Is the bible authoritive and truly inspired?

Greetings, In fact, there are many examples of the Bible being tampered with.
Here are some more specific examples of some of variations found in the NT - Mark 16:9-20
The Resurrection AppearancesMost of the earliest witnesses have G.Mark ending at 16:8 - with the empty tomb scene, but no resurrection appearances etc.
Intriguingly, an empty tomb scene was not unknown in other 1st century dramatic writings - e.g. Chariton's novel Chareas and Callirhoe included an empty tomb scene as the climax.G.Mark ends at 16:8 in the very important early MSS Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, and also in others such as : Latin Codex Bobiensis, the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, and the two oldest Georgian translations and many Armenian manuscripts.In later versions however, there are several DIFFERENT endings to G.Mark after 16:8 -
* the longer ending (16:9-20 in many Bibles)
* the shorter ending (also found in some study bibles)
* another minor variant of a few versesIn other words -
there are at least FOUR different ways that G.Mark ends.Origen and Clement of Alexandria (early 3rd C.) and Victor of Antioch quote and discuss G.Mark WITHOUT mentioning the appendix. Eusebius (early 4th C.) mentions that most MSS do not have the appendix. Jerome also specifically notes the passage can not be found in most Greek MSS of his time (4th C.) This means Eusebius and Jerome KNEW of the appendix, but noted that it was NOT part of the Bible at that time.Thus, this is clear and present evidence that the post-resurrection stories were NOT original, but added later, around the 4th-5th century or so.This helps to explain why the stories in G.Luke and G.Matthew and G.John are so wildly different - they did not have G.Mark to follow, so each made-up a different story. (Scholars agree G.Luke and G.Matt were largely copied from G.Mark.)The events on Easter Sunday, as described in the four Gospels can NOT be reconciled. It is NOT possible to include all the events from all four Gospels in a coherent sequence. Luke 3:22
The words of God at the BaptismEarly MSS and quotes have the same as the Psalm :
"...and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou are my son, this day have I begotten thee"But later versions have changed it to :
"...and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved son; in thee I am well pleased"Here we see Christian scribes have CHANGED the very words of God, or the alleged words of God. And we know the reason - it supports the view called Adoptionism - later called a heresy.In other words, Christian writers had no compunction about changing the supposed words of God himself, at a crucial time in the story. Clearly this does not represent anything real or historical. 1 John 5:7
The Trinity"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. "This passage is not found in ANY early Greek MSS, and was therefore not included in the original Textus Receptus of Erasmus in the 16th Century.
Erasmus said "I will not include the Comma unless I see a Greek MSS which includes it".
Sure enough, a newly written Greek MSS suddenly "appeared" with this passage, so Erasmus ADDED it to the 2nd edition - how dishonest and errant can you get ! Matthew 6:13
The Lord's PrayerEarly and important MSS (Aleph, B, D, Z, 205, 547) as well as some fathers (Tertullian, Origen, and Cyprian) have :
"And lead us not into temptation, But deliver us from evil"Other MSS have :
"And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen"And a few MSS have another version :
"And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, of the father, the son, and the holy spirit for ever. Amen"A few MSS exclude the words "the power" or "the glory" or "the kingdom".The Lord's Prayer is one of the more variant parts of the NT.Now,
this prayer was supposedly taught by Jesus himself.
But
early Christians could not agree what the prayer said ! Mark 1:1
Jesus Christ [Son of God]Early MSS do not have "son of God".John 9:35
Son of Man/GodEarly MSS have :
"Jesus heard that they had cast him out, and having found him he said, Do you believe in the Son of man?"Later versions have :
"Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?"Acts 8:37
JC is the Son of God"And Phillip said, if thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God"This passage is missing from all the early MSS.In other words, the MSS show a consistent pattern of "Son of Man" being changed into "Son of God". Mark 1:2
As written in [Isaiah]The early MSS have :
"As it is written in Isaiah the prophet..."But most later versions have :
"As it is written in the prophets..."Probably because the quote is NOT really from Isaiah (its composited from Isaiah, Malachai, and Exodus) - the eariest MSS were wrong, so later versions fixed this error by using just "prophets".Here we see later scribes fixing up an earlier mistake.
Clear and present proof of errancy. Colossians 1:14
Redemption by bloodAll early MSS have the shorter :
"in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins"But later copies have added "through his blood" :
"In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins"This is an important proof-text for the doctrine of redemption by Chist's blood - but its a later addition. So what does this show ?

​

1. The NT was often changed during its history.

​

2. The changes included some of the most important parts of Christian doctrine :
* the resurrection
* the alleged words of GOD at the Jordan!
* the Lord's Prayer
* the Trinity
etc.

