Bible Corruptions?

[mnn727]

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

And are you aware that since there are no original texts this is a completly made up number based on guesses and good wishes?

[volgadon]

I also get the distinct impression that were any textual critics to be reading this thread they would be in stiches over Snow's assertions, "if only!" would be their reaction.

[Elgama]

guessing from the thread the JST isn't what you are after lol? We don't know anything for sure its as much a matter of faith as any other part of being a Latter Day Saint.

HOWEVER there are things we do know which would make a probable scenario - the Bible is a very old collection of writings, we do not even know for sure who wrote them down first, if Moses was the first then he took down an oral tradition, and we all know how Chinese whispers works by the time he takes down the story it won't be the original story - so probably errors there.

The Bible itself tells us the Hebrew people went through long periods of corruption, where they were taken into captivity, we know from history that the traditions of the Hebrew people went through some interesting times with their beliefs, its not unreasonable to assume the scriptures were tweaked for human convenience during these times, with Pharisees in the New Testament wouldn't be surprised if they didn't either.

The Bible has been through many translations into many languages - people talk about the original Hebrew but do we even know what that is? they were influenced for long periods by the Egyptians and the Babylonians etc If I was to start typing this into medieval English or Anglo Saxon a mere 1000 years old I doubt many people would understand it - understandings have changed some words mean something totally different. How many people complain about how difficult the KJV or Shakespeare are to understand. Without a complete understanding of context and how the society it was written we cannot expect to understand what is written.

It is very reasonable to assume that lack of understanding of the time it was written, myriad of translations, changes in language, and just the usual way history works that there are mistakes, even the Book of Mormon is the most correct, rather than the most perfect book and admits to mistakes in language etc. Thats what President Monson is for.... gives us our understanding in our time

[Snow]

And are you aware that since there are no original texts this is a completly made up number based on guesses and good wishes?

There's always a joker in every crowd.

Hundreds of years of scholarship from the worlds top scholars in multiple disciplines (including LDS researchers) applying sophisticated methodologies, refining them, subjecting them to peer review, etc and you call it "completely made up."

... anyway, thanks for the chuckle.

[Snow]

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.

I think that is much more a likely scenario. Even LDS experts, as I understand it, understand that corruption of the text of the books of the NT is not much of an issue. There are variants and errors but they are generally known and understood. None have a particularly significant impact on any mainstream Christian or LDS belief.

On the other hand, what about book selection?

A fair number of the Epistles of Paul are forgeries. The Book of John likely had three separate contributors over many years. The Gospels disagree on numerous points. Should the canon be what it is. Even Joseph Smith didn't think all the books of the Bible belonged there.

[Snow]

Doesn't sound too different from you, honestly.

Oh?

The authority figures in my life taught that the Bible was corrupted - yet here I am arguing for an alternate understanding. What I think on the matter today is the result of serveral years of personal research and study. On the other hand, people, like you, argue corruption and mystery of the original text and yet here it is page three of this thread and you've failed miserably to demonstrate the assertion.

In what way does it not "sound too different from you(me)?"

[RipplecutBuddha]

Humans are prone to error. We can make choices, and by virtue of that fact, we can make wrong choices, either deliberately or accidentally, in every facet of our activities during our lives.

This has been true of humanity from the moment Adam and Eve exited the Garden of Eden. Unfortunately for you, Snow, this time frame easily includes every single person that ever had the responsability/opportunity to record, copy, or translate the writings of the Bible. Even though we both agree that many, if not most, of those men and women were inspired of God to do what they did, mistakes were still made.

During the translation of the Book of Mormon mistakes were made. During the publication of the Book of Mormon mistakes were made, and the level of quality control during that time was many times higher than could have been possible anciently when Moses recorded Genesis-Deuteronomy.

To presume that mistakes, errors, and deliberate changes weren't made in the multi-thousand year life of those writings would be desperately naive.

Seriously...look at the size of that book, and then tell yourself that error-prone man got it 99% right over all those years...then we'll talk about why there's a need for over 40 different versions, editions, translations of that one set of writings.

Instead of demonstrating your OP, you're begging the question of why it's even remotely possible.

[Snow]

Can you be more specific about what those errors are?

The Book of Mormon and the King James Bible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Snow]

Humans are prone to error. We can make choices, and by virtue of that fact, we can make wrong choices, either deliberately or accidentally, in every facet of our activities during our lives.

