snk

It is a bunch of writings written by different people at different times in different place all compiled together into one cohesive work... Fortunately we have evidence which dispels the idea that the texts themselves were changed. For example, the Great Isaiah Scroll, one of tens of thousands of documents now known as the Dead Sea Scrolls was penned 400 years before the time of Christ, 2400 years ago today. The 2,400 year old copy is identical to those today when grammatical errors are accounted for. Sure, some words are up for interpretation in the translation process, but short of that inconsistency the texts are identical. And this is only one example among thousands.

Tyler, you keep using the word "identical" when referring to texts compiled over thousands of years apart in different languages, edited, and reassembled. The extant copies of Shakespeare's works, only going back four hundred years in what is still English nonetheless contain numerous differences. To consider any of those "identical" to the others is impossible.

When I say "identical", I mean that in the same language as they were originally written. Obviously one cannot say that a document written in Hebrew is "identical" to the same document translated into English. The Bible was written in 2 languages, block Hebrew and Koine Greek, both now dead languages, although, like Latin, they are still commonly used, for both study and in the Jewish church block Hebrew is the language from which their Torah is read. Going back to my previous example, the Great Isaiah Scroll, when I call it identical, I mean that the block Hebrew lettering is the same as the modern copies used in today's Jewish communities. The Koine Greek lettering of the New Testament is literally identical. Modern science has dated a copy of the Gospel of John to 11 A.D., only 20 years after the first copy was written, around 90 A.D. if you read my review. The modern Greek version of the New Testament is word-for-word, letter-for-letter identical with this 1,900 year old copy. That is what I mean by "identical". Nothing has been changed, added, or taken away.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're saying at all. I've no idea what copy of John you're talking about dated to 11 AD, roughly 70 years before it is commonly held to have been written. And the earliest versions of John show that in underwent significant changes during the first hundred years.

I don't know as much about versions of the old testament which had been canonized before 2000 years ago. But I do know that the New Testament has undergone extensive reworking.

I apologize I meant 110 A.D. You are thinking of Luke, 2 sections of which are under heavy debate. Since the before mentioned John is the exact same as the modern one, I don't see where besides a relatively brief 20 years when there was any room for any reworking of any kind.

No, I'm thinking of John, and how early Greek versions don't include the story of the woman taken in adultery at all, that it doesn't show up until manuscripts from the 4th and 5th centuries. The Wikipedia page lists about a hundred variants for John in the Greek. As well there are textual cues that someone got the chapters in the wrong order. While the modern is recognizable in the earliest, by no stretch of the imagination are any of these "the exact same".

First, never use information from Wikipedia, since just glancing over it I see that most of it is bogus. You said it listed multiple variants of John, when at the same time it claims that modern scholars are in nearly unanimous agreement that John did not write the Gospel, when in fact the VAST majority of modern scholars have no doubt that John is the author and the "modern scholars" were a group of 17th century super-liberal German scholars who have since had 90% of their theories disproven. Also, John was written as a letter to the early church, and when I write a letter, I don't include chapter numbers or verses. Both were added later in various forms and lengths for reference sake, and naturally they would be different from the final modern agreed upon form. The passage you mentioned, the first part of John 8, is admittedly open to debate, but can be easily explained when the facts are presented. The passage was canonized around 300 A.D. in a council of leading European church leaders, one of which (I can't recall his name) recorded the majority of the council's doings. Using evidence that only a fraction of the early copies excluded this passage and that it was more or less accepted as original already to come to a unanimous decision to add it to their Bibles and henceforth have it copied as a part of the Gospel. The copy I mentioned of John does include this passage.

Tyler, if you would like to link to sources of your own, I'll be happy to look at what you suggest.

http://www.esvbible.org/resources/esv...

A significant portion comes from here, but it may require a password. Let me know if it does.

http://library.duke.edu/rubenstein/sc...

I personally disagree with portions of this article, such as that errors are bound to occur for numerous reasons, some of which I have already listed. Regardless, it is a reliable source.

http://www.english.imjnet.org.il/html...

Very informative concerning the Dead Sea Scrolls.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologet...

I encourage you to check out some of the other articles on this site. Keep in mind that the "minor variations" mentioned are no more than grammatical change and occasional misspelling.

