Switch89

Here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFDwK5ko7sI

DancesWithCoffeeCups

Could you please summarize what this video is saying? Posting links to videos is not discussion.

Thanks.

Switch89

The video speaks for itself.

The Bible has changed.

Besides, the fact that something changes doesn't necessarily mean that it is less trustworthy than beliefs that are fixed.

That's the jist of the video.

DancesWithCoffeeCups

Moving to BC&H

Toto

"A Brief History of the King James Bible"

The video features a KJV only fundamentalist preacher followed by an unidentified narrator who provides some real history.

But who is he? What are the sources? footnotes?

This is why we don't like argument by youtube.

archaeologist

The proclaimed strength of science, that it keeps on changing, is its greatest weakness. For over 100 year scientists from different decades and eras have proclaimed 'truths' with many trumoping previous 'truths'. This constant change only undermines any confidence one could have in the field of science because they are really saying 'they do not know what the truth is'.

Withthis constant change people get turned off and say 'how do you know this is the truth now? 10 years ago you said this other set of facts were the truth,now you are saying those were lies and thisis the turth. Sorry but don't buy it.'

Truth does not change. God does not change, the Bible has not changed Jesus has not changed. What was true 4,000 years ago, or 2,000 years ago is true today. If it wasn't then we might as well just kill ourselves for then there would be no hope, no heaven , no salvation.

If God or the Bible changed then we could not have confidence in either andthat would be a cruel faith to be part of. So the Bible is true, it does not change because God and His word has not changed.

TNorthover

Changing makes it a bit of a bugger to keep up with what's going on, but when the alternative is to keep believing something that's wrong when new facts come to light I'll take change any day.

In most cases what's replaced has always been known to be an approximation and we're finding better but not perfect approximations. Science isn't something you demand absolute certainty from, but what it provides is far more likely to be accurate than the alternatives (as evidenced by everything from the wheel to computers).

In summary

Kapyong

Gday,

In fact, the Bible has changed plenty -


Mark 16:9-20
The Resurrection Appearances

Most of the earliest witnesses have G.Mark ending at 16:8 - with the empty tomb scene, but no resurrection appearances etc.
Intriguingly, an empty tomb scene was not unknown in other 1st century dramatic writings - e.g. Chariton's novel Chareas and Callirhoe included an empty tomb scene as the climax.

G.Mark ends at 16:8 in the very important early MSS Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, and also in others such as : Latin Codex Bobiensis, the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, and the two oldest Georgian translations and many Armenian manuscripts.

In later versions however, there are several DIFFERENT endings to G.Mark after 16:8 -
* the longer ending (16:9-20 in many Bibles)
* the shorter ending (also found in some study bibles)
* another minor variant of a few verses

In other words -
there are at least FOUR different ways that G.Mark ends.

(Many modern Bibles now indicate this with brackets or a marginal note - go check yours.)

Origen and Clement of Alexandria (early 3rd C.) and Victor of Antioch quote and discuss G.Mark WITHOUT mentioning the appendix. Eusebius (early 4th C.) mentions that most MSS do not have the appendix. Jerome also specifically notes the passage can not be found in most Greek MSS of his time (4th C.) This means Eusebius and Jerome KNEW of the appendix, but noted that it was NOT part of the Bible at that time.

Thus, this is clear and present evidence that the post-resurrection stories were NOT original, but added later, around the 4th-5th century or so.

This helps to explain why the stories in G.Luke and G.Matthew and G.John are so wildly different - they did not have G.Mark to follow, so each made-up a different story. (Scholars agree G.Luke and G.Matt were largely copied from G.Mark.)

The events on Easter Sunday, as described in the four Gospels can NOT be reconciled. It is NOT possible to include all the events from all four Gospels in a coherent sequence - go try it. Not one person has ever succeeded.


Luke 3:22
The words of God at the Baptism

Early MSS and quotes have the same as the Psalm :
"...and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou are my son, this day have I begotten thee"

But later versions have changed it to :
"...and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved son; in thee I am well pleased"

Here we see Christian scribes have CHANGED the very words of God, or the alleged words of God. And we know the reason - it supports the view called Adoptionism - later called a heresy.

In other words, Christian writers had no compunction about changing the supposed words of God himself, at a crucial time in the story. Clearly this does not represent anything real or historical.



1 John 5:7
The Trinity

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. "

This passage is not found in ANY early Greek MSS, and was therefore not included in the original Textus Receptus of Erasmus in the 16th Century.
Erasmus said "I will not include the Comma unless I see a Greek MSS which includes it".
Sure enough, a newly written Greek MSS suddenly "appeared" with this passage, so Erasmus ADDED it to the 2nd edition - how dishonest and errant can you get !


Matthew 6:13
The Lord's Prayer

Early and important MSS (Aleph, B, D, Z, 205, 547) as well as some fathers (Tertullian, Origen, and Cyprian) have :
"And lead us not into temptation, But deliver us from evil"

Other MSS have :
"And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen"

And a few MSS have another version :
"And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, of the father, the son, and the holy spirit for ever. Amen"

A few MSS exclude the words "the power" or "the glory" or "the kingdom".

The Lord's Prayer is one of the more variant parts of the NT.

Now,
this prayer was supposedly taught by Jesus himself.
But
early Christians could not agree what the prayer said !



Mark 1:1
Jesus Christ [Son of God]

Early MSS do not have "son of God".


John 9:35
Son of Man/God

Early MSS have :
"Jesus heard that they had cast him out, and having found him he said, Do you believe in the Son of man?"

Later versions have :
"Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?"



Acts 8:37
JC is the Son of God

"And Phillip said, if thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God"

This passage is missing from all the early MSS.

In other words, the MSS show a consistent pattern of "Son of Man" being changed into "Son of God".




Mark 1:2
As written in [Isaiah]

The early MSS have :
"As it is written in Isaiah the prophet..."

But most later versions have :
"As it is written in the prophets..."

Probably because the quote is NOT really from Isaiah (its composited from Isaiah, Malachai, and Exodus) - the eariest MSS were wrong, so later versions fixed this error by using just "prophets".

Here we see later scribes fixing up an earlier mistake.



Colossians 1:14
Redemption by blood


All early MSS have the shorter :
"in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins"

But later copies have added "through his blood" :
"In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins"

This is an important proof-text for the doctrine of redemption by Chist's blood - but its a later addition.



So what does this show ?

1. The NT was often changed during its history.

2. The changes included some of the most important parts of Christian doctrine :
* the resurrection
* the alleged words of GOD at the Jordan!
* the Lord's Prayer
* the Trinity
etc.

3. The reason the NT was changed was often arguments over doctrine - i.e. different Christian sects fiddled the books to support their sect.


The NT is one of the most editted and errant books you could find.



Kapyong

gdeering

I look forward to Archeologist's response, thank you for the post.

Keith&Co.

Really? But when you take your baby to the hospital when she's dying, do you ask for leeches? Or some cleansing potion using a recipe out of the Old Testament?
Or do you ask for, hope for, demand the latest and greatest 'current thinking' and surgical procedures.
If her life depends on technology that was developed some time after she was born, are you going to reject it because it hasn't stood any sort of test of time, relatively speaking?

I think people bitch about science, but when the chips are down, they pray and they implore the scientists to fix things. Or they just stick with what works and skip the prayers.