Bible Corruptions?

[Elgama]

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.

That was the 1611 version, the 1870 version (which is the version most people has), used a different Greek Text and other sources, hence the 30,000 alterations to the NT, funny how modern critical scholars are happy to trash the very best scholars of less than 150 years ago, Wonder what the modern critical scholars of 2150 will make of the best scholars of 2010, the current scholarly opinion is based on which ever side the most big hitters are on, as they start to die off new ideas come through - I am willing to bet 100% of modern scholars are not agreed on the matter you will find differences of opinion

Edited January 10, 2010 by Elgama

[volgadon]

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

Whih is why your claim of 99% is laughable. Perhaps a signifact amount of an early, textual family can be reconstructed, but certainly not the original.

[volgadon]

Modern translations draw on an amazing rich and and deep manuscript corpus.

Yet still do a crap job for the most part.

[Traveler]

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?

I will take a different approach here and simply say that the Bible is deficient in doctrine. My proof is historical and actual. Historically the Bible has not been a means of maintaining doctrine and as a result there has been vast discrepancies in doctrine manifested in a grand variety of “churches” and ideas – all based on the Bible.

My second piece of evidence is this forum itself. Even within the same denominations we have experienced vast differences in doctrine by just a small subset of congregations on this forum alone – all thinking the Bible support their doctrine.

Let me give one example – Some may say that all that believe the Bible (Old and New Testament) can agree that Jesus is the Christ. That is a very broad brush. As soon as any discussion is opened we find great disagreement of what a Christ is what the mission of a Christ is and how any knowledge effects individuals, families and religious ideology.

Anyone that believes there are no doctrinal discrepancies in the Bible – I would challenge you to offer even a single example of any doctrine that has remained historically stable (since the beginning of Biblical records) and remains intact in today religious landscape.

The Traveler

[Snow]

Yet still do a crap job for the most part.

Now is the put up or shut up time.

If modern translations are crap and high accuracy is laughable, EXACTLY what parts are translated incorrectly and what is crap???

Here is it part 6 of this thread and all you and those like you have done is whine that the text is corrupt but not a one of you have been able to tell us which parts of the NT wrong. Are you just going to grouse some more or are you going to back up your claims?

The answer is grouse, isn't it.

[Snow]

I will take a different approach here and simply say that the Bible is deficient in doctrine. My proof is historical and actual. Historically the Bible has not been a means of maintaining doctrine and as a result there has been vast discrepancies in doctrine manifested in a grand variety of “churches” and ideas – all based on the Bible.

My second piece of evidence is this forum itself. Even within the same denominations we have experienced vast differences in doctrine by just a small subset of congregations on this forum alone – all thinking the Bible support their doctrine.

Let me give one example – Some may say that all that believe the Bible (Old and New Testament) can agree that Jesus is the Christ. That is a very broad brush. As soon as any discussion is opened we find great disagreement of what a Christ is what the mission of a Christ is and how any knowledge effects individuals, families and religious ideology.

Anyone that believes there are no doctrinal discrepancies in the Bible – I would challenge you to offer even a single example of any doctrine that has remained historically stable (since the beginning of Biblical records) and remains intact in today religious landscape.

The Traveler

I doubt that anyone of us will disagree that the Bible is deficient if by that you mean lacking in clarity and completeness to fully elucidate the key principles of the gospel in the way that we now understand them, today. But, that deficiency, at least in the case of the NT, is not a function of transmission, but rather is a function of original authoring and selection (canonization).

[Elgama]

I doubt that anyone of us will disagree that the Bible is deficient if by that you mean lacking in clarity and completeness to fully elucidate the key principles of the gospel in the way that we now understand them, today. But, that deficiency, at least in the case of the NT, is not a function of transmission, but rather is a function of original authoring and selection (canonization).

or the current poor education systems so the reader struggles. Maybe these modern scholars aren't that much better than their predessors

[Justice]

If modern translations are crap and high accuracy is laughable, EXACTLY what parts are translated incorrectly and what is crap???

How about the "camel through the eye of a needle?"

