The Corrupted Bible

[Agnapostate]

In response to a kind and considerate request by Jeff...:cool:


I'd love to see all of your evidence that the Bible we possess today is corrupted.

I'm only too pleased to re-post some evidence that I've posted elsewhere and thus spark a discussion about the late addition and scribal alteration of several passages in the Bible, as well as several major letters allegedly written by Paul. There is also some discussion regarding inconsistencies about Paul's life, though there's certainly several more regarding Jesus's crucifixion that I could summarize if this thread receives a satisfactory response.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Codices Vaticanus and 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.

[glockmail]

This is dumb. Who said that the Bible was infallible? Why do you need a 20" wide monitor to read this shit?

[Agnapostate]

This is dumb.

Who said that the Bible was infallible?

Every rightist Christian that I've ever encountered, and they number in the millions in this country. Not heard of Focus on the Family? The Family Research Council?


Why do you need a 20" wide monitor to read this shit?

Stop using Internet Explorer. Use Firefox, at the very least.

[glockmail]

Never heard that claim before.

I use Firefox.

[Agnapostate]

Never heard that claim before.

You've never heard the claim that rightist Christians believe in the infallibility (evangelicals) or inerrancy (fundamentalists) of the Bible? Are you unfamiliar with the Christian Right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Right)?


I use Firefox.

Then use Safari.

[glockmail]

You screwed up with your paste, tell me to use Firefox to correct it, I already use it so now you tell me to use something else. It seems that you think that you are infallible.

[Agnapostate]

You screwed up with your paste, tell me to use Firefox to correct it, I already use it so now you tell me to use something else. It seems that you think that you are infallible.

Internet Explorer typically causes a degree of visual compaction that Firefox and other browsers do not. You claim to already be using Firefox, so I merely recommend that you use Safari because I'm currently using Safari and can see the entire page perfectly well. My advice is thus based on empirical evidence.

[glockmail]

Why not just fix your screwed up past so it wraps properly instead of inferring that you're infallible?

[Agnapostate]

Why not just fix your screwed up past so it wraps properly instead of inferring that you're infallible?

The post only appears excessively wide in Firefox (and after I just checked, Opera, though few people use that). The post appears fine in Safari, which I'm using. After I checked, it actually does appear normal in IE also, so simply use that if you don't like the way the post looks and you don't want to use Safari.

[PostmodernProphet]

You've never heard the claim that rightist Christians believe in the infallibility (evangelicals) or inerrancy (fundamentalists) of the Bible?




???....even those who argue for inerrancy argue that the scripture is inerrant in it's original text....does that take damage from your argument that the stated texts are not original?......

to me, the fact that we have been able to identify and correct errors and have found none that cause disruption of any doctrinal standards of the Christian faith after 2000 years of intense examination reveals a great deal more about the accuracies of scripture rather than the inaccuracies....

no other book has ever been as closely studied and poked and prodded.....in short, your claim was that the Bible we have today is corrupted....if anything, your claim should have been that the Bible we had 400 years ago was corrupted, the Bible we have today is corrected.....

[PostmodernProphet]

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.

I can't imagine why....it's not as if you need that passage to identify the existence of the Father or the Son or the Holy Spirit.......

[Agnapostate]

???....even those who argue for inerrancy argue that the scripture is inerrant in it's original text....does that take damage from your argument that the stated texts are not original?......

That wasn't my argument in the first place. My argument was that the current texts are not original, and thus not infallible or inerrant, even if the original texts were.


to me, the fact that we have been able to identify and correct errors and have found none that cause disruption of any doctrinal standards of the Christian faith after 2000 years of intense examination reveals a great deal more about the accuracies of scripture rather than the inaccuracies....

Actually, that consequence is more the result of selective incorporation that chooses acceptable texts to utilize and ignores others. For instance, various Gnostic sects possessed texts that were also allegedly written by disciples of Jesus and similar individuals, but they were rejected and those sects ultimately lost out to the predecessor of all modern Christian sects, termed the "proto-orthodox" sect by Bart Ehrman. The modern New Testament was not complete until several centuries after Jesus's death.


no other book has ever been as closely studied and poked and prodded.....

