What proof is there that the bible was edited?

[SL8Rok]

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.

Ancient Historians such as?

 

[TX_Made713]

i spoke too soon in my previous post. The message? Well that is critical.

Good thing that the case is, it IS the exact same message.

I think what's being argued here is that because it's not translated by the same person that wrote the previous one, (in the same manner, at the same time, at the same moment, with the same brain frequencies going through the person brain, at the same time of day, etc etc) that that means the message is changed. It doesn't.

If you one of those people with strange philosophical views then you might find yourself arguing that that means it's a different message though, just because of that.

How do you know the message isn't the very thing that was altered?

 

[SL8Rok]

Nigga, shut up.

You are a first rate fool, arguing and defending something you have no knowledge of. Your an intellectual coward who defends an English translation of a plagiarized poorly translated greek text of a Hebrew original. Your not a Christian, your a nigga who found some emotional catharsis in a belief system that your not at the root of and you don't understand. Your enslaved by dogma . A truly enlightened, spiritually mature person can make a connection beyond his tradition. The Creator is one. Jesus supposedly said he would have followers who would not be in his fold. A fold is a distinction or difference. Everyone one is not going to look like you, talk like you, or even express spirituality like you. But you will be able to detect it if your awake and not asleep at the wheel of religious dogma.

I'm done arguing with your ignorant ass, I'll let you drown in your obstinate stupidity.

1. Quite the presumptious one aren't you?

2. I'm still waiting for proof of the bible being plagarized and poorly translated.

3. Umm yeah words can't capture how inept and pointless this part of your rant was.

4. When did Jesus say he would have followers who were not in His fold? Care to site this? Jesus said I am the way THE truth and THE light, NOBDODY comes unto the Father BUT BY HIM. Jesus said BROAD is the way to hell and many shall go that way and narrow is the way to heaven and few will go that way. The apostle Paul said that the gods the gentiles sacrifice to are demons. Please show me where you see that in the bible.

5. I can almost garentuee that this will not be the last time you respond to me.

5.

 

[SL8Rok]

wth?

And Step isn't Blue Falcon, SL8Rok is.

No I'm not And Step......I actually know how to form an argument.

 

[theillestrator]

I am Mike Jones.

who? (sorry had to do it)

 

[SL8Rok]

So to sum up things thus far......nobody has submited one convincing argument, presented one shred of evidence to show the bible has been edited. So then my next question is what basis is there for believing this tripe.

 

[TX_Made713]

So to sum up things thus far......nobody has submited one convincing argument, presented one shred of evidence to show the bible has been edited. So then my next question is what basis is there for believing this tripe.

Actually it has...this is the source of what the "Bible" is now:

Torah

1. Genesis, Ge—Bereshit (בראשית)
2. Exodus, Ex—Shemot (שמות)
3. Leviticus, Le—Vayikra (ויקרא)
4. Numbers, Nu—Bamidbar (במדבר)
5. Deuteronomy, Dt—Devarim (דברים

Nevi'im

. Joshua, Js—Yehoshua (יהושע)
7. Judges, Jg—Shoftim (שופטים)
8. Samuel, includes First and Second, 1Sa–2Sa—Shemuel (שמואל)
9. Kings, includes First and Second, 1Ki–2Ki—Melakhim (מלכים)
10. Isaiah, Is—Yeshayahu (ישעיהו)
11. Jeremiah, Je—Yirmiyahu (ירמיהו)
12. Ezekiel, Ez—Yekhezkel (יחזקאל)
13. Twelve, includes all Minor Prophets—Tre Asar (תרי עשר)
A. Hosea, Ho—Hoshea (הושע)
B. Joel, Jl—Yoel (יואל)
C. Amos, Am—Amos (עמוס)
D. Obadiah, Ob—Ovadyah (עבדיה)
E. Jonah, Jh—Yonah (יונה)
F. Micah, Mi—Mikhah (מיכה)
G. Nahum, Na—Nahum (נחום)
H. Habakkuk, Hb—Havakuk (חבקוק)
I. Zephaniah, Zp—Tsefanya (צפניה)
J. Haggai, Hg—Khagay (חגי)
K. Zechariah, Zc—Zekharyah (זכריה)
L. Malachi, Ml—Malakhi (מלאכי)

14. Psalms, Ps—Tehillim (תהלים)
15. Proverbs, Pr—Mishlei (משלי)
16. Job, Jb—Iyyov (איוב)
17. Song of Songs, So—Shir ha-Shirim (שיר השירים)
18. Ruth, Ru—Rut (רות)
19. Lamentations, La—Eikhah (איכה), also called Kinot (קינות)
20. Ecclesiastes, Ec—Kohelet (קהלת)
21. Esther, Es—Ester (אסתר)
22. Daniel, Dn—Daniel (דניאל)
23. Ezra, Ea, includes Nehemiah, Ne—Ezra (עזרא), includes Nehemiah (נחמיה)
24. Chronicles, includes First and Second, 1Ch–2Ch—Divrei ha-Yamim (דברי הימים), also called Divrei (דברי)

