Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Warden . . . you do a remarkable and beautiful job of presenting the kind of Christianity that I believe in and follow (with some minor disagreements as you know). But it is impossible to communicate with those who have not studied (or refuse to acknowledge) the extensive evidence in the current field of Bible scholarship. You have amply displayed your knowledge many, many times . . . but the blind believers will simply dismiss it out of hand, as John does here. There is no reasoning with unreasoning credulity, my brother.
Quote:
Originally Posted by john233
No he hasn't, he hasn't provided any evidence yet. Just empty claims of the existence of evidence. Still waiting
Are you at all familiar with the extensive body of knowledge on Bible scholarship or not? If you are not . . . there is no chance that you can be educated sufficiently through posts on this forum.
Are you at all familiar with the extensive body of knowledge on Bible scholarship or not? If you are not . . . there is no chance that you can be educated sufficiently through posts on this forum. It would seem so, my friend.
Once again, you insult my intelligence instead of supporting your position with evidence.
-------Go ahead and verify or disprove the claims made in these documents. I already have------
Introduction
Many skeptics believe that the Bible has been drastically changed over the centuries. In reality, the Bible has been translated into a number of different languages (first Latin, then English and other languages, see History of the Bible). However, the ancient manuscripts (written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek) have been reliably copied over the centuries - with very few alterations.
Old Testament
How do we know the Bible has been kept in tact for over 2,000 years of copying? Before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, our earliest Hebrew copy of the Old Testament was the Masoretic text, dating around 800 A.D. The Dead Sea Scrolls date to the time of Jesus and were copied by the Qumran community, a Jewish sect living around the Dead Sea. We also have the Septuagint which is a Greek translation of the Old Testament dating in the second century B.C. When we compare these texts which have an 800-1000 years gap between them we are amazed that 95% of the texts are identical with only minor variations and a few discrepancies.
New Testament
Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the GospelsThere are tens of thousands of manuscripts from the New Testament, in part or in whole, dating from the second century A.D. to the late fifteenth century, when the printing press was invented. These manuscripts have been found in Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Turkey, Greece, and Italy, making collusion unlikely. The oldest manuscript, the John Rylands manuscript, has been dated to 125 A.D. and was found in Egypt, some distance from where the New Testament was originally composed in Asia Minor. Many early Christian papyri, discovered in 1935, have been dated to 150 A.D., and include the four gospels. The Papyrus Bodmer II, discovered in 1956, has been dated to 200 A.D., and contains 14 chapters and portions of the last seven chapters of the gospel of John. The Chester Beatty biblical papyri, discovered in 1931, has been dated to 200-250 A.D. and contains the Gospels, Acts, Paul's Epistles, and Revelation. The number of manuscripts is extensive compared to other ancient historical writings, such as Caesar's "Gallic Wars" (10 Greek manuscripts, the earliest 950 years after the original), the "Annals" of Tacitus (2 manuscripts, the earliest 950 years after the original), Livy (20 manuscripts, the earliest 350 years after the original), and Plato (7 manuscripts).
Manuscript Evidence for Ancient Writings
Author Written Earliest Copy Time Span # Mss.
Caesar 100-44 B.C. 900 A.D. 1,000 yrs 10
Plato 427-347 B.C. 900 A.D. 1,200 yrs 7
Thucydides 460-400 B.C. 900 A.D. 1,300 yrs 8
Tacitus 100 A.D. 1100 A.D. 1,000 yrs 20
Suetonius 75-160 A.D. 950 A.D. 800 yrs 8
Homer (Iliad) 900 B.C. 400 B.C. 500 yrs 643
New Testament 40-100 A.D. 125 A.D. 25-50 yrs 24,000
Thousands of early Christian writings and lexionaries (first and second century) cite verses from the New Testament. In fact, it is nearly possible to put together the entire New Testament just from early Christian writings. For example, the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (dated 95 A.D.) cites verses from the Gospels, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Titus, Hebrews, and 1 Peter. The letters of Ignatius (dated 115 A.D.) were written to several churches in Asia Minor and cites verses from Matthew, John, Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus. These letters indicate that the entire New Testament was written in the first century A.D. In addition, there is internal evidence for a first century date for the writing of the New Testament. The book of Acts ends abruptly with Paul in prison, awaiting trial (Acts 28:30-31 (1)). It is likely that Luke wrote Acts during this time, before Paul finally appeared before Nero. This would be about 62-63 A.D., meaning that Acts and Luke were written within thirty years of ministry and death of Jesus. Another internal evidence is that there is no mention of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Although Matthew, Mark and Luke record Jesus' prophecy that the temple and city would be destroyed within that generation (Matthew 24:1-2 (2),Mark 13:1-2 (3), Luke 21:5-9,20-24,32(4)), no New Testament book refers to this event as having happened. If they had been written after 70 A.D., it is likely that letters written after 70 A.D. would have mentioned the fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy. As stated by Nelson Glueck, former president of the Jewish Theological Seminary in the Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati, and renowned Jewish archaeologist, "In my opinion, every book of the New Testament was written between the forties and eighties of the first century A.D."