It's not an especially "complete" book; it's a scrapbook of texts that often contradict the doctrine of infallibility.


I can't imagine why....it's not as if you need that passage to identify the existence of the Father or the Son or the Holy Spirit.......

Of course not. You do need it to identify them as "three Persons in One God," however.

[PostmodernProphet]

That wasn't my argument in the first place. My argument was that the current texts are not original, and thus not infallible or inerrant, even if the original texts were.

but that isn't your argument....the current texts are closer to the original than the texts you are complaining about.....




The modern New Testament was not complete until several centuries after Jesus's death.

true, but you misapply the argument.....you state that as if it meant the modern New Testament wasn't in existence until several centuries after Jesus death....in actuality, the modern New Testament is what remains of documents which have been available SINCE Jesus death.....




It's not an especially "complete" book; it's a scrapbook of texts that often contradict the doctrine of infallibility.

often?.....no, you've pretty much stated the extent of the entirety in less than six inches of thread space......none of which makes any doctrinal difference.....




Of course not. You do need it to identify them as "three Persons in One God," however.

do you cite some scriptural authority implying they were three different gods?......the Bible is singularly insistent they were singular......

[Agnapostate]

but that isn't your argument....the current texts are closer to the original than the texts you are complaining about.....

I wasn't able to decipher what this meant.


true, but you misapply the argument.....you state that as if it meant the modern New Testament wasn't in existence until several centuries after Jesus death....in actuality, the modern New Testament is what remains of documents which have been available SINCE Jesus death.....

Also incorrect. Many books in the New Testament were not written until several decades after Jesus's death, and there were a multitude of books claiming to be written by his disciples for quite a time after that, resulting in sect divisions and feuds for several centuries.


often?.....no, you've pretty much stated the extent of the entirety in less than six inches of thread space......none of which makes any doctrinal difference.....

On the contrary, I've noted that several major books of the New Testament were probably not written by Paul, and other and more authentic letters were not included in the New Testament. Moreover, the major doctrine that even an iota of failure would shatter is that the Bible is absolutely infallible in its present form. That's obviously not the case, and it's really rather amazing that anyone could believe otherwise.


do you cite some scriptural authority implying they were three different gods?......the Bible is singularly insistent they were singular......

I made no such claim. Advocates of the Trinity hold that they are three Persons in one God, not "three different gods."

[PostmodernProphet]

I wasn't able to decipher what this meant.


well let's take it slowly so you can.....you complained about a Bible which contained errors....the errors date to the 1600s......they have been identified and corrected....thus, the modern Bible has corrected the errors that bothered you......why do you still say the modern Bible is corrupted?......



Also incorrect. Many books in the New Testament were not written until several decades after Jesus's death, and there were a multitude of books claiming to be written by his disciples for quite a time after that, resulting in sect divisions and feuds for several centuries.

texts of religions other than Christianity, for example, the Gnostics.....every book currently in the Bible has been in the Bible since the 300s....and every book in the Bible existed for centuries prior to canonization......every one of them can be tracked to churches who held them since the first century......



On the contrary, I've noted that several major books of the New Testament were probably not written by Paul

sorry....you've noted that some liberal theologians claim that several major books of the New Testament were not written by Paul.....nobody credits your sources with any accuracy except other liberal theologians who don't want a legitimate Bible.......better said, that you've noted that a few people without evidence to back up their claims have argued that Paul didn't write books attributed to him......




Moreover, the major doctrine that even an iota of failure would shatter is that the Bible is absolutely infallible in its present form......That's obviously not the case, and it's really rather amazing that anyone could believe otherwise.
.
lol, there is no such doctrine.....and it is amazing you think there is.




Advocates of the Trinity hold that they are three Persons in one God, not "three different gods."

