The year of whose lord?

[KnockEmOuttt]

Most of those places you're talking about follow the bible very literally and blindly.

..And you know this because you been to "Most of those places" or are you relying on a sterotype?

I don't know, have you? I don't know what places it is you were talking about to begin with. If you mean anywhere in Europe, chances are they're either extremely traditional or secular. If you mean Latin American, chances are they're devoutly Catholic. Anywhere else, chances are they're something other than Christian. I'm not off base here.

Things are perhaps "lost in translation", but it doesn't change the fact that the bible as we know it to be written is mostly true to the original translation, and the translated texts are what the religion is based on. The whole picking and choosing thing is just how Christians get around the fact that their "infallible" book is heavily flawed so that they can justify it. It doesn't change anything.

ahhh, no.

the bible (Or rather most verions of it in the English) are what as known as a literal translation where they take a word in the greek or Hebrew and contextually translate and place it so it read smoothly to english readers. However inorder to do this a great deal is lost to translation. History, Cultural meanings, poetry, and a great majority of it is cast aside to maintain literal continuity, (closest thing to a word for word translation as possiable) rather than interject commentary. That said there are many bibles out there in the english that have commentary. But these are considered to be influenced by which ever brand of Christianity/or other faith has included the commentary.
[/quote]

Do you read the bible in ancient Greek and Hebrew often? The translation argument might account for slights, but not the bigger inaccuracies. There are a lot of massive contradictions and inconsistencies in the bible which can't just be explained away by "oh, it's a translation error."