The Skeptical Teacher

Musings of a science teacher & skeptic in an age of woo.

The Embarrassing Truth About the Bible: It’s STILL Being Edited

Posted by mattusmaximus on April 22, 2012

[**Update (8-16-15): While I’m pleased this is one of the more popular posts on this blog, it is important to see how this post fits into the larger fight by the “pro-life”/anti-choice movement against science. For more details on that, see this more recent post 🙂 ]

As most skeptics and atheists (as well as a number of well-educated religious believers) know, the Bible is a work of humans.  As such, just as any other book, it has been edited and revised quite a lot over the last couple of thousand years.  It’s not the purpose of this blog post to go into the details of who wrote what parts of the Bible when, nor will I get into the question of the numerous inconsistencies and contradictions contained within this supposedly “divinely inspired” book. (Though if you’re interested in those topics, I suggest starting with a basic primer on textual criticism of the Bible.)

Rather, I would like to address something which is easily verified by anyone: the fact that the Bible, contrary to the claims of many fundamentalists, is actually STILL being edited.  And sometimes these edits have made quite significant deviations from the “original” text.  Further, some of these edits have been made for what appear to be contemporary political purposes.

“You mean… it’s NOT the same as it was only 45 years ago?!!” — Image source

In order to prove my point, I would like to reference an excellent article on this topic from the Slacktivist blog over at titled “Mischief follows in partisan Bible translations”.  The basic point behind this article is that contrary to the claims of various fundamentalist factions that the Bible is unchanging and inerrant, it has in fact been edited quite recently.  Specifically, the evidence proves that the Bible has been edited for partisan political purposes on the issue of abortion as recently as the late 1970s (which is within the lifetime of many readers here!)  Read this excerpt from the Slacktivist article for more on this:

… As I noted earlier, this change in the words and meaning of the Bible is more recent than the introduction of the Happy Meal.

The New American Standard Bible is a popular English translation, a revision of the American Standard Version of 1901. It was completed in 1971 and then revised and updated in 1995. I want to highlight one major change in one passage of the NASB — a case in which the 1995 update alters — and is intended to reverse –  the text of the 1971 NASB.

Those dates are important in understanding the reason for this change. …

Now, let us look at the analysis of come critical Bible verses which have been edited in the context of contemporary views on abortion:

… That brings us to the text I want to highlight here as another example of politicized distortion via translation: Exodus 21:22-25.

Here is how Exodus 21:22-25 read in the New American Standard Bible’s 1977 revision of its 1971 original translation:

“And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is not further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.”

You can see how this fits in the context of the chapter. Here is another category of victim for which another set of punishments for violence is given. If a pregnant woman gets struck “so that she has a miscarriage,” but is not herself injured, then the man who struck her must pay a fine. But if the woman herself is injured, then the same rules and punishments for striking any other (non-slave) person apply — “life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, etc.”

But here’s the same passage in 1995 in the updated current version of the NASB:

“If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.”

“So that she has a miscarriage” has been replaced with “so that she gives birth prematurely.” [emphasis added]

Wait… what?  Why the distinction between miscarriage and premature birth with no injury (presumably to the fetus/baby)?  Because this change in the text fits with the new view on abortion which started to pervade U.S. politics starting in the late 1970s:

… But something changed between 1977 and 1995 — something that had nothing to do with scholarship, language, accuracy, fidelity or readability.

American politics had changed between 1977 and 1995. It had polarized and radicalized millions of American Protestants, rallying them around a single issue and thus, as intended, rallying them behind a single political party.

In 1977, the sort of American Protestants who purchased most Bibles couldn’t be summed up in a single word. But by 1995, they could be: “abortion.”

And for anti-abortion American evangelicals, Exodus 21:12-27 was unacceptable. It suggested that striking and killing an unborn fetus was in a separate category from striking and killing a “person.” Strike and kill a free person, you get the death penalty. Strike and kill an unborn fetus, you get a fine.

