I know this is a dumb title, and might be considered a dumb question, but I didn't want to derail the Kansas murder thread. I didn't see this thread title lasting long in Hangout, so I'm assuming this is the correct location for this question. I'm not being sarcastic. I have what I thought was a "Bible" at home, but after reading the comments in the murder thread, the contents apparently are not the same as other people. Thanks in advance. (And no, there isn't some ulterior motive, or an attempt to mock anyone. This is me, admitting that I'm confused on the matter.)
I'm confused at your confusion. The books canonized for the Bible have been broadly accepted for centuries. There are many translations of the Bible. Is that where your confusion is coming from? Two posters were quoting from the King James Version (KJV), which is an old translation and uses a lot of "thou"s and "dilst"s.
are you talking about translations? I'm afraid the only way you will be able to understand the bible without some sort of variation through translation, is to start learning Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic.
Yeah, the Bible is the Bible today, but there are multiple translations. I happen to be of the opinion that KJV is still the best translation of the original language (not because of the thou's but for other reasons such as some translations omitting the idea of the "blood of Christ" etc). There are only a few translations today that I would say are flat out abominations are in fact NOT merely translations but rather totally altered texts.
Thanks everyone. I didn't want to be too specific, because I didn't want to fight over interpretation or continue that fight here. I realize I'm somewhat ignorant on the matter. (partially on purpose, partially because of laziness) Watch out world, I'm coming with quotes from the Bible.
Last Sunday school, 7 year old question... (I think) Is there a portion of the bible that disavows other portions? Or is everything copacetic with the Old/New? And I really do appreciate the answers and the wasted time with my kiddo questions.
Yes, but note that the New Testament represents a new covenant that started with Jesus. The OT is the historical and legal foundation for the NT, but Christians are to live by what’s described in the NT, not the OT. For example, the OT says an eye for an eye while the NT says to turn the other cheek. If you’re a Christian you are to follow the NT teaching and turn the other cheek.
I wanted to add that someone posted references to "non-canonical" writings. They are not part of the Bible. Catholics will also refer to the Apocrypha, which was written between the Old and New Testaments. Protestants reject it completely and even Catholics give it a lesser status. That one will spawn an endless "debate." One, I don't want any part of.
What is the difference between the Catholic Bible and the King James Version? Answer The Bible used by Catholics includes other books, called the Apocrypha and the Deuterocanonical books, at the end of the Old Testament. The validity of these books is often questioned by Protestants. The additional books found in the Catholic Bible are Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, and I & II Maccabees. The official Bible of the Catholic Church is probably the Vulgate, a fifth century Latin translation largely the work of St. Jerome. The Duoay-Rheims version, which is an English translation of the Vulgate, served as the Catholic English Bible at the time of the translation of the King James Version (aka the Authorized Version), published in 1611, under the direction of King James I of England. Since the time of Henry VIII, when the Church of England split with the Catholic Church, the Geneva Bible and the Bishop's Bible were being used. King James wanted a new, better translation to make us of the contemporary Bible scholarship going on at the time and to provide uniformity to the English liturgy. The King James Version, while drawing freely from previous English Bibles, stands alone as a work of literary beauty. It is also pretty faithful to the original Greek and Hebrew scriptures (though not without errors, which were corrected in the later Revised Versions). Early King James Bibles included the Apocrypha, though most Protestant KJV's of today do not. Modern Catholic versions of the Bible in English include the Jerusalem Bible, first translated into French, and the New American Bible. From: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_t...the_Catholic_Bible_and_the_King_James_Version
Actually, I thought what you had said was potentially controversial as well, though I wouldn't have been as confrontational about it as LSD. I don't think what you said is obvious or universally accepted.
If you would have asked I would have gladly answered, but LSD’s sole purpose on this site is to play manipulative games. He has absolutely no interest in what the real answer to his question is. With respect to the New Covenant, what other opinions were you thinking of?
The interpretation that I was taught was similar to what Grizzled described. The OT spoke of the prophecy of a coming savior. The NT is the fulfillment of that prophecy through the birth and death of Jesus. Jesus was a game changer that basically made all Jewish laws, sacrifices, etc obsolete. He came and explained how God wanted man to live on earth.
I sometimes think of the OT as a guide for children who are young in their faith... No, you will not cross the street without holding my hand. The NT is more like it's talking to teenagers. You can cross the street by yourself, but remember the story about the man who didn't look both ways.
