Rescuing The Bible From Fundmentalism

[Pete]

Dan if you don't consider having 100,000 early Biblical manuscripts and the fact that no two are exactly the same evidence that the Bible has been altered then I wonder about your reasoning faculties.

The last twelve verses of the Gospel of Mark which appear in none of the earliest manuscripts should be proof enough as well. The Johannine Comma is another, the addition of the story of the adulterous woman taken to Jesus is another.

Look at the earliest known extant copy of the Bible that exists, Codex Sinaiticus,  and just the listing of books as compared to the version you cherish.

Dan it is basically proven fact beyond any reasonable doubt that the BIble has been altered.   Please tell me which of the earliest extant manuscripts you treasure is the perfect unaltered word of God and then I can help prove the case.

There is always that interesting quote from Origin's writings :-

" The third century church father Origen wrote: "The differences among the manuscripts have become great, either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they make additions or deletions as they please.""

From :- http://www.religioustolerance.org/morgan01.htm

The link page is very interesting in my opinion. 

[Coolhand]

The intention behind such behavior, if is to avoid or deflect from giving an honest answer might bother us all!

I like to be sure that I am answering specifically what is being asked, as in to accurately understand the questioner.

[Coolhand]

Dan it is basically proven fact beyond any reasonable doubt that the BIble has been altered. Please tell me which of the earliest extant manuscripts you treasure is the perfect unaltered word of God and then I can help prove the case.

Niether Dan, nor I, nor anyone that has the position that the texts are not altered have the BURDEN OF PROOF in this discussion. This could easily be satisfied by presenting textual evidence, which no one can seem to do. The same secondary sources keep being repeated.

Seems like a dead issue to me.

[Brother Michael Sky]

There is always that interesting quote from Origin's writings :-

" The third century church father Origen wrote: "The differences among the manuscripts have become great, either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they make additions or deletions as they please.""

From :- http://www.religioustolerance.org/morgan01.htm

The link page is very interesting in my opinion. 

typical opinion of the time period... then you throw in all the Greeks who are accusing Early Christians of stealing all the good stories in their new faith from previous sources...

I honestly think anyone who feels there is nothing to " prove " about the text of the bible hasn't researched enough... or is not thinking clearly.... It was very clearly put together out of a bunch of pieces, of specifically chosen texts, and all that was meant to remain was a very specific portion of Early Christian belief...

Folks use as their defense a foundation which does not exist in which they feel perfectly secure saying " The Word of God as displayed in the Holy Bible is perfect. "

The reason I say this foundation does not exist is this :

To understand Christian concepts one must understand Jewish concepts.... Concepts which developed over a couple thousand years before the birth of The Christ... which had only been written down after about 1500 years of history... and argued about constantly afterwards.... and were still being argued when The Christ arrived... Concepts which had to be unified for the formation of the Religion of the Empire - if it hadn't happened in 2000 years, do you supposed the EXACT right thing was written down?

There is considerable variety in the text. the same books from different sources have differences.... and there seems to have been the intention of altering the text... proven by evidence... as proven by the addition in 1 John 5:7

No modern translations that I am aware retain this tradition except the KJV and the NKJV.

which means it is recognized as an " addition ", and stricken from the text as such.... and that is only one example... others were provided...

There was by no means a unified Christian Body in effect when the words were written down. We have discovered that it is VERY unlikely that the words were written by the people we commonly ascribe them to, and are at their best - the remembrances of youth by an old man.... because the best bits we've found, which refer to events of the New Testament, were recorded at LEAST 35 years after the fact..and MANY are much much later.... so you are not arguing that God is Perfect - you are arguing that a man's memory had such critical detail.

When we go back to historical personages who are discussing Christianity, a very different picture emerges, which should cause questions...when questioned leads to errors, omissions, and insertions.... which leads to the acknowledgement of themes within the texts... and those which might have been inserted or modified...

So the conclusion MUST be, YES, the text was altered, mistranslated, abused.... but that does not make it worthless... It still remains ALMOST all we have to root through, to discover the Message delivered two thousand years ago... a piece of the puzzle..... but not the only piece....

[Pete]

typical opinion of the time period... then you throw in all the Greeks who are accusing Early Christians of stealing all the good stories in their new faith from previous sources...

I honestly think anyone who feels there is nothing to " prove " about the text of the bible hasn't researched enough... or is not thinking clearly.... It was very clearly put together out of a bunch of pieces, of specifically chosen texts, and all that was meant to remain was a very specific portion of Early Christian belief...

