How the Bible was changed by man! Is this true?

[Doktormartini]

Hi all! I am taking a World Religions class at my community college (awesome, everyone should take one btw), and right now we are on the Judaism unit. Our teacher said that Moses led the people to the promised land, and blah blah all the events happened and eventually the full Tanakh was written (That's Torah, Nevim, and Ketuvim). He then said that during the time, there were Jewish people in Greece who could not understand Hebrew, so 72 Greek men translated the Tanakh into Greek. But by doing so they also added some stuff to it and changed the order of it to make it so it leads to the coming of the Messiah (how the Christian Old Testaments are). Then he said that the Protestants at the time thought The Catholics (the ones that changed the Tanakh) were wrong to add stuff to it, so their version doesn't have additions, but the order is still changed from the origianl.

Then he held up a Tanakh, a Catholic Bible, and a Protestant Bible and said, "Now which one do you want to read? The original? Or the one changed by man?"

So, I know the Bible is and has been changed by man, but is this really one of the ways it happend? Thanks all!

 

[shema]

Hi all! I am taking a World Religions class at my community college (awesome, everyone should take one btw), and right now we are on the Judaism unit. Our teacher said that Moses led the people to the promised land, and blah blah all the events happened and eventually the full Tanakh was written (That's Torah, Nevim, and Ketuvim). He then said that during the time, there were Jewish people in Greece who could not understand Hebrew, so 72 Greek men translated the Tanakh into Greek. But by doing so they also added some stuff to it and changed the order of it to make it so it leads to the coming of the Messiah (how the Christian Old Testaments are). Then he said that the Protestants at the time thought The Catholics (the ones that changed the Tanakh) were wrong to add stuff to it, so their version doesn't have additions, but the order is still changed from the origianl.

Then he held up a Tanakh, a Catholic Bible, and a Protestant Bible and said, "Now which one do you want to read? The original? Or the one changed by man?"

So, I know the Bible is and has been changed by man, but is this really one of the ways it happend? Thanks all!

I believe that all sriptures have been changed, translated, mistranslated. the only way to get the information is to get research. there are a lot of words in the english language that they just don't have in other languages. however, I believe that it is God's will that has ended up available to us today. the bible says there are many imaginations in a man's mind. but it is the counsel of the lord that will stand.

 

[Hacker]

Well, I don't know how the heck we are going to know whether it's true or not because we weren't THERE to actually see it for ourself. It all boils down to faith but there are some historical writings pertaining to Constatine and his alleged alterations of the bible when he became the Emperor of Rome, and the missing sea scrolls. It makes sense to me, in MY opinion, there is MUCH pertinent information that is not included in the bible...most religions reveal nothing but scare tactics which sounds like "MAN" to me.

 

[HopefulNikki]

For me, whether or not the Bible has been changed is really unimportant. It is certainly an issue which challenges mainstream Christian thought, but in my view religion and/or spirituality extends beyond a book. I can look at the Bible, in any form you hand it to me in (as long as it's in English), and draw teachings from it that I see as good and moral, as well as bad and immoral. God gave us reasoning minds, we should at least be courteous enough to use them from time to time.

 

[James the Persian]

Hi all! I am taking a World Religions class at my community college (awesome, everyone should take one btw), and right now we are on the Judaism unit. Our teacher said that Moses led the people to the promised land, and blah blah all the events happened and eventually the full Tanakh was written (That's Torah, Nevim, and Ketuvim). He then said that during the time, there were Jewish people in Greece who could not understand Hebrew, so 72 Greek men translated the Tanakh into Greek. But by doing so they also added some stuff to it and changed the order of it to make it so it leads to the coming of the Messiah (how the Christian Old Testaments are). Then he said that the Protestants at the time thought The Catholics (the ones that changed the Tanakh) were wrong to add stuff to it, so their version doesn't have additions, but the order is still changed from the origianl.

Then he held up a Tanakh, a Catholic Bible, and a Protestant Bible and said, "Now which one do you want to read? The original? Or the one changed by man?"

So, I know the Bible is and has been changed by man, but is this really one of the ways it happend? Thanks all!

