NNS,

<<Do you have anything to support these claims, or are they just one more of your unsupported opinions that you think is the truth and factual. Let me say it again. Just to be clear. The bible tells of both the good and the bad that people do. Most people have more self censorship then that and only publically (sic) report the good things they do. So if they wanted to remove something and were actively editing the bible then they would be successful in doing it. The fact that this isn't the case is more then enough evidance (sic) to reject your claims. >>

You have stated it well in opposing Yuyutsu's view of the biblical text.

If the Bible were not factual, the OT judgements by God would be cut out, e.g. Noah's flood that saw the drowning of all people on earth except for 8 (Genesis 6-9). These verses would be censored:

The wicked plot against the godly;
they snarl at them in defiance.
But the Lord just laughs,
for he sees their day of judgment coming (Psalm 27:12-13).

Josephus (first century Jewish historian) wrote: 'Let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of the levity and boldness of their sex‘ (Antiquities of the Jews, 4.8.15).

However, who went to the tomb on resurrection morning? According to the NT, the first witnesses of Jesus after his resurrection were women, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (Matthew 28:1-10).

For ancient historians, this is an example of the criterion of embarrassment to demonstrate the credibility of a document. With the Jewish attitude towards female witnesses, to record these females demonstrates the genuineness of the historical document.

To OzSpen.

Thank you for agreeing with my answer to Yuyutsu.

The one thing I'd add is that though you and I agree that the bible is trustworthy, reliable, and says the truth, the answer I gave was meant only for the scope of the bible not being edited as it is often criticized as having been. If the bible is truthful as well is a related subject, but for now I would settle for confronting the issue that there's no evidence of changes made to the bible, except for speculative assumptions on the matter that hold no real support.

Since this is a common criticism against the bible, and is one that Yuyutsu holds, (that the bible has been changed), I wanted to address that point specifically. As of now, I am only aware of documents that strengthen the support that the bible has been passed down faithfully without intentional or unintentional editing and errors involved. Even to the point of ancient texts being recovered that match current translations that are conveyed in those surviving texts. Texts such as the Dead Sea scrolls show no correction or else they would be part of the criticism against the bible. No other documents recovered show signs of tampering and editing of the bible or support the speculation that the bible has been tampered with. This should be a huge red flag to the speculation, but instead the assumption persists in spite of no evidence of tampering with biblical documents throughout history.

NNS,

<<for now I would settle for confronting the issue that there's no evidence of changes made to the bible, except for speculative assumptions on the matter that hold no real support. >>

How then do you account for the earliest Alexandrian MSS having Mark 16 finishing at v. 8? Later MSS added vv 9-20?

How about the incident of the adulterous woman in John 8:1-11? The ESV has this note at the end of John 7: 'The earliest manuscripts do not include 7:53–8:11'.

Is 1 John 5:7-8 in all of the earliest MSS? No!

Therefore, I question the accuracy of your statement, 'no evidence of changes made to the bible'.

<<I am only aware of documents that strengthen the support that the bible has been passed down faithfully without intentional or unintentional editing and errors involved.>>

I suggest you read other evidence. I'd recommend Gleason Archer 1982. Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Zondervan). A brief discussion of 1 John 5:7-8 is on p. 375 of my copy. There is a new edition dated 2011, titled: New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Archer & Archer, Zondervan).

The job of textual critics is to compare MSS to arrive at the most reliable text. It's a meticulous and difficult job.

To OzSpen.

You've raised some good points that I haven't considered. I don't know what to say about them as of now, and probabley won't have an answer any time soon. Perhaps you have an answer of your own though. From your studies you have come to the conclusion that the bible is a reliable document and have stated your stance on this several times. That is still my stance as well, but in light of the verses in Mark that are missing in earlier transcripts and there in later transcripts, I don't know what to say. The other points I wil have to look into further to consider more fully.

At the very least they are counter arguments that I was not aware of, and therefore something I am glad to not be blind to. So for that aspect (and the knowledge that you have seen this critism and still risen to hold the bible as reliable), for that aspect I thank you for sharing that information and those points to me.

NNS,

For more details on the long ending of Mark, see my article, 'Does Mark 16:9-20 belong in Scripture?' at: http://truthchallenge.one/blog/2015/04/05/does-mark-169-20-belong-in-scripture/. It is only an introductory discussion of some of the issues.

Biblical scholars are divided on the authenticity of long ending, vv 9-20. Here are some of the issues:

1. The verses cannot be found in the oldest, and regarded as the most reliable, MSS. e.g. Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus.

2. The long ending also is not found in some important Old Latin, Syriac, Armenian, and Ethiopian MSS.

3. Some of the early church fathers didn’t quote this portion, e.g. Clement, Origen & Eusebius.

4. Jerome, translator of the Latin Vulgate, admitted almost all Greek MSS available to him did not include it.

5. In addition to this longer ending, there is a shorter ending in some MSS, suggesting some editing of the text.

6. Those who know Greek have shown that the style and vocabulary of vv 9-20 do not synchronise with the remainder of Mark's Gospel.

7. The ending of Mark 16 at v. 8 seems abrupt.

Could Mark have been interrupted while he was writing this or has a leaf or columns been torn off? I find it difficult to conclude that 16:8 is the end of the papyrus scroll as it is such an abrupt ending. So it seems some MSS copyists added a longer ending while others chose a shorter one (with help from Geisler & Howe 1992. When Critics Ask, p. 378)

This issue is not worth breaking fellowship with other Christians. It is not core teaching.

The discipline of textual criticism examines these matters. You might find some benefit in this online resource that is dated but the principles continue to be applied: Text and Manuscripts of the New Testament (by Charles Fremont Sitterly), available at: http://www.bible-researcher.com/isbetext02.html.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

This discussion over the accuracy and sanctity or otherwise of the old-testament is the subject of internal Jewish politics and crucial for the Jewish faith, yet neither your faith as Christian, nor mine as Hindu needs to depend on it.

Due to its importance for the Jews, extensive research was made and many books published on this topic in Israel, in Hebrew. I read some of those, but since lost interest and gave the books away. My opinion in this matter was formed on the basis of what I read, but I don't consider this issue to be important enough for me to re-order the books from Israel.

«Jesus referred to the burning bush incident to explain his resurrection»

The resurrection of Jesus, which I have no problem with, does not depend on the example he gave to the Sadducees, speaking in their own terms: "But in the account of the burning bush, even Moses showed that the dead rise". That the dead rise can still be true even if the Jewish account of the burning bush was less-than-accurate.

«he pointed to the Ten Commandments (Ex 20:12–16; Mt 19:18–19; Mk 10:19; Lk 18:20)»

Jesus referred to some of what we now know as the Ten Commandments. He did not refer to them as "the ten commandments" nor as "Exodus 20". The truth of the content does not imply the cleanliness of the container.

“I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery."

Modern forensic research indicates that only the Levites were in Egypt and came out in the Exodus while the other 11 tribes of Israel remained in Israel throughout. There is much to say on the topic, but my point is that this and other internal Jewish political disputes, need not and should not affect the Christian faith. The list of God's moral commandments as spoken by Jesus, should suffice.

[Continued...]