What proof is there that the bible was edited?

245

Comments

  • theillestrator
    theillestrator Members Posts: 1,085 ✭✭
    edited May 2010
    SL8Rok wrote: »
    Translation is not proof of edition.

    i think the word that you are looking for is editing not edition. anyway, semantics aside, there is no way that the bible's message is 100% the same as it was from the version of its original writers.
  • SL8Rok
    SL8Rok Members Posts: 154
    edited May 2010
    And Step wrote: »
    I think the fact that there are so many different versions with different books added to and taken from, proves such.

    These people actually sat down and decided what they wanted to leave in and take out. Who gave them that authority? The King? Emperor?

    Just a rudimentary knowledge of the Hebrew text and you can see the difference in meanings of the text. Certain things are purposely mistranslated to deceive people.

    For instance all throughout the Bible, the word ? is used. Well in the Hebrew text, "Bethulah" corresponds with that word. However, in some cases "Almah" was used. This word does not mean ? , it means young woman. The Greeks with their limited language simply put a word there "parthenos" that means ? , but the hebrew text just denotes her as a young woman. This gave credence to the ? birth nonsense that is still believed today.

    Some fools will argue the correctness of the Greek Septugaint and don't even know the Hebrew origin to make comparison. This is silly.

    Semitic Languages are vastly different in expression than English or Greek. You can use the same word in a different arrangement and change the whole complexity and meaning of the word. Take the Arabic word Rabb, which has a common etymological origin with the Hebrew word Rabbee. In some instances it means Lord, In some instances it may Sustainer, Nourisher, Cherisher and even Master. Depending upon how you use it in the sentence and with what combination of words. English is not like that.

    If you really believe in the Bible, any serious student would make every effort to study the Original tongue out of which it was translated, and no Biblical Hebrew is not significant different than what is spoken today. Don't fall for that one. Reggie White undertook a serious study of Hebrew and he admitted that he had been teaching things that were not true and that he was in some instances lied to intentionally by people who knew the truth. He exposed some of them and was made persona non grata in many church circles because he would not lie to the people.

    There is more, but will save for later.

    1. That only proves that certian bibles were edited and when you look into things like the underlying manuscripts for the different bibles (KJV - Textus receptus/majority texts, Modern Translations - Sinaiticus/Vaticanus), you'd see this argument falls apart at the bone.

    2. If you are refering to the council of nicea I think you should get off the divinici code and actually read what the council of nicea was about. It was to address a heresy called Arianism which denied the divinity of christ. All the council did was to make an official stance on the matter and to allow Arius to speak. The Muratorian fragment (the oldest known list of biblical canon dates to 170 AD, a whopping 155 years BEFORE the council of nicea). Now if you want to talk about the council of Trent in which the CATHOLIC bible had parts of the apocrypha added to it as actual canonical (or more accurately dueterocanonical) however this is no secret.

    3. Can you really apply rudimentary knowledge of anything to really assertain the meaning of anything? No. This is a moot point and not ever a logical argument.

    4. Jews were the ones who translated the old testament from hebrew to greek, I think they knew better than you the difference between the two languages.
  • And Step
    And Step Members Posts: 3,726 ✭✭✭
    edited May 2010
    SL8Rok wrote: »
    Still haven't seen a good argument in here. Who says that the bible couldn't have been translated out of its original tongues and still be kept accurate.

    It could have been. It just wasn't.

    And that is a good argument. If you knew any of the original tongue you would know that, but you don't because you rather go the intellectual coward route and stay in your comfort zone. It's cool. How can you call yourself a serious Bible Scholar and student as you claim yet you don't know Greek or Hebrew? You can shut every body up by showing us how it was kept accurate through it's linguistic journey.

    I notice you didn't go near my proof, which is easily verifiable how they changed meaning and words in some passages. You arguing the King James validity without knowing the Greek or Hebrew is out loud laughable.
  • SL8Rok
    SL8Rok Members Posts: 154
    edited May 2010
    TX_Made713 wrote: »
    this is like asking for proof that Muhammad had that life changing vision or that Malachi Z is really from planet x

    No its not, people on here hold for dear life to this idea and when its spoken the anti-christians on here come out in force to support it, I simply want to know what proof or logical arguments can be made in support of this claim. And as far as I can see, there are none. There were none last year and there are still none this year. Just like the Jesus is Horus argument, its a lie that that has nothing behind it..
  • theillestrator
    theillestrator Members Posts: 1,085 ✭✭
    edited May 2010
    I know English and Spanish, but I couldn't translate the constitution without having to do a little adding and subtracting. Languages don't work that way. it isn't always a "good=bueno" type deal.
  • SL8Rok
    SL8Rok Members Posts: 154
    edited May 2010
    And Step wrote: »
    It could have been. It just wasn't.

    And that is a good argument. If you knew any of the original tongue you would know that, but you don't because you rather go the intellectual coward route and stay in your comfort zone. It's cool. How can you call yourself a serious Bible Scholar and student as you claim yet you don't know Greek or Hebrew? You can shut every body up by showing us how it was kept accurate through it's linguistic journey.

