Maggielle

WE must remember that the stories in the bible were first written in the language of Christ himself. THen we must remember that our language has changed over the years as well. So in all we have the conversion from the original language to old English, then middle english, then modern English. So there's four changes already. Then you have the Mormon Bible (which has an extra book) and the Catholic Bible ( that if I remember correctly leaves 2 books out) and the New Translation Bible and The American Bible. Do me a favor. Look at Bibles at the bookstore, compare one of the quotes. See the difference in the wording. Search a couple of verses on Biblegateway.com.
Since all the wording is different all the assumptions toward meaning can easily be changed. And how can so many be right about the same thing with different meanings? Which version of the bible did God Command? Which language is the bible supposed to be translated into? How can a sentence that is interpreted three different ways be correct each way? Tell me, do you speak Hebrew? Have you read the bible in the original written text? Can you tell me exactly what God meant when he wrote Genesis? And one final question: Do you believe in Dinosaurs, or did Satan put them there to tempt us away from the Bible? They aren't mentioned in the Bible.

Faydwyn

There are plenty of contradictions in the ones that were included. And even the gospels found in the finalized version of the New Testament could have been written in the second century. The date range includes not only when the apostles might have been alive in the latter half of the first century, but also the first half of the second century. Either way, they would have been writing decades (at least) after the supposed events of the NT.

As far as the KJV, those who compiled it did decide which books should be included (and therefore translated), just like all other compilers have done. There are multiple canons.

There are several issues here. First of all, the NT writers were not using the original Hebrew OT they were using a translation. (I believe it was Greek.) Secondly, as far as translations altering the meaning or interpretation of text, please see my post here.

To be perfectly honest, just do a little research of your own. The information isn’t hard to find.

Ronin

If by "how the Bible's message has changed over time" you mean changes in the actual text, there hasn't been that much. We have manuscripts from many different time periods showing only relatively minor variation. The more usual skeptical argument, in the case of the NT in particular, is that the stories it contains were circulated as oral traditions for 40 - 70 years before they were written down, so there's no way to know how much the stories changed in that period, especialy as they traveled from Jewish Aramaic speakers to Gentile Greek speakers (Jesus probably spoke Aramaic, but the Gospels [except possibly for Matthew] were originaly written in Greek, so you have one layer of translation before they were ever even written down.) Another skeptical objection to biblical inerrancy is internal inconsistency. For example, the prophet Jeremiah at one point says that pretty much all of the sacrificial laws, etc., which were supposedly given by God, were in fact made up by the Jews themselves, effectively contradicting most of the entire book of Leviticus. A good place to go would be "Rejection of Pascal's Wager" at . There's a section on the Bible which goes over a lot of this in great detail.

__________________
"The world is my country; to do good is my religion." ~ Thomas Paine

Ronin

Sorry, I don't know why the hyperlink won't work. Just cut and paste the address into your browser's address bar.

__________________
"The world is my country; to do good is my religion." ~ Thomas Paine

lemmex

When you say changes, do you mean the Old Testament and New. Let me give you a change of concept. The story of Job. Christian view interpret the story is about a real man named Job. This man bears great suffering and the purpose of his suffering is to answer the question "Why do good people suffer and what is the cause." The moral here is if you remain faithfull you'll recieve heavenly reward. Interesting evil is assighed to Satan here. Now the traditional story was this. The story is about the nation of Israel and asks why Israel (Job) must suffer and live under oppression as a conquered people though they are faithful to God (Yahweh). The difference is the story's morale is for Israel alone, to be strong in faith, that in exemplifying great and unshakable faith they will in the end receive its reward amplified. It's not about heavenly reward as the Jews didn't believe that, but an earthly reward of a renewed Israel.

Job deals with the problem of good and evil and actually almost has Job asking why God failed to keep his promise. Notice here there is no indepent Satan, but is ha-Satan or servant of Yahweh. There is no adversariel relationship. Satan acted at the will of God. God himself is seen as the creator of everything and made both good and evil and even said so once in the Bible, but these verses have since been removed. Evil was directed by God and served as tests. The concept was entirely difference. Notice the response of God to Job's question. The whole idea is man is not permitted to know. The whole issue of our relationship was based solely on obidence to God. Notice here, man did not choose God, God choose man which is not the case with free will.

rstrats

Maggielle,

re: “Did you know there were millions of prophets that wrote books about God and Jesus but were left out because they didn't preach the standards that Christianity wanted the populous to believe.”


Millions?????????????

maccabees

You got that right!!

PRAISE GOD.
First let me start out by saying most Bibles have thousands of errors in them.Thats right,THOUSANDS!!!
The original translation of the Bible has been change due to opinion,conjecture,errors and many other reasons.When it comes to the Bible I believe that the Truth,no matter how small,must be told.The best Bible is one translated in English from the original Hebrew Text as close to the text as possible.With no conjecture or opinion.Why,there are hundreds of words in the Bible that scholars are unsure of.They don't know how to define them yet when you get to such a passage do they inform you of this in a side note in your Bible?
Most scholars begin with a different set of available manuscripts,from scribes of varying (and uncertain) reliability.They each use different methods for resolving textual problems.So the experts come to different conclusions as to what is the best Bible text.
The result is a Bible whose text is continually changing,the changes being justified to preserve the accuracy of tradition.
You've heard of Masorah?
Masoretic Text? A Bible that accords with the Masorah?

Do you know who Aaron ben Moses Ben-Asher is?

How about Samuel ben Jacob? His work is the oldest known complete Hebrew Bible,it has since become known as the Leningrad Codex.In this Bible if they don't know the meaning of a word in a side note you get:Meaning of Heb. uncertain or a change in vocalization yeilds.....etc,etc.
This O.T. Bible only has hundreds of errors in it,which is impressive given the millions of chararters in the Hebrew Text.In the Russian National Library this Codex is offically catalogued as Firkovich B19A.

The Jewish publication society use this Codex and the Hebrew english Tanakh is as close as you can get to the Hebrew text in English.I have this Bible and know for a fact that it is different,in language, from any Bible I've ever read and like you I have read many of them.
PRAISE GOD.

I think I'm going to like being here.

girlinterrupted364

well obviously the catholic bible vs. the protestant bible are the biggest obvious confusion. which came first and for what reason. catholics claim that protestants took out those (2?) books and protestants claim that catholics "put in" those (2?) books. which is it? i have no idea.

__________________
Non ducor, DUCO

I wish on shooting stars

I am tired, Beloved,
of chafing my heart against
the want of you;
of squeezing it into little inkdrops,
And posting it.
~Amy Lowell, "The Letter"

WoundedEgo

Here is a great lecture on the subject:

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspo...series-on.html

Bill Ross
http://bibleshockers.com