Friend says bible has changed from original

[Cromwell4]

Count C:
However with that being said, I can not remember exactly what the Sheiks practice.
I just remember the dagger, bracer, and stance on hair cuts.
A sheik and a sikh are quite two different traditions and religions.

 

[nmgauss]

And another question…so the Bible has changed…what does it prove?

This thread does not ask, “What does it prove?”
It asks, “Has the Bible changed from the original”? Whether it proves anything is irrelevant. These are all tangential issues.

What is relevant is “Has the Bible Changed?” period. That is all. Nothing more.

 

[nmgauss]

Well…why don’t you do this:

Cite a passage from the Bible…show where it has changed from the original( or as early as you can) to the present, with a comparison.

Then cite the teaching of the CC that was originally taught or believed by the CC, but because of that change or alteration of the passage, that caused a change in belief or what is being taught by the CC…

Why would I want to do any of this? If you wanted to do your own digging, you could easily come across scholarly articles showing the differences.

And what does that have to do with the teaching or belief of the CC? The CC can put whatever slant it wants to promote its program. That is what the Reformation is all about.

 

[pablope]

Why would I want to do any of this? If you wanted to do your own digging, you could easily come across scholarly articles showing the differences.

You are the one with a claim to prove.

And what does that have to do with the teaching or belief of the CC? The CC can put whatever slant it wants to promote its program.

And what slant has the CC put or want to promote?

That is what the Reformation is all about.

So what is it about the Reformation? It has caused more divisions and schisms and confusion in Christianity more than anything else.

Why don’t you read this and to give you a different perspective on the Reformation ):

Why Catholicism Makes Protestantism Tick: Louis Bouyer on the Reformation | Mark Brumley

ignatiusinsight.com/features/mbrumley_bouyer1_nov04.asp

Yet we can go further than decrying the Reformation as unnecessary. In his ground-breaking work, The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism, Louis Bouyer argued that the Catholic Church herself is necessary for the full flowering of the Reformation principles. In other words, you need Catholicism to make Protestantism work–for Protestantism’s principles fully to develop. Thus, the Reformation was not only unnecessary; it was impossible. What the Reformers sought, argues Bouyer, could not be achieved without the Catholic Church.

From Bouyer’s conclusion we can infer at least two things. First, Protestantism can’t be all wrong, otherwise how could the Catholic Church bring about the “full flowering of the principles of the Reformation”? Second, left to itself, Protestantism will go astray and be untrue to some of its central principles. It’s these two points, as Bouyer articulates them, I would like to consider here.

 

[nmgauss]

I have cited several authors who have studied changes in the Bible over the centuries, including Bruce Metzger and Bart Ehrman.

And what slant has the CC put or want to promote?

Every religion has an agenda. It chooses the literature and doctrines it wants to promote.
That is true of Catholicism as well as Protestantism.

So what is it about the Reformation?

You mean I have to bring up the name of Martin Luther as a reminder about why Luther disagreed with the Church?

 

[dronald]

]

I have cited several authors who have studied changes in the Bible over the centuries, including Bruce Metzger and Bart Ehrman.

Yes. You said that authors believe such is so, but provided no evidence. Please provide evidence of what passages were changed and how it affects Scripture.

I understand this is a weak position of yours so you want to be as blunt and quick with your answers as possible, ignoring any scholarly research or statistics that claim contrary; but I’m sure you’d like to be taken seriously.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes. You said that authors believe such is so, but provided no evidence. Please provide evidence of what passages were changed and how it affects Scripture.

I third the request. First pablope asked. Then dronald. And now PR.

I simply amend the above to say: Please cite a Scripture verse that has changed. And how does this verse alter the kerygma?

 

[PRmerger]

This thread does not ask, “What does it prove?”
It asks, “Has the Bible changed from the original”? Whether it proves anything is irrelevant. These are all tangential issues.

What is relevant is “Has the Bible Changed?” period. That is all. Nothing more.

