Christian Bible

Christian Bible questions and answers

Find more information on the Christian Bible @ The Adherents Religion Website.

Q: When was the first Christian Bible developed, including the Old Testament and the New Testament?
By Christian Bible, I don't mean when was the first English Bilbe developed, but the very first Christian Bible as we know today. If possible, please provide citations.

A: The New Testament as we know it was created at the Conference of Nicea (hence the Nicene Code). When Constantine the Great declared Christianity to be the official religion of Rome, there was no standardized Bible, but many books which were used by different churches. Constantine ordered the bishops of the church to gather at Nicea to determine not only what books were to be included in the New Testament, but even the nature of Jesus himself. Before that, there were varying beliefs about his divinity. Some believed that he was God incarnate, some that he was the Son of God, and some that he was merely a great Rabbi, or teacher. Needless to say, there was a great deal of debate, not only in the meeting, but even spilling out into the streets. The books that were excluded are now referred to as the Apocrypha, which is referred to by Catholics more than Protestants. Other books have since surfaced, also, and some are what are referred to as the Gnostic texts. These include more personal views of Jesus, and some may be older than the books included in the Bible, most of which were written long after the apostles they were attributed to. In the Gnostic texts, more emphasis is placed on self-awareness as the path to heaven than belief in the teachings of the church--they believed that people were intended to look inside themselves to find the God within themselves.

Q: Can I buy a Christian bible at a normal bookstore, if so which is most recommended?
What Bible is best for a teenager who is Protestant-Christian? I'm new and trying to convert and learn more about God. Thankyou.

A: Barnes and Nobles has a lot of bibles. Christians like the King James and the more modern Standard American. If you want a Torah, try the Stone edition.

Q: what is the difference in the jewish bible, christian bible, and the torah?
I have been wondering what exactly is the difference in the Christian Bible and the Jewish Bible? Also, is the Torah and the Jewish Bible the same?

A: Like the Mormons have the Bible and the Book of Mormons, so the the Tanach and the Talmud. The Tanach contains the 1st five books called the Torah. The history of the Talmud is shrouded in mystery in that there is no mention of it anywhere. Some say that Moses came down the mountain with 2 Torahs, an oral and a written. However, no where in the Tanach is the Torah translated as plural (two Torahs) or just the oral Torah. The most popular way of explaining the origin of the Talmud is that is was compiled after the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus penned by non-prophets. So when the Talmud spoken and written by non-prophets interprets the Tanach spoken by God. As Eoredd says, ***There is at least one reason why the Oral Law was not written when given at Mount Sinai. Oral Law is a process of adaptation, and re-reading, of the Written Tora according to the necessities and problems of every time and generation. So if it had been written, it would have become a Tora for all ages, unchangeable and impossible to adapt to unexpected situations.*** According to the Tanach, God raised up a Judge or a Prophet for those "unexpected situations" as if the curses told by Moses. Deuteronomy 28: 45 And all these curses shall come upon thee, and shall pursue thee, and overtake thee, till thou be destroyed; because thou didst not hearken unto the voice of HaShem thy G-d, to keep His commandments and His statutes which He commanded thee. 46 And they shall be upon thee for a sign and for a wonder, and upon thy seed for ever; 47 because thou didst not serve HaShem thy G-d with joyfulness, and with gladness of heart, by reason of the abundance of all things; 48 therefore shalt thou serve thine enemy whom HaShem shall send against thee, in hunger, and in thirst, and in nakedness, and in want of all things; and he shall put a yoke of iron upon thy neck, until he have destroyed thee. 49 HaShem will bring a nation against thee from far, from the end of the earth, as the vulture swoopeth down; a nation whose tongue thou shalt not understand; 50 a nation of fierce countenance, that shall not regard the person of the old, nor show favour to the young. 51 And he shall eat the fruit of thy cattle, and the fruit of thy ground, until thou be destroyed; that also shall not leave thee corn, wine, or oil, the increase of thy kine, or the young of thy flock, until he have caused thee to perish. 52 And he shall besiege thee in all thy gates, until thy high and fortified walls come down, wherein thou didst trust, throughout all thy land; and he shall besiege thee in all thy gates throughout all thy land, which HaShem thy G-d hath given thee. http://www.hareidi.org/bible/Deuteronomy28.htm#28 Anyone would swear this was the King James version of the Old Covenant but this quote from the Hebrew Bible that Mama and Paperback were referring. Most Christians would wonder whether it would be wise to follow the leadership who rejected Jesus and lead the Jews into the failed Roman revolt which lead to the destruction 2nd Temple. After all,the babies born to women who had been raped and who lost their husbands as part of the destruction of Jerusalem. How can this be anything but the fulfillment of Moses prophesy found in Deuteronomy 28? Therefore, as Mama said, ***a council of rabbis and scribes at Jamnia in 90 CE*** (20 years after the fall of the Temple and less than 60 years after the resurrection of Jesus) had much to talk about. Many believe it was at this time that the passing of lineage changed from the man to the woman. Ahaziah, son of Ahab and Jezebel (a Gentile mother) as described in the Tanach certainly doesn't the current beliefs about the need of 1. Jewish mother or 2. be a convert to Judaism to be Jewish as Ahaziah doesn't meet any of these "requirements." Therefore, the new "requirements" arrived sometime after Elijah. What a better time than after the destruction of the 2nd Temple? As Jeffery said: "Thisnk about this scenario...What if I needed to make a sacrifice in the Temple. I live in Los Angeles, CA USA. Would I have to travel all the way to Jerusalem to have a sacrifice performed. Do you see how rediculous this would be?" It certainly wasn't rediculous for David, Solomon, the builders of the 2nd Temple or the Maccabees. Many believe the Temple only became disposable to Jews after the 2nd Temple was destroyed as there is no possible consideration of a Judaism without a Temple found in the Tanach. As the Mormons will verify, there is no one alive today that can trace their lineage back the destruction of the 2nd Temple. Therefore, Judaism could not produce a priest in the line of Aaron or a messiah in the line of David as specified in the Tanach. And should a Rabbi say he (or she depending on the sect of Judaism) heard the voice of God, he/she would be discredited by their congregation. So as Acts 2 talks about the prophesy of Joel being fulfilled in Christianity, the Jews are starting to say that the Spirit of God speaking to men ended with the end of the age of prophets. A great question to ask is whether Elijah will return hearing the Spirit of God as he did the first time or not. If he does, how can he be excepted by Judaism when the rabbis would be rejected. If he doesn't, then why did he lose it? Again, this takes place in that period of time between 30 and 90 AD. Consider this time as a fork in the road caused by the loss of the Temple and the ability to have priests in the line of Aaron, a sacrifical system and the ability to hear the Spirit of God. One side compiles the New Covenant while the other compiles the Talmud.....both claiming the Tanach or old covenant as its foundation which can't be continued. The NT and the Talmud are the differences between Christianity and Judaism as the Tanach is exactly the same for both. Hope this helps

