How often do we hear people “explaining” religious beliefs by stating “The Bible says so,” as if the Bible fell out of the sky, pre-translated to English by God Himself? It’s not that simple, according to an impressive and clearly-written book that should be required reading for anyone who claims to know “what the Bible says.”
Bart Ehrman’s Exploration: Who Changed the Bible and Why?
The 2005 bestseller, Misquoting Jesus, was not written by a raving atheist. Rather, it was written by a fellow who had a born-again experience in high school, then went on to attend the ultraconservative Moody Bible Institute in Chicago. Bart Ehrman didn’t stop there, however. He wanted to become an evangelical voice with credentials that would enable him to teach in secular settings. It was for this reason that he continued his education at Wheaton and, eventually, Princeton, picking up the ability to read the New Testament in its original Greek in the process.
As a result of his disciplined study, Ehrman increasingly questioned the fundamentalist approach that the “Bible is the inerrant Word of God. It contains no mistakes.” Through his studies, Ehrman determined that the Bible was not free of mistakes:
We have only error ridden copies, and the vast majority of these are centuries removed from the originals and different from them, evidently, in thousands of ways.
(Page 7). At Princeton, Ehrman learned that mistakes had been made in the copying of the New Testament over the centuries. Upon realizing this, “the floodgates opened.” In Mark 4, for example, Jesus allegedly stated that the mustard seed is “the smallest of all seeds on the earth.” Ehrman knew that this simply was not true. The more he studied the early manuscripts, the more he realized that the Bible was full of contradictions. For instance, Mark writes that Jesus was crucified the day after the Passover meal (Mark 14:12; 15:25) while John says Jesus died the day before the Passover meal (John 19:14).
Ehrman often heard that the words of the Bible were inspired. Obviously, the Bible was not originally written in English. Perhaps, suggests Ehrman, the full meaning and nuance of the New Testament could only be grasped when it was read in its original Greek (and the Old Testament could be fully appreciated only when studied in its original Hebrew) (page 6).
Because of these language barriers and the undeniable mistakes and contradictions, Ehrman realized that the Bible could not be the “fully inspired, inerrant Word of God.” Instead, it appeared to him to be a “very human book.” Human authors had originally written the text at different times and in different places to address different needs. Certainly, the Bible does not provide an an “errant guide as to how we should live. This is the shift in my own thinking that I ended up making, and to which I am now fully committed.”
How pervasive is the belief that the Bible is inerrant, that every word of the Bible is precise and true?
Occasionally I see a bumper sticker that reads: “God said it, I believe it, and that settles it.” My response is always, what if God didn’t say it? What if the book you take as giving you God’s words instead contains human words. What if the Bible doesn’t give a foolproof answer to the questions of the modern age-abortion, women’s rights, gay rights, religious and supremacy, western style democracy and the like? What if we have to figure out how to live and what to believe on our own, without setting up the Bible as a false idol–or an oracle that gives us a direct line of communication with the Almighty.
(Page 14). Ehrman continues to appreciate the Bible as an important collection of writings, but urges that it needs to be read and understood in the context of textual criticism, “a compelling and intriguing field of study of real importance not just to scholars but to everyone with an interest in the Bible.” Ehrman finds it striking that most readers of the Bible know almost nothing about textual criticism. He comments that this is not surprising, in that very few books have been written about textual criticism for a lay audience (namely, “those who know nothing about it, who don’t have the Greek and other languages necessary for the in-depth study of it who do not realize there is even any “problem” with the text).
Misquoting Jesus provides much background into how the Bible became the Bible. It happened through numerous human decisions over the centuries. For instance, the first time any Christian of record listed the 27 books of the New Testament as the books of the New Testament was 300 years after the books have been written (page 36). And those works have been radically altered over the years at the hands of the scribes “who were not only conserving scripture but also changing it.” Ehrman points out that most of the hundreds of thousands of textual changes found among the manuscripts were “completely insignificant, immaterial, of no real importance.” In short, they were innocent mistakes involving misspelling or inadvertence.
