The greatest novel in the history of humanity.
The Bible is thousands of years old. The King James Version or translation of
the Bible is 400 years old. Also, the Bible is not a novel. It is
NOT fiction. It is a very great book--not a great novel.
I am grateful for the one who translated the Bible so everybody could read of
it. I am also grateful to those inventors who made the Bible accessible to us
from generation to generation.
It is very much a novel. It is absolutely fiction.
re: CatsSomehow the KJV of the bible, only being 400 years old, made it
into a book that is alledgedly 2600 years old.
The Bible is a history book which tells of mankind. From the creation in
Genesis until the prophecies of the end of time in Revelation, it tells of
people coming to as well as falling away from God. It was written by men, true
enough, but it is inspired by God. It sets rules and commandments which we need
to follow if we desire eternal life. One of the first signs of total corruption
in a nation is people deny God. Others are free sexuality and immorality. When
people no longer listen to the word of God and call it fiction, God will no
longer be present in the lives of man. When God is absent, there is only
darkness, ciaos, incivility, and cruelty of one man to another. There is no
promise of eternal life and all that matters is "now" and what can I
get for myself. Anarchy and tyranny rule in nations without God and there can
never be peace. The Bible teaches these things. Its truthfulness can be proved
by archeology and other writings. It hasn't only been around for 400 years, but
ever since Moses wrote the Book of Genesis.
Mr. Bass, Your understanding of the translation process is flawed. The
Lord speaks to man in his own language. At the time and place of Joseph Smith
the KJV was the standard, so use of the KJV text where it was in line with the
Book of Mormon text worked. there is so much evidence against
Joseph Smith having had a copy of the KJV on him, that your attempt to claim
this is just ludicrous. Beyond this, you are ignoring the fact that there are
many significant alterations of the text of passages quoted in the Book of
Mormon. This is especially true of the Isaiah passages in 2nd Nephi.The process of the translation of the Book of Mormon is not fully understood,
but your generally snide remark about it has no relevance to the matter.
On a different note I would encorage more reading of this elegant book. I have
heard modern translations and they usually just do not measure up.
The claim that perishioners relied on preachers to interpet the ancient texts of
various languages does not apply to med-eval England. There the one standardly
used Bible was the Vulgate, the Latin Translation by Jerome.On the
other hand, the printing of Bibles in English pre-dated the publications of the
the KJV by well over 50 years. The Bible was widely available in English before
the KJV was published, and the KJV relied heavily on the work of previous
translators such as William Tyndale. On the other hand it is true that the
scholars who compiled the KJV did seek to use Greek and Hebrew texts in their
translation. It is only a small minority of modern scholars who
would argue that any of our modern Bible had ancestral texts in Aramaic. Jesus
probably spoke Aramaic, but it is generally believed that most if not all the
New Testament was first written in Greek.
"Sir John Cheke taught England and Prince Edward Greek". John Cheke
was a Greek scholar active in England in the 1530s and 1540s. One of his pupils
was King Edward VI. Before this virtually no one in England had known Greek.This is just a piece of eviidence showing that preachers were not
conveying the Bilbe message as they had learned it in Greek or Hebrew. They
were conveying it as they learned it in Latin, specifically the vulgate.The first wave of Protestants were as interested in getting to the
early, source language texts of the Bible as they were in printing it in
languages other than Latin. the Catholic Church disliked the polyglot Bible
more for disregarding the Vulgate text and incorporating Greek and Hebrew in
printing, than for its printing passages in languages such as German.the whole presentation of pre-1530 religion in England in this article is just
John Pack Lambert,As brevity is the sould of wit, I must say, like
Polonius, you strike me as a bit of a "chatterbox".
Actually as to the bible being fiction that depends. If you are going by
history there are some things in it that give good historical accounts. It
talks about the Assyrian empire, Babylonian Empire, and other ancient cultures
and civilizations some of which historians doubted until they started doing more
digging and found evidence of it. Can you prove the spiritual things in the
bible no not really those are matters of faith but to say that the whole thing
is fiction is fiction there really are some historical accounts in there.