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."
I believe that King James mulled it around in his own fashion.
(Waits for the flames...)
I suggest that you do what I did. Look it up on your own. Consult any source you like. (Non-gnostic, however, they tend to be even more dishonest than the usual skeptic.)
Jesus Died in AD30.
Approximate dates of Gospels
Luke AD60
Mark AD62
Matthew AD60's
John AD80's
Here is an article that quotes Ehrman on the matter of The DaVinci Code and Mary Magdalene.
According to this article, he says much of what is portrayed in the book is purely fiction, and seems to say that a lot of what is in the Gnostic gospels about Jesus & Mary Magdalene is also fiction.
Matthew and Mark were written before 70 A.D. as was the Acts of the Apostles.
Ye be 30 years off. ;)
I have yet to see an erudite, well-thought out KJV-only argument that addresses the basics of conservative textual criticism - and I would be in the position to see them. I myself briefly held the KJV-only position as a young man.
Where did you get that nonsense? No one transferred "Passover" to "Easter." Easter is most likely the Roman title for a spring holiday, but many Christians are now calling that holiday Resurrection Sunday. BTW, the egg idea probably came from the roasted egg used in the Seder.
I am unaware of any sect in Christendom that believes memorization of the Bible is a precondition for salvation.
Worth repeating. For those who doubt that sound advise, Don't take our word for it, take God's and let Him do all the work.
"Where did you get that nonsense? No one transferred "Passover" to "Easter." Easter is most likely the Roman title for a spring holiday, but many Christians are now calling that holiday Resurrection Sunday. BTW, the egg idea probably came from the roasted egg used in the Seder."
NONSENSE? That word found in the modern day EASTER is not the original Greek word. It is Passover and passover was the feast observed at the time by Christ and His disciples. It was man's tradition that got that word change to Easter as it is not the original word used.
NONSENSE? That word found in the modern day EASTER is not the original Greek word. It is Passover and Passover was the feast observed at the time by Christ and His disciples. It was man's tradition that got that word change to Easter as it is not the original word used.
It was "nonsense" the way you worded it. We Christians celebrate the Resurrection of Christ on "Easter Sunday." There was no reason for Jesus and His disciples to celebrate "Easter," the Resurrection any sooner, as it hadn't HAPPENED YET!
I was not referring to any doctrinal postulate of any particular sect or denomination, only an attitude prevalent amongst some individuals.
See what happens when you take things too literally? (/sarc)
And I believe these scholars because...
CC&E
"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."
Well yippee, yippee yay for you, Proffy. Guess what, you is gonna be a might sorry, come Judgement Day...
Jmt>How about that the transformation of the word Passover to Ishtar oh I mean Easter?
m10> Where did you get that nonsense? No one transferred "Passover" to "Easter."
Easter is most likely the Roman title for a spring holiday, but many
Christians are now calling that holiday Resurrection Sunday.
BTW, the egg idea probably came from the roasted egg used in the Seder.
167 posted on 05/06/2006 5:51:05 PM MDT by madison10
From the Letter of the Emperor to all those not present at the Council.
from DOCUMENTS FROM THE FIRST COUNCIL OF NICEA [THE FIRST ECUMENICAL COUNCIL] A.D. 325 Emperor Constantine, Emperor of the Roman Empire He had issued an Edict making Sunday the day of rest In 321 CE, while a Pagan sun-worshiper, the Emperor Constantine
They ruled: "Christians shall not Judaize and be idle on Saturday, but shall work on that day." ON THE KEEPING OF EASTER.
