Yes, well, when so many people find it as the final word on translation, and even base other "modern" translations off of it, it becomes a symbol of the general Christian translation. The fact that it was not really meant to be that becomes irrelevant if it used that way.
Ok, I am holding, in my hands currently, a Bible that was printed by "The Council of Translators", The New Rivised Standard Version. They outright say that the King James Bible has defects and they worked very hard to, from the origonal texts, create a Bible that was as well translated as possible. The Council of Translators contain people of all faiths.
I am not reading outdated material here and if you have a better translation, I'd like to know about it.
Ok, but to get to this, you would have to start with Hebrew, at least for the Tanach.. the NT, well, that's your own lookout.
This is a bold endevor, and something I hope to do, but for the time being I find it more likely that I will be able to get to the heart of the matter using a well translated document that is in my own language, translated by experts in the field, then stumble around attempting to read a document in a language I am completely hopeless in attempting to gleen some kind of knowledge.
Even if true, for the first 1500 years of Christianity, the only ones who could read any of the versions were clerics, and they often had their own agendas for how they chose to interpret the text. The phenomenon of Jews not being able to read the Hebrew is recent, as are the proselytizing methods that take advantage of this.
Why do you think the protestant movement happened? The Printing Press came out and people started getting their hands on Translated Bibles and started seeing that what the Catholic Church was giving them was a bunch of crap. This is a case of translation being WILDLY in favor of fighting injustice.
Also, I'd say that the first 400 years of Christianity were full of people who could read those documents. The disciples certianly could, and were well versed in them, and they converted many Hebrews who also could read those documents. It wasn't until the Church because a legal entity that the dumbing down of everything happened, and then the Dark Ages happened. And let's face it... NOBODY read during the dark ages.
But saying that everyone in the first 1500 years of Christianity was illiterate is just wildly innaccurate.
Of COURSE the "proof"sites are Christian, they are the ones that want to "prove" that Jesus is the Messiah of the Tanach. The refutation sites are going to be Jewish, as they are the ones who are going to be responding to such "proofs".
Super. I'm still asking for the site because I can't find it.
I do not equate your personal faith with anyone, but the history of the various Christian Churches DOES. Martin Luther, the father of Lutheranism, was clearly, based on his own writings, and avid hater of Jews, as were the inquisitors, and those who used your religion to justify Pogroms, Crusades, killings, and blood libels in the nameof the various churches. If none of these people are real Christians, than none of their words should be part of Christian Dogma.
Kay. You're not going to see me put up a fight for orthodoxy, rhetoric, or dogma. I'm only interested in what the book says. I couldn't care less about what murderers have to say about anything.
Your fellow Christians are saying just that. Seeing as Jesus is a central part of Christianity, and has no significance to Judaism at all, I'd say it was a big difference.
Well sure, that's a big difference, and that is obvious. But I don't think that puts us on opposing sides here. We have alot in common with one another with the one exception of a disagreement on who Jesus was and what he stood for.
It's not what is found there, it is what, through mistranslation and taking things out of context, is finagled into there. Why don't you talk to an Orthodox Rabbi about the Torah, or are you afraid of what you will find there?
My brother is marrying a jewish girl who's father is a Rabbi. Lots of conversation happens there.
You keep assuming that I'm reading a mistranslation by default. I think that's going to get you into trouble, especially when there are a bunch of organizations, including jewish organizations, who have gone out of there way to create a well translated Bible, which you seem to be unaware exist. People kept translating after the King James Bible, and they stopped using the KJ as a source document years ago.
I'll say it again, you seem entirely certian that I am interested in propping up some kind of rhetoric or dogma. I have no interest in doing that and you'd do yourself a favor if you'd grab onto that. I've had a few people who've said that my beliefs make me not a Christian, so radical are my views on Christianity. I disagree with them, of course, but if you just insist to assume that I'm an idiot, or I'm reading bad documents, or I have any kind of agenda beyond a search for truth, then you're just going to frustrate yourself.