The Bible has been changed ( rewritten )

page: 33
47
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by twoandthree

Hi again, One Two Three

Sorry, but I[‘m afraid that I typed my earlier post to you a little too fast – and mis-represented the verse (=Matt 21:44) – the verse that I actually had in mind was not (as I typed) about the ‘Resurrection Commission’ at the end of the 1st canonical council approved Greek gospel (‘according to Matthew’ whoever he was = see Matt 28:19) which most MSS written AFTER c. 300 include the highly problematic proto-Orthodox phrase ‘baptizing them in the name of the father, and of the son and of the holy ghost’ (instead of ‘baptising them in my Name’) … but rather, I meant to write that Matt 21:44 contains 15 Greek words missing from most MSS [ref: The Stone Whom the Builders Rejected being an agent of Judgment] –

Interestingly the Dead Sea Scroll Community at Qumran, some clean copies of whose texts were found in 1897 in the Geniza Torah Attic of the (now refurbished !) Cairo Synagogue ben-Ezra by Dr Solomon Schechter of Cambridge University, and also in (more famously) the treasure trove of Hebrew, Greek & Aramaic fragments found in 11 rock caves at Qumran beginning in Nov of 1946 – rare scriptural & related 2nd century BCE to 1st century CE texts sealed up into their cave-time-capsules during the 1st Failed Jewish War against Rome in June of 68 CE] identified the ‘Stone which the Builders Rejected with their own judgment oriented ‘Moreh ha Tsaddiq’ – i.e. the (priestly) Teacher of Righteousness (who lived to an advanced age at Seccacah / i.e. Qumran somewhere between c. 190 BCE to c. 100 BCE) who also believed he and the Qumran Covenanters were ‘now living in the Last Days’ etc.

But just for clarification –

Here is the actual 15 word Greek text that missing from most versions of Matt 21:44

και ο πεσων επι τον λιθον τουτον συνθλασθησεται εφ ον δ αν πεση λικμησει αυτον
prior to this passage the text reads : [And Iesous said to them, “Have you not read in the Scriptures, ‘The stone whom the builders have rejected has become the chief cornerstone?’ Yet Amen Amen I say unto you…]
‘that anyone who falls on top of this stone shall [have his bones] broken [upon i]t; and he who is under [the stone] when it falls [upon him] shall have [his bones] pulverized…’

At any rate, my example was meant to be a very small example of the corrupt state of the approx. 5,700 Greek MSS of the New Testament that needs to be ‘textually harmonised’ by scholars (a job not completed by far as we write !_) – no two MSS being exactly alike, letter for letter.

I’ll post a few more for you later this week – but check out in the meantime the book, ‘The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture’ by Dr Bart Ehrman of North Carolina – written way back in 1993

www.amazon.com...

i.e. just for a very brief Overview of some of the more general issues of the corrupt state of the manuscript evidence at present – no doubt he could have gone into more detail on many of the corrupt readings, but the book would have been ten times longer !




posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 08:42 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by BeholdAPaleHorse
 


Alright Pale, What an awesome link that is. Thank you went straight to my favors.
edit on 19-12-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by twoandthree

Hi again, Two Three

Here are some more textual 'anomalies' which betray the corrupt state of 3rd and 4th century Greek MSS in the so-called 'new' Testament (comprising some 5,770 Greek Manuscripts, no two of which are exactly alike)

Check out the messy textual history of the corrupt ext of the 'canonical' Greek gospel 'according to 'Luke' (whoever he was) e.g. in chapter 23:34, e.g. the scream from the Cross

ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς ἔλεγεν πάτερ, ἄφες αὐτοῖς οὐ γὰρ οἴδασιν τί ποιοῦσιν

'And Iesous said, Abba, Forgive Them - Because They Do Not Know What They Are Doing...! '

These (12) Greek words are completely absent from the earliest 'known' hand written Manuscript Copy of' 'Luke', i.e. Papyrus 75 (p75)

They are also absent from (B) =Codex Vaticanus & (D) =Codex Bezae Biglot, etc. .

Codex Aleph (=Codex Sinaiticus) originally copied these words out in Greek, but a later scribe inserted his own comment in the Margin of the text, another Marginalium to this verse, in effect : 'these words are a later addition by others' then a later copyist re-inserted the words back into the text.

So what is a modern day 'believer' to believe?

The 'church' authorities are well-versed in such matters & prefer not to mention the subject to their sheeple.

But serious text-critical biblical scholars believe this passage to be 'a spurious later insertion' via a marginalium (words in the margin of a text & copied into the main body - there are 50 examples of this kind of scribal shenanigans in the 'Book of Revelation' alone !!)

Try to wrap your head around the 'spurious' additions to the 'ending' of the 2nd canonical Greek Gospel ('acccording to Mark', whoever he was) the earliest ccopies of which end IN THE MIDDLE OF A SENTENCE

('ephobounto gar')

[The women said nothing to anyone] ...'they were afraid because...

