• Welcome to Talk Jesus

    A true bible based, Jesus centered online community. Join over 11,000 members today

    Register Log In

Changing the Bible

Users who viewed this discussion (Total:0)

Loyal
Rev 22:18; I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book;
Rev 22:19; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.

I don't think it's an accident that these verses are near the end of the last chapter of the last book in the Bible.

Sometimes people intentionally change the Bible. There is a "gay" Bible, there is a "feminist" Bible, there are all
kinds of Bibles that change the original words to fit whatever they want. It could be argued "this isn't really the Bible". I would agree.

But I also see "less obvious" changes to the Bible. A common phrase you hear is "we are saved by grace alone".
But "grace" and "alone" don't appear together in any scripture in the Bible.

Sometimes you hear, "we won't be judged because we have Jesus in our heart". Where it say that in the Bible?
What does one thing have to do with the other?

It has been said that Jesus is "the lamb", therefore He isn't the lion. Yet the Bible clearly says He is the lion of Judah. (and the lamb of God)

There have been some things posted as "promises", but they don't say they are a promise anywhere in the context of the verse. Or sometimes they (usually) have a condition attached to the promise, which is left out in the commentary.

We may not be physically tearing part of the page out of the Bible and re-writing it. But we are re-writing it in "our" hearts which is the same thing. Some of us believe things that are not in the Bible at all. We believe it "with all our hearts"... because, well.... "that's what God really meant". (He didn't mean what He wrote?)

I have even been in churches where these things are sometimes said from the pulpit.
If you hear them over and over again often enough, pretty soon you start thinking it's in the Bible.
Before you know it you start believing it and building doctrines on it.

I've picked out a few recently discussed passages, but these aren't the only ones by any means.
There have been literally dozens of these "half truths" and "partial scriptures" thrown out here on TalkJesus over the years.

Are the "less obvious" changes any better than the obvious ones? What was the first deception in the Bible? "Did God really say.... "?
.....
 
Active
If I put myself in God's shoes I can see why He says what He does in Rev 22:18-19.

The Bible is a record of Him laying His life down for us. A collection of all the writers He inspired to pen His will. Intentionally changing its meaning is on par with trampling Jesus under foot Heb 10:29. It is mass false teaching. False teaching leads people into sin.

This is our God:

[COLOR=#0000ff]Psalm 86:15 But You, O Lord, are a God merciful and gracious, Slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness and truth[/COLOR].

The fact that false teaching causes this good God of ours to write verses like Mark 9:42 and Rev 22:18-19 says a lot about the sin.

[COLOR=#0000ff]Mark 9:42[/COLOR] [COLOR=#0000ff]Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea.[/COLOR]
 
Loyal
Here is another view.
It's only mentioned in the book of Revelation of Jesus.
It's says this book, meaning The book of revelation.

One can paraphrase throughout the Bible and it's fine as long as it does not change the outcome, but in the Revelation of Jesus, one must not change it in anyway or add to it or take away.

I agree there are alot of useless things being quoted as scripture that is not scripture.

How many times have you heard, God giveth and God taketh away and been told it's dcripture?
It's not ! It's something Job said and learned other wise.

People claim hymnals are scripture but yet they are not and just because it's a hymnal does not even mean it was inspired by God.

This thread could go on a long time if every false phrase claimed scripture was listed.

Blessings
W4F
 
Loyal
Yes Wired4 fishen I agree its splitting hairs as BAC says but that is speaking of the book of revaltion since its in the book of revaltion, although I am sure it applies to the entire bible as well.

One of the first things that made me leave the Catholic religion was when I herd they changed the 10 commandments, I could not believe it, yet I found a catholic bible in my house and wow one of the first pages sure enough the 10 commandments were changed, not to mention many other teaching of the bible are changed for there man made traditions over the word of God. Examples of this would

Praying to Mary
Calling preist father
Rosery beads
infant babtisim

just to name a few of the things that they change from the teaching of the bible to fit there man made traditions, but the one that is most evil in eyes that had me heading straight to hell was confession of your sins to a priest and thinking a man could forgive your sins O how that is pure evil and makes my skin crawl when I think of that now a-days.
 
