PDA

View Full Version : Changing the Contents of the Bible



Thomas1621
Dec 15th 2008, 03:14 PM
When (if ever) would it be appropriate or acceptable for someone to remove, add or remove words in the Bible?

kenrank
Dec 15th 2008, 03:19 PM
When (if ever) would it be appropriate or acceptable for someone to remove, add or remove words in the Bible?

In one word...never. But...(isn't there always a but??) There is nothing at all wrong with looking up a translated word in the original language and seeing all the meanings of that word. It is possible, that another word (most likely related but more descriptive) will make it easier to understand a passage. I am one who believes that many NT books were written in Hebrew or Aramaic. So when I run into a word that I just can't get a grip on, I like to take the Greek word it is based on back to the Septuigent. (The Greek OT translated before Messiah's time) and find the same word used there. Then, I go to the Hebrew in the same passage and see what Hebrew word the greek is based on. In doing so, I am not changing anything, but using all the texts to help it define itself.

Peace.
Ken

threebigrocks
Dec 15th 2008, 03:26 PM
When (if ever) would it be appropriate or acceptable for someone to remove, add or remove words in the Bible?

Never. Pure and simple.

Revelation 22
18I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

Mysteryman
Dec 15th 2008, 03:31 PM
The bible has been added too and words changed to suit the translators. So the answer would be - yes ! But one has to be very careful to not alter the context and consistency of the Word of God.

Bex4Jesus
Dec 15th 2008, 03:34 PM
I was going to say, don't different translations use different words? So of course different words are used, and I guess when the next translation comes out (whatever that will be), it will have different words than the others.

Walstib
Dec 15th 2008, 03:39 PM
When (if ever) would it be appropriate or acceptable for someone to remove, add or remove words in the Bible?

What Bible? What Language? What set of original manuscripts? Like tear a page out of an NIV translation? Write some more words down in the margin?

Does a paraphrase translation count as adding and removing? How many translations don't paraphrase in some way?

What is "the Bible"?

Questions of mine, yours not so easy a question to answer I think.

Peace,
Joe

kenrank
Dec 15th 2008, 03:45 PM
The bible has been added too and words changed to suit the translators. So the answer would be - yes ! But one has to be very careful to not alter the context and consistency of the Word of God.

This is a good point. Changing the wording isn't an issue as long as the content and context don't change. Let me give an example...

1 Tim 3:16 says "God" was manifested in the flesh. Removing "God" and say "he" lessons the meaning behind the verse, and adds confusion because there is no way to know without doubt it is God you are talking about. That is changing the Word of God.

But if we said, "God was made obvious in the flesh," that is not changing the Word of God. Made obvious is what manifest means...so if understanding that verse is easier using it the way I just shared, why should anyone care? Nothing has been changed as the MEANING remains the same.

Peace.
Ken

Ascender
Dec 15th 2008, 03:46 PM
God preserves His word -- despite what humans have done.

But if we purposefully distort it or mess with it to make it say something that is not there or even use it out of context, then we will face judgement.

Mysteryman
Dec 15th 2008, 04:14 PM
Some people have built new deonominations from changed and altered and added words to the translations. They believe that every word is exactly as it should be, so they build their beliefs upon that very fact. While some people love different translations to suit their reading ability, while others use different translations to build a whole new way of reading and looking at the scritpures. Thus altering the true context of the whole Word of God.

For instance, and some might disagree, but anyways. Some believe that women can be deacons in the church. The reference either the Strong's concordance or other reference material. Thus rendering a whole new translation in and of itself. They claim the word "deacon" can be male or female. Yet, by this claim they render I Timothy 3:12 as being false, so they alter this verse to make it say what they want it to say. In I Timothy 3:12 it states clearly that a deacon is suppose to be the husband of one wife. Now, if you do a total check of the consistency of the whole Word of God, you would find that I Timothy 3:12 is accurate as the translators translated this verse. But some want the Word of God to say something other than what the consistency of the whole Word of God gives us a picture of what is truth.

This is where this becomes very dangerous, yet it is going on today by many different organizations , who claim to be Christians.

Romber
Dec 15th 2008, 04:41 PM
I guess the real question boils down to if Revelation 22:18 talks about removing/adding/changing in the sense of concepts, or literal words.

Because if it means literal words, we are in trouble. So as long as the Bible is changed, but keeps the same idea/message in each and every verse, then it is ok. But if you change the meaning of a verse, then it is not ok?

Thomas1621
Dec 15th 2008, 04:48 PM
The bible has been added too and words changed to suit the translators. So the answer would be - yes ! But one has to be very careful to not alter the context and consistency of the Word of God.

Allow me to clarify the question, When I say, “When (if ever) would it be appropriate or acceptable for someone to remove verses, add or remove words in the Bible”, I am referring to the original Bible, Latin Vulgate that all Bibles come from. This does not refer to different wording that correlates with credible sources of interpretation because as was already said, sometimes different words can be used to present the same meaning. Such changes in adding a simple word or exchanging one word for another in the Bible that serves as the foundation of all translation is what I am asking.:confused

threebigrocks
Dec 15th 2008, 04:53 PM
If we were expected to be able to read and understand the ancient languages in order to get a single part of scripture - how many of us would be in a huge pickle? We aren't scholars.

Those who dedicate their lives to translations and the study of the ancient languages who do that for a living have been given that ability. It's a very weighty and arduous task, taking many many years to compile an accurate translation.

If I say don't twist my words, what does that mean to you? Don't make them what they aren't. The fact that there are not always perfect, exact and in some cases any words that match perfectly with English from the Hebrew and Greek is just the way it is. We need to have the meaning, the context, in something we CAN read. Looking to tools such as Strong's can help when we just can't quite understand is a great thing.

The thing we need to ask ourselves is the context the same? Looking just at the words, does what we have today reflect the words written thousands of years ago? Most translations do a good job, some better than others, of doing that into a translation that English speaking people of today can understand and discern from. What the words can't get perfect, the revelation and teachings of the Holy Spirit will guide us on.

If we have what we each deem to be the "most accurate translation possible" we fool ourselves.

Thomas1621
Dec 15th 2008, 05:36 PM
If we were expected to be able to read and understand the ancient languages in order to get a single part of scripture - how many of us would be in a huge pickle? We aren't scholars.

Those who dedicate their lives to translations and the study of the ancient languages who do that for a living have been given that ability. It's a very weighty and arduous task, taking many many years to compile an accurate translation.

If I say don't twist my words, what does that mean to you? Don't make them what they aren't. The fact that there are not always perfect, exact and in some cases any words that match perfectly with English from the Hebrew and Greek is just the way it is. We need to have the meaning, the context, in something we CAN read. Looking to tools such as Strong's can help when we just can't quite understand is a great thing.

