Timeline of changes to the bible...

[NotreDame]

No. Only the option he chose.

No, my posts to CaughtinThe substantively addressed his post(s) and his post and my reply do adhere to the substance of the thread.

The “only option” I chose was to not address your posts but another’s and you responded to my posts to CaughtinThe and in doing so, raised the cannonical issue. The fact I wasn’t interested in addressing your specific cannonical issue doesn’t render the rest of what I’ve said as not addressing the substance of the thread precisely and exactly because the cannonical issue isn’t THE substance and isn’t The Only substance under discussion.

The only option you chose was to mischaracterize what I said, and then blame me for not having an interest to discuss your pet issue.

 

[NotreDame]

Oh, that elicited a guffaw, I confess.

Seriously. I think you have made, essentially three "arguments": 1) "I can construct fallacies as well as the next guy";
2) "My cherries are riper that thine;"
3) "I'm right, you're wrong."

I really don't think you appreciate how circular your arguments are. Don't think I haven't noticed that you've completely ignored all my substantive references in favor of ad hominem attacks. I don't think anyone else has missed that, either.

My primary point (other than addressing your lack thereof), consistent with the topic of the thread, is that the historical record regarding the creation of "the Bible" has evolved over time, and much of the "doctrine" was created to suit contemporaneous constructions, interpretations and misinterpretation. Often that included editing the text itself, or simply discarding text that didn't conform to temporal beliefs.

Discovery of early texts informs the context of others as does understanding the Judaic traditions from which they sprang. Understanding the motivations of the "editors" also informs understanding.

can construct fallacies as well as the next guy";

Strawman, that you have to resort to an illogical fallacy to show I committed one is quite comical.

My cherries are riper that thine;"
3) "I'm right, you're wrong."

More Strawmen.

My primary point (other than addressing your lack thereof)

Factually false. That you can’t perceive the point is your dilemma.

Don't think I haven't noticed that you've completely ignored all my substantive references in favor of ad hominem attacks. I don't think anyone else has missed that, either.

Oh I’ve certainly ignored you, because this is our repeated history. You post a reply pissed off, or as you say “salty,” misconstrue what I said, then blame me and others. I don’t think that anyone else has missed that either.

It’s old.

 

[NotreDame]

he has lots of words but no substance.

i forget the Texas saying for that.

The Texas saying is put the money where your mouth is, a metaphor.

Here’s your shot tough guy, embarrass me right here and right now by showing how my post(s) to you have “no substance.” Otherwise man, your just mouthing off hot air man, tucking your tail and running because you cannot factually support what you’re saying.

 

[NotreDame]

My primary point (other than addressing your lack thereof), consistent with the topic of the thread, is that the historical record regarding the creation of "the Bible" has evolved over time, and much of the "doctrine" was created to suit contemporaneous constructions, interpretations and misinterpretation. Often that included editing the text itself, or simply discarding text that didn't conform to temporal beliefs.

Yes, and my replies to CaughtinThe, consistent with the topic of the thread, address what he assumes to be “changes” between older manuscripts of the NT/NT books with subsequent NT/NT books and his suggestion this impacts the reliability/credibility of the substantive doctrine. Yes, that subject matter is also part of the topic of the thread and my posts to him are substantively on point. I made two posts with links included that undermined his view these assumed “changes” impugn the reliability/credibility and also showed how the word “changed” isn’t necessarily accurate and provided a specific factual account.

 

[Logicman]

What I want to know is who put Revelation into the Bible. It is the work of a classic schizophrenic. It is pagan conspiracy raving run wild. It has nothing to do with Jesus' philosophy or the efforts of the early leaders of Christianity.

Looks like you've never done a study of all that. FYI there are some five hundred references to the old testament in Revelation. That's hardly pagan,

http://rebel13.nl/revelation.pdf

 

[Logicman]

(To caughtinthe) The Texas saying is put the money where your mouth is, a metaphor.

Here’s your shot tough guy, embarrass me right here and right now by showing how my post(s) to you have “no substance.” Otherwise man, your just mouthing off hot air man, tucking your tail and running because you cannot factually support what you’re saying.

