Why do some people keep on about the Bible having been changed when we have around 24000 ancient texts of it?
541519
cuz some people are stupid
562476
Any book that denies or trys to change or add to the written Word of God is a danger to read.  Stick with the orininal Bible It worked in peoples lives for 1000's of years so why try to change it. Is it becuase people in the 21st century think that they know more than God?
228091
I would say people misinterpret the bible many times. They do not take things into context of the time it was set the situation at that time and many other factors. For example it makes it easier to understand Shakespeare if you understand those times. When we understand these factors we can at best interpret what the bible is trying to say and allow God to translate it for us in our heads. Are you talking in the bible or interpretations of the bible? And why couldn't moses have been 900? Just because we can't live to 900 doesn't mean he couldn't. The world had changed so much since then, the diversity of bacteria, diseases, animals has risen so just based on this the life expectancy of humans should have drastically decreased. Also pollution, nutrition and other important factors need to be taken into consideration.
974328
Old Testament\nHow do we know the Bible has been kept in tact for over 2,000 years of copying? Before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, our earliest Hebrew copy of the Old Testament was the Masoretic text, dating around 800 A.D. The Dead Sea Scrolls date to the time of Jesus and were copied by the Qumran community, a Jewish sect living around the Dead Sea. We also have the Septuagint which is a Greek translation of the Old Testament dating in the second century B.C. When we compare these texts which have an 800-1000 years gap between them we are amazed that 95% of the texts are identical with only minor variations and a few discrepancies.\n\nNew Testament\nIn considering the New Testament we have tens of thousands of manuscripts of the New Testament in part or in whole, dating from the second century A.D. to the late fifteenth century, when the printing press was invented. These manuscripts have been found in Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Turkey, Greece, and Italy, making collusion unlikely. The oldest manuscript, the John Rylands manuscript, has been dated to 125 A.D. and was found in Egypt, some distance from where the New Testament was originally composed in Asia Minor). Many early Christian papyri, discovered in 1935, have been dated to 150 A.D., and include the four gospels. The Papyrus Bodmer II, discovered in 1956, has been dated to 200 A.D., and contains 14 chapters and portions of the last seven chapters of the gospel of John. The Chester Beatty biblical papyri, discovered in 1931, has been dated to 200-250 A.D. and contains the Gospels, Acts, Paul's Epistles, and Revelation. The number of manuscripts is extensive compared to other ancient historical writings, such as Caesar's "Gallic Wars" (10 Greek manuscripts, the earliest 950 years after the original), the "Annals" of Tacitus (2 manuscripts, the earliest 950 years after the original), Livy (20 manuscripts, the earliest 350 years after the original), and Plato (7 manuscripts).\n\n\nThousands of early Christian writings and lexionaries (first and second century) cite verses from the New Testament. In fact, it is nearly possible to put together the entire New Testament just from early Christian writings. For example, the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (dated 95 A.D.) cites verses from the Gospels, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Titus, Hebrews, and 1 Peter. The letters of Ignatius (dated 115 A.D.) were written to several churches in Asia Minor and cites verses from Matthew, John, Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus. These letters indicate that the entire New Testament was written in the first century A.D. In addition, there is internal evidence for a first century date for the writing of the New Testament. The book of Acts ends abruptly with Paul in prison, awaiting trial (Acts 28:30-31 (1)). It is likely that Luke wrote Acts during this time, before Paul finally appeared before Nero. This would be about 62-63 A.D., meaning that Acts and Luke were written within thirty years of ministry and death of Jesus. Another internal evidence is that there is no mention of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Although Matthew, Mark and Luke record Jesus' prophecy that the temple and city would be destroyed within that generation (Matthew 24:1-2 (2),Mark 13:1-2 (3), Luke 21:5-9,20-24,32(4)), no New Testament book refers to this event as having happened. If they had been written after 70 A.D., it is likely that letters written after 70 A.D. would have mentioned the fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy. As stated by Nelson Glueck, former president of the Jewish Theological Seminary in the Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati, and renowned Jewish archaeologist, "In my opinion, every book of the New Testament was written between the forties and eighties of the first century A.D."\n\nWith all of the massive manuscript evidence you would think there would be massive discrepancies
149426
which bible do u mean? I think u people have got many bibles...and y would u care about the "number" while nobody cares about following the bible by NOT committing this deadly sin (adultery)
988142
No. There has been too much lost in the numerous translations. And I would question your statement about the book being in existence for 'thousands' of years. The new testament and the gospels were not instantly assembled upon the death of Jesus of Nazareth. The old testament was passed on by word of mouth long before the books were written.  Compound these necessary flaws with the council of cardinals who decided which books were going to be part of the bible and which books were not, and the church's practice of censoring anything that did not agree with doctrine, and you have a less than perfect product.