And so in 1995, like those earlier translators who invented and inserted “Junias,” the translators of the NASB reshaped this passage. “She has a miscarriage, yet there is not further injury” would, in consideration of the changes in American politics since 1977, henceforth be transformed into “she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury.”

Politics — specifically, the political desire to control women — shaped the translation of that text. The translators changed the words of the Bible to make it seem like it supported their political agenda. They changed the words of the Bible so that others reading it would not be able to see that its actual words challenged and contradicted their political agenda. …

So the Bible is the “unchanging and inerrant” word of God Almighty, according to these fundamentalists who “read the Bible literally”… until, apparently, it says something that they don’t like.  And then, what’s the solution?  Apparently, the solution is to change the text to say what they want it to say.

Can anyone say hypocrisy?  If these so-called “literalists” are so willing to play fast and loose with the very text upon which they place to much emphasis, it’s almost enough to cause one to ask just how much of this sort of thing has been going on for the last 2000 years, and thus question the validity of much (if not all) of the Bible, isn’t it?


53 Responses to “The Embarrassing Truth About the Bible: It’s STILL Being Edited”

  1. woody said

    Great post. But the beliefs of devoutley religious people will not be affected even slightly by this information, will it … what a shame.

    • chris mckinley said

      i agree that this is a shame, but the last question is sort of implies a fallacy doesn’t it? just because there is one instance in recent history that supports your claim (quite well i might add) doesn’t mean the entire bible for the entirety of it’s history should be discarded. and that’s just a specific version of the bible. There are countless other interpretations of the bible, who is to say that all of them have been tainted? in comparison with the dead sea scrolls the current version of the
      bible actually retains it’s original context very well. nice article though

      • James said

        What you are claiming Chris does not change the original context of what the author was saying. It is essentially saying the same thing only phrased differently. Your move.

  2. I believe you’re committing a logical fallacy in what you conclude from the Slacktivist story here. While I certainly agree that translations have certainly been used to promote certain worldviews, jumping from this story to questioning “the validity of much (if not all) of the Bible” is at best a hasty generalization.

    While translations can certainly vary slightly, translations are based off of collections of some very old manuscripts (see, which generally agree with each other quite well.

    Certainly the use of translation to change the meaning of the text to agree with a certain group’s political leanings is deceptive and well…unbiblical, the leap you make from this issue to your point that the Bible is therefore fundamentally flawed is a large one lacking any real connection- the sort of leap I’d expect more from the type of people who would deceptively translate a Bible.

    • Jamey Grant said

      @Ben Wildeboer you are quite right. In fact it is the translations that are the fault of man, but the Word as God gave to man is perfect and unerring. Unfortunately there has never been a bible not created by man. Thus the original assumption that that the bible is a load of crap used as a tool to control the masses is accurate.

      • Say there was a researcher studying the efficacy of a certain vaccine. Due to certain pressures, this researcher somewhat dubiously selected certain data while ignoring other data in order to show the vaccine was extremely efficacious. Later the researcher’s dubious research practices were revealed and it was found the vaccine didn’t work at all. Then the anti-vaxx community comes out and says, “This researcher was playing fast and loose with the data- it makes you ask just how much of this has been going on, and thus question the validity of much (if not all) of vaccine research.

        I’m not proselytizing here (heck, I can barely even spell proselytize)- I just think we need to apply the same evidence-based critical thinking skills we apply to science and medicine to all areas. The Bible should be up for critical analysis- but let’s do that using skills from the “Skeptics Tool Belt” instead of borrowing from the “Woo Belt.”

