ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Are Bibles Today Biblical

Are the bibles we read today the original or are they tampered with?

Join Our Free Penpals and Take The Bible History Quiz
 ---Trevor on 8/17/11
     Helpful Blog Vote (2)

Post a New Blog

Cluny First, whom is the us, when only you yourself is asking of me? Secondly, I have already posted the books and chapters and verses on a previous blog, have "us", or more correctly have "You", not accepted it?
---Eloy on 8/28/11

cluny, why are asking of me, when you do not desire the truth? I supplied this evidence before citing book and chapter and verse on this website before, but because you are not accepting this truth you ask for it again. If you are not interested, don't ask. Read my earlier postings, for it would be the exact same evidence that I would post again.
---Eloy on 8/26/11


Jude 1:14-15
"And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying," then quotes verbatim 1 Enoch 1:9:
"And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones to execute judgement upon all, and to destroy all the ungodly: and to convict all flesh of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed, and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him."

But Eloy rejects apocryphal writings, so he thinks Jude quoted Deutronomy 33:2 (even though it's much shorter). Since he said Enoch prophesied it, Enoch "must" have written Deutronomy, regardless of the fact that he lived millenia before Moses. Such is Eloy's logic.
---StrpmgAxe on 8/27/11

\\strongax, you will believe whatsoever you desire, but I believe and know the documented and proven truth.
---Eloy on 8/25/11\\

Eloy, can you give us the "documented and proven truth" that Enoch wrote any of the Torah, or that Matthew was an eyewitness of the Nativity of Christ before he was even called by Him?

"Thus saith Eloy" is no proof.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 8/26/11

"Praise...analysis". Marc

I'll let you continue to be the one to call others liars, etc., but where have I stated anything about "Praise" or "Analysis"? Others can decide who is being honest.

In chapter 2 of Metzger's book: "Important Witnesses to the Text of the New Testament" (pg 50), he discusses the "Codex Bezae's special characteristics [with its] free addition (and occasional omission) of words, sentences...", etc.

In the footnote he draws attention to three translations of Codex Bezae: William Whiston's, J.M.Wilson's (Acts) and Johannes Greber's.

Clearly Metzger recommends Greber's translation as acceptable (demons and all) or he wouldn't list it.
---scott on 8/26/11

Trevor, I recommend the 1560 A.D. Geneva Bible, excluding the apocrypha. And I would not recommend ant English translation after 1611 A.D.
---Eloy on 8/26/11


And please tell us just how you know that this "truth" is "documented" and "proven".

I have told you how I know - we have the Masoretic text, which is less than a thousand years old, and we have the old testament fragments from the Dead Sea Scrolls, which are around 2100 years old. Those fragments we have that follow the same tradition (as opposed to, say, the LXX tradition) agree VERY closely - but they are not 100% identical - showing that some small copying errors HAVE occurred in the intervening millenium or so.
---StrongAxe on 8/26/11

Scott says: ''Scholars have used Greber for support (see Metzger's "The Text of the NT", Bible Museum and Biblical Research Foundation''.

Scott, you're either lying or plagiarising from really stupid websites. I have Metzger's book. On page 50, footnote 2, reads, ''It may be mentioned that English translations of codex Bezae have been Johannes Greber.'' That's it Scott. There's no praise, support or analysis of his skill.

Care to expand upon your claim of support.
---Marc on 8/26/11

strongax, you will believe whatsoever you desire, but I believe and know the documented and proven truth.
---Eloy on 8/25/11


Hebrew scribes were fallible men, just as all of us are. The very fact that they had such rigorous strictures in place meant they KNEW this, and KNEW they made mistakes, and these were there to catch them.

However, was also possible for them to make mistakes in counting, so, over time, very small errors could slowly creep into the text without being detected. Much less often than with copyists who had no such rigorous strictures, but still possible nonetheless.

The reason why many of the dead sea scroll manuscripts agree so closely with the Masoretic text is because the copyists were so scrupulous.