It is indeed relevant to ask, “What does it prove?” as a natural segue to your (as yet unsubstantiated) claim that the Bible has changed.

Otherwise what you are positing has as much impetus as your coming to a Catholic forum and saying, “Here’s a rock that is 10,000 years old! Thus, the earth is older than 6000 years old!”

We Catholics would respond with: so what? The Church doesn’t teach that the earth is 6000 years old.

 

[PRmerger]

I have read Karen Armstrong, Bart Ehrman, and Bruce Metzger, and they all point out that the Bible has changed over the 2000 years of its existence.

You must understand how we find your appeal to “scholarly resources” suspect when you refer us to such laughably unerudite sources as this ridiculous site:

This is wishful thinking. Look at the following:
christiandmi.org/docs/tracts/21-HowTheTrinityBecameAChurchDoctrine.pdf

 

[nmgauss]

I third the request. First pablope asked. Then dronald. And now PR.

I simply amend the above to say: Please cite a Scripture verse that has changed. And how does this verse alter the kerygma?

"Mark gives no accounts of anyone seeing Jesus as Matthew, Luke, and John later report. In fact, according to Mark, any future epiphanies or “sightings” of Jesus will be in the north, in Galilee, not in Jerusalem.
This original ending of Mark was viewed by later Christians as so deficient that not only was Mark placed second in order in the New Testament, but various endings were added by editors and copyists in some manuscripts to try to remedy things. The longest concocted ending, which became Mark 16:9-19, became so treasured that it was included in the King James Version of the Bible, favored for the past 500 years by Protestants, as well as translations of the Latin Vulgate, used by Catholics. This meant that for countless millions of Christians it became sacred scripture–but it is patently bogus. You might check whatever Bible you use and see if the following verses are included–the chances are good they they will be, since the Church, by and large, found Mark’s original ending so lacking.
Here is that forged ending of Mark:

Now when he rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons. She went and told those who had been with him, as they mourned and wept. But when they heard that he was alive and had been seen by her, they would not believe it. After these things he appeared in another form to two of them, as they were walking into the country. And they went back and told the rest, but they did not believe them. Afterward he appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining at table, and he rebuked them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who saw him after he had risen. And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover. So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God. And they went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by accompanying signs.

Even though this ending is patently false, people loved it, and to this day conservative Christians regularly denounce “liberal” scholars who point out this forgery, claiming that they are trying to destroy “God’s word.”
biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/new-testament/the-strange-ending-of-the-gospel-of-mark-and-why-it-makes-all-the-difference/

 

[PRmerger]

"Mark gives no accounts of anyone seeing Jesus as Matthew, Luke, and John later report. In fact, according to Mark, any future epiphanies or “sightings” of Jesus will be in the north, in Galilee, not in Jerusalem.
This original ending of Mark was viewed by later Christians as so deficient that not only was Mark placed second in order in the New Testament, but various endings were added by editors and copyists in some manuscripts to try to remedy things. The longest concocted ending, which became Mark 16:9-19, became so treasured that it was included in the King James Version of the Bible, favored for the past 500 years by Protestants, as well as translations of the Latin Vulgate, used by Catholics. This meant that for countless millions of Christians it became sacred scripture–but it is patently bogus. You might check whatever Bible you use and see if the following verses are included–the chances are good they they will be, since the Church, by and large, found Mark’s original ending so lacking.
Here is that forged ending of Mark:

Now when he rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons. She went and told those who had been with him, as they mourned and wept. But when they heard that he was alive and had been seen by her, they would not believe it. After these things he appeared in another form to two of them, as they were walking into the country. And they went back and told the rest, but they did not believe them. Afterward he appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining at table, and he rebuked them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who saw him after he had risen. And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover. So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God. And they went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by accompanying signs.

