Why so many different versions of the Bible?

Rasselas

Former Staff
Feb 2010
69,461
45,301
USA
#51
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).
I agree. It's even more understandable when performed by competent modern actors. His plays are, of course, meant to be performed, and the verse (specifically the rhythm) takes the place of stage directions like "(angrily)" aimed at telling actors how to read lines. I find people who are resistant to Shakespeare just need to sit and listen to about ten-fifteen minutes of a recorded performance and after that it's pretty easy to follow. The ear becomes accustomed and the action makes the dialog easier to follow.
 
Likes: Ian Jeffrey
Jan 2007
7,548
480
Irrelevant
#52
The topic is the diversity among bibles,
The topic is WHY so many different versions. The most logical answer -- given the nature of the bible, how can there not be different versions?

which is the core Christian handbook.
Sorry but the 'core' source of catholic dogma is scripture AND church history.

Your argument came full circle, like the nursery rhyme. There's a hole in your bucket.
Your attempts to editorialize is irrelevant. The question was posed and answered.

The Tanakh is the Tanakh, whatever Christians might call it, to make their book holier by association.
What nonsense. Jews themselves refer to the old testament as the hebrew bible.
 
Jan 2007
7,548
480
Irrelevant
#54
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.
The bible is inerrant and infallible as to its SPIRITUAL MEANING.

For example, the apocalypse genre of revelation. It is conveyed as prophecy -- a description of things to come. Biblical scholars however are unanimous in the opinion that it is a description of what was happening at the time of its composition, and that the imagery is a description of the might of the roman empire -- in the form of an ALLEGORY.

That is why no one is actually expecting the four horsemen riding out of the horizon any time soon.

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.
But the article I provided then explains what biblical literalism means as it is used in the theology of evangelicalism/fundamentalism.

Biblical literalism in that case refers to the doctrine of clarity -- not that the bible is infallible in the literal sense. If an evangelical claims otherwise, then that person does not understand what he or she is talking about.
 
Dec 2014
13,655
11,260
NWOHQ
#55
The bible is inerrant and infallible as to its SPIRITUAL MEANING.
You should tell it to those who believe otherwise. I'm only telling you what people I debate have espoused and I've stated that repeatedly.

But the article I provided then explains what biblical literalism means as it is used in the theology of evangelicalism/fundamentalism.
And I provided evidence where others believe differently. The claim of 'inerrant' and 'infallible' is to be considered universal, and not selective to certain individuals.

If an evangelical claims otherwise, then that person does not understand what he or she is talking about.
I'm not really interested in this sort of debate, and if you believe that others are mistaken in believing that this claim is universal in regard to the texts, then that is your belief. The same applies to theologians, as people will believe what they want to believe when it comes to religion. No single dogmatic code has a monopoly on belief, and theology is just as valid as astrology in reality.

No doubt others believe you are wrong, and that is their belief. Furthermore, I don't really care enough to go around again on this, as I don't believe in it at all.

The reality here is that neither you, or those claiming universal infallibility/inerrancy truly have a clue regarding whether one belief system is true or not. I simply treat the texts as just another collection of ancient writings which are merely culturally significant in an historical context. The Bhagavad Gita is just as valid in this context. Furthermore, I found the distortions and justifications of Augustine and Aquinas to be merely 'x' amount of sophistry.
 
Last edited:
Jan 2007
7,548
480
Irrelevant
#56
You should tell it to those who believe otherwise. I'm only telling you what people I debate have espoused and I've stated that repeatedly.
Nonsense. You stated in post #39 that evangelicals/fundamentalists believe this. As far as my understanding on the theology, that is not the case.

And I provided evidence where others believe differently. The claim of 'inerrant' and 'infallible' is to be considered universal, and not selective to certain individuals.
Now you are back-pedaling. Just a sentence ago, you are referring to the beliefs of individuals (people you have debated with) and now, it is not about individuals, rather the theological claims.

Which is it, then?

I'm not really interested in this sort of debate, and if you believe that others are mistaken in believing that this claim is universal in regard to the texts, then that is your belief. The same applies to theologians, as people will believe what they want to believe when it comes to religion. No single dogmatic code has a monopoly on belief, and theology is just as valid as astrology in reality.

No doubt others believe you are wrong, and that is their belief. Furthermore, I don't really care enough to go around again on this, as I don't believe in it at all.

The reality here is that neither you, or those claiming universal infallibility/inerrancy truly have a clue regarding whether one belief system is true or not. I simply treat the texts as just another collection of ancient writings which are merely culturally significant in an historical context. The Bhagavad Gita is just as valid in this context.
Furthermore, I found the distortions and justifications of Augustine and Aquinas to be merely 'x' amount of sophistry.
You are not interested in this sort of debate and yet it interests you to misrepresent other people's religion in the public domain?

Oh, and whatever you believe about what augustine and aquinas wrote, their contributions to western philosophy is UNDENIABLE. On that note, you might want to take a bit of a reality pill with regards to your own beliefs.
 
Dec 2014
13,655
11,260
NWOHQ
#57
Nonsense. You stated in post #39 that evangelicals/fundamentalists believe this. As far as my understanding on the theology, that is not the case.
And in my experience many do. Your understanding of theology is immaterial to my original point and whether you consider these people to be wrong is also immaterial. They believe what they believe and they hear it from the pulpit or stage. Do you seriously believe I've never seen an evangelical service and heard these very claims?

