Modern Bibles are the Result of Many Edits:

CanWest NS / National Post [Canada] ^ | Jennifer Green

[canuck_conservative]

For all those folks following the Good Book, we have some bad news. Turns out a lot of our modern Bible was tacked on, scratched out, and just plain garbled from the original Gospels as scribes over the millennia tried to present Christianity in what they thought was its truest light.

In fact, many of our modern Bibles are based on the wrong originals, says Bart Ehrman in his best-selling book Misquoting Jesus: The Story behind who Changed the Bible and Why. Even our beloved King James version has several segments based on a 12th-century manuscript that scholars now say was one of the most error-riddled in the history of the New Testament.

Some of those changes hit sore spots even today. For instance, St. Paul may not have been as critical of women as we have been led to believe. Prof. Ehrman, chairman of the department of religious studies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, says it was not Paul but a second-century follower of his who wrote in 1 Timothy 2:11-15: "Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent."

Similarly, says Prof. Ehrman, scholars doubt Paul wrote a passage in Corinthians saying "let the women keep silent."

It appears these later additions were intended to address a power struggle in the early Church. For one thing, why would Paul say women should only speak with their heads covered in 11:2-16 of 1 Corinthians, only to say elsewhere they may not speak at all?

To date, 5,700 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament have been discovered, the earliest a tiny fragment of John 18 written around 120 CE. Including the 10,000 Latin Vulgate versions, and the thousands in other languages, we have between 200,000 and 400,000 variants of the New Testament today.

Scholars can compare the scripts to determine which was likely the earliest and had the fewest errors, either accidental copying mistakes or intentional changes or additions tacked on by later writers to make a point or "clarify" something.

From the moment Christ left Earth, His followers were debating what His life and death had really meant, and how His teachings ought to be preached. All manner of letters and gospels were produced, many in conflict with one another. These authors setting down the story of Jesus saw themselves as writers creating a new story, not scribes transcribing an old story.

Most people expected Christ to return imminently and overthrow evil once and for all. When it became apparent that wasn't going to happen, the early Church realized it had to get more structured if it was to survive. At that point, leaders began to decide which gospels were legitimate, and which were not. They not only had to contend with external persecution but a constellation of different varieties of Christianity all clamouring for legitimacy. It was not until 367 CE that a canon was finally established.

Even though the Church had settled on which texts to use, it had trouble making true copies of them. Almost nobody could read and write very well. Even village scribes could barely comprehend what they were writing.

Prof. Ehrman began his academic career as a fundamentalist and evangelical who took the Bible as literal truth. Now, he sees the Bible as "a very human book with very human points of view, many of which differ from one another, and none of which offers an inerrant guide to how we should live."

[GarySpFc]

So are the preacher schools using one of your three noted versions?????

None that I am aware of use them.

[Quix]

Your perspective is not mine.

I just don't wish to go back and forth over it.

Besides, Josh McDowell does much better than I'd have time or ability to bother with.

It does sound like you have not examined both sides in an in-depth quality way.

[Quix]

Agreed.

And, somewhat understandably, they do not get it that when folks have a negative attitude long enough, deeply enough, intensely enough . . . God may well give them over to blindness they have so willfully chosen.

[Quix]

I think you have accepted far to much at seeming face value without thorough checking.

[eleni121]

Stopped by Barnes and Nobles to pick up a free book yesterday and was amazed to see the Dan "show me the money man" Brown's and his mimicks infesting the front area of the store.

Of course before exiting, I commented rather loudly but gently about where there were any "classic good books" not garbage like Brown and the ripoffs ...I got attention from some of the zombies grazing there.

[Just mythoughts]

"Ah, so now the Seprent is merely "symbolic" and not the physical manifestation of Satan or some other fallen angelic spirit (and God created that lot too, didn't he?), who also operates outside the sphere of God's control and knowledge? So much for being the all-seeing Almighty! "

Satan was not talking to Eve in the form of a snake, Ezekiel 28:13 tell us that Satan was created in the full pattern of beauty not a dust eating snake. Genesis is not the Jungle Book.