​

3. The reason the NT was changed was often arguments over doctrine - i.e. different Christian sects fiddled the books to support their sect.Kapyong

Gday, Pardon?
No, he doesn't have to be "anal" or please me.
I just showed many cases where the NT has been CHANGED.
Which you said never happened. There is plenty of EVIDENCE for that as I showed
But you just ignored all the evidence. Forget? That's my whole point!
That men ALTERED the writings.
Now you agree they did change it, when before you said there were NO changes. What a laugh!
You showed no discernment at all, you ignored the facts, you just preached faithful beliefs.And why do apologists love this word "valid"?
Valid?
What matters is whether it's contents are true.
And the NT books certainly aren't.Kap

Greetings, It was changed many times, as the evidence I posted shows.
You just ignored it.
Will you ever address the facts?
Such a this obvious change : Luke 3:22
The words of God at the BaptismEarly MSS and quotes have the same as the Psalm :
"...and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou are my son, this day have I begotten thee"

But later versions have changed it to :
"...and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved son; in thee I am well pleased"

Here we see Christian scribes have CHANGED the very words of God, or the alleged words of God. And we know the reason - it supports the view called Adoptionism - later called a heresy.Clear and present evidence of editting to the NT.
Will you ignore that fact? Then why did YOU say :
Post 149:
"you forget that many men altered the writings on their own, because they did not accept what was written."YOU agreed that men "altered the writings".
And YOU claim they were "not changed".Well, WHICH is it, archeologist ? But we don't have any originals.
All we have is copies of copies, all different to each other, showing evidence of many many changes.Such as the Lord's Prayer :
Matthew 6:13
The Lord's PrayerEarly and important MSS (Aleph, B, D, Z, 205, 547) as well as some fathers (Tertullian, Origen, and Cyprian) have :
"And lead us not into temptation, But deliver us from evil"Other MSS have :
"And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen"And a few MSS have another version :
"And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, of the father, the son, and the holy spirit for ever. Amen"A few MSS exclude the words "the power" or "the glory" or "the kingdom".The Lord's Prayer is one of the more variant parts of the NT. Now,
this prayer was supposedly taught by Jesus himself.
But
early Christians could not agree what the prayer said !

​

Christians CHANGED this prayer to suit themselves.
The very prayer allegedly taught by Jesus!
CHANGED by Christians.Kapyong

Gday, Then why did YOU say :
Post 149:
"you forget that many men altered the writings on their own, because they did not accept what was written."And you just keep ignoring the facts that it WAS changed, such as : Luke 3:22
The words of God at the BaptismEarly MSS and quotes have the same as the Psalm :
"...and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou are my son, this day have I begotten thee"But later versions have changed it to :
"...and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved son; in thee I am well pleased"Here we see Christian scribes have CHANGED the very words of God, or the alleged words of God. And we know the reason - it supports the view called Adoptionism - later called a heresy.Clear and present evidence of editting to the NT.
Will you ignore that fact for ever ? So, you preach faithful beliefs as fact?
But your faith is actually contradicted by the facts.
You just ignore the facts. We see direct evidence of changes, you ignore them all. There are NO correct ones - just many different ones showing many signs of being changed.As you admit :
"you forget that many men altered the writings on their own, because they did not accept what was written."
Your words.KapyongEdited by Kapyong, : No reason given.

I have.
So have many others.
His preaching is worthless as evidence.Why don't YOU present some evidence then, if it's so convincing to you?Kap

(2 Tim 3:16 KJV)
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:Christians love to quote this passage as if it proves the Bible is inpired, but there are several serious problems with this passage : 2 Tim 3:16 is ambiguousThe meaning of 2 Tim 3:16 is ambiguous in the Greek because the "is" is not found in Greek.Here is Young's literal translation, which hedges it's bets by including "is" not found in the original : 16 every Writing ('is') God-breathed, and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for setting aright, for instruction that ('is') in righteousness, Here is the literal translation without the fudged "is" : 16 every Writing God-breathed, and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for setting aright, for instruction that in righteousness, Here is what essay on bible.org says about the variant translation :
"Such a translation is possible, but not required. Actually either translation can claim to be accurate. Both translations have to supply the word is since it does not appear in the original."
5. The Bible: The Inspired Revelation of God | Bible.org Some Bible versions do have the variant :(2 Tim 3:16 REB) All inspired scripture has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, or for reformation of manners and discipline in right living,(2 Tim 3:16 Lamsa) All scripture written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness;(2 Tim 3:16 NEB) Every inspired scripture has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, or for reformation of manners and discipline in right living,(2 Tim 3:16 ASV) Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness.(2 Tim 3:16 YLT) every Writing [is] God-breathed, and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for setting aright, for instruction that [is] in righteousness,(2 Tim 3:16 Darby) Every scripture [is] divinely inspired, and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for correction, for instruction in righteousness;(2 Tim 3:16 WYC) For all scripture inspired of God is profitable to teach, to reprove, to chastise, [for] to learn in rightwiseness,(2 Tim 3:16 Douay-Rheims) All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice:(2 Tim 3:16 Webster's) All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:(2 Tim 3:16 Inspired Version) And all scripture given by inspiration of God, is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness;(2 Tim 3:16 Brown and Comfort Interlinear) ALL SCRIPTURE [IS] GOD-BREATHED AND USEFUL FOR TEACHING, FOR REPROOF, FOR CORRECTION FOR TRAINING IN RIGHTEOUSNESS,GNT's note at 2 Timothy 3:16 that gives "Every scripture inspired by God is also useful" as a valid translation (and one that implies that not all scripture is inspired). Note that apologists never quote this version of the translation, because it doesn't say what they want it to.New Testament didn't exist when Timothy was writtenIt is basic Christian history that the NT did not exist when Timothy was written. Timothy was written in early-mid 2nd century (mid 1st according to Christian stories though) But the NT did not exist as a collection until 4th century. Timothy could not possibly have been cailling ITSELF "scripture" as it was being written, could it ?Timothy is a forged letterIt is a well known consensus of NT scholars that the Pastorals were forged letters, not by Paul. You can read some details here as to why :
2 Timothy
An excerpt follows : 2 Timothy is one of the three epistles known collectively as the pastorals (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus). They were not included in Marcion's canon of ten epistles assembled c. 140 CE. Against Wallace, there is no certain quotation of these epistles before Irenaeus c. 170 CE.

