Are there any other obviously added/modified/removed parts of the bible besides John 7:53-8:11?
The bible itself is dynamic. It can be changed if change is required. It's just a collection of books and letters
>>471155
Aquinas would disagree
>It is unlawful to hold that any false assertion is contained either in the Gospel or in any canonical Scripture, or that the writers thereof have told untruths, because faith would be deprived of its certitude which is based on the authority of Holy Writ. That the words of certain people are variously reported in the Gospel and other sacred writings does not constitute a lie. Hence Augustine says (De Consens. Evang. ii): "He that has the wit to understand that in order to know the truth it is necessary to get at the sense, will conclude that he must not be the least troubled, no matter by what words that sense is expressed." Hence it is evident, as he adds (De Consens. Evang. ii), that "we must not judge that someone is lying, if several persons fail to describe in the same way and in the same words a thing which they remember to have seen or heard."
>>471125
The ending of Mark.
>>471260
Also the Johannine comma.
>>471125
>added/modified/removed
Apart from the crucifixion?
The genealogies of Jesus.
>>471125
I've heard Ecclesiastes uplifting bits were late additions.
>>472442
>crucifixion
What about it?
>>473984
It is an obvious insertion pandering to the Greeks.
>>474017
Basically -- the ending that we have now in most bibles speak of being able to drink poison and speak in tongues; earlier manuscripts leave this all out and end with the word "afraid".
The theory is that people really didnt want their scripture to end on such an ambiguous note so they added all that other stuff in.
There are like three endings in the manuscript tradition iirc.
>>474033
Haha, I hope they didn't actually try drinking poison or shit
>>474015
Isn't the crucifixion something that historians agree on?
>>476132
>Christian historians
According to Jerome's commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, The Gospel of the Hebrews' version of the Our Father/Lord's Prayer has the Hebrew Aramaic word 'mahar' which means to-morrow in an adverbial sense; in place of daily/supersubstantial (epiousios), so it reads: Our to-morrow bread give us today.
Link to the Latin text of the commentary: http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/books/hieronym/comm_mat.htm
>>477502
What does that mean?
>>476132
>Isn't the crucifixion something that historians agree on?
Historians reject the value of divine texts in establishing the historicity of divine action in the world, because historiography rejects divine action in the world at the disciplinary level.
>>478882
Give us the kingdom of the lord today.
>>471125
>by anonymous authors... speaking different languages
oh shit man you know the whole New Testament was written in Koine Greek. You must know this man. Ok maybe there are fringe theories that maybe Mark was originally in Aramaic, but I'm not convinced.
>They will choose whichever accounts are the most popular and destroy the rest.
If this means stuff like the Gospel of Thomas, it's pretty clear-cut by looking at them which of the gospels and letters were contemporary or near-contemporary, and which weren't.
I'm a layman on this, and an expert could argue this better and I'm taking some low-hanging fruit pedantically responding to minor points in a maymay image, but some of this basic stuff really boils my gears.
Related: "why doesn't God make himself more obvious?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6v-tcaIZ02
>>478892
How is a crucifixion divine?
>>480276
It's probably an arbitrary distinction made based on how long the sun blacks out, how severe the earthquake is and how many people rise from their graves.
>>480486
Yes, the bible embellished the event with earthquakes and a resurrection, but just a crucifixion itself I thought had been historically true
>implying the all powerful creator is in any way comprehensible or comparable to our human intellect
sure is neckbeard heathen in here
>>481189
"god is just incomprehensible to human minds" is just a fancy way of saying "none of the shit i believe makes sense but you should believe it anyway"
>>474017
You can't really say what was illegitely "added" in a cannon that's a conglomeration to begin with.
You can, however, take a good close look at all the books that were left out. Some of which, actually take care of some of the issues in the Bible, and others... Well, add new ones.
>>480276
>How is a crucifixion divine?
Read the 4 texts on the nature of the crucifixion.
>>481189
If you believe in God, then we were given reason to make use of it. It cannot expose God to our comprehension, but it can expose what by reason may be exposed.
>>471125
le dark ages meme
>>471125
This belongs on /lit/
>>482346
That's the only problem I see with it...
>>481547
This
>>475728
That's also the part of the Bible people use to justify snake handling.
So essentially people have gotten themselves killed just because someone once thought the book of Mark needed a better sense of closure.
>>471125
>obviously added
Revelations. The shit reads like something from the diaries of a madman. Because that's exactly what it is. The book wasn't written by Paul the Apostle, it was written by Paul the Apostate. He was some dude that lived in a sulfur mine that constantly hallucinated off the fumes.
>modified
With all the translations, just sbout the whole thing.
>removed
There are 12 apostles and only 4 gospels. You tell me.
>>482346
>the dark ages didn't happen guys XD
Let religion control the government again and see what happens. There's a reason the Pope is essentially ornamental in this era.
>>487926
>>removed
>There are 12 apostles and only 4 gospels. You tell me.
The gospels weren't written by the apostles... No one knows who wrote them
Bible literalism is a relatively new phenomena in the Christian world and its impact is very overstated.
>Athiests will congratulate themselves for recognizing thousand+ year old texts by multiple authors are contradictory
>>487942
Still doesn't change that 8 books are missing from the bible. You'd think Thomas and Bartholomew would have had something to say.
