� � � � There are some 5,700 ancient Greek manuscripts that are the basis of the modern versions of the New Testament, and scholars have uncovered more than 200,000 differences in those texts.� Put it this way: There are more variances among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament. Most of these are inconsequential errors in grammar or metaphor. But others are profound. The last 12 verses of the Gospel of Mark appear to have been added to the text years later - and these are the only verses in that book that show Christ reappearing after his death.� Another critical passage is in 1 John, which explicitly sets out the Holy Trinity (the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit). It is a cornerstone of Christian theology, and this is the only place where it is spelled out in the entire Bible - but it appears to have been added to the text centuries later, by an unknown scribe."

� � � � "There are some things that we must consider when we try to declare one Bible translation better than another, as some people try to do when asked which is their favorite.� Lets look at a few of these considerations.� The Bible was originally written in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic.� No original manuscripts exist, and there are distinct differences - though often minor - between the various manuscripts that have survived.
� � � � There are many Bibles which differ not only because of different translations but also because of including different selections of writings (e.g., apocryphal books or other books that are not considered canonical by everyone).� It therefore becomes difficult to accept the idea that the Bible is an infallible, perfect document when it is not clear which documents really belong in the Bible or which varying manuscripts should be used in the translation, not to mention the inherent uncertainties and problems that arise in translating any of the existing early manuscripts.� The Bible is inspired, but there is no denying that it has been touched by human hands!� To understand the large variety in canons, we need to look back in history.� For example, the Codex Sinaiticus, which is the oldest New Testament collection available, a fourth century manuscript found in a monastery on Mount Sinai, contains two writings which are excluded in the modern New Testament, the Shepherd of Hermas and Barnabas.� And yet even in the other books of that Codex, there appears to be a tendency to omit passages, leading to some shorter versions of Bible verses than we have in the King James text.
� � � � In A.D.� 200, a Christian in Rome wrote a list of books considered to be canonical.� This list is now known as the Muratorian Canon, named after the man who discovered it in Milan.� The list does not include Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, or 2 Peter, and includes only two of the letters of John.� The canonical works did include the Apocalypse of Peter and the Wisdom of Solomon.
� � � � We must keep in mind that the earliest Christians had no New Testament cannon.� Their Bible, and that of the Jews to this day, consisted of the Old Testament; this was the Canon of Holy Writ accepted by Jesus Himself, and referred to simply as "the scriptures" throughout the New Testament writings.� It was not until A.D.� 393 that a church council first listed the 27 New Testament books now universally recognized.� There was thus a period of about 350 years during which the New Testament Canon was in process of being formed.
� � � � Early Christians used a Greek translation of the Old Testament called the Septuagint.� This translation .� .� .� contained an expanded canon which included a number of the so-called "deuterocanonical" (or "apocryphal") books.� Although there was some initial debate over these books, they were eventually received by Christians into the Old Testament canon.� In reaction to the rise of Christianity, the Jews narrowed their canons and eventually excluded the deuterocanonical books - although they still regarded them as sacred.� The modern Jewish canon was not rigidly fixed until the third century A.D.� Interestingly, it is this later version of the Jewish canon of the Old Testament, rather than the canon of early Christianity, that is followed by most modern Protestants today.
� � � � When the Apostles lived and wrote, there was no New Testament and no finalized Old Testament.� first complete listing of New Testament books as we have them today did not appear until over 300 years after the death and resurrection of Christ.� (The first complete listing was given by St.� Athanasius in his Paschal Letter in A.D.� 367.) .� .� .� Most early Christian churches only had parts of what was to become the New Testament.�
� � � � One of the most important of the Greek new Testament manuscripts, known as D or Codex Claramontanus, contains a canon list for both the Old and New Testaments.� The manuscript itself is a product of the sixth century, but most scholars believe the canon list originated in the Alexandrian church in the fourth century.� This canon omits Philippians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, and Hebrews, but includes the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Acts of Paul (not our Acts), and the Apocalypse of Peter.� Before the fifth century the Syrian Christian canon included 3 Corinthians and Tatian's Diatessaron.� The Abyssinian Orthodox church has in its canon the twenty-seven books of the modern New Testament, but adds the Synodos of Qalementos (both attributed to Clement of Rome), the Book of the Covenant (which includes a post-resurrection discourse of the Savior), and the Ethiopic Didascalia.� To the Old Testament the Abyssinian canon adds the book of Enoch (cited as prophetic by the canonical book of Jude) and the Ascension of Isaiah.
� � � � Part of the problem may have been the rarity of authoritative writings, which had to be copied by hand.� Few churches had a complete set of apostolic letters, and it was undoubtedly difficult to tell a correctly written copy from a forgery or an errant copy.� Many members might be unfamiliar with a given work cherished by other saints in a different area.� New or unfamiliar writings might have been rejected or questioned, and many controversies are easy to imagine.�
� � � � In more recent times, Martin Luther called the Epistle of James "a right epistle of straw" (ein rechte stroern Epistel) because it has "no Gospel quality to it" [D.� Martin Luthers Werke (Weimar: B�hlaus, 1929), Ser.3:6:10.� Elsewhere he branded it as worthless [Luther (1906): Ser.1:32:299].� In the forward to his early translations, he challenged the apostolic origin of James and also said that Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation did not belong among "the true and noblest books of the New Testament" [see W.G.� K�mmel, "The Continuing Significance of Luther's Prefaces to the New Testament," Concordia Theological Monthly, 37 (1966): 573-581.� Some later editions of Luther's translations even labeled Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation as apocryphal or non-canonical.� Even more surprising, Luther was unhappy with the Sermon on the Mount, calling it a masterpiece of the devil: "Das heist ein meister stuck des Teuffels [sic]" [Luther (1906): Ser.1:32:299] since it gives so much emphasis on works and behavior rather than Luther's doctrine of justification by faith alone.�
