Bible Origins -- discussion

[TA1LGUNN3R]

If God is a male, I wonder how he jerks off. Actually, I kinda wonder the same thing if God is a female.

-TG

You've never heard of the Milky Way?

Nicely done.

-TG

[PLAYER57832]

BTW most religions viewed a God as having both sexes. Not in the rude sense of physical genetalia but in the spiritual/psychological sense.

Mainstream Catholicism does not and has not viewed God as having both sexes in any way, shape, or form.
At least through most of it's history; I can't speak to early Christianity.

I can't speak for all Christian sects... but I'm sure the vast majority of people think of God as a "Him".

Actually, many consider God, and actually the first Adam, to be neither male nor female, but both or beyond any gender.

So why was the Bible been modified to make God a "He" and make "Him" singular?

Some of that has to do with translation issues. Languages differ in how they deal with gender, as well as certain familial relations. (for example, ancient Greek apparently has no word for cousin).

i would also argue that most of the world, particularly what we call "the west" has been heavily patriarchal, heavily male-oriented. In such a society, it would be simply unthinkable that women we in any way equal. Though its not often considered, Greek society was particularly patriarchal, as was ancient Rome. Jews and Christians existed for a long time under their guise and would have had to mold somewhat to survive.

The main point for me is that this tends to indicate that gender is not that critical here.

but again, a lot of your arguments have to do with what I would call fundamental misunderstandings about the Bible and religion in general.

[tzor]

The English language may not HAVE the right words to explain the concept.

People often forget what a BASTARD language English is. (It was doing quite nicely until the Normans injected French into it.) Most of the words have been forced to fit certain meanings that they were never intended to convey. Words like 'Honor" and "Worship" and all other sorts of words cause a plethora of problems in Religious discussions especially as they are generally poorly used as translations from other languages where the meanings are clear and precise and oriented towards the subject at hand.

It also doesn't help that a lot of early ecumenical councils (the ones that both catholic and orthodox agree to) were both held in the Greek language and the Greek mindset. This mindset, which comes from the Greek philosophers, tended to look more at perfect forms. It's an entirely different way of looking at things than we have today.

Here is an example to bring us back to the topic.

Homoousian (/ˌhɒmoʊˈuːsiən/ hom-oh-oo-see-ən; Ancient Greek: ὁμοούσιος, from the Ancient Greek: ὁμός, homós, "same" and Ancient Greek: οὐσία, ousía, "being") is a technical theological term used in discussion of the Christian understanding of God as Trinity. The Nicene Creed describes Jesus as being homooúsios with God the Father — that is, they are equally God. This term, adopted by the First Council of Nicaea, was intended to add clarity to the relationship between Christ and God the Father within the Godhead. The term is rendered "consubstantialis" in Latin and in related terms in other Latin-derived languages which lack a present participle of the verb *to be*. It is one of the cornerstones of theology in Christian churches which adhere to the Nicene Creed.

As you can see, even going from Greek to Latin we get potential translation problems. And if you want to get into extreme Greek Nit Picking 101

This doctrine was formulated in the 4th century during the Christological debates between Arius and Athanasius. The several distinct branches of Arianism which sometimes conflicted with each other as well as with the pro-Nicene homoousian creed can be roughly broken down into the following classification:

Homoiousianism (from ὅμοιος, hómoios, "similar" – as opposed to homós, "same") which maintained that the Son was "like in substance" but not necessarily to be identified with the essence of the Father.
Homoeanism (also from hómoios) which declared that the Son was similar to God the Father, without reference to substance or essence. Some supporters of Homoian formulae also supported one of the other descriptions. Other Homoians declared that God the father was so incomparable and ineffably transcendent that even the ideas of likeness, similarity or identity in substance or essence with the subordinate Son and the Holy Spirit were heretical and not justified by the Gospels. They held that the Father was like the Son in some sense but that even to speak of ousia was impertinent speculation.
Heteroousianism (including Anomoeanism) which held that God the Father and the Son were different in substance and/or attributes.

My objection to the Trinity is simply that (I feel) the Catholic Church contradicts itself. Maybe they don't... maybe I just don't understand what they are saying. Or maybe they don't do a good job explaining it. I think it's a contradiction.

