There is no such thing as The Bible

quote:

---

There is no such thing as The Bible

​

What is the Bible anyway?
Most Bible?s inform the reader in their introductions that ?Bible? means ?a collection of books?, from the Greek word biblia. However, I would say that we should stop referring to ?a collection of books? as THE Bible and begin to refer to them as A Bible.

---

Um...pardon, but the name of the book is The Holy Bible.Does that make as much sense of it's title to you as it does to me and a host of others?

quote:

---

Also good of you to point out was the Isaiah prophecy. The prophecy in Isaiah refers to almah, which means "young woman" or "maiden". While almah can mean virgin, something so specific as *virgin birth* would almost definitely use the more technical term, bethusaleh. In English, you wouldn't say, "A young woman shall conceive and give birth to a son" when you meant to talk about something as dramatic as parthenogenesis. And it is worth adding that the Israelites were not at all hesitant about using the term bethusaleh (it's not taboo) - it is used all over the bible.

---

True, but consider the following:1. It was a prophecy of a future birth.
2. OT scriptural practice was to name the father of one having been born or to be born, not the mother. Geneologies nearly always list the fathers and sons. It would be very unusual to say a young woman was to bear a son. This would implicate adultery.
3. The NT reference to it bears out that it was a reference to a virgin birth.
4. Michah 5:2 bears out that the messiah son is to be born in Bethlehem. This and other context enforces the notion that the 'young woman' of the Isaiah text would be a virgin.

quote:

---

It seems that many Bible's do not claim to be 'Holy'.

---

.........But none of them has the title of simply, "Bible," as you were implying. They all have a descriptive title, discriptive enough to identify them individually so as one can determine that the collection of books, i.e 'bible' is something specific.They are all pretty much considered by and large as Holy Biblesby those who own and love them. Of course imo, the less literal they get the less holy they become and most on your list weren't perticularly literal in many of the texts within them.

quote:

---

I was under the impression that "Bethlehem Ephratah" referred to the clan of Bethlehem (from Caleb's second wife Ephrathah) not a town called Bethlehem.

​

The "prophesy" also seems to be referring to a military leader who will defeat the Assyrians. How do you get that a virgin will give birth to the Christ in Bethlehem out of this?

---

According to Matthew 2 about verses 4,5, Herod inquired of the chief priests and elders as to where the messiah was to be born and they referred to this reference that according to the prophet he was to be born in Bethlehem. Thus Herod issued the order to slaughter the little children of that area. I believe this source would trump your opinion and choose to go with it.Also in Genesis 35:19, we read that Rachael was burried in the way of Ephrata which is Behtlehem. So we see the name not only refers a person by the name of Bethlehem who was the son of Ephrata, but that this location was evidently named after Ephrata's son, Bethlehem. The Jewish scribes and priests whom Herod questioned surely knew that as common knowledge.

quote:

---

I am fairly sure that Buz's Bible is the KJV, which (correct me if I'm wrong) is considered one of the more error-filled and mistranslated of all of the versions.

---

As usual, your judgemental comment about ole buz are wrong again, Schraf. I own a KJV and other versions, but as I've stated several times on this forum, my user Bible is the old 1901 American Standard Version, which I consider to be the most literal and best of all translations, bar none. I also own and use both Greek and Hebrew interlinears for use when I want to get exact equivalents to from the Hebrew and Greek to English. You can't get more fundamental than that without a language degree. Btw, the KJV is older, but was taken from what is known as the Received Text or manuscrips. The 1901 ASB was taken from the Alexandrian texts some of which were older texts and imo, more accurate. But when the KJV was first translated, I believe that's the best they had so prior to the 20th century, it was likely the most accurate translation. There's not enough difference in the two to make a big fuss about though, imo.[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 10-30-2003]

quote:

---

However, the [N]RSV Bibles are very "literal" so I would ask Buz what Bibles he has in mind as far as which are the most accurate.

---

The RSV is not very accurate. I heard one of the translators speak in Escondido Ca in the 70s while the translating was being done. He basically said the translators were not as concerned about literacy as they were in conveying the message. This bothered me, as imo, it is their job as translators to translate accurately and let the reader do the interpreting as to what the message is. For example they removed the words "monogena" (begotten) in John 3:16 and in five other reference in the NT where it was in the original and replaced these with "one and only" instead of "only begotten"/only born.