...but I'm fairly certain that a great deal would depend on what you count as "changes."

1. TRANSLATIONS: Personally, I wouldn't count these.  But other folks say otherwise.  Most translations--please note that I do not say all--are merely variant phrasings in English.  This is why halfway serious Bible students are typically encouraged to get several translations; the various renderings will, at least in theory, help the student to get some idea of the intentions of the original text without necessarily having to learn Koine Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and possibly Latin.  One notable exception to this general "translations don't count" rule would have to be the Joseph Smith Version (aka the Inspired Version) of the Bible.  Smith (via the spirit of prophecy, of course,) made outright *changes* to the text, in line with what he deemed to be "God's will."  Another version you may wish to be cautious about is the New World Translation, used by Jehovah's Witnesses.

2. TEXTUAL ALTERATIONS: Ignore the assertions that such variations are "minor" and "don't affect doctrine."  These variations certainly exist, and can be quite major.  Did you know that Roman Catholics have longer versions of the books of Esther and Daniel than Protestants do?  This is due to the inclusion of texts that Catholics call "deuterocanonical" (i.e., "secondary canon,&quot and that Protestants call apocryphal (i.e., "hidden," understood in a somewhat underhanded way.)  Not to mention that the Gospel according to Mark has four different endings (of which the Roman Catholic Church accepts three as canonical.)  That poetic introduction to John's Gospel?  It, too, is an addition.  For a more detailed look at Biblical text alterations--and their significance--I would recommend two books by Bart Ehrman: Misquoting Jesus is good if textual criticism is new to you; a more advanced, and detailed look at the issue is The Orthodox Corruption Of Scripture.  Both should be available through your local bookstore; if nothing else, they should at least be able to order them.

3. WHOLE BOOKS: I kind of hinted at this above, with the reference to the Catholic/Protestant divide, but Catholics accept, as Scripture, everything that Protestants do...and a few other things besides.  The extra portions of Esther is merely a longer version of the story that you already find in Protestant Bibles.  The "extra" portions of Daniel are sometimes known as the "Story of Bel and the Dragon" on the one hand, and the "Story of Susanna" on the other.  (Oh, and the third chapter of Daniel in Catholic Bibles also contains a lengthy prayer attributed to the three men who were thrown into a furnace.)  Aside from these, Catholics also accept the Books of Tobit, Judith, First and Second Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom, and Baruch.  Baruch, in Catholic Bibles, has six chapters (not the five you will find in some translations the sixth is the "Letter of Jeremiah."  The Eastern Orthodox have some variation in their national Churches as to what is, and what is not, accepted as Scripture; the Eastern Orthodox accept everything that Roman Catholics do, and a few others besides.  The Greeks also accept First  Esdras, the Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151, and Third Maccabees.  The Slavic Orthodox accept Second Esdras.  Nobody accepts Fourth Maccabees as Scripture; however, it is sometimes included in an appendix to Greek Bibles.  (Why, I'm not sure.)

4. NONBIBLICAL TEXTS:  Okay, you didn't ask about these.  But I was, briefly, a Mormon.  If you ask a Mormon whether or not he/she is a Christian, that person will tell you "Yes."  And whenever you mention "the Scriptures," it may be good to know that a Mormon dialogue partner will be having the following in mind: 

   A) The Bible: Pretty much the Protestant KJV...but as previously mentioned, it has been altered by Joseph Smith on his "prophetic authority."  These alterations are deemed Scripture, just as validly as any Protestant considers his "normal KJV." (I don't know what else to call it.)  An interesting variation is that Latter-Day Saints don't consider the Song Of Solomon to be Scripture; it strikes them as being pornographic.  Just the same, they include it in their Bibles anyway.  Go figure.

B) The Book Of Mormon: This is basically an extended generational tale of a family that grew into two nations, which seemed to almost constantly be at war with one another.  It is presented as "a volume of Scripture comparable to the Bible."  Note that this is *not* the only such volume...

