Is my Bible altered due to translations?

Question

If I am correct, my English Bible began as Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek and then went to Latin and now English. How do I know that it was not changed in any way? Don't certain words mean different things in the past and in those languages. Could anything have been mistaken for what it is now?

Answer 1

If you have a Catholic Bible it may have been Latin at one time but other Bibles come frome the Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek texts. Some translations are better than others. You can download the Free e-Sword software along with a variety of Bible including the standard KJV with Strong's numbers and compare the original words with the ones that the translators used. If you learn to read Greek or Hebrew you can download free versions of those texts as well and some of them have Strong's numbers so that when you run your mouse pointer over the number a pop-up box shows the original word and the English meaning.

http://www.e-sword.net

Answer 2

Every time something is translated, something is lost.  If its only been translated once by someone capable, it smore likely to be "not quite right" rather than wrong.  If you want to read the original originals, you're going to have to learn Hebrew and Greek...to a degree that you can comprehend theological discussions, which won't be easy.

However, there are a lot of translations printed today that were translated from Hebrew and Greek into English.  They went back to very old texts to do their translations...not to a Latin version and certainly not to something that is many iterations removed from the originals.

Answer 3

I can't see how it couldn't have been mistranslated and altered. Man has written and re-wrote the Bible so many times. Who knows what of any of the original writing are in it.  

Answer 4

Yes ,it was originally printed in Hebrew and Greek language. One main translation as follows

The "Reformation" Reformed Very Little

     Martin Luther—the "father" of the Reformation—and other reformers still held hostile attitudes against all things "Jewish," including the Sabbath of Jesus Christ, the annual festivals and, in fact, literal obedience to the Ten Commandments. That is one reason Martin Luther presumptuously added something to God’s own Word! In Luther’s translation of the New Testament, he deliberately added the word "alone" to Romans 3:28. Luther was so adamant against the necessity of obeying God’s law—confusing it perhaps with Catholic canon law and Catholic rituals—that he added a word to God’s inspired revelation!

     Romans 3:28 in the New King James Version reads: "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law." Luther added the word "alone" (sola in Latin) so that in his German-language New Testament the phrase became "justified by faith alone"—a plainly wrong change without support in the text. When one critic raised an objection to his changing Scripture, Luther haughtily replied: "Should your Pope give himself any useless annoyance about the word sola, you may promptly reply: ‘It is the will of Dr. Martin Luther that it should be so.’" (John Alzog, Manual of Universal Church History, Dublin: M.H. Gill and Son, 1902, p. 199). And, we may add on good authority, no other reason for such unscriptural changes as these was ever given. When it came to Luther’s own personal doctrinal convictions, Martin Luther was truly a self-willed man.

     His third tractate of 1520, On Christian Liberty, asserts that a Christian man is spiritually subject to no man or to any law. He contended that since we are justified by faith alone, we are no longer under obligation to keep the law of God.

     And, as is well known, Luther called the book of James an "epistle of straw" because James clearly taught the necessity of obedience to the Ten Commandments! Notice James 2:10–12: "For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all. For He who said, ‘Do not commit adultery,’ also said, ‘Do not murder.’ Now if you do not commit adultery, but you do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty."

     It is exceedingly clear in this passage of inspired Scripture that James is talking about the ten "points" of the Ten Commandments. He tells Christians to keep the whole law. James then concludes by teaching New Testament Christians to "speak and to do" as those who will be judged by God’s law.

     So although often sincere, the Protestant reformers carried over most of the anti-law, anti-obedience attitudes they had come to adopt in their rebellion against "Mother Rome." Yet, like Rome, they were still involved in a paganized system of false doctrines, wrong Holy Days and false concepts of God, which God Himself describes in Revelation 17:4–5: "The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and precious stones and pearls, having in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the filthiness of her fornication. And on her forehead a name was written: MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH."

     As this form of "Christianity" became the state religion, masses of former pagans "converted." Many did so out of convenience rather than conviction, and kept their old beliefs privately. Others came to the new syncretistic faith uneducated in its beliefs, and able to receive only the most basic instruction.

http://www.tomorrowsworld.org/cgi-bin/tw...

Answer 5

The Bible was changed quite often actually. This does not discredit it. The text that people thought were important they kept the same. Some things in the Bible were deliberately mistranslated, a famous one being "Though shalt not suffer a witch to live," which though only one word was changed poisoner to witch, this passage caused the deaths of thousands of women, men, and even animals. I think that the phrases that demand the death of people are not to be looked at in any seriousness.

I personally don't believe in half the things the Bible says but some good moral lessons can be learned from reading it with a thinking mind.

While you read think if the passage is placed there just to make you dislike a group of people.

