The Bible has been changed ( rewritten )

reply to post by torqpoc

I see a drastic flaw in your OP. The Bible was written by men. It was not burnt into rock by a divine being, for all to see and carbon date.

Flaw ? No, this is one of the miracles of the Bible that I've been holding up through out this thread. You see things backwards.

reply to post by randyvs


Miracles of the Bible huh? That it's a second, if not multiple, hand recounting of events which "supposedly" happened and comments "supposedly" made by persons who "supposedly" existed. Mmmhmmm

I see things backwards? Err.. have you heard of psychiatry.. i think you should book some time in ASAP.

LOL at you Sir, truly comic Friday fun.

T

Originally posted by SheopleNation
Anyway, Hydro-electrics? Sounds like a good occupation. ~SheopleNation

Not too bad, though I do worry about my job becoming obsolete as technology increases.

What I would like to know is that there are many books of the bible which were written by authors who were not there when certain events took place, such as the creation of the world. How did the author know what conversations took place in the Garden of Eden? How did the author of Job know about the wager that Satan and God had, and the conversation that took place there? There are many, many examples of this. How did the authors know what was said, when the stories took place hundreds, if not thousands of years before their time?

Does anyone on here know that there was a women before Eve that was to be Adam's significant other?
Her name was Lilith and Adam did not like her because she was in constant competition with him...
So God casted her into the waters, and made him Eve....

Bottom line is Adam was the first man, plus the first man to have a divorce...Just a interesting fact.

reply to post by zbeliever


Well, that would make sense...because when god is dealing out the punishment for Adam and Eve's sin, he says that child birth would become painful, as if it wasn't painful before. This was before Cain and Abel were born. So, it must mean other children had already been born, or why would god mention anything about child birth now being painful? They wouldn't know the difference had any kids never been born.....

Originally posted by novuslibertas
reply to post by chr0naut

 

That edition is how many years from when it was originally written? Why wouldn't a king have wrote just that rule to make sheeple believe?

If I write down my hand is purple and line it up with something I said before does it make it truth?

I just can't possibly see how you find concrete evidence or consent or pleasure in empty words and letters.
It just makes me believe that 'the' book makes you lose touch with reality.

What King? How? When? What changes?

This thread was asking precisely these questions. So far there has been no clear, specific answer. Just a lot of maybe and possibly.

And this seems to be from people who are unfamiliar with the documents and those who strive to ensure that the meaning does not change.

reply to post by Hydroman


if the sumerians are to be believed man was first created sterile and was only given the ability to breed later
which THEN resulted in the fallen cuming onto the daughters of men because they were cumly....
which then starts off a host of begats....with leads to god disparing that he ever greated man which then leads to the flood which was supposed to WIPE MAN OUT TOO, along with the "royalty" or the nephalim

well....

apparently someone effed up

reply to post by zbeliever


Presenting Lilith as fact? Thats also pushing limits.

References? Anything to back up the "fact?" I know of no referance in the Bible anyway....some other book might be more detailed on this.

I'm not your mom,

No you're not. nor have I made that mistake AND it isn't exactly polite to speak of the dead. Just so you know.


Ha. His mums is ded. She must not have been an immortal...

The Bible has NOT been changed since it's first versions. I definitely wanted to believe that it had been changed in the Council of Nicea and the Council of Trent, but we have found the same Biblical texts that predate those two councils which confirm that today's Biblical doctrine matches that which came from the first century. The allegations that the texts were altered to accomplish political ends have been fully debunked, and yet, they remain because every rational person wants to discount the Bible based on this.

The ultimate question is: Do you believe that "Jesus came as the Son of God, died on the cross, and rose on the third day?"

It's time to find a new excuse for not believing. There are a lot of issues with how the ancient Koine Greek is translated into modern languages, but other than those nuances, the New Testament is miraculously the same as it was nearly 2,000 years ago.

The next excuse might be that it was all just an allegory. But, the New Testament doesn't really fit that bill. So at the end of the day, one must take a leap of faith to believe in Jesus. Faith seems to be a requirement... and that is a hard pill to swallow for today's societies where we want to control everything and analyze everything into logical compartments. IMO, it is possible that God/Jesus are much bigger than our little brains can handle.

reply to post by twoandthree
Hi Two and Three
You must not have ever been able to compare closely ANY the 5770 Greek MSS of the New testament yourself – can you even read Greek? If you could, and had taken the trouble to do your homework yourself (instead of parroting other’s errors) you would find that of the approx 5770 Greek hand copied New Testament texts in existence to-day, NO 2 MSS MATCH EXACTLY word for word.

