Has the Bible changed down through the ages?

Question

Check out link for full article. http://www.livingwaters.com/witnessingtool/Biblestandsalone.shtml
In 1889 a schoolteacher told a ten-year-old boy, "You will never amount to very much." That boy was Albert Einstein. In 1954 a music manager told a young singer, "You ought to go back to driving a truck." That singer was Elvis Presley. In 1962 a record company told a group of singers, "We don’t like your sound. Groups with guitars are definitely on their way out." They said that to the Beatles. Man is prone to make mistakes. Those who reject the Bible should take the time to look at the evidence before they come to a verdict.

Answer 1

I have been reading it for the past month or so, still not convinced as of yet.

It has changed through various points of its life. For example before there was the printing press, monks made copies of the Bible by writing it from previous copies. Sometimes, they would add in a few things they thought were important, and leave out others that they felt were not. Nothing entirely too important to the main message I don't think.

Answer 2

The text: NO.

Many things get stated that are half-truth at best. The kjv only wacko fringe claims that modern versions have "taken out several passages" when, in fact, what has been done was to bring modern versions MORE IN LINE with the original. The kjv translators often rejected the testimony of the BEST manuscript to which they had access, one called Codex Baeza.

Modern Biblical scholarship follows a scientific approach in "predicting" the original content of a passage from among several variant readings. The kjv translators used an approach comparable to weighing the manuscripts and going with the heaviest. Such a technique does not often lead to a CORRECT reading because it fails to consider the antiquity of a reading.

This SCIENCE, called textual criticism, looks at a variety of factors. One of very high importance is the age of the manuscript. Another important consideration asks, "Which variant reading best explains the existence of the others?"

There are a few cases where we are fairly certain that a given manuscript was the source of a variant reading - places where a word is MISSPELLED in a marginal note and shows up with the same spelling in the text of a later copy... So it seems that someone wrote the margin note and a subsequent copyist mistook the note for a correction and thus "added" the word to the text, faulty spelling and all.

In the time before the printing press, the ancient copyists faced many challenges. Trying to copy a hand-written book which included:
1. Marginal notes which in handwritten documents may be difficult to distinguish from "actual" content.
2. Corrections by various editors of their source text - In major codex manuscripts which may represent the entire Bible, the editors of the modern Greek New Testament have even identified certain individual editors or copyists who had a distinct writing style or always "signed" their work in some way.
3. The writing materials available tended to degrade over time. "Paper" wore out and inks faded.
4. The New Testament manuscripts existed in a variety of formats, with popular forms changing over time. One common format used all capital letters and had no spaces between words. This form, called Uncial includes several of the "BEST" manuscripts known today.
5. Old Testament manuscripts (The Hebrew MSS {common abbreviation for manuscripts} used by the Jews anyway) are of a different character. They were always written on pieces of leather which were sewn together. In a given copy, all of the text would be laid on a grid, like writing one letter per cell on a piece of graph paper. There would be the same number of letters on any line and the same number of lines on every page, thus every page had the same number of letters on it. The scribes would read DOWN the letters in a particular column as an aid to detecting copy errors. Generally, no corrections were made, a new piece of leather was sewn into place if an error was found. An additional factor which GREATLY reduced the number of mss available, when a copy became worn, it would be destroyed. The kjv translators had Greek manuscripts of the New Testament about 500 years OLDER than the oldest Old Testament Hebrew manuscripts.

Answer 3

So, you're telling everyone that the Bible is evidence of what is written in it? That's circular argumentation, hardly reason to accept as proof or evidence of anything.

I suggest and propose that YOU take the time to learn a bit of historical facts, like HOW the Bible came about around 315-325 AD, when Emperor Constantine tried to unite the many beliefs (and Christianity was one of many Christians sects, often in conflict with one another) and he ordered a committee of Christian leaders to gather and come to a compromise on what is and what isn't acceptable in order to put together a "holy book." They had to compromise, they left out certain "books" that some disagreed with... but those "books" were supposedly "God-inspired," weren't they? Or who can judge that, really? Why were some left out and others not? MEN had to decide on what they could all agree on... yet, through the ages, we have found that certain groups have separated from those original groups and formed other Christian religions... based on disagreements, or personal agendas (power, control over people and wealth). Before you try to teach, it is best that YOU learn. Before you try to teach, try to LEARN facts so that you are not guilty of repeating nonsensical propaganda based on nothing more than hearsay. LEARN some historical facts, too, not just myths and fables.

Answer 4

yet another considerable component is the sheer style of copies. Many historical texts exist as fragments of a replica or 2. yet, we take those as usual. although, there are hundreds of copies of Scripture, which may be in comparison for accuracy and ameliorations. The Bible is unique in this way. What confuses me is how we take with no attention many historical works as effective (like Homer, the classic Greek philosophers, and so on.) that in the time of many situations have purely some, comparitively contemporary fragments, yet discredit the Bible, inspite of the overpowering volume of fabric, a number of it very close to to the timing of the unique it is obtainable to earnings. The Bible is purely the wonderful preserved historical text cloth in existence.

Answer 5

The bible has been preserved throughout the ages and many have died to protect it. Only in the last 30 years or so have so many loose translations come out that could change the meaning of some passages. That is why I stick to the King James Version.

Answer 6

There was also a band that was told that their first album would go over like a lead zeppelin, it didn't and that became the name of the band.

Answer 7

No, (some modern versions are not good) but look at the KJV or NASB ect and compare with the oldest texts we have, and you will see it has not changed.

Answer 8

Not in the Catholic version of the Bible. Nothing has been taken away, and nothing has been added.

Answer 9

Its been translated, and some translations aren't as good as others...