Friend says bible has changed from original

[nmgauss]

The Prophet Muhammad tells of being taunted by Jews and Christians for being left out the divine plan because God had sent the Arabs no prophet and no scripture in their own language. When the Quran was written, it referred to Jews and Christians as “people of the book”.

 

[dronald]

The Prophet Muhammad tells of being taunted by Jews and Christians for being left out the divine plan because God had sent the Arabs no prophet and no scripture in their own language. When the Quran was written, it referred to Jews and Christians as “people of the book”.

To be fair, Muhammad didn’t exactly know the contents of said “book”.

 

[PRmerger]

When the Quran was written, it referred to Jews and Christians as “people of the book”.

Irrelevant.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

nmgauss;12042460]How do all the issues brought up in the last few posts have anything to do with whether the Bible has changed from the original?

The simple answer is you have nmgauss, here’s why?

You introduced the bible has changed. What you presented deals with carbon dating of documents from science, with documents attached with different dating. You do well here, so long as this subject pertains to science.

When nmgauss makes the false implication that science is to dictate faith. Science supports faith when it is all said and done more on this should you wish to pursue such a topic.

Then you maliciously make the false assumption by introducing the Catholic Church councils and early Church Fathers who councils to change the bible.

The full bible was already in liturgical practice throughout the Catholic Christian world, when the Church councils freely from 400 years of persecution, to canonize the bible books we have to today, because it was revealed some Catholic Church’s were in possession of heretical and non inspired letters being used in their liturgies.

In your mixture of science and faith, you yourself welcome the complexity of subjects dealing with the nonsense that the bible has changed. When only science proves that carbon dating points to different dated material of papyrus, which has nothing to do with the bible changing.

For one the carbon dates subject to human error only deal with a copy of a document without no original. Science here does not deal with the subject of faith of the bible being changed or not. It deals primarily with dated material.

Dated material proves nothing that the bible has changed. That is why your view is only speculative never a fact. Here are a few facts for you to chew on.

1. Mileto Bishop of Sardis, c.175 A.D listed existing books we have today as inspired of God while the church is suffering persecution.
2. St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons , 185 A.D continues the list of books we use in our liturgy today. Note however the church is still under persecution and she does not council yet to canonize these list of books yet.
3. Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, c. 325 A.D continues with the list of books while under persecution.
4. Pope Damasus in 382 A.D after the persecution laws are lifted by pagan Rome, the Pope with full authority to do so in possession of the keys of Peter prompted the council of Rome, finally wrote a decree listing the present OT and NT canon of 73 books we have today.

This list of Pope Damasus becomes a target of scrutiny for many centuries to come, the popes list survived every scrutiny any council could deliver, and survived every age to today the same bible of canonized books we have today.

These councils never changed any of the books. They measured them or canonized them with the utmost scrutiny humanly possible to prove their authenticity from the apostles.

The councils that follow Pope Damasus ALL confirmed the same books we have today in the Catholic bible.

Thus the Catholic bible has never changed.

Does bible change from language to language? Yes, Are the bible transcriptors subject to human error? Yes. Do the transcriptors take the latest copy of the original that came to them with missing pieces and then included them into the later carbon dated copies to perfect them and make them whole according to the 2000 year Catholic faith that already practices and teaches on them, Yes.

The Catholic Bible has never changed, because the same Catholic Church who canonized the bible books is still here fully intact with her apostolic faith unchanged.

Peace be with you

 

[KathleenGee]

Amen to that!

The message is Jesus Christ…

The message of Jesus is that He is the Alpha and the Omega.it is always the same, our catechism verifies it with ancient teachings from the Scripture and the Apostles and their successors and the saints, as well as documents from ancient councils, and so on.

Why waste time with compromised and dissenting voices that are not acting out of faith but the continual opposition to the only Church Christ instituted???

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

nmgauss;12045952]I assume the Sheikh is Muslim and has the original Arabic editions of the Koran. If somebody asserts that the Arabic Koran has changed from the original, at least we have modern editions to compare it with. Supposedly it was written by only one person.

What? Islam is still an infant compared to Catholicism. Muhammad does not write the Quran, Quran means to recite. Muhammad recites =Quran what a spirit choked him three times, forcing Muhammad to Quran =recite.

The written Quran is not recorded some centuries after Muhammad’s death, I believe the estimate is 400 to 600 years later before the many authors record the Hadiths attaching themselves to Muhammads Quran =recital.

Simply put the Quran is written by multiple authors claiming to be within Muhammads hearing, that becomes debatable.

That sort of comparison is not possible with the Bible, it was written at various times by various authors using various languages and nobody is quite sure what the original is.

