Bill Joey

Actually if you bothered to take a NTI/OTI course or at least read a good academic book on the formation of the OT/NT (Archer, Carson & Moo), then you would understand that the majority of the BEST Manuscripts agree with one another, except primarily in the area of spelling & Grammar. Check out the dead sea scrolls discovered at the caves of Quamran for example.

The insertions in Mark, John, & 1 John do not altar doctrine. Mark 16:9-20 is sound doctrine, and the business about picking up snakes is not to be interpret literally, which is sadly what one apostolic church group does.

1 John 5:7 only reads (father, son, & Holy Ghost in the KJV) and is omitted from the modern translations for some reason. But the KJV is the best translation and the most reliable. The others are not reliable.

Johnny Skeptic

But there is not a necessary correlation between agreement and truth.

There are lots of contradictions and errors in the Bible.

It is very well-established that a global flood did not occur, that the earth in old, and that at least partial evolution has occurred.

Deus Ex

How convenient. Funny how fundamentalists switch to a metaphorical view of the bible when it suits them.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_Johanneum

It is omitted because it is not found in the earliest manuscripts.

steve_bnk

Ok, but so what? None of what you have just posted lends any validity to any superrnatural truths as to god anf JC.


I suggest you take at look at the Oxford translation along with its comentary book. The Oxford translation was commsioned by all major Chritian sects including the RCC. The traslators used all the existing availble documents and scraps for the translation, which I believe is referd to as the NSRV or New Standard Revised Version.

This was done by Chrtians academic scholars. In both the OT and NT there are multiple possible translations that can have profound effects on meaning, inclusidng Paul's comments on homnsexuality.

The commentary is about 1500 pages long and goes through each section in the bible discussing authorship , context of the times, and interpretation problems.

There is also a good discusison of the evolution of the historical conceptual approaches to translation to establish meaning and how each apporoach tends to bias the interpretations.

The only NT writings that seem to have universal acceptance as to authorship is Paul. Most of the others can all be brought into question.

There are discerpanies. One that comes to mind is that references to type of houses in one place in the NT do not match the georaphical area and times rfered to. It is not just grammar discrepanices. In the orginal. or what we have for original documents, there are shades of meaning in the differnt gospels based on the actual words used.

show_no_mercy

Only 1 & 2 Corinthians, Romans, Philemon, 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, and Philippians. The other Pauline epistles are contested, with the near consensus being that 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus are pseudopigraphal.

sourdough

maybe some of these other gods did it
www.godchecker.com
maybe the Universe always existed..

steve_bnk

From where does your biblical knowledge come from?

temporalillusion

Actually if you bothered to look at modern scholarship you would understand that the differences go far beyond spelling and grammar, and get deep into points of doctrine, changes that were made apparently in response to alternative Christologies for example.

And that's not even touching the differences within the books of the NT itself, such as (again) the differing views on the nature of Jesus, or even salvation.

The BC&H forum is a good place to go if you really want to get into textual criticism.

Johnny Skeptic

Possibly the God of Deism or a powerful alien created the earth, or possibly the universe is naturalistic.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to Bill Joey: Please explain how secular history reasonably verifies supernatural history. Many myths mention real people and real places.