elephants, ancestors and points

So what's the point?

I've prattled on about elephants in rooms (http://theofrag.blogspot.com/2008/01/elephant-in-room.html),
Joseph's grandfather (http://theofrag.blogspot.com/2008/02/genealogies-part-2.html) and other things.

We've all been to churches where the pastor pounds the pulpit and chastises us for thinking too much (well, they don't *say* that... we're encouraged to think for ourselves, but then criticized if we decide we disagree). And in every church I've ever been to, sooner or later someone said "in the original Greek, this word means...". Stop. Red sign. First, we don't have the "original Greek". We don't even know that it was written in Greek. Doesn't it make sense that Hebrews was written in ... well.. Hebrew? Or maybe Matthew was written in Aramaic? Or maybe the reason the words in John are so simple is that they were written in Aramaic and translated to Greek by a translator who wasn't very good.

We don't have the original text. And we don't really know what's in it. We think we know. We are pretty sure about parts of it. But to tear apart origins of some Greek word and ascribe meaning to it is misleading. We simply can't read the Bible that way.

It presents a huge problem theologically. We end up binding ourself to a group of guys who met in Nicaea. The Catholics have it easy. They say these guys were "infallible" since the Pope was there, and that they were part of "Divine tradition". But the Protestants have it tougher. We either have to cling to the Catholic teachings about this, or admit we don't know.

It's not about truth. It's not really about "right-ness". Is it possible that the story of the woman taken in adultery was in the first ever version of John? Of course.
Could there be a reasonable explanation as to why Joseph had two different fathers? Absolutely.
Is it possible that the story of the virgin birth is authentic and original? Totally.

The problem is that we are guessing. Oh you don't have to call it that. You can call it "hypothesis" or "inspiration" or "reasonable faith based on historical fact". (I love that one by they way. You have to have faith to believe the fact, then use the fact to support your faith).

But whatever word you use, it's a guess. It is speculation. There are many reasons to believe it. There are many very bright scholars who will agree with it. There are many reasons to doubt it. There are many very bright scholars who will disagree.

It doesn't make our faith any less real, or less valuable, or less powerful. But it makes it different. It means that first of all, we have to take Kierkegaard's "blind leap".

You could argue, that any way you choose would be speculation. It is speculation that the Great Commission is NOT in the original manuscript of Mathew. And that is true.

And that's the point. It is not a pastor pounding the pulpit. It is not a great thinker who has all the answers if you just listen. It is not Josh McDowell or Lee Strobel addressing the "modern myths" of the doubters.
It is faith.
It is something you believe because you want to, because you need to, because it seems to make sense, because someone told you to or because of whatever drives you. But it is faith.

I think it must say a lot about a God who does this. It is so easy to take the easy way out -- to find Joseph Smith's golden tablets or the soothsayers "do this" pronouncements. But we don't have that. We have copies of copies of translations of copies. As Metzger points out astigmatism is very old. And there's no doubt that some of the scribes had it.

What does it say about God to allow this?
How you answer that is your faith.

It is faith.

Why-eth King-eth James?

I generally quote from the KJV for 2 reasons. First, the flow and wording is familiar to people:
"Go, ye, therefore, into all the world and make disciples" [KJV]

"Update your MySpace page so that it 'wins souls for Christ'" [some more modern version]

But also, let me say this. I really like the NIV. I actually know a couple of the guys who worked on it (namedrop avoided). I think it is probably the best translation on the market -- save, maybe "Today's NIV" (how can you have a New New version?).

But it's owned. It's copy-protected. And the copyright owners are very serious about that. (I won't name any names, let's just call them... oh, i dunno... "Z"). Try this. Go out to the web and do a Goodsearch (like google but gives profits to charity) for something like "online Bible" or "Bible on the web". You'll get a ton of hits. But notoriously absent is the NIV. It's because "Z" will sue the living breath out of anyone who does that.
So I use eSword . It is a free Bible software. You can freely download it, install it, add Bibles to it, pull down reference books into it and generally add on as much or little as you like. It gives you the ability to search, make margin notes, look up word origins and all the "good stuff" that "Z"'s software does, but (did I mention?) it's free. If you want to donate to them, they'll send you a nice CD with a ton of content and no lawyers making sure you don't actually *use* it.

