-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
N
there are many versions in other languages., Like English. But there is really only one set of bibles. They are called the manuscripts . The main ones are in Greek and Hebrew and some in Aramaic . Those are the original copies . Though languages change, those copies remain the same.
To look into those . Get a simple Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible: That will have the Greek and Hebrew dictionaries of the manuscripts .
It's numbering system is keyed to the King James version.
To look into those . Get a simple Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible: That will have the Greek and Hebrew dictionaries of the manuscripts .
It's numbering system is keyed to the King James version.
That is why we has to have fellowship in order to here each other version and discuss it among one another until we come to one agreement.
Acts 15:15The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:
Acts 7:
39 “But our ancestors refused to obey him. Instead, they rejected him and in their hearts turned back to Egypt. 40 They told Aaron, ‘Make us gods who will go before us. As for this fellow Moses who led us out of Egypt—we don’t know what has happened to him!’ 41 That was the time they made an idol in the form of a calf. They brought sacrifices to it and reveled in what their own hands had made. 42 But God turned away from them and gave them over to the worship of the sun, moon and stars. This agrees with what is written in the book of the prophets:
Acts 15:15The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:
Acts 7:
39 “But our ancestors refused to obey him. Instead, they rejected him and in their hearts turned back to Egypt. 40 They told Aaron, ‘Make us gods who will go before us. As for this fellow Moses who led us out of Egypt—we don’t know what has happened to him!’ 41 That was the time they made an idol in the form of a calf. They brought sacrifices to it and reveled in what their own hands had made. 42 But God turned away from them and gave them over to the worship of the sun, moon and stars. This agrees with what is written in the book of the prophets:
Here is another way to explain it. The people the bible use to explain God lived many thousand of years ago. It was written in the language used then, about people who thought differently than we thought. Some of it was written originally in ancient Hebrew, some in Arabic, and some in Greek. Most was written in ancient Hebrew originally. The very first copies are so old that they don't exist any more. The translators have to use the oldest copies they can get hold of.
The oldest bible translation we use today is called the King James Version, and it was written 1,600 years after Christ was crucified. It was translated by a group of men who knew something about the original languages, and who prayed a lot about it, and tried to put into our language what the original said. Then others took that and translated it into different languages. That translation was done just after the printing press was invented. Up to that time, most people had never seen a bible, it was only the priests and they read it in latin.
Through the years different men or organizations have said they thought they could do it better. The meanings of words changes with time, so we have a hard time understanding writing in our same language from 500 years ago. Lots of people compare different ways that different versions say what they think the original Hebrew means. Some people study the original language so they can understand better.
God led us to discovering some writings from thousands of years ago in the dead sea scrolls. We have been afraid that our translations don't have it right. Those scrolls show that God's words didn't change, our translations are good.
People argue a lot about what translation is done better than another one. But mostly, they are done by men who love God, listen to Him best they can, and do very well translating. Rather than think about what translation to use, it pays off better to study how the people lived and thought in the time God is using them to explain His principles. Today we say such things as "don't put your foot in your mouth' "that is over the rainbow" "don't wear your heart on your sleeve". They said such things in bible times, too. When we learn what they meant by their sayings, how they lived, we can understand scripture better.
The oldest bible translation we use today is called the King James Version, and it was written 1,600 years after Christ was crucified. It was translated by a group of men who knew something about the original languages, and who prayed a lot about it, and tried to put into our language what the original said. Then others took that and translated it into different languages. That translation was done just after the printing press was invented. Up to that time, most people had never seen a bible, it was only the priests and they read it in latin.
Through the years different men or organizations have said they thought they could do it better. The meanings of words changes with time, so we have a hard time understanding writing in our same language from 500 years ago. Lots of people compare different ways that different versions say what they think the original Hebrew means. Some people study the original language so they can understand better.
God led us to discovering some writings from thousands of years ago in the dead sea scrolls. We have been afraid that our translations don't have it right. Those scrolls show that God's words didn't change, our translations are good.