The modern e.g. ‘English versions’ of the NT are just that – eclectic arbitrary ‘versions’ selected by publishers/editors from a VAST array of MSS choices of what any book of the NT says.

For example, an older text (say a Papyrus c. 230 CE) might say,

‘When Iesous finally returned home TO HIS OWN HOUSE THAT HE OWNED in Kaphur Nahum, there was a mob of sick people outside who were ready to press him into performing healings….but there were also many standing around who knew his mother and father and brothers and sisters and who did not believe he could perform any signs - so he was NOT ABLE to cure them…’

Another text (e.g. a Uncial Greek MS, c. 339 CE) might read:

‘And they come to Capernaum, there was a press outside of the house in which they was staying and he laid his hands on them and healed them…but he DID NOT heal any doubting saying to them, A prophet is not without honour, except in his own city – neither do Physicians cure those they know…’

Notice that the earlier text phrase ‘COULD NOT perform any signs there’ (following the text of an earlier MSS) was later changed deliberately in a late copy POST NICEAEA to ‘DID NOT cure any ’ or ‘CHOSE NOT TO perform any signs’ etc.

AND THIS IS ONLY ONE TINY EXAMPLE !!!

Of the 5770 extant MSS of the NT, there are approximately 310,500 textual DIFFERENCES in readings between them – although 250,000 are mainly spelling errors. That STILL leave about 65,000 DIFFERENT letter-readings that have to be dealt with.

Now the ‘official’ versions of the New testament texts currently used by modern Christians are based on what is known as ‘pick and choose’ i.e. the EDITOR/PRINTER decides what text version they ‘choose’ also known as the “eclectic" way of producing ‘working NT’ editions - which purportedly aim for the ‘earliest attainable’ form of the Hebrew, Aramaic & Greek texts possible from any the surviving manuscript evidence – but largely have been (until VERY recently) the work of ‘fundamentalist’ Christian (i.e. NOT disinterested) biblical scholars (incluing Bruce Metzger etal.) who ‘toe the fundamentalist line’ in most cases.
NT Greek manuscripts (MSS) are divided into several different Families – e.g. the Alexandrian ("Neutral" or "Egyptian"), Western, Caesarean and Byzantine ("Majority" or "Syrian") according to their ‘textual-family resemblance to each other’ aka their Text-Form.

With regard to the available Greek NT manuscripts, some 80% to 90% represent the Byzantine or the "Majority" text. The rest are more or less ignored, even though the ‘rest’ (20%) are often among the OLDEST text version copies (i.e. more ‘primitive’).

Thus the socalled Majority-Byzantine text-type, is universally considered to be the ‘worst’ of all other text-types vis a vis preserving the "earliest attainable text" of the New Testament – and is characterised by smoothing out Aramaic Grammar, Conflating-joining two contradictory accounts of a given verse, outright harmonisation and sometimes even downright fabrication - when faced with several more ‘primitive’ versions of any given text, many of which contain contradictions of established ‘dogma’ and sometimes outright ‘heresies’ that had to be smoothed out by ‘official scribes’ copying these texts BY HAND post Nicaea (post 325 CE)

Therefore, using the numerical superiority of the New Testament manuscripts means acknowledging that a very large proportion of the witnesses are actually of the worst kind. No Christian apologist would dare to tread this line as it would destroy the very fundamental basis of his argument - Theoretically, in accordance with the Genealogical principle, the actual Number of MSS next to nothing One can have 10 million copies of a forged text – it is STILL a forged text.

It is no wonder that Prof. Hort, and many other more modern Bibilical Textual critics since, have rejected this "Majority" or the Byzantine text in favour of the more primitive Alexandrian text type, even although the Byzantine text-type is 'numerically superior' representing between 80% to 90% of the available manuscripts, claiming as Bart Ehrman did recently

QUOTE ‘most of these MSS are many Centuries removed from their originals and none of them is perfectly accurate…they ALL contain mistakes, altogether, many THOUSANDS of mistakes – so it is no an easy task to re-construct any ‘original’ words of the New Testament…since so many of the very very earliest Manuscripts are lost…

reply to post by Sigismundus


Hi!

