It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Which Bible?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:
df1

posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 04:06 PM
link   
It seems that we have many Words of God just within the christain faith without the need to consider any other religions.

New International Version
New American Standard Bible
The Message
Amplified Bible
New Living Translation
King James Version
English Standard Version
Contemporary English Version
New King James Version
21st Century King James Version
American Standard Version
Young's Literal Translation
Darby Translation
New Life Version
Holman Christian Standard Bible
New International Reader's Version
Wycliffe New Testament
Worldwide English (New Testament)
New International Version

This list is not all inclusive, so feel free to add your own personal choice.

Are all of these bibles the Word of God?

Is one bible more the Word of God than another?

Are some of these bibles the work of the devil?

Will a christian go to hell for using the bible?
.




posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 04:15 PM
link   
I used to believe in god and this is one of the reasons I don't anymore. I guess I realised if god iss existant then how the hell are we supposed to learn the truth about him. And if he can do anything why cant he prove he exist. The bible was created by a few guys who met some person who either came from the future, or was just enchanted. He said my names Jesus, or even so maybe he was just smart and new medicines and fixed peolple, regardless we have people popping up saying im a prophet yet we discredit them because we know its impossible. SO if Jesus came now instead of when he did, NO ONE would believe him he'd probablly be put in a mental home. So thats like me going and saying hey theres this guy named jerome hes great he created the universe he gave me these powers watch this... Sorry I think it doesn't matter god is a LIE.



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 04:28 PM
link   
King James Version 1611

All the other versions are poorly writen books I do not even concerder them a Bible.

NIV is the most popular one that I see; its twisted truths and removal of scripture is disturbing.



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 04:34 PM
link   


King James Version 1611


I have got to dispute that fact, i think we lost the actual message of the bible, since it was translated by the west. Ahh, I am glad you mention the king James Version. VERSION! Meaning who's version it is? God's Own? or King James own?

Read up on the history of King James on His background and get back to this thread



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 08:40 PM
link   
Who said that the modern bible is the word of God?

It makes you wonder about the intentions of the writers, yes I said writers you know what happen when words are translated by so many people right? Over and over through centuries right?

They get lost in translations.


[edit on 20-10-2005 by marg6043]



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 09:40 PM
link   
Ok: summery.

1 group. )The skeptics > will point out that the Bible is made up. And all the various versions are Retellings of the original made up story\myth.

2nd group. )The 1611 crowd "KJV" only > simply believe that "God" ordained the King James Bible as Literal Godly inspired truth. And that all other translations. Are either Fallable or worse Devil inspired.

3rd Group. ) The original language is the "godly inspired" translation. And all later versions are pale reflections of the original manuscript.

4th Group. ) Add\Subtract Various books from the 66 book canon. Exp the Coptic Church adds cerain works like the "secrets of Enoch" to thier inspired manuscipt. The Catholic church has 2nd degree inspired books like "1st Tobit"

Personly, I believe in a two fold inspired revelation. The "inner voice within" and the "voice without or outside" ie the Bible. And usually stand outside the Norm, of Normative Protestant Christianity. That is Soli scriptoria. Or Scripture alone.



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 10:31 PM
link   
Psalm 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt Keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this genreation for ever.

The Bible is God's Word -- preserved as scripture says seven times. There were seven Bibles, culminating in KJB, the perfect and complete one. No more need for any more purification. It's all done. For 500 years everyone knew and believed KJB was the Bible. Then Westcott and Hort came along, occultists, with a new "bible" and new Greek and Hebrew manuscript complilation. Since then we've had many more (per)versions, all inspired by Satan to deceive and confuse, and all using Westcott and Hort's new compilation of the Greek and Hebrew. Only KJB gives Jesus his rightful credit as the Creator in John 1 and Colossians. All other phony "bibles" take this away, along with omitting many scriptures and omitting words whenever possible that weaken the divinity of Jesus and the truth of God's Word. The final (per)version to come out will be so sanitized that any religion will be able to read it and find "their" god in it and "their" truth in it -- the perfect NWO bible for the NWO religion.

The plethora of (per)versions also call Lucifer "Morning Star" -- which is the name for Jesus! So that ought to tell you who's behind these phony "bibles."

BTW, this thread is started by a Freemason, and the same post he used to start this thread is the same one he put up on the Why Does Everybody Tell Lies about the Masons" thread.