On the other hand, the very meaning of the text changed in some instances. Some Bible scholars have even concluded that it makes no sense to talk about the “original” text of the Bible. (Page 210). As a result of studying surviving Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, Ehrman concluded that we simply don’t have the original words constituting the New Testament.
Not only do we not have the originals, we don’t have the first copies of the originals. We don’t even have copies of the copies of the originals, or copies of the copies of the copies of the originals. What we have are copies made later-much later. In most instances, they are copies made many centuries later. And these copies all differ from one another, and many thousands of places . . . Possibly it is easiest to put it in comparative terms: there are more differences among our manuscripts and there are words in the New Testament.
In Misquoting Jesus Bart Ehrman spells out the ways in which several critical passages of the New Testament were changed or concocted. They are startling examples:
A.) Everyone knows the story about Jesus and the woman about to be stoned by the mob. This account is only found in John 7:53-8:12. The mob asked Jesus whether they should stone the woman (the punishment required by the Old Testament) or show her mercy. Jesus doesn’t fall for this trap. Jesus allegedly states “Let the one who is without sin among you be the first to cast a stone at her.”
The crowd dissipates out of shame. Ehrman states that this brilliant story was not originally in the Gospel of John or in any of the Gospels. “It was added by later scribes.” The story is not found in “our oldest and best manuscripts of the Gospel of John. Nor does its writing style comport with the rest of John. Most serious textual critics state that this story should not be considered part of the Bible (page 65).
B) after Jesus died, Mary Magdalene and two other women came back to the tomb to anoint the body of Jesus, according to Mark 16:1-2). They were met by a man in a white robe who told them that Jesus had been raised and was no longer there. The women fled and said nothing more to anyone out of fear (16:4-8). Everyone knows the rest of Mark’s Gospel, of course. The problem with the remainder of the story is that none of it was originally in the Gospel of Mark. It was added by a later scribe. Those additions include all of the following:
Jesus himself appeared to Mary Magdalene. She told the eleven apostles (minus Judas) about this vision, but they did not believe her. Jesus then appeared to the apostles, chastising them for failing to believe. He tells them that those who believe will be saved and those who don’t will be condemned. Then follows a critically important passage of the Bible.
And these are the signs that will accompany those who believe: they will cast out demons in my name; they will speak in new tongues; and they will take up snakes in their hands; and if they drink any poison, it will not harm them; they will place their hands upon the sick and heal them.
Jesus is then allegedly taken up into heaven and sits at the right hand of God, while the disciples go forth into the world to proclaim the Gospel in miraculous fashion.
Without the above passages (which, again, were not written by Mark) the Pentecostals lose their justification for speaking in “tongues.” And the Appalachian snake handlers have no basis for their dangerous practices.
C) John 5:7-8 is the only passage in the entire Bible “that explicitly delineates the doctrine of the Trinity (that there are three persons and God but that all three constitute a single God):
There are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word and the 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 are one.
Ehrman cites strong evidence that this Trinity passage was entirely concocted and foisted upon Erasmus by outraged theologians who needed support for their prized theological doctrine (page 81).
—
Ehrman reveals numerous other difficulties with the popular assumption that the Bible was perfectly handed down from its original written expression.
Many believers rely fervently on the King James version of the Bible, for instance. They sometimes even say “If the King James was good enough for St. Paul, it’s good enough for me.” Ehrman points out many problems with the King James version, warning that “we need to face up to the facts.”
The King James was not given by God but was a translation by a group of scholars in the early 17th century who based their rendition on a faulty Greek text.
(Page 209).
So what should we make of the Bible? Ehrman argues that the attacks of the New Testament are not simply collections of obvious, self-interpreting words. It’s the same problem we have with other important documents, such as the United States Constitution:
Texts do not simply reveal their own meanings to honest inquirers. Texts are interpreted and they are interpreted (just as they were written) by living, breathing human beings, who can make sense of texts only by explaining them in light of other other knowledge, explicating their meaning, putting the words of the text “in other words.”
