The Bible has been changed ( rewritten )

Originally posted by superman2012
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 people 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?

We are slowly understanding the mystery. Consult my last post. Jesus said himself that the Father was greater than he. Anything that is immortal is in motion. God is Eternal. He is not in motion. We are mortal, also in motion but will die and live again. How can Jesus and God be one? We are all one with God. Is light both a particle and a wave? Yes. What material did God use outside of Himself to create us? We are all one with the Father by creation. Jesus was one with God by spirit. This is what the Son (first image of creation / Cosmos) came into the body to show. We must gain union with God by loving God through faith and loving others as a reflection of this love for God. We are the image of God or we are separated from the light of the image. It's a choice we can embrace or deny. Either way, the process stands.

At this point I feel I should inform all interests that I'm falling behind and must apologise for my lack of speed.
I knew I would be inundated but this is becoming obscene. Just so you know that I know it.

Titen
I'm no scholar be any stretch myself as you know for sure. I just try to hold my position best I can.


NO ONE here is invisible or being ignored. I give a humble apology to anyone who feels this way. My fault totally.

reply to post by chr0naut


I am who said that about translations. Although, that wasn't what I said, that Aramaic and Hebrew had "no value" when translated to English. Oh, woe is me, that reading results in such misinterpretation, that seems, in fact, insulting to these ancient languages, when that was categorically opposed to what I actually wrote.

Another thing, it is very well known that there are major discrepancies in terms of translation from hebrew or Aramaic to English, as it exists today. Your own OP shows an inherent lack of understanding for this and many other subtleties regarding this question.

It is important within the context of the OP, though I beieve it now to be an exercise in baiting, to understand what it is exactly that I said, which was meant to convey that in the translation of ancient texts, there would be misunderstandings from one language to another, sometimes purposefully used to skew facts, to then skew opinions, facts and faith. Your interpretation of what I wrote significantly shows this to be true WITHOUT even a supposed language barrier. For instance, in a very small example, the pronouns denoting sex (his and her , or she and he) are interchangeable in these ancient languages, or have been obfuscated in translating rules since....
It reminds me of another post which mentioned the game telephone, for an examle, and what happened in each subsequent retelling,or just in retelling the rules of the retelling, which brings to mind what happens if your change the rules of translation, or of the supposed knowledge of a language before it's translation.....do you see all the possible steps here, which can be diverted to digress, regress, and subdue and misinform us along the way---which is why I bring into question the whole of the nature of this OP. In disregarding the subtleties of all that, it clearly means to disintegrify not only the Word of God, but the idea of God, in toto, which when the text purports the opposite, clearly defines what trolling is.

reply to post by randyvs


I was speaking to GOD the other day just before I went to bed and he told me that I am safe in his arms. I am very happy about this, as I know, no harm will come to me. I can step in front of a car, or a bullet and I will be fine. GOD is our saviour and your blasphemy will only lead you to the gates of hell.

reply to post by SuperiorEd


That you assess he is both (or either) particle and wave is entirely personal, without any quoted reference or supposed inference that this physics was ever applied or referred to in the bible. Perhaps he is neither, or one but not the other. No matter, I do not see physics, particle, quantum or mechanical illuminated in the work we are discussing or it's interpretation. At the least, without referencing the work's allusion to this science, I think you are making a huge jump here, for it is quite likely that particle and wave exist without the judgements that work sought to incorporate and explain. Perhaps particle and wave exist, but he occupies them, to control their nature.....

Originally posted by superman2012
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.

edit on 27-11-2011 by superman2012 because: (no reason given)

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.

edit on 27-11-2011 by superman2012 because: Adding question

I agree that the particular unsupported passages should be removed from the text.

In fact, I use a "majority text" bible. This is where, if something is not included on the majority of ancient texts, it is excluded from the translation.

The fact remains, however, that the inclusion or exclusion of these particular passages does not change the meaning of the overall text.

In the instance of the adulteress, there is actually a Levitical law that was being referenced. The Law protected those who were involved in carrying out a stoning (which could be regarded as murder if the accused was innocent). By law, only those who had actually witnessed the transgression could throw thew first stones, and there had to be two or more witnesses, a single one was insufficient. If those witnesses lied, the guilt was on their heads, not on the heads of those others carrying out the sentence. If those initial witnesses did not have the strength to carry out the sentence, or if in fact the accusation was hearsay (no actual witnesses), then it was a misapplication of the law and all other non-witnesses must discard their stones.