I did learn Koine (Yes, I can read it quite well... and with the benefit of historo-cultural analysis) and I do read the original Greek at every opportunity! I believe that ALL of the English translations are horrific! The Koine is so rich and the layers of meaning in each word are so rich (and oddly different from the translation into English, which does show dogmatic bias. But, I did say that the Koine version is what is correct and that the translations all fall short).

Still, while some texts did deviate from the original text, most were held together and the "Church" recognized those as the true unadulterated texts. They recognized (or rather evaluated these as such) by their fidelity to the Talmud

I think your examples are insignificant as I have read the 80% of the current Biblical NT texts written in other early patristic writings, including The Didache. And yet, while I am completely confident, from those specific early sources, that the Biblical New Testament in its Koine form is the same today as it was in the first century, my only questions are was it meant as allegory, as a cult legend, or absolute truth?

At the end of the day, the Great Deceiver was created by YHVH before the Earth was created and as such knew the significance of YHVH's symbology. It is plausible that the Great Deceiver set up a myriad of religions that include those symbolic references, from the beginning of civilization, to primarily confuse and diffuse Truth, and secondarily, to steal God's Glory.

I'm saying it's plausible... and thus worthy of consideration.

The facts I have personally found is that looking at most modern iterations of the texts (esp. NASV), you get what is nearly identical to the original Koine Greek version or what's in affiliated to the patristic, early church father texts.

There are certainly hundreds, if not thousands, of other gnostic driven (and other) texts that deviate far from the norm. I was not, in any way, intending to invoke these lesser valid texts in such a brief posting.

I do admit that the Old Testament is a whole different beast to reckon with. I have focused on testing the New Testament precisely because it is limited to nearly a 2,000 year span; whereas the Old Testament invokes a supposed 4,000 years, which with every OT year becomes harder and harder to validate.

reply to post by Sigismundus


Just to reiterate... in my own extensive studies, I have found that if you want to be completely against Christ, then you can make such arguments that you have presented. But your bias has led you to disinfo.

I have always tried to give Christ a fair shake, and as such, I have dismissed less fruitful deviations from the throughline of study. There are, very much so, texts today that are incredibly close to texts that date back to the first century. I am NOT parroting this, as I trust few scholars. I have checked it out with my own eyes!

Even with my own eyes, I'm not sure I believe. That is because a leap of faith is required. Who has that in this modern age? But, one must be absolutely FAIR and unbiased in their evaluation of the texts; otherwise, you only get the conclusion in which you set out to find.

reply to post by Sigismundus


Since I do not agree with your NT analysis, I am interested in seeing what you have to say about the video posted recently, which traces the present YHVH to three early gods. I really don't see any issue with the NT, but the OT does open its doors to polytheism and a whole lot of other things.

You're clearly intelligent (definitely biased, but also definitely intelligent), so I am interested in that opinion.

reply to post by twoandthree

Hi Two & Three--

Since you have some Koine Greek under your belt you would therefore be in far better position than most to be able to see & understand the reasons for all the major textual differences in the Greek copies of the NT between say, Codex Bezae Biglot & Codex Ephraemi Palimsest & Codex Sinaiticus & the Oxyrhynxus papyri. Check out the passage in Rev. 13:17-18 about the actual 'Number of the Beast' e.g. 616 v. 666, etc.

A good start would be to download these MSS in Greek (also available in Facsimile online) & compare them closely - letter for letter & word for word – you will be ABSOLUTELY shocked to your foundation to see all the major differences in the readings even in the ‘Gospel’ sayings.

It seems that you have not actually taken the time to do this yet.

Also, you need to do the same kind of painstaking ‘homework’ with all the various ‘Greek gospel’ citations of the often mis-translated Koine Greek placed into the mouth of R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean Nazir - who himself did not speak Koine Greek but rather, a dialect of early 1st century Galilean Aramaic – then you can continue with your comparisons of the ‘sayings logia’ in the ‘canonical gospels’ with all the various & sundry Greek citations of the same sayings found in the ‘church fathers’ (i.e. the bishops between c. 110 CE & 340 CE) e.g. Clement of Rome, Justin Martyr, Iranaeus, Tertullian, Origen & Clement of Alexandria.

