not necessarily, but there is a greater chance of it being misleading. How is all the sexual behavior dealt with in the children's Bible, for example? There are parts of the story that are essential to the overall meaning based on some pretty perverse stuff. How can you save the message and not the context?

 

In fact, if anyone has ever watched Veggie Tales cartoons, they change all the killing to silly stuff, like sending someone to the Island of Perpetual Tickling or throwing slushies at them. But they get the spirit of the stories across to small children. The central point of the story is expressed.

 

Sad. "The Island of Perpetual Tickling" is a metaphor for hell? That is pretty sick. Why do small children need to know about the Bible in the first place? Their brains are still forming, and they certainly don't possess the reasoning ability to discern fantasy from reality.

 

I know that this is done so the child is properly indoctrinated, and I think that it is child abuse. Yes, child abuse. Taking a blank mind and filling it with such notions so as to (it is hoped) insure their belief later is sick and hurtful.

 

What if there was a children's book about the Holocaust? And instead of going to the gas chambers or firing squad, the people go to the "Land of the Perpetual Barbeque"? Would that preserve the nature and meaning of the Holocaust? Of course not. And the Holocaust is not a subject that can (or should) be discussed with small children.

 

In a similar vein there are many Protestant bibles written in modernized or simplified language so they will be more accessible to the common reader.

 

I have read through a few of them, and they definitely change the meaning from the KJV. That is not to say that they aren't in line with a more correct translation, but the fact remains. That is why most Fundamentalist faiths use the KJV and only the KJV.

 

On the other hand I have a copy of the Torah that is certified by the Jewish Reform board of rabbis as an accurate translation from the Hebrew to the English. Of course this is more appropriate for a scholarly study.

 

Yep. I would say that such is a requirement for any book that is supposedly god's word. Otherwise, you are taking the translators word for it. Most Bibles are translated by committee anyway, which does take much of the risk of interpretation out of it. But it is still there, and noticeable.

 

In terms of entire books of the bible being included or excluded from the holy cannon, I think this is a matter that is open for debate.

 

Nope. The Council of Nicea laid this out, and what books are acceptable and which aren't. They did discourage all of them from being bound into one volume--even though only a few besides priests could read it--because they thought to do so would encourage worship of the book instead of the god described. And look what happened.

 

Look up the opposition to Martin Luther for translating the Bible into German. To disseminate the word to all the people took the power away from the church, or so it was thought. It did do that, but it also gave us thousands of interpretations, doctrines, and cults.

 

I think Catholics and Jews have gotten something right in trying to rely on centuries of tradition to help include or exclude certain stories and concepts. However, I am skeptical of certain rabbinic interpretations that have been accepted due to tradition but don't make sense to me. For example, the biblical injunction not to eat a kid in its mother's milk has been broadly interpreted to mean you can never have milk and meat in the same meal. Chicken is included as a meat even though chickens do not lactate? The rabbis did it this way because they didn't want anyone to accidentally eat meat with milk because they thought it was chicken. This is just over the top IMO. (Well, I don't keep kosher anyway, but theoretically... )

 

Yes, the food restrictions are pretty wacky.

[Moai]

My precious Jesus is Holy and did not have children with M.M. yet alone sex. As far King James being homo… men today are the same as yesterday… they too had an enquirer magazine of some sort to defraud the character of others.

 

You have some very weird ideas about sex. Sex is one of the greatest pleasures of life. Not only is there nothing wrong with it (you wouldn't be here without it), you think that if he did have sex it would pollute him. Man o man.

 

Did Jesus have sexual urges? If he didn't, he wasn't a man. If he did, then he wasn't god. So which is it? Doesn't he have to be a man in order for the sacrifice to be valid, yet at the same time doesn't he haev to also be god for it to work?

 

Lest you accuse me of being Satan, realize that this question has been debated by believers for centuries. It is still being debated. It is also one of the central reasons why Jews do not accept Jesus as god.

 

Look Elvis was supposed to be in an incest relationship with his mother.

I do not believe all these things…

 

New one on me. No surprise that you put Elvis right up there in your list of heroes. Do you live in the South?

 

Well I put my thoughts in on this on the earlier post… as far as so many other variations. Of Bible I read from the KJV and if you look at the studies of the original KJV 1611 the changes are more for spelling errors and print type. I heard this before and found a link on the net… that the changes are not so grate we could be mislead.

 

Because both translations were written by men with the same belief system already in place. Notice that many parts do not agree with the NIV, for example.

 

What this shows is that it is not the Bible that determines its validity, but the believer. The particular Bible chosen is the one that best fits the preconceived notions of the believer, or the morality of the culture.

