The Bible: What Was Placed In

Discussion in 'Religion and Ethics' started by Agnapostate, Jan 5, 2009.

  1. Agnapostate
    Offline

    Agnapostate BANNED

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2008
    Messages:
    6,860
    Thanks Received:
    344
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    The Quake State
    Ratings:
    +344
    Those who believe in the infallibility of the Bible have questions to answer regarding numerous major textual errors and contradictions contained in this allegedly divinely inspired book, as well as several regarding a few books of the Bible that are evidently forgeries. Firstly, we shall look at a few examples of passages in the Bible that were not original portions of the text and were apparently added by later scribes. These passages are primarily not present in Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, the oldest and most reliable surviving manuscripts, as well as several other manuscripts and textual witnesses of great importance. Some may claim that these false passages are not of any particular importance. But in a book that claims to be divinely inspired and infallible, those claims obviously need to be verified, and it is difficult to claim that a book is infallible if it contains numerous errors. Moreover, even if the Bible was infallible at one point, we obviously no longer have access to the “infallible” version of the text.

    1. Mark 16:9-20: This passage is not present in the earliest and most reliable manuscripts available to us. The early church fathers Eusebius and Jerome noted that this passage was not present in almost all of the Greek manuscripts available to them. As John MacArthur notes, “The internal evidence from this passage…weighs heavily against Mark’s authorship. The transition between verses 8 and 9 is abrupt and awkward. The Greek particle translated ‘now’ that begins verse 9 implies continuity with the preceding narrative. What follows, however, does not continue the story of the women referred to in verse 8, but describes Christ’s appearance to Mary Magdalene. The masculine particle in verse 9 expects ‘he’ as its antecedent, yet the subject of verse 8 is the women. Although she had just been mentioned 3 times, verse 9 introduces Mary Magdalene as if for the first time. Further, if Mark wrote verse 9, it is strange that he would only now note that Jesus had cast 7 demons out of her. The angel spoke of Jesus’s appearing to his followers in Galilee, yet the appearances described in verses 9 through 20 are all in the Jerusalem area. Finally, the presence in these verses of a number of Greek words used nowhere else in Mark argues that Mark did not write them. Verses 9 through 20 represent an early (they were known to the second-century fathers Irenaeus, Tatian, and possibly Justin Martyr) attempt to complete Mark’s gospel.” Even MacArthur, himself a Christian apologist and minister who believes in the “divine inspiration” and “infallibility” of the text, acknowledges that Mark 16:9-20 is very obviously a later addition to the Gospel. It is difficult to claim that we currently possess divinely inspired Scripture, since it has been clearly altered since it was first written.

    2. John 7:53-8:11: This passage is of greater importance than Mark 16:9-20, since the text therein relates the well known story of Jesus forgiving a woman caught in adultery, and telling her Pharisee captors that “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” Yet, this passage is also not present in the earliest and best manuscripts available to us. At times, it has been placed after verses 36, 44, 52, or chapter 21, verse 25. One manuscript even places it after Luke 21:38. Various manuscripts mark the passage so as to indicate skepticism toward its inclusion in the Gospel. In addition, Luke 7:52 flows well into Luke 8:12, and 7:53-8:11 are an awkward interruption. As MacArthur again notes, no Greek church father comments on the passage until the 12th century.

    3. Acts 8:37: Though a relatively minor verse involving the evangelist Philip’s baptism of an Ethiopian, it is remarkable in that it is an extremely explicit statement of the salvation brought through belief in Jesus as Lord and Savior and acceptance of that salvation. Verse 36 notes that the Ethiopian saw some water, and asked Philip what prevented him from being baptized. Verse 37 follows thusly. “Then Philip said, ‘If you believe with all your heart, you may.’ And he answered and said, ‘I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.’”

