So did they change the Bible or not?

How could they if "The Bible is scientifically accurate, Leviticus contained laws for ancient Israel on quarantine and hygiene when surrounding nations knew nothing about such matters. At a time when there were wrong ideas about the shape of the earth, the Bible referred to it as a circle, or sphere. (Isaiah 40:22) The Bible accurately said that the earth "hangs on nothing". (Job 26:7) The Bible is also historically accurate and reliable. It's accounts are specific. "In the number of ancient MSS, attesting a writing, and in the number of years that had elapsed between the original and the attesting MSS., the Bible enjoys a decided advantage over classical writings (those of Homer, Plato, and others) Altogether classical MSS. are but a handful compared with Biblical. No ancient book is so well attested as the Bible. There are possibly 6,000 handwritten copies containing all or part of the Hebrew Scriptures; the oldest dates back to the third century B.C.E.. Of the Christian Greek Scriptures, there are some 5,000 in Greek, the oldest dating back to the beginning of the second century C.E.. In other words as some scholars have noted """No striking or fundamental variation is shown either in the Old or New Testament. There are no important omissions or additions of passages, and no variations which affect vital facts or doctrines. The variations of text affect minor matters, such as the order of words or the precise words used...But their essential importance is their confirmation, by evidence of an earlier date than was hitherto available, of the integrity of our existing texts." London, 1933 p. 15 of "The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri, Sir Frederic Kenyon" So rest easy, the Bible is accurate.

nicely, you will possibly think of so, yet this is the version between the Quran and the Bible... The Bible underwent many distinctive translations and revisions devoid of retaining the originals in tact. The Quran has additionally surpassed by many distinctive translations and revisions, regardless of the indisputable fact that people who've worked on the translations have in no way altered the unique and maximum incorporate the unique Arabic script alongside with those translations. additionally, in spite of the fact that no longer a lot of human beings use Classical Arabic at the instant, this is nevertheless a living language. Aramaic, the language of Jesus (saws) died earlier, and shall we only wager what languages the prophets in the previous him spoke. in spite of the fact that mainstream Christians won't admit to it, even many Christians agree that the Bible in use today is now no longer the unique understand God, and the Catholic church in Europe has desperate to no longer use it as a real account of historic activities. whether the Quran hadn't stated that the Bible have been altered, i might nevertheless locate sufficient information today to return to the tip that it has.

By then there were thousands of copies of the original letters distributed to and between the churches over a large part of the then known world. No doubt every congregation had at least one copy of one epistle or gospel, desiring to own a full set. Tell me how you would head up a committee to round up all those documents so none of the original message would survive? The idea is absurd.

There have been various arrangements of the known letters, some included, some excluded, to present a particular dogma. Some passages were excluded in some Bibles, while some apocryphal works were added that were authored long after the first NT Bible was canonized. Original words in Hebrew and Greek were translated into Latin, then by now every known language. There have been enormous problems in that process, which includes inability of some cultures to comprehend Jewish culture, for instance. The Bible has been modified many times to try dealing with language and cultural barriers. In spite of all that, we still have the original messages of letters read and preached by the first and second century churches.

Well by its very nature the bible is a selective text anyway. It's not one book, or a deliberate anthology, but rather a collection of letters and stories subjectively chosen to be included. Even between denominations there are differences in the number of books of the bible, let alone the content.

But generally this was corrected when the printing press came out and the bible was reinterpreted from the original languages rather than through the common denominator languages with their own meanings.

For example "The eye of a needle" sounds like the eye of a sewing implement - basically impossible for a camel to pass through, but the "eye OF the needle" was a low opening that camels could pass through if they stopped - which is not impossible. That changes context considerably without even thinking to edit it for political reasons.

Ehrman also suggests that the early Christians who put the NT documents together were "uneducated", "illiterate" and "superstitious" and there were at least 5000 different manuscript versions. Something like 'broken telephone among illiterate people' I think that (sadly) describes best the situation. I think that is the main reason why scriptures were later edited, since they anyway probably had been edited all along...definately a possibility in my opinion.

YES...many, many, many, many times. For a great account of WHO changed it and WHY, read Bart Ehrman's great study: "Misquoting Jesus -The Story Behind WHO changed the Bible and WHY".

The major problem, as Ehrman explains, in treating the Bible as the inspired word of God is, we DO NOT HAVE a single ORIGINAL biblical document. What we have are copies, of copies of copies of copies...the earliest of which date ONLY to the Fourth Century after the death of Jesus. So how can we can claim divine inspiration when we do NOT even know what the ORIGINAL words were??? In an early English translation of the King James bible we read: "Thou SHALT committ adultery"....inspired by GOD?????

Scholars in texual criticism, in attempting to reconstruct the originals from the thousands of copies have discovered at least 30,000 VARIANT readings in the earliest texts. That speaks NOT of divine inspiration but of Man's fallibility and (in many cases) forgery.

here is a thought

in different languages, there are times when words can NOT be properly translated into english..........think about that for a moment

so, when i translate something from Hebrew into english, some of the meaning is getting lost

the very fact that there is a translation, the texts are being changed

YES, the texts have been changed

of course it is possible, plausible to say the least! I wouldn't be surprised: there were more scriptures than the ones published in the bible, someone had to make a selection from those of course! who did you think did that? normal people like you and me ofc!

It's not an opinion, it's a fact. To see the additions placed there early on, I recommend you try the Amplified Bible, which is available on-line without the annotations(the annotations explain where the texts have been altered)at http://www.biblegateway.com/

certain books of bible were taken out, but nothing was totally changed, you've got to know that the original language of the bible was written in a dead language now and that tranlation maybe misinterpreted, and what im saying is that back then they used simple words or phrases to describe something to them and now the interpretation could be a little bit different, but the meaning is still the same......for example (not from bible, just my explaination)...if someone was describing a camp fire to you, but they were describing in terms that they understood to be describing it as beautiful or fantastic....and YOU understand it to be big as a bonfire. its still a fire non the less. LOL