Why do I ask you to back up your sources and say that an honest man would know those details? You are speaking on textual criticism, a matter arcane to most men. An honest man would not post on a matter that he does not know about. I am not convinced that you have read these documents, and if you are honest, you will know these details.
Why do I ask about the type of manuscript it is? That is a detail used in classification of manuscripts isn't it? Why do I ask about the inks used? That helps to date it, and trace revisions, does it not? Are these unreasonable things for you to explain with your detailed knowledge of these manuscripts? I should think so.
Why do I ask you to explain the reading of Mt. 15:1 in particular? It was a random selection. You see, if you are going to speak on these texts with such great authority to dethrone the opinions of so many scholars, then you should have examined the documents in question. I know precious few people who have been able to purchase scans of these manuscripts, and web pages are easily altered. I, therefore, ask you to post that reading to demonstrate you are actually reading the Greek text to know what you're talking about.
Why do I speak as though I have authority (not great, but still informed)? I have completed a secondary education in biblical studies, the Greek language, and philosophy. I am familiar with the details on textual criticism and Greek. I should think that gives me the ability to speak on this matter, as a sysadmin would on a computer system. This does not make me a Bruce Metzger, but I am, at least, informed.
I have made very few assertions (some about the DSS, which is easy, and some about the consensus of scholars), but which ones do you want documented? You document first, though, because I ask first. I desire books, and not ones written by KJV-Onlyists. Can you provide those? I can for mine.
Your assertion that my translation is like the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses is ludicrous. It treats the words "logos" and "pros" significantly differently. The third clause of John 1:1 does not follow their translation. It seems that it is unlike their translation to me. I am giving up on you checking it with grammars and lexicons. If you had, you would have noted an error I *put* in there to see if you got it. I put an error in there for you to find, and in my first repost, I added another error by omitting a clause to boot. Every word but one I translated in a different manner from the KJV was a legitimate translation, but if you would have looked in a lexicon, even if you did not know much Greek, you would have noticed that I had mistranslated katalambano, which should be either "sieze" or "comprehend," but "receive" is far too weak for the strengthening kata in front of it. Of course, you don't know Greek, so you couldn't catch that. You didn't catch the omitted clause, "in the beginning," either. How can you speak on these issues when someone with even one year of study in the matter would have caught the error.
On your comment on my "political" biases on the KJV. First, Sinaiticus was found in an Eastern Orthodox monestary, not a Roman Catholic one. Second, I know that the RCC martyred people, but so did the Protestants. Why should I reject a manuscript in the original language in favor of a translation commissioned by a man who was just as bloody. If he had lived as long as things like the Inquisition (add an "s" to be technical) and the Reformation combined, then he would be able to kill as many people. As it stands, burning translators and "heretics" alive, and locking them away gives him a pretty good start. You ask me to accept a translation, by a murderer, over an original text. If you are going to do that, at least be consistent and reject them both.
I don't care about which manuscript family you follow. That's your business, but here, you are posting a bunch of bull, and well, as you pointed out most people on/. won't hav
The last paragraph was cut-off. It read that I want real sources. KJV sources are either uninformed or authored by out and out liars, maybe both. Either way, their word constitutes evidence to me no more than does the word of the Watchtower magazine.
I didn't know that the scholars were being payed to down the TR. Here I got my degree from them, watched them drive small beat-up cars, and live in small houses, while they were really being bribed to hide away the truth. Could you post a check stub? It seems too incredible for me to believe. Of course, I guess paying them peanuts is enough to keep the truth down. It's funny how that works.
You call the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shephard of Hermas occult books? Have you ever read these? I will give you some quotes from these occult books, and you tell me how occult they are.
"Similarly he once again gives an explanation about the cross in another prophet who says: `And when shall these things be accomplished? The Lord says: ``When a tree falls over and rises again, and when blood drips from a tree.'' ' Once again, you have a reference to the cross and about him who was destined to be crucified." (Barn. 12:1-2) I see nothing occult here, but then, maybe you consider 4 Ezra occult. Personally, I think this passage sounds very Christian.
