Why do so many judeo christian religions have different bibles?

Right or wrong, I consider myself reasonably well versed in a number of religious topics. From the Council of Carthage where they assembled the modern bible, to the fiction of Jesus real birth day (by a pope, as was mentioned here, 270 years after the...

last known book of the Bible was written).

Now, while reading wikipedia, I find that many different branches of Christianity have very different books. Then there is the whole lilith thing, Adam's first wife (in Judaism, however, Christianity doesn't have a first wife story).

Why all the differences, if indeed the Council of Carthage was inspired by god? I'd love a straight answer on this one. The other major issue is, similar to the differences in bibles, the depictions of Jesus I saw in Monte Negro from 1,000 years ago were of a dark skinned man. All the Jesus pictures I've seen in the US are of a white guy with brown hair. So, why the discrepancy? Did racism color American Christianity? And did politics, not God, color the picking choosing of the ultimate book?

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/1282186.html?page=1

Interesting article talking about the likely physical traits of Jesus (assuming such a person existed).

As for the issue of Jesus' appearance in western Christianity, many artists who created frescoes and mosaics of him in the Middle Ages knew that he was Jewish. However, European Jews by that time had taken on a different look than Middle Eastern Jews, and most people had either never visited the Middle East or didn't think it necessary to depict Jesus taking on the racial traits of the people there. Europeans back then didn't perceive racial differences so much as they did religious ones. Since most Christians and Jews they knew were white, and since most Muslims were Turkish or Arab, that was how they saw the world.

But racism was an element in Jesus portrayal later on in Christian history. During the Age of Discovery and the period of European colonial expansion, white supremacy really took off as a concept, and justified the slave trade. Since the United States was born in that era, depictions of a white Jesus in US history have more to do with how people felt most comfortable seeing him.

Because they want God to agree with THEIR views... not the other way around.

Many protestant denominations say that the King James version is the only true, inspired version. This probably stems from the belief that, if one were able to alter the Bible and still have it be the inspired word of God, then that would give reason to doubt the King James Version's absolute inerrancy.

There are also variations between which books you'll find in translations like the King James Version, the Catholic version, the Greek Orthodox version, etc. because there is debate as to which individual books are actually considered inspired and canonical. (Keep in mind that the Bible was compiled by selecting among hundreds of possible books. Different editors make different selections.)

My favorite is the New International Version. It's based on some of the older versions of the documents, translated from the original Hebrew and Greek into easily-understood modern English by over 100 scholars. It corrects a lot of the mistranslations you'll find in the KJV and those based on the KJV, and you don't have to consult a priest in order to understand it. Of course if you want to appreciate poetic verse, the KJV wins hands-down.

Ha true. In reality, Jesus was most likely a bit short, dark skinned and dark haired. Many people will be surprised when they go to Heaven.

Yes, the N.I.V. (New International Version) and N.A.S.V (New American Standard Version) are arguably the most accurately translated versions of the bible. The manuscripts they were derived from, pre-date the KJV manuscripts by about 500-600 years.

But no one will admit it. Without the errors in the KJV, several Christian denominations would be totally pointless.

I read the KJV, NIV, AMP, Jerusalem, Living, Message, and the Jewish New Teastament. Maybe oters occasionally. I believe they all have the same message. Jesus Christ:the same yesterday, today and forever.

Addressing the question why so many different Bibles?

Its for the money Dude. They keep making new Bibles so the people who already have Bibles will buy new ones. With any ONE of the Bibles listed above a person cold be just as full of God's Spirit as someone with a different translation.

@kidcharlemagne

(btw, I have a family tree that shows I'm decended from Charlemagne, one of the holy roman emorers, lol).

The other bit, you didn't address: paintings older than the United States discovery by Europe, and closer, geographically, to the events that may have taken place in the bible...show Jesus as a very dark skinned man.

However, in the churches I've seen (cathololic, protestant, LDS, etc) I've always seen a white guy.

And, about the other bit: no, the Jewish bible doesn't mention Jesus. It's the original old testament...u know, where the authority to be Jesus came from, etc, as he was the expected prophet from the old testament.

However, if that's the case, then the Christian faith should have the *exact* same story as the Jewish faith, at least for the old testament. That they don't, is extremely odd. You ignored the Lilith bit, as well, as the date of birth bit.

The Jewish New Testament is for Messianic Jews.

and basically that means christians.

hail the emperor

I think its correct to say that many people alter the Bible to suit their own ways of thinking

however, most people still stick to NIV, KJV etc. the most common versions. w/ due respect to minority christian groups, generally most christians still use only a few versions, that are not radically different from each other

all I really know is that the Catholic bible has a few extra books the others dont simply because we consider them relevent and the other denominations do not. I have heard there are several books that were not included because they were written by women which I find a bit insulting really. As for Jesus being portrayed as white instead of black, I think that would have a lot to do with the Italian renassainse artists who painted a lot of religious icons etc which is silly because im pretty certain Jesus would have had dark skin.