Further we are told continually what the bounds of control are and just how far Satan is allowed to go, that is the purpose of the continued warnings.

"You argue on the one had for literal interpretation of the text, and then when the illogic of doing so is handed back to you, you call it a lie and the twisting of the truth. Wonderful thing about people who take their Bible literally: they can always have it both ways, and protective stupidity in the defense of scripture is a virtue. "


Aruge??? Hey I am not the one purporting a talking snake.

"I'm going to interpret this to mean that you believe the Garden, as a physical place (as opposed to the symbolic serpent, I guess the Garden can't be a metaphor too), still exists someplace. Of course, you cannot in this day and age, with all our technology and knowledge of geography, pinpoint it's exact location on the globe (beyond much of an educated guess), so that non-metaphorical, physical garden must therefore exist in a non-methaphorical, non-physical reality."

Ezekiel says it was a real physical place and John in Revelations tell us that snake was the devil, and the curse placed upon that "talking" snake was the bruising of his head, and that has not taken place YET!!!!

"See where I'm going with this? By the way, neat trick of Paul writing about the events in the Garden when he wasn't there, and the place was barred to him by virtue of his frail humanity."

Well now where was Paul (his soul) during the Garden of Eden, Solomon says in Ecclesiastes1:9 The thing that hath been it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

10 Is there any thing whereof it may be said, 'See this is new?' it hath been already of OLD TIME, which was before us.

11There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after...

Jeremiah is told (1:5) "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations."

We are told that even before the birth of Jacob and Esau that while still in the womb Jacob I loved and Esau I hated by the Heavenly Father.

So explain then what this means and why we are told in this manner about the soul as though it had a history prior to entering the flesh age.

Think maybe Paul was elected to write what he wrote because he had already earned that position?

The word world is more accurately 'age' and is speaking about a specific time.

You need to study that word 'chosen' and Israel, affixing them to the time of Moses is not an accurate time frame, as the promise was given to Abraham and the promise still holds to this day. However, those (cough cough chosen) were so rebellious and stiff necked they had removed from their minds the remembrance of who they ever were as punishment for rejecting the Heavenly Father and whoring after other gods. Christ called them the lost sheep of the House of Israel.

You are exactly correct that humanity is not in this flesh age required to learn and live by the Bible even under that original penning. That age is yet to come, right now we in this flesh are allowed to pick and choose what we choose to believe.

[Wombat101]

Really? On the way to getting my Master's I read and absorbed an awful lot of Christian philosophy in it's original Greek and Latin forms (can you claim to the ability to read and comprehend Latin and Attic Greek?). Having been educated in Catholic schools for 12 years, I'm pretty sure I know what the Bible says, and what Christian theology is all about, I just can't pull a psalm or handy a quotation out of my backside on demand for you.

My problem is never with the philosophy behind Christianity. it is ALWAYS with the mythology that surrounds it and underlies the whole thing it. The philosophy on it's own has enough going for it that it does not require, in my opinion, the type of rigid enforcement and insistence on lockstep theocratic agreement that many would like to imposed upon it.

I also object to the smug stupidity of those who are convinced that they have been let in one some celestial secret because they memorized Romans,and that the rest of us are doomed to die an unspeakable death and subsequent torment because we didn't. As far as I'm concerned, God will judge me on my actions towards my fellow man, not on my ability to quote scripture or attendance at church.

[Knitting A Conundrum]

For some of us, the cross and the empty tomb are what it's all about.

[Amelia]

No, he proclaimed the validity of the Gnostic gospels and how the hierarchy of the church was out to surpress women.

I have read a couple of Ehrman's books (including the one this article is about - IMO, the article is a pretty poor summary, BTW) as well as other Biblical history, and while it's true the Gnostic gospels existed, I didn't get the impression that Ehrman subscribes to Gnostic beliefs.

In reference to the church being "out to suppress women", he does give evidence from writings about Jesus' ministry as well as some of Paul's writings (some of those quotes are given in the article above, and also some given in previous postings here) suggesting that the sections in which Paul exorts women to be silent were added later as a way to silence women.