(Page 217) The scribes changed the original words of the New Testament by putting them in other words.
In my experience, many people who cherry pick excerpts from the Bible as the proper way to determine what is moral are in utter denial that we don’t have accurate copies of the original writings. Most of them refuse to acknowledge that current popular versions of the Bible contain numerous discrepancies, even compared to the earliest manuscripts we do have. This is on top of the fact that their are hundreds of patent contradictions in the English version of the Bible. To most believers, none of this matters. Stay the course! In fact, in my experience most believers rarely read what the consider to be God’s own inspired word.
Ehrman’s book points out numerous troublesome issues that demand attention even assuming that the original writers of the Bible accurately reported the events described in their original writings (whatever those writings were). The elephant in the room, however, is that none of the authors of the Gospels ever claimed to witness any of the events they were reporting. Further, the extraodinary nature of Biblical claims demands extraordinary proof that ancient self-contradictory writings are simply incapable of providing, except to those of us who believe that the Bible is completely true “because it says so in the Bible.”
For all of those people who continue to go around clentching and thumping those Bibles they bought at Wal-Mart, and for all the rest of us who want to get the story straight, Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus should be required reading.
[Administrator’s Note: More than 540 comments were quickly contributed to this post, making this page too long to download and display. Therefore, on March 23, 2007, I closed off new comments. Last night (February 4, 2009), I discovered a WordPress plugin that allows me to paginate comments, thereby protecting the site from the sudden and repeated load of 540 comments.
Here’s the good news, then. Anyone who has not yet had his or her say on Bart Ehrman’s book may now jump in at the original post and post a comment. That’s right! If none of the 540 comments that have come before you didn’t address an important aspect of Bart Ehrman’s book, you may now remedy that omission, right here in the comments to this original post. Godspeed. ]
Great discussion! One with civility among many types of beliefs. That in itself is a miracle 🙂
I would say that the design of the universe (just the part we know about) is such that I very much lean to a "creator", if you will. I stand in awe of the design of the human body as well as all of the animal kingdom just to start. It blows my mind how everything in the universe works and works together.
I can't say I know anything for sure, except all the evidence is not in. People once believed the earth to be flat.
In the words of Jackson Browne:
"Let creation reveal its secrets by and by".
But as a moderate, this should not bother you, as I am clearly an extremist. Unless of course you are leaning toward extremism yourself. Perhaps you should start with your own fundamentalists on your side and tell them to "cool their jets". Then I will be glad to back down, but as for now, with the whole ID debate, the gay bashing, "gay is not holy", gay is unnatural, fetuses are people too…this is the rhetoric of annihilation. I am not saying go burn down the local church, I am saying attend religious services occasionally, or never. The rest of the year, use the church as a community center, gym, like the YMCA is fine, but do not attend religious services. Do not donate money to the church, donate ping pong tables, and used vans, and bicycles, and arts and crafts, and textbooks. This is the world I envision. Annihilation is your choice, put down your bible or face the consequences of ignorance on a global scale.
Vicki writes: "You offer only repeated assertions (”it should be self-evident!”) and a rationale with some pretty wide inductive leaps, but no empirical evidence that religious moderation enables religious fundamentalism."
Actually, I offered both specific examples and what I thought was a clear explanation of how religious moderates enable extremists, both of which Vicki has summarily dismissed with sweeping generalizations rather than clear justification. Perhaps we have different definitions of our terms?
Moreover, in what way is it not self-evident that religious extremists need the tolerance of large numbers of moderates in order to gain any sort of political power? Consider Dover, PA, where a few fundie crackpots on the school board voted to teach "intelligent design" in the public schools. In the very next election, the community threw them all out of office, thus stripping them of political power. Had the Dover community tolerated the crackpots, does it not seem likely that the fundies on the school board would continue their attack with some other issue — overhauling the family planning (sex ed) classes, for example, to remove any mention of condoms or contraception, just as the Bush Administration has done in its own programs? How is it you do not see this truth as self-evident — that extremism does not become widespread unless it is tolerated by moderates? Have you never heard of Nazi Germany?
