Real Christianity vs Modern Christianity

[Chuckt]

I can give you one. In the Gospel According to John, the story about Jesus and the woman taken in adultery. That story didn't start appearing in that book until the mid-fourth century (if memory serves). Copies dated earlier than that do not include the story. It got added later.

I can give you another one too. Mark 16: 9 - 20 do not appear in the earliest existing copies. The book ended at 16:8 and because it ended somewhat abruptly the following verses were added later in an attempt to give the story a satisfactory ending. That one is such common knowledge that most Bibles don't even try to hide it. Most have footnotes at the end pointing out that those verses were added later.

since both were clearly documented and corrected due to historical research, how do you count them as "embellishments"?......

Because the average person who reads the Bible doesn't read footnotes. The average Christian believes that Mark 16: 9 - 20 is something Mark wrote and it's not. In truth Mark didn't write any of it. Matthew, Mark Luke, and John, were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. They were written by someone else and in the second or third century they were attributed to those authors. The gospels themselves don't even claim to be written by who they are attributed to. Nowhere in Matthew does it say "I am Matthew a disciple of Jesus".

The gospels are not written in first person. For example in Matthew it says (paraphrasing) "Jesus came to a tax collector who was sitting at his booth. he said follow me, and he did." Well if Matthew was writing it he would have written "And Jesus came to ME as I was sitting at my tax collecting booth. Jesus said to ME follow me and I did"

In reality no one even thought the gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John until well into the 2nd century. And there are plenty more gospels. There is the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, etc. that never made it into the Bible for various reasons.

The letters of Paul....13 in total but it's almost universally accepted that at least 6, maybe 7 of them are pseudopigraphic.

II Peter is universally recognized as pseudopigraphic and I Peter is nearly accepted as the same.

Come on brother. I love the Lord but let;s tell it right.

You don't know what you are talking about.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKCMduynjNE]Mark 16:9-20 & the Abrupt Ending - Part 1 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Chuckt]

I can give you one. In the Gospel According to John, the story about Jesus and the woman taken in adultery. That story didn't start appearing in that book until the mid-fourth century (if memory serves). Copies dated earlier than that do not include the story. It got added later.

I can give you another one too. Mark 16: 9 - 20 do not appear in the earliest existing copies. The book ended at 16:8 and because it ended somewhat abruptly the following verses were added later in an attempt to give the story a satisfactory ending. That one is such common knowledge that most Bibles don't even try to hide it. Most have footnotes at the end pointing out that those verses were added later.

since both were clearly documented and corrected due to historical research, how do you count them as "embellishments"?......

Because the average person who reads the Bible doesn't read footnotes. The average Christian believes that Mark 16: 9 - 20 is something Mark wrote and it's not. In truth Mark didn't write any of it. Matthew, Mark Luke, and John, were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. They were written by someone else and in the second or third century they were attributed to those authors. The gospels themselves don't even claim to be written by who they are attributed to. Nowhere in Matthew does it say "I am Matthew a disciple of Jesus".

Mark 16 is at the end of a book. Have you ever seen a book without the front or back cover because it broke off? Of course you have.

 

[PostmodernProph]

In reality no one even thought the gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John until well into the 2nd century.

/sigh....why do atheists make shit up and pretend everyone agrees with them.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

I can give you one. In the Gospel According to John, the story about Jesus and the woman taken in adultery. That story didn't start appearing in that book until the mid-fourth century (if memory serves). Copies dated earlier than that do not include the story. It got added later.

I can give you another one too. Mark 16: 9 - 20 do not appear in the earliest existing copies. The book ended at 16:8 and because it ended somewhat abruptly the following verses were added later in an attempt to give the story a satisfactory ending. That one is such common knowledge that most Bibles don't even try to hide it. Most have footnotes at the end pointing out that those verses were added later.

since both were clearly documented and corrected due to historical research, how do you count them as "embellishments"?......

I gave you two clear examples of where the Bible has been changed and believe me I can give a lot more.

sorry....you've given me two examples of how, through better knowledge, the scriptures are restored to the original.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

Read it in Greek...... read it in Hebrew...you will read a VERY different book than what is written in English.

actually I have....and it isn't.....if anything we have a clearer knowledge of the original text than we ever have had before.....improved knowledge is the opposite of embellishment and you disprove your own argument......

