Syriac Bible – Were parts taken out of the original Bible?
love dsch ♥ asked:
Someone told me that the first version of the Bible isn’t the same as what we read now (such as the King James version) I believe the guy was talking about the Syriac Version?
This entry was posted
on Tuesday, January 24th, 2012 at 10:10 am and is filed under Christian Music.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Someone told me that the first version of the Bible isn’t the same as what we read now (such as the King James version) I believe the guy was talking about the Syriac Version?
I’m not sure – But he said something like “they took parts out of what the bible really said to make it seem better” or something like that. I’ve been a chrisitian my whole life and believe in God. Lately all this talk about “niribu” or however you spell that has been worrying me. I was just curious, did the Bible actually talk about something like this happening to the world? and people just took it out?
Jason
January 26th, 2012 at 5:15 pm
Tristan
The “Old Syriac” Bible was merely a TRANSLATION of the Tanakh (i.e. The Old Testament in the original Hebrew) into the ancient Syriac language. The importance of the Syriac for modern Bible translators is that we have many copies of it which date back to extreme antiquity.
There was never anything in the Bible about “Niribu”, and anything that large would that was going to hit the earth in 2012 would have been detected by now.
January 28th, 2012 at 8:28 am
Nathaniel
no it is not in the bible
they mean the books called Apocrypha
the bible has never been edited
January 29th, 2012 at 8:41 pm
Lauren
no, we have not taken bits out of the ‘original’ bible.
but remember, ‘original’ bible dates about 400 years after JC. Not everyone agreed back then what should be in the bible, hence the occassional different canon (eg ethiopian canon). But on the whole mainstream uses the same ‘orginal’ bible of back then.
Catholics and eastern orthodox also sometimes use various deuterocanonical/apocryphal books, but these have always been that way from the ‘original’ bible days.
January 31st, 2012 at 1:20 am
Juan
No, the Bible is largely preserved the way is should be. There are many problems with translating Hebrew and Greek into English which leads to some confusion through mistranslations but we have resources available to us that allow us to look up the original languages and obtain more accurate translations.
What this person may be referring to is the apocrypha. There are two sets of these non-biblical writings. The Jewish apocrypha which includes books like 1st and 2nd Esdras, Tobit, Judith, etc… and writing from the centuries following the time of Christ that include the gnostic gospels. These are not scripture, they never were and were never meant to be.
The Syriac is a translation of the Bible into Arabic. In my research the Syriac seems to be a fairly accurate and relatively complete translation leaving out very little of the original (which many modern translations, such as the NIV, do. But that’s a whole other discussion).
Regardless, the Bible does not talk about Nibiru (or planet X as it’s sometimes called), neither am I aware of any mention thereof in any of the apocryphal writings… not that it would make a difference seeing they aren’t reliable in the first place.
February 3rd, 2012 at 10:12 am
Christopher
the original text was in Aramaic. not syriac. look it up.
February 6th, 2012 at 1:47 pm
Natalie
Actually there were more books to the bible, the bible even speaks about it. But the bible was inspired by God. The holy spirit did it’s part to work through the authors. The new king James version does have words that were replaced. The italized words you see are not the original, the translators just put them in to understand, bc it is word for word from the original. That’s probably what he meant, that the original words were taken out so it will make sense, but it’s still the same thing.