Comments on: Who changed the Bible and why? Bart Ehrman’s startling answers

By: Mark Tiedemann

Mark Tiedemann — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 21:24:53 +0000

BLLLE writes:—”The only inspired word is the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts.”

The point is that we don’t HAVE those originals, inspired or otherwise, so you didn’t actually pay attention to what you read.

By: BIllE

BIllE — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:02:45 +0000

Look up the NIV version of the bible. The author’s astonishment about Mark 16 is silly for it has been known for ages and the NIV notes the discrepency between the original manuscripts and later English versions.

I thought this article would be worthwhile. Instead, it is telling us what we already know. The only inspired word is the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. This does not change the message of the Gospel that you are saved by your faith in Jesus Christ and there is no other name under heaven which man will be saved. Amen.

By: Erich Vieth

Erich Vieth — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 21:54:12 +0000

Hey, BillE: Are you really claiming that atheists are knowingly lying? Are you saying that atheists absolutely know that God exists yet they are intentionally misleading others?

Are you attempting to have a real conversation or are you trying to look like an arrogant know-it-all? Why not start with the premise that the various people with various perspectives on belief are sincere in stating what they believe?

By the way, I notice that you are avoiding ALL of the points raised by Bart Ehrman. Does his research scare you? Is that why you won’t talk about it?

I’m not trying to be aggressive here. I’m trying to reach a common understanding, but it’s difficult when you insist that people like me are liars and when you refuse to discuss Erhman’s careful research.

By: BillE

BillE — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 21:11:04 +0000

For people who supposedly do not beieve in God, atheists sure do spend a lot of time talking about God. I suppose this is because they know, in their hearts, that there is a God. It’s easier for them to pretend that He does not exist rather than to say the truth… they are rejecting God even though they know full well that He exists.

By: Mehedi

Mehedi — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 08:02:45 +0000

It’s a historical fact that Bible was altered by many many humans. Such Gospels as Barnabas was left out which confirms Jesus was not crusified as mentioned in the Quran.

Quran sets a challenge to mankind, which says :

Will they not then ponder on the Quran? If it had been from other than God they would have found therein much contradiction and incongruity. (al-Nisa’, 4.82)

By: Eunice

Eunice — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 15:31:01 +0000

I just want to know your view now that what Dr. Larry Bates has predicted is happening. You have to rethink your position. I heard it is going to get worse. If he is right and Jesus is getting us ready. Will you get yourself ready too?

By: Niklaus Pfirsig

Niklaus Pfirsig — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 23:21:30 +0000

WuXia, The old testament was written in Hebrew. The new testament was a mixture of Aramaic and Latin, depending mainly on the author of particular book. Aramaic was the common language among the Palestinian Arab population around 2000 years age. The Roman occupational forces spoke Latin, which is similar to Greek.

The KJV bible has been revised many times to soften the wording in some cases, and to restore the original harshness in others. These subtle changes in “voice”, emphasis and de-emphasis was often to support the political direction of the church.

For example, some revisions of the KJV Bible use two different words for taking a life, “kill” and “slay”. In modern English the two words are mostly interchangeable, but in the late medieval English of the Concordance translation, they had distinct connotations. Killing was taking the life of a person, while slaying was taking the life of an animal, the theological implication being that “kill” implied the victim had a soul, while “slay” implied the victim had no soul. Killing was a sin, slaying was not. David did not kill Goliath, he slew him. Slay was used in the early translations when the victim was an animal or an enemy.

By: Post on Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus is open for more comments | Dangerous Intersection

Wed, 04 Feb 2009 16:40:33 +0000

[...] the link to my post, which I titled: “Who changed the Bible and why? Bart Ehrman’s startling answers.” More than 540 comments were quickly contributed to this post, making this page too long to [...]

By: Did Muhammed actually exist? | Dangerous Intersection

Did Muhammed actually exist? | Dangerous Intersection — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 19:19:45 +0000

[...] Who changed the Bible and why? Bart Ehrman’s startling answers. (I had to close this last post down because we were getting so many comments that it was making it difficult to load the post). [...]

By: In exactly what ways should we keep our children ignorant about sex? | Dangerous Intersection

Wed, 17 Sep 2008 03:11:40 +0000

[...] it isn’t important, even if it IS important. This includes such critical topics as as Iraq, the cobbled together all-too-human nature of the Bible, Global Warming and , of course, sex [...]