How the Bible was changed by man! Is this true? (ritual, moral)

[Doktormartini]

Hi all! I am taking a World Religions class at my community college (awesome, everyone should take one btw), and right now we are on the Judaism unit. Our teacher said that Moses led the people to the promised land, and blah blah all the events happened and eventually the full Tanakh was written (That's Torah, Nevim, and Ketuvim). He then said that during the time, there were Jewish people in Greece who could not understand Hebrew, so 72 Greek men translated the Tanakh into Greek. But by doing so they also added some stuff to it and changed the order of it to make it so it leads to the coming of the Messiah (how the Christian Old Testaments are). Then he said that the Protestants at the time thought The Catholics (the ones that changed the Tanakh) were wrong to add stuff to it, so their version doesn't have additions, but the order is still changed from the origianl.

Then he held up a Tanakh, a Catholic Bible, and a Protestant Bible and said, "Now which one do you want to read? The original? Or the one changed by man?"

So, I know the Bible is and has been changed by man, but is this really one of the ways it happend? Thanks all!

[shema]

Originally Posted by Doktormartini

Hi all! I am taking a World Religions class at my community college (awesome, everyone should take one btw), and right now we are on the Judaism unit. Our teacher said that Moses led the people to the promised land, and blah blah all the events happened and eventually the full Tanakh was written (That's Torah, Nevim, and Ketuvim). He then said that during the time, there were Jewish people in Greece who could not understand Hebrew, so 72 Greek men translated the Tanakh into Greek. But by doing so they also added some stuff to it and changed the order of it to make it so it leads to the coming of the Messiah (how the Christian Old Testaments are). Then he said that the Protestants at the time thought The Catholics (the ones that changed the Tanakh) were wrong to add stuff to it, so their version doesn't have additions, but the order is still changed from the origianl.

Then he held up a Tanakh, a Catholic Bible, and a Protestant Bible and said, "Now which one do you want to read? The original? Or the one changed by man?"

So, I know the Bible is and has been changed by man, but is this really one of the ways it happend? Thanks all!

I believe that all sriptures have been changed, translated, mistranslated. the only way to get the information is to get research. there are a lot of words in the english language that they just don't have in other languages. however, I believe that it is God's will that has ended up available to us today. the bible says there are many imaginations in a man's mind. but it is the counsel of the lord that will stand.

[Hacker]

Well, I don't know how the heck we are going to know whether it's true or not because we weren't THERE to actually see it for ourself. It all boils down to faith but there are some historical writings pertaining to Constatine and his alleged alterations of the bible when he became the Emperor of Rome, and the missing sea scrolls. It makes sense to me, in MY opinion, there is MUCH pertinent information that is not included in the bible...most religions reveal nothing but scare tactics which sounds like "MAN" to me.

[HopefulNikki]

For me, whether or not the Bible has been changed is really unimportant. It is certainly an issue which challenges mainstream Christian thought, but in my view religion and/or spirituality extends beyond a book. I can look at the Bible, in any form you hand it to me in (as long as it's in English), and draw teachings from it that I see as good and moral, as well as bad and immoral. God gave us reasoning minds, we should at least be courteous enough to use them from time to time.

[James the Persian]

Originally Posted by Doktormartini

Hi all! I am taking a World Religions class at my community college (awesome, everyone should take one btw), and right now we are on the Judaism unit. Our teacher said that Moses led the people to the promised land, and blah blah all the events happened and eventually the full Tanakh was written (That's Torah, Nevim, and Ketuvim). He then said that during the time, there were Jewish people in Greece who could not understand Hebrew, so 72 Greek men translated the Tanakh into Greek. But by doing so they also added some stuff to it and changed the order of it to make it so it leads to the coming of the Messiah (how the Christian Old Testaments are). Then he said that the Protestants at the time thought The Catholics (the ones that changed the Tanakh) were wrong to add stuff to it, so their version doesn't have additions, but the order is still changed from the origianl.

Then he held up a Tanakh, a Catholic Bible, and a Protestant Bible and said, "Now which one do you want to read? The original? Or the one changed by man?"

