Kerry said to be excommunicated

[2ndAmendment]

Oh, when I said that the 66 books of the canon are the Word of God, I mean in the original languages. I would suggest getting a different version than the King James. Try the New American Standard. It is an accurate translation to best practice.

As for the Catholic Bible being the first, the Christians had the Bible before the Roman Catholic Church was founded. I have not found exactly when the Roman church started calling itself the Catholic church, but it was sometime during or after the reign of Emperor Constantine I (306 - 337 A.D.)

According to the University of Virginia: http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/apocrypha_exp.html

The term "apocrypha" was coined by the fifth-century biblical scholar St. Jerome and refers to the biblical books included as part of the Septuagint (the Greek version of the Old Testament), but not included in the Hebrew Bible.

Several works ranging from the fourth century B.C.E. to New Testament times are considered apocryphal--including Judith, the Wisdom of Solomon, Tobit, Sirach (or Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, First and Second Maccabees, the two Books of Esdras, various additions to the Book of Esther (10:4-10), the Book of Daniel (3:24-90;13;14), and the Prayer of Manasseh.

The apocrypha have been variously included and omitted from bibles over the course of the centuries. Protestant churches generally exclude the apocrypha (though the King James version of 1611 included them). The Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches include all of the apocrypha (except for the books of Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh), but refer to them as "deuterocanonical" books. In this context, the term "apocrypha" generally refers to writings entirely outside of the biblical canon and not considered inspired (such as the Gospel of Thomas). These same books are referred to by Protestants as the "pseudoepigrapha."

 

[Dymphna]

Oh, when I said that the 66 books of the canon are the Word of God, I mean in the original languages. I would suggest getting a different version than the King James. Try the New American Standard. It is an accurate translation to best practice.

The part of my post about the KJV wasn't directed at you. I know you to be the sort of person who approches religion from an educated POV. But many, many religious denominations tout the KJV as the be-all, end-all of bibles, when in fact, that particular translation has a number of flaws. In the time and place in which it was compiled, accuracy to the original meaning and all it's nuances wasn't a priority. The newer the translation, the generally more accurate, I think, because the prevailing trend is to understand the subtlties of meaning better.

Trust me, I am not about to get into a religious argument with you, of all people. You are far more educated on the subject than I. :

 

[Tonio]

The part of my post about the KJV wasn't directed at you. I know you to be the sort of person who approches religion from an educated POV.

To a point, that reflects my opinion, too. I'm not as educated about the Bible as you. I do remember reading that "witch" in "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" was actually a mistranslation of "poisoner." I don't know if that's true. I'm just skeptical when someone claims to know God's intentions, because I believe that is something that no human being can or will ever know.

 

[Dymphna]

To a point, that reflects my opinion, too. I'm not as educated about the Bible as you. I do remember reading that "witch" in "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" was actually a mistranslation of "poisoner." I don't know if that's true. I'm just skeptical when someone claims to know God's intentions, because I believe that is something that no human being can or will ever know.

I don't pretend to be highly educated on the Bible. When I was in college, I was friends with the campus priest and he had the firm belief that at college age, people should be learning the whys of their religion. Up until that point, most people just followed what their parents did. I took one or two classes that he taught and hung out in the Catholic Center. I know enough to know there's a lot that is misunderstood about the Bible and religion. And to look at things as they relate to the historical time period from which they came.

The KJV was vital for its time. It brought Christianity to the masses, by putting it in the common language of the people. But I think at times it twisted certain language for a number of reasons. Incomplete understanding of the original language, Lack of confidence in the common people's ability to grasp abstract or complicated concepts (a sort of dumbing it down), and to suit the political atmosphere of the time.

The KJV was a remarkable document for it's time. It probably secured the continuing existance of Christianity. At the very least, it gets credit for expanding it. But...

Here's a tale of two ministers. I have two friends, one from high school, one from college, who are married to ministers of different Fundumentalist Protestant Churches. I went to the ordination of one. He is college educated, with a degree in computers (it pays the bills) I doubt he ever took a class in theology. All his religious training came from his parents and the elders of the church. There were two things that he had to swear to at his ordination that raised my eyebrows. 1. Sunday school was the devil's work (WTF???) and 2. The KJV is the one and only true Bible.

Shortly after this, I was talking to my other minister's wife friend. I told her how I thought that was weird. Her husband has a BA in computers as well (it pays the bills) but he has a Masters (maybe it's a Doctorate) in theology. He was required to learn Hebrew, Latin, Aramaic and Greek so that he could read the Bible in it's original form.

 

[SamSpade]

Whether or not the current books, or ANY books, of the Bible are inspired of God is another discussion - but - deciding which translation is best is somewhat subjective.

