Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

How The Bible Has Changed Over The Past 2000 Years


Fweethawt

Recommended Posts

http://www.businessinsider.in/How-the-Bible-has-changed-over-the-past-2000-years/articleshow/49793234.cms

 

The Bible is the most widely-read book in the history of the world, far outselling any other book, with 3.9 billion copies sold over the last 50 years. Many believe it contains the actual word of God.

 

But many people don't realize that over the past two thousand years, this sacred text has changed a great deal. No 'first edition' exists. What we have are copies, the first of which were made hundreds of years after the events supposedly took place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

Yep, this is one of the primary things that started me on the road to atheism. It has been changed, chopped, its authors unknown, and contains contradictory portions and bullshit stories.

 

Now if it was inspired by the same god that can 'fine tune' the universe to contain life, the chances of which happening randomly are 1 in 10^390 then it must be intentionally deceitful. Because a god capable of fine tuning said universe, with all the constants required, is certainly capable of ensuring a bible is copied and translated correctly down through the ages.

 

The five books of Moses: sorry folks not written by Moses.

The Gospels written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, actually weren't written by them, the authors are unknown, they were written around 60-90 CE, (So at least 30 years after Christ) and the first three are progressive copies starting with Mark. John is an obvious theological one, and at times they disagree with each other, or relay the same story differently.

The bible was gradually put together to suit a political need and only with books that matched a common theme line. Revelations, the weird book of the bible wasn't included until around 300 CE

 

And the surface of whats wrong with the bible hasn't been scratched.

 

I'm interested to hear Christians defending this.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about those butthurt Christians in the comment section? How much heed should one give them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember, too, that millions upon millions of Christards believe in a bible that was compiled and declared authoritative by people that they wouldn't even consider fellow Christards.

 

The average so-called Protestant these days has so little in common, theologically speaking, with the Christians who compiled and approved the bible that they might as well have two totally different religions that formed around a couple of shared mythological stories.

 

Also bear in mind that the same authorities who issued the bible are the ones who declared, totally unbiblically and on their own authority alone, that the Christian day of worship was Sunday and not Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath and the day that Jesus himself recognized as the correct day of rest and worship.

 

It's almost like there are people who have moved into an ancient castle and not only have declared themselves (the protestants) the new kings, they have declared themselves to be the ACTUAL descendants of a royal line that, in reality, they don't even belong to at all.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember, too, that millions upon millions of Christards believe in a bible that was compiled and declared authoritative by people that they wouldn't even consider fellow Christards.

 

The average so-called Protestant these days has so little in common, theologically speaking, with the Christians who compiled and approved the bible that they might as well have two totally different religions that formed around a couple of shared mythological stories.

 

Also bear in mind that the same authorities who issued the bible are the ones who declared, totally unbiblically and on their own authority alone, that the Christian day of worship was Sunday and not Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath and the day that Jesus himself recognized as the correct day of rest and worship.

 

It's almost like there are people who have moved into an ancient castle and not only have declared themselves (the protestants) the new kings, they have declared themselves to be the ACTUAL descendants of a royal line that, in reality, they don't even belong to at all.

 

One of the many reasons many Jews hate Christianity. They see it (and perhaps they should at that?) as an intrusion and appropriation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing new presented in the video. These errors or changes have been known for centuries. It is no surprise that handwritten copies of books (especially before the printing press) can contain errors so the study of the biblical manuscripts is important. The science of textual criticism attempts to reconstruct the original text of books.

 

Professor Bill Warren is mentioned in the video posted so I thought I would share the following on a project he and others have been working on for several years.

 

http://www.nola.com/religion/index.ssf/2011/03/changes_to_the_bible_through_the_ages_are_being_studied_by_new_orleans_scholars.html (entire article)

 

A few paragraphs:

 

Working in a cluster of offices above the LifeWay Bookstore in Gentilly, Bible scholars are buried in a 20-year project to codify the thousands of changes, verse by verse, word by word — even letter by letter — that crept into the early New Testament during hundreds of years of laborious hand-copying.

 

The first phase of the researchers’ work is done. They have documented thousands of creeping changes, down to an extraneous Greek letter, across hundreds of early manuscripts from the 2nd through 15th centuries, said Bill Warren, the New Testament scholar who leads the project at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary.