The reason why they do not agree 100% is that, despite such careful scrutiny, they were still capable of error.
---StrongAxe on 8/25/11

strongax, you posted this falsehood, "All copies are made by men, and copying errors can creep in. Some copies are more faithful than others (as the Hebrew text has changed very little over many millenia) but copying errors still do occasionally arise." And I posted the truth that the Hebrew scribe followed strict rules, and the parchments before and during and after were analyzed letter by letter, and if any mistakes existed the manuscript was condemned, so there was zero margin for error in the words from God.
---Eloy on 8/25/11


You said: strongax, Not so.

Could you elaborate as to just which commend of mine you were referring?

I had said that the scribes had very strict copying rules to ensure the accuracy of the copies, and your comments pointed out just what such rules were, so I don't see how we are disagreement here.
---StrongAxe on 8/25/11

strongax, Not so. For some of the impecable rules the Hebrew scribes followed for copying the sacred scripture were:

5). If a sheet of parchment had one mistake on it, the sheet was condemned. If there were three mistakes found on any page, the whole manuscript was condemned. Each scroll had to be checked within thirty days of its writing, or it was considered unholy.
6). Every word and every letter was counted. If a letter or word were omitted, the manuscript was condemned.
7). There were explicit rules for how many letters and words were allowed on any given parchment. A column must have at least 48 lines and no more than 60. Letters and words had to be spaced at a certain distance and no word could touch another.
---Eloy on 8/24/11


Where did you get the idea the Mastoretic text was a translation of the LXX, rather than original Hebrew? Can you cite any references for this?

If it were merely a back-translation, it would only be approximately similar, not nearly exact. The various Hebrew OT fragments in the Dead Sea Scrolls (dated the first two centuries B.C.) are very close to the Masoretic, showing just how faithful the Jewish copyists were with the Hebrew text - much more so than the various Greek NT texts.

Also, we have Masoretic manuscripts from the 9th century - much older than 1427.

Look up Masoretic Text on Wikipedia - it has a diagram that shows the evolution of various OT manuscripts, and LXX and MT come from different branches.
---StrongAxe on 8/24/11

StrongAxe I said several times. The Maseretic Text is NOT the original Hebrew text my friend. You're driving to use Caps!

The Maseretic text was just a translation of the LXX. NOTHING ELSE.

So naturally it conforms to the DSS an other manuscipts, because it s just the LXX in Hebrew.

Nothing more!

It was produced by the Jews to counter the Christians LXX. So they removed and changed any scripture in the LXX that pointed to Jesus being The Christ(i.e.Psalm22)

It was published in 1427ad.

All we have from the orginal Hebrew text is the Samaritan Pentateuch(Torah)
---John on 8/24/11


How can you say that we have none of the Hebrew OT, when we have the Masoretic text? While it is not 100% identical to the original, it is very close (as many of the fragments from the Dead Sea Scrolls have shown).

All copies are made by men, and copying errors can creep in. Some copies are more faithful than others (as the Hebrew text has changed very little over many millenia) but copying errors still do occasionally arise. The same is true of the Samaritan Pentateuch and New Testament manuscripts - all are copies of copies of copies of copies.
---StrongAxe on 8/24/11

Read These Insightful Articles About Internet Services

Strongax, There is nothing minor about corrupting the entire Holy Bible by substituting God's inspirited words with man's useless words. And you cannot compare nonChristian groups that you have named, with Christian groups, for there is no accord of the idolaters with the Christian. And the difference is, nonChristian groups use their own Nonscriptural books to teach their nonBiblical doctrines, and the real Christian uses the Holy Bible to teach their Biblical doctrines. But today their are many manmade commentaries on the market which are blasphemously misnamed "Holy Bible" when their contents are not the Holy Scripture.
---Eloy on 8/24/11


Eloy was right about the new age:

2 Timothy 3:1-4
"This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures
more than lovers of God,
Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof
: from such turn away."

