...have you ever wonder or do you believe that the bible used today have been revised and modified....have u ever wonder why there are so many versions of the bible?

there are versions of the bible to let the people understand it better. i think there is no modification. If you read different version of the bible and meditate on it it says the same... one meaning...

The original bible still exist in the world some of the truth were lost....maybe it was meant to be lost...the revised version of the bible of today is due to satans manipulation of his people to decieved Gods children....and it says in the bible that wickedness will be random and all kinds of calamities will appear on earth upon the arrival of our mesiah...

....so does it mean, that the bible we're using today is not that authentic as a source of truth?

you said it.

The Bible that do stay as the most authentic is the King James Version.

...how sure sure you?

The Bibles that we read today were translated or paraphrased from ancient manuscripts -- Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic. When choosing a Bible version, individuals should select a version that has been translated from the latest, most authoritative texts. For the Old Testament, the accepted most authoritative texts would be the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia; for the New Testament it would be the United Bible Societies' third or fourth edition of the Greek New Testament.

Five popular versions of the bible fall into the following categories of translation:

    * The NASB is considered to be strictly literal.

    * The KJV and NKJV are considered to be literal.

    * The NIV is considered to be thought-for-thought.

If you are interested in serious study of the Bible, including grammar and vocabulary, you will want a more literal translation, such as the English Standard Version, New King James, or New American Standard. However, it is always good to compare several translations, especially for passages that are difficult to understand. If you are interested in reading the Bible in large blocks, you probably will prefer one of the freer translations (not necessarily less accurate), such as the New International, New Living Translation, or Contemporary English Version.

* The NLT is considered to be functionally equivalent.

A strictly literal or literal translation takes the words from the original manuscripts and translates them literally, or word for word. When a Bible is said to have been translated as thought-for-thought, it means that the translator has taken the original words and applied exegesis, which is to say an understanding of the thought behind the words; this is conveyed in the rendering of the verse.


I myself are using a Bible that are a mix of NASB and KJV, but who also includes gospel that are not in the standard bible like:

    * Gospel of Thomas
    * Gospel of Truth
    * Gospel of Philip
    * Gospel of Peter
    * Gospel of Mary Magdalene
    * Gospel of the Egyptians
    * Gospel of the Hebrews
    * Gospel of James
    * Gospel of Judas
    * Gospel of Hermes


The Books of the Old Testament: 46 books:

1- Historic: 21 Books:
From Genesis to Maccabees. Narrate the formation and development of the "People of God" with his glories and tribulations.

2- Wisdom or Poetic: 7 Books:
Job; Psalms of David; the 4 of Solomon: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom; and Ecclesiasticus of Ben Sirach.

3- Prophetic: 18 Books:
The 4 great prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel... plus the Lamentations of Jeremiah, and Baruch. And the 12 minor prophets: Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Melach

...now i wonder, have you been in a theology school?....well so much to say about the BIBLE....how could we be so sure that people have translated bible as same words as today's new version, from generations to generations.....i mean, if you just to write a word or group of word and pass it from one person to another....bet when it comes back, its not as same as what you have written, maybe some omission or some addition...

how  sure??? .....  you  will know  the truth  and the truth  will set  you free.....
the  original  bible  is  upon thee, thou  shalt  read  it  and  behold  with thine  own  eyes....
KING  JAMES VERSION  is the original  bilbe...... and  different  version  came  afterwards, like  the new interbational version, new king james  version, the American standard version, the good news  version  and etc...  but  the  ORIGINAL is the king james version.....

....original?...when you say original does it mean the original "word of God"?...thought the original is written in armaic....?

The introduction of the King James (KJV) or Authorized Version (AV) of the Bible states, “But how shall men meditate in that which they cannot understand? How shall they understand that which is kept close in an unknown tongue?…Translation it is that opens the window, to let in the light; that breaks the shell, that we may eat the kernel.”