I'm not really angry with the publishers of the NIV. I understand the need for capital. I'm just disappointed. Not everyone who has a computer has the $80 needed to get "Z"'s version of this type of software. Hey, look, if you want to sell a nice leather-bound Bible, with some parchment pages for family trees and charge $60, right on. But if we believe that the Bible is given of God, then we shouldn't sell the basic translation, right? Isn't that like the false prophets who sold their words for money? Oh, but this is worse. We're selling God's words, right?

There's a big market in the U.S. for this kind of thing. If you want to sell little plastic communion cups to churches or the latest Veggie Tales videos -- rock on. But if you have something that can really change the world, if you believe that what you have is the cure for the cancers of the world, if you believe it can save souls and pull people out of despair -- if you really believe it -- how can you go so far to keep people who are less affluent from seeing it?
I think that's true with a lot of Christian books and music -- we will "minister" to you and provide you something that can change your life.... oh, but only if you have enough money. It most bothers me with these worship concerts some large bands have been giving. Hey, how can you charge people to come and worship God? And more, how can you lock the doors to people who can't pay?

It bugs me. People don't realize it, but a lot of folks are getting quite rich off this. What's more is that 1000 years ago, the Pope dictated doctrine by what he said. Now, in the U.S. it seems like the Christian bookstore industry dictates it by what sells. I've got some stories about this, but that's too much typing for now. But I will tell you that I've walked into Christian bookstores looking for the writings of Martin Luther King, Jr. and walked out disappointed (should I say Rev King? -- ahem, he was a Christian, you know). But along the way, I ran into whole shelves of Ronald Regan and G.W. Bush books and even some on (*gulp*) Dan Quayle. Nothing against any of those fellows, but I wonder how our churches would be different if the bookstore industry didn't have quite so much influence.

so.... long live the King....

Genealogies Part 2

If you're like me, you've seen it and read it and let your eyes go numb overlooking it many times.

Mat 1:17 : "So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations." [Someth Oldeth Kingeth's merry ole' version]

Wow. It sounds so impressive, doesn't it? That proves the time was right for the Messiah, no? Can't you see it? A Biblical defender in a nice suit with appropriately slicked hair (why is it that televangelists always have such nice hair? is there some kind of screening? ) pounding some pulpit to emphasize that we clearly know that the timing of Jesus was perfect.

OK. Forget about the number 14 for a moment. Just look at the time durations. Abraham lived in around 2000BC (give or take), David around 1000BC. The Jews were taken to Babylon in around 600BC. And of course Jesus' birth is something around 0BC/AD (Wikipedia-me if you want to check the dates).
The times aren't the same. Fourteen generations is something like 550 years. So maybe it was about 14 from the captivity to the birth of Christ, but that's about it.

You don't even need dates, really. You can count all the kings of Israel before Babylon if you are good with your Old Testament trivia. But we know that the Israelites were in Egypt for (what?) something like 400 years, right? And that's only one small part of the time from Abraham to David.

And the "14" is strange. Go to the book of numbers sometime... well, ok don't. But if you did, count the generations listed. Here's a clue. It isn't 14. Do the same thing with Kings and Chronicles. What you'll find is that there are number of generations missing from this genealogy.

The Defender may point out that this was a common practice -- kind of a short hand -- to skip generations. That makes a lot of sense. And I believe it. Can you imagine being that poor scribe that had to maintain this stuff? Sooner or later you'd be very tempted to say "just go look over there for the rest".
In addition, the word translatedeth "begat" probably really means "caused to be born" or something. That is, it is not necessarily the father. It could be a grandfather or even great-grandfather.

But.... but.... but...
what's with the 14?
I mean, OK, the genealogy skips some people. I can deal with that. But then why turn around and make a big deal out of how many there are? "Let me pick 14 people and then I'll make a proof out of the fact that there are only 14." The scholar in me says: "Whasafras?"
How does that make sense?

It seems like there are 2 things we can say: there were *not* 14 generations between all these people, and the number of generations wasn't even the *same*.

So why is it there?
There's a really simple reason. It's wrong. You can spin it. You can dodge it. You can lay awake at night trying to think of clever ways of explaining it. But either it's wrong or the genealogies in the Old Testament are wrong. Either it's wrong, or all of the dates that we know and archeology around them is wrong.

If I'm a Critic, I shrug and say "of course it's wrong." Someone got overzealous with numbers. It probably wasn't even Mathew, but some scribe who added it later. It fits.