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I can give you one. In the Gospel According to John, the story about Jesus and the woman taken in adultery. That story didn't start appearing in that book until the mid-fourth century (if memory serves). Copies dated earlier than that do not include the story. It got added later.

I can give you another one too. Mark 16: 9 - 20 do not appear in the earliest existing copies. The book ended at 16:8 and because it ended somewhat abruptly the following verses were added later in an attempt to give the story a satisfactory ending. That one is such common knowledge that most Bibles don't even try to hide it. Most have footnotes at the end pointing out that those verses were added later.

since both were clearly documented and corrected due to historical research, how do you count them as "embellishments"?......

I mean dude are you serious? I gave you two clear examples of where the Bible has been changed and believe me I can give a lot more. It's one thing to have faith but it's quite another to blindly accept as gospel what a translator has to say about a given topic. There are so many embellishments in modern English versions of the Bible that reading it that way is almost impossible to grasp. Read it in Greek, read it in Aramaic, read it in Hebrew...you will read a VERY different book than what is written in English.

Actually, you didn't give any examples of the Bible being changed because the Bible didn't exist until after those changes were made, and modern scholarship has pointed out the discrepancies to the earliest manuscripts.

That said, I find it interesting that you declare that John 8 was definitively not part of the Bible when there is actual evidence for the story in other writings, and that there are at least two versions of the story that survive in various manuscripts. Perhaps you just like to think you understand what you are talking about, and don't actually research all the evidence, you just find the stuff that supports your bias and ignore the contradictory evidence because it is easier than actually thinking.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Hard not to notice many outspoken Christians seem to talking about a Jesus and Christianity not backed up by actual Scriptures. When ever you wanna know the truth about something go to the source and oldest, most original version (before schizms and rewritting took place.) For Christianity this is found in Gnosticism which is the original version of 'Christ followers.'

Great site here, link is to a chronological listing of the Christian writings as with the NT, apocrypha, etc.

Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers

Looking at this link it's amazing where Gospel fo Matthew is considering the 20 or so pieces of writing out decades before. Yet I'll bet most Christians assume Matthew was written first since it appears first in the NT.

The site's entry for Gnostics is especially worth-while,
Gnostics, Gnostic Gospels, & Gnosticism

"A one-sentence description of Gnosticism: a religion that differentiates the evil god of this world (who is identified with the god of the Old Testament) from a higher more abstract God revealed by Jesus Christ, a religion that regards this world as the creation of a series of evil archons/powers who wish to keep the human soul trapped in an evil physical body, a religion that preaches a hidden wisdom or knowledge only to a select group as necessary for salvation or escape from this world."

Most Christians think Jesus was the literal son of God since many referred to him as that. Yet the earliest "Christian" writings reveal much more accurately what Jesus was all about than the modern fables do.

With a more accurate and complete picture of the religion that sprang up LONG after Jesus' death, what we think it means to be Christian today can only make you laugh.

So you believe you a privy to secret knowledge of God and salvation that "the rest of us" don't have?

Uh ya, as an atheist that 'secret' is it's all a sham. There, now you have it too.

Just because someone knows something about a religion doesn't mean they also agree with it.

You started the OP declaring that Gnosticism is the real version of Christianity, idiot. Marc asked a legitimate question, what gives you a special insight int the truth?

 

[Chuckt]

There are so many embellishments in modern English versions of the Bible that reading it that way is almost impossible to grasp. Read it in Greek, read it in Aramaic, read it in Hebrew...you will read a VERY different book than what is written in English.

Not really.

I've listened to two scholars say they have translated the Bible themselves and almost got the same reading as the NASB or NIV.

 

[BluePhantom]

since both were clearly documented and corrected due to historical research, how do you count them as "embellishments"?......

Because the average person who reads the Bible doesn't read footnotes. The average Christian believes that Mark 16: 9 - 20 is something Mark wrote and it's not. In truth Mark didn't write any of it. Matthew, Mark Luke, and John, were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. They were written by someone else and in the second or third century they were attributed to those authors. The gospels themselves don't even claim to be written by who they are attributed to. Nowhere in Matthew does it say "I am Matthew a disciple of Jesus".

Mark 16 is at the end of a book. Have you ever seen a book without the front or back cover because it broke off? Of course you have.