In the above list, half the problems (bold) violate love God and half (underlined) violate love thy neighbor.
---StrongAxe on 8/24/11

andy3996, yes, the new age which centers on "creature comforts" and "me me me first" is sickening, and it is so antiChrist. For truly, truly, the last will be first, and the first last. Though the Christians of three decades ago and earlier whom relied upon the KJV may have had some heresy, yet today it has increased so greatly this darkness that most of the churches today have become synagogues of satan, rather than the house of Christ and prayer. When you replace the Holy Bible with unholy bibles you will spread all manner of crap and death among the body, and the enemy knew this strategy and used it perfectly to foil the true gospel and salvation.
---Eloy on 8/24/11

StrongAxe, I don't think you understand what I'm saying.
The LXX and the NT mauscripts are extremely accurate and reliable. Im not contest anything here.

I'm simply saying we do NOT have any remnants of the Hebrew OT. None except for the Samaritan Pentateuch.

You right that the DSS have shown the LXX to be highly accurate and The Maseretic (written much later Published 1492)less acurate.
As in Psalm22

It would be nice to find some text deriving for the Hebrew OT, but I don't think it would be very different (if at all) from the LXX.

Jesus used the LXX as well as most of the Apostles.
---John on 8/23/11

Read These Insightful Articles About Online Stores


Even though modern translations may differ in minor ways from older versions like the King James, or older versions still, the versions are fairly minor. If a group wants to go way off into never-never land by focusing on some strange doctrine while ignoring everything else, they can do that just as easily with the King James as with the NIV or any other version. We have an abundance of churches these days that teach weird stuff - but that's not new. It was common a hundred and fifty years ago (look at the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, etc.), and it was also common two thousand years ago (there are several mentioned in the New Testament.
---StrongAxe on 8/23/11

\\cluny, again, please do not ask of me until that time that you truly desire to accept the truth.
---Eloy on 8/22/11\\

eloy, if you have any solid evidence that Enoch wrote any of the OT, or that Matthew started writing the Gospel before Jesus even called him, I'm willing to hear it.

Byt "thus saith eloy" is no proof for anything, as I've caught you posting errors before.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 8/23/11

Eloy, to err is,,,wouldnt you agree that these "new doctrines" are rather an infiltration of the NEW AGE movement in the church?
i have heard these "false teachings even when they where quoted from the old KJV,
look at the evidence of the NT, the warnings in Corinthians Romans and Galatians where adressed to people who had at least copies closer to the original then any today. (of course some didnt' have much but still,
---andy3996 on 8/23/11

andy, you err in posting that no new translation has ever forced Christianity to change its foundation. For all you have to do is visit a half a dozen of so-called Christian churches and merely listen to what is bing preached from the new so-called Bibles from the pulpits, and you will witness that they are not believing the in true gospel: but rather they are believing in "polytheism", or else believing in "self as God", or worse they believe that "Christ is Not the One Almighty God whom was born in the flesh".
---Eloy on 8/23/11

Send a Free Entertainment Tract


So just how close is the Mastoretic text to the LXX or other earlier documents? 97% maybe? It can't be much less than that. As such, if we have almost all of it, you can't say it's all gone.

You could just as well say that we don't have any of the New Testament either because there are slight discrepancies between the various existent codices.

Also, just because a book happens to be mentioned in passing in some Bible verse doesn't necessarily mean that book is also in the Bible. In one case, Paul quoted a pagan Greek philosopher, and that doesn't mean that pagan Greek philsophers should be in the Bible.
---StrongAxe on 8/23/11

Book of henoch is a forgery
the torah isn't
proof the torah is translated and put in the bible.
every day since the rise of geology older copies have been found and studied, the samaritan pentateuch is today taken in account so are the dead sea scrolls and the other codexes exsitant.
bibles have been revised since wycliff, and we have more accurate bibles printed every decade. the funny thing in all this (i know that some will disagree) that no new translation ever has forced christianity to change it's foundations, as a jezuite friar sayd "the New discoveries of this century havent reall brought anything new.
---andy3996 on 8/23/11

andy, A-men. When we study the scriptures, the so-called "book of Jasher" is not a person's name at all. The Hebrew is, "Sefer Hayasher", which in English would be translated, "the upright book". As for the reference to Henoch's writing in the scriptures, there's strong evidence that he is the author of the first five books of the old testament, and not Moses, as Deuteronomy 33:4 reads, "Moses commanded us a law", which clearly reveals that Moses himself did not write this, else he would have written, "I commanded", and not "Moses commanded".
---Eloy on 8/23/11

For example, "History of the
Kings of Judah which is probably financial and/or work records. ---Scott1 on 8/19/11

This is the "Book of Kings".

no I got that line in the Book of Kings. Why would a book reference itself telling you to go look something else in itself.
---Scott1 on 8/23/11

Read These Insightful Articles About Business Training

We also know thatJames(The Lords Brother)used the Hebrew OT and not the LXX.