The trinity is one of those interesting things that comes from the ancient Greek tradition. It never fit well with the Western mindset of trying to explain every little detail. In the end it really is a MYSTERY. Sometimes it does require a completely different mindset in order to see the not so obvious, but trying to force an understanding without that mindset is like trying to understand the structure of the atom without having a quantum mechanical mindset.

show

[AndyDufresne]

In the end it really is a MYSTERY.

the entire universe at the atomic level was a MYSTERY.

--Andy

[jimboston]

I can't speak for all Christian sects... but I'm sure the vast majority of people think of God as a "Him".

Actually, many consider God, and actually the first Adam, to be neither male nor female, but both or beyond any gender.

Who thinks this??? Links.

I don't know what you consider "many" in the context of this conversation.

The vast majority of Christians would call God a "man" if asked.
If prodded, some might say something like "Well. he could be a woman."

Yes. There are people who think God is a woman. There are people who think God has neither or both sexes.

This has been stated. How is it a response to my comment?
Do you think that the vast majority would not say "God is a Man"???

... and who thinks Adam is not a man??? I've never heard that before. That's just fucking stoopid.

So why was the Bible been modified to make God a "He" and make "Him" singular?

Some of that has to do with translation issues. Languages differ in how they deal with gender, as well as certain familial relations. (for example, ancient Greek apparently has no word for cousin).

i would also argue that most of the world, particularly what we call "the west" has been heavily patriarchal, heavily male-oriented. In such a society, it would be simply unthinkable that women we in any way equal. Though its not often considered, Greek society was particularly patriarchal, as was ancient Rome. Jews and Christians existed for a long time under their guise and would have had to mold somewhat to survive.

The main point for me is that this tends to indicate that gender is not that critical here.

but again, a lot of your arguments have to do with what I would call fundamental misunderstandings about the Bible and religion in general.

What indicates that Gender is not critical????

Obviously the male patriarchal society that edited the Bible thought it was critical.

It was important enough for them to make the change. No?

[Bernie Sanders]

[jimboston]

Obviously the male patriarchal society that edited the Bible thought it was critical.

It was important enough for them to make the change. No?

It never happened, until you provide proof or drop the point, I'm going to continue to ignore you as a troll.

That's your prerogative.
You can do what you wanna do.
That's your prerogative.

Course we've talked about this since the start of the thread... so no reason I need to repeat.

Council of Nicaea

[jgordon1111]

You might want to see what the koran says about the holy trinity, due to a statement by Jesus.

[jimboston]

You might want to see what the koran says about the holy trinity, due to a statement by Jesus.

I'm not actually debating the doctrine of any particular religion.

I'm pointing out the inconstancies of the people here promoting the Bible as the Word of God.

[jimboston]

You might want to see what the koran says about the holy trinity, due to a statement by Jesus.

A quick Google search on the trio of words... Koran, Trinity, Jesus found a few links that basically said that Muslims don't like the idea of the Trinity. Further reading, mainly it appears by Christian writers, seems to blame Muslims for misinterpreting (surprise [not]) the Christian belief of the Trinity. Do you have access to something different.

What I found on a cursory search here was not relevant nor revealing.

[PLAYER57832]

I can't speak for all Christian sects... but I'm sure the vast majority of people think of God as a "Him".

Actually, many consider God, and actually the first Adam, to be neither male nor female, but both or beyond any gender.

Who thinks this??? Links.

Well, it was mentioned in my confirmation classes, was a common theme in theology discussions at my Lutheran college, in college groups as a student at secular colleges, and within various Bible studies (which, I will add have been under the auspices of a wide range of churches, ranging from pretty fundamentalist to more mainline conservative churches)
Here, from Wikipedia:

Adam (Hebrew: אָדָם) as a proper name, predates its generic use in Semitic languages. Its earliest known use as a genuine name in historicity is Adamu, as recorded in the Assyrian King List.[2] Its use as a common word in the Hebrew language is ׳āḏām, meaning "human". Coupled with the definite article, it becomes "the human".[3]

Its root is not attributed to the Semitic root for "man" -(n)-sh. Rather, ׳āḏām is linked to its triliteral root אָדָם (a-d-m), meaning "red", "fair", "handsome".[4] As a masculine noun, 'adam[5] means "man", "mankind" usually in a collective context as in humankind.[4][6] The noun 'adam is also the masculine form of the word adamah which means "ground" or "earth". It is related to the words: adom (red), admoni (ruddy), and dam (blood).[7] According to a number of observers, the word Adam derives from Sanskrit word Adima, meaning "progenitor", "first", "primitive" in Sanskrit.[8][9][10][11]

In the Book of Genesis, ׳āḏām can also be rendered "mankind" in the most generic sense, which is similar to its usage in Canaanite languages.[12][13] The use of "mankind" in Genesis, gives the reflection that Adam was the ancestor of all men.