A few sentences later, Vicki continues: "Grumpy and Ben, your rhetoric is the rhetoric of annihilation. There is ample historical evidence…."
Hald it a sec, Vicki. You demanded that I give "empirical evidence" to support my argument, and I provided some historical examples, yet your own assertion about "ample historical evidence" is conspicuously devoid of evidence — historical, empirical or otherwise. Fair is fair, Vic — where is your proof?
And what's this about "rhetoric of annihilation?" Exactly what do you mean by "your type of opposition?" Are you seriously trying to argue that terrorism is caused by athiests?
Ben, I guess all the empirical evidence in the world is not going to shake your belief that there is no opposition to fundamentalism and theocracy among people who call themselves religious. If I tell you about Christian denominations that are pro-choice, pro-gay, pro-evolution and anti-fundamentalist, that doesn't count because they are somehow not "real." The concept that there are churches that function as community centers, food banks, and homeless shelters as well as religious centers will also probably not be able to penetrate your defenses. News of interfaith dialogues on peace and reconciliation will also probably fall on deaf ears. So, I give up and won't bother you with the facts any more – you've made up your mind.
Grumpy, you write: "While those people clearly were passionate about their beliefs, they did not, for example, become pilgrims for Jesus." Those people again were MLK, Father Daniel Berrigan, and Dietrich Bohnoffer – I could list dozens more, like Archbishop Oscar Romero, murdered nuns in El Salvador… I think they would all have been quite comfortable calling themselves "pilgrims for Jesus." They were all ordained priests or ministers. They might also have used terminology such as "taking up the cross" and becoming "fools for Christ" in the sense of disregarding personal prudence to do what they felt was morally right.
Again, I'm more than willing to join in on any practical campaign against teaching of pseudo-science in public schools and in support of separation of church and state, but this dialog is proving pretty fruitless.
Grumpy:
I mean the type of opposition that takes a fellow human being (John in the post above) who has made a courageous step toward truth and liberation, and jumps all over him.
That's what Buddhists call "not being skillful."
I offered one example of how extreme, indiscriminate response to perceived threat has served to fan the flames of extremism: the US in Iraq. Add the US in Indochina. Also look at how the 9/11 attacks were used by the Bush administration to consolidate power and wrest a carte blanche from Congress and the populace to wage total war on a noun – terrorism.
I'm not saying that atheism promotes terrorism, but that attacks – verbal or otherwise – do not motivate people to leave a position they perceive as safe.
"How is it you do not see this truth as self-evident — that extremism does not become widespread unless it is tolerated by moderates? ?"
Yes, indeed I do see it. Also that extremism is often fostered by those in power who think they can use and control its energy – the US military-industrial complex allying with Christian fundies, British imperialists promoting the Wahabis, etc. capitalists supporting Nazis to ward off Communists, etc.
Your point however was that "religious moderates" – those who believe the Bible is not the inerrant word of God, but are still religious – enable religious fundamentalism.
According to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainline) there are 26,344,933 members of mainline or "moderate" churches versus 39,930,869 members of evangelical Protestant churches. So, as a voting bloc, they have no way of overpowering evangelicals. They are however vocal in denouncing fundamentalism as I have pointed out. The current prominence of fundamentalism in the US is the result of an unholy alliance between religious extremism, capitalism, and nationalism.
The Dover school board incident shows how the fundamentalists are hella good strategists. Rather than denouncing the Johns of this world, your time would probably be better spent studying school board agendas and getting to know the candidates. Again, I am willing to write a check to support a candidate for local school board of your choice.