Most of the others use the LXX.

There are also some quotes from the Hebrew text in the NT.
---John on 8/22/11

If you want to view the List of missing Books in the OT,
Click the Apologetics Tab scroll down, click #1. It is on the first column in the middle
Blog Titled: "Bible Mentions Missing Books"
---John on 8/22/11

cluny, again, please do not ask of me until that time that you truly desire to accept the truth.
---Eloy on 8/22/11

Trevor, I would not recommend any Bible after 1611 A.D., for man has tampered with the words.
---Eloy on 8/22/11

Read These Insightful Articles About Software

.....(and the NT quotes from the OT agree with the LXX over the Masoretic where they differ)....

StrongAxe, Many People are under the impression the Masoretic text is old. ITS NOT. IT"S NEW.

The Marsoretic Text of the Hebrew Old Testament is a perversion created by non- Semitic Khazar Jews between the 500 and 1030 and first published in AD1427.

It was written to Counter the LXX and separate the Jews from the Christians. So they changed many of the OT references to Christ.

There is NO OT Hebrew Bible in Existance. (Only The Torah exist)
---John on 8/22/11

Actually, John, many are also in Hebrew and some are in Greek.
---Cluny on 8/22/11


And NO Cluny there were NOT "many" in Hebrew. Since Hebrew is the Sacred Language. You need to study and understand Aramaic is NOT Hebrew proper.

---John on 8/22/11


1) The Masoretic Text is mostly Hebrew (except some pieces of books written after the Babylonian exile in Aramaic)
2) The Dead Sea Scrolls fragments are also in Hebrew (also excepting those pieces of those same books). Of course, DSS manuscripts of more recent non-biblical books (i.e. first couple of centuries BC) would be in Aramaic.
3) The DSS fragments are surprisingly close to the Masoretic text, given how far separated they are in time. There are a few minor differences, some of which are closer to the LXX than to the Masoretic, which supports the hypothesis that the LXX is based on a different and older text than the Masoretic (and the NT quotes from the OT agree with the LXX over the Masoretic where they differ).
---StrongAxe on 8/22/11

\\The scripture began to be recorded in the 36th century B.C. by Henoch in 3507 B.C, and the Old Testament scribing continued up to Nechemiah's time in 458 B.C. The N.T. began to be recorded by Matthew in 5 B.C., and finished by John around the 3rd decade A.D. \\

What evidence do you have that Enoch wrote ANY of the OT, or that Matthew started writing his Gospel before Jesus called him--besides your say so, that is?

\\The Aleppo Codex is the oldest known complete manuscript of the Hebrew Bible, handwritten in Tiberias of Palestine in the early 10th century around 915 A.D. by the scribe Shlomo Ben-Buya'a.\\

In other words, even by your false history, the LXX is older than the Aleppo Codex.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 8/22/11

Read These Insightful Articles About Advertising

\\I mentioned the DSS fragments. Those are in Aramaic. We do not have many.\\

Actually, John, many are also in Hebrew and some are in Greek.

But you can't be expected to know better because you're not okay.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 8/22/11

The scripture began to be recorded in the 36th century B.C. by Henoch in 3507 B.C, and the Old Testament scribing continued up to Nechemiah's time in 458 B.C. The N.T. began to be recorded by Matthew in 5 B.C., and finished by John around the 3rd decade A.D. The Aleppo Codex is the oldest known complete manuscript of the Hebrew Bible, handwritten in Tiberias of Palestine in the early 10th century around 915 A.D. by the scribe Shlomo Ben-Buya'a. In 1530 A.D. William Tyndale was the first to translate the Old Testament scriptures directly from the original Hebrew into English. And in 1526 A.D., Tyndale also was the first to translate the original New Testament scriptures directly from the original Greek into English.
---Eloy on 8/22/11