Even though this ending is patently false, people loved it, and to this day conservative Christians regularly denounce “liberal” scholars who point out this forgery, claiming that they are trying to destroy “God’s word.”
biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/new-testament/the-strange-ending-of-the-gospel-of-mark-and-why-it-makes-all-the-difference/

Please address my question: this alters the kerygma, how?

 

[nmgauss]

Please address my question: this alters the kerygma, how?

Whether it alters the kerygma is irrelevant. The question was asked to provide evidence of changes in the Bible. I have done so.

 

[nmgauss]

Addition of story of adulteress to the Gospel of John after originally written:

John 7:53-8:11 in the New Revised Standard Version:

2 Early in the morning he came again to the temple. All the people came to him and he sat down and began to teach them. 3 The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery; and making her stand before all of them, 4 they said to him, ‘Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. 5 Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?’ 6 They said this to test him, so that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, ‘Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.’ 8 And once again he bent down and wrote on the ground. 9 When they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the elders; and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. 10 Jesus straightened up and said to her, ‘Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?’ 11 She said, ‘No one, sir.’ And Jesus said, ‘Neither do I condemn you. Go your way, and from now on do not sin again.’
The pericope is not found in any place in any of the earliest surviving Greek Gospel manuscripts; neither in the two 3rd century papyrus witnesses to John - P66 and P75; nor in the 4th century Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. The first surviving Greek manuscript to contain the pericope is the Latin/Greek diglot Codex Bezae of the late 4th or early 5th century.

The Early church Fathers Volume 7 by Philip Schaff (public domain) pp. 388-390, 408

Clontz, T.E. and J., “The Comprehensive New Testament”, Cornerstone Publications (2008), p. 571, ISBN 978-0-9778737-1-5

The Early church Fathers Volume 8: The Twelve Patriarchs, Excerpts and Epistles, The Clementia, Apocrypha, Decretals, Memoirs of Edessa and Syriac Documents, Remains of the First - by Philip Schaff (public domain) pp. 607, 618

 

[PRmerger]

Whether it alters the kerygma is irrelevant. The question was asked to provide evidence of changes in the Bible. I have done so.

Then the Catholic response is: so what?

It doesn’t change the kergyma one iota.

 

[dronald]

nmgauss; I’m glad you finally posted something, even though it was basically all I could expect, especially considering these passages have been discussed at length among all Church’s.

So now that you’ve actually cited something, perhaps we can discuss it? Although, i wouldn’t be surprised if you’re content with a couple quotes then dropping the whole discussion, perhaps we can continue.

"Mark gives no accounts of anyone seeing Jesus as Matthew, Luke, and John later report. In fact, according to Mark, any future epiphanies or “sightings” of Jesus will be in the north, in Galilee, not in Jerusalem.
This original ending of Mark was viewed by later Christians as so deficient that not only was Mark placed second in order in the New Testament, but various endings were added by editors and copyists in some manuscripts to try to remedy things. The longest concocted ending, which became Mark 16:9-19, became so treasured that it was included in the King James Version of the Bible, favored for the past 500 years by Protestants, as well as translations of the Latin Vulgate, used by Catholics. This meant that for countless millions of Christians it became sacred scripture–but it is patently bogus. You might check whatever Bible you use and see if the following verses are included–the chances are good they they will be, since the Church, by and large, found Mark’s original ending so lacking.
Here is that forged ending of Mark:

Now when he rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons. She went and told those who had been with him, as they mourned and wept. But when they heard that he was alive and had been seen by her, they would not believe it. After these things he appeared in another form to two of them, as they were walking into the country. And they went back and told the rest, but they did not believe them. Afterward he appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining at table, and he rebuked them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who saw him after he had risen. And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover. So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God. And they went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by accompanying signs.

Irenaeus at the age of about forty-seven to sixty quotes the long ending of Mark. The quote is as follows:

(177) Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: “So then, after the Lord had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God;” [Mark 16:19] confirming what had been spoken by the prophet: “The LORD said to my Lord, Sit Thou on My right hand, until I make Thy foes Thy footstool.” [Psalm 110:1] Thus God and the Father are truly one and the same; He who was announced by the prophets, and handed down by the true Gospel; whom we Christians worship and love with the whole heart, as the Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things therein.

