The Bible has been changed ( rewritten )

reply to post by randyvs

I beg to differ in that I absolutely knew it was a trap, and called it several times, but with subtlety, as this, to me, is a most delicate subject, and in my first responsive posts, I alluded to my unwillingness to dissuade any believer, as wars are fought over just these issues. It was obviously a trap, as the original question you put forth was extremely simlistic, and therein I am not sure you, yourself, see all that is and can be mad of such a trap. Well laid traps can frequently trap their layers, as well, and there is much in the living word you speak of about this.
I appreciate your compliment about academic knowledge. However, I must strive to write better if you did not catch that I recognized your trap, and my refusal to go there with it, but to only answer your first OP, in quite a literal sense, and no more than that was to be sure I did not fall into it. I answered only what you asked, and have absolutely no desire to debate, especially on a forum such as this, what it is you are really getting at.
Since it is a living work, as a matter of fact, I thought of saying to you in the very beginning if the question you weren't asking was much like saying to a man...yes or no, have you stopped beating your wife yet?
I seldom respond to any religiously motivated threads on ATS. I only responded to yours because it was quite an easy, forthright question to answer. It went all over the place, from there, and such was that trap.
I enjoyed the discourse, however, though I sense in your words an interest in "besting" me both intellectually, and on matters of faith. If truly faithful, I would think the security of that alone would be plenty enough to suffice, without betting anyone. But thanks for the compliment anyway.

Originally posted by chr0naut
reply to post by superman2012

 

Jesus never killed.

He was sinless. He never broke any of the 613 laws.

The Bible has little account of Jesus after his birth, until He turned water to wine at a wedding, when He was 21.

The only exception was when He got left behind at the Temple in Jerusalem when He was 12 and was found explaining the scriptures to the amazed Rabbi's there.

No account at all of Him doing anything else as a child.

edit on 28/11/2011 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)

Why is it that all that time was left out?

Could it be he did some things, like sins, that he wasn't so very proud of?

Originally posted by chr0naut

Originally posted by jellyfishbrains
The Bible does not cite it's sources for all of the stories it has stolen and borrowed.
That would get you a failing grade in school.

It's called PLAGIARISM

edit on 28-11-2011 by jellyfishbrains because: (no reason given)

Again, how do you know this?

Could it also be that these other sources that you allude to, were not original and they plagarised what we now call the Bible? What were these other sources and what evidence do you have that they predated the Biblical text?

When I challenged you previously about how you knew of details that were impossible for you to have known, your previous statement that you just "know", does not assure me of the validity of your research into the topic.

I am willing to hear you cite specifics but until you do I will suggest that what you state is nothing more than opinion.

If the originators of the Biblical texts were eyewitnesses to their accounts (which is what I would assume for the majority of the Bible), they could not possibly be plagarists, no matter how large you write the word.

Well, the story of walking on water was probably lifted from the Buddhist story of a man who lost his ignorance after hearing the Buddha speak, and upon following him found his way blocked by a river with no bridge or ferry. The man then summoned his faith and walked across, finding the water to be firm under his feet. This was written between 500 and 600 BC. The New Testament (the part that has the Jesus stories), could only have been accurately written sometime after 33AD. That's one example.

reply to post by tetra50


There is no way I am comparing myself to you or anyone elses intelligence. The trap was simply to draw people in to see a point. If that makes me a troll so be it. I will deny even so. The fact that I use devious ways is a testiment only to my lack of education. A lack of education has nothing to do with intelligence but I feel that you accuse me of playing a silly game. Not an insult so much, but I hope that you don't let that get in the way of what I really meant to do here. Which was for the most part to display why I believe the word is very much alive.
Because the truth lives forever.Gods word indestructible.

Originally posted by randyvs
And that is totally wrong because the truth of all these matters can not in any way be judged til the end. Everything is still in play so judgement must be withheld. Sorry hydo but that isn't true either.
In the end and only in the end which you can not deny will come. Can the one truth be known. so hang on to your hair as the end doeth approach. All.

This is only an assumption. You don't know if we will learn anything after we die or not. You only have this idea because of your belief system, which you can't prove to be any truer than any other belief system, if any of them are true.

Whether you are a believer or not, the very fact that this book has been knocking around for so long, in so many cultures and through so many cultural and social changes means that inevitably, its content must have changed.

From a technical perspective, this must also be true - you couldn't translate a page of text from English into Italian into Arabic into Chinese in French into English and have the same initial page of text - so when you take into account how long ago the Bible was 'written' (and language changes / variations since) it cannot possibly be the word of...well....anyone....anymore!

reply to post by randyvs

Was the Bible rewritten in a way that alters its overall meaning or message? Well let's take a look at Strong's Exhaustive Concordance; Genesis, chapter 1 Verse 1.