    • Jen S said

      Whenever there is a word or phrase that is unclear in any translation of the Bible, you’ll find a footnote that gives alternate translations. This is the same whenever anything is changed from a previous version. The current version of NASB I found at has a footnote next to the phrase in question that reads, “Or an untimely birth occurs” or the literal translation, “her children come out.” So if you look at just the literal, it could be either way, but keep in mind that in those days there was no NICU, so there would be no practical difference between prematurity and miscarriage. If a baby were not mature enough to eat, breathe, or keep his/her temperature stable he/she wouldn’t survive. What it looks like to me that the verse is saying is that if the baby comes out and is mature enough to suffer no real damage, the man pays a fine, perhaps to cover the doctor’s fee. The definition for “miscarriage” is “the expulsion of a fetus before it is viable” [], so it seems to me that considering the context the verse has the same meaning in either version.
      No need to worry if the Bible has been “tainted,” since the current policy is that if there is any change that could affect the meaning of the text it is fully disclosed. Now, if there were changes made without any indications or notes, then that would be bad. So whatever version you are looking at, rest assured that as long as it indicates when changes have been made or whether it is a paraphrase or not, it is still good.
      For those who want to take a look at this verse or any other verse(s) try the Amplified Bible. It comes in King James New King James, and even though they are not the smoothest read (all the parentheses), they help with those difficult bits. Also, Greek/Hebrew dictionaries help, and looking at other verses related to the one in question like in the Full Verse Cross Reference NLT (nice and convenient) or in a concordance (only slightly more work).
      Looking up the verses and definitions for this has helped me a lot. I read Ex 21:22-25 a week or so ago and had wondered about it myself, so now I have a more concrete answer. Thanks for posting.

  3. rodalena said

    These weird politically motivated edits are one valid reason for the onslaught of King James Only factions of fundamentalism. One eliminates all of the problematic editing since 1611 if one claims the KJV is the Only Correct Version For English-Speaking People.

    • rlwemm said

      Except that the KJV is much, much worse in terms of mistranslation and inclusion of spurious text.

    • Andrew said

      True, but what of any other editing done Pre-1611? The only way to get the *original* version would be to learn both Greek and Hebrew and read the Testaments in their originally written language.

      • rodalena said

        Agreed, Andrew. I don’t know if it’s possible to get an original version without time-travel. We’ll just have to settle for what we have, and exercise that frightening thing called “faith”.

      • Don’t forget Aramaic and a black belt in philology to be able to reconstruct a text! It is important to forget that the books of the Bible are historical texts that have gone through whole waves of editing, fixing and rebuilding. Even rabbis who spend their whole life studying the text need commentaries and commentaries to the commentaries, and even they differ in their interpretation.
        There are historical events in the XXth century about which people are engaged in violent diatribe as to who did what. And we have photos and films and video. It would be funny if we could agree on something like a patchwork of texts from the last three millenia.

      • James said

        You forgot about the Geneva Bible which pre dates the King James by some 51 years.
        Now don’t forget that in order to be Rabbi, one had to hand copy word for word the entire scriptures. Then when the young Rabbi began to teach,he did so in the presence of the Senior Rabbi’s. This was to ensure that the new Rabbi got it right. If any omissions were to occur or changed, you can bet the farm the Senior Rabbi’s would have something to say about that.

  4. rickray1 said

    Weird how the almighty gawd could not find the exact words to give his boys to write about so that much more educated people of the future would not get confused! Has “he” not the power to rewrite his own philosophies in modern times? I think it’s time to start ripping apart a different fairy tale!

  5. Exodus contains a law for Jews; neither I nor the christians are Jewish. I do not bother with somebody elses religous laws and neither should any christians, The hebrew bible or ” Old Testiment” was writen buy Jews for Jews not for non Jews. Show some respect! Stay out of somebody elses religion!

  6. There is no proof what so ever the bible was written or “inspired” by God or any other spirit diety which do not exist!