How about his greeting? "Greetings, sons and daughters, in the name of the Lord who has loved us, in peace. Seeing that God's righteous acts twoard you are so great and rich, I rejoice with an unbounded and overflowing joy over your blessed and glorious spirits; so deeply implanted is the grace of the spiritual gift that you have recieved!" (Barn 1:1-2). Again, I see nothing occult here. Maybe I'm missing the occult aspects of these books. Would you point them out to me?
"And may God, who rules over the whole world, give you wisdom, insight, understanding, knowledge of his commandments, and patience. Be instructed by God, seeking out what the Lord seeks from you, and then do it, in order that you may be found in the day of judgment." (Barn 21.5-6) Wow, that seems pretty Christian to me. I may be confused, though, is this your opinion of the occult? It certainly doesn't fit mine. Of course, I may have been seduced by the lies of the Early Church rather than the "truth" being taught by you KJV guys.
"`God planted the vineyard, that is, he created the people, and turned them over to his Son. And the Son placed the angels over them to protect them, and the Son himself cleansed their sins with great labor and enduring much toil,'" (Herm 59:2). The Shephard of Hermas seems pretty Christian also. Maybe I'm just a poor reader, not having been introduced into some secret gnosis.
"the name of the Son of God is great and incomprehensible, and sustains the whole world. If, therefore, all creation is sustained by the Son of God, what do you think of those who are called by him and bear the name of the Son of God and walk in his commandments? Do you see, then, what kind of people he sustains? Those who bear his ame with their whole heart. So he himself has become their foundation and gladly sustains them because they are not ashamed to bear his name." (Herm. 91:5-6). Hmmm, is reliance on Christ Christian?
"Mend your wys, therefore, while the tower is still being built. The Lord lives among people who love peace, for peace is truly dear to him, but he keeps his distance from the quarrelsome and those destroyed by wickedness. So return, therefore, your spirit to him whole, just as you recieved it." (Herm. 109:1-2). Wow, an admonition to a good life is occult.
Incredible. I didn't know such literature was occult. Have you ever bothered to read them? You might find that everything you have been taught is wrong. This is the kind of nonsense that I usually hear from KJV-Onlyists, condemning these types of books, just for a quick "up" on their translation. In the process of doing this, you give every more calm, rational person a bad name, just because they do not subscribe to a wild conspiracy theory.
You want to discuss abiogenesis? I would rather not, since it is off-topic for this, but if you can give real, honest, evidence for your KJV-Only position, I will with pleasure, as I will claim evolut
You failed to answer all but two of my questions regarding Aleph and B (that is the one you answered), so I will repost them. Again, if you criticize them, I would think that an honest man would know these details.
1). What is their reading of Matthew 15:1?
2). What type of manuscripts are they?
3). What are they written on?
4). Where do they disagree the sharpest? This refers to disagreement between each other, if it was unclear before.
I will now reiterate my other questions.
Why should I accept a Bible translated, for the purpose to control religion in England (the "Authorized Version") commissioned by a king who murdered previous translators? I do not really think that such a source is very reliable.
You did not critique my translation of the first verses of John 1 with grammars and lexicons. Here it is again: "In the beginning was the Expressed Reason, and the Expressed Reason existed in relation to God, and the Expressed Reason was what God was. The same existed in relation to God. All things came to be by him, and without him, there came to be not one thing which came to be. There was life in him, and the life was the light of men. The light is shining in the darkness, and the darkness did not recieve it." Please criticize this with grammars and good lexicons.
Was the KJV copyrighted at one time? What does that do to your claim on the KJV and copyright. If the above translation is accurate and unique, and to the best of my knowledge, it is both, then I could copyright it. So, since all translations are unique, and since the KJV was once copyrighted, what part of your previous copyright point remains? Let's not slander Zondervan on the point of copyright, because if there is a profit motive in modern translations (and it is hard to deny), there was a power-grabbing motive in the KJV by a murderer. Which is worse? The man who wants a few bucks and hires translators and leaves others be, or the man who commissions a translation for his political power and murders the other translators. Personally, I think we shouldn't forget the political motive on the KJV.
