Is the present Bible truly reflects what were revealed to Jesus by God?

1. 37

   Mash 99posted 12 years ago

   Is the present Bible truly reflects what were revealed to Jesus by God?
   
   Do you believe that Bible texts had been altered and reflected some beliefs that Jesus did not preach?

   replyreport
2. 82

   nlpolakposted 12 years ago

   I don't believe there are any principles that are altered or hidden from our knowledge, nor do I believe any "beliefs" per se are changed in what we read of the bible as we know it.  However, through the passing of time and languages, many of what would have been in original scrolls pertaining to the teachings of Jesus and even the stories in the old testament have varied, but NOT what we as modern Christians are supposed to be following as part of our belief system.  There are several stories about prophets, groups of people, and miracles of Jesus that did not all make it into what we read today.  Still, even without them it doesn't make the Bible any less effective.

   replyreport
3. 59

   Jaggedfrostposted 12 years ago

   If we are talking from a historical stand point, the bible has only recently been one book.  Nowhere in the New Testament did Christ ever claim to be the origin of the bible.  The Bible is a library of texts. Largely the availability of all the texts that the Council at Nicaea chose from and following councils chose from flavors the library we now have.
   
   Christ had a mission that he himself defined. He prophesied about many things that he never did but give one a flavor for the kinds of action in the past and future that would happen that were condoned by heaven even if they were not part of his mission.
   
   I honestly believe that the many hands that have tried to shape our present text or the KJV failed in that they didn't understand what they were editing half the time though they tried.  Many of the scholars had the temerity to at least highlight and emphasize the parts they added or were put in by their best efforts.  Many of the scholars who worked on the bible we now have did so with the best knowledge they had and the best of intentions. This was one of the great contributions of the German and English translations.  If one went back to the Hebrew and Arabic roots of the bible one finds that the English version spent a lot of time summarizing, especially in Genesis. 
   
   I have found that there are paradigms that allow the entire text to fit together but I am not persuaded that such things will do any good here. The simple answer to your question is yes.

   replyreport
4. 94

   cam8510posted 12 years ago

   It is hard to say.  Jesus spoke Aramaic.  His words were penned in Greek.  Now some would say that the Greek was adaptable enough to represent Jesus exact words which were in Aramaic.  But, it is common knowledge that there is no such thing between any languages as a one word to one word correlation.  So, I would have to say we do not have an exact representation of what Jesus said.  The question is, do we need an exact representation, or an accurate representation?

   replyreport
5. 70

   the girlsposted 12 years ago

   I am not sure if Bible texts had been altered. I am not a theologian. What I can say is that, the Bible has been interpreted in different ways and languages. Since I am an RC, our bible has Nihil Obstat or Imprimatur.

   replyreport
6. 72

   SidKempposted 12 years ago

   Your question raises a number of issues that are clearly strong points of contention in American society today. I'll outline several that I see.
   
   First of all, your question asks about the Bible, but your expansion refers to the beliefs of Jesus, narrowing the focus to the New Testament, excluding the Hebrew Bible (which Christians often call the Old Testament).
   
   Each must be treated separately, as the issues are different, although they overlap. I'll discuss with the New Testament only here.
   
   There are Christians who believe that the Bible we have (or at least it's Greek version) are the Word of God exactly as God wants it to be, free of errors. This is called Biblical Inerrancy, stating the Bible is free of errors, making historical analysis irrelevant.
   
   There are those Christians who believe that the common sense meaning of the Bible is obvious to so that no interpretation is necessary & that what they are doing is not interpretation, but Biblical truth. This is called Biblical Inerrancy.
   
   If both of these are believed & extended to current translations, then the view is that the present New Testament reflects the truths revealed to Jesus by God.
   
   The above are religious positions about truth, and do not address either issues of history or issues of understanding or interpretation (society, culture & psychology).
   
   If we take a historical & interpretive view, these questions arise:
   - Are even our original texts accurate to what Jesus revealed from God? Did anyone understand Jesus when he spoke? Peter denied him and later repented. Paul never met him and persecuted Christians. Perhaps no one understood Jesus well at the time, and that ongoing Christian life actually means that we can understand Christ's teaching better now? This is the idea of ongoing or progressive revelation.
   
