Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
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)
I mentioned this book before:
The Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53-8:11) - A Tour of the External Evidence - Kindle edition by James Snapp Jr. Religion & Spirituality Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com.
Too bad you want to bring up past debates.
I mentioned this book before:
The Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53-8:11) - A Tour of the External Evidence - Kindle edition by James Snapp Jr. Religion & Spirituality Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com.
Too bad you want to bring up past debates.
Gee...more James Snapp. LOL That's convincing.
I mentioned this book before:
The Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53-8:11) - A Tour of the External Evidence - Kindle edition by James Snapp Jr. Religion & Spirituality Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com.
Too bad you want to bring up past debates.
Gee...more James Snapp. LOL That's convincing.
A wise man once said you can fool some of the people some of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
Gee...more James Snapp. LOL That's convincing.
A wise man once said you can fool some of the people some of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
Well you certainly seem to be fooling yourself the majority of the time.
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.
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.
Except, like I pointed out before, you didn't. The Bible didn't exist until after these changes were actually added to the individual books. Modern scholarship is showing that some of the early decisions of what should be included in the Bible are questionable when compared to early documents. but that does not prove the Bible was changed. It just proves you don't know what the Bible actually is.
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.
Whatever. Keep believing that.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=K-eSRcr9CWw]Revealing God's Treasure - Mt. Sinai - YouTube[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bmU_TyITtoc]Ron Wyatt Archaeology - The Exodus - Audio Cleaned & Video Stabilized - 2012 - YouTube[/ame]
So we have Ron Wyatt and James Snapp. Anyone else you want to roll out? How about Howard the Duck?
Unreal!!! Ok...let me ask you this.....you do know the world is round right? I am sorry brother....seriously I am. I dont mean to diss you. I really don't. It's just that citing Ron Wyatt, James Snapp, and the like are as authoritative as citing Chris Angel as proof that magic is real. ...oh my God you are a breath of fresh air that provides me with amusement in a stressful profession.Sorry...I just have to chime in one more time....Ron Wyatt!!!!!
Honestly I am intrigued by your mind. I am absolutely stunned that anyone would believe the crap you are saying and in truth I am not convinced you are being serious....because well...no one can possibly be that misguided. I am hanging on to this discussion because I am trying to analyze your dysfunction not because I take any of your arguments seriously but because I am trying to determine if anyone can really be that....well...let me find a kind term to describe it.....I can't. I can't describe it in a way that would be respectful.
BTW...have you met Koshergirl? You two will love each other!
Ron fucking Wyatt.....
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.
Sorry...I just have to chime in one more time....Ron Wyatt!!!!!
Honestly I am intrigued by your mind. I am absolutely stunned that anyone would believe the crap you are saying and in truth I am not convinced you are being serious....because well...no one can possibly be that misguided. I am hanging on to this discussion because I am trying to analyze your dysfunction not because I take any of your arguments seriously but because I am trying to determine if anyone can really be that....well...let me find a kind term to describe it.....I can't. I can't describe it in a way that would be respectful.
BTW...have you met Koshergirl? You two will love each other!
Ron fucking Wyatt.....
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.
It's extremely weird that gays support a president that has a close friendship with the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, both of which would be tickled to saw every homosexual's head off just for general purposes.
I just wonder if some of you are aware of this or has your sense of self-preservation taken a dirt nap?
Sorry...I just have to chime in one more time....Ron Wyatt!!!!!
Honestly I am intrigued by your mind. I am absolutely stunned that anyone would believe the crap you are saying and in truth I am not convinced you are being serious....because well...no one can possibly be that misguided. I am hanging on to this discussion because I am trying to analyze your dysfunction not because I take any of your arguments seriously but because I am trying to determine if anyone can really be that....well...let me find a kind term to describe it.....I can't. I can't describe it in a way that would be respectful.
BTW...have you met Koshergirl? You two will love each other!
Ron fucking Wyatt.....
I don't think the mods would let me express how intelligent I think you are right now.
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.
Except, like I pointed out before, you didn't. The Bible didn't exist until after these changes were actually added to the individual books. Modern scholarship is showing that some of the early decisions of what should be included in the Bible are questionable when compared to early documents. but that does not prove the Bible was changed. It just proves you don't know what the Bible actually is.
Well that's not exactly true now is it? The Synod of Hippo in 393 and the Council of Rome in 382 was when the church first officially recognized a specific list of books as the Biblical canon. Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaitius were from about the same time, and later versions from the 5th century had significant differences: the addition of Mark 16: 9 - 20 and John 8 just to name a few as we've discussed. So it was almost certainly in it's final form before all these changes took place.
Additionally I provided documentation earlier that scholars have identified thousands of differences among copies that came later. I mean hell....even today the Bibles are different. The Catholics use a different Bible than other Christians; it includes two extra books if memory serves. Greek and Russian Orthodox use versions with different books as well.
I mean....come on....it's obvious to any rational thinking person that it's been changed through history. The only people who would even TRY to debate that are those who are so incredibly blinded by their faith that they can't see beyond their nose (see Chuckt).
By the way, differences in translations of the Bibles, or even the fact that the Catholic Church includes different books in the Old Testament, are completely irrelevant to this discussion. The attempted deflection was fun though, so feel free to throw another one in if you are of a mind to.
By the way, differences in translations of the Bibles, or even the fact that the Catholic Church includes different books in the Old Testament, are completely irrelevant to this discussion. The attempted deflection was fun though, so feel free to throw another one in if you are of a mind to.
It's more than just differences in translation. It's completely different things being said. In 1701 a theologian at Oxford named John Mill published his work Novum Testamentum (actually the full title is much longer but that's how it is commonly referred to). What Mill did was to write the New Testament in Greek which he did on the top half of every page and on the bottom he referenced and recorded all the differences he found when looking at copies of manuscripts. Mill looked at 100 copes of ancient manuscripts of the New Testament (keeping in mind that there are roughly 5,500 copies in Greek in existence) and in just those 100 copes he found 30,000 differences. If you extrapolate that over all 5,500 copies there would be more differences than words in the New Testament as a whole.
As I pointed out earlier, most of them are completely irrelevant but some of them are quite significant indeed. For example in the beginning of Mark (I believe) there is a story about Jesus healing a man on the side of the road. The man asked to be healed and the modern Bible reads that Jesus felt "compassion" and reached out and healed him. But Mill noted that in several of the very early copies it says Jesus felt "angry" with him and reached out and healed him.
This is not a case of someone mis-writing a word by accident (the ancient version of a typo). This is another example of a deliberate change. Either someone changed it from Jesus being compassionate to being angry (which is unlikely) or someone changed it from Jesus being angry to being compassionate. The latter is far more likely because a) the earlier copies say "angry", and b) it's more likely that someone copying the text would say "why would Jesus be angry at a man asking for healing? That doesn't make sense. Let's just switch it around so it more closely resembles the patient, loving Jesus that we think of".
Face it dude....the Bible has been changed...usually by accident but sometimes intentionally. Usually in a manner that is irrelevant, but sometimes in a manner that is significant