One cannot end a Greek sentence with YAP (gar = 'because'); it always occurs as the 2nd word in a Greek phrase (meaning, 'because of' or 'for') - let alone ending a WHOLE book with it !!

'Canonical Mark' beginning with chapter 16:9 to 16:20 is a fake & later, corrupt ADDITION to an originally truncated (mangled?) ending-text.

QUOTE

9 ἀναστὰς δὲ πρωῒ πρώτῃ σαββάτου ἐφάνη πρῶτον μαρίᾳ τῇ μαγδαληνῇ παρ᾽ ἧς ἐκβεβλήκει ἑπτὰ δαιμόνια.
10 ἐκείνη πορευθεῖσα ἀπήγγειλεν τοῖς μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ γενομένοις πενθοῦσι καὶ κλαίουσιν·
11 κἀκεῖνοι ἀκούσαντες ὅτι ζῇ καὶ ἐθεάθη ὑπ᾽ αὐτῆς ἠπίστησαν.12 μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα δυσὶν ἐξ αὐτῶν περιπατοῦσιν ἐφανερώθη ἐν ἑτέρᾳ μορφῇ πορευομένοις εἰς ἀγρόν·13 κἀκεῖνοι ἀπελθόντες ἀπήγγειλαν τοῖς λοιποῖς· οὐδὲ ἐκείνοις ἐπίστευσαν.14 ὕστερον [δὲ] ἀνακειμένοις αὐτοῖς τοῖς ἕνδεκα ἐφανερώθη, καὶ ὠνείδισεν τὴν ἀπιστίαν αὐτῶν καὶ σκληροκαρδίαν ὅτι τοῖς θεασαμένοις αὐτὸν ἐγηγερμένον οὐκ ἐπίστευσαν.15 καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς, πορευθέντες εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἅπαντα κηρύξατε τὸ εὐαγγέλιον πάσῃ τῇ κτίσει.16 ὁ πιστεύσας καὶ βαπτισθεὶς σωθήσεται, ὁ δὲ ἀπιστήσας κατακριθήσεται.17 σημεῖα δὲ τοῖς πιστεύσασιν ταῦτα παρακολουθήσει· ἐν τῶ ὀνόματί μου δαιμόνια ἐκβαλοῦσιν, γλώσσαις λαλήσουσιν καιναῖς,18 [καὶ ἐν ταῖς χερσὶν] ὄφεις ἀροῦσιν, κἂν θανάσιμόν τι πίωσιν οὐ μὴ αὐτοὺς βλάψῃ, ἐπὶ ἀρρώστους χεῖρας ἐπιθήσουσιν καὶ καλῶς ἕξουσιν.19 ὁ μὲν οὗν κύριος ἰησοῦς μετὰ τὸ λαλῆσαι αὐτοῖς ἀνελήμφθη εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ ἐκάθισεν ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ θεοῦ.20 ἐκεῖνοι δὲ ἐξελθόντες ἐκήρυξαν πανταχοῦ, τοῦ κυρίου συνεργοῦντος καὶ τὸν λόγον βεβαιοῦντος διὰ τῶν ἐπακολουθούντων σημείων.

UNQUOTE

"When Iesous was raised early on the first day of the week, he manifested himself first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had driven 7 devils who ran to tell those who had been with him mourning & weeping.

When they heard Iesous was alive & had appeared to her, they did not believe it. Later Iesous appeared in a different form to 2 of them while walking in the country who returned to report it to the others but they did not believe them. Then Iesous appeared to the 11 when eating & rebuked them for their doubts & stubborn refusal to believe those to whom he was manifested after he was exalted. He said “Go into the world & preach the gospel to all Creation & whoever believes &is baptized will be saved - but whoever does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands & if they drink poison, it will not hurt them - they can put their hands on the sick who will recover” After lord Iesous spoke to them, he was lifted up into heaven to sit at the right hand of Theos 20 Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord woworked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it..."

These Greek Words are totally absent from the early Papyrus Syr-S (Sy-s c. 140 CE) & also from Codex Sinaiticus & Codex Vaticanus.

More Homework !



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


Your right, it is easy to prove.
Go to a protestant book store, open a bible, look at the table of contents and take a picture on a digital camera.
Go to a catholic book store and do the same, or look up the TOC online for catholic and protestant bibles.
The catholic bible has SEVEN MORE BOOKS IN IT than the protestant bible does.
1,2 Macabees
Sirach
Wisdom
2 others I forget.