Active
One of the first things that made me leave the Catholic religion was when I herd they changed the 10 commandments, I could not believe it, yet I found a catholic bible in my house and wow one of the first pages sure enough the 10 commandments were changed, not to mention many other teaching of the bible are changed for there man made traditions over the word of God. Examples of this would

Praying to Mary
Calling preist father
Rosery beads
infant babtisim
Wasn't that a hoax? http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2017/03/14/pope-francis-victim-of-fake-news-after-reports-claim-he-changed-ten-com
 
Active
Accept bisexual marriage? How dot they do that? Allow the individual to marry twice / both genders?

This is a breach at the highest level on God's laws. Almost no need for a church or religion. Man's laws are 'do not steal, do not murder'. God laws are those + 'do not commit homosexual acts'', among others. It is the churches responsibility to teach God's laws that are in addition to the obvious laws (if bisexual being wrong is not obvious) we should live by. When you stop teaching them, what purpose is there for the church? We may as well go to court and a dance party with some singing on a Sunday.

These churches want to win popularity contests to secure membership. They don't care about peoples souls.

Prov 27:6 [COLOR=#0000ff]Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful[/COLOR].
 
Moderator
Staff Member
Kind of moving away from the thread subject of changing the Bible. More into the denominational issues, and their doctrines. Might make for another thread :smile:

On changing the Bible:

I think what we have to take into account in discussing this subject is how we came about getting it! Keeping in mind that the Bibles in use, say in English are translations. Original language being Hebrew, Greek. Add to this that they are taken from manuscripts, but not the autographs of the original writers, must also be considered. Then too, we have to distinguish between Translations, and Paraphrases or even some that I would leave entirely out there on their own and not even call them bibles and that be ones like the Message, New World Translation, and this list could be added to.

These are but a few of the considerations we should be looking at if we are to contemplate what changing the Bible really means. That is if we're look at studying the Scriptures, or just looking to dispute what another is saying, because of some disagreement!

More to be talked about, but I'm limited on time (working/lunch) :smile:

Agenda of those translating the Bible.
Manuscripts used for the translations.
Qualifications of those translating.

The list can go on and on........

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC
Nick
<><
 
Loyal
I was catholic with a catholic bible and they leave out no Graven images and split coveting up into two commandments it was not a hoax I promise you, I through away two catholic bibles that both had listed the 10 commandments with out NO graven Images listed.

that article has nothing to do with it, they changed the 10 commandments as far back I can remember, I had a bible from my parents that left out no Graven images and split no coveting in to 2 commandments so they still had 10
 
Loyal
I think what we have to take into account in discussing this subject is how we came about getting it! Keeping in mind that the Bibles in use, say in English are translations. Original language being Hebrew, Greek. Add to this that they are taken from manuscripts, but not the autographs of the original writers, must also be considered. Then too, we have to distinguish between Translations, and Paraphrases or even some that I would leave entirely out there on their own and not even call them bibles and that be ones like the Message, New World Translation, and this list could be added to.

These are but a few of the considerations we should be looking at if we are to contemplate what changing the Bible really means. That is if we're look at studying the Scriptures, or just looking to dispute what another is saying, because of some disagreement!
I'm not really "too" worried about the different translations, the words may change slightly, but the meaning generally doesn't.
There are cases, where the meaning intentionally does change. The Jehovah's witness version of John 1 for example. Doesn't say the "word was God".
it says "the word was a god". Just one little letter can make a huge difference.

Some of the things we differ about don't really matter that much... but some of the things we differ about,... people's salvation hinges on them.

Was Jesus raised on the 3rd day or after the third day? I don't care too much.. the fact is... He is risen.
How much did the perfume Mary put of Jesus's feet cost? I don't care too much, it was expensive.

Was Jesus God? The Bible says to deny this is the Spirit of the anti-christ. How serious is that?
Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit can never be forgiven... how serious is that?

Some of what we disagree about is petty. Some of it is even difficult to explain or prove. (without the Holy Spirit)
But some of it... is blatantly obvious. Is that a reason to disagree about it? maybe not.... but if it's deliberately misleading people....
to the point that people wont be saved because of "this point" (whatever that point might be) shouldn't we at least warn them?

Many times this isn't a "denominational thing". But many times it is. We can bash different denominations for many reasons, but altering the Bible
seems like a valid reason to me. Which is different from bashing them... just because I don't like them, or to prove a point.
 
