Misquoting Jesus

[Bikewer]

I'm almost finished with Bart Ehrman's new title:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060738170/sr=8-1/qid=1154046154/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-7580758-6287933?ie=UTF8

Like Lost Christianities, I'd list it as a "must read" for the skeptic who's interested in the "infallible" Bible.

Ehrman, a scholar of some note, shows just how fallible scripture is, both in terms of accidental mistakes by scribes from the earliest history of Christianity, to deliberate alterations of texts by later scribes and copyists to make texts conform to what had become orthodoxy.
The book is a mini history of "textual criticism", with outlines of outstanding scholars in the field through the ages.
According to Ehrman, the total list of catalogued errors, alterations, and additions exceeds the number of words in the New Testament....

[Foster Zygote]

I've been reading it too. I just started the final chapter last night and I must say I've found it an excellent read. In fact I plan to get one or two of his other books this weekend. The one on "Lost Christianities" sounds very interesting.

I found his revelation (no pun intended, well maybe a little one) that the King James Bible is actually based on one of the most inaccurate compilations of Greek texts especially interesting. I certainly second your recommendation to skeptics but I really wish some of the believers who frequent this forum would read it.

Steven

[Forty-Two]

I've read it as well, and I agree that a lot of the believers on this forum should take the time to read it. The thing that intrigued me the most was the different forms Christianity could have taken. As someone who, even when I was an active believer, found the Trinity to be a pretty stupid concept, it's interesting to see how that bit if theology emerged. Ehrman does raise some interesting points about the form of Christianity that became orthodox and why it was so appealing; if Christianity were "too Jewish," it couldn't have converts, but if it were too new, no one would respect it.

[Kitty Chan]

believer raises hand

wondering is it written with the "catholic church is evil" point of view and changed everything and wants to rule us?? And didnt tell us everything.

Im not catholic but those sort of books boarder on hysterical and most chrisitans dont bother.

just curious . . .

[Foster Zygote]

believer raises hand

wondering is it written with the "catholic church is evil" point of view and changed everything and wants to rule us?? And didnt tell us everything.

Im not catholic but those sort of books boarder on hysterical and most chrisitans dont bother.

just curious . . .

Don't worry, Ehrman has no religious or denominational agenda to push. He makes no value judgments. This work is strictly academic. In fact, Ehrman points out that even those who changed the texts deliberately for theological or social reasons were no doubt doing it with the best of intentions, that is, in most cases they were making the texts say what they already believed them to say.

Steven

[Bikewer]

Excellent analysis, Zygote.

Ehrman maintains that this sort of research matters because so many people believe that "scripture" matters. It increasingly becomes part of public policy and even legislation. Yet the accuracy of scripture is highly suspect.

[Kitty Chan]

good points but to make sure you all are aware there is a big arguement between catholics and protestants regarding scripture.

protestants wanting to get away from "man rules" want to focus on scripture and hopefully see Gods instructions clearer.

and catholics state scripture is suspect and the catholic church is right so whatever it says goes.

(while God weeps and everyone misses the point)

I was wondering if this guy realises this because as what you guys are saying hes pushing a catholic view.

[Foster Zygote]

good points but to make sure you all are aware there is a big arguement between catholics and protestants regarding scripture.

Yes, I've heard something to that effect. As I understand it's been going on for several months now. =0)

Again, Erman makes no value judgments concerning any religious denominations. He is a leading expert on the textual analysis of the scriptures and the history of Christianity and he simply presents facts. Interestingly, these facts strongly suggest that the original writings by the first Christians are lost forever and given the rate of change and variability of the earliest known texts it is likely that the original autographs were changed considerably by the time these earliest known texts were written. Many of the facts revealed would indicate that some of the ideas common to both Catholic and Protestant interpretations were never present in the first writings of the Christian movement. The trinity for example. Even the divinity of Jesus in the earliest writings is suspect.

Steven

[Ducky]

The trinity for example. Even the divinity of Jesus in the earliest writings is suspect.

Steven


Yet another thing over which I find myself respecting Thomas Jefferson for more and more.

[Ichneumonwasp]

[QUOTE]I was wondering if this guy realises this because as what you guys are saying hes pushing a catholic view.[/QUOTE

He's writing about the proto-orthodox tradition, so it necessarily sounds that way.

Don't worry. He isn't catholic. In fact, he is a former evangelical who now considers himself agnostic.