Now, this PROVES that there is no mystical force making sure that every book with "Bible" stamped on the front is the inerrant authoritative word of God because if that's true, then the bible is complete with and without those seven books of the bible, which in Catholic say so ARE part of scripture and in Protestant say so ARE NOT part of scripture, so one or both is wrong, so one or both have an erroneous amount of books in their bible. And if you want to say Catholics are wrong and Protestants are right, that may be on a lot of issues, BUT I challenge you to see when the bible was first made what books were in it till a couple of centuries ago when the Protestants made bibles with 7 less books in them. The Douay Rheims is an easy one at 1600 or so it was made it's Catholic and has those 7 books, plus a lot of other ones in it if You get the old translation "that they may not be lost to time" according to the translators I think is the reason, at least that's the reason other extra biblical books like the book of Enoch were put into the Vulgate translation if I recall right. And no, Catholics don't call the 5 listed plus the other two I forgot extrabiblical I think it's Chronicls but I may be wrong (all in the old testmaent all 7 of them) they call them biblical. I also saw on a Bonhouffer documentary, the Maryter durring nazi Germany that opposed Hilter Bonhouffer (I forget the spelling) that hitler's guys cranked out their OWN translation of a bible that said something like 'blessed are all who are loyal comrads' in place of one of the beatitudes amongst other things I'm sure. If it's physically possible, they probably tried it, and it's physically possible to be confused about these 7 books so why not trounce the scriptures for the sake of "CRUSADE FOR THE POPE!!!" and all that other genocidal phsycially and spiritual non sense. Now I've still been reading my bible, and I find it's strikingly good morally speaking, but as always you take it with Sense in your brain. For instance,
Proverbs states "Don't give too much" "Refuse the sinner"
Jesus states "Give to those whom ask"
I've heard it argued 'well do you then just give every time someone asks you?'
NO!
Proverbs makes sure you have common sense in God's book as well as Jesus's moral sense. Don't give to evil people (sinners) and don't make your family starve to death by giving to every lost cause that has the gall to ask for more money! But give to those that ask if otherwise is the case.
Likewise, use COMMON SENSE that DOESN"T VIOLATE OTHER PARTS OF SCRIPTURE OR MORALS unless You think your dealing with an abused part of scripture. For instance, in I think it's Deuteronomy, it states that if someone so much as works to light a fire on the Sabbath you kill him. Jesus states He did not come to do away with the least bit of the letter of the law, do not think I came to do away with it but fulfill it. Paul basically says 'DON'T BE EVIL ON ACCOUNT OF JESUS'S GRACE TO YOU' so the law still applies. Now I find it perfectly believeable that the pharisees went overboard and mistranslated the part about killing those with lighter fluid in their hands on the Sabbath so I won't be including that part in my book of common morals for me and my family. That COMMON SENSE MORALS AT WORK HERE - we're perfectly capable of reading the bible and knowing what GOD WANTS in most COMMON APPLICATIONS so your not off the hook really.
Also, YES it's alright to lie to nazis jsut read the first part of Exodus where the Hebrew midwives did just that to Pharoe and didn't kill the babies Pharoe said to and God was pleased with it. Yes it says do not MURDER. It doesn't say do not kill, so it is lawful to step on bugs as you walk here and there so long as your not doing it on purpose becuase that would be malice otherwise and if you inspected every inch you tread on you'd never get there so don't worry about never killing bugs.

USE COMMON SENSE!!!!! WE'VE BEEN LIED TO ENOUGH USE YOUR BRAINS BECAUSE NO ONE WILL TELL YOU WHAT MAKES COMMON SENSE ANYMORE BY AND LARGE YOU'LL HAVE TO FIND OUT WHAT'S THE LIE AND WHAT'S NOT MOSTLY ON YOUR OWN BY RESEARCH AND COMMON SENSE!!!!! POWER WILL DO ANYTHING TO KEEP POWER EVEN MESS WITH GOD'S HOLY WORD WHICH I FIND WAS TOO HARD FOR EVEN stan (satan) TO GUM UP TOO BADLY SO I STILL READ IT TODAY!



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 09:40 PM
link   
no offense to any Stans in here mind you, see post above : ) -don't hit me yall!



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 06:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
But I'm a troll.


That's about the only thing in this entire thread from you that is true. Well done!

You wouldn't know truth if it came up to you, slapped you in the face, stole your cookies, slept with your wife and then etched the fact it had into the moon so you could see it for yourself.

Good luck with your beliefs.

T



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 06:56 AM
link   
reply to post by torqpoc
 


You may be telling the truth here. I'm not sure.

Seek help.
edit on 22-12-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by TinkerHaus
 


Thank you for recommending watching The Bible Unearthed documentary. It was riveting! With some extra effort, I was also able to find other credible sources to substantiate its claims.

I recommend everyone watch the whole thing (3 parts) and consider it.

topdocumentaryfilms.com...

If the claims are true, then the Abrahamic religions might be better viewed as cultural identity systems.

Still, Christ Jesus could be real. Can the New Testament stand without the Old?
edit on 28-12-2011 by twoandthree because: added link



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Sigismundus
 


More homework, indeed! Thanks for your reply.

You are mentioning 300 A.D. texts. We actually have texts from 130 A.D. available, along with The Didache writings. The modern translations like NASB source back to these earlier texts; and while there do seem to be some issues with some translations throughout the years the key, in my opinion, is that something matches with high-fidelity.

I would be much more certain and secure if every version of the Bible were perfectly accurate and inviolate, but then again, I would probably cite that as a reason to disbelieve.

I do acknowledge that errors have been made. Though most of them transliterated prepositions and punctuation. Few have an effect on doctrine like the ones you (rather appropriately and most rightfully) called out.