This has been true of humanity from the moment Adam and Eve exited the Garden of Eden. Unfortunately for you, Snow, this time frame easily includes every single person that ever had the responsability/opportunity to record, copy, or translate the writings of the Bible. Even though we both agree that many, if not most, of those men and women were inspired of God to do what they did, mistakes were still made.

During the translation of the Book of Mormon mistakes were made. During the publication of the Book of Mormon mistakes were made, and the level of quality control during that time was many times higher than could have been possible anciently when Moses recorded Genesis-Deuteronomy.

To presume that mistakes, errors, and deliberate changes weren't made in the multi-thousand year life of those writings would be desperately naive.

Seriously...look at the size of that book, and then tell yourself that error-prone man got it 99% right over all those years...then we'll talk about why there's a need for over 40 different versions, editions, translations of that one set of writings.

Instead of demonstrating your OP, you're begging the question of why it's even remotely possible.

You obviously didn't read the original (or subsequent) posts.

No one claimed that "mistakes, errors and deliberate changes" weren't made. If fact, I specified that there were.

It simply won't do for you to falsify the point of the OP and then try and disprove it.

[mnn727]

There's always a joker in every crowd.

Hundreds of years of scholarship from the worlds top scholars in multiple disciplines (including LDS researchers) applying sophisticated methodologies, refining them, subjecting them to peer review, etc and you call it "completely made up."

... anyway, thanks for the chuckle.

It IS completly made up. there is not one original autograph to check against so while so called "experts" can make high and mighty claims til they're blue in the face, there is no way at all to prove any accuracy.

At best the texts being used are 4th generation documents and most are later than that, but for my example lets assume every extant version is 4th generation, now if 1st, 2nd, or 3rd generation documents were changed all those versions made off of the 4th generation documents would hold the same errors and all would agree with each other and all of your 'experts' can slap themselves on the back telling each other 'all is well' and come up with figures to give the 'great unwashed and ignorant masses' to "prove' their 'great' scholarship.

[RipplecutBuddha]

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?

okay, let me try it this way.

Either the errors and corruption of text are there or they aren't. You can't stand on both sides of the issue. If they are there, they are significant as each change risks altering the message of the text overall. I would think you'd agree with this, but I can't be too sure.

So now, at the end of your statement, you're asking for proof, right? After you admit there have been alterations to the bible, right?

If you already admit that they are there, why would we need to prove them to you?

I've read the entire thread and I'm still unsure of what it is you're after. Even with the short life of the Book of Mormon starting in 1830, there are twenty editions in existence. The differences, while minor, are real, and do have an effect upon the messages involved.

to think the bible could endure several thousands of years of changes, alterations, and errors without damage to the message is..I repeat, desperately naive.

[Snow]

It IS completly made up. there is not one original autograph to check against so while so called "experts" can make high and mighty claims til they're blue in the face, there is no way at all to prove any accuracy.

At best the texts being used are 4th generation documents and most are later than that, but for my example lets assume every extant version is 4th generation, now if 1st, 2nd, or 3rd generation documents were changed all those versions made off of the 4th generation documents would hold the same errors and all would agree with each other and all of your 'experts' can slap themselves on the back telling each other 'all is well' and come up with figures to give the 'great unwashed and ignorant masses' to "prove' their 'great' scholarship.

I'll tell you the scary part... there's at least one poster who agrees with your laughably mindless assertion.

I wonder if - and I know you can't, so this is a rhetorical point, you have evidence to support your implied theory - that somewhere between the autograph manuscripts and the 3rd or 4th generation, significant corruptions occurred and then the uncorrupted or less corrupted manuscripts were all completely annihilated, while only the corrupted versions were preserved. I'd ask for names, dates, changes, etc but we all know that you can't and won't provide squat - you are fabricating the entire thing.

You needn't answer because, unlike the scientific and scholarly approach with systematic discipline and methodology, you really are just making it up, perpetuating a myth that educated interested parties abandoned long ago... and, btw, I am curious how or where you get your perspective. Can you name a handful of the books you've researched or read matter?

Edited January 10, 2010 by Snow

[Snow]

okay, let me try it this way.

Either the errors and corruption of text are there or they aren't. You can't stand on both sides of the issue. If they are there, they are significant as each change risks altering the message of the text overall. I would think you'd agree with this, but I can't be too sure.

So now, at the end of your statement, you're asking for proof, right? After you admit there have been alterations to the bible, right?

If you already admit that they are there, why would we need to prove them to you?

