This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.


← Jesus opposed the minimum wage?

Oromasdes1978's Avatar Jump to comment 73 by Oromasdes1978


I'd suggest you read Bart Ehrman, he explains it very well - the Bible translations were essentially copies made from copies that were copied into copies - please understand there is a massive margin for error - lets say one scribe hands it to his assistant, his assistant sees a word that looks like another and uses that one instead - these guys did not have a printing press, the copies could never have been accurate enough.

Later on in history you have monks in the middle ages adding or subtracting passages, putting things in margins as footnotes that then become inserted into the actual text later on.

The earliest Bibles were have less information in them that the ones we have now - people have added things along the way. Even the copies we have access to were written under considerable bias - the First Council of Nicaea and the influence it had on groups like the Church Father or people like Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea Palaestina - Emperor Constantine's equivalent of a highly bias press officer, Pope Athanasius of Alexandra whose Cathar based teachings also influenced some of the first Bibles.

Things did not stop there, basically, most rulers throughout Medieval Europe influenced further creations of Bibles that suited their take on religion - look at the King James Bible for goodness sake, it's got unicorns in it due to a mistranslation of the word for oxen!

The King James Bible itself is a good example as it has a massive history and is a collection of a LOT of previously translated Bibles mixed together to produce it - it was changed, it IS different - there are a heck of a lot of Bible versions out there - they do not all say the same things.

Tell me why Paul's earlier account, supposedly since he was closer to the events that the Gospel writers were (There was not one author for each gospel, they were not written by people called Matthew, Mark, Luke or John - there were many authors), is different to that of the Gospels - the Gospels, written later, make claims to events that Paul does not speak of.

Paul speaks of Jesus as visionary knowledge provided to him by God that was supposedly not previously known to the world - not once does he make reference to a human or specific places that the Gospels lay claim to like Nazareth etc. Knowledge of Jesus is essential to Paul as it is a pathway to be saved by God and by trust in Paul's visionary knowledge is the only way to get in God's good books.

The Gospels do not say this, they say something completely different.

I am a historian, I have a fair idea of what constitutes Primary and Secondary evidence and the Bible does not even come close to historical validity, to be honest it is as factual as the accounts of William Tell.

Wed, 15 Jun 2011 14:39:16 UTC | #638859