Did the King of Constantine and pope really edit the Bible and made The Bible convinient to him and Papacy?
922805
No. \n\nThe original language documents have not changed. The Dead Sea Scrolls helped prove this. The scrolls testify to the accuracy of the people who copied and recopied the Scriptures over the centuries. Despite minor errors, they show us that the Bible has not changed since the first and second centuries.\n\nWith love in Christ.
916497
I believe (based on the shepherd boy clearly being one of the shepherds from the Gospel account)...\n\nThat the "Mighty King" is certainly King Herod.
1046205
I'm certainly no biblical scholar but what I do know for sure is that even though a couple of dozen had a hand in actually penning the originals, hundreds more over the years have added their mark to it by either adding or deleting information for their own personal reasons. Not to mention that even more was added and deleted (inadvertantly, perhaps) when they were translated from one language to another.\n\nAn interesting link you might want to look at:\nhttp://www.deism.com/biblevotes.htm
1172410
It's split into two parts, a fictional part talking about the bloodline of Jesus and that he had a child from Mary Magdelene. This fictional part the Church pretends that it is what's bothering them. The real part that's bothering them is the factual part that's related to the bloody history of Christianity and that during the ruling of Constantine he mixed some pagan customs with christian ones, and he and the committee decided to give Jesus full power and consider him divine rather than a prophit and making the only way to heaven through the Church in order to control Christians throughout time.
437366
It was Constantine. \n\n"Constantine is perhaps best known for being the first Roman Emperor to freely allow Christianity." (wikipedia)\n\nIncidentally, he let his mom (Helena Augusta) go around and pick out all the holy sites.
334656
all are correct, it was king agrippa.  This is likely the saddest verse in the Bible.  We have reason to believe as it is not recorded so, that king agrippa never did convert to christianity.  Paul preached to him, gave him his testimony, and the Holy Spirit convicted him of his own sin, but he refused to turn from his way and accept Christ.  to this day he regretts that he reject salvation and is eternally burning in hell remembering that statement.  "almost thou persuadest me to be a christian."
1148729
No. god decided to contradict himself by taking away free will for a bit, so he could get the humans to write his book for him.\nAnd of course, that's ignoring all the inconsistancies in the new testament, like made up prophesies and the evidence to support that the old testament was actually copied from ancient Sumerian stone tablets...\n\n:)\n\nTY, shawny  :D
144167
Well, it's not only the Bible, after all.  The first division was between Catholic and the first protestant, Martin Luther, creating the Lutherans, and protestantism generally.  That was not only about the Bible, but about practices of the Catholic Church which Luther protested.  Then some denominations were created to argue that the Bible should be the only source of truth for christians, some on administrative lines, like whether or not there should be bishops, and so on.  You know the Church of England's story; that was not about the Bible, but about the authority of the Pope to tell Henry he could not have a divorce.  Henry then said, in effect, OK, I'll be my own pope, and so it goes.
463213
there were popes who cheated on their wives and one pope picked up a boy off the streets for sex and made him a cardinal,\n\nso around this time the church said no make these priests all celebiate no wifes no mistresses no boyfriends \n\none guy died on top of his mistress\n\nso thats why thats the history none of that crap about the bible or egypt
232366
Acts 8:9  But there was a certain man, called Simon, which beforetime in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one:\n10  To whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is the great power of God.\n11  And to him they had regard, because that of long time he had bewitched them with sorceries.\n12  But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.\n13  Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.\n\nOf course he was treated fairly.  He was shown his mistake and allowed to change from the error of his ways.\n\nMagicians can't do miracles.  Only God can do those or empower others to do them.
278372
Wasn't it like the Bible, written by some person, but actually written by Jesus Himself?