Some modern translators have suggested that the Greek word kamilos ('camel') should really be kamêlos, meaning stranded cable or rope. It seems to give the message a clearer meaning. They possibly used "camel" for "camel hair." The words were possibly so similar because they used camel hair to make rope.

It's not uncommon for cultures to call something by what it's made from instead of what it is, like we do today. "Hamburger" can be ground beef, or a cook ground beef sandwich. In 1,000 years it may be debatable by what our culture meant in every instance.

One can side with this new modern terminology, or go with the original. It was a common practice in the Hebrew culture to use extremes, or even impossibilities, to teach a point. Maybe a living, breathing camel was the original meaning.

In either case, the message remains the same.

[volgadon]

Now is the put up or shut up time.

If modern translations are crap and high accuracy is laughable, EXACTLY what parts are translated incorrectly and what is crap???

Here is it part 6 of this thread and all you and those like you have done is whine that the text is corrupt but not a one of you have been able to tell us which parts of the NT wrong. Are you just going to grouse some more or are you going to back up your claims?

The answer is grouse, isn't it.

Most of them have a heavy protestant bias and translate according to ideology, not accuracy.

For me to document EXACTLY what parts are translated icnorrectly, are crap, would take up far more time than I am willing to put into it.

Here are some links to look at.

The NIV is a Really Bad Translation (1/2)

Correcting the 'Mistakes' of TNIV and Inclusive NIV, Translators Will Revise NIV in 2011 | Liveblog | Christianity Today

New International Version

God's Word (1995)

[volgadon]

If modern translations are crap and high accuracy is laughable, EXACTLY what parts are translated incorrectly and what is crap???

How about the "camel through the eye of a needle?"

Some modern translators have suggested that the Greek word kamilos ('camel') should really be kamêlos, meaning stranded cable or rope. It seems to give the message a clearer meaning. They possibly used "camel" for "camel hair." The words were possibly so similar because they used camel hair to make rope.

It's not uncommon for cultures to call something by what it's made from instead of what it is, like we do today. "Hamburger" can be ground beef, or a cook ground beef sandwich. In 1,000 years it may be debatable by what our culture meant in every instance.

One can side with this new modern terminology, or go with the original. It was a common practice in the Hebrew culture to use extremes, or even impossibilities, to teach a point. Maybe a living, breathing camel was the original meaning.

In either case, the message remains the same.

Probably a real, flesh-and-blood camel. There is a similar saying in the Babylonian Talmud about it being easier for an elephant to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for the inhabitants of Pumbeditha to do something or other.

The Lord loved hyperbole.

[volgadon]

That is the Strong's system.

At any rate, I provided a similar saying, so I think the rope reading isn't terribly convincing.

[Elgama]

Most of them have a heavy protestant bias and translate according to ideology, not accuracy.

For me to document EXACTLY what parts are translated icnorrectly, are crap, would take up far more time than I am willing to put into it.

Here are some links to look at.

The NIV is a Really Bad Translation (1/2)

Correcting the 'Mistakes' of TNIV and Inclusive NIV, Translators Will Revise NIV in 2011 | Liveblog | Christianity Today

New International Version

God's Word (1995)

that would be because Roman Catholics have their own translations -I think its called the Rhiems Douai but willing to be corrected that is the version my Mum has that has her Great Grandmother's sacred heart in it.

[rameumptom]

I personally agree with Snow that the New Testament which we have now has been critically analyzed until most scholars are pretty confident of what is original and what is not. Now, whether that really is to 99%, is a matter of speculation.

The issue is, most of those scholarly studies have not made it to the average Christian. Millions of Christians read the KJV, even today, and believe the Johannine Comma is part of the original. This includes Mormons, btw.

In his book, "Jesus, Interrupted", Prof Bart Ehrman discusses his development. He began as an ardent Christian, receiving his Bachelor's degree from Moody Bible Institute. Then he went to Harvard for his advanced degrees, where they showed him about variance in the scriptures, how we don't have the original autographs, etc. This led him to being an agnostic today. Why? Because he could not find a solution between what he was taught at Moody's and what he was taught at Harvard.

