God's Word Has Changed

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Chain_Breaker

New Member
Feb 8, 2017
2
0
0
Remember in Isaiah 11:6 the phrase "The Lion Shall Lie Down with the Lamb?" You can forget about that because a wolf now lays with the lamb. The scripture changed because of a phenomenon called The Mandela Effect, look it up. This proves the bible is changeable thus the word of god is changeable.
large.jpg
 

Born_Again

Well-Known Member
Nov 5, 2014
1,324
159
63
US
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Well, if you want this thread to take off, you're going to have to elaborate. And, it looks like it will likely get moved to the unorthodox subforum.
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
The Mandela Effect is explainable. It has nothing to do with changing God's word. The meaning of God's word can never change, the problem is that it is housed in limited human language. There is no 'divine Greek' or any other language. But our understanding can develop over time.

Isaiah 11 is poetry, and if you are going to take ancient Hebrew poems as literal, I guarantee you will run into all kinds of problems.

Here is a list of Bible commentaries that may help:
https://www.studylight.org/commentary/isaiah/11-6.html
 

shnarkle

Well-Known Member
Nov 10, 2013
1,689
569
113
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
Remember in Isaiah 11:6 the phrase "The Lion Shall Lie Down with the Lamb?" You can forget about that because a wolf now lays with the lamb. The scripture changed because of a phenomenon called The Mandela Effect, look it up. This proves the bible is changeable thus the word of god is changeable.
large.jpg
You're conflating scripture with the word of God. Jesus is the word, scripture testifies to who the Word of God is. Scripture can be altered, added to, etc. The Word of God is never subject to any of these.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bbyrd009

mjrhealth

Well-Known Member
Mar 15, 2009
11,810
4,090
113
Australia
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Gods word cannot change but the bible is another problem that is why there are so many version of it. Really comeon a 3 year old child can undestand that.
 

tom55

Love your neighbor as yourself
Sep 9, 2013
1,199
18
0
Born_Again said:
Well, if you want this thread to take off, you're going to have to elaborate. And, it looks like it will likely get moved to the unorthodox subforum.
I don't think Chain_Breaker is here to stay. I will bet this is a one post and gone scenario!! :popcorn:
 

Chain_Breaker

New Member
Feb 8, 2017
2
0
0
Millions of people remember Isaiah 11:6 specifically phrasing that a lion laid with the lamb, yet it is now a wolf that lays with the lamb. Here is the quote from the original Isaiah Scrolls:

XO9PsdA.jpg


By defining god's word as an original scripture with only one form of syntax and symbols, and concluding millions of eyewitness testimonies of Isaiah's scripture specifically phrasing the lion laying with the lamb as being feasible, then it's logical to say that god's word has changed to those individuals.
 

shnarkle

Well-Known Member
Nov 10, 2013
1,689
569
113
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
This proves the bible is changeable thus the word of god is changeable.
Non sequitur. You're still conflating the bible with the word of God. There have been notorious changes and additions to scripture from practically the beginning. None of them change the Word of God. The authors even added curses and denied blessings to those who would change the scriptures. For some unknown reason you think that changes or alterations to scripture somehow changes the Word of God; it doesn't.

What this should spotlight is the fact that you're going to need more than one witness to the truth; better start looking before that one disappears as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bbyrd009

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Chain_Breaker said:
Millions of people remember Isaiah 11:6 specifically phrasing that a lion laid with the lamb, yet it is now a wolf that lays with the lamb. Here is the quote from the original Isaiah Scrolls:


By defining god's word as an original scripture with only one form of syntax and symbols, and concluding millions of eyewitness testimonies of Isaiah's scripture specifically phrasing the lion laying with the lamb as being feasible, then it's logical to say that god's word has changed to those individuals.
This proves you have an opinion based on strict literal-ism on Hebrew poetry that was never intended to be literal. You do violence to Scripture.
 

