On the topic of changes or rewrites however, I don't necessarily refer to a deliberate attempt to defraud the Bible's audience, though I do think that such is possible. Rather, I refer to the numerous translations that have been in use, from the earlier languages such as Greek, through Latin and into modern languages such as English, as well as the process of canonization itself. Also, while Protestants hold that matters such as transubstantiation are not in the Bible, the Catholic Church does believe that the evidence is there (e.g. John 6:53-56) so they wouldn't need to add anything else.
Many pastors and individuals who study the Bible routinely check what certain words and phrases in passages are in the original Greek (for New Testamant) in order to try to get a more perfect understanding of what God was trying to say. Some translation, such as the Amplified Version, go so far as to put long, more precise translations right into the text. This doesn't make or easy casual reading, but it can be a good aide for study. Many pastors and theologians learn Greek so they are able to read the Bible in it's original language.
I don't have a Strong's concordance in front of me, so I can't pull up the Greek for that particular passage and see if there are other ways of saying it. However, I can say that when a passage of scripture is being studied thouroughly (conducting exegesis), it is always done a certain way. The passage is considered in a literal context, standing alone in it's own right. The original language text is consulted for this. Then passage is considered in the context of the entire chapter and book it is found in. Finally, the scripture is considered in the context of the Bible as a whole. How does this doctrine fit in and complement the rest of the Biblical narrative?
Exposing that particular passage to this criticism would reveal that, given the whole context of scripture and everything that God had said and done up to that point and after, it is extremely improbable that He is instituting cannaballism. Much more likely, Jesus is speaking metaphorically here, knowing full well that the bread and wine that the disciples bought for their Passover meal was simply bread and wine. Some translations have Jesus saying "Eat my flesh and drink my blood" others say "Eat of this bread and drink of this cup." Both are valid translations of this passage as far as I'm concerned.
The doctrine here is that Jesus was instituting Communion, a ritual by which Christians can remember the sacrifice that Christ made for all of us. The breaking of bread and sharing of wine also has parallels to Jewish marriage tradtion of the time, if I recall correctly. The church is often referred to in the Bible as the bride of Christ and Communion can also be seen as God (Jesus) renewing His covenenant with mankind. I Corinthians 11:17-34 further expounds on the tradition and establishes that it is a sacred rite, not
I believe that this doctrince can be observed both by Christians who take it in a metephorical way and those who insist on a literal interpretation. No violence is done to the actual doctrine of remembering what Christ did on the cross and renewing our covenant with God. Churches have split and wars have been fought over petty divisions like this, it's one of the biggest tragedies of Christianity. We are not unified.
On the issue of languages, changing the meaning of particular words between languages can dramatically change passages. For example, the original Greek word later translated into "virgin" when used to describe Mary, is actually more accurately translated as "young unmarried woman." This is one of the new changes in translation the Catholic Church is introducing in upcoming versions (though they still maintain the theology that she was also a virgin). In regard to canonization, there are actually numerous texts that were considered by many to be a part of the New Testament for hundreds of years after the time of Christ. Through a series of councils and public opinion, new documents were included, old ones were dropped out, and vice versa. This begs the question to me as to how trustworthy this document can be after it has been changed so much over time. While I concede that if God exists He should be able to protect their validity, I don't see the logic in assuming that the documents are accurate first, then using them as evidence that God exists, and subsequently using that as evidence that the documents were accurate in the first place.
There is no doubt that different versions or translations of the Bible are all over the place. In almost every respect though there is no difference or violence done to doctrine, nor poorly chosen word or misworded passage that cannot be exposed through exegesis. I feel it is important that Christians are not lazy in their faith, blindly accepting everything their pastor tells them, or every everything written (word for word) in their KJV Bible. All translations have their strengths and weaknesses. I own at least six different English translations and if I'm confused on the meaning of a passage, I find that reading it from different perspectives promotes understanding.
I can follow what you're saying in regards to Christianity and Judaism, but I'm curious how that then compares with newer religions in the same theological vein, such as Mormonism and Islam. For what reasons do you not also view those as fulfillments of Christianity as Christianity was a fulfillment of Judaism in your view? Their followers would view Christianity then as spurring off of God's plan, why do you think they are wrong?
I look at it by examining the consistency of the beliefs between that religion and Christianity and the nature and character of the particualr god followed by an alternate religion.
Christianity and Judaism are inseperable because the Old and New Testaments are inseparable. One is incomplete without the other. Christ is revealed, in one form or another, in every book of the Old Testmanet. And the Old Testament is explained and fullfilled and quoted throughout the New Testament. It would be dishonest to say the Old Testament is a product of Christianity, followers of Christ weren't called that until Paul took his missionary journey to Antioch.
Also, the God of the Old Testament and the God fo teh New Testament are demonstrably one and the same. There is consistency in His nature and character.
Contrast that with Islam, which does claim to stem from the God of Abraham, who would be my God too. I used to accept that, but the more I learned about Allah, the more I realized that he was not Jehovah. Allah is vengeful and vindictive. He is not defined by love and forgiveness, but by hate and fear. The doctrines of the Koran are not compatible at all with either the New or Old Testament.
I reject Mormonism because they depart from Biblical doctrine on the personhood of Christ. I get cults (offshoots of Christianity) confused sometimes, but I believe their stance is that Jesus was a man who became a god, and He is only one among many who have gone through that process. This is a fundamental departure from a core Biblical tenant. Unlike transubstantiation, it cannot be accepted without completely changing doctrine. Also, Mormons accept the Book of Mormon as equal to the Bible. It also contains many contradictions to the Bible, so I cannot accept it.
As far as whay I chose Christianity over any other religion, I grew up with it so it was a natural choice. A better question is probably why have I stayed a Christian? Christianity is unique among religions in a few important respects-
1. It is relationship and grace based rather than works based. Other religions say "You must reach up to God and get His attention. You must make yourself acceptable to Him. Only then will God accept you." Christianity says "God is reaching down to you; He is striving to gain your attention. He loves and accepts you for who you are. Surrender to His love and be saved." Other religions say "you must do this" Jesus says, "I have done this."
2. Our founder isn't dead. Jesus did more than just claim to be God. He proved it by rising from the dead. People can nit and pick over whether Jesus said this or did that, but as long as the resurrection stands, He is unquestionably God.
I'm sure there's more, but those 2 come quickly to mind.
)