But if I'm a Defender, I ... am ... hosed. Once I say that, then I'm saying that the Bible has flaws. If it has contradictions or scribal errors in the genealogy in Mathew, then where else are there flaws? You see, with this section, we have something unusual: we have something verifiable. We know that there are 2 such genealogies in the Bible (Matt and Luke) and that these reflect the ones in the books of the Jewish Bible. There are lots of places to cross reference. And if this is true, and we find out that they do not match, then what about the places where there are no cross-references? What about the story of the woman taken in adultery (only in John) or the virgin birth (only Matt and Luke) or any of the other stories where we just don't have a frame for comparison. If we look at the places that we can compare and they are "wrong," then there is no rock on which to rest the other parts. In that case, I am saying "the places I can verify aren't right, but the places I can't verify are."

Of course, there's a lot more here. The history of the scribal work that produced this is very important. And of course, you can wonder whether the verse is even original. And of course, you can ask when Matthew was written -- and by Matthew or someone else -- since that may help explain why this verse is here.

But it shakes up the world.

Genealoies part 1

So what are the verses that seem to disagree with each other?

1. The Genealogy of Jesus

Ask a defender this question: “was Jesus a descendant of Solomon?” The Gospel of Matthew 1:6 indicates that Jesus was a descendant of Solomon. But Luke 3:31 says Jesus is the son of Nathan, Solomon’s half-brother.

The defender would most likely respond by saying that one genealogy is most probably Joseph’s and one is Mary’s. The problem is that the two both claim to be Joseph’s.

To this, the defender would say that it was common tradition to ascribe a woman’s genealogy to her husband.

This may be true. But it’s not what the text says. So, either the text is wrong or it requires detailed, hidden knowledge about the culture in which it was written.

Ask the defender to point to one other historical document in which it is known that the genealogy of the wife is ascribed to the husband. It is likely that you will be met with a stammering non-answer.

Ask the defender to point to one other genealogy in the Bible that does this. Again, you'll most likely get nothing.

So why is it that we believe that about this passage? And how did we come to that conclusion? This is a great example of a conclusion that is preordained by the base assumption that "the Bible must be flawlessly accurate." Some defender somewhere came across this passage and couldn't find an explanation for it. So he said "ah HA, now we know that a woman's genealogy can be ascribed to a man." But it is unlikely that there would be any other reason for coming to this conclusion except that preconception.

If this is true, then what else in the Bible requires such hidden knowledge? This means that there are potentially other places in the Scriptures where the text doesn’t mean what it says, but forces the reader to have a very deep understanding of the culture -- an understanding based on nothing, really. That is, an understanding based only on a guess -- since the defenders could not really produce any other reason for believing this hypothesis. It is not as though someone came across another stack of documents that did this and then used those to understand the passage. It is hypothesized only because of the preconception.

In fact, there are some other possible explanations for this that still fulfill the hypothesis. For example, it is possible that Joseph was adopted. In that case, one genealogy would list his biological family and the other would list his adopted one. This explanation is also fairly reasonable. And equally without evidence. Is it right? perhaps. Perhaps not.

But, again, it requires information that is not in the Bible or any other historical document to understand.

This is a rough slope for Biblical defenders. It is sort of oxymoronic. Think about it. In order to show that the Bible is without flaw, I need to show that you cannot understand it by just reading it -- you need some additional body of information (like whether Joseph was adopted) that is not in it. In a sense, it means that in order to show that the Bible is flawless, I need to show that it is somewhat irrelevant. After all, what good is a book that is perfect but not understandable?

Does it matter? Does it really matter who Joseph's grandfather was?

It is a good question. Perhaps not. But let me explain why it might.

First, the genealogy of Christ itself is critical. If those genealogies are wrong, then there is no evidence that Jesus is the Son of David. If not the Son of David, then not the Christ, right?

Of course, the other weird thing here that no one seems to mention is that the Bible claims that Jesus wasn't really the son of Joseph anyway. So his genealogy is meaningless. Naturally, the other elephant-in-the-room question (albeit a very small elephant) is why is this genealogy in here at all? The defenders don't have much of an answer to this that I've ever seen except "God wanted it that way." Oh, but for the critics, this is fertile ground. See, if you step away from the assumption that the Bible is flawless and agree that this is a possible mistake (perhaps a scribal error), then the door opens. If the genealogy itself is unreliable, then that explains a number of things. (Some of these I'd like to cover in a follow up post). For example, the critic may say that this is an evidence that the whole idea of the virgin birth was added later -- after the gospels had long been written. Think about it. The only reason to put the genealogy of Joseph is if you believe that Joseph is the father of Jesus, right? Otherwise, it just doesn't matter. This isn't the only evidence the critics site for this, by the way, but, frankly, it is a decent argument. If Jesus was born of a virgin, they contend, why isn't the genealogy of Mary in here? Oh perhaps that was a breaking of tradition, of course, but in an inspired, God-breathed work, what difference would tradition make?