So Jesus (if he ever did such a thing) was not arguing for prisoners rights or womens lib or something, He was just ensuring that the law was correctly observed and our cultural bias makes it appear more than it was and so the passage adds little, if nothing, to Jesus ministry as portrayed in the Gospels.

reply to post by randyvs


As someone who was raised in a Southern baptist church I must say that God's word may not have changed but most certainly the various religions interpertaions have changed God's word...without a doubt. We have taken the word and rewritten it to fit our modern lives much like the word was changed centuries ago to fit the lives of Kings and Queens and Pope's life.

You may not want to admit it but it is true...almost everyone at some point in their lives has played the whisper game...one person whisper in the ear of another persons ear and so on until it reaches the last person who then states the whisper as he or she heard it...and of course it changed...this is how the Bible has developed over the years through mans interpertation and opassing of the message along.

Below are just a few examples of perhaps the most known verse in the bible...John 3:16....and how the various versions of the Bible have changed it...not neccessarily the message and yes it is just the words but now consider before the days of mass printing when the message was passed only by word of mouth...how much do you think the Bible was changed during that time frame to modern times...my guess is a lot...again the message may be (and thats a leap IMO) the same but interpeted widly differntly based on the person giving the message.

I have listened to Pastors at the same church in two different sermons provide two differing views (and boy did it cause trouble...LOL) in the same day...are they confused...yes maybe but really they just had different interpetations and that is why the Bible has been changed over and over and will continue to evolve until it fits the current Thumpers position. Like it or not the Bible has changed many times.

King James Bible John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

New International Version (NIV) John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

American Standard Version (ASV) John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life.

Complete Jewish Bible (CJB) John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his only and unique Son, so that everyone who trusts in him may have eternal life, instead of being utterly destroyed.

Good News Translation (GNT) John 3:16 For God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not die but have eternal life.

Hebrew Names Version (HNV) John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

Holman Christian Standard (CSB) John 3:16 "For God loved the world in this way: He gave His One and Only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life.

GOD'S WORD Translation (GW) John 3:16 God loved the world this way: He gave his only Son so that everyone who believes in him will not die but will have eternal life.

New Century Version (NCV) John 3:16 "God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son so that whoever believes in him may not be lost, but have eternal life.

Lexham English Bible (LEB) John 3:16 For in this way God loved the world, so that he gave his one and only Son, in order that everyone who believes in him will not perish, but will have eternal life.

The Message (MSG) John 3:16 This is how much God loved the world: He gave his Son, his one and only Son. And this is why: so that no one need be destroyed; by believing in him, anyone can have a whole and lasting life.

This is not the best example to use...John 3:16...but I wanted to use one that more people would be familiar with. This is how Gods word is and how it has been altered and changed throughout history. Since modern times the word has been altered subtelty but change it has and will continue to change as long as man interpret it.

Originally posted by rogerstigers
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"?

There is a good answer to this. The Bible is a mirror. What do you see when you look into a mirror? Yourself. If the reflection is not to your liking, you can only blame what you see. This is true for all things we seen in life. The Bible is also like an onion in many ways. We tend to see the outer layer. We begin to peel away the layers and it makes us cry. The core is especially hard to take. What you find, after peeling the layers, is that truth is in many perspectives. It is like a hologram in this respect. There is no one way to see the truth, as truth is infinity. We can only stand back and piece this together as we polish our own reflection.

If you can understand what I am saying here, then consider this: When a child begins life, they are concrete and literal. A 4 year old chooses a nickle over a dime because of size. When we are older, we begin to see the value underlying the dime. It becomes the obvious choice. This is abstract thought, seeing the ocean for more than the surface and the waves.

The way to view the Bible properly is from the spiritual value it relates. This is the hard part to take in the image because it reflects so brilliantly on our own moral reflection. The bridge between the literal and the spiritual is the moral. Until the moral virtues are mastered, they master us and the reflection we see in the Bible hurts. We can confuse the cutting of the onion as stink or sweet depending on the value we place on the onion.

