Misquoting Jesus

[Sword-In-Hand]

Has anyone else seen this book? In a nutshell it's written by a former evangelistic Christian, now agnostic, who got involved in textual criticism of the Bible and "found" discrepencies and addons and deletions from the original texts. This caused him to turn from the faith.

I see more and more books like these coming out alot. I just don't get people anymore. Here's my view. If there ever were additions or subtractions proven fabout the Bible (not saying there can be), I would still believe the Bible to be the Word of God. Something being fallable doesn't mean God's not in it. Look at what He's already done through man's faults. I just feel sad for the writer of this book. People often let a question overcome God, because they put God in human terms. Anne Rice said it best. God is bigger than our questions and He holds all the answers and if we just put our faith in that, then the world is a livable place.

I guess this is a mini-rant. Plus I'm bored.

[RichardT]

In a nutshell it's written by a former evangelistic Christian, now agnostic, who got involved in textual criticism
.

[Sword-In-Hand]

[/size][/color][/font].

Actually there's alot of Christians who study textual criticism. To some it strengthens their faith, but to this guy it weakened him.

[FallingWaters]

Has anyone else seen this book? In a nutshell it's written by a former evangelistic Christian, now agnostic, who got involved in textual criticism of the Bible and "found" discrepencies and addons and deletions from the original texts. This caused him to turn from the faith.

I see more and more books like these coming out alot. I just don't get people anymore. Here's my view. If there ever were additions or subtractions proven fabout the Bible (not saying there can be), I would still believe the Bible to be the Word of God. Something being fallable doesn't mean God's not in it. Look at what He's already done through man's faults. I just feel sad for the writer of this book. People often let a question overcome God, because they put God in human terms. Anne Rice said it best. God is bigger than our questions and He holds all the answers and if we just put our faith in that, then the world is a livable place.

I guess this is a mini-rant. Plus I'm bored.
One excuse is as good as another.
If someone wants to believe,
he will find the "evidence".

[stray bullet]

Has anyone else seen this book? In a nutshell it's written by a former evangelistic Christian, now agnostic, who got involved in textual criticism of the Bible and "found" discrepencies and addons and deletions from the original texts. This caused him to turn from the faith.

I see more and more books like these coming out alot. I just don't get people anymore. Here's my view. If there ever were additions or subtractions proven fabout the Bible (not saying there can be), I would still believe the Bible to be the Word of God. Something being fallable doesn't mean God's not in it. Look at what He's already done through man's faults. I just feel sad for the writer of this book. People often let a question overcome God, because they put God in human terms. Anne Rice said it best. God is bigger than our questions and He holds all the answers and if we just put our faith in that, then the world is a livable place.

I guess this is a mini-rant. Plus I'm bored.

I'm just curious, do you believe that each book of the bible was written by one person and that each of the Gospels were written by their author?

I've always believed that the texts of the bible had been deleted or had additions to them... but that doesn't cause me to doubt the inerrancy of the bible. The written Gospels themselves, the foundation of our faith, seem completely mysterious in origin. John 21 indicates his Gospel seems to be a testament of John that was written long after he died.


I guess what many people often forget is the books of the NT were originally written on papyrus and 30 years after being written, they started rotting and were translated into Greek on animal skins.

[JimfromOhio]

Sounds like those who wrote such things were never saved in the first place. They were playing "Christians" and didn't like to "submit" to Jesus Christ, therefore, they will find anything to make Jesus Christ look bad.

[arunma]

Has anyone else seen this book? In a nutshell it's written by a former evangelistic Christian, now agnostic, who got involved in textual criticism of the Bible and "found" discrepencies and addons and deletions from the original texts. This caused him to turn from the faith.

I've heard about this before. I find it rather strange. Textual criticism is a legitimate science (yes, it's a science, embraced by believers and non-Christians alike). Virtually all evangelical Christian scholars study textual criticism. Indeed this science is a great testament to the veracity of the Bible. We believe that the Scriptures are inerrent in the originals, but copied and translated by fallible men. Textual criticism provides a basis for our belief that the infallible Scriptures could be faithfully transmitted to modern readers.