This is what is so great about arguing with evangelicals (at least I assume you are evangelicals). I point out the the vast...I mean VAST....as in nearly all of them....majority of scholars and theologians freely concede that Mark 16: 9 - 20 was added after the fact and what I get in return is "oh the backs of the books fell off" (apparently in several of them at the exact same place) and an argument by James Snapp Jr, an evangelical pastor of a small church in Indiana that made a Youtube video.

Now I didn't watch Mr. Snapp's video as I am at work and do not have the luxury to do so at this time. However, I am assuming that it's simply a recap of his arguments made in his book "Authentic: The Case for Mark 16: 9 - 20 [Annotated]" which is currently selling an Amazon for $0.99. I did some research on Mr. Snapp and read several excerpts of his book that can be found online and it seems that Mr. Snapp has been on a mission to argue the authenticity of the passages in question for some time. Much to his chagrin his arguments not not taken hold in the scholarly community and when you read his work it's not hard to see why.

My favorite argument of his is this:

"Several commentaries (and footnotes in some Bible translations, such as "The
Message") state that the Long Ending is found only in late manuscripts. That
statement is false. The two earliest manuscripts of Mark 16 do not contain 16:9-20,
but there are several other ancient manuscripts which contain these verses (such as
Codex Washingtonensis, Codex Alexandrinus, and Codex Ephraemi)."​

Well that's a curious argument. He says it is false that the earliest manuscripts don't contain 9-20 (that would be Vatacanus and Sinaiticus - both from the 4th century), then concedes that in fact they don't include those verses, and as proof he offer up three other examples where they are included. I note however that he doesn't point out that Washingtonensis, Alexandrinus, and Ephraemi Rescriptus were written about 100 years AFTER the other two.

So his argument is something along the lines of "it's not true that the earliest versions of Mark don't contain 9 - 20, but I concede that they don't, and they didn't start appear until about 100 years later....therefore it must be authentic".

You can't make this stuff up. Jeez Louise

http://www.textexcavation.com/snapp/MarkOne.html

 

[Chuckt]

Because the average person who reads the Bible doesn't read footnotes. The average Christian believes that Mark 16: 9 - 20 is something Mark wrote and it's not. In truth Mark didn't write any of it. Matthew, Mark Luke, and John, were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. They were written by someone else and in the second or third century they were attributed to those authors. The gospels themselves don't even claim to be written by who they are attributed to. Nowhere in Matthew does it say "I am Matthew a disciple of Jesus".

Mark 16 is at the end of a book. Have you ever seen a book without the front or back cover because it broke off? Of course you have.

This is what is so great about arguing with evangelicals (at least I assume you are evangelicals). I point out the the vast...I mean VAST....as in nearly all of them....majority of scholars and theologians freely concede that Mark 16: 9 - 20 was added after the fact and what I get in return is "oh the backs of the books fell off" (apparently in several of them at the exact same place) and an argument by James Snapp Jr, an evangelical pastor of a small church in Indiana that made a Youtube video.

Now I didn't watch Mr. Snapp's video as I am at work and do not have the luxury to do so at this time. However, I am assuming that it's simply a recap of his arguments made in his book "Authentic: The Case for Mark 16: 9 - 20 [Annotated]" which is currently selling an Amazon for $0.99. I did some research on Mr. Snapp and read several excerpts of his book that can be found online and it seems that Mr. Snapp has been on a mission to argue the authenticity of the passages in question for some time. Much to his chagrin his arguments not not taken hold in the scholarly community and when you read his work it's not hard to see why.

My favorite argument of his is this:

"Several commentaries (and footnotes in some Bible translations, such as "The
Message") state that the Long Ending is found only in late manuscripts. That
statement is false. The two earliest manuscripts of Mark 16 do not contain 16:9-20,
but there are several other ancient manuscripts which contain these verses (such as
Codex Washingtonensis, Codex Alexandrinus, and Codex Ephraemi)."​

Well that's a curious argument. He says it is false that the earliest manuscripts don't contain 9-20 (that would be Vatacanus and Sinaiticus - both from the 4th century), then concedes that in fact they don't include those verses, and as proof he offer up three other examples where they are included. I note however that he doesn't point out that Washingtonensis, Alexandrinus, and Ephraemi Rescriptus were written about 100 years AFTER the other two.

So his argument is something along the lines of "it's not true that the earliest versions of Mark don't contain 9 - 20, but I concede that they don't, and they didn't start appear until about 100 years later....therefore it must be authentic".

