Hey

[EnochBethany]

There is only 1 Bible.  You are invited to read it and affirm for yourself that you perceive God speaking -- or deny it at your own peril.  That it is God's word is self-evident even when one reads translations, of which there are many good ones.  If you really care enough, you can go study Greek and Hebrew to get the original language text, which is also available as a free interlinear online. Try Biblos.com.  An interlinear is the original language with each word translated below.  But the act of affirmation or denyal is yours to do for yourself.

[other one]

There is only 1 Bible.  You are invited to read it and affirm for yourself that you perceive God speaking -- or deny it at your own peril.  That it is God's word is self-evident even when one reads translations, of which there are many good ones.  If you really care enough, you can go study Greek and Hebrew to get the original language text, which is also available as a free interlinear online. Try Biblos.com.  An interlinear is the original language with each word translated below.  But the act of affirmation or denyal is yours to do for yourself.

 

I do read the Bible Bethany....   read or listened to the whole thing about 50 times and the new testament several hundred....  I have those things you speak of and that's how I know the differences in them....    and you are right it is up to me to decide which of them is closer to what the writers were trying to say.  I spend about three hours a day researching things for discussions other places and things for sunday school.

 

It's also up to me to decide if the Books of Enoch, Jasher and Jubilees should be given any credence also....   and I take issue when people tell me I shouldn't.....   if they don't want to that's perfectly ok with me.

 

Being familiar with them all, I can't see any information in them that could jeopardize one's salvation, but as I have said before it does answer a lot of whys for me.

 

and I might add that when you have ten different translations and they are not the same, I say you have more than one Bible......   and one should spend the time to find which one is right, for none of them always match up with the original when I get the Greek and Hebrew out that you mention.     I have read the New Testament in Greek looking up the meaning of every word....   just so you know.

[EnochBethany]

Well, congrats on your Bible reading. 

 

If a book is pseudepigraphical (claims to be written by a person who did not write it) is that enough for you to dismiss it as part of God's Word?

 

If a book claims to be God's Word, but makes faulty predictions, can it be God's Word?

 

If a book makes assertions in God's name which contradict the Bible, can you accept that book as an addition to the Bible?

You say, "I can't see any information in them that could jeopardize one's salvation"  -- of course congruency with doctrine is a test for God's Word.  God cannot contradict himself, saying (for example), "By grace you have been saved through faith, & that not of yourselves, not of works lest anyone should boast," then saying in another book that your works determine your destiny.

 

Translation differences do not constitute "different Bibles."  Translation differences simply indicate that the One Bible, given us in Hebrew, Aramaic, & Greek, when translated into English by different persons have different translation results.  Suppose you had a Finish girl friend who wrote you a letter in Finnish.  But you really wanted to know what was the word of your girl friend.  So you got 10 translators.  I doubt then that you would claim that there were 10 letters from your girl friend.  You probably would look up words in a Finnish-English dictionary  to try to understand that one letter.

 

There is but One Bible.

Edited February 22, 2014 by EnochBethany

[other one]

Well, congrats on your Bible reading. 

 

If a book is pseudepigraphical (claims to be written by a person who did not write it) is that enough for you to dismiss it as part of God's Word?

 

If a book claims to be God's Word, but makes faulty predictions, can it be God's Word?

 

If a book makes assertions in God's name which contradict the Bible, can you accept that book as an addition to the Bible?

You say, "I can't see any information in them that could jeopardize one's salvation"  -- of course congruency with doctrine is a test for God's Word.  God cannot contradict himself, saying (for example), "By grace you have been saved through faith, & that not of yourselves, not of works lest anyone should boast," then saying in another book that your works determine your destiny.

 

Translation differences do not constitute "different Bibles."  Translation differences simply indicate that the One Bible, given us in Hebrew, Aramaic, & Greek, when translated into English by different persons have different translation results.  Suppose you had a Finish girl friend who wrote you a letter in Finnish.  But you really wanted to know what was the word of your girl friend.  So you got 10 translators.  I doubt then that you would claim that there were 10 letters from your girl friend.  You probably would look up words in a Finnish-English dictionary  to try to understand that one letter.

 

There is but One Bible.

and it is not totally accurate in English and that's my point.

[EnochBethany]

 

Well, congrats on your Bible reading. 

 

If a book is pseudepigraphical (claims to be written by a person who did not write it) is that enough for you to dismiss it as part of God's Word?

 

If a book claims to be God's Word, but makes faulty predictions, can it be God's Word?

 

If a book makes assertions in God's name which contradict the Bible, can you accept that book as an addition to the Bible?

You say, "I can't see any information in them that could jeopardize one's salvation"  -- of course congruency with doctrine is a test for God's Word.  God cannot contradict himself, saying (for example), "By grace you have been saved through faith, & that not of yourselves, not of works lest anyone should boast," then saying in another book that your works determine your destiny.

