The Bible has many versions.....Why ? If so, which is the correct one?
453056
1. The Bible has many versions because translating a language into another language is slightly difficult.\n\n2. There is no "one" correct version. Almost all versions are acceptable but there are 3 different ways of translating. \nA. Some translate the Bible word for word.\nB. Some translate the Bible by paraphrasing and giving you the gist of what the passage means.\nC. Some combine both A and B to give a translation that's readable and hold's true to the original message.\n\n3. The Bible originally was written in Hebrew (Old Testament) and Greek (New Testament). In that respect to the ORIGINAL documents there was only ONE version. We have different versions now because we don't all speak Hebrew and Greek.\n\n4. The Quran originally had only one version like the Bible. But through time it has been translated into different languages like the Bible and there are different versions. One such version is the new French translation of the Quran. Of course all Muslims believe that the only way to "really" read the Quran is in the original language. What most people don't know and what they don't tell Muslims in general is that the original copies of the Quran have all been lost when Uthman, the third Caliph(successor of Mohammed), gathered what was left of the Quran, arranged it by the length of Surahs rather than chronologically, then burned all other existing copies! That's why the Quran today is called Uthman's Quran.\n\n5. In fact the Quran is very different from the original copy. Aside from all copies being burned by Uthman leaving us no way of knowing if he changed any of it, the Quran is also under the sway of the doctrine of "al-Nasikh wal-Mansoukh" (the Abrogator and the Abrogated). This simply means that when a recent verse in the Quran gives a contradictory view to another verse that preceded it (chronologically), the recent verse abrogates (cancels and replaces) the old verse and renders it null and void. This doctrine is derived from the Quran where Allah allegedly says in Surah 2:106; \n"None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similiar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?"\nAlso, in Surah 16:101;\n"When we substitute one revelation for another, and Allah knows best what He reveals (in stages), they say, "Thou are but a forger": but most of them understand not."\n\nAccording to Muslim scholars, out of the 114 Surahs (chapters) of the Quran, there are only 43 Surahs that have  not been affected by this concept and had there verses cancelled and replaced.\nThe Bible (Old and New Testament) on the other hand has been preserved with an enourmous amount of greater accuracy.\n\nHope this answered your questions.
899173
I have not heard of it.  My opinion is that the best English translation of the Bible is the New Revised Standard Version.  Better than this is to understand the original languages of course, but since that is a big task, one ought to have an interlinear version available.  This has each word in Hebrew or Greek with the meaning of that word below it, together with a translation.  You can make use of Strong's Concordance, and a Hebrew Lexicon or dictionary (or Greek as the case may be) and get a pretty good idea of what the verses are really saying.
941106
The bottom line of Poki's post is "because someone said so". But that isn't true. \n\nThe oldest book on earth, a copy of Isaiah found with the dead sea scrolls, is essentially identical to what we have today. Through the dead sea scrolls we have again proven that the Bible that we have is reliable and accurate and consistent in it's message. There is no scholarly authority or archaeological evidence that proves otherwise. Nada. \n\nSaying the Bible is corrupt is just the same old lie; "Yea, hath God said...?"
1101825
Yup I do and its funny in a weird sort of way how people will adapt what is in the Bible to suit their own needs. The book hasnt changed in a few thousand years I doubt its going to any time soon. Its all a matter of personal interpretation I guess but it shouldnt change every time you read it or speak about it to someone if you are a person of your convictions then it will stay the same.
988142
No. There has been too much lost in the numerous translations. And I would question your statement about the book being in existence for 'thousands' of years. The new testament and the gospels were not instantly assembled upon the death of Jesus of Nazareth. The old testament was passed on by word of mouth long before the books were written.  Compound these necessary flaws with the council of cardinals who decided which books were going to be part of the bible and which books were not, and the church's practice of censoring anything that did not agree with doctrine, and you have a less than perfect product.
1028373
No.  The Bible is a compilation of stories written by different authors.  Consider it more of an anthology put together by the Catholic Church around 324 AD (the New Testament... the Old Testament is the Jewish Holy Book, which is also a compilation of stories written by different authors).
837593
Try looking on the wikipedia site. They are controlled by the publishers of the NIV Bible and are pushing it and its ideas. Of course there has been a lot of controversy over that version just because it reverses the meaning of some sections by changing the wording.\n\nI will always prefer the unannotated K.J. version, at least the political and philosophical biases in that are from a culture that is fading away (Monarchy).\n\n\n.
724883
I agree. The Bible has a lot of wisdom, a lot of true stories, a lot of symbolic stories, and errors.
1130826
In an odd way, sweet_shy is right.  Sure, there are translation errors and parts of it may have been added or deleted, but it's still God's work.  It was divinely inspired; the only part that really matters is the message, and do you really think that he would let his message be corrupted?  The rest is just fluff to make it readable.  Now having read the New Testament, I find that what I read is entirely in line with my knowledge of God.  I think the message comes through just fine and there are no errors in it despite whatever stages the actual text has gone through.
228267
Of course.  All of the bible has been translated and re-translated hundreds of times, and all subject to the political and social morals of the monks keeping the records through the centuries. Don't kid yourself about it being "God's Word" and thus unchangeable and infallible.
30953
I agree with you and have said the same thing myself many times.  From my point of view the bible is much like Grimms fairy tales.  To be used as and example of right and wrong.