Once you do this work, you will notice before long that there are many ‘sayings’ attributed to ‘ho Iesous’ in these Patristic citations which DO NOT match the gospels in many cases very closely , and in many other cases, there are completely NEW sayings that are NOT found at all in the canonical four Greek ‘council approved’ gospels…

Also, the generic theological outlook of what was known as ‘Gnosticism’ (i.e. ‘salvation by knowledge’ as opposed to ‘works’ or ‘faith’) existed as a literary Genre & also as a movement from before the time of Pythagoras c. 600 BCE – and was introduced into Eretz Yisro’el LONG before 331 BCE long before the time of R. Yehoshua bar Yosef (Gk ho Iesous) to judge by the Dead Sea Scroll material which has several Judaeo-Gnostic passages woven into their own ‘scriptures’…

e.g. we see many citations from their own versions of the Hebrew & Aramaic Scriptures which speak of e.g. Chokhmah (‘wisdom’) and other words defining ‘divine mystical knowledge’ as a GOOD thing (not as the later Saul of Tarsus would hold to be a ‘bad thing’) which were evidently quoted by ‘Iesous’ in Aramaic, roughly referred to in some of the earlier handwritten copies of the Greek 4-canonical gospels, before most of these ‘Gnosis’ references were weeded out by post-Iranaeus ‘proto-orthodox’ scribes.

For more detail on how this was done, check out the NT textual study books by Bart Ehrman,

www.bartdehrman.com...


These are written for the general reader i.e. the NON specialist, but his Appendices can be used by persons conversant in 1st and 2nd Century Koine Greek – as well as the Criticus Apparatus found in the various printed Greek New Testaments available as books, e-books or otherwise on line.

Dr Bart Ehrman started out as a radical right wing fundamentalist ‘Baptist’ attending a fundamentalist ‘American Bible College’ & naively believing ‘every word of Scripture was inerrant’.

Then…he FINALLY was exposed to learning Koine Greek, unpointed Paleo-Hebrew and a little Aramaic and (Shock & Awe!!) he discovered as a post Graduate at Yale that…well, the Greek texts of the NT did NOT actually match each other in a great many places and the major differences (i.e. not the spelling errors !) were often deliberate changes made by LATER scribes to earlier copies of texts. In other words, when he took the trouble to take a very very hard look at the Greek Uncials and Papyrus hand written copies of the books in the so-called ‘New Testament’ , he discovered that the ‘bible’ was NOT inerrant, and now he is happily living as a mature ‘agnostic’ without all those cludgy ‘fundamentalist’ underpinnings which tortured his youth.

Now, if you really are conversant in reading actual 1st century Koine Greek then you can look up the actual hand copied Greek MSS texts cited in Ehrman’s book- appendices (see e.g. “The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture’, or “Misquoting Jesus”, or “the Text of the NT” or ‘Forged’ or, “Didymos the Blind & the Text of the Gospels” or “The New Testament and other Early Christian Writings” etc.

These are written for the general reader i.e. the NON specialist, but his Appendices can be used by persons conversant in 1st and 2nd Century Koine Greek – as well as the Criticus Apparatus found in the various printed Greek New Testaments available as books, e-books or otherwise on line.

Looks like you have some homework to do !!

reply to post by twoandthree

Hi Two & Three

Just to get you started on your quest, check out the Greek text of Papyrus (P104) – which was probably copied by hand around 220 CE

P104 contains the end-parts of the 1st canonical Greek gospel of ‘Matthew’ – BUT it deliberately OMITS the troublesome final verses of ‘Matthew’ 21:44 (as does Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Ephraemi-Palimsest & the Freer-Washingtoniensis Codex) which is the post Resurrection vision of the Greek speaking Iesous on a hill commanding his 11 remaining followers to preach the gospel ‘[to the Elect of Yisroel scattered’] among all the goyim…’

Also take a VERY close look at Papyrus 98 (part of the opening of the Book of Revelation, possibly copied c. 140 CE)

You will notice at once several textual differences in the Greek (if you look letter for letter) between the words in P98 and say, P47 around c. 180 CE

Also: take a close look at P66 – probably copied c. 180 CE

P66 contains: John chapter 1:1 to 6:11; chapter 6:35 to 14:26 [& 14:29-30]; chapter 15:2-26; chapter 16:2-4, 6-7; chapter 16:10 to 20:20, 22-23; chapter 20:25 to chapter 21:9, 12, 17.