Another question you ignored was how you manage to know how a language is in its zenith, as you asserted English was at the time of the KJV. How do you measure this? I know the difference between "ye" and "thee," but there are surely more differences between now and then. English now has over a million words available to it. We can translate and write more precisely than they did at that time. I would think this outweighs the loss of two words which were not even in vogue at that time. Are there other variables that you can cite which demonstrate this, because if the contrast of those two words is your sole argument there, I'm afraid you are sorely lacking.
Which TR are you comparing words from Sinaiticus and Vaticanus to, as there are multiple TR's, and they all differ? What makes you think the TR did not add them? Personally, I lean towards the latter. How do you determine the proper reading?
I will leave the "occult books" and ending of St. Mark for a second reply, which will beg for more evidence for other outlandish assertions.
Where did you get your information? Most webpages on this matter are, at best, unreliable and unscholarly. If you read a book, which book? What were the author's credentials?
You see, most scholars tend to agree that the TR is corrupt and these Alexandrian manuscripts represent older, less altered readings, so at least, one of your propositions is false (the one about what scholars believe). So, what about the following?
How about your proposition that the DSS vindicated the Masoretic Text? What about Jeremiah? Isn't it significantly shorter there? What about the Pentateuch? Doesn't it have readings that support the LXX and Samaritan Pentateuch over the MT? The last I checked, yeah, it did.
If you cannot do these things, then you are most likely just another fundamentalist shooting off his mouth on something, while knowing nothing about it. All my questions are rather basic and you claim at least some knowledge just by posting on it, so if you should be able to answer them.
You assert that the English language was at its zenith when the KJV was translated, so how do you reckon that? Why Shakespeare instead of Chaucer, Milton, or Tolkien? That seems rather arbitrary to me. Of course, I tend to think that languages continue to evolve, so even if it was its zenith then, that does not mean that it has not outlived its usefulness at this point.
Wasn't the KJV copyrighted at one time? If my memory serves, it was, but I'm not too sure. Nevertheless, a translation is as much the product of the translator as the original text (sometimes more so). You see, I would translate John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Expressed Reason, and the Expressed Reason existed in relation to God, and the Expressed reason was what God was. The same existed in the beginning in relation to God. All things came to be by him, and without him, there came to be not a single thing which has come to be. There was life in him, and the life was the light of men. The light is shining in the darkness, and the darknis did not recieve it." This is an *accurate* translation, and I could copyright it, because it is somewhat different from other English versions. If it is not accurate, please point out with grammars and lexicons (Strong's does not count as a lexicon), how it is not.
As a side note on your copyright claim, why would I want a Bible that was the product of political manipulations to control the religion of England of a king who murdered previous translators? For me, I think it might be just a teensy bit biased by its king. Of course, that's just me.
Here's a couple more quick questions for you about Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, since you seem so familiar with them:
1). What are their abbreviations?
2). What books do they contain?
3). What is the reading they have at Matthew 15:1?
4). What type of manuscripts are they?
5). What are they written on, and with what kind of ink?
6). Where do they disagree the sharpest?
If you are in a position to criticize all the modern translations, you should at least be able to answer these questions. Of course, if you can't you give all Christians everywhere a bad name by making authoritative statements on a subject you know nothing about. I lean towards the latter, as the position you took is uneducated at the very least.
Of course, most of you KJV guys can't answer these questions. Of course, most KJV proponents also don't know history, science, or any number of other things. If you aren't just another ignorant fundamentalist, please, by all means, answer at least *some* of these questions.
While I am a Christian, I must say that the Bible has certainly changed over time. It has changed in regard to its content, for there were multiple canons competing one against the other before the Jews and Christians each agreed on their respective canons, and it took until the late fourth and early fifth centuries for the Christian church to finally say, "Ok, so this is the NT and the common man will regard these books as Scripture and not others." It didn't drop down out of the sky.