We have these New Testament parchments from 130 A.D. and writings from 70 A.D. that show an intact, immutable text (at least at that point). We now have access to these and have incorporated them in our current, or rather most recently translated, translations (NASB). In my opinion, that is good enough for having confidence that what I'm studying is as close as possible to the real thing (though, I also read the Greek for meanings lost or unavailable via the translation process).

We now have the "best" info available since 130 A.D., we can all make our "leap of faith" from there - or not. I believe that there is no faith when all the t's are crossed and the i's are dotted.



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Sigismundus
 


Please know that I'm digging into these other items in your posts... even if I don't reply just yet about them.



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by twoandthree
 


I agree with you that perhaps half of the Old Testament may be questionable. In my own OT studies, I have found instances where conservative scholars delineated exactly where the texts were "updated" in a revisionist style... making prophecies more accurate and more dramatic than original written. In some cases, conservative scholars admit to multiple authors per book.

I've never seen how the Creation story in Genesis could be anything more than a metaphorical story.. and Leviticus a document to create the Jewish cultural identity.

Even if the Old Testament were completely discredited, the New Testament (as you hit on) can be considered separately. Also, there are many items in the OT/NT that have already been discredited by "science" and "reason" that with time science and reason discover were actually correct.

It seems to be a tall order to redeem the Old Testament as an ironclad "every word from God" document, but stranger things have happened. At the end of the day, the EXPERIENCE of loving Christ Jesus and having a personal relationship with Him is the only proof some need. I think it was designed this way.



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Sigismundus
 


It is dangerous to rely on Bart D. Ehrman's books... in particular "Misquoting Jesus" which has been proven to be incomplete arguments. There's a book that's something like misquoting misquoting Jesus that delineates all that. Just as a 4-1-1 for anyone who cares.



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Sigismundus
 



'Canonical Mark' beginning with chapter 16:9 to 16:20 is a fake & later, corrupt ADDITION to an originally truncated (mangled?) ending-text.


The last 12 verses of Mark huh? I agree with you that the 12 verses are completely missing from the 4th century Alexandrian codecies, yet answer a tricky little paradox we have from recorded history:


How on Earth did Irenaeus quote from these 12 verses in his commentary in 150 AD, and Hypolatus quotes from these same verses also in the 2nd century.?

You have two possible scenarios for how this came to be, either A: Irenaeus and Hypolatus were both clairvoyant and predicted exactly what would be added centuries later by a well-intentioned scribe, or B: They were EXPURGATED from the text in the 4th century by the Gnostics at Alexandria.


I know where my vote is.


"Wherefore they and their followers have betaken themselves to mutilating the Scriptures which they themselves have shortened."

Irenaeus, 156 AD, (Speaking of the Gnostics)



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical

Hey NOT:

I think you are referring to Iranaeus Bishop of Lyons' comments c. 177 CE in ‘Contra Haereses’ (‘Against Heresies’) in Book 3, Chapter 10, Section 5 : QUOTE “Then towards the end of his Gospel, Mark wrote: "After the Lord had spoken to them he was lifted into heaven, to sit at the Right hand of God;" [=part of Mark 16:19] confirming what had been spoken by the Prophet: "YHWH said to my Lord [the king], Sit at My right hand so that I might make your Enemies your foot rest…” (which is actually from the Psalms 110:1] &tc.

Interestingly, Iranaeus wrote ‘towards the end of his Gospel of Mark wrote’ but did NOT say ‘at the VERY end of the Gospel of Mark" which suggests that the text in front of Iranaeus kept going a few verses PAST chapter 16:v. 19 !!

So…by 177 CE, Iranaeus seems to have had A COPY of A Longer Version of ‘Mark’ (‘Secret Mark’ ?) in front of him when he compiled Contra Haereses--- BUT…this does NOT prove that the 2nd ‘canonical’ Greek gospel’s verses 16:9-19 were ALL IN-TACT in the same exact form we read in some of the versions of the ‘continuation’ of THE Greek text of‘Mark’ in the few MSS that have come down to us…(many must have been lost over time).

We know, for example, that there were OTHER copies of’ Longer Mark’ which only preserved a PART of the ‘longer ending’ Continuation, but not all of it : e.g. 16:9-16 (omitting 16:17, 16:18 and 16:19) so Mark evidently existed in various versions in antiquity in terms of the ending.