/shrugs....of course.....but you don't need Timothy to establish that structurally....it's a consistent thread through the entire Bible......that's what I said before.....

[avatar4321]

Im a right wing Christian. I dont think the Bible is infalliable. I dont need infalliable scriptures to have faith in an infalliable God.

[glockmail]

The post only appears excessively wide in Firefox (and after I just checked, Opera, though few people use that). The post appears fine in Safari, which I'm using. After I checked, it actually does appear normal in IE also, so simply use that if you don't like the way the post looks and you don't want to use Safari. In other words, you fucked up. Why not just man-up and admit it? *shrug*

[PostmodernProphet]

wiki correctly states the doctrine of inerrancy as being "that in its original form, the Bible is totally without error, and free from all contradiction"....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy

the doctrine of infallibility is that "the Bible is free from errors on issues of faith and practice"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_infallibility

Agna apparently thinks it makes a better argument if you claim it means "the Bible is absolutely infallible in its present form"......

[PostmodernProphet]

the argument that Paul did not author the Pastoral letters dates from Marcion.....who was thrown out of the Christian church as a heretic for denying that Jesus was God....in order for him to sustain his argument it was necessary for him to delete quite a bit of what the Christian church includes in the NT.....liberal theologians, eager to agree that Jesus is not divine, are easily inclined to agree with Marcion......

[Agnapostate]

well let's take it slowly so you can.....you complained about a Bible which contained errors....the errors date to the 1600s......they have been identified and corrected....thus, the modern Bible has corrected the errors that bothered you......why do you still say the modern Bible is corrupted?......

I've still no idea what this garbled nonsense is supposed to mean. The modern Bible contains errors in terms of omission of pertinent texts and inclusion of forged texts and passages that were never "corrected." I'm focusing on the latter in this thread.


texts of religions other than Christianity, for example, the Gnostics.....every book currently in the Bible has been in the Bible since the 300s....and every book in the Bible existed for centuries prior to canonization......every one of them can be tracked to churches who held them since the first century......

The "proto-orthodox" sect was not definitively established as the "real Christians" any more than the various Gnostic sects were during the first several centuries, and it was only through their eventual overpowering of the other sects through various means that you even came to believe that their teachings were "real Christianity" in the first place. Moreover, there are obviously other texts of similar theological pertinence that were not placed in the Bible, several texts that were placed in that are forgeries, and numerous passages that were inserted in through later scribal alterations, which you've failed to note here.


sorry....you've noted that some liberal theologians claim that several major books of the New Testament were not written by Paul.....nobody credits your sources with any accuracy except other liberal theologians who don't want a legitimate Bible.......better said, that you've noted that a few people without evidence to back up their claims have argued that Paul didn't write books attributed to him......

Yet another odd reference to "liberal theologians," I see. You're apparently unfamiliar that textual criticism is a field quite distinct from mere "theology." Moreover, there is significant evidence to support the claim that I've made here. As I noted in my first post, "[t]he 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."


lol, there is no such doctrine.....and it is amazing you think there is.

To clarify, are you definitively stating that no major sect or affiliation of modern Christians believes that the Bible is literally inspired by God and now preserved in an infallible form?


/shrugs....of course.....but you don't need Timothy to establish that structurally....it's a consistent thread through the entire Bible......that's what I said before.....

Please try and keep up. I wasn't even referring to Timothy when I was discussing this point; I was referring to 1 John. Moreover, there is no other passage in the Bible which supports the doctrine of the Trinity so openly (nor does the word "Trinity" ever appear in the Bible), so you'll certainly have to provide me with evidence that this crucial doctrine is so


Im a right wing Christian. I dont think the Bible is infalliable. I dont need infalliable scriptures to have faith in an infalliable God.

Believe such if you please, though it would probably earn you categorization as a "liberal" Christian by the Christian Right, as they would consider such claims as "[a]ll scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work" ("Paul" in 2 Timothy 3:16-17), "the Scripture cannot be broken" (Jesus in John 10:35), and "no prophecy of Scripture is of of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit" (Peter in 2 Peter 2:8).