 

As for so many other variations of bible some are language translations, and then of those you know we can have many different Bibles, I four diff versions of KJV myself,

-The Way…

-Billy Graham Training center Bible

-The Good News Bible

-And a childrens Bible

 

I have a KJV that my dad gave me (signed by Billy Graham, whom he met in the course of his ministerial career), and NIV, a Jerusalem Bible that has four translations all together--it is very cool.

 

As we looking at translations to other languages and then the simplified versions of Bible for those individual languages…for easy reading the number of Bibles will increase. Then consider cult religions that take segments of the KJV and create their own Bible.

 

http://www.av1611.org/kjv/kjvupdt.html

 

We have the KJV its all we need…

 

Interesting. As our knowledge of the cultures involved increases, so does our understanding of the language they were using. Does it not follow that we should re-examine the translations of the Bible produced by them?

 

And why is the KJV so special? At what point was it certified by god as being accurate? Was that the case, or you just believe it to be so, and then it is?

[Love Hurts]

You have some very weird ideas about sex. Sex is one of the greatest pleasures of life. Not only is there nothing wrong with it (you wouldn't be here without it), you think that if he did have sex it would pollute him. Man o man.

 

Did Jesus have sexual urges? If he didn't, he wasn't a man. If he did, then he wasn't god. So which is it? Doesn't he have to be a man in order for the sacrifice to be valid, yet at the same time doesn't he haev to also be god for it to work?

 

Lest you accuse me of being Satan, realize that this question has been debated by believers for centuries. It is still being debated. It is also one of the central reasons why Jews do not accept Jesus as god.

 

 

 

New one on me. No surprise that you put Elvis right up there in your list of heroes. Do you live in the South?

 

 

 

Because both translations were written by men with the same belief system already in place. Notice that many parts do not agree with the NIV, for example.

 

What this shows is that it is not the Bible that determines its validity, but the believer. The particular Bible chosen is the one that best fits the preconceived notions of the believer, or the morality of the culture.

 

 

 

I have a KJV that my dad gave me (signed by Billy Graham, whom he met in the course of his ministerial career), and NIV, a Jerusalem Bible that has four translations all together--it is very cool.

 

 

 

Interesting. As our knowledge of the cultures involved increases, so does our understanding of the language they were using. Does it not follow that we should re-examine the translations of the Bible produced by them?

 

And why is the KJV so special? At what point was it certified by god as being accurate? Was that the case, or you just believe it to be so, and then it is?

Apocrypha is it part of the word?

 

We have what is called the Cannon of Scriptures.

That means “Rule or Rules” and became known as the “ Rules of Faith”.

 

For a book to be genuine article of God. It had to come in the N.T. of the Apostles. And so anything not written by the Apostles was naturally spurious.

 

Well they said what rules or Cannon of scripture had to be based on not only that but three other points..

 

First…….inspired by God.

Secondly…….men of God respected and revered it.

Thirdly ……..the people of God collected and preserved it.

 

Now there were others who wrote books in the New Testament times and their books were not accepted as their books were not accepted as part of the Cannon or rules of faith of scripture and they became known as the Apocrypha books.

 

Jerome the Great Catholic Theologian realized the Bible didn’t contain theses books … Therefore when they were added to the Douay Bible. He called them the Hidden or secret books.

 

The protestant version of the Bible … The King James 1611 version contained the same Apocrypha but the Puritans were furious and had them removed in later additions.

 

Because they were not the genuine works of God. And Mohammed studied the Apocrypha books and got many of the false theories that he promotes about Christianity from these books….rather than from the genuine word of God.

 

So while they may be a form of some good reading while they may contain some good truths... They were never approved by the Church in what is called the Cannon of Scripture.

[Storyrider]

Sad. "The Island of Perpetual Tickling" is a metaphor for hell? That is pretty sick. Why do small children need to know about the Bible in the first place? Their brains are still forming, and they certainly don't possess the reasoning ability to discern fantasy from reality.

 

No. It had nothing to do with hell. It was a substitute for what was an execution in the original story. It was the story of Esther. In the original story, when Esther accuses Haman of trying to kill all the Jews, her husband, King Xerxes, believes her and has Haman executed.

 

In the kid's version, Haman is sent to the "Island of Perpetual Tickling" instead. Yes, it does sidestep the issue of killing. It is intended for children as young as three.

 

The intended lesson is that a heroic girl stood up for her people even though she was afraid and virtually alone.

 

There is no hell in any of the Veggie Tale stories.

 

I know that this is done so the child is properly indoctrinated, and I think that it is child abuse. Yes, child abuse. Taking a blank mind and filling it with such notions so as to (it is hoped) insure their belief later is sick and hurtful.