Do you believe that Irenaeus was a part of the great conspiracy to add the long ending of Mark to the Gospel? Was he mistakin to put it in, even though he was one of the greatest theologians of that time? Would you also say that Irenaeus being a Disciple of Polycarp is a conspiracy, and Polycarp being the Disciple of John? Perhaps it was one big attempt to change and corrupt Mark.

The long ending is missing from our earliest condex’s, but is found in a ECF quote. What’s even more compelling is Irenaeus’s life, being born between 115-130 in a Christian home, eventually becoming a Bishop. A man like that would know his writings, and it’s amazing that he accepted the long ending.

How do you respond to this?

 

[dronald]

Addition of story of adulteress to the Gospel of John after originally written:

John 7:53-8:11 in the New Revised Standard Version:

2 Early in the morning he came again to the temple. All the people came to him and he sat down and began to teach them. 3 The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery; and making her stand before all of them, 4 they said to him, ‘Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. 5 Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?’ 6 They said this to test him, so that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, ‘Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.’ 8 And once again he bent down and wrote on the ground. 9 When they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the elders; and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. 10 Jesus straightened up and said to her, ‘Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?’ 11 She said, ‘No one, sir.’ And Jesus said, ‘Neither do I condemn you. Go your way, and from now on do not sin again.’
The pericope is not found in any place in any of the earliest surviving Greek Gospel manuscripts; neither in the two 3rd century papyrus witnesses to John - P66 and P75; nor in the 4th century Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. The first surviving Greek manuscript to contain the pericope is the Latin/Greek diglot Codex Bezae of the late 4th or early 5th century.

The Early church Fathers Volume 7 by Philip Schaff (public domain) pp. 388-390, 408

Clontz, T.E. and J., “The Comprehensive New Testament”, Cornerstone Publications (2008), p. 571, ISBN 978-0-9778737-1-5

The Early church Fathers Volume 8: The Twelve Patriarchs, Excerpts and Epistles, The Clementia, Apocrypha, Decretals, Memoirs of Edessa and Syriac Documents, Remains of the First - by Philip Schaff (public domain) pp. 607, 618

This is my favourite. Why in the world would anyone in the first century make this story up? Your answer must be “well they just did.” But why?

“The woman caught in adultery” is a disgusting story that goes exactly against the nature of God, and Jesus Christ would have never, ever done anything like let a woman get away for being an adulterous. Such is a terrible, disgusting crime and there’s really no room for forgiveness for it, even from Jesus.

Does what I said sound terrible? It does now; but imagine you’re living in the first century. The idea that Jesus could possibly forgive a woman caught in adultery would have been repulsive to a generation living in that time, however we have Papias commenting on the story as early as the first century. However he only comments on a “woman accused of many sins” and mentions it in the “Gospel of the Hebrews.”

Jerome mentions that the story is found in many Latin manuscripts, however as one would travel East it would be less and less likely to be included. The big question is, “Is the story original to John” rather than “Is the story authentic.”

Got any more?

 

[benhur]

So far, most the recent posts in this thread contribute nothing to answering the question: Has the Bible changed from the original?

Since we have no original copies, we cannot answer that definitively. But based on scholarly research of the several thousand manuscripts that have survived, we have to conclude that the Bible has changed.

The Bible is a collection of about 70 books.

It was written over a period of some 1,500 years, from around 1450 B.C. (the time of Moses) to about 100 A.D. (following the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ).

Thus there is no “original Bible”.

Just as Moses body could not be found after his death, it was most certainly at the mount of transfiguration. The bible in its perfect intent and form is not hidden from God. It’s there whether you see it or believe it or not. As to demanding perfect translations or book inclusion is like demanding Moses look exactly like he did on the day he parted the Red Sea. Any Moses is capable of throwing the book at us, leaving us in perfect trouble.