C) The Doctrine And Covenants: A series of "prophecies," mostly ones uttered by Joseph Smith directly to the life situations of early members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.  A few come from later in the Church's history.

D) The Pearl of Great Price: This is a very slim volume composed of  first, "Selections from the Book of Moses," and "The Book of Abraham," both of which are basically Joseph Smith inserting his own personal theology into the lives of Moses and Abraham, from the Biblical book of Genesis.  There is also "Joseph Smith--Matthew" which is a collection of particularly extensive alterations to the Biblical text, and "Joseph Smith--History" which is basically a recounting of Smith's "First Vision," more or less.

Thanks for the excuse to be pedantic, marshalltenbears!

Conor

For the New Testament the oldest source is the Vatican Bible and the second oldest is the Sinai bible. The former is available to select scholars only while the latter is in three parts in museums around the world. The NT is in the British museum so us English speakers have material describing it. A part of the OT is in a major Russian museum and the other part is in a museum I forget. I know of no material in English describing either of those parts. The Sinai bible googles nicely so I won't refresh my memory now.

Quick answer, a huge number of differences. For example, Mary Magdelin is not mentioned. The "save" is disclaiming the Sinai bible as not really a bible but just a collection. Problem is scholars who did not keep their mouths shut say there are massive differences in the in the Vatican.

There are other suggestions that the NT did not really stop changing until after the printing press was invented because of changes in prior NT books until that time. Of course one can blame it on creative copyists.

The collection of OT stories has the same problems. The Septuagint appears first in history and has a different collection of books than the later Judean collection. Roughly in the middle of the two Josephus tells the history of the Judeans from what is obviously a much different collection of books and stories.

What no one knows is when the idea of perfect copies came into existence. There is a claim it was always a Jewish tradition but Josephus clearly had a different version from the one Christians and Judeans have today. In addition he said there were only 22 books holy to Judeans.

thanks all of you for the Bart Ehrman reference. I will look that up.

The time from the first hebrew writings to the first Cannonized version was over 1,000 years with over 40 authors and books left out. Not to mention the later versions to this date.

If we were to fast forward another 1,000 years, there would be even more.

The bible is a work of fiction conglomerated over time through the false belief that a god exists, combined with the multiple changing cultures over  time. It is simply successfull, not because it is a real tool, but successfull because of successfull marketing.

The ancient Egyptians believed that "Ra" the sun god, was a thinking entity involved in their lives for over 3,000 years and a much older myth.

Worrying about the number of versions misses the point of human behavior. If you believe something is true, you will compete, borrow and steel concepts and ideas from prior cultures and surrounding cultures to sell your product.

I couldn't agree more.

Regardless of his knowledge or lack thereof on a particular language, his point remains valid. This is what I agree with.

There is that third century fragment of the Book of Revelation that says that the number of the Beast is 616. And I think that Ireneaus mentioned that there were versions of the Book of Revelation that said it was 665. The fact that multiple versions exist that contradict one another should really say something here.

Well, lots and lots of books were written claiming to be factual accounts of mythical Jewish history or of Jesus's life. Most aren't included in the modern Bible since the creators of the Bible only wanted certain opinions about their religion to be considered the 'real' version. The Ethiopians have a far larger Bible than we do, since they count a few books as being legitimate that virtually all other Christians don't recognise.

So the 1st commandment reads

I MY lord am YOUR god

That clarifies a lot.

I must have missed something significant, because instead of seeing someone helping someone understand a language he doesn't understand, someone instead attacks him for not understanding.

Anyone care to point me in the right direction for the source of this conflict, before I make a fool of myself?

The best defense is a good offense although the requirement that it be a good one is often forgotten. I usually come to ignore those who have nothing but attack instead of discussion. As I noted in a farewell communication to Spin he is not willing to put forward his explanation of anything rather only attacking.

Fact is no one has the "big picture" on this subject. There are only attempts to make sense out of what is known. I have correctly stated there is no way to fit the OT into the real history or achaeology of the region and no one has attempted to make it fit. Rather when I try to put it together there are attacks on little pieces of it. That is quite easy. It is almost as easy as shooting down bible literalists.

