Is it possible that some things in the Bible, throughout the years since it was written, had been left out, lost, deleted or something, and today, it's not the same Bible it was a few hundred years ago?
2007-01-24 12:14:39 · 68 answers · asked by Jay 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I meant something that was important being left out.
2007-01-24 12:19:25 · update #1
Nothing has been lost or deleted. In fact, the opposite is true. There are so many ancient manuscripts available that we have a treasure trove of information with which to compare.
When the translators of the King James Bible wrote the Old Testament, the oldest available manuscript for them to use, was known as the Masoretic Text. This had been written in the 9th century A.D. It was this text that the translators of the KJV based their work on the Old Testament. In 1947, a shepherd boy discovered some pottery in caves in the area called Qumran, near the Dead Sea. In these jars, he discovered scrolls, which archaeologists and Bible scholars have researched ever since. Every book of the Old Testament (except Esther) was discovered. Most of these scrolls are dated to 150 B.C. After comparing these Dead Sea Scrolls to the Masoretic Text, the scholars discovered an amazing degree of unanimity between the two, although they were written a thousand years apart. Further, the Septuagint (the Greek language translation of the Hebrew Bible) was also compared. With all of these references, there is plenty of evidence that no biblical doctrine has been tampered with.
Further, there is no larger ancient body of manuscript evidence in the history of mankind than the papyri and parchment manuscripts of the New Testament. With over five thousand actual Greek manuscripts, and numerous other manuscripts in four other languages, there are about twenty-four thousand available manuscript texts for the New Testament. With all of these examples available, there are only 40 lines of disputed text between them all. Pretty amazing for a 2000 year old document!
Even if we didn't have these documents, we could almost have a complete New Testament from extra-biblical sources, such as ancient lectionaries, church fathers' records/sermons/writings, etc.
Because of the sheer volume of these manuscripts, and the ability to compare them to each other, we know what is and is not the true Word of God. It is the unanimity of these texts that have stood the test of time. The Bible has been attacked by great minds, and some of these have actually been converted after examining the evidence. Nothing is missing, because of the nearness of these manuscripts to the original autographs.
2007-01-24 12:30:43 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
I've had the same concerns before I became a Christian. Certain church doctrine claims that the bible is infallible and perfect. At the same time, the bible is inspired by God and written by man.
The biblical document itself has been historically preserved. The methods that were used during the process of copying the old testament were in place to prevent errors. And the number of documents in print and available compare to nothing else in history.
The number of misprints in the bible even if you pushed to every valid argument out there, would still leave 99.5% of the bible as correct/valid and accurate. Archeology and historical research are supporting the validity of the biblical record continually.
The small typos in the bible do no account for drastic changes in the message God brings to those who read his Word. For those of you who would care to disagree with me, (that would say the bible is perfect), one of the most obvious typos in the 40,000 and 4,000 of solomons horses. There are several other small discrepancies, but again, it's the message that the entire bible brings that is the most important thing not to miss.
If you reject the bible because of a few misplaced zeros or the occasional incorrect adjective, then you really haven't taken the time to understand the book in general. One should not reject it without understanding it or without looking at the other 99% while only focusing on the 1% that you think is wrong.
2007-01-24 13:01:14 · answer #2 · answered by westdyk1 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Well, I admire your trust in your own belief system, but if everything in the bible is true how do you explain these contradtions:
1. Who incited David to count the fighting men of Israel?
The bible says God did (2 Samuel 24: 1)
And then it says Satan did (I Chronicles 2 1:1)
Which is it?
2. In that count how many fighting men were found in Israel?
First the bible says eight hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9)
and then it also says one million, one hundred thousand (I Chronicles 21:5)
Which is true?
3. How many fighting men were found in Judah?
First. the bible says five hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9) and then the bible also says four hundred and seventy thousand (I Chronicles 21:5) Which is it?
4. God sent his prophet to threaten David with how many years of famine?
The bible says seven (2 Samuel 24:13) and then it says three (I Chronicles 21:12) Which is it? What's true?
5. How old was Ahaziah when he began to rule over Jerusalem?
The bible says he was twenty-two (2 Kings 8:26)
and then it says he was forty-two (2 Chronicles 22:2) HUH?
6. How old was Jehoiachin when he became king of Jerusalem?
The bible says he was eighteen (2 Kings 24:8) and then it says eight (2 Chronicles 36:9) Which is it?
7. How long did he rule over Jerusalem?
The bible says three months (2 Kings 24:8) and then its says three months and ten days (2 Chronicles 36:9). Which is true? I dont get it.
8. The chief of the mighty men of David lifted up his spear and killed how many men at one time?
First the bible says he killed eight hundred (2 Samuel 23:8) and then it says he killed three hundred (I Chronicles 11: 11) What is true? What isn't?
Whether or not the bible is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow, how can anyone be sure of what's true and what's not when you have contradictions like this, and worse, to fingure out?
2007-01-24 12:27:53 · answer #3 · answered by ? 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Actually Jane, you ask a very good question.
The bible is the most researched and documented text
in the world. The modern day versions we have today are meticulously rewritten using the ancient Hebrew and Greek
parchments. If this were not so, God would be a liar. For He says in His Holy Word:
Ps. 12:6 And the words of the Lord are flawless, like silver refined in a furnace of clay, purified seven times.
He also says:
Matt 24:35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.
Gods revelation for us through His Holy Word cannot be changed by anything or anyone, including time.
His word is unchanging and eternal.
