Has the Bible been Altered?

sim hae

sim hae

Established
Joined
Mar 15, 2018
Messages
282
Didn't you already conclude that in one of your other Bible threads? Why are you asking if you seem to know the answer?
 
Red Sky at Morning

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
13,961
The original text had remained remarkably unaltered. I hadn't really looked into the question till the authenticity and reliability of the text was questioned. What I found put has certainly increased my confidence in the Bible significantly!

KJV-Only-Chart.gif

 
Last edited:
U

Unknown Warrior

Established
Joined
Feb 26, 2018
Messages
177
The Bible is truly the word of God and I am confident that He has protected it and kept the truth in it. However, there have been people who have tried to twist the words to mean something different, in order to mislead others. I know that God has the ability to teach and guide His followers and keep them from being misled by anyone. If a person stays faithful to God and follows the truth, they will know deep down if something is true or if it is not. Everyone makes mistakes, but if we try to learn from them we will become more mature and be able to help others.
 
Red Sky at Morning

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
13,961
Etagloc said:
Do we have the word of God? Is the Bible preserved and has it been kept free from corruption?

Furthermore, can we trust all its authors?

I think Bart Ehrman has shown that the Bible has been altered. It has been shown conclusively that the Bible has been changed. I highly recommend this book:

https://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060859512
Click to expand...
Poor Bart should have looked at this before assuming he had the "oldest and best" manuscripts...


As a footnote, the preface to the NKJV makes some interesting observations...


"The King James New Testament was based on the traditional text of the Greek-speaking churches, first published in 1516, and later called the Textus Receptus or Received Text. Although based on the relatively few available manuscripts, these were representative of many more which existed at the time but only became known later. In the late nineteenth century, B. Westcott and F. Hort taught that this text had been officially edited by the fourth-century church, but a total lack of historical evidence for this event has forced a revision of the theory. It is now widely held that the Byzantine Text that largely supports the Textus Receptus has as much right as the Alexandrian or any other tradition to be weighed in determining the text of the New Testament. ...

Since the 1880s most contemporary translations of the New Testament have relied upon a relatively few manuscripts discovered chiefly in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Such translations depend primarily on two manuscripts, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, ***because of their greater age.

[However, this long standing claim has recently come under scrutiny as the video above delves into]

The Greek text obtained by using these sources and the related papyri (our most ancient manuscripts) is known as the Alexandrian Text. However, some scholars have grounds for doubting the faithfulness of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, since they often disagree with one another, and Sinaiticus exhibits excessive omission.
 
Last edited:
Red Sky at Morning

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
13,961
It gets more interesting - it looks like a number of authors are waking up to the issue now...

"Modern research techniques have revealed a hidden scheme aimed at God's Holy Words...

Modern Bibles have changed many verses because of the discovery of an "ancient" manuscript in a monastery on the Sinai Peninsula.

The manuscript, called Sinaiticus, is claimed to be the earliest complete copy of the New Testament. Its discoverer, who was a world leading Bible scholar in his time, told the world Sinaiticus was from the 4th century and that it was the "oldest and best" Bible available.

Publishers rushed to make new Bibles with many changes to match it.

But not everyone agreed. When this famed 19th century Bible scholar, Constantine Von Tischendorf, claimed the ancient date, a well-known Greek calligrapher said, "No! I made that document!" But why did no one believe him? Maybe it's because pages of the manuscript were stored where no one could view them, archived in exclusive collections across several continents.

Now, an international group has carefully photographed each page of Sinaiticus and is displaying it on the internet as high-quality digital images. For the first time, Bible scholars and students can see the entire manuscript together, as was never possible before. And what they are seeing with their own eyes is shocking. Some of the pages are white and look quite new, while others have been darkened to make them look very old. If they are all from the same "old" Bible, how can this be?

Researcher David W. Daniels proves with easy-to-understand evidence that the Sinaiticus is not the oldest manuscript and certainly not the best, either. He is also convincing in showing it's not old after all and that the Greek calligrapher did make it, in the 19th century."

718lhKIGloL._SL1500_.jpg

David W. Daniels

Is The "World's Oldest Bible" A Fake
 
Red Sky at Morning

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
13,961
Actually I have to thank @Etagloc for introducing this topic again as it has encouraged me to look into the question seriously...

Perhaps, given the numerous modern versions, along with the repeated attempts to suppress the Bible through the centuries, it would be entirely fair to say that at least some copies of the Bible bear evidence of tampering, or at best clumsy paraphrasing.

I even have an "emoji bible" which is pretty lightweight!

Which "versions" were the tampered ones and which the original is one interesting line of exploration. Secondly who did the tampering and when did they do it? Finally why try to change the message, to what purpose?