Just to let you know.

[edit on 20-10-2005 by resistance]



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 01:14 AM
link   
jesus = titor?

(what a rubbish first post... ahh well, it'll get better)



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
Psalm 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt Keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this genreation for ever.

The Bible is God's Word -- preserved as scripture says seven times.


I'm not going to argue over the versions of Bibles and which is more/less correct than others. All I wanted to point out is that your method of proof quoted above, is circular logic and shouldn't be used or accepted as valid on it's own. Even if you're correct, circular logic is not a valid way to show it.

In other words, you can't use The Bible as Proof of it's own validity.

Also, why would God's word need to be "Purified" seven times before being, as you put it, "Perfect and Complete"???

Does that mean it wasn't Perfect and/or Complete originally and only after six additional "Edited" versions did "Man" finally correct the Original Word of God???



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 02:42 AM
link   
well group 2 is the group I would go with. just make sure whatever translation you have you have a good concordance to go with it so u can take it back.

oh resistance BTW, go check out job 38:7. Lucifer and Jesus can be morning stars, especially since Satan usually tries to imitate Jesus (daniel 11:37, 2thess2:1-5, revelations 13:11-2.

Or are you making the claim that 1) Isiah 14 is talking about Jesus or 2) its not talking about Satan but a man who can also be called the same title as Jesus 3) your buying into the KJV is less accurate than other bibles just because kevin bacon may have had a part in it (get a strongs and it dont matter). As compared to other newer translations that are even worse than the few mistakes KJV has (unicorn instead of ram or goat...).



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 03:52 AM
link   
Why rely on one Bible?

I have a collection of seven and tend to flit between them when studying.
That way, I can see if anything has been changed over the years and I find that this helps me with interpretation. You don't even need to have the physical book to hand now as you can find nearly every version available on-line.

For example:

1Corinthians13
New International Version (and in general anything after the KJV).

Probably one of the nicest pieces of the Bible regarding the word "Love". But is it all that it seems to be?



"If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.
Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love."

Then we come to the earlier KJV:

"Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.
And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;
Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;

Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.
Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity."



Notice the word "Love" is now the word "Charity"? Does this give the passage an entirely different meaning? Changing the main word is a mighty leap after all.
In my opinion, we can see an evolution of the human language, rather than a massive editing of meaning. For what is Charity if it is not Love? Therefore, doesn't the existence of this passage in different versions actually help to define two of the most important words in Christianity?

And that's where I find having a few different versions of the Bible on hand to be helpful. It's easy to say that things have been changed and that the newer Bibles are just bastardised versions of the old. But when taken in context and studied, true meanings may shine through.
It's rather like reading and posting on ATS. All the best work comes after looking at the topic from different angles - better to study from different sources and to look at the bigger picture rather than just sticking to one piece of interpretation and only receiving a narrower view.









[edit on 21-10-2005 by Leveller]



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 04:04 AM
link   
Great post Leveller


I have lost whatever bibles were in my home, the only one left is a childrens bible


But Online Parallel Bible puts a few of them together, verse by verse, and I've found it to be quite useful. I agree with Leveller that it is better to look at it from all angles and try to get the true message, than to study one exclusively and accept it all without question. God wouldn't like people to be so open to deception, the Devil however would rejoice.



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 04:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by mOjOm

Originally posted by resistance
Psalm 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt Keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this genreation for ever.

The Bible is God's Word -- preserved as scripture says seven times.


I'm not going to argue over the versions of Bibles and which is more/less correct than others. All I wanted to point out is that your method of proof quoted above, is circular logic and shouldn't be used or accepted as valid on it's own. Even if you're correct, circular logic is not a valid way to show it.

In other words, you can't use The Bible as Proof of it's own validity.

Also, why would God's word need to be "Purified" seven times before being, as you put it, "Perfect and Complete"???

Does that mean it wasn't Perfect and/or Complete originally and only after six additional "Edited" versions did "Man" finally correct the Original Word of God???