Why do so many Christians refuse to believe in evolution or that the earth is billions of years old (instead of only 6000)? Because that is what they are taught. Their religious leaders do not show to them the problematic passages or that there is more than one way to read a passage.

Are there errors in the Book of Mormon? Of course there are. Moroni even admits it on several occasions. And there are errors in the Bible, and even more errors in man's interpretation of the Bible.

As I mentioned before, a more serious issue are the books that have not been included. There is much truth missing from the Bible, simply because St Jerome chose to not include them 1600 years ago.

[Justice]

I don't think Moroni is saying there are errors in what's being said. The Book of Mormon writers make the point to say they know the record is true. Any mistakes are the result of language difference or just plain man's mistakes. The same applies to the Bible. The original writers didn't tell false stories.

God sharply warns anyone who mocks or doesn't believe because of any error that is supposed or found.

We know through revelation that errors were introduced into the Bible. But, considering how much of the Bible is revealed in the Book of Mormon, I'd say much of it is still pretty accurate.

[Snow]

Most of them have a heavy protestant bias and translate according to ideology, not accuracy.

For me to document EXACTLY what parts are translated icnorrectly, are crap, would take up far more time than I am willing to put into it.

Here are some links to look at.

The NIV is a Really Bad Translation (1/2)

Correcting the 'Mistakes' of TNIV and Inclusive NIV, Translators Will Revise NIV in 2011 | Liveblog | Christianity Today

New International Version

God's Word (1995)

What did I say that you would do (instead of back up your assertions)? I said you would whine about it.

What did you do?

Whined.

btw, I clicked on the first link. KJ Only nuts are the laughing stock of the critical world. How nutty are they? One of their arguments on the link you gave against the NIV is that NIV attempts to make God a liar. It's a sure sign you are dealing with a nut if they claim that unless you agree with them, you think God is lying.

Edited January 10, 2010 by Snow

[Snow]

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

It was a rhetorical question. I knew that you wouldn't back up your assertions.

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.

What do you mean "nope?" If you are not appealing to mystery then post the corrupted passages and can't be reconstructed.

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.

That too was a rhetorical point. You obviously don't know enough about it to critique it.

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

You aren't familiar with the documentary hypothesis? You can get a primer - Who wrote the bible at The Straight Dope.

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

So you do have some evidence after all. Okay - please post it.

[Elgama]

I have no scholarly pretenses, however I have a reasonable amount of learning and ability, it comes not from linguistics but from study of how History works, how historical documents are formed and how societies over time do things (which is where the archaeology comes in)

+ If you merely restrict yourself to linguistics and the texts we have present, you cannot come up with a reasonable hypothesis, we do not know how original the most ancient of documents we have are, and I am fairly sure the originator of the oral traditions is not around to ask - Moses however might be^_^ - the corrupted pasages cannot be posted as I have said several posts ago they no longer exist, however the correct passages exactly as they were written by the original authors, or spoken by the originator of the oral tradition cannot be produced to prove what they did say either. Therefore other areas of academic study are useful, to come up with the hypothesis.

+ Most of history is an hypothesis - mine is garnered from the stories in the Bible itself do I really need to list every time the Hebrew Nation became corrupted? The Book of Micah was written probably around 720 BCE - that is a lot of unaccounted for years when the writings were in hands of corrupt/hypocritical people.... the Pharisees we know had at very least corrupted interpretation. One thinks of Animal Farm by George Orwell - All animals are equal becomes All Animals are equal but some are more equal than others.. not a huge difference but the difference is crucial to the understanding. Do you seriously have enough faith in these scholars to say it is likely the Oral Tradition was in no way altered during the 1000s of years it was being passed down? remember the longest time frame passed in the Bible is contained in Genesis which was an oral tradition before someone edited it, if it is entirely correct then that would have only occured if it had some inspiration from God and revelation. Oral traditions in our societies that are only a 100 years old are generally very different to the actual event, written events are usually told with bias. Or do you have no understanding of how bias works in an historical document?

