It obviously is not the true, original bible.  Are we going to roast in hell for reading it?  Are Catholics the only true Christians, because they read only the original bible?
124683
Catholics don't read the true bible either.\n\nIt was written by men, has been translated to English, and has had thousands of years to be editted.\n\nI don't *really* believe in the details of the Bible. It may be an excellent tool when read broadly, because you can understand the motives and meanings. What is wrong is getting caught up in single phrases, which tend to become overinflated.
17670
OK, I am way at the bottom here. I will keep it short. \n\nI can understand your frustration, musicimprovedme, but let me take your username as a starting point. Do you believe that the works of Bach are accurate? How do you know they were not changed over the years? Do they not have a signature TGABG (To God Alone Be Glory)? Do they not have his style? Isn't it for reverence to his brilliance that we copied the manuscripts painfully accurate?\n\nFirst, forget who compiled it, its not important. Is it accurate? The Dead Sea Scrolls proved that the entire book of Isaiah can be copied for 2,000 years and still stay 100% accurate.\n\nDo you believe that Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life?" If not, you have no hope. If you do, act on that alone. That is all you need for salvation. You have to ask yourself what you want. Do you want salvation? Do you want to believe the Bible? Do you want hope and truth? You need to be talking to God about this, not a bunch of Yahoos on Yahoo! (I include myself)\n\nDo you want proof of the Bible's authenticity? Read my studies below. Do you want to come in contact with your Creator? Read the first one below. But stop assuming things that are not true on the Bible. That is not the problem, the problem is your lack of personal relationship with your loving Creator.
27731
One thing that a Catholic is not is a bible worshipper.  Catholics believe in tradition and theology practiced within the church as well.  Catholics do not get hung up in literal interpretation and therefore can often find greater meaning and application of the bible’s writings.  Also Catholics tend to observe for who, what, when, where the scripture was written and try not to mix apples and oranges to make a point (or get a donation).  \n\nMany would say... well there ya go!  Catholics DON'T believe the bible.  I would say to them... do you believe God (infinite and eternal) can be contained in a book?  Open your eyes.  The word is alive but your ears have died to the truth.  You are the temple of the Lord.  That doesn’t mean to get fit… it means the Lord is in you.  God has given you everything you need.  He has sent Jesus to awaken you but still you cannot see past the marked and worn pages of your demigod.  Catholics read and adhere to their understanding of the bible based on theology and tradition, as well as, historical fact.  But Catholics worship God and every chance they get they let Jesus into there souls through communion.  \n\nI am sorry if my rant is so negative... we just here these things over and over.  It is ignorance and fear that they preach against us.  The world has enough of that...  God bless each of you.\n\nAside:\nThe Mary stuff is the same as the saints… we ask them to pray for us.  Like you would ask a friend to pray for your Mom in the hospital.  Mary is a very special Saint and one we can all find strength in character in; she is a role model.  ‘Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us, sinners, now and at the hour of our death.’
73190
Was the Old Testament originally written in Hebrew?\n----YES\n\nWas the New Testament originally written in Greek?\n--------YES, although Christians claim there was, originally, a Hebrew version. The fact that it did not survive shows that the Greek version was more important to the early Christians than the Hebrew, indicating the degree to which they were assimilated into Greek religion and Culture.\n\nHow difficult are these languages to learn?\n-------Hebrew is easy, i cannot speak for Greek. I teach people to read (vocalize) the Hebrew text, not to translate, just to pronounce, in just 3 hours.\n\nHow beneficial would it be for me to learn them?\n------if you dont want to rely on someone else's translations, it is vital that you learn them!\n\nAnd where would I get a copy of the Bible in both English and Greek/Hebrew\n--------I recommend the Koren Publishing Company's translation. The Koren Publishing Company is in Jerusalem, so, unfortunately, they called their translation The Jerusalem Bible, which, in the U.S., is the name of a Catholic translation, and they are not the same thing. Most Barnes and Nobles have the Koren translation, which has the Hebrew on the left and the English on the right. Unfortunately the English still sounds like something from King James, but at least the translation tried to be literal. Of course, this is only the Hebrew Scriptures, and a Greek/English, i know nothing about.\n\nI would urge you NOT to get what is called an Interlinnear translation. All they do is take their copyrighted translation and match those individual words to the Hebrew that they want translated that way, regardless of whether or not it means what their copyrighted translation says.
584378
Well Its to bad they don't understand. I don't like to see any walk in darkness. What they should understand is there has been a steady attack on the scriptures for as long as they have been around and by much better scholars than most or maybe any who have ever visited this site. Higher Criticism subjected it to all kinds of scholarly attack along with most of today's "institutions of higher learning". No book has been examined more closely than the Bible and no work could ever stand under that kind of attack. Yet the Word stands and carries on and the old saying that the shovel always verifies the Word remains true.
