Since the Bible was written in foreign languages like Greek and Hebrew?
480639
First of all, no one speaks ancient Greek or Hebrew anymore, so there will always be some debate to translation.  \n\nSecond, the translators of the New World Translation are all Jehovah's Witnesses.  Part of the belief system of the Jehovah Witnesses (and part of what makes it a cult) is that if any non-JW tries to convince you of anything they are "from the devil, and should not be listened to."  So it isn't that they haven't told the translators about the errors, it is that the translators don't listen.  \n\nThird, the "scholars" you speak of don't have the qualifications to translate the Bible.  They use their ideology, not their intellect to make the statement that there are "no errors."\n\nFourth, if the "scholars" were doing such a great job of translating, why don't all the other scholars who study ancient Greek and Hebrew come up with at least SOME of the same conclusions, in fact why do ALL of them disagree?\n\nFifth, if the New World Translation has no errors, why can a simple Greek student like myself find errors?  If you believe the New World Translation has no errors, you have never taken Greek!\n\nSixth, Scholars who have actually done the translating on every translation (with a few exceptions where ideology got in the way, like the NWT) have worked very hard to make sure there were no translation errors, so your argument is invalid.\n\n\nBTW - Translating error - John 1:1, if it should be translated "the Word was a God" because of the lack of a definite article before the word translated God (here the word is Theos), you had better insert the word "a" before God in verses 6,12, and 18 of the same chapter to read, "There arose a man that was sent forth as a representative of a god," "...to them he gave authority to become a god's children," and, "No man has seen a god at any time," for there is no definite article in front of God in any of these verses, either.  If you don't believe me, look it up.
620865
Although the initial translation involved only the five books of Moses, the name Septuagint came to refer to the entire Hebrew Scriptures translated into Greek. The remaining books were translated over the next hundred years or so. Rather than being a coordinated effort, the production of the entire Septuagint was a piecemeal accomplishment. The translators differed in their abilities and knowledge of Hebrew. Most books were translated literally, sometimes to the extreme, while other translations were quite free. A few exist in both long and short versions. By the end of the second century B.C.E., all the books of the Hebrew Scriptures could be read in Greek. Despite inconsistent results, the effect of translating the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek went far beyond what the translators could have expected.\n\nAlexander’s policy of Hellenization had made Greek the international language of the world. Even when his realm was overrun by the Romans, common (or, Koine) Greek remained the language of trade and communication among nations. Whether this resulted from a deliberate effort or was a natural development, the Septuagint version of the Hebrew Scriptures quickly found its way into the homes and hearts of many non-Jews previously unacquainted with God and the Law of the Jews. The results were astonishing.
719259
Just about everyone in Judaea was speaking Aramaic. At that time, Hebrew had already passed out of use as a daily language. Hebrew was used in religious rites and in the synagogue, but not in daily life. This is not entirely unlike the passing of Latin from daily European life centuries before it passed out of academic and religious life.\n\nEven today Hebrew is a restored language. It does not have a complete continuity through a line of native Hebrew speakers.\n\nGiven where Jesus lived (Capernaum) it is also quite likely he spoke Greek. He would not have had many opportunities to use Latin there, but in cosmopolitan Jerusalem, he might have encountered Latin speakers (the titulus crucis was written in Latin, Greek, and Aramaic.)
1120340
The Bible was put together at the Council of Rome a few hundred years after Christ.  It had already been translated into Latin by St Ireneus.  Catholics still use this Bible -- though there have been translations into many languages.\n\nIn the 1500s, Martin Luther decided that several books of the Bible were not the inspired word of God, and eliminated them.  Most Protestant religions use this edited version of the Bible.\n\nNewer translations of the Bible attempt to stay true to the original Greek/Hebrew.  This is not true of The King James Version which uses a lot of 17th century literary constructs.  Poor translations in the KJV have led to some differences between Catholic beliefs and Protestant beliefs (particularly fundamentalists who only hold to the Bible).  For example, many Protestant religions that were founded using the KJV have the belief that Mary did not remain a virgin after the birth of Jesus and had other children.  Catholics, who used a better translation, do not hold these beliefs.
960100
You have to understand that the Bible was an oral tradition for hundreds of years.  People told the stories long before they were written down.  Do you remember the story of Goldilocks and the three bears?  Do you remember the exact words in the story from the first time you heard it?  I doubt it.  But you remember the message and could still tell the story to your children.\nWhen the Bible was first written it was in Hebrew (atleast, the Old Testament was).  You're reading an English translation.\nIn all of this, things change, and we shouldn't focus on one word "Us."\n\nMore to think about: Royalty in medieval brittain referred to themselves in the plural (i.e. "We are not amused.")  When the Bible was translated by King James (the most famous English translation) any royal attributes of the day may have been given to God as the Almighty King.  \n\nNo one knows for sure.  You could study this for years and not know.  I hope this summation here does the subject justice.\n\np.s. many people referred to the Trinity (I don't want to say they are wrong, but I don't agree with them).  \nThe trick with that is that the Trinity as a concept wasn't known to humans until the Coucil of Nicea in 325.
1120037
yes,because in the Bible it says that a group of people tried to build steps to Heaven,and God made the languages so that they could not discuss building this together..thats how it came to be.
