The bible is corrupt?

[ralphinal]

I would say that the difference between "Go into all the world and preach the good news to ALL creation." and "These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: 'Do NOT go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel." is NOT at all minor.

On the contrary, I would say that is a very MAJOR contradiction… in fact, as far as Biblical contradictions go, it is truly humungous in size and significance.

So, you say that what Jesus said later cannot replace that which he said before.

You do accept that Allah can change his mind and aborgate things,

How hypocritical.

 

[Snow]

but this isn’t called a contradiction since one does not contradict the other.

That’s incorrect

The claim of eight does contradict the claim of eighteen.

 

[djconklin]

Originally Posted by djconklin
This is acknowledged to be a scribal error. It turns out that one cannot copy more than 20 lines in one sitting without screwing up. No big deal and long ways from making it out like the whole Bible is corrupt in the negative and pejorative sense of the word.

I posted it because allischalmers incorrectly claimed that there were no contradictions. Obviously that is incorrect.

A scribal error isn’t a contradiction. Secondly, there are sufficient facts available that allow us to determine what happened.​

I would say that the difference between “Go into all the world and preach the good news to ALL creation.” and “These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: 'Do NOT go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.” is NOT at all minor.

You should check your assumptions: you’ve assumed that both instructions are universal in scope and for all time. The disciples were first to preach to Israel and then later to the Gentiles. The last instruction was for a specific missionary tour. The first was their marching orders after the resurrection.

 

[djconklin]

((The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do NOT have Mark 16:9-20.))…

Early mss also didn’t have the story of the woman caught in the act of adultery and yet it is acknowledged to be a real story that happened in Christ’s lifetime. It was finally written down in ab’t the 3rd century. I suspect we could say that same about the few closing verses of Mark.​

Anyone who wishes to be an informed critic of the Bible (vs. cut-and-paste for idiotic websites) should have already read The Text of the New Testament: its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration by Bruce Manning Metzger. You can pick it up for as little as $10 at alibris.com/search/books/author/Metzger,%20Bruce%20Manning

 

[Snow]

Early mss also didn’t have the story of the woman caught in the act of adultery and yet it is acknowledged to be a real story that happened in Christ’s lifetime. It was finally written down in ab’t the 3rd century. I suspect we could say that same about the few closing verses of Mark.​

Anyone who wishes to be an informed critic of the Bible (vs. cut-and-paste for idiotic websites) should have already read The Text of the New Testament: its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration by Bruce Manning Metzger. You can pick it up for as little as $10 at alibris.com/search/books/author/Metzger,%20Bruce%20Manning

Which begs the question: It is alright to add stories into the Bible if you believe them to be true and pass it off as the work of the original author?

 

[Snow]

A scribal error isn’t a contradiction. Secondly, there are sufficient facts available that allow us to determine what happened.

Something that contradicts, is a contradiction. Really. You can look it up.

If you want to exclude error and contradiction due to copying, that’s fine too but that doesn’t make it a non-contradiction

 

[djconklin]

Which begs the question: It is alright to add stories into the Bible if you believe them to be true and pass it off as the work of the original author?

1. They didn’t think in terms of passing it off as the work of the original author. The concept would have been foreign to them and didn’t exist till the 1800’s.
2. The story had been handed down for generations from people they knew to be reliable–so it isn’t a case of “believing them to be true.”

 

[djconklin]

Originally Posted by djconklin
A scribal error isn’t a contradiction. Secondly, there are sufficient facts available that allow us to determine what happened.

Something that contradicts, is a contradiction. Really. You can look it up.

So if you are copying something down and you accirdently goofed in doing so you contradicted the source?!?

Try using some common sense. If you don’t have any, then we’re done.

 

[LegoGE1947]

BTW, Mark 16:18 says that the believers will not suffer any harm even if they “pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all”.

Are there to be found any believing Christians alive today who would care to put this verse to the test?

There are churches in the hills that do this.

 

[Snow]

So if you are copying something down and you accirdently goofed in doing so you contradicted the source?!?

Try using some common sense. If you don’t have any, then we’re done.

Laugh.

Be done and goodbye then. The poster wasn’t posting about the original source. He was posting about the Bible - that later compilation of books that had been passed down through time. Had he meant original autograph texts, he could very easily have said that. As it happens the Bible we have is the end result of all the original material, the editing, the redacting, the copying and translation that has gone into it.

Read the title of the thread. Obviously it isn’t talking about corruption in the original source. It is talking about corruption “TO” the original source.

 

[Snow]

1. They didn’t think in terms of passing it off as the work of the original author. The concept would have been foreign to them and didn’t exist till the 1800’s.

A clumsy dodge and a clever insult. This must be a proud day for you.

1. The story had been handed down for generations from people they knew to be reliable–so it isn’t a case of “believing them to be true.”

They had heard it from other people therefore it wasn’t a case of believing it to be true. You may want to run that through the critical thinking checker

 

[djconklin]

Originally Posted by djconklin

1. They didn’t think in terms of passing it off as the work of the original author. The concept would have been foreign to them and didn’t exist till the 1800’s.

