Who do you think is translating the dead sea scrolls?
375203
some scholars, I hope?
978997
The best way you can find out what the bible says in "real terms" is to read it in Hebrew. That is the original language  it was written in. I find it useful when reading to have The Exhaustive concorance of the Bible near by.
267392
Passover is coming.  That is where the Jews eat unlevened bread.  It's called Matzoh.  You can find boxes of it in any chain market.  It comes in large squares and is wavy like ruffles potato chips.\n\nForget all those other suggestions, they are not correct or authentic.\n\nI think 'BC' near the bottom reads more superficially than anyone here.  How can he quote a bib;e written by order of a king 1500 years after the event.\n\n\nTry and remember that Jews know their scrptures from the Jewish bible better than anyone else.  Jews were always taught to read so they could understabd the bible.  Gentiles at that time (which includes converts to Christianity) were never schooled, and had to be told what the writings said.  Gentiles did not have the education to think for themselves.  Sorry, guys, but these are the facts!\n\nTry to remmember that just because you find it on the Internet does not make it the truth!
269449
There is actually a great deal of doubt that he lead them across the Red Sea. It does not say Red Sea in the scriptures. That is just a supposition made by some people.
830958
Not only that, but *originals* for the vast majority of books in the bible haven't existed for thousands of years.  All the translators have to work from are copies of copies of copies of copies...\nOh, but of course, we *know* that nobody made any errors, changes, or intentional additions or deletions when they made those hand-written copies, right? ;-)\n\nForget about the actual content, OF COURSE there are errors in just getting what's called the bible into your hands from the people who originally wrote the books.  Anyone who thinks there are no errors of any kind in the bible is very, very deluded.
857358
Sorry, I disagre with you.\n\nThe "Living Bible" is the most horrible translation I've ever seen.\n\nWhen I compared 8 texts I quickly threw the "Living Bible" out of the equation as just bring too off from the rest of the texts I was reading.\n\nAlso, have you studied Ancient Greek and Anceint Hebrew and looked at the scroll and Codex yourself!\n\nDo you AGREE with all the translators!\n\nIf the Quran shows us anything, it shows us how three different translators can't agree on the ancient texts!\n\nThey sometimes come close, but they don't fully agree with all the phrasings.\n\nI'd say the Judeo-Christain Bible can easily fall into the same conflicts!\n\nI came up with a ficitious Diary entry of a Girl in the late 1960s or early 1970s.\n\n"We went to the Dead show at Winterland and had a bitchen time!"\n\nNow, you translate that!\n\nLet's see just how well you know your 1970's trivia!\n\nTELL ME exactly What she said and meant.  DEFINE every word and phrase.\n\nI know the answers, but only Dead-Heads can translate that.\n\nNow, what do you do in 500 years!\n\nThe same exact thing applies to the Bible and Quran!\n\nYou sort of have to be there to know what was REALLY meant!