The general idea is that in the Gospels and in Acts, women are treated more or less equally. In fact, in places women are allowed to speak in church so long as their heads are covered, and women are mentioned as apostles & supporters of the church. Why does Paul say in one place women can speak with their heads covered, but in another they should keep silent?

I am not more than a very amateurish Biblical scholar, but there's always seemed to be a bit of a contradiction to me.

[Lemondropkid31]

"Do you mean that all 4 gospels were written within 100 years of Christ, or that all 20,000 manuscripts were?"


OOps! Sorry LOL. I meant the 4 gospels. The manuscripts are copies written over time. I believe that we do not have the originals.

[Quix]

Not what I was referring to. Congrats on your scholarship in such languages well beyond my none.

Josh McDowell was a fiercely angry son of a very physically abusive alcoholic father--Roman Catholic, as I recall.

In order to relieve his mother of being repeatedly beaten by his drunken father, Josh would attract many of the beatings to himself from an early age.

He grew up hating God and Christianity with a fierce loathing. He set out in college to prove the Bible entirely false; a sham; a cobbled together bunch of edited fairy tales written long after the events.

Thankfully, he had enough integrity to realize a year or 3 into the project that the evidence was quite different from what he thought.

That's the sort of study I'm talking about--into the authenticity and validity of the original documents from as many scientific angles as are possible.

Josh did it. He's been updating it regularly the last 30 years. Yes, he became a strong believers based on the evidence.

[Quix]

For sure.

[Calm_Cool_and_Elected]

I cannot comment to silencing of women, as I have not spent any time researching this. I also have not read any of Ehrman's books. He may or may not have been an advocate of the Gnostic gospels, he may have just been reporting what he knew because that is what he does for a living. However, the producers of the show I watched definitely portrayed him as sympathetic. The whole show was portrayed such as to cast doubt on traditional Christian belief.

CC&E

[Matchett-PI]

King James Only-ism http://www.apologeticsindex.org/k00.html#kjvonly

An aberrant teaching that considers the King James Version - specifically the '1611 Authorized Version' - to be the only legitimate English-language Bible version.

KJV-onlyists who go so far as to insist that people who do not use the King James Version are not saved, are heretics (in that they violate the Biblical doctrine of salvation by adding conditions not taught in Scripture). Click link to continue.

[Nabber]

Your dating is highly doubtful.

The destruction of the Temple and the burning of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. were the most cataclysmic events in Mediterranean/Roman history in hundreds of years. For these not to be referenced in even one tiny way in the New Testament is "testament" that these books were written in the first few decades after the Crucifixion in about 35 A.D. Otherwise, that event would have been mentioned, because of its highly symbolic meaning to the early Christians.

[Nabber]

And what is MYTHOLOGY?

By defining what mythology is in this case, do you not reveal your own prejudices?

[AmishDude]

That event is mentioned, as prophecy. Luke 21, Matthew 24. Possibly even Mark 13. Skeptics believe that these words were placed into Jesus' mouth. Almost all scholars use this to suggest that the first and third gospels were written after 70AD because of the poignancy of that prophecy, particularly Matthew who was writing to a Jewish audience.

I should also mention that I'm not a biblical scholar myself, I just know what I've read.

[Search4Truth]

Not interested. I already know the truth. I posted the link so that others can discover the truth too, and not be deceived by the likes of James White. I have nothing to prove to you.

So now we will let the readers decide. I have faith in God's truth.

[Nabber]

Puh-leeze!

Jesus mentioning this as a prophecy (whether put into his mouth or not, which by the way shows an extreme amount of skepticism, but let's leave that alone) would surely have been followed up by : "See, Jesus said it and it happened!" yet that is not what was written.

"Almost all scholars" ? Uh, No. I think you mean all skeptic scholars.

[Lee N. Field]

From what I've heard, there was NO contemporary account of Christ's words - the earliest New Testament Gospel was written about 100 years after his death (presumably passed down orally until then - and we all know the problem about passing stories ...)

Yes? No?

No. All are early, in the lifetime of eyewitnesses.