Kiddo
Furry Critter with Claws
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2007
- Messages
- 2,790
- MBTI Type
- OMNi
Very true. But at the same time when compared it's amazing how much agreement there really is. The inconsistencies are actually much smaller than what skeptics would have a person believe. Additionally it's very easy to find a bible that documents the various inconsistancies in the texts. Once you see what they are, you can tell that there are a few passages worth noting and the rest are nit picking differences which usually alter the meaning of the text little or not at all.
I wouldn't say the Bible is infallible, but I will say that it's pretty close. To me it's amazing how little the text has changed.
They can't even agree whether homosexuality is a moral sin or a sin of uncleanliness. Not to mention...
King James Version: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination".
New International Version "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."
Those sound a bit different to me. The word in Arameic for "abomination" is the same as for "unproductive" or "unclean", which would indicate homosexuality is a sin of uncleanliness. The same kind of sin as cross breeding livestock or eating shell fish. That is not how it was interpreted to me when I was a kid. To say I'm a little pissed would be an understatement.
What motivated the translator to choose the word "abomination" or "detestable" over "unproductive" or "unclean". And then I found out that most Arameic translators in the world are people who were taught through the church, and often even taught by using the Bible as a reference. It's easy to keep it the same when it's the text you learn from.