The LXX represents the oldest readings of the Hebrew Bible, and it diverges from the Masoretic Text, Hebrew text of today, in a large number of ways. There are additions to biblical books found only in Greek. The book of Jeremiah is in a different order than in the MT, and I would think the order of a book has an impact on interpretation. In many places, there are variations resulting from its translation and the MT of today, which cannot be assumed to just be in translation.
The Dead Sea Scrolls, as constructed (it has been noted this is iffy), challenge the current Hebrew text as much as they support it. Yes, the DSS Isaiah is very close to the MT of today. Jeremiah (again), though, is much different. It is much shorter, and again, is in a different order. The Penteteuch of the DSS is more favorable to the LXX and Samaritan Penteteuch than it is to the MT.
The above are observations. There are still others which are made about the OT and show that it must have been composed in an extended editorial process (the Documentary Hypothesis on the Penteteuch, for example). There are places where it is clear that something has been omitted. In Numbers, God sends Balaam, and then sends an angel to kill him in the way because he went. I can postulate that God, as presented in the text, is fickle and kills people for obedience, that there was a story in between God's sending him and the ass speaking which was omitted and would have explained why he was being punished, or I can see it as an oversite in editing together several stories (the Documentary Hypothesis). I don't see many other rational arguments for it in the text.
I could mention more differences and alterations over time in the Hebrew Bible, but I don't see a need to. Likewise, I think that my point is made and I do not need to proceed into the New Testament to show the great number of changes over time in it. That the texts of the books of the Bible has changed is an observation. To deny it is either to not look at the evidence or to be wholly irrational.
It is the only game that has ever been able to make me cry and vow vengeance on a digital character. No other game has ever done that. To this day, hearing Aeris' themesong makes me sad, and likewise, hearing either Sephiroth's or the One Winged Angel makes me get ready to kill that jerk one more time.
A close second is the Street Fighter franchise. I've been addicted since 1991 and show no sign of abating.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do I ask you to back up your sources and say that an honest man would know those details? You are speaking on textual criticism, a matter arcane to most men. An honest man would not post on a matter that he does not know about. I am not convinced that you have read these documents, and if you are honest, you will know these details.
/. won't hav
Why do I ask about the type of manuscript it is? That is a detail used in classification of manuscripts isn't it? Why do I ask about the inks used? That helps to date it, and trace revisions, does it not? Are these unreasonable things for you to explain with your detailed knowledge of these manuscripts? I should think so.
Why do I ask you to explain the reading of Mt. 15:1 in particular? It was a random selection. You see, if you are going to speak on these texts with such great authority to dethrone the opinions of so many scholars, then you should have examined the documents in question. I know precious few people who have been able to purchase scans of these manuscripts, and web pages are easily altered. I, therefore, ask you to post that reading to demonstrate you are actually reading the Greek text to know what you're talking about.
Why do I speak as though I have authority (not great, but still informed)? I have completed a secondary education in biblical studies, the Greek language, and philosophy. I am familiar with the details on textual criticism and Greek. I should think that gives me the ability to speak on this matter, as a sysadmin would on a computer system. This does not make me a Bruce Metzger, but I am, at least, informed.
I have made very few assertions (some about the DSS, which is easy, and some about the consensus of scholars), but which ones do you want documented? You document first, though, because I ask first. I desire books, and not ones written by KJV-Onlyists. Can you provide those? I can for mine.
Your assertion that my translation is like the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses is ludicrous. It treats the words "logos" and "pros" significantly differently. The third clause of John 1:1 does not follow their translation. It seems that it is unlike their translation to me. I am giving up on you checking it with grammars and lexicons. If you had, you would have noted an error I *put* in there to see if you got it. I put an error in there for you to find, and in my first repost, I added another error by omitting a clause to boot. Every word but one I translated in a different manner from the KJV was a legitimate translation, but if you would have looked in a lexicon, even if you did not know much Greek, you would have noticed that I had mistranslated katalambano, which should be either "sieze" or "comprehend," but "receive" is far too weak for the strengthening kata in front of it. Of course, you don't know Greek, so you couldn't catch that. You didn't catch the omitted clause, "in the beginning," either. How can you speak on these issues when someone with even one year of study in the matter would have caught the error.