I am first to admit I do not even read Hebrew. But if he had said it meant our lord I could look at the Israeli party Yisrael Beiteinu which Israeli newspapers translate into English "Israel (is) our Home" and knowing Beit means dwelling place I would look for the einu as the suffix meaning our or close enough. I have many such resources. Literalists are often the richest sources of all. They are so eager to make one case they overlook the assumption on which their entire exposition hinges.

I hope some day one of them will have the cajones to actually spell out what they are talking about in enough detail that even I can understand it. It is not like I haven't asked.

THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
Complete Jewish Bible
Translation by David H. Stern
Exodus 20:1-17
1. Then God said all these words:
2. "I am ADONAI your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the abode of slavery.
3. "You are to have no other gods before me.
4. You are not to make for yourselves a carved image or any kind of representation of anything in heaven above, on the earth beneath or in the water below the shoreline.
5. You are not to bow down to them or serve them; for I, ADONAI your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sins of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,
6. but displaying grace to the thousandth generation of those who love me and obey my mitzvot.
7."You are not to use lightly the name of ADONAI your God, because ADONAI will not leave unpunished someone who uses his name lightly.
8."Remember the day Shabbat, to set it apart for God.
9. You have six days to labor and do all your work,
10. but the seventh day is a Shabbat for ADONAI your God. On it, you are not to do any kind of work-not you, your son or your daughter, not your male or female slave, not your livestock, and not the foreigner staying with you inside the gates to your property.
11. For in six days, ADONAI made heaven and earth, the sea and everything in them; but on the seventh day he rested. This is why ADONAI blessed the day, Shabbat, and separated it for himself.
12. "Honor your father and mother, so that you may live long in the land which ADONAI your God is giving you.
13. "Do not murder.
14. "Do not commit adultery.
15. "Do not steal.
16. "Do not give false evidence against your neighbor.
17. "Do not covet your neighbor's house; do not covet your neighbor's wife, his male or female slave, his ox, his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor".

When did Stern tell you this? Can you produce the email?

Considering you have agreed with everything I posted in the start of this thread but this point I have to consider it minor. So you claim the translator fraudulently presented this as a translation. And you want some website in place of a torah scroll which is considered the only authentic source.

Hardly important. You monotheists have your ways about yourselves. I started a new thread showing how simple all this names-of-gods thing really is. It is good to see you have such a clear understanding and should be the supreme ayatollah in these matters.

Cancel the email alerts. You were interested in the thread when I started it. Consider it a simple mistake on your part. Try not to repeat it.

My apologies, you started this thread, not me.

I did post an answer early on as to the changes in the Christian bible. I did not limit those changes to the NT as the Christian bible includes the OT. I gave some essential changes in that. I have since posted on the names of the gods which have also changed in Christian versions. The name for this creature(s) was not consistent in the OT as that article shows.

All you need to do is drop the rubbish content, such as your preposterous claims about the Hebrew language and Jewish history. They verge on simple antisemitism, even to me, a not so pure Anglo-Saxon.

You must realize that not all roads lead to Rome, so you can't expect to get where you want while using what seem to be insidious arguments not based on evidence but whim. You show no knowledge of the scholarly debate either regarding the history of the group we call Jews or of their language. You seem unable to make sensible comments in either area.

I'm sure you don't need this stuff to make your points, so why not just get on with it and leave the crap content out?

spin

I'm sorry for your general state of confusion.

I'm also sorry that you can't find your own way out of your state of ignorance over history and philology.

I'm sorry that you didn't understand what I said.

Because it has nothing to do with Jews per se -- it's about a conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. Many Jews are against the existence of the state of Israel. Many others do not condone the acts of aggression of that state. You simply seem to be too deep in your sty of ignorance to understand the state of the world to get the facts straight.

I'm also sorry for your delusional state. I hope I didn't stimulate it.

Further delusion. You simply falsified history, made false claims, made claims that you have no evidence for or are capable of understanding the evidence for, and confusing it all with your political beliefs.