So from the critic's perspective, this may imply that someone added the genealogies later to "prove" Jesus was the Son of David. And then later still, someone amended them to imply that, while they were there and obviously took a lot of effort to produce, they weren't relevant since Jesus was not really Joseph's offspring anyway. So in the part of the gospels that say Jesus was the son of Joseph "so it was said," the "so it was said" was possibly added after the teaching of the virgin birth started to become popular in the 2nd century (after the writing of John's gospel, since it is not mentioned in there).

It is a logical argument. Of course, that does not make it right. Nor does it make it wrong. But it is one that the defenders have a hard time with, whether they realize it or not. It is a great example of how "un-assuming" the Biblical perfection can make a bunch of other pieces seem to click into place. Again, it doesn't mean it's right. But when you say "assume X is wrong" and a bunch of other pieces start to make sense, it is a persuasive point.

Second, if the genealogies are wrong -- or are right but not knowable without some mysterious piece of information not found in the Bible -- then why would we not believe the same thing about the resurrection? If the "trick" to the genealogies is that we don't really know that Joseph was adopted, then perhaps the "trick" to the resurrection is that we don't really know that Jesus had a twin brother who appeared on the scene after the crucifixion. Of course, there is no reason to believe this. But then, there's no reason to believe that the genealogy in Mathew is of Mary, while the one in Luke is of Joseph (or who knows? perhaps it is the other way around?).

Of course, I'm not really suggesting a "twin brother" theory. All I am saying is that if the gospels are unreliable in one place, then why are they assumed to be reliable in another? Perhaps the "trick" to the resurrection -- the part we don't know -- is that, in the culture, this term would have been used symbolically -- to show victory over evil. Or perhaps it was a "code" to anyone fighting the Romans that indicated that those who die for God would be rewarded.

Naturally, I am stretching here. But the point remains. If the genealogies aren't correct and aren't understandable, then how do we know anything else is?

-- More later.

Quick thought

From a church sign on a Salvation Army church in Canada:
"Most people accept the Christ of the cross, but reject the cross of Christ"

Diversion

Taking a break from the discussion of the Scriptures for a couple of thoughts.

I’m a little confused by the fact that Jesus also seemed pretty unconcerned about “big issues.”

He fed 5,000, but didn’t really do anything to address world hunger. He headed many sick, but only a few by the pool at Bethesda (can you imagine being one of the sick there who didn't get healed?). I wonder why that is.

He healed people, but did not walk through the hospitals healing. He fed thousands, but did not address world hunger. He all but ignored political oppression.

It seems to me that if you read very carefully, Jesus seems to have this near-hesitation about healing. He does it. But in only one case that I can think of (Lazarus) does He go out of His way to do it.

In many cases, He sees to almost be unwilling or unconcerned about it. "Jesus, Son of David, have mercy." And they get healed only when others step in to say "please make them shut up." Or take the guy on the mat at Peter's house. Jesus doesn't even seem to intend to heal him until the Pharisees complain about the fact that Jesus pronounced forgiveness.

It wasn't as though Jesus doesn't seem to want to heal or that He is really unwilling. I'd say the feeling I get is more of indifference.

The Centurion's servant: the religious leaders seem to almost have to drag Jesus along -- not that I think He resisted, but it's not like He saw the Centurion coming from afar and jumped up to meet him.
The 10 lepers: Go show yourselves to the priests.
The pool of Siloam: Go wash off the clay.

It wasn't as though He ever said "no." But there just feels like He didn't go out of his way to say "yes" either.

Even the preaching. It's a story of Jesus trying to avoid the crowds as much as of His preaching to them. Time and time again, He's taking the disciples to sneak away. And when He preaches, it's because He has "compassion for the crowds because they were like sheep without a Shepard," not because He was anxious to impart wisdom to them. It's as though He didn't plan on saying anything, but the crowds just were so helpless and harassed, that He felt like He needed to.