I've read the entire thread and I'm still unsure of what it is you're after. Even with the short life of the Book of Mormon starting in 1830, there are twenty editions in existence. The differences, while minor, are real, and do have an effect upon the messages involved.

to think the bible could endure several thousands of years of changes, alterations, and errors without damage to the message is..I repeat, desperately naive.

Still missing the point - deliberately?

Obviously there are thousands upon thousands of variant readings, when you consider the entire manuscript body (some 5000+ for the NT) it's likely in the hundreds of thousands. So what - No one claimed that there wasn't corruption.

The point was, and this was all explained earlier, through the application of textual criticism, scholars are able to say with confidence that they can arrive at the original text in the overwhelmingly vast majority of the text.

So - if you claim that they cannot, by all means, specifically what errors can they not get past to determine the original text?

... or are you going to make yet another vague appeal to mystery?

[JudoMinja]

The point I was trying to make was simple, but apparently I was not simple enough in expressing it.

Men are prone to error. The Bible was translated by the power of MAN. Men are also prone to weaknesses, sin, and corruption. Again, the Bible was translated by the power of MAN.

Yes, I made an assertion that there is corruption in the Catholic church, and I will back it up. The Catholic church claims to be THE church, THE authority. Its leaders sought to keep others under their control, historically. When people believed some of their teachings were a little off and decided to split and form their own churches, these people were oppressed. For some time, followers of the Catholic religion were not allowed to have and/or read their own copy of the Bible- it was alloted only to the leaders.

Those who hold positions in the Catholic church are paid for that position, and so are apt to curb their sermons to attract more money to the alter. They are getting gain for a position that should be one of service instead of following the example of the Lord. Christ was never paid.

The Catholic church has no authority. The disciples of Christ were oppressed and killed before the church was instated. They had no one on the earth to pass any authority on to them, and they have no revelations to state they were given power by the Lord. In fact, they claim that there are no more revelations from the Lord, period. That it stopped with the Bible. So how could they possibly have any power or authority from God?

The Catholic church is a church of MAN, and thus prone to corruption. I can give no specific examples of corruption because I do not look for them. I only know that it is there.

Why rely on the words of MEN for your proof? If you really want knowledge for yourself of the truth, ask of the Lord, with faith and sincerity. That is what Joseph Smith did, and what happened? His prayer was answered.

I am not following blind faith or believing only what people above me have told me I am supposed to believe. I have sought the matter out for myself. I have studied. I have prayed, and I have received a witness for myself from the Holy Ghost.

[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?

The Book of Mormon and the King James Bible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The Book of Mormon also references "dragons" and "satyrs" in 2 Nephi 23:21-22, matching the KJV, whereas more modern bible translations do not include these mythological beasts."(quoted from the above reference)

So, are we saying that the KJV with its reference to dragons and satyrs was wrongly translated? Are we saying that 'more modern translations' are more correct? If so, would that not confirm the allegation that there are mistakes in the Bible? Could it also be possible however that the original translation was the intended meaning? What about fiery serpents and scorpions?

[Snow]

Yes, I made an assertion that there is corruption in the Catholic church, and I will back it up. The Catholic church claims to be THE church, THE authority. Its leaders sought to keep others under their control, historically. When people believed some of their teachings were a little off and decided to split and form their own churches, these people were oppressed. For some time, followers of the Catholic religion were not allowed to have and/or read their own copy of the Bible- it was alloted only to the leaders.

Those who hold positions in the Catholic church are paid for that position, and so are apt to curb their sermons to attract more money to the alter. They are getting gain for a position that should be one of service instead of following the example of the Lord. Christ was never paid.

The Catholic church has no authority. The disciples of Christ were oppressed and killed before the church was instated. They had no one on the earth to pass any authority on to them, and they have no revelations to state they were given power by the Lord. In fact, they claim that there are no more revelations from the Lord, period. That it stopped with the Bible. So how could they possibly have any power or authority from God?

The Catholic church is a church of MAN, and thus prone to corruption. I can give no specific examples of corruption because I do not look for them. I only know that it is there.

Cool. Nice diss on the Catholics. Back to your assertion:

"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."

Please specify which leaders, when and what changes...

Note: This is a rhetorical challenge, we both know that you can't and won't and you are just making it up.

Why rely on the words of MEN for your proof? If you really want knowledge for yourself of the truth, ask of the Lord, with faith and sincerity. That is what Joseph Smith did, and what happened? His prayer was answered.

I am not following blind faith or believing only what people above me have told me I am supposed to believe. I have sought the matter out for myself. I have studied. I have prayed, and I have received a witness for myself from the Holy Ghost.

