Posted on 05/06/2006 7:04:47 AM PDT by 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."
As I recall, these fertility cults frequently called themselves "Christian" which was his main problem.
This is the Bible Study tool I use. It has the commentary built in. More commentaries can be added. My son uses it too.
http://www.swordsearcher.com/
Look, I'm not a Bible scholar (my specialty is Western Civ), and I have to admit to being a lapsed catholic (you spend 12 years in Jesuit schools and see how much you care for Catholic theology...lol).
I'm absolutely positive that many who have come forward in recent years with some of this stuff do have an agenda (if they didn't, why did they even start in the first place?), but I also don't believe that all of it is a concerted effort to "discredit" Christianity. Chrsitianity needs very little help to either discredit itself or to act as a force for good. The problem in this regard is not the message, but the use to which it is often put.
As a matter of pure history, this article (and many like it) are basically repeating what should be an obvious truth: we're talking about documents which have been translated into various languages, over 2,000 years, and which have often been at the heart of secular/religious political and philosophical battles for the vast majority of that time. Errors were bound to be made. Biases and agendas were bound to make their way into either the translations or their presentation and context.
All the recent stuff about Gnosticism, the Book of Judas, etc, is useful for a variety of reasons: they stand, first of all, as an example of an alternate point of view and one that often, circa 4th century or so, would have seen you killed as a heretic. The battles over Gnosticism and other competing phillosophies and interpretation were bloody, violent affairs. I would tend to view them not as a refutation of "accepted" Christian doctrine (there's enough disagreement over that), but as an interesting view into a separate Christian culture within the greater Christian culture. It's great history, in a sense, and offers a bit of knowledge that was previously unknown to the general public.
[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. The bible is the Word of God and God has kept it pure and safe from all those who hate Him and His only begotten Son, Christ Jesus our Lord and saviour. Your beleif that it was changed is based upon the testimony and teaching of atheist liberals and religious testimonies of those who are contrary to God and Jesus the Christ.
II Ti.3: 16,17"ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine,for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; That the man of God may be perfect, thouroughly furnished unto all good works."
This is why this atheist attacked the epistle of Paul written to Timothy; as did Satan in the garden of Eden when he attacked God's word saying the the woman Eve in her temptation;
Ge.3:1 " Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?"
The first words out of the devils mouth questioned the
Word of God.
This female atheist, like the serpent, attacked the Word of God and that has not changed throughout the centuries. Satan and all athiest mankind always deny the Word of God and therefore the wrath of God will fall on them because of their unbelief..
"If anyone needs a bible translator, a free help source is available. Check with your Holy Spirit." ~ Drango
"... "Why did God make the Bible so hard to understand, then?" It isn't -- none of this keeps a person from grasping the message of the Bible to the extent required to be saved; where the line is to be drawn is upon those who gratuitously assume that such base knowledge allows them to be competent critics [or expositors] of the text, and make that assumption in absolute ignorance of their own lack of knowledge -- what I have elsewhere spoken of in terms of being "unskilled and unaware of it." ..." Continue here: http://www.tektonics.org/af/calcon.html
Why do journalist always go to the likes of Crossan, Ehrman, Spong and other " Jesus Seminar" types when they have an article to write about Scripture?
These men and others of similar leanings do have an agenda. They do not believe the Bible is the Word of God and will take every chance to spread their erroneous beliefs.
There are many serious scholars of the Bible who could tell people a different view of the history of Scripture writing. But the MSM does not want to know that view. They only want opinions that shore up their weak kneed atheism.
I think I understand your perspective.
In terms of the authenticity and quality of the documents--which, contrary to detractors, were written within the lifetimes of those viewing the historic events.
Josh McDowell's NEW EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT is an excellent presentation of the authenticity and reliability of the documents etc.
Hmm, let me get this straight: the One True God gave mankind the wisdom and ability to track the motions of the Heavens so that he could use it to worship false Gods? Wow, this really makes sense.
Bear in mind that mankind was routinely making these calculations and observing these rites way before Abraham made the covenant and Moses led the people out of captivity, and certianly before Jesus came along to reform the older Judaic traditions (later to become a separate religion).
Please refrain from the "Free Will of Man" arguments and the convenient crutch of "the mind of God is a mystery to man" crap that dances around the main issue by throwing up flowery language and inserts non-sequitors as in place of wisdom. Also, please refrain from the stupidity of quoting a relevant Bible passage and calling it "argument". Please tell me, in your own words, how is it that mankind was worshipping "pagan" deities for millenia, utilizing knowledge that could only be given by the One True God?
(Taking bets that she responds with something along the lines of God having "fixed" that problem with the Great Flood....)
Not really. You have to remember that in a culture that did orally pass on their stories and traditions. The content of those stories was closely guarded and monitored for errors. People were very protective of the Truth and would have noticed any changes that contradicted what they had already known. Ever try to skip a few words in a child's bedtime story?
Not so.
We have sufficient fragments from within 30-50 years or so of the events--within the lifetimes of those who saw the events before their own eyes--to know that The Gospels etc. were accurate descriptions of real events. There was plenty of time for detractors to disagree with the texts which were written within the lifetimes of the observers who saw them.
Josh McDowell's
NEW EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT has great research on such issues.