Folks use as their defense a foundation which does not exist in which they feel perfectly secure saying " The Word of God as displayed in the Holy Bible is perfect. "

The reason I say this foundation does not exist is this :

  To understand Christian concepts one must understand Jewish concepts.... Concepts which developed over a couple thousand years before the birth of The Christ... which had only been written down after about 1500 years of history... and argued about constantly afterwards.... and were still being argued when The Christ arrived... Concepts which had to be unified for the formation of the Religion of the Empire - if it hadn't happened in 2000 years, do you supposed the EXACT right thing was written down?

  There is considerable variety in the text. the same books from different sources have differences.... and there seems to have been the intention of altering the text... proven by evidence... as proven by the addition in 1 John 5:7

which means it is recognized as an " addition ", and stricken from the text as such.... and that is only one example... others were provided...

  There was by no means a unified Christian Body in effect when the words were written down. We have discovered that it is VERY unlikely that the words were written by the people we commonly ascribe them to, and are at their best - the remembrances of youth by an old man.... because the best bits we've found, which refer to events of the New Testament, were recorded at LEAST 35 years after the fact..and MANY are much much later.... so you are not arguing that God is Perfect - you are arguing that a man's memory had such critical detail.

  When we go back to historical personages who are discussing Christianity, a very different picture emerges, which should cause questions...when questioned leads to errors, omissions, and insertions.... which leads to the acknowledgement of themes within the texts... and those which might have been inserted or modified...

So the conclusion MUST be, YES, the text was altered, mistranslated, abused.... but that does not make it worthless... It still remains ALMOST all we have to root through, to discover the Message delivered two thousand years ago... a piece of the puzzle..... but not the only piece....

I agree. Just because I challenge one way of using the bible (i.e. the perception it is totally inerrant and factual) does not mean that I believe it is completely worthless. I most definitely do not  (IMO) and when I said there was Gold and truths in the bible, I was in no way not meaning just that.

[Bro. Hex]

Does that bother you?

Why do you ask?

[Fawzo]

Why do you ask?

I knew these lofty Hermeneutical discussions would be beyond my level of understanding!

[Fawzo]

I agree. Just because I challenge one way of using the bible (i.e. the perception it is totally inerrant and factual) does not mean that I believe it is completely worthless. I most definitely do not (IMO) and when I said there was Gold and truths in the bible, I was in no way not meaning just that.

I can completely agree with those sentiments!

[Dan56]

Dan if you don't consider having 100,000 early Biblical manuscripts and the fact that no two are exactly the same evidence that the Bible has been altered then I wonder about your reasoning faculties.

Lots of people wonder about my reasoning faculties There's a big difference between scribal errors and deliberate altercations. I've never claimed that no translation errors occurred, but I believe scripture has been preserved and the KJV most accurately reflects a word-for-word translation of the manuscripts.

The last twelve verses of the Gospel of Mark which appear in none of the earliest manuscripts should be proof enough as well. The Johannine Comma is another, the addition of the story of the adulterous woman taken to Jesus is another.

The Alexandrian manuscripts (Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus) were corrupted imo. The Vaticanus & Sinaiticus both leave out the last 12 verses of Mark, but no other manuscripts leave that passage out. The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus disagree with each other over 3000 times in the gospels alone, so its no surprise that both codex's also omit the story of the adulterous woman in John 8.

Look at the earliest known extant copy of the Bible that exists, Codex Sinaiticus, and just the listing of books as compared to the version you cherish.

The Sinaiticus is a manuscript found in 1844 in a trash pile at St. Catherine's Monastery near Mt. Sinai. There's a good reason it was in a pile of trash.. Examination of the manuscript itself shows the Sinaiticus is extremely unreliable and was corrected by 10 different scribes in the 6th-7th century.

Dan it is basically proven fact beyond any reasonable doubt that the BIble has been altered. Please tell me which of the earliest extant manuscripts you treasure is the perfect unaltered word of God and then I can help prove the case.

I read the KJV, so I obviously subscribe to the Textus Receptus which was derived from the Byzantine manuscripts. Ninety percent of the 5400 Greek manuscripts come from Byzantine text, so I recognized that not all are 100% identical, but show me how that equates to "altered"? Show me where any textual variant affects any doctrine?

[Fawzo]

Lots of people wonder about my reasoning faculties There's a big difference between scribal errors and deliberate altercations. I've never claimed that no translation errors occurred, but I believe scripture has been preserved and the KJV most accurately reflects a word-for-word translation of the manuscripts.