The thing we need to ask ourselves is the context the same? Looking just at the words, does what we have today reflect the words written thousands of years ago? Most translations do a good job, some better than others, of doing that into a translation that English speaking people of today can understand and discern from. What the words can't get perfect, the revelation and teachings of the Holy Spirit will guide us on.

If we have what we each deem to be the "most accurate translation possible" we fool ourselves.
So its better to follow the translations and interpretations offered by scholars with the most training, experience and credibility rather than self interpreting…

threebigrocks
Dec 15th 2008, 06:30 PM
So its better to follow the translations and interpretations offered by scholars with the most training, experience and credibility rather than self interpreting…



No, it is better to understand how the translation came about and let the Spirit guide us. Self interpreting is only inviting trouble! ;)

Same to be said for those who compile a translation - the Spirit ought to be with them and the team doing the work as they put their hand to the work set before them. Scholars have been given knowledge and passion for what they do. Really, no matter which version or translation we pick up to read - it's a translation. We really have no choice but to trust the one we have before us.

Thomas1621
Dec 15th 2008, 07:40 PM
I guess the real question boils down to if Revelation 22:18 talks about removing/adding/changing in the sense of concepts, or literal words.

Because if it means literal words, we are in trouble. So as long as the Bible is changed, but keeps the same idea/message in each and every verse, then it is ok. But if you change the meaning of a verse, then it is not ok?

But hasen't that happened many times in the past? Look at how many faiths there are today...:confused

Thomas1621
Dec 15th 2008, 07:42 PM
God preserves His word -- despite what humans have done.

But if we purposefully distort it or mess with it to make it say something that is not there or even use it out of context, then we will face judgement.

Do you think that hasn't happened many times over?

keck553
Dec 15th 2008, 07:44 PM
Western culture has changed the intent of some Scripture. For example:

Col 2:17 things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ. - NASB

The addition of the word "mere" (even though it's shaded) has added Platoism to Scripture.

Ascender
Dec 15th 2008, 07:46 PM
Allow me to clarify the question, When I say, “When (if ever) would it be appropriate or acceptable for someone to remove verses, add or remove words in the Bible”, I am referring to the original Bible, Latin Vulgate that all Bibles come from. This does not refer to different wording that correlates with credible sources of interpretation because as was already said, sometimes different words can be used to present the same meaning. Such changes in adding a simple word or exchanging one word for another in the Bible that serves as the foundation of all translation is what I am asking.:confused



But hasen't that happened many times in the past? Look at how many faiths there are today...:confused


Not all Bible versions come from the Vulgate.

There is one Faith, many expressions. Somoe expressions are closer to the ideal than others and some are antithetical to the Gospel.

The Bible we have today is the end result of hundreds of fragments, some containing only a few verses to entire texts and entire scrolls. The variations between one fragment or complete manuscript and another is next to nothing even though hundreds of years and hundreds of miles may separate when and where they were penned.

God preserved His Word -- period.

Walstib
Dec 15th 2008, 08:13 PM
What is "the Bible"?I’ve been having a hard time answering my question since I posted that. Thought it could look like I was saying crazy things like there is nothing you can trust. :crazy:

I was thinking about how trust and faith have a part in what I see the bible is. A collection of writings by people I think were honest and telling the truth, guided by the Holy Spirit. With God making sure His Word would be preserved.

How it is testimony of the witness to miracles and revelations that God wants us to know about. With trust that when a specific collection of letters were decided upon God had his hand in the decision.

God has left a trail of evidence so extensive that we can trust these letters were written by their authors. What I was thinking today was that trusting the apostles, were telling the truth goes hand in hand with the physical evidence God has preserved.

We can follow the evidence to show that there are many translations into many languages that accurately match the trusted manuscripts. And the harmony of the collection itself is a testimony to God’s hand forming it into something beyond coincidence but preordained to be given us.

I think the bible is more than what you can hold in your hand. And the words themselves are defined by the book itself and no man or dictionary can compare. And the Living Word is more important than any of the written word.

Just to be more clear
Joe

Thomas1621
Dec 15th 2008, 08:24 PM
Not all Bible versions come from the Vulgate.
.
There is one Faith, many expressions. Somoe expressions are closer to the ideal than others and some are antithetical to the Gospel.

The Bible we have today is the end result of hundreds of fragments, some containing only a few verses to entire texts and entire scrolls. The variations between one fragment or complete manuscript and another is next to nothing even though hundreds of years and hundreds of miles may separate when and where they were penned.

God preserved His Word -- period.

Considering the Latin Vulgate was the first compellation where else would they come from that would be acceptable to one that claims to be a True Christian?

Does this mean it is acceptable for they’re to be many expressions? (if I understand your use of the word) . How many times will we split apart before becoming aware of the source?

Thomas1621
Dec 15th 2008, 08:32 PM
I’ve been having a hard time answering my question since I posted that. Thought it could look like I was saying crazy things like there is nothing you can trust. :crazy:

I was thinking about how trust and faith have a part in what I see the bible is. A collection of writings by people I think were honest and telling the truth, guided by the Holy Spirit. With God making sure His Word would be preserved.

How it is testimony of the witness to miracles and revelations that God wants us to know about. With trust that when a specific collection of letters were decided upon God had his hand in the decision.

God has left a trail of evidence so extensive that we can trust these letters were written by their authors. What I was thinking today was that trusting the apostles, were telling the truth goes hand in hand with the physical evidence God has preserved.

We can follow the evidence to show that there are many translations into many languages that accurately match the trusted manuscripts. And the harmony of the collection itself is a testimony to God’s hand forming it into something beyond coincidence but preordained to be given us.

I think the bible is more than what you can hold in your hand. And the words themselves are defined by the book itself and no man or dictionary can compare. And the Living Word is more important than any of the written word.

Just to be more clear
Joe

Very interesting and I believe true. But by being defined by the book itself do you mean your own individual translation or where else would you get it and know it to be valid?

John27
Dec 15th 2008, 09:29 PM
Never. Pure and simple.

Revelation 22
18I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.


I find this quote interesting because that would mean that the Quran is trying to add to this book and that they shall be plagued as mentioned.

Bethany67
Dec 15th 2008, 11:04 PM
I am one who believes that many NT books were written in Hebrew or Aramaic.

Hi Ken - I'm doing a course at the moment on the history of Biblical manuscripts and the formation of the Canon, so if you're willing I'd like to examine your evidence for this (in a new thread if necessary). Thanks.

kenrank
Dec 15th 2008, 11:09 PM
Hi Ken - I'm doing a course at the moment on the history of Biblical manuscripts and the formation of the Canon, so if you're willing I'd like to examine your evidence for this (in a new thread if necessary). Thanks.

Only if you share what you uncover!! ;) I would be interested in what you learn in your studies.

As for evidence, I don't have a lot, but I can share it here or in e-mail. Some of the pertinent quotes are short, so if 3Big rocks doesn't have a problem with it, I can post them for all to see.

