Bible Corruptions?

[Snow]

In various discussions here that involve Bible transmission I have repeatedly heard posters claim or assert that there have been errors in transmission or translation. They use the assertion to argue some point that typically they cannot demonstrate short of an appeal to some mysterious alteration in the text. When called on to support their contention, usually there's nothing but silence.

Certainly there have been alterations to the bible - an addition here or there - for example the last dozen or so verses of Mark and the story of the woman taken in adultery, the Johannine Comma, but all those are known. You can point to them and know what was added - it's not a mystery.

Is anyone aware of any of those "mysterious" additions, deletions, or alterations that actually change the meaning of some book or passage? Or is it just smoke and mirrors?

[volgadon]

Can you provide the original texts? No, all we can do is compare various manuscripts within a manuscript family, plus whatever scattered comments there are by early church fathers, so to answer you the way you would like is not feasible. And no, it is not smoke and mirrors either.

[BenRaines]

Snow, I appreciate your thought provoking questions.

Ben Raines

[Snow]

Can you provide the original texts? No, all we can do is compare various manuscripts within a manuscript family, plus whatever scattered comments there are by early church fathers, so to answer you the way you would like is not feasible. And no, it is not smoke and mirrors either.

Thank you for making my point... with another vague reference to mysterious but un-demonstrable corruption.

Are you aware that that from the manuscript history textual critics are able to determine the original text with about 99% accuracy?

[Snow]

Snow, I appreciate your thought provoking questions.

Ben Raines

Thank you

I have some thoughts on corruptions but not in the way that others think. I'd like to hears other's thoughts first.

[Wingnut]

It's been a long time, but I know there is a big chunk of verses in Genesis, which we know about only because of the JST, that talk about Abraham and Melchizedek (if I remember correctly). Something like 25 verses? Again, if I recall correctly, I don't believe their addition changes the information in their chapter, but it certainly adds information and gives greater insight, does it not?

I agree with Ben, though -- very thought-provoking question. Thanks!

[Moksha]

I have wondered if people thought the value of the OT text remainders were corruptible or of less value if they were written post Babylonian captivity times. Were they corrupted or lessened if the Alexandria texts were not included.

Were the NT text remainders lessened without a Q document. Quotations from many years later cannot be judged for accuracy. Was Christianity as a whole lessened by the loss of those texts not making it into the Bible.

Are these questions without answers? Maybe Snow knows.

[volgadon]

Are you aware that that from the manuscript history textual critics are able to determine the original text with about 99% accuracy?

No, I'm not aware of that. Full documentation for that far-fetched claim, please.

[hordak]

In various discussions here that involve Bible transmission I have repeatedly heard posters claim or assert that there have been errors in transmission or translation. They use the assertion to argue some point that typically they cannot demonstrate short of an appeal to some mysterious alteration in the text. When called on to support their contention, usually there's nothing but silence.

Certainly there have been alterations to the bible - an addition here or there - for example the last dozen or so verses of Mark and the story of the woman taken in adultery, the Johannine Comma, but all those are known. You can point to them and know what was added - it's not a mystery.

Is anyone aware of any of those "mysterious" additions, deletions, or alterations that actually change the meaning of some book or passage? Or is it just smoke and mirrors?

There is the whole Almah translation debate .Though it is translation not alteration

[YoungMormonRoyalist]

Even if we had the original texts we don't know the method where by they were originally recorded. Were John, Paul, Amos, Isaiah, etc dictating to someone? Were their sayings being recorded by second, third, or even fourth person hearsay? It's hard to say. Not only the mode of translation, but the means, the time period and the person writing the originals is something one has to factor in.

[rameumptom]

I think that Bart Ehrman produces several translation errors or intentional changes in his writings regarding the New Testament. Between the Gnostic variants and the "proto-orthodoxy" (Ehrman's term), there was constant attempts at changing the writings. Gnostic writings only used portions of Luke as their Gospel, as they claimed Jesus only became the Savior at baptism (God: Today I have chosen/begotten you).

