Bible Fucking Revisions

Ok so is said that the bible was written 1,500 years ago by 40 different people who had heard of Christ and God's story. But in the course of those 1,500 years, how has the bible been revised so many times! Do you expect me to believe that all these people who have revised it had heard Christ's story... Yeah that's bullshit. Someone give me a non-bullshit explanation...

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=4u0uAmrG8Y8
youtube.com/watch?v=9Q9IoD6seA0
youtube.com/watch?v=3aXpnSb0Uf0
michaeljkruger.com/ten-basic-facts-about-the-nt-canon-that-every-christian-should-memorize-5-the-four-gospels-are-well-established-by-the-end-of-the-second-century/
ntcanon.org/index.shtml
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliand
reformedapologeticsministries.com/2015/10/normal-0-false-false-false.html
reformedapologeticsministries.com/2012/02/who-wrote-gospels-internal-and-external.html
bible.ca/catholic-apocrypha.htm
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

>But in the course of those 1,500 years, how has the bible been revised so many times!
It hasn't though. Haven't you heard of the Dead Sea scrolls? The Bible has remained the same almost word for word for thousands of years since the original writings were made.

It's not the perfect word of God.

Evangelicals are retards.

Some of the Old Testament was "written" in a time before writing, when oral tradition was the way information was passed down through the generations. The rest was all written pre-Christ, and was even translated into Greek before Christ was born.

The New Testament was written almost entirely before 70AD (no mention of the destruction of the Temple) by a few people, but nowhere close to 40.

Scripture which is inspired by God is protected from error and malice on the part of the author and/or editor.

These are good explanations:
youtube.com/watch?v=4u0uAmrG8Y8
youtube.com/watch?v=9Q9IoD6seA0
youtube.com/watch?v=3aXpnSb0Uf0

christians are essentially trump supporters in that they claim every contradiction, every nonsensical action, every act of incompetence is "4-d chess" or "gods plan"
you cannot argue with christcucks, everything is 4-D chess

I heard they just found another scroll cave in the same area as the original.

>The Bible has remained the same almost word for word for thousands of years since the original writings were made.
You very obviously haven't read the scroll's translations. They are nothing like the modern bible. They have way more crazy shit in them.

(OP)
The bible was largely formed by the Council of Nicea under Constantine. They took a lot of misc writings, like the Dead Sea Scrolls, compiled them, edited them into a coherent and (at the time) believable narrative, and made condensed it into a single collection of books. Then later it was fucked with and updated some more by people like King James.

Do you trust the people who decided which books were and weren't canon?

There are only four gospels because the number four matched with "four zones of the world" and "four principle winds". That's the kind of arguments that were used to determine what books were and weren't canon. Why do you trust that kind of blatantly nonsensical judgement?
Not to mention the fact you're blindly trusting english translations to be accurate when so many words don't have a direct translation and the translators had to use their own subjective interpretation and understanding to pick an english equivalent

New Testament is built on a bullshit foundation. It included a few blatant lies. Part of proper interpretation is knowing what was literally a lie, if you don't know that makes you a goyim and you deserve to be damned for it.

These "but Jesus said" faggots are in over their heads.

What are the blatant lies?

People can't agree on how to write an extremely literal translation that doesn't sound awkward as fuck.

Check out Jehovah's Witness bible.

>There are only four gospels because the number four matched with "four zones of the world" and "four principle winds". That's the kind of arguments that were used to determine what books were and weren't canon. Why do you trust that kind of blatantly nonsensical judgement?

If Christianity were not the Truth, then why would the Enemy need to lie about it?

There's no Enemy involved in my post. Just fallible people who lack logic and made mistakes, who now after so long are being held up as being god-possessed and having infallible judgement

>What are the blatant lies?
That Jesus Christ lied to the Thessalonians and did not fulfill his promis to them but it was for us? at the time of the Apocalypse? 100% bullshit brought to the USA by British Zionist Preachers in the Mid 19th century.

Like it or not What jesus was showing people back then was how to be a "sovereign citizen" only accountable to god and his law. The early christians nearly felled the roman empire

> how has the bible been revised so many times!

Revised? What's the evidence of that? It's been translated multiple times using different translation philosophies. Some translate thought for thoughts, others are more literal. Some are a blend.

That's what it claims to be and what the Church has taught for long. It's held up to scrutiny and always come up on top.

This doesn't make sense. You should be ignored by other sensible people.

This is pure Reddit history. The Dead Sea scrolls appeared in the 60's.

