Last Re-write of the bible

[ConfusedTim]

I was talking to an atheist who said that the bibel has been re-written lots of time over the past few thusand years. I said that it had more or less been the same since the council of Nicea. Can you please confirm one way or another?

 

[juliamajor]

I was talking to an atheist who said that the bibel has been re-written lots of time over the past few thusand years. I said that it had more or less been the same since the council of Nicea. Can you please confirm one way or another?

I’m not too clear what you mean- are you talking about translations?Manuscripts?What in particular.?

 

[Wildgraywolf]

The bible has never been re-written, at least not by the Church. Prior to the printing press the bible had to be painstakingly copied by hand. Is that what your atheist acquaintance means; copied = re-written?

 

[PJM]

I was talking to an atheist who said that the bibel has been re-written lots of time over the past few thusand years. I said that it had more or less been the same since the council of Nicea. Can you please confirm one way or another?

There have been more translations in the past 100 years than in the previous 1,700!

The Latin Vulgate was written about 350 AD, and was the ONLY bible until really the KJV, in the early 1,600’s.

Today because of the floursishing numbers of Chrsitian Denominations, which, World Wide number about 30,000 different sects, has caused more than one Protestant Bible to be published, even though the KJV is far and away the most popular.

In the realm of Catholic Bibles, there has been a recent (last 50 years or so) effort to make our bible “more user friendly” (and a few attents to dumb down teaching… NA Lk. Ch 1 for example) so we have the New American used at Mass, thr NIV, the revised NIV, the St. Joseph and others… these bibles very nearly reconcile with the Douey Rheimes first English translation in the late 1.500’s.

Love and prayer’s

 

[tobinatorstark]

There have been more translations in the past 100 years than in the previous 1,700!

very true

The Latin Vulgate was written about 350 AD, and was the ONLY bible until really the KJV, in the early 1,600’s.

Wrong. The Vulgate wasn’t commissioned by St. Pope Damasus I until 382 and wasn’t complete until around 400. St. Jerome is the one who translated them from the original tongue to Latin. Wrong again on saying the Latin Vulgate was the only Bible until the KJV in the early 1600’s. The Wycliffe appeared around 1384, Luther’s Bible was put together in the early 1500s. You have the Tyndale NT that appeared in 1525, Matthews Bible, Coverdale, Tarverner, Great Bible all appeared in the 1530’s. Geneva Bible and Bishops Bible came out in 1560 and 1568 respectively. The Rheims NT was completed in 1582 and the Douay OT in 1609. A full version released in 1610 (Douay-Rheims). The King James Version appeared in 1611.

Today because of the floursishing numbers of Chrsitian Denominations, which, World Wide number about 30,000 different sects, has caused more than one Protestant Bible to be published, even though the KJV is far and away the most popular.

In the realm of Catholic Bibles, there has been a recent (last 50 years or so) effort to make our bible “more user friendly” (and a few attents to dumb down teaching… NA Lk. Ch 1 for example) so we have the New American used at Mass, thr NIV, the revised NIV, the St. Joseph and others… these bibles very nearly reconcile with the Douey Rheimes first English translation in the late 1.500’s.

The NIV and TNIV and NIrV are Protestant (blatantly). St. Joseph is used to refer to the NAB in most cases, but not all cases. The NAB doesn’t reconcile with the Douay (not Douey). Nor was the Douay-Rheims the first English Translation. It however was the first Catholic English translation. Why would we need to make our Catholic Bibles more user friendly??? It isn’t about readability, its about accuracy.
Love and prayer’s

 

[adowcday]

There have been minor changes introduced through copying over the first few centuries as noted by another post, but these aren’t rewrites. Also, none of the various translations are re-writes of the bible, even those that are paraphrases. I think your atheist friend is simply wrong. Those who attack Christianity aren’t always well informed or well reasoned.

 

[NotWorthy]

There have been minor changes introduced through copying over the first few centuries as noted by another post, but these aren’t rewrites. Also, none of the various translations are re-writes of the bible, even those that are paraphrases. I think your atheist friend is simply wrong. Those who attack Christianity aren’t always well informed or well reasoned.

This is correct. The last chapter of John and Mark’s Gospel may have been added by a disciple of theirs, but the Church teaches that these appenders were inspired as well.

The doxology at the end of the Lord’s Prayer may have been added by a copyist. It seems that the story of the woman caught in adultery, in John chapter 8, was omitted and then re-instated. The verse in John 5:4 - “For [from time to time] an angel of the Lord used to come down into the pool; and the water was stirred up, so the first one to get in [after the stirring of the water] was healed of whatever disease afflicted him.” - seems to have been added by someone in the 2nd or 3rd century. But all these changes are minor and do not re-work the teaching of the Bible (except that little chapter 8 omission which has been fixed).

 

[garysibio]

I was talking to an atheist who said that the bibel has been re-written lots of time over the past few thusand years. I said that it had more or less been the same since the council of Nicea. Can you please confirm one way or another?

He’s making the assertion. Make him prove it.

Gary

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I was talking to an atheist who said that the bibel has been re-written lots of time over the past few thusand years. I said that it had more or less been the same since the council of Nicea. Can you please confirm one way or another?

Could the atheist have been talking about textual variants ?** If** it had been re-written, one might expect Jews to exploit this, as proof of how disrespectful Christians were to the Bible. They have not. A lot of people have very little understanding of the Bible - unfortunately, such ignorance never stopped anyone holding forth about it. Don’t be over-awed, is my advice; but make sure you “know your stuff” ​

 

[Verbum]

Hi Tim,

Why are you taking on the burden of proof? It’s up to the atheist to prove his point. You can then take it from there.

Verbum

 

[luciasclay]

The Latin Vulgate was written about 350 AD, and was the ONLY bible until really the KJV, in the early 1,600’s.

Not disagreeing rather adding more. Even the latin translation of that period were not the first, I base this on comments I have read in Eusebius. But it did, as you point out, become the official standard.

In the latin world the Vulgate was the primary scripture. But outside the latin world, ie. the Eastern Church, there remained Greek, Slavonic, and other translations.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I’m not too clear what you mean- are you talking about translations?Manuscripts?What in particular.?

Maybe the atheist, if asked, would be rather hazy about which of the possibilities was meant - some people have very over-simplified & inadequate ideas about how the Biblical books were formed & canonised & preserved ​

 

[ConfusedTim]

The atheist made the accusation about the bible being re-written dozens of times in a web forum- viewed by hundreds of christians and non christians… I want to be able to refute the point that the Cathholic bible has been changed

 

[NotWorthy]

The atheist made the accusation about the bible being re-written dozens of times in a web forum- viewed by hundreds of christians and non christians… I want to be able to refute the point that the Cathholic bible has been changed

Ask him to define “re-write”. Is he claiming that whole books have been changed, added, or deleted? Or is he claiming that a verse here or a verse there has crept in.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

I’m not taking up for the athiest in any manner whatsoever but it is true that many translations of the bible do Re-Write the truth that is in it.

That’s not an excuse for the athiest to use to try to avoid seeking out the truth that is the bible.

It is however a sin by the translators of such untrue bibles that not only affects them but brings into greater danger the souls of those who have yet to be converted like the athiest.