Trevor, visit the Christian churches and Bible Book stores, and see that Nothing of the scriptures is lost. For the Lord himself says, and is proven by the scriptures being published and spread around the world, saying, "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away."
---Eloy on 8/22/11

John, i know you refer to as the book of enoch, the book of wars and etcetera, nevertheless not a single book that should have been in the bible is lost. all books that God intended for us are present and acounted for.
---andy3996 on 8/22/11

Read These Insightful Articles About Eating Disorders

Yes StrongAxe I mean the "HEBREW" OT. The Masoretic Text was written 500-700AD. We have the LXX(Septuagint) but that was written in Greek at 280BC.

I mentioned the DSS fragments. Those are in Aramaic. We do not have many.


You are confusing the Psuedographicas. Which the Gnostic writings found in Hagmaddi Library(400ad+/-). These are NOT the same books I refer to. The books are referenced to in OT Scripture. There are 127 of these books in the OT.

They are Not the Apocrypha either.
---John on 8/22/11

John about the lost books of the bible:
all Christianity (with a few minority exceptions) accepts the 66 books of the canon.
upon that both Catholic orthodox and protestant theology receives the deutero canon. some put more importance upon this class then others, and some ad a few whilst others reject on or two according likings and tradition. the 127 books you refer are generally condemned as heresy by majority of Christianity. orthodox,catholics and protestantisme does agree on this. only a few coptic sects who are known to have deviated from the church and some new-age heretics read them seriously. and however a few are good reading, but they should be taken as serious as the novels of Jules Vernes, or the films of shrek.
---andy3996 on 8/22/11


Do you mean to say we have no copies of it? How about the Masoretic text? Or the fragments in the Dead Sea Scrolls of every single book in the O.T. except Esther? Or the Septuagint translation?

If you mean the originals, we don't have the originals of the N.T. either - only copies of copies of copies.
---StrongAxe on 8/22/11

Strongaxe. The Hebrew OT is simply lost. We have no documents of it. Except what we have from the Samaritans who had an orginal Hebrew Pentateuch(Torah). That's all we have.

"The Epistle to the Laodiceans." Marcion Manuscript is the earliest Known manuscript of the Epistle. And the fact that at that very early period, the first half of the 2nd century, it was openly suggested that the destination of the epistle was Laodicea, is certainly entitled to weight, especially in view of the other fact already mentioned, which is of no less importance, that the-- "at Ephesus"-- is omitted in the two great manuscripts, the Vatican and the Sinaitic. Our two most authoratative Manuscripts.
---John on 8/22/11

Read These Insightful Articles About Travel Packages


Eloy somehow has disabled the ability to vote for him. I tried once (when he made a post that I considered useful) but it didn't work.


How is it possible that you, apparently the only person on these blogs, cannot be voted for? I am curious as to the mechanics involved.


Could you elaborate on which manuscript the epistle to the Ephesians is titled Laodiceans, and how it is so titled?

2) What evidence do you have that the entire OT is lost?
---StrongAxe on 8/22/11

Blogger9211, blasphemers mock Christians everyday, so your dissing of me manifests your carnality and your separation from the body of Christ.
---Eloy on 8/22/11

John, the Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians was written to the church in the city of Ephesus. The authorship is not in question. He is indicated as author in the opening salutation ( 1:1, 3:1). Paul wrote the letter from prison in Rome (Acts 28:16-31) sometime between A.D. 60-62. It is sometimes referred to as a prison epistle along with Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon). It is believed to have been composed almost contemporaneously with Colossians and initally sent with that epistle and Phelemon by Tychicus (Eph. 6:21,22, Col. 4:7,8). It is possible that the gospel was first brought to Ephesis by Priscilla and Aquila, a gifted couple (Acts 18:26) who were left there by Paul on his second journey.
---Mark_V. on 8/22/11


It is the letter referenced in Col:4:16. Both letters were written within weeks of each other and they were both written from Prison in Ephesus(Not Rome).

