Weird History Turns Out The Original Bible Is Drastically Different From The Version You Grew Up With  

Jacob Shelton
1.4k votes 508 voters 135.2k views 18 items Embed

List Rules Vote up the changes to the sacred text that surprise you the most.

There has never been a book that’s more hotly contested than the Bible, especially when it comes to conversations about how and if the Bible changes over time. It’s a tome that has started wars, divided nations, and probably ended a few friendships – all over people interpreting the same core concepts in different ways. The history of the Bible is fraught with revisions, wild interpretations, and massive overhauls. Over the course of the last century, changes to the Bible have seen the book expand and retract like a 2,000-year-old accordion.

To understand why so many variations of such an important book exist, you have to remember that there is no original Bible. The text of the Old Testament existed as stories that were passed down through the generations before being molded together by authors and then later edited into the book that you can now hold in your hand. Because the Bible had such a rocky start, scholars have multiple versions of the text to work with, each with its own interpretation of events. So: has the Bible changed? 

To find changes in Bible verses you simply have to find some of the most popular sections (the Ten Commandments, the immaculate birth, etc.) and compare whatever Bible you have to a different version. It’s likely that you’ll notice something different. The biggest Bible changes happen when a church branches off from its parent and tries to set out with its own identity. Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Church of Latter Day Saints, for example, have managed to add their own bible histories to the mix, making things significantly murkier than they already were.

If, after reading about these changes, you're still feeling doubts about the reality of alterations, additions, and subtractions to the foundational theological document, take a gander at Jesus' slow transformation into a white figure for further evidence that religious dogma and doctrine can – and do – alter with the passage of time.

The Gospel Of Mary Of Magdala ... is listed (or ranked) 1 on the list Turns Out The Original Bible Is Drastically Different From The Version You Grew Up With
Photo:  PublicDomainPictures/Pixabay/CC0 1.0
1
123 42

The Gospel Of Mary Of Magdala Doesn't Fit With The Rest Of The Bible, So It Doesn't Get Included


The Gospel of Mary Magdalene is an apocryphal text that Biblical scholars really don't want to include in the Bible – not because it was written in the 2nd or 3rd century (plenty of books in the Biblical canon weren't even finished until the 2nd century), but because it offers a different take on spiritualism than the rest of the books.

In this book, Mary describes a conversation she has with God, who explains that people have a spirit, a mind, and a second spirit that connects them with God. Many Biblical scholars believe that by adding this book to the Bible, the message of the book would be convoluted with an Eastern philosophy that teaches us to find an inner harmony rather than asking a sky king to save us. 

What's So Bad About The Bi... is listed (or ranked) 2 on the list Turns Out The Original Bible Is Drastically Different From The Version You Grew Up With
Photo:  zeeh/Pixabay/CC0 1.0
2
69 15

What's So Bad About The Biblical Apocrypha?


Any author worth their salt knows that writing is mostly about editing. The Apocrypha are a collection of books and stories that were probably cut out of the Bible in order to preserve a narrative, or – because in some cases, they appeared in the Septuagint but not the Hebrew Bible and because of the vast differences between Palestinian and Hellenistic ideals – the stories were shoved aside.

Versions of the Apocrypha have been popping in and out of versions of the Bible since 405 CE, but the Gutenberg Bible from 1455 is considered to be the first printing of the book to include the chapters mixed into the text. It wasn't until 1534 that Martin Luther printed a version of the book with a separate section for the Apocrypha, thus acknowledging the politicization of the religious texts and giving believers a chance to find new stories of fulfillment. The largest impact of the Apocrypha may be a verse from the Book of Esdras, which Columbus said inspired him to journey across the Atlantic. "Six parts of the earth are habitable, and the seventh is covered in water."

The Dead Sea Scrolls Continue ... is listed (or ranked) 3 on the list Turns Out The Original Bible Is Drastically Different From The Version You Grew Up With
Photo: Ken and Nyetta/flickr/CC-BY 2.0
3
101 34

The Dead Sea Scrolls Continue To Confuse Modern Scholars – And They Don't Include A Seventh Day Of Rest


When studying the Bible, one of the biggest issues that comes up is there's no original version of the text. Most of the stories were originally passed down through oral tradition and then written down by people who had their own variations of the stories.

For a long time, there were two "master" texts (the Greek Septuagint and the Masoretic Text) that scholars could work from, but between 1946 and 1956, a series of writings known as the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered and seriously complicated everything. Essentially, the DSS contain about 22% of the Bible, and they predate the Masoretic text by about 1,000 years.

While the Scrolls are more likely to be a "pure" version of the Bible, they offer some large variations on stories many people know. For instance, rather than finishing His work on the sixth day and resting on the seventh, God may have finished His work on the seventh day and rested during a sort of philosophical afternoon. 

Exodus Got A Political Revamp ... is listed (or ranked) 4 on the list Turns Out The Original Bible Is Drastically Different From The Version You Grew Up With
Photo:  LoggaWiggler/Pixabay/CC0 1.0
4
119 48

Exodus Got A Political Revamp In Service Of The Pro-Life Movement


This fairly recent change to the famous Exodus 21:22-25 is interesting in how a few simple words can alter the meaning of a verse entirely. In the 1975 version of the New American Standard Bible, the verse read: "And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is not further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide."

In 1995, the verse was changed to read: "If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury..." 

One explanation for this may be that between 1975 and 1995 American politics had changed so much that the GOP and Christian Right had essentially coalesced around the issue of how much say a woman has over her own body. If they were going around with Bibles that specifically read it wasn't a big deal for a fetus to be killed (in a miscarriage), then that wouldn't work for their platform.

The words were changed in the 1995 version in order to make it so the fetus doesn't die in the verse, thus supporting the Christian Right's pro-life message that killing a fetus is the same as killing a human, and the Bible says so.