Synoptic Gospels
Gospel According to Matthew, Mt
Gospel According to Mark, Mk
Gospel According to Luke, Lk
Gospel According to John, Jn
Acts of the Apostles, Ac (continues Luke)
Pauline Epistles

Bible Translations

The original texts of the Tanakh were in Hebrew, although some portions were in Aramaic. In addition to the authoritative Masoretic Text, Jews still refer to the Septuagint, the translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek, and the Targum Onkelos, an Aramaic version of the Bible. There are several different ancient versions of the Tanakh in Hebrew, mostly differing by spelling, and the traditional Jewish version is based on the version known as Aleppo Codex. Even in this version by itself, there are words which are traditionally read differently from written (sometimes one word is written and another is read), because the oral tradition is considered more fundamental than the written one, and presumably mistakes had been made in copying the text over the generations.
The primary biblical text for early Christians was the Septuagint or (LXX). In addition they translated the Hebrew Bible into several other languages. Translations were made into Syriac, Coptic, Ge'ez and Latin, among other languages. The Latin translations were historically the most important for the Church in the West, while the Greek-speaking East continued to use the Septuagint translations of the Old Testament and had no need to translate the New Testament.
The earliest Latin translation was the Old Latin text, or Vetus Latina, which, from internal evidence, seems to have been made by several authors over a period of time. It was based on the Septuagint, and thus included books not in the Hebrew Bible.
Pope Damasus I assembled the first list of books of the Bible at the Council of Rome in AD 382. He commissioned Saint Jerome to produce a reliable and consistent text by translating the original Greek and Hebrew texts into Latin. This translation became known as the Latin Vulgate Bible and in 1546 at the Council of Trent was declared by the Church to be the only authentic and official Bible in the Latin rite.
Bible translations for many languages have been made through the various influences of Catholicism, Orthodox, Protestant, etc especially since the Protestant Reformation. The Bible has seen a notably large number of English language translations.

 

[And Step]

Ancient Historians such as?

Pliny the Elder, Philo, Josephus, Hippolytus, to name a few.

 

[BiblicalAtheist]

And did we ever figure out whose alias And Step was?

I've on occasion thought maybe Uncle Diesel.

 

[Rock_Well]

How do you know the message isn't the very thing that was altered?

the same point that has been being made the last several posts in this thread - where's the evidence?

there's no evidence of alteration. only a 'what if' with no possibility of being true. but i don't care about the 'what if', especially if there is no possibility for it to be true.

so why do i have to accept it's ok for a person to place more emphasis on the 'what if' impossibility in their imagination over that which is reality?

 

[Rock_Well]

okay, this is all that i am saying. there is no way that the bible can keep the same exact message after being translated no matter who translated it. Languages just don't work that way. I don't care what two languages you pick. The overall message may stay the same, but every detail will not. either way, i'm done. there has been too much effort put in talking about the bible. peace.

ahh, so here you do agree that the overall message can remain the same though translated into different languages, but yet you hold that every detail will not be the same.

Okaayy? Since when is every single detail of any two things ever exactly the same? That's not what we here to focus on.

What is important, is that we follow what God requires us to follow in His law to receive salvation He offered us through His Son gospel message. This message, these instructions, haven't changed, and never will change.

 

[SL8Rok]

Actually it has...this is the source of what the "Bible" is now:

Torah

1. Genesis, Ge—Bereshit (בראשית)

2. Exodus, Ex—Shemot (שמות)

3. Leviticus, Le—Vayikra (ויקרא)

4. Numbers, Nu—Bamidbar (במדבר)

5. Deuteronomy, Dt—Devarim (דברים

Nevi'im

. Joshua, Js—Yehoshua (יהושע)