So he did not write a letter from Ephesus to Ephesus.
The 1st line "To the Ephesians" does not exist in the text. Not even in the Great Vatican and the Sinaitic Text.

Also, it is a cyclical letter(to be pass to each church/as he mentioned in Col4:16) not written to any particular church.

NOTE: there a NO greetings of any kind. Had it been written to Ephesus, He would have greetings (i.e. Aquila, Priscilla, Apollos etc).

We have already found one of the original Manuscripts where it is indeed titled Laodicean.
---John on 8/21/11

Read These Insightful Articles About Credit Repair

Blogger9211, because noone on this site is able to vote for me, does not mean that I have zero credibility, but rather only means that no person at all can vote for me because the voting option is not available to them in order to vote for me. You can test this, if you try to vote for me, you will not be able to.
---Eloy on 8/21/11

1) I will answer your 1st question on a different post(125ltd).

2) Yes the entire Hebrew OT is lost. Interesting you mentioned the Samaritans. It was the Samaritan Pentateuch(Torah)that we havein Hebrew. But nothing else. There are some fragments from the DSS in Aramaic.

3) I have listed ALL the books that are missing in the OT. I believe it was 127 Books. It took me 4 posts to list them. I listed them for "Alan of the UK" about a year ago. Maybe someone(Moderator) knows the blog they are listed in. It might have been called "Lost Books of the Bible" not sure.

It took forever to get them listed.
---John on 8/20/11

Eloy, as you still have zero credibility for the many years you have been on ChristiaNet, from the blogger community on ChristaNet. I will take that as a true indicator as of your ability as a Bible scholar and the malignancy of the personal theology you advocate. Most of the Bloggers on ChristiaNet are astute enough to be able to recognize false teachers of the antichrist when they encounter one and your rants and raves on ChristiaNet are definitely those of a reprobate and I shall take them for exactly what they are worth, the statements of a son of perdition.
---Blogger9211 on 8/21/11

none are the original. There are many partial and complete English translations, Wycliffe's being the first full translation. Jerome's Latin Vulgate was the only excepted prior. Though the Geneva and KJV are excellent translations, they had a very limited number of manuscripts, less than 14, with Jerome's Vulgate being a major part of them. Today there are over 1400 manuscripts that can be compared in an attempt to correctly translate scripture, just as the Geneva and KJV did before them. The translations post KJV have exempted the additions proven to be forgeries and have a greater scholarly ability to translate due to recent findings. There are though doctrinal bias' in today's translations, so seek to understand the language translated from.
---willa5568 on 8/21/11

Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Products

Atheist i coul also say that darwin never wrote an original book on "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life"
what you are saying is only making a discussion out of a nonsubject, i only hope everyone else will see this.
on the other hand we could tlk about the effects of having no original copy left
---andy3996 on 8/21/11


3) What evidence do you have that Ephesians was originally Laodiceans?

6) I am not sure what you mean by "Missing the entire Hebrew OT (except Torah)." Do you mean that all the

other old testament books should not be there? (That was the belief of the Samaritans).

7) Which books are missing from the OT/NT? Just because books were written at that time, does not mean that those books were necessarily fit for inclusion in the Bible.
---StrongAxe on 8/20/11

Blogger9211, I translate and I have done extensive research on early translators and the diverse manuscripts that were used, and I know which are Holy and which are UnHoly. As for copyist errors, none of appointed Hebrews whom undertook the task with the knowledge that God would strike them down if they were careless, as he did when the unholy touched the ark and was instantaneously struck down and killed by God in the sight of all. Sinner's copies are not the saint's copies. We cherish every word of our Lord more then fine gold and more then our necessary food, but the sinner is foolish and lacking in wisdom, else they likewise would handle the word of God with fear and trembling, rather than butcher him on a cross.
---Eloy on 8/20/11

There was no original.
---atheist on 8/20/11

Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Divorce


I showed how they DO share common derivatives. See the gradual changes of the name from one language to another, especially language-specific endings:

Ya'aqov (Hebrew)
Iacobos (Greek)
Iacobus (Latin)
Iacombus (Later Latin)
Iacomo (Italian: lose B)
Jacome (French)
James (English: lose C)
Jamie (English)
Jaime (Spanish)
Jacques (French: lose M)
Jack (English)

Words enter the language multiple times, resulting in two different words from the same source. Another example is "chief" and "chef", with "ch" pronounced differently, because they entered English from French at different times.