 

You are so totally out of line here it is laughable. It is a story of good versus evil, and of bravery and of heroism. You can find many an atheist psychologist who will tell you young children want and need to hear stories about good triumphing over bad. There is nothing abusive about it. If you would let your kids watch nearly any other cartoon then you can have no problem with this.

 

What if there was a children's book about the Holocaust?

 

Don't be silly. That is hardly a parallel. However, there are children's books about Ann Frank (not for three year olds obviously!) I think they are pretty straight forward about what happens to her.

 

I can't believe the level of hysteria to which these threads have risen. Teaching a bible story to a child is indoctrination and child abuse?

 

I'm not planning on posting on these last few religious threads again. Along with the hysteria, there is a tone of ridicule throughout, coming from both sides, that really reflects badly on certain posters.

[Moai]

Apocrypha is it part of the word?

 

We have what is called the Cannon of Scriptures.

That means “Rule or Rules” and became known as the “ Rules of Faith”.

 

For a book to be genuine article of God. It had to come in the N.T. of the Apostles. And so anything not written by the Apostles was naturally spurious.

 

Well they said what rules or Cannon of scripture had to be based on not only that but three other points..

 

First…….inspired by God.

Secondly…….men of God respected and revered it.

Thirdly ……..the people of God collected and preserved it.

 

Now there were others who wrote books in the New Testament times and their books were not accepted as their books were not accepted as part of the Cannon or rules of faith of scripture and they became known as the Apocrypha books.

 

Jerome the Great Catholic Theologian realized the Bible didn’t contain theses books … Therefore when they were added to the Douay Bible. He called them the Hidden or secret books.

 

The protestant version of the Bible … The King James 1611 version contained the same Apocrypha but the Puritans were furious and had them removed in later additions.

 

Because they were not the genuine works of God. And Mohammed studied the Apocrypha books and got many of the false theories that he promotes about Christianity from these books….rather than from the genuine word of God.

 

So while they may be a form of some good reading while they may contain some good truths... They were never approved by the Church in what is called the Cannon of Scripture.

 

Yeah, the Catholics started that. It's called the Nicean Creed. They have a book that describes it. Or, you could take a Formation Of CHristian Doctrine class. I did.

 

The fact that you ignored the substance of my post is noted.

[Porn_Guy]

Yeah, the Catholics started that.

if memory serves me correct wasn't the catholic church really corrupt for hundreds of years?

[Moai]

No. It had nothing to do with hell. It was a substitute for what was an execution in the original story. It was the story of Esther. In the original story, when Esther accuses Haman of trying to kill all the Jews, her husband, King Xerxes, believes her and has Haman executed.

 

Whatever, I still think it is bizarre.

 

In the kid's version, Haman is sent to the "Island of Perpetual Tickling" instead. Yes, it does sidestep the issue of killing. It is intended for children as young as three.

 

Do you think that three year olds can make reasonable choices about spirituality? Why does a three year old need to know that story in the first place?

 

The intended lesson is that a heroic girl stood up for her people even though she was afraid and virtually alone.

 

There is no hell in any of the Veggie Tale stories.

 

There are other fairy tales that demonstrate that idea that wouldn't have to rewrite or "dumb-down" the Bible though, right?

 

You are so totally out of line here it is laughable. It is a story of good versus evil, and of bravery and of heroism. You can find many an atheist psychologist who will tell you young children want and need to hear stories about good triumphing over bad. There is nothing abusive about it. If you would let your kids watch nearly any other cartoon then you can have no problem with this.

 

You are entitled to your opinion. I happen to disagree. As I said above, and you say yourself there are cartoons and children's stories that do this without referencing god at all. Why do you need to use the Bible in this way? And I would be fine with just "psychiatrist". The belief system of the psychiatrist should be irrelevant.

 

Don't be silly. That is hardly a parallel. However, there are children's books about Ann Frank (not for three year olds obviously!) I think they are pretty straight forward about what happens to her.

 

With the above paragraph you seem to agree with me. How am I being silly?

 

I can't believe the level of hysteria to which these threads have risen. Teaching a bible story to a child is indoctrination and child abuse?

 

Yep. Label it hysteria if you'd like, but that notion is not rare, nor did I make that assertion first. I happen to agree with it, though.

 

Nobody looks at a young child and says, "That is a Republican child" or "That is a Libertarian child", but look at children coming out of Sunday school and "that child is a Pentecostal child." The child at that point has no idea that there are other belief systems. I think that imparting dogmatic, superstitious beliefs into young children is abusive.

