The Bible (all of them - KJV, Koran, Bk of Morm., etc.)

Dead.

All of them are fixed. No revisions are likely.

There may be various interpretations, but the documents themselves aren't likely to change.

That said, there are other translations than the King James. And there are books that didn't make it into the bible that are now available in translation.

 

The King James changed once, somewhere between 1611 and 1726 (I have that later Bible and it's almost 300 years old), and no one noticed. There is the 'new' KJV, and of course as mentioned, other translations. One of the most modern, and popular, is the Message, which is modern in language. I even have one in street slang.

However, as to the Bible being 'amended', I fear it won't. Too many short sighted people that hold onto rigid beliefs, that will never change.

I have read over 70 versions, cover to cover, more then once. I can say, that if enough people like myself can weigh in, the Bible can (and should), be amended to more accurately showcase the real meaning of Christ. And not the one forced upon us by man over the ages.

Some say the Bible is 'the Living Word', and to some degree, it can be. But will it ever really be a living book, if it is not allowed to change? I don't think so.

 

The revision of the King James version also took out God's name (Ps 83:18) "Jehovah" (YHWH in Hebrew) which in the original text was incorporated over 6000 times.

In the King James version it is now only found at Exodus 6:3; Psalm 83:18; Isaiah 12:2; 26:4 (See also Genesis 22:14; Exodus 17:15; Judges 6:24).

Which is really interesting when the Lord's Prayer begins (Matthew 6:9) “YOU must pray, then, this way: “‘Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified.. . ."

Cheers

ANDREW (UK)

 

Wow, I'd suggest stopping this topic and removing it right away. Unless you get your facts straight, because obviously your oblivious to other religions.
The book of Mormon is not considered a "Bible."

"the Book of Mormon may never have had that season, being "frozen" at birth since it was a fraud contrived out of whole cloth, but the fact still stands it, like all its cousins, is dead to change"

That quote right there makes me want to seriously f**k you up.
Please stop this thread right now before more harm is done.

 

I am not an expert, but I seem to know a lot more than you so I'll throw in what I remember.

First off, the Holy Bible is frequently updated and revised. When older scrolls are found than those that were used, for example, for the translation of the KJV, these older scrolls are then used for later bible translations, such as the NRSV (New Revised Standard Version).

As new scholarship uncovers errors in old translations, that, too, is made a part of the newer translations. Nobody is sitting around on top of the bible and saying we know all we can know, and don't touch this book.

The Canon (the bible) was closed in the year 300+? by the Council of Trent. It was not closed because anybody thought that God had told us all that he was going to tell us. Rather, it was closed because you have to stop somewhere -- otherwise you keep arguing forever and the bible would end up looking like the U.S. tax code.

What's more, the Canon pretty much covered the basics. If you can't figure out who God is, what Jesus came for and what you're supposed to do about it from reading it, more pages are not going to help you.

I use several different translations in my study, from a very literal (NASB) to a paraphrase (The Message). They all have something to offer.

As for the word Jehovah, I think it's been found to be a mistranslation of YWHW (God's name) by the Germans. I'm fuzzy on this, but I know it has been rejected by some translators as being in error.

And now I'm really going to stretch into memory and you're going to have to fill in the blanks on this one, but it's very interesting. Have you seen the famous painting of Moses bringing the Ten Commandments to the people where Moses has sprouted horns? (This is by Michaelangelo, I think, but I would not bet five cents on my memory.) He has horns because of a mistranslation. His face was shining as though transfigured, but the translators read it wrong and gave him horns!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(formerVWdriver @ Jul 18 2007, 10:24 AM) [snapback]480865[/snapback]</div>

haha, never heard that one before. Kinda odd, yet funny at the same time.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Slair @ Jul 18 2007, 10:28 AM) [snapback]480868[/snapback]</div>

I agree. I don't usually rely on Wikipedia as a source for anything, but here is what they say about it: Horned Moses

Exodus 34:29-35 tells that after meeting with God the skin of Moses' face became radiant, frightening the Israelites and leading Moses to wear a veil. Jonathan Kirsch, in his book Moses: A Life, thought that, since he subsequently had to wear a veil to hide it, Moses' face was disfigured by a sort of "divine radiation burn".