The Alexandrian manuscripts (Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus) were corrupted imo. The Vaticanus & Sinaiticus both leave out the last 12 verses of Mark, but no other manuscripts leave that passage out. The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus disagree with each other over 3000 times in the gospels alone, so its no surprise that both codex's also omit the story of the adulterous woman in John 8.

The Sinaiticus is a manuscript found in 1844 in a trash pile at St. Catherine's Monastery near Mt. Sinai. There's a good reason it was in a pile of trash.. Examination of the manuscript itself shows the Sinaiticus is extremely unreliable and was corrected by 10 different scribes in the 6th-7th century.

I read the KJV, so I obviously subscribe to the Textus Receptus which was derived from the Byzantine manuscripts. Ninety percent of the 5400 Greek manuscripts come from Byzantine text, so I recognized that not all are 100% identical, but show me how that equates to "altered"? Show me where any textual variant affects any doctrine?

Dan the Textus Receptus was a creation of Erasmus who used a combination of 6 manuscripts and then filled in missing parts from the Latin Vulgate which in itself was created because of all the confusion of multiple variants of Latin Bibles.

The first note below from Wikipedia quite clearly shows your revered Textus Receptus was altered because of peer pressure!!! Also please note the various number of editions of the Textus Receptus and how many times God's Inspired word had to changed because Holy Spirit filled men didn't get it right the first time

I did some research and will add that the information for the Wikipedia Text on the Comma Johanneum comes from 4th edition of New Testament of Robert Estienne which was published one year after Erasmus died.

Selected Wikipedia notes on Textus Receptus:

With the third edition of Erasmus' Greek text (1522) the Comma Johanneum was included, because "Erasmus chose to avoid any occasion for slander rather than persisting in philological accuracy", even though he remained "convinced that it did not belong to the original text of l John."

Erasmus had been studying Greek New Testament manuscripts for many years, in the Netherlands, France, England and Switzerland, noting their many variants, but had only six Greek manuscripts immediately accessible to him in Basel.^[5] They all dated from the 12th Century or later, and only one came from outside the mainstream Byzantine tradition. Consequently, most modern scholars consider his text to be of dubious quality.

The majority of textual critical scholars since the late 19th Century, have adopted an eclectic approach to the Greek New Testament; with the most weight given to the earliest extant manuscripts which tend mainly to be Alexandrian in character; the resulting eclectic Greek text departing from the Textus Receptus in around 6,000 readings. A significant minority of textual scholars, however, maintain the priority of the Byzantine text-type; and consequently prefer the "Majority Text". No school of textual scholarship now continues to defend the priority of the Textus Receptus; although this position does still find adherents amongst the King-James-Only Movement, and other Protestant groups hostile to the whole discipline of text criticism—as applied to scripture; and suspicious of any departure from Reformation traditions

Edited November 10, 2010 by Fawzo

[Pete]

Lots of people wonder about my reasoning faculties There's a big difference between scribal errors and deliberate altercations. I've never claimed that no translation errors occurred, but I believe scripture has been preserved and the KJV most accurately reflects a word-for-word translation of the manuscripts.  

So you would disagree with Origen then. It is an odd thing that he should make such comments if the original scripts were being preserved.

From my previous posts:-

" The third century church father Origen wrote: "The differences among the manuscripts have become great, either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they make additions or deletions as they please.""

From :- http://www.religious...rg/morgan01.htm

[Dan56]

So you would disagree with Origen then.

IMO, Origen was a heretic, along with Westcott and Hort

"The third century church father Origen wrote: "The differences among the manuscripts have become great, either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they make additions or deletions as they please.

I believe Origen was describing himself..

[Bro. Hex]

IMO, Origen was a heretic, along with Westcott and Hort

I believe Origen was describing himself..

Dan, since "you don't trust Origen", here's a question for you:

Can you name "just one" of the Church Fathers

from the Third Century, who you think was NOT a heretic,

and who did NOT make additions or deletions as he pleased?

Because if there wasn't a single trustworthy Church Father

in the THIRD Century, then it is next to impossible

for any Christian Scripture to have arrived in the

FOURTH Century in an "unmolested" (uncorrupted) condition.

We can forget about the SIXTEENTH Century "Textus Receptus",

If nothing made it past Origen's "reach" (and his reach was considerable).