Peace.
Ken

Bethany67
Dec 15th 2008, 11:16 PM
That would be cool, and I'm more than happy to post what I discover, not least because it'll force me to organise my thoughts and conclusions! I've always tended towards to the Greek primacy idea, but would like to consider the alternatives with an open mind. Do you follow the Pe****ta Primacy school? Shall we talk about Papias and Irenaeus? The Aramaic source criticism of people like Geza Vermes?

Darn - just as it looks to get interesting, I have to go to bed. More tomorrow and onwards :)

scourge39
Dec 15th 2008, 11:29 PM
So its better to follow the translations and interpretations offered by scholars with the most training, experience and credibility rather than self interpreting…


The Holy Spirit has made those parts of Scripture that pertain to salvation clear. However, Scripture wasn't written in a vaccuum. It was written during a specific time in history and within a specific culture. Scripture itself was written to particular audiences who were familiar with every aspect of their surrounding culture because they lived in it. Some passages were crystal clear to them, but foreign to us. Scholars can provide readers with valuable insights regarding the cultural background within which certain books were written. Some passages absolutely require the assistance of additional sources in order to be understood simply because of the massive cultural and historical divide that exists between the original audiences to whom books are addressed and modern readers. Most laypeople simply aren't familiar with the culture in which Scripture was written. Scholars and translators spend their entire lives studying the original languages and the culture in which it was written so laypeople can better understand and apply Scripture. There's no reason to completely ignore them. When one needs a cavity filled, they go to a dentist who knows how to fix teeth and don't try to fix it him/herself. The same principle applies to Bible study. If passages are unclear, consult the work of someone who has studied the cultural background and language of Scripture. Doing so will enhance your study, not detract from it. It's essential to have a basic understanding of the types of literature found in the Bible. Poetic books like Proverbs and Ecclesiastes should never be interpreted the same way one would interpret the Gospels. There is not one verse in Scripture stating that the Spirit is obligated to supernaturally inform us concerning the meaning and background of passages. Serious Bible study requires effort on the part of the reader to seek answers and dig for the meaning of passages. This is where a good study Bible is helpful. The notes are there to help the reader understand the background and meaning of passages. This prevents Scripture from becoming a wax nose whereby the readers determine the meaning of passages based on so-called 'impressions' or 'inner voices.' (That's called reader response criticism, an extremely postmodern approach to interpreting any book, no matter how much Christians want to 'baptize' it with overly pious jargon when reading their Bibles). Scripture is not a ouija board and shouldn't be treated like one. The Spirit inspired it as it is to mean one thing and one thing only. He isn't going to alter its meaning to coincide with how we feel on any given day. The Spirit helps us apply the Word to our lives, but its message never changes. It's up to us to diligently study Scripture in order to deepen our understanding of that message. 'Deepening' one's understanding may include consulting a Bible Dictionary, Commentary, Concordance, etc.

Romber
Dec 16th 2008, 01:03 AM
I guess the real question boils down to if Revelation 22:18 talks about removing/adding/changing in the sense of concepts, or literal words.

Because if it means literal words, we are in trouble. So as long as the Bible is changed, but keeps the same idea/message in each and every verse, then it is ok. But if you change the meaning of a verse, then it is not ok?
But hasen't that happened many times in the past? Look at how many faiths there are today...

I do not know much when it comes to the history of translations, but I thought because of this exact statement is why there is so much bickering over the 'correct' bible version to use. I also don't know if it matters if different faiths (catholic, Mormon etc.) take the bible and change it, as us Christians have no power short of a modern crusade to stop them.

markdrums
Dec 16th 2008, 03:22 AM
Just a blended response to the Original poster & all the questions & comments.
I KNOW FOR A FACT that I'm going to "offend" some people... or at least make a few people uncomfortable here.....

I'm sorry. I have to apologize beforehand, but there has been a HUGE surge of "New Members" who seem to be asking questions in a familiar manner.... which is from the Atheistic/Agnostic/Debunk Christianity point of view.

There are Soooooooo many questions of doubt, disagreement, or uncertainty concerning the Bible lately....... More than normal.... What's especially odd is that, even new (true) believers usually know the answer to these questions.

It's one thing to ask a question for clarity on a subject... but it's an entirely different thing when there's a BIG influx of new members, asking foundational questions... all worded in the same manner.... as in, a "scripted" sense of sorts.

These EXACT SAME QUESTIONS, written/asked in the EXACT SAME MANNER, have shown up on Atheist/Anti-Christian message boards over the past several months. (Yes.....I do my research!)

OK... If I'm wrong in my reply, then I DO apologize.
But, I COMPLETELY take full responsibility for my post, in defense of the entire board!! I've held my tongue & my replies as long as I could.

When I do a search of "new members" & I look at the amount of posts & the type of questions, as well as the style of asking them, it's SOOOOO obvious that we have (Non-Believing) people trying to "blend in" & stir up controversy & doubt.... but those people DON'T blend in.

I'm not the only one who has noticed it; nor am I the only one who realizes that this IS the case.
I may be the only (or FIRST) one to bring it up PUBLICLY..... and the first one to make a statement.... But it needs to be made.

So, With that;
If you're GENUINELY asking a question with no ulterior motives... then I DO apoligze...
AND...
.....If that IS the case, then you'll also understand exactly where I'm coming from, and shouldn't take offense.

Other than that, I have nothing else to say here.....
....except for, "EVERYONE- take a look through the recent posts & questions, from recent additions to the board. Look at the posting / question styles.... and compare those to anti-Christian threads / posts / websites."

Thomas1621
Dec 16th 2008, 03:35 AM
I do not know much when it comes to the history of translations, but I thought because of this exact statement is why there is so much bickering over the 'correct' bible version to use. I also don't know if it matters if different faiths (catholic, Mormon etc.) take the bible and change it, as us Christians have no power short of a modern crusade to stop them.

As far as everyone Christian should be concerned absolutely no one should have the ability to change the Bible text to ever mean anything than what it meant from the beginning because that is the Word of God, all of it. Much has yet to be revealed but that comes with time and should never change the teaching, only clarify it as the years progress. It has already been tampered with and reduced over the years and I found in order to reference it I will use the Latin Vulgate as the origin. I don't know of any other source since it was first compiled that could be more accurate than to follow the historic path.

OldChurchGuy
Dec 16th 2008, 03:42 AM
When (if ever) would it be appropriate or acceptable for someone to remove, add or remove words in the Bible?

Apparently whenever the writer feels it is appropriate. The appropriateness could be feeling led by God, a desire to clarify a theological belief, a desire to substantiate a theological belief, or pure ego.

For example, verses 9 thru 20 of Mark 16 are not found in the earliest manuscripts. No one knows who added them or why. Perhaps Mark did not have an ending. Perhaps there was an ending which was lost or considered incomplete.

Revelation 13:18 the number of the beast if 666 but some of the early manuscripts show 616. So which is correct? Was 616 an error by a scribe? Was 616 intentional?