It means the Bible has a history, and that God preserved His Word, but He did it by purifying it seven times in the furnace of earth. If you read the history of our KJB, it's an amazing story. And the Bishops Bible, Geneva Bible, et al, were good bibles. William Tyndale's translation, for which he was martyred, was incorporated into KJB almost intact. The men who were assembled to translate the KJB were 54 of the most brilliant linguists the world will probably ever see, and they were God-fearing, reverent people, in awe of the task they had been given, and approaching it with great humility. It was at a time of the pinnacle of the English language, of William Shakespeare, and the printing press was dawning. Erasmus had pulled together the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts according to God's will. All of this was part of God working through man to give us Scripture -- just as He has always done. No scripture is of private interprtation, but holy men of old spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. Just as God used holy men of old to speak his words, so did he see to it that those words were copied down, and then recopied. Finally, God saw those words were properly assembled, that the manuscripts with errors, omissions or human tamperings were eliminated, and the Received Text/Textus Receptus manuscript was translated as God's Word -- purified seven times in the furnace of earth, just as He had prophesied.

And the Bible does prove itself. It is an awesome Book, with prophecies within it that prove itself out. This is one of them, Psalm 12:6.

It's God's job to preserve His Word, and He has done so. To spurn His Word and turn to these other (per)versions is just plain wrong.

Psalm 12:6, 7 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnacae of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this geneation for ever.

II Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 04:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Leveller
Notice the word "Love" is now the word "Charity"? Does this give the passage an entirely different meaning? Changing the main word is a mighty leap after all.
In my opinion, we can see an evolution of the human language, rather than a massive editing of meaning. For what is Charity if it is not Love? Therefore, doesn't the existence of this passage in different versions actually help to define two of the most important words in Christianity?
[edit on 21-10-2005 by Leveller]


Nice post Leveller!

Perhaps there are other reasons besides just evolutionary semantics involved as well. While it can be viewed from the perspective of, "For what is charity if it is not Love?", that may be distracting from why the change happened in the first place. This is of course only one possible theory which may or may not have some validity, of which I doubt can be proven either way, but here it goes.

Perhaps the change from Love to Charity served not to clearify meaning or even as a side effect of language evolving, but to serve the interests of those who did the changing. Charity is about Giving unto others or Benevolence toward others which you can compare to Loving others. However, to Love another and to be Charitable to another isn't always the same.

Maybe it was not Love that was needed to complete the agenda at hand, but "donations" instead that was desired. After all, Love can build many things, but I would find it hard to believe that "Love" alone would build Temples and Empires. EDIT:(Atleast, not the kind that we're used to seeing and building. Repressive, War Loving, Closed Systems built of Earth and Stone by the overworked & underpaid for the Glory and Power of a Few that command it.)

Also, unlike the acts of Charity towards others, Love is also about simply Acceptance and/or Tolerance of others without your aid or involvement.

[edit on 21-10-2005 by mOjOm]



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 04:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by df1
It seems that we have many Words of God just within the christain faith without the need to consider any other religions.

New International Version
New American Standard Bible
The Message
(bible translations snipped)

Are all of these bibles the Word of God?


I'm not sure I quite understand this post, involving as it does a large number of unstated assumptions some of which I am not clear about.

Firstly, there is the assumption that a book cannot be the 'word of God' (whatever that means -- also undefined here) if it can be translated by different people. This is very hard to understand. Surely any book can be translated by anyone into any language? How does a book cease to be ... whatever it ceases to be ... by being translated? Never mind by being translated several times, with the inevitable differences of emphasis? Or is it being suggested that no book can be translated? It's all frankly baffling as soon as you start to think about it.

Likewise there seems to be an assumption that God can only communicate in one language; also that any human error in transcription means that the content is lost, or some sort of unstated theological idea related to this. I merely ask 'why?' in response.

Until we get some clarity on all this, who could answer such a question?

If the question is how do Christians decide whether a text of the bible is inspired, surely everyone knows that -- the text as originally given is inspired, but human error is a feature of life which we all have to live with. This applies to translations too.

Christians draw their religion from the bible. Unbelievers seem to draw the values and ideas they live by from societal values, which change every 50 years or so. The former may be wrong -- the latter must be.

All the best,

Roger Pearse



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 05:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by roger_pearse
Firstly, there is the assumption that a book cannot be the 'word of God' (whatever that means -- also undefined here) if it can be translated by different people.


Isn't it also an assumption that a book can be the 'word of God' (defined here as: The complete and true Origin, History, Purpose, etc. of Man, the Universe, Time/Space, Meaning, Reason, etc. etc. etc.)