But why is this important?
---StrongAxe on 8/20/11

No Strongaxe they're not the same. Its a poor analogy.

John and Johannan have common derivatives. These fit your arguement.

However, James and Jacob do NOT have a common derivative and as opposed to each other as... Bob and Joe.

They share nothing in common and James should never be used. when Jacob is the correct English translation of the name.

I do wonder why it has not yet been changed.
---John on 8/19/11


You could just as easily argue that "John" is wrong, because "Johannan" is more accurate.

English has many different ways of saying the same name: Jacob (and its derivatives Jake, Jack, etc.) and James (and its derivatives Jim, etc.). You can't say "one is definitely right and all others are definitely wrong". All are acceptable, and ultimately mean the same thing.

Jesus's name is variantly spelled "yehoshua", "yeshuah", "yoshua", "iesous", etc.

The Old Testament records no less than five different ways of spelling "Nebuchadnezzar".
---StrongAxe on 8/19/11

Eloy, Old Testament reproduction of scrolls was very meticulous with word count and character on each page and these were compared to the original if a page of a scroll was found to be in error it was cut out destroyed and rescrubbed. New Testament textual reproduction of papyri was exceptionally hap hazard. A group of slaves were taught to read and right Konia Greek one slave read the document that they wanted to reproduce and was subject to many types of errors reader improperly parsing the word, can't read the word and guessing, reading a line twice. read a margin note and a copyist thing it belongs into the text body, copyist misunderstand the reader putting in the wrong word. Your premise is erroneous.
---Blogger9211 on 8/19/11

Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Marriage

Eloy, there are 7947 actual verses in the text of the New Testament 4999 of them have no variants . But 2948 verses have variants and you dont know what those verses are and which variant to use to make the verse correct. And no one in the 16 century did either because the lacked access to the documents to do the comparative textual analysis. Kurt Aland did all the comparative analysis to determine what was copied from what to know what variant was correct and identify verses that were just fraudulently inserted into the New Testament for varying doctrinal reasons. That is why a modern Bible based on a Kurt Aland translation will always be superior to any Bible printed prior to 1947.
---Blogger9211 on 8/19/11

For example, "History of the Kings of Judah which is probably financial and/or work records. ---Scott1 on 8/19/11

This is the "Book of Kings".

However, you have a valid point.

In the reverse,there were many in the 1st century who considered Enoch to be Scripture.

My point is there are many anomolies in the present day bible, but G-d manages to get the message across. He also does this with modern day preachers. not all they say is of the Lord, but G-d uses the sermon inspite of it faults.

Only a Prophet speaks the exact words of G-d. They are His puppets and so you hear their mouths uttering.."Thus saith the Lord....
---John on 8/19/11

The English name is Jacob, not James
---John on 8/19/11


2) "James" is merely the English translation of the Greek "iacobos", from the Hebrew "ya'aqov" ("Jacob"). Words and names may evolve as they get translated language to language. Latin "Iacobus", Italian "Iacomo" (via intermediate form "Iacombus"), French "Jacome", etc.

In Spanish, it's "Santiago". This makes sense if you break it in half. "Sant" is short from "santo", from Latin "Sanctus" (from which we get the English "Saint"), and "iago" (form which the connection to "ya'aqov" is more obvious). Spanish names "Jaime" and "Diego" are also similarly derived.
---StrongAxe on 8/19/11

Read These Insightful Articles About Debt Consolidation

Several Books are missing OT/NT

John, just because the Bible references another book or written by a Biblical author does not mean that God intended that specific book/letter to be in the Bible. For example, "History of the Kings of Judah which is probably financial and/or work records. Example, King Abijam created a water trench today and used 25 people. Even apostle John said that all of the events in Jesus life could not be contained in all of the books of the world John 21:25.
---Scott1 on 8/19/11