Q: Does the Christian Bible realy miss interpret the Jewish one?
Every time anyone says something about the Torah, someone Jewish who speaks Hebrew claims that the original Torah disagrees, yet it was not entirely in HEBREW but early Persian Arabic aka Aramaic. Can anyone fill me in on how much if a difference those translations are to the Christian Bible if both where to be in English?

A: The Christian Bible's translation of the Torah has only some minor differences but the rest of the Jewish Bible is where most of the translation differences occur and there are simply too many to list in a Y/A q. I can also see from your q you have a little misunderstanding about the texts in question. The Christian “Old Testament” is an adaptation and alteration of The Jewish Bible. Tanakh, is an acronym for the three sections of the Scriptures, the Torah (Pentateuch, first five books of Moses, Torah meaning teaching/law) the Neviim (Prophets) and Ketuviim (Writings or scriptures) Tertullian, early in the third century CE named the Christian amended version of the Tanakh the "Old Testament" *specifically* to designate it as having been superceded and done away with in contrast to the "New", despite the assertion within it's texts well over a dozen times from Genesis forward that it is an eternal testament (covenant). The Christian Bible's Old Testament (it’s adaptation of Tanakh) reveals that in many places there are significant translation differences rendering the meanings of the passages quite different. Not only are the books rearranged so that the books are not in the order of Torah, Prophets and Writings, but Kings, Ezra and Nehemiah are divided. The Protestant Old Testament contains roughly the same books; the Vulgate has additional texts added to the canon that were originally written in Greek. The Greek Septuagint (meaning 70) was originally referring to the Torah portion only, and in fact, that is the only portion that was translated by 72 scribes whose translations matched. The rest of Tanakh was translated from the Hebrew to the Greek over the course of about 300 years and scholars cannot tell who or when exactly any of them were translated. Yet the common name of Septuagint is now generally applied to the whole Greek translation. By the beginning of the first century CE, there were many different versions of each text that appeared, some of them with less accurate Hebrew to Greek, and during this time, many other texts appeared being originally written IN Greek such as the books of the Maccabees. By the time of the beginnings of Christianity, some of these texts of Tanakh had become so changed through the Hellenization (introduction of Greek philosophic concepts through language) that they were no longer adherent to Torah precept. The Hebrew Bible canon had been more or less "closed" since the time of Ezra/ Nehemiah (around 423 BCE) but of course, Jewish scribes still penned what was going on in Jewish life in Judea and wrote and discussed how to apply Torah to their lives. It has been debated by many Jewish scholars that if the Books of Maccabees had originally been written in Hebrew they may have been more readily accepted by Jews as Jewish texts..but as a part of Talmud, since the Tanakh was already formed..not as a part of our Bible. ****The Greek Septuagint called the Old Testament is not a Jewish document, but rather a Christian one. The original Septuagint, created 2,200 years ago by 72 Jewish translators, was a Greek translation of the Five Books of Moses alone. It therefore did not contain prophetic Books of the Bible such as Isaiah. The Septuagint as we have it today, which includes the Prophets and Writings as well, is a product of the church, not the Jewish people. In fact, the Septuagint remains the official Old Testament of the Greek Orthodox Church, and the manuscripts that consist of our Septuagint today date to the third century C.E. The fact that additional books known as the Apocrypha, which are uniquely sacred to the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Church, are found in the Septuagint should raise a red flag to those inquiring into the Jewishness of the Septuagint. The fact that the original Septuagint translated by Jewish scribes more than 22 centuries ago was only of the Pentateuch and not of prophetic