Ehrman states that there are more differences in the early written texts of the New Testament than there are words in the New Testament. Granted, most are not major differences. But that begs the question that if there are that many differences, wouldn't even 1/10th of 1 percent still make for a large number of issues?

Which Bible version do we use to consider corruption of text? One of the newer ones? How about going back to many of the earlier copies, centuries old, and see how they differ (and some of them do differ greatly in teaching/interpretation/intent)?

That's the problem with the Bible, is we usually are just looking at a few modern versions and stating there isn't much difference. Just because modern editors have chosen certain texts to use, while ignoring other ones, does not mean those other versions are not "Bible."

Secondly, what about books that are not in the Bible, but possibly should be? The Dead Sea Scrolls contain copies of all but one book of the Old Testament (Esther). Yet they also contain hundreds of other books, including prophecies of the Messiah, writings claimed to be from Abraham, Melchizedek, and many others. Why don't we add some/all of these to the Bible, and see where discrepancies occur?

I see a problem with your question, which I've seen others also ask, and that is it is incomplete. Since the Bible means different things to different people (KJV, NRSV, with/without Apocrypha, Septuagint/Masoretic, etc), it ends up just being a case of people talking past one another.

Finally, you gave examples of changes in the Bible, yourself. Why not use those examples as evidence of early changes? The Johannine Comma is a perfect example of intent to push the Trinity into the Bible. So what if we now know that? Millions of people have read it in every single copy of the KJV, including Mormons today. And most Christians are not aware of the controversy, even today.

Don't you think you ask a question that you already answered in your OP?

[Gatorman]

But, if he doesn't post it, then he can't prove his point. It does not matter that our own articles of faith suggest that the bible is not translated completely correctly. Since we can factually, scientifically, and according to Snow prove certain problems or mistranslations, then clearly we are intelligent enough to know that those are all the issues there are. Faith has not place in understanding where the bible may have been mistranslated.

For me, it is rather simple. If the bible removes me from Christ, tries to color his teachings, or otherwise destroy someones faith, then I believe it is a mistranslation or mistake. Same as if a person attempts to do the same thing, either by attempting to destroy my faith directly or prove themselves superior.

[HiJolly]

SNOW: Are you aware that that from the manuscript history textual critics are able to determine the original text with about 99% accuracy?

No, I'm not aware of that. Full documentation for that far-fetched claim, please.

Especially when we don't have the originals to compare so we can arrive at a 99% claim. Even if this has been done with other sources and manuscripts, as to set a baseline, caution would be in order, lest we apply something to biblical manuscripts that should not be.

Lay it on us, Snow.

HiJolly

[volgadon]

Since we can factually, scientifically, and according to Snow prove certain problems or mistranslations, then clearly we are intelligent enough to know that those are all the issues there are.

Snow is dead wrong. Here is something for you to ponder, the Dead Sea Scrolls brought to light things about Bible texts that we could not have known before the scrolls were discovered, so to assume that the current errors we know of are all of them, well that is rather naive and hasty.

[Snow]

Snow is dead wrong. Here is something for you to ponder, the Dead Sea Scrolls brought to light things about Bible texts that we could not have known before the scrolls were discovered, so to assume that the current errors we know of are all of them, well that is rather naive and hasty.

I'll be happy to lay out what I think and what my sources are. I will also be specific in regards to accuracy, what it really is (or is 99% a valid #), and what that means. I'll work on it later after my hot date.

... however, I note while you disagree me, even calling me "dead wrong" you have failed completely to respond to the challenge in the OP:

"Is anyone aware of any of those "mysterious" additions, deletions, or alterations that actually change the meaning of some book or passage? Or is it just smoke and mirrors?"

Can I assume that you just don't know - that your argument rest on an appeal to mystery?