Blogger9211, You post falsehood. Perhaps you are comparing the bibles after 1947 A.D. through rose-colored glasses, because the bibles after 1947 which I have compared using contextual criticism with the original Greek manuscripts deviate tremnedously from the manuscripts, and are thereby proven to be UnHoly: And the Holy Bibles before 1947 A.D., namely Williams Tynadle's 1532 A.D. and the Geneva Bible of 1560 A.D. are much more accurrate word by word translations, and thereby are proven Holy.
---Eloy on 8/19/11

Modern Bibles since 1947 are going to be more technically accurate than those preceding that date. This is especially the case of New Testament source text. Kurt Aland devoted his life to New Testament comparative textual analysis and NA27 was the final version of the Greek New Testament produced before his death. UBS4 is the same version the difference in the critical apparatus. If you modern Bible uses NA27 or UBS4 for the Greek source text have one of the better Bible translations if it is a word for word translation. To find out what you Bible uses read the preface. It should also tell the purpose of the translation and who was on the translation committee. Look them up and read their Bios.
---Blogger9211 on 8/19/11

There are changes/additions to the Bible that should NOT be there ..YES!


1)Lords Prayer.. "For Thine is the Kingdom and glory forever and ever".(This is NOT Christ Talking, but was added by a scribe.

2) James in NOT in the bible ever!

3) Ephesians was mistitled it is Laodiceans

4)There a 5 letters to Corinthians we only have 2nd and 4th

5)Mark 16:9-20(added?)

6) Missing the entire Hebrew OT (except Torah).

7) Several Books are missing OT/NT


But G-d speaks through the garbage of men!
---John on 8/19/11

Read These Insightful Articles About Refinancing

I can read a Bible for what God means by what I read. His love meaning, of course, is deeper than what words can tell and we can explain and argue! (c: Paul has prayed for us "to know the love of Christ which passes knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God." (Ephesians 3:19) So, in God's love we discover all He knows He means. "And this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in knowledge and all discernment." (Philippians 1:9)
---Bill_willa6989 on 8/18/11

I'm not too sure just what you mean by this question.

The original languages of the Bible are Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic.

Obviously, a Bible in any other language is a translation and not the original, and ANY translation, including the Geneva and KJV, will be the product of men.

One thing the Bible in any language makes clear is that mere humans have NEVER done anything for God and gotten it 100% right.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 8/18/11

there are a few sectarian translations, but majority is good. the problem with these ancient copies, is of course that language develops and that however we think we read something it is something different.
example the word gay,
---andy3996 on 8/18/11

I recommend the 1560 A.D. Geneva Bible for a good English rendition, excluding the apocrypha which is NonScripture, and I do not recommend any English Bible after the 1611 A.D. King James Verrsion. For the new fandangled bibles on the market today are not Holy, and the integrity of the scripture is greatly compromised with them.
---Eloy on 8/18/11

Read These Insightful Articles About Franchises

Do an online search for "corrupt bibles". You will find it said that ALL versions in the last 500 years or so are corrupt. Do not let this worry you.

God has preserved His overall "MESSAGE" for those who seriously seek Him (the sincere could even read a poem and learn something Godly).

Many versions in the last 30 years were made to be politically correct so they would sell more at the bookstore (many, many IMPORTANT words were changed).

I believe that the scribes were reliable in their work, but the Greek words often don't have a direct translation into English. The TRANSLATORS took great liberties in using their own words.

I use my original RSV of 25 years ago (no serious discrepancies).
---more_excellent_way on 8/17/11

Trevor, what's really important when reading the Bible is to whether you are born of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the one that teaches and guide the Christian to know the Truth of the Bible. When you are born of the Spirit, the promise from Jesus is:

"Howbeit when He, the Spirit of Truth, is come, He will guide you into all Truth: for He shall not speak of Himself, but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak: and He will shew you things to come." John 16:13

Man can tamper with the Word of God all they want, but when you have the Holy Spirit, will He not tell you the Truth? Of course He will, because Jesus promised the Christian that's what the Holy Spirit will do.
---christan on 8/17/11

I don't know if your bible is faulty or not. Mine is the King James and it is not faulty. God didn't say it if he didn't mean it.
---shira3877 on 8/17/11

Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.