How about this: "However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)" Obviously, this is a mistranslation. It should have said: "Thou shalt not own slaves in any form, nor treat another human being as property, for any reason. It is not important whether they are people of Israel or not, it is an abomination in the eyes of God". That would have saved everyone a lot of suffering through history. Dang translators!!

Joe Fraud, one does not have to change the actual wording of the text in order to misinterpret it. The proof of this quote is in the very fact that there are so many different religions that all claim the Bible as their foundation. No two of these religions agree on every point of doctrine. Within the various Protestant religions it is often the case that even individual congregations differ on important matters of doctrine. The fact that there are so many differences in opinion as to just what this verse of that verse means shows that people ARE interpreting the Bible differently. Since these different interpretations can't all be correct, they must have changed since Biblical times as the writers of the various books would have known the correct interpretation of what they had written.

Therein the problem that the Bible hasn't changed and in the year 2009 (several thousand years after it was written by desert goat herders) people are still believing that a talking snake told a rib-woman to eat a magic apple which caused a guy to impregnate a virgin woman by remote control so that he could be his own son so that he could have him killed to save the rest of humanity because the rib-woman ate the magic apple which the talking snake told her to in the first place. Makes perfect sense!

I would type out a verse/phrase here, but I don't wanna type out the whole damn book. =/ I guess I just find it hard to believe that a cosmic jewish zombie who was born of a virgin and his own father came to earth to kill himself to save humanity, because a rib woman was told by a talking snake to eat a magic apple...

their UNGodly minds..i say unGodly because they don't truly don't have the Lord or Understand...thats obvious of the ones who paint such ugly, unloving ,uncaring ,selfish pictures of HIM...SAlvation doesn't include these, may be thats why they hate HIM so....;)justme

Oh? The Bible hasn't changed? Which one? (There are several different ones in English alone. And translations in to hundreds of different languages.) . Try writing EXACTLY the same thing in any two languages for one page, much less 66 books. It can't be done. . And we don't have the originals of any of the documents that went in to the Bible. Only copies of copies of copies.

First off, our (Mormon's) view of the Bible is that it is the word of God as long as it is translated correctly. The problems with the Bible start with the interpretation of the current translation(s) we have. Man alone will misinterpret the Bible time after time. The Spirit will reveal a correct interpretation every time. So, the main problem comes with people attempting to interpret the Bible without the Spirit. The main core of your question is interesting and is something I am studying right now. The Apostle Paul was obviously a huge influence on the New Testament. 15 of the 27 books in the Bible are written by Paul. Obviously, this was a prophet/apostle of God who received revelation. His epistles/books dominate over half of the New Testament. You asked for one example where there is one verse that is incorrect. First off, there are many. But the example I am giving you is even bigger than that. The 1st and 2nd epistles Paul wrote to the Corinthians that we have today, are actually the SECOND and FOURTH epistles to the Corinthians. The 1st and 3rd are lost. Therefore, two epistles of Paul are missing. Again, his writings dominate over half the NT, therefore those missing epistles must have included truth and doctrine. But they were lost along the way. Why would God reveal truth to Paul, but then not have those epistles be part of the Bible? If you would study the canonization of the Bible, mainly study the Council of Nicea, you would find that as Constantine forced the Roman Empire to swallow Christianity, he knew that he could not completely do away with the religion of the time (Paganism). So, you see a blending of the two. As the Church leaders voted on doctrine, you can see that the Spirit was not upon them. They were split down the middle on nearly every doctrine. Half felt it was one way, the rest felt it was the other. After the doctrine of the Church was VOTED on, and politics/cultural influences stirred the central doctrine, important scrolls were hidden or openly declared as blasphemous. So, while there are many verses that can be brought up as incorrectly translated, the problem really starts at the core of who and how parts of the Bible were included and excluded. Again, we believe the Bible to be the word of God as long as it is translated correctly, but there are parts missing. Precious truths taken away. This is why we believe in living latter-day prophets. It is important to know what those missing doctrines are and with current revelation we have the fullness of the Gospel. I hope this somewhat answers your question. if not, please comment and let me know, and I will better answer your question. Thank you for the question.

My answer is in response to the following... http://www.answerbag.com/a_view/3825990 "the Otter has a technicolor dream COAT Apr, 01 2009 at 06:24 PM Okay, let’s start with 1 John 3:9, shall we? That’s a particularly good example, since virtually every translation at BibleGateway.com lines up perfectly with Joseph Smith Jr’s inspired revision." I used http://bible.cc/1_john/3-9.htm , only because it is easier to see all versions at once. The same information is here http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=%201%20John%203:9&version=31 * The following verse is referring to the only Son of God. This would be Jesus Christ. Since he is God in flesh, he can not passably sin. International Standard Version (©2008) No one who has been born from God practices sin, because God's seed abides in him. Indeed, he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born from God. New American Standard Bible (©1995) No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995) Those who have been born from God don't live sinful lives. What God has said lives in them, and they can't live sinful lives. They have been born from God. King James Bible Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. American King James Version Whoever is born of God does not commit sin; for his seed remains in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. American Standard Version Whosoever is begotten of God doeth no sin, because his seed abideth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is begotten of God. Bible in Basic English Anyone who is a child of God does no sin, because he still has God's seed in him; he is not able to be a sinner, because God is his Father. Douay-Rheims Bible Whosoever is born of God, commmitteth not sin: for his seed abideth in him, and he can not sin, because he is born of God. Darby Bible Translation Whoever has been begotten of God does not practise sin, because his seed abides in him, and he cannot sin, because he has been begotten of God. English Revised Version Whosoever is begotten of God doeth no sin, because his seed abideth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is begotten of God. Webster's Bible Translation Whoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. Weymouth New Testament No one who is a child of God is habitually guilty of sin. A God-given germ of life remains in him, and he cannot habitually sin--because he is a child of God. World English Bible Whoever is born of God doesn't commit sin, because his seed remains in him; and he can't sin, because he is born of God. Young's Literal Translation every one who hath been begotten of God, sin he doth not, because his seed in him doth remain, and he is not able to sin, because of God he hath been begotten. All I can say is... Otter, I don't see it. They appear to say the same thing to me. Can you be more specific?