The Bible is first seen as literal. This is true. Anyone you speak to with any sense of what the Bible relates will tell you that it is embraced spiritually. The bridge between is the life we live. Our own image must be pure for there to be harmony between. Dissonance is what you get if you are living a life leading to the same. Like attracts like. Misery loves company unless it is the wrong company. The Bible is definitely not nice to a person in misery. The opposite reflection is what you see. Sin hurts. It mostly hurts others in opposite. The Bible can only reveal what you see from it in yourself.

reply to post by SuperiorEd


So you agree that the Bible shouldn't be literally translated? It is more of a metaphor on how to live your life than an actual account of the times?

reply to post by metaldemon2000


things like the ufos or flying armana have also been left out, the book of enoch is the real deal to me, but your verry rite, it shows in other religions like catholic, christian and middle eastern religion, all fitted to suit who ever wanted to make their own rules upon others, but yet we have these redicuelous towering cults of lies and alterations, kind of ironic they havd an Alter in churches haha and also, that load of BS about marry being a virgin, serriosley, i think someone caught on to the fact she wasnt and they panicked so they said "oh oh umm, miracle! *told you they'd find out we had sex"

reply to post by SuperiorEd


Along those lines, I would ask whom you interpret as the son of man, and the difference and what this means?

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

So you agree that the Bible shouldn't be literally translated? It is more of a metaphor on how to live your life than an actual account of the times?

The Word (Son of God) writes the story for us in three ways. The Bible is the Word to men in written form. It is also the blueprint for creation along with the law that governs it. It is written in both allegory and literal verse so that we can understand as we learn. The literal story matches the allegory since the characters of the story are us. We are not so much walking on this earth as we are walked. You may think you are walking, but God is walking you. This thread is doing that very thing.

A Mirror Cannot Refelct Itself

reply to post by DJMSN


Do these sutble changes reflect a change in the message God wants us to have ? I think not, there fore this proves not.

Originally posted by superman2012
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?

edit on 27-11-2011 by superman2012 because: put people instead of Bible

Thomas clearly said to Jesus "My Lord and My God", directly attributing deity to Jesus. Jesus did not refute him replying "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." I take that as an acknowledgement by Jesus, that He was God. In the light of that acknowledgement, references to "the Son of God" througout the gospels, stands uncontested for me.

reply to post by randyvs


I don't have a problem with the original Gospel, I have a problem with the books that came after it, and the many interpretations which leads to a single conclusion:

The (current) bible is the word of man.

Why? Because we humans changed the original message to fit our needs and desires, to manipulate and castrate the masses.

Before I chose my religion, I was searching and I found this guy put the argument across really well, as to what was wrong with the current bible (he does a good job of showing the original Gospel in it's true light, the word of god):

Of all that I have read here, I have provided at least one concrete quote from a king James version itself that clearly states one of the books is in questions as it was destroyed and later recreated. This is a source from The Book itself, allowing that what is written is a recreation, a revision. I only draw attention to it because the OP began this looking for such Proof, and all that has followed since. His answer to me was he had to admit he wasn't educated enough to answer to it's validity, after he demanded such, and wanted to see what others made of it. I mean no disrespect to any respondents.....really, I am writing this for the OP.....
No one has refuted, elucidated or illuminated it, randy. And what I would like to say to you, is, if you weren't educated enough to accept or repudiate what you challenged did not exist, then why state an absolute as you did in your original OP?


Oh and btw, buried somewhere in these heated responses, I also provided two other links to revisions, publicly announced since the 1800s, and documented to the whole text.

Perhaps your whole point was there is no word of God. But only the word of other men, as to what he said

reply to post by randyvs


But we know nothing of changes made befroe it was written...only what was passed by word of mans mouth...the changes I provided while subtle are indeed changes....changes that later will be changed again...againmaybe not the message itself but we do not know the orginal message unless the scrolls are released and from the ones that have been released they are remarkable different,,,entire books left out...this is how man has changed the word of God and will continue do so I say it is proven that the word has changed...and it will change again after you and I are long gone because that is the nature of man...change

reply to post by randyvs


The change to the gospel of Jeremiah was directly related to whom he interpreted god to be....have you actually read the book you speak of and declare the validity of, for it, itself, calls into question many of the facts purported within it, filled with directly oppositional "facts"

reply to post by DJMSN


The scrolls and more that is hidden will rock the world and provide the answer to whom is the rock

reply to post by chr0naut


Read my whole post, it wasn't written in English, it was a mistranslation. Of course Jesus wouldn't refute being called the Servant of God.