    • James said

      @Victor how much research have you done? In order to make a statement like that consider:
      5,600 manuscripts of the old testament alone which can be independently verified just hop on a plain and head to Israel.
      10,000 manuscripts of the new testament which can also be verified which is far more than the Quaran or Homer’s poem Iliad or Casear’s Galic Wars,
      Don’t forget about Josephus the Jewish historian and Marcus the Roman historian both of whom were not cheerleaders for Jesus but yet both historians confirm the bible.
      What about all that archaeological evidence found all over the world that corroborate the bible?
      Many brilliant scholars have tried and failed to disprove the bible and ending up becoming Christians themselves based on the mountain of evidence that was found while researching.
      Consider also that the Bible interprets itself despite being written at different time periods by many different authors. Daniel made his predictions some 700 years before apostle John wrote The Revelation of Jesus Christ. Revelation also refers back to Genesis, Deuteronomy etc. Ask yourself what are the odds of that happening? Well since you asked you are better off buying a lottery ticket.

  7. philobile said

    You may like to check out AN Wilson’s writing on the Bible – he wrote a book about Jesus, as portrayed in the Bible. (Jesus: a life, 1992) AN Wilson studied Greek at school/university, and is thus able to read the Bible, quite literally in its “orignal language”. He subjected the gospels to literary criticism and shows how the actual accounts of Jesus’s life are often completely contradictory. What Christians have done for 2000 years, is to cherry-pick bits from the Bible into a “coherent” story line, filling much of the blanks with folklore. According to AN Wilson, much of what people think they “know” about the life of Jesus is little more than folklore.

  8. And then there’s the “Wicked Bible” where the King’s printer, Robert Barker, left out the word “not” in one of the 10 commandments. He
    printed “Thou Shalt Commit Adultery” So, for a time there, many were out having orgies with other women with impunity.

  9. @blamer said

    Who at Lockman Foundation (1995) was involved in updating the NASB, Exodus 21:22-25?

    a rouge scribe? scholarly theologians? a living prophet of the Creator? some influential lobby group?

    Without identifying the participants this conspiracy sounds like a conspiracy theory. That is, attributing to troubling dominionism that which could be adequately explained by regular groupthink.

  10. Jesus Christ said

    1900 – 1.6 Billion People
    2012 – 7.0 Billion People
    112 years – 5.4 Billion People
    Solution – Stop Creating Children
    The life you save just might be the one you don’t create

  11. alex said

    Thank u for the post! if the word of god is inerrant, it is either all inerrant or it’s not. Funny how christians use old testament when it suits them and discard it when convenient.

  12. God Level Soldier said

    Oh how I love the foolish. They use carnal thinking to describe god’s word. Yes, men wrote it.but by inspiration of god. Known as the “Holy Spirit” He is the one that sends the words of god through them. The bible said: Write these things which I speak. They did. God, also made clear the lack of understanding of the wicked who knew not God. This is why they are called the foolish. They do not understand much less teach the truth of the word of god. Even what I speak comes from the father. I wrote this, but my god is the inspiration. Amen

    • @blamer said

      Prophets write down the words of their god. They know their words are dictation. We do not.

      When we hear that their written testimony itself insists that we’re being “foolish” and “wicked” to believe others, that “holy spirit” prophet is clearly inspired by a thousand yearold jewish myth, not a 14Billion yearold creator of this universe they inhabited. Those prophets of monotheism are as profoundly mistaken about how to detect a true prophet amongst countless false prophets, as they are about their own personal “god-breathed” words they have in mind. We have the benefit of historians. They only had court jesters and story tellers.

  13. Woody said

    God level soldier – People of other faiths are just as devout in their beliefs as you are in yours. Many other faiths describe, using the same talk as you, how the words of the ‘one true faith’ were revealed to mankind.
    Most of the followers of other religions are so because of where they grew up, what faith their friends and family believe in.
    Are they all damned to the eternal burning torture of hell?
    Can any such ‘inspiration’ be the one true version that will save souls, whereas any other faith is false and can only lead people to hell?