In short, no. The Septuagint (LXX, or the Seventy) which is the translation into Greek that you are referring to was produced by Jews in Alexandria (in Egypt) between about 300 and 100 BC. There was no Church at all by that time as Christ was not yet Incarnate. And if by Catholic you mean Roman Catholic then I would have to point out that that Church only came to be in 1054 when they and we parted company (The Patriarchate of Rome went its own way becoming the RCC and the other four, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Constantinople, remained in communion with each other as the Orthodox Catholic Church). Likewise your teacher was way oversimplifying things by referring to a Jewish, Protestant and RC canon. The Orthodox canon is different to either and one of the Oriental Orthodox churches (that's a different communion entirely), the Ethiopian, has yet another.

As to the contents of the Septuagint, clearly they were not changed to make it appear that they predicted the Messiah as they predate Christ. What you might not realise is that the Masoretic Text (the current Jewish one) is actually post-Christian. It's a newer version than the Septuagint. You also may not be aware, but it is true nonetheless, that over 80% of the Old Testament quotes in the New are identifiable as Septuagint quotes rather than from some other version. It is apparent (and the Dead Sea Scrolls have given further evidence to support this) that before and during the time of Christ there simply was no one standard version of the various Biblical texts but rather there were several textual variants. It is clear, then, that in most cases where the texts differ, the Septuagint is based on one variant and the Masoretic Text on another. There will also likely be translation issues but I know of absolutely no evidence of deliberate tampering with the texts (though if there was to be any anywhere in my opinion the most likely candidate would be the Masoretic Text simply due to its age and the attitude of Judaism towards Christianity at the time it was compiled). As far as I'm concerned, as a Christian, the version used by the Apostles and authors of the New Testament is obviously the preferred text. There is absolutely no doubt that in the vast majority of cases this was the Septuagint (or else the Hebrew originals on which that translation was based).

James

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Hi all! I am taking a World Religions class at my community college (awesome, everyone should take one btw), and right now we are on the Judaism unit. Our teacher said that Moses led the people to the promised land, and blah blah ...

Assumming this is something other than pure fabrication, I suspect that you should, either, acquire a better teacher or aspire to be a better student.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Then he held up a Tanakh, a Catholic Bible, and a Protestant Bible and said, "Now which one do you want to read? The original? Or the one changed by man?"

So, I know the Bible is and has been changed by man, but is this really one of the ways it happend? Thanks all!

There are no copies anywhere of an original, unchanged biblical texts. Because there was no printing press, there was no standard for copying manuscripts as we have today - scribes would copy as they heard it read to them, or they changed the order or content of the text with remarkable freedom. For texts that had an oral tradition preceeding it, the oral tradition could be changed. Very often changes (whether omissions, additions, or re-arrangements) can be categorized into a geographic, ideological, and chronological context.

Finding an "original" collection of ancient writings in a modern Bible is utterly hopeless. The writings of the Bible originated from the mouth or hands of human beings. The tradition was transmitted, edited, compiled, and preserved by other human beings over thousands of years. There is no "original", and if there were, it would be from human beings.

The distinction "original" or the "one changed by man" is artificial.

 

[Smoke]

Then he held up a Tanakh, a Catholic Bible, and a Protestant Bible and said, "Now which one do you want to read? The original? Or the one changed by man?"

It's very troubling to me that your professor should present things in those terms, and it makes me wonder about both his honesty and his competence.

There's no such thing as "the original." The scriptures are the product of a long process of compilation, editing, and revision. The earliest of the texts that were eventually incorporated into, say, Genesis or Isaiah, are no longer extant and would have been very different from any of the current versions. The expression "changed by man" is ridiculous, too. All books were written or compiled by humans. Your community college should consider hiring a professor who's more interested in scholarship than in being a propagandist for a particular religious point of view.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It's very troubling to me that your professor should present things in those terms, and it makes me wonder about both his honesty and his competence.

There's no such thing as "the original." The scriptures are the product of a long process of compilation, editing, and revision. The earliest of the texts that were eventually incorporated into, say, Genesis or Isaiah, are no longer extant and would have been very different from any of the current versions. The expression "changed by man" is ridiculous, too. All books were written or compiled by humans. Your community college should consider hiring a professor who's more interested in scholarship than in being a propagandist for a particular religious point of view.