True, I have not clicked on a fair sample of the links you have provided, but I have not ruled out doing so. You can trust that I will investigate them fully, but I have been instructed to go searching for my own evidence. (I have been busy over at scienceblogs, found some wonderful writers, Carl Zimmer the Loom for example deserves mention for his book written with the help of the smithsonian institution) http://scienceblogs.com/loom/
(Sorry got sidetracked…continued below)
Of course, I am already familiar with the beauty of Christianity, and I am admittedly a lover of the holidays and family get-togethers. Vicky's message is probably a better message than mine (for some people). Something to keep in mind, maybe both our viewpoints are valid and necessary. Also, I doubt that either of us entered, or will leave the conversation with an completely altered viewpoint (or at least admit to it). However, as you probably know, the human mind works in peculiar ways, and no matter how hard I try not to be changed by your suggestions, I have heard some of it, and you have heard mine.
You are right to be frustrated with me, we have opposing viewpoints. I have not given up on you, and I doubt that you have given up, maybe just need to refuel your mantra/chakra. Please don't treat Grumpy this way though, ignore me if you like because I am (as accused) possibly creating argument for the sake of creating discourse (albeit necessary, it seems).
(cont…)
the smithsonian museums are one of our nations treasures, more valuable than fort knox in my opinion, please visit them when you come to Washington. I have been to them many times, except the ones that are off the beaten path like the american indian museum. (but I'm sure they don't suck, just get overlooked standing next to the air and space museums, and natural history (my favorite) museums.
"So, as a voting bloc, they have no way of overpowering evangelicals"
Vicky, you are not completely wrong, but you are missing the big picture. Following is an example of the numbers you need to spend more time focusing on. Your compass is simply way off in terms of the Global clash of religion. As a show of good faith toward the rest of the world, please put down your bibles, as moderate, compassionate humans. Once you take the foundation (moderate Christians) away, the fundamentalists will begin to slide toward rationality, or die out. Such is natural selection, adapt or perish. Your handfull of American Christians, whether moderate or not, are part of the problem, not the solution. Someday, you will get the big picture.
Islamic Population by Country:
Indonesia: 213,469,356
Pakistan: 156,491,617
India: 138,188,726
Bangladesh: 127,001,272
Egypt: 70,530,237
Turkey: 68,963,953
Iran: 67,337,681
Nigeria: 64,385,994
China: 39,189,414
Ethiopia: 34,700,310
Morocco: 32,300,410
Algeria: 32,206,534
Afghanistan: 29,629,697
Saudi Arabia: 26,417,599
Sudan: 26,121,865
Iraq: 25,292,658
Uzbekistan: 23,897,563
Russia: 21,513,046
#19 Yemen: 20,519,792
#38 France: 4,549,213
#40 Philippines: 4,392,873
#41 United States: 4,140,277
#49 West Bank: 3,159,999
#51 Germany: 3,049,961
#62 Britian: 1,631,919
#69 Spain: 1,008,536
#70 Italy: 987,751
#71 Netherlands: 984,449
#72 Israel: 916,424
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/rel_isl_pop-rel…
Hi Ben –
Astute observation in your post – I skipped weekly meditation at the sangha and have skimped on practice at home due to illness of family members and shortened school schedule for the kiddo this week. So I'm a pretty grumpy pilgrim myself. I don't do the glamorous Tibetan type of chanting or chakra balancing though – just straight up Vipassana meditation, 20 -40 minutes alone with my mind every day. Scary – especially if your mind seems stuck on grumpy like mine is this week!
I've been to the Smithsonian, it's pretty far away from where we are now but we try to hit Lawrence Hall of Science at Berkeley, Tech Museum in San Jose, Exploratorium, and Cal. Academy of Sciences whenever we can. At the age most kids are into dinosaurs, my daughter was into human evolution and talked about australopithecus and homo habilis the way other kids talked about triceratops. I never found a source for little plastic models of early hominids though. I'm hoping I can keep her interest in science and math alive as she moves into middle school, and onto practical experiments in evolutionary biology (interest in boys).
I think the only real difference between our positions is that I see ignorance, and not religion as the real "enemy." And the only cure for ignorance is education. And the only effective method of education is one that has compassion for the learner at its heart.