[blutoski]

good points but to make sure you all are aware there is a big arguement between catholics and protestants regarding scripture.

protestants wanting to get away from "man rules" want to focus on scripture and hopefully see Gods instructions clearer.

and catholics state scripture is suspect and the catholic church is right so whatever it says goes.

(while God weeps and everyone misses the point)

I was wondering if this guy realises this because as what you guys are saying hes pushing a catholic view.

I've read the book, and I wouldn't say that he's pushing a Catholic view at all. One aspect of Catholocism is that the Gospels &c are only part of the picture, so their history not is very important.

In contrast, many protestant sects rely heavily on the Gospels, and they disagree among themselves which 'version' is the most accurate. eg: Good News, RV, NRSV, Jerusalem Bible, King James, &c.

Go to some communities, and you will sometimes see bumper stickers with "If it isn't a King James, it isn't a Bible." Typically, this is a Pentacostal / Southern Baptist attitude, but your congregation mileage may vary. I usually ask them whether they mean the King James (1611) or the New King James (1982).

Biblical translations' legitemacy, bible history, bible archaeology, &c, is very much a Protestant preoccupation.

[Kitty Chan]

I've read the book, and I wouldn't say that he's pushing a Catholic view at all. One aspect of Catholocism is that the Gospels &c are only part of the picture, so their history not is very important.

In contrast, many protestant sects rely heavily on the Gospels, and they disagree among themselves which 'version' is the most accurate. eg: Good News, RV, NRSV, Jerusalem Bible, King James, &c.

Go to some communities, and you will sometimes see bumper stickers with "If it isn't a King James, it isn't a Bible." Typically, this is a Pentacostal / Southern Baptist attitude, but your congregation mileage may vary. I usually ask them whether they mean the King James (1611) or the New King James (1982).

Biblical translations' legitemacy, bible history, bible archaeology, &c, is very much a Protestant preoccupation.

I was listening to this comedian who is christian and I forget quite how he put it but hes talking in King James to God then quips "well I always talk to God in King James then He can understand me" considering his southern audience, I thought it was pretty edgy.

Yes, this is what I was thinking about the endless arguement about scripture. And why I said everyone misses the point and God weeps.

Foster you say its been going on for several months now? something up I just thought it was a endless debate.

I hung around a catholic site for a while, to see what specific things they thought are. I have to admit the first church and only the church can tell you whats up, they are completely correct. It was very tiring

The most suprise I found was that some have left the protestant church for catholic because then they didnt have to think for themselves anymore it was all decided and right, so they could relax. And they put down protestants for thinking for themselves.

Well like you say protestants (catholic term and for referernce here) do argue about which version etc. But thats not really new, the apostles etc discussed, argued in the bible itself. Even they were trying to figure out how to live. The problem I have with the catholic this is how everything is, is that it leaves no room for growth, discovery. I can read something in the bible then go back later and find more I didnt notice the first time. So I truly dont understand the catholic method in parts.

[Kitty Chan]

The trinity for example. Even the divinity of Jesus in the earliest writings is suspect.

Steven

I will see if Chapters has this next time Im there, and take a look. Although this part you mention, makes me suspect this guy in that without the divinity of Jesus there is no point. He was just another man and thats that.

If this is a focus in the book I cant quote it all now, but theres stuff written about things like the creed by Jesus followers which speak of His divinity. The whole point is divinity. Now, if someone has a problem with it fine, they dont have to believe it, some didnt who met Him. But this well everyone is wrong completely, Im right and the divinity was never there.

Why doesnt he just say, I dont believe it. Id understand that and have more respect for his opionion than him trying to rewrite things his way. Which goes back to that catholic thing again. Believe as I want you to, cause you cant figure it out yourself. Maybe the rest of the book is fine just these mentions, starting to seem like Ive heard them before.

[blutoski]

I was listening to this comedian who is christian and I forget quite how he put it but hes talking in King James to God then quips "well I always talk to God in King James then He can understand me" considering his southern audience, I thought it was pretty edgy.

Yes, this is what I was thinking about the endless arguement about scripture. And why I said everyone misses the point and God weeps.

Foster you say its been going on for several months now? something up I just thought it was a endless debate.

I hung around a catholic site for a while, to see what specific things they thought are. I have to admit the first church and only the church can tell you whats up, they are completely correct. It was very tiring

The most suprise I found was that some have left the protestant church for catholic because then they didnt have to think for themselves anymore it was all decided and right, so they could relax. And they put down protestants for thinking for themselves.