The prof could just have been simply trying to be a jerk.

 

[doppelganger]

The prof could just have been simply trying to be a jerk.

If his class were mainly Christian he could have been trying to provoke a reaction to get people involved in the discussion, too.

 

[Doktormartini]

Thanks all for the replies! I'm sure a majority of the class is Christian, but we have one Wiccan that I know of and also an Agnostic, then me, the Atheist.

 

[1slam]

Salam ou alakoum, in order to answer your question you need to know background histoical concepts. First of all, ANY RELIGION which is changed from its original translated language ESPECIALLY semetic languages will have MANY translational errors. In islam allah sbwt brougt down the message of the koran IN ARABIC and today arabs SPEAK ARABIC therefore translational errors are not present within the koran. During the time of jesus(pbuh), he preached a message to SUBMIT to gods will, through the message that there is ONE god ONE true religion. After his death, there were many incidents where people would argue among eachother to the teachings of jesus thus creating a period of time whre the true bible was technically not universal. Therefore approximatly a hundred years later the christian church compiled, texts of the true bible making it universal. Although, you can do the math to the equation

 

[shema]

Salam ou alakoum, in order to answer your question you need to know background histoical concepts. First of all, ANY RELIGION which is changed from its original translated language ESPECIALLY semetic languages will have MANY translational errors. In islam allah sbwt brougt down the message of the koran IN ARABIC and today arabs SPEAK ARABIC therefore translational errors are not present within the koran. During the time of jesus(pbuh), he preached a message to SUBMIT to gods will, through the message that there is ONE god ONE true religion. After his death, there were many incidents where people would argue among eachother to the teachings of jesus thus creating a period of time whre the true bible was technically not universal. Therefore approximatly a hundred years later the christian church compiled, texts of the true bible making it universal. Although, you can do the math to the equation

but I also believe that there are some translational errors from th koran to english. so pretty much all ancient texts are suseptable to a few word changes. However the thought that was conveyed has stayed the same. There are reasons in which some text did not make the bible. I also beleive that whoever decided to omit them were inspired and filtered by God. It is very possible that certain men can do the will of God. but we first have to know what God's will is.

 

[Mary Blackchurch]

I agree with tlcmel and midnight blue. Man changes when the majority of the people change. For a small example, the bible, based on mythology had originally stated in the Greek that 'satyrs would dance in the fields'. Once this was translated to Latin, someone busted them for using a mythological character. ( a satyr is half man and half goat) so they changed it to 'oxen will dance in the fields"
And the more errors people find, the more denominations there are going to be. There is currently 20,000 different denominations in the U.S alone and over 500,000 in the entire world--all based on one bible.
I do respect the qur'an for staying in tact and on target. But as the last person just stated, it is being translated into all different languages now, too and is bound to lose it's original effects. Cross translations always do that.
Have fun in your class! I love studying religions. That's another reason I am agnostic...I don't know and no one else seems to either!

 

[James the Persian]

I agree with tlcmel and midnight blue. Man changes when the majority of the people change. For a small example, the bible, based on mythology had originally stated in the Greek that 'satyrs would dance in the fields'. Once this was translated to Latin, someone busted them for using a mythological character. ( a satyr is half man and half goat) so they changed it to 'oxen will dance in the fields"

Nonsense. Significant portions of my Church still use the original Koine Greek text and all of our translations are made directly from it. None have come from the Latin translation used at Rome (not even the Romanian one, which is the only Orthodox Church to use a Latin language) as it was never used in the east due to the fact that Greek, not Latin, remained the lingua franca - and there's no mention of satyrs in my Bible.

And the more errors people find, the more denominations there are going to be. There is currently 20,000 different denominations in the U.S alone and over 500,000 in the entire world--all based on one bible.

This is faulty, too. No church that can trace its founding back before the 16th century claims to be based on the Bible. That is the doctrine of sola scriptura and is the product of the Reformation. For those of us (all Roman Catholics, Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox - so easily the majority of Christians) who are not products of that movement, the Church is based on Christ and Scripture is just the most important written part of Her Holy Tradition

I do respect the qur'an for staying in tact and on target.