The divine preservation of the "Word of God" is alleged throughout the Bible through declaration such as "[t]he grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever" (Isaiah 40:8, confirmed by Peter in 1 Peter 1:26) and "'[a]s for me,' says the LORD, 'this is my covenant with them: My Spirit who is upon you, and My words which I have put in your mouth, shall not depart from your mouth, nor from the mouth of your descendants, nor from the mouth of your descendants' descendants," says the LORD, 'from this time and forevermore'" (Isaiah 59:21).


In other words, you fucked up. Why not just man-up and admit it? *shrug*

Because I don't really care if the thread looks too wide in your browser. It looks fine in my browser, and I'm not in the mood to visually format my posts simply so that they please you.


wiki correctly states the doctrine of inerrancy as being "that in its original form, the Bible is totally without error, and free from all contradiction"....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy

the doctrine of infallibility is that "the Bible is free from errors on issues of faith and practice"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_infallibility

Agna apparently thinks it makes a better argument if you claim it means "the Bible is absolutely infallible in its present form"......

You seem woefully unfamiliar with the doctrinal beliefs of current major Christian sects. Please consult adherents of modern evangelical or fundamentalist Christianity about this issue, and they will assure you that the Bible is either infallible or inerrant, respectively, and that its preservation in its present form is itself confirmed by Scripture.

[PostmodernProphet]

I've still no idea what this garbled nonsense is supposed to mean. The modern Bible contains errors in terms of omission of pertinent texts and inclusion of forged texts and passages that were never "corrected."

???...apparently you have secret knowledge not available to current theologists.....please inform which texts are uncorrected........




The "proto-orthodox" sect was not definitively established as the "real Christians" any more than the various Gnostic sects were during the first several centuries, and it was only through their eventual overpowering of the other sects through various means that you even came to believe that their teachings were "real Christianity" in the first place.

obviously it is wrong to include the Gnostics within Christianity, since Christianity excluded them....by every definition available, Gnostics cannot be considered Christian.......



Moreover, there are obviously other texts of similar theological pertinence that were not placed in the Bible
obviously then, not texts accepted by that religion known as Christianity.....



, several texts that were placed in that are forgeries, and numerous passages that were inserted in through later scribal alterations, which you've failed to note here.
since you are the one who believes these exist, I expect it is your responsibility to "note" them......




Yet another odd reference to "liberal theologians," I see. You're apparently unfamiliar that textual criticism is a field quite distinct from mere "theology."
call them what you wish...the most accurate description would be atheists.....in any event, they are not biblical scholars.....they are biblical deniers, first and foremost.....



Moreover, there is significant evidence to support the claim that I've made here.
actually, there is no evidence whatsoever.....



As I noted in my first post, "[t]he arguments against the authorship of these books by Paul are accepted by the majority of modern textual critics

which in itself is not a true statement, since theologians also study scriptures textually...."modern textual critics" as used in this context is merely a pseudonym for people who criticize Christianity......since they deny the existence of God, they reject the title of "theologian"....it's all very shallow....


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."

calling Gnosticism another "school of Christianity" is like calling Islam another school of Judaism......




To clarify, are you definitively stating that no major sect or affiliation of modern Christians believes that the Bible is literally inspired by God and now preserved in an infallible form?

no, to clarify I am denying that any major sect of modern Christianity has a doctrine that infallibilty means "the Bible is absolutely infallible in its present form".....which present form do you mean.....the New International version?.....The Message?......the Revised King James?......



nd keep up. I wasn't even referring to Timothy when I was discussing this point; I was referring to 1 John. Moreover, there is no other passage in the Bible which supports the doctrine of the Trinity so openly (nor does the word "Trinity" ever appear in the Bible), so you'll certainly have to provide me with evidence that this crucial doctrine is so

trust me....keeping up with you is no challenge....particularly if you are so ignorant of scripture that you need help finding a passage referring to God as Father......referring to Christ as divine.....referring to the Spirit as sent by both of them.....are you pretending the Bible does not identify all three as God?......