[Snow]

But, if he doesn't post it, then he can't prove his point. It does not matter that our own articles of faith suggest that the bible is not translated completely correctly. Since we can factually, scientifically, and according to Snow prove certain problems or mistranslations, then clearly we are intelligent enough to know that those are all the issues there are. Faith has not place in understanding where the bible may have been mistranslated.

For me, it is rather simple. If the bible removes me from Christ, tries to color his teachings, or otherwise destroy someones faith, then I believe it is a mistranslation or mistake. Same as if a person attempts to do the same thing, either by attempting to destroy my faith directly or prove themselves superior.

Okay - which words and phrases have been mistranslated?

[Snow]

In my earlier post I said that the original text is known with about 99% accuracy. That is - through textual criticism and analysis scholars are able to determine the vast majority of the New Testament’s original text. That is not to say that there exists a manuscript that is 99% accurate, but rather through the application of critical analysis over the entire manuscript body, the original text is known to a high degree of certainty. The Old Testament is another matter - we do not have much of an ancient manuscript history to work with. What we do know is something about an ancient culture that at some point developed a model and priority of accurate text transmission.

99% is a common or popular idea. That would make the parts of the NT still in question to be only three pages. Famed textual critics Wescott and Hort said that the parts of the NT "still subject to doubt can hardly amount to more than a thousandth part." [Hunt.IntNT Hunter, Archibald M. Introducing the New Testament. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1945 (that would make up about 1/3 of a page).

Scholars range from less ringing endorsements all the way up to "there are several manuscripts that are quite accurate copies of the original text." [Comf.TNT Comfort, Philip Wesley. The Quest for the Original Text of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992.] and "among the textual variants in the gospels there are only two which throw doubt on more than a verse or two of the traditional text" [Fran.EvJ France, R. T. The Evidence for Jesus. Downers Grove: IVP, 1986.].

Certainly there are thousands of thousands of variant readings in the New Testament manuscript tradition, but of those, 95% are unintentional copyist errors - confusion of similar letters, repetition of words and sentences, etc. [Patz.MNT Patzia, Arthur G. The Making of the New Testament. Downers Grove: IVP.]. The remaining 5% including intentional spelling and grammar improvements, harmonization of similar passages, elimination of textual difficulties and doctrinal changes. I have already made mention of a few of those in the Johannine Comma, the long ending of Mark and the story of the woman taken in adultery; there are others. It is through the discipline of textual that we know of such changes.

The evidence that we know the original text is much much stronger than any evidence that we don’t know the original text. That’s why those that argue corruption do so by waving their hand and making vague references to mysterious alterations - they can’t say what but are oh so certain that it’s true, much like conspiracy nuts who believe that aliens are secretly meddling in the private affairs of midwestern dairy farmers - never mind that there is no evidence, why the very lack of evidence is evidence of a coverup. On the other hand, textual critics have a methodology and can demonstrate it, are peer reviewed, build upon each other’s work, find flaws in their methods, revise their findings to match the reality, etc.

If one is going to argue corruption, the burden is on the one making the claim. I am not going to state categorically that there isn’t corruption (I have elsewhere argued that there is some) but drop the appeals to mystery (and naiveté) and provide evidence for your claims.

[JudoMinja]

There has been revelation from the Lord himself that there is corruption in the Bible-

The eighth article of faith- "We believe the Bible to be the Word of God, so far as it is TRANSLATED CORRECTLY. We also believe the Book of Mormon to be the Word of God."

We also know that The Book of Mormon was a direct translation, from God to one man- Joseph Smith. It was translated by the power of God, and is therefore pure. We can learn more truths through abiding by the precepts taught in the Book of Mormon than if we cling to ANY other book.

The Bible was translated by man. Scholars. While scholars include many of the greatest and most intelligent men on earth, their abilities and intelligences pales in comparison to those of the Lord. Humans are imperfect, and therefore the works of humans are imperfect. The translation of the Bible is not perfect- there are errors and mistakes.

