'Proof' that the Bible has been changed over the years?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ceciliatherese
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Here is the thing:

Let’s say manuscript number one (1.0) is written. Later on, as copies are made, there are errors, omissions, etc. Now we have 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and so on. Anything other than 1.0 is wrong. A thousand years pass and you have 1.0 -1.9999. Just because there are 9999 variations does not mean that 1.0 was not kept pure. There isn’t an listing if biblical genealogy in the article, so I don’t know how much of this is taken in consideration.

But, as the article states, just because some words change, it doesn’t invalidate the bible as the Word of God. He will protect His word.
 
Looks like they’re excluding the Greek texts, like the Septuagint from considereration. This already poses a problem from a Christain perspective. Most of the quotes or references in the new testament of the old testament, some 300, come from the Septuagint. The Rabbinical Judaism from which this exclusion mainly occurs is because of the presence of the deuterocanon, or extra seven books that appeal to Christian sentiments regarding the coming of the Messiah, and because of a bias against inspired text originating in Greek–which means they also don’t believe the New Testament is inspired either. So, I’m not quite sure how their text would be considered definitive if not all Biblical texts are open to their conderation.
 
ceciliatherese said:
I was wondering what people thought of this article news.yahoo.com/jerusalem-scholars-trace-bibles-evolution-092932128.html and if it’s true that the Bible has ‘evolved’ over the years, is that reconcilable with our faith?
Click to expand...
Yes, the Bible has evolved over the years, and yes, this is reconcilable with our faith. It’s a slightly misleading choice of words, though. The Bible didn’t evolve into something different from what it started out as. It’s just that as copies started spreading around the world and translations were made into other languages and so on, people would make mistakes when they copied it by hand and sometimes they would wrongly correct something that looked like an error in the copy they’re working from, and so on. Most variations are obvious mistakes, but some are deliberate alterations (or seem to be), and that raises issues for people who think every letter of the Bible was somehow written directly by God himself. But such is the case with every single written work ever made.
 
I think the whole Dead Sea Scroll project is to examine the extent of these changes. This could be used as proof that even our oldest Hebrew version(s) could have changed to factors which have been listed already.
 
Referencing the dead sea scrolls, there is an incredible congruity between them and what we know as Scripture today. Just a couple of points: a nearly intact scroll of the entire book of Isiah was found, and comparing it to modern renditions proved almost no differences, except for some minor spelling and small word substitutions that didn’t effect meaning; the book of Tobit was found, which while not included in a protestant Bible, is a included in the Catholic canon. One of the reasons for the exclusion from the protestant canon given by Calvin referencing Jewish rabbinical leaders was that there was no evidence the book was originally written in Hebrew–the only language they felt God would speak or write in. Tobit was found in Hebrew in the Dead Sea Scrolls. But it won’t be a book considered by the team because it was excluded long ago for at least one reason that may not be true.
 
ceciliatherese said:
I was wondering what people thought of this article news.yahoo.com/jerusalem-scholars-trace-bibles-evolution-092932128.html and if it’s true that the Bible has ‘evolved’ over the years, is that reconcilable with our faith?
Click to expand...
Academics have come to recognize the variances that have occurred over time, and it is almost fair to say that the variances are normal and the rigid adherence to a single selected text seems to be unusual.

The better view is to take the version that is the official version or “a” Catholic version and to make the study of variation a part of your bible study.

the fact is, there are mysteries and contradictions within any single, isolated version of the Bible that you care to point to. If you haven’t noticed them, then perhaps your study bible or commentary simply chose to ignore the inherent controversy. after all, they have to draw the line in a finite number of pages of what they’re going to cover.

This is SO complicated and advanced a subject that I don’t think the average Catholic should spend any time worrying about it. I don’t think that every Catholic is a scholar to be able to ferret out the nuances. Leave that to the experts, I say.

Catholic teaching is based on Scripture and Tradition. Whew. That hasn’t changed and you should rest assured on that.

We accept the indwelling of Jesus Christ in the Church and the continual inspiration of the Holy Spirit, so that, in the Church established by JC, we have nothing to worry about.

People HAVE lost their faith not over such advanced projects as this one, but already in the differences in the synoptic gospels themselves. We are admonished in the Church to read the scriptures FIRST with faith and then in the wide limits of the Tradition of the Church. Have we need for MORE this side of eternity?
 
There is NO central authority in Judaism, so don’t look for that or overestimate the authority of this working group. It will take scholars a long time to validate their findings.

Note too, that the Septuagint is the OLDEST version of the Bible in existence. It is simply a human decision for Judaism to center themselves on the Hebrew Masoretic text. Serious Jewish scholars always consult the Septuagint.
 
Crumpy said:
Academics have come to recognize the variances that have occurred over time, and it is almost fair to say that the variances are normal and the rigid adherence to a single selected text seems to be unusual.