 

After 10 years of work and the interruption of Hurricane Katrina, the seminary’s Center for New Testament Textual Studies has logged those changes, amounting to 17,000 pages of highly technical notes, all in Greek, into a searchable Internet database for use by Scripture scholars worldwide.

Changes are long studied

 

All of those early changes are well known, and have been for hundreds of years.

Indeed, many study Bibles point readers to scores of changes in italicized footnotes at the bottom of what sometimes seems like every page.

 

But nowhere have so many changes from hundreds of manuscripts, down to the letter, been collated in a single place and made searchable for scholars and serious students, verse by verse, through two commercial Bible software products, Accordance Bible Software and Bibleworks, Warren said.

 

Nor is there an Internet tool like the one being constructed now in the second phase of the project: the deep history of substantive textual changes and the meanings behind them, rendered in one place, in English, for pastors and amateur Bible scholars, he said.

The New Testament center this fall will publish on its own website its catalogue on substantive textual changes in two Epistles, Philippians and 1 Peter. Warren said the center hopes to get Luke online by the end of the year.

 

Beyond that, Warren estimates there’s 10 more years of work to do on the rest of the New Testament.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would the book containing the most important message of all time be subject to the same flaws as every other book throughout history? Why did it have to be orally transmitted for centuries before parts of it were written down? Why did a council of old men have to decide on its canon law? Why would a book containing, by your own words, "a simple message", need studying? Questions, questions, questions... and no answer in sight! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So omnipotence means what ironhorse? Sure humans fuck up but, the amount of changes and issues should make one wonder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

Nothing new presented in the video. These errors or changes have been known for centuries. It is no surprise that handwritten copies of books (especially before the printing press) can contain errors so the study of the biblical manuscripts is important. The science of textual criticism attempts to reconstruct the original text of books.

 

 

Beyond that, Warren estimates there’s 10 more years of work to do on the rest of the New Testament.

Damn, 10 years!?? Well I hope God doesn't decide to return in that time because the work will be unfinished... gahh they've been working on the bible for 2000 years. What's 10 more?

 

Seriously though, IH you just brush off these errors as if they don't matter. When you go back and study these errors, and original meanings, entire verses change context. You don't think this is important? Add to that all the books left out of the Bible, BUT referred to in the Bible (The Book of Enoch for instance in Jude's letter, as well as references in Genesis, not to mention the Book of Jubilees) I'd say you have a wholly unsound basis for declaring that this is God's Holy inerrant word, and you know what, the Muslims know this. They are correct when they point out all the errors and say the Quran doesn't contain such discrepancies and inconsistencies. And they are right!

 

Now think, God, maker of all that is, who can fine tune the constants of the universe to magnitudes beyond random chance, cannot ensure that for 3,000 years his Holy Book is perfect. Maybe, he wanted it so because it has to be by revelation? If so he must be trying to dupe those of us who actually critically think about things!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IH to the rescue!

Whew! That was a close one. I almost thought the bible wasn't actually the inerrant word of god but now I know it's all ok.

These little "problems" have been known for a long time, so obviously they aren't really a problem anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

God is speaking! The book I ordered "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart Ehrman, has just arrived on my desk! It's a sign!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Dr. Robert M. Price, as well as some other religious historians are correct, the writers didn't think they were writing scripture. And they were not recording history, they were writing fictional stories that were only intended to convey how they experienced God.

 

If Dr. Price is correct then the Gospel story is actually Jewish midrash. The tradition of midrash is to take stories out of scripture and rewrite them and create a new story. An example of midrash would be the Garden of Eden Story found in Genesis. The original Garden of Eden story is found in Ezekiel 28: 9-19. The Genesis version of the Garden of Eden was a midrash rewrite of the story found in Ezekiel.

 

If Price is correct then the Epistles were written by Marcion of Sinope a Gnostic, using the name Paul of Tarsus. If that is true then Marcion is the creator of Christianity. The Pastoral letters, if Price is correct, were written my Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna, an enemy of Marcion. Polycarp favored orthodoxy which evolved into the Catholic Church. Polycarp's writing were intended to rebuke Marcion and his Gnostic beliefs.

 

Price has written two books that deal with this topic. The Christ Myth and It's Problems & The Human Bible NT

Price holds PHD's in both the Old and New Testaments.