Josho

Millennial Christian
Staff member
Jul 19, 2015
5,814
5,754
113
28
The Land of Aus
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
mjrhealth said:
Gods word cannot change but the bible is another problem that is why there are so many version of it. Really comeon a 3 year old child can undestand that.
The majority of versions are the same and 100% correct, there are many different versions to make it easier for people to understand though, but they are not changing the meaning, there are many different translations, but most are the same, some even have the books in chronological order, which is great, because it is confusing unless if you are well educated and know the order of events, the main purpose of different translations though is just to make it easier for different people to understand, for example you may have trouble understanding something in a KJV but it makes complete sense when you read it in a NIV. I personally read the "Spirit Filled Life Bible - New King James Version" It may not be the easiest to understand, but that's ok I'm a simple man, but before each book there is a description and date when stuff happened, it also has an awesome commentary at the bottom, and some stuff is well explained in the commentary. Then there are some versions with the dead sea scrolls, and the Catholics and Orthodox have added books like Maccabees 1 and 2, but there is the argument of why these books never ended up in the Torah or Tanakh in 1st place? Maybe they weren't meant to be included, maybe they were, I don't know, but if it's included, I guess it would come down to complete innocence of not knowing whether if it's part of the original word or not, personally i don't know whether if the lost dead sea scrolls or extra orthodox and catholic books were inspired by God or not, dad would say they are just historical books, but again it's a case of innocence not many people know, it's like the little child not knowing whether he done right or wrong, does the little child still go to heaven? yes of course, God's grace covers that.
 

mjrhealth

Well-Known Member
Mar 15, 2009
11,810
4,090
113
Australia
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
The majority of versions are the same and 100% correct
Actually they are not. Really I have a friend, norwegian, she understands the difficulty of putting danish into english. mankind and his religions have corupted the whole thing thats why they differ, made to "fit" ones doctrines. God doent hasnt and will never change, neither will His word, it is uncorruptible unlike teh written word in teh bible.
 

Josho

Millennial Christian
Staff member
Jul 19, 2015
5,814
5,754
113
28
The Land of Aus
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
mjrhealth said:
Actually they are not. Really I have a friend, norwegian, she understands the difficulty of putting danish into english. mankind and his religions have corupted the whole thing thats why they differ, made to "fit" ones doctrines. God doent hasnt and will never change, neither will His word, it is uncorruptible unlike teh written word in teh bible.
Yes they are, why do you even read the Bible if you think they are not, you might as well go learn Greek and go read the Greek version, the majority have been translated accurately from the Greek version, has anyone actually been told by God above that our English versions are corrupted? Has anyone had any dreams or visions from God about the NIV or NLT or NASB being inaccurate? I'm still waiting to hear someone back up there claims on modern translations being wrong, with a word from the Holy Spirit. I know a ton of prophetic people out there, these people can hear and see in the Spirit and i haven't heard one of them having a vision, dream or hearing a word from the Holy Spirit about the modern translations of the Bible. You will find most people who tell you that the KJV is the only accurate translation or that their is no accurate English versions, are legalistic and are still living under the law. You have no idea how many simple people are out there, the Bible was not only written for the educated, Jesus hung around simple people, do you think they understood old long complex English words and phrases? There's a reason why he had to use parables. And you cannot put away the modern translations, because we have more people who are more fluent in Greek and Hebrew than ever before, we got the technology now, you could go easily learn either one of them on the internet if you wanted to, there are many language courses easily accessible on the internet, and many Greeks living in Australia can speak fluent English and there's a massive Jewish population around the world that can speak fluent English. Think these translations are inaccurate? think again..... And you usually have more than one of the Lords anointed involved in translating the word anyway.
 

mjrhealth

Well-Known Member
Mar 15, 2009
11,810
4,090
113
Australia
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
has anyone actually been told by God above that our English versions are corrupted?
Jesus spoke Aramaich not greek and all based on two different text and if you read teh bible you will find very few NT stories line up, Go read about Jesus resurection from the tomb, and tell me if any two agree.? Who got tehre first???
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
mjrhealth said:
Jesus spoke Aramaich not greek and all based on two different text and if you read teh bible you will find very few NT stories line up, Go read about Jesus resurection from the tomb, and tell me if any two agree.? Who got tehre first???
John arrived at the tomb first, but did not go in. He waited for Peter to enter the tomb first, out of respect for Peter's role as leader of the Apostles. There is no plausible alternative explanation why John would wait for Peter to be the first to enter the tomb. It was not a trivial event.

see John 20:3-6
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Josho said:
Yes they are, why do you even read the Bible if you think they are not, you might as well go learn Greek and go read the Greek version, the majority have been translated accurately from the Greek version, has anyone actually been told by God above that our English versions are corrupted? Has anyone had any dreams or visions from God about the NIV or NLT or NASB being inaccurate? I'm still waiting to hear someone back up there claims on modern translations being wrong, with a word from the Holy Spirit.
I agree. There are two general philosophies translators use when they do their work: formal or complete equivalence and dynamic equivalence. Formal equivalence translations try to give as literal a translation of the original text as possible. Translators using this philosophy try to stick close to the originals, even preserving much of the original word order.