Bear in mind the key word is "translation". The original language of the Bible wasn't English - it was Hebrew (for the Old Testament) and Greek (for the New Testament), although much of the Bible used by the New Testament era writers is the Septuagint, an ALL Greek translation dating back to the first and second century BC.

So the best translation would be NO translation. The best would be to read the original language. No matter how many iterations and new versions and translation come out, the original language is known. Most of the difficulty is not in some corruption of language from copy of copy of copy. We have the original text, and some of the manuscripts date fairly far back. In addition, there are mounds of copies of writings ABOUT the Bible that contain extensive quotes that corroborate and confirm the text.

So we know WHAT it *says*. The only argument really is what does it *mean*.

(It's good to remember the Bible is NOT an *English* book; we all speak English, but you can bet that a Spanish speaking person gets a little miffed when someone claims the KJV is the "only" version. Right. Like Paul and the other apostles spoke Elizabethan English.)

The KJV is a great version, because the translators wanted to not only create an accurate version, but a beautiful one as well. The shortcoming of it - the *ENGLISH* language has changed! A good example is the word "conversation". Here's a quote:

"Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ."

At that time, the word 'conversation' meant *behavior* or *conduct*. Others we still sometimes use the archaic use, but sparingly - "Suffer the children to come to me" means to *permit* or *allow* them to come, and has nothing to do with "suffering".

So there's nothing ruinous about reading a modern translation. There were other English versions that pre-date KJV, and for centuries, St. Jerome's Vulgate (Latin) was *THE* Bible. Obviously, it's not a bad version if it's one you'll actually READ.

Later, more modern versions have at least ONE advantage over the KJV - we've unearthed a LOT more manuscripts in the last 400 years. Simply put, we have more reliable sources, especially with text that may have been added later. Good annotated Bibles point this out.

As a general rule - I will read several, but I veer from some, and incline towards others. My rule of thumb is to stay away from any translation deriving from one religious group or a small number of persons (or even just one person).

Several versions are good - the NIV is the easiest to read, and probably the best overall paraphrase in English. The RSV was very popular about 50 years ago, and maintains much of the beauty of the KJV. The NAS is almost certainly the best *literal* translation of the Bible - in many cases, it preserves the actual word order of the Greek, which may sound clumsy in English - and in many cases, it keeps words and idioms as they are. If you're not up on your English, however, it might be a hard read.

As I said before - if you don't or can't read it, it's not a good version for you.

For those who claim the KJV is the only true version - what can I say? Most of the world doesn't speak English, and it's a translation, and not even the oldest one. It's preposterous to think the Bible was only meant to be written in a language that post-dates the Bible by 15 to 16 centuries.

 

[2ndAmendment]

They're lots of good ministers that have not had any theological training. Christ's apostles certainly didn't. Paul had rabbinical training and was a rabbi. There are ministers that have their doctorates that are terrible; they should be truck drivers or something.

[rant]I have a problem with the word "theology"; it means the study of God. How can we study God when we don't even understand some of His simplest creations? How can the creation possibly understand the creator?[/rant]

People who are hung up on the King James version believe it is the only "authorized" version. This is true, but they miss that it was authorized by King James not God. Some problems with it were putting the language into the modern language of the time. "Bottles" instead of "wineskins" is one example that messes up the meaning of the scripture. New wine in old bottles is not a problem but new wine in old wineskins is. New wine ferments and gives off CO2. No damage to a bottle. An old wine skin will not stretch like a new wineskin will, so the new wine in an old wineskin will make the old wineskin break.

Matthew 9:16-17
16"No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment, for the patch will pull away from the garment, making the tear worse. 17Neither do men pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst, the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved."

Some modern versions are guilty of leaving the word "blood" out of verses because it was deemed that the word "blood" was gruesome or offended some people. This is worse. It is through the shedding of blood that a sacrifice is made. It was the shedding of Y'shua's blood that our sins could be covered if we accept the gift.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Several versions are good - the NIV is the easiest to read, and probably the best overall paraphrase in English. The RSV was very popular about 50 years ago, and maintains much of the beauty of the KJV. The NAS is almost certainly the best *literal* translation of the Bible - in many cases, it preserves the actual word order of the Greek, which may sound clumsy in English - and in many cases, it keeps words and idioms as they are. If you're not up on your English, however, it might be a hard read.

Some of the earlier books were written in Aramaic.

The NIV is one of the translations that has a tendency to leave out the word "blood". This is just what I have read, I have not actually done the comparison, so take this with a grain of salt.

I currently have a New King James version which restores things like bottle back to wineskin and modern English (you instead of thee and thou, etc). I actually prefer my New American Standard (NAS); a tad harder to read, but as accurate as a translation can be thus far.

 

[SamSpade]

The NIV is one of the translations that has a tendency to leave out the word "blood". This is just what I have read, I have not actually done the comparison, so take this with a grain of salt.

