Who wrote the Bible?

I'm not sure that we're on the same wave length. To find discrepancies and/or differences in text would require extensive cross referencing the NT in various languages and eras written. Lots of factors would have to be taken into account, e.g. historical stuff like government, personal lives of the scribes, ulterior motives, etc.
Anyhow, I've read and studied the Bible enough to know how to use it. Also, I know it was written by men. And men will be men and prone to adding their's and other's opinions/spin on occasion; much the same as two people getting two different meanings after reading the same exact text.

Peace.

 

Believed by biblical scholars and historians, that are willing to admit that the original Synoptic Gospels were probably not penned by the Apostles. It's only logical, in any measure.
The first generation of Christians didn't see any need for a permanent written record of the sayings and stories of Jesus. Jesus' return and the restoration of the Kingdom of God on earth were imminent--why bother preserving stories if the world was about to end? Stories were simply passed along orally, primarily as a means of preaching and convincing outsiders. But as the first generation began to die off and hopes for the Second Coming dimmed, there was a need to preserve Jesus' words and deeds for posterity. Therefore followers of those originals may have then seen the need to write the stories down.

 

The only way for that assertion to be true is to assume that the KJV is the most accurate and literal English translation available.

The NIV was directly translated, phrase by phrase, from existing copies of the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts in existence today. The NASB (regarded among contemporary theologians as the most literal translation of the original texts) was directly translated word by word from those same existing copies. Those are the two versions I use most in my own research.

The KJV went through at least one other language (Latin), and I'm fairly certain at least one more before finally being translated into English. By the time that was done, the church was already showing signs of substantial corruption and manipulation, especially in politics.

When the translations are compared side by side, the not-so-hidden agendas seem (to me) to be much more visible in the KJV than in any other English translation I've ever studied, and I've studied quite a few.

 

Exactly. I've studied the culture surrounding both the events and teachings cited in the NT and the lives of the authors themselves. If their aim was to do any favors for the social, political, financial, or even the religious elite (i.e. the 'ruling class'), they failed miserably. The Biblical text -- and particularly Jesus Himself -- blasts the 'ruling class' seemingly at every turn. The Scripture teaches equality among peoples, and the abolition of social class structure.

I agree wholeheartedly. That's why it's so amazing to me how dozens of authors over a span of thousands of years could maintain a single thread of integrity and agreement without deviation from the foundational principles. It's one of the things that make me trust the Bible over other religious texts I've studied.

And to you.

 

They may have been translated through the Sinneaticus/Vaticanus texts, but they were not translated through the Textus Receptus, in which the King James Bible was translated from. There are no other new versions of The Bible that were translated directly from the Textus Receptus, all of the "perversions" of God's Word are direct from the Sinneaticus/Vaticanus texts.

Im not worried about politics or whatever... When a perversion omits Acts 8:37 (A traditional verse about salvation), changes words around to say the form of the fourth in the fire with the Three Hebrew Children is "a son of the gods" instead of "The Son of God", omits words to say El Hanan killed Goliath instead of David... That raises issues with me. It's something big to where a Bible publisher will change the Bible to fit their lifestyle, instead of changing their lifestyle to fit The Bible.

 

I disagree.

At first, you are correct -- passing on the teachings of Jesus by preaching on the streets of Jerusalem and the surrounding areas was adequate. However, as the following began to grow exponentially (particularly after Paul started planting Gentile churches all over the Mediterranean states), documentation became increasingly important, as Paul's ministry became largely absentee. Paul's letters were among the first of the New Testament documents to be written.

As the church grew in both size and influence, spinoff doctrines (both intentional and unintentional) began to infiltrate the church. Paul's letters, as well as those of Peter, James, and others, established a guideline for distant and far-reaching churches to stay true to the original teachings of Christ and the enduring principles of OT law.

The Gospels were penned decades later, probably as you proposed -- for reasons of posterity and preservation of what the apostles each experienced -- but still within the boundaries of eyewitness accounts, especially in the cases of the Gospels of John and Matthew.

 

According to the footnote from the NIV, Phillip's answer to the eunuch (If you believe with all your heart...) was found in later texts. While it might have happened, and is certainly complimentary to Christian doctrine, it was omitted from the earlier texts, which it would seem the NIV and NASB took their translations from.

The original Hebrew of the verse in question (Daniel 3:25) seems to be more of a generic term for God rather than a specific reference to Jehovah. Additionally, how likely is it that Nebuchadnezzar would recognize Christ or even an angel for who He/it was? He was a pagan, and would've more likely used the reference "son of the gods". That being said, however, I think we probably all agree that it was, in fact, either Jesus or an angel of the Lord in the fire with Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego.

Elhanan killed Goliath the Gittite, not Goliath the Philistine.

How do you reach this conclusion? In what "perverted" texts have you seen omissions, modifications, etc. that directly (or even indirectly) benefit the Bible publisher? What do you see that I don't?

 

But isnt it funny that the S&V texts omit this verse?

Yeah he was a pagan, but also knew of Jehovah through the prophets. But its quite a quagmire to confuse The Son of God with "a son of the gods". Personally, that's quite an insult. If one cant discern Christ from Zeus, then that person needs a reality check.

Again, its all about what is omitted. If you read what is written, you'd see the difference.

KJB (II Samuel 21:19): "And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where El-Hanan, the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam."

This verse in fact, gives the name
KJB (I Chronicles 20:5): "...and El-Hanan slew Lahmi, the brother of Goliath the Gittite..."

When the italicized word, brother, is eliminated, It would indeed appear that El-Hanan did indeed kill Goliath. Goliath was from Gath, a Judean town that was occupied by the Philistines.

 

James..................................... James, the half-brother of Jesus

[
Jude............................... likely Jesus’ other half-brother, Judas

*source – The NIV Study Bible[/QUOTE]



Or Jesus cousin depending upon the tense of the verb as being translated from Hebrew.

 

Ummm, didn't God inspire the writing ? ? ? ?