How does a book cease to be ... whatever it ceases to be ... by being translated?


I'd say it's still the same. It's still a book, nothing more nothing less.


Likewise there seems to be an assumption that God can only communicate in one language; also that any human error in transcription means that the content is lost, or some sort of unstated theological idea related to this. I merely ask 'why?' in response.


Example: Are these the same and can easily be read to mean the same???
1- And God said, Be Charitable to each other.
2- And God said, Love each other.


Until we get some clarity on all this, who could answer such a question?


Exactly. Hence the inherant problems when using "words" alone to communicate some "things".



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 05:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by roger_pearse
How does a book cease to be ... whatever it ceases to be ... by being translated? Never mind by being translated several times, with the inevitable differences of emphasis? Or is it being suggested that no book can be translated? It's all frankly baffling as soon as you start to think about it.
Likewise there seems to be an assumption that God can only communicate in one language.

If the question is how do Christians decide whether a text of the bible is inspired, surely everyone knows that -- the text as originally given is inspired, but human error is a feature of life which we all have to live with. This applies to translations too.


Except you're forgetting something. It's God's job and pleasure to preserve His own Word. And He has done so. The OT was given in one language -- Hebrew. The NT was given in one language -- Greek. Inspired Greek Scriptures contain translations from the Hebrew within them, so already you have translation going on of Scripture.

Now it's time to add a third language to the mix. The entire Bible was translated and put under cover for the world to read in one language -- English, and this was done in 1611 by the authorized translators of the KJB, and it was a culmination of six other bibles that had come before it, good bibles but not complete and not perfect, but good bibles nonetheless.

Are these other "bibles" we see today like NIV, NKJB, NASB, ad nauseum "good" bibles? No. They are counterfeits seeking to bury the true Bible in a mass of phony bibles. These other bibles hack away at the divinity of Jesus, change crucial verses, omit very important verses, and are sanitized (per)ersions that are impossible to memorize, don't stick to the brain the way KJB does, don't pierce the heart like KJB does, and just plain aren't the Bible.

To be technically correct concerning the so-called "originals," they don't exist. The only "originals" were the words first spoken to the holy men of old as they were moved by the Holy Ghost (II Peter 1:21). When God spoke those words to the Holy Men, from that point on you are in the realm of preservation. Why? Because God's Word is now being carried forward by man.

First man must tell out the words He heard God say. How do we know man got the words right? We don't. Only God knows, and it's God's job to preserveHis Word.

Then the spoken word must be written down. How do we know this was done accurately? We don't, but God does, and it's His job to preserve His Word.

Once it's copied, it will be recopied and recopied. There will be unscrupulous gnostics who will seek to add or omit things they don't like. Eventually someone will have to sort through these manuscripts to pick out the ones that are accurate, and how do we know they've done that? We don't, but God does. It's His job topreserve His Word.

Once the manuscripts have been sorted through and assembled in their completeness, how do we know they will be correctly translated? We don't, but God does, and it's his job topreserve His Word.

members.citynet.net...


Psalm 12:6,7 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt prserve them from this generation for ever.



[edit on 21-10-2005 by resistance]



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by mOjOm
Exactly. Hence the inherant problems when using "words" alone to communicate some "things".


This may be the problem -- is the original poster really complaining that 'the word of God' 'must' be 'perfect' -- life makes this impossible -- therefore there can be no such thing?

Such medieval-type syllogisms are not, in my experience, reliable guides to the nature of things.

All the best,

Roger Pearse



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by resistance

Originally posted by roger_pearse
How does a book cease to be ... whatever it ceases to be ... by being translated? Never mind by being translated several times, with the inevitable differences of emphasis? Or is it being suggested that no book can be translated? It's all frankly baffling as soon as you start to think about it.
Likewise there seems to be an assumption that God can only communicate in one language.

If the question is how do Christians decide whether a text of the bible is inspired, surely everyone knows that -- the text as originally given is inspired, but human error is a feature of life which we all have to live with. This applies to translations too.


Except you're forgetting something. It's God's job and pleasure to preserve His own Word...


No doubt; but only Christians could have a view on that.

All the best,

Roger Pearse



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 08:35 AM
link   
no one answered my question...?

Who authorized the King James Version?




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join