[/quote]

I don't know what you consider "many" in the context of this conversation.

Here, from Mirriam Webster:

1
: consisting of or amounting to a large but indefinite number <worked for many years>
2
: being one of a large but indefinite number <many a man> <many another student>

The vast majority of Christians would call God a "man" if asked.
If prodded, some might say something like "Well. he could be a woman."

Not exactly. We don't have a neutral or male/female combined singular pronoun in English. Culturally, "man" has come to mean both male and a generic person. Many people don't bother getting into the technicalities much, its just easier to talk/see Adam as a male, most kids stories put it that way and that is what people often remember, though if you challenge them or if they look into it seriously, you get a more nuanced answer.

Yes. There are people who think God is a woman. There are people who think God has neither or both sexes.

This has been stated. How is it a response to my comment?
Do you think that the vast majority would not say "God is a Man"???

[/quote]That used to be the case, but more and more people within Christianity and Judaism would now way that God is neither male nor Female. Actually, a lot of people would argue that use using solely male is actually a distortion of the earlier beliefs, but I leave that up to the experts.

... and who thinks Adam is not a man??? I've never heard that before. That's just fucking stoopid.

Yeah, anything you have not heard about is obviously just stupid.. perfect logic, there.

So why was the Bible been modified to make God a "He" and make "Him" singular?


Some of that has to do with translation issues. Languages differ in how they deal with gender, as well as certain familial relations. (for example, ancient Greek apparently has no word for cousin).

i would also argue that most of the world, particularly what we call "the west" has been heavily patriarchal, heavily male-oriented. In such a society, it would be simply unthinkable that women we in any way equal. Though its not often considered, Greek society was particularly patriarchal, as was ancient Rome. Jews and Christians existed for a long time under their guise and would have had to mold somewhat to survive.

The main point for me is that this tends to indicate that gender is not that critical here.

but again, a lot of your arguments have to do with what I would call fundamental misunderstandings about the Bible and religion in general.

What indicates that Gender is not critical????

Obviously the male patriarchal society that edited the Bible thought it was critical.

It was important enough for them to make the change. No?

lol
You basically made my point for me.
My understanding, that which I have been taught is that God really does not fit into these neat human categories, that they are just our best attempt to understand. In the days/societies that have been so heavily patriarchal, it was plain unthinkable that God could be anything other than male. Even the idea of duality of gender was just beyond comprehension. So, the distortion was brought in. However, a more modern understanding is that there is no real gender to God. We are now able to see this.

My personal belief is that God allowed this misunderstanding because without it, people would not just not accept his words, but would not really comprehend what was said, would focus too much just on the "insane" idea that there might be something other than a strict male hierarchy.

[jgordon1111]

Jim, what I was reffering to was j Jesus had stated heaven awaited him where with his father and mother he would be reunited, Muslims took umbrage and, said what? Find the rest for yourselves, I won't promote any organized religions view, just thought ithat might help with the current discourse. If it doesn't look for Hindu trinity brama Shiva Vishnu, and see what was said to the supplicant in the parna, I believe that's what the Christian's were aiming for, its clear and concise, but somewhere realized they erred and changed it to what it is today, well not exactly I have in my lifetime seen that change from ghost to spirit, go figure. No no they have never changed anything it has all been written by witnesses.the issue is the Muslims pointed out that early Christian's had effectively placed Mary EQUAL to God and Jesus from his statement and they dropped it you won't find it anymore, why? Who benefits?

[PLAYER57832]

Obviously the male patriarchal society that edited the Bible thought it was critical.

It was important enough for them to make the change. No?

It never happened, until you provide proof or drop the point, I'm going to continue to ignore you as a troll.

Actually, DoomYoshi, it basically did, though not necessarily as Jimboston is implying. That is, it was not some "dastardly plot" to make the Bible fit their politics. Rather, they simply took a noun that in one language had no gender and translated it into a language that had no concept for a singular neutral pronoun. The point that is correct is that the language was that way, in part because the society simply could not accept the idea that there was any other possibility but male superiority and complete domination. The glory is that despite this and other translation issues, the word, the message of God comes through. These details just did not matter for God, the whole story, though yes, men have twisted them into great significance because humans, unlike God are imperfect.