books of the Bible such as Isaiah is confirmed by countless sources including the ancient Letter of Aristeas, which is the earliest attestation to the existence of the Septuagint. The Talmud also states this explicitly in Tractate Megillah (9a), and Josephus as well affirms that the Septuagint was a translation only of the Law of Moses in his preface to Antiquities of the Jews. Moreover, Jerome, a church father and Bible translator who could hardly be construed as friendly to Judaism, affirms Josephus' statement regarding the authorship of the Septuagint in his preface to The Book of Hebrew Questions. In fact, Dr. F.F. Bruce, the preeminent professor of Biblical exegesis, keenly points out that, strictly speaking, the Septuagint deals only with the Pentateuch and not the whole Old Testament. Bruce writes, "The Jews might have gone on at a later time to authorize a standard text of the rest of the Septuagint, but . . . lost interest in the Septuagint altogether. With but few exceptions, every manuscript of the Septuagint which has come down to our day was copied and preserved in Christian, not Jewish, circles."***** The accuracy of the words we see now in the Hebrew Bible was confirmed with the findings of the Dead Sea Scrolls where fragments of each book except the book of Esther (the last book to be included in the canon) match quite well with the Tanakh's Jews use today. The majority of the Dead Sea scrolls were written in the Hebrew Language (approximately 90-95%) with Assyrian Block script. From this majority there are a few cases in which the scribes used Paleo-Hebrew (see for example 4QPaleoExodus). Modern Hebrew is different from the ancient Paleo Hebrew, but the Hebrew of 2000 years ago is closer to modern Hebrew than the English of the 1700’s is to the English we speak today. The majority of the Dead Sea scrolls were written in the Hebrew Language (approximately 90-95%) with Assyrian Block script. From this majority there are a few cases in which the scribes used Paleo-Hebrew (see for example 4QPaleoExodus). Modern Hebrew is different from the ancient Paleo Hebrew, but the Hebrew of 2000 years ago is closer to modern Hebrew than the English of the 1700’s is to the English we speak today. You can discover on your own with comparative reading where key passages stand out to change meanings. One well-known portion is in Isaiah. The word lucifer does not appear at all in the Hebrew Bible. It is only in the Christian Bible’s translation from the LATIN..lucifer means morning star in Latin. The Hebrew word Isaiah wrote is heylel, meaning star. In the English translation of the Christian Old Testament they make the Latin word lucifer into a proper name ( Lucifer) and then personify the word referring to the planet Venus in a passage that Isaiah slams Nebuchadnezzar for styling himself the god/man representation of Venus (the morning star) on earth. Isaiah is condemning a human for calling himself a god. There is no fall of angels in the Hebrew Bible. There is simply no such thing as a Lucifer who became a demi-god of an underworld hell to be found in the Tanakh. Therefore, mistranslation can change things around quite a bit. Most of the book of Daniel and portions of Ezra and a single sentence in Jeremiah are in Aramaic, a related language using Hebrew letters. All else in the Jewish Bible was written in Hebrew. Torah never made claim that God is exclusive to the covenant of Israel, but that the people who embrace it are exclusive to God alone. The righteous of all nations merit the world to come. All humans are equal before God and may connect to God directly. That is what the ETERNAL Testament teaches within its pages. Shalom. edit: Because the Talmud is not widely known, it is something that antisemites love to try to misrepresent."In summary, the Talmud is a complement to the Bible. It fills in the gaps and explains the laws of the Torah. In addition, it includes stories and sayings that both straightforwardly and allegorically offer the philosophy and wisdom of Judaism. However, the Talmud is a difficult text to read because it contains many discussions (that took place over hundreds of years) in the form of proof and disproof. The logical progressions lend it to out-of-context quotes that represent a soon-to-be toppled assumption."