Believe such if you please, though it would probably earn you categorization as a "liberal" Christian by the Christian Right, as they would consider such claims as "[a]ll scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work" ("Paul" in 2 Timothy 3:16-17), "the Scripture cannot be broken" (Jesus in John 10:35), and [i]"no prophecy of Scripture is of of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit" (Peter in 2 Peter 2:8).

I'm sorry....if you think that equals "the Bible is absolutely infallible in its present form", then you are more ignorant of the Christian religion than I thought.....



The divine preservation of the "Word of God" is alleged throughout the Bible

and well demonstrated by the correction of the errors you enumerated.....what you seem incapable of understanding is that these errors have been identified and fixed....



You seem woefully unfamiliar with the doctrinal beliefs of current major Christian sects. Please consult adherents of modern evangelical or fundamentalist Christianity about this issue, and they will assure you that the Bible is either infallible or inerrant, respectively, and that its preservation in its present form is itself confirmed by Scripture.

no, I am not unfamiliar with their doctrinal beliefs.....in this instance wiki is quite correct and you are quite wrong.....though I welcome any effort you might make to back up your claim....I note you haven't done that so far.....it is true they will make statements regarding inerrancy and infallibilty....what you overlook is the simple fact that you don't know what those words mean.....we evangelicals, fundamentalists, wiki-ists, and board readers do.......

[darin]

PMP for the win. Agnapostate - in your replies you seem more intent on being RIGHT - that your point of view is the correct view, than you seem about finding the truth, even if it means you've been wrong.

[glockmail]

....
Because I don't really care if the thread looks too wide in your browser. It looks fine in my browser, and I'm not in the mood to visually format my posts simply so that they please you. ...Whether you care if your post are readable or not is up to you and not the point. You fucked up but can't admit a simple mistake. In my opinion that says a lot about a man's character.

[chloe]

What religion were you raised in Agna?

[glockmail]

What religion were you raised in Agna? The Socialist religion: the faith that some far-away bureaucrat knows how to spend your money better than you do.

[chloe]

Agna seems to have really studied the bible alot, he seems so knowledgable on it, I was curious mostly. I'm not any religion myself but I like a lot of ideas that come from the bible and religions. Most especially Gospel Music !!!

[PostmodernProphet]

Agna seems to have really studied the bible alot, he seems so knowledgable on it,

not really...he has merely parroted the ignorance to be found on any atheist web site.....

[chloe]

why does an atheist care whether the bible/koran/torah or any other religious book is accurate or not if they don't believe in God or religion?

[Agnapostate]

???...apparently you have secret knowledge not available to current theologists.....please inform which texts are uncorrected........

This question solidifies my belief that you don't actually understand the nature of these corrupted texts. I've already commented on the nature of scribal alterations that resulted in additions to the Bible not present in Codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, and we can also examine the poor quality of preservation of other texts. For instance, what do you believe is the accurate way to interpret 1 Samuel 13:1?


obviously it is wrong to include the Gnostics within Christianity, since Christianity excluded them....by every definition available, Gnostics cannot be considered Christian.......

"Christianity" excluded them? I see no means for claiming that the proto-orthodox school (as Bart Ehrman has termed them), had any greater claim to the mantle of "Christianity" than other sects did. Had matters developed somewhat differently, you could have just as easily believed in polytheistic Christianity.


obviously then, not texts accepted by that religion known as Christianity.....

Then why is it logical to assume that those texts within the Bible (specifically the letters of Paul), have any greater theological authority than those letters of his not in the Bible?


since you are the one who believes these exist, I expect it is your responsibility to "note" them......

I already have. As I said, "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."


call them what you wish...the most accurate description would be atheists.....in any event, they are not biblical scholars.....they are biblical deniers, first and foremost.....