On your comment on my "political" biases on the KJV. First, Sinaiticus was found in an Eastern Orthodox monestary, not a Roman Catholic one. Second, I know that the RCC martyred people, but so did the Protestants. Why should I reject a manuscript in the original language in favor of a translation commissioned by a man who was just as bloody. If he had lived as long as things like the Inquisition (add an "s" to be technical) and the Reformation combined, then he would be able to kill as many people. As it stands, burning translators and "heretics" alive, and locking them away gives him a pretty good start. You ask me to accept a translation, by a murderer, over an original text. If you are going to do that, at least be consistent and reject them both.
I don't care about which manuscript family you follow. That's your business, but here, you are posting a bunch of bull, and well, as you pointed out most people on
The last paragraph was cut-off. It read that I want real sources. KJV sources are either uninformed or authored by out and out liars, maybe both. Either way, their word constitutes evidence to me no more than does the word of the Watchtower magazine.
I didn't know that the scholars were being payed to down the TR. Here I got my degree from them, watched them drive small beat-up cars, and live in small houses, while they were really being bribed to hide away the truth. Could you post a check stub? It seems too incredible for me to believe. Of course, I guess paying them peanuts is enough to keep the truth down. It's funny how that works.
You call the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shephard of Hermas occult books? Have you ever read these? I will give you some quotes from these occult books, and you tell me how occult they are.
"Similarly he once again gives an explanation about the cross in another prophet who says: `And when shall these things be accomplished? The Lord says: ``When a tree falls over and rises again, and when blood drips from a tree.'' ' Once again, you have a reference to the cross and about him who was destined to be crucified." (Barn. 12:1-2) I see nothing occult here, but then, maybe you consider 4 Ezra occult. Personally, I think this passage sounds very Christian.
How about his greeting? "Greetings, sons and daughters, in the name of the Lord who has loved us, in peace. Seeing that God's righteous acts twoard you are so great and rich, I rejoice with an unbounded and overflowing joy over your blessed and glorious spirits; so deeply implanted is the grace of the spiritual gift that you have recieved!" (Barn 1:1-2). Again, I see nothing occult here. Maybe I'm missing the occult aspects of these books. Would you point them out to me?
"And may God, who rules over the whole world, give you wisdom, insight, understanding, knowledge of his commandments, and patience. Be instructed by God, seeking out what the Lord seeks from you, and then do it, in order that you may be found in the day of judgment." (Barn 21.5-6) Wow, that seems pretty Christian to me. I may be confused, though, is this your opinion of the occult? It certainly doesn't fit mine. Of course, I may have been seduced by the lies of the Early Church rather than the "truth" being taught by you KJV guys.
"`God planted the vineyard, that is, he created the people, and turned them over to his Son. And the Son placed the angels over them to protect them, and the Son himself cleansed their sins with great labor and enduring much toil,'" (Herm 59:2). The Shephard of Hermas seems pretty Christian also. Maybe I'm just a poor reader, not having been introduced into some secret gnosis.
"the name of the Son of God is great and incomprehensible, and sustains the whole world. If, therefore, all creation is sustained by the Son of God, what do you think of those who are called by him and bear the name of the Son of God and walk in his commandments? Do you see, then, what kind of people he sustains? Those who bear his ame with their whole heart. So he himself has become their foundation and gladly sustains them because they are not ashamed to bear his name." (Herm. 91:5-6). Hmmm, is reliance on Christ Christian?
"Mend your wys, therefore, while the tower is still being built. The Lord lives among people who love peace, for peace is truly dear to him, but he keeps his distance from the quarrelsome and those destroyed by wickedness. So return, therefore, your spirit to him whole, just as you recieved it." (Herm. 109:1-2). Wow, an admonition to a good life is occult.