    I notice you didn't go near my proof, which is easily verifiable how they changed meaning and words in some passages. You arguing the King James validity without knowing the Greek or Hebrew is out loud laughable.

    1. Prove it.

    2. No its not. Speculation is not a good argument. Speculation is just that.

    3. I'm sorry you offered proof? What was it? All I saw was more pseudo-intellectual rambling.

    4. I'm simply asking for some proof or logical argument that would support drawing the logical conclusion that the bible was edited, still waiting on that 3 pages in and still nothing has been presented.
  • SL8Rok
    SL8Rok Members Posts: 154
    edited May 2010
    I know English and Spanish, but I couldn't translate the constitution without having to do a little adding and subtracting. Languages don't work that way. it isn't always a "good=bueno" type deal.

    Is this seriously the best you people can do?
  • BiblicalAtheist
    BiblicalAtheist Members Posts: 15,668 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited May 2010
    SL8Rok wrote: »
    1. Prove it.

    2. No its not. Speculation is not a good argument. Speculation is just that.

    3. I'm sorry you offered proof? What was it? All I saw was more pseudo-intellectual rambling.

    4. I'm simply asking for some proof or logical argument that would support drawing the logical conclusion that the bible was edited, still waiting on that 3 pages in and still nothing has been presented.

    Bluefalcon is that you?
  • SL8Rok
    SL8Rok Members Posts: 154
    edited May 2010
    If any of us common ? could get into the vatican's library......

    Again speculation is not a substitute for a logical argument.
  • Rock_Well
    Rock_Well Members Posts: 2,185 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited May 2010
    i think the word that you are looking for is editing not edition. anyway, semantics aside, there is no way that the bible's message is 100% the same as it was from the version of its original writers.

    That is a trivial matter for crumb-particle hustlers to fight over.

    The current issue is, where is there evidence of intentional alterations being made for the purpose of misleading others into a snare?
  • SL8Rok
    SL8Rok Members Posts: 154
    edited May 2010
    And Step wrote: »
    He was rolling with the Essenes, being schooled in Egyptian Mystery system. Or the Way or Light as some call it.

    Somebody has been reading the Di Vinci code I take it.
  • BiblicalAtheist
    BiblicalAtheist Members Posts: 15,668 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited May 2010
    SL8Rok wrote: »
    Again speculation is not a substitute for a logical argument.

    That wasn't speculation. It was more of an if we could get in to the library, maybe we could find some 'evidence'.
  • SL8Rok
    SL8Rok Members Posts: 154
    edited May 2010
    Oh, and there is no proof. All speculation.

    indeed that is what 100% of the responses show.
  • SL8Rok
    SL8Rok Members Posts: 154
    edited May 2010
    That wasn't speculation. It was more of an if we could get in to the library, maybe we could find some 'evidence'.

    Maybe we could = speculation.
  • theillestrator
    theillestrator Members Posts: 1,085 ✭✭
    edited May 2010
    SL8Rok wrote: »
    Is this seriously the best you people can do?

    lol, i don't believe the bible in any form so i could care less how you take it. i speak for myself. whether you find your "proof" or not, you are the one who lives by the book, not me. Bible pages are worth no more than one-ply receipt paper to me. You are just trying to avoid having your question answered. Name one book that has been translated and has the exact same message.
  • BiblicalAtheist
    BiblicalAtheist Members Posts: 15,668 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited May 2010
    SL8Rok wrote: »
    Maybe we could = speculation.

    You don't get it do you? Movin along, you just want to spit, pull hair and fight with someone.
  • TX_Made713
    TX_Made713 Members Posts: 3,954 ✭✭
    edited May 2010
    SL8Rok wrote: »
    No its not, people on here hold for dear life to this idea and when its spoken the anti-christians on here come out in force to support it, I simply want to know what proof or logical arguments can be made in support of this claim. And as far as I can see, there are none. There were none last year and there are still none this year. Just like the Jesus is Horus argument, its a lie that that has nothing behind it..




    religion is like politics...you can argue the facts about whats right for hours and nothing will be solved...its all opinion based
  • SL8Rok
    SL8Rok Members Posts: 154
    edited May 2010
    You don't get it do you? Movin along, you just want to spit, pull hair and fight with someone.

    Thats not splitting hairs thats basic english. But like you said moving along.
  • BiblicalAtheist
    BiblicalAtheist Members Posts: 15,668 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited May 2010
    SL8Rok wrote: »
    Thats not splitting hairs thats basic english. But like you said moving along.

    Again, over your head, SHOOOOM!

    Toodles, I'm done with you.
  • SL8Rok
    SL8Rok Members Posts: 154
    edited May 2010
    Again, over your head, SHOOOOM!

    Toodles, I'm done with you.

    Right....lol.
  • And Step
    And Step Members Posts: 3,726 ✭✭✭
    edited May 2010
    SL8Rok wrote: »
    1. That only proves that certian bibles were edited and when you look into things like the underlying manuscripts for the different bibles (KJV - Textus receptus/majority texts, Modern Translations - Sinaiticus/Vaticanus), you'd see this argument falls apart at the bone.

