Where to start...there is much wrong (and outright sin) that I'm seeing on that web page, but none of it to do with what they allege to have happened. emotion_sweatdrop I'll address three problem areas:
---
Problem area #1:
First of all, and more specifically, they're asking if certain editions of the same English translation have changed. The Bible itself, on the other hand, or rather the scrolls and letters that were compiled together in book form, were not originally written in English; so, Biblical truth isn't dependent on any changes made to a KJV translation or the existence of the KJV at all (or Tyndale or Geneva, or any other English translation). The Greek and Hebrew manuscripts are the source of all translations. They govern over any English reading or difference in the choice of English synonyms. However, regardless of language, expect variant readings, but not changed meaning (if changed meaning actually happens, only then is that cause for concern).
Problem area #2:
Having said that, and second of all: they are making outright false allegations (at worst) or unverified claims (at best) due to mistaken memory or unawareness of history. People were already responding to some of these allegations with corrections, so I'll take two examples that haven't been responded to. Let's go way back and compare them to older versions of the same translation.
EXAMPLE #1
2 Timothy 2:23
Accusation:
Quote:
2 timothy 2 23 changed
Affected Bibleverses: 2. Timothy 2:23
Before: But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do GENERATE STRIFE
After: But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do GENDER STRIFES
Possible reasons why they changed this passage: Drifting apart into a homosexual/pro-LGBT-direction.
Proof for Change it sounds off to at least 2 people in the forum (not much, but still better than nothing)
Comparison:
1611 KJV:
23 But foolish and vnlearned questions auoid, knowing that they doe gender strifes.
This is an older edition than the modern KJV (the modern one being what they're alleging changed). The modern KJV reads the same as this 1611 (older) version. So, what edition of the KJV are they alleging reads, “generate strife”? And if there is one, and the modern KJV translations changed back to the 1611 reading “gender strifes”, why are they coming up with conspiracy theories, unverified claims and speculations for why that happened? It's unreasonable to do that considering the 1611 KJV (an older version of the KJV) reads this way too.
And no, the word choice of “gender” (verb), does not convey a different idea, but the same idea as “generate”.
To quote from a 1611 KJV dictionary (jump down to the bolded because that's the definition of the term as a verb, as it is being used in 2 Timothy 2:33).
KJV Dictionary Definition: gender
gender
GEN'DER, n. L. genus, from geno, gigno; Gr.to beget, or to be born; Eng. kind. Gr. a woman, a wife; Sans. gena, a wife, and genaga, a father. We have begin from the same root. See Begin and Can.
1. Properly, kind; sort.
2. A sex, male or female. Hence,
3. In grammar, a difference in words to express distinction of sex; usually a difference of termination in nouns, adjectives and participles, to express the distinction of male and female. But although this was the original design of different terminations, yet in the progress of language, other words having no relation to one sex or the other, came to have genders assigned them by custom. Words expressing males are said to be of the masculine gender; those expressing females, of the feminine gender; and in some languages, words expressing things having no sex, are of the neuter or neither gender.
GEN'DER, v.t. To beget; but engender is more generally used.
GEN'DER, v.i. To copulate; to breed. Levit. 19.
http://av1611.com/kjbp/kjv-dictionary/gender.html
Ergo, they “gender/breed strife” or “generate strife”.
Different word, but the same idea. The concept has been successfully communicated regardless of the difference in word choice.
EXAMPLE #2
Acts 3:19
Accusation
Quote:
Acts 3:19 changed
Affected Bibleverses: Acts 3:19
Before: “Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, AND times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;” (Acts 3:19; KJV)
After: “Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, WHEN THE times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;” (Acts 3,19; KJV)
Possible reasons why they changed this passage: Acts 3:19 is a Salvation-Relevant scripture! (now seems to have drifted away in a catholic direction as to that we CANNOT know presently that we can HAVE eternal Salvation) - It reads now “that your sins may be blottet out, WHEN the times of refreshing shall come” → that means that the sins won't be blotted out NOW, but only WHEN a certain time of refreshing will come, so the question is, WHEN is this time? When will it come? What is this time of refreshing?
Bibletranslations affected so far: KJV, Tyndale Bible, Geneva Bible
Date when change was noticed: 4th of June 2016 (discussion thread created on that date)
¶ Repent yee therefore, and bee conuerted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shal come from the presence of the Lord.