In an earlier post, Gatomjp referenced a video clip that I think illustrates the problem I have with the methods of "education" employed by some of the brightest minds in this debate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEl4QfcAK2o
Deus caritas est. Caritas deus est. Yes, I believe that, 100%.
Ben:
Well, I am not getting your reasoning. In what way is moderate Christianity the foundation of Islamic extremism? I would have thought US support of the Shah of Iran, British support of Wahabism, and US arming of Afghan jihadis against the Soviets, had rather more to do with it. These ventures were embarked on with the best of intentions for "reasons of state", not religion.
Administrator’s Note: More than 530 comments have been posted to this post regarding Bart Ehrman– making this page too long for some computers to download and display quickly and properly. We're therefore allowing no new comments to be added to this original post. Please use the following new page to add any new comments you might have on Bart Ehrman: http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=1165
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.
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?
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)
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.
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.
What are you going to do when it comes to light that Ehrman’s research is just about as inerrant as you believe the Bible to be? And I agree with Billie a lot of atheists do spend a lot of time talking about a God they don’t believe exists. Sometimes I wonder if it’s like a reverse-conversion thing like trying to “reason” with people to NOT believe in God. But ultimately, atheists usually are people grounded by this world (earth), science, and what they feel they can “prove”. Not everyone lives under those limitations. You have made a boundary for yourself and then project that believers are uncomfortable accepting there is a God, when it would seem a lot of atheists aren’t comfortable in believing there IS something they can’t “prove”. I’m just curious and unsure I will ever get a response or if this will post but what do atheists feel will happen if they believe something they can’t prove? What do you have to lose? is it like a time-wasting thing, just a principle based argument based on the information you have today, I just don’t get it…but Billie has a good point, it seems like atheist lean on being logical but its not all that logical to spend time and energy discussing a God you don’t believe in and don’t want to serve.
YokoDMV: Why do I “spend time and energy discussing a God you don’t believe in and don’t want to serve”? Because I live in a country whose government injects religion into almost every aspect of my life. If believers kept their religion within their own private lives instead of injecting it into my government offices and public school science classrooms, I would have very little interest in the topic. In those circumstances, I would consider religion about as much as I consider ESP, graphology, dousing or astrology.
YokoDMV
A lot of the evangelistic christian fundamentalists, are followers of charismatic televangelists, who are little more than con artists bilking unsuspecting believers with staged miracles and twisted dogmas supported by carefully chosen and usually incomplete biblical quotes, taken out of context and re-interpreted to meet their agendas.
To these charlatans, skeptics, particularly atheists, are a threat, and they often leverage their image to villify such threats in any way possible. In hard economic times, people who feel helpless and hopeless are drawn to such leaders, many ofwhom preach the prosperity gospel ( “Believe, donate to the chmy church and you will be prosperous”). The goal of many of these church leaders is to replace our democracy with a theocratic government, with themselves in charge.
The best defence for nonbelievers against these charlatans is by unmasking the lies they read into the bible. Many atheists have read the bible and other holy texts as literature, imparting no mythical importance to it because knowledge is the best defence against the manipilative ignorance taught by these religious leaders.
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.
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.
i am a believer in jesus!but im in a argument wuth my mother in law!!!lol myself personally i donot believe the bible is a hundred percent true,she doas an says that its the word of god an all is true. what do i do im confused all i know is that i believe in god not a book am i so wrong for that? Its clear to me that it has changed hands an humans only write what they want to write to best fit there needs? i do think the bible has good intentions! just not 100% true.i need help with this its making me crazy!!
Greg Anger asked about the truth contained in the Bible– The bible is a collection of letters documentation of events and instructions that were selected by a committee of humans. There is a lot that was left out and just for example, the Koran includes more information about Jesus's mother, Mary, than does the Christian Bible because the committee didn't want to include it. The Bible does contain accurate historical information, but the people who "built" it had their own agenda–creating a cohesive doctrine for all to follow. It also was translated from various languages, and these translations have been found to be less than accurate and reflect the inherent biases of the translators. This doesn't mean you should ignore the Bible, but rather study with intelligence and look for what was left out and alternative translations.