​

Norman Perrin summarises four reasons that have lead critical scholarship to regard the pastorals as inauthentic (The New Testament: An Introduction, pp. 264-5):

​

Vocabulary. While statistics are not always as meaningful as they may seem, of 848 words (excluding proper names) found in the Pastorals, 306 are not in the remainder of the Pauline corpus, even including the deutero-Pauline 2 Thessalonians, Colossians, and Ephesians. Of these 306 words, 175 do not occur elsewhere in the New Testament, while 211 are part of the general vocabulary of Christian writers of the second century. Indeed, the vocabulary of the Pastorals is closer to that of popular Hellenistic philosophy than it is to the vocabulary of Paul or the deutero-Pauline letters. Furthermore, the Pastorals use Pauline words ina non-Pauline sense: dikaios in Paul means "righteous" and here means "upright"; pistis, "faith, " has become "the body of Christian faith"; and so on.

​

Literary [myspace]style[/myspace]. Paul writes a characteristically dynamic Greek, with dramatic arguments, emotional outbursts, and the introduction of real or imaginary opponents and partners in dialogue. The Pastorals are in a quiet meditative [myspace]style[/myspace], far more characteristic of Hebrews or 1 Peter, or even of literary Hellenistic Greek in general, than of the Corinthian correspondence or of Romans, to say nothing of Galatians.

​

The situation of the apostle implied in the letters. Paul's situation as envisaged in the Pastorals can in no way be fitted into any reconstruction of Paul's life and work as we know it from the other letters or can deduce it from the Acts of the Apostles. If Paul wrote these letters, then he must have been released from his first Roman imprisonment and have traveled in the West. But such meager tradition as we have seems to be more a deduction of what must have happened from his plans as detailed in Romans than a reflection of known historical reality.

​

The letters as reflecting the characteristics of emergent Catholocism. The arguments presented above are forceful, but a last consideration is overwhelming, namely that, together with 2 Peter, the Pastorals are of all the texts in the New Testament the most distinctive representatives of the emphases of emergent Catholocism. The apostle Paul could no more have written the Pastorals than the apostle Peter could have written 2 Peter.Kap

Gday, But the manuscripts are DIFFERENT, not compatible. Matthew 6:13 - The Lord's PrayerEarly and important MSS (Aleph, B, D, Z, 205, 547) as well as some fathers (Tertullian, Origen, and Cyprian) have :
"And lead us not into temptation, But deliver us from evil"

Other MSS have :
"And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen"

And a few MSS have another version :
"And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, of the father, the son, and the holy spirit for ever. Amen"

A few MSS exclude the words "the power" or "the glory" or "the kingdom".The Lord's Prayer is one of the more variant parts of the NT. Now,
this prayer was supposedly taught by Jesus himself.
but God FAILED to preserve it,
and Jesus followers FAILED to remember it.Kap

Gday, But the manuscripts we have now are all different. I have posted many such examples, you just refuse to even discuss them - such as the many differences in the Lord's Prayer, or the change to the words of God at the Baptism.If all the manuscripts are different, then they MUST have been altered.Which version of the Lord's Prayer do YOU think is original? I have read it.
It's faithful beliefs and apologetics.
Quoting beliefs is not evidence, you aren't in church now.Kap

Gday, I did.
I posted numerous examples of CHANGES to the NT.Such as the various CHANGES made to the Lord's Prayer.
Which version of the Lord's Prayer do YOU agree with?
Why?What about the other changes I quoted - will you just ignore them all, like 'archeologist' does?Kap

Gday John 10:10Why did you post a list of different Bible translations?
Did you not notice all those translations are DIFFERENT? These are three DIFFERENT translations that have very DIFFERENT words in them.How can they ALL be "word-for-word" when they have DIFFERENT WORDS in them !?Kapyong

Gday, Translation:
I will simply ignore the facts that the NT has been changed.
I'll just keep right on preaching...

Gday, Why?
There is NO universal canon.There are several canons :
* Catholic
* Protestant
* Orthodox
* EthiopicWhy do you want to assume something that is not true?(And why did you change Jar's correct spelling of 'canon' into 'cannon'? Do you really not even know how to spell this word you are arguing about?) Language has nothing to do with the canon - you have confused two completely different concepts.KapyongEdited by Kapyong, : No reason given.Edited by Kapyong, : No reason given.Edited by Kapyong, : No reason given.