Question:
How do Christian religions reconcile the existence of different versions of the Bible?
Hammer
2006-12-12 22:54:38 UTC
Each branch of christianity claims it holds the only true inspired word of god in their particular version of the Bible. But there are definitely minor (to major) differences between the texts. They cannot all be simultaneously the inspired word of the same god.
24 answers:
2006-12-13 00:21:41 UTC
OK Let's do this.....I am a believer in God,and believe that God sent Jesus to us. lets say I gave enough thought to the biblical events (that indeed have differences in text and meanings) to realize that 1=there is a God 2= he sent a savior to us.I See a Big Picture in my mind made up of only the biggest pieces of a FAITH SYSTEM by design ! As a proclaimed Christian, i live to be in likeness of Christ as much as i can.My Point.....What is it about the differences in text that makes people so intent on deviding us all over things that will come to light to us all later on anyways? It is not so much the Idea for us all to see it so clear now, due to FAITH being the point of us all being here .Hope this helps. Relax let all who feel good with there vision of God be just that and love your brothers n sisters A-Men
loboconqueso
2006-12-12 23:16:14 UTC
You're confusing original text with translation. There is nearly perfect unity in the original texts (The Tanakh, Septuagint and Greek versions of the New Testament--somewhere near 99%, which is better than any other 2,000 year old book)



Let's get specific: Which branch. In America alone there are 40,000 denominations, but three branches. Those branches are Roman Catholicism, Orthodox Catholicism and Protestantism.



Orthodoxy breaks into Eastern and Coptic. Roman Catholicism doesn't break up, and from protestantism we have the Main groups: Episcopalians, Methodists, Baptists, Churches of Christ, Churches of the Nazarene, etc.



I hope you're paying attention to this next line: The apocrypha is the only difference. Roman Catholics (only) include what Martin Luther took out when he wrote the German Vulgate. Why did Marty take them out? They had nothing to do with God--they were just historical references. The only book in the Protestant Bible that doesn't have the name of God is Ruth. Why is Ruth in there? She's the Grandmother of David.



So, there's our DIFFERENCE. Lets talk about differences in the texts. Those are called translations. The Greek and Hebrew goes unmodified, but there's a problem in translation (I know, that's what I do for a living): You have to decide which language you're going to favor. Some translations are closer to modern English (The NASB, NIV, Living Bible) and others will be closer to the original language (King James version is the best example)



English is a rarity in that we have hundreds of versions of the Bible. Most other languages have only 1 or two. You absolutely will see a difference between NIV and KJV. The difference is that translators are looking at the same original text, but they have to figure out a way to take a language that hasn't been spoken for 1,700 years (Koine Greek) and make it work.



The best example of a translation problem is the Greek word for hand: Koine Greek defined hand as starting with the wrist. Modern Englsh defines the hand as what is after the wrist. The result: 1,700 years of us thinking Jesus was crucified in the hands, not the wrists (crucifixion by wrist is historically accurate). There was NO way for a translator to get this right---so there's a difference for you.
shadowproof9
2006-12-13 02:14:29 UTC
I have a feeling that this question will be answered by mostly bickering and pointless arguments by different sects of Christianity, each claiming that their own version is the "true" version. In reality, the very first Bibles were translated by hand by scribes which was a very painstaking process. St. Jerome is given credit as one of the early translators, but there were many others. Early Bibles were translated into many different languages, and in some cases, back into the original languages- which obviously has lead to strange metamorphosis of specific text. During the first council of Nicaea, Constantine had many earlier versions of the bible burned that did not correspond with his "updated" version, although some had survived. All of these factors plus many others are what has led to the many different version we see today.



As far as justification, it should just lead people not to interpret the Bible literally, but metaphorically. This way the actual words themselves are not as important as the underyling meanings they stand for. Most of the Bible was meant to be read in parables- as meanings for other things. I believe these meanings are loud and clear no matter what version of the Bible you read, regardless of the literal textual differences between them.
Rusting
2006-12-12 22:58:23 UTC
Unless you're looking at original scrolls, they're all translations, and translation involves judgment and interpretation by the translators. There are bound to be differences among all versions.