This passage has led to one longstanding tradition that Moses grew horns. This is derived from a misinterpretation of the Hebrew phrase karan `ohr panav (קָרַן עֹור פָּנָיו). The root קרן Q-R-N (qof, resh, nun) may be read as either "horn" or "ray [of light]", depending on vocalization. `Ohr panahv (עֹור פָּנָיו) translates to "the skin of his face".

Interpreted correctly, these two words form an expression meaning that Moses was enlightened, that "the skin of his face shone" (as with a gloriole), as the KJV has it. Many rabbinical studies[citation needed] explain that the knowledge revealed to him made his face metaphorically shine with enlightenment.

The Septuagint properly translates the Hebrew phrase as δεδόξασται ἡ ὄψις, "his face was glorified"; but Jerome translated the phrase into Latin as cornuta esset facies sua "his face was horned".

With apparent Biblical authority, and the added convenience of giving Moses a unique and easily identifiable visual attribute (something the other Old Testament prophets notably lacked), it remained standard in Western art to depict Moses with small horns until well after the mistranslation was realized by the Renaissance. Michelangelo's Moses, is probably the best-known example.

Not all the Renaissance Italian painters gave horns to Moses. The Venetian artist Tintoretto depicts Moses' face as radiating light, in his series about the life of the prophet in the Scuola di San Rocco.

 

Bart D Erhman has written definitive summaries on the current knowledge of contextual criticism, e.i., the study of errors, mistranslations and forgeries present in the christian bible.

The inescapable conclusion is that the bible was written by people with an agenda and has nothing to do with (fictitional) deities. Regardless, I find contextual criticism and its methods very enjoyable to study.

Some links to his books.

 

Neither is telling people that you seek the demise of their belief systems.
Or them saying that you are an immoral Ahole for not following their beliefs.

But again, I'm just an attention whoring troll hunter, so what do I know?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Jul 18 2007, 12:01 PM) [snapback]480971[/snapback]</div>

I guess I didn't read this as being a rigourous physical act, but more of a gentle loving act between two consenting adults.

In any case, enjoy yourself guys.... just don't post pictures here. :lol:

 

[sigh]

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(formerVWdriver @ Jul 18 2007, 07:42 AM) [snapback]480875[/snapback]</div>

On the topic of potential translation errors, here's my favorite. In my opinion, this is the 500 lb gorilla of mis-translations.

In the original Hebrew, the term used to describe Mary is עלמה ('almah). This is translated in the Septuagint into Greek as the word parthenos, which clearly means "virgin". While there is some debate about this, often unfortunately colored by the pre-disposition of the scholars who are studying the texts, it has been suggested that 'almah is more correctly translated as "young woman" or "young woman of marraigeable age". The Hebrew word בתולה (bethulah) is thought to be more appropriately and explicitly translated as "virgin".

Again - there is debate about this. I am not a scholar of ancient Hebrew or Aramaic. However, a mis-translation as the origin of the tale of the Virgin Birth seems to be somewhat important, as this is a central tenant of at least the Catholic doctrine.

I do not think that this argument invalidates the Bible. I think, however, that it may add some valuable perspective to the literalist interpretation of the Bible. Even if you accept the premise that the Bible is "The revealed word of God", it has been written, translated, and recopied by men for thousand of years. Show me one man (or woman) who is perfect, and I will follow them for the rest of my life.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mad Hatter @ Jul 18 2007, 01:25 PM) [snapback]481053[/snapback]</div>

Perfect by what standard?

By God's standard, Jesus Christ is what you're asking for here.

But, by many standards(including her own), Hillary Clinton is your answer... and many (far too many) will follow...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Slair @ 2007 July 18 6:57 AM) [snapback]480851[/snapback]</div>

You're the only one threatening any harm. This is a discussion, not a fist fight.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(FiftyOneMPG @ Jul 18 2007, 02:33 PM) [snapback]481057[/snapback]</div>

How did politics roll into this?

 

trolls are afoot!
51mpg is hellbent on clinton bashing today.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(FiftyOneMPG @ Jul 18 2007, 01:33 PM) [snapback]481057[/snapback]</div>

You had a typo in your quote which I fixed. You're welcome.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(FiftyOneMPG @ Jul 18 2007, 01:33 PM) [snapback]481057[/snapback]</div>

[attachmentid=9870]