Again, the modern KJV in that area reads the same as it did in 1611.
For the record, that is 1611 AD / CE (after death / current era)—not BC / BCE (Before Christ / Before Current Era).
The Tyndale Bible was from 1494–1536 a.d. And the Geneva Bible from 1560 a.d.
They're all older than the modern KJV. So where are they getting that "before" it read differently?
And no, the difference of “and” and “when” in the English language does not change the meaning. When you convert, that is when times of refreshing come. It's just as accurate to use the word “and” as it is to use the word “when” in that verse.
I'm noting that the individuals making the allegations are either:
(A) not entirely familiar, or do not have expansive knowledge of, how the English language functions (I don't mean that in a condescending manner, but that they are simply unaware).
Or
(B) They are just quick to assume evil intent in everything which is not allowing them to see the how the meaning of the English word choices allows for the same idea to be conveyed.
A second thing I'm noting: other Bible translations do read as what they're writing under "what the KJV used to say before"; so, based on the evidence, it is more likely that they, or someone they were listening to, was reading from another Bible translation that wasn't the KJV, and they merely thought it was the KJV (when in all actually it wasn't). But again, no problem communicating the same idea.
---
Problem area #3:
The quality of “proof".
Their proof that the KJV changed is that...it sounded off? I remember it differently? Not that they compared it to anything written, nor found a KJV edition that read differently, just that it sounded off to them personally?
This is equivalent to rumour and hearsay, not to “two to three witnesses that actually saw something”. It is a sin to insinuate wrongdoing without proof (actual witnesses) who actually saw something happen (not people who felt something to be true, but people who actually saw something different between two KJV translations). In the future, do not listen to people that do this (nor should you spread their misinformation); by your merely posting the link and not telling us anything about it, to expose them, you are agreeing to what they said. They are sinning and so are you for being an accomplice (which you become by spreading their misinformation).
Exodus 23:1 (NIV)
23 “Do not spread false reports. Do not help a guilty person by being a malicious witness.
Deuteronomy 19:15 (NIV)
15 One witness is not enough to convict anyone accused of any crime or offense they may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.
They saw no physical proof of the change.
They're not comparing modern translations of the KJV to copies of former editions of that same translation.
Ergo, they're starting up false rumour and lifting up false accusations.
Conclusion:
There is no merit to the accusations these people are making. I've gone through more of their compiled verses, and it's the same thing. For your own and everyone else's sake, do not post things without verifying first that they're speaking the truth. It gives place to unhealthy suspicion and baseless conspiratorial thinking.
I just want to remind people again, that ultimately, the scrolls of the Bible were not originally written in English; so, Biblical truth isn't dependent on any changes made to any English translation(s). And even so, a change in word choice to another word that communicates the same idea when plugged into the sentence, is not reason to alarm oneself or anyone else. For those with a KJV, Tyndale, or Geneva preference, no, there is no conspiracy going on with those Bible translations (nor any modern translation that uses a different word choice in the English and ends up conveying the same idea).
cristobela Vice Captain
Offline
Malaliel
Offline
Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2016 12:55 pm
cristobela
I personally can't say for sure whether the KJV has been changed or not but these people are very, very adamant about it. I wanted to see if anyone here experienced the same thing they did.
I know the Mandela Effect is real. And it has nothing to do with false memories. There is proof but it is scarce (mostly due to the nature of the Effect but also because Google has a tendency to cover them up).
Whoever/whatever is causing the Effect has the power to retroactively change things across the board but once in a while, it misses a few important details and we get glaring anomalies:
Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2016 1:31 pm
Being very very adamant about something doesn't mean you are right...
For those who are wondering the Mandela effect is according to wikipedia;
This is a situation where a number of people have memories that are different from available evidence. The term was coined by paranormal enthusiast Fiona Broome, who says she and other people remember Nelson Mandela dying in the 1980s in prison, rather than in 2013 from an illness.
Having a memory of something happening doesn't necessarily mean it happened and that history was changed (glitch in the Matrix). There are several other reason this could happen. Let me quote some;
Misinformation effect
That misinformation affects people’s reports of their own memory. I believe this to be a key factor in many Mandela Effects. Simply seeing the claim from another person may sway recollection of your own memory, especially if you lacked concrete or deep memories or connections to the subject to begin with.