Oh, this is good - certainly now you can give us the specifics - please post them.

[Elgama]

Still missing the point - deliberately?

Obviously there are thousands upon thousands of variant readings, when you consider the entire manuscript body (some 5000+ for the NT) it's likely in the hundreds of thousands. So what - No one claimed that there wasn't corruption.

The point was, and this was all explained earlier, through the application of textual criticism, scholars are able to say with confidence that they can arrive at the original text in the overwhelmingly vast majority of the text.

So - if you claim that they cannot, by all means, specifically what errors can they not get past to determine the original text?

... or are you going to make yet another vague appeal to mystery?

this assumes they have the original text to work with and not just the oldest available text

Edited January 10, 2010 by Elgama

[Snow]

"The Book of Mormon also references "dragons" and "satyrs" in 2 Nephi 23:21-22, matching the KJV, whereas more modern bible translations do not include these mythological beasts."(quoted from the above reference)

So, are we saying that the KJV with its reference to dragons and satyrs was wrongly translated? Are we saying that 'more modern translations' are more correct? If so, would that not confirm the allegation that there are mistakes in the Bible? Could it also be possible however that the original translation was the intended meaning? What about fiery serpents and scorpions?

I believe that the modern critical understanding is that the KJV translation is in error, but if you believe that the KJV translation is correct, by all means, please share how that is.... btw, satyrs are Greek mythical fantasy creatures. They don't exist.

Edited January 10, 2010 by Snow

[Snow]

this assumes they have the original text to work with and not just the oldest available text

It assumes no such thing. There are no original manuscripts.

[Elgama]

I believe that the modern critical understanding is that the KJV translation is in error, but if you believe that the KJV translation is correct, by all means, please share how that is.

i believe its a good translation and as correct as any other the 1611 translation took many years by 54 of the top scholars from English universities at the time. The first of 15 rules drawn up to guide the process ' as little altered as the truth of the original will permit' in 1600s even the witch/poisoner debate is understandable as witches were used as herbalists during that time. Although that was probably a nod to the king who was funding this and had the power to kill you. Although given they didn't really skimp on the homosexuality references indicate they were not that heavily influenced by King James I & VI.

The current version we have was redone in 1870, again by around 50 scholars from several different Christian traditions Baptist, Methodists, Presbyterians etc even Unitarian (in England at the time would be someone who did not concur with the trinity) most were admittedly Anglican but they would be as it was the predominant religion. On top of that American Scholars were invited to participate. 30, 000 changes were made to the New Testament, work was done carefully, there is no suggestion the scholars, were below par or did a bad job. Also scholars in 1870 were in some ways more reliable to today as most came from wealthy backgrounds and were self funded, less room for corruption from those providing the finance.

KJV is knocked but it does have an exceptional pedigree over 100 of the top scholars in my country and some from the US worked on it. Its language was seen as archaic and difficult even in the 1800s but that does not make it a poor translation

Edited January 10, 2010 by Elgama

[Elgama]

It assumes no such thing. There are no original manuscripts.

right so we cannot determine what the original text said - however the Bible stories themselves tell you what times the Bible was almost certainly changed and altered.

Neither side can prove the changes we do not have the evidence, even in the case of the OT the Dead Sea Scrolls prove nothing. It is however a reasonable assumption that since Adam the Bible has changed drastically.

Edited January 10, 2010 by Elgama
add last paragraph

[Snow]

i believe its a good translation and as correct as any other the 1611 translation took many years by 54 of the top scholars from English universities at the time. The first of 15 rules drawn up to guide the process ' as little altered as the truth of the original will permit' in 1600s even the witch/poisoner debate is understandable as witches were used as herbalists during that time. Although that was probably a nod to the king who was funding this and had the power to kill you. Although given they didn't really skimp on the homosexuality references indicate they were not that heavily influenced by King James I & VI.

The current version we have was redone in 1870, again by around 50 scholars from several different Christian traditions Baptist, Methodists, Presbyterians etc even Unitarian (in England at the time would be someone who did not concur with the trinity) most were admittedly Anglican but they would be as it was the predominant religion. On top of that American Scholars were invited to participate. 30, 000 changes were made to the New Testament, work was done carefully, there is no suggestion the scholars, were below par or did a bad job. Also scholars in 1870 were in some ways more reliable to today as most came from wealthy backgrounds and were self funded, less room for corruption from those providing the finance.