Finally, there is I John 5:8 which is the only single verse in the NT to explicitly mention the Trinity (God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are one). However, it is my understanding this wording is not found in any manuscript written before the 1500s.

The point has already been made that we are reading an English translation of the Greek, Aramaic, or Hebrew manuscripts. Ideas can get lost or misundersttod in any translation.

Add to that the fact we do not have any of the original manuscripts for the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament and it seems impossible to say with certainty what was added or edited at a later time.

Yet, I truly believe God exists and that there is much wisdom and guidance in the Bible.

Enough rambling.

Sincerely,

OldChurchGuy

Thomas1621
Dec 16th 2008, 03:45 AM
Just a blended response to the Original poster & all the questions & comments.
I KNOW FOR A FACT that I'm going to "offend" some people... or at least make a few people uncomfortable here.....

I'm sorry. I have to apologize beforehand, but there has been a HUGE surge of "New Members" who seem to be asking questions in a familiar manner.... which is from the Atheistic/Agnostic/Debunk Christianity point of view.

There are Soooooooo many questions of doubt, disagreement, or uncertainty concerning the Bible lately....... More than normal.... What's especially odd is that, even new (true) believers usually know the answer to these questions.

It's one thing to ask a question for clarity on a subject... but it's an entirely different thing when there's a BIG influx of new members, asking foundational questions... all worded in the same manner.... as in, a "scripted" sense of sorts.

These EXACT SAME QUESTIONS, written/asked in the EXACT SAME MANNER, have shown up on Atheist/Anti-Christian message boards over the past several months. (Yes.....I do my research!)

OK... If I'm wrong in my reply, then I DO apologize.
But, I COMPLETELY take full responsibility for my post, in defense of the entire board!! I've held my tongue & my replies as long as I could.

When I do a search of "new members" & I look at the amount of posts & the type of questions, as well as the style of asking them, it's SOOOOO obvious that we have (Non-Believing) people trying to "blend in" & stir up controversy & doubt.... but those people DON'T blend in.

I'm not the only one who has noticed it; nor am I the only one who realizes that this IS the case.
I may be the only (or FIRST) one to bring it up PUBLICLY..... and the first one to make a statement.... But it needs to be made.

So, With that;
If you're GENUINELY asking a question with no ulterior motives... then I DO apoligze...
AND...
.....If that IS the case, then you'll also understand exactly where I'm coming from, and shouldn't take offense.

Other than that, I have nothing else to say here.....
....except for, "EVERYONE- take a look through the recent posts & questions, from recent additions to the board. Look at the posting / question styles.... and compare those to anti-Christian threads / posts / websites."

I take no offense my Christian Brother, and my devotion is to my Lord and Savior, no one else. I am trying to learn all I can about Christianity across the board, to know my Christian brothers and sisters without divisions. Other than that, you are welcome to ask anything you wish. I lie for no one. Right now I am trying to understand all the divisions we have when the scripture does not conflict with itself and when it does, someone's interpretation must be amiss. God's peace and your welcome to comment on the subject also if you have something to add. Its a wide subject.

Thomas1621
Dec 16th 2008, 03:52 AM
Apparently whenever the writer feels it is appropriate. The appropriateness could be feeling led by God, a desire to clarify a theological belief, a desire to substantiate a theological belief, or pure ego. I take this that you mean the writer of the book when it was first written.

For example, verses 9 thru 20 of Mark 16 are not found in the earliest manuscripts. No one knows who added them or why. Perhaps Mark did not have an ending. Perhaps there was an ending which was lost or considered incomplete.

Revelation 13:18 the number of the beast if 666 but some of the early manuscripts show 616. So which is correct? Was 616 an error by a scribe? Was 616 intentional?

Finally, there is I John 5:8 which is the only single verse in the NT to explicitly mention the Trinity (God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are one). However, it is my understanding this wording is not found in any manuscript written before the 1500s.

The point has already been made that we are reading an English translation of the Greek, Aramaic, or Hebrew manuscripts. Ideas can get lost or misundersttod in any translation.

Add to that the fact we do not have any of the original manuscripts for the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament and it seems impossible to say with certainty what was added or edited at a later time.

Yet, I truly believe God exists and that there is much wisdom and guidance in the Bible.

Enough rambling.

Sincerely,

OldChurchGuy

I take this that you mean the writer of the book when it was first written. But I was referring to since the compilation of the first Bible and there after, I don't believe anyone has the right to alter the text to change the teachings. There would have to be a line in the sand on where to begin the history of the Bible and the Latin Vulgate is the best place to begin its history to protect its authenticity. That’s What I believe anyway.

divaD
Dec 16th 2008, 04:11 AM
I guess the real question boils down to if Revelation 22:18 talks about removing/adding/changing in the sense of concepts, or literal words.

Because if it means literal words, we are in trouble. So as long as the Bible is changed, but keeps the same idea/message in each and every verse, then it is ok. But if you change the meaning of a verse, then it is not ok?



Revelation 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.


Going by what the text states, it is specifically referring to every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book. That's the point. wouldn't 'heareth' in this verse mean to understand?

Notice the difference between adding and taking away. Adding causes the plagues that are written in this book to be added unto him.

Taking away from the words of the book of this prophecy, assures that God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Apparently there is a difference between adding and taking away, with taking away being the worst thing to do, which apparently causes one to be blotted out of the book of life. I assume that's what verse 19 means?

threebigrocks
Dec 16th 2008, 04:26 AM
Hi Ken - I'm doing a course at the moment on the history of Biblical manuscripts and the formation of the Canon, so if you're willing I'd like to examine your evidence for this (in a new thread if necessary). Thanks.


Only if you share what you uncover!! ;) I would be interested in what you learn in your studies.

As for evidence, I don't have a lot, but I can share it here or in e-mail. Some of the pertinent quotes are short, so if 3Big rocks doesn't have a problem with it, I can post them for all to see.

Peace.
Ken

Nope, you guys go for it, that's fine. BUT :D I'd start a new thread as Bethany67 suggested. And, actually - let's start that off in the Controversial forum. I pray it goes well and is productive for all.

OldChurchGuy
Dec 16th 2008, 12:38 PM
I take this that you mean the writer of the book when it was first written. But I was referring to since the compilation of the first Bible and there after, I don't believe anyone has the right to alter the text to change the teachings. There would have to be a line in the sand on where to begin the history of the Bible and the Latin Vulgate is the best place to begin its history to protect its authenticity. That’s What I believe anyway.



The OT portion of the Lating Vulgate, as I understand it, was translated by Jerome in the late 4th or early 5th century from the Septuagint. Jerome, by the way, was aided by two women in this undertaking.

The Latin Vulgate includes various books commonly known as the Apocrypha.

When Martin Luther compiled his version of the Bible the Apocrypha was dropped.

