original Bible in original language exist? if no, how  can trust on translations by human beings error free?
599778
There are four versions, and I mean by "version" accepted cannon and not translations because obviously there are thousands of those, of what people refer to as the "Bible". The Catholic version, which has 73 books in it. The Protestant version, which has 66 books in it. The Coptic version, which has 75 books in it. And the Jewish version, which has 49 books in it. These four versions cover two specific faiths, Christianism and Judaism. Of all those books NOT ONE original document or even a known trustwothy COPY of an original document exists. Of the five major world monotheistic faiths (Christianism, Islam, Judaism, Bahai, and Sikh) only ONE can rightly claim and prove via historical documentation, that in turn can be proved correct, that its Holy Book has never been altered or ammended. And that faith is Islam. The Koran is a beautiful Holy Book, filled with light and wisdom. I own various translations and at least one copy in Arabic (true Koran) that was a gift to me from the Saudi Arabian Embassy. I've read the Koran more than any other religious text. I am not Muslim. BUT ... I am honest with myself and others. A lack of honesty and open mindedness on my part would in no way alter the Truth. And the Truth is that Holy Koran IS the ONLY uncorrupted religious text in existance today. People of faith need to be honest enough to admit that and open minded enough to read it, and THAT with an open mind. They are not being fair to THEMSELVES when they make a decision about a thing without first having investigated it. ~ Peace & Blessings ~
410921
I've always held the belief that the Bible has been changed to fit the beliefs of whoever commissioned the latest translation.  It's no surprise to me at all that some of the stories were tacked on later as some were removed when they didn't fit in with what was being taught at the time.  \n\nWhy is the Bible supposedly above scrutiny?  Why is it that when people question whether or not it was written and re-written by men, people freak out?  In this day and age, if somebody were to claim they were divinely inspired to write a holy book, we'd call them nuts.  But, we should just believe that this particular group of men really were divinely inspired?
463614
If you count all the different translations to different languages there are a lot more. :-)\n\nBasically, the original text is in ancient hebrew or greek.  Translating from one language to another is very hard -- in fact there is no translation without interpretation. There are idioms (sayings) in any language that don't translate.  If someone called you a cabbage in French, it would be sweet and endearing.  In English it's just rude.  Then consider translating from one time to another.  The world is different, and English has changed from the time of King James to now, and sometimes the words don't carry.  For instance the word "suffer" used to mean "allow" so when Christ said "Suffer the little children to come unto me" in KJV, he wasn't suggesting that the kiddies be hurt.\n\nSo, in interpretation one can either be "literal" or "meaning preserving" or somewhere in between.  If somone asked Jesus when evil could be done in heaven and he said "when pigs fly" (I am just making this part up) then one interpreter could say "on the day that pigs fly in the sky" and the other could say "that would neve happen!".   Two interpretations, both correct.  This provides some of the division.  NAS is more literal, NIV is more meaning-preserving. \n\nOkay, to make it a little harder: when the early translations by Tyndale and the like were made, they only had a limited set of ancient copies to work from.  Since then, there have been more found, and older ones.  When you look at a modern translation (CEV, NAS, NIV) they are based on a wider collection of older manuscripts.  That probably means that they're more accurate.\n\nThen finally there are paraphrases like the Living Bible or the Amplified Bible, which are not translations from original manuscripts but a retelling of an existing translation in modern english, perhaps with more text added to get the point across better.\n\nSo the answer is to read a few of them.  It's a perfectly acceptable thing to get a paraphrase or a very modern easy-to-read translation (The Message, The Living Bible, etc) for your first read-through so that you become familiar with the overarching story line and the characters. You might like to get a chronological bible which orders the books in timeline order (most Bibles are ordered by category like law, history, wisdom, prophesy, life of Christ, early Christian church history, and then letters from disciples).  A chronological bible would help you see the story as it unfolded.\n\nThen, if you like, get a parallel bible so that you can see two, three, or four translations side-by-side and compare them. \n\nOn one hand, the real bible would be the original manuscripts or their most faithful reproductions in Hebrew or Greek.  \n\nBut if you are willing to look at it this way, the REAL bible is the events that happened, not any one recording of them by a particular author. If you see it this way, then reading any of them, or (better) several of them is the way to get the REAL bible. \n\nBut equally important are some small little tidbits: If one wants to know God then one must first believe that He exists, and secondly that He rewards those who honestly seek Him.  Secondly, that his word is never wasted.\n\nI hope this helps you.