Confirmation bias
The tendency to search for, interpret, or recall information in a way that confirms one’s beliefs or hypotheses. Those seeking Mandela Effects will often be more easily persuaded by other claims. And with such claims they may agree with, they will often discard any countering evidence or claim.
Misattribution of memory
When information is retained in memory but the source of the memory is forgotten. This is sometimes present in Mandela Effects where we forget where we know something from or why it’s familiar, possibly leading to incorrect attribution of the original source confounding the confusion factor.
Confabulation
Confabulation is a disturbance of memory which produces fabricated, distorted, or misinterpreted memories about the world, without the explicit or conscious intention to deceive others. People who confabulate in this way produce incorrect memories about the most trivial details (as seen with most Mandela Effects) but range up to more complex fabrications as well. They are generally extremely confident in their recollections and will typically resist any contradictory evidence (possibly related to cognitive dissonance in this manner).
But it isn't just memories, there's residual proof as well. Did you look at the link and the pictures?
Edit: For the Bible MEs, I did some digging and found this
Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2016 2:11 pm
edited to correct typos & add info:
Shiny Gatomon
I personally can't say for sure whether the KJV has been changed or not but these people are very, very adamant about it. I wanted to see if anyone here experienced the same thing they did.
I know the Mandela Effect is real. And it has nothing to do with false memories. There is proof but it is scarce (mostly due to the nature of the Effect but also because Google has a tendency to cover them up).
Whoever/whatever is causing the Effect has the power to retroactively change things across the board but once in a while, it misses a few important details and we get glaring anomalies:
Here is a picture from 1906 (the year it was first casted).
Marcel Hutin photograph, Unveiling of The Thinker outside the Panthéon, 1906. The Thinker is erected outside the Panthéon.
It hasn't changed. People's memories are faulty when recalling details, so when they try to depict it themselves, describing it [with pencil or their own body] they make mistakes. They could've sworn, adamantly-so, that it was the way they drew, described, or posed. But the physical hard copy hasn't changed.
What you're doing is giving more credence to faulty memory recall (mistaken recalling of details) than to the physical, hard copies / visual proof of what is actually written/etched in stone.
What's been named "the Mandela Effect" is the "mistaken re-call of details".
That is all (edit: talking about the genuine examples, not the deliberate hoaxes and misleading people).
That's why God says it's not enough to condemn based on only one witness. They can be recalling details incorrectly.
Numbers 35:30 (NIV)
30 “‘Anyone who kills a person is to be put to death as a murderer only on the testimony of witnesses. But no one is to be put to death on the testimony of only one witness.
Deuteronomy 17:6 (NIV)
6 On the testimony of two or three witnesses a person is to be put to death, but no one is to be put to death on the testimony of only one witness.
Deuteronomy 19:15 (NIV)
15 One witness is not enough to convict anyone accused of any crime or offense they may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.
But if it's possible for the past to change, why have witnesses record anything at all...? why would YHWH write anything at all? YHWH—the Creator of the Universe who is a God of order—is not like that. Thus why He Commands this about having sufficient witnesses, wrote things down, and considered archaeological evidence trustworthy.
Exodus 34:1 (NIV)
34 The Lord said to Moses, “Chisel out two stone tablets like the first ones, and I will write on them the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke.
Deuteronomy 10:2 (NIV)
2 I will write on the tablets the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke. Then you are to put them in the ark.”
Joshua 4:20-24 (NIV)
20 And Joshua set up at Gilgal the twelve stones they had taken out of the Jordan. 21 He said to the Israelites, “In the future when your descendants ask their parents, ‘What do these stones mean?’ 22 tell them, ‘Israel crossed the Jordan on dry ground.’ 23 For the Lord your God dried up the Jordan before you until you had crossed over. The Lord your God did to the Jordan what he had done to the Red Sea[a] when he dried it up before us until we had crossed over. 24 He did this so that all the peoples of the earth might know that the hand of the Lord is powerful and so that you might always fear the Lord your God.”
Footnotes:
a. Joshua 4:23 Or the Sea of Reeds
If "so that all the peoples of the earth might know", that means those monuments cannot change (edit: you know, unless someone edited the statue/monument, moved it, or made their own rendition).