The canon that Christians have today appeared before the council of Nicea with St Athanasius and St Melito way before the council happened.

A dimwitted atheist Australian taken shots at Christianity

> There are only four gospels because the number four matched with "four zones of the world" and "four principle winds". That's the kind of arguments that were used to determine what books were and weren't canon.

Proof?

> Not to mention the fact you're blindly trusting english translations to be accurate when so many words don't have a direct translation and the translators had to use their own subjective interpretation and understanding to pick an english equivalent

That's most translations used adequate substitutes or transliterate the word instead.

The best way to identify a moron is to see how many unargued assumption and assertions he can make within a post.

The KJV is a literal translation and the words which were added to smooth out the sentence are italicized.

NASB is another literal translation that reads nicely.

>Proof?
Are you not familiar with Irenaeus?
>The Gospels could not possibly be either more or less in number than they are. Since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is spread over all the earth, and the pillar and foundation of the Church is the gospel, and the Spirit of life, it fittingly has four pillars, everywhere breathing out incorruption and revivifying men.

while u r not wrong religion stops normies from being degenerate

why waste your time with a jehovahs witness bible

Considered to be one of the most accurate translations.

michaeljkruger.com/ten-basic-facts-about-the-nt-canon-that-every-christian-should-memorize-5-the-four-gospels-are-well-established-by-the-end-of-the-second-century/

It's a faulty translation. Most verses are rendered to support JW theology.

there are two schools of thought in translation: literal and metaphorical.

in the literal translations, the interpretor does there best to translate the Bible word for word with no interpretation.

then there is the other side, where the ttranslator takes into account what we know about the author, the audience, and do their best to incorporate what they perceive to be the authors intent.

the best translations are a balance between these two schools I recommend the NIV or the ESV if you are looking for a good translation.

I was a pastoral ministry major for two semesters in 2013 and this is what i remember to the best of my knowledge, so sorry if this a bit jumbled or reductionist.

Be a Catholic.

except they took the names of The Creator and introduced Lord, which literally means Baal or viceversa.

You and he are both silly for thinking you know better than the vast majority of human experience. Alas! Such is the folly of the Godless man! Pride and arrogance and not a whit of any talent or skill which could justify either.

> Indeed, Irenaeus is so certain that the canon of the gospels is closed that he can argue that it is entrenched in the very structure of creation—four zones of the world, four principle winds, etc.
You're not actually defending this logic are you?

>Old Testament
>King James Version
No revisions, guise, honest!

That wasn't his selection criteria. The Gospels were accepted as authoritative. That quote from St Irenaeus highlights the fact that the Church had accepted Gospels as inspired Scripture from God. He merely states it as a matter of coincidence. Nothing you quoted suggested that was he reason for choosing 4 Gospels.

I also gave you a link to a NT scholar. But you are too much of ratty atheist homo to be able to understand.

ntcanon.org/index.shtml

Here's another site on the NT canon.

What does this mean? Are you signaling to us that you are gay? It's obvious that you are filthy sodomite.

I have a few different bibles but I dont really read them, although this one is my preferred version.

it hasn't been revised, that's why we have dead sea scrolls and other copies over 1200 years old that show no changes in the text, it's the exact same words.

>The Gospels were accepted as authoritative
On what grounds?

For the record I've gone to church every week of my life, I've just come to a realisation that I don't know how to believe or trust any of it. Everything seems to just be taken for granted and assumed to be true and accurate and that doesn't make sense.

Haven't heard of that one. Is that a translation of a translation?

I recommend you read the NKJV.

Clever, but telling that you go straight to fag talk. Got something on your mind? Dream of shoving cocks down your throat, maybe?

>how has the bible been revised so many times
It hasn't been revised many times until quite recently.

If you're reading KJV then you're essentially reading a polished up version of John Wycliffe's translation. Which in turn is a translation of the Hebrew and Greek with an eye on St. Jerome's vulgate.

Only with Nestle-Aland and the (((reconstructed))) Greek New Testament did you start getting all of this RSV, NSRV, ASB, NIV alphabet soup. Most of the bible translation confusion is caused by modernists

Look it's quite clear that you've left the faith because you some kind of degenerate. That's clear to anyone given your sloppy logic. You are just too lazy to do any study. This is evident because I gave you a scholarly resource to your Irenaeus quote. Yet I have to see a rebuttal to it. Irenaeus was pointing out a coincidence.