I've wondered why. I think it's because His focus was just different. There's a verse in the King James which reads that Jesus "must needs" go to Jerusalem. I think that was what He was all about. The rest was just window dressing. It's not that He didn't care about the people, but He didn't come to do that. He didn't come to preach or heal, but to save.

If the gospel is just a single line in a book, if salvation is just a matter of “believe in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved”, if it all comes down to a fact that you have to hear and accept, then I suppose you could argue that God must not be a very good publicist.

If it all boils down to one line, one piece of information, one commitment, then shouldn’t Jesus have been born in time square on New Years of they year 1999? Rather than in an obscure village in a remote part of an ancient empire?
I mean, isn’t it almost as though God wasn’t very concerned about getting the word out – at least not quickly.
True, He sent the Apostles. But only a few, and they traveled on foot. What about the people who died on the earth before the gospel “got to them” ?

… Or maybe there’s more than that. Maybe the healing and the preaching and the timing is bigger than we see.
Maybe God is less concerned with the information you have and more concerned with what you do about it. The Great Commission itself doesn’t say “Go ye therefore into all the world and preach the gospel,” it says “Go ye therefore in to all the world and make disciples, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and teaching them to obey all that I have commanded.”
That’s a lot different from what we hear today. And maybe this explains why it’s all about the people who bring the gospel, rather than a list of facts. An angel could tell people “believe in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved,” but how could and angel teach those people how to obey all that He’s commanded? How could an add in the newspaper? Or a sign on a billboard?

Perhaps it is the same with all of Jesus' preaching. Sure, it was helpful. But it wasn't about the words "do unto others," it was about the cross that changes lives.
And maybe that was true of the healing too. It wasn't that Jesus was unwilling, perhaps, but that He had something else in mind. After all, what would be the point of healing without salvation? Or what would be the point of teaching without the example?

And, indeed, perhaps we can learn from this too. Perhaps it is not about the physical things we do, or the money we give , or even the people we help, but the spirit of love and renewal and rebirth with which we do it.
And perhaps it is not about filling our churches or getting people to sign doctrinal statements but about living inspired lives.

I've often wondered what would happen if we, like St. Francis, "preached the gospel always, even using words when really needed".

What if someone came to us and said they wanted to become a Christian. And rather than getting all exited and getting them to hurry up and pray before they changed their minds and walk down an aisle on Sunday morning... what if we said "no".
What if we said "you're not ready -- you don't understand what it means".
What if we said "consider the cost.... it is a narrow way you must come... to follow means to pick up your cross daily... to find your life, you must first loose it".

I wonder what the effect would be if we reacted more like the way Christ seem to sometimes (at least to me). If we said "oh? well... if you reeealllly want to be a Christian, then I guess I can help". It seems like we're so far to the other end of the extreme sometimes -- almost begging people or threatening them.

I wonder if we did this, if we would win more souls or fewer? Or perhaps the same? And I wonder if our churches would be more or less devoted.
Perhaps, you value what is hard to get? And you treasure what you really understand.

paradoxes and contradictions

If I were writing a book on this, I'd not jump to this topic so quickly, because this is the meat of it. I'd pull the readers in with 210 pages, restating things and telling them things they already had known long ago -- what publishers call "filler," and politicians call "campaigning" -- then I'd smash the symbol here.

For real discussion to exist, for the critic to really make ground, I think the critic needs to meet the defender on the defender’s home turf.

If the critic can find even one place where the Bible clearly disagrees with itself, then the strict and total defense of Biblical absolutism is lost. And the defender is left to defend the Bible on less solid ground.

It seems to me that where a lot of Biblical criticism falls down, and where a lot of defenders spend probably way too much of their time is focusing on the other categories. Whole books are written on criticism and Biblical defense that don’t even touch this area. But it is the most important. These books basically say "assume that the Bible is without error. Now I'll prove that the Biblical issues can be explained". Look, if you assume that the Bible is without error, you don't need to explain the issues. It's like the Catholic belief that the Pope is infallible. Why do they think that? Because there's a Papal decree saying it. But.. huh?
But it's the same thing. These books will quote the Bible to prove the Bible is inerrant. Huh?

What’s more, if the Biblical critic can win here, he can then go back and pick up the other areas. If the defender concedes that there may be some factual areas where the Bible might be wrong, then it throws the gates open to talk about theological areas where the Bible might be wrong.

