Michael Brown is somewhat liberal in the manuscript science sense, as he agrees with things such as that Mark 16:9-10 does not belong in the Bible based on it being absent from "the oldest Greek, Latin, Syriac, Coptic, and Armenian manuscripts,", despite what 99.9% of the Greek manuscripts, 99% of the Syriac manuscripts, and 99.99% of the Latin manuscripts, and four second-century witnesses, over 40 other Roman-Empire-era witnesses evidence to the contrary. (More here ).
Such claims are made on the basis of "earlier is better" than later copies (see here ), which can be copies of even earlier mss, the conclusion is also reached (debated here )
Yet Newsweek is so desperate or ignorant to poison the minds of men against Christ whom the oppose that they even resort to the absurd atheistic charge that the Lord's censure against praying in public (in the context of ostentatious religiousity for the praise of men) means preachers praying in public is necessarily sin!
Some may be (pious George Washington prayed that his were not), but not because any public prayer is sin.
Of course, recently an antagonistic atheist/agnostic//skeptic type even insisted that Jesus taught His disciples to steal by telling them to go into a specific village and bring a donkey to Him, and what to say if anyone asks them what they were doing, and which was done, with obvious consent. (Lk. 19:30-34)
Is it really “loaded with contradictions and translation errors,” as Newsweek alleges? Is it true that it “wasn’t written by witnesses and includes words added by unknown scribes to inject Church orthodoxy . . . ?” Is it accurate to say that “the Bible can’t stop debunking itself”?..
Let’s unpack this carefully, since a number of foundational propositions are laid out here. And it is this section of Newsweek’s examination, making up the major part of the article, which has drawn sharp criticism and strong correction from a number of top biblical scholars...
...the very term “the Bible,” derived from the Greek ta biblia, “the books,” wasn’t coined until approximately 223 A.D. And what we are reading today – in English translation or in the original languages – is extraordinarily close (and, for the most part) identical to what these early believers would have been reading when the term was coined.
Newsweek exhorts us to follow the teaching of Jesus, reminding us that he said, “Don’t judge. He condemned those who pointed out the faults of others while ignoring their own.” Yet here, Newsweek engages in the very kind of biased judgment that Jesus condemned...
The real question is: How reliable are the Hebrew texts we have today, the ones used in the translation of the Old Testament? And how reliable are the Greek texts we have today, the ones used in the translation of the New Testament?
Actually, they are remarkably well-preserved, to the point that we can say that, with the exception of changes in spelling of words (like colour vs. color in English) and the adding of vowels (which are not part of the original Hebrew text), for the most part, when we read the Old Testament in Hebrew, we are reading the identical Hebrew texts that Jesus would have read in his hometown synagogue as a boy. (We’ll address the New Testament Greek manuscripts shortly.)
Ah, the oldest manuscript trick. That kind of junk gives the enemies of God occasion to blaspheme.
I will ask Newsweek for advice on the Bible about the same time I ask Hugh Hefner for advice on how to make it to the alter with your chastity intact.
Just after I ask my local imam for a really great slow-roasted BBQ pork recipe.
These are all topics about which which the three entities questioned know absolutely NOTHING!
Obviously, our media serves Satan. Look at the things it supports and the things it attacks. The puzzle is why Christians continue to finance their extinction by buying this poisonous propaganda and subjecting their children to its moral pollution. (Do your children and grandchildren know more nasty rap lyrics than psalms.)
It makes me sad that so many people are deceived by the media in this way. Given the onslaught it is somewhat understandable.
When it comes to textual reliability, I urge people to make secular comparisons.
Think for example of the Gettysburg address. That is a real text that was authentically spoken by Lincoln right?
Well, why are there more than six different copies of the Gettysburg Address?
They don’t match. Several of the copies were actually provided by Lincoln himself and they still don’t match!
Maybe the Gettysburg address was a complete fiction?
I don’t believe that line of thinking but it makes sense if you are going to use the same reactionary logic of skeptics. Similar things can be said about all ancient writings from the Greeks like Aristotle.
If the Bible is an unreliable text then 30-80% of major texts on college campuses relating to historical matters are vastly more problematic.
The Bible actually has incredible textual verifiability. People can disagree with what it teaches if they choose— I don’t— but the text is incredibly good and is its own miracle in creation.
Newsweek is attacking the foundational text of my faith, The Bible. I wonder if they will notice that I don’t try to kill them for it...
What does this bold critic say about the Koran?
NEWSWEEK IS A failed LIBERAL JEWISH DIGITAL RAG....
sidney harman bought it for a buck and OVERPAID.
he was your typical libtard and whoever works there is of the same slant... I wonder if they get paid... his wife ended her political endeavors by chatting with israeli intel... and got cought..
Bookmarked.
In all those Greek texts, when Mark ends Luke immediately begins. EXCEPT in one text. There the monk left a large space long enough to accommodate the last verses of Mark. So it was known that there was a longer ending at that time.
They make the claim that the bible has been retranslated so many times that it would be impossible to take serious but then judge the ones who believe in it according to what it says?