Perhaps this proves it is a work of fiction written by men?
Who can tell? Our own language is constantly changing. Translations between one language and another are not perfectly exact. I find it helpful to have a Comparative Bible at hand. I also want to know who was the translator and when was the translation done. Is something emphasized in one translation more than in others? If so, why and by whom?
What similar passages and/or teachings are presented elsewhere in the Bible? I believe the Jews have it right when they noted that scripture is to be studied, not read.
No one questions that the Bible was written by men. Non-believers have trouble with the “inspired by God” assertion. People of faith believe humans are comprised of body, mind, and spirit, whereas non-believers feel that body and mind covers the totality of the human make-up.
Although imperfectly, human spirits and supernatural spirits can reach out and communicate. The spirit feeds the mind, the body then writes down what the mind produces.
You’re saying the Supreme Being of ALL creation personally gives instructions to people about their eternal souls and they forget exactly what he said?
No, that is not what I said. How do you come up with this stuff? 
1 Like
Are you just noticing this now?
Easy enough to find, do your own homework.
My point was on translation approach/goal.
Then how is it that there is confusion about what the Supreme Being of ALL creation said?
In other words, you don’t know.
I’ve often said that one should first have their own experience of God and then read the Bible. While Jewish rabbis and scholars seem to naturally know that the Bible is more a book about mankind, I notice many atheists today seem to think it is a book that tells about God.
We first need to know mankind’s beliefs in Biblical times and how not knowing those beliefs blurs understanding of God.
Take the story of the flood. People in that time believed that God communicated with His creation through nature. Mankind watched nature. If there were floods or famine, it was because mankind was at fault, and they believed God was signaling their fault. What did they do wrong? In hindsight (flood) they noticed they had been behaving badly, and man’s judgement was that mankind as a whole was behaving so badly, they deserved to be wiped out.
Another very interesting case is that King David counted (numbered) warriors at his disposal, which met with disapproval. A three day pestilence which destroyed their wheat crop and resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands was said to have been punishment for numbering warriors.
Yet, all through the Bible we also have the insistence of what God truly wants: Freeing the captives, having love and mercy towards others, sheltering and feeding those in need. The spirit of mankind knows when we are off-track. We do.
Prophets (I think of them as yesteryear’s politicians) were saying to the people, “We told you everyone is misbehaving–and this flood or that calamity is our proof.”
Despite this, all through the ages–especially emphasized in Christianity–are voices saying it is our own relationship with God that guides and directs us–not the weather or natural disasters. A flood or a famine is not the anger of God. God treats us much more gently than that. He helps us through natural disasters–He does not spring them on us.
Recognize your own spirit and its power–and then seek the Most High Spirit. (Seeking God in weather patterns was the Old Way which some advocated. Try the New Way.)
The main difference is the reliance of the KJV and the first, second, third and fourth century translations from Greek on the Byzantine text which gave us the Textus Receptus, versus the modern versions reliance on the Alexandrian text which was an Egyptian emendation to water down the biblical exclusivity and harmonise the Gospel more readily with the scriptures of other religions.
Then the bible is not the exact word of God?
Let’s not play games. I am not fond of that.
My understanding is that the received texts wound up in Alexandria, which was a city of scholars and philosophers. They did what such people do, which was to insert their own thoughts and beliefs on the received texts and write their own interpretations. These “corrected” Alexandrian texts are the basis for some of the Bibles out today.
Another difference, which I believe is more obvious is Revelation 22:14. The KJV reads " Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city." The NIV version is “Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city.”
What does “wash their robes” mean? How does that grant the right to the tree of life?
The Greek is written in all capital letters, no spaces between words. When one sees the two translations together in Greek, it is easy to see how similar the letters are and therefore the two translations. Scholars believe “wash their robes” comes from the best (or more reliable) manuscripts.
The meaning is that it was Jesus, by his death and resurrection, who secured redemption for the world; however, people are expected to do their own part by accepting the sacrifice of Christ. One commentator put it this way: Soap and water can be provided to someone, but it is up to that person to make the decision on whether to use them.
Same with what Jesus is offering: He made the sacrifice, but it is up to people to accept (or reject) that sacrifice.
God is not the author of confusion.
How about agenda?
Each person is the author of their own confusion. We see this being played out in DC. It is interesting that we have a written transcript of a phone call, and confusion burst forth with people claiming to know the real intent of the phone call. The author of the phone call plainly told us what his real intent was. But onlookers offered a different intent, and thousands were willing to latch on to this different intent.
Some atheists do the same with the Bible. Without study, without historic knowledge, without context, they decide they know, not what the Bible says, but the “real” intent. And, they too, have thousands who are willing to latch onto that differing intent.
2 Likes
And the supposedly more accurate Alexandrian texts, the major two being Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, evidence multiple emendations and vary widely between themselves.
The argument for their greater accuracy is their greater age. However, the fact that they survived longer than received text manuscripts (mss) could easily be that they were not considered reliable when they were produced, and so we’re not repeatedly used, and so did not wear out like the more ubiquitously trusted Alexandrian texts did.
