does the original Bible that jesus spoke with his language exist?
372918
Aramaic, Greek and Latin were the languages of Jesus' time. He spoke in Aramaic but most of the scriptures were written in Greek and Hebrew.
581443
The KJV Bible was modernised as it was written in old English and too hard for most people to understand.  I personally love this version, so there's no need to stop using it.\n\nThe term Jesus saves is true, but He saves through the repenting of sins.
860899
first all the Bible was written by men, men who loved and followed  Jesus and wrote down his words\nand before Jesus, men were called scribes and they wrote down what they witnessed...\nand the new testament was also written by men with Jesus' words and the men's witnessing of what Jesus did and said,\nthe new testament is a fulfillment of the word from the old testament,\nGod did not change his mind, time went on and the Bible only fulfilled what was told and what happened,\n\ngood luck\nsmile\nand\nGod Bless
395838
in the bible it was said to be writen in 3 or 4 different languages readin 'Jesus Christ, King of the Jews'
308369
You say the bible like it was the first book ever created.  I would say the Tao Te Ching, he Book of the Way and its Virtue from China.\n\nAnd yes, its older than the Bible.
369753
That was the version that Joseph Smith declared to be the most accurate.  He was working on a "devinely inspired" translation at the time of his death.\n\nAnybody familiar with the science of Textual Critism, however, knows that this is horse hockey.  The KJ is riddled with translation errors.\n\nDespite the claim that it was translated from the original languages, it was actually translated from the 1624 Textus Receptus, which is considered by some to be the most flawed of all the Biblical texts.  The TR was then translated into Greek and Aramaic, and then into the English KJ.\n\nThe fact that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints continues to insist that the KJ is accurate should tell you something about the value of their words.
303878
I have faith that the Bible really was written via the INFLUENCE of the Abrahamic god, but not necessarily at the time it was written. It didn't start being actually put into written text until centuries after the life of Jesus, and therefore MUST have been shared through oral tradition over generations. As that CAN be a reliable source of information, on the other hand, did you ever play "Telephone" in elementary school: one person says a sentence or phrase into one person's ear, and that person repeats what they heard to the next person, and than that person repeats it to the next person, and so on, and it never comes out exactly how it started. Maybe Yahweh started the game, and after generations of playing "Telephone," it just got a little mangled.\n\nPlus, have you ever tried to translate anything EXACTLY from one language to another? It can't be done: words that exist in some languages don't exist in others, and vice versa; not to mention the varying sentence structure from language to language.\n\nThen, of course, the Roman Catholics had to go and alter it for their own control-the-masses power hype, and screwed it up even more. Let's face it: we're human. We’re fallible, and so is the Bible.
115127
The Bible claims to be actual communication from God to humanity. Notice these biblical passages:\n\nAll Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 \n\nAbove all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. 2 Peter 1:20-21 \n\n The Bible claims to be the very Word of God (verbum Dei), indeed, the very words of God (verba Dei). But this claim often raises a number of objections. \n\nObjection #1: The Bibles we have today are nothing like the biblical books as they were originally written. \nThis is a real concern people have. The question of whether or not the Bible was God’s Word 2,000 years ago is irrelevant if the Bible we read today is substantially different from what was originally written. Until the invention of the printing press around 1450, all literature was hand-copied and scribes could make mistakes in copying. It’s hard to know if errors are present with many ancient works simply because few early hand-written copies exist. But this is not a major concern with the biblical documents: \n\n1. There are over 24,000 surviving partial or complete manuscripts of New Testament books today. By comparison, the next largest number is for Homer’s Iliad, with only 643 surviving manuscripts. We have only 7 copies of Pliny’s History and only 10 of Caesar’s Gallic Wars―but we don’t hesitate to trust them. \n\n2. Furthermore, the New Testament has unusually early manuscripts compared with other ancient literature. Our earliest copy of Pliny’s History dates to 750 years after Pliny’s death. A lot can happen in 750 years. And the earliest copy of Gallic Wars was copied 1,000 years after Caesar’s death. By contrast, some early New Testament fragments date to within 30 years of their first writing, as with the John Rylands papyrus found in Egypt. There simply wasn’t enough time between the original writing and our earliest manuscripts to allow for much corruption. \n\n3. There are over 84,000 quotations from the New Testament (mainly from sermons) dating to the early centuries of the Church. In fact, even if we didn’t have a single manuscript of the Bible today, we could reconstruct all but 11 verses of the entire New Testament from material within 150 to 200 years from the time of Christ. \n\n4. Similarly, with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the 1950s, we now have copies of the entire Old Testament from before the time of Christ―complete copies of every book except Esther.\n\nModern translations of the Bible (New International Version, New American Standard Bible, etc.) are translated directly from these earliest biblical manuscripts. \n\nObjection #2: The Bible is just a book of fairy-tales. Its account is not historically reliable. \nWhile there are letters and songs and laws and doctrinal teachings in the Bible, the most common genre within the Scripture is history. Observers point out that the Bible is an historical document in that it consistently gives accurate information on the geography, chronology, people, places, customs, nations and events recorded within it.\n\nThe Bible is therefore unusual compared to other human religious literature. The Book of Mormon, even though relatively recent, nevertheless reads like a cheap nineteenth century American gothic novel. It describes an entire pre-Columbian civilization which shows no signs of ever having existed. There simply never was a highly advanced Jewish civilization in ancient New York. There is today, but not before Columbus. Or compare the Bible with the Hindu Vedas, which explain that the moon is 150,000 miles higher than the sun and shines with its own light (like a big GE light bulb), adding that the earth i
364778
NO\n\nIt was the day of Pentecost 33 C.E. Weeks earlier, Jews and proselytes from at least 15 regions of the far-flung Roman Empire and beyond had packed Jerusalem to celebrate the Passover. On that day, thousands of them heard—not in confusion, as those at ancient Babel did, but with understanding—ordinary people filled with holy spirit proclaim the good news in numerous languages spoken in the empire. \n\nJesus’ disciples could probably speak common Greek, the popular language of the day. They also used Hebrew, the language spoken at the temple. However, on that Pentecost day, they “astonished” their diverse audience by speaking in the native languages of those people. The hearts of the listeners were touched by the vital truths that they heard in their mother tongue.\n\nAmong those ‘speaking in tongues’ today are Pentecostals and Baptists, also Roman Catholics, Episcopalians, Methodists, Lutherans, and Presbyterians. Jesus said that the holy spirit would ‘guide his disciples into all the truth.’ (John 16:13) Do the members of each of these religions believe that the others who also “speak in tongues” have been guided into “all the truth”? How could that be, since they are not all in agreement? What spirit is making it possible for them to “speak in tongues”?\nIn the first century, when Christians ‘spoke in tongues,’ what they said had meaning to people who knew those languages. (Acts 2:4, 8) Today, is it not true that ‘speaking in tongues’ usually involves an ecstatic outburst of unintelligible sounds?\n\nIn the first century, the Bible shows, congregations were to limit the ‘speaking in tongues’ to two or three persons who might do that at any given meeting; they were to do it “each in turn,” and if there was no interpreter present they were to keep silent. (1 Cor. 14:27, 28, RS) Is that what is being done today?\n\nThe Bible does indicate how long the ‘gift of tongues’ would be a part of Christian experience. According to the record, this gift and the other gifts of the spirit were always conveyed to persons by the laying on of hands of the apostles of Jesus Christ or in their presence. Thus, after their death and when the individuals who in that way had received the gifts died, the miraculous gifts resulting from the operation of God’s spirit must have come to their end. Such a view agrees with the purpose of those gifts as stated at Hebrews 2:2-4.