Leaders of the Catholic church, at the time of translation, could and would make alterations if doing so would support them in doing as they please. They wanted to maintain their position of power over the people. They did not have the direct power of God aiding in their translation. Theirs was done through the intelligence and power of men- something proven time and time again throughout history to be corrupt.

I have no direct quotes or examples as you are looking for. Asking for such is the same as seeking proof from the Lord instead of accepting the revelations he has given. Knowledge of missing, added, or altered scripture will come in time- line upon line, precept upon precept- when the world is ready for them in the Lord's eyes.

[RanMan]

I think that Bart Ehrman produces several translation errors or intentional changes in his writings regarding the New Testament. Between the Gnostic variants and the "proto-orthodoxy" (Ehrman's term), there was constant attempts at changing the writings. Gnostic writings only used portions of Luke as their Gospel, as they claimed Jesus only became the Savior at baptism (God: Today I have chosen/begotten you).

Ehrman states that there are more differences in the early written texts of the New Testament than there are words in the New Testament. Granted, most are not major differences. But that begs the question that if there are that many differences, wouldn't even 1/10th of 1 percent still make for a large number of issues?

Which Bible version do we use to consider corruption of text? One of the newer ones? How about going back to many of the earlier copies, centuries old, and see how they differ (and some of them do differ greatly in teaching/interpretation/intent)?

That's the problem with the Bible, is we usually are just looking at a few modern versions and stating there isn't much difference. Just because modern editors have chosen certain texts to use, while ignoring other ones, does not mean those other versions are not "Bible."

Secondly, what about books that are not in the Bible, but possibly should be? The Dead Sea Scrolls contain copies of all but one book of the Old Testament (Esther). Yet they also contain hundreds of other books, including prophecies of the Messiah, writings claimed to be from Abraham, Melchizedek, and many others. Why don't we add some/all of these to the Bible, and see where discrepancies occur?

I see a problem with your question, which I've seen others also ask, and that is it is incomplete. Since the Bible means different things to different people (KJV, NRSV, with/without Apocrypha, Septuagint/Masoretic, etc), it ends up just being a case of people talking past one another.

Finally, you gave examples of changes in the Bible, yourself. Why not use those examples as evidence of early changes? The Johannine Comma is a perfect example of intent to push the Trinity into the Bible. So what if we now know that? Millions of people have read it in every single copy of the KJV, including Mormons today. And most Christians are not aware of the controversy, even today.

Don't you think you ask a question that you already answered in your OP?

I read his book and found it interesting. I'm not sure how accurate his findings are, but I thought several of his points seemed reasonable. There are going to be a number of changes in the various documents over the centuries. Some simple mistakes and some on purpose.

My past discussions of it brought a lot of criticism for doubting the divinity of the Bible, but I think it is silly not to consider that man is fallible and throughout all this time there are bound to be a few errors in our current version of the Bible. However, that being said, I don't think that this reduces the value of the Bible to us. It is through the Holy Spirit that we gain correct understanding of the principles contained in the Bible and I feel that the Spirit is more than capable of overcoming a few minor errors.

:)

[bert10]

Snow, Then let the silence be lifted...here are a few examples...

<> God creates animals and then man - Gen 1:25-26 God creates man and then the animals - Gen 2:18-19.

<> Noah takes 7 pairs of each type of animal onto the ark - Gen 7:2-3 Noah takes one pair of animal onto the ark - Gen 6:19

<> Jacob was buried in a cave in Machpelah's field that was bought from Ephron the Hittite - Gen 50:13 Jacob was buried in a tomb at Shechem bought from the sons of Hamor - Acts 7:15-16

<> Jesus baptised - John 3:22 Jesus did not baptise - John 4:2

And the list goes on.

Some say these errors are not big and have no consequences. But these are errors we know by contrast of what is written in the bible. What we do not have; are ANY of the original manuscripts from pen of the prophets or apostles either in the OT or from the NT. So there is no way to know for sure what is correct or incorrect and what is missing since we have nothing to contrast it. If one does not have the Spirit of God he cannot know the truth.