Conclusion
With all of the massive manuscript evidence you would think there would be massive discrepancies - just the opposite is true. New Testament manuscripts agree in 99.5% (5) of the text (compared to only 95% for the Iliad). Most of the discrepancies are in spelling and word order. A few words have been changed or added. There are two passages that are disputed but no discrepancy is of any doctrinal significance (i.e., none would alter basic Christian doctrine). Most Bibles include the options as footnotes when there are discrepancies. How could there be such accuracy over a period of 1,400 years of copying? Two reasons: The scribes that did the copying had meticulous methods for checking their copies for errors. 2) The Holy Spirit made sure we would have an accurate copy of God's word so we would not be deceived. The Mormons, theological liberals as well as other cults and false religions such as Islam that claim the Bible has been tampered with are completely proven false by the extensive, historical manuscript evidence.
It's important to understand something about the origins of the Bible. The authors of the various books within it did not sit down to write "The Bible". They intended to write stuff that would be helpful to other people for various reasons: in the case of the Gospels, so people would know the true story of Jesus' life and teachings, and for the letters to instruct the recipients in Christianity. These documents were not collected to form the Biblical Canon until much later, around 400AD.
It is certainly true that there exist manuscripts of New Testament documents (primarily the Gospels and Acts) which show variations. Some either have or have not certain passages: some use slightly different wording. However it is important to note that the vast majority of these 'differences' come from before the period where the documents were collected into 'The Bible'. These differences make a lot of sense. If you have a document that describes the life of Jesus, and you also know of a story that you are certain is true about Jesus, you might well add it in. Of course if people disagreed with you about the validity of the story they would not copy your document.
Once the Biblical canon has been more-or-less defined the variations become much less - again unsurprising, since making changes to the Word of God is a much more serious matter than to a 'true story'. Such differences as exist are likely copying errors.
So TL;DR : No, the Bible has actually changed very little since it became The Bible. Before that there were different manuscripts with some differences, but in reality not a lot of variation.
We know the New Testament we have today is true to its original form because:
1. We have such a huge number of manuscript copies -- over 24,000.
2. Those copies agree with each other, word for word, 99.5% of the time.
3. The dates of these manuscripts are very close to the dates of their originals
* Ancient history supports the Bible's accuracy as a historical record.
* The Gospels provide multiple reliable accounts of Jesus' life.
* Archaeology backs up the Biblical account.
* Textual scholarship confirms that the books of the Bible have not changed since they were first written.
When one compares the text of one manuscript with another, the match is amazing. Sometimes the spelling may vary, or words may be transposed, but that is of little consequence. Concerning word order, Bruce M. Metzger, professor emeritus at Princeton Theological Seminary, explains: "It makes a whale of a difference in English if you say, 'Dog bites man' or 'Man bites dog' -- sequence matters in English. But in Greek it doesn't. One word functions as the subject of the sentence regardless of where it stands in the sequence."
Dr. Ravi Zacharias, a visiting professor at Oxford University, also comments: "In real terms, the New Testament is easily the best attested ancient writing in terms of the sheer number of documents, the time span between the events and the documents, and the variety of documents available to sustain or contradict it. There is nothing in ancient manuscript evidence to match such textual availability and integrity."
The New Testament is humanity's most reliable ancient document. Its textual integrity is more certain than that of Plato's writings or Homer's Iliad.
The Old Testament has also been remarkably well preserved. Our modern translations are confirmed by a huge number of ancient manuscripts in both Hebrew and Greek, including the mid-20th century discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. These scrolls hold the oldest existing fragments of almost all of the Old Testament books, dating from 150 B.C. The similarity of the Dead Sea manuscripts to hand copies made even 1,000 years later is proof of the care the ancient Hebrew scribes took in copying their scriptures.
Mystic phd going to have to scratch out all the parts of the Bible that
mention Satan, demons, or evil as a force apart from the "silly notions"
of human beings - whatever's left is Mystic phd's "Bible".
According to 2 Timothy 3:16, all scripture is God-breathed, meaning that God is the sole initiator, inspiration and driving force behind it. Therefore, either we believe that the Bible is the infallible Word of God, or our faith has no basis. No verses have yet been added or removed that change the meaning of the text; whether or not it falls under the purview of Deuteronomy 4:2 & 12:32 and Proverbs 30:6 is another matter entirely. I believe it does, but I also believe that if God has allowed it into the Word that He promises is God-breathed, there's a reason for that.
Mystic phd going to have to scratch out all the parts of the Bible that
mention Satan, demons, or evil as a force apart from the "silly notions"
of human beings - whatever's left is Mystic phd's "Bible".
Don't forget all the OT and all the writings of Paul and Revelation.
Oh and don't actually read what Jesus said. Just try to get a basic "feeling" from His words and conform them to what you want "love" to mean
I'm familiar with your idea of "Bible scholarship".
There have been thousands of Biblical scholars so it would be helpful if you could be a little more specific
I'm familiar with your idea of "Bible scholarship".
There have been thousands of Biblical scholars so it would be helpful if you could be a little more specific
That would be a 'No' then. My idea of Bible scholarship is academic scholarship unburdened by church doctrine or dogma.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It would seem so, my friend.