People argue a lot about what translation is done better than another one. But mostly, they are done by men who love God, listen to Him best they can, and do very well translating. Rather than think about what translation to use, it pays off better to study how the people lived and thought in the time God is using them to explain His principles. Today we say such things as "don't put your foot in your mouth' "that is over the rainbow" "don't wear your heart on your sleeve". They said such things in bible times, too. When we learn what they meant by their sayings, how they lived, we can understand scripture better.
i almost did not respond to your question,,but i should.,,,why is because you are asking a question where you might receive answers in the billions(earths population),,,,,,,so lets narrow it down,,,,,,,
as you know there are the several books we have in our possession,but their are different versions,i.e. k.j.v.,Vatican,interlinear ect.,,,,and they were taken from several different sets of manuscripts. and interesting article is "textas receptis",,,(the received text),the text we had/have,,the ones in our possession ect.,,,,the several sets of , manuscripts in the religions possession are complete(from a certain date) the older manuscripts are not,,,but still when compared to all of them as a whole seem to agree.
the reason why i said i almost did not reply is this,at which point do you cut off the holy scriptures by importance to the church and say no others belong?,,,,well i first read the king James version of the bible(but with a twist),,,twist was,it was a pilgrims addition king James version printed in 1874. in the preface of the older kjv bibles it was explained that at the time of the interpretation(these were a complete copy of all of the letters and books provided to the interpreters by king James,but were not to be considered a complete list of books pertaining to the faith),,,this is omitted from all of the modern copies of the k.j.v.,,,,,,
i should back up,,,stop and look up the definition to the word "bible",,,,,,it has nothing to do with the christian faith.,,,,that is bible means "a set of books set into one binding/set ect.),,,,,so if you took all of the mother goose books and set them in one collection/book,,,it is the "mother goose bible",,,,,so hence we have the "shooters bible",,,and many others.,,,you ask "why so many bibles?",,,,,,,,but your real question from the other statements on your thread should be "why so many christian bibles?",,,,,,i recognize you as christian from the postings so will address as to pertaining to christian beliefs,,hence.
so beginning with Christ,,,and his apostles,disciples,,and those known converted by them i will proceed.,,,,,,,,,,if it were the Islamic bible they believe in several books we call the old testament but none of the christian writings.,,,to them the prophets,books of Moses and the Koran is what they call the bible.,,,,,now to the Hindu,,there is no definition and all of it is.,,,in the Jewish faith their is the torah,Kabbalah ect.,,,,,, but your question about the christian bible came up very early after the Crucifixion and was addressed almost immediately by the church itself.
so to narrow it down?,,or can we?,,,Luke and Mark,,,,neither of these two were apostles,both of the letters/books they wrote are in what we call the christian bible(i should say i agree they do belong),,,but both of these two left the christian faith(offended by Christ that they were to eat his body and drink his blood),,but both were later rejoined to the faith one by peter the other by Barnabas?,,or maybe Paul.