Moderator
Staff Member
I'm not really "too" worried about the different translations, the words may change slightly, but the meaning generally doesn't.
I thought you were....at least by the two verses you used to open thread. I state this because to even know there are "slight" differences, you'd have to compare these translations.

Sorry for not really understanding your intent. I just hope that part of your motivation in creating this thread wasn't the "Lion of Judah & Lamb of God" that you make reference to in your opening.

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC
Nick
<><
 
Active
Kind of moving away from the thread subject of changing the Bible. More into the denominational issues, and their doctrines. Might make for another thread :smile:
On changing the Bible:
I think what we have to take into account in discussing this subject is how we came about getting it! Keeping in mind that the Bibles in use, say in English are translations. Original language being Hebrew, Greek. Add to this that they are taken from manuscripts, but not the autographs of the original writers, must also be considered. Then too, we have to distinguish between Translations, and Paraphrases or even some that I would leave entirely out there on their own and not even call them bibles and that be ones like the Message, New World Translation, and this list could be added to.
These are but a few of the considerations we should be looking at if we are to contemplate what changing the Bible really means. That is if we're look at studying the Scriptures, or just looking to dispute what another is saying, because of some disagreement!
More to be talked about, but I'm limited on time (working/lunch) :smile:
Agenda of those translating the Bible.
Manuscripts used for the translations.
Qualifications of those translating.
The list can go on and on........
With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC
Nick
<><
I believe that every subsequent "translation" of the bible gets further from the original message.
The older the better.
 
Moderator
Staff Member
I believe that every subsequent "translation" of the bible gets further from the original message.
The older the better.
Not necessarily true. It really depends on which manuscripts were used, as well as other considerations when determining the accuracy of the translation. i.e. expertise of those doing the translating, Godly men or not (?), were they hired to do this work (?), if so, what was the agenda of those hiring them (?). These are but some of the questions that readily come to mind.

That is why knowing some of this and using 2 - 3 translations side by side, should give one a closer to the original as to context/meaning. Of course, there are conditions on this as well.

Is the person a believer who is undertaking this study/reading (?), because only a believer will have Holy Spirit guidance. Are you praying before and at times while studying God's Word (?). Getting yourself prepared to handle God's precious Words (?).

Many treat the Word of God as just another book. Sorry, it's not! I also, won't let my own pride get in the way of saying, much less acknowledging that I don't know it all. God's Word is infallible, but I am not.

So, the premise that older makes better, is not a standard I would necessarily attribute to translations and hang my hat on. Otherwise, you'd have to give in many cases the final authority in certain writings, to the manuscripts found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the translations done afterwards. Why? Because, the Dead Sea Scrolls predate many of the manuscripts that were used for the writing of the KJV, and earlier translations as well. The translators didn't have these documents available to them. The Dead Sea Scrolls were found in 1947.

So, older being better? Maybe, Maybe not :wink:

With the Love of Christ Jesus Brother.
YBIC
Nick
<><
 
Active
Not necessarily true. It really depends on which manuscripts were used, as well as other considerations when determining the accuracy of the translation. i.e. expertise of those doing the translating, Godly men or not (?), were they hired to do this work (?), if so, what was the agenda of those hiring them (?). These are but some of the questions that readily come to mind.
That is why knowing some of this and using 2 - 3 translations side by side, should give one a closer to the original as to context/meaning. Of course, there are conditions on this as well.
Is the person a believer who is undertaking this study/reading (?), because only a believer will have Holy Spirit guidance. Are you praying before and at times while studying God's Word (?). Getting yourself prepared to handle God's precious Words (?).
Many treat the Word of God as just another book. Sorry, it's not! I also, won't let my own pride get in the way of saying, much less acknowledging that I don't know it all. God's Word is infallible, but I am not.
So, the premise that older makes better, is not a standard I would necessarily attribute to translations and hang my hat on. Otherwise, you'd have to give in many cases the final authority in certain writings, to the manuscripts found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the translations done afterwards. Why? Because, the Dead Sea Scrolls predate many of the manuscripts that were used for the writing of the KJV, and earlier translations as well. The translators didn't have these documents available to them. The Dead Sea Scrolls were found in 1947.
So, older being better? Maybe, Maybe not :wink:
With the Love of Christ Jesus Brother.
YBIC
Nick<><
While you make some good points here, to grant a later edition of the bible precedence over something from the past causes me to think that those from past generations were missing something only recently granted to men.
I can't imagine God hiding something from the first believers till the twentieth century that could have been manifested 1900 years earlier.
Or even one year earlier.
 