Q: How can gays go to christian bible believing churches and think that they are okay?
The christian bible clearly states homosexuals are doomed. Are they that sick and twisted that they can't see?

A: I feel sorry for you for hate is worse than any sin out there, if you believe in sin?!?

Q: what's the difference between the version of the christian Bible and jewish bible?
I've heard the christian bibles have many mistakes in the old testament like virgin it's not virgin it's young woman can you tell me more about that? that's jew said me about the christian bible if there is any jewish plz where can I find a jewish Bible for free which can send me to my country mexico?plzzz in english or spanish.. I want to know plz

A: Yes, there are several differences. The obvious one is that the Jewish Bible doesn't contain the "New Testament". Also, I think some of the books are in a slightly different order. And, yes, the KJB has a number of mistranslations. As you heard, the phrase "the young woman shall give birth" is mistranslated as "the virgin shall give birth". It doesn't actually make much of a difference, Christianity-wise, in context, since the lady in question lived during the time of Isaiah and King Hezekiah. It also occasionally makes up words. In Psalms, King David complains that his enemies tear at his hands and feet like lions. The KJB people took the word "like lions", K'Ari, made it into a nonsense word, "Kiori", and translated it as "they pierced my hands and feet". Again, I'm not sure what this was supposed to prove, since David was clearly talking about himself.

Q: What is the difference in books between the catholic bible and the christian bible?
I'm still in search of a good Teen Catholic Study Bible. I want to make sure I'm reading the proper text and teachings of the catholic church. In my last post, someone told me that the catholic bible contains the "Book of Wisdom" and others say it has additional books as well that weren't added in the christian bible by the 'founding fathers' for whatever reason. I mean no disrespect to those who think less of me for asking such questions. I just want to be sure I'm reading the proper text so I would really be grateful if those who answer don't leave rude comments. If possible, can you recommend some good Catholic Teen Study Bibles. Thank you and God Bless!!!

A: The New Testament canon of the Catholic Bible and the Protestant Bible are the same with 27 Books. The difference in the Old Testaments actually goes back to the time before and during Christ’s life. At this time, there was no official Jewish canon of scripture. The Jews in Egypt translated their choices of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek in the second century before Christ. This translation of 46 books, called the Septuagint, had wide use in the Roman world because most Jews lived far from Palestine in Greek cities. Many of these Jews spoke only Greek. The early Christian Church was born into this world. The Church, with its bilingual Jews and more and more Greek-speaking Gentiles, used the books of the Septuagint as its Bible. Remember the early Christians were just writing the documents what would become the New Testament. After the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, with increasing persecution from the Romans and competition from the fledgling Christian Church, the Jewish leaders came together and declared its official canon of Scripture, eliminating seven books from the Septuagint. The books removed were Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Wisdom (of Solomon), Sirach, and Baruch. Parts of existing books were also removed including Psalm 151 (from Psalms), parts of the Book of Esther, Susanna (from Daniel as chapter 13), and Bel and the Dragon (from Daniel as chapter 14). The Christian Church did not follow suit but kept all the books in the Septuagint. 46 + 27 = 73 Books total. 1500 years later, Protestants decided to keep the Catholic New Testament but change its Old Testament from the Catholic canon to the Jewish canon. The books they dropped are sometimes called the Apocrypha. The following Bible translations are approved by the Catholic Chruch for personal use: + Douai-Rheims + Confraternity Edition + Revised Standard Version (RSV) - Catholic Edition + New American Bible (NAB ) + Jerusalem Bible + New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)- Catholic Edition + New Jerusalem Bible + Today's' English Version - Catholic Only the New American Bible (NAB) is approved for liturgical use in the U.S. and many other English speaking countries. Here is the NAB website: http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/ With love in Christ.

Q: Would you prefer that the Christian Bible should be written on this time than written thousands years ago?
Thousand more books were not included in the bible because they are burned together with the early christians(Saints) by emperors of Rome. People on this time might be more intelligent and have more wisdom and have more experiences. Who will write?

