Rival to the Bible?

[Rich86]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7651105.stm



What is probably the oldest known Bible is being digitised, reuniting its scattered parts for the first time since its discovery 160 years ago. It is markedly different from its modern equivalent. What's left out?

For 1,500 years, the Codex Sinaiticus lay undisturbed in a Sinai monastery, until it was found - or stolen, as the monks say - in 1844 and split between Egypt, Russia, Germany and Britain.

Now these different parts are to be united online and, from next July, anyone, anywhere in the world with internet access will be able to view the complete text and read a translation.

For those who believe the Bible is the inerrant, unaltered word of God, there will be some very uncomfortable questions to answer. It shows there have been thousands of alterations to today's bible.

The Codex, probably the oldest Bible we have, also has books which are missing from the Authorised Version that most Christians are familiar with today - and it does not have crucial verses relating to the Resurrection.

When the different parts are digitally united next year in a £1m project, anyone will be able to compare and contrast the Codex and the modern Bible.

Firstly, the Codex contains two extra books in the New Testament.

One is the little-known Shepherd of Hermas, written in Rome in the 2nd Century - the other, the Epistle of Barnabas. This goes out of its way to claim that it was the Jews, not the Romans, who killed Jesus, and is full of anti-Semitic kindling ready to be lit. "His blood be upon us," Barnabas has the Jews cry.

And although many of the other alterations and differences are minor, these may take some explaining for those who believe every word comes from God.

Faced with differing texts, which is the truly authentic one?

The Codex - and other early manuscripts - do not mention the ascension of Jesus into heaven, and omit key references to the Resurrection, which the Archbishop of Canterbury has said is essential for Christian belief.

Other differences concern how Jesus behaved. In one passage of the Codex, Jesus is said to be "angry" as he healed a leper, whereas the modern text records him as healing with "compassion".

Also missing is the story of the woman taken in adultery and about to be stoned - until Jesus rebuked the Pharisees (a Jewish sect), inviting anyone without sin to cast the first stone.

Nor are there words of forgiveness from the cross. Jesus does not say "Father forgive them for they know not what they do".

Fundamentalists, who believe every word in the Bible is true, may find these differences unsettling.

But the picture is complicated. Some argue that another early Bible, the Codex Vaticanus, is in fact older. And there are other earlier texts of almost all the books in the bible, though none pulled together into a single volume.

Many Christians have long accepted that, while the Bible is the authoritative word of God, it is not inerrant. Human hands always make mistakes.

"It should be regarded as a living text, something constantly changing as generation and generation tries to understand the mind of God," says David Parker, a Christian working on digitising the Codex.
Others may take it as more evidence that the Bible is the word of man, not God.

---------------------
Considering these new books appear to contradict keys themes of the Christian religion such as Jesus going to heaven - will the unveiling of these new books cause a stir?

Will believers be bothered about this and have a lot of thinking to do, or will they simply shrug it off? Will the most thinking be done by the fundamentalists who believe the Bible is the literal word of God? How will they explain such stark contradictions?

/Discuss!

[Ummon]

Mistaken view.

Each school and sect of Christians had its own slightly or more significantly different version of the Bible. The Shepherd is a well-known gnostic text. The Epistles of Barnabas, are considered apocrypha.

[Gaidin]

Mistaken view.

Each school and sect of Christians had its own slightly or more significantly different version of the Bible. The Shepherd is a well-known gnostic text. The Epistles of Barnabas, are considered apocrypha.

Second post six minutes after thread...that was fast...

[Primvs Sextvs Loverlord]

Mistaken view.

Each school and sect of Christians had its own slightly or more significantly different version of the Bible. The Shepherd is a well-known gnostic text. The Epistles of Barnabas, are considered apocrypha.

So each Christian sect has it's own version of God's inspired words? You know, a lot of people who convert to other religions from Christianity do so precisely because of this. Of course, most convert because the Trinity as a concept is flawed but that's another topic altogether.

[Pious Agnost]

Anyone got a collar pulling emote?

[Rich86]

It's all very well saying "Each school and sect of Christians had its own slightly or more significantly different version of the Bible." but I think if one makes no mention of Christ going to heaven, and the other does - how can a Christian be sure they have the right version of the bible?

[Sphere]

It's all very well saying "Each school and sect of Christians had its own slightly or more significantly different version of the Bible." but I think if one makes no mention of Christ going to heaven, and the other does - how can a Christian be sure they have the right version of the bible?

That is why they call it faith.

[Gaidin]

That is why they call it faith.

And yet with evidence of it being doctored to fit the religion if what is said about this version is accurate regarding it's age and what's in it.

[Sphere]

And yet with evidence of it being doctored to fit the religion if what is said about this version is accurate regarding it's age and what's in it.

If you can get past a priest turning bread and wine into the flesh and blood of a jew who died 2000 years ago, looking past this "evidence" is childsplay.