You can't make this stuff up. Jeez Louise

MarkOne

No one used Vaticanus for 1,000 years. When a scribe made a mistake, they put it on the shelf and didn't use it. That is why it is in such good condition. It is in good condition because no one used it because everyone knew it had an error in it.

Read the book. Maybe you will learn something.

 

[BluePhantom]

since both were clearly documented and corrected due to historical research, how do you count them as "embellishments"?......

I mean dude are you serious? I gave you two clear examples of where the Bible has been changed and believe me I can give a lot more. It's one thing to have faith but it's quite another to blindly accept as gospel what a translator has to say about a given topic. There are so many embellishments in modern English versions of the Bible that reading it that way is almost impossible to grasp. Read it in Greek, read it in Aramaic, read it in Hebrew...you will read a VERY different book than what is written in English.

Actually, you didn't give any examples of the Bible being changed because the Bible didn't exist until after those changes were made, and modern scholarship has pointed out the discrepancies to the earliest manuscripts.

That said, I find it interesting that you declare that John 8 was definitively not part of the Bible when there is actual evidence for the story in other writings, and that there are at least two versions of the story that survive in various manuscripts. Perhaps you just like to think you understand what you are talking about, and don't actually research all the evidence, you just find the stuff that supports your bias and ignore the contradictory evidence because it is easier than actually thinking.

uh huh.

"The evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming. It is absent from such early and diverse manuscripts as Papyrus66.75 Aleph B L N T W X Y D Q Y 0141 0211 22 33 124 157 209 788 828 1230 1241 1242 1253 2193 al. Codices A and C are defective in this part of John, but it is highly probable that neither contained the pericope, for careful measurement discloses that there would not have been space enough on the missing leaves to include the section along with the rest of the text. In the East the passage is absent from the oldest form of the Syriac version (syrc.s. and the best manuscripts of syrp), as well as from the Sahidic and the sub-Achmimic versions and the older Bohairic manuscripts. Some Armenian manuscripts and the old Georgian version omit it. In the West the passage is absent from the Gothic version and from several Old Latin manuscripts (ita.l*.q). No Greek Church Father prior to Euthymius Zigabenus (twelfth century) comments on the passage, and Euthymius declares that the accurate copies of the Gospels do not contain it."

"At the same time the account has all the earmarks of historical veracity. It is obviously a piece of oral tradition which circulated in certain parts of the Western church and which was subsequently incorporated into various manuscripts at various places. Most copyists apparently thought that it would interrupt John's narrative least if it were inserted after 7.52 (D E F G H K M U G P 28 700 892 al). Others placed it after 7.36 (ms. 225) or after 7.44 (several Georgian mss.) or after 21.25 (1 565 1076 1570 1582 armmss) or after Luke 21.38 (f13). Significantly enough, in many of the witnesses which contain the passage it is marked with asterisks or obeli, indicating that, though the scribes included the account, they were aware that it lacked satisfactory credentials."

Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart, 1971), pages 219-221.

The Story of the Adulteress

"Many modern translation include notes like this one (NIV).

"The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53—8:11. A few manuscripts include these verses, wholly or in part, after John 7:36, John 21:25, Luke 21:38 or Luke 24:53."

And some translations print the entire passage in italics to indicate that it is most probably not an original passage."

Was 'Jesus and the woman taken in adultery' in St. John a later addition, and does this invalidate infallibility? - Christianity Stack Exchange

In the story in the gospel of John, Jesus with the adulterous woman was
not found in the most reliable sources such as Codex Sinaiticus and Codex
Vaticanus...The problem is that it is the three which do not include John
8:1-11 are the earliest and most reliable."

The story of the woman caught in adultery (John 8) is not in the Codex Sinaiticus. How does this relate to biblical infallability? | Evidence for Christianity

(yawn)

 

[Chuckt]

I mean dude are you serious? I gave you two clear examples of where the Bible has been changed and believe me I can give a lot more. It's one thing to have faith but it's quite another to blindly accept as gospel what a translator has to say about a given topic. There are so many embellishments in modern English versions of the Bible that reading it that way is almost impossible to grasp. Read it in Greek, read it in Aramaic, read it in Hebrew...you will read a VERY different book than what is written in English.

Actually, you didn't give any examples of the Bible being changed because the Bible didn't exist until after those changes were made, and modern scholarship has pointed out the discrepancies to the earliest manuscripts.