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

The word "God" has been translated from the word 'Elohiym. Strong's wonderful yet exhaustive concordance links this to a description that reads;

'elohiym
el-o-heem'
plural of ''elowahh'; gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative:--angels, X exceeding, God (gods)(-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty.

Link

If I remember correctly the Christian belief is that of a monotheistic masculine God. So unless Christians are okay with a polytheistic hermaphrodite god then the book has been altered or otherwise rewritten in a way that deviates from its original intention.

Originally posted by Devino
So unless Christians are okay with a polytheistic hermaphrodite god then the book has been altered or otherwise rewritten in a way that deviates from its original intention.

How did you come to that conclusion from reading what the concordance says about the word "elohim"? It states that they used the word "elohim" because they were speaking of the supreme god. Much like kings in the old days would say "we" instead of "I". They would use the plural form instead of singular to show majesty.

reply to post by Hydroman

You came to a different conclusion? Elohiym, as translated and defined from Strong's Concordance, means gods/goddesses which is now being used to describe God.

Much like kings in the old days would say "we" instead of "I". They would use the plural form instead of singular to show majesty.

So are you suggesting that "We" are all God? I like it but I'm not sure that is the intended meaning.

reply to post by Devino


I believe the correct way is I R God.

Originally posted by Hydroman
That's fair. I'm not sure if you're saying I'm working for some kind of group or something though. If so, that's funny, but whatever.

No, I am not saying that at all my friend. What's the saying, Paranoia will destroy yuh? ~SheopleNation

Originally posted by Devino
So are you suggesting that "We" are all God? I like it but I'm not sure that is the intended meaning.

Not at all. Look, in the old days of kings, a king would say "we" when speaking of himself. It was a way to show majesty. In the same manner, Elohim, the plural form, was used, when speaking of a Supreme god. Yes, it could also mean many smaller gods. Now, I could have all this wrong, but this is what I understood when I did my research a few years ago, because I thought the same thing you did.

Originally posted by SheopleNation
No, I am not saying that at all my friend. What's the saying, Paranoia will destroy yuh?

~SheopleNation

Nah, just trying to understand what you were saying. Still don't know, but now I've lost interest and don't really care.

reply to post by RedGod


First time I've heard this. Interesting.
It's possible that some people could really do these things. We have forgotten way more important technology, medical procedures, and history over the years.

ha I dunno this thread was fun.

reply to post by Devino


I've looked into this and it seems that your just repeating something Dan Brown says and that's a total fail IMO.
In My Opinion.

No one has shown where the Bible once said this and now it says this or that. Because no one can.

To say the Bible was rewritten will be difficult to prove, given we do not have all the original texts to verify it. All we have is copies of the originals, and those texts, among themselves, differ. Further, the Bible we have today was edited down from a larger set of texts.

For anyone thinking the Bible is the inerrant word of God, might benefit from the research of Bart Ehrman. Bart Ehrman has documented how the Bible cannot be the inerrant word of God, as he raises the simple question, "Which Bible." For a primer on Bart Ehrman and his work, check out any one of these videos. You can read his credentials here. They have discovered over 10,000 discrepancies in the Bible, some small, some large.

Personally, I don't believe the accuracy of the Bible, whether it had been rewritten or filtered for the sake of some purpose. It ultimately comes down to faith. It doesn't bother with me that the Bible has been tinkered with, as I am not worshiping a Bible - that would be idolatry. But, as to the Bible being rewritten? Bart Ehrman shows you how it has been in his book, Misquoting Jesus.

Originally posted by Evanzsayz
reply to post by randyvs

 

The bible has not changed, I have a bible that is from the early 1800's and it is exactly the same as my bible that was published in 1980 so nice try

I'd say you're a little behind the times...lol Have you heard of The Vulgate?

I just love it when people say "The Word of God"....lol

reply to post by randyvs


I apologize for calling you a troll in the heat of the moment the first night you posted the thread. I got caught up in it and apologize. Please accept my apology. I respect your belief as stated and do not feel it was a silly game you were playing. There is nothing silly about your beliefs whatsoever

Originally posted by Boomer1941

Originally posted by Evanzsayz
reply to post by randyvs

 

The bible has not changed, I have a bible that is from the early 1800's and it is exactly the same as my bible that was published in 1980 so nice try

I'd say you're a little behind the times...lol Have you heard of The Vulgate?

I just love it when people say "The Word of God"....lol

Nope never heard of it, never said the word of god either.