It is anti-Semitic to make obviously false claims as you have that are aimed at negating the Jews as a whole, when you are ostensibly claiming Israel as your target.

This is a perfect example of the sort of illogic you engage in. Ancient religious beliefs are not particularly relevant to your outlandish other claims.

When the physical evidence has nothing to do with your argument it is simply irrelevant.

For some reason you think that Jews are the only ones who use circumcision.

You are the person who denies evidence right, left and center. You refuse to look. You have made no attempts to gain a scholarly knowledge of the materials you are meddling into. You remain the worst sort of amateur who not knowing better denies the scholarly positions because of preconceptions.

Would you care to thrill us with what you consider my "silly superstious beliefs" are?

I know you have a poor memory, for I have clearly told you before I am not an atheist, but an agnostic. My approach to the Hebrew bible is one of scholarship. Any reasonable person who has studied the material in its Near East context would not describe the work as "bullshit" -- which is quite an ignorant response.

I suppose you'll deny Carl Sagan's being Jewish. Why not check this out?

That's a no-boner. Jews have lived in various communities for millennia and had become members of those communities, so obviously they weren't a single "people". They did however share many elements of a culture and a religion.

But probably I would find your use of "a people" suspect. Can Americans be called a people?

Zionism might have had something to do with it, but I think the various Jews who decided to move to Israel elected on their becoming a people.

Your memory fails you again. I pointed you to Trotsky. You are just too self-absorbed with your overgeneralization to get in contact with the real world.

The notion of an "ethnic group" is your burden. Only racists these days seem to be interested in ethnic groups. The rest of us are more open to "multiculturalism".

When you can make a statement that is not laden with either error and brutal stupidity, then perhaps someone might leave you to say whatever it is you really and truly think people should be interested in. As is, you seem just like a geriatric juvenile who can do nothing more than try to offend as many people as he thinks he can get away with. Case in point:

Is this where you came from?

Or are you just one of those sad, sorry puppies who can't find any other way to deal with their personal frustrations than to stormfront some Jews?

spin

A Jew is a follower of Judaism, period. An atheist cannot be a Jew any more than a Christian can be an atheist.

If Sagan said otherwise he was an idiot.

A list of Christian atheists would be much longer.

Why would I be concerned with the delusions of others?

Slight note: Sagan was agnostic, but he was either an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist.

Either way (and I'd lean towards agnostic atheist overall), he certainly didn't follow Judaism.

Shared cultural heritage. Doh!

Umm, gee, this is hard... well, let me see... perhaps, it has something to do with, uhh, that, aah, shared cultural heritage....

Gosh, there, A_Nony_Mouse, whatever do you mean "from a Jewish background"? Is this just tautology or do mean something like "shared cultural background"?...

...I guess it must have been the tautology. And here you are talking through your anus as usual.

Somewhere behind this semi-babble is the realization that there is more to this being Jewish thing than either religion or biology.

Too bad you wanna be selective with facts. It just makes you "the mouse that bored".

spin

Be the first! Define this shared culture independent of religion. 

I'll take a stab at it. A person is a cultural Jew if they believe: a) that "A Jew is someone born from a Jewish mother." b) that they were born from a Jewish mother, and c) that "I am a Jew."

I think that pretty much sums up the popular idea of cultural Jewishness. I happen to agree with the minor point that this 'cultural Jewishness' has embedded within it an invalid racist idea that there is such a thing as a Jewish race/people. However, the 'culture' of Jewishness does exist, as there are people who believe they are Jews according to the above beliefs.

It is similar to Black culture. There is no 'black' race, but there is a Black culture, in the sense that there are people who have dark skin who think this signifies that they are part of a 'Black' race. There are in fact all different kinds of Black culture, such that they have next to nothing in common (consider 'Blacks' from America vs. 'Blacks' from Africa or the Netherlands or elsewhere), but there is a unifying quality of people who think they belong to a 'Black' race. I think this closely parallels Jewish culture, and for that matter 'White' culture, or any other racial/ethnic culture.