That said, I find it interesting that you declare that John 8 was definitively not part of the Bible when there is actual evidence for the story in other writings, and that there are at least two versions of the story that survive in various manuscripts. Perhaps you just like to think you understand what you are talking about, and don't actually research all the evidence, you just find the stuff that supports your bias and ignore the contradictory evidence because it is easier than actually thinking.

uh huh.

"The evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming. It is absent from such early and diverse manuscripts as Papyrus66.75 Aleph B L N T W X Y D Q Y 0141 0211 22 33 124 157 209 788 828 1230 1241 1242 1253 2193 al. Codices A and C are defective in this part of John, but it is highly probable that neither contained the pericope, for careful measurement discloses that there would not have been space enough on the missing leaves to include the section along with the rest of the text. In the East the passage is absent from the oldest form of the Syriac version (syrc.s. and the best manuscripts of syrp), as well as from the Sahidic and the sub-Achmimic versions and the older Bohairic manuscripts. Some Armenian manuscripts and the old Georgian version omit it. In the West the passage is absent from the Gothic version and from several Old Latin manuscripts (ita.l*.q). No Greek Church Father prior to Euthymius Zigabenus (twelfth century) comments on the passage, and Euthymius declares that the accurate copies of the Gospels do not contain it."

"At the same time the account has all the earmarks of historical veracity. It is obviously a piece of oral tradition which circulated in certain parts of the Western church and which was subsequently incorporated into various manuscripts at various places. Most copyists apparently thought that it would interrupt John's narrative least if it were inserted after 7.52 (D E F G H K M U G P 28 700 892 al). Others placed it after 7.36 (ms. 225) or after 7.44 (several Georgian mss.) or after 21.25 (1 565 1076 1570 1582 armmss) or after Luke 21.38 (f13). Significantly enough, in many of the witnesses which contain the passage it is marked with asterisks or obeli, indicating that, though the scribes included the account, they were aware that it lacked satisfactory credentials."

Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart, 1971), pages 219-221.

The Story of the Adulteress

"Many modern translation include notes like this one (NIV).

"The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53—8:11. A few manuscripts include these verses, wholly or in part, after John 7:36, John 21:25, Luke 21:38 or Luke 24:53."

And some translations print the entire passage in italics to indicate that it is most probably not an original passage."

Was 'Jesus and the woman taken in adultery' in St. John a later addition, and does this invalidate infallibility? - Christianity Stack Exchange

In the story in the gospel of John, Jesus with the adulterous woman was
not found in the most reliable sources such as Codex Sinaiticus and Codex
Vaticanus...The problem is that it is the three which do not include John
8:1-11 are the earliest and most reliable."

The story of the woman caught in adultery (John 8) is not in the Codex Sinaiticus. How does this relate to biblical infallability? | Evidence for Christianity

(yawn)

Yo.

You listen to overwhelming evidence from non-Christians, unbelievers, etc.

You don't listen to those who believe.

If you look at the world with blinders on, what will you see?

In other words, it isn't representative of reality because you are looking at unbelievers who won't look at a glass that is half full but will instead see it as half full.

Try reading from the other side. Maybe you will wake up.

Wake up sleeper.

 

[BluePhantom]

Mark 16 is at the end of a book. Have you ever seen a book without the front or back cover because it broke off? Of course you have.

This is what is so great about arguing with evangelicals (at least I assume you are evangelicals). I point out the the vast...I mean VAST....as in nearly all of them....majority of scholars and theologians freely concede that Mark 16: 9 - 20 was added after the fact and what I get in return is "oh the backs of the books fell off" (apparently in several of them at the exact same place) and an argument by James Snapp Jr, an evangelical pastor of a small church in Indiana that made a Youtube video.

Now I didn't watch Mr. Snapp's video as I am at work and do not have the luxury to do so at this time. However, I am assuming that it's simply a recap of his arguments made in his book "Authentic: The Case for Mark 16: 9 - 20 [Annotated]" which is currently selling an Amazon for $0.99. I did some research on Mr. Snapp and read several excerpts of his book that can be found online and it seems that Mr. Snapp has been on a mission to argue the authenticity of the passages in question for some time. Much to his chagrin his arguments not not taken hold in the scholarly community and when you read his work it's not hard to see why.