7. Judges, Jg—Shoftim (שופטים)

8. Samuel, includes First and Second, 1Sa–2Sa—Shemuel (שמואל)

9. Kings, includes First and Second, 1Ki–2Ki—Melakhim (מלכים)

10. Isaiah, Is—Yeshayahu (ישעיהו)

11. Jeremiah, Je—Yirmiyahu (ירמיהו)

12. Ezekiel, Ez—Yekhezkel (יחזקאל)

13. Twelve, includes all Minor Prophets—Tre Asar (תרי עשר)

A. Hosea, Ho—Hoshea (הושע)

B. Joel, Jl—Yoel (יואל)

C. Amos, Am—Amos (עמוס)

D. Obadiah, Ob—Ovadyah (עבדיה)

E. Jonah, Jh—Yonah (יונה)

F. Micah, Mi—Mikhah (מיכה)

G. Nahum, Na—Nahum (נחום)

H. Habakkuk, Hb—Havakuk (חבקוק)

I. Zephaniah, Zp—Tsefanya (צפניה)

J. Haggai, Hg—Khagay (חגי)

K. Zechariah, Zc—Zekharyah (זכריה)

L. Malachi, Ml—Malakhi (מלאכי)

14. Psalms, Ps—Tehillim (תהלים)

15. Proverbs, Pr—Mishlei (משלי)

16. Job, Jb—Iyyov (איוב)

17. Song of Songs, So—Shir ha-Shirim (שיר השירים)

18. Ruth, Ru—Rut (רות)

19. Lamentations, La—Eikhah (איכה), also called Kinot (קינות)

20. Ecclesiastes, Ec—Kohelet (קהלת)

21. Esther, Es—Ester (אסתר)

22. Daniel, Dn—Daniel (דניאל)

23. Ezra, Ea, includes Nehemiah, Ne—Ezra (עזרא), includes Nehemiah (נחמיה)

24. Chronicles, includes First and Second, 1Ch–2Ch—Divrei ha-Yamim (דברי הימים), also called Divrei (דברי)

Synoptic Gospels

Gospel According to Matthew, Mt

Gospel According to Mark, Mk

Gospel According to Luke, Lk

Gospel According to John, Jn

Acts of the Apostles, Ac (continues Luke)

Pauline Epistles

Bible Translations

The original texts of the Tanakh were in Hebrew, although some portions were in Aramaic. In addition to the authoritative Masoretic Text, Jews still refer to the Septuagint, the translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek, and the Targum Onkelos, an Aramaic version of the Bible. There are several different ancient versions of the Tanakh in Hebrew, mostly differing by spelling, and the traditional Jewish version is based on the version known as Aleppo Codex. Even in this version by itself, there are words which are traditionally read differently from written (sometimes one word is written and another is read), because the oral tradition is considered more fundamental than the written one, and presumably mistakes had been made in copying the text over the generations.

The primary biblical text for early Christians was the Septuagint or (LXX). In addition they translated the Hebrew Bible into several other languages. Translations were made into Syriac, Coptic, Ge'ez and Latin, among other languages. The Latin translations were historically the most important for the Church in the West, while the Greek-speaking East continued to use the Septuagint translations of the Old Testament and had no need to translate the New Testament.

The earliest Latin translation was the Old Latin text, or Vetus Latina, which, from internal evidence, seems to have been made by several authors over a period of time. It was based on the Septuagint, and thus included books not in the Hebrew Bible.

Pope Damasus I assembled the first list of books of the Bible at the Council of Rome in AD 382. He commissioned Saint Jerome to produce a reliable and consistent text by translating the original Greek and Hebrew texts into Latin. This translation became known as the Latin Vulgate Bible and in 1546 at the Council of Trent was declared by the Church to be the only authentic and official Bible in the Latin rite.

Bible translations for many languages have been made through the various influences of Catholicism, Orthodox, Protestant, etc especially since the Protestant Reformation. The Bible has seen a notably large number of English language translations.

This doesn't show how the bible was edited. Translated into other languages yes but edited (in the sense that things were taken out and put in) has not been substantiated. The best this article does is say this, "and presumably mistakes had been made in copying the text over the generations."

 

[SL8Rok]

Pliny the Elder, Philo, Josephus, Hippolytus, to name a few.

Care to cite them as saying that Jesus was an essene?

 

[Rock_Well]

This doesn't show how the bible was edited. Translated into other languages yes but edited (in the sense that things were taken out and put in) has not been substantiated. The best this article does is say this, "and presumably mistakes had been made in copying the text over the generations."

agreed, lol

the article only merely proves (asserts) the texts were translated into a bunch of different languages.

 

[Rock_Well]

ahh, so here you do agree that the overall message can remain the same though translated into different languages, but yet you hold that every detail will not be the same.

Okaayy? Since when is every single detail of any two things ever exactly the same? That's not what we here to focus on.

What is important, is that we follow what God requires us to follow in His law to receive salvation He offered us through His Son gospel message. This message, these instructions, haven't changed, and never will change.

and for the record, there are several very minor details in the Bible about history and things in the world that have been verified proved to be 100 percent accurate to a lot of people's embarrassment.

 

[SL8Rok]

agreed, lol

the article only merely proves (asserts) the texts were translated into a bunch of different languages.

lol I hope think some one should make a thread explaining what exactly constitutes proof, evidence and a logical argument. Because thus far these responses have been pretty unimpressive. And supposedly us christians are supposed to be the stupid brainwashed ones.