@greg anger – I agree with you – it's best if the Bible is not taken literally. It's not 100% true. Like you said, "I believe in god not a book". You could argue that saying the Bible is perfect and inerrant is idolatry – literalism is believing in a book, but that book tells us only to believe in God, not written words translated by humans, and certainly not our own interpretations of those words. I suggest you read about different ideas on the inspiration of Scripture. Lots of people believe the Bible is inspired without believing it's literally true.
The most literal idea about the inspiration of the Bible is that it is the 100% accurate inspired Word of God. The least literal line of thought that still involves the Bible being divinely inspired is that the Bible was written by people, but they wrote it based on direct experience with God/Jesus/the Holy Spirit. So it's inspired by messages from God to humanity, and the basic narrative of the life and message of Jesus is true, but everything is written by fallible humans from their own perspective, based on their own opinions. And then there are several ideas in between. So that's what I would recommend – read up on ideas about the inspiration of Scripture.
Also, learn to write with proper capitalization and punctuation. People won't take you seriously if you don't.
From what school did Dr. Larry Bates receive his PhD? (I've searched the web but don't seem to be able to fine a 'bio' that says). Looks like he's got some connection with Univ of TN but don't know the nature of this connection. Just trying to understand where he got his doctorate.
I think his PhD is in Agricultural Economics from University of Tennessee at Martin, Tennessee.
Many Christians are under the impression there is a singular bible that is available to all and is undisputed as the true word of God. Both of these are false assumptions. Not only has the Bible yet to be translated into some 2,393 languages, but also the actual content of the bible varies as well. One of the best examples of this is the Ethiopian bible.
–The Old Testament
The King James bible contains 39 books in the old testament. The Ethiopian bible contains a total of 51 books. The only book of the old testament found in the King James bible, which is not in the Ethiopian bible is the book of Lamentations. There are however 13 books in the Ethiopian bible which are not to be found in the King James bible. It is not surprising the Ethiopian bible contains almost the entire old testament from the King James bible, since Ethiopia had a very strong Jewish presence. The books of the old testament which appear in the Ethiopian bible but not the King James are:
Jubilee
Enoch
2 Ezra
Ezra Sutuel
Tobit
Judith
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees
3 Maccabees
Tegsats
Book of Joshua the son of Sirac
The book of Josephas the son of Bengorion
–New Testament
The Ethiopian new testament contains the same 27 books of the new testament from Matthew through the book of Revelation. Unlike the King James bible, however, the Ethiopian bible continues past Revelations with an additional eight books. These books include;
Sirate Tsion (the book of order)
Tizaz (the book of Herald)
Abtilis
The 1st book of Dominos
The 2nd book of Dominos
The book of Clement
Didascalia
–Canon of the Ethiopian Church
While many of the books found in the old testament of the Ethiopian bible are absent in the King James version, there are some interesting facts surrounding these books. One such example are the books of Enoch and Jubilee which are ancient Jewish texts. While they do not appear in the old testament of the King James bible, they are quoted in the King James new testament. Ethiopian scripture is based on some of the most ancient transcripts and records in existence, which gives the Ethiopian bible a broader content than any other version of the bible, and some feel a truer and more complete telling of the word of God.
ı am a müslüman and 1 admire Quran .It's a historical fact that Bible was altered by many many humans me too
note:ı don't know engilishbecausa ı am türkish
I have recently started to read more on this subject and I am a believer & a Christian and someone who has had an experience with God. My over riding concerning with all of this that it detracts from the truth. For me that is the word of God had brought life to millions and whether true or altered continues to inspire. I do believe that there are issues with the production of the bible but that was not what saved me, the word came later for me and has helped me for all its faults. Yes I have issues but that is why I continue to seek the truth for myself.