Well like you say protestants (catholic term and for referernce here) do argue about which version etc. But thats not really new, the apostles etc discussed, argued in the bible itself. Even they were trying to figure out how to live. The problem I have with the catholic this is how everything is, is that it leaves no room for growth, discovery. I can read something in the bible then go back later and find more I didnt notice the first time. So I truly dont understand the catholic method in parts.

It's not a big difference, really. An atheist would say that people turn to the bible because they want to get instructions instead of figuring it out from experience, and furthermore, that their interpretations are heavily influenced by their Sunday School teachers anyway. When I was at university, a colleague was kicked out of Trinity Western because her interpretation of the bible was 'incorrect'. It's a protestant theology university.

Protestants also have their hierarchies. Anglicans of course, Episcopals, Mormons, JWs, assorted smaller cults... they all have rigid doctrinal approaches to scriptural interpretation. The Southern Baptist Convention will boot errant congregations. My opinion is that this is the norm, even among Protestants. When we choose our denomination, it's because we think this is the one with the correct interpretation of critical scriptures, and it's the one we'd teach our children.

In the case of the Catholic church, they're not saying they're right; they're saying that the God has promised to guide the church of Peter and its participants into the future, without error. They believe that the decisions of the See are guided by the Holy Spirit. No different than other churches, really.

[Foster Zygote]

Foster you say its been going on for several months now? something up I just thought it was a endless debate.

It was a joke.

The problem I have with the catholic this is how everything is, is that it leaves no room for growth, discovery. I can read something in the bible then go back later and find more I didnt notice the first time. So I truly dont understand the catholic method in parts.

Ehrmer may lack theological bias but it seems you don't. Would it please you if he displayed a blatant pro Protestant bias? And I believe the term "Protestant" was self applied. The Catholics preferred the term "Heretic".

Steven

[Foster Zygote]

I will see if Chapters has this next time Im there, and take a look. Although this part you mention, makes me suspect this guy in that without the divinity of Jesus there is no point. He was just another man and thats that.
Suspect him of what?

If this is a focus in the book I cant quote it all now, but theres stuff written about things like the creed by Jesus followers which speak of His divinity. The whole point is divinity. Now, if someone has a problem with it fine, they dont have to believe it, some didnt who met Him. But this well everyone is wrong completely, Im right and the divinity was never there.
The point is that the modern Bible was changed many time and that the teachings of Jesus were quite different from the Christianity that developed in the centuries after his death. There were many and varied forms of Christianity in the first few centuries C.E. and if a different group had won the theological disputes then Christianity could be very different today. There is no evidence that the current interpretation, including the divinity of Christ, is an accurate depiction of the teachings of a rabbi named Jesus. In fact, there is strong evidence that many central ideas of modern Christianity were later added by scribes to support their own interpretations.

Why doesnt he just say, I dont believe it. Id understand that and have more respect for his opionion than him trying to rewrite things his way.
He's not trying to write things his way. And he's not rewriting anything. He's presenting facts, not opinions. Like a good scholar he even points out interpretations that are in dispute among textual critics. I suspect what you meant to say was: "I'd have more respect if it was his opinion because I could more easily dismiss it."

Which goes back to that catholic thing again. Believe as I want you to, cause you cant figure it out yourself. Maybe the rest of the book is fine just these mentions, starting to seem like Ive heard them before.
Again, there is no pro Catholic bias in this book. I doubt that devout Catholics would be any more pleased than Protestants with the evidence presented. And Catholicism is not the only faith that requires blind acceptance of dogma. If you believe that Protestants are encouraged to think for themselves while Catholics are encouraged not to then you are succumbing to denominational propaganda.

Steven

[Bikewer]

In an earlier book, Lost Christianities, Ehrman explains how early Christianity was a hodgepodge of very different "Jesus cults", all of whom had vastly different ideas about Jesus, his nature and purposes, God, Gods, their nature and purposes, etc.
It was only over a period of several hundreds of years that these viewpoints gradually (through good old human politicking for the most part) coalesced into a form of "proto-orthodoxy" which itself did not become solidified until much later.
There was no consensus amongst these early Christians as to the divinity of Christ, for instance. Some thought him wholly divine, some wholly human and merely "adopted" by God, and some that he was both.
Ehrman, in this book, shows how many scriptural passages were intentionally altered to conform to the viewpoint that became orthodox.

[Soapy Sam]

Is there a postmodern deconstructionist bible?

Lit. crit. applied to fantasy.
Reads like a railway timetable.
And about as accurate.