Incredible. I didn't know such literature was occult. Have you ever bothered to read them? You might find that everything you have been taught is wrong. This is the kind of nonsense that I usually hear from KJV-Onlyists, condemning these types of books, just for a quick "up" on their translation. In the process of doing this, you give every more calm, rational person a bad name, just because they do not subscribe to a wild conspiracy theory.
You want to discuss abiogenesis? I would rather not, since it is off-topic for this, but if you can give real, honest, evidence for your KJV-Only position, I will with pleasure, as I will claim evolut
You failed to answer all but two of my questions regarding Aleph and B (that is the one you answered), so I will repost them. Again, if you criticize them, I would think that an honest man would know these details.
1). What is their reading of Matthew 15:1?
2). What type of manuscripts are they?
3). What are they written on?
4). Where do they disagree the sharpest? This refers to disagreement between each other, if it was unclear before.
I will now reiterate my other questions.
Why should I accept a Bible translated, for the purpose to control religion in England (the "Authorized Version") commissioned by a king who murdered previous translators? I do not really think that such a source is very reliable.
You did not critique my translation of the first verses of John 1 with grammars and lexicons. Here it is again: "In the beginning was the Expressed Reason, and the Expressed Reason existed in relation to God, and the Expressed Reason was what God was. The same existed in relation to God. All things came to be by him, and without him, there came to be not one thing which came to be. There was life in him, and the life was the light of men. The light is shining in the darkness, and the darkness did not recieve it." Please criticize this with grammars and good lexicons.
Was the KJV copyrighted at one time? What does that do to your claim on the KJV and copyright. If the above translation is accurate and unique, and to the best of my knowledge, it is both, then I could copyright it. So, since all translations are unique, and since the KJV was once copyrighted, what part of your previous copyright point remains? Let's not slander Zondervan on the point of copyright, because if there is a profit motive in modern translations (and it is hard to deny), there was a power-grabbing motive in the KJV by a murderer. Which is worse? The man who wants a few bucks and hires translators and leaves others be, or the man who commissions a translation for his political power and murders the other translators. Personally, I think we shouldn't forget the political motive on the KJV.
Another question you ignored was how you manage to know how a language is in its zenith, as you asserted English was at the time of the KJV. How do you measure this? I know the difference between "ye" and "thee," but there are surely more differences between now and then. English now has over a million words available to it. We can translate and write more precisely than they did at that time. I would think this outweighs the loss of two words which were not even in vogue at that time. Are there other variables that you can cite which demonstrate this, because if the contrast of those two words is your sole argument there, I'm afraid you are sorely lacking.
Which TR are you comparing words from Sinaiticus and Vaticanus to, as there are multiple TR's, and they all differ? What makes you think the TR did not add them? Personally, I lean towards the latter. How do you determine the proper reading?
I will leave the "occult books" and ending of St. Mark for a second reply, which will beg for more evidence for other outlandish assertions.