Another Texas saying for his inane, sophomoric drivel is that he's all hat and no cattle (no substance).

 

[weaver2]

Looks like you've never done a study of all that. FYI there are some five hundred references to the old testament in Revelation. That's hardly pagan,

http://rebel13.nl/revelation.pdf

And 0 references to what Jesus way trying to teach. Revelation is the ravings of a schizophrenic. It has nothing to do with Christianity.

 

[NWRatCon]

One of the prominent critics of the NT, Bart Erhman, poignantly stated a point I made and a point made in the links in my posts. Which is:

“of all the hundreds of thousands of textual changes found among our manuscripts, most of them are completely insignificant, immaterial, of no real importance for anything other than showing that scribes could not spell or keep focused any better than the rest of us” (p. 207).” Bart Erhman.

Indeed, what ostensibly is a consensus among scholars, including secular, agnostic, atheist NT scholars, is no more than about “1%” of the New Testament is affected by significant textual variants, and the vast majority of even these represent no serious difficulty.

I do appreciate the effort to actually address the topic, even if it is limited to conclusory assertions.

Two things. First, you probably know who Elaine Pagels is - probably the foremost expert on the Nag Hammadi collection - so you probably also know the defect in your assertion. It's proobably also relevant to the discussion why the Nag Hammadi collection was buried in the first place: to avoid persecution from "church authorities" that were actively suppressing "the opposition". Ironic, given that they were themselves being suppressed by the Romans.

Second, as Pagels, and virtually all the critiques of Ehrman's assertion, point out the same defect in his arguments: he simply ignores the plethora of evidence that refutes his assertion. Somehow that approach seems familiar.

There were, as these councils were convened a multitude of "Christian traditions". The efforts were to "canonize" particular texts, to take control of the narrative and excise anything that didn't conform, and promote particular views. Many were carried forward from the conflicts within Judaic sects.

It is simply inaccurate to say that these efforts were limited to grammatical and spelling corrections.

 

[NWRatCon]

Strawman, that you have to resort to an illogical fallacy to show I committed one is quite comical.



More Strawmen.



Factually false. That you can’t perceive the point is your dilemma.



Oh I’ve certainly ignored you, because this is our repeated history. You post a reply pissed off, or as you say “salty,” misconstrue what I said, then blame me and others. I don’t think that anyone else has missed that either.

It’s old.

You're funny. At least, I think you think you are. I'll put my reputation up against yours every day of the week.

 

[Logicman]

And 0 references to what Jesus way trying to teach. Revelation is the ravings of a schizophrenic. It has nothing to do with Christianity.

You need help too. Here's a good book for theological dilettantes:

 

[Questerr]

<chuckle>

FYI, the earliest manuscripts of the Gospels all record the resurrection of Jesus. Don't miss the forest for the trees.

The earliest manuscripts of the Quran all record that Mohammad was the prophet of God. Should I be Muslim on that basis?

 

[Mithrae]

Surely YOU'RE kidding. While it's true that not all of the councils, etc., changed text, many, many did,

Which ones? As I said, AFAIK only a handful even touched on (let alone changed) the canonical status of any books, notably in the 4th-5th century confirming the extent of the New Testament and the 16th resolving the status of the Septuagint/Apocrypha.

and nearly all changed doctrine. That was kinda the point.

Equivocating between changes to the biblical text and changes to various demoninations' canon is bad enough. Equivocating between changes to the biblical text and changes to doctrine (or as you cleverly tried to frame it, changes to "biblical meaning") is thoroughly disingenuous.

A point which might concern a Catholic Christian would be whether those church councils or the development of Tradition generally was inspired by God. The OP doesn't address or even acknowledge that point.

A point which might concern a Protestant Christian would be whether the known text of Scripture is accurate (or accurate enough) to whatever stage of composition they believe was inspired by God. The OP doesn't address or even acknowledge that point either.

A point which might concern a more liberal Christian of any denomination would be what they can learn about history, culture, philosophy, humanity, morality and themselves from any changes, corruptions and developments of scripture or tradition over time. The OP doesn't touch on any of that either.

As far as I can tell, pretty much the only point to be made from the OP might be of interest to the handful of KJV-onlyists who haven't yet shuffled off this mortal coil.