Most likely these various 'spurious endings' were all attempts to fill- in the embarrassing lacunae (gaps) at 16:8 ‘ephobounto gar’ (‘the [women] were afraid because…’) which as we have stated earlier in these posts, ends in the middle of a sentence with the preposition (‘YAP' = 'gar' = 'because of') which can ONLY occur 2nd in a Greeek sentence – and may not come not first, middle or last…

Interestingly, perhaps, Morton Smith (May 29, 1915 – July 11, 1991) an American, a biblical scholar in 1958 discovered at Mar Saba a 3-page handwritten Greek Shorthand addition (c. 1780) penned into the end-papers of a printed book, Isaac Voss' 1646 edition of the Epistolae genuinae S. Ignatii Martyris which when deciphered turned out to be by Clement of the Stromateis, i.e., Clement of Alexandria quoting from the Longer Carpocratian Text of Mark’s Gospel which preserved some earlier original wording (later excised from the text in modern ‘bibles’ !!) : he called the Longer version ‘Secret Mark’ – and proposed that these sections were deliberately removed from the 2nd canonical Greek Gospel (‘according to Mark’ whoever he was) because they were open to a possible homosexual interpretation – such as the Carpocratian Gnostics certainly did. But again, several versions of ‘Mark’ must have been circulating between (c. AD 90 and AD 177…)

Here are the ‘excised’ passages written in the SAME clumsy Greek style as the rest of the canonical 2nd Greek Gospel of ‘Mark’, including his bad spelling, his baby-Greek, his curious Greek Syntax and his weird Aramaic style vocabulary – in other words, these passages were almost certainly written by the same person who wrote the shorter more familiar 2nd canonical Greek gospel – it would be too hard to fake such bad Greek style !! The first fragment of the Secret Gospel of Mark, meant to be inserted between Mark 10.34 and 35, reads:
“And they come to Bethany where there was a woman whose brother had died who came & prostrated herself before Iesous saying "Son of David, have mercy upon me!" But the disciples rebuked her. But Iesous became angry & went with her into a garden where the tomb was & immediately a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going up to it, Iesous rolled the stone away from the door & immediately went in where the young man was. And stretching forth his hand, he lifted him up, taking hold [of it] whereuon the young man gazing intently at him, loved him & began to beeg him that he might ‘be with him’ (i.e. as a disciple), And going forth from the tomb, they went into the house of the young man, for he was rich. And after 6 days Iesous gave him his Instructions& at sunset the young man came to him with nothing but a linen cloth over his naked [body]. And he stayed with him the night at which time Iesous taught him the Mysteries of the Kingdom of God. And then when he left he went back to the other side of the Jordan….”
Another fragment of Secret Mark is inserted into Mark 10.46. The modern copies of ‘Mark’ show that there are sentences missing: e,.g. "Then they come to Jericho. And as he was leaving Jericho with his disciples..." which is a fragment.

The Greek Shorthand earlier text quotation reads the LONGER version: ‘Then he came to Jericho. And the sister of the young man whom Iesous loved was there with his mother & Salome, but Iesous would not receive them.”



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by twoandthree

Hey One Two Three--

I think you are referring to the tiny Rylands Papyrus Manuscript (P52), which contains a very very small portion of the Greek text of the 4th canonical gospel (‘according to John’ whoever he was)

viz. (front/recto) = parts of seven lines from the 18:31–33, the back/verso

= parts of seven lines from verses 37–38 = John chapter 18:31, 32, 33 & John 18:37 & 38 –

– copied at Alexandria, &roughly dated c. 135- 175 CE. Any more specific dating for P52 would be pure wishful thinking…

The actual preserved LETTERS of p52 ‘Rylands’ are CAPITALISED in the English Translation of the mangled fragment below (the bracketed letters are actually MISSING from the text fragments)
Tiny P52 pieces of ‘John’ 18: 31-33

ΟΙ ΙΟΥΔΑΙ [ΟΙ] ΗΜΙ [Ν ΟΥΚ ΕΞΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΠΟΚΤΕΙΝΑΙ ] OYΔΕΝΑ ΙΝΑ Ο Λ [ΟΓΟΣ ΤΟΥ ΙΗΣΟΥ ΠΛΗΡΩΘΗ ΟΝ ΕΙ] ΠΕΝ ΣHΜΑΙΝΩ [Ν ΠΟΙΩ ΘΑΝΑΤΩ ΗΜΕΛΛΕΝ ΑΠΟ] ΘΝHΣΚΕΙΝ Ε [ΙΣΗΛΘΕΝ ΟΥΝ ΠΑΛΙΝ ΕΙΣ ΤΟ ΠΡΑΙΤΩ] ΡΙΟΝ Ο Π [ IΛΑΤΟΣ ΚΑΙ ΕΦΩΝΗΣΕΝ ΤΟΝ ΙΗΣΟΥΝ] ΚΑΙ ΕΙΠ [ΕΝ ΑΥΤΩ ΣΥ ΕΙ O ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΤΩΝ ΙΟΥΔ] AΙΩ [N…]
...
[And they spoke saying] THE JUDAEANS FOR US [It is not lawful to put to death] ANYONE SO THAT THE W [ord of Iesous might be fulfilled, which he sp] OKE SIGNIFYIN [g what kind of death he was going to] DIE SO AGAIN PILATUS ENTE [red into the Praetori] UM PIL [ate and summoned Iesous] AND HE SPOKE TO [him saying "So you are the King of the Judaeans, then?"]