now i bring these two up to point out that most will say the "new testament is written by the apostles",,,which is not true,,,,it contains letters from "some of the apostles,two of the original 70 disciples,and the rest of the apostles excluded,and or the other 70 disciples",,,,,why is because of authentication,,,
now Paul as we know died,,,peter died,James died,,,ect.ect.,,,,,,the entire 12,,,,,were put to death except for john,,,,he was exiled to pat-mos,,,,,,,,Polycarp of Smyrna: The Second Century Heretic Fighter ,,,,Polycarp - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ,,,,now why?,,,,of the last of the remaining 12 apostles,,,john the apostle,,,gave endorsement to "polycarp",,,,,the one spoke of in scripture as "the one whom the lord loved,,,appointed polycarp bishop of smyrna.,,,,,
now look at the rest of the list of books written by those written between ad 52 and ad 200 by the church,,,,here is the list of the names of the 70 deciples,,,and those given atthority over the 7 churches in aisa,,,,, CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies (St. Irenaeus) here are a few more books the church wrote in the first 175 or so years after the crucifiction.,,,,,,,
but one must modify their own faith,,,,that is if we read the letters written it barly resembles the christian faith in 2013,,,,which is why it is excluded,,,,,,,,,,,,this is the faith i follow,,,,i do not have disrespect for the ainchient of days,,,only the sinner celabrate their birthday,christ is no sinner and does not celabrate his own.the eighth day is the high sabbath.,,,,,,well why calculate it to the iota and etta?,,,,
as you know there are the several books we have in our possession,but their are different versions,i.e. k.j.v.,Vatican,interlinear ect.,,,,and they were taken from several different sets of manuscripts. and interesting article is "textas receptis",,,(the received text),the text we had/have,,the ones in our possession ect.,,,,the several sets of , manuscripts in the religions possession are complete(from a certain date) the older manuscripts are not,,,but still when compared to all of them as a whole seem to agree.
the reason why i said i almost did not reply is this,at which point do you cut off the holy scriptures by importance to the church and say no others belong?,,,,well i first read the king James version of the bible(but with a twist),,,twist was,it was a pilgrims addition king James version printed in 1874. in the preface of the older kjv bibles it was explained that at the time of the interpretation(these were a complete copy of all of the letters and books provided to the interpreters by king James,but were not to be considered a complete list of books pertaining to the faith),,,this is omitted from all of the modern copies of the k.j.v.,,,,,,
i should back up,,,stop and look up the definition to the word "bible",,,,,,it has nothing to do with the christian faith.,,,,that is bible means "a set of books set into one binding/set ect.),,,,,so if you took all of the mother goose books and set them in one collection/book,,,it is the "mother goose bible",,,,,so hence we have the "shooters bible",,,and many others.,,,you ask "why so many bibles?",,,,,,,,but your real question from the other statements on your thread should be "why so many christian bibles?",,,,,,i recognize you as christian from the postings so will address as to pertaining to christian beliefs,,hence.
so beginning with Christ,,,and his apostles,disciples,,and those known converted by them i will proceed.,,,,,,,,,,if it were the Islamic bible they believe in several books we call the old testament but none of the christian writings.,,,to them the prophets,books of Moses and the Koran is what they call the bible.,,,,,now to the Hindu,,there is no definition and all of it is.,,,in the Jewish faith their is the torah,Kabbalah ect.,,,,,, but your question about the christian bible came up very early after the Crucifixion and was addressed almost immediately by the church itself.
so to narrow it down?,,or can we?,,,Luke and Mark,,,,neither of these two were apostles,both of the letters/books they wrote are in what we call the christian bible(i should say i agree they do belong),,,but both of these two left the christian faith(offended by Christ that they were to eat his body and drink his blood),,but both were later rejoined to the faith one by peter the other by Barnabas?,,or maybe Paul.
now i bring these two up to point out that most will say the "new testament is written by the apostles",,,which is not true,,,,it contains letters from "some of the apostles,two of the original 70 disciples,and the rest of the apostles excluded,and or the other 70 disciples",,,,,why is because of authentication,,,
now Paul as we know died,,,peter died,James died,,,ect.ect.,,,,,,the entire 12,,,,,were put to death except for john,,,,he was exiled to pat-mos,,,,,,,,Polycarp of Smyrna: The Second Century Heretic Fighter ,,,,Polycarp - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ,,,,now why?,,,,of the last of the remaining 12 apostles,,,john the apostle,,,gave endorsement to "polycarp",,,,,the one spoke of in scripture as "the one whom the lord loved,,,appointed polycarp bishop of smyrna.,,,,,
now look at the rest of the list of books written by those written between ad 52 and ad 200 by the church,,,,here is the list of the names of the 70 deciples,,,and those given atthority over the 7 churches in aisa,,,,, CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies (St. Irenaeus) here are a few more books the church wrote in the first 175 or so years after the crucifiction.,,,,,,,
but one must modify their own faith,,,,that is if we read the letters written it barly resembles the christian faith in 2013,,,,which is why it is excluded,,,,,,,,,,,,this is the faith i follow,,,,i do not have disrespect for the ainchient of days,,,only the sinner celabrate their birthday,christ is no sinner and does not celabrate his own.the eighth day is the high sabbath.,,,,,,well why calculate it to the iota and etta?,,,,
CHURCH FATHERS: Home the rest of the churches letters,,,,,,,,,,
Freedomx, great question! 