Answer 6

Your Bible is the perfect Word of God, that is if you are using the King James Version. People who believe that their is no Bible accurately translated into english are simply saying that God wasn't smart enough nor perfect enough to preserve his word to all generations and all languages. God does not expect mankind to learn hebrew latin or greek to receive his Word. If he did then salvation would no longer be free, because then it would be by works ( the work of having to learn a new language in order to learn about salvation). People say well it was translated by man. True but if God wants something to happen don't you think that any way he chooses to spread his word is going to be perfect? God wants all to receive the gospel so he sent us the Bible in the english language, notice I said the Bible and not many Bibles, The KJV is the only Bible that reads word for word as almost 98% of all the original text. God willed us to have his Word and that's what we got, through mans hand or not Gods Word is still Gods Word and he would not allow it to be altered by man. As far as the other versions go, they may be altered because they are not Gods Word, therefore man may alter, change, omit, edit, and blaspheme them all they want.

Answer 7

Oh yes, just a few things have appeared in the english versions that were never in the Bible before. The entire concept of homosexuality comes to mind. There isn't even a word to describe it in Aramaic.  

Answer 8

current versions do not translate from the latin, but they translate from the Hebrew and Greek, so for about 98% of the versions out there (there are a few that people have changed like the feminist version) are about 97-98% correct which is as close as you can get to 100% with translating anything....

if you want to get 100% or more like 99.9% accurate i suggest you get it where it shows you what the original greek is and separately defines each word used like at http://scripturetext.com/

Answer 9

Almost no modern Bible is translated from Latin- maybe the New American Bible-which is catholic. Most all modern translations are translated straight from the original language manuscripts that are still available. If you have a NASB, ESV, or one of the newer 'word for word' translations- they will be right on-- as far as language translation will allow.

Some of the English words in the King James version have changed meaning-- but its about 400 years old. We don't talk like that now.

You can trust your modern translations.  

Answer 10

Yep. Why don't you do some deep study and learn for yourself. Most of the ones here on YA don't know the answer to that question. Some wouldn't admit it if they did. Any Library should have Hebrew, Greek, and even Aramaic dictionaries with the English meanings. Don't depend on commentaries. They are written by men with their own ideas of what scriptures mean.

Answer 11

They say there are a few words that between the translations, one or the other language had no word meaning the exact same. I don't think any mistakes were made. We just had to put the best word that meant the same into it's place. Example: some cultures have no word for God and some have four, five, six or more words for God or a god.

The word g*y use to mean happy and now it's a homosexual.  

Answer 12

amen to that

Answer 13

down load e-sword from e-sword.net

its free....it gives you all the original words and every possible use..I find it very useful when observing the finer points....

If you do this, you'll see that the differences in various versions are nearly negligible.  

hint: word for word translations [like the KJV and ESV] are probably more reliable than thought for thought translations [such as the NIV]...just my opinion.  

Answer 14

There is a wonderful book by a translator called "Misquoting Jesus."  There are currently 400,000 contradictory passages in the New Testament  based on various fragments, scrolls and books.  Many many things were changed because until the Protestant Reformation, the bible was thought of differently.  It wasn't until print that copyists felt obligated to print what was given to them.  It wasn't only the bible.  All books during the time of hand copying have changes.  Some were stupid mistakes, some were attempts to get a better meaning in a changing language and some were because the copyist did not agree with it.  Martin Luther, who made the 85th translation into German, added words where he felt Paul had spoken inadequately.  Indeed, when Luther required the debate revolve around the bible, he used his bible, which he could get quotes from that no other bible had in it.

At the time, no one would have thought it was wrong.  A copyist, like any good storyteller, wants to get a message across and they felt they were doing good by changing it where it was unclear or did not fit with their views.  The earliest full copy of the bible we have is from 350.  There are two bibles actually, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus.  Still, Sinaiticus does not agree well with older fragments.  Indeed, the quotations from the apostolic fathers, the people trained and ordained by the apostles, the people who would have read them first, do not match our bibles.  One of those fathers, Polycarp was one of the editors of John's Gospel and his quotes don't match.

The bible is a complex document and no matter what religion you belong to, the effort made in transmitting it through the centuries deserves great respect.  One of the problems of the bible is that the statistical odds of all verses being correct, with only a 1% chance it is not the original is 1/ 10 followed by 135 more zeros, or 10 to the negative 136 power.  On the other hand, it is probably in the ball park.  It isn't well enough into the ball park to choose between Catholic, Baptist, Presbyterian or Lutheran, but if you want to get the gist it is probably in the ballpark.  Some verses might be out in the parking lot and some in the outfield, but it isn't bad given all the translation issues.

Answer 15

I too had this same question and after much reading and study I've concluded you must believe in a Living Bible that is Holy and the Word of God. It is the Holy Spirit that guides you as you study and read the Bible. Just pray for guidance as you read. Some words cannot be exactly translated and there are two major types of translations for the Bible, word for word and phrase. Word for word is just that, each word is translated independently from those around it, and phrase tries to match the feeling of the sentence or the intended meaning.  