(Found in Eusebius, Vita Const., Lib. iii., 18-20.) When the question relative to the sacred festival of Easter arose, it was
universally thought that it would be convenient that all should keep the
feast on one day; for what could be more beautiful and more desirable,
than to see this festival, through which we receive the hope of
immortality, celebrated by all with one accord, and in the same
manner? It was declared to be particularly unworthy for this, the
holiest of all festivals, to follow the custom [the calculation] of the
Jews, who had soiled their hands with the most fearful of crimes, and
whose minds were blinded. In rejecting their custom,(1) we may
transmit to our descendants the legitimate mode of celebrating Easter,
which we have observed from the time of the Saviour's Passion to the
present day[according to the day of the week]. We ought not,
therefore, to have anything in common with the Jews, for the Saviour
has shown us another way; our worship follows a more legitimate and
more convenient course(the order of the days of the week); and
consequently, in unanimously adopting this mode, we desire, dearest
brethren, to separate ourselves from the detestable company of the
Jews, for it is truly shameful for us to hear them boast that without
their direction we could not keep this feast. How can they be in the
right, they who, after the death of the Saviour, have no longer been led
by reason but by wild violence, as their delusion may urge them? They
do not possess the truth in this Easter question; for, in their blindness
and repugnance to all improvements, they frequently celebrate two
passovers in the same year. We could not imitate those who are openly
in error. How, then, could we follow these Jews, who are most
certainly blinded by error? for to celebrate the passover twice in one
year is totally inadmissible. But even if this were not so, it would still
be your duty not to tarnish your soul by communications with such
wicked people[the Jews]. Besides, consider well, that in such an
important matter, and on a subject of such great solemnity, there ought
not to be any division. Our Saviour has left us only one festal day of
our redemption, that is to say, of his holy passion, and he desired[to
establish] only one Catholic Church. Think, then, how unseemly it is,
that on the same day some should be fasting whilst others are seated
at a banquet; and that after Easter, some should be rejoicing at feasts,
whilst others are still observing a strict fast. For this reason, a Divine
Providence wills that this custom should be rectified and regulated in a
uniform way; and everyone, I hope, will agree upon this point. As, on
the one hand, it is our duty not to have anything in common with the
murderers of our Lord; and as, on the other, the custom now followed
by the Churches of the West, of the South, and of
the North, and by some of those of the East, is the most acceptable, it
has appeared good to all; and I have been guarantee for your consent,
that you would accept it with joy, as it is followed at Rome, in Africa,
in all Italy, Egypt, Spain, Gaul, Britain, Libya, in all Achaia, and in the
dioceses of Asia, of Pontus, and Cilicia. You should consider not only
that the number of churches in these provinces make a majority, but
also that it is right to demand what our reason approves, and that we
should have nothing in common with the Jews. To sum up in few
words: By the unanimous judgment of all, it has been decided that the
most holy festival of Easter should be everywhere celebrated on one
and the same day, and it is not seemly that in so holy a thing there
should be any division. As this is the state of the case, accept joyfully
the divine favour, and this truly divine command; for all which takes
place in assemblies of the bishops ought to be regarded as proceeding
from the will of God. Make known to your brethren what has been
decreed, keep this most holy day according to the prescribed mode; we
can thus celebrate this holy Easter day at the same time, if it is granted
me, as I desire, to unite myself with you; we can rejoice together,
seeing that the divine power has made use of our instrumentality for
destroying the evil designs of the devil, and thus causing faith, peace,
and unity to flourish amongst us. May God graciously protect you, my
beloved brethren.
This is the Decree from the first Pontiff of the Roman church to all the world.
b'shem Y'shua
declared that Sunday was to be a day of rest throughout the Roman Empire: "On the venerable day of the Sun let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest,
Council of Laodicea circa 364 CE ordered that religious observances were
and let all workshops be closed. In the country however persons engaged in agriculture
may freely and lawfully continue their pursuits because it often happens that another day
is not suitable for gain-sowing or vine planting; lest by neglecting the proper moment
for such operations the bounty of heaven should be lost."
to be conducted on Sunday, not Saturday. Sunday became the new Sabbath.
Thanks! I wanted to watch the program, but already had plans for that evening...I'm sure they will repeat it, if they haven't already...
Interesting mainstream read!
What did he have to say about the OT?
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.