KJV is knocked but it does have an exceptional pedigree over 100 of the top scholars in my country and some from the US worked on it. Its language was seen as archaic and difficult even in the 1800s but that does not make it a poor translation

That's nice. Your opinion not withstanding, modern critical scholars disagree.

You make a big to do about the scholarship of the KJV but in the end, they mostly just copied Tyndale's work who previously did the whole thing by himself. 83.7% of the KJV is just taken straight from Tyndale, and regardless of how astute they were, they had a poor manuscript body to translate from. Modern translations draw on an amazing rich and and deep manuscript corpus.

[Snow]

right so we cannot determine what the original text said - however the Bible stories themselves tell you what times the Bible was almost certainly changed and altered.

Neither side can prove the changes we do not have the evidence, even in the case of the OT the Dead Sea Scrolls prove nothing.

Okay fine - what changes were made that modern scholarship has not been able to uncover?

Please be specific.... or does your theory of corruption rely soley (yes) on an appeal to mystery. Hint: yes.

I am also interested in your refutation of the tenets of textual criticism that scholars believe can be applied to determine the original text. Can you walk us through the higher criticism flaws?

It is however a reasonable assumption that since Adam the Bible has changed drastically.

Oh brother. The Book of Genesis was redacted into it's current form around 450 BC. There was no Bible in the days of Adam, or Noah, or Abraham or Isaac or Moses.

Edited January 10, 2010 by Snow

[Elgama]

Okay fine - what changes were made that modern scholarship has not been able to uncover?

How can they uncover something when they do not have the original texts? its entirely appropriate to assume with any historical document that information and bits are missing, we have to work with what is present, we cannot work with what it not. But as a history student I was taught, how to do history, my first year of the degree is very rare that rather than individual periods the technique took priority, it would be a very foolish Historian that assumes what we have of the Bible now is exactly the same as when the documents were first written. As we go further back in the Bible chances are more has been lost.

The Mormon in me knows whole books are missing, the Historian in me says that is highly likely. Unlike with Modern Christianity where the great unwashed for the most part could not read the Bible, and make their own assumptions, there was less need to change it. The Jewish/Hebrew peoples could all generally read, had to for the Bah Mitzvah, the need to change it to control the people would also have been greater

Please be specific.... or does your theory of corruption rely soley (yes) on an appeal to mystery. Hint: yes.

Nope it relies on the Bible stories themselves and other stories available from history/archaeology. How many times in the Bible did the Hebrew Nation/People of Israel etc fall from Grace, how many times were they taken into or walked into captivity. At times the Hebrew nation had a wife for Jehovah, worshipped a cow, we know Solomon and David slipped.

I am also interested in your refutation of the tenets of textual criticism that scholars believe can be applied to determine the original text. Can you walk us through the higher criticism flaws?

very basic historical study - you have to accept the Chinese Whisper idea, how many documents down the line do we have if its not the original document? With each document there will have been changes, several documents down the line the changes can be quite radical. Language and its usage changes over time, so understanding of words change. Even historical study and interpretation changes over time, there is a bias in the scholars, only the Scientific Historians of the early 1900s even tried to remove their own bias.

Oh brother. The Book of Genesis was redacted into it's current form around 450 BC. There was no Bible in the days of Adam, or Noah, or Abraham or Isaac or Moses.

I'm interested to hear how you know this? we know what we have, we do not know what came before, even the Neanderthals have shown they had some writing/artistic ability, my presumption is that someone (Moses is sometimes attributed with it) wrote down the oral traditions, oral history changes and alters even faster than the written word

Just like all the scholars you can quote - I am filling in the gaps with what seems to me to be the most logical presumptions with the evidence available

[WillowTheWhisp]

I believe that the modern critical understanding is that the KJV translation is in error, but if you believe that the KJV translation is correct, by all means, please share how that is.... btw, satyrs are Greek mythical fantasy creatures. They don't exist.

sa'iyr - possibly a demon possessed goat, a wild goat, the definite opposite of a tame domesticated farm creature.

tanniynn - serpent, dinosaur, sea monster?

Who are we to say what the better translation is. The words 'satyr' and 'dragon' convey the meaning of horror and desolation far more accurately than would simply 'goat' or 'serpent'.

Whilst we are in this particular area what about the 'doleful creatures' and 'owls' which some translations give as 'hyenas' or 'jackals' and 'ostriches'? Now I can relate to a hyena being a doleful creature but how does ya'anah 'hney' (daughter of the owl) become an ostrich?