It may have been an overbroad generalization, but I don't think anyone was confused about the crux. As just a few of hundreds of examples showing changes, I offer

Argument by hyperlink has dubious value at the best of times, and for anyone unwilling to commit to trawling through endless pages of apologists 'best' efforts, has pretty much zero value in religion-related discussions. Why not pick one or two of the best examples and summarize the evidence for them here? There's surely interesting discussions to be had about the development of the bible, even if the OP failed to offer anything relevant.

 

[NWRatCon]

Which ones? As I said, AFAIK only a handful even touched on (let alone changed) the canonical status of any books, notably in the 4th-5th century confirming the extent of the New Testament and the 16th resolving the status of the Septuagint/Apocrypha.

Think again, my friend. Although I am using Wikipedia as a shorthand, you must be aware of the efforts of the First Seven Ecumenical Councils, which covered over four centuries of adaptation. Their entire purpose was to hammer into shape the "Christian doctrine" and eliminate all of the "heretical" interpretations. "Christianity" has never been a one-size-fits-all belief system, but the purpose of these councils was to make it so. That was my impression of the opening post.

Equivocating between changes to the biblical text and changes to various demoninations' canon is bad enough. Equivocating between changes to the biblical text and changes to doctrine (or as you cleverly tried to frame it, changes to "biblical meaning") is thoroughly disingenuous.

That's utter BS. That is entirely the point. You are the one being disingenuous here. There's a handy chart in this Wikipedia entry that demonstrates the point:

Development of the New Testament canon​

I would simply post the whole thing, but it would exceed the character limitation. The assertion that "only 1% has changed" is obviously undermined by the reality of what was dealt with historically. Entire books were added, discarded, and modified during this period. Far more than 1%.

A point which might concern a Catholic Christian would be whether those church councils or the development of Tradition generally was inspired by God. The OP doesn't address or even acknowledge that point.

That's because it was dealing with facts, not "beliefs". Changes in wordings or interpretations can, as I pointed out earlier, be profoundly significant in development of doctrine. "Maiden" and "Virgin" have disparate meanings, but how they are interpreted has had a profound impact on the development (and some would say, corruption) of Christianity. In early Christianity there were many divergent views on how to teach Jesus' philosophy/theology - some incorporating Judaism, some rejecting it. The purpose of the councils was to restrict the "acceptable" versions. Not everyone agreed with that at the time, nor do many still. I took that to be the central tenet of the OP.

A point which might concern a Protestant Christian would be whether the known text of Scripture is accurate (or accurate enough) to whatever stage of composition they believe was inspired by God. The OP doesn't address or even acknowledge that point either.

Ditto. The OP started with a simple (if admittedly somewhat incomplete premise) merely pointing out that the Bible has been subject to numerous revisions. It was open-ended, much like early Christianity.

A point which might concern a more liberal Christian of any denomination would be what they can learn about history, culture, philosophy, humanity, morality and themselves from any changes, corruptions and developments of scripture or tradition over time. The OP doesn't touch on any of that either.

No, it doesn't. So? Touch on it.

As far as I can tell, pretty much the only point to be made from the OP might be of interest to the handful of KJV-onlyists who haven't yet shuffled off this mortal coil.

Apparently not.

Argument by hyperlink has dubious value at the best of times, and for anyone unwilling to commit to trawling through endless pages of apologists 'best' efforts, has pretty much zero value in religion-related discussions. Why not pick one or two of the best examples and summarize the evidence for them here? There's surely interesting discussions to be had about the development of the bible, even if the OP failed to offer anything relevant.

When limited to 5000 characters, it is difficult to avoid references by hyperlink. Welcome to the internet, my friend.

 

[Mithrae]

Think again, my friend. Although I am using Wikipedia as a shorthand, you must be aware of the efforts of the First Seven Ecumenical Councils, which covered over four centuries of adaptation. Their entire purpose was to hammer into shape the "Christian doctrine" and eliminate all of the "heretical" interpretations.

Nothing there about changing the text of books in the bible: That was your assertion, that "many" of the councils listed in the OP changed not only the canon but actual text. So... which ones?

"Christianity" has never been a one-size-fits-all belief system, but the purpose of these councils was to make it so. That was my impression of the opening post.

The thread title is Timeline of changes to the bible, and the post explicitly refers 30,000 textual variations. But we're supposed to bend over backwards trying to pretend that @CaughtInThe was listing all those church councils for some reason other than changes to the bible?

That's utter BS. That is entirely the point. You are the one being disingenuous here. There's a handy chart in this Wikipedia entry that demonstrates the point:

Development of the New Testament canon​

I would simply post the whole thing, but it would exceed the character limitation. The assertion that "only 1% has changed" is obviously undermined by the reality of what was dealt with historically. Entire books were added, discarded, and modified during this period. Far more than 1%.

Which books were "added, discarded or modified during this period" of the first and second Vatican councils (1864-1965), as claimed by the OP?

I imagine the Christians here could quote you verse after verse about 'testing the spirits,' false prophets among the faithful and so on: I'm not even sure what point is meant to be served by citing this relatively well-known information, but it would be a pretty obvious strawman to pretend that their Scripture should have been handed down before all the people with fire and thunder, to be universally and indisputably accepted for all time. That only happened once, supposedly Many of the prophets after that weren't even well-regarded in their own time; it's pretty much built in to the oldest stories of the religion that discerning what was and wasn't inspired by God needn't be a simple, once-for-all answer. Changes to supposedly inspired books could be problematic - hence the 1% number, though I'd guess it's more like 4 or 5% - but beyond a weird strawman I'm not sure what point is served by reiterating the fact already known to most Christians that it wasn't always a simple once-for-all answer which books to include.

That's because it was dealing with facts, not "beliefs". Changes in wordings or interpretations can, as I pointed out earlier, be profoundly significant in development of doctrine. "Maiden" and "Virgin" have disparate meanings, but how they are interpreted has had a profound impact on the development (and some would say, corruption) of Christianity.

Really? "The virgin shall conceive and bear a son." How do virgins normally conceive and bear children, do you suppose? And why would Jesus' conception 700 years later be of any interest or comfort to King Ahaz under threat by his neighbouring kings? It's shoddy 'prophecy'-creation by the author of gMatthew, and not even his worst attempt. It's got nothing to do with any change to the Hebrew text of Isaiah (which, again, was the title of the thread and claim of the OP) and nothing to do with whether it translates as maiden or virgin; that makes zero difference to the meaning of the passage.

 

[NWRatCon]

Nothing there about changing the text of books in the bible: That was your assertion, that "many" of the councils listed in the OP changed not only the canon but actual text. So... which ones?

I listed several earlier. I'm not going to list every one, because there are tens of thousands. It's a troll question, anyway, even if not intended to be, like asking someone to name every victim on the Titanic to "prove" they died.

Suffice to say, every time there is a new "translation" there are numerous and significant changes to the text. As my son adroitly pointed out to me this morning, if you eliminated every reference to "God" in the Bible, that would probably only amount to 1% or less of the text, but it would have a pretty profound effect on its "meaning".

The thread title is Timeline of changes to the bible, and the post explicitly refers 30,000 textual variations. But we're supposed to bend over backwards trying to pretend that @CaughtInThe was listing all those church councils for some reason other than changes to the bible?

Which books were "added, discarded or modified during this period" of the first and second Vatican councils (1864-1965), as claimed by the OP?

Not my circus, not my monkeys.

I imagine the Christians here could quote you verse after verse

I'm sure they could, and many of them wouldn't understand a word of what they were saying. So much of the Bible is allegorical and so many take it literally, and so much of it is parroted without grasping the intent. Camels and needles come immediately to mind.

How many people have died based upon temporal "interpretations" of the text? How long was slavery justified on such a basis? Or homosexuality condemned? How long have "non-conforming" believers been persecuted? Misinterpretation of words can have very profound effects.

Really? "The virgin shall conceive and bear a son." How do virgins normally conceive and bear children, do you suppose? And why would Jesus' conception 700 years later be of any interest or comfort to King Ahaz under threat by his neighbouring kings? It's shoddy 'prophecy'-creation by the author of Matthew, and not even his worst attempt. It's got nothing to do with any change to the Hebrew text of Isaiah (which, again, was the title of the thread and claim of the OP) and nothing to do with whether it translates as maiden or virgin; that makes zero difference to the meaning of the passage.

I disagree with your conclusion, for pretty obvious reasons. A whole cult within the church is based upon whether or not Jesus' conception was "immaculate" or not. As for me, it doesn't matter. I believe he was conceived and born in the usual way, and that changes not an iota of claims to divinity, in my view (if he even made them). Lots of preexisting mythology was added to Biblical texts to conform to various prophecies.

I've mentioned before that I followed the proceedings of the Jesus Seminar and similar intellectual pursuits. I find them fascinating, especially as I come from an historical background and my mother was an anthropologist (among other things). I've never claimed to be an expert, but I am not ignorant, either. Shall we just say, "an informed amateur" and keep it at that.

But, I don't plan on spending more effort on this thread. It's pretty much run its course.

 

[Mithrae]

I listed several earlier. I'm not going to list every one, because there are tens of thousands. It's a troll question, anyway, even if not intended to be, like asking someone to name every victim on the Titanic to "prove" they died.

This was your earlier claim:

Surely YOU'RE kidding. While it's true that not all of the councils, etc., changed text, many, many did,

You haven't named a single church council which changed the text of any biblical book, and now you're trying to pretend that asking you to substantiate your dubious claims is somehow trolling.

But, I don't plan on spending more effort on this thread. It's pretty much run its course.

There's interesting discussion to be had on the textual history of the bible, but apparently not here. It was by all appearances a disturbingly ill-informed OP by someone who thought that every single major church council made changes to the bible. I was just surprised that you described it as a "thread of substance" while gratuitously insulting other contributors to the thread. Turns out that you had read into the OP something wildly different from what was actually there, apparently in order to score some kind of points against those with beliefs different from yours, while being subsequently unwilling to back up the claims you've made in the process. Can't quite put my finger on it, but that kind of pattern reminds me of some people...

 

[NWRatCon]

You haven't named a single church council which changed the text of any biblical book,

You're right, I named seven.

As for the rest, be well. I'll forget your churlishness.

 

[Logicman]

I've mentioned before that I followed the proceedings of the Jesus Seminar and similar intellectual pursuits. I find them fascinating...

The discredited Jesus Seminar was anything but history-based or an 'intellectual' pursuit. It was put together by a gaggle of largely liberal 'scholars' who started out with presuppositions and conclusions that were highly flawed. The Jesus Seminar didn't just conclude the Gospels were inaccurate. That’s where they began before they’ve looked at one single shred of actual historical evidence. Also, they started out with an "a priori" anti-supernatural bias. All the miracles, virgin birth, healings, resurrection, etc., etc., immediately wound up on their cutting room floor. Because of their anti-supernatural bias, they concluded that Jesus' prophecy about the coming destruction of Jerusalem and the temple couldn't have been a prophecy because prophecy doesn't exist. Therefore the gospels had to have been written much later, after the destruction of Jerusalem, by individuals who were not the traditional authors. They gave more weight to 2nd century pseudepigrapha like the Gospel of Thomas than they did to the traditional 1st century Gospel authors. All around, it was a sophomoric hack job where voting on people, sayings, and events in the scriptures was done with colored beads. They even pushed the idea of the mythical "Q document," a hypothetical "gospel" of sorts for which there is zero archaeological or historical support. I wouldn't call all that 'fascinating,' unless you are profoundly moved by a lot of science fiction writings.

 

[Logicman]

You're right, I named seven.

Naming them was easy for you. Documenting examples where the church councils allegedly changed the texts of New Testament scriptures was something that we never saw from you. Once again, you were all hat and no cattle. I doubt you went to college because if you had done that in a history class the professor would have excoriated you and made you the laughing stock of the class.

 

[Fearandloathing]

I may have missed some...


Council of Jerusalem 50AD
First Council of Nicaea 325AD
Council of Serdica 343AD
First Council of Constantinople 381AD
Council of Ephesus 431AD
Council of Chalcedon 451AD
Second Council of Constantinople 553AD
Third Council of Constantinople 680AD
Second Council of Nicaea 787AD
Fourth Council of Constantinople (Catholic Church) 869-870AD
Fourth Council of Constantinople (Eastern Orthodox) 879-880AD
First Council of the Lateran 1121AD
Second Council of the Lateran 1139AD
Third Council of the Lateran 1179AD
Fourth Council of the Lateran 1213AD
First Council of Lyon 1245AD
Second Council of Lyon 1272AD
Council of Vienne 1311-1312AD
Council of Constance 1414-1418AD
Council of Siena 1423AD
Council of Florence 1431-1449AD
Fifth Council of the Lateran 1512-1517AD
Council of Trent 1545-1563AD
King James Version 1604-1611AD
First Vatican Council 1864-1870AD
Second Vatican Council 1962-1965AD



Also...

"Over 30,000 changes were made, of which more than 5,000 represent differences between the Greek text used for the Revised Version and that used as the basis of the King James Version."

Indeed. There is also an issue of customs of the day. Too often we overlay today's customs on those of the past. The Woman at the well story is a good example, and of little note until you know she was there at midday because she was a social outcast, a prostitute. Women usually drew water in the morning and the evening so as not to lead men to sinful thoughts.

That changes the whole perspective of the Jesus story as he, in effect, makes her the first apostle

 

[Logicman]

The Woman at the well story is a good example, and of little note until you know she was there at midday because she was a social outcast, a prostitute.

Are you talking about Jesus and the Samaritan woman at the well? Where did it say she was a social outcast and a prostitute? Scripture #? John chapter 4 is where the story is.

Women usually drew water in the morning and the evening....

'usually', but not always.

 

[Fearandloathing]

Are you talking about Jesus and the Samaritan woman at the well? Where did it say she was a social outcast and a prostitute? Scripture #? John chapter 4 is where the story is.



'usually', but not always.

No.

As I said there bible itself provides no context.

I learned this at a college course on the history of the bible others. It's called Archeology

 

[devildavid]

The discredited Jesus Seminar was anything but history-based or an 'intellectual' pursuit. It was put together by a gaggle of largely liberal 'scholars' who started out with presuppositions and conclusions that were highly flawed. The Jesus Seminar didn't just conclude the Gospels were inaccurate. That’s where they began before they’ve looked at one single shred of actual historical evidence. Also, they started out with an "a priori" anti-supernatural bias. All the miracles, virgin birth, healings, resurrection, etc., etc., immediately wound up on their cutting room floor. Because of their anti-supernatural bias, they concluded that Jesus' prophecy about the coming destruction of Jerusalem and the temple couldn't have been a prophecy because prophecy doesn't exist. Therefore the gospels had to have been written much later, after the destruction of Jerusalem, by individuals who were not the traditional authors. They gave more weight to 2nd century pseudepigrapha like the Gospel of Thomas than they did to the traditional 1st century Gospel authors. All around, it was a sophomoric hack job where voting on people, sayings, and events in the scriptures was done with colored beads. They even pushed the idea of the mythical "Q document," a hypothetical "gospel" of sorts for which there is zero archaeological or historical support. I wouldn't call all that 'fascinating,' unless you are profoundly moved by a lot of science fiction writings.

Anti-supernatural bias. That’s funny. Sure, they are biased toward reality, like normal people studying something should be.

 

[Logicman]

As I said there bible itself provides no context.

I learned this at a college course on the history of the bible others. It's called Archeology

Gotta love all those archaeology discoveries that lend credence to the Bible.

Wasn't many years ago that a skeptic claimed that Pontius Pilate never existed.

They didn't do their homework. Archaeologists excavating the "Theater at Caesarea" in 1963 discovered a Latin inscription that named "Pontius Pilate, Prefect of Judea."

 

[devildavid]

Gotta love all those archaeology discoveries that lend credence to the Bible.

Wasn't many years ago that a skeptic claimed that Pontius Pilate never existed.

They didn't do their homework. Archaeologists excavating the "Theater at Caesarea" in 1963 discovered a Latin inscription that named "Pontius Pilate, Prefect of Judea."

There aren’t any such discoveries.