Why so many different versions of the Bible?

Jan 2007
7,541
480
Irrelevant
#41
Yes, of course, in the empirical sense and I've been debating them for years and I've read and or heard the claim repeatedly. They believe it is perfect and infallible in every way: spiritually, as a work of literature and historically. I find it odd that it's the first you've ever heard of this, for it's quite common.
Actually, it is you who are unaware of what you are talking about.

Biblical literalism - Wikipedia

The vast majority of evangelical and fundamentalist Christians regard the Biblical text as clear, and believe that the average person may understand the basic meaning and teachings of the Bible. Such Christians often refer to the teachings of the Bible rather than to the process of interpretation itself. The doctrine of clarity of the text does not mean that no interpretative principles are necessary, or that there is no gap between the culture in which the Bible was written and the culture of a modern reader. On the contrary, exegetical and interpretative principles come into play as part of the process of closing that cultural gap.
 
Jan 2007
7,541
480
Irrelevant
#42
There's the same hole we started with.
We started with? I was talking with blues63 when you jumped in -- never bothering to understand the train of our conversation.

Many different versions.
Of course there are many different version -- in the same way that there are many ways to interpret the same articles in your constitution.

All bibles are Christian.
The tanakh is also called the hebrew bible. What do you mean by this patently wrong and inconsequential statement, hmmmm?
 
Feb 2010
26,785
27,688
Sunny Bournemouth, Dorset
#43
We started with? I was talking with blues63 when you jumped in -- never bothering to understand the train of our conversation.



Of course there are many different version -- in the same way that there are many ways to interpret the same articles in your constitution.



The tanakh is also called the hebrew bible. What do you mean by this patently wrong and inconsequential statement, hmmmm?
The topic is the diversity among bibles, which is the core Christian handbook. Your argument came full circle, like the nursery rhyme. There's a hole in your bucket.

The Tanakh is the Tanakh, whatever Christians might call it, to make their book holier by association.
 
Dec 2014
12,021
9,385
27.4698° S, 153.0251° E
#47
Actually, it is you who are unaware of what you are talking about.
You assume much without knowing my experience in the debates. You can view the claim of Biblical 'infallibility' or 'inerrancy' in this very sub forum if you care to take the time. Do note how the perfect nature of the texts is always raised when I question contradictions and errors within the texts, especially from an historical and philological position.

The word inerrancy is formed from the word inerrant, from the Latin inerrāntem, (being in- + errāntem the present participle of errāre to err or wander). It is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "That does not err; free from error; unerring." Another word often used to characterize the Bible is "infallible". From dictionary definitions, Frame (2002) insists that this is a stronger term than "inerrant". "'Inerrant' means there are no errors; 'infallible' means there can be no errors". Lindsell (1978) states that, "The very nature of inspiration renders the Bible infallible, which means that it cannot deceive us. It is inerrant in that it is not false, mistaken, or defective".

Biblical inerrancy - Wikipedia

As previously stated, I encounter this belief system regularly.

Biblical literalism - Wikipedia

The vast majority of evangelical and fundamentalist Christians regard the Biblical text as clear, and believe that the average person may understand the basic meaning and teachings of the Bible. Such Christians often refer to the teachings of the Bible rather than to the process of interpretation itself. The doctrine of clarity of the text does not mean that no interpretative principles are necessary, or that there is no gap between the culture in which the Bible was written and the culture of a modern reader. On the contrary, exegetical and interpretative principles come into play as part of the process of closing that cultural gap.
From the first paragraph of your link:

Biblical literalism or biblicism is a term used differently by different authors concerning biblical interpretation. It can equate to the dictionary definition of literalism: "adherence to the exact letter or the literal sense",where literal means "in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical"...

The definition of the term is not as rigid as you would have me believe.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Dangermouse

Rasselas

Former Staff
Feb 2010
67,525
42,892
valid location
#48
With so many variations of the same story, plus all of the books that were once part of the Bible but have been long omitted, how can one come to any sort of logical conclusion as to which one...if any...are what was originally intended?
Learn Greek and Hebrew...no problem.

The different translations of the Bible exist for the same reason people keep translating Homer or Beowulf. Different translations have different purposes. Ultimately, no translation from one language to another gives us a perfect understanding of the original. That's impossible just because of the nature of language. Also, every written text belongs to a particular era and was written by particular people for particular audiences. Examining the text in its totality is the only way to get a proper understanding. There's even a branch of learning dedicated to this: hermeneutics.
 
Likes: Ian Jeffrey

Rasselas

Former Staff
Feb 2010
67,525
42,892
valid location
#49
The Old King James 1611 was the first widely distributed English Bible in Old English and considered pretty accurate. Problem is its Old English and not easy to understand.
It's not "Old English." If it were, you wouldn't be able to read it it at all. The KJV is "modern English" just as is Shakespeare (who wrote in the 20-30 years before 1611.

People like the KJV precisely because it sounds funny to us. It didn't to people in 1611--it was in the common language of that time. People like strange language and imagine that it seems more spiritual. In Greek versions of the New Testament, Jesus' last words on the cross were rendered in his language, Aramaic. In Aramaic versions of the NT, those same words are rendered in Greek. When the language is archaic and strange, people believe it's invested with greater power. That's one of the reasons Latin is still popular as part of the Mass.
 

Ian Jeffrey

Council Hall
Mar 2013
70,731
38,582
Vulcan, down the street from Darth Vader
#50
It's not "Old English." If it were, you wouldn't be able to read it it at all. The KJV is "modern English" just as is Shakespeare (who wrote in the 20-30 years before 1611).
And in fact it is pretty easy to understand. Shakespeare is sometimes difficult not because he was writing in Early Modern English, but because he wrote in verse and was using the idioms of his time. But it is not all that difficult to comprehend, even for freshman and sophomore high school students (I studied Shakepeare both of those years, and occasionally since).
 

Similar Discussions