Those questions led be to start reading a really interesting book which examines these questions and (perhaps not unexpectedly) comes to a very different conclusion to Mr Ehrman. When I've read it all, which shouldn't take me too long, I will let you know what I find out...
 
Last edited:
Violette

Violette

Star
Joined
Apr 18, 2017
Messages
1,304
friend said:
Partnering a human (created) to God (Creator) proves that alteration happened.
Which is against Abrahamic faith (there is only One True God and only He is Worthy of Worship).
Click to expand...
Lol, and Islam doesn’t do that with Muhammad? Can you be Muslim without accept Muhammad as the savior of the world by bringing us the Quran? At least our prophet was God. It blows my mind that people actually believe God would send someone as loving and kind as Jesus and then felt the need to send another prophet who pales in comparison.
 
elsbet

elsbet

Superstar
Joined
Jun 4, 2017
Messages
5,122
Red Sky at Morning said:
It gets more interesting - it looks like a number of authors are waking up to the issue now...

"Modern research techniques have revealed a hidden scheme aimed at God's Holy Words...

Modern Bibles have changed many verses because of the discovery of an "ancient" manuscript in a monastery on the Sinai Peninsula.

The manuscript, called Sinaiticus, is claimed to be the earliest complete copy of the New Testament. Its discoverer, who was a world leading Bible scholar in his time, told the world Sinaiticus was from the 4th century and that it was the "oldest and best" Bible available.

Publishers rushed to make new Bibles with many changes to match it.

But not everyone agreed. When this famed 19th century Bible scholar, Constantine Von Tischendorf, claimed the ancient date, a well-known Greek calligrapher said, "No! I made that document!" But why did no one believe him? Maybe it's because pages of the manuscript were stored where no one could view them, archived in exclusive collections across several continents.

Now, an international group has carefully photographed each page of Sinaiticus and is displaying it on the internet as high-quality digital images. For the first time, Bible scholars and students can see the entire manuscript together, as was never possible before. And what they are seeing with their own eyes is shocking. Some of the pages are white and look quite new, while others have been darkened to make them look very old. If they are all from the same "old" Bible, how can this be?

Researcher David W. Daniels proves with easy-to-understand evidence that the Sinaiticus is not the oldest manuscript and certainly not the best, either. He is also convincing in showing it's not old after all and that the Greek calligrapher did make it, in the 19th century."

View attachment 5052

David W. Daniels

Is The "World's Oldest Bible" A Fake
Click to expand...
And here I was thinking it was all Masoretic vs Septuagint.

:confused:
 
Red Sky at Morning

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
13,961
It goes pretty deep but the rabbit hole is worth exploring! I have found out so much as a result...

Btw, the book @Etagloc's question put me onto :-

51ePqM8DPLL._AA300_.jpg

It carries on where the other things I had come across left off. This is an issue we should be taking seriously. Btw - I still like my NKJV version very much, but my copy of "The Message" is gathering dust ;-)
 
Last edited:
Woke

Woke

Rookie
Joined
Dec 28, 2017
Messages
44
Violette said:
Lol, and Islam doesn’t do that with Muhammad? Can you be Muslim without accept Muhammad as the savior of the world by bringing us the Quran? At least our prophet was God. It blows my mind that people actually believe God would send someone as loving and kind as Jesus and then felt the need to send another prophet who pales in comparison.
Click to expand...
We believe that Muhammad ﷺ was a prophet just like the ones before him, only he is the last prophet that Allah has sent down and the final warning to mankind.

People did not follow Isa (alayhi as-salaam). Instead they ridiculed him and changed his message, cherry-picking what they wanted to follow and ignoring the rest. Everyone knows that the bible was changed. Just by reading it you can easily tell that a lot of it is the work of man. None of you Christians on this site can call yourselves true followers of Isa (alayhi as-salaam), when you don't even follow what is left of the bible. You eat pork even when it states it clearly in the bible today, that pork is unfit to eat and yet you insist that it hasn't been changed?

Islam is the religion that every prophet sent down followed. They worshiped the one true creator and they warned the people of hell, and told us that heaven was a refuge for the good people. So why are you continuing to do just as all the past society's have done, ridiculing and rejecting the last messenger Muhammad pbuh just as people did to Isa (alayhi as-salaam) and every other prophet that was sent down?

And We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth, confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture and as a criterion over it. So judge between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their inclinations away from what has come to you of the truth. To each of you We prescribed a law and a method. Had Allah willed, He would have made you one nation [united in religion], but [He intended] to test you in what He has given you; so race to [all that is] good. To Allah is your return all together, and He will [then] inform you concerning that over which you used to differ. Surah Al-Ma'idah [5:48]- Al Quran
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top