599778
There are four versions, and I mean by "version" accepted cannon and not translations because obviously there are thousands of those, of what people refer to as the "Bible". The Catholic version, which has 73 books in it. The Protestant version, which has 66 books in it. The Coptic version, which has 75 books in it. And the Jewish version, which has 49 books in it. These four versions cover two specific faiths, Christianism and Judaism. Of all those books NOT ONE original document or even a known trustwothy COPY of an original document exists. Of the five major world monotheistic faiths (Christianism, Islam, Judaism, Bahai, and Sikh) only ONE can rightly claim and prove via historical documentation, that in turn can be proved correct, that its Holy Book has never been altered or ammended. And that faith is Islam. The Koran is a beautiful Holy Book, filled with light and wisdom. I own various translations and at least one copy in Arabic (true Koran) that was a gift to me from the Saudi Arabian Embassy. I've read the Koran more than any other religious text. I am not Muslim. BUT ... I am honest with myself and others. A lack of honesty and open mindedness on my part would in no way alter the Truth. And the Truth is that Holy Koran IS the ONLY uncorrupted religious text in existance today. People of faith need to be honest enough to admit that and open minded enough to read it, and THAT with an open mind. They are not being fair to THEMSELVES when they make a decision about a thing without first having investigated it. ~ Peace & Blessings ~
510495
I prefer the King James Version because I believe it to be the most correct. \n\nOne of my favorite scriptures is:\n\nJames 1:5 "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him."
267681
Now, imagine a book... \n\nwritten by over 40 different authors \nwritten in 3 different languages \nwritten within very different cultures \nwritten on 3 different continents \nwritten over a 1,600-year period \nwritten by kings as well as peasants, philosophers & fishermen, prisoners & doctors \nwritten on hundreds of controversial issues \nWhat kind of book would we have? \n\nYou might think, “a mound of inconsistency so confusing as to produce an all time worst-seller.” But add one element — GOD overseeing all these authors — and what do we get? The Bible, the best-selling book of all time. \n\nThe Bible’s Claim \nThe Bible claims to be actual communication from God to humanity. Notice these biblical passages:\n\nAll Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 \n\nAbove all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. 2 Peter 1:20-21 \n\nThe Bible claims to be the very Word of God (verbum Dei), indeed, the very words of God (verba Dei). But this claim often raises a number of objections. \n\nObjection #1: The Bibles we have today are nothing like the biblical books as they were originally written. \nThis is a real concern people have. The question of whether or not the Bible was God’s Word 2,000 years ago is irrelevant if the Bible we read today is substantially different from what was originally written. Until the invention of the printing press around 1450, all literature was hand-copied and scribes could make mistakes in copying. It’s hard to know if errors are present with many ancient works simply because few early hand-written copies exist. But this is not a major concern with the biblical documents: \n\n1. There are over 24,000 surviving partial or complete manuscripts of New Testament books today. By comparison, the next largest number is for Homer’s Iliad, with only 643 surviving manuscripts. We have only 7 copies of Pliny’s History and only 10 of Caesar’s Gallic Wars―but we don’t hesitate to trust them. \n\n2. Furthermore, the New Testament has unusually early manuscripts compared with other ancient literature. Our earliest copy of Pliny’s History dates to 750 years after Pliny’s death. A lot can happen in 750 years. And the earliest copy of Gallic Wars was copied 1,000 years after Caesar’s death. By contrast, some early New Testament fragments date to within 30 years of their first writing, as with the John Rylands papyrus found in Egypt. There simply wasn’t enough time between the original writing and our earliest manuscripts to allow for much corruption. \n\n3. There are over 84,000 quotations from the New Testament (mainly from sermons) dating to the early centuries of the Church. In fact, even if we didn’t have a single manuscript of the Bible today, we could reconstruct all but 11 verses of the entire New Testament from material within 150 to 200 years from the time of Christ. \n\n4. Similarly, with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the 1950s, we now have copies of the entire Old Testament from before the time of Christ―complete copies of every book except Esther.\n\nModern translations of the Bible (New International Version, New American Standard Bible, etc.) are translated directly from these earliest biblical manuscripts. \n\nObjection #2: The Bible is just a book of fairy-tales. Its account is not historically reliable. \nWhile there are letters and songs and laws and doctrinal teachings in the Bible, the most common genre within the Scripture is history. Observers point out that the Bible is an historical document in that it consistently gives accurate information on the geography, chronology, people, places, customs, nations and even
375977
Don't you have that backwards? I've met many people who believe every word in the bible even if you can prove that it is a miss translation, or against known facts. The bible can be used to "prove" anything you like if you take it out of context and add your own spin.
1011809
The Bible is true.  It was written by men who were inspired by God to write what they wrote.... sorry for the confusing wording.  Even if you don't believe in God, the Bible is full of historical facts.  You can go back thousands of years in history and some of the same events will be recorded in the Bible.\n\nThe English versions are different because people translate the Greek and Hebrew text differently.  Like, the King James Version was translated by candlelight in the 1600s, and since it is one of the oldest versions, it is taken by some as the one and only true Bible.  The newer versions, however, may even be more credible because of newer technology and electric lights.  There are different versions of the Bible because there are not always English words that acurately portray what was written in Hebrew or Greek, so the people who translate it are forced to get creative in what the foreign word means.  Also, our language changes so dramatically over time that newer versions are needed so people who speak the newer English will more easily understand the Bible.  Like, we don't speak with "thee" and "thou" or "shall" and "needst" so it is adjusted for better understanding, but the stories are the same, wonderful events that happened so long ago.
872379
The biggest problem about where it was copied from the KJV Bible isn't the exact language that was used but the fact that even the italicized words were included as part of the text without comment. Just so everyone knows. Those were were added to make the translation flow properly in English. It's not always possible to translate even from another Latin based language to English with out adding some wording to make it flow properly in syntax. But to add them as though they are part of the Scripture is wrong.. No not wrong  EVIL is a better word...   Jim