Well since it was translated and would be modified for what not (this would of course vary from versions, but the called out contradictions are based on KJV)

would the fact that it was translated from other laguages hebrew and greek address the issue ?

[This message has been edited by Deoz (edited 04-03-2006).]

You need to word you question better there, buddy. It was originally written in hebrew and greek. It was directly translated from hebrew and greek to English.

Yeah, you uh.. Need to learn and articulate your questions better.

The answer is maybe.

Explain to me how the differences in the order of creation found in Genesis 1 and 2 can be resolved by a simple mistranslation.

quote:Originally posted by jsaxton14:

Explain to me how the differences in the order of creation found in Genesis 1 and 2 can be resolved by a simple mistranslation.

I have addressed that in another topic. Run a search for my username in this forum.

Bump

quote:Originally posted by Deoz:

Well since it was translated and would be modified for what not (this would of course vary from versions, but the called out contradictions are based on KJV)

would the fact that it was translated from other laguages hebrew and greek address the issue ?



Yeah, you lost me there. I think what you are asking is, if the NKJ is full of mistranslations, then the Hebrew and Greek texts might have been too? Is that your question?

I would answer if I knew exactly what you were getting at.

I meant that since it was translated from hebrew and greek, would this be the answer for the contradictions since it isn't the original language.

quote:Originally posted by Deoz:

I meant that since it was translated from hebrew and greek, would this be the answer for the contradictions since it isn't the original language.



Perhaps if you gave us a reference for the alleged mistranslations we could get to the bottom of it.

The original language is Hebrew. Then, they were translated into Greek. I'm still not sure what you're asking.

He's aksing if the contradictions attributed to the bible could have been the result of faulty tranlsations (i.e. that the bible didn't originally have those contradictions, and they are the result of poor translations).

The answer is that it might resolve some errors that we see, but certianly not all of them.

The true 'original' documents (back in Moses' day) have not survived decay, as far as we know. So the OT is fairly suspect in regards to this. However, what gives it reliability though comes from two sources and two compilations of documents.

1. Massoretic text

2. Dead Sea Scrolls

Comparing the two shows that the transposing of documents was a meticulous task for the scribes. Because we can look back at these two documents and contrast and compare, it shows that the original translation, back from the time before Jesus is accurate. Therefore, because it has shown a very good preservation throughout time we can say that the Bible we have today is a very accurate transposing throughout time, and therefore, is a reliable manuscript.

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/bib-docu.html

Insofar as we (I) know, the crux of parts of the bible existed since before it (the bible itself) was written as legend and oral tradition.

Indeed, close study of the good book reveals that many of the stories contained include various elements of classical hero tales and other folklore, and were very likely adopted by the early church (which would have been Jewish at the time, I suppose) to be included in the holy text.

For instance, close study of the pre-Jesus period reveals various other examples of very similar figures with lives and stories that very neatly coincide with the trials and tribulations of Jesus himself. Especially that whole vanishing for 40 years (give or take) and being executed then resurrected thing. It would seem that the early founders of Christianity adapted these folk tales in addition to elements of the existing rabbinic texts to form the basis of their religion.

It is unquestionable that the Bible as we know it today was written over a period of hundreds of years by multiple authors from various religious, political, and ethnic backgrounds. In particular, the change in style between the old and new testaments is striking. It has also been documented on many occasions that the wording and even the content of the bible itself was altered throughout the many long years of Catholicism to better suit the political ends of whomever was in charge at that particular moment. The entire King James version of the bible - which is essentially what we still know today as the 'modern' bible - Was a vast rewriting and retranslation of the bible to suit it for the common man and further the state sponsored variety of Catholicism favored by old King James himself.

The bible has been rewritten and reworked numerous times throughout history, the KJV being only the latest and arguably best documented of the renovations. Throughout ages of rampant illiteracy and such, it would have been very easy for conflicting passages to go unnoticed by scribes making copies, errors made, and amalgamations getting lost in the shuffle, not to mention new books and chapters written long after others, when the religous mindsets of the authors differed from those of the authors who came before.

Incontrovertible word of god indeed!

[This message has been edited by Fate (edited 04-08-2006).]