What proof is there that the bible was edited?
Options
Comments
-
1. No I don't admit the bible was edited. Again read what I said. the Sinaiticus/Vaticanus (alexandrian texts) were indeed edited, original copies show where parts where lined out, erased etc. However that is the minority texts. The textus receptus (which does include hebrew manuscripts) which the KJV is based on WAS NOT edited as it was the majority texts. And as far as the NT goes it was written in Koine Greek so yes "they" are the source.
2. Its almost impossible yet the septuigent translators did it. Hmm. You showed me how they mistranslated the word ? ? No you didnt' that didn't show or prove anything. The septuigent uses the word ? , but I guess you need to craft some sort of conspiracy because hey you know greek and hebrew better than they did right?
3. I know the history and origin of the bible however my knowledge stems from truth and fact while yours stems from ignorance and unfounded conspiracies. But yes get your brother maybe he can do a better job of presenting your case.
4. So since you think I'm a pharisee for not listing (actually taking your nonsense seriously), and you are the one presenting the arguments (if thats what you actually want to call them) are you trying to make youself out to be like Jesus? And no my friend I'm not a pharisee, I'm not clining on to anything I'm asking questions however the answers are laughable at best.
How have you been Blue Falcon?
Still getting sonned all over the place? -
theillestrator wrote: »Name one book that has been translated and has the exact same message.
i spoke too soon in my previous post. The message? Well that is critical.
Good thing that the case is, it IS the exact same message.
I think what's being argued here is that because it's not translated by the same person that wrote the previous one, (in the same manner, at the same time, at the same moment, with the same brain frequencies going through the person brain, at the same time of day, etc etc) that that means the message is changed. It doesn't.
If you one of those people with strange philosophical views then you might find yourself arguing that that means it's a different message though, just because of that. -
And did we ever figure out whose alias And Step was?
-
solid analysis wrote: »i spoke too soon in my previous post. The message is critical.
Good thing that the case is, it IS the exact same message.
I think what's being argued here is that because it's not translated by the same person that wrote the previous one, (in the same manner, at the same time, at the same moment, with the same brain frequencies going through the person mind) that that means the message is changed. It doesn't.
If you one of those people with strange philosophical views then you might find yourself arguing that that means it's a different message though.
okay, this is all that i am saying. there is no way that the bible can keep the same exact message after being translated no matter who translated it. Languages just don't work that way. I don't care what two languages you pick. The overall message may stay the same, but every detail will not. either way, i'm done. there has been too much effort put in talking about the bible. peace. -
1. No I don't admit the bible was edited. Again read what I said. the Sinaiticus/Vaticanus (alexandrian texts) were indeed edited, original copies show where parts where lined out, erased etc. However that is the minority texts. The textus receptus (which does include hebrew manuscripts) which the KJV is based on WAS NOT edited as it was the majority texts. And as far as the NT goes it was written in Koine Greek so yes "they" are the source.
2. Its almost impossible yet the septuigent translators did it. Hmm. You showed me how they mistranslated the word ? ? No you didnt' that didn't show or prove anything. The septuigent uses the word ? , but I guess you need to craft some sort of conspiracy because hey you know greek and hebrew better than they did right?
3. I know the history and origin of the bible however my knowledge stems from truth and fact while yours stems from ignorance and unfounded conspiracies. But yes get your brother maybe he can do a better job of presenting your case.
4. So since you think I'm a pharisee for not listing (actually taking your nonsense seriously), and you are the one presenting the arguments (if thats what you actually want to call them) are you trying to make youself out to be like Jesus? And no my friend I'm not a pharisee, I'm not clining on to anything I'm asking questions however the answers are laughable at best.
? , shut up.
You are a first rate fool, arguing and defending something you have no knowledge of. Your an intellectual coward who defends an English translation of a plagiarized poorly translated greek text of a Hebrew original. Your not a Christian, your a ? who found some emotional catharsis in a belief system that your not at the root of and you don't understand. Your enslaved by dogma . A truly enlightened, spiritually mature person can make a connection beyond his tradition. The Creator is one. Jesus supposedly said he would have followers who would not be in his fold. A fold is a distinction or difference. Everyone one is not going to look like you, talk like you, or even express spirituality like you. But you will be able to detect it if your awake and not asleep at the wheel of religious dogma.
I'm done arguing with your ignorant ass, I'll let you drown in your obstinate stupidity. -
Punisher__ wrote: »And did we ever figure out whose alias And Step was?
wth?
And Step isn't Blue Falcon, SL8Rok is. -
wth?
And Step isn't Blue Falcon, SL8Rok is.
He misused the quote button. Thank you for clearing that up. I in no way want to be confused with that idiot. -
wth?
And Step isn't Blue Falcon, SL8Rok is.