[Ummon]

It's all very well saying "Each school and sect of Christians had its own slightly or more significantly different version of the Bible." but I think if one makes no mention of Christ going to heaven, and the other does - how can a Christian be sure they have the right version of the bible?

It's quite simpler than you think, infact. I will answer you to synthesize for the rest.

When Jesus was alive, people obviously were too busy learning what he taught to keep a written record of his teachings: nobody suspected Jesus was going to be killed, because also, that was not explicitly mentioned as the destiny of the Messiah.

When he died, Christianism spread much faster than could be imagined, and beyond Jewish population alone.

This means that, given each man has a different vision of everything he sees and learns, all these people taught slightly different accounts of what happened and the teaching they had received.

Given the way cognitive blending occurs, all these accounts cannot though be said to be false. Each one of them preserves part of truth, and this part can be reconstructed by comparing the different versions.

And this is what the Nicene council did when the fathers of the Church tried to put order in what was certainly a big mess.

On the other hand, it is quite simple to think that, if God inspires writers, He can also inspire readers to allow that they do not deform His word.

A link on blending: http://markturner.org/blending.html

[Sphere]

See what I mean, childsplay...

[IronBlood]

I just wanted to point somethings out here.

It's quite simpler than you think, infact. I will answer you to synthesize for the rest.

When Jesus was alive, people obviously were too busy learning what he taught to keep a written record of his teachings: nobody suspected Jesus was going to be killed, because also, that was not explicitly mentioned as the destiny of the Messiah.

Wrong. They were definitely not "too busy" to keep a written record. It is quite well know that Christ's followers believed that Christ's second coming would be in their life time. Originally they keep Jesus' word alive by Oral Tradition or by the word of mouth, but when few of the original disciples started dieing the need for written word became imperative to survival. As a note most Gospels (or the accepted ones) were written between 70-100 CE.

And this is what the Nicene council did when the fathers of the Church tried to put order in what was certainly a big mess.

Not necessarily, by the Council of Nicea Christianity was spilt primarily between Arianism (which was condemned at the Council). The beliefs were in order, but Scripture and Church practices on the other hand were not. The Nicene Creed defined/strengthened the "orthodox" belief and was not a new formula.

[Ummon]

I just wanted to point somethings out here.

Wrong. They were definitely not "too busy" to keep a written record. It is quite well know that Christ's followers believed that Christ's second coming would be in their life time. Originally they keep Jesus' word alive by Oral Tradition or by the word of mouth, but when few of the original disciples started dieing the need for written word became imperative to survival. As a note most Gospels (or the accepted ones) were written between 70-100 CE.

Sorry, but are you aware of the absurdity of what you state here?

For the second coming to be possible as a concept, Jesus should have been already dead (ie. the first coming already over)...

During the life of Jesus, were there any written accounts of his life?

Mah...

Not necessarily, by the Council of Nicea Christianity was spilt primarily between Arianism (which was condemned at the Council). The beliefs were in order, but Scripture and Church practices on the other hand were not. The Nicene Creed defined/strengthened the "orthodox" belief and was not a new formula.

I may consider your post a quasi-blank, honestly.

[IronBlood]

Sorry, but are you aware of the absurdity of what you state here?

For the second coming to be possible as a concept, Jesus should have been already dead (ie. the first coming already over)....

Oh I'm sorry that I didn't make that clear I meant after his death of course...

During the life of Jesus, were there any written accounts of his life?

Obviously there weren't, don't try and think I was implying that there were.

Maybe this revision should make things clear.

Wrong. They were definitely not "too busy" to keep a written record. It is quite well know that after Christ's death, his followers believed that Christ's second coming would be in their life time. Originally they kept Jesus' word alive by Oral Tradition or by the word of mouth, but when few of the original disciples started dieing the need for written word became imperative to survival. As a note most Gospels (or the accepted ones) were written between 70-100 CE.

I may consider your post a quasi-blank, honestly.

Hmmm? quasi-blank?

[Ummon]

You perhaps overestimate your child.

(meaning that it doesn't even take a child to do so - clarified because it caused a misunderstanding)

[Archaalen]

In the early Christian church, there was no orthodoxy. That was imposed from above (mostly by Roman Emperors, later popes) gradually over a period of centuries. Religion changes and adapts itself to new situations. This text is a good example of the adaptations that have happened within Christianity.
Note: Adaptation does not preclude correctness, in my mind. It does not prove that "Christianity's a hoax" or any such thing. Much has changed, but much has stayed the same as well.

[jankren]

Die-hard apologists of any religion make me laugh.

[deadlyshadow187]

Yet again, anytime religion can't explain something they go back to the faith slogan, simply enforces my view that religion as a whole is so completely flawed even the religious can't find there way through the bullsh__.