And Jimboston... I am not asking you to accept/agree/like this, I am simply saying it is what I and many Christians (not all) believe. As noted above, DoomYoshi seems among those who would disagree.

[PLAYER57832]

.the issue is the Muslims pointed out that early Christian's had effectively placed Mary EQUAL to God and Jesus from his statement and they dropped it you won't find it anymore, why? Who benefits?

I realize you were addressing Jimbo, but this is not a Christian idea, it is a Roman Catholic idea, and one of the major sticking points between Protestants/Protestant offshoots (I use that term because many Baptists and others take exception to being called "Protestant", saying they never protested anything) and Roman Catholics.

I have heard that this idea really arose heavily after the Latin church split from the Greek or even later, as part of showing that women were to be treated differently within the church. I would have to search to find the exact arguments for and against. If you are truly interested, I can, but it seems like you were just proffering an aside, not really interested in the point itself?

[jgordon1111]

Player, I am aware of the arguments for and against, my only point here is know your faith and its real background,it would not matter jew,muslim or Christian, if anyone preaches any form of hatred in the Creators name, I will not just watch I will speak,and in the other thread and this one when you showed verse in the bible to say that gay people were not loved by that being, I spoke.that can't be right.but your last post suggests your faith may not be blind after all, just a caution judge not lest......

[jimboston]

SIGH

Here, from Wikipedia:

Adam (Hebrew: אָדָם) as a proper name, predates its generic use in Semitic languages. Its earliest known use as a genuine name in historicity is Adamu, as recorded in the Assyrian King List.[2] Its use as a common word in the Hebrew language is ׳āḏām, meaning "human". Coupled with the definite article, it becomes "the human".[3]

Its root is not attributed to the Semitic root for "man" -(n)-sh. Rather, ׳āḏām is linked to its triliteral root אָדָם (a-d-m), meaning "red", "fair", "handsome".[4] As a masculine noun, 'adam[5] means "man", "mankind" usually in a collective context as in humankind.[4][6] The noun 'adam is also the masculine form of the word adamah which means "ground" or "earth". It is related to the words: adom (red), admoni (ruddy), and dam (blood).[7] According to a number of observers, the word Adam derives from Sanskrit word Adima, meaning "progenitor", "first", "primitive" in Sanskrit.[8][9][10][11]

In the Book of Genesis, ׳āḏām can also be rendered "mankind" in the most generic sense, which is similar to its usage in Canaanite languages.[12][13] The use of "mankind" in Genesis, gives the reflection that Adam was the ancestor of all men.

EVERYTHING YOU JUST TYPED SAYS "MAN".

Nothing in the "root" of the word/name "Adam" indicated multiple gender or female gender.

You say one thing... then you post a link saying the opposite... then you claim you are correct?

WTF!

If you asked anyone if the name Adam referred to a man of a woman... a couple idiots would say I don't know. The VAST MAJORITY would say man.

Can someone here please give Player her meds?

I don't know what you consider "many" in the context of this conversation.

Here, from Mirriam Webster: blah, blah, blah

In the context of this conversation, where we are talking about all Christians, the word "many" should be used only if you are talking about a substantial percentage of the group we are discussing. This percentage could be 5% of 15%... it would have to be a measurable percentage. If we are talking about a billion people... the word "many" should not be used if 10 people agree with you.

The vast majority of Christians would call God a "man" if asked.

If prodded, some might say something like "Well. he could be a woman."

I never asked you what they would say "if prodded". If prodded, you can get a lot of idiots to say anything. If there was a survey with a three check boxes; "What is God's Gender?"
*Man
*Woman
*Other
The vast majority of Christians would check the box next to "Man".

We don't have a neutral or male/female combined singular pronoun in English. Culturally, "man" has come to mean both male and a generic person. Many people don't bother getting into the technicalities much, its just easier to talk/see Adam as a male, most kids stories put it that way and that is what people often remember, though if you challenge them or if they look into it seriously, you get a more nuanced answer.

The fact that we don't have a neutral / non-gender specific pronoun is not in question here. If it was important for the early Church Leader to interpret the Bible in that way they would have created a non-gender specific pronoun. We are talking hundreds or thousands of years ago. New words are created daily. The Church Leaders had the power to create a new word in English if they wanted. The fact that they didn't is telling in and of itself.