The multiple, physical hard proofs that we have suggests "The Thinker" has always had his hand on the chin (unless someone, somewhere decided to cast the statue differently, and do their own rendition). But no matter how adamant people are, their recall of details were wrong. They put their hands on their foreheads because that is where the brain is; they associate the word "think" with "brain"/forehead. It has nothing to do with what the actual statue depicts.
Likewise with the Bible, they recalled the details from certain Bible translations incorrectly (e.g. thinking the KJV said something when actually it was another Bible translation that said it), as I went on to prove.
cristobela Vice Captain
Offline
Malaliel
Offline
Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2016 3:14 pm
cristobela
I guess it's one of those things you have to experience for yourself before you can fully believe in it.. which is understandable because most people are under the assumption that the past isn't malleable.
I myself wasn't convinced until I saw movie quotes and physical items like my map, globe, and cereal box change. I wish I had concrete evidence for what I witnessed but the problem with the Mandela Effect is that it changes the items it touches so there is usually no physical evidence.
By the way, my friend (he's the one who introduced me to the Bible MEs and urged me to look into Christianity) thinks that Satan is the one changing things, not God.
Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2016 5:51 pm
Shiny Gatomon
cristobela
I guess it's one of those things you have to experience for yourself before you can fully believe in it.. which is understandable because most people are under the assumption that the past isn't malleable.
I myself wasn't convinced until I saw movie quotes and physical items like my map, globe, and cereal box change. I wish I had concrete evidence for what I witnessed but the problem with the Mandela Effect is that it changes the items it touches so there is usually no physical evidence.
By the way, my friend (he's the one who introduced me to the Bible MEs and urged me to look into Christianity) thinks that Satan is the one changing things, not God.
Out of the examples provided to demonstrate the phenomenon, Satan is doing a horrible job of changing the KJV by changing words to communicate the same idea it originally had. Thus, in effect, not changing the message at all. So what is the point...?
Has your friend not thought about that?
Why, if Satan is changing the words—for example, in 2 Timothy 2:23 that was alleged—would he change it to a word that does not do away with the message? Same for Acts 3:19? as I went on to explain.
If changing the KJV to approve of homosexual acts and homosexual lusts was what Satan wanted to do, then he would NOT be changing 2 Timothy 2:23 from "generate strife" to "gender [verb] strife" as it reads, as the way to go about it because it still means begetting/breeding strife same as generate strife; the meaning has not been lost.
If changing the meaning was the goal, in order to accept homosexuality, then Satan should be changing Commands and verses that condemn homosexual acts and lusts. And yet, those Commands remain the same. As do the New Testament verses that condemn (do not approve of) homosexual acts.
Leviticus 18:22 (KJV)
22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Romans 1:27 (KJV)
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (KJV)
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
And yet the allegation is that Satan changed 2nd Timothy 2:23 to make homosexual lusts approved of? while leaving all these other ones (and the Hebrew and Greek) unchanged (to still condemn it)? That is unstable to suggest.
And yet, if ME's leave no trace, as you also say, then there should be NO indication whatsoever that something has been changed. So no screen shots of anything, or alternate readings available, to document a change whatsoever. You're being unstable in what you say: do ME's leave no trace of what was originally there or do they leave a trace so that we can compare the changes? Is there no trace that Satan has changed anything or is there?
The more logical explanation, consistent with all the physical evidence, is that people recalled the detail from their memories incorrectly, and that they had in mind other Bible translations (or someone read another translation without their knowing, and they assumed the KJV was still being read, because other translations do use "generate strife" phrases, like the World English Bible [WEB] and the New Heart English Bible), not the KJV, when doing so.
BTW, not that you suggested this, but people who fall into believing ME's might go there: Satan would not be changing anything to condemn homosexual acts and homosexual lusts. Considering what is truthful/ conforms to reality is that indulging in those desires lead to harm, thus why YHWH forbade it in His Commands. Having sex in homosexual ways (thus in ways that don't necessitate opposite sex organs present and interacting) has you using organs in ways YHWH did not create them to be used: e.g. the a**l sphincter can be stretched out, no condom can protect against this, and once that happens, you have trouble holding in feces. Just one of many problems [Exhibit A][Exhibit B]. The Bible is internally consistent and protective in all that it documents and keeps you safe from the reality you face. It makes no sense that Satan is changing words, and the word he changed ends up preserving the message.
cristobela Vice Captain
Offline
Lady Vizsla
Offline
Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2016 8:14 am
Is this about issues with translation of certain words?
Reply