I know...
Look at my post again when I said "How have you been Blue Falcon?" The quoting was ? up, but it was directed towards SL8Rok.
This is completely different. -
Punisher__ wrote: »And did we ever figure out whose alias And Step was?
I am Mike Jones. -
This place is classic...
whats up falcon? I see you lurkin...with your lurkin ass -
No. I never read that book. There is a lot of knowledge out there from ancient historians way before the Davinci code. I have a vast library of religious studies.
The Essenes have been recorded since before Jesus existed. Many people have chronicled them before this Divincii code book. Heck the first time I heard of the Essense was in the Autobiography of Malcolm X.
Ancient Historians such as? -
solid analysis wrote: »i spoke too soon in my previous post. The message? Well that is critical.
Good thing that the case is, it IS the exact same message.
I think what's being argued here is that because it's not translated by the same person that wrote the previous one, (in the same manner, at the same time, at the same moment, with the same brain frequencies going through the person brain, at the same time of day, etc etc) that that means the message is changed. It doesn't.
If you one of those people with strange philosophical views then you might find yourself arguing that that means it's a different message though, just because of that.
How do you know the message isn't the very thing that was altered? -
? , shut up.
You are a first rate fool, arguing and defending something you have no knowledge of. Your an intellectual coward who defends an English translation of a plagiarized poorly translated greek text of a Hebrew original. Your not a Christian, your a ? who found some emotional catharsis in a belief system that your not at the root of and you don't understand. Your enslaved by dogma . A truly enlightened, spiritually mature person can make a connection beyond his tradition. The Creator is one. Jesus supposedly said he would have followers who would not be in his fold. A fold is a distinction or difference. Everyone one is not going to look like you, talk like you, or even express spirituality like you. But you will be able to detect it if your awake and not asleep at the wheel of religious dogma.
I'm done arguing with your ignorant ass, I'll let you drown in your obstinate stupidity.
1. Quite the presumptious one aren't you?
2. I'm still waiting for proof of the bible being plagarized and poorly translated.
3. Umm yeah words can't capture how inept and pointless this part of your rant was.
4. When did Jesus say he would have followers who were not in His fold? Care to site this? Jesus said I am the way THE truth and THE light, NOBDODY comes unto the Father BUT BY HIM. Jesus said BROAD is the way to hell and many shall go that way and narrow is the way to heaven and few will go that way. The apostle Paul said that the gods the gentiles sacrifice to are demons. Please show me where you see that in the bible.
5. I can almost garentuee that this will not be the last time you respond to me.
5. -
wth?
And Step isn't Blue Falcon, SL8Rok is.
No I'm not And Step......I actually know how to form an argument. -
-
So to sum up things thus far......nobody has submited one convincing argument, presented one shred of evidence to show the bible has been edited. So then my next question is what basis is there for believing this tripe.
-
So to sum up things thus far......nobody has submited one convincing argument, presented one shred of evidence to show the bible has been edited. So then my next question is what basis is there for believing this tripe.
Actually it has...this is the source of what the "Bible" is now:
Torah
1. Genesis, Ge—Bereshit (בראשית)
2. Exodus, Ex—Shemot (שמות)
3. Leviticus, Le—Vayikra (ויקרא)
4. Numbers, Nu—Bamidbar (במדבר)
5. Deuteronomy, Dt—Devarim (דברים
Nevi'im
. Joshua, Js—Yehoshua (יהושע)
7. Judges, Jg—Shoftim (שופטים)
8. Samuel, includes First and Second, 1Sa–2Sa—Shemuel (שמואל)
9. Kings, includes First and Second, 1Ki–2Ki—Melakhim (מלכים)
10. Isaiah, Is—Yeshayahu (ישעיהו)
11. Jeremiah, Je—Yirmiyahu (ירמיהו)
12. Ezekiel, Ez—Yekhezkel (יחזקאל)
13. Twelve, includes all Minor Prophets—Tre Asar (תרי עשר)
A. Hosea, ? —Hoshea (הושע)
B. Joel, Jl—Yoel (יואל)
C. Amos, Am—Amos (עמוס)
D. Obadiah, Ob—Ovadyah (עבדיה)
E. Jonah, Jh—Yonah (יונה)
F. Micah, Mi—Mikhah (מיכה)
G. Nahum, Na—Nahum (נחום)
H. Habakkuk, Hb—Havakuk (חבקוק)
