the holy bible... i read part of a copy from the 1800's, and it was diff, why?

Question

yes i took a modern day plain ol bible and compared it to that of one my uncle had from the 1800's, and what a shock, quite a bit of material has differed over the years, yet some has remained the same... some claim the binle has never changed but now that i see it, what does that say about religeon?

Answer 1

It says religion is willing to change gods words to reveal his own ego. It also says the religion is based on lies.

I have read the King James Verson of the bible. I pointed out a passage to a pastor once. That passage is now gone. No longer in the revised addition. So therefore the king james bible is also edited. You cannot claim that this one has been untouched. I have first hand proof.

Answer 2

I wouldn't say it says much about religion really. It says that things have been translated differently not because it was wrong or now it is wrong. A good translation goes back to the original (or the best they can get) and translate it from that. A bible will read quite a bit different between 1800 and now because you have to translate it into whatever the modern language is at the time so you can keep the original meaning and context. Words and phases used in the 1800s aren't the same and don't always read the same as they do now a days.

If it says anything about religion it says they are just doing the best they can with that they have to keep the bible as close to the original as they can. The idea is not to try to change the bible to mean what you want so you translate it that way. It is translate it the best you can so you can learn and understand the meaning the best you can.

The Stig

Answer 3

First I would have to ask what translations you looked at from both times.....and if you want the totally absolute accurate form, you have to go back to the original language.....Hebrew and Greek......

The early translations used their own English translations which was for the English in their day, and those today try to use modern Language and still translate from the original as closely as they can. Some translations do better than others....some are very "loosley modern"...and lose accuracy in the process.....and Bible scholars are concerned that you keep the truth in it.

A really interesting Bible to look at is a comparative one that has four translations on the same page...so you can see how it has been changed from say King James, to New American Standard to the International Version to the Living Bible or some other pretty modern one.....

Most of us have preferences....if you want to question the accuracy though, you have to go back to the original texts.

For example...I memorized most out of King James...so I really like it....but one of my favorite versions to read is the New American Standard in more current English, but still accurate.

God's Word hasn't changed....it was given to us so we can know the truth that God wants us to know. It is truth. It is inerrant in the original. Religion means nothing. But God's Word, and God's plan for our lives means everything. He has given us the Bible and preserved it for us in amazing ways.

Forget about "religion" and instead think about the fact that God wants a personal relationship with you. That was His plan and the Bible tells you all about it. Read first...Genesis, The book of John, and then Revelation. That will tell you the beginning....God's plan....and the end that is coming. A good place to start.

And then find a church that believes that and teaches it.... and you will learn more.

Answer 4

Well, sweetie-
The Greek and Hebrew hasn't changed but how man speaks has changed quite drastically since the 1800s, don't you think? There will always be a new translation until Christ comes back so the common man can understands what it says. That was one of the major fights with the Catholic church way back when... the "church" thought the common man should NOT be reading it... many folks died translating it for the common folk... it wasn't until the "printing press" and Luther's times that it was pretty hard to squash the movement to get the Bible in the hands of common folks. So hopefully you have a translation that has been translated from the original Greek and not been altered so you can read for yourself what God wants to communicate to you.

Answer 5

Many versions of the bible existed before the King James and the advent of mass printing. See the link below for a good introduction to the evolution of the printed bible texts.

Someone above posted a comment that there are over 30,000 versions of the bible in the U.S. This is not a factual statement and is probably confusing new printings of editions, other languages, etc.

Answer 6

It depends on the translations that you are comparing.
The older copy was probably the 1769 edition of the King James Version. It still matches the modern King James, unless you were comparing it to a Schofield King James (which is different). If you compare it to something like the Revised Standard or NIV, then you will see major differences.

The differences are due to several factors:
1) Ancient Greek was shaped by centuries of sophisticated philosophical speculation, allowing great flexibility in the written word. Translators must decide whether or not to explain difficult or ambiguous passages, or to let the reader decide on the meaning for themselves.
2) There are literally thousands of manuscripts of the New Testament, and no two are identical. While all contain essentially the same information, some translators rely on the Critical Text (a reconstruction of the original reading), some rely on the Majority Text (a reconstruction of the text as it was moulded and shaped within the Church), some rely on the Received Text (the first official Greek text to be introduced into Western Europe), some rely on the Vulgate (the Latin text handed down through the Roman Catholic Church), some rely on the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament made by Jewish scholars in the 4th century BC), and some rely on the Masoretic Text (the official Hebrew version that was standardized in the 9th century AD).
3) Most translations are put together by collaborations between like-minded denominations. Any passage that negates established tradition or endorses non-standard doctrines is likely to be translated in a manner that resolves the apparent ambiguity.

The NIV, for example, translates the word "flesh" as "sinful nature." The word actually refers to nothing more than the human body. But only a few Christian denominations maintain a theological model that is comfortable with the actual meaning of the word. Other denominations are forced to change the meaning to "human nature" in order to make sense of the passage.

In another example, the NIV translates "tradition" as "teaching" when it is praised in Scripture, but leaves it as "tradition" when it is condemned in Scripture. This accords well with the Protestant aversion to all Christian tradition.

The King James translated the same Greek word as "just" in some passages and "righteous" in others. This is meant to accomodate the Protestant belief that righteousness can only be attained through faith. Any passage that describes righteousness attained through works is changed to "just" or "justice" as a favor for the reader.

Romans 5:12 teaches that human beings sin because they are mortal. Roman Catholic and Protestant doctrine maintains the opposite - that people die because they are sinners. Modern translations generally change the Greek "because of which" to "because," thereby changing the meaning of the text to its opposite.

The King James uses "faith" in place of "belief," because Protestants generally differentiate between "belief" and "faith." In Greek, belief is faith. This is especially difficult in the book of James, which explains that "even the demons have faith..." (always translated as "even the demons believe...").

In the opening of Romans, Paul explains that Jesus was confirmed as the Son of God by raising other people from the dead. This does not make any sense under Anslem's 'satisfaction' paradigm, so translators usually change it to say that Jesus was confirmed as the Son of God when He raised from the dead. That way, the Resurrection is established as the proof that God accepted the sacrificial atonement of Christ. Otherwise, according to Anselm's model, there is no need for the Resurrection of Christ at all.

Answer 7

my dear, language is "fluid" - did you take that into account? Did it really change the basic meaning or was it just words that meant something else in their day? For instance - when I was young, we would never have thought that the word "gay" would ever have meant anything other than "happy." But it doesn't have that connotation anymore - the word has taken on a completely different meaning. The Bible's message has not changed since originally penned but "word meanings" will shift and that is one reason for the many translations of scripture - to update the wording while leaving the exact message intact.

Answer 8

Well friend I read the Greek New Testament, and it is the same as the modern orthodox Bibles. But I would agree that a lot of people have misinterpreted it and taken it out of context, but in context it is very clear and stands stronger than any other religion, religious text, or religious denomination.

Answer 9

Don't sweat it.

The Church ... not the Bible ... was given the sole authority to govern the Christian faith during these new covenant times.

Catholics have always known this, because the apostles were Catholic, and they were also witnesses to the words of Christ, who personally founded and authorized the church.

They also wrote or approved the content of the new testament, which truly reflects the facts of the matter.

Jesus personally assured us that his church would always accurately preserve all the truths that he entrusted to his apostles, and even the most outrageous of translations still manages to accurately convey that divine promise.

Believe it or don't!

Answer 10

It means nothing except that it was written by others scholars as an explanation to explain the bible whereas we could understand it, because in the past there was some bible confusion cause people could not understand the bible in its original language or print.