My favorite argument of his is this:

"Several commentaries (and footnotes in some Bible translations, such as "The
Message") state that the Long Ending is found only in late manuscripts. That
statement is false. The two earliest manuscripts of Mark 16 do not contain 16:9-20,
but there are several other ancient manuscripts which contain these verses (such as
Codex Washingtonensis, Codex Alexandrinus, and Codex Ephraemi)."​

Well that's a curious argument. He says it is false that the earliest manuscripts don't contain 9-20 (that would be Vatacanus and Sinaiticus - both from the 4th century), then concedes that in fact they don't include those verses, and as proof he offer up three other examples where they are included. I note however that he doesn't point out that Washingtonensis, Alexandrinus, and Ephraemi Rescriptus were written about 100 years AFTER the other two.

So his argument is something along the lines of "it's not true that the earliest versions of Mark don't contain 9 - 20, but I concede that they don't, and they didn't start appear until about 100 years later....therefore it must be authentic".

You can't make this stuff up. Jeez Louise

MarkOne

No one used Vaticanus for 1,000 years. When a scribe made a mistake, they put it on the shelf and didn't use it. That is why it is in such good condition. It is in good condition because no one used it because everyone knew it had an error in it.

Read the book. Maybe you will learn something.

WTF? Vaticanus is generally considered to be one of the most important and valuable copies we currently have. Good Lord. No one used it for 1,000 years because it was stuck in the Vatican library and the Vatican has this habit of not letting anyone into it.

 

[Chuckt]

This is what is so great about arguing with evangelicals (at least I assume you are evangelicals). I point out the the vast...I mean VAST....as in nearly all of them....majority of scholars and theologians freely concede that Mark 16: 9 - 20 was added after the fact and what I get in return is "oh the backs of the books fell off" (apparently in several of them at the exact same place) and an argument by James Snapp Jr, an evangelical pastor of a small church in Indiana that made a Youtube video.

Now I didn't watch Mr. Snapp's video as I am at work and do not have the luxury to do so at this time. However, I am assuming that it's simply a recap of his arguments made in his book "Authentic: The Case for Mark 16: 9 - 20 [Annotated]" which is currently selling an Amazon for $0.99. I did some research on Mr. Snapp and read several excerpts of his book that can be found online and it seems that Mr. Snapp has been on a mission to argue the authenticity of the passages in question for some time. Much to his chagrin his arguments not not taken hold in the scholarly community and when you read his work it's not hard to see why.

My favorite argument of his is this:

"Several commentaries (and footnotes in some Bible translations, such as "The
Message") state that the Long Ending is found only in late manuscripts. That
statement is false. The two earliest manuscripts of Mark 16 do not contain 16:9-20,
but there are several other ancient manuscripts which contain these verses (such as
Codex Washingtonensis, Codex Alexandrinus, and Codex Ephraemi)."​

Well that's a curious argument. He says it is false that the earliest manuscripts don't contain 9-20 (that would be Vatacanus and Sinaiticus - both from the 4th century), then concedes that in fact they don't include those verses, and as proof he offer up three other examples where they are included. I note however that he doesn't point out that Washingtonensis, Alexandrinus, and Ephraemi Rescriptus were written about 100 years AFTER the other two.

So his argument is something along the lines of "it's not true that the earliest versions of Mark don't contain 9 - 20, but I concede that they don't, and they didn't start appear until about 100 years later....therefore it must be authentic".

You can't make this stuff up. Jeez Louise

MarkOne

No one used Vaticanus for 1,000 years. When a scribe made a mistake, they put it on the shelf and didn't use it. That is why it is in such good condition. It is in good condition because no one used it because everyone knew it had an error in it.

Read the book. Maybe you will learn something.

WTF? Vaticanus is generally considered to be one of the most important and valuable copies we currently have. Good Lord. No one used it for 1,000 years because it was stuck in the Vatican library and the Vatican has this habit of not letting anyone into it.

I can't help those who refuse to see.

We had posts on this already.

I could spend days talking to every new person who wants to bring up the same thing.

And they all won't listen so it doesn't matter because they will never learn.

Their hearts aren't open because they are biased and don't want the truth to be there.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Blue?.....do you intend to ignore the fact that correcting a manuscript error is not an embellishment of the original text, but a return to it?.......I'm still waiting for someone to come with an example of an embellishment......

 

[BluePhantom]

Yo.

You listen to overwhelming evidence from non-Christians, unbelievers, etc.

You don't listen to those who believe.

If you look at the world with blinders on, what will you see?