This is monstrously huge.
Let’s face it, there are a lot of places where the Bible seems to offer challenges to the defenders on theological matters. There are theologians who spend their lives banging their heads against the wall, trying to explain how two seemingly inconsistent sections of Scripture can co-exist without contradiction. How could Moses say that an all-knowing God changed His mind? How could God condone of Abraham marrying his sister? How could we be saved by "grace apart from works lest no one should boast," but then have it be that it is "works, and not faith alone that saves you".
Once the defender concedes Biblical fallibility, then all of this Biblical confusion goes away by the simple assertion that one of the sections is probably wrong.

The good news here is that lots of things get simpler. Any of the other categories of criticism become non-issues. The bad news is that some things get way more complex. There is a certain simplicity to believing that there is a flawless set of instructions, given by God, on which we can build our doctrine and even our lives. Take it away and you introduce confusion. As soon as you allow the argument “well, maybe Jesus never said that”, you force people to pick and choose their theology.

So, what would happen if the Bible were to have internal errors? It seems to me that there are three possible things that could mean.

1. The Bible is not in-errant.

OK, let’s start with the double negative! Basically, this means that the Bible is wrong. It may not be all wrong in every place, but it’s not always right either.

Of course, this makes some things a lot simper and some things more complex, as mentioned. Then we would need to ask questions about its reliability. If it’s wrong, then how wrong is it?

Here’s the deal, when people open this one up and say “ok, the Bible seems to have internal factual errors”, then this opens up all the other areas for discussion. Then it becomes valid to say “the Bible seems to contradict itself theologically, so rather than looking for a solution or changing my doctrine, I’ll just assume it’s a contradiction.” Then it makes sense to look at the Bible like any other inspirational document and deny the parts of it that seem inconsistent with our modern thinking. Basically, then it becomes perfectly valid to re-visit the issues above. It doesn't mean the Bible is bad, or without value, just that it is not the source of all truth.

2. The Bible is in-errant, but not really meant to be taken literally.

This is similar to the Roman Catholic view that says the Bible is without error on issues of faith and morals, but not necessarily on matters of historical fact. It’s the view that the events in the Bible are meant to be symbolic. Perhaps there was no flood and no Noah, but the story has some teachings that we can learn from.

Of course there are a couple issues here. First, it seems strange that the Bible would be flawless on theology, but wrong on other things. And it also calls into question what the theology means. If there really is a 40-day flood with Noah, it's simple. God is telling us to get in line. And telling us what happens if we don't. But if the story is just a parable then what does it mean? It leaves a door open.

3. The Bible is in-errant and meant to be taken literally, but it does not mean what it seems to say.

This is a view often taken by Biblical defenders. When pushed against a wall, they will refer to some rather obscure historical tradition that (in their minds at least) makes the issue go away.

For example, take a look at the genealogy of Jesus. There are two, and they differ. Luke and Matthew indicate that Joseph had 2 different fathers (Luke says it was Heli, while Matthew says it was Jacob). Some Defenders say that this is because one of the two genealogies belong to Mary and it was a "common tradition" to apply a woman's ancestry to her husband. Only, these defenders cannot provide any other examples of this, nor could they tell which of the two belong to Mary and which is Joseph's. In addition, it is not what the Scripture says. It may be what it means, but it isn't what it says. So, how can one be sure?

The uncomfortable implication here, though, is that those of us who are not so knowledgeable can never really understand the truth in the Bible.

Throughout history, there have been periods when the laity were discouraged from reading the Bible for this very reason.

There is a forth view, that I didn’t list. Some churches say that the Bible is without error in its original texts, and the problem is that we don’t have the original texts. These things, they say, are simple scribal errors. But the big issue here is that we don’t have the original texts. So how do we know what is in them?

This is a big deal. For example, take the great commission found in the Gospel of Mathew.

And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying,

All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Mt. 28: 18-19 KJV

This verse is etched in stone on the top of many church doors. It is the verse on which many evangelical churches find their identity. It is the theme verse for whole missionary movements. However, according to the best research we have been able to do, it may have not been in the original Gospel of Mathew. In fact, it most likely was not.

Other verses meet into the same fate. The famous story of the woman caught in adultary, for example, is probably not in John at all, but added later.

I'd like to spend some time zooming in on some of these problematic verses, but that will have to wait until later.