Where did you get your information? Most webpages on this matter are, at best, unreliable and unscholarly. If you read a book, which book? What were the author's credentials? You see, most scholars tend to agree that the TR is corrupt and these Alexandrian manuscripts represent older, less altered readings, so at least, one of your propositions is false (the one about what scholars believe). So, what about the following? How about your proposition that the DSS vindicated the Masoretic Text? What about Jeremiah? Isn't it significantly shorter there? What about the Pentateuch? Doesn't it have readings that support the LXX and Samaritan Pentateuch over the MT? The last I checked, yeah, it did. If you cannot do these things, then you are most likely just another fundamentalist shooting off his mouth on something, while knowing nothing about it. All my questions are rather basic and you claim at least some knowledge just by posting on it, so if you should be able to answer them. You assert that the English language was at its zenith when the KJV was translated, so how do you reckon that? Why Shakespeare instead of Chaucer, Milton, or Tolkien? That seems rather arbitrary to me. Of course, I tend to think that languages continue to evolve, so even if it was its zenith then, that does not mean that it has not outlived its usefulness at this point. Wasn't the KJV copyrighted at one time? If my memory serves, it was, but I'm not too sure. Nevertheless, a translation is as much the product of the translator as the original text (sometimes more so). You see, I would translate John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Expressed Reason, and the Expressed Reason existed in relation to God, and the Expressed reason was what God was. The same existed in the beginning in relation to God. All things came to be by him, and without him, there came to be not a single thing which has come to be. There was life in him, and the life was the light of men. The light is shining in the darkness, and the darknis did not recieve it." This is an *accurate* translation, and I could copyright it, because it is somewhat different from other English versions. If it is not accurate, please point out with grammars and lexicons (Strong's does not count as a lexicon), how it is not. As a side note on your copyright claim, why would I want a Bible that was the product of political manipulations to control the religion of England of a king who murdered previous translators? For me, I think it might be just a teensy bit biased by its king. Of course, that's just me. Here's a couple more quick questions for you about Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, since you seem so familiar with them: 1). What are their abbreviations? 2). What books do they contain? 3). What is the reading they have at Matthew 15:1? 4). What type of manuscripts are they? 5). What are they written on, and with what kind of ink? 6). Where do they disagree the sharpest? If you are in a position to criticize all the modern translations, you should at least be able to answer these questions. Of course, if you can't you give all Christians everywhere a bad name by making authoritative statements on a subject you know nothing about. I lean towards the latter, as the position you took is uneducated at the very least. Of course, most of you KJV guys can't answer these questions. Of course, most KJV proponents also don't know history, science, or any number of other things. If you aren't just another ignorant fundamentalist, please, by all means, answer at least *some* of these questions.
While I am a Christian, I must say that the Bible has certainly changed over
time. It has changed in regard to its content, for there were multiple canons
competing one against the other before the Jews and Christians each agreed on
their respective canons, and it took until the late fourth and early fifth
centuries for the Christian church to finally say, "Ok, so this is the NT and
the common man will regard these books as Scripture and not others." It didn't
drop down out of the sky.
The LXX represents the oldest readings of the Hebrew Bible, and it diverges
from the Masoretic Text, Hebrew text of today, in a large number of ways.
There are additions to biblical books found only in Greek. The book of Jeremiah
is in a different order than in the MT, and I would think the order of a book
has an impact on interpretation. In many places, there are variations
resulting from its translation and the MT of today, which cannot be assumed to
just be in translation.
The Dead Sea Scrolls, as constructed (it has been noted this is iffy),
challenge the current Hebrew text as much as they support it. Yes, the DSS
Isaiah is very close to the MT of today. Jeremiah (again), though, is much
different. It is much shorter, and again, is in a different order. The
Penteteuch of the DSS is more favorable to the LXX and Samaritan Penteteuch
than it is to the MT.
The above are observations. There are still others which are made about the OT
and show that it must have been composed in an extended editorial process (the
Documentary Hypothesis on the Penteteuch, for example). There are places where
it is clear that something has been omitted. In Numbers, God sends Balaam, and
then sends an angel to kill him in the way because he went. I can postulate
that God, as presented in the text, is fickle and kills people for obedience,
that there was a story in between God's sending him and the ass speaking which
was omitted and would have explained why he was being punished, or I can see it
as an oversite in editing together several stories (the Documentary Hypothesis).
I don't see many other rational arguments for it in the text.
I could mention more differences and alterations over time in the Hebrew Bible,
but I don't see a need to. Likewise, I think that my point is made and I do
not need to proceed into the New Testament to show the great number of changes
over time in it. That the texts of the books of the Bible has changed is an
observation. To deny it is either to not look at the evidence or to be wholly
irrational.
It is the only game that has ever been able to make me cry and vow vengeance on a digital character. No other game has ever done that. To this day, hearing Aeris' themesong makes me sad, and likewise, hearing either Sephiroth's or the One Winged Angel makes me get ready to kill that jerk one more time.
A close second is the Street Fighter franchise. I've been addicted since 1991 and show no sign of abating.