A: The books of the Bible were inspired by God, through the people who wrote them. If God came to me, or you, or anyone and told us to write a more "modern" Bible, so to speak...then we'd have to do it! But the things that happened in the Bible happened thousands of years ago-so what use would it be to write one now, unless God inspired us to?

Q: What the Christian Bible say about gays?
I do NOT want a long, elaborate answer. I would like an answer in a few short lines, maybe some verses that I could look up. I have a NIV Teen Study Bible, so please give me an answer that I can understand!

A: It says that us gays are bad persons. But that is a load of crap. Why would you want to read crap?

Q: Why is the Koran and the Jewish bibles more complete books than the christian bible?
Why were books that appear in the Koran and Jubilees omitted from the christian version of the bible? Was it fear...was it concern that these books portrayed women in a better light than the catholic church wanted...etc.

A: Have you ever bothered to read the Bible? the Koran? the Torah?

Q: is the Jehovah Witnesses translation of the Bible different from the regular Christian Bible?
Is there are difference between them? If so what are they? can u cite anything as proof?

A: While critical of some of its translation choices, BeDuhn called the New World Translation a “remarkably good” translation, “better by far” and “consistently better” than some of the others considered. Overall, concluded BeDuhn, the New World Translation “is one of the most accurate English translations of the New Testament currently available” and “the most accurate of the translations compared.”—Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament. “Here at last is a comprehensive comparison of nine major translations of the Bible: King James Version, New American Standard Bible, New International Version, New Revised Standard Version, New American Bible, Amplified Bible, Today's English Version (Good News Bible), Living Bible, and the New World Translation. The book provides a general introduction to the history and methods of Bible translation, and gives background on each of these versions. Then it compares them on key passages of the New Testament to determine their accuracy and identify their bias. Passages looked at include: John 1:1; John 8:58; Philippians 2:5-11; Colossians 1:15-20; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:8; 2 Peter 1:1 Jason BeDuhn Associate Professor of Religious Studies, and Chair Department of Humanities, Arts, and Religion Northern Arizona University .

Q: Are Atheists who swear in before testifying in court on a Christian Bible obliged to tell the truth?
Lawsuit to use Quran for courtroom oaths may proceed By The Associated Press 01.17.07 RALEIGH, N.C. — A lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and a Muslim woman over the use of the Quran and other non-Christian texts for courtroom oaths in North Carolina should be allowed to go forward, the state Court of Appeals ruled yesterday. A three-judge panel voted unanimously to reverse a trial court decision that had dismissed the challenge to state law and policy. Currently, only the Bible can be used by witnesses when swearing or affirming truthful testimony.

A: Whether or not people want to use different texts to swear upon is irrelevant. You are not required to swear upon a Bible. The oath is the oath, Bible or not

Q: Is there any passage in the Christian Bible to support the Catholic belief in "Purgatory"?
I know this is not the religious section and that many of the regulars do not approve of religious questions, but have always wondered about "Purgatory" and from where belief in it is drawn but never get around to asking my priest....... Any insights?

A: Purgatory comes from Judaism (Jews believe in a place called Gehenna)...that's why you usually hear people saying that 'Catholicism fulfilled Judaism'. If you'd like to know more about it look up Gehenna and you'll see.

Q: how did the christian bible come to be written?
how and why was the christian bible written?

A: In the past there was no Television or Cinema's - People wrote stories and made them into big fictitious story books... E.G. The Bible!

Q: How much of the Christian Bible simply does not make sense ?
Hi Folks, I do not mean the translated way of ancient writings, but the tales within as by some understood. I follow Christian beleifs, but giggle at some of the fairy-tales in the scriptures. I would love, If I spoke Aramaic, to have a long chat with Jesus about stuff, but the Old Testament is akin to someone on powerful drugs. Disney / Pixar could not make Noahs Ark beleivable. Just an example, there are many more. Any notions ? Bob

A: Which Bible there are so many? Bibles have been mistranslated many times, with texts include and exclude to reflect the whims of the different churches. The idea that any bible should be regarded as an acurate historic document is absurd, whether you are a believer or not. Here are some fun versions of the bible which may interest you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_errata You must always bear in mind that the meaning of words changes over time as well. When you read a passage in the bible it could have meant something quite different to the author. Having said that does appear to be a historical basis for pretty much everything in the bible. The timelines an explanations of events may not be correct, but the events themselves probably happened. The Great Flood is a legend based in fact. It almost certainly refers to water from the Mediterreanean bursting into to the Black Sea (circa 5500 BC). The water level in the Black Sea rose over 100m in a relatively short period of time, consuming all of the population living on its shores. All ancient peoples and religions in the area had flood legends.