If the Church Leaders wanted to "challenge" people to think of God or Adam as a man, they would do so. They don't. Not in Catholicism anyway.

Do you think that the vast majority would not say "God is a Man"???

That used to be the case, but more and more people within Christianity and Judaism would now way that God is neither male nor Female. Actually, a lot of people would argue that use using solely male is actually a distortion of the earlier beliefs, but I leave that up to the experts.

Is that a yes or no? Are you saying that on a poll today the vast majority would NOT check the "Man" box????

It's a simple question.

I'm not saying the people who think God is a man are right. I'm not saying the Bible clearly states that God is a man.
I am simply stating that MOST Christians would say God's a dude.

... and who thinks Adam is not a man??? I've never heard that before. That's just fucking stoopid.

Yeah, anything you have not heard about is obviously just stupid.. perfect logic, there.

It's not stoopid because I never heard this idea before. It's stoopid because it's stoopid.
A bad idea is a bad idea.

Frankly the who concept of a "First Man" or "First Woman" is just plain stoopid.

So why was the Bible been modified to make God a "He" and make "Him" singular?

Some of that has to do with translation issues. Languages differ in how they deal with gender, as well as certain familial relations. (for example, ancient Greek apparently has no word for cousin).

i would also argue that most of the world, particularly what we call "the west" has been heavily patriarchal, heavily male-oriented. In such a society, it would be simply unthinkable that women we in any way equal. Though its not often considered, Greek society was particularly patriarchal, as was ancient Rome. Jews and Christians existed for a long time under their guise and would have had to mold somewhat to survive.

The main point for me is that this tends to indicate that gender is not that critical here.

What indicates that Gender is not critical????

Obviously the male patriarchal society that edited the Bible thought it was critical.

It was important enough for them to make the change. No?

You basically made my point for me.

My understanding, that which I have been taught is that God really does not fit into these neat human categories, that they are just our best attempt to understand. In the days/societies that have been so heavily patriarchal, it was plain unthinkable that God could be anything other than male. Even the idea of duality of gender was just beyond comprehension. So, the distortion was brought in. However, a more modern understanding is that there is no real gender to God. We are now able to see this.

My personal belief is that God allowed this misunderstanding because without it, people would not just not accept his words, but would not really comprehend what was said, would focus too much just on the "insane" idea that there might be something other than a strict male hierarchy.

You are claiming I proved your point... but you have it ass backwards.

You are saying that early Church Leaders (intentionally and/or through ignorance) modified and misinterpreted the Bible.

This is what I have been saying the entire thread!!!

So... if this is true;

1) How can we believe that the Bible is the Word if we acknowledge it's been modified?

2) How can we believe some "Church Leaders'" interpretation if we know that they have a bad track record when it comes to interpreting the BIble in the past?

3) You can argue that we are "more enlightened" now... but how can you think that brings us any closer to God's true intention? If our forefathers misinterpreted the Bible, we may modify our interpretation to fit into our modern world; but how can we do this with any degree of reliability? More likely people from 1000 years from now will laugh at our simple and grossly inaccurate understanding.

4) The idea that God would "allow this misunderstanding" has logical flaws. If God is Omniscient an All Powerful; could He not have just given us the ability to fully understand His meanings? If he created us and gave us our brains, why go halfway?

He's a pretty sadistic fucking God if that's the case.

He's let us misinterpret the Bible for thousands of years. All the misinterpretations have (and still) cause countless wars, suffering, pain, humiliation... all the while only letting a fraction of Humanity even have a chance at getting into Heaven.

What a nice guy.

If He just explained Himself properly and/or gave us the ability to understand, how much less suffering would there be?

[jimboston]

Who benefits?

The male church leaders.

[tzor]

Actually, many consider God, and actually the first Adam, to be neither male nor female, but both or beyond any gender.

Who thinks this??? Links.

I don't have any links, but I have seen this argument before. It's hard to see where this interpretation of Genesis comes from, but there are a lot of problems of the two creation stories (Genesis 1 was actually prepended onto the work and Genesis 2+ is actually the first creation story) where 1 states "male and female" on one day span and 2 states that the female comes later. It may reflect the Greek tradition of the origin of the sexes.