� � � � The popular concept of Biblical inerrancy and sufficiency (in which it is asserted that the Bible as is contains no flaws and is a complete and perfect canon) is hard to square with the centuries-old uncertainty and controversy over what should be in the Biblical canon in the first place.� If Martin Luther openly attacked the canonical status of some books in the Protestant Bible, it seems odd that his followers would later claim that the Bible is infallible, complete, and perfect.� The Bible makes no such claim for itself.�
� � � � Technically, the concept of Biblical inerrancy should mean that the words originally written by prophets and apostles under inspiration of God are correct.� However, when many people speak of biblical inerrancy, they have extended a rather reasonable concept to mean that a particular modern translation (esp.� the King James Bible) is absolutely perfect and infallible, a proposition that is simply untenable.� Unfortunately, since we have absolutely none of the original scriptures as penned by the prophets and apostles, the possibility of inerrancy in the original texts has only limited bearing on the accuracy of the book that you may have in your home.
� � � � Once we understand that there is not just a single, original manuscript to work with, but many different ancient texts, all of which are removed from the originals by many years, then it is easier to understand the genuine complications that we face in dealing with the Bible as a divine document that still has been through human hands.� We can understand that outright contradictions might exist between the different ancient sources we have for the Bible.� For example, their are contradictions about the ages of the Patriarchs at the birth of their successors when we compare the Masoretic Text, the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Septuagint.� We find that the Masoretic Text offers 720 years as the length of time from Abraham's birth to the Exodus, while the Septuagint and Samaritan Pentateuch give 505 years.� There are may similar examples, all pointing to the obvious fact that different ancient Bibles don't all give the same text.� And even different translations from a common ancient manuscript will differ in many ways.� So if the Bible is to be infallible, then we must begin with the question, 'Which Bible?'� And then we must ask, is that really all there is?"
� � � � Paul's letters, written around 55-65 CE, fail to mention any Gospel miracle, act or major event concerning Christ's life, apart from the Eucharist and some vague references to the crucifixion and resurrection. He also fails to accurately quote any of Christ's teachings, as depicted in the Gospels. Clement, writing some 30 years later, does little better than Paul. While quoting extensively from the Old Testament, and offering numerous examples to illustrate his points from the lives of OT prophets and saints, Clement, like Paul, ignores the amazing life of Jesus Christ. Yet some 60 years later, Justin Martyr quotes extensive passages from the Gospels, including many of Christ's miracles, birth details etc (but fails to attribute such passages to any of the named Gospels). It was not until 180 CE that Iraeneus finally put names to all four Gospels, a full 150 years after Christ's death.
� � � � This pattern is not what would be expected if in fact the gospel accounts had been written by the named authors, early after Christ's death and based on actual events. I suggest that the progressive and increasingly elaborate revelation of Christ, as witnessed through the letters of the church fathers, is more consistent with an evolving myth than with a story based on an actual, living Christ.
� � � � The silence by Paul and Clement on the life of Christ is difficult to explain, apart from the possibility that they were ignorant of any such life. The letter of Clement serves as a good example of what I am talking about. Clement illustrates his various points with numerous examples involving past saints, where often an example of Christ's life would have been far more appropriate and persuasive (Paul often does this also). The following post (to avoid truncation) reveals examples from Clement which help to illustrate what I mean.
� � � � In Ch. 4 Clement speaks of jealousy and envy, resulting in murder, causing the 'godly' to flee. His examples include Cain and Abel, Joseph, David, Moses and Pharaoh. The tale of Herod and the killing of the innocents would have been an excellent example, but is ignored.
� � � � In Ch. 5 he talks of persecution, patient suffering and martyrdom and uses Paul and Peter as his examples. Jesus is not mentioned.
� � � � In Ch. 7 Clement discusses repentance and the prophets who proclaimed repentance and were precursors to the coming of the Lord. How could he fail to mention John the Baptist?
� � � � In Ch. 16 he talks of the humble and lowly nature of Christ, but instead of providing vivid and excellent examples from Christ's humble birth and life, he merely quotes from Isaiah 53.
� � � � In Ch. 17 he elaborates further on the prophets who heralded the coming of Christ, such as Elisha, Elijah, Abraham and Moses. Once again, he fails to mention the most important one of all, John the Baptist.
� � � � In Chs. 18 & 19 there are more examples of humility, but all from the OT. The meek and humble Christ is not worthy of comment.
� � � � In Ch. 23 he uses the metaphor of vine and branches, but attributes none of these ideas to Christ.
� � � � Chapter 45 gives many examples from the OT of persecution at the hands of the ungodly. However, not one word on Christ, beaten and crucified at the hands of sinners.
� � � � 51 discusses sedition and hardened hearts. Clement uses Moses as his example. The Jewish and Roman authority's animosity to Christ would have been excellent here, but is ignored.
� � � � 53 Speaks of Love and forgiveness. What examples does he offer? Moses, who fasts on the mount for the sake of his people, then pleads with God to spare and forgive them. He cites this as THE example of perfect love. One would think that Christ's episode on the cross and his words, 'Father forgive them, for they know not what they do' would have been appropriate here. But once again, as always, Christ is ignored.
� � � � From Clement, we glean nothing about the historical Christ or any of the events associated with him. We learn only that Christ shed his blood as a sacrifice. There are a few hints at Christ's teachings, but nothing accurately quoted from any named Gospels. Numerous examples are cited from the OT and from the lives of the apostles in order to illustrate principles of faith, love, persecution etc, but not one example from Christ's life whatsoever, apart from aspects concerning his death and resurrection. The only rational explanation is that Clement, like Paul, was ignorant of the life of any historical Christ.