In other words, it isn't representative of reality because you are looking at unbelievers who won't look at a glass that is half full but will instead see it as half full.

Try reading from the other side. Maybe you will wake up.

Wake up sleeper.

No what I am doing is approaching it from a historical standpoint where you are approaching it from a theological one. All you are really saying is "oh you are just a non-believer". Quite the contrary I am quite spiritual indeed. I simply don't take things on face value. Just because it's written in the Bible doesn't mean it's historically accurate.

For example in Luke it says that Jesus was born when Quirinius was governor of Syria. In Matthew it says that Jesus was born during the reign of King Herod. The problem is Quirinius didn't become governor of Syria until after Herod's death. That's just a historical fact. So which was it? They can't both be right...that would be impossible unless Jesus was born twice or Mary had one hell of a long labor. Since it's impossible for both of them to be correct, at least one of them has to be wrong and by definition it means the Bible is not historically accurate.

That's just one example but there are lots of them.

So Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John didn't write Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Who cares? It's not who wrote them that is important, it's what they say that's important. So why not just accept the historical accuracy and move on?

Take the Exodus. Great story, but not a single shred of evidence that it ever happened. There are no records by the Egyptians (who were pretty decent record keepers) that they ever even enslaved the Jews to begin with. In fact there is only one engraving in the entire collection of ancient Egyptian writing that even mentions the Jews and it has nothing to do with the Exodus or slavery.

Thousands of people wandering around in the desert for years on end...you would think they would have left behind some pots or some trash or maybe even some sandals...but there's nothing. No archaeological evidence of that kind of migration at all. There is no reference to the Exodus in any other ancient historical writing. In fact the only place that talks about the Exodus is in the Book of Exodus.

So here's where you and I seem to differ in our points of view. You, I image, would take the stance that "of course the Exodus happened because it says so in the Bible". Fine...but that's a perspective based in faith because there is no evidence to support. It's a purely theological perspective.

My take is "it MAY have happened. It's certainly possible that there is archaeological evidence that has simply not been excavated yet. It's certainly possible that there were Egyptian writings that would support the story of the Exodus and those writings have been destroyed or whatever. But that's speculation. What we HAVE in regards to evidence to support the story of the Exodus is absolutely nothing. So all I can say is that it MAY have happened but there doesn't seem to be any evidence to support it." That's a historical perspective, not a theological one.

For me, the history is important. To you, it doesn't appear to be AS important at least. But it really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. If you want to believe that the gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John...knock yourself out. It's not hurting anyone and if it gives you a greater sense of connection with God for whatever reason to believe that then go for it. But it's a perspective based in theological tradition and not on historical accuracy.

It's important to distinguish between the two

 

[PostmodernProph]

So why not just accept the historical accuracy and move on?

primarily because the claim isn't based on accurate historical evidence, but merely on atheist' accusations.....

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I mean dude are you serious? I gave you two clear examples of where the Bible has been changed and believe me I can give a lot more. It's one thing to have faith but it's quite another to blindly accept as gospel what a translator has to say about a given topic. There are so many embellishments in modern English versions of the Bible that reading it that way is almost impossible to grasp. Read it in Greek, read it in Aramaic, read it in Hebrew...you will read a VERY different book than what is written in English.

Actually, you didn't give any examples of the Bible being changed because the Bible didn't exist until after those changes were made, and modern scholarship has pointed out the discrepancies to the earliest manuscripts.

That said, I find it interesting that you declare that John 8 was definitively not part of the Bible when there is actual evidence for the story in other writings, and that there are at least two versions of the story that survive in various manuscripts. Perhaps you just like to think you understand what you are talking about, and don't actually research all the evidence, you just find the stuff that supports your bias and ignore the contradictory evidence because it is easier than actually thinking.

uh huh.

"The evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming. It is absent from such early and diverse manuscripts as Papyrus66.75 Aleph B L N T W X Y D Q Y 0141 0211 22 33 124 157 209 788 828 1230 1241 1242 1253 2193 al. Codices A and C are defective in this part of John, but it is highly probable that neither contained the pericope, for careful measurement discloses that there would not have been space enough on the missing leaves to include the section along with the rest of the text. In the East the passage is absent from the oldest form of the Syriac version (syrc.s. and the best manuscripts of syrp), as well as from the Sahidic and the sub-Achmimic versions and the older Bohairic manuscripts. Some Armenian manuscripts and the old Georgian version omit it. In the West the passage is absent from the Gothic version and from several Old Latin manuscripts (ita.l*.q). No Greek Church Father prior to Euthymius Zigabenus (twelfth century) comments on the passage, and Euthymius declares that the accurate copies of the Gospels do not contain it."

