Is there any proof that the bible was falsified?

Question

I read this in someone's question, if someone can give me a source I'd be very glad. Also anything else that proves passages from the bible to be wrong

Faultless? Well, nobody said it has a fault .... :) Flawless? Naaah, I don't think so

I said "I don't think so", I didn't claim I know

Answer 1

The bible says the universe is static, but it's been proven that it is expanding.

[edit:] The bible also says that GOD created everything with a purpose, yet thing humans still have appendixes.

The bible also makes the earth to be around 6 tya, but it's been proven to be billions of years old.

Answer 2

There have been lots of attempts at changing the bible, falsifying the bible, and destroying the bible. Why do people go to great lengths to find something wrong with the bible. The New Testament is a group of eye witnesses and others telling their story about Jesus. If all these stories were just by Jesus' personal disciples then maybe you could say they got together and made up the whole storie. But most of the New Testament is from Apostle Paul who the others didnt like because of what he did to the early Christains. Then two of the first four Gospels were written by converts of Apostle Paul. Luke and Mark. These writtings are as good as any affidavit you would find in a court of law. Muhammad wrote his on book Jesus never wrote anything but allowed his story to be told by his followers.
Because of this I believe the bible to be the absolute truth. You can nick pick all the passages you want. But you can do the same with testimonies in a court of law.

Answer 3

Falsified? No. Modified, yes. When the Northern Kingdom of Israel fell in 722 BCE, their refugees brought an understanding of the Torah that was markedly different from those in the Southern Kingdom of Judah. The Northern God was holy and transcendent, never revealed his personal name, and preferred to work through prophets, not kings. The Southern God was personal and approachable, went by the name YHWH and definitely approved of kings, Jerusalem and the Temple priesthood. These two versions had to be harmonized. (That's why you sometimes read multiple versions of the same story.)

There were also gaps and glosses in the historical records, and inprecision in some of the laws, particularly regarding worship. So the priests made their contributions as well. And King Josiah would not have been able to launch his reform movement without the help of the newly "re-discovered" book of Deuteronomy and the mindset it brought to the faith. No one was trying to subvert the faith, only to enhance their understanding of it.

The Christian scriptures followed a similar path. At first, there was no intention to create new books. But as Jesus didn't return and the apostles began to die, the necessity became apparent. To Paul's primitive theology about Jesus ("he died and was raised by God"), was added the story of Christ's passion, plus tales of his teachings, miracles and ministry. Mark's gospel was simple but stark. Matthew and Luke added to the account, and extended Christ's divine connection back to his birth. Luke also extended the Spirit's influence into the early days of the Church. By the time of John's gospel, Jesus was fully divine and indistinguishable from the Father. None of these writers were making it up as they went along. They were answering questions that arose from the intellectual conflicts inherent in a primitive faith more concerned with behavior than creed. Because A and B are so, therefore C must be so. A lot of theological battles were fought in the first few centuries of Christianity.

Alternate "gospels", "acts" and "testaments" were written, and they had their adherents, but their theologies were incompatible with what was already understood, and these works were never part of respected theologians' official lists. Only a very few books were in debate (Hebrews, Revelation, Clement, Hermas), for source reasons rather than doctrine.

Nothing was ever rewritten to change its meaning. These were considered too sacred for that. Material could be added, usually in separate books, or combined, as long as nothing was lost, but deletions were never considered (at least not below the book level. See Apocrypha.). People were free to reinterpret OUTSIDE of scripture. (That's exactly what the rabinnical movement did in creating the Talmud.) But nobody messed with the books themselves.

Answer 4

Many believe the Bible as false because it was composed by men. I, for one, and I believe many more will agree with me; that the stories of the old scriptures passed along from witnesses during the history of God and Jesus Christ. When people learned to write, these stories where written in different languages and by different nations and different races. Many Holy scriptures where written, some destroyed, others never found. Christian men that composed the bible might have changed some words to reflect the understanding of the times. Also, certain religions added their rituals and doctrines into the Bible. The Holy Bible has gone through many revisions. This is what amazes me about the Bible, no matter in what language or from what nation and from what ever race it was written for, the stories have never changed from the beginning till now, they have remained truthful to the intent of the Word of God and Jesus Christ Our Savior.
How many of you have tried the game of telling a short story or phrase to the person next to you close to their ear and than that person will pass it on to the next person and so on and on. Always, the translation will get lost or changed. Well, that didn't happen with the Holy Scriptures. The scriptures that compose the Holy Bible have been revised through 2000 years but the translation has never changed.
This is the reason I believe in the Holy Bible as the true words of God and Jesus Christ Our Savior.

GOD BLESS! AMEN! SHALOM!

Answer 5

Well, there are always problems with translations, as not everything can be translated. (Linguistics).

I believe most people tried to get it right. But the KJV, which is so popular today, was commissioned as a political tool by King James. He didn't like some of what it said, so he got some priests to change it and include some things that would work to his advantage.

Answer 6

http://jesusastrotheology.netfirms.com/websites.htm


Check this site out. There is a ton of information on here but you will find your answer here. It was actually put up by a resigned pastor. He has been studying for over 20 years. The page is pretty basic and sometimes hard to navigate because of the endless links but it's well worth the time and effort.

Answer 7

You gotta admire Sam's confidence, in saying it's been faultless for 6000+ years...considering it hasn't even been around for 1700.

Anyway, last time I checked, Egypt was never destroied by Nebuchadnezzar as mentioned would happen in Ezekiel.

Answer 8

This is an interesting book on the subject...Bart Ehrman ...Misquoting Jesus....search NPR and Bart Behrman if this does not come up
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyld=5052156

Answer 9

It was only by the authority of the Catholic Church, which collected the various books of Scripture in the fourth century, that we have a Christian Bible at all. And it is only because of the Church that the Bible survived and was taught for the many centuries before the printing press made it widely available.


John Wycliff had produced a translation of the Bible, that was corrupt and full of heresy. It was not an accurate rendering of sacred Scripture.

Both the Church and the secular authorities condemned it and did their best to prevent it from being used to teach false doctrine and morals. Because of the scandal it caused, the Synod of Oxford passed a law in 1408 that prevented any unauthorized translation of the Bible into English and also forbade the reading of such unauthorized translations.

Tyndale was an English priest of no great fame who desperately desired to make his own English translation of the Bible. The Church denied him for several reasons.

First, it saw no real need for a new English translation of the Scriptures at this time. In fact, booksellers were having a hard time selling the print editions of the Bible that they already had. Sumptuary laws had to be enacted to force people into buying them.

Second, we must remember that this was a time of great strife and confusion for the Church in Europe. The Reformation had turned the continent into a very volatile place. So far, England had managed to remain relatively unscathed, and the Church wanted to keep it that way. It was thought that adding a new English translation at this time would only add confusion and distraction where focus was needed.

Lastly, if the Church had decided to provide a new English translation of Scripture, Tyndale would not have been the man chosen to do it. He was known as only a mediocre scholar and had gained a reputation as a priest of unorthodox opinions and a violent temper. He was infamous for insulting the clergy, from the pope down to the friars and monks, and had a genuine contempt for Church authority. In fact, he was first tried for heresy in 1522, three years before his translation of the New Testament was printed. His own bishop in London would not support him in this cause.

Finding no support for his translation from his bishop, he left England and came to Worms, where he fell under the influence of Martin Luther. There in 1525 he produced a translation of the New Testament that was swarming with textual corruption. He willfully mistranslated entire passages of Sacred Scripture in order to condemn orthodox Catholic doctrine and support the new Lutheran ideas. The Bishop of London claimed that he could count over 2,000 errors in the volume (and this was just the New Testament).

And we must remember that this was not merely a translation of Scripture. His text included a prologue and notes that were so full of contempt for the Catholic Church and the clergy that no one could mistake his obvious agenda and prejudice. Did the Catholic Church condemn this version of the Bible? Of course it did.

The secular authorities condemned it as well. Anglicans are among the many today who laud Tyndale as the "father of the English Bible." But it was their own founder, King Henry VIII, who in 1531 declared that "the translation of the Scripture corrupted by William Tyndale should be utterly expelled, rejected, and put away out of the hands of the people."

So troublesome did Tyndale’s Bible prove to be that in 1543—after his break with Rome—Henry again decreed that "all manner of books of the Old and New Testament in English, being of the crafty, false, and untrue translation of Tyndale . . . shall be clearly and utterly abolished, extinguished, and forbidden to be kept or used in this realm."

Ultimately, it was the secular authorities that proved to be the end for Tyndale. He was arrested and tried (and sentenced to die) in the court of the Holy Roman Emperor in 1536. His translation of the Bible was heretical because it contained heretical ideas—not because the act of translation was heretical in and of itself. In fact, the Catholic Church would produce a translation of the Bible into English a few years later (The Douay-Reims version, whose New Testament was released in 1582 and whose Old Testament was released in 1609).

When discussing the history of Biblical translations, it is very common for people to toss around names like Tyndale and Wycliff. But the full story is seldom given. This present case of a gender-inclusive edition of the Bible is a wonderful opportunity for Fundamentalists to reflect and realize that the reason they don’t approve of this new translation is the same reason that the Catholic Church did not approve of Tyndale’s or Wycliff’s. These are corrupt translations, made with an agenda, and not accurate renderings of sacred Scripture.

And here at least Fundamentalists and Catholics are in ready agreement: Don’t mess with the Word of God.

Answer 10

I seen this movie that made me think really hard about the stories within the bible. I had often wondered.
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/