576607
The simple answer is two-fold. 1. The Bible was written in three languages. 2. No translation is perfect.  Here is the long answer:\n\nThe Bible has been translated numerous times for over two thousand years.  The books which compose the Bible were written in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic.  Obviously, this poses a problem for most people who would like to read the Bible.\n\nAround 285 BC, the Septuagint was created.  The Septuagint was simply a Greek translation of the Old Testament.  Many people of the time could read Greek, and since the New Testament was originally written in Greek, this proved useful.  In approximately 400 AD the Vulgate was produced by Jerome at Bethlehem.  This was a Latin translation of the entire Bible.  Its name comes from the fact that it was written in Vulgar Latin (Vulgar, when used to describe a language simply means that the common person could read and understand it).  The Vulgate was the primary translation used by the Catholic Church until Vatican 2 in the 1960s.\n\nA few other translations, such as the Wycliffe (1380ish AD, English) were written, but with the Church backing only the Vulgate, it wasn't until the Reformation that new translations were seen as necessary.\n\nDuring the Protestant Reformation, reformers believed that it was important for everyone to be able to read the Bible.  Martin Luther created a German Translation that continues to be used today.\n\nAt the same time, in England, a few people began to work on English translations.  Many English translations were written between the years of 1520 and 1610, including the Tyndale, Matthews, and Bishops translations.\n\nIn 1611 the King James Version was produced.  The translators of this version relied on the earlier English translations, but they also studied earlier sources.  Since none of the original texts survived, all translations have had to rely on manuscripts.  The manuscripts of the early books had to be hand-copied by a scribe, and they do deviate from one another slightly in different places.\n\nLater translations, like the NIV, will usually consult the Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic transcripts.  In many cases, if you look at the preface of your translation, you can see which manuscripts were used as the primary sources.  The NIV relies more on less common manuscripts than the KJV.\n\nA few final things to consider.  Many words have different meanings in English.  Many of the differences you find are simply word-choice.  Also, translators are not perfect, it is entirely possible that one made a mistake.  Every English translation has at least one mistake somewhere.  In addition to this, the English language has changed over the last 400 years since the KJV was produced.  Modern translations will try to use the current vernacular.\n\nOne of my sources is a KJV Bible that has a section on Bible history, the other is a handbook.  I tried to cite them as correctly as possible, but I was trying to do MLA from memory. (Too lazy to look it up, e-mail if you really want more info on the sources, but this is enough to find them in a library or on the Internet.)
59875
Most definately not.  Here's why.  First of all, when you go to the bookstore and bye a book named 'the Bible', you're buying a translation of an anient text. By its very nature, a translation is not the original, thus any anient codes woud be lost by the simple fact that it is translated.  Next, the Bible is very old, and was written before the age of computers, so when you needed a new Bible, it had to be written by hand.  Mistakes were no doubt made, along with mistranslations.  Again, more of any ancient code would be lost.  Finally, there are today several flavors of the Bible floating around.  Do a Yahoo! Search for, say John 3:16 and you'll find at least 4 'versions' .  Essentially the same text and meaning, but one might have a comma, or the other may use an archaic form of spelling as opposed to modern.  Thus, any code that depends on character placement would be lost the instant you insert an extraneous coma or a different spelling.  Last, the reason many of these 'codes' appear to be true, is because people are very open to interpretation.  Further, the codes themselves have been found mostly by using powerful computers with complex  search algorithms.  Given a sufficiently manipulative search pattern, even a desktop computer can cull words and phrases out of a book that are in 'a code'.  Case in point, my friends and I wrote a program in ADA (a computer language) that could find 'codes' in random texts.  We even manipulated my college report card to reveal 'you will fail', which was 'hidden'.  Of course we had to run the report card through a dozen algoritms, but as soon as we 'found' one that worked we called it a 'code'.