Well, just don't take any of it literally. If you did, you have to bump up against some major inconsistencies, which start on or about page 3:
God is all-powerful, all-knowing and omniscient, and has a propensity to forecast the fact that there will be false prophets and to see the future (it's all over both the Old and New Testament in the form of prophecies). But somehow, his foresight failed him when he put Adam and Eve in the Garden and told them "don't eat that fruit". Either God is asleep at the wheel or He willingly tempted Adam and Eve knowing they would fail the test.
And the Serpent is the bad guy?
This inconsistency is argued away by the "Free WIll of Mankind" school as man's failing, not God's.
This same,perfect, all-powerful God then creates Adam a wife. Her name is Lilith. She turns out to be an absolute cast-iron, power-hungry bitch, and is cast from the Garden of Eden, Adam is put into a deep sleep in which God takes a rib bone and creates Eve, who turns out to be Adam's downfall. (P.S. you will not find the Genesis texts that deal with Lilith in the New Testament because they were excluded on the basis that it would seem to indicate that the Lord sanctioned polygamy, just for a start).
Even the perfect, all-powerful, Almighty couldn't create a decent woman -- and He took two shots at it before giving up.
Wanna talk about how Cain gets himself a wife in the wilderness where no other people are supposed to exist?
And we haven't even gotten out of Genesis yet....
Perhaps they went in the way of Cain and or followed after Belial.
God tried to set Cain straight and gave him a second chance to offer a blood sacrifice (pointing to the coming lamb of God , Jesus the Christ), and Cain REFUSED TO BELIEVE GOD.
And Ballam the prophet took money from a king to curse Israel, which he could not and blessed Israel instead to the will of God and consteration of the evil Israel hating king.
How come most liberal athiests hate God and His Son Jesus Christ and wish to destroy all vestiges of Israel the nation and the body of Christ (jew and gentile saved by grace through faith in the finished work of the cross of Christ and His ressurection from the dead.)
Is there any more unexplainable, by human wisdom,of the deep hatred of sexually and morally deviant people displayed by those who hate the Jewish race and the bible believing Christians FOR NO REASON? Perhaps it can be explained if one considers the Holy Bible and the Author of the Holy Bible, The Word of God, Jesus Christ.
"P.S. you will not find the Genesis texts that deal with Lilith in the New Testament because they were excluded on the basis that it would seem to indicate that the Lord sanctioned polygamy, just for a start).
My bad -- of course you won't find Genesis in the New testament. What I really meant to say was "in any interpretation of the Christian Bible written since about
400 AD or so."
Brain fart. My apologies.
WAY OF LIFE'S ELECTRONIC KJV DEFENSE LIBRARY
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/fbns-index/versfbns.htm
[God is all-powerful, all-knowing and omniscient, and has a propensity to forecast the fact that there will be false prophets and to see the future (it's all over both the Old and New Testament in the form of prophecies). But somehow, his foresight failed him when he put Adam and Eve in the Garden and told them "don't eat that fruit". Either God is asleep at the wheel or He willingly tempted Adam and Eve knowing they would fail the test.]
Perhaps God chose to give mankind free will to choose Him or not. The bible clearly states that God see's the end from the beginning and He most certainly put the tree of Life in the Garden and gave only ONE commandment ot the man Adam and his wife Eve to not eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which He foreknew they would choose to disobey, thereby initiating God's plan to save mankind by the choice to belive that God's only begotten Son Jesus Christ died for our sins and rose from the dead on the third day by the power of God so that we could be saved from death, hell, and the grave by His grace only.
To begin with, I'm not on a campaign to attack those of faith (we'll get about 50 responses from some here who will take issue with that), but with people who haven't made the great mental leap out of the Middle Ages and seperated their religion from their politics or from their everyday, practical experience.
The Bible says this, that and the other thing, and many will take it as truth without question. You beleive the Invisible Man in the Sky with the horrendous financial problems made the world this way or that and there is nothing you can do to alter it (it's all pre-ordained, you know), and merely hope to avoid the more dire consequences by engaging in a mental slavery of strict obedience to a doctrine written by men with agendas, and that's fine. That's your personal preference.
I just find it amazing that many here who consider this course of action (blind, willing obedience, adherance to that which they cannot prove or disprove with logical argument or science) virtuous, typically will attack Islam for being a religion of the arrested mindset and perverted ethics and yet fail to recognize the same deficiencies and inconsistencies in their own faith and it's history.
Believe me, I'm not defending Islam either, since it's hardly a religion or a philosphy and more a system of minute control that would have made the KGB salivate.
I find it interesting on so many levels, that's all.
Believe what you want to; that's the beauty of Western Civilization. But don't attack a reasonable argument (the Bible is a flawed translation) reflexively and call it a matter of faith.
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. This is theory and it goes against what is written in Scripture. As Acts points out, some educated men followed Jesus even during his ministry. Furthermore, the Jews were a literate people by ancient standards, and they relgious worship was centered around the written text. Even those who promose a late date for the construction of the Gospels believe that they were based on earlier writings. Even if Jesus himself set nothing down in writings, because of the brevity and nature of his mission, it is not unreasonable to assume that his disciples included scribes who wsrote down some of his words. And, as the Pentecost narratives in Acts tells us, within months the Church was growing like wildfire, including event priests and other leading men. Luke's reference to other writings suggests that within two generations there would be many Christian manuscripts available, relating Jesus' words or words commentary on his words and his deeds.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.