The Bible as we know it today has been passed down through the centuries. Over the past few years, we have witnessed an explosion of different translations and “specialty” Bibles. Some of these can be helpful. Others are pitifully inaccurate. How can you be sure which one to use? Which is the most accurate?

The word “bible” conjures up mystery in some people’s minds. From the Greek biblos, it simply means “a sheet or scroll of writing; book.”

The languages in which the Bible was originally written are primarily Hebrew, for the Old Testament (with a few exceptions in Daniel and Ezra), and Greek in the New Testament. If a person is not able to read Hebrew and/or Greek, then he must rely on reading a translated version in his own language or vernacular. Of course, no Bible translation is 100% accurate. There will be errors, based on the meaning of certain words, phrases, idioms and each individual’s preconceived ideas. God could have directly sent men who could have translated the Bible into the language of the people. But God has tested the Bible “scholars” of this world to see how careful and diligent they are in keeping His Word accurate.

The Old Testament was preserved by the Jews, who were one of the twelve tribes of Israel. They were entrusted (Rom. 3:1-2) to carry down, from generation to generation—by precisely copying and meticulously preserving—the entire text of the Old Testament. The Jews took this responsibility so seriously that, as they were making copies, they counted the words and letters to make sure nothing was added or omitted. This text is known as the “Masoretic Text.” Without doubt, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947 proves the accuracy of the Old Testament scriptures we have today. The climate around the Dead Sea is quite arid and perfect for preserving materials such as the scrolls.

These scrolls include complete books and portions of books written 2,000 years ago. One well-preserved scroll of the Book of Isaiah was written in “square letter” Hebrew, which dates it to the second century B.C. This single document alone put to rest the speculation that Isaiah was written after the time of Christ—thus proving correct the prophecies of Jesus.

Most of the scrolls were written between 100 B.C. and A.D. 68, and most likely hidden just before the Roman armies destroyed Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

The King James Version
When King James commissioned a group of 57 scholars to translate the Bible in 1607, he looked for the best men at that time to produce a new translation using only the original Hebrew (Masoretic Text) and Greek (Byzantine/Received/AntiochianText) manuscripts.

These men were divided into six groups: Three for the Old Testament, two for the New Testament, and one for the Apocrypha (later dropped). When each group finished its work, they submitted it to another group of twelve men for review. This next group found it necessary to add certain words not found in the original in order for the text to flow in the English language. These added words are in italics so that anyone reading will be able to tell which words were added. The initial job was finished in two years, but an additional nine months was taken for yet another group to evaluate the work of the first groups. Since it was first published in 1611, only minor modifications (mostly spelling) have been made.

The King James Version uses the “Byzantine Text” (also known as the “Syrian” “Antiochian” and “Received” texts) for its main manuscript of the New Testament. This text circulated throughout the Byzantine Empire. It also circulated in Syria and in its capital, Antioch. Scholars often call it Koine (Greek: “common”) to designate its 95% accuracy.

There are some small differences among the almost 5,000 Greek manuscripts that we use to compare. But most of these differences do not change the intent or meaning of the verses.

The Bible is inspired by God in such a way that we cannot base doctrine on any one verse. Doctrine or teaching is not found nicely wrapped up in one place. “For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little” (Isa. 28:10).

The actual differences in manuscripts involve words or phrases that do not change the intent of the verse. By putting all the verses together on any particular subject, you can come to a sound decision on what the verses’ intent is.

There are two basic types of translations: (1) literal, in which translators use the original manuscripts to interpret word for word; (2) free interpretation, in which translators render meaning by meaning.

The KJV and the NKJV (Revised Authorized Version) are both literal translations. They follow the Greek and Hebrew text word for word wherever possible. But where the English idiom does not correspond with the original text, the words often come out sounding cumbersome and not understandable.

The KJV often sounds odd because it uses 17th-century language. People then generally knew whether a speaker was talking to one person or many. This is preserved in Classical English. If a speaker were addressing one individual, he would use “thee” or “thou.” If he were addressing a group of people, he would say, “you” or “your.” The NKJV has replaced “thee” and “thou” with the more modern “you” and “your.”