373115
Tongues, as related in the Bible, were actual languages spoken in the day, in different parts of the world.  For the apostles to relate the story of Christ to the speakers of these languages, the apostles had to have the ability to speak to those people.  \nIn churches where 'tongues' are spoken, if you could record these utterances and take them to language experts, you would find (I believe) no actual language patterns.\nThe modern translations of the Holy Bible are a gift to those of us who can't read or speak Hebrew or Greek, and are done by teams of language experts who interpret the original text as nearly as possible to English.  In the Quest Study Bible, New Internation Version translation, notes are made where there is a question or multiple meaning to the original word. \nI strongly recommend this book to everyone.  If you are new to bible study, it outlines study for you. If you are a long-time studier, it will help immensely with time lines, background info about the culture and practices of the times.  To start verse I, chaper I of Genesis, is the most discourageing way to start reading the Bible.  All the begats put me to sleep.\nIn closing, beware of people who say they can speak in tongues (ask them what language they use), and yes, the English translation is a gift.  We can read for ourselves, and don't have to rely on anyone else to tell us His word.
366019
Tradition.  The translation from the original Greek to Latin and then to English came up with "Jesus."  Even the newer translations which go back to the oldest preserved texts still seem to use the name, even when the translators know better.\nHow do expect this to change if you have to tell millions of worshipers that they have been mispronouncing the name for centuries?  They will always come up with some lame excuse to explain their own ignorance about the topic.
585459
it is not the true word. This bible is rewritten to please man. Stick with the Kj bible.
265435
Actually, only the OT is in Hebrew (except for the Book of Esther which was in Aramaic). The NT was written in Greek.\n\nHebrew was a dead language a couple hundred years before Jesus was born.
1020092
I agree with you on this one. The Bible is God's perfect Word and it is 100% true. I use a version based on KJV called NIV and it lines up perfectly with the original scriptures.\n\nBTW Jesus fullfilled all of the prophecies in the Old Testiment. He is the Christ. Remember, the Old Testiment points toward a Christ and that is Jesus.
740790
The Holy Bible Douay-Rheims Version \n\nWith Challoner Revisions 1749-52\n1899 Edition of the John Murphy Company\n\nIMPRIMATUR: \nJames Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore, September 1, 1899.\n\nPope Damasus assembled the first list of books of the Bible at the Roman Council in 382 A.D. He commissioned St.  Jerome to translate the original Greek and Hebrew texts into Latin, which became known as the Latin Vulgate Bible and was declared by the Church to be the only authentic and official version, in 1546. \n\nThe DR New Testament was first published by the English College at Rheims in 1582 A.D.  The DR Old Testament was first published by the English College at Douay in 1609 A.D.  The first King James Version was not published until 1611.  This online DRV contains all 73 books, including the seven Deutero-Canonical books (erroneously called Apocrypha by Protestants).  These seven books were included in the 1611 KJV, but not in later KJV Bibles.  \n\nThe whole Douay-Rheims Bible was revised and diligently compared with the Latin Vulgate by Bishop Richard Challoner in 1749-1752 A.D.  The notes included in the text were written by Dr. Challoner. \n\nThe DR Bible was photographically reproduced from the 1899 edition of the John Murphy Company, Baltimore, Maryland, by Tan Books in 1971.  Eventually, this edition was optically scanned to produce a large text file which this publisher used for creating this website, with the aid of text-processing software. \n\nOne important goal of this project was to preserve the original text "as is", without making any changes in the wording, because the original text had the Imprimatur of James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore, dated Sept 1st 1899.  \n\nThe text file was checked quite thoroughly by software written by the publisher for punctuation errors and verses out of order.  The index was humanly checked for misspelled words and the corrections were made to the text.  However, some spelling errors may still be present in the text.  Many verses were out of order in the original file.  These have been corrected.  \n\nEvery effort was made to ensure that this online version is an exact match to the original printed version.  No words were added or ommitted from the text, except for correcting errors caused by the scanning process.  No words were rearranged.  No verse numbers were changed, except in the case of Psalm 9.  \n\nPsalm 9 originally contained 21 verses and there were 2 versions of Psalm 10, numbering 1-18 and 1-8.  This obviously caused a conflict, so it was decided to make the first Psalm 10 as the last part of Psalm 9 and renumber the verses 22-39.  This retains the same numbering as all the Douay Rheims. Note, in the Protestant Bibles the numbering of Psalms 10 through 146 differs by one.