 

Translation differences do not constitute "different Bibles."  Translation differences simply indicate that the One Bible, given us in Hebrew, Aramaic, & Greek, when translated into English by different persons have different translation results.  Suppose you had a Finish girl friend who wrote you a letter in Finnish.  But you really wanted to know what was the word of your girl friend.  So you got 10 translators.  I doubt then that you would claim that there were 10 letters from your girl friend.  You probably would look up words in a Finnish-English dictionary  to try to understand that one letter.

 

There is but One Bible.

and it is not totally accurate in English and that's my point.

 

But it is accurate enough!

[other one]

 

 

Well, congrats on your Bible reading. 

 

If a book is pseudepigraphical (claims to be written by a person who did not write it) is that enough for you to dismiss it as part of God's Word?

 

If a book claims to be God's Word, but makes faulty predictions, can it be God's Word?

 

If a book makes assertions in God's name which contradict the Bible, can you accept that book as an addition to the Bible?

You say, "I can't see any information in them that could jeopardize one's salvation"  -- of course congruency with doctrine is a test for God's Word.  God cannot contradict himself, saying (for example), "By grace you have been saved through faith, & that not of yourselves, not of works lest anyone should boast," then saying in another book that your works determine your destiny.

 

Translation differences do not constitute "different Bibles."  Translation differences simply indicate that the One Bible, given us in Hebrew, Aramaic, & Greek, when translated into English by different persons have different translation results.  Suppose you had a Finish girl friend who wrote you a letter in Finnish.  But you really wanted to know what was the word of your girl friend.  So you got 10 translators.  I doubt then that you would claim that there were 10 letters from your girl friend.  You probably would look up words in a Finnish-English dictionary  to try to understand that one letter.

 

There is but One Bible.

and it is not totally accurate in English and that's my point.

 

But it is accurate enough!

 not necessarily....    John 3:16 could affect one's salvation from my personal point of view. 

[EnochBethany]

 

 

 

Well, congrats on your Bible reading. 

 

If a book is pseudepigraphical (claims to be written by a person who did not write it) is that enough for you to dismiss it as part of God's Word?

 

If a book claims to be God's Word, but makes faulty predictions, can it be God's Word?

 

If a book makes assertions in God's name which contradict the Bible, can you accept that book as an addition to the Bible?

You say, "I can't see any information in them that could jeopardize one's salvation"  -- of course congruency with doctrine is a test for God's Word.  God cannot contradict himself, saying (for example), "By grace you have been saved through faith, & that not of yourselves, not of works lest anyone should boast," then saying in another book that your works determine your destiny.

 

Translation differences do not constitute "different Bibles."  Translation differences simply indicate that the One Bible, given us in Hebrew, Aramaic, & Greek, when translated into English by different persons have different translation results.  Suppose you had a Finish girl friend who wrote you a letter in Finnish.  But you really wanted to know what was the word of your girl friend.  So you got 10 translators.  I doubt then that you would claim that there were 10 letters from your girl friend.  You probably would look up words in a Finnish-English dictionary  to try to understand that one letter.

 

There is but One Bible.

and it is not totally accurate in English and that's my point.

 

But it is accurate enough!

 not necessarily....    John 3:16 could affect one's salvation from my personal point of view. 

 

Yes, necessarily.  Do you really think we will get an excuse at the judgment for our sin or missing a blessing for the translation being obscure?  As for John 3:16, the meaning is as clear as the nose on your face.  And if you want to be sure, you can read the whole Bible & mark in pink (as I have) all the passages on salvation.  Salvation comes by believing, trusting in the Lord Jesus as Savior.  it is reiterated over & over.  Use any major translation you want.

 

But the assessment is for you to make.   You may affirm or deny the accuracy of God's Word (even in translation) for yourself.  And can you not learn Greek & Hebrew if you care that much about translation imperfections?

[other one]

Matt 7:20-21
 21 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord ,' will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven.
NASB
 

Believing and trusting.......   but don't forget the doing.

[Donibm]

Im ultimately on a quest to concrete my current belief in Christianity. Upon my search I ran into this article which claims that "one can easily argue that the first Christian Bible was commissioned, paid for, inspected and approved by a pagan emperor for church use." Saying that Constantine  offered the various Church leaders money to agree upon a single canon that would be used by all Christians as the word of God. This is really disappointing if this is true because I am just starting to really get into reading the bible.. The article I found for this is located at deism.com/bibleorigins.

 

Can anyone offer a good explanation as to why this article is false? I would love to be assured that it is not true. Please help me. Thank you!

 

That is false.

 

The Bible already existed, it just wasn't compiled, and certainly not translated into English yet.

 

Here is a trip down memory lane, and I think I know the root of the problem.

 

1)

Christians were persecuted, heavily.

