I do find it interesting though that apparently there needs to be a right and wrong way to interpret scripture. The fact that there are so many different "versions" of the Bible should make one stop and think about its veracity in and of itself. If any of you want to keep an open mind, then read on:
In order to fully understand the scriptures, one would need to do the following:
1) Become an expert in translating the original text yourself.
2) Become an expert in the linguistics and customs of the time.
3) Read all the texts from that era including a plethora that are NOT included in the Bible.
4) Come up with your own conclusions.
Regarding the first point, take the word "paradidomi" as an example. This word is used throughout the Bible and in every instance it is translated as "hand over" except when it comes to Judas and then it magically gets translated as "betray." Judas was was Jesus' most trusted ally. He was like his brother. Doesn't it make more sense that Jesus ASKED Judas to turn him in because he had confidence that Judas was the most likely to successfully complete the extremely undesirable task that the other Apostles might not have had the stomach to complete? If I had a very tough task, I know I'd ask my best friend to help me, not someone that I was unsure about.
Could Judas have betrayed Jesus in the manner in which most believe? Sure, why not? Could it also be possible that Jesus asked Judas to hand him over because Jesus already knew his fate? Sure, why not?
Many people think that Judas turned Jesus over as if the Romans had no idea where to find him. We think of Jesus being incognito as if he were Saddam hiding out in some hole in the middle of the desert. Jesus was out preaching (not at the precise moment the Romans found him, but he wasn't hiding in a hole either) and it wouldn't have been difficult for the Romans to find him. Judas had NO REASON to turn him in. The only reason would be that he was rewarded with money from the Romans, but he held the money for the group already. Thus, he could have just stolen that instead if greed was his main goal. The fact that he was entrusted with the money is a clue as to his possible value to Jesus.
But in any case, either one "could' be correct. We don't know. The point I am attempting to make is that we should be told both sides of the story and let the individual be the one to decide, but instead, most mainstream religions push only one possible story down the throats of their faithful.
A link from National Geographic about Judas and another concerning the word paradidomi:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/04/0406_060406_judas.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3610879.stm
Other words off of the top of my head include "Yam Suph" which could be translated into "Reed Sea" or "Sea of Reeds" instead of the commonly accpeted "Red Sea." Some experts are fairly certain that if Moses actually existed, he likely crossed at a place called "Pazufy" or "The Reeds" (because it was an area where reeds were abundant in the river). This is currently located just south of the Suez Canal in present day. The Sea of Reeds is actually MUCH smaller than the Red Sea... like comparing a river to a massive lake. This location also fits better with the rest of the Exodus story than does the Red Sea and there is possible other evidence that perhaps supports this. Another word that comes to mind is "almah" which is commonly translated as "virgin." Instead many scholars say that it should have been translated as "young woman" or "child of marriagable age."
The point is that it is nearly impossible to accurately translate the Bible. Even if the current text is translated 100% accurately (which it is not), because of the time frame in which it was written, there is no way that the strories are 100% accurate to begin with. Then you factor in that the stories were kept orally before written down and then translated many times over, it is an effort in futility.
It is my belief that to understand the Bible, it is important to get the main gist of the main message that is attempted to be relayed to the reader (due to the reasoning above).
For point #2, consider the fact that if an alien came down to earth and read one of our newspaper headlines that read, "Baron Davis On Fire.... Rest of Warriors Can't Shoot." They might think that a king (Baron) was engulfed in flames (on fire) and his army (Warriors) was inept. LOL
The text of the Bible was not written in English. I know most people know this, but I don't think that most people ever really sit down and consider the immense ramifications of it. Even with all of the incredible technology of today, you can go to a "translating site" on the Internet, type in a phrase in say Spanish, have it converted to English and the meaning may be COMPLETELY different than the original intent. And those are with words that are present in your mind from today, not from 27 years ago and that have been translated over and over again already.
For point #3, how many of you have actually done research on how the Bible was even created? Most just accept the Bible as fact without even understanding its historical background.
Jesus was most likely born in 6BC and died most likely between 30-33AD. The four main Gospels were written as such: Matthew between 60-85AD, Luke 60-100AD, Mark 65-80AD, John between 65-120. However, the scholarly consensus is that the earliest any of these were written was Mark in 68AD. So in the best case scenario from a Christian point of view, taking the lowest number of the Gospels (60) and the highest number for Jesus' death (33), that would mean that at least 27 years passed before these words were written. John's words could have been written 90 years after Jesus died. So why doesn't someone tell me EXACTLY what someone else said 27 years ago to the exact word. Yeah, that's what I thought... no one can do it. In fact, unless someone had a photographic memory, no one could get words spoken only a week ago 100% accurate. Now take those exact words that you can't remember because it was so long ago and now translate that conversation into a different language (since most scholars believe that the entire New Testament was written in Greek). As anyone with any sort of logic can plainly see, taking these words as verbatim is silly at best (which many people do).
It is like that game "telephone" that perhaps you played in grade school. Someone starts off with a few sentences and you tell it to the next person. By the time it gets to the end of the 25th person in the class, the few sentences are no longer the same. Details get