Has The Bible Changed???

[Jon]

Do you think that Bible has changed(in the last few thousand years) or Not? Why?

 

[Yahweh Nissi]

I do not think that the Bible has changed at all! It is God's infalible revalation to mankind and it's truthes are timeless.
How we interpret it may change however. With regards to the subject of this forum, which is what I assume you were getting at, people assumed that the creation account was literal until recently because there was no reason to think otherwise. However, with the massed evidence from our obeservations of the World and the Universe we now have reason to believe that this is a metaphorical account. Totally afirming that it is "God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" but noteing that this does not promise literal historical accuracy.

 

[Smilin]

Nice thread Jon..

Yes, the Bible has changed over time. No original manuscript exists. There are hundreds of differences in the existing manuscripts for any given book of the Bible. These differences are conclusive evidence for additions/editing that have been made by various translators/scholars over time.

The notion that the Bible is unchanged or is indeed the inspired word of God is simply a circular argument among fundamentalists. If indeed it were meant to be the inspired word of an all-knowing Creator, it would be clear, concise, and not subject to debate.

The fact that no two people here can agree on the meaning of any single verse stands as evidence against it.

and my simple question... why was the Apocrypha deleted from the KJV?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Some people have mentioned in other threads here that stuff to do with witchcraft was not present in the Bible prior to King James. I haven't verified this, so I don't know if it's true or not.

 

[Smilin]

Today at 05:27 PM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #4

Some people have mentioned in other threads here that stuff to do with witchcraft was not present in the Bible prior to King James. I haven't verified this, so I don't know if it's true or not.

We'll get to that part eventually Pete.




As well as some truths behind King James and his motives.

 

[Jon]

If indeed it were meant to be the inspired word of an all-knowing Creator, it would be clear, concise, and not subject to debate.

The fact that no two people here can agree on the meaning of any single verse stands as evidence against it.

The reason why people debate on the subject is because they interpert the Bible differently.

This thread should be more like 'has the Bible changed in the laster few thousand years'

 

[Smilin]

Today at 05:34 PM Jon said this in Post #6


The reason why people debate on the subject is because they interpert the Bible differently.

This thread should be more like 'has the Bible changed in the laster few thousand years'

Wouldn't the inspired written word of an all-knowing Creator be clear, concise and not subject to different interpretations was my point????

Where did the Apocrypha go?

Why is the Jewish Bible different from the KJV OT?

 

[Yahweh Nissi]

Actually, I do agree with Smilin. I believe the origional scriptures were inspired, but of course we do not have these. We have to do the best we can deciding which of the manuscripts we do have are the most accurate, deciding what counts as scripture and accurately translating it. You should not think that your Bible translation is God's directly dictated letter to you.
I am still an evangelical though, as there are enough manuscripts around to have confidence in them and the translations are all very similar in meaning (although of course the language of the KJV is very different to the NIV).

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Does anyone know of any good web sites that discuss changes in Bible translations over the years?

(And preferably not Jack Chick style "anything but the KJV is an instrument of Satan"-type sites. Reasonable objectivity would be nice.)

 

[Yahweh Nissi]

Actally, I had just skimmed post #3 by Smilin before my last post, I agree with this point

Yes, the Bible has changed over time. No original manuscript exists. There are hundreds of differences in the existing manuscripts for any given book of the Bible. These differences are conclusive evidence for additions/editing that have been made by various translators/scholars over time.

But the fact that there are many different interpretations just shows that we live in a very complicated world in which there are few black and white issues.
As for the Apocrypha, the rest of the OT is quoted many times by Jesus and the apostles, wheras the Apocrypha was not quoted once by them, and only once in and NT book, Jude, one of the few potentially doubtful NT books.

 

[Follower of Christ]

not to downplay any evidence as this is a very good topic to study and has lead me where I am with God, but it is very much as loaded a question/issue as evolution.

I say this because the whole history of things like the Recieved Text (textus Receptus) amoung others is shrouded in mystery.

Who copied them?
What was the motivation in copying them?
Were the originals (well, 23rd generation or whatever) adhered to?

There are literally hundreds of questions I asked myself as i studied the very topic of whether or not the bible today is as God intended it.
As evolution, there is no black and white answer.

We can only pray and ask that God take into account that we are searching for Him and do not have the ability to see the originals to know exactly what they said.

 

[Follower of Christ]

Today at 05:54 PM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #9

Does anyone know of any good web sites that discuss changes in Bible translations over the years?

(And preferably not Jack Chick style "anything but the KJV is an instrument of Satan"-type sites. Reasonable objectivity would be nice.)

There are so many its unbelievable.

I usually just do a search for things like;

Masoretic text
recieved text
Alexandrian text
Sinaiticus text
majority text
minority text

to start.

Its gets way out of hand as with everything else, everyone is the expert.
take anything you see with a huge dose of salt.

 

[Follower of Christ]

Oh and add
Vaticanus

That is one that causes a lot of controversy.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Yes it has.

There have been a few finds, like the Dead Sea scrolls and others that have been used to help correct changes that were made.

But were there changes made before 200bc? We don't know, the oldest coppies we have are only about 2200 years old.

 

[Follower of Christ]

I really had a hard time with it all.

I have come to the conclusion that no one knows for sure which are the most accurate texts.

Everyone says one text or another is the best, and they all pick a different one.
And they all have ''evidence'' against all the others.

I would really not want to be the one to decide which to use for a bible.

 

[Smilin]

31st March 2003 at 05:27 PM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #4

Some people have mentioned in other threads here that stuff to do with witchcraft was not present in the Bible prior to King James. I haven't verified this, so I don't know if it's true or not.

Pete,
Months back,
I took the time to post a history on the origins of the KJV which just touched on the different versions that preceded that text. I'll dig up the post either tonight or in the morning along with the supporting evidence.
I think everyone will find it interesting.

Regards for now..
Smilin...

 

[Gordi]

I have use of KJV, NIV, Good News, NASV, RSV.

I tend to stick with the NIV and KJV.  I do compare others with them and compare KJV with NIV etc.......

 

[Follower of Christ]

Take care with EVERYTHING that is seen on ANY websites, regardless of the source.

There are a lot of people that misrepresent the facts on the history of any of the texts.

 

[walkaways]

Agreed, Follower of Christ. It seems like everyone is a history expert and they can pretty much convince you fully of anything if you're relying on them to tell the truth historically, and then the next guy comes along and convinces you just as easily of a completely different theory...so yes, definitely take everything with a biiig grain of salt. I'd say Encyclopedias are a good place to start to get your historical facts down before you start venturing into the unknown that is the 'this is the truth!' pages.

 

[Smilin]

I'm surprised a majority (so far)
agreed with my initial statement..

shocked... actually... given the fact
of how many times I've been told the
Bible is the 'literal words of God'

????????

Where are those people now?