[PLAYER57832]

Player, I am aware of the arguments for and against, my only point here is know your faith and its real background,it would not matter jew,muslim or Christian, if anyone preaches any form of hatred in the Creators name, I will not just watch I will speak,and in the other thread and this one when you showed verse in the bible to say that gay people were not loved by that being.

Would pelase you point out where you feel I have said that, because it is not something I believe?

To clarify, God can and does dislike many behaviors, but never the people, just like you can dislike your toddler throwing a tantrum, or hitting you, but still love your child. Also to clarify, while I realize that some have claimed "love" while slaughtering, or (in modern times) even things like denying jobs and the like.. this is definitely not my interpretation.

Per homosexuality specifically, I believe I have mostly spoken generally about what some Christian churches believe. The thread went off on a few tangents, though I have earlier (as in months or years ago) addressed homosexuality in some detail.

[jgordon1111]

Playert his topic pg3 17 post on that pg, you cited both Levictus and Romans, yes you followed up with things have changed and most chrisians disagree with outdated views.Player your words in no way say You think that it is wrong, are you a politician or a lawyer? Because you still don't declare Your beliefs on this, and when it comes up you cite verse from the bible. So Player it is wrong or its not.Your thoughts, not other christians.

[jimboston]

So Player it is wrong or its not.Your thoughts, not other christians.

LOL

YOu think she has any thoughts of her own?

LOL

[tzor]

Playert his topic pg3 17 post on that pg, you cited both Levictus and Romans, yes you followed up with things have changed and most chrisians disagree with outdated views.

I won't speak for Player but she is right in that things have changed and they have changed significantly.

The mindset of Leviticus is that of purity. Bodily fluids leaving a person (either semen or blood) tended to make one impure and unclean. This was coupled with an almost Monty Python like attitude of "every sperm is sacred" (even if they didn't really know of sperm in semen) because they believed that the semen was the sole vessel of life and the woman was more like the metaphor of the seed and the soil.

Romans, on the other hand is a completely different culture than we have today. Sexuality wasn't defined as homo or hetero, but penetrator or penetrated or as Wikipedia states, "the proper way for a Roman male to seek sexual gratification was to insert his penis in his partner. Allowing himself to be penetrated threatened his liberty as a free citizen as well as his sexual integrity." Male or female, it didn't matter where it went, as long as no one else's went into him.

This is literally the opposite of the concept of marriage that Paul was preaching and how the act was a unifying act of procreation. It is no wonder why he objected to the common culture of Rome at the time. The implication of that culture results in sexual assault, and child molestation. In spite of what some paranoid people might think, that is not the attitude of the majority of those with homosexual tendencies.

So what does that mean? Well it means that you can't use either as a source for the current situation. It doesn't let everyone off of the hook. Paul's writings set up the basis for the principle of chastity, the notion that sex should be between one man and one woman legally united and sacramentally bonded as one allowing the act to be open to the procreative act of bringing forth new life. Under this chastity, homosexual acts are as equally offensive as heterosexual acts of non married couples and heterosexual acts of those who are married but are deliberately using artificial means to separate the sexual act from the procreative one.

There are a lot of "Christians" who don't want to see this proper view because it puts themselves in a bad light. Just because people can't see who is using contraception or not does not mean that God doesn't see.

[PLAYER57832]

Obviously the male patriarchal society that edited the Bible thought it was critical.

It was important enough for them to make the change. No?

It never happened, until you provide proof or drop the point, I'm going to continue to ignore you as a troll.

Actually, DoomYoshi, it basically did, though not necessarily as Jimboston is implying. That is, it was not some "dastardly plot" to make the Bible fit their politics. Rather, they simply took a noun that in one language had no gender and translated it into a language that had no concept for a singular neutral pronoun. The point that is correct is that the language was that way, in part because the society simply could not accept the idea that there was any other possibility but male superiority and complete domination. The glory is that despite this and other translation issues, the word, the message of God comes through. These details just did not matter for God, the whole story, though yes, men have twisted them into great significance because humans, unlike God are imperfect.

And Jimboston... I am not asking you to accept/agree/like this, I am simply saying it is what I and many Christians (not all) believe. As noted above, DoomYoshi seems among those who would disagree.

So the Council of Nicaea translated the Bible? This is news to me. Do you have evidence?

I did not refer to the council of Nicea, but to the much later translation into Latin and then English, the King James Version.

That said, while some of the New Testament was originally written in Greek, there is no question that parts were translated. I would have to google to find out where.