The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Our current Bible is somewhat different than the original version

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/9/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 399 times Debate No: 92562
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (20)
Votes (0)




I believe that The Bible has been changed throughout the years. I am not an athiest.

First Round: Acceptance
Second Round: Debate
Third Round: Rebuttal


I accept. Can you please specify which Bible or Version etc. you refer too for clarification purposes? Thanks.
Debate Round No. 1


I'll be talking about the christian bible. There is several versions of the bible, which proves that it has changed over the years. The bible is in over 531 languages, so it would be pure ignorance to suggest that it could not possibly be misinterpreted while translating it to one language. Let's not forget that the bible is over 2000 years old, with many different copies being written so it would have had to be changed slightly over time. I'm not saying the majority of it was changed, but some definitely was. There have been a few parts of the New Testament that have been left out for hundreds of years, so it seems likely that some parts may be missing.

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 James translators made the following observation:

"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

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).
Debate Round No. 2


What I'm talking about is all changes, big or small. As you said, changing the word order doesn't change the meaning, that is correct but is the bible still changing, yes. As you said the,removed the last 12 verses those Codex's don't contain it, but whether the first copy contained it, I have no idea. It is true that things were changed to let people understand it. Just look at writings like The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, those used the dialect of the day but there are different versions that allow us to understand it more clearly. As you said, revisers left it out based on their biases, so this does in fact prove they it was changed.

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.


If you meant any changes then I agree that your argument was correct and that I am wrong. However, I believe the Bible can be traced back to the original autographs. We have oral traditions; writings by various Christians through all the ages and of course the Bible manuscripts that can be compared to establish that there was always a text used that was regarded as the continuation of the true originals. This text was known as the Textus Receptus and was used through all the ages for the New Testament. The text used for the Old Testament was the Jacob Ben Chayim text. Scholars try to confuse the issues by dividing the evidence into Greek manuscripts, codices and all kinds of families. The fact is that the majority of manuscripts, translated Bibles and codices agree with the TR and JBC Text. The changes made in new versions are usually based on a small minority of manuscripts. Scholars try to hide this fact by trying to convince people that the minority is the oldest and therefore the closest to the originals, but this is also a lie. The two oldest manuscripts V & S was not even written in Koine Greek. It was written in Scholastic Greek and therefore does not resemble the 5000+ majority Greek manuscripts available that is written in Koine Greek. As for you question about changes, you can find almost the entire New Testament verses as found in a KJV Bible quoted (in full or part) reading the Church father library and in the post Church father era until present in sermons, writings and songs. You will be amazed how people in the 1st and 2nd century etc. quote verses exactly as we have them in the KJV today.

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.
Debate Round No. 3
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by kwagga_la 4 months ago
@TheWorldIsComplicated I did not mean to make it sound like i was talking about you. Sorry.
Posted by TheWorldIsComplicated 4 months ago
I didn't change Jesus' word. I'm not doubting the lessons taught in any way,shape, or form. There is proof to tell that it the words have been changed.
Posted by kwagga_la 4 months ago
@ TheWorldIsComplicated In revelations it is stated that whoever takes from this book, his name will be removed from the Book of life. There are many implications but let me try one specific view. People who love Jesus Christ will do what He asked and will preserve his Words. If you truly love someone, do you not go out of your way for that person? Do you not pay attention to detail and even put your own desires aside to please that person? It follows that if you really love Jesus you will not change His words but preserve it. That is what He asked. John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. All through the centuries there were believers who genuinely loved our Saviour Jesus Christ and preserved his words diligently and meticulously. Today you open a Bible like the NIV, ESV, NLT and you find a copyright notice. Copyright notice is only granted if your work is not the same as another. Do you know what that means? It means changes were willfully made to get copyright in order to have the money. They willfully change the Bible and then have the audacity to call it "The Holy Bible". However, it does not mean that we do not have the true Bible today unchanged. I am not English but if you ask me where you can find the preserved Word of God, I will say get yourself a KJV1611.
Posted by TheWorldIsComplicated 4 months ago
I don't think I'm going to hell for thinking that man has changed a few words in the bible. I don't see how I'm lying either when there is proof that words and parts have been left out and in.
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 4 months ago
4 Billion people believe that 2 billion people are running around believing in something they cannot see. They of course are very wrong. 2 Billion people KNOW God EXISTS (emphasis) because God has shown His hand in their Lives, circumstances, events, finance, in illness, in troubles, in good times in bad times. And still does to this very day. God has REVEALED HIMSELF TO MAN (emphasis).

He has revealed Himself to he other 4 Billion as well, but they have willfully suppressed the truth:

Romans 1 says: God"s Wrath Against Sinful Humanity

18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God"s invisible qualities"his eternal power and divine nature"have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

So what does that mean? Easy, in plain English- you are condemned to hell for your unrepentant heart, in that I have shown my majesty continuously before your own eyes in the wonder of my creation, but rather than worship me you have ignored the truth and exchanged it for a lie! Thinking yourself clever you became fools, and shall receive in yourself the due penalty for your error!
Posted by TheWorldIsComplicated 4 months ago

I do believe that humans have been able to change parts of the bible. I don't think the meanings have been changed, but the word orders must have changed. As for hell I really have no idea if it exists, if it does I sure don't want to end up there!
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 4 months ago
Glad to know your not an atheist, your view is par for a humanist standpoint, observe;
your statement:
I believe..................that The Bible has been changed throughout the years. I am not an atheist.

You presume God can be stymied by Human intercession. He Cannot. You presume that God is unable to keep His word pure?. God certainly does. God states:
Matthew 24:35 -Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

Psalm 102:26
"Even they will perish, but You endure; And all of them will wear out like a garment; Like clothing You will change them and they will be changed.

Psalm 119:89
Forever, O LORD, Your word is settled in heaven.

Isaiah 51:6
"Lift up your eyes to the sky, Then look to the earth beneath; For the sky will vanish like smoke, And the earth will wear out like a garment And its inhabitants will die in like manner; But My salvation will be forever, And My righteousness will not wane.

Isaiah 55:11
So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth; It will not return to Me empty, Without accomplishing what I desire, And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it.

Matthew 5:18
For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

Mark 13:31
Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will never pass away.

Luke 21:33
Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will never pass away.

2 Peter 3:10
But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar, the elements will be dissolved in the fire, and the earth and its works will not be found.

So you see, you appear to have an I problem. Hell exist whether the I's believe it or not. Unrepentant sinners will be in Hell again whetherthe I's believe it or not. Thankfully the I's still have time, but it is short!
Posted by vegard95 4 months ago
@kwagga yes i agree with you. i left out that part of the argument purely because of laziness. as we have no idea of what is the original bible or if we could every say such a thing existed. what is more likely to have happened is that there where several versions of books called " the bible" with books gradually over time being added to the story based on what was needed to be "in the bible" for that time.
Posted by kwagga_la 4 months ago
**more correct will be an orginal or copies of the original
No votes have been placed for this debate.