Tiny P52 pieces of ‘John’ 18: 37-38

[ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΕΙΜΙ ΕΓΩ ΕΙΣ TO ] ΥΤΟ ΓΕΓΕΝΝΗΜΑΙ [ΚΑΙ KAΕΛΗΛΥΘΑ ΕΙΣ ΤΟΝ ΚΟ] ΣΜΟΝ ΙΝΑ ΜΑΡΤY [ΡΗΣΩ ΤΗ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ ΠΑΣ Ο ΩΝ] EΚ ΤΗΣ ΑΛΗΘΕ [IΑΣ ΑΚΟΥΕΙ ΜΟΥ ΤΗΣ ΦΩΝΗΣ ] ΛΕΓΕΙ ΑΥΤΩ [ Ο ΠΙΛΑΤΟΣ ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ Κ] AΙ TΟΥΤO [ΕΙΠΩΝ ΠΑΛΙΝ ΕΞΗΛΘΕΝ ΠΡΟΣ] ΤΟΥΣ Ι [ΟΥΔΑΙΟΥΣ ΚΑΙ ΛΕΓΕΙ ΑΥΤΟΙΣ ΕΓΩ ΟΥΔ] EΜΙ [ΑΝ ΕΥΡΙΣΚΩ ΕΝ ΑΥΤΩ ΑΙΤΙΑΝ]
...
[You have spoken well in saying that I am a King, for] THIS I HAVE BEEN BORN [and (for this) I have come into the ] WORLD SO I COULD BEAR WITNESS [to the truth. Everyone who is] OF THE TRUTH [ is able to hear my voice." And Pilate s] AID TO HIM ["What is the Truth of this case?" ] AND THIS [having said, again he went out unto] THE JUDAEANS [and said to them, "I find] NOT A SINGLE [fault in him."]


Certainly there is simply not enough material preserved in P52 (the Rylands Papyrus) to go around claiming ‘for certain’ that the now-familiar longer later hand written texts in modern Greek NT Bible editions were ALWAYS the same without any changes over time.

Now if this TINY NT fragment were better preserved (i.e. longer) we could perhaps say a lot more about 'accuracy' !!

But (as it stands now in the University of Manchester in the UK) it would be impossible to use P52 (c. 150 CE) as ANY evidence at all that the MSS texts of the so-called New Testament were all based on pure un-adulterated copies that did not undergo ALOT of hand written tampering over time:

See Acts 20:35 when Greek words are placed into the mouth of Saul of Tarsus by the author of the 3rd canonical Gospel ('according to Luke' whoever he was) curiously relates an UNKNOWN saying attributed to 'the LORD' which IS NOT found in the 3rd gospel of Luke - even though the Book of Acts was written by the same author as 'Luke' !!

e.g. 'and remembering the words the Lord Jesus himself when he said: ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive...'.

ALSO:

We have dozens of mangled copies of alleged ‘gospel quotations’ from earlier (now lost) hand written Greek copies used 'as scripture' by the earliest Church Fathers (in the ‘Patristic’ literature i.e. gospel Quotations of the earliest Bishops) that show beyond ANY doubt that the very earliest Sayings (logia) in Greek placed into the mouth of the Greek speaking Iesous in the canonical Gospels DID NOT MATCH VERY CLOSELY to the Greek HAND COPIED textual versions in front of the very earliest Bishops c. 110 to c. 140 CE

As an exercise take some time to look very very very closely at the 'Logia' quotations written by e.g. Polycarp of Smyrna, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr or Clement of Rome etal. – they ALL show the Greeek text off the Gospel was very fluid (i.e. not set in stone, as in MSS copies after 325 CE)

See Clement of Rome’s Letter (2 Clement 12:2 c. 150 CE) “Whenthe Lord Himself was asked by a person when his Kingdom would come, he said,

'When the two shall be one, and the outside as the inside, and the male with the female, when therer is neither male or female'." (2Clem 12:2)

This ‘gnostic’ type saying is very similar to The Gospel of Thomas Logion 22 – but not found in any canonical Bible being read to-day !

There are perhaps 500 quotations of the earliest church fathers from texts now lost purporting to gospel sayings – but not in the same exact form we read in modern Bibles – I’ll be happy to list a few of them for you if I have time later this week…



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 04:04 AM
link   
reply to post by twoandthree
 





Still, Christ Jesus could be real. Can the New Testament stand without the Old?


I don't see how. All the doctrine of Christianity was foretold in the OT. The NT is the proof that Christ fulfilled the
prophecies of the OT. Let no man tear apart what God has brought together. They correspond and are without contradictions of any significance to what it teaches us about our Father in Heaven.. The NT is the only way we
have to learn about Christ.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 09:51 AM
link   
If the Bible has changed or rewriten then you have to go back to all the other documentations that support it, if they contradict each other then they will know, but it seems that is not the case, there are too many references outside religious people that support it, the ladder and network of information supports it. The Quran and Muhammad say it had been changed and that is a fundimental part of the Islamic belief system over the Bible.