 

2)

Along comes Constantine a few centuries later.  He basically approved the "acceptance" of Christianity ... but he had personal motives.  History (folklaw) suggest that Constantine saw a sign in the sky and heard a voice say "By this sign, conquor" ... and Rome went out and won that war.  Upon that, he called himself a "Christain".  Not only him, but all his blood thirsty soildiers. 

 

OBSERVE: there is no mention about repentance, belief, conversion, a focus on Jesus, ... nothing.  Just a declaration.

 

3)

Along comes the Church of Rome, or "Roman Church" ... which evolved into the Vatican.

 

4)

The Vatican says that Peter was the first Pope, because they have their own definition of the Greek word (stone vs Rock) ... "Upon this rock I will build My Church."  Jesus was talking about Himself, not Peter.  And Peter was married anyway, and Pope cannot be married.

 

5)

So, no.  The first and true Christians were not Catholic.  Peter was not the first Pope.  Constantine, however, IS considered the first Pope by people like me. Through him, the "Catholic Institution" took its root form. 

 

 

Concerning your faith in "Christianity" ... I think you are looking at the wrong thing.  That is not eyes on the Lord.  Concerning the "evolution of the Bible", I don't know how that can be addressed in a handful of responses ... especially for the English speaking community.  There are debates on what is oldest, what is in a transcript but not in another, etc.  Never really bothered me much.  It's canon.

[Willa]

Im ultimately on a quest to concrete my current belief in Christianity. Upon my search I ran into this article which claims that "one can easily argue that the first Christian Bible was commissioned, paid for, inspected and approved by a pagan emperor for church use." Saying that Constantine offered the various Church leaders money to agree upon a single canon that would be used by all Christians as the word of God. This is really disappointing if this is true because I am just starting to really get into reading the bible.. The article I found for this is located at deism.com/bibleorigins. Can anyone offer a good explanation as to why this article is false? I would love to be assured that it is not true. Please help me. Thank you!

Back to the OP which seemed to be hijacked, the Bible existed as a collection of scrolls long before it was placed into book form by the Roman church. Morever, we have fragments of many of these scrolls as well as of letters written by the early pastors arguing with the claims of heritics. These letters quoted extensively from the early scrolls. Only a few verses of the New Testament were not quoted. The early scrolls were written on papyrus (like newsprint) or on leather which lasted longer. But the early Roman emporers ordered all the bibles to be destroyed so many of the earliest ones did not survive.

There were other collections of scrolls or manuscripts other than that used by Jerome in Rome, who first translated them into Latin and put them into book form for the Roman Church.. The Greek orthodox and Eastern Orthodox churches had collections as well. Some early collections omitted Hebrews, the Revelation or 3rd John since not all the scrolls had been circulated to every church in the second century. A few were determined to be forgeries (usually written by gnostics) and were not verified by the disciples of the apostles to be authentic. They often included things which did not display the character of God or harmonized with the rest of scripture. An example in one book is that Jesus as a child had killed other children. Outrageous! I have a collection of them and they can be pretty weird in places.

The Egyptian church also had a collection of scripture but it was heavily influenced by gnosticism so many early appologists did not used them. The biggest herecy of the early church was gnosticism which was refuted by John as well as by Paul since it claimed that Jesus had not come in the flesh [among many other false teachings]. It also gave rise to many of the debates of the early church fathers and helped to define bible doctrine. Unfortunately, the ones in Egypt survived better because it was drier climate, and many were hidden or put in the garbage dumps in jars rather than burned as ordered by the Roman emporeror.

The one now claimed to be the earliest and best came from Alexandria Egypt, a hotbed of gnosticism. It was the briefest, which indicates to me that scriptures had been omitted, but many modern schollars claim that verses had been added to the other versions. However, no doctirine held today is unsupported by any accurate translation. It is the those that are paraphrased or are put in peoples own words that are most unreliable.

The Greek churches' collection was called the majority text because the majority of the churches used it and considered it to be more reliable. Many texts seemed to contain a mixture of sources.

Today the King James Version, NKJV, WEB, ALT3, and Young's are based mostly on the greek majority text; , the ASV was a very accurate translation based mostly on the texts used by the Roman church, and the newer versions such as the RSV have included translation from the early Egyptian alexandrian text. (The gnostics probably left stuff out or changed words that disagreed with their cult.) I believe that in time the church will again embrace the majority text of the Greek Orthodox church. But right now the Majority text fragments that exist are mostly of a later date and are hand copied by lay people, since the Greek church allowed all the people access to the Bible. Many mistakes were made, but none that I know of that deliberately tried to change the Bible to fit false doctrine as some believe the gnostics did to the Alexandrian text. In all the litteral versions are remarkably alike and when NKJV is being read aloud it is easy to follow in the NASV.

Personally, I read mostly the New King James Version but often consult the New American Standard Version, the ALT3, the Expanded Translation be Wuest, and the Amplified Version.