� � � � People who accept on blind faith that the Bible they have in their hands is "the Word of God" mistakenly believe that what they have in their hands is the same as what the author of the bible wrote 2000 or more years ago.� But it isn't.
� � � � Take, for example, the popular story (John 7:53-8:11) in which Jesus saves a woman from being stoned as an adulteress. It is from this passage that Christianity draws the oft-paraphrased advice, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her."� (Although I always found this to be a most inspiring Gospel story and message, I must in good conscience face the fact that, according to http://www.rotten.com/library/religion/bible/historical-construction/catholic-distortions/ at least) �

� � � � "We base our Bible on the Hebrew Masoretic text, which comes from Tiberian Jews from the 10th century C.E. They based their text on earlier Hebrew texts, which did the same, and on down the line. At some point in scribal history a tradition became law that not a single word of the scriptures could be altered in the transmission of the text from one copy to another. This created problems when scribes started noticing glaring errors. They can't change them, so they started writing notes in the margins. They are written in Aramaic, which was the lingua franca for the ancient Near East for centuries. Today if you buy a Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia you will have an apparatus surrounding the text that contains those notes, and on every single page of the Old Testament you will find an Aramaic abbreviation that consists of the letter quf (among many different abbreviations), that means "read," as in "it should be read this way." Immediately above it is the correct reading for that verse. The errors range from incorrect vowelling (which can change one word to a completely different word), to completely incoherent words, phrases, and verses. The scribes had to guess what the correct meaning was, but they often had no better clue than we do today. Bottom line, there are errors on every single page of the Bible, and we have no way of confirming that the notes in the margins are accurate or not.
� � � � I'll give you an example. I Samuel 13:1 reads this way in the KJV: "Saul reigned one year; and when he had reigned two years over Israel,"
� � � � But the Hebrew doesn't say that. What the Hebrew does say is actually utterly incoherent. It reads (roughly translated): "Saul was one year old when he reigned, and two years he ruled over Israel.". (from an anonymous online post)

In order to be faithful to the original, what is important is to convey the same idea conveyed by the original words, regardless of the words used in the readers' language.

� � � � 13 And God said to Noah, "I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence because of them; now I am going to destroy them along with the earth. 14 Make yourself an ark of cypress wood; make rooms in the ark, and cover it inside and out with pitch. 15 This is how you are to make it: the length of the ark three hundred cubits (450 feet), its width fifty cubits (75 feet), and its height thirty cubits (45 feet). 16 Make a roof for the ark, and finish it to a cubit above; and put the door of the ark in its side; make it with lower, second, and third decks."

a small scale recreation of the biblical ark

� � � � How long did it take for Noah and his three sons to follow God's instructions and complete this ship? The same amount of time the bible says that it took God to create the world, seven days. Now if the bible said that God had built the Ark, then the time allotted wouldn't matter. But what the bible says is that Noah- not God - built the ark.

� � � Not exactly.� It depends on which version of the bible that you read: http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/Hell_is_Leaving_the_Bible_Forever.html shows that while some versions feature the word "hell", others do not.