"At the same time the account has all the earmarks of historical veracity. It is obviously a piece of oral tradition which circulated in certain parts of the Western church and which was subsequently incorporated into various manuscripts at various places. Most copyists apparently thought that it would interrupt John's narrative least if it were inserted after 7.52 (D E F G H K M U G P 28 700 892 al). Others placed it after 7.36 (ms. 225) or after 7.44 (several Georgian mss.) or after 21.25 (1 565 1076 1570 1582 armmss) or after Luke 21.38 (f13). Significantly enough, in many of the witnesses which contain the passage it is marked with asterisks or obeli, indicating that, though the scribes included the account, they were aware that it lacked satisfactory credentials."

Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart, 1971), pages 219-221.

The Story of the Adulteress

"Many modern translation include notes like this one (NIV).

"The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53—8:11. A few manuscripts include these verses, wholly or in part, after John 7:36, John 21:25, Luke 21:38 or Luke 24:53."

And some translations print the entire passage in italics to indicate that it is most probably not an original passage."

Was 'Jesus and the woman taken in adultery' in St. John a later addition, and does this invalidate infallibility? - Christianity Stack Exchange

In the story in the gospel of John, Jesus with the adulterous woman was
not found in the most reliable sources such as Codex Sinaiticus and Codex
Vaticanus...The problem is that it is the three which do not include John
8:1-11 are the earliest and most reliable."

The story of the woman caught in adultery (John 8) is not in the Codex Sinaiticus. How does this relate to biblical infallability? | Evidence for Christianity

(yawn)

Funny how none of your links contain anything from the other side of the actual debate among scholars about the same material, isn't it? Doesn't that make my point for me?

The actual point, despite the "overwhelming" evidence you just presented, is that plenty of scholars have serious questions about the issue. Your preference for the side that confirms your bias doesn't change that.

I would also like to point out that I never said that it was part of the original text, what I said is that there is pretty solid evidence that the story is true because it was mentioned, more than once, in various texts and other writings that are used to determine the authenticity of the Bible.

 

[BluePhantom]

So why not just accept the historical accuracy and move on?

primarily because the claim isn't based on accurate historical evidence, but merely on atheist' accusations.....

uh huh. So because someone points out that the Gospel of Matthew wasn't written by Matthew he must be an atheist, huh? Brilliant. Whatever.

 

[BluePhantom]

Funny how none of your links contain anything from the other side of the actual debate among scholars about the same material, isn't it? Doesn't that make my point for me?

The actual point, despite the "overwhelming" evidence you just presented, is that plenty of scholars have serious questions about the issue. Your preference for the side that confirms your bias doesn't change that.

I would also like to point out that I never said that it was part of the original text, what I said is that there is pretty solid evidence that the story is true because it was mentioned, more than once, in various texts and other writings that are used to determine the authenticity of the Bible.

Well there are always people with alternative points of view. I never said it wasn't a true story. It may very well have been and it was just never written down but passed along by oral tradition. The challenge was made to give an example where the Bible had been changed and I gave one. If it's not in earlier versions and it is in later versions...well that's a change. Doesn't mean it didn't happen. It just means it was probably added later. How and why? Who knows.

Maybe someone was making a copy of John and when he got to chapter 7 he was reminded of a story about Jesus and a woman taken in adultery and he wrote it in the margin because he thought it was a powerful story that supported a point being made. Later on maybe someone made a copy off that and saw it in the margin and thought it got skipped and he put it in his copy in the body of the text thinking the previous guy made an error. later a third guy makes a copy off the second guy and includes it in the text because that's what was written in the copy he was looking at.

Who knows how it got in there. Probably something along those lines.

It may have been in there originally and for some reason it got skipped for a couple hundred years and got put back in later. There's no evidence that I am aware of to support that assertion but hell....anything is possible. According to the evidence I am aware of (and scholarship tends to agree with me for the most part) it was added later.

But again, big deal. It doesn't matter if it was originally there or not. It doesn't even matter if it happened or not. It's what it represents that matters and BTW it's probably my favorite story about Jesus.