245373
It is my view that the Bible is written by man and may have the writer's bias.  This is not to say that the Bible is not inspired by God/Jehovah or not a valid holy work, but rather His desires have been interpreted by His followers.  After all, if God inspired you to write a holy work that went against what you'd been taught or against common belief, could you write it just as God wants.  We are here on earth b/c we have the freedom to choose Him or not, so why would He control what is written.\n\nI also want to point out that the Bible in modern days is quite fallible.  Most scholars (religious or not) will tell you translating is not a perfect science.  Because most of us can't read the Bible in its original languages, we must rely on what someone has translated for us.  Translating without the original writer is dificult.  One word may have mutlitple meanings, and noone knows which meaning was intended.  That means that even if the Bible is perfectly from the hand of God, it probably isn't anymore.\n\nIf you want me to elaborate, e-mail me at adam_macpharlain@yahoo.com.
590422
Read an article on this. It was rather interesting, it gave examples from both the New Testament and the Old as well as other Jewish texts.
1107967
Actually you are wrong on several counts.  The Bible is mostly a Jewish book, the books in protestant Bibles came from the reformation, and you were not there with Jesus to know what books were in His old testament.  If Hebrew was a dead language (this is what leads you to this conclusion), why does the Catholic Church teach that the book of Mathew was written in Hebrew?
306103
Language is, basically, a form of communication that takes several forms. It is used verbally, when speaking, written, when sending messages or letters or communicating information in books, newspapers etc, and in sign language, commonly known as body language. When we talk to each other verbally we only remember about 7% of what is said. 55% of direct personal communication comes from body language (i.e. Non-verbal communication) and 38% from attitude. Each language has evolved from primeval grunting that developed into common recogniseable sounds that were then put together to form words and sentences.\n\nA rather quaint biblical explanation of different languages is contained in the Bible's Old Testament story of the Tower of Babel found in Genesis, chapter 2 verses 1 - 9.\n\nThe people tried to build a tower that would reach God who, as we all know, is supposed to be everywhere, so the building of a tower was not necessary and an example of man's ignorance and stupidity. thus God (Jehovah) caused the builders to speak different languages so that they were incomprehensible to each other and forced to abandon the work. This attempts to account for the diversification of language as the builders were supposed to be scattered about the world and thus explain that people in different countries speak separate languages. This concept still works today with not only language differences that occur when a country's border is crossed, but also in different areas of the same country with regional dialects. This difference spawned the word 'Babble' to describe someone speaking unintelligably.\n\nAs Moses is credited with writing the first five books of the Bible (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Numbers, collectively known as the Pentateuch) it may be assumed that the story alludes to the Babylonian ziggurats, or pyramids, which were, to Moses, examples of Gentile pride.
922425
you have two ways of looking at this ...\nbiblically and non biblically , so i will give you both\n\nbiblically it is said that God gave us different languages at the towers of Babel\n\nnon biblically .... when the world spilt millions of years ago , we all went different ways and learned to speak differently in the small communities we belonged to
872379
The biggest problem about where it was copied from the KJV Bible isn't the exact language that was used but the fact that even the italicized words were included as part of the text without comment. Just so everyone knows. Those were were added to make the translation flow properly in English. It's not always possible to translate even from another Latin based language to English with out adding some wording to make it flow properly in syntax. But to add them as though they are part of the Scripture is wrong.. No not wrong  EVIL is a better word...   Jim
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.
111895
The Roman Bible (Jerome) used the Greek texts when translating into Latin, while the Protestant Bible (Martin Luther) used the Hebrew texts for the Old Testament when he translated the scriptures.\n\n\nThe Apocrypha is a set of 14 books that had been allowed by the Jewish Sanhedrin in Jerusalem to be used among Greek speaking Jews over the course of Greek Helenization that took place between the Old and New Testaments. Although never part of the Hebrew scriptures, these apocryphal writings had increased in authority merely by the passing of time. Shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, a group of Jewish Rabbis met in Jamnia to codify the ancient scripture for a population that had now been widely dispersed. They were also reacting to the Jewish cult of Christianity that continued to grow in popularity. In order to completely sever ties to these Greek speaking Christians, they purified the Hebrew canon by discrediting anything that was originally written in Greek.  This is what Martin Luther used.
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.
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.
11008
Great question.  Depends on what you mean by "modern"?\n\nThe original Biblical text was written in mostly classical Hebrew (the OT), with some Aramaic; and Koine Greek for the NT, also with some Aramaic in there.\n\nNone of the original manuscripts have survived, BUT, we have some NT Gospel fragments that are within decades of the originals.  Our oldest copies of Hebrew manuscripts are witin hundreds of years from the originals.\n\nThat said, the textual evidence and support for the Bible surpasses in other ancient "literature" by far.\n\nNow, to the issue of which modern version is best. The answer to that could take pages to answer depending on all kinds of things related to textual criticism.\n\nFor me, I know Greek and Hebrew, I really like these two modern versions best in terms of their reliability and faithfulness to the original languages.\n\n1. The New English Translation (NET Bible). Found at www.bible.org as a FREE download.  Great translator and study notes too.\n\n2. I also like the English Standard Version or ESV. Great translation.  \n\nHope this helps!