Hmmm. I count 86 occurences in the New Testament alone.

I currently have a New King James version which restores things like bottle back to wineskin and modern English (you instead of thee and thou, etc). I actually prefer my New American Standard (NAS); a tad harder to read, but as accurate as a translation can be thus far.

I do prefer the NIV, even with its flaws, although a good interlinear helps. I make liberal use of BibleGateWay.com for other versions. For KJV, I have an old Scofield edition that highlights the word changes from archaic usage to more modern ones, while preserving most of the text.

Incidentally - my old church had a practice of doing somethng largely because of a clear misunderstanding of a passage. They would publicly "mark" a person, which was an official ostracization and condemnation of an individual they believed was causing division and trouble within the church - because of their rendering of Romans 16:

"Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."

'Mark' means, as it does in Shakespeare, to pay close attention to, to watch out for. It does NOT mean "shun, cast out and seal as with the mark of Cain". Ridiculous.

 

[Tonio]

'Mark' means, as it does in Shakespeare, to pay close attention to, to watch out for. It does NOT mean "shun, cast out and seal as with the mark of Cain". Ridiculous.

Could you clue in the editors of the Children's Bible series? (I think that's what it's called--it was in the doctor's office when I was a kid.) They had a scene of Cain being cast out and doomed to live alone from the rest of society.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Hmmm. I count 86 occurences in the New Testament alone.

... because of their rendering of Romans 16:

"Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."

'Mark' means, as it does in Shakespeare, to pay close attention to, to watch out for. It does NOT mean "shun, cast out and seal as with the mark of Cain". Ridiculous.

Like I said, I have not done the comparison of the NIV; it does read well. As for the quoted passage, "mark" does not mean to "shun, cast out and seal as with the mark of Cain" but "avoid them." does mean just that; stay away, don't associate. If they put a physical mark on someone, they missed that meaning, but if they avoided contact they got that right.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Could you clue in the editors of the Children's Bible series? (I think that's what it's called--it was in the doctor's office when I was a kid.) They had a scene of Cain being cast out and doomed to live alone from the rest of society.

Oops. You are wrong on this one. Cain was cast out to live out of the presence of God. He was not alone.

Genesis 4:8-18
8 Now Cain said to his brother Abel, "Let's go out to the field." [4] And while they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him.
9 Then the LORD said to Cain, "Where is your brother Abel?"
"I don't know," he replied. "Am I my brother's keeper?"
10 The LORD said, "What have you done? Listen! Your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground. 11 Now you are under a curse and driven from the ground, which opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand. 12 When you work the ground, it will no longer yield its crops for you. You will be a restless wanderer on the earth."
13 Cain said to the LORD , "My punishment is more than I can bear. 14 Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me."
15 But the LORD said to him, "Not so [5] ; if anyone kills Cain, he will suffer vengeance seven times over." Then the LORD put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him. 16 So Cain went out from the LORD's presence and lived in the land of Nod, [6] east of Eden.
17 Cain lay with his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Cain was then building a city, and he named it after his son Enoch. 18 To Enoch was born Irad, and Irad was the father of Mehujael, and Mehujael was the father of Methushael, and Methushael was the father of Lamech.

 

[Tonio]

Oops. You are wrong on this one. Cain was cast out to live out of the presence of God. He was not alone.

I was quoting the Children's Bible series, which didn't mention anything about Cain having kids. And yes, when I read the KJV version of Genesis, I was surprised. At the time it didn't seem to make sense. If Adam and Even and Cain and Abel were the first humans on the earth, then where did Cain get his wife?

 

[Josimmon]

I was quoting the Children's Bible series, which didn't mention anything about Cain having kids. And yes, when I read the KJV version of Genesis, I was surprised. At the time it didn't seem to make sense. If Adam and Even and Cain and Abel were the first humans on the earth, then where did Cain get his wife?

That is a question I asked my Sunday school teacher growing up. I never got a very good answer. Just you have to have "faith" in the bible and not question it. I believe "faith" does not have to do with the bible. I am a very spiritual person and most likely have more "faith" then most people I have seen.

 

[2ndAmendment]

I was quoting the Children's Bible series, which didn't mention anything about Cain having kids. And yes, when I read the KJV version of Genesis, I was surprised. At the time it didn't seem to make sense. If Adam and Even and Cain and Abel were the first humans on the earth, then where did Cain get his wife?

If you notice, females were not kept track of. The Western culture is one of the few that hold females in high regard. Chinese often kill female babies. In Japan, I observed this as recently as the 1980s, the woman had to walk three steps behind the man.

Adam and Eve had many children. Cain married one of his sisters. This brings up other questions; incest, but it was not a sin at the time.

