To me what is most pertinent is that we have SO many NT manuscripts and fragments (close to 6000) that we can now arrive at the original text of the NT to about 99% accuracy. Regardless of King Jimmy messing with the text, or the multiple various discrepancies (mostly misspellings and missing words kind of obvious things that are easily detected and corrected), it's not accurate to claim that the NT text has been "rewritten, altered and changed thousands of times" as the OP said. It gives a very misleading picture of what's really there.

> when considering the KJV of the NT, it's important to recognize that what we're reading is an alternative version of God's Word built to support the agenda of one man.

Um, I don't think this is fair, either. The KJV is actually a very good text given the information they had at the time. It's biased to claim it's "an alternative version of God's Word built to support the agenda of one man."

> That's when it becomes our jobs as Christians to go back to the ancient texts and compare different versions of the text to find God's true message.

Agree totally.

I'd be glad to discuss! You made a point to mention ancient texts' validity in the modern day. However, it's important to note that with time, there's change. And when you introduce humanity, you introduce human error and acts of personal agendas. Even in their ancient time, divine righteous was filtered through human falliblity. For example, it's documented that King James altered the text so that he could divorce his wife. So, when considering the KJV of the NT, it's important to recognize that what we're reading is an alternative version of God's Word built to support the agenda of one man. That's when it becomes our jobs as Christians to go back to the ancient texts and compare different versions of the text to find God's true message. To that effect, I personally read the NASB version as it is the most direct translation of the original text.

I appreciate your comment (even two years later). I agree that it's different when we're discussing a holy text like the Bible, and not just a book. But what evidence am I disregarding, and what evidence is there that I am being deceived? I'd be glad to discuss it.

I recognize that this was posted 2yrs ago. But, I believe it's different when you're discussing a holy text and not just a book. When you're going to dictate your life based on a text, it is important to not disregard evidence that you are being deceived. That's why it matters.

None of them, but what does that matter? [u]The Iliad[/u] was written in 750 BC; our oldest manuscript is 900 years later. Herodotus's [u]History[/u] was written in 430 BC; our oldest manuscript is from AD 950. Plato's [u]Republic[/u] was written in 380 BC, and our oldest manuscript is from AD 950. Julius Caesar's [u]Gallic Wars[/u], written in 51 BC; our oldest manuscript is AD 850. Tacitus's [u]Annals[/u], written in the mid-first century; our earliest copy is AD 850. And yet we don't doubt these texts. So let's be both consistent and fair. If we accept historical ones, we have reason to accept the NT ones; if we reject the NT, we reject almost all ancient texts by the same rules and logic. We have NT manuscripts within 200 years, and we have quotes from other authors of those texts within 100 years. Again, we have more texts, and closer to the date of authorship, than other recognized and accepted texts. The closeness of our manuscripts to the autographs leads us to consider reliability, not to doubt it.

> We have FAR more New Testament manuscripts to work off of (almost an embarrassment of abundance) than of any ancient text.

When were these manuscripts written? How many were written within, say, 50 years of the originals?

> I am not here to attack your beliefs

I was not assuming you were attacking. It seemed like honest questioning to me. I'm glad to discuss it.

> Rewritten in the sense that it was translated from several ancient texts, and then “modernized” as some put it.

Oh, well of course it's been translated. Hardly any of us are fluent in ancient Hebrew. That's different from being rewritten. OK, if that's what you mean, yes, it has been translated into more than 2000 languages worldwide, and even "modernized." We take every effort to make it as understandable as possible while still being accurate.

> When the KJV was released they took the liberty of removing passages, altering grammar, etc

What is your source for this? I don't personally use the KJV now, though I was raised on it, but I think this is faulty information. What passages did they remove? Altered grammar? Give me examples.

> I would only suggest that before you say everything can be corroborated, you do some deeper research.

I've been studying for 50 years. I've written 16 books. Everything that can be corroborated shows the reliability of the biblical text. If you want to discuss it, let's discuss it.

To start, I am not here to attack your beliefs and I’ve only tried to be as delicate as I can in my questioning because religion is a sensitive topic. I’m not a Christian so I’m trying to understand something, that’s all.

1.) Rewritten in the sense that it was translated from several ancient texts, and then “modernized” as some put it. Even if you are only changing a question mark to an exclamation point, that is rewriting something. Not to mention changing words in verses or anything else.

2.) When the KJV was released they took the liberty of removing passages, altering grammar, etc. I am only unclear why this has been done repeatedly when it is explicitly stated in the Bible that altering the text in any way is a great sin.

I won’t argue on validity of the New Testament specifically as there is great debate on this subject and I don’t want to go into that at all. I would only suggest that before you say everything can be corroborated, you do some deeper research.

I included a link earlier in this thread that lays out passages that were omitted or changed.

Thanks.

I think you are basing your argument on some faulty understandings and misinformation.

[list][*] Yes, the Bible was written. This is a duh.
[*] But "rewritten"? The Bible was never re-written. I'm not sure what you're talking about here or what you read that makes you think this.
[*] Altered and changed. Yes, parts of the Bible were edited through the ages, but certainly not "thousands of times." We consider that those edits were superintended by the Holy Spirit.[/list]

The validity of the Bible is based on at least several points:

[list][*] Its historical accuracy can be corroborated. The Bible has never been proved to be false on any point. Everything that can be corroborated supports the reliability of the text.
[*] We have FAR more New Testament manuscripts to work off of (almost an embarrassment of abundance) than of any ancient text. We are able to know the original text with better than 99% accuracy.[/list]

> We know that King James altered the text hundreds of years after Jesus Christ’s death

I don't know what you're talking about here. Again, what's your source for this claim. What are the alterations you're saying KJ made?

> Over the years we know that many passages were removed altogether or changed.

We know that 2 were removed because we found out they were added later. What are these "many passages" you're talking about? And what was changed?

> Thanks so much for any insight.

Yeah, let's talk.

If we know the Bible was written , rewritten, altered and changed thousands of times, why is its validity not questioned by Christians?

This is something that has always puzzled me. We know that King James altered the text hundreds of years after Jesus Christ’s death, and is now the most widely read version of the Bible. Over the years we know that many passages were removed altogether or changed. How does Christianity explain the validity of the Holy Book if humans were permitted to change the Divine’s scripture? Thanks so much for any insight.