Boerseun Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 It seems as if the Bible we know differs (even fundamentally) to the oldest version now available:“The world’s oldest known Christian Bible goes online Monday – but the 1,600-year-old text doesn’t match the one you’ll find in churches today. “Discovered in a monastery in the Sinai desert in Egypt more than 160 years ago, the handwritten Codex Sinaiticus includes two books that are not part of the official New Testament and at least seven books that are not in the Old Testament. “The New Testament books are in a different order, and include numerous handwritten corrections – some made as much as 800 years after the texts were written, according to scholars who worked on the project of putting the Bible online. The changes range from the alteration of a single letter to the insertion of whole sentences. “And some familiar – very important – passages are missing, including verses dealing with the resurrection of Jesus, they said.”People bombarding each other with Bible verses should beware: Those verses they use in justifying their own positions might very well have been inserted 800 years later by some monk who had a personal thing against gays or adulterers. The only logical conclusion to be made is that each and every argument that starts with "The Bible Says That..." is now null and void. Because which Bible are you talking about? The one who includes the resurrection of Jesus, or not? I'd call that particular ommission rather fundamental. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.