So much for a history lesson.

The question for me is whether the concern is preserving the Bible or the Latin Vulgate?

As always,

OldChurchGuy

Thomas1621
Dec 16th 2008, 01:23 PM
The OT portion of the Lating Vulgate, as I understand it, was translated by Jerome in the late 4th or early 5th century from the Septuagint. Jerome, by the way, was aided by two women in this undertaking.

The Latin Vulgate includes various books commonly known as the Apocrypha.

When Martin Luther compiled his version of the Bible the Apocrypha was dropped.

So much for a history lesson.

The question for me is whether the concern is preserving the Bible or the Latin Vulgate?

As always,

OldChurchGuy

Can a tree live without its roots? My concern, if that is your question, is the preservation of the Bible from it's beginning, as should be all Christians. We have believers in so many varied groups that all base their beliefs in what they refer to as the Bible or scripture and you know it is altered... LDS, JW, and so on. But we certainly can't deny we weren't warned in scripture itself. For instance, Why should anyone "compile" their own version of the Bible and honestly, how many times has the Bible been compiled by men to fit their own belief system? It should be an issue of concern to all.

Mysteryman
Dec 16th 2008, 01:39 PM
Can a tree live without its roots? My concern, if that is your question, is the preservation of the Bible from it's beginning, as should be all Christians. We have believers in so many varied groups that all base their beliefs in what they refer to as the Bible or scripture and you know it is altered... LDS, JW, and so on. But we certainly can't deny we weren't warned in scripture itself. For instance, Why should anyone "compile" their own version of the Bible and honestly, how many times has the Bible been compiled by men to fit their own belief system? It should be an issue of concern to all.


Well, yes and no. Yes , we should be concerned what man is doing to make a bible translation fit their beliefs. As this is an outward blatant action on their part to alter the written Word of God. But for the most part, most people can recognize that this is going on. This should be no surpize and should not shock people.

No, because God put more emphasis on the spoken Word than he did on the written Word. This does not mean that the written Word is not necessary. My point being, is that the spoken Word always came first . The seven church episltes were not written "as" the events and comments of Paul took place. Also, every OT book was written many years after the events actually took place. When God sent men of God , be them Prophets, or Abraham who was the father of all believing, or even Seth the third son of Adam. None of them had the written Word. They only had the spoken Word. Men of God who held forth what God had spoken unto them.

The written Word is important, but not so important that we are to rely upon it without a man of God to preach and teach it unto us. Faith cometh by "hearing" and "hearing" by the Word of God. If something is added or changed within your translation. A true man of God , sent by God is the one whom your trust should be in. Either God is working through him or he is not. Too many people pick up their bibles and claim that this is what God said . And sadly , it is only what the translators said, and not God.

Thomas1621
Dec 16th 2008, 02:07 PM
Well, yes and no. Yes , we should be concerned what man is doing to make a bible translation fit their beliefs. As this is an outward blatant action on their part to alter the written Word of God. But for the most part, most people can recognize that this is going on. This should be no surpize and should not shock people.

No, because God put more emphasis on the spoken Word than he did on the written Word. This does not mean that the written Word is not necessary. My point being, is that the spoken Word always came first . The seven church episltes were not written "as" the events and comments of Paul took place. Also, every OT book was written many years after the events actually took place. When God sent men of God , be them Prophets, or Abraham who was the father of all believing, or even Seth the third son of Adam. None of them had the written Word. They only had the spoken Word. Men of God who held forth what God had spoken unto them.

The written Word is important, but not so important that we are to rely upon it without a man of God to preach and teach it unto us. Faith cometh by "hearing" and "hearing" by the Word of God. If something is added or changed within your translation. A true man of God , sent by God is the one whom your trust should be in. Either God is working through him or he is not. Too many people pick up their bibles and claim that this is what God said . And sadly , it is only what the translators said, and not God.

This would follow most closely with Apostolic succession but I find it unusual to hear it from someone else. the NT gospel is the written portion of the teachings but it certainly doesn't represent all of the teachings of Jesus. I just find it disturbing that so many warnings could be declared but yet so many don't see it all around them. With the condition our society is in, we should be gathering together in prayer.

Walstib
Dec 16th 2008, 02:37 PM
Very interesting and I believe true. But by being defined by the book itself do you mean your own individual translation or where else would you get it and know it to be valid?

Well I have never made a translation myself, just a simple carpenter these days. I know I could study Aramaic for years and Greek and Hebrew and Latin and translate one if I had enough time. But I do have time and the resources to look into one single word and trace back the evidence to the earliest manuscripts and pieces thereof. A beautiful privilege we have these days I think.

The evidence is what holds up or tears down any translation or single word within. Evidence, in part, the Vulgate was translated from. Just one of the many translations and not the source.

I have never understood this argument of translating from a translation. A council deciding on a specific group of letters is entirely different than trusting one faction's translation of them I think. Most modern translations are not even translated by Christians, but Christians can check the work they did, and God leads the hearts of the regenerate.

Peace,
Joe

Thomas1621
Dec 16th 2008, 04:46 PM
Well I have never made a translation myself, just a simple carpenter these days. I know I could study Aramaic for years and Greek and Hebrew and Latin and translate one if I had enough time. But I do have time and the resources to look into one single word and trace back the evidence to the earliest manuscripts and pieces thereof. A beautiful privilege we have these days I think.

The evidence is what holds up or tears down any translation or single word within. Evidence, in part, the Vulgate was translated from. Just one of the many translations and not the source.

I have never understood this argument of translating from a translation. A council deciding on a specific group of letters is entirely different than trusting one faction's translation of them I think. Most modern translations are not even translated by Christians, but Christians can check the work they did, and God leads the hearts of the regenerate.

Peace,
Joe

This is how the Church has obtained its translations, as you said above. I have at times come past the information on some of the groups involved in this work and it is fascinating how many are often involved. It assures the integrity of the translations and it is always verified but the Christian scholastic theologians as well.
.

Thomas1621
Dec 17th 2008, 01:32 PM
The OT portion of the Lating Vulgate, as I understand it, was translated by Jerome in the late 4th or early 5th century from the Septuagint. Jerome, by the way, was aided by two women in this undertaking.

The Latin Vulgate includes various books commonly known as the Apocrypha.

When Martin Luther compiled his version of the Bible the Apocrypha was dropped.

So much for a history lesson.

The question for me is whether the concern is preserving the Bible or the Latin Vulgate?

As always,

OldChurchGuy

Info Regarding The Apocryphia....