I think that if you were to do a little research on the early history of the Quran you'd find that it is not in line with the usual Muslim claims.

But as the last person just stated, it is being translated into all different languages now, too and is bound to lose it's original effects. Cross translations always do that.

This, at least, is very true.

James

 

[PHOTOTAKER]

there is ample evadance that the bible has been changed though the nearly thousand years that is has been copied... some changes are made by acadent and others are made by political means that is why the standerded bible is an 11th centry and not a 14th centery becouse of these changes...
Careless scribes:
IN THIS REGARD THE STORY OF THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY MINUSCULE CODES 109 IS OFTEN TOLD. THE SCRIBE WHO PRODUCED IT OBVIOUSLY OBTAINED HIS MATERIAL FROM A COPY THAT HAD LUKE'S GENEALOGY OF JESUS (luke 3:23-38) IN TWO COLUMNS OF TWENTY EIGHT LINES EACH. INSTEAD OF COPYING THE MATERIAL IN THE FIRST COLUMN, AND THEN THE MATERIAL IN THE NEXT COLUMN, THE SCRIBE FOLLOWED THE LINES ACROSS THE TWO COLUMNS. THIS HAS THE EFFECT OF MAKING ALMOST EVERYONE IN THE GENEALOGY THE SON OF THE WRONG FATHER. THE LIST NO LONGER ENDS WITH "ADAM,. THE SON OF GOD," FOR GOD IS NOW STUCK IN THE MIDDLE, APPEARING AS THE SON OF ARAM. AND THE SOURCE OF THE ENTIRE RACE IS NOT GOD BUT PHARES.
(SEE ALSO "THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT" BY B.M. METZGER)

 

[NoahideHiker]

Here is an interesting article concerning Torah accuracy.

http://www.aish.com/shavuottorah/shavuottorahdefault/Accuracy_of_Torah_Text.asp

 

[michel]

Well, I don't know how the heck we are going to know whether it's true or not because we weren't THERE to actually see it for ourself. It all boils down to faith but there are some historical writings pertaining to Constatine and his alleged alterations of the bible when he became the Emperor of Rome, and the missing sea scrolls. It makes sense to me, in MY opinion, there is MUCH pertinent information that is not included in the bible...most religions reveal nothing but scare tactics which sounds like "MAN" to me.

I agree; I am no scholar; I am not even intelligent enough as to aspire to be able to do proper research. All the material and evidence that I can present has to be 'second hand'. At the moment, I am trawling the internet for veiled references to reincarnation in the Bible; believe me, there are many.

 

[Radio Frequency X]

I agree; I am no scholar; I am not even intelligent enough as to aspire to be able to do proper research. All the material and evidence that I can present has to be 'second hand'. At the moment, I am trawling the internet for veiled references to reincarnation in the Bible; believe me, there are many.

Michael, I honestly don't know where you are getting this from. I've read the Bible and I've studied it. Now, I am no apologist, as you know, but I have never seen anything that could be intrepreted as veiled reincarnation.

 

[roli]

Hi all! I am taking a World Religions class at my community college (awesome, everyone should take one btw), and right now we are on the Judaism unit. Our teacher said that Moses led the people to the promised land, and blah blah all the events happened and eventually the full Tanakh was written (That's Torah, Nevim, and Ketuvim). He then said that during the time, there were Jewish people in Greece who could not understand Hebrew, so 72 Greek men translated the Tanakh into Greek. But by doing so they also added some stuff to it and changed the order of it to make it so it leads to the coming of the Messiah (how the Christian Old Testaments are). Then he said that the Protestants at the time thought The Catholics (the ones that changed the Tanakh) were wrong to add stuff to it, so their version doesn't have additions, but the order is still changed from the origianl.

Then he held up a Tanakh, a Catholic Bible, and a Protestant Bible and said, "Now which one do you want to read? The original? Or the one changed by man?"

So, I know the Bible is and has been changed by man, but is this really one of the ways it happend? Thanks all!

Have you done your own verification of this subject through research, here is a site to start from
History of the Bible