The Bible has been changed ( rewritten )

As an aside I have always been interested in the many Anglo-Saxon non glosses of the Vulgate that exist.. it would be interesting to see how well they marry up with each other and if they reflect the earlier works of theologians like Pelagius (a view on free will that has followed us down the ages)

It is worth noting that Pelagius viewed the likes of St Augustine of Hippo and Jerome (attributed with the Vulgate itself) as corrupt and not teaching the original message brought by Jesus and in elevating evil to the same level as God. Hence my earnest interest in the varied Anglo-Saxon works held by the likes of the British library and I feel it a shame we only get to view the glosses.

While I certainly wouldn't be jumping up and down claiming that the bible was miss-translated/written by someone who wanted over arching power to control mankind.. but it does seem from my limited research (I am only really interesting in the Bythonic and Saxon works) that a lot of political jostling has not only gone into how the bible has been interpreted but also in laying the founding rules of the catholic church.

reply to post by randyvs


Perhaps it's a problem you could clear up given that you are the OP.

Look Randy we all know the Bible's been changed over the years, rewritten is another matter but certainly it has been edited (as far as which books are canon) and re-translated dozens of times. There is no evidence that it is the Word of God and furthermore there is every reason to discard such a claim as absurd in the highest degree. It depicts a psychotic deity who plans on torturing most of humanity in a fiery lake, who condones slavery, commits genocide and is generally morally repugnant. I'm sure this has all been explained to you ad naseum by me years ago.

No the Bible wasn't rewritten by the Illuminati, they didn't even exist until centuries after the Bible was compiled. And what exactly is the sinister harm if, indeed, the Bible has been rewritten at some point? How do you know those who rewrote it didn't improve it? The Bible was written by men for men even if your believe some divine inspiration was present. Supposing it was rewritten, how do you know those who changed it aren't the divinely inspired ones and the original authors false prophets?

If anything the Bible could definitely use some re-writes to make the narrative more coherent, to dissolve obvious self-contradictions and to make the deity a more morally upstanding one.

Originally posted by tetra50
reply to post by randyvs

 

Jeremiah, Scoffield edition, king James,: pg. 804, quoting from footnotes: The writing of Jeremiah in Chapters 30-36, cannot be arranged in consecutive order. Certain dates are mentioned but retrospectively. The narrative, so far as Jeremiah gives a narrative, is resumed at 37.1. These chapters constitute a kind of summary of prophecy concerning Israel as a nation, ,looking on especially to the last days, the day if the Lord, and the kingdom age to follow. If the marginal references are carefully followed the order will become clear. But these prophecies are interspersed with much historical matter concerning jeremeiah and his time.
Three writings by Jeremiah are to be distinguished: (1)30 1-3-. 40. This is impersonal--a general prophesy, and probably the earliest. (2)1. 1-36.23, destroyed by Jehoiakim. (3). The destroyed writing re-written (36.27), doubtless the writing preserved to us.

Need I quote more, Randy? The last paragraph spells enough out for proof of what you ask for....

I'm going to admit that I haven't the education to refute this. But We'll see what some others can do with it before
i give it any kind of value ok Tetra ?

Superman
Links to catradictions in the Bible ? Failed. Council of Nicea ? Failed and debunked. Addons ? Can't quite call that one but for the most part. Kind of feeble again. Didn't get thru all of it but I don't think it will matter. Not sure as of yet tho so. See what others can come up with. You aren't rejected yet.

Originally posted by rogerstigers

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

I read most of this thread and am only seeing the naysayers pointing out translation differences.

Perhaps you should have read all of the thread. Here are two besides my own points that have been largely ignored and overlooked.

One

and two.

Thanks.. was beginning to think I was invisible.

I also have no issues with Christians.. they can believe whatever they like...it's their lives. I only really have issues with them when they start trying to control governments and laws and such based on their opinion and slant on the way things are.

No problem, it kind of drives me nuts when people bring up good points and they get ignored because the people they are debating don't have a rebuttal for that particular point.

reply to post by randyvs

You aren't rejected yet.

*whew* That was close. I will get more after I get the xmas tree set up.

reply to post by Titen-Sxull


Look Titen the problem is with people stating it not proving it. The shoes on the other foot and so far you fail miserably.
Appeals won't suffice. Even tho I respect the hell out of you for lack of a better term.

