Where do people get this idea that the Bible keeps "changing editions"?

Question

Are they confusing new translations with new editions? (that would contain totally different verses)

attaalib1...I think that sort of thing is the problem. There are new translations as I said but literal or paraphrase, there is nothing strkingly different from translation to translation. People get the impression that these translations are new editions that say totally different things. There have been several later studies of the Gospels that have shown they were writtten in LESS than 100 years since the time of the events. The 100 years or more argument has become a bit "dated" if you pardon the pun.

Attalib1...alot of what you said is in fact fiction

Answer 1

Yes, people oftentimes confuse vocabulary such as this.

Answer 2

It has happened throughout history. In the Fifth Century, the pope asked Jerome to translate the Bible into Latin, the common ("vulgatus") language, because no one in Rome spoke Greek anymore. He refused, knowing that people would hate him for "changing" the Bible. Then they showed him what other translators had already done. It was really bad, so he took the job.

When the translation was finally done and copies made and sent out, people hated Jerome for "changing the Bible", just as he predicted. Yet a hundred years later, you couldn't pry the "Vulgate" out of a Christian's hands. It remained the standard for a thousand years.

People want "certainty" in their holy books. Actually they want consistency. A new translation is unfamiliar and makes people wonder if they learned their scriptures "wrong". Who needs that? It's easier to think there's a conspiracy. And there's just enough difference to coinvince some people.

Answer 3

Not only do they change editions, but they change in style of translation as well, from literal, to paraphrasing..

"The formal equivalence or literal translations have now been continued with new versions of the Revised Standard, the American Standard and the King James.

One of the biggest changes in the late 20th century was the appearance of Bibles which were much less literal in their translation style, a translation technique known as dynamic equivalence.

This was led by the introduction of paraphrased editions of scripture, for the most part, editions of the New Testament. In 1958, The Reverend Canon John Bertram Phillips (1906-1982) led the way, with "The New Testament in Modern English". Phillips began his work during the Second World War by producing in 1948 an edition of the New Testament letters in paraphrase, Letters to Young Churches so that members of his youth group could understand what the New Testament authors had written. The introduction to the book was given by C. S. Lewis." (Wikipedia-see link)
To-Date, there are 129 or so "Editions" of the Bible, and "NO TWO are the same. This owing largely to what each printer deemed "The Most Ancients Manuscripts" Along with the Demomination who backed and supported the edition. In addition to difference is translation, you will find also differences in numbers of chapters, names of chapters, and ven addition or deletions to some chapters as well-but this last part is commonly known.
So as not to belabor this point, I'll conclude: In order to understand ANY text that purports to be the "Word of God", you should always take the words of the scripture from
a)The mouth of the Prophet or Messenger of God himself, since he was the one whom the scripoture was sent and he is the best in explaining its words and nature, as he was chosen by God for the deliverance of it. He is also able to confirm or deny the interpretations given by his followers concerning such, again as he-not them- was the one chosen to receive the scripture, and his answers would be based on Direct Divine Inspiration from God.
b) The text and meaning would also be given by those followers along with the Prophet or Messenger whom it was sent to with the above criteria.
c) The text must be understood in the language it was revealed in, because words in the time the scripture was revealed carry the intended meaning and context of their message, because it's in the language of their people, so only clarification would be needed, not translation. That word or phrase meant what it meant in that time, under those circumstances, for that situation specifically, unless the Prophet or Messenger, under Diviner Direction applied it generally.
d) You also must know the history behind the words being spoken i.e. what was the circumstance for which this was sent down, and what was the context of the verse, meaning you must read the verses that come before and/or after to understand the verse in its correct context. If this isn't done confusion will most definately replace clarity.
e) Finally the text has to be preserved in its original language, and those who are versed in the original script must teach its meaning according to that. The Language of Jesus was Aramaic, which is a sister language to Arabic (not Greek nor Hebrew & certainly not English). So in order to truly undertsand what God meant, we must return to that language.
This is the crux of the problem with the Bible, and this is why it is often left to free interpretation, by the sincere and extreme alike, because the original manuscript isn't available, and if it is available, it isn't taught with its corresponding translation and contexts to the responsible leaders of the Churches, nor to the common folk.
The reality is that the Bible as we know it today, and any Christian Scholar worth his weight in salt will tell you this, wasn't compiled until over 100 years AFTER Jesus left the Earth. We have instead based our understanding of the word of God from persons who were not present at the time of this revealing of the scripture, (i.e Paul, Mark, Matthew, etc.) or they were not followers at that time, so how could they then be qualified to explain its texts.
Does this mean that the Bible is now untrue? No, of course not. However, we must approach the Bible from a more educated perspective, and not let emotions sway us. Also, because the Bible is in different languages, we must also find a way to weigh what is translated, against something that we will be able to verify, if possible, that particular area we are exploring.
If we find the truth, then we take it, no matter who or where it comes from. Because the truth is only one. We accept the truth wherever we find it, and we don't confuse the call for the caller, that is we refuse to accept the truth because it came from such and such a person or book.

Sorry I was so long, thanks for hanging in with the reading.

May God give peace to all those who follow right guidance until the Last Day.

Answer 4

Yes, they are confusing the two terms. But what's wrong wwith an update? I mean, when's the last time anyone added any new entries, like 2000 years ago? You mean to tell me god hasn't done one thing since then?

Answer 5

A lot of people Lot's smarter than us research old documents and conclude their finding may pertain to the Bible as we know it so they write and offer their different versions with the revisions in their Bibles.

Answer 6

It could also be because people feel that if they believe it has been changed then they are absolved from being answerable for not using it in their life!

Answer 7

what people?what new translations?the manner you had posted
your question ,can lead to confusion,very ambiguous,sorry

Answer 8

Because the world keep on changing that why. i guess