Edited November 10, 2010 by Hexalpa

[Fawzo]

Dan if you read Misquoting Jesus by Bart D. Ehrman you will find a host of changes and the specific reasons said changes were made.

1 Timothy 3:16 in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinu and two other of the earliest known manuscripts have the verse reading:

16 And confessedly great is the mystery of godliness: He who was manifested in flesh, was justified in spirit, seen by angels, preached among the Gentiles, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.

Some scribe changed ΘΣ to ΟΣ which look very much alike and it changed the whole meaning of the text and enhanced the divinity of Jesus. The change then was made in all four of our early manuscripts which basically now calls Jesus God and then became the accepted text of most of the Byzantine manuscripts and then was adopted by most English translations. The change was adopted by medieval manuscripts to emphasize Jesus's divinity in a text that originally was ambiguous about it at best.

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Preached among the Gentiles, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory. 1 Tim 3:16 (NKJV)

There are instances where Joseph has been purposely editted from being mentioned as Jesus's father such as Luke 2:33 as can be seen by the differences in two modern versions

And the child's father and mother were amazed at what was being said about him

Luke 2:33 (NRSV)

And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him

Luke 2:33 (KJV)

And here is another instance a few verses later in the same book

but his parents did not know it.

Luke 2:43 (NRSV)

and Joseph and his mother knew not of it

Luke 2:43 (KJV)

There are many other verses that have been tweaked to add to the Divinity of Jesus and take away from his humanity. The Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7-8) is another perfect example. http://www.bible-res....com/comma.html

Many many many more are written about in "Misquoting Jesus" No matter what you still believe Dan It is a fact that theologically motivated alterationsof the text were made.

Edited November 11, 2010 by Fawzo

[Bro. Hex]

Hey Fawzo,

You just said (and which happens to be true):

"Some scribe changed ΘΣ to ΟΣ which look very much alike

and it changed the whole meaning of the text "

How did you do that?

do you have access to a Greek alphabetic type-face???

I have many references for similar alterations

that have been made to the scriptures over the centuries,

but all of my references are "in books" (like that excellent

example that you referenced, "Misquoting Jesus").

And being "in books", I have no way to cite them here on our forum,

as I don't have a clue as to how to replicate the Greek characters

"on the web".

[Coolhand]

1 Timothy 3:16 in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinu and two other of the earliest known manuscripts have the verse reading:

16 And confessedly great is the mystery of godliness: He who was manifested in flesh, was justified in spirit, seen by angels, preached among the Gentiles, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.

Some scribe changed ΘΣ to ΟΣ which look very much alike and it changed the whole meaning of the text and enhanced the divinity of Jesus. The change then was made in all four of our early manuscripts which basically now calls Jesus God and then became the accepted text of most of the Byzantine manuscripts and then was adopted by most English translations. The change was adopted by medieval manuscripts to emphasize Jesus's divinity in a text that originally was ambiguous about it at best.

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Preached among the Gentiles, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory. 1 Tim 3:16 (NKJV)

Do you have a citation for that?

Here is a comparison of the two.

16 Καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶν τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον· θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι, ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις, ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν, ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ, ἀνελήφθη ἐν δόξῃ.

The New Testament in the Original Greek : Byzantine Textform 2005, With Morphology. (Bellingham: Logos Research Systems, 2006), 1 Ti 3:16.

16 καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶν τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον· ὃς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι,ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις,ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν, ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ, ἀνελήμφθη ἐν δόξῃ.

Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland, Matthew Black et al., The Greek New Testament, 4th ed. (Federal Republic of Germany: United Bible Societies, 1993), 545.

Consider the passage in its context:

14 These things I write to you, though I hope to come to you shortly; 15 but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. 16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:

God was manifested in the flesh,

Justified in the Spirit,

Seen by angels,

Preached among the Gentiles,

Believed on in the world,

Received up in glory.

The New King James Version. (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982), 1 Ti 3:1416.

14 Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, 15 if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in Gods household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth. 16 Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great:

He appeared in a body,

was vindicated by the Spirit,

was seen by angels,

was preached among the nations,

was believed on in the world,

was taken up in glory.

The Holy Bible : New International Version, electronic ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 1 Ti 3:1416.

Whether the autograph (which we don't have) says theos or hos it is still refering to God, is it not?. Ask yourself who the pronoun "He" is refering to. The variant reading has little effect on what the text says if you read the whole text; just like the 1 John 5:7 example.