Amusing. Despite Bruce Metzger's Christianity, for instance, those who note the existence of forgeries in the Bible are "atheists"? Is the ACLU funding them too? :laugh2:


actually, there is no evidence whatsoever.....

Ah, clever strategy here. I can see why you wouldn't want to go the way of actual arguments. ;)


which in itself is not a true statement, since theologians also study scriptures textually...."modern textual critics" as used in this context is merely a pseudonym for people who criticize Christianity......since they deny the existence of God, they reject the title of "theologian"....it's all very shallow....

This is a poor argument. Merely dismissing those who accurately note that several books of the Bible are forgeries, and several passages have been altered by scribes, whether in translation or deliberately, as "unbelievers" or something similar won't get you far.


calling Gnosticism another "school of Christianity" is like calling Islam another school of Judaism......

Refer to above.


no, to clarify I am denying that any major sect of modern Christianity has a doctrine that infallibilty means "the Bible is absolutely infallible in its present form".....which present form do you mean.....the New International version?.....The Message?......the Revised King James?......

As I said, that's incorrect. Evangelical Christianity, which is the major sect that composes the Christian Right, makes such a claim of Biblical infallibility.


trust me....keeping up with you is no challenge....particularly if you are so ignorant of scripture that you need help finding a passage referring to God as Father......referring to Christ as divine.....referring to the Spirit as sent by both of them.....are you pretending the Bible does not identify all three as God?......

There is no other passage in the Bible which identifies the doctrine of the Trinity in such a manner. If you've found one, feel free to supply it, though I suspect that the best you'd be able to offer is 2 Corinthians 13:15.


I'm sorry....if you think that equals "the Bible is absolutely infallible in its present form", then you are more ignorant of the Christian religion than I thought.....

To be entirely honest, you've demonstrated a substantial amount of ignorance of Christianity yourself. Please refer back to evangelicals' current belief in the infallibility of the Bible. It's a trait common to rightist sects.


and well demonstrated by the correction of the errors you enumerated.....what you seem incapable of understanding is that these errors have been identified and fixed....

That is inaccurate, since scribal alterations remain intact in the modern Bible.


no, I am not unfamiliar with their doctrinal beliefs.....in this instance wiki is quite correct and you are quite wrong.....though I welcome any effort you might make to back up your claim....I note you haven't done that so far.....it is true they will make statements regarding inerrancy and infallibilty....what you overlook is the simple fact that you don't know what those words mean.....we evangelicals, fundamentalists, wiki-ists, and board readers do.......

That is similarly incorrect. Biblical inerrancy involves what its name implies; the Bible is an inerrant text free from error and contradiction, while the doctrine of Biblical infallibility is a somewhat loosened version of inerrancy. Accordingly, the former is typically a component of fundamentalism, and the latter, evangelical Christianity.


PMP for the win. Agnapostate - in your replies you seem more intent on being RIGHT - that your point of view is the correct view, than you seem about finding the truth, even if it means you've been wrong.

It wouldn't have been possible for me to abandon my deeply held religious beliefs had I been more focused on being right rather than finding the truth, even if that necessitated acknowledgment that I was wrong.


Whether you care if your post are readable or not is up to you and not the point. You fucked up but can't admit a simple mistake. In my opinion that says a lot about a man's character.

I see no problem with the post with Safari (and Explorer, which means that the default browsers for both Mac and Windows are working fine), and thus far, you've been the only person to complain about it. Why should I go to the trouble of formatting the post specifically so that it pleases you, even though it might become similarly poorly formatted to other readers? That seems rather selfish of you.


What religion were you raised in Agna?

Roman Catholicism, with a later conversion to evangelical Christianity.


The Socialist religion: the faith that some far-away bureaucrat knows how to spend your money better than you do.

This would be mildly amusing if it didn't merely constitute another abuse of political theory and economy on your part. As I've repeatedly noted, I am an anarchist. The notion that I somehow have a greater support of bureaucracy than a rightist like you is nothing short of absurd.


