EDIT. I don't know why, but the board is inserting too many line spaces in my post.
The Rival to the Bible
Excerpts-
Bible's trustworthiness, so I don't agree with that aspect of this article.
For anyone who's studied the Bible's history, you know it can be trusted, that it's reliable.
As for this part of the article:
This is just absolute ignorance:
He's not the only one: I saw some ignorance by some readers in the visitor comment section, though other readers did a good job of explaining the flaws in
the article.
The Rival to the Bible
Excerpts-
I think their comment in the article that there have been all these alterations etc. is unwarranted hand-wringing, meant to cast doubt on the
By Roger Bolton
6 October 2008
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 n
markedly different from its modern equivalent. What's left out?
The world's oldest surviving Bible is in bits.
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.
....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.
Bible's trustworthiness, so I don't agree with that aspect of this article.
For anyone who's studied the Bible's history, you know it can be trusted, that it's reliable.
As for this part of the article:
Oh puh-leeze, this kind of thing is a problem only for KJV Onlyists, not the rest of Christendom.
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?
This is just absolute ignorance:
This guy must really lack an understanding of lower textual criticism. I mean, really, he sounds more like a Ruckman KJV Onlyist.
Mr Ehrman was a born again Bible-believing Evangelical until he read the original Greek texts and noticed some discrepancies.
The Bible we now use can't be the inerrant word of God, he says, since what we have are the sometimes mistaken words copied by fallible scribes.
"When people ask me if the Bible is the word of God I answer 'which Bible?'"
He's not the only one: I saw some ignorance by some readers in the visitor comment section, though other readers did a good job of explaining the flaws in
the article.