[Forty-Two]

Lit. crit. applied to fantasy.
Reads like a railway timetable.
And about as accurate. It's found in John Hodgman's Areas of My Expertise (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0525949089/sr=8-1/qid=1154289591/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-2909589-0629719?ie=UTF8). No, really, table form and all.

[Kitty Chan]

It's not a big difference, really. An atheist would say that people turn to the bible because they want to get instructions instead of figuring it out from experience, and furthermore, that their interpretations are heavily influenced by their Sunday School teachers anyway. When I was at university, a colleague was kicked out of Trinity Western because her interpretation of the bible was 'incorrect'. It's a protestant theology university.
Protestants also have their hierarchies. Anglicans of course, Episcopals, Mormons, JWs, assorted smaller cults... they all have rigid doctrinal approaches to scriptural interpretation. The Southern Baptist Convention will boot errant congregations. My opinion is that this is the norm, even among Protestants. When we choose our denomination, it's because we think this is the one with the correct interpretation of critical scriptures, and it's the one we'd teach our children
In the case of the Catholic church, they're not saying they're right; they're saying that the God has promised to guide the church of Peter and its participants into the future, without error. They believe that the decisions of the See are guided by the Holy Spirit. No different than other churches, really.

You are correct,they do believe they are the first and directly handed down through Peter and only through the catholic church, no other church. Youd have to hang around there awhile and you will find that they are saying they are right, wont go so far to say others are wrong, just that they are first and only authorized, and yes the rest are heratics. I went in thinking this we are the only church was bad press. but does seem to be only a fact.

Now for sure other churches can have this thinking, but none of the protestant churches claim this first and only, so it does make a difference. Because Baptists may feel Episcopals are odd, but they dont say the things Catholics do. I was actually surprised at the whole thing, as Im not beholded to any demonination, wasnt raised in church.

Even not getting the joke by Foster, re how long this has gone on. I knew there was debate just had never heard it til now in detail. And not to forget Foster, I am only asking about this author (to start to try to think about what hes saying) I was trying to see if he was being balanced or had pre decided like so many do on BOTH sides of discussions and only looking at things that support them. Just to get a small bit of his perspective on things is all I was doing. Also, Im sorry if you think I was attacking the Catholic view, I cant say I totally agree, but I can understand why they think that way.

I didnt say catholics dont think for themselves, they told me they came to the catholic church because they didnt have to think anymore and encouraged me to do so. And I have a problem with that. Maybe protestants end up endlessly discussing matters of theology with no one to tell them a direction, but at least we are still discussing! This thinking I truly dont understand with catholics. All in all the whole matter keeps me in the "independent" status until I find that bunch I can agree somewhat with as you stated blutoski.

I dont know if this will clear things up, I felt I owe a response because so much was said.

[Kitty Chan]

In an earlier book, Lost Christianities, Ehrman explains how early Christianity was a hodgepodge of very different "Jesus cults", all of whom had vastly different ideas about Jesus, his nature and purposes, God, Gods, their nature and purposes, etc.
It was only over a period of several hundreds of years that these viewpoints gradually (through good old human politicking for the most part) coalesced into a form of "proto-orthodoxy" which itself did not become solidified until much later.


There may have been different views as is stated, much like today with even more than faith. Different groups go through the same thing.

As well, there was a creed of sorts followed by the apostles that recognized Jesus divinity and was not hundreds of yrs later. So some may have debated but others would not have, at least in the basics of a creed. Which would have been the reason for having a statement of faith or creed. (A place to start from) Give me a bit and I can look it up, if anyone wants. Perhaps the author does not recoginze it? . ??

[Bikewer]

As I recall from Lost Christianities, the "Nicene Creed" (sometimes referred to as the Apostles Creed) was not published in a coherent form until the council of Nicea around 325 AD. (or CE or whatever...)

Lost Christianities deals primarily with the earliest iterations of Christianity, well before this "proto-orthodoxy".

A number of these early Christian sects/cults saw themselves as difinitively Jewish, and maintained that Jesus was, in fact, the Jewish Messiah. (even though he had not accomplished anything that this entity was supposed to)

They wanted to follow the Law of Moses in detail, including that potential converts must be circumcised. Needless to say, converts were not flocking to this particular branch...

[Ossai]

Kitty Chan
I will see if Chapters has this next time Im there, and take a look. Although this part you mention, makes me suspect this guy in that without the divinity of Jesus there is no point. He was just another man and thats that. The divinity of Jesus was up in the air until at least 360 C.E. And even then it was debatable until the church converted (sometimes under torture) all those that disagreed.