Most of the "misquotes of Jesus," are spelling variations. And unless you're into snake handling, even the disputed parts of the Bible (which are very small portions of the Scripture) don't refer to any of the orthodox doctrines of the faith. Apostacizing because of textual criticism is like giving up the faith because you found out that Jesus really did rise from the dead.

And no Richard, the answer is not to embrace nutcase doctrines like KJVO. The fact that a square peg doesn't fit into a round hole doesn't mean that a triangular peg will fit any better.

[arunma]

One excuse is as good as another.
If someone wants to believe,
he will find the "evidence".

Likewise, I think that anyone who wants to disbelieve will also invent the required evidence. Methinks that all the logical arguments against the veracity of Scripture are convenient subterfuge to ignore the truth of the resurrection of Jesus.

[Sword-In-Hand]

I should have clarified better. This guys argument is based on the emphasis that we no longer have the originals to look at and compare our newer versions with. If anyone wants to read this book, I only recommend those strong in faith. Because its obvious that if the seed fell on the rocks, then it withers away pretty easily like this particular author.

This is kind of my theory. I know it won't fly in this forum section, but hey, what can you do? ;) But what if the story of Jesus and the adultrous woman where he said, "He who has no sin cast the first stone." was an addon? (John 8 I believe) Or 1st John 5:7, Ezekiel 28, Mark 16:9-20? Would that make the Bible fallible if these were additions or takeaways? I'd say no because of this. Couldn't God change the word to fit a changing world? I know, I know, Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. But there's no way we could know who put these verses in, so couldn't it have been God's intervention?

I do know what people get caught up in are translation discrepencies. Skeptics think that since one phrase wasn't in a 14th century text but was in a 16th century text, then that makes the Bible wrong. Why? The theme of the Bible is God's redemption and Jesus Christ. I don't see how phrases and misworded sentences rebuke that. But like it has been said. If people want excuses not to believe they will find them. I just feel extremely sorry for them when they have to stand before God and say they renounced Him over a question.

[arunma]

This is kind of my theory. I know it won't fly in this forum section, but hey, what can you do? ;) But what if the story of Jesus and the adultrous woman where he said, "He who has no sin cast the first stone." was an addon? (John 8 I believe) Or 1st John 5:7, Ezekiel 28, Mark 16:9-20? Would that make the Bible fallible if these were additions or takeaways? I'd say no because of this. Couldn't God change the word to fit a changing world? I know, I know, Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. But there's no way we could know who put these verses in, so couldn't it have been God's intervention?

Actually, what I might say is that the passages you mentioned were not inspired by God, and ought not to be part of the Bible. We know that the Bible, as it was originally written, is infallible. Our job is to make sure that our modern Bibles are faithful to the original texts penned by the Apostles and prophets. So it seems to me that if we've added to the Scriptures, then the fault is ours, not the Bible's.

[Sword-In-Hand]

Actually, what I might say is that the passages you mentioned were not inspired by God, and ought not to be part of the Bible. We know that the Bible, as it was originally written, is infallible. Our job is to make sure that our modern Bibles are faithful to the original texts penned by the Apostles and prophets. So it seems to me that if we've added to the Scriptures, then the fault is ours, not the Bible's.

I would agree with that more than the theory I posted. It's not really a theory, but perhaps idle boredom?:P

[BereanTodd]

Most of the "misquotes of Jesus," are spelling variations. And unless you're into snake handling, even the disputed parts of the Bible (which are very small portions of the Scripture) don't refer to any of the orthodox doctrines of the faith. Apostacizing because of textual criticism is like giving up the faith because you found out that Jesus really did rise from the dead.

And most of them (the things cited in the book in question) have parralell/identical accounts that are not in question in the other gospels.

Here is a great critique of the book by Dan Wallace, pretty much the world's leading scholar in both Greek and NT Manuscripts:

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=4000


And no Richard, the answer is not to embrace nutcase doctrines like KJVO. The fact that a square peg doesn't fit into a round hole doesn't mean that a triangular peg will fit any better.

:amen: Preach it brother! :preach: