In reply to:people, especially non-believers and athiests, are fond of saying it's been altered to another's agenda...but never seem to be able to point to where. Is that too much to ask, to point where?You must not be very well-read on the matter, and why should you be, since you think that, as a fundamentalist, your beliefs are correct by definition, and exploring them is a big waste of time, and might offend your deity?I've written recently about the difficulty of translating from the ancient languages of the scriptures to modern languages. It is very difficult to maintain the intent of the original words, written in the context of their time. Newer translations of biblical scriptures are in some places at variance with the King James version, since scholarship in ancient languages has progressed quite a bit since the days of Old English.It's pretty hard to argue that the original Catholic translation of the scriptures into vulgate Latin is accurate. Dare I say that the church had an agenda?Here's a Web page by a Christian clergyman on the ins and outs of currently-available versions of the bible.Interesting historical information on bible translation into English. An essay written by a Pentecostal minister about problems with bible translations.book: Distorting Scripture?: The Challenge of Bible Translation & Gender Accuracy (about the NIV translation)Some specifics about the difficulty in translation from the ancient languages. Much more on problems in translation by Andrew Harrison, posted today.Most of those articles are not deeply academic, but you can find many articles by academics in religion and linguistics who have written a lot about pitfalls in translation and interpretation.In any case, your faith in the flawless accuracy of the KJV is misplaced, and if you'd read up on the subject, you'd understand why.In reply to:Other portions of scripture that were written are of dubious value...I've read some of what is found in the Apocryphal (contains books that were omitted from the Bible), and, being quite familiar with the Bible myself, find that there are portions that don't fit. Some were written by Gnostics and seem...how shall I say this...not inspired by God. They don't fit in with the rest of the Bible, which is why they were omitted. But, they were not destroyed. You can go out and pick up a copy of the Apocryphal and find out for yourself.On the matter of the canonical books versus the Apocrypha, I wonder what qualifies you to decide which ones are "real" and which aren't. There are many people who consider the Apocrypha, or various parts of it, to be inspired. Can you back up your opinion with anything besides your opinion?In reply to:As for modern morality, it is not the yardstick to be measuring anything moral by any stretch. It would be like measuring the accuracy of a ruler with your own foot and deferring, in the case of arguement, to your foot. The Bible is the yardstick you should be using for the very reason that it DOES lie outside of our own personal ideas about what morals should be...that will waver with our desires of what they should be. To say that another might have altered the Bible for their own perposes does not make us incapable of attempting to do the same with morals ourselves.There are many books of ethics and morality, from the scriptures of the ancient religions through the writings of the philosophers, through the Boy Scout credo. Which one are you going to believe? A minority of the world population interprets the Christian bible literally. Anyone can make the case that his holy book is the correct one, and an atheist can make the case that none of them are.There's only a slight difference between a fundamentalist and an atheist: A fundamentalist says that his scriptures are right and the thousands of others are wrong. An atheist would say that the fundamentalist is almost correct. He's just off by one.