"The Church does not deny that there are ancient writings which are "apocryphal." During the early Christian era, there were scores of manuscripts which purported to be Holy Scripture but were not. Many have survived to the present day, like the Apocalypse of Peter and the Gospel of Thomas, which all Christian churches regard as spurious writings that don't belong in Scripture.
During the first century, the Jews disagreed as to what constituted the canon of Scripture. In fact, there were a large number of different canons in use, including the growing canon used by Christians. In order to combat the spreading Christian cult, rabbis met at the city of Jamnia or Javneh in A.D. 90 to determine which books were truly the Word of God. They pronounced many books, including the Gospels, to be unfit as scriptures. This canon also excluded seven books (Baruch, Sirach, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, and the Wisdom of Solomon, plus portions of Esther and Daniel) that Christians considered part of the Old Testament.
The group of Jews which met at Javneh became the dominant group for later Jewish history, and today most Jews accept the canon of Javneh. However, some Jews, such as those from Ethiopia, follow a different canon which is identical to the Catholic Old Testament and includes the seven deuterocanonical books (cf. Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 6, p. 1147).
Needless to say, the Church disregarded the results of Javneh. First, a Jewish council after the time of Christ is not binding on the followers of Christ. Second, Javneh rejected precisely those documents which are foundational for the Christian Church -- the Gospels and the other documents of the New Testament. Third, by rejecting the deuterocanonicals, Javneh rejected books which had been used by Jesus and the apostles and which were in the edition of the Bible that the apostles used in everyday life -- the Septuagint.
The Apostles & the Deuteros The Christian acceptance of the deuterocanonical books was logical because the deuterocanonicals were also included in the Septuagint, the Greek edition of the Old Testament which the apostles used to evangelize the world. Two thirds of the Old Testament quotations in the New are from the Septuagint. Yet the apostles nowhere told their converts to avoid seven books of it. Like the Jews all over the world who used the Septuagint, the early Christians accepted the books they found in it. They knew that the apostles would not mislead them and endanger their souls by putting false scriptures in their hands -- especially without warning them against them. But the apostles did not merely place the deuterocanonicals in the hands of their converts as part of the Septuagint. They regularly referred to the deuterocanonicals in their writings. For example, Hebrews 11 encourages us to emulate the heroes of the Old Testament and in the Old Testament "Women received their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might rise again to a better life" (Heb. 11:35).
There are a couple of examples of women receiving back their dead by resurrection in the Protestant Old Testament. You can find Elijah raising the son of the widow of Zarepheth in 1 Kings 17, and you can find his successor Elisha raising the son of the Shunammite woman in 2 Kings 4, but one thing you can never find -- anywhere in the Protestant Old Testament, from front to back, from Genesis to Malachi -- is someone being tortured and refusing to accept release for the sake of a better resurrection. If you want to find that, you have to look in the Catholic Old Testament -- in the deuterocanonical books Martin Luther cut out of his Bible…”
continued at http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/deuteros.htm (http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/deuteros.htm)
:)

one_lost_coin
Dec 17th 2008, 10:10 PM
The OT portion of the Lating Vulgate, as I understand it, was translated by Jerome in the late 4th or early 5th century from the Septuagint. Jerome, by the way, was aided by two women in this undertaking.

The Latin Vulgate includes various books commonly known as the Apocrypha.

When Martin Luther compiled his version of the Bible the Apocrypha was dropped.

So much for a history lesson.

The question for me is whether the concern is preserving the Bible or the Latin Vulgate?

As always,

OldChurchGuy

Your question is prefaced on a false dichotomy. Your so called history lesson does not establish that the Latin Vulgate is not a properly constituted bible. You merely presuppose it in the question.

Would you care to finish the story of why St. Jerome included these books in the Vulgate? The answer is very illuminating upon the following questions.

Who gets to decide what's in and what is out? As it is a fact the Sacred Scriptures nowhere contain what books are to be included in Sacred Scriptures. So who has the authority to declare what is to constitute Sacred Scripture?

OldChurchGuy
Dec 18th 2008, 01:38 PM
Your question is prefaced on a false dichotomy. Your so called history lesson does not establish that the Latin Vulgate is not a properly constituted bible. You merely presuppose it in the question.

Would you care to finish the story of why St. Jerome included these books in the Vulgate? The answer is very illuminating upon the following questions.

Who gets to decide what's in and what is out? As it is a fact the Sacred Scriptures nowhere contain what books are to be included in Sacred Scriptures. So who has the authority to declare what is to constitute Sacred Scripture?

Poor wording on my part. Please understand, I have no problem with the Latin Vulgate as a Bible.

My point is that since we do not have the any of the original manuscripts and the complete manuscripts we do have are centuries after the fact then how can one determine the Latin Vulgate is any more or less credible than the Protestant version of the Bible?

I confess to not knowing the rest of the story regarding St. Jerome and why the Apocraphya was included. If you know would you please explain?

As always,

OldChurchGuy

Thomas1621
Dec 19th 2008, 01:15 PM
"Bible" comes from the Greek ta biblia which means "the books." We regard the Bible as a single book. In fact, it is a library of books, which were written over a period of approximately 1500 years. The Bible, "The Book," is about God revealing Himself to His people, the Jewish people first, then revealing Himself to all people in His Son, Jesus Christ. The Bible tells us about how God acts in human history, and it teaches us about God. It contains religious history. God is the author of the Bible. So, the Bible is not only about God, it is also by Him. The languages in which the books of the Bible were written were Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Most of the Old Testament books were written in Hebrew. Parts of Daniel, Ezra, Jeremiah, Esther and probably Tobit and Judith were written in Aramaic (the language spoken by Jesus, which was related to Hebrew and popular in Palestine during His time). The Book of Wisdom, 2nd Maccabees and all the books of the New Testament were written in Greek. Some say Matthew had a shorter Gospel in Aramaic, but it no longer exists.

The Bible is divided into the Old Testament (containing 46 books), and the New Testament (containing 27 books). The word "Testament" means "covenant" or "agreement". The Old Testament or Old Covenant, involves the family bond between God and the Israelites wherein He would be their God, and they would be His people (Exodus 24:1-8). Moses said, "... 'This is the blood of the covenant which the Lord has made with you according to all these words.'" (Exodus 24:8). The old covenant was sealed with the blood of animals and an oath. The New Testament or New Covenant involves the fulfillment of the old covenant by a new covenant with God. "... I will put My law in their minds and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people." (Jeremiah 31:33). Jesus said, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you." (Luke 22:20). The new covenant was sealed with the Blood of Jesus Christ and the oath of our baptism.

The Old Testament was put together by the Hebrews and the New Testament was collected and preserved by members of the Catholic Church after the time of Christ.


The word "Gospel" means "Good News." It means the good news of salvation proclaimed by Christ and the Church, and given to us in written form by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. There are no original manuscripts of any books of the Bible in existence today. The oldest copy is the Book of Isaiah, which is in Hebrew, and dates from about 100 B.C. It was found in a cave near Jericho in 1947, and is part of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The oldest New Testament manuscripts we have date from approximately A.D. 350.

The contents of the Bible developed in three stages:

Oral Stage - Stories handed down through the generations by word of mouth (almost all of the Book of Genesis is from oral accounts, or what we call tradition). The more important stories were memorized and told on special occasions.