Alex B. PhD has got it right. Also, for adherents to the King James version: its language is beautiful, but it too is a translation, informed by the judgment of English scholars and clerics educated in the late 16th Century and working in the early 17th Century. It's bound to reflect their assumptions and world view to some degree. It's a fabulous document with great historical import, but it's a human-made translation (unless you believe the God who created everything away back when spoke only in Elizabethan English).
narrfool
2006-12-12 23:05:11 UTC
I believe they are inspired by the same God. The problem you are speaking of has more to do with man and their quest for power. The core of the Bible remains the same while man has decided it does or does not need the Pope, or that it should follow a leader like John Smith or David Koresh, for example. Some are regarded as cults, but the core of Christianity is defined as "Belief in Christ". And, cult or not, they fit that basic definition.
2006-12-12 23:00:30 UTC
Well I fixed that and gave up all the English versions and took up the Greek. The Greek Bible I have lists the words on the oldest manuscripts, and most often the only changes in the older manuscripts are adding "Christ" after Jesus, or the other way around.



There are so many English versions because 1) older manuscripts are discovered 2) better linguists translate it 3) poor linguists translate it
wefmeister
2006-12-12 23:19:46 UTC
I have read many versions of the Bible. I have probably read at least 8 versions cover to cover and I have read the New Testament through probably in a dozen versions including a painstaking study of the Greek. I find no significant variations in the major versions, including the KJV, RSV, AV,NASB, NIV, NEB, Moffat, Rotherham, Berkeley (Modern Language), Knox, Young, The Nestle Greek text of the NT, Williams, Beck, Jerusalem, Phillips, Amplified, Wuest, and various paraphrases.
judy_r8
2006-12-12 23:02:37 UTC
for starters, TS, King James is not the original version. Its just the Anglican version. For seconds, very few differ much from the original. I've read a direct latin to english translation of the guttenburg bible, and its really similar to the ones today. what I object to is that the new "Christian" bible has taken out important parts, like the parts of the catholic bible they left out "for convenience" and the words at the front of revelation that state that it was all a dream and now they base their whole doctrine on that one book, which has nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus at all.
Johnny Cee
2006-12-12 23:01:31 UTC
The first statement of your details is patently false. It is an extremely good thing to have many translations of the scriptures from the original languages. Any dummy knows that you cannot always translate from one language to another with precision.

As a result of many versions we get many of the nuances of the original in our own language. There are more than 40 versions of the Bible available in English. I have several. Its good to have several for the serious student of the Bible.

I Cr 13;8a

12-12-6
Chrissy
2006-12-12 22:58:31 UTC
Well, the only one that would be truly god-inspired would be the text from the original language and would have to be read in said language. Otherwise any verson is really man's translation and partial interpretation of what God wanted. Could make for a lot of errors...
Dwain
2006-12-12 23:15:05 UTC
They don't. They bicker, then argue, then schism. That is why there are so many denominations.



Concerning the differences in the collection of books common known as the Bible: They are just that--a collection of books. Muckety-mucks agreed in 325CE to suppress Arianism as a heresy. After that any books which contained Arian philosophical tendencies were suppressed. This suppression eventually left many books out of the Bible which present an alternative interpretation of the nature of Jesus' being. What does this imply about the Bible being the "inspired word of God"?
2006-12-12 22:59:01 UTC
This is a difficult question, especially as to how Islam, Judaism, and Christianity all supposedly came from the same god. Christianity and Judaism from Israel, Abraham's second son, and Islam from Ishmael, Abraham's first son (with his concubine, since Sarah could not conceive at the time).



A better question would be "Which is these three is the 'true religion'?".
2006-12-12 22:57:04 UTC
Personally I keep a few different versions of the Bible around and read them as I please. I don't hold any one interpretation to be perfect, as the original texts have been lost and interpreted through language barriers as well. But the general message carries across, and to me, this is what matters. I don't judge those who hold to a KJV only doctrine, and I don't judge those who hold to a NIV or any other doctrine either. To each his own...
christy
2006-12-12 22:56:01 UTC
well, find out which "version" is the oldest... and that should answer your question! by the way, there are some that are just wording that makes them different- king james vs niv, which makes them easier to read.



if you are talking about Jehovah's witnesses and Mormons who have their own Bibles/books of the Bible compared to the traditional Bible.... well, they were developed later, so i would tend to question them significantly. personally, i ignore them.



by the way, religions are faith-based, so if we had all the answers, then what would be the point?
revulayshun
2006-12-12 23:03:51 UTC
Oh please! Do people STILL really buy into the old " There are SOOOO many versions of the Bible" fallacy? Do you just believe ANYTHING you hear? Compare these translations and see how "different" they are.



KJV - Jhn 14:6 - Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

King James Version 1611, 1769





NKJV - Jhn 14:6 - Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

New King James Version © 1982 Thomas Nelson





NLT - Jhn 14:6 - Jesus told him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me.