    • Raftadamus said

      There is no hell but the one we make ourselves.. Rightiousness is hard to see and even hard for man to live by. You don’t get it, some do. To take in words with mind alone is not the way to undetstand the Word. Funny though most all doubters eventually do come around. I will bet you will also.
      Yes I believe in God and bet along with other sins i was taught not to. I don’t expect to see a heaven but I know enough to be grateful for life, no matter what it offers. Who or what do you give thanks to for your existance. Parents are the vehicle but not the designer or mechanic of it.

  14. Jain said

    religion is a beautiful thing…it comforts people and puts their worries at ease. Why would you go out of your way to disrespect something that is so important to some people. Sometimes people need to keep their opinions to themselves. Be respectful, even if you don’t believe.

    • Raftadamus said

      Well said Jain. We see only the bad that man has don under the flagship of religion. I know one thing is a fact, there is no rehabilitation of the soul for cons or inmates that have done a full 180 turn like the faith they had excepted. I would not want to live in a world where Jesus’s teachings did not exist. We today can travel the world with comfort of knowing that peace is instilled in many we will encounter. Try that back in the day of head hunters and human sacraficial societies. God’s teachings has done more good than can be measured. But we are human and like that we all go through the rebellious teeage phase til we know what we had not seen to appreciate. …

    • Mark heartwell said

      The trouble with religion i.e. ..Christianity basically false in a lot of ways if taken literally and most Christians usually are brought up in it pushed to get brain washed and faced with the thoughts of going to hell forever in the worst of tortures if they do not live the bible and except jc as their God only savior …religion is good for fear the church has ruled onto ruin.

  15. Raftadamus said

    There is no hell but the one we make ourselves.. Rightiousness is hard to see and even hard for man to live by. You don’t get it, some do. To take in words with mind alone is not the way to undetstand the Word. Funny though most all doubters eventually do come around. I will bet you will also.
    Yes I believe in God and bet along with other sins i was taught not to. I don’t expect to see a heaven but I know enough to be grateful for life, no matter what it offers. Who or what do you give thanks to for your existance. Parents are the vehicle but not the designer or mechanic of it.

  16. […] of the most popular posts I’ve made on this blog was about how the Bible has been edited in recent decades to promote a specific political agenda related to abortion. Since writing that post, it has become […]

  17. […] Image Source […]

  18. […] Image Source […]

  19. Eric said

    Yes the Bible is still being written today. God still gives messages to people. God even puts his signature of approval on them with his own name JEHOVAH confirming the words to be His very own. Ethnic Cleansing is coming to the United States and evil doers are the ethnic group being targeted. Tornadoes descending from the sky that look like giant elephant trunks. Seek shelter underground. Flying glass spells trouble. God’s destroying angel was released to begin surveying the United States during August of 2003, 2 years in advance of devastation. Anyone having a problem with this will surely die for my hand is upon my servant the prophet. YOU DOUBT THIS?
    Well, my sister, my dad, and my college roommate doubted, and all 3 died in the consecutive years following 2005 (i.e. 2006, 2007, 2008).
    This is a sobering warning. Believe that Jesus is the Son of God, that he died on a cross to take your punishment in his own body for your sins. He shed his blood just to save you because he loves you that much. In believing, you will receive eternal life and escape the Great White Judgment Throne. You have not earned this gift in any way. No one can make it into heaven and have eternal life apart from this great truth.

  20. well surly human hand touched the bible wither old or new testament , actually new testament doesnt have a good history or maybe most of the books , like matthew gospel is in greek while matthew didnt speak greek , its just collection of books were chosen and no proof its from matthew luk john …. and just small search will proof that
    now if u read :
    (American King James Version
    Thirty and two years old was he when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem eight years, and departed without being desired. However, they buried him in the city of David, but not in the sepulchers of the kings.)2 Chronicles 21:20
    (26Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Athaliah the granddaughter of Omri king of Israel.)2 Kings 8:26
    (King James 2000 Bible
    Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother’s name also was Athaliah the granddaughter of Omri.) 2 Chronicles 22:2

    so was ahaziah 22 years old or 42 years old ?
    and if he is 42 it means he is older than his father ???