The bible was the tv of the past its called predicitive programming just like our everyday tv programs and movies all predictive programming instill thoughts and over time walla we have been controlled !

reply to post by superman2012


Exactly. I have tried in numerous responses here to express that exact thing. Would you sacrifice your "brethren' according to the love you purport exemplified in the text, over the minusculations of said text, and if so, if the "word" is more important to you, then in deed, and emotion, what kind of Christian are you?

I am still waiting for the OPs reply to my quote on revision from the Book, itself. And I can provide more than that, from the introduction of the Scoffield text, itself, where it is clearly addressed by the editor, himself, that his version that follows is a work of compilation, and of assimilating and rearranging, including and disallowing and reordering to give a better picture, or rather his picture, informed through yearsof study though it may be.
If Randy would like, attuned to his original point, I can certainly type and quote the whole of what is said there.
As for superiored, I greatly appreciate your scholary knowledge and emparting that to us, but if identities and history are skewed and erased for political otherwise gain, your quoting supposedly accurate translation amounts to just that.....what is supposedly accurate. And brings us back to the OP insisting that there is one unchanged truth, which, for my part, proves to me the nature of trolling.......
All that is happening here are arguments of who is right in order to disract and discredit anything that may ever be seen or believed as truth, in order to discedit faith in absolutely anything. And, no, I do not miss my own part inthat, for the environment has become such that to participate in living or thinking of such things, of being faithful or even unfaithful, just the mere participation of living is to be overtaken and branded by what you reject, regardless of any truth. In other words, it can all be spun, and we and our actions can all be characterized in a manner that would suggest that simply being alive is the necessary judgement for our deservedness not to be....and so to cull us...
All i would say to that, is there is no God who would do such a thing to what is alive, and if this is true, we are indeed, in he'll, and God is a destroyer, a killer, and more like what comes from the pit. But tell me, is that not what "as above, so below" meant? The great equalizer, so that all were evil and worthy of destruction and torture to please what rules us that enjoys, more than anything, giving humiliation and pain, and thrives upon this?

reply to post by superman2012


When you say something patently untrue and repeat it and repeat it, it is still a lie.

Several posts have mentioned that the greatest atrocities have been done in the name of God. Yet history shows us that the greatest atrocities are usually done by people seeking their own ends, and often against religious pacifists. Please review this link: en.wikipedia.org...

Someone mentioned that the languages of Aramaic and Hebrew have no value when translated into English. As a student of Hebrew and an English speaker, I am not sure what you mean. A language is a language, it uses symbols and sounds to convey meaning. I value ideas and concepts and Hebrew is just as good (if not better) at carrying those concepts, as English.

As for the Bible being the most edited, I think not. It is the most copied, which, for those who are not exactly gifted with sparkling originality, may appear to be a fine line, but it is not. The only reason a translator would edit his work is if he has made a mistake.

As for texts being hidden for some reason. Yes, ancient documents that are handled, crumble to dust in a very short time, so conservators lock them away from harmful influences. Yet libraries (like the Vatican Library www.vaticanlibrary.va... or the Dead Sea Scrolls) are increasingly being put online and are NOT being hidden.

Someone mentioned that the Bible's beliefs are "ripped off" from Sumerian ones. This may possibly be because the Sumerians "ripped off" Hebrew/Caananite beliefs but after the first three chapters of the Bible (the Creation story which only occupies about 4 pages textually) the rest of the Bible is totally different, referrent to different lands and different peoples.

A clear study to see if the meaning behind the texts has changed over the hundreds, to thousands of years since the original was penned, and cross checked against the oldest document fragments we have, shows that even despite some attempts to corrupt the text, it has retained its meaning with extreme fidelity to the originals.

That is what the OP was about and what is historically supported.

Originally posted by seridium
The bible was the tv of the past its called predicitive programming just like our everyday tv programs and movies all predictive programming instill thoughts and over time walla we have been controlled !

I think its viola instead of walla walla. Just say'in. This is just more propaganda that isn't supported.

reply to post by chr0naut


Care to take these on then? I don't question your belief in the Book. I question the book itself. How can you know, with 100% certainty, that nothing has been changed? You don't. Just as I don't KNOW. I can read and do research and come to a conclusion that I believe to be correct, but, that doesn't mean I am correct. It is my belief. You are asking me to change my belief when you are neither willing or looking to change yours. Please correct me if I am wrong.

A clear study to see if the meaning behind the texts has changed over the hundreds, to thousands of years since the original was penned, and cross checked against the oldest document fragments we have, shows that even despite some attempts to corrupt the text, it has retained its meaning with extreme fidelity to the originals.

