Do you have proof that the Bible was altered from the original?

Question

Sme people think that some of the writings in both the New and Old Testaments have been changed; can you tell me which parts were changed and when were they changed.? Thanks

Answer 1

well i know for sure that during the exodos, moses did not walk through the red sea but walked through the reed sea. (located in the delta of the nile)

Answer 2

The finding Of the Dead Sea Scrolls proves that the old Testament has not been altered from the Original; there have been very minute edits in spelling but that's all.

There seems to be some changes to the New Testament. It's not very difficult to find out what was altered because there are very many scrolls that can be looked at. Scholars show that the last nine chapters of the Gospel St. Mark has been added on because it's not in the early manuscripts.
The quote by Jesus.."Father forgive them for they know not what they do' is another example of sections that were added on. However, speaking as a professional religious teacher,(not as a Muslim) I cannot condemn the New Testament as completely false; except for three major changes, it's quite original...More original than Roman History.
Lately, many so-called Bibical scholars have been working hard to kill the Jesus of the New Testament. 'The Jesus Seminar' a gang of unbelievers meet every year to condemn the New Testament as myth; if we look at the cridentials of each member of The Jesus Seminar', we will discover that they are not true Bibical scholars.
Some people also think that the different translations of the Bible leaves room for alterations but thats not really true; if you read 10 different translations of the Bible, they all tell the same story and give the same message.
The problem with the Bible is not its translations but how different faiths within Christianity...and other religions interpret it. The same can be said of my Quran; although there's no different translations, different fractions within the Muslim faith have their own interpretations...now that's a grave problem!

Answer 3

In accord with archeology , history, geography , etc. they indeed HAVE NOT changed--in content, meaning, explanation, directions, locations, etc. Please note:

*** w68 9/15 p. 560 pars. 2-3 Archaeology and the Land Support the Word of Truth ***

perfectly true to say that Biblical archaeology has done a great deal to correct the impression that was abroad at the close of the last century and in the early part of this century, that Biblical history was of doubtful trustworthiness in many places.” So states J. A. Thompson in The Bible and Archaeology.

3 “In Palestine, places and towns that are frequently mentioned in the Bible are being brought back once more into the light of day. They look exactly as the Bible describes them and lie exactly where the Bible locates them.” This is the view of Werner Keller in The Bible As History, Introduction, and he continues, “There kept hammering in my brain this one sentence: ‘The Bible is right after all!’”

*** g01 3/8 p. 9 The Bible—Authentic History? ***

Archaeologist William Albright stated: “The profound moral and spiritual intuitions of the Bible, which form a unique revelation of God to man through the channels of human experience, are just as true today as they were two or three thousand years ago.”

--The same is found in every aspect that the Bible touches upon, accurate science, included.

Answer 4

I can think of 2 alterations. At 1 Tim. 3:16, a copiest altered the Greek word "who" to read "God", so the text Would read in part: "God was manifested in the flesh." The other alteration is the trintarian renderring of 1 John 5:7: "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one." It was later discovered to be a late addition to the Bible. Most modern Bible have removed those words.

Answer 5

The Discovery Channel & Nat. Geographic also, run specials through out the year with Biblical Scolars adressing such issues. It is not that the Bible was altered, it was the translation from Aramic to English. This language isnt spoken anymore and it leads to a wide gap in translation.

As far as altering, Constatine - a Roman leader seeking to keep his thrown took many books out of the Bible. Like many politicians he had the bible altered to promote his adjenda. I think that was in 320 AD or so.

Answer 6

There was a book recently published on this topic which explains how Biblical scholars go about finding the errors and how they got incorporated into the text. The books sites many examples of errors. While its title sounds very controvertial, I assure that the contents are scholarly. The book is entitled Misquoting Jesus and was written by Bart Ehrman. You can find it at most book stores and at your library. Biblical scholars of every religious persuasion agree that there are somewhere in between 100,000 to 300,000 errors in the New Testament alone. The reasons for the errors are many and varied and would take more words and time than I care to write.

Answer 7

If you look at your King James version, the italicized words are inserted by the translators. This is only one example. Often the word "the" is inserted when the word "a" or "an" would make as much sense. For example, when Jesus says he is "the son of God" in John, the Greek actually says, "a son of God." Greek has a direct article ("ho" meaning "the"), but it is omitted in the text, which in Greek means "a" or "an" (they have no such word). However, the translators decided to add a word that wasn't in the text.

This is only one example. There are hundreds of others. In addition, the oldest Greek and Hebrew manuscripts are not uniform in their texts. It is not always easy to determine which one is the earliest, or even if it is earlier, is it more accurate than a more meticulously copied later text.

^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^

Answer 8

For a start, the bible was written in (as far as I know) aramaic and hebrew. Unless you have a bible in that language, it has been translated. And translation always leads to slight alterations as the translator interprets in his/her own way which are the best words to use to translate. So two different translations will have differences.

Secondly, whole books have been included in some denominations, suchas the apocrypha. If one version has it, and another one doesn't and they both claim to be the original bible, one has obviously been changed.

Answer 9

The Bible has been altered and mistranslated HUNDREDS UPON HUNDREDS of times.

In many instances in the NT synoptic gospels, the writers altered or even outright fabricated the depiction of events to fit earlier prophecies so that Jesus would be seen as the "Messiah" fulfilling them.

One example?

"Edward Gibbon(1737-1794) in his most famous work The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1788), pointed out that the church fathers defeated heretics by forged testimonies. These fathers went so far as to alter the text of the Holy Scripture itself. He pointed out one passage in particular:(which can still be seen today in the King James Version)

I John 5:7-8 (KJV)
For there are three **that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. And there are three that witness on earth**, the Spirit, the Water and the Blood and these three agree in one.

This passage, known as the Johanine Comma, had long been used by Christians to prove the truth of the doctrine of the Trinity. Gibbon pointed out that this text (the portion in asterisks above) was never quoted by the earliest church fathers, nor does it appear in any Greek manuscript earlier than the fifteenth century. And even among these late manuscripts, there are only three that have this addition. In fact the earliest appearance was in Latin manuscripts around 400 CE and its earliest quotation was from the western theologian Priscillian (late 4th century CE). In short it was a later dishonest insertion into the Bible.

Why then did Christian scholars continue to accept it although it was obviously false? Gibbon claimed that Erasmus knew the passage was false but kept it out of prudence and that both the Catholic and Protestant Churches stuck to the spurious text out of "honest bigotry". In other words, the churches were trying to defend the doctrine of the Trinity by fraudulent means!"

Answer 10

first of all, the old testament. taken from the dead sea scrolls. many were lost or destroyed. many still have never been translated at all. so how can it be complete? as for the new testament, fact'. king james had the bible translated in to english,added what he wanted, and took out things he did not agree with. and had the royal scribes killed. also he was pagan. check out the history of the royal order of the garder. ledgend tells at a royal ball, king james was dancing with a woman. her garder slipped off. its markings were of the high priestess of the goddess worship. the king put the garder on and said i know who she is enough said.

Answer 11

No, but the Canon is proof that the apocrypha books have been altered from the original or are not the words of the Holy Spirit.