New Living Translation © 1996 Tyndale Charitable Trust





NIV - Jhn 14:6 - Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.



New International Version © 1973, 1978, 1984 International Bible Society





ESV - Jhn 14:6 - Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.



The Holy Bible, English Standard Version © 2001 Crossway Bibles





NASB - Jhn 14:6 - Jesus *said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.

New American Standard Bible © 1995 Lockman Foundation





RSV - Jhn 14:6 - Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.

Revised Standard Version © 1947, 1952.





ASV - Jhn 14:6 - Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, and the truth, and the life: no one cometh unto the Father, but by me.

American Standard Version 1901 Info





Young - Jhn 14:6 - Jesus saith to him, `I am the way, and the truth, and the life, no one doth come unto the Father, if not through me;

Robert Young Literal Translation 1862, 1887, 1898 Info





Darby - Jhn 14:6 - Jesus says to him, I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father unless by me.

J.N.Darby Translation 1890 Info





Webster - Jhn 14:6 - Jesus saith to him, I am the way, and the truth, and the life: no man cometh to the Father, but by me.

Noah Webster Version 1833 Info





HNV - Jhn 14:6 - Yeshua said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father, except through me.

Hebrew Names Version 2000 Info





Vulgate - Jhn 14:6 - dicit ei Iesus ego sum via et veritas et vita nemo venit ad Patrem nisi per me

Jerome's Latin Vulgate 405 A.D. Info



If you don't like the verse I chose, you chose one.
The GMC
2006-12-12 22:58:08 UTC
Do you mean the added Catholic ones? I believe God's word can be tested on itself. Meaning that some books have been rejected because they conflict with the rest of scripture. If you have an institution that can overrule scripture, then who cares what it says.
whynotaskdon
2006-12-12 22:59:43 UTC
Each branch does NOT have its own version.



The KJV is recognized by most SCHOLARLY Christians as the Inspired words.



Most versions are only PARAPHRASE Bibles and do not claim to be inspired.
TS
2006-12-12 22:56:43 UTC
I believe the only true Bible version inspired by God is the Original King James Version.
battousai88
2006-12-12 23:00:23 UTC
u're right.. that is why we keep tellng u ppl.. the original bible is LOST! face it! dont sit in denial and ignorance over a book that has been written by mortals! its been rewritten by human hand and thus it is not God's book and not God's religion. it is human religion.
GypsyGr-ranny
2006-12-13 00:10:07 UTC
THE BIBLE AS UNIVERSAL HISTORY



The Bible is a study in world-history. It is man's first

effort to write a complete history of the human race from its

beginning to its climax in the unification of all peoples and

the establishment of a universal religion.

Though it was written so long ago, compiled under unfavourable

conditions, though as a history it is neither exhaustive nor

comprehensive, nor orderly in form nor scholarly in tone and

manner; yet in spite of its handicaps it presents to the soul

of man the most sublime and magnificent conception of the

whole human race as being in reality one family whose history,

however complex, is a continuous movement towards a single and

all-sufficient consummation. Perhaps nothing will fully

satisfy the heart and mind of thoughtful men save this vision

of the oneness of the life of the race, and of an Eternal Will

guiding all things towards an event in which an ever-advancing

civilisation finds at last completeness and fulfilment.

Here in this ancient book, come down to us from primitive

times and offered through the Authorised Version in befitting

language of matchless power and beauty, this conception is set

forth with a clearness and a force which has not weakened

through the ages and with a fullness of meaning which no'

epoch has been so well able to appreciate as ours.

The early chapters of Genesis are universal in their

 8 

outlook. They take a general survey of the whole earth and of

all its inhabitants. They tell of Adam and Eve, the

progenitors of the whole human race, and of the three sons of

Noah, Shem, Ham and Japheth ('of them was the whole earth

overspread'). They describe how 'the whole earth was of one

language, and of one speech' until God confounded men's

language and 'did scatter them abroad upon the face of the

whole earth'. In the twelfth chapter the field of the

narrative narrows, the action no longer embraces the whole

human race, but centres henceforth round the fortunes of one

people only, 'the chosen people' as they called themselves,

the Hebrews, the descendants of Abraham. For a period of some

two thousand years the history of mankind is seen through

Jewish eyes and written from the Jewish point of view. The

sacred narrative tells of the vicissitudes, the glories, the

tragedies of the Hebrews. It traces their growth from a single

family to a great and opulent nation and follows them through

their subsequent decline and humiliation. But it does not give

them this extraordinary prominence for their own sake, because

of any native superiority of theirs to the rest of mankind.

