Cavalorn ([info]cavalorn) wrote,
@ 2008-10-06 14:16:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Codex Sinaiticus Online!
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?'"

(8 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]knight_of_pan
2008-10-06 03:09 pm UTC (link)
Hmmmm and how will that site be different from this one: http://www.sinaiticus.com/

The resurrection is in it...

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]cavalorn
2008-10-07 10:51 am UTC (link)
The resurrection's only missing from Mark in the Codex Sinaiticus.

As for the differences, I haven't the foggiest. :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]brock_tn
2008-10-06 04:07 pm UTC (link)
I've been a fan of Ehrman's books for some years now. I have several in my library. His Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew, has some important lessons in it about the ways in which new religions alter in the years after the deaths of the founder of the religion and those close to him. I could wish more pagans had read it.

Ehrman's book Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, is just simply fascinating.

(Reply to this)


[info]urwen_sakurafu
2008-10-06 04:23 pm UTC (link)
Nice to see it goes the other way;

Mad Fundamentalist -> Sensible person capable of critical thinking.

(Reply to this)


[info]alison_lees
2008-10-07 09:20 am UTC (link)
Of course, non-bible bashers are aware that the 'exact' bible is a moot point. Which is why you can buy 'protestant' bibles and 'catholic' bibles, and they each have different sets of 'apocrypha'. The 'current bible' wasn't written all in one day, and is, presumably, the result of much study.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]cavalorn
2008-10-07 10:53 am UTC (link)
And much studious editing. But yes, it's a bit of a straw man to declare AHA BIBLE NOT INFALLIBLE when that's been known by religious and secular alike for quite a while now.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]alison_lees
2008-10-07 10:59 am UTC (link)
I think it might be news to the fundamentalist creationist types, who won't listen, and don't understand that the bible uses metaphors.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]ajohnymous
2008-10-14 07:48 am UTC (link)
Anytime you hear the phrase "original Greek texts", you know someone is bullshitting you.

There is no such thing as existing "original" texts.

There is, however, at least in English, an Authorized Version (it says so right on the tin).

(Reply to this)

(8 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Log in with OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…