| #1185: Amy isn't convinced. |
[07 Oct 2008|10:54am] |
There's an article on BBC at the moment about how the "world's oldest bible" has been found and it proves that the bible isn't the infallible word of God because there are slight discrepancies. The bible dates back to 300 AD... and that is my first problem with the text. 300 AD surely isn't the world's oldest bible, seeing the books that make it up are at least 200 years older than that. but it is not possible it is an errant transcript, never.
This is the source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7651105.stm
"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. "
... The Shepherd of Hermas was written in the 2nd century? It kinda missed all the action. Not hard to wonder why it's not included in our translation.
... And *coughcough* Jesus blood IS upon all of us... after all, it was our sin he died for, and that of the Jews. Journalists seem to like to think they're making waves.
"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. "
Anger and compassion aren't exactly mutually exclusive. Most Christians aren't so infantile as to believe they are. If it's controversial that Jesus is depicted as angry... well, what about when he tossed the tables? What about God's anger in the OT?
As for the story of the women, most translations indicate that the passage isn't in the early manuscripts, and a lot of scholars believe it's something misplaced from another gospel. It doesn't threaten our faith if the story isn't canon, and if it's in there, God let it be there for a reason. It doesn't misrepresent Jesus.
"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. "
That quote never was in every translation =]
And I'm not unsettled.
And wow, journo, didn't including that passage kinda weaken your argument? Or are you trying to be objective? Because it's a bit late for that.
The current Bible is God's word. Of course it was written by man, but it was breathed into life by God. The way that it has over time, evolved into is present form is not important. Only those scriptures, in the form that God intended, have presently become the Bible. What is important is that the message that God intended is there for us all, and it has the power to change lives.
David, Leicester
It's interesting how Christians seem to be more interested in presenting things objectively. But still nobody listens. Because we're Christians...
|
|