1045041
Time will tell... If there's any truth to the rumor of the 3rd letter of Fatima, then maybe the countdown is around the corner. More on this later.\n\nBut in answer to your follow up questions: Yes; yes; maybe; yes; and finally, a BIG YES!\n\nThere are huge vaults in several levels of undergound basement containing actual and original manuscripts, hermetically sealed to preserve their antiquities, that have been gathered eons ago --well, since they gained power as the Official State Religion of Rome, circa 325 AD or thereabouts. These vaults are called the 'Archives' of the Vatican.\n\nThe Knights Templar followed the victorious First Crusade and were sanctioned by the reigning King of France, under the auspices of the then pope, in early 12th century AD. Their military mission was to  protect and provide safe passage to Christian pilgrims en route to Jerusalem and back home. They started out with humble beginnings and the original nine knights took vows of Chastity, Poverty and Obedience. Their rule of conduct was based on the Cistercian monks' manuals.\n\nTheir Order grew rapidly and gained favor with the pope who ordered all monarchies to support them and their cause. In the process they became very wealthy and started to build their temples [mostly round floor plans] along the route and in their travels. They are credited to have started retail banking as we know it today: deposit your gold/cash in one temple at home and withdraw it anywhere along the way to Jerusalem or back by presenting your receipt.\n\nTwo centuries later, the Order had gained so much substantial power that King Phillip and Pope Clement decided to have them all eliminated by execution on trumped up charges of heresy, spitting on the cross, homosexuality, sodomy, idolatry, etc. and were burned at stake. Their Grand Master at that time was Jacque de Molay, who cursed the King and the Pope to die with him while he sizzled at the stake. Within months, both the Pope and King died too.\n\nJacque de Molay is CREDITED to have founded the Freemasons... Fascinating stuff, isn't it??\n\nSeek and you shall find.\n\nPeace be with you!
1030627
30 different characters contributed to the bible over a period of around 30 years.  Then it was edited countless times by other characters.  Then rewritten a few times to be "clearer on certain subjects.".\n\nBy the time we got the modern version, there were no original copies left to check the authenticity and accurateness of the text.
1078928
Catholics follow the teachings of popes and concels and Christians follow the teachings of the Bible.
459661
sneak in and change the pope's bible... then go back in time and change what Mohammed wrote (maybe sneak in after he went to sleep and change it)... there you go... problem solved
446861
First, as is obvious from the above comments, people don't read historical documents.  They hear something from a preacher and accept it as true.\n\nSecond, I believe the primary source of the current conspiracy theory on the bible is Chick Publications who do publish actively pamphlets on a Catholic Conspiracy to alter the bible.\n\nThird, in one case a denomination really did edit the bible.  The Jehovah's Witnesses have mistranslated, or from their point of view correctly translated, the bible.\n\nFourth, the Deuterocanonical books are a source of confusion.  Luther removed James, Jude, Revelations, Tobit, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, parts of Esther and Daniel.  Lutherans put James, Jude and Revelations back after the Ecumenical Council at Trent.  The other books remain out of their canon.  The problem comes with the novel idea of sola scriptura.  Like predestination, it lacks any precedent prior to the 16th century.  It is a purely man made, unscriptural doctrine and goes against all prior Christian thought.  However, if you decide to use sola scriptura as your decision tool, then what makes it into scripture matters at a profoundly different level than in the older forms of Christianity because it alters the role of scripture completely.  This means that if you base your appeal on scripture and someone is using a different set, the charge that "they" edited it comes up pretty easily.\n\nThe process of choosing books was in process long before Constantine and was really triggered by the presbyter Marcion's heretical sect forcing orthodox Christianity to look at the books read during the Mass.  The current list was promulgated by Pope Innocent and Damasus following the local synod at Carthage's work and the synod at Hippo Regius and possibly a synod at Rome as well as prior work by other of the Fathers.\n\nConstantine's role was somewhat practical.  The books were in separate form and most congregations could not afford all the books and there wasn't agreement until the year 405 what books should be in it.  His role was to push for a single set of books and that the church spend to get them.  He returned three centuries of seized property of Christians tried and executed for their faith.  He didn't make Christianity the state religion, but in handing back all that property and making it legal, the effect was about the same.\n\nFinally, until the late 19th century many Protestant translations were quite poor.  A simple example of this comes from the "scriptural" Christmas carol.  The verse, "Peace on Earth, good will toward men," is not in the bible.  It is "Peace on Earth toward men of goodwill."  It wasn't really the translator's fault.  They lacked access to the oldest documents, which were in Catholic and Orthodox hands.  When they were permitted access they began retranslating the bible and found that their bibles often matched Catholic bibles.  This triggered a big response in many Protestant denominations because key verses disappeared.  Some extreme denominations lost their justification for existance.  So, it wasn't really "editing," so much as correcting and improving as the textual record improved.\n\nThat, while a long time ago, is retained in the oral traditions and memories of some modern Protestant groups.\n\nLike evolution, arguments about the trinity are arguments about sola scriptura.  Without sola scriptura, the evolution problem disappears as does the trinitarian problem.  If you take sola scriptura to its logical extreme, you have intelligent design, Christomonism, and bibliolatry.
195229
For an interesting book on what got included in the Bible and what got changed read Misquoting Jesus : The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why by Bart Ehrman. As for the many Vatican treasures you might want to take a look at the book In the Footsteps of Popes: A Spirited Guide to the Treasures of the Vatican by Enrico Bruschini. Happy reading.