LINK TO THAT STUDY and I will shut up then. Has to be a third party investigation, meaning not done by religious or anti-religious people or organization.

reply to post by randyvs


I'm not a Biblical scholar by any means Randy but as it stands as far as I know the Bible hasn't been rewritten. Edited sure, re-translated endless yes but rewritten I doubt.

Here's a good jumping off point: Development of the Christian Biblical Canon

Originally posted by rogerstigers
I am no expert by any means, mainly because I long since stopped really caring about matters related to christianity and their holy stuff... but it wasn't very hard to find a reasonably decent article discussing this matter.


bible.org...

I admit, there are parts of it that I don't really feel hold up to scrutiny of "proof", although there are some tasty nuggets:

For a long time, biblical scholars have recognized the poor textual credentials of the story of the woman caught in adultery (John 7:53–8:11). The evidence against its authenticity is overwhelming
...
Even patristic writers seemed to overlook this text. Bruce Metzger, arguably the greatest textual critic of the twentieth century, argued that “No Greek Church Father prior to Euthymius Zigabenus (twelfth century) comments on the passage, and Euthymius declares that the accurate copies of the Gospel do not contain it” (Textual Commentary, 2nd ed., loc. cit.).

The whole passage is relevant, but that's just a text bite.

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

No doubt there are aspects of the Bible that can be questioned apart from our knowledge of the original context. What you fail to say is obvious. For each item you think you see that may or may not have been added, you must also contend the context of the story as contrary to the overall. In other words, if what you show changes the meaning of the Bible story of salvation, you are on to something. Otherwise, you are merely pointing out a smudge on the mirror. My question is this: How do errors from scribes or vaguely hinted additions indicate a change to the story? Demonstrate this and there is an argument.

This changes little of the overall message. It's even written into the letters of the language. Verify this with any Hebrew Lexicon or by reading the ancient Rabbinical texts that relate the same story. Remember, Ancient Hebrew is Phoenician. This is Abraham's language. Unless you think Abraham started a conspiracy 4000 years ago, then this thing is way more than we can abuse here in this thread. It is true to what it says on thousands of levels.

As for the woman at the well,

Until recently, it was not thought that any Greek Church Father had taken note of the passage before the 12th Century; but in 1941 a large collection of the writings of Didymus the Blind (ca. 313- 398) was discovered in Egypt, including a reference to the pericope adulterae as being found in "several copies"; and it is now considered established that this passage was present in its usual place in some Greek manuscripts known in Alexandria and elsewhere from the 4th Century onwards. In support of this it is noted that the 4th century Codex Vaticanus, which was written in Egypt, marks the end of John chapter 7 with an "umlaut", indicating that an alternative reading was known at this point.

Jerome reports that the pericope adulterae was to be found in its usual place in "many Greek and Latin manuscripts" in Rome and the Latin West in the late 4th Century. This is confirmed by some of Latin Fathers of the 4th and 5th Centuries CE; including Ambrose, and Augustine. The latter claimed that the passage may have been improperly excluded from some manuscripts in order to avoid the impression that Christ had sanctioned adultery:

"Certain persons of little faith, or rather enemies of the true faith, fearing, I suppose, lest their wives should be given impunity in sinning, removed from their manuscripts the Lord's act of forgiveness toward the adulteress, as if he who had said, Sin no more, had granted permission to sin."

Consider that this is one passage with intrigue but not proven as inaccurate. Again, no change to the overall Bible can be said to be in play.

reply to post by randyvs


No, I am sorry, that isn't okay with me as you have gone after PROOF as a dog with a bone. So I got my bible out and I took the time to give you your fr****bgun proof while you were busy adding laughing emoticons and telling me to go away and cry like an emotional ninny girl. Let's see what others make of it? Hahaha. Then you are certainly not what you purport to believe, a thinker and disseminator of the Word, nor a believer, if you haven't even read it enough to know what i posted, and I suspected as much, so I will vacate your thread, without taking the time or data usage on my money to further type revelatory references from the book you purport to defend, but do not seem to be all that educated about, while just trolling for responses, and inciting.....
Glad I know now not to bother taking seriously later.

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by randyvs

 

You aren't rejected yet.

*whew* That was close. I will get more after I get the xmas tree set up.