True there is no comparison between the Catholic Bible and the new Quran that comes later which includes known heretical Christian holdings of Arianism, which Muhammad’s brother in law was an Arian Christian priest.

So, has the Bible changed from the original? Since there is no original, the best we can say is that various editions throughout the centuries are different so that what we are using today is not the same as that used 1800 years ago.

We have a living breathing original bible nmgauss; In the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, who gave us the bible we have today. We know this as a matter of uncontested fact, because the Church was living and present when the revelations of Jesus Christ and the apostles handed them down to her orally, by letter and revealed in practice. Carbon dating of materials is left in the dust which speculates from a papyrus and not from recorded history and reality that exists.

Those holding that the Catholic bible has changed have their heads buried in the sand with no where to look to confirm such a speculative claim except by science?

Science remains in a box, it does not venture into faith which appears to be your false view nmgauss, please understand the differences here, in which you are speculating.

The best we can say about science is that science proves that the Catholic Church was living and present in every age since apostolic times to determine which bible books were inspired of God, and which books were written and or taught by the original apostles.

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

nmgauss;12042460]

Catholicism does not focus on the Bible; so why bring up issues that have nothing to do with whether the Bible changed?

nmgauss, Here is a reality check for you; Historically the Bible is a Catholic book.

The new testament was written, copied and collected by Catholic Christians.

The bible we have today was officially and authoritatively determined by the Catholic Church.

For anyone to trust the bible is to trust the infallible authority of the Catholic Church in the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Apart from the Catholic Church we have no bible and we have no other way of knowing which bible books are inspired of God.

For any non-Catholic to quote from the bible, do not have no way of determining which books are inspired or not, unless they accept the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. For these to quote from the bible do so at their own risk of adding, changing, or subtracting from the whole of the bible.

Do Catholics focus on the bible? Attend a Catholic Mass liturgy for three years, and you will have the whole content of the bible not only quoted to you, but taught and defined to you from the apostolic teaching office of the Catholic Church who canonized the bible books.

We do not focus the letter of the page, we focus on the Word of God who is living breathing in our presence resurrected from the dead in Eucharista, when the bible is giving witness to living Word of God. We are never Sola Scriptura Lists, When Catholics are "in Him, with Him and through Him the Word of God made present in both liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. These are all recorded in scripture.

For you to say the bible changed, is to make the false claim that God has changed, when God is the Word.

Your false view does not survive the scrutiny of the laity, how do you pretend your false view could survive the above theological undertakings from our theologians and Magisterium who teach that God is never subject to change.

The Bible is only the starting point. After the Bible comes all the councils and writings of the Saints that have been influenced Catholicism over the centuries.

There is no bible to start with, without the Catholic Church, which existed first before the bible was canonized by the Catholic Church, and She exists before the new testament letters are written.

The Saints are converts into the body of Christ (Catholic Church), you have this backwards. The Church councils canonized the bible and confirmed the bible books as inspired of God. You are mistaken the councils do not come after the bible, they are before the canonization of the bible books.

So has Catholicism changed? Yes, otherwise all the councils were a waste of time.

Why do you keep introducing new subjects to your false theory of the bible has changed, now you redirect the OP to “Catholicism changed”? You are falling victim to your demise and false assertions of the subject not focusing on the topic of the bible has changed.

Wrong again, Catholicism has not changed. The Church councils in order to confirm and define what the Catholic Church already believes in order to prevent the Catholic Church from changing or falling into heresy, for example the bible books to use in Her liturgies.

The Church councils to defeat heretics and heresies and bind and loose them from the Christians faith revealed in Her faith doctrines, which the councils developed their maturity in defending them and defines Her doctrine with clarification from what is already in practice since apostolic times. A Rock the Catholic Church is not subject to change from Her revealed apostolic doctrines.

Look around you, the Catholic Church is the only living institution that has survived every age since apostolic times. All other kingdoms, secular powers have been subjected to change and elimination from the earth.

Even the Jews today have given official recognition that the Catholic Church was founded upon Peter by Jesus of Nazareth.

Did you know history records that all of the Apostolic sees from the apostles fell in and out heresy at one time or another, except the Apostolic see of Peter who has remained “Rock” unchanged since apostolic times. The bishop of Rome which the Pope resides in the chair of Peter is the only apostolic see that has survived every age unchanged and has never subjected the chair of Peter into heresy or heretical teachings.

Also, the writings of famous Catholic theologians since the time of St. John and St. Paul are meaningless.

These never are meaningless to Catholics, for they give witness to what we believe today unchanged from them. The councils confirm their teachings they never change them.

Any discussion of issues other than those pertaining to changes in the Bible are a waste of time in this thread.