375117
(From your hint, I take it the answer you want is #3 below, but I'll fill in the details nonetheless.)\n\nIt all depends on which "English" you are referring to\n\n1) OLD English -- there are several who translated at least parts of the Bible into Old English from the 7th to 9th centuries, beginning with the Venerable Bede.\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_English_Bible_translations\n\n2) MIDDLE English -- this one, already mentioned, was a translation from the Latin Vulgate by John Wycliff in the 1380s.  (Also note the important role Wycliff's persecuted followers, the "Lollards" played in setting the stage for the Reformation in England\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_English_Bible_translations\n\n3) MODERN English -- the great century of early Modern English translations begins with William Tyndale's work, first made public with the publication of his New Testament translated from Greek (with some help/influence from Luther's slightly earlier German translation).  As you hint, by the time his Old Testament (from the Hebrew) came out, he was burned at the stake (1536).  Of course, in the following decades a number of English versions came out, culminating in the half new translation, half revision 'King James Version' in 1611 -- but ALL of them owe a great deal to Tyndale's work \n\nAs a matter of factd, many of the expressions that the KJV is credited with bringing into the English language actually go back to Tyndale, which makes him, together with Shakespeare, one of the two great shapers of modern English (analogous to Luther's influence on Modern German through his Bible translation.\nhttp://www.hertford.ox.ac.uk/alumni/tyndale.htm\n\nBut, speaking of Shakespeare, the story about his name being hidden in the Psalms [Psalm 46, actually] as a clue that he either helped translate or that the translators wished to honor him -- whichever version of the story you've heard-- is, sad to say, pure bunkum.  There are a number of things that tell against it (see links below for more), but probably the strongest points are"\n(a) the count doesn't even work unless you arbitrarily leave out the word "Selah" which in the KJV is treated as a regular part of the text\n(b) the Hebrew words for "shake" and "spear" were there in the Psalm all along, and translated this way in pre-King James translations back to Tyndale (many before Shakespeare was even born!)\nhttp://av1611.com/kjbp/ridiculous-kjv-bible-corrections/psalm-46-Shakespeare-in-KJV.html\nhttp://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1828
62667
God promised to preserve his Word, not the English language. He knew about the translations, and the annomalies that may arise.\n\nYou can bet the translations (not all of them), but a few of them, potray the message in a clear and concise manner.\n\nWhile the enemy may taint some avenues of the Gospel, the Lord will not allow them all to be corrupted.\n\nI posted this in another thread:\n\nThe Bible is made up of 66 books, written by 40 authors on 3 continents, using 3 languages, and penned over a 1600 year span of time, yet it uniquely fits together without contradiction, making up one volume we call, “The Bible”.\n\nCharles Spurgeon said, "This Bible is the anvil on which many a hammer of critics has been worn out." It has truly withstood every test and trial while remaining the undisputed bestseller of all time! Over 1/2 billion Bibles were printed in1997 alone!\n\nWhat makes the Bible so different from all other books? It's incredible accuracy both historically, scientifically, geographically, and prophetically.\n\nArcheological findings, have proven the Bible’s literal accuracy. The Dead Sea Scrolls discovered in 1947, substantiate the accuracy of the Old Testament scriptures written 2,500 to 3,500 years ago!\n\nThe Bible revealed many truths thousands of years ago long before they were discovered. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica; Volume 4 page 937 "Columbus discovered America by Bible prophecy rather than by astronomy." Columbus believed the Bible and convinced the Queen after reading to her the following scriptures:\n\nIsaiah 40:22 (about 800 B.C.)\n\n"It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth..."\n\nJob 26:7 (Almost certainly over 1,000 B.C.)\n\n"He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing."\n\nMan thought the earth was flat and perhaps sat on the back of a turtle, just 500 years ago, yet God revealed the earth's true Geography over 3,500 years ago, a circle that hangs on nothing.\n\nIncredible as it may sound, we probably killed our first president, George Washington, by bleeding him to death. A practice called blood letting, the cutting of ones wrist and removing life giving blood. If we had only read and believed God's word:\n\nLeviticus 17:11\n\n"For the life of the flesh is in the blood..."\n\nThere are hosts of incredible proofs like these throughout the Bible. The water cycle and evaporation process is revealed in Ecclesiastes 1:6-7 and Psalms 135. \n\nThe Bible is the only book that foretells the future with 100% accuracy. It foretold the birthplace of Jesus 700 years before He was born! (Micah 5:2), That He would be crucified over 500 years before this inhumane practice ever began! Details about Jesus’ crucifixion such as: His hands and feet would be pierced, His beard would be torn out, His garments would be gambled for, and that He would die between two thieves, and be buried in a rich mans tomb (Isaiah 53, Psalms 22). Jesus fulfilled 30 different prophecies in just one day. There were about 300 prophecies that foretold His first coming and over 500 that tell of His second coming.\n\nOne such prophecy was fulfilled and witnessed by millions of people alive today! On May 14th, 1948, three million Jews from all over the world speaking 85 different languages returned to a tiny piece of desolate desert land, that most had never seen. God foretold of this incredible event through His word over 2,500 years ago.\n\nJeremiah 30:3\n\n"For, lo, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will bring again the captivity of my people Israel and Judah, saith the LORD: and I will cause them to return to the land that I gave to their fathers, and they shall possess it."\n\nEzekiel 36:24\n\n"For I will take you (Jews) from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land."\n\nZechariah 8:8\n\n"And I will bring them, and they shall dwe
133376
Actually, you come very close!  I suggest an excellent book, "Idioms of the Bible", the author's name is beyond me for now.  It was created by  a Bible scholar who is very familiar with both modern and ancient Hebrew and Aramaic, and has done some wonderful research in various areas relating to the Bible and religion.