Answer 16

the original Taurat has been modified for writers/statesman' desires. 1 point they attempted to create a situation between Ismail & Is'haq alayhi salaam (peace be upon them), sons of Ibrahim alayhi salaam. True story, Ismail as a baby with his mom Hajir was told by Allah, our 1Creator, Ibrahim's 1Lord, to send them away, before Is'haq was born & a nation would develop from Ibrahim & Ismail & Is'haq

check this:

example according to Gen. 16:16 Abraham alayhi salaam (peace be upon him) was 86 years old when Ishmael was born. And according to Gen. 21:5 Abraham was one hundred years old when Isaac alayhi salaam was born. It follows that Ishmael was already fourteen years old when his younger brother Isaac was born. According to Gen. 21:8-19 the incident took place after Isaac was weaned. Biblical scholars tell us the child was probably weaned at about the age of three. Thus, it follows that when Hagar and Ishmael alayhi salaam were taken away Ishmael was a full-grown teenager, seventeen years old. However, the profile of Ishmael in Gen 21:14-19 is a small baby and not a full-grown teenager. Why?

Genesis 21:14-21

14 Early next morning Abraham took some food and a full water-skin and gave them to Hagar. He set the child on her shoulder and sent her away, and she wandered about in the wilderness of Beersheba. 15 When the water in the skin was finished, she thrust the child under a bush, 16 then went and sat down some way off, about a bowshot distant. How can I watch the child die? she said, and sat there, weeping bitterly. 17 God heard the child crying, and the angel of God called from heaven to Hagar, What is the matter, Hagar? Do not be afraid: God has heard the child crying where you laid him. 18 Go, lift the child and hold him in your arms, because I shall make of him a great nation. 19 Then God opened her eyes and she saw a well full of water; she went to it, filled the water-skin, and gave the child a drink. 20 God was with the child as he grew up.

1. the original Hebrew for Gen. 21:14 is " and put the bread and water on her shoulder AND the boy." Anyone fluent in Hebrew can confirm this.

How would a mother carry a seventeen-year-old teenager on her shoulder? Certainly he was probably strong enough to carry his mother. Ishmael must have been a baby!

Second, in Gen 21:15 we are told that Hagar put the child under one of the bushes. Ishmael must have been a baby and not a teenager!

Third, in Gen 21:16 we are told that Hagar sat away so she did not have to see the child die before her eyes. Is this the profile of a husky seventeen-year-old teenager who probably was capable of being worried about his mother dying before his eyes? Or is it obviously a profile of a small helpless baby? Ishmael must have been a baby and not a teenager

Answer 17

That doesnt matter much. Do your duty, live responsibly, help others if you can , Bible word meanings changed or not that wont matter in any way.

Answer 18

The Bible is very reliable. Jesus confirmed the OT and promised the NT. OT is pretty much the same as it was at the time of Jesus. Manuscript support is humongous for the Bible

Answer 19

The three generally accepted tests for determining historical reliability of historic documents are: 1) bibliographical 2) internal, & 3) external.  Let's look at 1 & 3.

1)  The bibliographical test seeks to determine whether we can reconstruct the original New Testament writings from the extant copies at hand. We have 5,300 Greek manuscripts and manuscript portions, 10,000 Latin Vulgate, and 9,300 other versions, plus 36,000 early (100-300 A.D.) patristic quotations of the New Testament—such that all but a few verses of the entire New Testament could be reconstructed from these alone. If the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt.  The Princeton scholar, BB Warfield, said, "that the great bulk of the New Testament has been transmitted to us without, or almost without, any variations. It can be asserted with confidence that the sacred text is exact and valid and that no article of faith and no moral precept in it has been distorted or lost."

3)  The external evidence test.  The test of external evidence seeks to either corroborate or falsify the documents on the basis of additional historical literature and data.  The relevant bibliographic, internal and external evidence for the New Testament force us to conclude the historical accuracy and reliability of the Gospel accounts. They pass persuasive tests which determine their integrity. Even two hundred years of scholarly rationalistic biblical criticism have proven nothing except that the writers were careful and honest reporters of the events recorded, and that these methods attempting to discredit them were flawed and biased from the start.

There is also corroboration from non-Christian sources:  Scholarly research such as that by Dr. Gary R. Habermas in Ancient Evidence for the Life of Jesus, and other texts, indicates that "a broad outline of the life of Jesus" and His death by crucifixion can be reasonably and directly inferred from entirely non-Christian sources. Even the resurrection of Christ can be indirectly inferred.

And, there is corroboration from archaeology:  

Dr. Clifford Wilson, author of New Light on the New Testament Letters,  New Light on the Gospels, Rock, Relics and Biblical Reliability and a 17-volume set on the archeological confirmation of the Bible writes:

"Those who know the facts now recognize that the New Testament must be accepted as a remarkably accurate source book."

Add to these:  Corroboration from eyewitnesses, corroboration from enemies' silence, critical methods, legal testimony, etc.

So, in other words, even if we personally choose to disbelieve what the New Testament teaches, our disbelief changes nothing.  The New Testament is true.