409729
+ The Catholic Bible +\n\nThe New Testament canon of the Catholic Bible and the Protestant Bible are the same.\n\nThe difference in the Old Testaments actually goes back to the time before and during Christ’s life. At this time, there was no official Jewish canon of scripture.\n\nThe Jews in Egypt translated their choices of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek in the second century before Christ. This translation, called the Septuagint, had wide use in the Roman world because most Jews lived far from Palestine in Greek cities. Many of these Jews spoke only Greek.\n\nThe early Christian Church was born into this world. The Church, with its bilingual Jews and more and more Greek-speaking Gentiles, used the books of the Septuagint as its Bible. Remember the early Christians were just writing the documents what would become the New Testament.\n\nAfter the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, with increasing persecution from the Romans and competition from the fledgling Christian Church, the Jewish leaders came together and declared its official canon of Scripture, eliminating seven books from the Septuagint. \n\nThe books removed were Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Wisdom (of Solomon), Sirach, and Baruch. Parts of existing books were also removed including Psalm 151 (from Psalms), parts of the Book of Esther, Susanna (from Daniel as chapter 13), and Bel and the Dragon (from Daniel as chapter 14).\n\nThe Christian Church did not follow suit but kept all the books in the Septuagint.\n\n1500 years later, Protestants decided to change its Old Testament from the Catholic canon to the Jewish canon. The books they dropped are sometimes called the Apocrypha.\n\nHere is a Catholic Bible website: http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/\n\n+ The First Pope +\n\nJesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matthew 16:17-19)\n\nThe Catholic Church believes the Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the "rock" of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock.\n\nThe Pope is the senior pastor of 1.1 billion Catholics, the direct successor of Simon Peter.\n\nWith love in Christ.
280128
I think it's crazy, considering the book is FICTION!!!!!\nI think the people of Opus Dei are more against it than the Vatican because they think everyone will use the monk as an image to stereotype members of Opus Dei.\nI honestly think there are too many people involved to be able to "hush up" Jesus being married and having a baby, but when reading the book it all makes sense...\nI guess that's the controversy...fiction that is so good, people take it as fact.  But if reading one book makes you change your faith in whatever you have believed all your life, then you were never really a believer in the first place, right?
565504
that might have been contradicting to the ideas of some other author.  This way you can see how the Bible is tried to be manipulated by some shrewd persons. In that case where remains the authenticity of the Bible, where any body can modify any part of the Bible?
671202
It depends. I spoke to our Parish priest about that, (^_^) and he said that it was INSPIRED in the prophets who wrote it, so in reality it was not really what Jesus exactly says (or said).\n \n(^_^)
533763
I'm not gonna look it up but we do know the Bible was penned by men, translated by men and retranslated by men,  is it not a miracle that though all that the message with regards to how you should behave (which is the message) is never corupted.  God does not ever give us the idea that those who penned the Bible were infallible buyt that they were inspired.  This is no doubt a trivial mistake or different battles, or different view points like two people who see the same accident.  What does it matter.  The Bible talks of evil people so they no doubt exist and some of them were no doubt scribs.  I know of two other inconsequencial errors but as I watch movies who do not have even 1/10 th script and many more editing tools I always see mistakes in continuity like these you ask about, so what these things do is make it all the more real.\n\ntry reading a court trial transcript one time and see what kind of continuity you get in there,  and those trials do not take 10000 years worth of testimony.
125131
It is not. Back then, each copy of the Bible had to be handwritten when they were reproduced. This means the scribes had free will to add/change anything they wanted. Also the Bible was translated from Greek and Hebrew to English. So its changed a lot, because there are no originals in existence. KJV went through the hands of countless scribes before being translated.  Even the dead sea scrolls are not the originals, just really old, close to original copies. And no, they're not in English
153177
:]\nThe copy of the Gospel of Judas was in Egyptian, therefore a copy from the original language (Greek). It is a single manuscript copied about 300AD, the only other knowledge that we have of its existence is that one of the Church fathers spoke against the veracity of a book by the same claimed author in 160 AD.\nIt's amazing to me that the same people who doubt the New Testament (24000 ancient manuscripts) would jump to accept this.\nWe know that Judas died in about 33 ad and would probably not have had enough time or the mental and emotional stability to write anything like a new gospel in the short time he lived after the events (included in that gospel) regarding the death of  Christ.\nWhat we have is a single manuscript, in the wrong language, dating to more than 250 years after the death of the claimed   author. a denial of it veracity and tons of scriptural evidence against it, and the integrity of it's alleged author\nsome prefer to suspect that the holy spirit made a significant error of omission in assembling the word that Jesus had promised would be sure and would pass away even if heaven and earth did.\nNo I relegate it to the same shelf of malarkey as i do the other gospels (Thomas, Phillip, Barnabas, Mary and any others )
167257