1066741
The original was written in Hebrew & Greek but now in English written bibles I have found that the King James Version is the closest. Don't take my word for that but it is the bible that I study from. What you need to do is pray about it and ask God to show you where He wants you to read His Word from.
941106
The bottom line of Poki's post is "because someone said so". But that isn't true. \n\nThe oldest book on earth, a copy of Isaiah found with the dead sea scrolls, is essentially identical to what we have today. Through the dead sea scrolls we have again proven that the Bible that we have is reliable and accurate and consistent in it's message. There is no scholarly authority or archaeological evidence that proves otherwise. Nada. \n\nSaying the Bible is corrupt is just the same old lie; "Yea, hath God said...?"
782403
Mav there are translations out there but not the Quran, just interpretations, I read the Quran in several languages because no translation is truly perfect. I will send you a link in a while.\n\nInshallah I will be able to read in arabic and see for myself more details!\n\nKisses and Hugs,\nYour friend Muslimah!
1114929
Then obviously all of us Egyptologists are part of a vast conspiracy to all somehow come up with similar translations of the same text independently of one another, defend those translations based on the premises of the grammar that has been worked out over the past 200 years, and not ONE of us has broken ranks and told the world.  Nor have any of the other philologists who frequently work with Egyptologists noticed or pointed out the discrepancy. \n\nDamn, I wish I'd known that we didn't know what the hell we were doing.  It would have saved me a lot of late nights translating "The Ship-Wrecked Sailor"; "The Marriage Scarab of Amenhotep III;" the various commemorative stelae of the Tutmosids and Amenhoteps; "The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant;" "The Hekanakht Letters"; various medical texts and any number of other texts.  Not to mention having to carefully identifiy each part of speech, explain verb forms, and defend my translation in front of several other students and my professors.  And I really could have done without looking up words in the Worterbuch:  going from glyphs, to transliteration, to German, and then to English sucks.  Obviously, my entire graduate career has been a waste of time.  \n\nStrange how all those translations worked out almost perfectly and made sense seeing as how we really have no idea what we're doing...
594315
You're not mistaken, the New T was not written by Jesus, most of it was written by diciples of diciples, like Paul who never even saw Jesus. There are more then 3000 versions of the new testment coz so many priests, monks and popes added, 'corrected'  and took off whatever they thought they would\n\nThere was no 'giving' ceremony marking the New T which is very much out of the tratdion of what we new of GD through Judaism.\n\nThe OLD Testmnt originates from the Torah.\n\nThe Torah was given over to the Jews at Mount Sinai, the Jews numbered 600,000 men, counting those only over the age of 20 and under 60, which there are is a reason for, namely that those under the age of 60 wherent involved in the sins in the desert, and those under 20 hadnt winessed its aftermath. Here are some passages from the Torah...\n\nExodus 12:37\n37 The Israelites journeyed from Rameses to Succoth. There were about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides women and children. \n\nNumbers 11:21\n21 But Moses said, "Here I am among six hundred thousand men on foot, and you say, 'I will give them meat to eat for a whole month!' \n\nUs Jews hold our Torah jealously for fear of translation and consqnt misinterprtation. This occured when the Christians 'hijacked' our Torah converting it and all its meaning in their then pagan mindframes, which it still embodies of you look a bit better at christianity. The muslims made a similar hijacking though they didnt mix it too much with pagan beleifs.\n\nAnyways what im saying is, if you read the Bible in Hebrew, yes it is reliable, all of our Torah's after 3200 years are word for word, letter for letter the same...\n\nIf you count the letters in the Hebrew bible there exactly 600,000 of them, one for each Jew that received it.