Most of my other claims are things I have picked up by word-of-mouth over a few years and I admit dates and such may be off, such as that of the canonization of John 8. Also I once again apologize that my date of the old copy is actually 125 B.C., though 15 years does not make an enormous difference.

The first link does require a password.

Having perused your links I find myself unswayed. If I understand correctly, the point you're trying to make is that 1) there have been very few differences between manuscripts and 2) those differences that do exist are unimportant. Given the vast range of biblical interpretations that attach to any statement therein, even one where everyone will agree on the specific words used, for argument, I find the whole discussion a bit beside the point. On the one hand is a position of faith: the Bible is right, essentially unchanged, the received word of God. No matter how many variations are found in no matter how many different manuscripts, no matter how many translations are made, none of that matters, such that you use words like "identical" and "exactly the same" against their explicit meanings to say that for you the truth of the text is unchanged. My position, like that of the textual scholars, is that there are differences, exactly as one would expect to see in two millennia of copying, that there are interpolation, and deletions, and subtle shifts in meaning because language is a fluid thing. If two reasonable people cannot with good will agree on the meaning or significance of "identical" it is sheerest folly to assume that documents translated from Aramaic to Greek to Latin to Middle English to Modern English are unchanged. Of course they're changed. It isn't possible for everyone to read the original texts in their original language, and even if we are only reading a translation from the Greek to the Modern English, that is itself a huge change.

Whether or not you consider those changes to be meaningful to your personal relationship to the text, they are there.

I do not see where you have any ground to say that changes were made within the original language. I hate to use the same example to repeat what I have already said, but the copy of John written in 125 A.D., 45-50 years after it is commonly held to have been originally written, is, aside from the material it is written on, in every way, to the letter, punctuation, everything, IDENTICAL, THE EXACT SAME, WITH NO VARIATION WHATSOEVER, to what is used today in Koine Greek New Testaments. I use the phrases in their "explicit meanings", meaning no change, variety, or error. I do not mean them as a way of saying that the truth they convey is unchanged, but as in the words themselves are the same. I agree, some words in Greek lose some of their meaning when translated and some are open for interpretation. That is why there are close to 100 translations of the New Testament, all with slight variation in syntax; so that every possible translation could be presented.

Tyler, this fragment from 125-170 AD isn't even identical to this , although neither piece contains punctuation, so I suppose in that they are the same. Oh, and neither is written in Koine.

Both are written in Koine... If it was written in Greek to an audience of Greeks anywhere from around 300 B.C. to 300 A.D., it was very likely written in Koine. Moreover, I have studied basic Koine, and can read fragments of the script. How are they not the same? It is obvious we are never going to come to any sort of agreement through this, and therefore I am going to stop responding to comments. If you would like to discuss further, feel free to private message (I don't know if goodreads has a private system) or email me.

In context, however, it's a big old mess

Though it may be difficult sometimes to figure out the context, after studying the Bible (which might require outside resources to help) you can see certain themes emerge that are consistent throughout the Bible. Redemption is a common theme. As is the consequence of sin (death). The Old Testament Law and Prophets all point to the need for a better covenant, a lasting one. This covenant, and redemption, is found in Jesus Christ. Though 'absent' from the Old Testament, New Testament writers reveal that Jesus was present in the Old Testament (in creation; with the Israelites in the wilderness; in the Old Covenant).

Another way of looking at the stories of the Bible is to look through the lens of Israel. When God selected Abram way back in Genesis 11/12, the nation later known as Israel became a central player in the Bible. As we read through the Bible we can follow their continued acceptance/rejection of God. Their rejection of Jesus opened the door for Gentiles (those who were not called) to be called into the New Covenant through faith in Jesus. Revelation, the final book in the Bible, shows us Israel will eventually accept Jesus as Messiah and will be restored to their rightful place at Jesus' side.

If you really would like to see the Bible as a whole and in context, I recommend finding a book dealing with the themes or story (overall) of the Bible. Perhaps your local library would have some of these books to help you better see how each of the "random" books fits into the big picture. Happy learning!

Barry, yes, thank you, I know quite a bit about why and how the books were selected. It is, nonetheless, a big old mess, a collection of writings thrown together which were never written to form a cohesive whole. One can also find recurring themes in The Complete Grimm's Fairy Tales, but that doesn't make it logical or cohesive.