There are Muslims who have asked the same question.
It is said that there are approximately over 200 English translations out on the market today. And most, if not all these new and modern translations have a copyright. And if you know about the derivative copyright law, then you know that for a translation to obtain a copyright, there must be enough changes in its text to qualify it as an original work.
So basically what you have as a result of these 200+ translations, is confusion as to what God really said. And all these modern and contradicttory translations has led to a very Sharp decline in the belief of the inerrancy of Scripture.
Now having established that foundation, I will now answer your question. There are two main reasons why there are so many translations out there today. Here they are:
1) The love of Money
2) The New Age agenda that Satan is behind to cause more and more Christians to doubt the authority and inerrancy of the word of God.
Here is a good video that Sam Gipp did to illustrate the fact that these different modern translations cause confusion:
[video=youtube;00naB28rJXw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00naB28rJXw&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/video]
There are Muslims who have asked the same question.
It is said that there are approximately over 200 English translations out on the market today. And most, if not all these new and modern translations have a copyright. And if you know about the derivative copyright law, then you know that for a translation to obtain a copyright, there must be enough changes in its text to qualify it as an original work.
So basically what you have as a result of these 200+ translations, is confusion as to what God really said. And all these modern and contradicttory translations has led to a very Sharp decline in the belief of the inerrancy of Scripture.
Now having established that foundation, I will now answer your question. There are two main reasons why there are so many translations out there today. Here they are:
1) The love of Money
2) The New Age agenda that Satan is behind to cause more and more Christians to doubt the authority and inerrancy of the word of God.
Here is a good video that Sam Gipp did to illustrate the fact that these different modern translations cause confusion:
[video=youtube;00naB28rJXw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00naB28rJXw&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/video]
there is something else i should point out about the issue of bible interpretations. that is it is no new problem,,as we know the apostles and Christ warned us of false prophets and letters that were circulated by people who said they were offical doctrine.
this was still the same in the early church and is the same today. polycarpus,if you research was responsible for arranging the "approved copies for the church",,he being given authority by the apostle john himself.i say this with "great caution" that is by around 170 ad Irenious(who often speaks of hearing polycarpus preach in public),,,,states many times in his letters "in the approved copies",,,when referring to the book Revelations.,,,,and was attempting to root out all the other translations of Revelations in circulation by 170ad.
the book of Enoch (proven to be written before the birth of christ or the apostles),,,is quoted around 100 times in the "new testament" by both Christ and the apostles but is not contained in any of the books we refer to as the bible.,,,,that is,,in what we refer to as "the new testament" it states,,,,,,"to prove all doctrine to scripture",,,so if it is not in Matthew,mark Luke,john acts,ect. to Revelations it is not accepted by the modern church(to date). but,,,,,,,,,,,,
Matthew mark Luke john acts,,,ect "had not been written yet/were in the process of being written,when these statements were made by the writers of these letters",,,so in fact if Paul James,peter,john ect.,,,made statement that you were to "validate all doctrine with scripture",,,,,,,,,,,,"they were referring to scripture written before they were born",,,to prove the point they said of their own mouths,,,,,,,,"for it was written",,,,"to fulfill",,,,,i am not come to destroy,,,ect.,,,,but to fulfill it",,,,,"as written in the law and the prophets",,,,ect.