Although there is are several unbroken portions in the text of P66 which contain the majority of the familiar text of the 4th gospel ‘according to John’ whoever he was, especially in ‘John’ chapter 6:35 all the way to ‘John’ 14:26, this chain does NOT include the specific Pericope of the Woman Caught in Adultery (sometimes found in John 7:53 to 8:11 in some later copies), making it the earliest witness NOT to include this ‘floater’ Woman Caught in Adultery pericope….

See also: P75, probably copied around 180 CE

P75 contains ‘Luke’ chapter 3:18-22; ‘Luke’ chapter 3:33 to ‘Luke’ chapter 4:2; ‘Luke’ chapter 4:34 to‘Luke’ 5:10; 5:37 - 6:4; ‘Luke’ chapter 6:10 to ‘Luke’ 7:32, 35-39, 41-43; ‘Luke’ chapter 7:46 to ‘Luke’ chapter 9:2; ‘Luke’ chapter 9:4 all the way to ‘Luke; chater 17:15; 17:19 - 18:18; ‘Luke’ chapter 22:4 to 24:53; ‘John’ chapter 1:1 all the way to ‘John’ chapter 11:45, 48-57; 12:3 - 13:1, 8-9; 14:8-29; 15:7-8.

P75 does not include the pericope of the Johanine Woman Caught in Adultery (which IS found in only a few Greek MSS of ‘John’ chapter 7:53 - 8:11), making it the second earliest MSS along with P66 not to include this ‘floater’ pericope.

As Dr. Bart Ehrman discovered to his Shock & Awe as a post-Graduate Student, there are many many other (shall we say) 'anomalies' found in many the earliest handwritten copies of the Papyrus MSS to compare & contrast, but these are some for you just to get your ‘feet wet’… !!

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by metaldemon2000

 

I asked you to prove it. If you cant do that you believe a lie.
Something well documented should be easily produced.

edit on 27-11-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

You want prove?Join illuminati...Simple as that but u know there is NO turning back and u will be permanently sent to hell..WE the free people don't know their conspiracy setup but if u really wanna know..Join the devils..BTW I AM AGAINST ILLUMINATI and I am not a Christian but i respect your religious faiths and beliefs..And please don't join Illuminati cuz in the end God WILL show us the truth

Originally posted by torqpoc
I see a drastic flaw in your OP. The Bible was written by men. It was not burnt into rock by a divine being, for all to see and carbon date.

If you would have read through just about any part of this thread. You would see that both camps have acknowledged that the hand of man penned the Bible. But thanks for reminding everyone.

As such, it is open to manipulation by man.

I guess because you say so that makes it the truth. Although as the video stated, this is the easiest thing in the world to debunk.

God's word is indestructible you state.. if this were truly the case, any attempt to write the Bible originally would have been impossible, because man was penning it, not God.

Yep Gods word is indestructible and will remain so. Any monkey would know that as long as one single Bible is in existence, that is a true statement. So you can ram that wall only so many times without collapse.

Futile attempt to trolololol the ATS forums. Simple logic and sense tear your statement to pieces OP.

Hopefully you'll come up with some.

The only way you could even attempt to "prove" that the Bible was real, based on real events, would be to time travel back in time and witness them yourself and then somehow convey your own visual memories to the world. That in itself is open to criticism as we all chose to "see" what we wish to, and visual memory isn't fact either... so still a very tenuous truth.

Are you sure you know what's going on in this thread ? No one is trying to prove the Bible is real. I have one sitting right in front of me. I know it's real, K ?

Man wrote the Bible, not God. Simple statement. Prove that wrong and you're on to a winner.

Prove it wrong ? Why would I do that ? I mean you're still convincing me that man wrote it. Even tho I already
know that and have never argued that at all. But please continue, I'm almost convinced.

Oh and one additional point. You seem to completely avoid the fact that centuries prior to "Jesus" there were other civilisations writing about completely different gods. How do you explain that? How could it be that predating the Bible are other accounts of divine beings? Hmmm.. really complex right?

You seem to ignore everything in the OP and blow a big bombastic bunch of BS with out bringing anything to the table as proof for your wild haired accusations. So I can only assume you have no concept of what truth even is.
And that you go around regurgitating all the lies you've heard that suit you best in life.

The fact that you think life is that way is even all to absurd.

But I'm a troll.

Sigismundus and Two and Three

Obviously two heavyweights in the arena. I'm honored by your posts and would like you to know, that replys of thus calibur are the absolute in what I wanted to achieve in this thread. It really means a lot to me personally
that you two had enough interest to post.

Thank you so much.