+ Nope - an American Vernacular term for the word No originated in the late 1800s/early 1900s was adopted as slang in the United Kingdom around the 1950s. As you can see I meant NO my view is based on the history of the people responsible for the writings we are now commenting on. If someone devotes their study entirely to the linguistics and ignores the history, archaeology and anthropology of the people it came from, they cannot profess scholarly understanding of a written piece - very basic historical training should teach anyone that

[ozzy]

I admit that I haven't read the whole thread, as it seemed to have generally degraded into personal attacks where I stopped reading it.

First I would like to point out that we all agree that there are mistakes, purposeful or not, in the text. I believe that even Snow has stated that some of these exist. Whether purposely corrupted or not, mistakes in the message of the gospel are potentially dangerous. Proof of this fact is present in the very number of varying beliefs that have risen purely from the bible.

Next, I would like to point out that wikipedia is not a very credible source, especially where the church is concerned. It is open to personal view, and heavy bias. That isn't to say that it doesn't try to do a good job, or to say that it isn't largely successful. But we must be careful how we use it. I will point our that most university professors that I have had refuse to accept it as a source of information on any assignments.

Third, to source the various mistakes, cuts, and possibly but not necessarily corruptions in the bible. I turn first to the Bible dictionary. If you read the section Lost Books, it reviews the scriptures and calls out the references to every single missing book that is referred to in the scriptures. Of course there is the option that individuals decided that these didn't need to be there. But were they prophets? If not, then they were acting outside of their stewardship and were (even if inadvertently) corrupting the scriptures, even if on a very small level. Personally, I see so many omissions as being dangerous and I am certain that there are various doctrines that were contained in those that are not in what we have. I admit that I can't source these, because I don't have the books to say what they actually had.

Another observation supporting the potentially harmful mistakes surrounding the bible is given in the existence of both the apocrypha and the dead sea scrolls. These are not in the canonized scripture, and yet were possibly at one time in the Bible as well.

I will again point out the allegations of Article of Faith 8, which is doctrinally correct, and infers that the Bible may not be completely translated correctly.

My final observation to mistakes in the bible can be seen in the continuing example of man to change what has been written to follow their own interpretations. How many variations of the Bible have been written just in the last 10 years? I doubt they all deliver the same gospel message, and so we see that there are definitely potentially harmful translations out there.

With regard to the ideas of various scholars, I don't wish to discredit them. They are definitely wiser than I am and are more learned with regard to the scriptures. But we still must be wary of their claims. 2 Nephi chapter 9 both verses 28 and 42 are scriptural evidence of this need. The same can be said as we read 2 Nephi 26:20, 27:22, and 27:26.

Perhaps these wise and learned men have been able to establish 99% accuracy to what is present to study. I doubt that they have done so with regard to all of the books mentioned in the Bible dictionary, or to those that haven't even been named.

Thats my take. I hope I have provided enough sources to support it.

[volgadon]

What did I say that you would do (instead of back up your assertions)? I said you would whine about it.

What did you do?

Whined.

Haha. Not at all. I told you I had better ideas for my time than your proposal. If you want to think that is whining, be my guest.

btw, I clicked on the first link. KJ Only nuts are the laughing stock of the critical world. How nutty are they? One of their arguments on the link you gave against the NIV is that NIV attempts to make God a liar. It's a sure sign you are dealing with a nut if they claim that unless you agree with them, you think God is lying.

And even nuts can say things which are true. You could actually address at least some of the criticisms they bring up, as many are valid, but if you prefer ad hominem, once again, be my guest.

[ozzy]

I would also like to point out that with issues as speculative as this, it doesn't do any good to thrash each others intelligence or lack thereof. If someone here says something, and I don't agree with it, that doesn't give me the right to assume they don't know what they are talking about, or that their input is unproductive. None of us know completely what happened. Some may have a better idea than others. Some may have an idea based on a certain perspective. Still more may be like me and unable to supply sources because we can't remember where we read something. I admit that this is dangerous because it can start rumors. But it doesn't change the fact that none of us are capable of producing 100% truthful verification on exactly what happened, why it happened, how it happened, and who did it with regard to a topic of this nature.