The fact of the Wicked Bible existence should be enough alone- to demonstrate that the Bible CAN be mistranslated. "Thou Shalt Commit Adultery". http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance72.html

In His Parousia (presence not coming) Parousia comes from the verb PAREMI which means "at hand," "to be present". The Vine's dictionary incorrectly defines Parousia as either presence or coming. Vine introduced this error to support his strong belief in the pre-trib rapture doctrine. Consider: I am present, here and now, with I am coming but I am not here but will be sometime. The two meanings are diametric. Greek is a very precise language. If the bible says present it means present not I am coming. Parousia can never be translated as coming or second coming. Parousia - incorrectly translated in Matt 24:3 Parousia - incorrectly translated in Matt 24:27 Parousia - incorrectly translated in Matt 24:37 Parousia - incorrectly translated in Matt 24:39 Parousia - incorrectly translated in 1 Cor 15:23 Parousia - incorrectly translated in 1 Cor 16:17 Parousia - incorrectly translated in 2 Cor 7:6 Parousia - incorrectly translated in 2 Cor 7:7 Parousia - incorrectly translated in 2 Cor 10:10 Parousia - incorrectly translated in Phil 1:26 Parousia - incorrectly translated in Phil 2:12 Parousia - incorrectly translated in 1 Thes 2:19 Parousia - incorrectly translated in 1 Thes 3:13 Parousia - incorrectly translated in 1 Thes 4:15 Parousia - incorrectly translated in 1 Thes 5:23 Parousia - incorrectly translated in 2 Thes 2:1 Parousia - incorrectly translated in 2 Thes 2:8 Parousia - incorrectly translated in 2 Thes 2:9 Parousia - incorrectly translated in James 5:7 Parousia - incorrectly translated in James 5:8 Parousia - incorrectly translated in 1 Pet 1:16 Parousia - incorrectly translated in 2 Pet 3:4 Parousia - incorrectly translated in 2 Pet 3:12 Parousia - incorrectly translated in 1 John 2:28 Source: http://www.newlifechurchhome.com/Parousia.html

We have over 5000 surviving manuscripts of the NT penned in the 4th-5th centuries, and as many whole and fragmentary manuscripts of individual NT books and partial collections dating from the same time and earlier, becoming increasingly damaged and fragmentary back to the earliest one, the miniscule John Ryland's papyrus of John 18:31-33 dated to AD 120 +/-20 years. Also, the Church Fathers quote the 98% of the NT - many key passages repeatedly, especially those from the Gospels and Paul's general epistles. Of all the complete manuscripts ... 1) none agree absolutely perfectly; 2) all have minor variances, the vast majority of them in the following categories: a) typical scribal errors, e.g., duplicated words at the end and start of a line, duplicated or omitted lines, and misspellings. b) insignificant variations in word order, e.g., "prophets and righteous men" vs. "righteous men and prophets." c) different spellings for transliterated Hebrew and Aramaic words and place-names d) substitution of a synonym e) addition of filler words to improve the prose for liturgical reading In a few manuscripts, there are also evident attempts by the scribe to make explicit what he felt was implicit, or clean up the text to deal with presumed discrepancies or awkward or embarrassing passages ... but these have all been identified by comparing them with the majority of texts that don't have the same redactions. None of the remaining variances make any theological or historical difference whatsoever. All modern translations of the NT are translations of this emmendated NT text, emmendated by the doctors of textual criticism at Cambridge, Tubingen, Paris, and Lausanne. All modern translations of the OT are translations of the 10th century Hebrew Masoretic Text. The documentary support for the OT isn't quite as plentiful, but cross-comparing the 10th century Masoretic Text with the fragments found among the Dead Sea Scrolls (penned 100 BC to AD 70) and the 1st & 2nd century Greek and Aramaic translations of the OT (the LXX and the Targums) shows little and insignificant drift over 1000 years: as ancient rabbis had to memorize the OT thoroughly and perfectly, it makes good sense that there would be little corruption. ... But without the original manuscript, how could anyone show whether the manuscripts copies we have are incorrect? But the "arguments" I like are those who claim things like "The Bible use to teach reincarnation, but 'the Church' took it out." When you ask them what their evidence is that earlier texts of the Bible taught reincarnation, they just say, "They destroyed it." And when you ask, "what's your evidence they destroyed it?" they answer, "It's not there."