988142
No. There has been too much lost in the numerous translations. And I would question your statement about the book being in existence for 'thousands' of years. The new testament and the gospels were not instantly assembled upon the death of Jesus of Nazareth. The old testament was passed on by word of mouth long before the books were written.  Compound these necessary flaws with the council of cardinals who decided which books were going to be part of the bible and which books were not, and the church's practice of censoring anything that did not agree with doctrine, and you have a less than perfect product.
351710
I don't know if any version has been translated from NIV.  It would be better to start with the original manuscripts.\n\nBiblegateway.com has two French versions.  Louis Segond, and La Bible du Semuer.
1049922
I agree that it is out of date, but I don't think that you can just go and arbitrarily change the content.  And by whose standards would it change?\n\nI think that there are many misinterpretations of the bible over the centuries.\n\nI am going to be ordering one that is supposed to be a direct translation from the orginal Aramaic New Testament to see what the difference is.  It is called The Modern New Testament : Translated from the Original Aramaic Sources by G. Lamsa.\n\nHaving said that, I also think that much of the bible directly speaks to that generation's society and political culture and therefore, not a lot of it has to do with how things are in this day and age, although I feel that Jesus taught us timeless lessons of love and acceptance and faith.  \n\nBut I don't believe that Jesus was the only master and that timeless lessons were taught by Mohammed and Buddha and many other masters as well.
60118
Perhaps not.  But is it okay to ram your personal interpretation (of that which you have learned as dogma) down the throats of others if you never listen to informed critism?\nIf you have never read the old testiment in Hebrew, how do you really know what is says?  If you do not know Aramaic or Greek, do you really have an informed opinion yourself?\nDo you know the exact reasoning made by the men who decided what should be included in the Holy Bible and what should be left out?  Do you know that all of them did not agree with all of the books included?\nA good computer program can be written to look up an answer (or several rated answers) in the text of the King James Version of the Bible for just about any question, but that does not make the program holy.\nJudgment of others based upon whether or not they interpret scriptures in the same manner as you do may be a sin and certainly has lead to the disruption of the Christian religion into smaller factions.\nNo, it is never okay to critize anything that has not been studied.  Sure people do it, but that does not make it okay.
259044
Your question also begs a more basic question:  regardless of version, timing, or translation, human beings wrote the contents of, and chose and assembled, the texts that were called The Bible.  (Same with the Talmud, and the Koran.)  So it's reasonable to ask, why do so many believe it to be God's word?  I mean, it could be.  But why do people today so strongly believe it to be so, with such certainty?  When all they have is other people's word for it?  It is indeed remarkable, and hard to understand.
498463
no online translator is accurate enough if you need a decent translation. because as you said, they translate literally. that's why there are still a lot of human translators around, they are necessary! no matter how good a software can be, irony and other subtle meanings in sentences can't be detected by artificial intelligence.
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.
407946
In one way, Bible is God's letter of introduction. He described His character through the Bible so that people may know Him. I don't think that He would allow His character to be misrepresented by wrong translations, cause it is His character we, people, can rely on (among other things). If God is omnipotent, I am sure He could and can find a way to prevent some catastrophic errors to appear in the Bible which would lead its readers into wrong assumptions and beliefs.
362940
I have been reading about that as of late and find it interesting.  plausible. The bible has seen a lot gone through a lot in that i mean translations.  It also stands that some books were purposely left out.  With that in mind I don't feel it proves with out a shadow of a doubt that its true.  However it does leave enough room for the thought and probability.
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...?"
783033
One thing you may not realize is that the good translations are translated directly for the original Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic manuscripts that have been preserved for all time.  There are over 5000 manuscripts recovered and translated. (The most evidence from any major ancient literary source)\n\nScholars do indeed see the human elements in Scripture but that doesnt make Gods truth any less than important.  A wise man one said that the Bible is theologically perfect enough to astonish the wisest of scholars and human enough to give any unbeliever doubt.