    u think god may do such mistakes ?? sorry thats surely human mistake , fact has to be accepted ,

  21. Salah Elmadani said

    Thank God who showed the truth.
    All muslims believe that the Torah and the Bible were both edited thousands of years ago, even before Quran was revealed to the Messenger Mohammed (may peace be upon him), and that is why Quran was revealed to The Prophet to rescue the people from those who devise lies against God just to serve their agenda. Now I’m going to give the evidence from Quran that really proves that christians and jews are deceived by their priests and scholars. These texts were revealed to The Prophet more than 1400 years ago and has not changed since then and will not be. May be some of you will ask “what is the proof that the Quran was not changed?!” Well, you will not find more than one copy of Quran. Also Islam has denominations, like Christianity and Judaism, but the difference from these two religions is all these islamic denominations has the same copy of Quran, pure and unchanged. Before I give the texts here is a note: in Quran the people of scripture or people of book are Jews and Christians.

    “46. Among the Jews are some who take words out of context, and say, “We hear and we disobey”, and “Hear without listening”, and “Observe us,” twisting with their tongues and slandering the religion. Had they said, “We hear and we obey”, and “Listen”, and “Give us your attention,” it would have been better for them, and more upright. But God has cursed them for their disbelief; they do not believe except a little.” Sura of al-Nisa
    “47. O you who were given the Book! Believe in what We sent down, confirming what you have, before We obliterate faces and turn them inside out, or curse them as We cursed the Sabbath-breakers. The command of God is always done.” Sura of al-nisa
    187. God received a pledge from those who were given the Scripture: “You shall proclaim it to the people, and not conceal it.” But they disregarded it behind their backs, and exchanged it for a small price. What a miserable exchange they made.” Sura of family of Imran
    79. So woe to those who write the Scripture with their own hands, and then say, “This is from God,” that they may exchange it for a little price. Woe to them for what their hands have written, and woe to them for what they earn.” Sura of al-baqarah
    “80. And they say, “The Fire will not touch us except for a number of days.” Say, “Have you received a promise from God-God never breaks His promise-or are you saying about God what you do not know?” Sura of al-baqarah

    • LESHATA said

      Was the original version of the bible change in the way that the messege was lost in context or only the word meanings and interpretation?

      • @blamer said

        There is no original version of the bible.

        Each verse is as fictional today as the day it was written down.

        To worry about any english translation is to concede far too much about what is being PROSERVED which is (1) an oral tradition (2) of unknown human hand (3) patchworked together by proto christians.

        So any literary concern about the cleanness of the signal-through-time overlooks the underlying topic of authenticity and misinformation: “if there were changes made without any indications or notes, then that would be bad”.

        Churches are literally spreading Bad News.

        Their holy testimony is counter factual.

        Holymen are mistaken to teach us any biblical moral. All that matters is human mortality.

  22. […] The Embarrassing Truth About the Bible: It's STILL Being Edited […]

  23. david said

    This page and site was ‘debunked’ when they found the dead sea scrolls confirming the bible (KJV) has remained the same since the time they (the Dead Sea Scrolls) were buried. The King James Version is the one to use to prove there have been no changes and are no contradictions. If you start referring to the new age versions (NIV, etc) you’ll notice there are contradictions and obvious changes (to make it more readable). The trick to finding the correct version that hasn’t been changed and has no contradictions is to refer to the King James Version.

    One modern teacher that has approached every single contradiction and all skepticism of the Bible is Kent Hovind. Check him out! He has some great material available on youtube and it’s all FREE.

    If you choose to ignore this message, it’s due to a heart issue. There is no real evidence against the Bible’s authenticity guys. Try studying the book of Proverbs in detail! It is so intrinsic. There hasn’t been any other book of it’s kind EVER. It is so mind blowingly deep!!! Another youtube teacher to check out the Proverbs study with would be Chuck Missler. He touches on the dept of just that one book and has studies of the other books too. If you want to grow in Wisdom, check out Proverbs. As for these types of sites, proverbs teaches about scorners, the simple, and the folly. These sites totally measure up to everything proverbs says about them.

