English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

15 answers

Some do, some don't. This Christian scholar doesn't.

2007-09-18 12:24:33 · answer #1 · answered by Fish <>< 7 · 3 2

It all depends upon what you mean by edited and exactly who the Christian "scholars" are. For instance, when you read the first 5 books of the Bible it's obvious that Moses didn't write the last part of Deuteronomy where it talks about his death. So there are certain parts of the Bible where redactors added details to the original stories or parts where place names were changed to more modern (at least more modern 2500 years ago) names so that the readers could understand what areas were being referred to.

But if you are talking about something like, oh, the Roman Catholic church editing the Bible, then you should know that although their Bible is based on the Latin Vulgate as provided by Jerome, other Bibles that are available today are based upon what scholars believe to be the most reliable copies of the original texts.

Groups of respected scholars have spent long hours pouring over different texts and voting on what they believe would be the most accurate English renderings of the Bible. It isn't like there is some secret society with an agenda trying to edit the Bible in order to make it say what they want it to say and not say what they don't want it to say.

That is, it isn't like that unless you include versions like the NWT that the secret translators for the Jehovah's Witnesses have put together.

2007-09-18 19:31:31 · answer #2 · answered by Martin S 7 · 1 1

The bible was originally transcribed by one (the author) in the Greek or Hebrew language, then many copies were made and distributed. The many copies have slight variations in the texts - a dropped or changed word, an verse added for clarification, a verse omitted (purposefully or inadvertantly)

Bible translators work with different manuscripts and choose which is most accurate in their oppinion. Then they decide which word/sentence/verse will most accurately convey the original text into a new language.

I personally believe today's technology makes translations closer to the original manuscripts than ever! And I believe God is still in control of His book!

Hope this helps you to understand.

FACTS ABOUT BIBLE:
Written over a period of 1,500 years.
Translated into English in 1382 A.D.
First printed in 1454 A.D.
Translated into 2,018 languages.
The number one shoplifted book in America.
The best selling book each year.

2007-09-18 19:36:59 · answer #3 · answered by Braveharht 2 · 0 0

Because they are being honest. The Bible (speaking of the New Testament) was a bunch of books that were cobbled together during the hundred years or so after Jesus' death. The leaders of the church got together and approved or "canonized" the books that they said were authoritative (because it defended the core beliefs of the faith at the time). But biblical scholarship isn't an exact science. We don't have the original versions of any/all the books as they were first written. And over the years, the scriptures have been tampered with to some degree by scribes and others with various motives. Does it affect the core beliefs represented there? That's a matter of opinion to some degree. But no one can say that the books have remained untouched since they were written or even after they were canonized.

2007-09-18 19:24:19 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 6 1

Name one?

And if you can, do they provide evidence? Do they have a verifiably unedited, unchanged document with which to compare the edited, changed document?

The bible *has* been *added* to - and these few dozen, mostly very short, additions have been noted and/or extracted in modern bibles.

I know of no case where it has been proven that the bible has either been "changed" or "edited" outside of these additions. Nearly all are glosses. One is the story of Jesus and the stoning of the adulteress. None that I am aware of have any affect whatsoever on Christian doctrine.

Jim, http://www.life-after-harry-potter.com

2007-09-19 22:31:01 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Most people who study the Bible in depth only recognize the original writings are being perfect. Although I think there is a lot of reasons why we think the translations we have are extremely close to the originals, it really is only those first copies that definately were inspried by God.

2007-09-18 19:27:42 · answer #6 · answered by oldguy63 7 · 0 0

Christians search the scripture & get to the root of the Bible & have the Holy Spirit who confirm to the Christian that the bible is Gods' book. The LORD Gods' book. It is Jesus' book.

2007-09-18 19:29:01 · answer #7 · answered by t_a_m_i_l 6 · 1 0

The Bible itself has not been changed or edited. The translated version has been changed because of mis translation.

2007-09-18 19:53:56 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

The canon of the Old Testament that Catholics use is based on the text used by Alexandrian Jews, a version known as the "Septuagint" and which came into being around 280 B.C. as a translation of then existing texts from Hebrew into Greek by 72 Jewish scribes (the Torah was translated first, around 300 B.C., and the rest of Tanach was translated afterward).

The Septuagint is the Old Testament referred to in the Didache or "Doctrine of the Apostles" (first century Christian writings) and by Origen, Irenaeus of Lyons, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Cyprian of Carthage, Justin Martyr, St. Augustine and the vast majority of early Christians who referenced Scripture in their writings. The Epistle of Pope Clement, written in the first century, refers to the Books Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom, analyzed the book of Judith, and quotes sections of the book of Esther that were removed from Protestant Bibles.


In the 16th c., Luther, reacting to serious abuses and clerical corruption in the Latin Church, to his own heretical theological vision (see articles on sola scriptura and sola fide), and, frankly, to his own inner demons, removed those books from the canon that lent support to orthodox doctrine, relegating them to an appendix. Removed in this way were books that supported such things as prayers for the dead (Tobit 12:12; 2 Maccabees 12:39-45), Purgatory (Wisdom 3:1-7), intercession of dead saints (2 Maccabees 15:14), and intercession of angels as intermediaries (Tobit 12:12-15). Ultimately, the "Reformers" decided to ignore the canon determined by the Christian Councils of Hippo and Carthage.

The Latin Church in no way ignored the post-Temple rabbincal texts. Some Old Testament translations of the canon used by the Latin Church were also based in part on rabbinical translations, for example St. Jerome's 5th c. Latin translation of the Bible called the Vulgate.

The "Masoretic texts" refers to translations of the Old Testament made by rabbis between the 6th and 10th centuries; the phrase doesn't refer to ancient texts in the Hebrew language. Some people think that the Masoretic texts are the "original texts" and that, simply because they are in Hebrew, they are superior.

Some Protestants claim that the "Apocrypha" are not quoted in the New Testament so, therefore, they are not canonical.
Going by that standard of proof, we'd have to throw out Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Obadiah, Nahum, and Zephaniah because none of these Old Testament Books are quoted in the New Testament.


But there is a bigger lesson in all this confusion over not only the canon but proper translation of the canon , especially considering that even within the Catholic Church there have been differing opinions by individual theologians about the proper place of the deuterocanonicals (not that an individual theologian's opinions count for Magisterial teaching!).
The lesson, though, is this: relying on the "Bible alone" is a bad idea; we are not to rely solely on Sacred Scripture to understand Christ's message. While Scripture is "given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16-17), it is not sufficient for reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness.
It is the Church that is the "pillar and ground of Truth" (1 Timothy 3:15)!
Jesus did not come to write a book; He came to redeem us, and He founded a Sacramental Church through His apostles to show us the way.
It is to them, to the Church Fathers, to the Sacred Deposit of Faith, to the living Church that is guided by the Holy Spirit, and to Scripture that we must prayerfully look.

2007-09-20 13:36:17 · answer #9 · answered by cashelmara 7 · 0 0

doesnt change how the book is used to edit it. it will continue to be edit til people find a better book

2007-09-18 19:27:22 · answer #10 · answered by wreaser2000 5 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers