There is no Resurrection in the original bible?

eek. · Oct 7, 2008

<TABLE class=storycontent cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR><TD colSpan=2>The rival to the Bible

</TD></TR><TR><TD class=storybody>

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=466 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=bottom>By Roger Bolton
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

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 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. <TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=231 align=right border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width=5>

</TD><TD class=sibtbg>FIND OUT MORE
Roger Bolton presents the Oldest Bible on Radio 4 on Monday, 6 October, at 1100 BST

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
For those who believe the Bible is the inerrant, unaltered word of God, there will be some very uncomfortable questions to answer. It shows there have been thousands of alterations to today's bible.
The Codex, probably the oldest Bible we have, also has books which are missing from the Authorised Version that most Christians are familiar with today - and it does not have crucial verses relating to the Resurrection.
Anti-Semitic writings
The fact this book has survived at all is a miracle. Before its discovery in the early 19th Century by the Indiana Jones of his day, it remained hidden in St Catherine's Monastery since at least the 4th Century. <TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=226 align=right border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>

The monastery at the base of Mt Sinai

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
It survived because the desert air is ideal for preservation and because the monastery, on a Christian island in a Muslim sea, remained untouched, its walls unconquered.
Today, 30 mainly Greek Orthodox monks, dedicated to prayer, worship there, helped as in ages past by the Muslim Bedouin. For this place is holy to three great religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam; a land where you can still see the Burning Bush where God spoke to Moses.
The monastery itself has the greatest library of early manuscripts outside the Vatican - some 33,000, and a collection of icons second to none.
Not surprisingly, it is now a World Heritage Site and has been called a veritable Ark, bringing spiritual treasures safely through the turbulent centuries. In many people's eyes the greatest treasure is the Codex, written in the time of the first Christian Emperor Constantine.
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. This goes out of its way to claim that it was the Jews, not the Romans, who killed Jesus, and is full of anti-Semitic kindling ready to be lit. "His blood be upon us," Barnabas has the Jews cry.
Discrepancies
Had this remained in subsequent versions, "the suffering of Jews in the subsequent centuries would, if possible, have been even worse", says the distinguished New Testament scholar Professor Bart Ehrman. <TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=231 align=right border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width=5>

</TD><TD class=sibtbg>

The suffering of Jews in the subsequent centuries would, if possible, have been even worse had the Epistle of Barnabas remained

Professor Bart Ehrman

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
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?
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?'"
The Codex - and other early manuscripts - do not mention the ascension of Jesus into heaven, and omit key references to the Resurrection, which the Archbishop of Canterbury has said is essential for Christian belief.
Other differences concern how Jesus behaved. In one passage of the Codex, Jesus is said to be "angry" as he healed a leper, whereas the modern text records him as healing with "compassion".
Also missing is the story of the woman taken in adultery and about to be stoned - until Jesus rebuked the Pharisees (a Jewish sect), inviting anyone without sin to cast the first stone.
Nor are there words of forgiveness from the cross. Jesus does not say "Father forgive them for they know not what they do".
Fundamentalists, who believe every word in the Bible is true, may find these differences unsettling.
But the picture is complicated. Some argue that another early Bible, the Codex Vaticanus, is in fact older. And there are other earlier texts of almost all the books in the bible, though none pulled together into a single volume.
Many Christians have long accepted that, while the Bible is the authoritative word of God, it is not inerrant. Human hands always make mistakes. "It should be regarded as a living text, something constantly changing as generation and generation tries to understand the mind of God," says David Parker, a Christian working on digitising the Codex. Others may take it as more evidence that the Bible is the word of man, not God.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7651105.stm

Preussen · Oct 7, 2008

The interesting thing is that even this old Bible was written about 300 years after Jesus died. Who would believe that a report about a story happening around 1700 that had been written down in 2008 for the first time would be totally exact?

SmallDaddy · Oct 7, 2008

Heck most of the stuff on Fix News is inaccurate that is happening right now!!!

punter · Oct 7, 2008

People had better memory's back then, no harmful additives in the wine.