When you read "Misquoting Jesus" look at the passages being referred to in thier contexts. Dr Ehrman knows what he is talking about in regard to the texts and thier variants, however, the claims that he makes in regard to how the meaning of the passage is changed are not very convincing to me. His conclusions seem to be influenced by his theological convictions.

A question you may also consider: "What percentage of 1 Tim 3:16 is exact and word for word?" Is it 25 out of 26? And would that be 96% agreement? Is that important when you come to a conclusion about reliability?

Hey Fawzo,

You just said (and which happens to be true):

"Some scribe changed ΘΣ to ΟΣ which look very much alike

and it changed the whole meaning of the text "

How did you do that?

do you have access to a Greek alphabetic type-face???

I have many references for similar alterations

that have been made to the scriptures over the centuries,

but all of my references are "in books" (like that excellent

example that you referenced, "Misquoting Jesus").

And being "in books", I have no way to cite them here on our forum,

as I don't have a clue as to how to replicate the Greek characters

"on the web".

There are free Greek font downloads on line.

Edited November 11, 2010 by Coolhand

[Dan56]

Dan if you read Misquoting Jesus by Bart D. Ehrman you will find a host of changes and the specific reasons said changes were made.

1 Timothy 3:16 in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinu and two other of the earliest known manuscripts have the verse reading.....

Your presuming that the older existing text were spot-on correct, but its my contention (belief) that the Alexandrian codex's which you trust to be accurate, were in fact altered by Origen and Eusebius, and later by the revisions of Westcott and Hort. Look-up what these guys believed in and you'll better understand what motivated them to tamper with the manuscripts. And keep in mind that the NIV bible is representative of the work by Westcott and Hort. I agree with the examples of verses you provided to show corruption, but vice-versa, where the divinity of Christ is restore to what the original manuscripts surely taught. Samples;

King James. Matt. 18:11

For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.

N.I.V. Removed

King James Luke 2:33

And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.

N.I.V. The child's father and mother marveled at what was said about him.

Note: Joseph was not the Father of Jesus. Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit.

King James Mark 11:26

But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.

N.I.V. It is missing

King James Bible- Mark 11:26 “But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.”

Now go look that important memory verse up in your N.I.V. It will be easy to remember because it is missing!

There are many other verses that have been tweaked to add to the Divinity of Jesus and take away from his humanity. The Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7-8) is another perfect example.

Regarding 1 John 5:7-8, Erasmus omitted this reading from his first 2 editions of his Greek NT (1516, 1519) and was challenged for this omission. He replied that he would include it in his next edition if anyone could produce even one Greek manuscript that included that reading. One 16th century Greek minuscule was found, a 1520 manuscript, so he inserted it into his 1522 edition.

The Johannie comma (1 John 5: 7-8) is contained in practically all of the extant Latin Vulgate MSS. Although not included in Jerome's original edition, around the year 800 it was taken into the text of the Vulgate from the Old Latin MSS. We know of at least ten Greek MSS that contain the Johannie comma, it is cited by several sources prior to 500AD.

Many many many more are written about in "Misquoting Jesus" No matter what you still believe Dan It is a fact that theologically motivated alterations of the text were made.

I agree, the church fathers manufactured their own rendition which strayed from the truth, but I also believe the truth was preserved by the true church, of which the original letters were sent.

[Dan56]

Dan, since "you don't trust Origen", here's a question for you:

Can you name "just one" of the Church Fathers

from the Third Century, who you think was NOT a heretic,

and who did NOT make additions or deletions as he pleased?

Because if there wasn't a single trustworthy Church Father

in the THIRD Century, then it is next to impossible

for any Christian Scripture to have arrived in the

FOURTH Century in an "unmolested" (uncorrupted) condition.

We can forget about the SIXTEENTH Century "Textus Receptus",

If nothing made it past Origen's "reach" (and his reach was considerable).

The Byzantine text is more attested to by the early church fathers. In their writings, these church fathers included practically all the New Testament minus a handful of verses. If we lost all Greek manuscripts of the NT we could in all probability build it up from the Church Fathers. Their writings overwhelmingly favour the Byzantine readings (Textus Receptus).

Example; the Vaticanus or Sinaiticus do not include Mark 16:9-20, but Justin Martyr in 151 AD quotes the last verse; Irenaeus quotes and comments on verse 19, in 180 AD; Hippolytus quotes verses 17-18 in 190-227 AD; Vincentius also 17-18 in 256 AD. So early church fathers quoted verses that were obviously omitted from the Alexandrian codex's.