Luckily, their books are in the Nag Hammadi Library. The book of Judas is especially interesting.
>>487926
Revelation makes perfect sense if you read it as a believer and not a cynical atheist
>>481615
Someone on /his/ gets metaphysics. Color me surprised.
>>487953
Aquinas took the Bible literally, everything except the ordering the Genesis days and the length of those days
>>488015
>Color
Colour, mate, colour.
If you don't get the argument for the use of reason in theology, then you shouldn't fucking post theology threads.
>>488027
Those are some hot assumptions there m8.
For starters, metaphysics is a branch of philosophy. You're also assuming that I am the OP. I didn't post the thread.
>colour
Leave it to the brits to completely misunderstand something.
>>488043
I was speaking in a generality, rather than admonishing you.
I apologise for my poor expression.
>brits
Oh lawd.
>>487926
>>488014
Revelation (by John, not Paul) makes sense as a piece of apocalyptic literature, which it is. That means it's not supposed to make any kind of literal sense. The basic rules of the genre are that apocalyptic writings are presented as divine revelation (sometimes as an important figure, although that isn't true for the apocalypse of John) concerning events tied to the end of the world using metaphor to comment on present events. One of the rules of the genre are that you're not supposed to take it literally, and it was actually a very popular form of writing during the second temple and early christian periods. People only starting taking it literally because the genre stopped being popular and people forgot the rules and metaphors associated with them.
Also, a fair amount of biblical scholars think that the only reason Revelation ended up in the Bible in the first place was because of a misunderstanding. One of the criteria for a book's inclusion in official cannon was that it had to have ties to an apostle, and it's very possible that Revelation was included because people mistook John of Patmos for the apostle John.
>>488006
None of the apostles wrote gospels, so your argument is pretty flawed. And gnostic gospels don't really have much of an argument for authenticity. They were all written much later than the canonical gospels, and they're all concerned with specifically providing "correct" information supposedly revealed to the main character/claimed author of the gospel in support of whatever branch of gnostic thought used/produced the gospels. They're basically retcons.
>>488058
It's alright m8. 4chan has conditioned me to think everyone posting is being an asshole. I see the generality now though.
Also, I've only ever seen limes type color as colour.
>>487763
>So essentially people have gotten themselves killed just because someone once thought the book of Mark needed a better sense of closure.
no, they have gotten killed because lunatics have taken one verse and built an entire religion around it.
>>489313
You mean the Catholics? Lol, this is muh rock
>>489977
Apostolic succession is true because the succeeded apostles said so
>>471125
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bible_verses_not_included_in_modern_translations
>>488120
>and it's very possible that Revelation was included because people mistook John of Patmos for the apostle John.
Source? Genuinely interested
>>481547
If god really did exist, he would be older than the universe itself.
Do you honestly think that a nanosized speck of dust on a distant world would be able to destroy him in an argument?
>>488120
i've watched a 22 hour study of the book of Revelation and it makes perfect sense
there's no way it could link up with other parts of scripture, and make sense in the modern age as it does, if it was just vague ramblings
>>487926
>There are 12 apostles and only 4 gospels. You tell me.
That is assuming that they didn't write it and it got lost, and assuming that they even knew how to write
>>493299
I like the bit about the sea monster.
>>487926
>>488006
>>493277
No one knows who wrote any of the books in the Bible
>>493332
Where is that?
>>497974
And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. It had ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on its horns, and on each head a blasphemous name. 2 The beast I saw resembled a leopard, but had feet like those of a bear and a mouth like that of a lion. The dragon gave the beast his power and his throne and great authority. 3 One of the heads of the beast seemed to have had a fatal wound, but the fatal wound had been healed. The whole world was filled with wonder and followed the beast. 4 People worshiped the dragon because he had given authority to the beast, and they also worshiped the beast and asked, “Who is like the beast? Who can wage war against it?”
>>471125
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_21
>>471125
The two oldest manuscripts of Mark 16 (from the 300's) conclude with verse 8, which ends with the women fleeing from the empty tomb, and saying "nothing to anyone, because they were afraid." Many scholars take 16:8 as the original ending and believe the longer ending (16:9-20) was a later forgery. In this 12-verse passage, the author refers to Jesus' appearances to Mary Magdalene, two disciples, and then the Eleven (the Twelve Apostles minus Judas). The text concludes with the Great Commission, declaring that believers that have been baptized will be saved while nonbelievers will be condemned, and pictures Jesus taken to Heaven and sitting at the Right Hand of God.
>>471125
The Comma Johanneum (or Johannine Comma or Heavenly Witnesses) is a comma (a short clause) in the First Epistle of John, 1 John 5:7–8. The scholarly consensus is that that passage is a Latin corruption that entered the Greek manuscript tradition in subsequent copies.
The passage in question, 1 John 5:7–8 (KJV), with the Comma in quotes, reads:
7. For there are three that bear record "in heaven,
the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:
and these three are one.
8. And there are three that bear witness in earth,"
the spirit, and the water, and the blood:
and these three agree in one.
The Comma and the question of its authenticity have particular bearing on the development of the doctrine of the Trinity, which is central to most mainstream Christian denominations.
>>471125
Matthew 18:11 was added in