Stocks · Oct 7, 2008

Also the second bible was'nt written 200 years later but put together 200 years after Jesus died. Christianity was banned back in the day untill about 200 years later when the king of Rome at the time was going into battle and had a vision of a cross and changed his beliefs to christianity. After that he made it lega to pratice christianity then when he died and his son took over as king he made christianity manatory and over night christianity the biggest and most powerfull religion in the world. Now back to the bible, there were a lot of different christain religions and figures at the time in rome and because of this the roman empire was starting to crumble so he gathered up all the religious scrolls and picked out what he wanted and put it in a book the new bible and destroyed the rest. What he left in there were Jesus storys or changed the storys to Jesus storys and got rid of the other main christain characters. He did this well for control and so he would'nt loss power over the people.

A couple more interesting notes not all the scrolls of the time were destroyed some were descovered in the 50's know as the dead sea scrolls which some people say hints that Jesus and Mary were probaly an item.

Also on the subject the reason above is why Jesus is the man and not someone else. When Jesus was alive son's of god and massia's were a dime a dozen it was the thing to be at the time. Jesus was not that well know at the time there were another couple guys a lot more famous. One guy who was the main man at the time and most believed he was the real son of god but he used war and lost a battle and everyone at the time said he cant be the son of god if he lost so he was out. And then there were another couple cats that were more well know then Jesus but I cant remeber they're story. Anyway like I said above Jesus didnt gain fame till 200 years after he died. So if it was'nt for the king of rome the the main guy in the bible would probaly be someone other than Jesus.

Anyway believe in Jesus being the son of god or not he preached 2 main things peace not violence and accept everbody even the lepors at the time he accepted. So atleast that was a good message.

festeringZit · Oct 7, 2008

Stocks said:
Also the second bible was'nt written 200 years later but put together 200 years after Jesus died. Christianity was banned back in the day untill about 200 years later when the king of Rome at the time was going into battle and had a vision of a cross and changed his beliefs to christianity. After that he made it lega to pratice christianity then when he died and his son took over as king he made christianity manatory and over night christianity the biggest and most powerfull religion in the world. Now back to the bible, there were a lot of different christain religions and figures at the time in rome and because of this the roman empire was starting to crumble so he gathered up all the religious scrolls and picked out what he wanted and put it in a book the new bible and destroyed the rest. What he left in there were Jesus storys or changed the storys to Jesus storys and got rid of the other main christain characters. He did this well for control and so he would'nt loss power over the people.

A couple more interesting notes not all the scrolls of the time were destroyed some were descovered in the 50's know as the dead sea scrolls which some people say hints that Jesus and Mary were probaly an item.

Also on the subject the reason above is why Jesus is the man and not someone else. When Jesus was alive son's of god and massia's were a dime a dozen it was the thing to be at the time. Jesus was not that well know at the time there were another couple guys a lot more famous. One guy who was the main man at the time and most believed he was the real son of god but he used war and lost a battle and everyone at the time said he cant be the son of god if he lost so he was out. And then there were another couple cats that were more well know then Jesus but I cant remeber they're story. Anyway like I said above Jesus didnt gain fame till 200 years after he died. So if it was'nt for the king of rome the the main guy in the bible would probaly be someone other than Jesus.

Anyway believe in Jesus being the son of god or not he preached 2 main things peace not violence and accept everbody even the lepors at the time he accepted. So atleast that was a good message.

Virtually nothing in this post is true.

Stocks · Oct 7, 2008

festeringZit said:
Virtually nothing in this post is true.

All true my friend

quantumleap · Oct 7, 2008

What I find amazing is that millions of Christians put their faith in words in their Bible without knowing how it was decided which books were put in and which books were left out and the circumstances surrounding these decisions.

I took a class in college called "How We Got Our Bible". In that class the professor said that many learned scholars disagree whether the part about taking up serpents should be included in the New Testament. There is usually a footnote put in Bibles mentioning this.

There are also books called the Gospel of Thomas that were left out.

Religion has always been a political thing. I can't help but believe that books were left out because of politics.

barman · Oct 7, 2008

Many Christians have long accepted that, while the Bible is the authoritative word of God, it is not inerrant. Human hands always make mistakes. "It should be regarded as a living text, something constantly changing as generation and generation tries to understand the mind of God," says David Parker, a Christian working on digitising the Codex. Others may take it as more evidence that the Bible is the word of man, not God.

Precisely what I've stated many times and precisely what - as the original coverage in Post #1 above acknowledged - is very unsettling for many hardcore fundamentalist Xtians.