Do some of these arguments show that the original Bible has been tampered with?

Question

The earliest Christians were noted for their insistence on the existence of one true God, in contrast to the polytheism of the prevailing culture. While maintaining strict monotheism, they believed also that the man Jesus Christ was at the same time something more than a man.

The doctrine of the divinity and personality of the Holy Spirit was developed by Athanasius in the last decades of his life.[13] In 325, the Council of Nicaea adopted a term for the relationship between the Son and the Father that from then on was seen as the hallmark of orthodoxy;

The doctrine of the divinity and personality of the Holy Spirit was developed by Athanasius in the last decades of his life.[13] In 325, the Council of Nicaea adopted a term for the relationship between the Son and the Father that from then on was seen as the hallmark of orthodoxy;

Source: Wikipedia/Trinity

There is evidence indicating that one mediaeval Latin writer, while purporting to quote from the First Epistle of John, inserted a passage now known as the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7) which has often been cited as an explicit reference the Trinity.

Answer 1

References to the Trinity are found throughout the old and new testaments. There are literally hundreds of verses to back up the concept of One God, who is, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit... These 3 are One.

Answer 2

I don't see any logical connection between the facts stated and the assertion the Bible was therefore tampered with. The doctrine of the Trinity is prevalent throughout the Old Testament. (ie., in the creation account, we see the statement "In the beginning, God (Hebrew Elohim, plural form of El) created (verb form is in the singular) the heavens and the earth." (Genesis 1:1) So we see in the first verse of the Bible and throughout the creation account the element of singularity and plurality in the Godhead. These come into much clearer focus in the New Testament when we find "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1:1). Here we plainly see the Word as predating creation and both distinguished from God (the Father), yet equated with God, as predating created things and in the following verses as being the intermediate Agent of the creation.
Therefore the doctrine of the Trinity was always clearly contained in the Scripture, but not officially codified until the Council of Nicaea. As for the passage in I John 5:7; it is true this appears in no early manuscripts, but was quoted by Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage (200-258 A.D.). It may well have been supplied by an overzealous transciber, but the doctrine of the Trinity is neither substantiated nor undermined by the presence or absence of this verse.

Answer 3

It does show that both in the past and that of recent history did change so verses in order to validate doctrine.
You pointed out 1 John 5:7, 8 and this has been found to be one of the spurious texts as you have noted.

"For there are three witness bearers, 8 the spirit and the water and the blood, and the three are in agreement."

The below is a footnote regarding the "three witness bearers"

After “witness bearers” אABVgSyh,p omit the words added in later Gr. mss and Vgc, namely: “in heaven, the Father, the Word and the holy spirit; and these three are one. (8) And there are three witness bearers on earth.”

******************
According to Eusebius (c. 260-342 C.E.), the authenticity of First John was never questioned. However, it is to be noted that some older translations have added to chapter 5 the following words at the end of verse 7and the beginning of verse 8: “In heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth.” (King James Version)

>>But this text is not found in any of the early Greek manuscripts and has obviously been added to bolster the Trinity doctrine.

Most modern translations, both Catholic and Protestant, do not include these words in the main body of the text.—1 John 1:1, 2.

Answer 4

Of course it does. I thought everyone knew that. Paul then used that idea when he rewrote what Jesus said, and added his letters. Look up who put together the OT and you'll find more tampering.

For the New Testament, the process of the recognition and collection began in the first centuries of the Christian church. Very early on, some of the New Testament books were being recognized. Paul considered Luke’s writings to be as authoritative as the Old Testament (1 Timothy 5:18; see also Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7). Peter recognized Paul’s writings as Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). Some of the books of the New Testament were being circulated among the churches (Colossians 4:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:27). Clement of Rome mentioned at least eight New Testament books (A.D. 95). Ignatius of Antioch acknowledged about seven books (A.D. 115). Polycarp, a disciple of John the Apostle, acknowledged 15 books (A.D. 108). Later, Irenaeus mentioned 21 books (A.D. 185). Hippolytus recognized 22 books (A.D. 170-235). The New Testament books receiving the most controversy were Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John. The first “canon” was the Muratorian Canon, which was compiled in (A.D. 170). The Muratorian Canon included all of the New Testament books except Hebrews, James, and 3 John. In A.D. 363, the Council of Laodicea stated that only the Old Testament (along with the Apocrypha) and the 27 books of the New Testament were to be read in the churches. The Council of Hippo (A.D. 393) and the Council of Carthage (A.D. 397) also affirmed the same 27 books as authoritative.

Answer 5

First, I have to say that Wikipedia isn't a great reference to use because it's info can be edited at any time and I have found 3 mistake in it in the past 8 months.

Second, you need to study ancient Hebrew and Aramaic then read an Hebrew bible that is written in English and learn Greek and Latin. After all that studying yo will see that today's Catholic bible is the same as the early Hebrew/Aramaic bible from 100 AD.

Answer 6

There are a couple of books I would recommend on this topic. "The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man" by Bart Ehrman and "Deconstructing Jesus" by Robert Price. I think there is significant respectable scholarship to show that what we can know for sure is original and untampered with beyond doubt is not great. Also, Christianity arose from Judaism which was monotheistic so this was not a new or original development to Christianity. Christian belief also drew from the environment they came out of which included many pagan polytheistic deities who were half human and half God and transcended death. I think these are all things to consider. I don't think anyone short of going back in a time machine can know for sure what happened. It just comes down in the end to beliefs.

Answer 7

There is enough proof that the Bible has not been tampered with. The NT has 24000 copies of the original Scripture. They can be cross-examined. Who, where (as they are spread from Middle East to Spain) and when would these have been changed? The Dead Sea Scrolls confirm their authenticity

Answer 8

I am sorry, but this is a very lame sort of arguement as to the reliability of the Scriptures and one that has been answered time and time again. this link

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/authenticity.html

lists essays concerning the historical reliability of the Scripture. If that is not to your liking, this essay from Stand to Reason is very good short explaination as to why we can rely on the Bible record.

http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6068

Answer 9

that was an EPISTLE!
epistles are letters. they are the writer's expressions of their personal beliefs, such as a pastor's sermon. just because John says it doesn't mean it's true. maybe the trinity really WAS his idea!

I seriously doubt that there was tampering here.

Answer 10

Just how much of the Grimm Brothers do you ascribe to?