Now you are back-pedaling. Just a sentence ago, you are referring to the beliefs of individuals (people you have debated with) and now, it is not about individuals, rather the theological claims.

Which is it, then?
The individuals in question would arrive at their conclusion through interpretation of dogma would they not? They could be making it up, but it is much the same ~ that is, so-called authorities on the subject or individuals arriving at their own conclusions/interpretations. They are as equally valid and I don't make the same distinction you do, in as much as they are equally specious and originate from the same point (i.e. subjective interpretation of the Biblical texts).

You are not interested in this sort of debate and yet it interests you to misrepresent other people's religion in the public domain?
Misrepresent? Again, that is simply your interpretation of what I stated, which I might add, seems to be grasping a straws. You appear to be somewhat emotionally invested in this subject and as such, a little irrational. I simply stated at the outset that many believe the Bible to be infallible and that is true, and all your noise doesn't change this ~ I even provided evidence (the universal nature of the following statement: 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"). I have stated nothing that is false. Furthermore, I do find this circular argument driven by opinion to be somewhat tedious, and it was the same when you were trying to prove the existence of God through theoretical physics, and that is, you simply do not know and merely believe what you so vehemently support.

Oh, and whatever you believe about what augustine and aquinas wrote, their contributions to western philosophy is UNDENIABLE. On that note, you might want to take a bit of a reality pill with regards to your own beliefs.
Oh, do calm down. Their contribution is archaic and fraught with assumptions and false premises. Their contribution to the modern sphere is simply a lesson in fallacious reasoning, and I'm fully aware of their contribution from an historical perspective, but that is about all. Reality is all I'm interested in and not the musings of the superstitious, nor claims of fact from those who don't really know whether their belief system has any validity or not.
 
Last edited:
Dec 2014
13,655
11,260
NWOHQ
#58
I agree. It's even more understandable when performed by competent modern actors. His plays are, of course, meant to be performed, and the verse (specifically the rhythm) takes the place of stage directions like "(angrily)" aimed at telling actors how to read lines. I find people who are resistant to Shakespeare just need to sit and listen to about ten-fifteen minutes of a recorded performance and after that it's pretty easy to follow. The ear becomes accustomed and the action makes the dialog easier to follow.

I have loved Shakespeare since I was in high school and I embraced English Literature with a passion. I still read his works and I am still enthralled by the music in iambic pentameter.

M favourite works are Titus Andronicus, Pericles, Julius Caesar and Much Ado About Nothing. What are yours?
 
Likes: Ian Jeffrey
Jan 2007
7,548
480
Irrelevant
#59
And in my experience many do. Your understanding of theology is immaterial to my original point and whether you consider these people to be wrong is also immaterial. They believe what they believe and they hear it from the pulpit or stage. Do you seriously believe I've never seen an evangelical service and heard these very claims?

The individuals in question would arrive at their conclusion through interpretation of dogma would they not? They could be making it up, but it is much the same ~ that is, so-called authorities on the subject or individuals arriving at their own conclusions/interpretations. They are as equally valid and I don't make the same distinction you do, in as much as they are equally specious and originate from the same point (i.e. subjective interpretation of the Biblical texts).

Misrepresent? Again, that is simply your interpretation of what I stated, which I might add, seems to be grasping a straws. You appear to be somewhat emotionally invested in this subject and as such, a little irrational. I simply stated at the outset that many believe the Bible to be infallible and that is true, and all your noise doesn't change this ~ I even provided evidence (the universal nature of the following statement: 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"). I have stated nothing that is false. Furthermore, I do find this circular argument driven by opinion to be somewhat tedious, and it was the same when you were trying to prove the existence of God through theoretical physics, and that is, you simply do not know and merely believe what you so vehemently support.

Oh, do calm down. Their contribution is archaic and fraught with assumptions and false premises. Their contribution to the modern sphere is simply a lesson in fallacious reasoning, and I'm fully aware of their contribution from an historical perspective, but that is about all. Reality is all I'm interested in and not the musings of the superstitious, nor claims of fact from those who don't really know whether their belief system has any validity or not.
You are saying that biblical infallibility extends to science, history, geology, etc. That simply isn't the case for the overwhelming majority of christians. Even the article you provided offered multiple ways infallibility is supposed to be understood. And even if, for arguments sake, infallibility extends to history and the sciences, it does so only within the context of phenomenology. After all, the objective methods of history and science is unknown at the time of its composition.

But no. For you, other peoples' claim of biblical infallibility only means what you want it to mean. And to top it off, you inject something as irrelevant as theoretical physics as an ontological proof -- as if I do not understand what I am talking about. I have never used scientific theory to prove the existence of god. As for augustine and aquinas, the fact that you are unaware how their work shaped western thought only shows how painfully small your understanding is.

And yet, you claim that you are only interested in reality. Please, explain to us what you consider real. I bet you cannot even make a coherent idea as to what exactly is real.
 
Jul 2013
53,783
57,590
Nashville, TN
#60
The KJV is not in Old English, which started morphing into Middle English as a result of the Norman Conquest in 1066 CE. Middle English dates from about 1150 to 1500 CE. Early Modern English dates from about then to the middle of the 17th century CE, which is when the KJV was written.
Interesting fact about the King James translation, Christendom had no Hebrew speaking scholars to translate those Books, they had to hire Jewish Scholars to translate all of the Hebrew Books of the Old Testament
 

Similar Discussions