What proof is there that the bible was edited?

[And Step]

this is like asking for proof that Muhammad had that life changing vision or that Malachi Z is really from planet x

can't vouch for Malachi, but the interesting thing is Muhammad described what the Temple mount area looked like down to minute details, even though he had not been there, nor had he left the Arabian Peninsula. Many companions and historians verified what he saw also.

 

[SL8Rok]

it's in english

Translation is not proof of edition.

 

[SL8Rok]

Believe what you want to believe, man. Nothing we do or show you would change your mind anyway.

Sounds like a cop out to me.

 

[SL8Rok]

Translate any foreign film/book/article and keep the message 100% the same. Probably won't happen right? Why would a long ass book like the bible be any different. Can followers of the bible afford those mistakes? I certainly think not.

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.

 

[SL8Rok]

you never know. there are arguements that jesus said certain things when he was crucified and there are arguements that he said nothing at all. if it came out that the bible was edited i would not find it hard to believe. look at the fact that the original bible is in a language that no longer exists. even if somehow you found it there is no way you can see what it says. and think about that if people could go back in time and edit the bible the bible today would be so fucked up no one would wanna follow it

You can see what it says. The Septuiagent was translated from the original archaic hebrew to koine greek by jews who still spoke the archaic hebrew. And they both say the same thing. You haven't offered an argument of fact that shows that the bible was edited but rather empty speculation.

 

[theillestrator]

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]

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 virgin is used. Well in the Hebrew text, "Bethulah" corresponds with that word. However, in some cases "Almah" was used. This word does not mean virgin, it means young woman. The Greeks with their limited language simply put a word there "parthenos" that means virgin, but the hebrew text just denotes her as a young woman. This gave credence to the virgin 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

If any of us common scum could get into the vatican's library......

Again speculation is not a substitute for a logical argument.

 

[Rock_Well]

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]

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]

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]

Oh, and there is no proof. All speculation.

indeed that is what 100% of the responses show.

 

[SL8Rok]

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]

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.