There is no such thing as The Bible

Too bad you don't plan on staying. At least you're upfront about it.Lots of people drop by and make the same claims you do. Then leave when asked to support them. At least you're being clear you aren't going to be here to support what you say.Merry Christmas and have fun whereever you are going.

And a Yahoo email addy no less Is Percy considering paying commission to EvC forum members who attract new members for him?Brian.

Yeah, and Happy Christmahanukwanzaakah to you, too.

Your're right brian, it's The Holy Bible not The Bible.~Allen

Hi,Which 'Holy Bible' is 'THE' Holy Bible?There are no two versions of the 'Holy' Bible that are the same.Brian.

Absolutely. As versions get revised over the years, they never reach full potential to spread the original message God intended.For example, we do not go to heaven when we die. Instead, the verse in Matthew that makes people think this (the theif on the cross) is contextually correct but does not actually say that the thief would be in heaven THAT VERY DAY. Instead, the comma was uninspired by GOd, and this is the same thing with these revised versions.

That was an evil lowblow to my partner, Demosthenes! He may have sounded rash, but he's not that bad.

hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Alle-eh-lu-ia!-G.F. Handel's Messiah

the whole idea of interpretation and different versions and stresses on words and where commas goes becomes so precarious that it almost seems useless to even try to figure out which one is correct. it's so late in the game who really knows? besides, it's not even the same language at all anymore. not even close! what we're trying to do is ridiculous! but, alas, someone has to do it. i'd like to meet the person that got to stamp the words "THE HOLY" on their copy or translation of the Bible. because they are the person now that has set the standard for which commas stresses and emphasis' are the standard and most trusted versions.

The newer versions seem to put the wrong emphasis on the right words and the wrong things, includint the uinspired comma. It lacs important things like prayers and fasting situations (see me about this)

I think a more important point has been missed when considering any question of the 'Bible'. This collection, as this descriptive noun suggests, was chosen from a greater body of material as 'canonical' for the most part by the early roman tradition, in support of and reflecting the conception of faith and understanding of the time.That leaves out the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. Two very considerable bodies of material. Also the discoveries made only late in the last century, the Nag Hammadi Library and Dead Sea Scrolls suggest that even taken together, the scriptural record may not be complete? Is there more still to be discovered that might answer once and for all time the 'God' question? For it should be remembered that this C vs E forum exists because God has yet to confirm any 'Christian' [or other] tradition to the complete satisfaction of a great many people, not to mention other theistic traditions and many believers, like myself.Thus how can any teaching or assumptions derived from this collection we call the Bible be secure, when one can't even be certain if the record is complete? And if the record is incomplete, so to is our understanding of God! And history would suggest that is indeed the case?

First, there are not many "Bibles"...but "VERSIONS" or "TRANSLATIONS" of the SAME BIBLE. Good, now that we have established this...you stated:
" Is there more still to be discovered that might answer once and for all time the 'God' question?"God question? It has already been answered in what we have now! If there was any more...it would just "continue" on what was already established as it has all along. Remember? First came the writings put together in Genesis...then the Law of Moses...then what the priests, prophets, and scribes put together...THE OLD COVENANT....then Jesus came and on came the NEW COVENANT of the SAME God and SAME religion, if you will,...so it would just continue, not bring in some new god...Would we get a DEEPER understanding of God? Maybe, but you can only be secure on what you have SO FAR...not on what we MIGHT HAVE...Live by what you know and understand so far. What we KNOW is what we can build from. What we don't know we can only cautiously test, hope, be weary of...What we have so far in what is the Bible...has given from the beginning a clear and direct understanding of GOD.

I happen to disagree. There are mutliple variations of the Old testament.. the Dead sea scrolls have shown that.And then the worshipers of Jesus came along, and it is a new religion, worshipping a new god. The concept of god made flesh is in direct
violation of Jewish beliefs about god, so it is an entirely differnet
god.

Hi BrianI don't have the literary or theological background to critique your whole post. As someone who believes that the Bible is a true revelation of God, but a revelation that is not necessarily told literally I'd like to make the following comment.The reason for the relatively minor differences in the translations is because of the degree of scholastic effort that has gone into making the Bible translations as accurate as possible. There is no other book in history that comes anywhere close to the degree of scrutiny that the Biblical texts have. There are relatively minor differences in the various translations, but as most of us agree the Bible does contain a great deal of allegory, then the fact that different translators have come up with some minor differences shouldn't be of major concern.The message in all of the tanslations remain consistent, in its message of God's love, hope, and redemption.

I think theres only one answer to this,Ive been doing the same thing as you, and looking at multiude versions of the Bible, however this can only be truely be trusted for regards to the new testiment.However both this and the old testiment in the Bible have offically been altered, by that of Henry VIII as the most famous of the royals to have publicly changed a religious book. I doubt the Roman catholics havent been too careful when translating.However I would recommended the Torah for ALL old testiment messages and phrases, (could this be inforced for one version?) Apparently after the dead sea scrolls were found, only a couple of 4 word translations were lost over the period of their loss and now. I say apparently, but if so this is some pretty impressive translation, espically too keep the context over a time when language will naturally change.However like I said study the Torah for the OT, espically since I believe all versions are but one, some only a couple of words off with the expression which has been used, he walked instead of he went, you understand what i mean. The Torah for bibical references is going to be the least changed historic/faith text around.