Couldn't be bothered to "correct" the quote to show your mistake. My time of making serious replies to this thread appears to have passed...
No. Since 1611 the KJV has had about 400 words changed in total. And that includes changes backwards and forwards of words like 'ye' to 'you' [which has occurred 82 times !!] 'amongst' to 'among' , 'towards' to 'toward' ......... Other than those types of word changes, the Bible of today is almost identical to the 1611 version.
I am talking since it was originally translated. Wasn't there a bit of a scrap between the first factions of Christus to see who would take it forward? Had one of the other would be leaders won, it would and could have been a completely different ball game
King James version came to life because the King was not allowed to divorce his wife and marry another wife. So also the Church of England.
I was just addressing this bit of your comment ''isn't there a bunch of dudes that get together now and then to edit it or decide what goes in there?'' - sorry I meant to highlight it.
Yeah thanks. I always wondered how much "editing" went on but as you say, not a lot in recent centuries
The best thing I could find quickly (sorry @Lucaaas): Every year, several New Testament manuscripts handwritten in the original Greek format are discovered. The latest substantial find was in 2008, when 47 new manuscripts were discovered in Albania; at least 17 of them unknown to Western scholars.[6] When comparing one manuscript to another, with the exception of the smallest fragments, no two copies agree completely throughout. There has been an estimate of 400,000 variations among all these manuscripts (from the 2nd to 15th century) which is more than there are words in the New Testament. This is less significant than may appear since it is a comparison across linguistic boundaries. More important estimates focus on comparing texts within languages. Those variations are considerably fewer. The vast majority of these are accidental errors made by scribes, and are easily identified as such: an omitted word, a duplicate line, a misspelling, a rearrangement of words. Some variations involve apparently intentional changes, which often make more difficult a determination of whether they were corrections from better exemplars, harmonizations between readings, or ideologically motivated.[7] Palaeography is the study of ancient writing, and textual criticism is the study of manuscripts in order to reconstruct a probable original text. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript If you read the whole section it goes into a bit more detail. That's only the New Testament as well.
Bible account especially the new testament, and in particular the Gospel varies so much because of different writers, but they usually arrive at the same point. It is like history scholars the way of writing by Mr A to Mr B may differ. Eye witness account always differ slightly too, but they always point to conclusive evidence,
The strangest version is the TNIV [Today's New International Version] which was done about 10 years ago to use modern terms and to be gender-neutral !!
Leviticus says some guff about shellfish being abhorrent too, doesn't it? Lord help you if you're gay and eat prawn sandwiches then. But as that constitutes two-thirds of the crowd at OT on matchdays, is eternal damnation too harsh?
I like the way you left the reference numbers & hyperlinked words in there, it really highlights the copy & paste in your post.
Agreed but by same token I'm also not bothered about what Christians choose to believe either. I'm not a Christian, far from it, but it seems to me that those that aspouse this liberal "live and let live" attitude seem to be the ones who usually only apply that to ppl who share their beliefs. They demonstrate the greatest hypocrisy, particularly towards religion (not you Gerrez but plenty on here) using any excuse to get worked up over it and doing the very thing that the right wing Christians they criticise are doing on some forum against gays. That's the real irony. Ppl really all have their own agendas, prejudices and dont really believe in freedom of thought or expression. Not really, I find. Seems plenty of atheists are too tbh.
Sorry, next time I'm at work dicussing on an internet forum I'll make sure I do a nicely formatted essay with my own footnotes and links to the cited sources, just for you. And then you'd better damned read and comment on it!
It's a bit like the always-ongoing debate over here about whether far-right groups should be illegal or not (although to a lesser extent). It's always a question of how far does freedom of speech extend?
You could do that. Or you could just call everyone ****s. ****s and femtards. It takes much less effort and its even more effective than a logical argument backed up with facts and figures from respectable sources. That's because no one is ever wrong on the internet. Someone, somewhere right now is probably arguing on the internet that the earth is indeed flat. On a more serious note, I always wonder whether I'm a crap human being when stuff like this comes out in the news (racial equality, gender equality etc.), because everyone's making a massive deal about it, discussing it as if its a historic win for the people yet I'm really apathetic about the whole thing. Its probably because I'm a selfish dickhead who doesn't care because it doesn't affect me personally but I'm always interested to know whether I'm in the minority or majority when it comes to stuff like this.
I'm of the opinion that you've got to let people believe what they want. You can try and nudge them in the right direction by educating them on some topics but other things require a very personal decision and is usually effected by events in ones life. Religion I believe had an important part to play for the human race in helping us to get where we are. It was organised, gave leaders control over populations, it helped us build civilisations and instilled a set of morals in a lot of people that formed the cornerstone of society. But I think we are growing beyond religion as a species now. Our technology, medicine and understanding of the world and universe, along with a growing social conscience that isn't linked to religion, is setting us up for a future without religion. Too many atrocities are committed in the name of religion and too many religions are stuck in the past living by rules and ideologies that are completely out dated. We will move beyond religion into an era dominated by science. I don't think it'll be an overnight thing but I do think we will lose the need to cling onto religious beliefs in the long run. It may be that at some point people of religious belief end up persecuted by atheists snuffing out the last remnants of religion, but I think it's more likely that over time we will just naturally move away from the notion of religious teaching.
Religion is good for reforming the society (apart from extremist views). Ten commandments. Things like: You must not steal. You must not bear false witness. Love your neighbour as yourself. >Even Atheist agree that above are good stuff>