so you find men like Paul stating "a new but it was before of old",,,,that is he was confirming it with the scripture already given,and explaining to you to do the same,,,,
the true church,was the first church,,,,,we beg to differ(mankind),,,but Matthew,mark,Luke,john ect. are not explaining anything new,,,they are letters of testament,made by those who witnessed/fulfilled the things written before they were born,weighing them against pure doctrine(scripture) and giving confession of their fulfillment's.
one is witness before it is done,,,,,one is witness of its fulfillment,,,,,,there are two things to consider,,,,a seed cast in the ground has only need of water and heat,,,,,,but the old plant,after it is grown,groans to set it's seed into the wind,,,
the Gospel of,,,the letter to,,,,,the Revelation of,,,,,always compare them to and prove them according to "the scriptures",,,,,they do,,,,were men fall short is understanding they are compared to scriptures written long before they spoke of them,,,,,,,,,,,,,
this was still the same in the early church and is the same today. polycarpus,if you research was responsible for arranging the "approved copies for the church",,he being given authority by the apostle john himself.i say this with "great caution" that is by around 170 ad Irenious(who often speaks of hearing polycarpus preach in public),,,,states many times in his letters "in the approved copies",,,when referring to the book Revelations.,,,,and was attempting to root out all the other translations of Revelations in circulation by 170ad.
the book of Enoch (proven to be written before the birth of christ or the apostles),,,is quoted around 100 times in the "new testament" by both Christ and the apostles but is not contained in any of the books we refer to as the bible.,,,,that is,,in what we refer to as "the new testament" it states,,,,,,"to prove all doctrine to scripture",,,so if it is not in Matthew,mark Luke,john acts,ect. to Revelations it is not accepted by the modern church(to date). but,,,,,,,,,,,,
Matthew mark Luke john acts,,,ect "had not been written yet/were in the process of being written,when these statements were made by the writers of these letters",,,so in fact if Paul James,peter,john ect.,,,made statement that you were to "validate all doctrine with scripture",,,,,,,,,,,,"they were referring to scripture written before they were born",,,to prove the point they said of their own mouths,,,,,,,,"for it was written",,,,"to fulfill",,,,,i am not come to destroy,,,ect.,,,,but to fulfill it",,,,,"as written in the law and the prophets",,,,ect.
so you find men like Paul stating "a new but it was before of old",,,,that is he was confirming it with the scripture already given,and explaining to you to do the same,,,,
the true church,was the first church,,,,,we beg to differ(mankind),,,but Matthew,mark,Luke,john ect. are not explaining anything new,,,they are letters of testament,made by those who witnessed/fulfilled the things written before they were born,weighing them against pure doctrine(scripture) and giving confession of their fulfillment's.
one is witness before it is done,,,,,one is witness of its fulfillment,,,,,,there are two things to consider,,,,a seed cast in the ground has only need of water and heat,,,,,,but the old plant,after it is grown,groans to set it's seed into the wind,,,
the Gospel of,,,the letter to,,,,,the Revelation of,,,,,always compare them to and prove them according to "the scriptures",,,,,they do,,,,were men fall short is understanding they are compared to scriptures written long before they spoke of them,,,,,,,,,,,,,
R
there are many bible versions because there are many different views on how the bible is best translated into english...for example...
...some people believe that the bible is best translated from the so called 'textus receptus'
...some people believe that the bible is best translated from the oldest manuscripts
...some people believe that the bible is best translated on a 'word for word' basis
...some people believe that the bible is best translated in a way that most accurately conveys the intent of the author
...some people believe that the bible is best translated using obsolete english archaisms
...some people believe that the bible is best translated from the so called 'textus receptus'
...some people believe that the bible is best translated from the oldest manuscripts
...some people believe that the bible is best translated on a 'word for word' basis
...some people believe that the bible is best translated in a way that most accurately conveys the intent of the author
...some people believe that the bible is best translated using obsolete english archaisms