 

[nmgauss]

So now that you’ve actually cited something, perhaps we can discuss it? Although, i wouldn’t be surprised if you’re content with a couple quotes then dropping the whole discussion, perhaps we can continue.

Irenaeus at the age of about forty-seven to sixty quotes the long ending of Mark.

Do you believe that Irenaeus was a part of the great conspiracy to add the long ending of Mark to the Gospel? Was he mistakin to put it in, even though he was one of the greatest theologians of that time? Would you also say that Irenaeus being a Disciple of Polycarp is a conspiracy, and Polycarp being the Disciple of John? Perhaps it was one big attempt to change and corrupt Mark.

Whatever motivation there was to add extra text to Mark I would say that they did not corrupt it. The extra text came from another source, but so what? The result has been accepted as canon. Being an integral part of the Gospel of Mark, if it improves on the original, then maybe the purported conspiracy from John to Polycarp to Irenaeus was to enhance the original. Whether Mark was inspired to write these words or Irenaeus makes little difference. The canon version is not the original.

 

[nmgauss]

This is my favourite. Why in the world would anyone in the first century make this story up? Your answer must be “well they just did.” But why?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Whether it alters the kerygma is irrelevant. The question was asked to provide evidence of changes in the Bible. I have done so.

I beg to differ; your implying that if the bible changed so did the Kerygma. There exists an abundance of evidence that the Catholic faith has never changed since apostolic times. Let us be clear here.

First of all your claiming the Canonized bible changed according to transcriptions, languages and or additions. When the scriptures clearly state no one may add or subtract from the Word of God. This is one subject which the Church adamantly subscribes too at all times, thus the Canon of scripture we have today.

Your supposed additions according to documentation come too late, because the supposed additions were already revealed by apostolic letters who quote them prior to the dated supposed additions. Which reveals the Catholic faith was already fully intact prior to your dated additions.

Secondly; you have no original letters to compare them, but we do have the factual accounts of the faith revealed by practice and letters that subscribes to your later dated added additions. In other words the Catholic faith and practice predates any of your materialdated works. Thus the 2000 year old Catholic faith disproves any false additions or subtractions from God’s Word.

Which leaves your view or opinion merely to speculate from copied transcriptions subject to human error, when your speculation as no original text to measure up against the copied biblical text.

Your speculation should not be the bible changed, but what happened to the originals? Speculation can suggest that, Saul from Tarsus and pagan Romans who persecuted and arrested the apostles and Christians during the first century confiscated many of the originals and copied letters and burned them.

How then did the original teachings get handed down? Simple by the Apostolic successors who still had the ringing of the original apostles voices in their ears, by Oral Sacred Tradition handed down the teachings and revelations of Jesus Christ.

What pieces of the original letters that did not get confiscated by the Jews and Roman soldiers, (when they invaded and raided the Christians underground liturgical practices) the immediate apostolic successors from the original apostles included the missing endings or missing oral teaching from the originals. Thus you have your additional post dated writings which appears as an addition, but it never is, because the faith was already fully intact that preached on these particular biblical events.

Our Catholic bible is not ONLY written on a letter, but our Catholic bible is living and breathing. Evidence of this is revealed from our 2000 year old faith unchanged symbolized in the apostolic successors. When ever you view a Catholic bishop dressed in his vestments, the two ribbons freely exposed from his miter represent both the old and new testaments. The apostolic successors are living proof of a walking, talking, breathing bible.

You can remove the bible today all together just as the Jews and pagan Rome tried to do from the gates of hell. Yet history records these never prevailed and never will, that is a promise from God, Because our bible is living and breathing, we are not a faith of the book as you falsely believe, the bible book gives testimony of the Word of God unchanged in the Catholic church.

There is one thing I would give credit to your false implications of the changes or additions to the CANONIZED biblical letters. Your argument only disproves the Sola Scriptura faith, which is an invention by men, never revealed by God to our humanity.

Peace be with you