The better view is to take the version that is the official version or “a” Catholic version and to make the study of variation a part of your bible study.

the fact is, there are mysteries and contradictions within any single, isolated version of the Bible that you care to point to. If you haven’t noticed them, then perhaps your study bible or commentary simply chose to ignore the inherent controversy. after all, they have to draw the line in a finite number of pages of what they’re going to cover.

This is SO complicated and advanced a subject that I don’t think the average Catholic should spend any time worrying about it. I don’t think that every Catholic is a scholar to be able to ferret out the nuances. Leave that to the experts, I say.

Catholic teaching is based on Scripture and Tradition. Whew. That hasn’t changed and you should rest assured on that.

We accept the indwelling of Jesus Christ in the Church and the continual inspiration of the Holy Spirit, so that, in the Church established by JC, we have nothing to worry about.

People HAVE lost their faith not over such advanced projects as this one, but already in the differences in the synoptic gospels themselves. We are admonished in the Church to read the scriptures FIRST with faith and then in the wide limits of the Tradition of the Church. Have we need for MORE this side of eternity?
Click to expand...
This is the reply that everyone who asks this question should read! You make several excellent points, and we should all thank you for doing so.:D:thumbsup:
 
ceciliatherese said:
I was wondering what people thought of this article news.yahoo.com/jerusalem-scholars-trace-bibles-evolution-092932128.html and if it’s true that the Bible has ‘evolved’ over the years, is that reconcilable with our faith?
Click to expand...
Hi Cecil,
In the end, we do have the truths of the Bible. And it is safe.
I’m not a scholar, but I haven’t read any thing that would impact
our faith and morals adversely. We have the truth.

For more detail on all of the so called “errors” in
the Bible, see:

catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getwork.cfm?worknum=216
 
Remember that back in the day, they didn’t have copy machines, they didn’t have printing press, they didn’t have laser printers, and Microsoft Word with the “track changes” feature. They had scribes and they had written oral tradition. I think people were trained to have really good memory so as to transmit things without errors. But I don’t think the scribes who created written versions were necessarily the human equivalent of copy machines just mechanically writing things down. Handwritten versions of the scriptures took years per copy. I think there was a different sense of what was meant by transmitting things without errors, which is not equivalent to word-for-word copying.
 
Crumpy said:
There is NO central authority in Judaism, so don’t look for that or overestimate the authority of this working group. It will take scholars a long time to validate their findings.

Note too, that the Septuagint is the OLDEST version of the Bible in existence. It is simply a human decision for Judaism to center themselves on the Hebrew Masoretic text. Serious Jewish scholars always consult the Septuagint.
Click to expand...
👍
that was the briefest, most succint explanation of the “Catholic books,” what protestants call the apocrypha, that I have ever read!
 
Bobby_Jim said:
Remember that back in the day, they didn’t have copy machines, they didn’t have printing press, they didn’t have laser printers, and Microsoft Word with the “track changes” feature. They had scribes and they had written oral tradition. I think people were trained to have really good memory so as to transmit things without errors. But I don’t think the scribes who created written versions were necessarily the human equivalent of copy machines just mechanically writing things down. Handwritten versions of the scriptures took years per copy. I think there was a different sense of what was meant by transmitting things without errors, which is not equivalent to word-for-word copying.
Click to expand...
This is true. An early form of writing involved papyrus and later parchment (Romans used coins in some cases), but neither could really last for more than several hundred years. Thus they needed to be copied from time to time. And hand-copying as we all know is very prone to errors. The only way of determining authenticity is to examine several sources and then make a judgement of what the original was. St. Jerome had more access to the many Hebrew, Greek, and the older Latin versions (which were of bad quality) than we have today and consolidated them into the Latin Vulgate. Monks pretty much have copied as best they could into whatever came into the printing press era. Thus came the Clementine version of the Latin Vulgate which is the basis of many of the vernacular translations.
 
The bible is smaller now than when the Douay Rheims was published.

Some parts of verses and phrases have been thrown out in recent translations.

Some of those changes might be defensible but don’t tell me that all of them are.

The Catholic Church believes in the longer ending of Mark while many Protestant translations and the historical criticism don’t believe in anything liberal crowd does not.

Who would you rather bet your soul on–the Catholic Church are these so called experts?
 
ceciliatherese said:
I was wondering what people thought of this article news.yahoo.com/jerusalem-scholars-trace-bibles-evolution-092932128.html and if it’s true that the Bible has ‘evolved’ over the years, is that reconcilable with our faith?
Click to expand...
Of course the Bible has changed over the centuries. But this is just to correct errors which have creeped in , or to take advantage of newly unearthed ancient texts. All these revisions of course are supervised by the Vatican and the Vatican has final say on the final form it takes. This is to protect over all truth of the Word. Certain words may change, certain phrases, etc, but the Inspired Truth is still guaranteed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top