> On what grounds?
The Gospels were written by eyewitnesses. There is internal evidence that support this. They all date to around the mid 1st century. They were authored by the Apostles or by disciples of the Apostles (Sts' Luke and Mark).

The Gospels claim to be the word of God and were received by the early Church as such.

Reminder that NASB is the patrician translation.

Gays are by far the most hostile to Christianity and civilization.

> Only with Nestle-Aland and the (((reconstructed))) Greek New Testament did you start getting all of this RSV, NSRV, ASB, NIV alphabet soup. Most of the bible translation confusion is caused by modernists

This. The discovery of all these new codices such as Sinaiticus also coincide with the rise of higher criticism in liberal German universities and seminaries.

Catholic here, anybody want to crusade?

Why is your first response to everyone in this thread "lol ur gay"? In what way do you believe this hostility helps your cause?

Why specifically were these four books considered to be canon, while others were disregarded as non-canon? Who decided this and how?

It's based on inferior manuscripts. The KJV is based on the superior TR which is an eclectic selection of the apostolic Majority Text manuscripts and codices.

Why so anal retentive about accuracy anyway. I think if you wanted to base your Christianity off of the Old Saxon Heliand you'd probably end up with a perfectly good form of Christianity.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliand

perhaps you should look up the definition of the word "version." You may be surprised to find that it literally means a revision.

Did you READ the Bible? Then you should!

> Why is your first response to everyone in this thread "lol ur gay"? In what way do you believe this hostility helps your cause?

I don't believe Sup Forums is a place where I can effectively evangelize and most people here quick to post disparaging lies about Christianity. Which signals to me that they don't care about having a fair and open-minded talk on the matter.

> Why specifically were these four books considered to be canon, while others were disregarded as non-canon? Who decided this and how?

You mean the apocryphal writings, like the Gospel of Thomas which was written in the 2nd century

Introductory material on the Gospels.

reformedapologeticsministries.com/2015/10/normal-0-false-false-false.html
reformedapologeticsministries.com/2012/02/who-wrote-gospels-internal-and-external.html

I'm not talking exclusively about the four gospels, that was just an example. Why specifically were the 66 books that form the bible chosen and deemed canon? Why do catholics have 7 extra books? Why do they deem those books canon while others don't? Who's right and why?

>Why specifically were these four books considered to be canon
There was an ecumenical council where this stuff got talked about a lot. You should go to the library and find some books about it.

Evangelicals are retarded, you must be an Abo.

>Using KJV

You're silly for thinking you don't know better than the vast majority of human experience, which is typically comprised of average to low IQ blue-pilled jew-brainwashed normies. Religion is necessary to control this majority and to fight against the international jew

I'm reminded of Ted Haggard every time you post. >Christian men don't slurp man-meat, guise!

If you don't at least use the KJV for liturgical purposes you're a pleb
It's sad seeing old people getting the lord's prayer wrong because they're still saying the old school KJV words while some commie faggot priest or pastor decided they want a new modern translation for dummies.

I dunno man, that sounds pretty legit.

Shut up you filthy atheist

The Jews as per Romans 3:2 were given Old Testament and Jews only accept 39 books. They divide into 22 but it ends up the same.

We have 27 books because that's how many God decided to reveal to us. The Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Protestant churches all recognize this. It's regarding the OT that we have differing views.

bible.ca/catholic-apocrypha.htm

> For the record I've gone to church every week of my life, I've just come to a realisation that I don't know how to believe or trust any of it. Everything seems to just be taken for granted and assumed to be true and accurate and that doesn't make sense.

Your basic Christianity 101 questions really vindicate my point that you are some kind of degenerate hedonist. Who left the faith because some drug addiction or something. The matter is that if you repent and believe Jesus will welcome you back.

You're silly for thinking you are less brainwashed by the Jews that the vast majority of Human experience. You're the one who grew up watching TV and going to schools. You think a bunch of low IQ peasants in medieval Europe had any interaction with Jews other than beating the living shit out of them? They didn't. Until fairly recent times Jews didn't even speak the same language as normal people, which could make brainwashing rather difficult for them. For thousands of years people never gave a fuck what Jews thought and then suddenly you're going to take a break from watching interracial tranny porn to post on a Hmong finger painting forum and let everyone know what the real fucking scoop is.

Typical leaf.

I have never done drugs or had sex and reject your adhom arguments (you might want to re-read Matthew 7 at some point). I was brought up in the church and went along with it because it was normal to me, yet never actually made the decision for myself. I have far too little trust in the capability of humans to think rationally (myself included) to have trust in anything or hold any strong beliefs.

