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.
This is a compilation and distribution of the oldest bible surviving today. However the bibles that we use come from contemporary and even older versions then Sinaticus. So, it does not make this bible the authority to all others because it is the oldest known surviving text. It is a good reference but that is it.
This is a compilation and distribution of the oldest bible surviving today. However the bibles that we use come from contemporary and even older versions then Sinaticus. So, it does not make this bible the authority to all others because it is the oldest known surviving text. It is a good reference but that is it.
Hehehe. The Christers are already scared and covering their eyes, as you can tell in Nikk's post above.. because this Bible sheds some truth about how the Bible they believ to be the "inerrant" word of god has been edited, with material added and omitted as the powers that be saw fit.
Mr Ehrman was a born again Bible-believing Evangelical until he read the original Greek texts and noticed some discrepancies.
The Bible we now use can't be the inerrant word of God, he says, since what we have are the sometimes mistaken words copied by fallible scribes.
"When people ask me if the Bible is the word of God I answer 'which Bible?'"
The Codex - and other early manuscripts - omit some mentions of ascension of Jesus into heaven, and key references to the Resurrection, which the Archbishop of Canterbury has said is essential for Christian belief.
Other differences concern how Jesus behaved. In one passage of the Codex, Jesus is said to be "angry" as he healed a leper, whereas the modern text records him as healing with "compassion".
Also missing is the story of the woman taken in adultery and about to be stoned - until Jesus rebuked the Pharisees (a Jewish sect), inviting anyone without sin to cast the first stone.
Nor are there words of forgiveness from the cross. Jesus does not say "Father forgive them for they know not what they do".
Fundamentalists, who believe every word in the Bible is true, may find these differences unsettling.
Many Christians have long accepted that, while the Bible is the authoritative word of God, it is not inerrant. Human hands always make mistakes. "It should be regarded as a living text, something constantly changing as generation and generation tries to understand the mind of God," says David Parker, a Christian working on digitising the Codex.
Others may take it as more evidence that the Bible is the word of man, not God.
So that makes this the oldest existing selected, edited and compiled version?
If so, doesn't that make this one the "most" definitive Bible possible with current knowledge and technology?
And thus, should it not then be considered the closest thing to the actual word of God?
This assumes, of course, that believers believe the Editors of the Bible were as equally inspired and guided as the Authors.
Thats what I was thinking, if this is the earliest, then it should be considered the closest thing to his word. I do not understand how it could not be.
This is a very good source but not the only one. As has already been stated the number of ancient copies of biblical texts and the closeness in time to when they were already written means that the Bible is by far the best attested and transmitted work of ancient literature.
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.