No evidence of Bible editing?

[jimtron]

I found this illuminating site (http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-corrupted.html), which says:

There is absolutely no evidence that the Bible has been revised, edited, or tampered with in any systematic manner. There (sic) sheer volume of Biblical manuscripts makes it simple to recognize any attempts to distort God’s Word. There is no major doctrine of the Bible that is put in doubt as a result of the minor differences that exist between manuscripts.

Uhh, there is evidence though, isn't there, of major editing over the years? And what evidence is there that God had anything to do with the Bible?

If you follow one of the links below this article, you'll find this (http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-errors.html):

Yes, there are difficult passages. Yes, there are verses that appear to contradict each other. We must remember that the Bible was written by approximately 40 different authors over a period of around 1500 years. Each writer wrote from a different perspective, to a different audience, for a different purpose. We should expect some differences! However, a difference is not a contradiction or an error. It is only an error if there is absolutely no conceivable manner in which the verses or passages can be reconciled. Even if we do not have the answer right now, that does not mean the answer does not exist.

Ahh, that makes me feel better. The crazy/contradictory parts will make sense one day. It's only been 2,000 years for cyring out loud.

[TragicMonkey]

I wonder what the author thinks about the Apocrypha? Either the Protestants have removed five books of God's own word from the Bible, or the Catholics have added five books of impostiture to it. I would think either action would count as editing and tampering.

[Rob Lister]

Just to add, where I really have no business doing so...

The bible is a collection of selected works by selected 'authorities'

To say it is not edited, even if each book remains the identical same, is utterly false.

[TragicMonkey]

Just to add, where I really have no business doing so...

The bible is a collection of selected works by selected 'authorities'

To say it is not edited, even if each book remains the identical same, is utterly false.

But if each of the selected authorities were possessed by the same alien mind and under its control...I mean, "inspired by the Holy Spirit". That makes so much more sense.

[Iacchus]

What was that, the councel of Nicene?

[ruach1]

I found this illuminating site (http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-corrupted.html), which says:



Uhh, there is evidence though, isn't there, of major editing over the years? And what evidence is there that God had anything to do with the Bible?

If you follow one of the links below this article, you'll find this (http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-errors.html):



Ahh, that makes me feel better. The crazy/contradictory parts will make sense one day. It's only been 2,000 years for cyring out loud.
The word edited in biblical studies is redacted.

Redaction is a major aspect of current, professional , academic biblical study.
see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_Hypothesis

[Beerina]

Well, maybe if the bastards hadn't destroyed the Great Library at Alexandria, we'd have more examples of earlier proto-Bible stories.

In any event, the fact that the stories existed before the passages were written is significant evidence the Bible is just an assembly of stories -- to which the only possible apologist response would be these earlier stories were planted by the devil in anticipation of the later Bible, such that the Bible stories only seem like derivative corruptions.

That clever Bee-al-zee-bub!

[Dcdrac]

So what was the King James bible then???????

[Ichneumonwasp]

No editting? I think Bart Ehrman would disagree.

Orthodox Corruption of the New Testament (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195102797/qid=1141397056/sr=1-7/ref=sr_1_7/104-3699826-8245562?s=books&v=glance&n=283155)

[Dr Adequate]

Ketiv and qere (http://www.tegart.com/brian/bible/kjvonly/qere.html)

[Belz...]

That clever Bee-al-zee-bub!

Why, thank you.

[Belz...]

Uhh, there is evidence though, isn't there, of major editing over the years? And what evidence is there that God had anything to do with the Bible?

The mere existence of a man called Eusebius pretty much puts the entire thing into question. And then there's the rest of the stuff...

[Iacchus]

That clever Bee-al-zee-bub!Oh, Beasley Bob? ;)

[cyborg]

No editting? I think Bart Ehrman would disagree.

Orthodox Corruption of the New Testament (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195102797/qid=1141397056/sr=1-7/ref=sr_1_7/104-3699826-8245562?s=books&v=glance&n=283155)

Never mind: they obviously aren't true Christians.

[Mephisto]

No editing, huh?

I might just believe that. I wonder why there is no concensus regarding the last words of Christ? You would think that the last words uttered by the savior is probably the high point of the entire Bible, but three different sources can't even agree what was said.

There are so many inconsistencies throughout the Bible that it's certainly obvious it wasn't edited for clarity

[Pauliesonne]

The bible is a pile of stories that can be traced through myths in ancient times.

- period -

[ceo_esq]

I wonder why there is no concensus regarding the last words of Christ? You would think that the last words uttered by the savior is probably the high point of the entire Bible, but three different sources can't even agree what was said.

There are so many inconsistencies throughout the Bible that it's certainly obvious it wasn't edited for clarity

I'm inclined to agree with your last point. :D Regarding the last words of Jesus, however, those texts were examined in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=43963) and I think it was satisfactorily shown that there is no necessary logical inconsistency among them, even though that requires an interpretation that is perhaps not the most straightforward.

[Tricky]

No editing, huh?

I might just believe that. I wonder why there is no concensus regarding the last words of Christ? You would think that the last words uttered by the savior is probably the high point of the entire Bible, but three different sources can't even agree what was said.

There are so many inconsistencies throughout the Bible that it's certainly obvious it wasn't edited for clarity
Maybe he was only "mostly dead".

[ceo_esq]

Well, maybe if the bastards hadn't destroyed the Great Library at Alexandria, we'd have more examples of earlier proto-Bible stories.

Since no one knows for sure exactly what happened to the Alexandrian Library, and Christians are not the most likely suspects, I wonder what bastards you have in mind.