Trying to disprove the bible changed, and the Catholic Church changed is useless, because you are basically trying to prove that God is subject to change, when God is never subject to Change who reveals His divine revelations and teachings to His mystical body from which we get the whole of the bible the Catholic Church.

Peace be with you

 

[nmgauss]

I cite studies of biblical scholars as support for my points of view. Scholarly book after scholarly book whose historical conclusions are taught in graduate Divinity Schools and are read by future Popes, Bishops, etc. are common knowledge among the sophisticated students of the Bible.

Yet what I am blasted with here are emotional tirades giving no historical documents for support.

The reason the average parishioner is unaware of these studies is that they don’t advance the agendas of their churches. They are also of esoteric interest and the average church goer does not want any doubt thrown upon his firm conviction.

I saw this kind of attitude in a course I took in the History of Western Civilization as a college undergrad. When we got to the origins of Christianity, many a female student burst out in tears that her beliefs were being shattered. They refused to believe the professor and the literature they were reading.

Continue in your complacence that what you learned in church is the truth, because it makes you feel good. That is the purpose of your church. Some of it may be the truth, but there are many doubtful teachings unsupportable by history.

 

[PRmerger]

I cite studies of biblical scholars as support for my points of view. Scholarly book after scholarly book whose historical conclusions are taught in graduate Divinity Schools and are read by future Popes, Bishops, etc. are common knowledge among the sophisticated students of the Bible.

Yet what I am blasted with here are emotional tirades giving no historical documents for support.

The reason the average parishioner is unaware of these studies is that they don’t advance the agendas of their churches. They are also of esoteric interest and the average church goer does not want any doubt thrown upon his firm conviction.

I saw this kind of attitude in a course I took in the History of Western Civilization as a college undergrad. When we got to the origins of Christianity, many a female student burst out in tears that her beliefs were being shattered. They refused to believe the professor and the literature they were reading.

Continue in your complacence that what you learned in church is the truth, because it makes you feel good. That is the purpose of your church. Some of it may be the truth, but there are many doubtful teachings unsupportable by history.

I haven’t noticed any type of “blasting” here.

Only dialogue.

Only refutations of arguments that you have provided.

But blasting? Not at all.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

:nope:

 

[MartinJordan]

A friend who is Sheikh says the bible has been corrupted and changed over time can some people offer proof it hasn’t I am going to share this link with him

Thanks

Adamski, this is just a sign of desperation. They need something to distract others from what is happening in the Muslim world.

MJ

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

nmgauss;12048249]I cite studies of biblical scholars as support for my points of view. Scholarly book after scholarly book whose historical conclusions are taught in graduate Divinity Schools and are read by future Popes, Bishops, etc. are common knowledge among the sophisticated students of the Bible.

nmgauss no one is blasting you here.

How is it that you have future Catholic popes and bishops attending non-catholic graduate divinity schools?

Secondly, I checked your resources. Your “scholars” do not support your view that the bible has changed. They are Archeologists who are giving a professional opinion of dated materials. They do not possess the license to engage in theological undertakings of the bible has changed. Only the material substances they dig up, they give an opinion to their Archeological findings, the opinions are not based on fact that proves the bible has changed. Your Archeologists write a commentary to their findings to draw (funding) attention to their work that welcomes controversy (attention) to their opinions and theories.

When met with any true Catholic biblical historical theologian, I assure you their opinions will remain opinion and their dated findings remain just that dated materials. Unless you offer another resource you have?

Please do not take a magazine commentary as being your resource to support your view that the bible has changed?

I don’t know if this is your church affiliation which you posted as your resource “CHRISTIAN DISCIPLING MINISTRIES INTERNATIONAL” to be your place of facts?

I read your resource here and it lacks much historical facts and ventures into a 20th century theory of Christianity without any foundational support from any historical facts to prove their theories, especially on the subject of the Trinity.

Be aware that the apostles creed which predates any councils on the Trinity, includes the blessed Trinity and is used in every baptism since biblical times, to which the Catholic Church continues to use the apostles creed and the Trinity today in every sacramental baptism, when the Trinity is used by the original apostles and we have letters post apostolic period conducting baptisms in the name of the Trinity before any council defined the Father, Son and Holy Spirit under the title of Trinity.

Your Christian source of the invention of the Trinity taken from paganism is false, and I would challenge it and disprove it easily in another thread.

In summary, you have not proved that the bible has changed, had you and your sources were to prove the bible changed, you would be on the six o’clock news for many weeks.

**Sorry, but your view and the Sheik Friend who is probably Muslim already knows that their exists 7 Aramaic different interpretations to his Quran that has subjected itself to a change which never compares to Catholicism which only has one interpretation of the bible. **

The protestants and or non-catholics have over thousands of different interpretations to the bible.