 

[And Step]

Care to cite them as saying that Jesus was an essene?

Nah. I showed you actual scripture that condoned chattel generational slavery and genocide. You rejected it.

I showed you how the mistranslated the text by misuse of the word virgin with the actual Hebrew word which is verfiable with any Hebrew concordance.

You rejected it.

It would be a waste of time. Serious scholars who have dedicated their life to the serious study of the scriptures have admitted that the Bible, specifically the new Testament have shown the editing that was done sometimes as a slip of the pen, sometimes intentionally to harmonize certain scriptures and diminish inconsistencies.

What I will do is dedicate a thread to those inconsistencies and revisions documented by Christian Scholars.

 

[SL8Rok]

Nah. I showed you actual scripture that condoned chattel generational slavery and genocide. You rejected it.

I showed you how the mistranslated the text by misuse of the word virgin with the actual Hebrew word which is verfiable with any Hebrew concordance.

You rejected it.

It would be a waste of time. Serious scholars who have dedicated their life to the serious study of the scriptures have admitted that the Bible, specifically the new Testament have shown the editing that was done sometimes as a slip of the pen, sometimes intentionally to harmonize certain scriptures and diminish inconsistencies.

What I will do is dedicate a thread to those inconsistencies and revisions documented by Christian Scholars.

1. I didn't reject it I said your understanding of it was highly obtuse. And it was, you still are clinging to your understanding of slavery vs what the bible allows for "slavery" to be.

2. If you are refering to the no you didn't. You tried to gloss over the fact that the septuigent translators used the word virgin in their greek translation of the hebrew for expediency but you didn't substantiate it. And even in a concordance (and I've used them enough times) the word in hebrew can mean virgin.

3. Scholars such as whom?

 

[And Step]

1. I didn't reject it I said your understanding of it was highly obtuse. And it was, you still are clinging to your understanding of slavery vs what the bible allows for "slavery" to be.

2. If you are refering to the no you didn't. You tried to gloss over the fact that the septuigent translators used the word virgin in their greek translation of the hebrew for expediency but you didn't substantiate it. And even in a concordance (and I've used them enough times) the word in hebrew can mean virgin.

3. Scholars such as whom?

No, I didn't. I made the distinction between indentured servitude and chattel slavery. You chose to ignore. Passing slaves onto your children and selling your daughter is not indentured servitude and is disgraceful. This is one of the techniques used by slavemasters to justify selling children fathered by raping Black woman and passing their children of as heritage. Anybody that condones that is either evil or a brainwashed sucka.

And I did substantiate it. I gave the actual words that were interchanged and mistranslated. The Book of Isaiah 62:5 and 7:14, list the prophecy of Messiah being born to a virgin. The word used in Hebrew is almah. This means young woman. A sexually chaste women in Hebrew is Bethulah. This was wrongly interpreted and gave credence to the Virgin Birth, which is scientifically contradictory and historically hogwash.

When you say that the word can mean virgin I know you don't really know what your talking about. Anybody with a basic knowledge of Hebrew can tell you those words are not interchangeable.

 

[SL8Rok]

No, I didn't. I made the distinction between indentured servitude and chattel slavery. You chose to ignore. Passing slaves onto your children and selling your daughter is not indentured servitude and is disgraceful. This is one of the techniques used by slavemasters to justify selling children fathered by raping Black woman and passing their children of as heritage. Anybody that condones that is either evil or a brainwashed sucka.

And I did substantiate it. I gave the actual words that were interchanged and mistranslated. The Book of Isaiah 62:5 and 7:14, list the prophecy of Messiah being born to a virgin. The word used in Hebrew is almah. This means young woman. A sexually chaste women in Hebrew is Bethulah. This was wrongly interpreted and gave credence to the Virgin Birth, which is scientifically contradictory and historically hogwash.

When you say that the word can mean virgin I know you don't really know what your talking about. Anybody with a basic knowledge of Hebrew can tell you those words are not interchangeable.

1. Again I was not talking about the TERMS of the "slavery" but rather the CONDITIONS. You still seem to not want to understand what I was saying.

2. According to Strongs Hebrew Concordance

5959 `almah al-maw' feminine of 5958; a lass (as veiled or private):--damsel, maid,virgin.

And again the Septuagint renders it virgin. So what exactly is your argument. And why would God have to restrict Himself to laws of science that He created. If God can do miracles which by definition go beyond the laws of science why would it be impossible to have a virign birth? Are you trying to limit God to what makes sense to you?

3. But they are interchangeable and Strong's Concordance (you did earlier tell me to check a concordance) confirms that fact.