____________________________________________________________________________________________


"They" could not have changed the Christian Gospels after Muhammad, since there are 5,735 (Welte, 2003) manuscripts of the whole or part of the Greek text of the New Testament (Injil) pre-dating Muhammad still in existence. Worldwide, there are 24,800 copies of these original manuscripts. These include the Codex Vaticanus (325-350 AD) located in the Vatican library and the Codex Siniaticus (350 AD) located in the British Museum. There are also 80,000 quotations in the works of early Christian writers which are so extensive that the New Testament could virtually be reconstructed from them without the actual New Testament documents. Then there is the obvious fact that the Christian Gospels were so widely distributed both before and after Muhammad, that any attempt to change (add/subtract) something in the Christian Gospels would have resulted in immediate discovery and condemnation. Additionally, the New Testament was handed down from apostolic times and its genuineness was guarded by Christian churches, and it was zealously watched by enemies of Christianity. A very wide protest would have resulted from both sides were it tampered with. Likewise, the Septuagint edition of the Old Testament was always in the hands of both Christians and Jews, both rivals in religion. Any attempts to change this by either side would have been vigorously attacked.

There are four more "safeguards" for the integrity of the Bible. (1) Jesus Himself read from Isaiah scroll in a Synagogue in Nazareth and declared it as Scripture (inspired from God), Luke 4:16-21; (2) The Dead Sea scrolls, found in 1947, verified the Jewish Torah back to 100 AD to 200 BC, when they were copied. Prior to this discovery, the oldest Torah dated to the 9th century AD. The Dead Sea scroll of Isaiah verified almost exactly the Isaiah scroll copied in the 9th century; (3) Early Church Fathers like Ignatius, Clement of Rome, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Irenaeus, who wrote from between 90-160 AD all cited in their writings Christian Gospel accounts (Guthrie, 1990, page 24); (4) We know that the writings of Moses were preserved as far back as 621 BC. 2 Kings 22 speaks of this at the time of the Israeli King Josiah. Ezra 7:14, Nehemiah 8:1-18, and Jeremiah 36 also speaks of the Jews maintaining Scripture.

Some versions of the Bible from 1881 differ in a few words here and there. However, the essential theological points remain the same and are complete.

The Christian Bible predates Muhammad and Islam by more than 575 years. The Jewish Torah predates Muhammad and Islam by 1,000 - 3,000 years. Muhammad said for Muslims to read the Bible for "Guidance and Light." For Islam to say they are corrupted, then is to call Muhammad a liar for recommending it.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by The time lord


Hi Timely

You wrote: QUOTE 'There are four more "safeguards" for the integrity of the Bible. (1) Jesus Himself read from Isaiah scroll in a Synagogue in Nazareth and declared it as Scripture (inspired from God), Luke 4:16-21;

(2) The Dead Sea scrolls, found in 1947, verified the Jewish Torah back to 100 AD to 200 BC, when they were copied.

Prior to this discovery, the oldest Torah dated to the 9th century AD. The Dead Sea scroll of Isaiah verified almost exactly the Isaiah scroll copied in the 9th century..."

UNQUOTE

Your statements above are utter garbage.

They also prove that you DO NOT know whereof you speak on these complex textual matters pertaining to the Hebrew Scriptures (especially all the different 'families' of handwritten copy MSS found at Qumran and elsewhere that date 1000 years older than the Masoretic text - which is pointed with weird vowells at time, and represents a late mediaeval text 'babylonian' text family - not the palestinian versions or Aramaic Targums that R. Yehoshua bar Yosef and the earliest Aramaic speaking palestinian 'Christians' actually knew and regarded as 'sacred texts' - which by the way, ALSO included as their own 'canonical' list, books such as 'The Scroll of the Words of Henoch the Scribe' (quoted as a Pesher as Scripture in Jude 1:14) and 'The Scroll of the Testaments of the 12 Patriarchs beeing the Sons of Israel' and the 'The Testament of Moses' aka 'The Scroll of the Book of the Divisions of the Times into [their] Jubilees & Weeks aka haSepher haYobhelim i.e. 'The Book of Jubilees' etc. ).

Try taking the time to read all the preliminary research of Emanuel Tov of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

Below is just ONE of literally DOZENS of Emanuel Tov's research Papers on these DIVERGENT texts for you to consult CLOSELY in order to start your re-education in this the 'turning point year' 2012.

Emanuel, Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov
(ed. S. M. Paul, R. A. Kraft, L. H. Schiffman, and W. W. Fields, with the assistance of E. Ben-David; VTSup 94; Leiden/Boston: E. J. Brill, 2003

Also, here are a couple of LINKs of Articles by Emanuel Tov for you to see more of what the ACTUAL situation is like in REALITY (and not in your 'Christian' apologetic fantasy world you seem to live in):

www.emanueltov.info...

www.emanueltov.info...


FYI - In Cave One of Qumran amongst the Dead Sea Scroll fragments there were TWO separate scroll copies (NOT one) of the prophet 'Isaiah' i.e. I QIs-a and 1QIs-b

And NO, they do NOT match each other letter for letter (there is a 17% letter for letter difference between them, and another 20% difference between the constonantal text of IQIs-b and the socalled pointed Masoretic Text of c. 960 AD if you count letter for letter.