Moderator
Staff Member
While you make some good points here, to grant a later edition of the bible precedence over something from the past causes me to think that those from past generations were missing something only recently granted to men.
I can't imagine God hiding something from the first believers till the twentieth century that could have been manifested 1900 years earlier.
Or even one year earlier.
Interesting. I've always wondered why either or? It's not about precedence. It's about comparison, and study between them. Context should never be different. When one has a variety of fruit to choose from, one might have a preference, but it doesn't mean we have to completely exclude from eating all others. I do understand like in the Garden of Eden that one fruit should not have been eaten for it is not beneficial, so judgment and Holy Spirit guidance can tell us which ones to avoid. If they are truly errant by comparison with other translations, this can be found out as well.

The Dead Sea Scrolls are not about what is recently granted to men to know. It's just another valuable resource, by which the Bible is confirmed, to those who do question the authenticity of the manuscripts used in making available the Bibles we do use.

If we truly believed that there is only one Bible to the exclusion of all others, due to the antiquity of the documents. How prideful would it be to say that it's not the one in Greek & Hebrew/Aramaic since in truth that is the language it was originally handed to us by? Why not us learn the language instead of translating? :smile: Just showing no animus in this.

There are limitations to the written word, to express much less understand what is of God. That is one reason why we have received the Holy Spirit that we might know/understand what God has given us. We can do this without myriad of translations, but not having them is not also a necessity or impediment to it either, unless man makes it so.

Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned. 1 Corinthians 2:12-14

Sadly, I could spend much time with this, but work calls!

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC
Nick
<><
 
Loyal
There was of course one large church, that wanted the Bible kept in Latin. They strongly opposed translating it to "modern" languages. Of course that modern
language wouldn't be considered modern today. It was this way for hundreds of years.

All that aside, it is interesting how different translation interpret things. Consider the verse below.

Rev 22:14; [KJV]
14; Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

Rev 22:14; [NIV]
14; “Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city.

Washing robes and keeping the commandments may "mean" the same thing, but it's difficult to get one meaning out of the other.
 
Active
Interesting. I've always wondered why either or? It's not about precedence. It's about comparison, and study between them. Context should never be different. When one has a variety of fruit to choose from, one might have a preference, but it doesn't mean we have to completely exclude from eating all others. I do understand like in the Garden of Eden that one fruit should not have been eaten for it is not beneficial, so judgment and Holy Spirit guidance can tell us which ones to avoid. If they are truly errant by comparison with other translations, this can be found out as well.

The Dead Sea Scrolls are not about what is recently granted to men to know. It's just another valuable resource, by which the Bible is confirmed, to those who do question the authenticity of the manuscripts used in making available the Bibles we do use.

If we truly believed that there is only one Bible to the exclusion of all others, due to the antiquity of the documents. How prideful would it be to say that it's not the one in Greek & Hebrew/Aramaic since in truth that is the language it was originally handed to us by? Why not us learn the language instead of translating? :smile: Just showing no animus in this.

There are limitations to the written word, to express much less understand what is of God. That is one reason why we have received the Holy Spirit that we might know/understand what God has given us. We can do this without myriad of translations, but not having them is not also a necessity or impediment to it either, unless man makes it so.

Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned. 1 Corinthians 2:12-14

Sadly, I could spend much time with this, but work calls!

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC
Nick
<><
If the Spirit was at work during the initial translation from Greek-Hebrew to one's native language, why would He change any single understanding later?
I use the bible to verify the discovery, and not the discovery to verify the bible.
I can see that new discoveries can and should be compared to what we already know, but I feel that if they are truly of God there will be no discrepancies.
If there are, I can't consider them "of God".
When I look at a new version of the bible, the first verses I check are 2 Tim 16-17.
If the new version changes the word "perfect," I know it is not of God.
 

Similar threads


Top