Agna seems to have really studied the bible alot, he seems so knowledgable on it, I was curious mostly. I'm not any religion myself but I like a lot of ideas that come from the bible and religions. Most especially Gospel Music !!!

I studied the Bible fervently while an evangelical Christian, and retained my technical knowledge of it despite my later apostasy. I was also drawn into examination of the field of textual criticism of the New Testament.


not really...he has merely parroted the ignorance to be found on any atheist web site.....

Don't make me laugh; you've not been able to issue a single sound rebuttal. Textual criticism of the New Testament is not "atheist" in nature; it's merely based on the accurate identification of transcription errors. It's true that identification of such errors clearly contradicts the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy and thus would not incline one to rightist forms of Christianity, if that's your point.


why does an atheist care whether the bible/koran/torah or any other religious book is accurate or not if they don't believe in God or religion?

I'd say that atheist opposition to religion wouldn't be especially important if it was simply a matter of personal faith, but many religious insist on using their beliefs as a basis for law, as illustrated by their shrill insistence that America was founded as a "Christian nation," for instance. It's when this occurs that religion transforms from personal and trivial superstition to an authoritarian force.

http://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo18/Dolgoff/64a318b7.jpg

Their theocratic Islamic cousins are an even more troubling matter, of course. So ultimately, that's why secular opposition to organized religion (particularly Christianity and Islam), exists where secular opposition to astrology, for instance, typically does not. Though both astrology and organized religion are similarly irrational, the former has no significant impact on public policy, while the latter has spawned governments based on its tenets, which affects the lives of all citizens.

[PostmodernProphet]

This question solidifies my belief that you don't actually understand the nature of these corrupted texts. I've already commented on the nature of scribal alterations that resulted in additions to the Bible not present in Codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, and we can also examine the poor quality of preservation of other texts.

???....you mean you have already commented on texts which have been corrected to mirror the original.....what "corruptions" remain?......



For instance, what do you believe is the accurate way to interpret 1 Samuel 13:1?


I Samuel 13:1 1 Saul was thirty years old when he became king, and he reigned over Israel forty-two years.

???....now there's an issue that has been a burning topic of theology for generations......lol.....



"Christianity" excluded them? I see no means for claiming that the proto-orthodox school (as Bart Ehrman has termed them), had any greater claim to the mantle of "Christianity" than other sects did. Had matters developed somewhat differently, you could have just as easily believed in polytheistic Christianity.

and obviously the point is, things didn't develop differently....the mantle of Christianity hangs where it does and you don't define a religion by those it condemned, but by those it retained....



Then why is it logical to assume that those texts within the Bible (specifically the letters of Paul), have any greater theological authority than those letters of his not in the Bible?

because they only attained theological authority by being accepted by the religion recognized as "Christianity" as having it.....if you wish to follow a religion in which other texts have theological authority, you are free to.....but since they are not accepted by "Christianity" don't pretend they have theological authority for Christians.....



I already have. As I said, "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.
but you see the error of your argument?.....YOU consider those documents to be illegitimate....Christianity does not agree with you....you have "arguments", not evidence....and quite frankly your arguments are quite weak....



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
not surprising, since many sections of the texts are quotes of other sources.....if you read Timothy you will note the frequency of the words..."for it is said"......if I read through your threads will I find instances where you quote other sources and "use" vocabulary not frequently found in your other posts?......



that the false teachings described by the epistles are developed forms of second-century Gnosticism
Gnosticism did not begin in the second century.....atheists believe they can have it both ways.....here you argue that Gnosticism is second century....elsewhere it is argued that both John the Baptist and Jesus were Gnostics....




that the church organizational structure described therein is far too developed for Paul’s era


not at all true....Luke documents the existence of elders and deacons in Acts......