The earliest manuscripts from Greece and Asia Minor, the leading areas of the postapostolic church, were Byzantine, and they were copied from earlier Byzantine manuscripts now lost. Alexandria was a major center of gnosticism, a religious/philosophical movement that corrupted early Christianity. When we look at the variants in the Alexandrian texts, we find that their gnostic leanings tend to portray Jesus Christ as neither divine nor having come in the flesh as a physical human being. This is why I trust the more reputable Byzantine scribes, evidence demonstrates more faithfulness in the copying process.

[Fawzo]

Hey Fawzo,

You just said (and which happens to be true):

"Some scribe changed ΘΣ to ΟΣ which look very much alike

and it changed the whole meaning of the text "

How did you do that?

do you have access to a Greek alphabetic type-face???

I have many references for similar alterations

that have been made to the scriptures over the centuries,

but all of my references are "in books" (like that excellent

example that you referenced, "Misquoting Jesus").

And being "in books", I have no way to cite them here on our forum,

as I don't have a clue as to how to replicate the Greek characters

"on the web".

I went to the Wikipedia Greek Alphabet page and cut and paste them the hard way.

[Fawzo]

Your presuming that the older existing text were spot-on correct, but its my contention (belief) that the Alexandrian codex's which you trust to be accurate, were in fact altered by Origen and Eusebius, and later by the revisions of Westcott and Hort. Look-up what these guys believed in and you'll better understand what motivated them to tamper with the manuscripts. And keep in mind that the NIV bible is representative of the work by Westcott and Hort. I agree with the examples of verses you provided to show corruption, but vice-versa, where the divinity of Christ is restore to what the original manuscripts surely taught. Samples;

King James. Matt. 18:11

For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.

N.I.V. Removed

King James Luke 2:33

And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.

N.I.V. The child's father and mother marveled at what was said about him.

Note: Joseph was not the Father of Jesus. Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit.

King James Mark 11:26

But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.

N.I.V. It is missing

King James Bible- Mark 11:26 "But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses."

Now go look that important memory verse up in your N.I.V. It will be easy to remember because it is missing!

Regarding 1 John 5:7-8, Erasmus omitted this reading from his first 2 editions of his Greek NT (1516, 1519) and was challenged for this omission. He replied that he would include it in his next edition if anyone could produce even one Greek manuscript that included that reading. One 16th century Greek minuscule was found, a 1520 manuscript, so he inserted it into his 1522 edition.

The Johannie comma (1 John 5: 7-8) is contained in practically all of the extant Latin Vulgate MSS. Although not included in Jerome's original edition, around the year 800 it was taken into the text of the Vulgate from the Old Latin MSS. We know of at least ten Greek MSS that contain the Johannie comma, it is cited by several sources prior to 500AD.

I agree, the church fathers manufactured their own rendition which strayed from the truth, but I also believe the truth was preserved by the true church, of which the original letters were sent.

Dan your trust in 12th and 15th century texts as compared to 4th century text which were 1000 years closer to the actual events seems misplaced to me.

Throughout written history people, organizations and Governments have had agendas and the victors have rewrote their accounts of what actually occured to fit their desired world model. This discussion shows that the same thing has happened to the detailed accounts in the Bible as well.

God was not capable of or apathetic to preserving the earliest autographs of his written word so that we could avoid the confusion that has led to so many wars, deaths and confusion over HIS WORD.

The voices of the earliest church fathers resonate with the same distress and problems. You'll believe this early church father here because he agrees with your model of reality when he says that the Gospel of Matthew and Mark were written by Individulas named Matthew and Mark, yet when he states contrary to scripture that Judas lived well after the events in the Bible he is an idiot that can't be trusted, as Eusebius says of Gaius who gave us the written clues of who wrote those two Anonymous Gospels.

The early church fathers also thought Matthew's Gospel was written first and preceded Marks and this is only one bit of information these Holy Spirit Filled men were most assuredly wrong about!!! The reason giving by Irenaeus for there being 4 gospels in the first place is ridiculous. One would think the Holy Spirit could produce one work of publication that could successfully convey His Message of Hope and Redemption to the masses, without the resultant blood shed.

The Bible is a work written and editted by man and for man whether it is inspired by belief in a supernatural deity or to further the agendas of those who controlled its formulation as are all the Holy Scriptures on our planet.

There are no Gold and Silver tablets that fell from the sky written by angels.....oh wait a sec there is.....