It's funny because when the KJV was translated it was "out of date" even then. The language of the KJV is accurate, beautiful and it's vocabulary is unique which distinguishes from common speak.

> It's sad seeing old people getting the lord's prayer wrong because they're still saying the old school KJV words while some commie faggot priest or pastor decided they want a new modern translation for dummies.

It's sad that people take the words of liberals. When the amount of evidence in favour of the KJV is astounding. Like the longer ending of Mark.

> hold any strong beliefs.
You hold strongly to you skepticism

Enough you fucking kikes. If you think the Bible isn't perfect you are a literal jew slave. Enjoy licking jew boot.

Jews hate Jesus.

If you hate Jesus you are a Jew.

I was gonna respond but this motha-fucka already wrecked your shit.

Skepticism is the lack of a strong secure belief

Jews hate Jesus.

If you hate Jesus you are one with Jew.

>it's not the perfect word of god
>but I unironically follow it anyway
you sound even more retarded than the "evangelicals" 2bh

>We have 27 books because that's how many God decided to reveal to us. The Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Protestant churches all recognize this. It's regarding the OT that we have differing views.
Please, explain further with specifics.

Hard mode: You can't say anything along the lines of "because God said so."

*sips cafe mocha from starbucks*

"Uh fucking bible thumpers are so stupid, believing a book written thousands of years ago by desert herdsmen."

*grins smugly and thinks of one day marrying a pure virgin qt atheist who will be loyal and love him in a traditional marriage without gOD.*

Skepticism requires you have a standard of belief by which you judge everything. If you are skeptical about something you doubt it's true. So you have to have some obejective standard by which you compare everything. You aren't skeptical about this? Skepticism is self-refuting.

Jesus does not hate Jews. You moron.

Jesus said they were Satan's children in John 8:44 you double moron.

>What is 2 + 2?
>Hardmode: cant say 4

There are 27 books because that's how many were penned by the Apostle's and their disciples?

>council of nicea

church fathers before this have quoted from scriptures attributed to Christ that have never been discovered, and can only be discerned as destroyed. Augustine quotes from the gospel of Thomas, and basically the mystical side of Christianity was completely destroyed. people argue about whether or not Jesus made 12 clay birds and put the breath of life into them when he was 5 years old, a reference to when God made all the birds and animals on the 5th day of creation.

but yes, Irenaeus was wrong, entirely.

Faggot aussie getting btfo for his weak arguments
>I went to church every week guys, but now I am enlightened by my own intellect
>offers no counter argument
>w...why are you c..calling me gay on Sup Forums?

A 5 second perview at any commentary will tell that's not what the verse means. Some Jews were intending to kill Jesus and although they were of the bloodline of Abraham they had Satanic intentions.

Christianity is true because it's rational and supported by evidence. But also because atheism is irrational and naturalism is refuted by science.

What I meant was, why are a few books apocrypha in some sects, and not in others?

>revised
But it wasn't, tryhard. It never was. Perhaps you are referring to the many translations.

There is NT and OT apocrypha. All the NT apocrypha appears centuries later and is dated to the 2nd century. Whereas all the NT documents were written by 97 AD. The last book was Revelations by St John.

RC and EO accept the additional books of the OT for various reasons. The matter is that Romans 3:2 says that the Jews had the final word on the OT canon as they were God's chosen. They accept 39 books ergo Protestants accept 39 books.

Jews are Satan-worshiping usurers who stole the name of Jesus' tribe in order to disguise themselves.

Revelation 2:9 (KJV)

"And I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan."

>RC and EO accept the additional books of the OT for various reasons.
What are those reasons? Why do Protestants not accept the OT apocrypha?

>Irenaeus was pointing out a coincidence
not what it says in your source

>Why do Protestants not accept the OT apocrypha?
Because St. Jerome considered them non-canonical, but worthy of reading. The reformers took the same position.

>Why do RC accept these
Because they decided that to declare them fully canonical at the council of Trent.

>Why do EO accept these
They accept them but consider them to be of secondary authority. Which is quite similar to the position of St. Jerome

That's not specific enough for me. What about these specific books made them particularly inferior?

Gnosticism is the true redpill.

...

BIBLE TRANSLATION IS HERESY

fuck off and do your own research.

aka "I don't know"

That's not very christian of you.

I'll just leave this here

...

The dead Sea scrolls are new

>What is John chapter 8.
It's been altered, and not just with minor typos and transliterations.