God Bless You...Wonderful Question. Many other scriptural references to the timelessness of Gods Word. Feel free to look them up. Peace.
2007-01-24 14:58:01 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Actually the reliability of the Bible is exceptionally good for these reasons.
There are hundreds of copies of the copies of the books of the Bible that are from the first and second centuries and a couple of early partial copes from the before 100 AD. Now by using comparisons of these early texts the original can be accurately determined.
Locations, names and events can also be verified using archaeology and other manuscripts. The Jewish historian Josephus mentions Jesus twice and the Roman historian Pliny Jr talks about early Christian's beliefs.
As for the Dead Sea scrolls there is a book of Isaiah that predates Christ and can be seen in the "Museum of the Book" in Israel. The translations of this have been compared to more recent and modern translations and they are found to be the same except for grammatical differences...for example we don't use Thou and Thee in modern English.
The current Bible was put together from the Jewish Torah and the most reliable books that were in circulation. The 4 books (Matthew, Mark Luke and John) had been in circulation together for over 100 years according to some literary catalogs of the time. Many of the Gnostic Books such as the "Gospel of Thomas", "Gospel of the Cross" and "Gospel of Judas" were not included because they were written over 150 years after the events, were viewed as unreliable. ( my opinion... or were just strange... Thomas has Jesus turning Mary into a woman because a woman can't go to heaven, the Cross has Jesus glowing and laughing, Judas has Jesus sharing all these "secrets" that just happened to match the Gnostic all flesh is evil attitude...)
If you are concerned about a particular passage or have difficulty understanding look at a different translation. Some are written to interpret intent rather than being literal and some very literal. It is easy to get a Bible with more than one translation or use something like Bible Gateway.com
The modern Bible we have is as accurate as we can get without actually being there and understanding Greek , Hebrew and Aramaic.
In the end believe in God and that he sent his son Jesus to die for our sins is the important part. The second part is trying to do what God wants us to do. The Purpose Driven Life and Mere Christianity are good starts outside the Bible.
2007-01-24 13:26:11 · answer #5 · answered by Pilgrim in the land of the lost 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Yes very much so. Just think about the old testiment and all we have about Adam and the generations until Noah. There were many men, but about all we have is that they existed. I think that through the years, and translations of the bible, some important things were left out. It has been 2000 years since the time of Christ. That is a long time for a book to last unaltered.
2007-01-24 12:31:41 · answer #6 · answered by kcyesye 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
There's very little chance that there were omissions in the Bible on purpose. It has been a sacred book since Moses' time and has survived intact since then with great care.
There are some obscure passages in the New Testament that quote from books we no longer have, such as the book of Enoch, quoted by Jude. I don't remember reading that anywhere, even in apochryphal works.
This doesn't mean that anything is "missing" from the Bible, it just means we didn't include this particular book.
There are no question countless works that have been left out, and when you read some of the ones left out intentionally, you'll know why. The men working on both canons (OT and NT) were strict in their selections, and they've left us with something very useful that has never become obsolete.
2007-01-24 12:22:59 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
I think it's probable that throughout 2000 years, through various translations, and through personal biases, that the Bible has changed in someways. Whether these are important changes or just minimal variations is impossible to know. It's a fair question though, as I have many theist friends who have their doubt that the Bible is 100 percent accurate. As they say, it's not what the Bible says that matters so much, but what the Bible stands for. Hope that helps.
2007-01-24 12:22:01 · answer #8 · answered by eastchic2001 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Sho' nuff. The King James Bible, for example, was an incredibly flawed translation based on Latin translations of Greek and Hebrew. So it was a translation of a translation, and every time you translate something, things get lost and mangled.
In around 3-400 A.D., the "Bible" was set, for the most part. Tricky books were left out, things were bungled and mistranslated, and certain books were, um, "enhanced." That's right, kids! Those things Paul said that don't make any sense? Those are FAKE writings written hundreds of years later! Like, the bit about don't let women speak in church? FAKE! Paul didn't write that! Later "Church Fathers" added stuff they thought was "good for the church."
For such an important book, you'd think the Bible would have been treasured, translated scrupulously, and not added and subtracted to "make a better point." When sexist church leaders wanted to "put women in their place", they just added stuff to the original Bible! That's such bad scholarship and a total travesty!
Books have been lost, manuscripts have been damaged (or destroyed), translations have been based on the whims of the time and the desires of the church leaders...if you knew Hebrew and Koine Greek and you read the original Bible...you'd be surprised! I wouldn't say it's the word of God when it's been tossed around and changed based on what humans want it to say. Too bad, really.
Oh, and as far as bats being unclean birds--they're not birds, but they're definitely dirty, dirty, dirty. I've touched a couple but it wasn't smart of me. They're very soft, though. But I'm not gonna eat them. Bat poo is foul and stenchful. And bats are covered in vermin.
But I love bats, don't get me wrong. They're delightful little mice with wings. And not "unclean", unless you count, well, giving people SARS. Yes, SARS came from eating bats and mingling bat blood with poultry blood. Vile and disgusting! So maybe that bit about them being unclean was good advice!
2007-01-24 12:30:03 · answer #9 · answered by SlowClap 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Lets say that is true, how will I go about finding the lie - the real manuscript is the best way to go. Since I am not familiar with any other language than English and a little Spanish, I have to accept what I read in the Bible because it is enough for my salvation and peace of mind.
2007-01-24 12:57:52 · answer #10 · answered by charmaine f 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