Our current Bible is somewhat different than the original version
Debate Rounds (3)
First Round: Acceptance
Second Round: Debate
Third Round: Rebuttal
A history went on, the English language developed therefore the bible must have changed to fit the needs of the English speakers. As languages develop, we had to change the bible so they could understand it.
Here is an example: "after Jesus died, Mary Magdalene and two other women came back to the tomb to anoint the body of Jesus, according to Mark 16:1-2). They were met by a man in a white robe who told them that Jesus had been raised and was no longer there. The women fled and said nothing more to anyone out of fear (16:4-8). Everyone knows the rest of Mark"s Gospel, of course. The problem with the remainder of the story is that none of it was originally in the Gospel of Mark. It was added by a later scribe. Those additions include all of the following:
Jesus himself appeared to Mary Magdalene. She told the eleven apostles (minus Judas) about this vision, but they did not believe her. Jesus then appeared to the apostles, chastising them for failing to believe. He tells them that those who believe will be saved and those who don"t will be condemned. Then follows a critically important passage of the Bible.
And these are the signs that will accompany those who believe: they will cast out demons in my name; they will speak in new tongues; and they will take up snakes in their hands; and if they drink any poison, it will not harm them; they will place their hands upon the sick and heal them.
Jesus is then allegedly taken up into heaven and sits at the right hand of God, while the disciples go forth into the world to proclaim the Gospel in miraculous fashion.
Without the above passages (which, again, were not written by Mark) the Pentecostals lose their justification for speaking in "tongues." And the Appalachian snake handlers have no basis for their dangerous practices."
"the King's speech, which he uttereth in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King's speech"
That is still true today. Translating from one language to another will include changing word order, transliteration of words and even using different expressions that means the same thing in a particular language. The change in word order does not necessarily change the meaning. If this was always the case then it would be impossible to communicate between the nations. Notice the 2 sentences: I will kick the ball vs. Ek gaan die bal skop. The sentences mean exactly the same. A literal word for word translation of the Afrikaans sentence will be: I will the ball kick. Word order was changed, however, even thou a change occur in the structure there is no change to the meaning. Bible inerrancy deals with the meaning although the language used may change. The New Testament writers were writing in Greek but quoting Hebrew verses. Consider John 3:16 in the Old KJV and the new updated KJV (the U and V in the Old KJV were used differently back then):
For God so loued "e world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
The spelling changed. Did the message change? No it did not, it"s still the same.
From your examples I take it that slight word orders and expressions is not what you are talking about.
Mark 16 - The last 12 verses of Mark is usually omitted because Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus do not contain it. John Burgon made an irresistible case for the inclusion of the last 12 verses in the Gospel of mark in his book The Last Twelve Verse of the Gospel according to St. Mark vindicated against recent objectors and established (Oxford and London, 1871). I mention Dean Burgon because he was a contemporary of the revisers of the KJV. His arguments and evidence could not be answered satisfactorily by the revisers who were still alive when he opposed them. (See http://www.bible-researcher.com...)
The Textus Receptus that was so called because it was received by all as the true text for the New Testament also contains the last 12 verses of Mark. It does not matter what the language is, if the translation was made from the Textus Receptus then it is the same. The statement you made is not entirely correct that as languages developed the Bible was changed to let people understand it. Revisers left out things or changed things deliberately based of their biases. The bias was that Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus are the oldest and therefore the best manuscripts available. They are from the 4th century AD. The verses were quoted by writes prior to the 4th century which agrees with the Textus Receptus against Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus.
"Though rejecting the genuineness of the verses, the Alands offer the following concession that ought to give one pause: "It is true that the longer ending of Mark 16:9-20 is found in 99 percent of the Greek manuscripts as well as the rest of the tradition, enjoying over a period of centuries practically an official ecclesiastical sanction as a genuine part of the gospel of Mark" (1987, p. 287, emp. added). https://apologeticspress.org...
You have been bringing up some good points, but all those things wrap back around the idea of change. The bible was created 2000 years, and it would be extremely hard to keep it in its pure state. The biases of the writers have changed some parts of the bible, we do not know to what extent, but it is obvious that some parts have changed. I'm not saying major parts of the bible have been completely changed, but it has changed. Even today, some writers are rewriting the bible.
Manuscript evidence cannot be validated by scientific means to tell you which line of manuscripts are the true line. You have to trust people to tell you the truth. The TR was always associated with missionaries who died for what they believed. Those great modern Christian scholars tend to be unsaved liberals who do not even accept the Gospel by which we are saved. I always find it amazing when people refer to Origen from Alexandria as the first "great Christian scholar" and how everyone owes a debt to him for his scholarly work. The historical facts state that he changed the Bible whenever he disagreed with it, denied the virgin birth, castrated himself and questioned the deity of Holy Spirit and said hell was not a real place. He also did not regard Jesus as equal with God, saying Jesus is not immutable. Is this really a great Christian scholar who denies basic Christian doctrines? Origen is quickly mentioned when support is to found for manuscripts that oppose the TR and JBC texts. Go figure, because the TR testifies against Origen.
Trusting people seems to be a very difficult thing especially when it comes to people who oppose the Bible. They will ask, how do you know, and how do you know what you know etc. I find that type of reasoning very strange because if we cannot trust anyone then how do they know what they know? And how do they know what they ask other people know is not wrong?
Get a King James Bible 1611, not new King James. Trust it, read it. "Taste and see if the Lord is good".
Thanks for the debate. Vote Pro.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.