Ossai

[Kitty Chan]

Ossai

This wouldnt be counting the apostles? Your speaking church organized?

[pgwenthold]

As I recall from Lost Christianities, the "Nicene Creed" (sometimes referred to as the Apostles Creed) was not published in a coherent form until the council of Nicea around 325 AD. (or CE or whatever...)



FWIW, there are some differences between the Nicene Creed and the Apostles Creed. They are not the same thing.

[Foster Zygote]

Ossai

This wouldnt be counting the apostles? Your speaking church organized?

I'm not sure I fully understand your question but...

The writings of the apostles, including all those that didn't make it into the Christian canon, certainly vary in their portrayal of Christ's divinity. A major problem is that the texts were often changed to make them conform with what the scribes wanted them to say or thought they already said. There are texts in which parts were added or altered to make the divinity of Christ specific or at least less amgibuous. What you must understand is that even the four gospels in the canon were written annonymously and were only atributed to their respective authors many years later. We know that a number of earlier texts make no mention of divinity while later copies of those same books were changed to support the claims of divinity.

And in the first few centuries of Christianity the term "church organized" would have been an oxymoron. There were many competing versions of Christianity with often very different views and no central authority.

Steven

[drkitten]

As well, there was a creed of sorts followed by the apostles that recognized Jesus divinity and was not hundreds of yrs later.

Well, that's exactly the question under discussion. Was there "a" (unique) creed followed by (all) the apostles, or were there several different and incompatible ones? Was there a formal creed at all? If there were a formal creed, did it incorporate the divinity of Christ as a statement of faith or not?

There are certainly enough other examples of heresies from better documented eras that denied Christ's divinity. Arianism is the classic example, but Montanism also qualifies. In fact, it's due to the Arian crisis that the Council of Nicaea was called into being in the first place.

The earliest formal statement about the divinity of Christ with which I am familiar is the creed written by that same Council of Nicaea, the so-called "Nicene Creed," written in 325CE. On the other hand, there was nearly a 300 year period between 30 CE (the purported date of the Crucifixion) and 325CE, and we have lots of knowledge of a number of heresies that sprang up in that time period. Unfortunately, all we really know about them are the highly inaccurate and in many cases contradictory writings by their orthodox opponents -- we know what Irenaeus wrote in the 2nd century and Terlullian in the 3rd, but until quite recently (Nag Hammadi) we didn't have anything by the Gnostics themselves.

How many of the apostles were Gnostics? How many of them were Arianist? How many were Marcionists? Marcion and Arian didn't spring out of a vacuum., you know.

And most importantly.... how do you know how many apostles were Arianists or proto-Arianists?

[Ossai]

Kitty Chan
This wouldnt be counting the apostles? Your speaking church organized? Basically, what Foster Zygote said.

[Foster Zygote]

Kitty Chan
Basically, what Foster Zygote said.

Except perhaps for the amgibuous part.

Steven

[Kitty Chan]

The divinity of Jesus was up in the air until at least 360 C.E.

And even then it was debatable until the church converted (sometimes under torture) all those that disagreed.

I asked the question as this seems 2 times in history, 1 early church and the other later "organized" as in catholic

I guess I should have been specific like matthew mark luke john? they were varying in agreeance of Christs divinity??

[Kitty Chan]

Well, that's exactly the question under discussion. Was there "a" (unique) creed followed by (all) the apostles, or were there several different and incompatible ones? Was there a formal creed at all? If there were a formal creed, did it incorporate the divinity of Christ as a statement of faith or not?
There are certainly enough other examples of heresies from better documented eras that denied Christ's divinity. Arianism is the classic example, but Montanism also qualifies. In fact, it's due to the Arian crisis that the Council of Nicaea was called into being in the first place.


Well the Nicene creed was popular and as pgwenthold stated there is a difference between it and the Apostles.

However, I was thinking of 1 Corinthians 15:3-8

"For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that He was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

After that, He was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, He was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all He was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time."

This has been checked by scholars, using historical records of Paul and his early travels to Damascus and Jerusalem. Which would put 1 Corinthians around 3 to 5 years after the death of Jesus.

Now, dont ask me, I wasnt on the team someone is going to have to ask them to explain it if they are not to be trusted.

This is why I was asking about the apostles having divinity debates. Not to mention if they did have doubts about Christs divinity then why did they continue to tell people about Him? It certainly was not for the perks. Why bother with the persecutions, if you dont believe?