[volgadon]

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)?"

I argue corruption of the texts becuase they obviously have been corrupted. As you yourself point out there are many documented instances. I don't however hold to that ridiculous notion that ALL have been documented. That notion kills scholarship. You are more interested in dogma, in this case, your personal one reinforced by secondary sources you've read.

I'm also certain that continual research will bring to light more corruptions, it invariably does in the study of any text.

There are many places I can intuite a corruption, but frankly lack the scholarly apparatus to pursue it at any length.

[Snow]

And even nuts can say things which are true. You could actually address at least some of the criticisms they bring up, as many are valid, but if you prefer ad hominem, once again, be my guest.

You want me to debate with a 3rd party website because you yourself are too lazy. Right.

[jadams_4040]

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?

Google "magarat Barker" and her writings, she is a methodist old testament scholar; most of her writings can be accessed online.:)

[volgadon]

If you saw fit to attack a 3rd party website, then why not?

[JudoMinja]

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.

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

As stated by ozzy:

I would also like to point out that with issues as speculative as this, it doesn't do any good to thrash each others intelligence or lack thereof. If someone here says something, and I don't agree with it, that doesn't give me the right to assume they don't know what they are talking about, or that their input is unproductive. None of us know completely what happened. Some may have a better idea than others. Some may have an idea based on a certain perspective. Still more may be like me and unable to supply sources because we can't remember where we read something. I admit that this is dangerous because it can start rumors. But it doesn't change the fact that none of us are capable of producing 100% truthful verification on exactly what happened, why it happened, how it happened, and who did it with regard to a topic of this nature.

Also- Is it safe for me to assume that you are Catholic, and is that why you seem so offended by my assertion that there is corruption in the Catholic church? I made no personal attack against you or followers of the Catholic religion. Do I have an issue with the LEADERSHIP of the Catholic church? Yes. One of the reasons I am not Catholic. I have nothing against people who are Catholic though. And the only reason I have specified the Catholic church as a source of corruptions in the Bible is because they were the main church, the religious authority, from which other Christian churches branched.

A general broad-picture study of history shows that people given power become corrupted. Not everyone does. There are good rulers who use their power properly, but there are many who fall and become wicked. Just look at the repetitiveness of the pride cycle in the Book of Mormon. This is why, though I do not know which leader, when or what changes- I believe that there is corruption in the Bible. Leaders of the Catholic church are in a position of power. In the early days of its formation, they did not allow the masses to view the Bible for themselves. This is a clear sign of corruption.

Also, just because I cannot provide specifics to back up my claim does not make it a moot point. It does not mean I am making it up. See the ozzy quote again. It seems to me that you are only willing to consider those who do provide documentation in this thread, and so after this post I will gracefully step out. I am not the type of person that provides specifics, simply because I don't hunt down my sources or record where I got every little bit of information that is logged away in my head. If I were writing a book that had to be properly cited I would do so, but that is not the case.

The specifics of my personal study and revelation would take a lifetime to post, because it has occured over just that- a lifetime. But I have studied. I have read the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, Doctrine and Covenants, and Bible several times over. I have studied the history of the LDS church and World Religions to include far more than Christianity. I have studied many scientific disciplines. I have learned from many library books, interaction with people of various religious orientations, and most importantly from building my own spiritual relationship with the Lord through prayer, obedience to His laws ordinances and principles, and application of my studies to my life and spirituality. I am a learned individual, but I am no scholar.

Since you are limiting your discussion to scholars, these are my final words in this thread: I do not follow blindly. I do not assume I can trust the words of my leaders without proof, and I would appreciate it if my opinions would be given some credit and not thrown out the window because I do not meet up to your criteria of a fellow debator- but then, I thought this was a discussion board, not a debate board. And you have yet to answer my question- Why put your trust in the words of men, when you can easily come to a knowledge of the truth for yourself by relying on the Lord?