PEOPLE INSIST THAT THE BIBLE IS A BOOK OF POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY AND NOT AN INSPIRED COLLECTION OF DOCUMENTS THAT BEAR WITNESS TO THE WILL AND PURPOSE OF GOD FOR MANKIND. The Real Truth Is People Are Biased To What They Want To Believe Unless They Become Sick Of Believing Lies And Desire The Truth About What Is Going On Around Them. Dissatisfaction comes when we find ourselves being deceived and we hat being deceived.

Was the Bible deliberately altered for political purposes or to support one theology over another?

Happy Riches answer requested by anonymous

Not from my perspective has the Bible been deliberately altered for political purposes or to support one theology over the other in the original manuscripts. However, when it comes to the English translations of the Bible, these all carry elements of a projected worldview, from what I can ascertain.

The King James Version is very much in the Calvinist mold and there is evidence of this throughout. Whereas the Revised Standard Version appeals more to the Wesleyan perspective because the responsibility of the individual is more clear within its pages.

• He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. (Romans 4.20-21 KJV)

The King James Version’s rendering of Romans 4:20–21 comes across as a works trip; that is, salvation by works, yet Calvinists claim they are saved by grace alone. If this were the case, there would be no need for the perseverance, where they have to perform. The TULIP dogma teaches salvation before a person is born (Unlimited election) and perseverance from sin (Perseverance of the saints).

The non-Calvinist, who accepts personal responsibility is conditional upon freewill, acknowledges that salvation is a matter of assuming the responsibility of exercising one’s own volition, because people are not robots that are programmed not to make choices. People have freewill and, because of this, choice is a matter of each one’s own responsibility.

• No distrust made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised. (Romans 4.20-21 RSV)

The Revised Standard Version indicates that Abraham did not have to perform but grew strong in his faith by giving God the glory for the things that he knew His Lord had done for him. Abraham chose to honor God.

Therein lies the difference between those two translations, which are purported to be among the most literal.

Here are two paraphrased translations:

• He drew strength from his faith, and while giving the glory to God, remained absolutely convinced that God was able to implement his own promise. (J. B. Phillips)

• In spite of all this, his faith in God’s promise did not falter. In fact, his faith grew as he gave glory to God because he was supremely confident that God could deliver on His promise. (The Voice)

Once more we see a difference between the translators reflecting their personal preferences. J. B. Phillips going for the self-righteous Calvinist slant and “The Voice” pointing to the fact that only by giving glory to God for what He has done, does a person grow in faith.

The suggestion that this is deliberately done would be denied by the translators. Rather they would insist that they are being true to their conviction that this is what the text means. The question then becomes: Who are the deceived? The ones who believe that because one has “the faith”, one can give God the glory? Or, because of what God does, He is worthy of glory and those who acknowledge this grow in faith?

There Are Those Who Grow In Faith & Those Who Live A Life Of Deceit And Unbelief