[Foster Zygote]

3 to 5 years is at least 20 years too early. The earliest date according to most scholars seems to be no sooner than 55 c.e. Most experts agree that Mark was written around 65-70 c.e. with Matthew and Luke, using Mark as a source, being composed around 80-85 c.e. and John around 90-95 c.e. Again these books were written anonymously and attributed to these authors at much later dates. The problem is that we don't have the original documents by any of these writers. We have copies of copies of copies that only go back to the 2nd and 3rd centuries. Given the number of different forms of Christianity and the amount of alteration, as well as outright forgery, of texts done in the interest of supporting/refuting various ideas during this early period we have little to no idea what exactly these first texts, or autographs, had to say. What is known is that there is evidence from the earliest available texts that many orthodox beliefs of modern Christianity are conspicuously absent from these oldest known versions. The books of the Christian canon were often altered to more closely conform with one another and with accepted interpretations.

Steven

[Kitty Chan]

Ive loaned out my book, (I had remembered the 3-5 yrs,) but found something similar that says 35AD, but also 30-50 yrs after death.

Wikipedia says mid to late 50's

bible org says spring of 54

Others seem to agree, Im thinking the first one is perhaps new as all the rest have Corinthians in the mid 50's Im not sure.

I guess originally it was thought to be 100 yrs but its not. I imagine somewhere its being debated more than we can here. But Corinthians still shows acknowledgement of divinity which was the question asked.
----------
As for different versions, well if I go to a King James, Living, NIV whatever and read the same verse, the idea is still the same. There may be subtlites and even insights. Copies of copies does become a needless worry that really overshadows this part;

Jhn 15:12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.

I notice in those endless debates, books, conferences about whats in or out, who said what, when, this one never gets discussed. Other than the arguement of well theres no god anyway, so why listen to this drivel.

[Foster Zygote]

As for different versions, well if I go to a King James, Living, NIV whatever and read the same verse, the idea is still the same. There may be subtlites and even insights. Copies of copies does become a needless worry that really overshadows this part;

But those are all very new versions. What if you found that earlier versions of John didn't contain the so called Johannine Comma which is the only specific reference to the trinity in the New Testament? What if you found that the earliest versions of Mark don't have the last 12 verses that are in the modern Bible? When Paul was written is irrelevant unless we can somehow get a copy of his first draft. However, all we have are copies that show signs of being altered in important ways to make them say what people wanted them to say or changed accidentally due to clerical errors.

Steven

[Foster Zygote]

So why listen to this drivel?
Why indeed? Why post on this forum? Why read a book before determining its contents and rejecting it?

Steven

[Kitty Chan]

Why indeed? Why post on this forum? Why read a book before determining its contents and rejecting it?

Steven

Sorry again, I mean the drivel comment as Ive heard it before regarding well god doesnt exist anyway so why even bother to think about it.

I notice in those endless debates, books, conferences about whats in or out, who said what, when, this one never gets discussed. Other than the arguement of well theres no god anyway, so why listen to this drivel.

As for the versions you speak of. Maybe you can direct me to a couple of examples I could look at. I really have no problem with checking these things. Id be interested if love one another is in those catagories.

If the early version of John didnt have the reference there are others that do, so Im not sure I would have a problem, in the psalms 110, 1 for one is a reference. The problem about wondering about first drafts is why not wonder what is actually written, like you said read it for content.

Theres alot said about conflicts but there is a lot of complimentary parts as well. If one just goes through one of those versions with Jesus words in red, really thats all one needs to read. One wouldnt need to read any further.

[Foster Zygote]

As for the versions you speak of. Maybe you can direct me to a couple of examples I could look at. I really have no problem with checking these things. Id be interested if love one another is in those catagories.
Much is covered in Ehrman's book. That would be a good place for you to start.

If the early version of John didnt have the reference there are others that do, so Im not sure I would have a problem.
True, but those others that do were most likely changed by scribes who wished to alter the meaning of the text. In which case specific reference to the trinity was not made by John (or whoever wrote the book).

The problem about wondering about first drafts is why not wonder what is actually written, like you said read it for content.
If I understand your statement correctly, then that is what this book addresses. If by "what is actually written" you mean the modern versions of the texts then those texts may be quite an inaccurate representation of the original autographs in a number of important areas.

Steven

[Kitty Chan]

Its probably best if I can pick up the book I will see if barnes has it or chapters at home/ Im gonna take off to Sturgis (yea wierd eh) and will take it up when Im back Didnt want anyone to think me rude start a conversation and wander off.

TTFN