Welcome to Detroit Sports Forum!

By joining our community, you'll be able to connect with fellow fans that live and breathe Detroit sports just like you!

Get Started
  • If you are no longer able to access your account since our recent switch from vBulletin to XenForo, you may need to reset your password via email. If you no longer have access to the email attached to your account, please fill out our contact form and we will assist you ASAP. Thanks for your continued support of DSF.

How the King James Bible was made

Michchamp

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 4, 2011
Messages
33,983
some guy just discovered an old copy of a draft in progress. Seems to be less-than-divine inspiration there, just assigning a bunch of writers a book each, with some of them not even doing the work.

oh well. i guess that settles a few things about the KJV, but I'm sure all other versions of the Bible really were divinely inspired...
 
In the first version Moses lived to be 800...they changed it to 500 to make it more realistic
 
There has always been inaccuracies in that book, this is not news. King James demanded the Bible to be altered to his liking. Not sure why this is surprising to anyone.

Additionally, some inaccuracies are due to misunderstanding or mistranslation from Hebrew/Aramaic into Latin/Romance languages and then into English.

Simply look to earlier artwork. Michaelangelo's Moses has horns on it due to inaccurate translation of the term "halo", as do many paintings of that era.

That said, the Torah has been precisely copied from generation to generation from the time the first one was created. Interpretation of meaning has changed over time, and rabbis have added their thoughts/opinions (oft claiming they were told by G-d what to write, but I digress). Regardless, the written words have been unaltered to the best of my knowledge.

Just pointing out that while the KJB has been obviously altered and changed over time, the basis for Christianity - Judaism - has not altered their foundational writing of the Torah.

As for the lifespans, it is logical that those "years" were lunar cycles, not solar cycles. It was a different time in human understanding of the solar system. It bothers me that so called scholars take those years to be actual solar years when trying to calculate the age of Earth.
 
Back
Top