The Bible is not a nationalistic work. No one reading it could

imagine the Hebrews enjoyed their distinction because they

were really greater or dearer to God than any other people.

Their failings are not extenuated; their conduct is not

idealised nor eulogised. Their iniquities are frankly

displayed. Their unworthiness of their blessings is

mercilessly exposed. They call forth from the prophets the

most scathing and tremendous denunciation's. They occupy in

the Bible a central place because they are, for a time, in an

especial sense the trustees of God's universal purpose. The

main subject of the Bible

 9 

does not change in the twelfth chapter of Genesis, nor is the

great theme ever forgotten. The thread of universal history

runs through Jewish history. The tides of world progress lap

for a time round the shores of Palestine. At the very

beginning of the Jewish race, in the wording of the call of

Abraham, this universal outlook and purpose is proclaimed, 'I

will make of thee a great nation. . . and in thee shall all

families of the earth be blessed'. If through the

exclusiveness of the Jew the oneness of the human race and of

its progress is in any passage of the Bible obscured, it is

never forgotten by Him who is the inspirer and true author of

the Word of God.

Had the Jews accepted Christ, they might still have retained

a central place of responsibility in the history of mankind.

The universal theme might still have been carried forward in

the New Testament through Jewish history as it was in the Old

Testament. But the Jews failed. They knew not the time of

their visitation. The children of the Kingdom were cast out

and others inherited their privileges. After the Crucifixion

the Jews no longer march in the van of universal history. They

fall aside from the main current of human progress. The cause

of religion is advanced and the purpose of God goes forward -

- but not through the agency of the Jews. The high trusteeship

they had held so long is forfeited and passes from them to the

Gentiles. In the latter part of the New Testament the action

spreads rapidly outward from Palestine to Ephesus and

Macedonia and Athens, to Corinth and to Rome, till finally in

the closing chapters of the Bible it embraces in prophetic

survey the entire earth and all the peoples that inhabit it.

 10 

And I saw a new heaven and a new earth. . . and I . . . saw

the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of

heaven. . . And the nations of them which are saved shall walk

in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their

glory and honour into it. . . In the midst of the street of

it. . . was there the tree of life. . . and the leaves of the

tree were for the healing of the nations. (Rev. 21 and 22.)



Christ emphasised the universality and the unifying purposes

of His Message. He bade His disciples 'go teach all nations'.

He predicted that a certain deed of kindness done to Him would

be remembered wherever the Gospel was preached in the wide

world, and He announced that the close of His Age would not

come till His Teaching had been carried to the ends of the

earth. He said, moreover, that His Gospel was to soften and

remove those estrangements among men caused by differences of

race, nation, tradition or culture; it was to harmonise men's

hearts and induce a sense of fellowship; and some day the

whole of humanity would be gathered into one and become as a

single flock of sheep under a single shepherd.



The Bible sketches world-history; but the spirit in which this

theme is conceived and the point of view from which it is

written are not those taken by the modern historian. The Bible

regards the history of the human race as being from beginning

to end in reality one and single. However rich in incident may

be the onward movement of mankind, however complex it may be

in action, however manifold in interest: though men may have

lost their bearings altogether, though they may have forgotten

their original unity and may have no conception

 11 

of the ultimate goal towards which they are being carried,

nevertheless the course of their progress flows all in one

direction and is guided by a principle of unity which persists

through all divisive influences and sooner or later will make

its dominant power manifest.

The first picture presented in the Bible is that of human

unity in its simplest form: that of a single family. The last

picture is that of a unity manifold and universal in which all

kindreds and tongues and peoples and nations are gathered into

one and unified in the enjoyment of a common worship, a common

happiness, a common glory.

The great problem which, according to the Bible, confronts the

human race in its progress is that of advancing from the

barest, baldest unity through a long experience of multiplying

diversities till ultimately a balance between the two

principles is struck, poise is gained and the two forces of

variety and unity are blended in a multiple, highly developed

world fellowship, the perfection of whose union was hardly

suggested in the primitive simplicity of early man.



(George Townshend, The Heart of the Gospel, p. 5)
Gamla Joe
2006-12-12 22:58:45 UTC
ah such is the atvangage with knowing Hebrew
2006-12-12 23:02:05 UTC
Good question
2006-12-12 23:02:57 UTC
Easy method is to ignore it.
2006-12-12 23:05:11 UTC
Christians don't reconcile anything. They just believe whatever they are told contradictions be damned.


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...