 

In any event there is a significant amount of evidence that shows the bible stories are not historically accurate & is also clearly not literally true. It's a collections of stories that were intended to record how the writers experienced & worshipped their God. If historians are correct then the bible is neither literally true or historically accurate. It is more than likely a collection of myths, legends, and folk lore.

 

Interestingly enough liberal Christians realize this and don't take the bible too seriously. They tend to interpret the stories as metaphors and allegorical stories. Christian fundamentalists are the ones that believe the Bible is supernaturally inspired and inerrant, but there is no proof that either of those beliefs are true. That is why fundamentalists rely so heavily on faith because there is no proof to support their "beliefs".

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing new presented in the video. These errors or changes have been known for centuries. It is no surprise that handwritten copies of books (especially before the printing press) can contain errors so the study of the biblical manuscripts is important. The science of textual criticism attempts to reconstruct the original text of books.

 

Professor Bill Warren is mentioned in the video posted so I thought I would share the following on a project he and others have been working on for several years.

 

http://www.nola.com/religion/index.ssf/2011/03/changes_to_the_bible_through_the_ages_are_being_studied_by_new_orleans_scholars.html (entire article)

 

A few paragraphs:

 

Working in a cluster of offices above the LifeWay Bookstore in Gentilly, Bible scholars are buried in a 20-year project to codify the thousands of changes, verse by verse, word by word — even letter by letter — that crept into the early New Testament during hundreds of years of laborious hand-copying.

 

The first phase of the researchers’ work is done. They have documented thousands of creeping changes, down to an extraneous Greek letter, across hundreds of early manuscripts from the 2nd through 15th centuries, said Bill Warren, the New Testament scholar who leads the project at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary.

 

After 10 years of work and the interruption of Hurricane Katrina, the seminary’s Center for New Testament Textual Studies has logged those changes, amounting to 17,000 pages of highly technical notes, all in Greek, into a searchable Internet database for use by Scripture scholars worldwide.

Changes are long studied

 

All of those early changes are well known, and have been for hundreds of years.

Indeed, many study Bibles point readers to scores of changes in italicized footnotes at the bottom of what sometimes seems like every page.

 

But nowhere have so many changes from hundreds of manuscripts, down to the letter, been collated in a single place and made searchable for scholars and serious students, verse by verse, through two commercial Bible software products, Accordance Bible Software and Bibleworks, Warren said.

 

Nor is there an Internet tool like the one being constructed now in the second phase of the project: the deep history of substantive textual changes and the meanings behind them, rendered in one place, in English, for pastors and amateur Bible scholars, he said.

The New Testament center this fall will publish on its own website its catalogue on substantive textual changes in two Epistles, Philippians and 1 Peter. Warren said the center hopes to get Luke online by the end of the year.

 

Beyond that, Warren estimates there’s 10 more years of work to do on the rest of the New Testament.

 

It matters very little how much the Bible has changed over 2,000 years or how much work Warren et al have done, are doing or will do.

 

Genesis 1 : 1 fails and always did.

 

When taken together, four things (two principles of cosmology, inflationary theory and math) see to that.

 

Thus Christianity is decapitated - without any need to go on to the next verse, let alone deal with changes, contradictions, errors, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In any event there is a significant amount of evidence that shows the bible stories are not historically accurate & is also clearly not literally true. It's a collections of stories that were intended to record how the writers experienced & worshipped their God. If historians are correct then the bible is neither literally true or historically accurate. It is more than likely a collection of myths, legends, and folk lore.

 

Interestingly enough liberal Christians realize this and don't take the bible too seriously. They tend to interpret the stories as metaphors and allegorical stories. Christian fundamentalists are the ones that believe the Bible is supernaturally inspired and inerrant, but there is no proof that either of those beliefs are true. That is why fundamentalists rely so heavily on faith because there is no proof to support their "beliefs".

 

Fundies would of course claim that the symbolic approach is a sign of degeneracy, heresy and luke-warm faith, but really, what kind of faith demands more effort on the part of the believer? A heads-on literalist approach or someone who actually tries to think things through? Where's the "Mystery" in a literalist approach apart from the mere confusion such an attitude creates? Fundies always have a nice convenient cop-out as well: "Take it on faith". Wow, that requires so much effort! 