 

I'm not planning on posting on these last few religious threads again. Along with the hysteria, there is a tone of ridicule throughout, coming from both sides, that really reflects badly on certain posters.

 

That may be so, but you have a tone of ridicule in your post right here. And that's fine, I can take it. I would add that your sanctimonious attitude here does not speak well of you. What is so special about religious beliefs that they cannot be scrutinized and shown to be ridiculous?

 

If I came on here and went on and on about Ra, how great he is, and quoted fro books about him I would be open to ridicule, would I not? The fact is that you don't respect all god beliefs as equal to yours; the level of respect rises as they approach yours, or so it seems with most.

 

I endeavor to be clear to ridicule the belief and not the believer, but I'm not perfect. I haven't cast aspersions on anyone's sexuality, called their family names, or the like. As always, I leave it to each person to formulate their own opinion on the subject.

[burning 4 revenge]

if memory serves me correct wasn't the catholic church really corrupt for hundreds of years?

yes, but it was better than the roman empire that spawned it.

[Moai]

if memory serves me correct wasn't the catholic church really corrupt for hundreds of years?

 

No need to use the past tense. They still are.

[Moai]

yes, but it was better than the roman empire that spawned it.

 

As you know we disagree slightly on this, but I think they are the same thing. One just sort of "morphed" into the other.

[burning 4 revenge]

As you know we disagree slightly on this, but I think they are the same thing. One just sort of "morphed" into the other.

yes and you are right, but id prefer to call it "evolved"instead of morphed.

 

and i'd agree with your point about the foolishness of continuing to indoctrinate children into religion. i would say "abuse" is a loaded word, but then i'm getting into semantics.

 

i've been listening to michael savage quite a bit recently, because quite frankly i find him entertaining ,but listening to the idiocy he advocates and the statements of some of his callers makes me tend to agree with you that religion can only do more harm in the future instead of good. i think it had its place and i think its place in the future is in the past.

[Topper]

I find it ironic that in this time the USA, is the nation with the most believers claiming the Bible is the pure and finial word of God.

[Porn_Guy]

I find it ironic that in this time the USA, is the nation with the most believers claiming the Bible is the pure and finial word of God.

Americans in general grossly overestimate their knowledge of Christianity and also know even less of other religions.

[justpassingthrough]

Here you will find over 50 Bibles, including 21 English versions for your reading pleasure.

[Love Hurts]

Yeah, the Catholics started that. It's called the Nicean Creed. They have a book that describes it. Or, you could take a Formation Of CHristian Doctrine class. I did.

 

The fact that you ignored the substance of my post is noted.

 

Noted…? So let it be noted.

[Storyrider]

yes and you are right, but id prefer to call it "evolved"instead of morphed.

 

and i'd agree with your point about the foolishness of continuing to indoctrinate children into religion. i would say "abuse" is a loaded word, but then i'm getting into semantics.

 

i've been listening to michael savage quite a bit recently, because quite frankly i find him entertaining ,but listening to the idiocy he advocates and the statements of some of his callers makes me tend to agree with you that religion can only do more harm in the future instead of good. i think it had its place and i think its place in the future is in the past.

 

You're knockng down a straw man and his straw followers. That should tell you zero about reasonable people.

 

Trying...not...to...post...on...this...thread. Arg!!!

 

PS Do you know what happens when parents raise their children with no religious traditions? They go out and find some when they become hungry for the spiritual. Of course, all adults will choose their own roads anyway. But this is a road that is very easy to get lost on with no guideposts, IMO.

[Topper]

Parents indoctrinate their Kids in a sorts of things. From favorite Sports Teams to how they view their heritage. To How they see themselves in the world. Religion is just one more thing. Like anything it can be good and it can also be used for the wrong reasons. What i don't buy into is the we are better then them because we are baptist or Lutheran or Catholics. Or whatever even atheist. Once a kid reaches a time when they are mature enough I think then they should be allow to explore and see what feels right to them.

[justpassingthrough]

My precious Jesus is Holy and did not have children with M.M. yet alone sex.

 

Why wouldn't he have? He was a good Jewish man, certainly past marriageable age. It's entirely possible he married and had children.

 

As far King James being homo… men today are the same as yesterday… they too had an enquirer magazine of some sort to defraud the character of others.

 

You are wrong. King James was indeed homosexual; there's ample evidence of that. And let's not forget James was a King and, because of that, printing anything that didn't meet with his approval could result in the death penalty.

 

Of Bible I read from the KJV and if you look at the studies of the original KJV 1611 the changes are more for spelling errors and print type. I heard this before and found a link on the net… that the changes are not so grate we could be mislead.

 

Love Hurts, do you know why the KLV version came to be?