  24. I’ve never read more illiteracy and uninformed babble in all my life. The Bible is the #1 selling book on the planet, of course people will keep producing it to make money. Realizing that 25% or more of the original root wording must be altered to form a new translation, what do you expect to find in 98% of the translations? Not Scripture I hope. It’s not there.

    There are few version that are reliable and can in fact be considered the Word. Redo your research, this time unbiasedly and you might learn something new. Here, try here:

  25. Reeseypuff2010 said

    I am a devout Christian and I fully believe that to say the Bible has been unchanged for over 2000 years is willful ignorance. Not only are things lost/gained in translation, but there is no possible way that the views of dominating nations through history haven’t affected ANYTHING in the Bible. You would have to be blind deaf and stupid to believe that. One (obviously biased) website says that proof the Bible hasn’t been changed is the fact that the Bible itself says it’s a sin to change it. If you honestly believe the fact that it’s a sin will stop people from changing it, you don’t understand humans nor Christianity. Jesus died for us because we ALL sin, so saying that the Bible hasn’t been changed simply because it’s a sin to do so is almost blasphemous in it’s own right.

  26. […] The Bible was originally written in Hebrew and obviously there has to have been some distortion in the text when translating to English. There is also evidence that the Bible text is periodically altered and these alterations make guidelines of the modern Bible different to those of a Bible from 100 years ago. You can read an interesting article on the subject here. […]

  27. […] The Bible was originally written in Hebrew and obviously there has to have been some distortion in the text when translating to English. There is also evidence that the Bible text is periodically altered and these alterations make guidelines of the modern Bible different to those of a Bible from 100 years ago. You can read an interesting article on the subject here. […]

  28. […] The Bible was originally written in Hebrew and obviously there has to have been some distortion in the text when translating to English. There is also evidence that the Bible text is periodically altered and these alterations make guidelines of the modern Bible different to those of a Bible from 100 years ago. You can read an interesting article on the subject here. […]

  29. Aisling said

    The KJV says: “If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.”

    A lot of holiness fundies like to thump the KJV, and claim that anything else has been altered.

  30. Brandon Johnson said

    Abortion has always been and will always be against the Christian religion. I make this argument as a FORMER Christian. First of all, the 1970’s text references a miscarriage, which is completely different than a purposeful abortion. Second, more accurate English words for the Hebrew words have been created and added in. While it is true that the words of the Bible have changed, the overall meaning behind them has not. No major alterations have been made since the religious council added passages that make Jesus appear more of a God, and took out passages that made him appear more human. They also reconciled the different interpretations of different denominations to create one unifying religion. I will not argue that the Bible is some divine infallable book, because to me it isn’t. It was written and changed by the hand of men, even if it was once inspired by a God. However, Christians did not need to make this change to be against abortion, as it has always been against the religion to end any life… no matter how young.