I. Zephaniah, Zp—Tsefanya (צפניה)
J. Haggai, Hg—Khagay (חגי)
K. Zechariah, Zc—Zekharyah (זכריה)
L. Malachi, Ml—Malakhi (מלאכי)
14. Psalms, Ps—Tehillim (תהלים)
15. Proverbs, Pr—Mishlei (משלי)
16. Job, Jb—Iyyov (איוב)
17. Song of Songs, So—Shir ha-Shirim (שיר השירים)
18. Ruth, Ru—Rut (רות)
19. Lamentations, La—Eikhah (איכה), also called Kinot (קינות)
20. Ecclesiastes, Ec—Kohelet (קהלת)
21. Esther, Es—Ester (אסתר)
22. Daniel, Dn—Daniel (דניאל)
23. Ezra, Ea, includes Nehemiah, Ne—Ezra (עזרא), includes Nehemiah (נחמיה)
24. Chronicles, includes First and Second, 1Ch–2Ch—Divrei ha-Yamim (דברי הימים), also called Divrei (דברי)
Synoptic Gospels
Gospel According to Matthew, Mt
Gospel According to Mark, Mk
Gospel According to Luke, Lk
Gospel According to John, Jn
Acts of the Apostles, Ac (continues Luke)
Pauline Epistles
Bible Translations
The original texts of the Tanakh were in Hebrew, although some portions were in Aramaic. In addition to the authoritative Masoretic Text, Jews still refer to the Septuagint, the translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek, and the Targum Onkelos, an Aramaic version of the Bible. There are several different ancient versions of the Tanakh in Hebrew, mostly differing by spelling, and the traditional Jewish version is based on the version known as Aleppo Codex. Even in this version by itself, there are words which are traditionally read differently from written (sometimes one word is written and another is read), because the oral tradition is considered more fundamental than the written one, and presumably mistakes had been made in copying the text over the generations.
The primary biblical text for early Christians was the Septuagint or (LXX). In addition they translated the Hebrew Bible into several other languages. Translations were made into Syriac, Coptic, Ge'ez and Latin, among other languages. The Latin translations were historically the most important for the Church in the West, while the Greek-speaking East continued to use the Septuagint translations of the Old Testament and had no need to translate the New Testament.
The earliest Latin translation was the Old Latin text, or Vetus Latina, which, from internal evidence, seems to have been made by several authors over a period of time. It was based on the Septuagint, and thus included books not in the Hebrew Bible.
Pope Damasus I assembled the first list of books of the Bible at the Council of Rome in AD 382. He commissioned Saint Jerome to produce a reliable and consistent text by translating the original Greek and Hebrew texts into Latin. This translation became known as the Latin Vulgate Bible and in 1546 at the Council of Trent was declared by the Church to be the only authentic and official Bible in the Latin rite.
Bible translations for many languages have been made through the various influences of Catholicism, Orthodox, Protestant, etc especially since the Protestant Reformation. The Bible has seen a notably large number of English language translations. -
Ancient Historians such as?
Pliny the Elder, Philo, Josephus, Hippolytus, to name a few. -
Punisher__ wrote: »And did we ever figure out whose alias And Step was?
I've on occasion thought maybe Uncle Diesel. -
TX_Made713 wrote: »How do you know the message isn't the very thing that was altered?
the same point that has been being made the last several posts in this thread - where's the evidence?
there's no evidence of alteration. only a 'what if' with no possibility of being true. but i don't care about the 'what if', especially if there is no possibility for it to be true.
so why do i have to accept it's ok for a person to place more emphasis on the 'what if' impossibility in their imagination over that which is reality? -
theillestrator wrote: »okay, this is all that i am saying. there is no way that the bible can keep the same exact message after being translated no matter who translated it. Languages just don't work that way. I don't care what two languages you pick. The overall message may stay the same, but every detail will not. either way, i'm done. there has been too much effort put in talking about the bible. peace.
ahh, so here you do agree that the overall message can remain the same though translated into different languages, but yet you hold that every detail will not be the same.
Okaayy? Since when is every single detail of any two things ever exactly the same? That's not what we here to focus on.