   - The text that were put together from oral tradition (redacted) may not be accurate.
   - The texts that were accepted as the correct ones, and the others that were rejected, may have been done on a political basis, or done accurately (canonization), and even today there are multiple canons.
   - Later ideas or ideas Jesus did not believe but his audience did could have been added, especially about hell.
   - Some of the letters show evidence of being written later and ascribed to earlier apostles (pseudo-Pauline and pseudo-Petrine letters, and the belief that the John of Revelation is associated with the John of the Gospel.)
   - After all of this, issues of translation come in

   replyreport
7. 77

   calynbanaposted 12 years ago

   It is difficult to believe that the Biblical texts could have been altered for a number of reasons. What we have of the Dead Sea scrolls strongly supports the historical preservation of many of the Old Testament books, as evidenced by the fact that for every Old Testament book for which we have a corresponding document, they are essentially congruent.
   
   As for the New Testament documents we have 99.86% of the documents being quoted in various letters between the early church fathers. That means that using their letters alone we can piece together everything in the New Testament with the exception of 11 verses. Furthermore there are over 1500 hand written manuscripts from the time of Jesus up until the 11th century that correspond and do not contradict.
   
   If we look at the Qur'an which was completed 600 years post Jesus, a book that is supposedly a final revelation of spiritual matters, we will notice that it is silent on the issue of whether or not the Bible has been changed. From this we can assume that the Bible was unchanged in those 600 years or else the Qur'an would have definitely spoke to that change. Instead the Qur'an refers to the Bible as trustworthy scripture.
   
   So if the Bible was changed it would have had to be after the Qur'an was completed, however there would have been thousands of copies of the Biblical documents circulating the world at this point, as well as copies of the entire 66 books as the complete Bible would have been circulating.
   
   What power could possibly change all of these documents in the same manner?
   
   This is what makes the lines in 1 Corinthians 15 outlining the Gospel, and this verse from Galatians so interesting:
   8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:8-9)
   
   The Bible says that there is only the one Gospel, and it is what is outlined in the Biblical books. We have no evidence that the Bible has been changed, and a lot of evidence to the contrary.
   
   What I wonder is how this impacts believers of "Abrahamic" religions that originated post Christ.

   replyreport
   1. 94

      cam8510posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Keep in mind that to get 99.86% you have to go 400 years post Christ.  The Church Fathers were copying copies of copies of copies of copies.  We don't have lots of copies from before the Church Fathers but I doubt there were substantial changes.

      replyreport
   2. 77

      calynbanaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Polycarp 69-155, Justin Martyr 100- 165, Tertullian 160-225, Eusebius 263-339.
      
      These are some of the more well known names of the early church, much of what is out there is comprised of their writings.

      replyreport
8. 0

   JThomp42posted 12 years ago

   Do you believe the Quran texts have been altered and reflect some beliefs that Muhammad did not preach?

   replyreport
   1. 37

      Mash 99posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      The God declared Himself that He will protect each and every word of Holy Quran and there must be no alteration in it.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      JThomp42posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      The same goes for the Bible. Blessings.

      replyreport
9. 82

   lorddraven2000posted 12 years ago

   I think our Bible is more or less translation of many other translations and in truth a lot can be "lost in translation". I think the basic foundation is still there but there is a lot that needs to be overlooked.

   replyreport
   1. 77

      calynbanaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      That would be a misunderstanding about how the different translations are formed. They are formed from Codices which are early original language documents. With each translation translating directly from the codex, not from the king James to the nlt.

      replyreport
10. 63

    dianetrotterposted 12 years ago

    No I don't.  If we are left to select was is true and what is not true, we should disregard the Bible all together.  Either it is true or it isn't.

    replyreport
11. 60

    cynthiaalburo0322posted 12 years ago

    W ether it had been altered, twisted and write differently. It only point on one thing old and new testament Jesus!
    http://cynthiaalburo0322.hubpages.com/h … to-mankind

    replyreport