Someone witrh a sense of humor comparable to mine own? I must be dreaming.

watch.pair.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">Link

The commonly accepted account of English Bible revision begins in the year 1853 when B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort set out to replace the Textus Receptus with a New Greek Text based on corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts. Virtually all King James Bible apologists start with Westcott and Hort who, they generally agree, were acting alone. However, revision of the English Bible actually began well in advance of 1853—at least in the early 1800s—as a joint project of the Church of England and American Baptists, sponsored and financed by the House of Rothschild through their innumerable fronts. The following report is presented as a chronology of the stages leading to and during the period of revision of the Authorised Version. The facts which establish the early date of English Bible revision are available in A History of the Baptists: Traced by their Vital Principles and Practices, from the Time of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to the Year 1886 by Thomas Armitage, who was a member of the revisionist American Bible Union. Other sources reveal the hidden connections of key Bible revisers to secret societies controlled by the House of Rothschild, whose agenda was to transform the Christian Bible into an instrument of Zionism.

reply to post by SuperiorEd

How do errors from scribes or vaguely hinted additions a change to the story. Demonstrate this and there is an argument.

What about this? Care to evaluate this?

Some people mistakenly thought that the disciples called Jesus Son of God. An inconsistency of translation actually helped to give this wrong impression. In the King James Bible, the translators call Jesus ‘Son of God’ in Acts 3:13, 26, and ‘child of God’ in Acts 4:27. They simply translated the Greek word paida as ‘son’ or ‘child’. But the word paida also means ‘servant’, and the present context demands this translation since the author of Acts is trying in this passage to establish that Jesus is indeed the servant of God.

If this is true, then the Bible was re-written with Jesus as the Son of God. Semantics over re-written versus translation.

If it isn't true than Jesus isn't the only Son of God.

Luke 3:38 KJV

Did Jesus ever claim to be the Son of God?

Originally posted by seridium
The bible was the tv of the past its called predicitive programming just like our everyday tv programs and movies all predictive programming instill thoughts and over time walla we have been controlled !

You are correct in this. The Word form John 1 is the Wave of physics in the duality of light. Light is both a particle and a wave. The wave is what carries the particle to form as it gains mass from energy. If you are speaking of the God that created the universe, you must go all the way back to what a word is. It is information that programs.

God is Eternal. This means he is infinity at rest and does not change or move.

The Son is the Word that created reality from the image of the Father. Genesis 1 is the image and Elohim. Genesis 2 is the 2nd creation from the LORD (YHVH). This is the Eternal collapsed into the Immortal.

Immortal is what the Son (Cosmos) is as the indeterminate wave of infinity is collapsed by the wave (Word). Adam is the copy of the Son (Cosmos) in the body of the Adam man. We are not immortal, but mortal. We must live again. Our soul is immortal as we are part of the spirit of God.

We gain immortality by union with the spirit of God (John 3) from our baptism in the water. We are then spirit and transcend to the immortal realm of the Eternal Father. Heaven is what comes from the union.

I can show evidence for this easily from the Bible as verification.

How was the Image created?

Genesis 1:1
In the Beginning (Time), God created the heavens (Space) and the earth (Matter). Let there be light (Energy).

What is the image exactally?

1 Colossians 1:
15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

What was used?

3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

Process?

Father (God / Light / Infinity)
Son (Word / LOGOS / Wave) This is the laws of physics.
Holy Spirit (Consciousness)

God is one. He projects to creation from light, both particle and wave, to the image of man. Our body is both particle and wave (light) with consciousness. We are the image.

1:27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

We are 'in' the image of the Cosmos (Son) and we are the image of God (Trinity).

Realize. I have only covered a few verses from the Bible and shown you the physics of reality. If you need more evidence, read the Bible for all it's worth.

Romans 1

20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

reply to post by SuperiorEd


What I am gathering from your reply is that a few additions, ommisions, translation errors, editorial commentaries, etc. do not constitute a "change" because the original meaning is intact?

Sorry, I can bend a bit on translation errors (such as how the meaning of "hell" completely changed based on a translation error), but either we are talking about a literal "not changed" or a allegorical "not changed".

If it is allegorical, then what is the basis of the bible being used as the literal "word of god"? Shouldn't it be the allegorical "word of god"?

Originally posted by randyvs

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by randyvs

 

You aren't rejected yet.

*whew* That was close. I will get more after I get the xmas tree set up.

Someone witrh a sense oif humor comparable to mine own? I must be dreaming.

Well, is there really anything to get too angry about? I like having these debates, it makes you think more, unfortunately some people get pretty mad and usually resort to name calling (not going to say I never have). so what do you think? Angel or star on top?