Amusing. Despite Bruce Metzger's Christianity, for instance, those who note the existence of forgeries in the Bible are "atheists"? Is the ACLU funding them too? :laugh2:

not quite sure how the ACLU got into the debate, but there is no question that those who frame the debate about forgeries in the Bible are atheists....



Ah, clever strategy here. I can see why you wouldn't want to go the way of actual [i]arguments. ;)

so far I have seen nothing that merited an actual debate on evidence....



This is a poor argument. Merely dismissing those who accurately note that several books of the Bible are forgeries, and several passages have been altered by scribes, whether in translation or deliberately, as "unbelievers" or something similar won't get you far.

it will get me farther than your attempt to pretend it is "accurate" that books of the Bible are forgeries.....and again....you seem to think that translation errors that have been corrected have some ability to "corrupt" the bible even after correction.....there was a thread here with a series of videos regarding the various manuscripts we have available for the bible and how short of time there is between the original and available copies....you would do well to watch them and obtain an education about how far you are from reality....




Refer to above.


/shrugs....I see nothing above to miraculously make your argument valid....




As I said, that's incorrect. Evangelical Christianity, which is the major sect that composes the Christian Right, makes such a claim of Biblical infallibility.


I have quoted authority for what I stated....all I have from you is your opinion....an inaccurate one at that....



There is no other passage in the Bible which identifies the doctrine of the Trinity in such a manner. If you've found one, feel free to supply it,

so when Jesus states that he and the Father are one.....and when he states that he will send forth his spirit to the apostles after his ascension....we are talking about what....cottage cheese?......



Please refer back to evangelicals' current belief in the infallibility of the Bible.

I have, you haven't.....




That is inaccurate, since scribal alterations remain intact in the modern Bible.


so identify these continuing scribal alterations.....all you've identified so far are corrected ones....



That is similarly incorrect. Biblical inerrancy involves what its name implies; the Bible is an inerrant text free from error and contradiction, while the doctrine of Biblical infallibility is a somewhat loosened version of inerrancy. Accordingly, the former is typically a component of fundamentalism, and the latter, evangelical Christianity.

I have provided authority for my definition of "inerrant" and "infallible"....I am still waiting for you to provide one beyond "that's what I think it means"......



It wouldn't have been possible for me to abandon my deeply held religious beliefs had I been more focused on being right rather than finding the truth, even if that necessitated acknowledgment that I was wrong.

the jury is still out on whether you've "found the truth"....or given it up....well, maybe not dmp....that part of the jury is in, at least....



I'd say that atheist opposition to religion wouldn't be especially important if it was simply a matter of personal faith, but many religious insist on using their beliefs as a basis for law

yet ironically, it is always the atheists who turn to the courts to have their beliefs thrust upon all of society....whether it be prayers in school, or what hangs on a court house wall.....whether it be the right to kill their unborn children or what the mint imprints on coins.......or what the definition of "marriage" is.....

[chloe]

Thanks for answering my questions Agna. I suppose I can understand some of what your position is. I live in utah and so sometimes the mormon church imposes there views to influence the way things are run in society and I don't always agree with it. Yet I have attended there services when I was married to a mormon and I enjoyed the "relief society" for women and I also enjoyed the family nights they encourage members to engage in.

I don't know much about the catholics except that I met one from florida a couple years ago and he kept telling me I needed to find Jesus he didnt like me reading his wifes fortune cards. He was really nice but when he talked about the bible I couldnt relate to his points.

I did go to a bible study one time out here with a baptist and had a great time, the guy was crazy into the bible yet he was very exciting and even mapped out where places in the bible are in todays current map.

I do believe in God but I don't have any evidence of God. I do pray & hope. I suppose to the athiests it is as silly as astrology to do that. But it does give me a sense of peace. Agna do you at least like gospel music? he he....:cool:

[glockmail]

why does an atheist care whether the bible/koran/torah or any other religious book is accurate or not if they don't believe in God or religion?
They need to justify their faith.

[chloe]

It sounds like Atheists feel discriminated against.