115127
The Bible claims to be actual communication from God to humanity. Notice these biblical passages:\n\nAll Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 \n\nAbove all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. 2 Peter 1:20-21 \n\n The Bible claims to be the very Word of God (verbum Dei), indeed, the very words of God (verba Dei). But this claim often raises a number of objections. \n\nObjection #1: The Bibles we have today are nothing like the biblical books as they were originally written. \nThis is a real concern people have. The question of whether or not the Bible was God’s Word 2,000 years ago is irrelevant if the Bible we read today is substantially different from what was originally written. Until the invention of the printing press around 1450, all literature was hand-copied and scribes could make mistakes in copying. It’s hard to know if errors are present with many ancient works simply because few early hand-written copies exist. But this is not a major concern with the biblical documents: \n\n1. There are over 24,000 surviving partial or complete manuscripts of New Testament books today. By comparison, the next largest number is for Homer’s Iliad, with only 643 surviving manuscripts. We have only 7 copies of Pliny’s History and only 10 of Caesar’s Gallic Wars―but we don’t hesitate to trust them. \n\n2. Furthermore, the New Testament has unusually early manuscripts compared with other ancient literature. Our earliest copy of Pliny’s History dates to 750 years after Pliny’s death. A lot can happen in 750 years. And the earliest copy of Gallic Wars was copied 1,000 years after Caesar’s death. By contrast, some early New Testament fragments date to within 30 years of their first writing, as with the John Rylands papyrus found in Egypt. There simply wasn’t enough time between the original writing and our earliest manuscripts to allow for much corruption. \n\n3. There are over 84,000 quotations from the New Testament (mainly from sermons) dating to the early centuries of the Church. In fact, even if we didn’t have a single manuscript of the Bible today, we could reconstruct all but 11 verses of the entire New Testament from material within 150 to 200 years from the time of Christ. \n\n4. Similarly, with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the 1950s, we now have copies of the entire Old Testament from before the time of Christ―complete copies of every book except Esther.\n\nModern translations of the Bible (New International Version, New American Standard Bible, etc.) are translated directly from these earliest biblical manuscripts. \n\nObjection #2: The Bible is just a book of fairy-tales. Its account is not historically reliable. \nWhile there are letters and songs and laws and doctrinal teachings in the Bible, the most common genre within the Scripture is history. Observers point out that the Bible is an historical document in that it consistently gives accurate information on the geography, chronology, people, places, customs, nations and events recorded within it.\n\nThe Bible is therefore unusual compared to other human religious literature. The Book of Mormon, even though relatively recent, nevertheless reads like a cheap nineteenth century American gothic novel. It describes an entire pre-Columbian civilization which shows no signs of ever having existed. There simply never was a highly advanced Jewish civilization in ancient New York. There is today, but not before Columbus. Or compare the Bible with the Hindu Vedas, which explain that the moon is 150,000 miles higher than the sun and shines with its own light (like a big GE light bulb), adding that the earth i
830958
Not only that, but *originals* for the vast majority of books in the bible haven't existed for thousands of years.  All the translators have to work from are copies of copies of copies of copies...\nOh, but of course, we *know* that nobody made any errors, changes, or intentional additions or deletions when they made those hand-written copies, right? ;-)\n\nForget about the actual content, OF COURSE there are errors in just getting what's called the bible into your hands from the people who originally wrote the books.  Anyone who thinks there are no errors of any kind in the bible is very, very deluded.
328498
Many people may not see it this way but i think that all these new bibles NIV,nasb, and more are a taktic of satan. you know in the end times every one is going to be of one religion and every one changing to these new bibles i believe is the changing of religions. i use the King James Version AND I LOVE MY GOD.
1065737
I agree, but apparently most people have never read any of these texts that your talking about.  When you bring it up they will answer with "all cultures had similar stories".  I don't understand if they ever read the stories and saw that they are from what they call Pagan religions with multiply gods and how the same story is written in Genesis and is uncannily similar from the story plot, the sequence of events and even the language how they could deny that the bible was taken from them and changed to one god.\n\nScience has clearly dated these documents and the bible and the other texts are clearly more ancient by many centuries.  But apparently they are afraid that if they read them their belief system will be shattered and that thought may be unbearable to most people.
542994
You bet, if it has remained in the bible all this time , it is there for a reason. All of the bible preserved throughout the centuries is true and important.
1034564
Well Its to bad they don't understand. I don't like to see any walk in darkness. What they should understand is there has been a steady attack on the scriptures for as long as they have been around and by much better scholars than most or maybe any who have ever visited this site. Higher Criticism subjected it to all kinds of scholarly attack along with most of today's "institutions of higher learning". No book has been examined more closely than the Bible and no work could ever stand under that kind of attack. Yet the Word stands and carries on and the old saying that the shovel always verifies the Word remains true.
1004247
The bible, was put together from a group of writings that a bunch of men did a long time ago, Someone got smart and decided to put it together into 1 book, the only bad thing is they LEFT OUT alot of things as well. They should have left it alone and let us decide what we felt we needed to know.
854644
It's nice that you listed so many of these inaccuracies, lies, and internal contridictions.  That gives us a lot to go on.\n\nActually, the Bible is one of the most accurate historical documents that exists today.
957882
How long have you got?\n\nNo books of the bible were written in christs lifetime.  Even the fundys know that.\n\nAnd why do ppl believe it?  A mystery to me.  Because their parents taught them to is my best guess
763549
They change with the different bibles and the different translations and the different languages.  You would have to go back a half dozen languages and about 3000 years ti find "the" ten commandments.
1176563
Wow! Some of the people that gave you answers should learn to be a little more excepting of other religions! Mormons probably think that their veiws are a load of crap too! Anyway, I think that you are over looking the fact that changes in the bible did cause a bit of controversy. And I think that maybe since The Book of Mormon hasn't been changed alot in the past (if at all), then they don't want to ruin such a holy and unchanged thing.