I have mixed feelings on the subject. Personally I think it’s a concept that has an impressive historical record that I acknowledge as one of many possibilities. In the end you’re going to need to die to really know for sure. Also contrary to what many people here are telling you, Roman Catholics aren't the only Christians to hold on to the concept of purgatory as a teaching. \n\n\n\nFor those of you who don't know, Purgatory is essentially defined as: "a place or condition of temporal punishment for those who, departing this life in God's grace are not entirely free from venial faults, or have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions."\n\nReferences to a place of purgation (place where your purged of your sins) are made as far back as the beginning of the third century (by Clement of Alexandria) and are frequently referenced up to and beyond the bible's canonization (where they decided what books should go into the bible) in 390CE. While no direct references to purgatory were chosen in 390CE, it was acknowledged that the concept was worthy of incorporation into other church publications.\n\nWhen the Reformation came in northern europe, the concept of purgatory was something chosen to be dropped to help distinguish the reformers from the old Church. At the time the idea was being abused in some regions to encourage wealthy church patrons to help "buy" their way out of their sins. This is why many of the Protestant groups today are still contemptuous of the concept, despite it's importance to earlier Christian groups. \n\nThe second act of Dante’s Inferno deals with the concept of purgatory, but if you really wish to learn more you’ll need to read translations of the works of St. Augustine and other early Christian leaders. Dan 12:10; Zech 13:9; Mal 3:2-3; 2 Mac 12:42-45; Matthew 5:26; Lk 12:47-48; Lk 12:58-59; 1 Cor 3:13-15; Apoc 21:27: are some of the biblical passages which were included in 390 that many site provide for the existence of a state of purgatory.\n\n\nArmus
13368
I am not sure if he was, but our current bible is missing several books.  Each of the 11 disciples wrote a book (all but Judas), but we only have 4.  Also, bear in mind that the Catholic Bible and Protestant Bible have different books.  However, although I am sure he probably wrote "something" about Christ, I can not say for sure it was a "book," and that his book was rejected.
20725
My impression from the Christians on this site (myself included) is that we are trying to at least clear up the confusion about Christianity and the Bible, but whether or not anyone is interested I can't say. \n\n My personal feeling is that if you're going to reject something, say Christ, you should at least know about what you're rejecting.  Some people do understand and reject what the Bible says, but most don't understand at all and have all kinds of pre-conceived notions that they've learned from the culture at large.
204709
Joshua.  People like you crack me up.  Really!  You argue about biblical-specific entries and events as if they were factual and undeniable.  "written 4000 years ago"  On what?  Notebook paper?  Do you have some copies of those 4000 year old writings?  Do you have some secret text that nobody else has ever seen?  Are you on heroin or acid?  What's your trip?  None of the authors of the NT witnessed the alleged resurrection.  No matter how you stretch it, there are no actual accounts of it.  Most of the NT was created and written in 320AD under the direction of Constantine the Great, and its puirpose was NOT for historic accuracy.  Its purpose was to create a doctrine at the Council of Nicea that all factions of religious doctrine could agree upon and pull everyone together.  Why does it appear that there only a few people that post here regularly who actually know this?  Is your only source of "history" the Bible itself?  Are you crazy enough to use the Bible to prove the Bible?  Talk about illogic!\n\nThe original poster is correct -- if the notion of god portrayed in the bible is accurate, then there is no need for "free will" -- God already knows how things turn out.  He already knows who chooses free will and who doesn't choose free will, how they act, and who the sinners are and who goes to hell.  He already knows the choices people made in the past and what they'll make in the future.  He already knows how things will turn.  Already been there.  Outside of the time line?  Fine, state it however you wish.  It's still the same.  He's all knowing.  He knows how the "souls" will turn out. There's no need for a test on earth.\n\nThe question is not flawed at all.  Your assumption that the Bible is incontrovertible is flawed, and your statements of biblical myths as assertion are ridiculous.  It is one of hundreds of unprovable myths on this whole planet, full of fatal flaws, like the one this question raises.
673871
Because the bible was written by so many man and there are so many versions of the bible they are afraid that if some one find something wrong about the bible and it can be proven, the christian faith will be thought of as a fake. Think of it there are the King James Version, the Mormon, the Catholics, the Protestant,  the Lutheran, the Anglican Church version in England, and many more. I'm not ousting Christian, I myself is Catholic, but I prefer to be opened about what I believe and not be so offensive about some one else conviction. As a Christian you're supposed to love others and not hate other, the bible teaches you to love not to hate, but there are Christians out there that thinks if you don't believe in Christianity than you will go to hell.\nJust remember, Jesus was Jewish, he is not Christian. The Christians was a follower of Jesus not a religion until emperor Constantine adapted the believe of one God in the Roman Empire.\n\nIn that tone also, I would have to say look at the priest that serve the sermon, if he insert his own convictions than he is not a good priest. \n\nOther religions also like that, like the muslims or jews for example, if they have their priest  or rabi telling them lies, what would the congregation believe in? So, for those who hates muslims, or jews or any other religions you should look at your priest and try to understands what he is trying to convey to you. And make your own decision, not what the priest's believes.