Genesis 5:1-5
1When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. 2 He created them male and female and blessed them. And when they were created, he called them "man. [1] "
3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. 4 After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 5 Altogether, Adam lived 930 years, and then he died.

 

[Penn]

If you notice, females were not kept track of. The Western culture is one of the few that hold females in high regard. Chinese often kill female babies. In Japan, I observed this as recently as the 1980s, the woman had to walk three steps behind the man.

Adam and Eve had many children. Cain married one of his sisters. This brings up other questions; incest, but it was not a sin at the time.

Outstanding, 2nd A! I don't know how many times I've read Gen 5: 1-5, the information that was contained there, but I guess it went over my head, failed to sink in, whatever. Thank you for bringing it to the forefront again.

PS: I am reminded of something elaine cited earlier this week.

She said: "Comprehension is your friend." How right you are elaine!

Back then, when the the Lords' Children were "fruitfully multiplying", as many as the grains of sand on the shore, in what was told to Abraham by the Lord, the concept of incest was not the sin as we know it came to be later in history. In the larger scheme of things, the Lord's aim was to populate this earth with His Children; they were created in His image, and thus without sin, however, as we have read, that all changed forever during the sequence of events between Eve, an apple from the Tree of Knowledge, and a lowly snake..................

 

[Dymphna]

They're lots of good ministers that have not had any theological training.

Never said there weren't, but I think I would trust/respect the one who read the Bible in it's original languages a whole lot faster than I would one who swore on a Bible the only the KJV is valid and everything else is heresy.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Never said there weren't, but I think I would trust/respect the one who read the Bible in it's original languages a whole lot faster than I would one who swore on a Bible the only the KJV is valid and everything else is heresy.

Won't dispute that. I wish I could read it in the original languages. I do refer to the Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek cross reference dictionary when I have some question about translation.

 

[Penn]

I have re-read 2nd As' commentary on the last page, and have chosen to show it up for perusal again, so some folks might grab the thought being exposed here, if they didn't see it the 1st time through:

__________________________________________________________________

"I am going to digress here a bit. Did you see "Almighty Bruce"(I think it was Bruce Almighty) with Jim Carey (Bruce) and Morgan Freeman (God)? There is a point in the movie where (this is paraphrased) Bruce asks: "How do you make someone love you when there is free will?

Morgan Freeman answers: "Now you see my problem."
__________________________________________________________________

Think about the enormity, the concept, of what has transpired here.

He gave us free will; and what does that really mean?

That he has given us the choice to follow our way(s), or His way(s)!

We are fully allowed to follow our own wants and desires, or follow the Word.

You know, He is not going to tell you one way or the other is the only way;
that's what free will is all about! The Bible does strongly suggest that His
way is the best, the truest and the way to Him.

I'd like to offer further evidence of this idea of "free will", if I have piqued your curiosity:

Please read the last chapter in the Gospel of John, chapt 21. It's not very long, about two and a quarter pages. But after a bit of meditation on it, I think you'll see Jesus' thoughts and ideas come leaping off the pages, just like He was sitting at your dinner table discussing this very important thesis for mankinds' salvation.

If it does not "leap out at you", I have some documentation on hand that should make it very clear what Jesus is saying to Peter at the end of this chapter.

 

[2ndAmendment]

You are right, it was Bruce Almighty.

You know, He is not going to tell you one way or the other is the only way;
that's what free will is all about! The Bible does strongly suggest that His
way is the best, the truest and the way to Him.

I do differ with you on "strongly suggest". The Bible says that there is only one way.

John 14:6,7
6Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7If you really knew me, you would know[1] my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him."

This is the passage where we find that Jesus and the Father are one, not two entities.

 

[Penn]

You are right, it was Bruce Almighty.


I do differ with you on "strongly suggest". The Bible says that there is only one way.



This is the passage where we find that Jesus and the Father are one, not two entities.

Alright, 2nd A, it's more than a strongly worded suggestion in much of the Four Gospels, and in the writings of Paul, however, since He and His Father(yes I know they are one, along with the Holy Spirit) gave us free will to choose His path or our own, I get the sense there is still that choice that He's giving us to make.

You're not going to find it in the Bible, but I think He's saying, in proper vernacular: Verily, I say unto you, I can show you the way, but if you do not know me, trust me, or love me, I cannot take you to my home."

That is where I think the free will comes into play again. He's being the parent to mankind; How many times as a kid did your parents say something like this to you? Maybe it's the basis for the phrase: "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink."

If anyone has attempted to read John, chapt 21 by now, you should have figured out that one of the paramount messages He fosters is that there is a right way(Jesus' way) to run your life, and conversely, a conveyance of your own choosing, which may not get you where you want to arrive at, and may very well be at odds with where you thought you would end up.

There's some more neat stuff in there, especially towards the end of the chapter, but I don't want to give it away for those who may be still reading it.