I thought Lutherans used the King James Bible? They did when I went to Lutheran Sunday school with my best friend. In fact I remember the Sunday school teacher made a big deal about the King James Bible was the only "right" one.
Sounds like Lutherans do then, but so do Baptists and every Catholic I've met so far. Mormons use something else I think, but they have pretty twisted(in my opinion) beliefs anyways.
I'm sorry...are we saying that the King James Bible is the only true bible and is free of it's own political interpretations and mistranslations?
I guess we could forget that that bible was written 1600 years after the death of Christ, or was convienently written by a group of people who, up until that time, were the only ones who were allowed to actually see the written word. And if we forget that the King James version was written by people, in a time of strong urges for political control and religious control, I GUESS we can say it is the accurate version.
It's a stretch, but I can see how it could be done.
Oh, and we'd have to completely forget that there is ATLEAST 11 books missing from the King James version.
Point? No one has real bible full and intact except the vatican and possibly a private collector or two who benifited from what a few bucks can do to a holy figure.
Healer, according to what I have seen and heard I still kind of doubt the Bible being written 1600 years after Jesus' death since the Old Testament was used by the Jews(supposedly) before Jesus was born. The Bible not being translated until so many centuries later I would believe, but still. As for the King James version being the only accurate version of the Bible, yes it is. Although it may be better to say it is the 'most' accurate version since, as you pointed out, it too has flaws. That is to be expected though when you translate one language into another language when the first language has words that the second language does not and vice-versa.
As for that line, "Religion is flawed because Man is flawed" I think that's only partially true, but I won't get into that right now.
The King James was infact written 1600 years after the death of Christ. That's what I meant.
As far as the "supposedly" part...you may be interested to know that the ONLY reason we are able to see the old testiment in the bible now is because the Jew's decided, even though they did not believe Jesus to be the son of God, that Christianity did worship the same God and gave the documents with the understanding that they were to be known of the difference and be kept seperate when writing the bible. That's why we see such a big seperation in the bible today.
What many people don't understand is when you read the bible, you are first reading the written word for God's chosen people ( the jews ), and then reading a new covenant for the gentiles.
Very few people understand that the way the bible is written now is actually seperate religions being brought together, in one book since, while the jews are the chosen people of god and basically get a free pass, the new testiment is a written way for the gentiles ( non jews ) to get into heaven if they so choose to follow the word.
Two religions brought into one. King James may be the most accurate bible, so to speak, but we must remember that the Christian bible prior to that did not have the old testiment. And now, has missing information that was left out completely.
Point being...the bible is meant to be an inspiration, not a document to control and fight over.
As far as the line religion is flawed because man is flawed. It's a very simple concept that applies to this discussion easily. Is it right to remove books from the bible? Especially when one of the books talks about the dangers of doing so? No. But man is flawed, and now..the information given to man is flawed.
Actually I looked that up awhile ago when trying to find some stuff on the mistranslations of the Bible, the King James Version was not written until sometime within the late 1800's and early 1900's and was not recognized until a bit later into the 1900's, but not so late that any of us would remember that day. The Bible was first translated into English, I'd believe, in the 1600's, but I'm not sure.
When I said "supposedly" I meant that as in 'I suppose' and although I may have used the word wrong I meant that as in I'm not sure, I was only going off what I was told.
The information that was left out, from what I was told(haha, didn't say 'supposedly' this time :)), was left out because of it's "graphic nature". Meaning there were some things in the original Bible that the people translating felt was unfit for children and children would be reading what was translated.
YES! I wish more people knew that, it even says somewhere in the Bible that we should not argue over this stuff. I don't know where, but I remember it being read to me once when I was younger.
(for anyone who would point out that I have argued/debated about this stuff, it also says in the bible that we are all sinners so ;p)
That makes sense. As I said I believe it's only partly true and that is why. I believe the original religion was not flawed. Some people just can't leave good things alone; if it's not broken you shouldn't try to 'fix' it.