What is important, is that we follow what ? requires us to follow in His law to receive salvation He offered us through His Son gospel message. This message, these instructions, haven't changed, and never will change. -
TX_Made713 wrote: »Actually it has...this is the source of what the "Bible" is now:
Torah
1. Genesis, Ge—Bereshit (בראשית)
2. Exodus, Ex—Shemot (שמות)
3. Leviticus, Le—Vayikra (ויקרא)
4. Numbers, Nu—Bamidbar (במדבר)
5. Deuteronomy, Dt—Devarim (דברים
Nevi'im
. Joshua, Js—Yehoshua (יהושע)
7. Judges, Jg—Shoftim (שופטים)
8. Samuel, includes First and Second, 1Sa–2Sa—Shemuel (שמואל)
9. Kings, includes First and Second, 1Ki–2Ki—Melakhim (מלכים)
10. Isaiah, Is—Yeshayahu (ישעיהו)
11. Jeremiah, Je—Yirmiyahu (ירמיהו)
12. Ezekiel, Ez—Yekhezkel (יחזקאל)
13. Twelve, includes all Minor Prophets—Tre Asar (תרי עשר)
A. Hosea, ? —Hoshea (הושע)
B. Joel, Jl—Yoel (יואל)
C. Amos, Am—Amos (עמוס)
D. Obadiah, Ob—Ovadyah (עבדיה)
E. Jonah, Jh—Yonah (יונה)
F. Micah, Mi—Mikhah (מיכה)
G. Nahum, Na—Nahum (נחום)
H. Habakkuk, Hb—Havakuk (חבקוק)
I. Zephaniah, Zp—Tsefanya (צפניה)
J. Haggai, Hg—Khagay (חגי)
K. Zechariah, Zc—Zekharyah (זכריה)
L. Malachi, Ml—Malakhi (מלאכי)
14. Psalms, Ps—Tehillim (תהלים)
15. Proverbs, Pr—Mishlei (משלי)
16. Job, Jb—Iyyov (איוב)
17. Song of Songs, So—Shir ha-Shirim (שיר השירים)
18. Ruth, Ru—Rut (רות)
19. Lamentations, La—Eikhah (איכה), also called Kinot (קינות)
20. Ecclesiastes, Ec—Kohelet (קהלת)
21. Esther, Es—Ester (אסתר)
22. Daniel, Dn—Daniel (דניאל)
23. Ezra, Ea, includes Nehemiah, Ne—Ezra (עזרא), includes Nehemiah (נחמיה)
24. Chronicles, includes First and Second, 1Ch–2Ch—Divrei ha-Yamim (דברי הימים), also called Divrei (דברי)
Synoptic Gospels
Gospel According to Matthew, Mt
Gospel According to Mark, Mk
Gospel According to Luke, Lk
Gospel According to John, Jn
Acts of the Apostles, Ac (continues Luke)
Pauline Epistles
Bible Translations
The original texts of the Tanakh were in Hebrew, although some portions were in Aramaic. In addition to the authoritative Masoretic Text, Jews still refer to the Septuagint, the translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek, and the Targum Onkelos, an Aramaic version of the Bible. There are several different ancient versions of the Tanakh in Hebrew, mostly differing by spelling, and the traditional Jewish version is based on the version known as Aleppo Codex. Even in this version by itself, there are words which are traditionally read differently from written (sometimes one word is written and another is read), because the oral tradition is considered more fundamental than the written one, and presumably mistakes had been made in copying the text over the generations.
The primary biblical text for early Christians was the Septuagint or (LXX). In addition they translated the Hebrew Bible into several other languages. Translations were made into Syriac, Coptic, Ge'ez and Latin, among other languages. The Latin translations were historically the most important for the Church in the West, while the Greek-speaking East continued to use the Septuagint translations of the Old Testament and had no need to translate the New Testament.
The earliest Latin translation was the Old Latin text, or Vetus Latina, which, from internal evidence, seems to have been made by several authors over a period of time. It was based on the Septuagint, and thus included books not in the Hebrew Bible.
Pope Damasus I assembled the first list of books of the Bible at the Council of Rome in AD 382. He commissioned Saint Jerome to produce a reliable and consistent text by translating the original Greek and Hebrew texts into Latin. This translation became known as the Latin Vulgate Bible and in 1546 at the Council of Trent was declared by the Church to be the only authentic and official Bible in the Latin rite.
Bible translations for many languages have been made through the various influences of Catholicism, Orthodox, Protestant, etc especially since the Protestant Reformation. The Bible has seen a notably large number of English language translations.
This doesn't show how the bible was edited. Translated into other languages yes but edited (in the sense that things were taken out and put in) has not been substantiated. The best this article does is say this, "and presumably mistakes had been made in copying the text over the generations." -
Pliny the Elder, Philo, Josephus, Hippolytus, to name a few.
Care to cite them as saying that Jesus was an essene? -
This doesn't show how the bible was edited. Translated into other languages yes but edited (in the sense that things were taken out and put in) has not been substantiated. The best this article does is say this, "and presumably mistakes had been made in copying the text over the generations."
agreed, lol
the article only merely proves (asserts) the texts were translated into a bunch of different languages. -
solid analysis wrote: »ahh, so here you do agree that the overall message can remain the same though translated into different languages, but yet you hold that every detail will not be the same.
Okaayy? Since when is every single detail of any two things ever exactly the same? That's not what we here to focus on.
What is important, is that we follow what ? requires us to follow in His law to receive salvation He offered us through His Son gospel message. This message, these instructions, haven't changed, and never will change.
and for the record, there are several very minor details in the Bible about history and things in the world that have been verified proved to be 100 percent accurate to a lot of people's embarrassment.