826214
Actually the dead sea scrolls were not deleted from the Bible. The dead sea scrolls actually match up to the Textus Receptus or "Received Text" which is what the King James Version was based on. As for the criteria for a book's use in the Bible it had three main criteria: 1. It had to have been proven to have been actually written by that apostle. 2. It had to have been used and recognized by LOCAL churches. 3. It had to be free of doctrinal and writting errors.
994952
I am sure you realize that the Book of Mormon is one book, and the Book of Abraham is another book.  You are referring to translations that became a part of the Pearl of Great Price.\n\nNo one has the papyri that Joseph Smith used to write the Book of Abraham.  Three papyri were discovered in 1967 in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York.  They are called Joseph Smith Papyri I, XI, and X.  Egyptologists have identified these three papyri as being the text of the Book of Breathings, an ancient Egyptian religious text.  But did Joseph Smith attempt to translate these papyri?  Evidently not.  They are just three documents that were once in the possession of Joseph Smith, but are not the source of the Book of Abraham.\n\nThe evidence the critics have that indicates that these documents may have been the source of the Book of Abraham comes from some of the earliest manuscripts we have of the Book of Abraham.  Some characters from the Book of Breathings are found in the margin of the Book of Abraham manuscripts.  Neither the manuscripts, which are in English, nor the notes in the margin are in the handwriting of Joseph Smith.  Mostly they are in the handwriting of William W. Phelps, with a few short sections written by Warren Parish.  Clearly the Egyptian characters were added later by William W. Phelps and Warren Parrish, and cannot be a part of the translation process.  Perhaps they were trying to see if these Egyptian characters fit with the Book of Abraham text, but they were unsuccessful in the attempt.  They later fell away from the church, but they never claimed that they had been part of a fraudulent attempt of Joseph Smith to deceive the world.  They never denounced Joseph Smith for this, as they surely would have if they could have.\n\nWe don't have the documents Joseph Smith used to produce the Book of Abraham.
566606
Some say that they just did not write in 1st person back then.  Whether or not that is true, I do not know.\n\nBut if Moses wrote anything, it is very difficult to tell.  Because so much has been added on over the years by so many different sources.  Notice that if Moses wrote it, it is interesting because it records his death.  And remember that Moses never crossed the Jordan into Israel.  And yet, the wording goes like this, "When Israel was on the other side of the Jordan and had not yet crossed over into the Promised Land..."  That is a very strange thing to say for someone who is currently "on the other side of the Jordan."  It also makes time references, such as, "And it remains that way to this day."  But the things it was saying remained that way to this day supposedly happened in Moses' time.\n\nThat doesn't make sense.  It would be like me writing, "I gave you this answer on Yahoo Answers on May 13th 2006, and the answer remains there until this day."  Well, I would not write that on May 13th!  It only makes sense if I had written it AFTER May 13th.  Plus, there is a king list in Genesis that records kings that lived and died WAY after Moses.\n\nThere is evidence of multiple authorship of the Torah.  The idea that Moses wrote the whole thing just does not hold up under scrutiny.\n\nFURTHERMORE....an honest reading of the Torah does NOT lead one to believe that the Torah itself is even claiming that Moses wrote it!  It does not even TRY to make it look like Moses wrote it!  The idea of Mosaic authorship came later, based on only a few references in the Torah of things which Moses was instructed to write down.  But it in no way indicates that he wrote the whole Torah.  Perhaps he wrote a law or 2.  That's all it seems to indicate.