azheis

Violet

The words you have highlighted {a quote from Isaiah} are not in any text earlier than the 7th century.
The American Standard includes verse 48 but omits 46 as does the 1611 RV. KJV has both. The Pe****ta omits both.
BTW that is not a swear word, but the "s" word does appear in that name.

__________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
God Bless
azheis

violet

Banarenth

I've heard that said before. That the original translators added words, and sentences into the Bible to represent their current understandings or even agendas. I've seen "concrete proof" of it. I've never really heard a great argument for the opposite, yet I firmly believe that IF (another really, really big if) anything was changed or adjusted due to Satan's influence, that God is powerful enough to make sure that the important messages are COMPLETELY TRUE.

And I've seen a large number of versions of the Bible, all that were supposed to be translated from the same ancient texts. Never found a missing verse, or anything that was drastically different aside from subtle wording here and there. I HAVE seen translations that added a doctrinal "spin" and can therefore be completely discounted. But, of all the translations I've seen from the originals texts, they've all been "basically" the same.

violet

Banarenth

I think it's possible that Satan may have been able to influence an unimportant word here and there. Then use it to spread doubt. But God is about Truth, and the Bible as it is is simply too TRUE to be corrupted. I myself am skeptical about the translations, and often find that if you look at verses the "errors" are big. But, when you look at paragraphs, they tend to still make sense in the context of the author's original thoughts.

That is why I'm very wary of people who quote verse after verse to support their beliefs or arguments. The original scripture was not written in verse form, so by definition, that means you are ALWAYS taking their text out of context.

violet

azheis

I agree, although you were probably directing some of that at me, but none the less I do agree to a point. For instance, if you’re dealing with salvation there are several verses dealing with this subject in various Epistles.
The book of Acts is the fulcrum point between the old and new; it reveals much of the rise and expansion of the first century Christian Church. So by correlating the scripture from, lets say Ephesians and Acts, you may remove some scripture from its context but not the context from the scripture I know it sounds like double talk ….. ….. but essentially what I am saying is you can do scripture build up without compromising the context.

__________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
God Bless
azheis

azheis

Like Banarenth stated, there have been some words, some sentences, added to the Bible….. actually KJV has many of the added words in italic.
Off hand I am thinking of the verse I John 5:7&8 I think where quite a bit was added. But most of the time it not the big things, it’s the little things, like punctuation which started being added about the 11th century. I can think of two places where a comma was used to change the meaning of the entire record.

__________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
God Bless
azheis

Banarenth

I don't think I was. At least, I'm not aware of it. Honestly, I'm referring mostly to what I see in general. I don't really bash the idea of using individual verses to support an idea, but I see a LOT of people (here, other places, and IRL) that go through a lot of trouble looking for verses that support some idea they have. Then drill ONLY those verses over and over again to support some argument for or against something. And if you disagree, then you MUST be disagreeing with the Bible, because it's obviously written there. It's usually more obvious when someone refuses to listen to anything that anyone else has to say and just likes 5-10 verses out of context to support why they are right and everyone else is wrong. Though, as I stated before, IMO taking any one verse and quoting it is automatically "out of context" in one way or another. The "offense" is in how it is used, and what the quoter's intent was. I'm inherently distrustful of verse-arguments because they have been used to support very unChristian things over the years. Sadly, it is the most common way that Christians seem to communicate the gospel. It is also the most common way that "Christian cults" have spread fear, hate, and distrust.