So, I know the Bible is and has been changed by man, but is this really one of the ways it happend? Thanks all!

In short, no. The Septuagint (LXX, or the Seventy) which is the translation into Greek that you are referring to was produced by Jews in Alexandria (in Egypt) between about 300 and 100 BC. There was no Church at all by that time as Christ was not yet Incarnate. And if by Catholic you mean Roman Catholic then I would have to point out that that Church only came to be in 1054 when they and we parted company (The Patriarchate of Rome went its own way becoming the RCC and the other four, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Constantinople, remained in communion with each other as the Orthodox Catholic Church). Likewise your teacher was way oversimplifying things by referring to a Jewish, Protestant and RC canon. The Orthodox canon is different to either and one of the Oriental Orthodox churches (that's a different communion entirely), the Ethiopian, has yet another.

As to the contents of the Septuagint, clearly they were not changed to make it appear that they predicted the Messiah as they predate Christ. What you might not realise is that the Masoretic Text (the current Jewish one) is actually post-Christian. It's a newer version than the Septuagint. You also may not be aware, but it is true nonetheless, that over 80% of the Old Testament quotes in the New are identifiable as Septuagint quotes rather than from some other version. It is apparent (and the Dead Sea Scrolls have given further evidence to support this) that before and during the time of Christ there simply was no one standard version of the various Biblical texts but rather there were several textual variants. It is clear, then, that in most cases where the texts differ, the Septuagint is based on one variant and the Masoretic Text on another. There will also likely be translation issues but I know of absolutely no evidence of deliberate tampering with the texts (though if there was to be any anywhere in my opinion the most likely candidate would be the Masoretic Text simply due to its age and the attitude of Judaism towards Christianity at the time it was compiled). As far as I'm concerned, as a Christian, the version used by the Apostles and authors of the New Testament is obviously the preferred text. There is absolutely no doubt that in the vast majority of cases this was the Septuagint (or else the Hebrew originals on which that translation was based).

James

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by Doktormartini

Hi all! I am taking a World Religions class at my community college (awesome, everyone should take one btw), and right now we are on the Judaism unit. Our teacher said that Moses led the people to the promised land, and blah blah ...

Assumming this is something other than pure fabrication, I suspect that you should, either, acquire a better teacher or aspire to be a better student.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by Doktormartini

Then he held up a Tanakh, a Catholic Bible, and a Protestant Bible and said, "Now which one do you want to read? The original? Or the one changed by man?"

So, I know the Bible is and has been changed by man, but is this really one of the ways it happend? Thanks all!

There are no copies anywhere of an original, unchanged biblical texts. Because there was no printing press, there was no standard for copying manuscripts as we have today - scribes would copy as they heard it read to them, or they changed the order or content of the text with remarkable freedom. For texts that had an oral tradition preceeding it, the oral tradition could be changed. Very often changes (whether omissions, additions, or re-arrangements) can be categorized into a geographic, ideological, and chronological context.

Finding an "original" collection of ancient writings in a modern Bible is utterly hopeless. The writings of the Bible originated from the mouth or hands of human beings. The tradition was transmitted, edited, compiled, and preserved by other human beings over thousands of years. There is no "original", and if there were, it would be from human beings.

The distinction "original" or the "one changed by man" is artificial.

[MidnightBlue]

Originally Posted by Doktormartini

Then he held up a Tanakh, a Catholic Bible, and a Protestant Bible and said, "Now which one do you want to read? The original? Or the one changed by man?"

It's very troubling to me that your professor should present things in those terms, and it makes me wonder about both his honesty and his competence.

There's no such thing as "the original." The scriptures are the product of a long process of compilation, editing, and revision. The earliest of the texts that were eventually incorporated into, say, Genesis or Isaiah, are no longer extant and would have been very different from any of the current versions. The expression "changed by man" is ridiculous, too. All books were written or compiled by humans. Your community college should consider hiring a professor who's more interested in scholarship than in being a propagandist for a particular religious point of view.