    Surely, you yourself cannot be of the opinion that killing a baby five minutes before it’s born isn’t the same as killing one five minutes afterwards. Logic demands that if killing a child is wrong, then killing a baby is wrong, then killing a baby inside the womb is wrong… Its just a matter of opinion where you stop. This has nothing to do with, as you wrongly argured, harming women. It has everything to do with protecting innocent lives. Tell me, since you are obviously ok with women killing their babies, why can we not give mothers the right to choose reguardless of the stage in life the child is? The only difference in a 20 week old fetus and a five year old child is time… So why not enable mothers to decide two years after birth that this isn’t what they wanted after all. After all, you consider it a mothers “right” to choose, don’t you? Why place a time limit at all? Why not allow a mom to kill their 30 year old son if that son doesn’t live up to expectations? If it is truly a right, then no one, not even time can take that right away. Here’s the issue… A government cannot give something without first taking it away. So in order to give a mother the “right” to choose, the government must take the most basic right, the right to life, away from the child. However, we are told we have inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So at what point do infants lives matter? To pro-lifers they start as soon as life is created, that they inherit those rights from the time a life is formed until the life dissipates. To some pro-choicers that right doesn’t take effect until the moment the baby is born. However, science tells us there is no difference between a baby just about to be born and a baby who was just born. It is true that air takes the place of liquid in the lungs, and the umbilical cord becomes obsolete once a parent can feed them through their mouth. Is that what makes a life special? Breathing air, eating with your mouth, or being able to eliminate waste through your privates? No, what makes life special is the consciousness of it. The ability to think, feel, etc… So does a baby gain that ability the moment they are born? Science says no… There is plenty of evidence of babies inside the womb dreaming, comforting itself and it’s siblings (if more than one baby). We know they are conscious because of the ability to calm them using the sounds and movement of being in the womb. So the real question is when it starts. Some say it’s impossible because a babies brain isn’t fully formed, however a person’s brain doesn’t fully form until 26 and we know they become conscious well before that… Although it may not seem like it with some teens.

    The point is, it’s a matter of speculation to say a baby cannot feel pain or can be conscious of what is happening. However, it is also speculative to say they can, although there is much more evidence in favor of them being an individual person well before birth.

    The more scientific discoveries made and the more words formed, the more the Bible will be altered to more accurately translate the Bible. The Christian belief says that God is an all knowing figure, and the Bible is limited by the words and science of our day. Therefore as far as Christians are concerned, they are changing the Bible from its original form/meaning, as they are still playing catch up to what was actually meant. It makes sense from a logical aspect too. If someone went back in time to the day of Jesus, and tried to describe how an airplane or something futuristic works, that person would be limited on how they explained it by the science and language of that period. They wouldn’t be able to explain it in terms that are foreign to them as they wouldn’t understand. The same goes with the science, as until an airfoil, parachute, engine, claps, cockpit, etc… are invented, you would have to use a laymen’s way of explaining it so they could understand.

  31. Embarrassing? What’s embarrassing is that the necessary edits are not being made. Why does it still have a Special Creation and a Flood, after everyone’s known they’re false for over a hundred years!

  32. stridermax said

    This makes no sense the verse in comparison that has been changed doesn’t prove that the meaning in the verses in question have been changed and the assumption between 1970 to 1995 is conjecture at best.

    To explain if there’s a sentence: “I really enjoy going to the grocery store” and then it’s changed to “I very much like visiting the store that sells groceries”

    Yes the passage changes, but the meaning doesn’t. It’s rediclois to say that the meaning of the bible has changed. It haven’t. There are places in the bible where the early church had no idea where to put in stories that they heard from the disciples, but it’s been proven that the changes in the bible are about 95% when we are comparing the new testememt and over all out of 20,000 lines of text only 400 lines would be chamged from our bible to the oldest copies we have now.

    The point is the only falicy here is misdirection. Yes the bible has been edited and changed BUT very minimal changes that don’t change the meaning of the passages. This sows doubt in the meaning of the scriptures.

    Here’s something even more important. God/Jesus never contradicts himself. If he is real seek him out and he will reveal himself to you. He will validate his own word written by his prophets in the bible. My challenge is to go and test this out. It will turn into a very interesting endeavor both spiritually as intellectually.

    • mattusmaximus said

      “God/Jesus never contradicts himself.”

      Okay, so consider the Ten Commandments, specifically the following two:

      Honor thy mother and father.

      Thou shalt not steal.

      So what if your mother and father tell you to steal? It seems that part is open to interpretation… so much for God not providing any contradictions.

  33. Dennis said

    which parts were changed??? ahhh my head, definitely legit that the bible was changed many of many times

  34. […] Las imágenes mostradas fueron tomadas del blog onlyamustardseed y skepticalteacher, […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: