Bible Clearly Admits It's Own Revision And Errors

[RHEMtron]

christians claim that the bible contains no errors, inconsistencies, or revisions. ive noticed that newer bibles contain margins to help reference parallels, prophecies, etc. etc. etc., while the older bible dont. i bet if the bibles of old were written with margins, fundamentalist thinking might have come out differently.

 

have any of you guys ever read the margins in the bible? for example: matthew 1:23 in newer bibles reads matthew 1:"23a". if you read the margin, it'll give a reference "23a: Is 7:14." of course we all know this is the prophecy of the "virgin birth." one would then turn to read Isaiah 7:14 and the versus before and after 14, and would realize that it wasnt a prophecy for jesus at all.

 

another example is [my favorite because it's a crushing blow to the very fundamentals of christianity] mark 16:9-20. i noticed one day that verses 9-20 were in parenthesis. i look in the margins and it says CLEARLY RIGHT THERE IN THE BIBLE, "Versus 9-20 later added."

 

but of course christians arent taught to think for themselves. ive ask many of my christian friends and they dont look at the margins at all.

[HuaiDan]

Thanks, interesting. But now I have to task myself with looking up the exact text of the verses you cited.

[RHEMtron]

no prob... look it up. youll see for yourself.

 

i also wanted to add another one i just found right now. this is what is in the new bible:

psalms 146:2 i will praise the lord awhile i live; i will bsing praises to my god while i have my being.

psalms 146:3 do not trust princes, in 1mortal bman, in whom there is no salvation.

 

if you look in the margins for 146:31 it says that the original translation is "son of man." so orginally the verse says "do not trust princes, in SON OF MAN, in whom there is NO SALVATION."

 

hmmmmmmm wonder why they changed what it originally said....

[RHEMtron]

wow i just found another one. too lazy to quote the exact words, but the "OUR FATHER" prayer that we all know so damn well, it says in the margins that the part of the kingdom, the power, and glory are yours blah blah blah were all later added as well.

 

i ish you not!! the bible actually says this!!!

[white_raven23]

Thanks, interesting. But now I have to task myself with looking up the exact text of the verses you cited.

 

 

Let me share something. Put it in your favorites for easy quick-draw capability.

 

http://www.biblegateway.com/

 

Tons of Versions available. Version comparison alone in enough to make you seriously doubt there is really One Bible when the meaning of a single verse varies from slight to MAJOR context differences depending on which version you are looking at.

[HuaiDan]

Oh I know plenty of online bibles I could check. But it's such an inconvenience when it's so easy to copy and paste the relevent verses here.

[SkepticOfBible]

Thanks, interesting. But now I have to task myself with looking up the exact text of the verses you cited.

You can look it in Biblegateway.com. It gives all the footnotes like this verse is not there in older manuscripts

[HuaiDan]

Yeah, but I'm just lazy and don't want to look it up. I just think it's appropriate that, if you want to make a point about certain bible verses, you should include the text of those bible verses.

[Anakin]

another example is [my favorite because it's a crushing blow to the very fundamentals of christianity] mark 16:9-20. i noticed one day that verses 9-20 were in parenthesis. i look in the margins and it says CLEARLY RIGHT THERE IN THE BIBLE, "Versus 9-20 later added."

That's one of my favs also. My bible states is like this: "The most reliable early manuscripts

and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20". It also says the same thing

about John 7:53-8:11. That statement instantly invalidates both Mark and John and in my

opinion the whole buybull.

[RHEMtron]

It also says the same thing about John 7:53-8:11. That statement instantly invalidates both Mark and John and in my opinion the whole buybull.

 

all i have to say is.... AAAAAAAMEN hahahaha.

 

insteresting reasoning skills applied at an apologetic website:

Is Mark 16:9-20 part of God's Holy Word?

One final comment: I do think that it is significant to mention that Mark 16:9-20 is an unusual case. There is only one other major passage that I know of (John 7:53-8:11) that has questions about original authorship. That is very unusual when dealing with ancient writings and I think speaks wonderfully about the way that God has preserved His Word for all people down through many centuries. This is not a debate that should bother a new believer or lead them to question the Bible. It is a debate that is unique among Bible scholars and shows the wonderful care that God has shown to give us His inerrant Word.

[duderonomy]

You sillies,

 

Any good Fundie could answer to that.

No one claims that the footnotes are inspired!

Most Bibles have footnotes, margins, introductions, maps, etc. etc. Only the Inspired Word of God, those blessed Oracles of God in the midst of man's revisions and opinions rings true! Only That Book, That Book that Grandma read at the table...That Book, that your mama clung to, only That Book will Save Your Soul! The 'Margins' of 'Scholars' Won't Ring True, nor Will The Small Ramblings Of A Few Demented Souls Twisted By Their Own Weak Minds, BUT The Word Of GOD IS TRUE! AND THY WORD, OH LORD! WILL STAND FOREVER!!

 

Now...are you going to trust your Eternal Soul and the Souls of your Families on the opinions of men, or the Word...of...God?

 

 

Reminds me of a comic I saw on TV a while back. He said he took a trip to the Holy Land and got lost. It seems, he figured out, that you aren't supposed to go by the maps in the Bible! Or something like that.

[chefranden]

no prob... look it up. youll see for yourself.

 

i also wanted to add another one i just found right now. this is what is in the new bible:

psalms 146:2 i will praise the lord awhile i live; i will bsing praises to my god while i have my being.

psalms 146:3 do not trust princes, in 1mortal bman, in whom there is no salvation.

 

if you look in the margins for 146:31 it says that the original translation is "son of man." so orginally the verse says "do not trust princes, in SON OF MAN, in whom there is NO SALVATION."

 

hmmmmmmm wonder why they changed what it originally said....

 

 

Thanks. That is one I've missed

[kal-el]

christians claim that the bible contains no errors, inconsistencies, or revisions.

 

Actually, that's just the hardcore funamentalists that do that. I know of a couple Christians that firmly hold the doctrine of evolution to be true, and see the bible as something more metaphorically.

 

 

ive noticed that newer bibles contain margins to help reference parallels, prophecies, etc. etc. etc., while the older bible dont. i bet if the bibles of old were written with margins, fundamentalist thinking might have come out differently.

 

I highly doubt it, You ever engage in an argument with a fundie? Ha, ususally they're last post loones, and no matter how stupid they come off, you have to let them get the last word. They admit no errors in the bible, even if it's explicitly clear. Here's some examples I've encountered:

 

Some Fundie wrote:

Demon possesion can cause illness

 

Yet another Fundie wrote:

The bible is the most trustworthy historical document ever written

 

These fundies asserted that the Christian God exists, but not Allah. I retorted by saying it's a bit like saying Superman exists, but Wonderwoman and Aquaman are just stories.

 

 

have any of you guys ever read the margins in the bible? for example: matthew 1:23 in newer bibles reads matthew 1:"23a". if you read the margin, it'll give a reference "23a: Is 7:14." of course we all know this is the prophecy of the "virgin birth." one would then turn to read Isaiah 7:14 and the versus before and after 14, and would realize that it wasnt a prophecy for jesus at all.

 

another example is [my favorite because it's a crushing blow to the very fundamentals of christianity] mark 16:9-20. i noticed one day that verses 9-20 were in parenthesis. i look in the margins and it says CLEARLY RIGHT THERE IN THE BIBLE, "Versus 9-20 later added."

 

but of course christians arent taught to think for themselves. ive ask many of my christian friends and they dont look at the margins at all.

 

Yea, most die-hard Christians I'm guessing do not look at the margins. That's where they error. The margins can explain the text, so it might explain to them the error in their thinking, doubtful? Instead, they choose to rely on blind faith, abandonement of logic and questioning.

[RHEMtron]

The margins can explain the text, so it might explain to them the error in their thinking, doubtful? Instead, they choose to rely on blind faith, abandonement of logic and questioning.

 

oh yeah no doubt. i honestly dont think theyll change their views even if they read the bible margins. like we said in another thread, people suffer from cognitive dissonance.