Jake M

Misquoting Jesus

There now seems to be pretty hard historical evidence and records that the bible people of today follow, has been altered many times over and over and it is different from how it originally was

The story of the Prostitute who was to be stoned, but then saved by Jesus you said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone", is proven to have been added later

Koester notes:

Bart Ehrman Interview on "Misquoting Jesus"
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?doc...42705583524501

Bart Ehrman's 'Misquoting Jesus', with audio interview-
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=5052156

The book of Bart-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...030401369.html



Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are very ancient manuscripts that were not found until after the KJV was already written, so they are older and more original. They are considred to show just how much a bible can change over time.

Some modern interpretations of scripture that are supposed to be able to objectably be proven false-

1. The story of the woman who was to be stoned

2. Modern understanding of the meaning of the trinity, basically the trinity itself isn't in the bible

3. Nazareth is a bad translation of Nazarene/Essene

4. Mary Magdalene being a prostitue and not head disciple of Jesus

5. Ressurection was added later

6. Virgin Mary is a bad translation of Young Maiden Mary.

No Robots

Wrong. For a detailed examination of this question, see this website.

Toto

That website is by an ideologue who has been banned from the forum (to the general relief of all). It does not represent good scholarship.

But "proven" is probably too strong a word.

burning flames

Im reading the book. doesnt look like any of the main tenants of the gospels are poorly translated, however...

Craigart14

Well, there is that bit about the virgin birth, most likely resulting from the mistranslation of the Hebrew "almah" (sp?), which means "young woman" into "virgin" in the Greek Septuagint, IIRC. And then "Nazorite," referring to Samson as a devotee of God translated as "Nazarene," resulting in the Gospels claiming Jesus lived in Nazareth, which may not even have existed in the early first century. And "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" seems an important bit to me.

Craig

Magdlyn

Not a prostitute, just a woman.

Current thread on this subject:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=226304

Roger Pearse

Not really.

It cannot be part of the original text of John, in view of its different manuscript history. But this wouldn't justify the statement above, would it?

Is there perhaps an underlying presumption that the biblical texts sort of fell from heaven? Because no-one believes this, you know. Humanly speaking Matthew, Mark, etc sat down and wrote or dictated them, and no doubt revised them as well (unless apostolic inspiration extends to no typos either, not even by a sleepy slave?). There is no reason for extra bits to get added by other members of the apostolic circle, as far as I know; but the statement above means "added/changed by people other than the apostolic circle" and for this there is no evidence.

They are certainly older and belong to a different text family. But since few of these differences survive translation into English, that isn't important.

Few of these statements are either correct or relevant to the original comment, tho.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Craigart14

I forgot the "Johannine Comma," the only mention in the Bible of the father, son, and holy spirit in the same place, the only justification for the doctrine of the Trinity. When Erasmus prepared his translation, he left it out because it was not present in early mss. The Church rustled up a medieval ms. which included it, so Erasmus put it in his second edition.

Craig

Magdlyn

What? The NT was all created in one piece and never redacted?


Actually, millions upon millions of literalist/inerrantists do believe this very thing. Many that I know think God wrote it exactly as he wanted it to be, with the evangelists as his human tool. And they are taught this by their pastors, by books and by pastors on television also. Heck, there are plenty of those kinds of people that drop in on this site trying to set us skeptics straight and save our souls.

How disingenuous.

Who is in this so called "apostolic circle," may I ask? Names? Time frame?

All the gospels are pseudonymous. Most of Paul's letters are spurious. Redactions abound.

Jake M

The burden of proof isn't really on me. I don't have to disprove anything. The burden of proof on on the person claiming the apostles actually wrote anything.