    So you admit that it was edited. And why do you describe greek text as the underlying manuscripts, when they are not the source? Do you even know Greek? Your just frontin.
    Jews were the ones who translated the old testament from hebrew to greek, I think they knew better than you the difference between the two languages.

    I am not questioning the Jews. I am questioning you. My brother can read and write in Hebrew fluently. I am on my way. What about you? Any body with a little understanding knows that it is almost impossible to make that transition because of the basis of the Hebrew language. It doesn't translate all that well because of the multi layered make up of the Hebrew Language. I showed you how they mistranslated the word ? , which is the basis of an important part of the faith. The Jews who translated it had a hard time because they couldn't find words that were the equivalent in Greek. So they basically just accepted whatever for the sake of expediency. Even the Greek word ? is inadequate to describe the attributes of the Creator.

    It' is sad to see someone defending boldly, something he has no knowledge of it's history or origin. When my brother get's back, I'm going to have him drop some stuff on you. If you are truly a student as you claim and not an intellectual coward you will see what I am saying.

    You are actually just like the Pharisees and Saducees who wanted to hold on to what Moses taught because they didn't want to leave their comfort zone by coming into the light that Jesus was offering, which was the fulfillment of what they had been hoping for.

    Shame
  • BiblicalAtheist
    BiblicalAtheist Members Posts: 15,668 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited May 2010
    SL8Rok wrote: »
    Right....lol.

    Yup, you're bluefalcon.
  • And Step
    And Step Members Posts: 3,726 ✭✭✭
    edited May 2010
    SL8Rok wrote: »
    Somebody has been reading the Di Vinci code I take it.

    No. I never read that book. There is a lot of knowledge out there from ancient historians way before the Davinci code. I have a vast library of religious studies.
    The Essenes have been recorded since before Jesus existed. Many people have chronicled them before this Divincii code book. Heck the first time I heard of the Essense was in the Autobiography of Malcolm X.
  • theillestrator
    theillestrator Members Posts: 1,085 ✭✭
    edited May 2010
    That is a trivial matter for crumb-particle hustlers to fight over.

    The current issue is, where is there evidence of intentional alterations being made for the purpose of misleading others into a snare?

    if the bible is the guide to heaven for christians, you would think that any alteration would be important. but excuse me, only the intentional alterations will mislead others...the accidental alterations are perfectly fine.
  • SL8Rok
    SL8Rok Members Posts: 154
    edited May 2010
    And Step wrote: »
    SL8Rok wrote: »
    1. That only proves that certian bibles were edited and when you look into things like the underlying manuscripts for the different bibles (KJV - Textus receptus/majority texts, Modern Translations - Sinaiticus/Vaticanus), you'd see this argument falls apart at the bone.

    So you admit that it was edited. And why do you describe greek text as the underlying manuscripts, when they are not the source? Do you even know Greek? Your just frontin.



    I am not questioning the Jews. I am questioning you. My brother can read and write in Hebrew fluently. I am on my way. What about you? Any body with a little understanding knows that it is almost impossible to make that transition because of the basis of the Hebrew language. It doesn't translate all that well because of the multi layered make up of the Hebrew Language. I showed you how they mistranslated the word ? , which is the basis of an important part of the faith. The Jews who translated it had a hard time because they couldn't find words that were the equivalent in Greek. So they basically just accepted whatever for the sake of expediency. Even the Greek word ? is inadequate to describe the attributes of the Creator.

    It' is sad to see someone defending boldly, something he has no knowledge of it's history or origin. When my brother get's back, I'm going to have him drop some stuff on you. If you are truly a student as you claim and not an intellectual coward you will see what I am saying.

    You are actually just like the Pharisees and Saducees who wanted to hold on to what Moses taught because they didn't want to leave their comfort zone by coming into the light that Jesus was offering, which was the fulfillment of what they had been hoping for.

    Shame

    1. No I don't admit the bible was edited. Again read what I said. the Sinaiticus/Vaticanus (alexandrian texts) were indeed edited, original copies show where parts where lined out, erased etc. However that is the minority texts. The textus receptus (which does include hebrew manuscripts) which the KJV is based on WAS NOT edited as it was the majority texts. And as far as the NT goes it was written in Koine Greek so yes "they" are the source.

    2. Its almost impossible yet the septuigent translators did it. Hmm. You showed me how they mistranslated the word ? ? No you didnt' that didn't show or prove anything. The septuigent uses the word ? , but I guess you need to craft some sort of conspiracy because hey you know greek and hebrew better than they did right?

    3. I know the history and origin of the bible however my knowledge stems from truth and fact while yours stems from ignorance and unfounded conspiracies. But yes get your brother maybe he can do a better job of presenting your case.

    4. So since you think I'm a pharisee for not listing (actually taking your nonsense seriously), and you are the one presenting the arguments (if thats what you actually want to call them) are you trying to make youself out to be like Jesus? And no my friend I'm not a pharisee, I'm not clining on to anything I'm asking questions however the answers are laughable at best.