Literal translations are an excellent resource for serious Bible study. Sometimes the meaning of a verse depends on subtle cues in the text; these cues are only preserved by literal translations.

The disadvantage of literal translations is that they are harder to read because more Hebrew and Greek style intrudes into the English text. Compare the following renderings of Leviticus 18:6-10 from the New American Standard Bible (NAS—a literal translation) and the New International Version (NIV—a dynamic translation).

Because literal translations can be difficult to read, many have produced more readable Bibles using the dynamic equivalence philosophy. According to this view, it does not matter whether the grammar and word order of the original is preserved in English so long as the meaning of the text is preserved. This frees up the translator to use better English style and word choice, producing more readable translations. In the above example, the dynamic equivalence translators were free to use the more readable expression "have sexual relations with" instead of being forced to reproduce the Hebrew idiom "uncover the nakedness of."

The disadvantage of dynamic translation is that there is a price to pay for readability. Dynamic translations lose precision because they omit subtle cues to the meaning of a passage that only literal translations preserve. They also run a greater risk of reading the translators’ doctrinal views into the text because of the greater liberty in how to render it.
So, which Bible is the best? Perhaps the best answer is this: The one you’ll read.
read more here
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Josho said:
... Then there are some versions with the dead sea scrolls, and the Catholics and Orthodox have added books like Maccabees 1 and 2, but there is the argument of why these books never ended up in the Torah or Tanakh in 1st place?
If they were "added" then the New Testament was "added".

The Protestants attempt to defend their rejection of the deuterocanonicals on the ground that the early Jews rejected them. However, the Jewish councils that rejected them (e.g., School of Javneh (also called “Jamnia” in 90 - 100 A.D.) were the same councils that rejected the entire New Testament canon. Thus, Protestants who reject the Catholic Bible are following a Jewish council that rejected Christ and the Revelation of the New Testament.

Lets look at some cross references or similarities on just the 2 books you mentioned.

Matt. 24:15 - the "desolating sacrilege" Jesus refers to is also taken from 1 Macc. 1:54 and 2 Macc. 8:17.
Matt. 24:16 - let those "flee to the mountains" is taken from 1 Macc. 2:28
Luke 24:4 and Acts 1:10 - Luke's description of the two men in dazzling apparel reminds us of 2 Macc. 3:26.
John 10:22 - the identification of the feast of the dedication is taken from 1 Macc. 4:59.
1 Cor. 15:29 - if no expectation of resurrection, it would be foolish to be baptized on their behalf follows 2 Macc. 12:43-45.
Heb 11:35 - Paul teaches about the martyrdom of the mother and her sons described in 2 Macc. 7:1-42.
Rev. 17:14 - description of God as King of kings follows 2 Macc. 13:4
Rev. 19:11 - the description of the Lord on a white horse in the heavens follows 2 Macc. 3:25; 11:8.

2 Tim. 3:16 - the inspired Scripture that Paul was referring to included the deuterocanonical texts that the Protestants removed. The books Baruch, Tobit, Maccabees, Judith, Sirach, Wisdom and parts of Daniel and Esther were all included in the Septuagint that Jesus and the apostles used. Furthermore, the Bereans were Greek Pharisees and had been using Greek deuterocanonical books as scripture 200 years before Christ.

Maybe they weren't meant to be included, maybe they were, I don't know, but if it's included, I guess it would come down to complete innocence of not knowing whether if it's part of the original word or not, personally i don't know whether if the lost dead sea scrolls or extra orthodox and catholic books were inspired by God or not, dad would say they are just historical books, but again it's a case of innocence not many people know, it's like the little child not knowing whether he done right or wrong, does the little child still go to heaven? yes of course, God's grace covers that.
The deuterocanonical books are Jewish history, and were rejected in 90 AD despite Christians who were using them as scripture. If a person does not accept the deuterocanonical books as scripture, I really don't care. But it leads to rejecting much of the Jewish faith, thus, they sever their own roots.
These books were part of the canon of the Bible from the beginning. Trent didn't "add" anything to the Bible, that is a myth.
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Perhaps I'm missing something here. Where is the Hebrew manuscript that ever said (Is. 11:6) said 'The lion shall lay down with the Lamb".

Just because people say it, doesn't mean the Word of God changes.

Stranger