    4. 1 Corinthians 14:34-35: “For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church. Or did the word of God come originally from you? Or was it you only that it reached?” This is an important doctrine regarding the practice of women speaking in church. Female ministers are still frowned upon or prohibited by various Christian sects because of this passage and similar passages in 1 Timothy, which I will address shortly. The problem with verses 34 and 35 are that several important textual witnesses place these verses after verse 40 rather than verse 33, which indicates that these verses may have originated as a scribal marginal note rather than an original part of the epistle. Moreover, verses 34 and 35 do not seem to be contextually related to the verses that surround them. If they were removed from the passage, verse 33 would flow well into verse 36, but verses 34 and 35 create an awkward interruption similar to that of Luke 7:53-8:11. Perhaps most importantly, verses 34 and 35 seem to conflict with statements made earlier in chapter 11.

    5. 1 John 5:7-8: These verses contain a section that is the most explicit reference to the modern Christian doctrine of the trinity that exists, known as the Comma Johanneum. They read as follows. "For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one.” The bolded section of the text appears to be a later addition to the text, as again, they are not contained in the oldest and most reliable manuscripts.

    As Christian sects who disbelieve in the doctrine of the Trinity frequently note, the word “Trinity” is contained nowhere in the Bible, and this invalidity of the most explicit statement of it poses problems for modern Christians, essentially all of whom accept that doctrine. As MacArthur again notes, “These words are a direct reference to the Trinity, and what they say is accurate. External manuscript evidence, however, is against them being in the original epistle. They do not appear in any Greek mss. dated before circa tenth century A.D. Only 8 very late Greek mss. contain the reading, and these contain the passage in what appears to be a translation from a late recension of the Latin Vulgate. Furthermore, 4 of these 8 mss. contain the passage as a variant reading written in the margin as a later addition to the manuscript. No Greek or Latin father, even those involved in Trinitarian controversies, quotes them; no ancient version except the Latin records them (not the Old Latin in its early form or the Vulgate). Internal evidence also militates against their presence, since they disrupt the sense of the writer’s thoughts. Most likely, the words were added much later to the text. There is no verse in Scripture which so explicitly states the obvious reality of the Trinity…” Hence, this obviously poses problems, as I noted previously.

    Having established at least five passages of dubious legitimacy, I would also note several major books of the New Testament which are not regarded as legitimate, and are thought to be forgeries. These would be the Pastoral Epistles of 1 and 2 Timothy, as well as Titus. The arguments against the authorship of these books by Paul are accepted by the majority of modern textual critics, and include the facts that the vocabulary of the epistles contain many words and phrases seen nowhere else in Paul’s writing, or indeed, anywhere else in the New Testament, that the false teachings described by the epistles are developed forms of second-century Gnosticism, or other schools of Christianity that competed with the school that we are familiar with today, that the church organizational structure described therein is far too developed for Paul’s era, and similarly seems to parallel the Gnosticism of the second century, and that the chronological framework of Paul’s life in the book of Acts does not match up with many of the historical references made by the author of the Pastoral Epistles.

    A similar error (or deliberate omission) seems to have been made by Paul himself concerning his own activities after he was met by Jesus at Damascus. In Acts 9:26, he is recorded as attempting to meet the disciples at Jerusalem. (Saul and Paul are his respective Hebrew and Roman names.) “And when Saul had come to Jerusalem, he tried to join the disciples; but they were all afraid of him, and did not believe that he was a disciple.” Yet, in Galatians 1:17, he claims “nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.” He then says in verses 18 through 20, “Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. (Now concerning the things which I write to you, indeed, before God, I do not lie.)” Now, Acts 9:23 reads, “Now after many days were past, the Jews plotted to kill him.” This is a reference to his expulsion from Damascus, which evidently took place after his conversion there.

    Those who believe in the infallibility of the text have attempted to claim that “many days” refers to a period of three years in which Paul was ministering in Nabatean Arabia, which is an implausible explanation. Moreover, the passage in Acts continues to say this in verse 27. “But Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles. And he declared to them how he had seen the Lord on the road, and that He had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus. So he was with them at Jerusalem, coming in and going out.”

    These two passages are obviously not a reference to the same visit, since in the Acts passage, Luke reports that Paul was brought to the apostles by Barnabas, whereas in the Galatians passage, Paul reports that he only visited Peter (though some texts read Cephas) and James, and did not visit the other apostles. He also apparently finds it necessary to claim that he is not lying about this report of his events. Moreover, it seems odd that he would only mention his conversion in Damascus to the apostles if he had been ministering for three years in Nabatean Arabia. Hence, there is a clear contradiction between Luke and Paul’s accounts, and Paul may even be being willfully deceptive in this matter, which does not reflect well on the character arguably the most important figure in the development of Christianity besides Christ.