A clumsy dodge and a clever insult. This must be a proud day for you.

There’s mno insult. As for dodge try reading what the experts in the field have written:

Mazzeo, Tilar J. Plagiarism and Literary Property in the Romantic Period. (Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, 2007).

Macfarlane, Robert Original Copy: Plagiarism and Originality in Nineteenth-Century Literature. (OUP, 2007).

I’ve been studying the concepts of authorship and opriginality for the past 6 years now.

2) The story had been handed down for generations from people they knew to be reliable–so it isn’t a case of “believing them to be true.”

They had heard it from other people therefore it wasn’t a case of believing it to be true. You may want to run that through the critical thinking checker

I was repeating your own words back at you–short memory?

 

[Snow]

There’s mno insult.

Perhaps I misunderstood.

As for dodge try reading what the experts in the field have written:

Mazzeo, Tilar J. Plagiarism and Literary Property in the Romantic Period. (Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, 2007).

Macfarlane, Robert Original Copy: Plagiarism and Originality in Nineteenth-Century Literature. (OUP, 2007).

I’ve been studying the concepts of authorship and opriginality for the past 6 years now.

We are not talking about plagiarism. We are talking about interpolation. It seems reasonable that if the original author wanted the story included, he would have included it. Most Christians would probably accept that the original material is inspired. Most probably would not accept later anonymous additions hundreds of years later as inspired.

I was repeating your own words back at you–short memory?

I have no idea what you are talking about. I said nothing about the reliability of stories passed down for hundreds of years (other than once I said that is UNreliable), nor did I say that relying on passed down stories means that you don’t believe them - presumably because you “know” them to be true - if that was your (faulty) point.

 

[inJESUS]

The thread is derailing.

 

[djconklin]

As for dodge try reading what the experts in the field have written:

Mazzeo, Tilar J. Plagiarism and Literary Property in the Romantic Period. (Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, 2007).

Macfarlane, Robert Original Copy: Plagiarism and Originality in Nineteenth-Century Literature. (OUP, 2007).

I’ve been studying the concepts of authorship and opriginality for the past 6 years now.

We are not talking about plagiarism. We are talking about interpolation…You looked toop superficially at the title of the books. Note my last line.

It seems reasonable that if the original author wanted the story included, he would have included it.

Or, he was short on space in his scroll. Or, it didn’t fit with his intended purpose. The whole idea of speculating what the original author would have, could have, should have said was discredited dozens of years ago.

Most Christians would probably accept that the original material is inspired. Most probably would not accept later anonymous additions hundreds of years later as inspired.

Scholars in the field accept the story of the woman caught in the act of adultery as genuine. You don’t find truth by counting noses.​

The thread is derailing.

Some tangential points turn out to have great signicance.

Too many people who haven’t studied literature intensely assume that they know what it means to be an original author, who is and who is not an inspired author, what inspiration is, etc… and it affects how they view apparent contradictions in Scripture.

 

[Snow]

We are not talking about plagiarism. We are talking about interpolation…

You looked toop superficially at the title of the books. Note my last line.

“opriginality” in 19th century literature?

I was addressing interpolation in the 2nd or 3rd century.

Or, he was short on space in his scroll. Or, it didn’t fit with his intended purpose. The whole idea of speculating what the original author would have, could have, should have said was discredited dozens of years ago.

Could you show me where it was discredited that the author wrote what the author intended to write?

Scholars in the field accept the story of the woman caught in the act of adultery as genuine. You don’t find truth by counting noses.

Genuine but not part of the scripture as written by the scriptural author. I sure there are a good many things that Christ and the apostles did that weren’t scriptural.

Some tangential points turn out to have great signicance.

Too many people who haven’t studied literature intensely assume that they know what it means to be an original author, who is and who is not an inspired author, what inspiration is, etc… and it affects how they view apparent contradictions in Scripture.

That’s a not so subtle way of saying “I am smart and you are not so it is no wonder I know that I am right and you do not.”

Pray tell - exactly what do you know about being inspired that I do not?

 

[djconklin]

“opriginality” in 19th century literature?

I was addressing interpolation in the 2nd or 3rd century.

True, and so am I. The standards hadn’t changed too much over the centuries and were being hashed out in the 19th century. Note Macfarlanes catchy title.

Could you show me where it was discredited that the author wrote what the author intended to write?

The field of literature is too large and very out of date in terms of today’s concerns. See the criticism made about Higher Criticism.

Scholars in the field accept the story of the woman caught in the act of adultery as genuine. You don’t find truth by counting noses.

Genuine but not part of the scripture as written by the scriptural author. I sure there are a good many things that Christ and the apostles did that weren’t scriptural.

You have an overly narrow definiton of Scriptural.

Some tangential points turn out to have great signicance.

Too many people who haven’t studied literature intensely assume that they know what it means to be an original author, who is and who is not an inspired author, what inspiration is, etc… and it affects how they view apparent contradictions in Scripture.

