10 Changes Made to the Bible

[Miles]

.

"An in-depth examination of how the modern Bible was created and written and how it differs from the ancient texts of thousands of years ago," which, of course, completely invalidates the claim of an inerrant Bible.


..................

..................



So, what, if anything, do you think the narrator got wrong?


.

[1213]

So, what, if anything, do you think the narrator got wrong?

Did he get anything right? Please explain why do you think so?

[Miles]

So, what, if anything, do you think the narrator got wrong?

Did he get anything right? Please explain why do you think so?

Because they're all plausible; they're things I've heard before in some form or another; and I see no reason to doubt him (Trey Swenton, the author and narrator).

.

[JehovahsWitness]

I don't believe many Christians believe {quote} "the words [in the bible] haven't been changed or altered" {end quote} , Translating by definition means taking the original words and exchanges them for other entirely difcerent words, understandable in a target language.

The entire presentation is therefore built on a faulty premise, a strawman argument.

Most people I have spoken to that believe the bible is the word of God believe the original ideas and teachings therein originated or were approved by God, and that today, due to the proliferation of ancient copies we can be confident that the ideas in it accurately reflect those of the original writers.

The narrator may be arguing against the teachings of his childhood church but once grown up he would have done better to find a better and more reasonable church.

To learn more please see other posts related to...

THE BIBLE , AUTHORSHIP & TRANSMISSION and ... BIBLE TRANSLATIONS

[JehovahsWitness]

#1 Is the bible really "a translation of a translation " ?

Ancient Hebrew - > Aramaic* - > Greek

No. The "Old testament" was originally written in ancient Hebrew, and although by the time most if the world spoke Greek, Hebrew would have still been read and understood by those by alive in Jesus day. Scripture was not translated into Aramaic and then translated from Aramaic* into Greek as Hebrew was still a living language.

*Parts of the books of Ezra, Jeremiah, and Daniel were written in Aramaic.​—Ezr 4:8–6:18; 7:12-26; Jer 10:11; Da 2:4b–7:28.

The books in the new Testament were written originally in Greek (except arguably the gospel of Matthew) and with the discovery of ancient copies, modern scolars have been able to base their translations (whether that be to latin, English , spanish ) largely on studying text in the original languages. For example, William Tyndale, mentioned in the video, translated much of the bible from Hebrew and Greek into the English language of his time.


WHAT LANGUAGE(S) WOULD JESUS HAVE SPOKEN?

Firstly, as has been mentioned, that we are reading a translation (or even a translation of a translation) is a non-issue, what is important is whether we are reading an accurate rendition of the original sayings. The gospel writers, wrote for the mainpart in Greek which was the common language at the time. There is considerable disagreement as to which language Jesus actually taught in, but whether he taught in Hebrew or Aramaic, there is no reason to doubt the gospel writers were capable of accurate translation into Greek.

ARAMAIC -> GREEK
or
HEBREW --> GREEK

To read more please go to other posts related to...

BIBLICAL INERRANCY , COMPILATION and ... AUTHORSHIP & TRANSMISSION

[JehovahsWitness]

The presenter takes great issue with texual variants and scribal errors even though by his own admission, when texts are compare they {quote} "generally read the same if not near exactly in most places" {end quote}. Those that depart from the majority renditoon of the same passages, sef-identfy as anomolies and can, by virtue of this fact, be corrected. Moreover, by his own admission many do little to change the central idea of the text*.



* For example how tall was Goliath was is reletively insignificant; the text establishes that he was a formidible opponent and was defeated by a shepherd boy; whether he was 6 foot 6 or 9 foot 6 in no way detracts from this central idea.

He further paints himself into the corner of claiming signfificant changes have been made which can only be established if we can be reasonably confident of the original. If we can be confident of the original we can correct them; if we cannot be confident of the original we cannot judge the severity of the departure (see above) or even if the claim of departure is true or not.