And so in answer to this. Jesus said...All who ask in faith shall receive, all who seek in faith shall find and all who knock in faith, it shall be opened.

They who put their trust in arms of the Greeks for the NT and the Jews for the OT shall be deceived. And what can the blind translators do about this except to further the way in darkness. These with all their PHD's,degrees in divinity etc....actually open wider the jaws of hell.

I know, that God left enough truth in the scriptures so that people may find their way to Him,,,Spiritually. They who come to a Spiritual God by the Spirit shall find their way. They who tries it, with books shall all fail.

However, the Lord did not leave us blind. In the days of the Restitution of all things...we have the BOM to light our way with greater truths and it is a much quicker High-way than the bible because the BOM contain more truth in their purity.

PEace be unto you

bert10

In various discussions here that involve Bible transmission I have repeatedly heard posters claim or assert that there have been errors in transmission or translation. They use the assertion to argue some point that typically they cannot demonstrate short of an appeal to some mysterious alteration in the text. When called on to support their contention, usually there's nothing but silence.

Certainly there have been alterations to the bible - an addition here or there - for example the last dozen or so verses of Mark and the story of the woman taken in adultery, the Johannine Comma, but all those are known. You can point to them and know what was added - it's not a mystery.

Is anyone aware of any of those "mysterious" additions, deletions, or alterations that actually change the meaning of some book or passage? Or is it just smoke and mirrors?

Edited January 9, 2010 by bert10

[Snow]

There has been revelation from the Lord himself that there is corruption in the Bible-

You guys are so predictable - thank you for making my point... can't say how, what or where but you certain of it because someone told you that's what you're supposed to believe.

We also know that The Book of Mormon was a direct translation, from God to one man- Joseph Smith. It was translated by the power of God, and is therefore pure.

Pure? That's demonstrably untrue. The Book of Mormon contains verbatim sections of the KJV Book of Isaiah that have errors in them.

Leaders of the Catholic church, at the time of translation, could and would make alterations if doing so would support them in doing as they please. They wanted to maintain their position of power over the people. They did not have the direct power of God aiding in their translation. Theirs was done through the intelligence and power of men- something proven time and time again throughout history to be corrupt.

Okay - which leaders and specifically what were corruptions?

I have no direct quotes or examples as you are looking for. Asking for such is the same as seeking proof from the Lord instead of accepting the revelations he has given. Knowledge of missing, added, or altered scripture will come in time- line upon line, precept upon precept- when the world is ready for them in the Lord's eyes.

Figures. Make up a bogus accusation against the Catholic Church and act like asking for evidence is unreasonable.

[Snow]

Snow, Then let the silence be lifted...here are a few examples...

<> God creates animals and then man - Gen 1:25-26 God creates man and then the animals - Gen 2:18-19.

<> Noah takes 7 pairs of each type of animal onto the ark - Gen 7:2-3 Noah takes one pair of animal onto the ark - Gen 6:19

Those aren't corruptions per se. Those of the work of separate authors writing their own versions that were later redacted into one account - The Book of Genesis.

[WillowTheWhisp]

Pure? That's demonstrably untrue. The Book of Mormon contains verbatim sections of the KJV Book of Isaiah that have errors in them.

Can you be more specific about what those errors are?

[rameumptom]

One problem with the claim of 99% for the NT, is deciding what should really be IN the NT. Which New Testament? Early on, there were dozens of other books considered inspired by early Christians written in their time: Shepherd of Hermas, for example. Suddenly, the 99% doesn't hold, as there is just as much claim for the Shepherd of Hermas to be in the NT as there is for the book of Hebrews (which was not written by Paul) or any of the Gospels.

I suppose if you clamp down on the criteria, you can make any statistic hold true. But that isn't the case here.

[volgadon]

but you certain of it because someone told you that's what you're supposed to believe.

Doesn't sound too different from you, honestly.