338774
Because they think it's God Sent, it has hundreds of errors, and it was not the first Bible printed in English, it just happen to have King James backing.  It's long, feel like I just wrote a novel\n.\nPeople in the English-speaking world use and accept the King James or Authorized Version than any other single Bible translation. In fact, so highly esteemed is this translation that many persons venerate it as the only true Bible. This raises some questions.\n\nDo these countless persons who use the King James Version know why, despite objections from churchmen, modern translations keep rolling off the presses? Do they know why the King James Version itself was once opposed by the people? Do they know why, despite vigorous protest and opposition, the King James Version entered into the very blood and marrow of English thought and speech? Do they know what illuminating document is probably missing from their own copies? In short, do they really know the King James Version?\n\nThe purpose of Bible translation, then, is to take these thoughts of God, originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, and put them into the common languages of today. Bible translation makes God’s Book a living Book. So true Christians read the Bible, not to be entertained by clever turns of expression, unusual words, excellency of style, striking rhetorical devices or felicities of rhythm, but to learn the will of God. It was for this reason that the King James Version came into existence. That was in 1611.\nFrom almost every quarter the King James Bible met opposition. Criticism was often severe. Broughton, a Hebrew scholar of the day, wrote to King James that he “should rather be torn asunder by wild horses than allow such a version to be imposed on the church.”\n\nThe translators, not unaware that people preferred to keep what had grown familiar, knew that their work had unleashed a storm. They tried to calm the people down. They wrote a “Preface of the Translators” to explain why the King James Version was made. This preface is called by the Encyclopedia Americana “a most illuminating preface describing the aims of the translators which unhappily is omitted from the usual printings of the Bible.” Thus most Authorized Versions today, though they contain a lengthy dedication to King James, omit the preface. Its presence would clear up many misunderstandings about the purpose of the revision. The reader would learn that strong opposition was expected.\n\nThe reader would learn that the King James Version was a revision of earlier works made with a modest hope of improvement and no thought of finality, In time the clamor died down, and the King James Version prevailed over the Geneva Bible. For more than two and a half centuries no other so-called authorized translation of the Bible into English was made. Little wonder that many people began to feel that the King James Bible was the only true Bible. Like many people who once objected to any change in the Geneva Bible, many persons today object to any change in the King James Bible. They oppose modern translations perhaps as vigorously as the King James Version itself was once opposed.\n\nKing James Bible has already been changed; today no one reads the King James Version in its original form. Explaining why this is so the book The Bible in Its Ancient and English Versions says: “Almost every edition, from the very beginning, introduced corrections and unauthorized changes and additions, often adding new errors in the process. The edition of 1613 shows over three hundred differences from 1611. . . . It was in the eighteenth century, however, that the main changes were made. . . . The marginal references were checked and verified, over 30,000 new marginal references were added, the chapter summaries and running headnotes were thoroughly revised, the punctuation was altered and made uniform in accordance with modern practice, textual errors were removed, the use of capitals wa
1147768
Hey,\n\nDifferent translations doesn't necessarily mean that the Bible in THAT translation is not truth. The Bible was originally written to be relatable to the people of the time. Many believe nowadays that translations that are little "looser" attempt to do that --> relate the Bible to modern day a little more.\n\nSo there are two ends of the spectrum here; of course, at one end where everybody above has mentioned the King James Version, this side is the closest to the original Greek/Hebrew text. These versions include the King James Version (with all its thous and thees) and the New King James Version (replacing thee with you and etc). The New American Standard Bible fits in between the KJ version and the middle. \n\nOn the middle of the scale is the New International Version which is usually the most common in churches nowadays in North America; the Amplified Bible gives a lot of extra words in case you don't understand (amplified = expanded). The New Living Translation sits in between the middle and the far "liberal"/"loose" side. \n\nSo on the "loose" side, there would be the Message by Eugene Peterson - the Bible basically in contemporary, modern language. This version is the loosest you can get, with the English Standard Version sitting closer to this side than the middle.\n\nLemme draw this out:\nKing James                             ----     Most to Greek Text\nNew King James\nNew American Standard Bible\nNew International Version        ----   Middle Ground\nAmplified Bible\nNew Living Translation\nEnglish Standard Version\nMessage                                    --- Most to Modern Day Language\n\nEssentially, it depends on the purpose of your Bible. If it's for personal devotional time, it might be good to spring for a good study Bible that settles in the middle on that scale (ie. the New International Version Study Bible is a really good one; if you're a youth, go for the youth edition.)\n\nFor research and textual study, the King James line is good for you. \n\nFor modern day easy-read (maybe you commute and you just want to give the Bible a read w/o much thought into it), there's the Message version by Eugene Peterson.\n\nSo happy Bible reading! Remember, most important though is that you're not just reading, but allowing the Word to shape your life.
183624
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.