To date, the protestants have added to the bible which changed and relabeled canonized books of the bible which changed their bible, including the JW’s and Mormon Church’s who also have added and changed the bible. It is to these whom your false view addresses.

The Catholic Church’s bible has never changed.

I thank you for your posts and time here, and pray you continue the search of Truth and continue to share you views with us.

Peace be with you

 

[KathleenGee]

Most awesome and scholarly post, Gabriel.

Again, we are not members of fleeting human opinion or scholarly research, but of revealed faith that has not changed. We still practice the 10 commandments and the full deposit of faith of Jesus Christ found only in the Catholic Church, again only referring to the fullness of revelation of Christ.

I would suggest that if you are seeking truth, to get hold of a universal Catholic Church Catechism.

 

[PRmerger]

And, fyi…there are many scholars who agree and have written about the same issues as he does. What he talks about, a lot of it he learned in seminary school!

.

Irrelevant.

There’s a lot of things folks can learn in seminary school which are…well, wrong.

 

[PRmerger]

As an author, I must add that…when I discovered that this anecdote was seemingly added to the gospels centuries later…I nodded in understanding with and for the writer who wrote it.
I could imagine that scribe/writer sitting there, copying out the manuscript…and thinking: There must be a better way to Illustrate this point! And coming up with a great anecdote.
It’s a good story–one of the best in there. Perfect, really!
Since it was not included in any early manuscripts that we have, it probably didn’t happen. (Why would it have been left out for centuries if it *did *happen?)
But neither did the parables Jesus told happen too, right?
It’s the meaning of the story that was meant to count.

But indeed…as nmgauss is saying here…those who have spent a lifetime studying these texts see that this story was not in the earliest thousand of manuscripts we have and then it suddenly appeared.
Priests and Christian scholars will tell you the same thing. It’s just…fact, that’s all.

.

Perhaps you have forgotten that you are on a Catholic forum in dialogue with (mostly) Catholics?

We do not believe that Sacred Scripture is the only channel for the Word of God.

You seem to have forgotten about the primacy Sacred Tradition has. In fact, it is the source of Sacred Scripture.

 

[PRmerger]

I’d say the later added verses 16:9-20 to the end of Mark–about Mary M going back and telling the disciples that someone told her Jesus had come back from death…and what the verses say after that about Jesus’s miracles and being baptized --are very significant!
You don’t think so?

.

It’s only significant if it were the only source of the kerygma.

Do you have any documentation that states that the early Church only used Scripture as its source of the gospel?

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t think the OP was asking whether it mattered or not.
They were asking if, indeed, the bible had changed from it’s original. And that it has. I think you are agreeing with this, yes?

.

If the question simply requires a “yes” or “no”, then, as suggested early, it would have been better posed in a medium such as Chacha.com. Ask your question. Get your answer.

However, this is a forum, in which we discuss issues. We dialogue.

As such, the OP question segues to: what is the significance of your point?

And the significance is: not much.

Remember, DaddyGirl, the Catholic faith was whole and entire before a single word of the NT was ever put to writ.

As such, changes in a text matter very little to us.

Our doctrines are not distilled from a book, no matter how holy.

Our doctrines come to us from Christ, through His Apostles.

Not from a book.

 

[PRmerger]

So…then…you are agreeing with me here?
(I don’t understand what you are saying)

I am saying that the Scriptures reflect Sacred Tradition.

The kerygma was already being proclaimed before any words of the NT were put to papyrus. Thus, there was no “additional” ending to Mark that was different from the original message already taught and caught.

 

[PRmerger]

Not significant?

The fact that it’s not included in the original text is not significant.

It’s considered the earliest written account of Mary’s visit to the tomb, isn’t it?!

Probably.

Again, written accounts are not the source of our revelation.

No…I haven’t read specific documents about that.
Did the early Church only use Scripture as its source of the gospel???

.

Nope.

The early Church used the paradosis as its source of the gospel.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, of course it’s great to have a question lead to further discussion. I’m all for that. Though I do notice that moderators here often remind us to stick to the question posed by the OP at hand, and not veer off topic too much, so I’m aware of that, too.
Discussion is good.
But we still want to answer the OP’s question first, don’t we?
And the OP was interested in more than just a Yes/No answer. They asked the question then asked for support to back up the answers.

You are agreeing, then…that there are textual changes in the Christian canon from the original writings???
Your answer to the OP would be “yes”?

.

I have no opinion on the accuracy of the claims regarding whether the text changed from its original writings.

My opinion is: who cares? It’s not significant.

Why?

Because the text is not the source of our revelation.