Born of a "jewish" mother is a religious concept. Therefore it does not define a culture independent of religion.

It also lays the idea wide open to reducio ad absurdum if I ask what constitutes a "jewish" mother on back to the beginning. You can have all the atheist mothers you want in that ancestry but at some point it had a woman who was a follower of Judaism and therefore it is not a cultural but a religious definition.

Beyond all the above you have described a personal belief, a self-declaration, not a culture. I am open to a "culture of idiocy" but I don't think that is what you have in mind.

But you have not described a culture. You have said that individual beliefs based solely upon the religious tradition of the RELIGION of the birth mother is the ONLY factor and that does not constitute a culture in any manner.

I, myself, thought Steve Martin quite trashed the idea of self-declaration of being a Nigger in The Jerk. If you have never seen the uncut original, rent it. I think the original has not censored out the word nigger. One of the funniest scenes in movie history hinges on the use of the word nigger and it is cut from even HBO airings for political correctness.

Please try again.

The origin of the idea is irrelevant. It is not currently tied to religion. You can believe that idea without following any religion, just as you can believe that there is a single creator of the universe without being a Christian, Jew, or Muslim. Many of these are called Deists, and they don't have a religion per se. Similarly, you can be a cultural Jew without belonging to the Jewish religion.

That's why I included the third belief, that "I am a Jew." this allows anyone to believe that they are a Jew, without there actually being a distinct Jewish race. It is similar to the idea that "I am a human", and "A human is someone who was born of human parents". Whether these are rational or absurd is irrelevant. People believe irrational and absurd things all the time.

People believe in the Trinity, which is equally absurd, but they still believe it.

Notice that I did not reference anything *actual*, only what the person believes. Cultural Jewishness, according to my formulation is based on belief, which is the only way that culture can apply to a person.

Money has cultural value because we *believe* it has value. There is nothing inherent about a piece of paper that makes it 5, 10, or 50 times more valuable than another very similar piece of paper. It is the cultural beliefs we have about money that make money *actually* valuable.

Same with cultural identification. I am Canadian because I and other Canadians have a particular cultural belief about what it means to be Canadian, and I and they also believe that I fit that cultural criterion. Maybe I'm really a space alien or a robot. It doesn't matter, because we all believe that I'm a natural-born Canadian. And that's what makes me *actually* Canadian.

Jews believe that Jewishness comes from being born from a Jewish mother. (They may also have other criteria which are less well-known, such as however they made Sammy Davis Jr. a 'Jew'.) That is what they define as their Jewish identity. It is based on what they believe, just like any other cultural identity.

A person of Black culture believes he/she belongs to a 'Black' race. This is not actually true, but it is what they believe, and that's what defines their culture. The culture is real even if the race is not.

I challenge you: Name one culture that is not based on beliefs.

It is not based on her religion. It's based on her cultural Jewishness. A female culturally Jewish non-religious atheist can have children, and those children will be considered culturally Jewish. They may even (likely) grow up believing they are culturally Jewish. And if they do, then they are.

Your use of 'Nigger' here is quite distasteful. If you are merely using it in reference to the language used in the movie, please make it more clear next time.

First, I'm talking about 'Black' culture, and by that I mean the belief that there is a 'Black' race. The 'race' is defined by skin tone (mostly), and so it is difficult for someone who has a pale skin tone like Steve Martin to genuinely believe he belongs to the 'race' under this criterion.

If you want to use a better example, look at someone like Eminem, who shares a lot more culturally with American 'Black' culture than any other person I know. However, he doesn't meet the cultural criterion of having dark skin, so most people do not accept him as 'Black'. (I wonder how he feels about it, actually.)

It is actually one of my all-time favourites. Doesn't help your argument, though.

Right back atcha. I don't think you've put up a serious counter-argument. If you can point to a single culture that is not based on beliefs, maybe you'll have something.

You are hung up on the idea of Jewish religion defining Jewishness. It may have been that way at one time, but it is not that way now.