Evidently you DO NOT KNOW that the earlier Palestinian Aramaic Targums of Proto, Deutero and Trito-Isaiah DO NOT MATCH very closely the later Masoretic text in terms of actual 'content' either ( see the so-called Leningrad Codex of c. 960 CE - a LATE and highly 'interpreted' text).

So PLEASE do NOT go around spewing unsupported nonsense about any alleged 'integrity' of the canonical and deutero-canonical Hebrew texts (including the Torah !) as if they did NOT undergo the most profound textual changes over time - after all they were HAND COPIED manuscripts (like the NT underwent textual changes over time via hand copied texts that DIFFERED (at times, significantly) when circulating and being copied from place to place).

Instead, do yourself a GIANT favour this year : go out and take a beginner's Hebrew course and then a beginner's Aramaic course then a beginner's Koine Greek course - then CLOSLEY examine these hand copied texts and (shock and awe !!!!) you will discover to your absolute horror - they DO NOT MATCH each other at all very closely when examined letter for letter (see the 'book of Jeremiah' with a textual difference which includes 13 'later-added' whole chapters !!!)

Oh weh....



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Sigismundus
 


So when they say that there are all these other written quotes from outside the Bible that testefy the Oldest known full Bible written is that fake too? You seem to know your side of the argument.

I like to know if this is fake?

Secondly do you have a faith?

If there is a God and I hold my faith to that and he helped write a book to guide us and it's wrong then that god has some issues of not being able to keep his own laws and words accurate which then questions the realiable message of a god.


As far as the New Testament, the Bodmer Papyrus II contains most of the Gospel of John and dates from around 150-200 AD. The Chester Beatty Papyri contains major portions of the New Testament and dates back to about 200 AD. The Codex Vaticanus, the oldest complete New Testament manuscript we've discovered so far, dates from 325-350 AD. The apostle John, who lived with Jesus and learned from Jesus, penned five New Testament books and died in 100 AD. We have fragments of John's Gospel that date from 110-130 AD, within 30 years of his death.
Text




Clement of Rome was martyred in 100 AD. In his writings, he quoted from Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, 1 Corinthians, 1 Peter, Hebrews, and Titus. Clement's quotes totally correspond with the Bible we read today. In fact, even if we lost all of the 5,300 early Greek manuscripts, all of the 10,000 Latin vulgates, and all of the 9,300 other ancient manuscripts, we would be able to reconstruct all but 11 verses of the New Testament from the writings of the early Church leaders who quoted from them extensively. We have over 36,000 preserved quotes from the New Testament.
Text


Secondly by going with the Bible for all the accused inaccuracies people still discover ancient Biblical buildings, places, coins, pottery, kings that were mentioned, tombs of the people mentioned and caves of the prophets like the Patriarchs , carvings of their Jewish religious symbols and so on. It must be the most reliable inaccurate book in history if that is the case.



Judaism and Islam hold that the patriarchs and their primary wives – Sarah (wife of Abraham), Rebekah (wife of Isaac), and Leah and Rachel (the wives of Jacob) – (known as the Matriarchs), are entombed at Machpelah, a site held holy by Jews, Muslims, and Christians.
Text


I wonder why Abraham is not buried with Ishmael in Israel but with Isaac instead maybe they did not think Ishmael was as important.

Genesis 49


28All these are the twelve tribes of Israel, and this is what their father said to them when he blessed them. He blessed them, every one with the blessing appropriate to him. 29Then he charged them and said to them, “I am about to be gathered to my people; bury me with my fathers in the cave that is in the field of Ephron the Hittite, 30in the cave that is in the field of Machpelah, which is before Mamre, in the land of Canaan, which Abraham bought along with the field from Ephron the Hittite for a burial site. 31“There they buried Abraham and his wife Sarah, there they buried Isaac and his wife Rebekah, and there I buried Leah— 32the field and the cave that is in it, purchased from the sons of Heth.” 33When Jacob finished charging his sons, he drew his feet into the bed and breathed his last, and was gathered to his people.

Text


I will look into where Ishmael is buried thought I found the place but does ot show up again it seems as not very extensive internet wise when searching for it.

______________________________________________________________________________________

Might be interesting:

www.dailymail.co.uk...

This ancient collection of 70 tiny books, their lead pages bound with wire, could unlock some of the secrets of the earliest days of Christianity.
Academics are divided as to their authenticity but say that if verified, they could prove as pivotal as the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947.

On pages not much bigger than a credit card, are images, symbols and words that appear to refer to the Messiah and, possibly even, to the Crucifixion and Resurrection.
Adding to the intrigue, many of the books are sealed, prompting academics to speculate they are actually the lost collection of codices mentioned in the Bible’s Book Of Revelation.

The books were discovered five years ago in a cave in a remote part of Jordan to which Christian refugees are known to have fled after the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD. Important documents from the same period have previously been found there.
Initial metallurgical tests indicate that some of the books could date from the first century AD.

edit on 6-1-2012 by The time lord because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
47
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join