That’s a not so subtle way of saying “I am smart and you are not so it is no wonder I know that I am right and you do not.”

That wasn’t my thrust–your response says volumes about you.

exactly what do you know about being inspired that I do not?

That would assume that I know what you know. I don’t make that kind of assumption. So, pray tell, exactly what do you know about being inspired that I do not?

 

[Sam_777]

EITHER

He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to ALL creation. … Mark 16:15

OR

"I was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of Israel." … (Matthew 15:24)

and also

"These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: 'Do NOT go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel." … (Matthew 10:5-6)

Hi hamba2han,

I personally like your types of questions (always referenced), however, I hope you tell me whether my humble reply sounds convenience or not:

Firstly, (Matthew 15:24 & Matthew 10:5-6) both were before the completion of Jesus mission He was for the lost sheep of Israel, but after the crucifixion He is for all nations (Mark 16:15 & Matthew 28:19).

Because imagine what would the Gentiles say to Him or to anyone of his disciples before the crucifixion!, how can they approach and spread Christianity if the main part of it which is the crucifixion haven’t been completed yet, I think few would accept them.
But after the crucifixion, Jesus disciples have the strongest miracle of all miracles to convince others that Jesus is indeed what He claims to be.

 

[Cinette]

So far all the contradictions within Sacred Scripture that I have found has not been found within the Bible but within the various interpretations of it.

I am from South Africa. I know a Catholic priest who has a Phd in Islamic stdies - in fact he holds a master’s degree in Arabic and Islamic Studies and a doctorate in Shi’a Islam. He underwent these studies in order to gain a better understanding of Muslims and to promote goodwill between the two great faiths.

I attended some talks he gave at the Catholic University several years ago which I found very interesting. There were a few Imams present. At the end of the talks they praised his unbiased presentations.

Yesterday in the Catholic weekly newspaper The Southern Cross there was an article titled “Church scholar urges new Qur’an analysis”. I shall quote some paragraphs:

*"The Qur’an, holy book of the Islamic faith, has never really been subjected to serious critical study by the Muslim world as a text per se, which has had a limiting effect on modern Islamic scholarship and a contemporary understanding of the book as applied text, a local Church-based Islamic scholar has said.

…

As such, it is seen as “the last fullstop”, source of faith, morals, law, praxis. Islamic scholars have resisted the kind of centuries-old critical approaches employed by their Jewish and Christian counterparts to the Bile, for fear of showing disrespect towards their holy book’s sheer sacredness. It limits possibilities for alternative textual interpretations.

Catholicism, on the other hand, draws on a combination of Scripture (seen as a collection of inspired texts), Church Tradition and the teachings of the Magisterium.

Certainly there are different interpretations among Muslim individuals across the world. Fr Clohessy said one way forward in more critical approaches to the Qur’an is to distinguish between divine dictation and written text, which makes sense to scholars of Islam who have picked up on grammatical inconsistencies in about 140 places throuhghout the text as well as random, rather than chronological, arrangement of sections.*

While the Church has always sought to improve on translations of the Bible and we always have the Traditions passed down a part of which is the Magisterium itself, Muslims should not be so ready to criticise the Bible. It is their interpretations of the bible that are inconsistent and not the Bible itself.

I do believe we should be tolerant and have an enquiring mind.

 

[hamba2han]

Hi hamba2han,

I personally like your types of questions (always referenced), however, I hope you tell me whether my humble reply sounds convenience or not:

Firstly, (Matthew 15:24 & Matthew 10:5-6) both were before the completion of Jesus mission He was for the lost sheep of Israel, but after the crucifixion He is for all nations (Mark 16:15 & Matthew 28:19).

Because imagine what would the Gentiles say to Him or to anyone of his disciples before the crucifixion!, how can they approach and spread Christianity if the main part of it which is the crucifixion haven’t been completed yet, I think few would accept them.
But after the crucifixion, Jesus disciples have the strongest miracle of all miracles to convince others that Jesus is indeed what He claims to be.

It makes absolutely no sense at all that Jesus (pbuh) would spend the entire period of his ministry preaching to the lost sheep of Israel only and then immediately after his alleged crucifixion orders his disciples to go to all nations and preach to all people.

If the divine message that he brought was intended for all of humankind, then why couldn’t he declare it in no uncertain terms right from the beginning of his mission like what Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) did?

How was the danger to his life faced by Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) any lesser than the danger that Prophet Jesus (pbuh) faced in carrying out his own mission?

The Lord protected Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) from his enemies and so why couldn’t He do the same for Prophet Jesus (pbuh)?

If I were to accept the Christian explanation that it was all part of the grand strategy of God, then I would have to conclude that Jesus (pbuh) … and by extension God Himself… intentionally lied when he said “I was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of Israel” in Matthew 15:24.

I just cannot accept that it was necessary for Jesus (pbuh), or any of the Prophets of God (peace be upon them all), to lie about his mission because this is something which clearly breaks one of the Ten Commandments not to bear false witness.

How on earth is it possible that a true Prophet of God will intentionally break any of the Commandments in order to spread the Message of the Lord?