They don't want to think about it because it'll just poke more holes.
If I'm not mistaken, the old testament was passed down orally before it was written. Anybody that's played telephone knows how well that goes plus when you add in different languages and how some words don't have direct translation then it's a wrap
Correct!
And not only different languages but even the SAME languages.
If you go back to the different times when the many versions of the new testatament was written the english language was never the same.
Today we speak factually, back then people spoke with analogies.
Like if I someone back then said "Kendrick used to wake up every morning and give food to the poor"
Today it would have to be true, but back then it did not require to be true, it was just a description of the person, it did not require the story to be true.
Also words were different, if you go back in time nobody would understand you and you wouldn't understand anyone.
And that's only english, but when you think of the bibles were written in Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin etc... and then translated to english... OMGGG forget itttt
The King James Version quotes Jesus, saying the following words:”Suffer the children come unto me.” ( Mark 10: 14 KJV)
Back then suffer meant to 'allow' or to permit, and this word "suffer" meant allow or permit during the times of King James.
But wait..... suffer meant to allow during King James? So readers today do not know that and wouldn't understand, but ALSO... wtfffffff
If King James meant allow then what did it mean when the original bible was written?
See this can go on and on and on and on and on and on....... Because there are so many version of the new testatament and they were often re-written with political motives, ESPECIALLY the King James version as it was just a century after the Byzantine empire ended and a few years after they cut ties with the pope. So King James and his purists(that wrote the king james version) were politically motivated to do a rebranding of christianity.