Some other literal translations are the American Standard Version, the Revised Version, the King James II Bible by Jay P. Green; The Holy Bible in Modern English by Ferrar Fenton; Young’s Literal Translation of the Holy Bible by Robert Young and the Jewish Publication Society translation of 1917.

So I still say Go For KJV.

No Gummy, I have not gone in any theology school, for the sound reason that they teach false doctrines.

Aiii.... that was a dangourus question. But yes, they have been altered, but not the original scripures.

In the first three centuries, the Catholic Church used the oldest available fragments of the New Testament. These are called the “Western Text.” They are full of notable corruptions, contradictions, deletions and counterfeit additions. They vary so much that there is no way of accurately knowing what constitutes the New Testament. Scholars admit that they originated in Rome.

Catholics and Protestants agree that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, but disagree on which books belong in the Bible. The Catholic Old Testament canon includes books such as Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, and I and II Maccabees, with added sections in Esther and Daniel that are missing in the KJV. These added books are referred to as the “Apocrypha” and are not accepted as scripture by Protestants and others. Among scholars, it is common knowledge that there are obvious historical inaccuracies in the books of Tobias and Judith.

The Codex Vaticanus just happened to be found in the Vatican Library in 1481. The quality of the text is amazingly intact. But it leaves out a substantial amount of text. For instance, Genesis 1:1 through 46:28 is missing, as well as Psalms 106 through 138, Paul’s Pastoral Epistles, Hebrews 9:14 through 13:25, and the entire book of Revelation. In the gospels alone there are 748 whole sentences, 452 clauses and 237 words missing. Codex Vaticanus has all the books of the Catholic Old Testament except for I and II Maccabees.

The Codex Sinaiticus was discovered in A.D. 1844 by Prof. Tishendorf on a trash pile outside the walls of St. Catherine’s Monastery, at the base of what some believe is the mountain where Moses received the Ten Commandments. It had been thrown out as garbage by monks. On nearly every page there are corrections and revisions by as many as ten different people. It contains most of the New Testament plus the “Epistle of Barnabas” and “Shepherd of Hermes.” Codex Sinaiticus lacks II Maccabees, but includes IV Maccabees.

The Greek Septuagint was translated during the Hellenistic era (331 B.C. to A.D. 100), to benefit Jews of Alexandria, Egypt, who spoke Greek. About 250 B.C., the first five books of the Bible were translated by 72 Hellenist Jews. The name Septuagint comes from the Greek phrase “of the seventy.” A few decades later, the books of the Prophets were translated as well. This is where the Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinus originated.

Codex Alexandrinus has all of the books of the Catholic Old Testament, plus III and IV Maccabees.

The Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament has many corruptions and should not be used.

The text of the Revised Standard Version (RSV) has been the work of so-called higher critics over the past 150 years. They base their work on both the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. But they originated in Egypt in the fourth century A.D., through the work of schools and critics in the early centuries after Christ. Together, these texts are also known as the “Alexandrian Text.” Some think they should rely on the oldest text available. This text has about 5% of the known Greek manuscripts and has been altered over the years. The fact that it is the oldest manuscript does not make it accurate. As a copy of the text wore out, a new copy was made—written by hand. This explains why there are few old copies. Each was disposed of and destroyed as a newer one replaced it. Critics seem to forget that accurate copies of the original are far superior to corrupt copies, no matter how old they are.

...based on roald's ideas or should we say researches....it made me conclude that there is no such thing as the "original bible"....it made me also believe that the bible got 90-95% accuracy and authenticity.....with these diff versions of the bible, we could say that there is no standard bible used by christians generally....however, it paved way on being more carefull and consistent on which is to believe more or which is much better to use as a basis.....

...btw, thanx roald...iba ka....

iba ka??
Hope that is something nice . :angel:

O0