    There are also several major contradictions in the Gospels regarding Christ’s birth and death, and I’ll be back to present those tomorrow if this thread receives a satisfactory response from those who claim to believe in the infallibility of the Bible.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  2. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,576
    Thanks Received:
    8,171
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,219
    Thankfully I dont have to believe in a perfect Bible to believe in a perfect God.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  3. midcan5
    Offline

    midcan5 liberal / progressive

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2007
    Messages:
    10,795
    Thanks Received:
    2,367
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    Philly, PA
    Ratings:
    +3,310
    For religious people who think seriously about these things, the Bible is a story book. It is not meant to be taken literally. I realize many would disagree but I know many religious who get tired of pointing out the contradictions and silliness. But here's a thought let's try to share the view that it is a storybook and so is the Koran and so are [any you can think of] with other fundamentalists so they can enter the modern age. And let's just live ethically and morally, and when you die if something comes next, you can say, 'see I told you so' ad infinitum. You'll have plenty of time then, now, just be nice.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. Agnapostate
    Offline

    Agnapostate BANNED

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2008
    Messages:
    6,860
    Thanks Received:
    344
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    The Quake State
    Ratings:
    +344
    I wouldn't bother with textual criticism if that was the view that was commonly accepted. But that isn't the prevailing view; the prevailing view is that our current edition of the Bible is infallible and divinely inspired.
     
  5. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,576
    Thanks Received:
    8,171
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,219
    My guess is you dont know what a story book is.

    I think it's foolish to think this "modern" age (which just to point out was 100 years ago) is somehow vastly different from all other ages of mankind.

    The fact is society really isnt that much different. We have more things. we can communicate and travel more easily but people havent changed.
     
  6. ABikerSailor
    Offline

    ABikerSailor Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2008
    Messages:
    31,481
    Thanks Received:
    4,826
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    Amarillo TX
    Ratings:
    +8,517
    Well, if you get a chance, watch The History Channel's show "Banned from the Bible" parts I and II.

    It's interesting how many times the Bible has been changed. It seems that every time it is modified by either adding to, or deleting from, it is done only for the control of the people.

    Another thing that I find kind of stupid.......most religious people use fear as a way to get people to come closer to God. My question is, wouldn't it be better to RESPECT rather than fear God? I mean, we're told over and over how God is Love, and well....I've never feared anyone that I've loved or respected.

    Maybe scared of what they can do to me if I don't treat them right, but never scared into loving or respecting them.

    Oh yeah......the way that Christians modified the story of Daniel was pretty interesting also. Originally it was called Daniel and the Dragon, instead of Daniel and the Lions Den. He was thrown in there because of his showing the king that his gods were all false (one was an idol), and could easily be proven to be fakes.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. KittenKoder
    Offline

    KittenKoder Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2008
    Messages:
    23,281
    Thanks Received:
    1,711
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Nowhere
    Ratings:
    +1,714
    Well ... the clincher as to why the christian bible is wrong comes from the Egypt stories, since those were all completely fabricated it was easy to find the other faults.
     
  8. roomy
    Offline

    roomy The Natural

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,862
    Thanks Received:
    948
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +950
    I am an Athiest but this thread offends me at source level.

    Go away Aggie, you will eventually choke on your need for controversy.

    I wish.Hahahahahaha...
     
  9. KittenKoder
    Offline

    KittenKoder Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2008
    Messages:
    23,281
    Thanks Received:
    1,711
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Nowhere
    Ratings:
    +1,714
    You must admit Roomy that this thread is actually a pleasant discussion on the topic instead of a flame war so far.
     
  10. ABikerSailor
    Offline

    ABikerSailor Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2008
    Messages:
    31,481
    Thanks Received:
    4,826
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    Amarillo TX
    Ratings:
    +8,517
    Can you expand on that a bit Kitten?

    Are you saying that the Egyptians or the Christians are wrong?
     

Share This Page