Is the modern Bible corrupt?

[Holly3278]

Hi everyone. Is the modern Bible corrupt? What evidence do we have that the modern Bible is the same Bible that was originally written or at least close to the same thing?

 

[kepha1]

Human language is limited, but I wouldn’t say it was corrupt. Since there is no perfect human language in which the Bible could be written, we rely on the perfect Holy Spirit to superintend the Church to tell us what the Bible means in the context of what the original writers intended to say.

12. However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, (6) the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.
To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to “literary forms.” For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. (7) For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another. (8)
But, since Holy Scripture must be read and interpreted in the sacred spirit in which it was written, (9) no less serious attention must be given to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture if the meaning of the sacred texts is to be correctly worked out. The living tradition of the whole Church must be taken into account along with the harmony which exists between elements of the faith. It is the task of exegetes to work according to these rules toward a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture, so that through preparatory study the judgment of the Church may mature. For all of what has been said about the way of interpreting Scripture is subject finally to the judgment of the Church, which carries out the divine commission and ministry of guarding and interpreting the word of God. (10)
13. In Sacred Scripture, therefore, while the truth and holiness of God always remains intact, the marvelous “condescension” of eternal wisdom is clearly shown, “that we may learn the gentle kindness of God, which words cannot express, and how far He has gone in adapting His language with thoughtful concern for our weak human nature.” (11) For the words of God, expressed in human language, have been made like human discourse, just as the word of the eternal Father, when He took to Himself the flesh of human weakness, was in every way made like men.

DEI VERBUM

 

[bpbasilphx]

Holly, you seem to worry about a lot of the wrong things.

 

[prodigalson12]

I remember when the dead sea scrolls turned up and how they made the comparison to it and our modern texts, they didn’t really find any deviation between them. That is an important piece of evidence.

 

[thistle]

I agree with the previous poster.
The dead sea scrolls show how accurately scripture has been copied.
The modern Bible is NOT corrupt.

 

[mathematician]

Hi everyone. Is the modern Bible corrupt? What evidence do we have that the modern Bible is the same Bible that was originally written or at least close to the same thing?

If we possessed just three or four manuscripts of the New Testament, and they differed significantly from one another, there would be no realistis way of determining what the original text was. However, there are about 4,000 ancient manuscripts of the NT in existence, and by using the methods of textual (or “lower”) criticism it is possible, with very few exceptions, to recover the original text of the NT with something like 100% certainty.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_criticism

 

[COPLAND_3]

Today we have a great opportunity to have an accurate Bible version as well as ever before, considering we have a vast amount of very ancient Bible manuscripts. I do believe the authors of the Bible wrote their accounts more than once and in more than one language so I don’t believe that there is only one version of each book of the Bible that can be considered original, and that could mean that many variant readings could have been originally been done by the original authors themselves. I have studied textual criticism for years now, and I must say that the more I have learned about the transmission of the Bible the more I have been reassured that we have reliable versions of the Bible, not to mention we have the Apostolic Church that has preserved it for us for 2000 years!

 

[MarkInOregon]

Holly, you seem to worry about a lot of the wrong things.

I don’t know what else Holly worries about–but why would this be a wrong thing to worry about. If her theology is being checked against what the Bible says–and the Bible were to be found to be corrupt–wouldn’t that be something to be concerned about?

Or perhaps in a discussion–someone threw this idea at Holly, she didn’t know how to respond–and she has come here for an answer. Perhaps it would be more useful to provide the answer?

Mark

 

[prodigalson12]

I don’t know what else Holly worries about–but why would this be a wrong thing to worry about. If her theology is being checked against what the Bible says–and the Bible were to be found to be corrupt–wouldn’t that be something to be concerned about?

Or perhaps in a discussion–someone threw this idea at Holly, she didn’t know how to respond–and she has come here for an answer. Perhaps it would be more useful to provide the answer?

Mark

That reminds me of a term “There are no dumb questions”

 

[FightingFat]

Hi everyone. Is the modern Bible corrupt? What evidence do we have that the modern Bible is the same Bible that was originally written or at least close to the same thing?

You have some good answers here already Holly, I was going to make the point about the Dead Sea Scrolls myself, they demonstrated that the modern translations of the OT we have are practically unchanged from the originals. We also have many old manuscripts of the Greek NT. The accusation often comes from the idea that translation corrupts; so the Bible has become like Chinese whispers. Although different translations do offer different understandings, there are some translations truer to the original than others, I would recommend the RSV Catholic edition for a true rendering of the text, also the KJV is very good, although it lacks the deuterocanonical books. Hope this helps!

 

[BerhaneSelassie]

Hi everyone. Is the modern Bible corrupt?

Only as much as the TRANSLATOR or interpreter makes it

What evidence do we have that the modern Bible is the same Bible that was originally written or at least close to the same thing?

We have ancient manuscripts in different languages, the Church Fathers quotes the scriptures, so we can compare it with theirs.

Some of the variations in the bible are spelling since spellings and suffixes change or sometimes a superfluous word is there, regardless the understanding is rarely affected.