Writing Stage - As time went on, people began to write things down. Writing was difficult, and very few people could read. For hundreds of years both oral tradition and the written word existed side by side. Some parts of the Bible were written to meet a particular need of the community, Jewish or Christian. Not all Oral Traditions were written down.

Editing Stage - Material was chosen which best represented the religious traditions of the people. The oral and written accounts could have differed slightly, so editing was done to bring unity between the two. The contents of the Bible came from this last stage. These three stages of development existed for the most part simultaneously, though the Oral Stage came first and the Editing Stage came last.
Symbols for spoken words were developed probably about 6000 years ago. About 2500 B.C. the Egyptians developed papyrus, on which they inscribed their symbols. They joined several of these together and rolled them on a rod to make something like a scroll. About A.D. 105, the Chinese invented paper, but it was not introduced into the Western world until about A.D. 700. It was more than 700 years later (A.D. 1450) that Johann Gutenberg invented printing.

The Bible was written by many different human authors over a period of 1500 years. These human authors were inspired by God, that is, God breathed ideas into them which He wanted expressed, and they expressed these ideas in their own way. It was not their intention to write a book that would be entered into "The Bible," as we know it. The whole thrust was to preserve the traditions of how God dealt with His people.

Since the Bible is not one book, but a library of books, there are many different kinds of writing in these books, e.g., prose, proverbs, parables, prophesy, prayers, poetry, (narrative hymns), legends, legal documents, letters, sermons, songs, stories, etc. This is called Literary Form.

In order to be able to understand a passage of the Bible one must be aware of:

In what form it was written, e.g., prose, poetry, history, etc. (Literary Form)
Why it was written.
When it was written.
What is the whole book about?
What is the meaning of each word?
How does it fit in with other parts of the Bible on the same subject?
The Old Testament is organized under three major headings:
The Law - this is the first in importance and consists of the first five books.
The Prophets - this consists of the preaching attributed to the prophets and their writings and the Books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings.
The Writings - this consists of the remainder of the Old Testament.
The Bible is God's gift to us. The Bible is God's love letter to His people. It was written over many centuries and contains different kinds of writing. We all need help to interpret what is being said in the different books in order to properly understand the teachings of our Savior.

reformedct
Dec 19th 2008, 05:37 PM
i believe it is not ok to add or ermove CONTENT

however it is ok too use different words when translating in order to accuratley translate the CONTENT. for example if people don't speak english and we say "hell", we can't expect them to first learn English then be able to be saved.

All of us have become christians through the english language and look how the power of God had operated in our lives, however we see what happens when CONTENT is added: such as Mormonism, and when content is removed, such as Jehovah witnesses changing the content of the bible to remove the Deity of Jesus

The Parson
Dec 19th 2008, 07:24 PM
Considering the Latin Vulgate was the first compellation where else would they come from that would be acceptable to one that claims to be a True Christian?

Does this mean it is acceptable for they’re to be many expressions? (if I understand your use of the word) . How many times will we split apart before becoming aware of the source?
I know you are referring to Jeromes Vulgate Thomas but Jeromes is not the first Vulgate. It was the Old Itala (2nd century).

But my question to you would be what is the reason you started this particular thread?

Ascender
Dec 19th 2008, 08:26 PM
Considering the Latin Vulgate was the first compellation where else would they come from that would be acceptable to one that claims to be a True Christian?

Does this mean it is acceptable for they’re to be many expressions? (if I understand your use of the word) . How many times will we split apart before becoming aware of the source?


The Vulgate "may" have been the first compellation, but it was not the first text. Textually, we have coptic scrolls, dead sea scrolls, the majority texts, textus receptus, and several thousands of other fragments from a variety of sources. Modern Biblical scholars are able to view and compare those texts in ways that Gutenberg, the Geneva translators, King James translators and the Vulgate complilers could only have dreamed about.

In the side by side comparison of texts from various locations covering up to 2700 years (for certain OT manuscript fragments), how much of a variation from each other do you think we have? 5 percent? 10 percent?

What would be an acceptable deviation ratio?

Why there is a 15% deviation ratio in copies of Plato with the extent of 200 some years between them...so what of the Bible?

Especially when you have variables such as various languages - Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Coptic, Sudanese and others, how much variation in the ancient texts?

less than 1.5 % and 85 some percent of that is in punctuation, breathing marks, etc. Through comparisons side by side we can figure out where the marks should have been and what punctuation went where.

The Bible is preserved.

Now, you can talk about your traditions, your perspective, your insight, your interpretation all you want...but todays Bible is more crystal clear than ever before in recorded history.

And as to the many expressions thing -- I like having a variety of denominations, I believe that each group has something for the round table.

Thomas1621
Dec 19th 2008, 08:26 PM
I know you are referring to Jeromes Vulgate Thomas but Jeromes is not the first Vulgate. It was the Old Itala (2nd century).

But my question to you would be what is the reason you started this particular thread?

True the Vetus Itala was the first used and had much influence on the Latin Vulgate however the V.I. was considered to cause too many variations in use which is why Jerome was assigned to correct mis-interpretation at the request of Pope Damasus.

My reason for the thread was to reach across boundries of all Christians and obtain their thoughts in regard to such changes or modifications as seems to occur in the establishment of new Christian Faiths. I have spent the better part of six years researching Christianity aside from being a Christian and I find it very concerning.

The Parson
Dec 19th 2008, 08:33 PM
True the Vetus Itala was the first used and had much influence on the Latin Vulgate however the V.I. was considered to cause too many variations in use which is why Jerome was assigned to correct mis-interpretation at the request of Pope Damasus.

My reason for the thread was to reach across boundries of all Christians and obtain their thoughts in regard to such changes or modifications as seems to occur in the establishment of new Christian Faiths. I have spent the better part of six years researching Christianity aside from being a Christian and I find it very concerning.So your viewpoint is from a Roman Catholic standpoint?

Ascender
Dec 19th 2008, 08:34 PM
True the Vetus Itala was the first used and had much influence on the Latin Vulgate however the V.I. was considered to cause too many variations in use which is why Jerome was assigned to correct mis-interpretation at the request of Pope Damasus.

My reason for the thread was to reach across boundries of all Christians and obtain their thoughts in regard to such changes or modifications as seems to occur in the establishment of new Christian Faiths. I have spent the better part of six years researching Christianity aside from being a Christian and I find it very concerning.


I think you worry over nothing.

The Living Word and His Holy Spirit are the keys/source to understanding the Kingdom.

The preserved Written Word is profitable for Doctrine, Reproof and Instruction in living Holy.

Wise men of God have given their perspective and understanding to the church to guide us -- Catholics have called them "Authorities", Protestants have called them scholars and experts, but they are guides to maintaining an acceptable faith and not getting side tracked or entering into wrong beliefs.