 

Many other religions are not nearly as focused on historicity and literalism as Christianity (or Islam for that matter) is, and that doesn't seem to bother them at all. On the contrary. You'd be hard pressed to find a modern Hindu who believes the Baghavad Gita literally, but that doesn't mean they can't be inspired by the philosophy presented in that work. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Bible is a result of the longest running game of "Telephone".

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

Just a few minor discrepancies... like mistranslating the word for "young girl" with the word for "virgin".  Nothing major.  Certainly nothing that would change the meaning of the story or any of the major doctrines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

Oh come come, TRP, trifling stuff, You obviously don't have the revelation. God's word is living and revealed in us. *cough*

 

We won't mention that his name was supposed to be "Immanuel". I get a crack out of reading this:

 

Isiah 7:14

 

14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

 

Matthew Chapter 1

 

20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lordappeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.

22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,

23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.

 

Well stuff me britches - can't the Lord decide what his name should be??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LF: Regarding that particular passage, I think one should let it pass. Immanuel, meaning "God is with us", could simply be interpreted as a descriptive title. After all, Jesus was God Incarnate "walking among us" according to scripture. 

 

I mean, sure, it's obvious they were trying to shoe-horn the whole Jesus-story into the old Isaiah prophecy, but the way it's stated in Matthew... well, I don't think they were so confused that they gave the Messiah two different names in the span of a few verses. I think they were trying to make a point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

Oh totally rjn. The point is that combined with the translation of virgin, it shows they were shoehorning it in.

 

I get it that you can say, well the original prophesy was also referring to a tile/role, not an actual name, but it still seems so contrived.

 

However, if you look at the wording, its not he shall be called Immanuel, its his NAME shall be called Immanuel.

 

But yes, when talking with Christians there are better points to bring up. smile.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair, inerrancy is a doctrine which is common to primarily those of the Fundamentalist Christians, and there are many Christians who have a different view than Verbal Plenary Inspiration. 

 

I do think that the anonymity of the NT authors, as well as the confirmation of MANY interpolations and pseudopigraphas (false authorship such as Pastoral Epistles), is fatal to faith in Christianity.  Not a single "truth" about Christianity can be asserted without a mountain of objections and problems, once you become aware of them. 

 

Also one of the main reasons that led me to start doubting my faith, as I delved deep into Koine Greek as well as studying the manuscripts and codices from which the New Testament was constructed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is my understanding that the bible that we have now was organized and created in such a way as to refute the role and influence that the Marcionites were having in the Christian World at the time. Apparently the influence that Marcion had was grating on those that didn't see it his way and so they rushed to create the canon that we all know and love *cough cough*. I can't source this, but I believe that is what I have heard from the scholars I have spent time listening to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

Look up the user "jesusneverexisted" on youtube, or go to http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/

 

There is a range of info and he delves into the religious fights, bother Christianity vs existing competing religions in the area, and Christian vs Christian.

 

Note I don't necessarily hold his view, but I find it interesting, and helps explain a lot of stuff.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Post #6:

 

Nothing new presented in the video. These errors or changes have been known for centuries. It is no surprise that handwritten copies of books (especially before the printing press) can contain errors so the study of the biblical manuscripts is important. The science of textual criticism attempts to re......ates there’s 10 more years of work to do on the rest of the New Testament. 

 

IH I find things very interesting that you of all our posters would admit that research allows for finding of much error introduced into a supposed wholly true document.

 

kL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Post #6:

 

Nothing new presented in the video. These errors or changes have been known for centuries. It is no surprise that handwritten copies of books (especially before the printing press) can contain errors so the study of the biblical manuscripts is important. The science of textual criticism attempts to re......ates there’s 10 more years of work to do on the rest of the New Testament. 

 

IH I find things very interesting that you of all our posters would admit that research allows for finding of much error introduced into a supposed wholly true document.

 

kL

 

Let's just say consistency isn't his forte. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Post #6:

 

Nothing new presented in the video. These errors or changes have been known for centuries. It is no surprise that handwritten copies of books (especially before the printing press) can contain errors so the study of the biblical manuscripts is important. The science of textual criticism attempts to re......ates there’s 10 more years of work to do on the rest of the New Testament. 

 

IH I find things very interesting that you of all our posters would admit that research allows for finding of much error introduced into a supposed wholly true document.

 

kL

 

 

The alleged errors are of no consequence. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.