 

[Petergee]

If we possessed just three or four manuscripts of the New Testament, and they differed significantly from one another, there would be no realistis way of determining what the original text was. However, there are about 4,000 ancient manuscripts of the NT in existence

Which is far, far more than the number of ancient manuscripts of any secular book. Very many people, events etc of ancient times which everybody takes for granted as facts of history, are not mentioned in ANY extant ancient manuscripts, but our knowledge of them is derived from a single medieval manuscript.

and by using the methods of textual (or “lower”) criticism it is possible, with very few exceptions, to recover the original text of the NT with something like 100% certainty.

And most importantly of all, the Church has infallibly declared that the Bible does not teach any error. And specifically that the Vulgate Latin version contains no error. The Church has also officially approved several different modern English translations as suitable for private reading and study, and approved a much smaller number of translations for liturgical use.

 

[mathematician]

And most importantly of all, the Church has infallibly declared that the Bible does not teach any error. And specifically that the Vulgate Latin version contains no error. The Church has also officially approved several different modern English translations as suitable for private reading and study, and approved a much smaller number of translations for liturgical use.

The Bible isn’t inerrant. To take just one of the best known examples:

MARK 2:26
And he replied, ‘Have you never read what David did in his time of need when he and his
followers were hungry-how he went into the house of God when ABIATHAR was high priest,
and ate the loaves of the offering which only the priests are allowed to eat, and how he
also gave some to the men with him?’

1 SAM 21:1
David then got up and left, and Jonathan went back to the town. David then went to Nob,
to AHIMELECH the priest. Ahimelech came out trembling to meet David and said, ‘Why are
you alone? Why is nobody with you?’ David replied to Ahimelech the priest,
'The king has given me an order and said to me, “Do not let anyone know anything about
the mission on which I am sending you, or about the order which I have given you.”
I have arranged to meet the guards at such and such a place.

Both passages are from the NJB, but (having just checked) you will find the same thing in the Vulgate.

You might be safer with inerrant in matters of faith. Although I am an Anglican, I think that is the Catholic Church’s position.

 

[Mark77]

Holly,

It is good that you are seeking the Truth. Be patient & Trust in Jesus Christ, our Lord & Savior!

Jesus tells us; “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.” (Mt 7:15)

Don’t be swayed by the false arguments of some people, continue to ask questions and when in doubt, trust in Jesus and His One, Holy, Catholic & Apostolic Church. Other groups, both Christian & non-Christian may have some of God’s Truth, but the also omit some & contain false teachings as well. Only the Catholic Church’s Teachings contain the Fullness of Truth as given to us by Jesus & the Holy Spirit!

No country, no government, no other organization, in spite of the sins & weakness of it’s leaders & members, has survived for 2000 years like the Catholic Church.

**Jesus said; “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.” (Mt 16:18)
**
Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

mark

 

[Holly3278]

Thanks everyone for the answers! You have really helped my trust in the Bible to increase!

 

[Ignatius]

Hi everyone. Is the modern Bible corrupt? What evidence do we have that the modern Bible is the same Bible that was originally written or at least close to the same thing?

Actually, You can check it against the Codex Vaticanus, one of the oldest and most respected extant manuscripts of the Greek Bible (Old and New Testament) so you can check them word for word if you like. It has been made available on-line here: orthodoxwiki.org/Codex_Vaticanus. Also there are the 1st century manuscripts found in the Dead Sea scrolls. They are fragile and so are only available to legitimate scholars with the proper training for handling such irreplaceable relics.

 

[Petergee]

The Bible isn’t inerrant. To take just one of the best known examples:

You think you’re clever for regurgitating that old chestnut? That has been discussed since soon after the Gospel was written and throughly refuted. Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants and Jews agree that there were two men considered to be high priest at the one time. That is why the Gospels speak of “during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas”.

Similarly to how Americans still today speak of “President Bush”, “President Clinton” etc. even though they are not the president any more.

You might be safer with inerrant in matters of faith. Although I am an Anglican, I think that is the Catholic Church’s position.

You are mistaken.The Anglicans may have more positions than the Kama Sutra, but proclaimed Catholic dogma is that the Bible has God as its Author and consequently it is inerrant in ALL matters, not just in “matters of faith”.

 

[evidence]

this may help explain the church’s position: catholic.com/thisrock/2008/0805fea4.asp

I’ll quote the last paragraph:
The answer lies in the Greek text. In Mark 2:26, the Greek reads " epi Abiathar archiereos." Fr. Most, in his book, Catholic Apologetics Today, states that the Greek preposition epi takes a generic meaning of time when its object takes the genitive case. Hence, it literally reads “in the days of” or “in the time of Abiathar.” Abiathar’s name was used for this time period as opposed to his father’s because of his greater prominence and popularity among the readers of the Old Testament. Abiathar had a very close association with King David, under whom he became chief priest along with Zadok (cf. 1 Sam. 22:20-2 Sam.).

Many more examples have been used to argue that the Bible contains error, but every one is answerable. Therefore, we can repeat with humility the words of St. Augustine, “And if in these books I meet anything which seems contrary to truth, I shall not hesitate to conclude either that the text is faulty, or that the translator has not expressed the meaning of the passage, or that I myself do not understand” (Letter LXXXII, 3).