If someone still goes astray after all this -- they want to go astray.

Thomas1621
Dec 19th 2008, 08:39 PM
The Vulgate "may" have been the first compellation, but it was not the first text. Textually, we have coptic scrolls, dead sea scrolls, the majority texts, textus receptus, and several thousands of other fragments from a variety of sources. Modern Biblical scholars are able to view and compare those texts in ways that Gutenberg, the Geneva translators, King James translators and the Vulgate complilers could only have dreamed about.

In the side by side comparison of texts from various locations covering up to 2700 years (for certain OT manuscript fragments), how much of a variation from each other do you think we have? 5 percent? 10 percent?

What would be an acceptable deviation ratio?

Why there is a 15% deviation ratio in copies of Plato with the extent of 200 some years between them...so what of the Bible?

Especially when you have variables such as various languages - Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Coptic, Sudanese and others, how much variation in the ancient texts?

less than 1.5 % and 85 some percent of that is in punctuation, breathing marks, etc. Through comparisons side by side we can figure out where the marks should have been and what punctuation went where.

The Bible is preserved.

Now, you can talk about your traditions, your perspective, your insight, your interpretation all you want...but todays Bible is more crystal clear than ever before in recorded history.

And as to the many expressions thing -- I like having a variety of denominations, I believe that each group has something for the round table.

Very well presented, but the question pertained to altering the text of scripture, not the interpretation. Altering scripture as in adding, subtracting or modifying words, sentences, verses or whatever, then translating and reinterpreting them to obtain a meaning other than the original. You say you are in favor of that for diversification? You may be in favor of a variety of denominations for whatever reasons but I don't believe that was God's intention for His faithful and I tend to side with Him. Do you think Satan is a fool and hasn’t a hand in this or cannot see you deceived?

Thomas1621
Dec 19th 2008, 08:43 PM
So your viewpoint is from a Roman Catholic standpoint?

Curious, is my question one that only Roman Catholic's raise? And does that determine how the answers will be responded to?

Thomas1621
Dec 19th 2008, 08:47 PM
I think you worry over nothing.

The Living Word and His Holy Spirit are the keys/source to understanding the Kingdom.

The preserved Written Word is profitable for Doctrine, Reproof and Instruction in living Holy.

Wise men of God have given their perspective and understanding to the church to guide us -- Catholics have called them "Authorities", Protestants have called them scholars and experts, but they are guides to maintaining an acceptable faith and not getting side tracked or entering into wrong beliefs.

If someone still goes astray after all this -- they want to go astray.

But you know many people are born into the Faith they are raised in and may not have the opportunity easily to learn anything differently. Look at LDS and JW for instance. You can't blame someone for only knowing what they were raised with... I have compassion for the misguided knowing the love devotion Our Father has for us and we should have for Him without the distortion or false teachings.

Ascender
Dec 19th 2008, 08:57 PM
Very well presented, but the question pertained to altering the text of scripture, not the interpretation. Altering scripture as in adding, subtracting or modifying words, sentences, verses or whatever, then translating and reinterpreting them to obtain a meaning other than the original. You say you are in favor of that for diversification? You may be in favor of a variety of denominations for whatever reasons but I don't believe that was God's intention for His faithful and I tend to side with Him. Do you think Satan is a fool and hasn’t a hand in this or cannot see you deceived?

Having done some translational work -- you have to add, alter or modify any translation whether from Spanish to English or Polish to Russian, or Chinese to Hopi, there are things that have to be modified to make a translation work. No translator worth his weight in salt will intentionally modify any work away from the original much less be that in Bible translation.

As for the rest of your comment -- you bias is showing.:hmm:

I am in favor of an accurate Bible. I could care less about the rest. Due to a variety of human beings, maturity levels and cultures, God is the best judge of where a person should attent church.

The Parson
Dec 19th 2008, 08:59 PM
Curious, is my question one that only Roman Catholic's raise? And does that determine how the answers will be responded to?

Yes, but I would say except the fact that there are a "few" protestants that would respond thusly. But no, it wouldn't effect the answer howbeit should you bring in the rejected books into the discussion then it would. Hope that made sense.

Ascender
Dec 19th 2008, 09:07 PM
But you know many people are born into the Faith they are raised in and may not have the opportunity easily to learn anything differently. Look at LDS and JW for instance. You can't blame someone for only knowing what they were raised with... I have compassion for the misguided knowing the love devotion Our Father has for us and we should have for Him without the distortion or false teachings.


I know many former JW's and LDS people as well as fomer denom people of various flavors that have left their home raised churches and joined with new -- I am one of those. In fact, I was born and raised in one church, pastored in that denom, and ended up in another. The fact is, the Holy Spirit convicts and works at changing our mind, heart, will and emotions. I also have compassion for those I see as misguided -- not just those in cults.

Thomas1621
Dec 19th 2008, 09:11 PM
Having done some translational work -- you have to add, alter or modify any translation whether from Spanish to English or Polish to Russian, or Chinese to Hopi, there are things that have to be modified to make a translation work. No translator worth his weight in salt will intentionally modify any work away from the original much less be that in Bible translation.

As for the rest of your comment -- you bias is showing.:hmm:

I am in favor of an accurate Bible. I could care less about the rest. Due to a variety of human beings, maturity levels and cultures, God is the best judge of where a person should attent church.

My bias? You’ve been defensive since your first post to me. If changing the Scriptural text to get a desired interpretation is committed, it is Condemnation to whoever changes it. And you know I am not talking about legitimate translating here.

Thomas1621
Dec 19th 2008, 09:15 PM
I know many former JW's and LDS people as well as fomer denom people of various flavors that have left their home raised churches and joined with new -- I am one of those. In fact, I was born and raised in one church, pastored in that denom, and ended up in another. The fact is, the Holy Spirit convicts and works at changing our mind, heart, will and emotions. I also have compassion for those I see as misguided -- not just those in cults.

You seem to have a very defensive attitude. But what caused you to immediately become defensive with me? Do you know me?

Ascender
Dec 19th 2008, 09:16 PM
My bias? You’ve been defensive since your first post to me. If changing the Scriptural text to get a desired interpretation is committed, it is Condemnation to whoever changes it. And you know I am not talking about legitimate translating here.


If you are talking about intentional mass manipulative blatant trangression of translational rules such as is done by The Watchtower then I agree with you. You first post did not seem to ask that.

Ascender
Dec 19th 2008, 09:19 PM
You seem to have a very defensive attitude. But what caused you to immediately become defensive with me? Do you know me?

Displacement -- I find this an interesting and often misunderstood topic among most Christians. I grew up thinking that if the KJV was good for Paul and Silas it was good enough for me -- but there was that "study to show yourself approved thing, and when I began to study I put away a lot of childish things.

The Parson
Dec 19th 2008, 11:24 PM
OK folks. This thread has run it's course. Please go to another subject. Thread closed...