Comparing Bibles: A Resource

Last night at my book club, one member who we'll call Elizabeth, talked about a website called BibleGateway.com where you can look up different verses and then pick from a list to see the verse in different bibles. I was just on their site the other day looking to see if they offered the New American Standard Bible (NASB) as a pdf, but alas they do not. But I never noticed this cool resource for what it is!

The reason I was interested in that version was because a biblical scholar, Loring Prest, who came to talk to our group told us that it was a very good translation. Since he's read the original texts, I felt that was a good recommendation.

Anyway, back to Bible Gateway. They have 23 English versions of the bible available, not to mention a bunch of other languages.

This is a great way to read the bible and see how the different translations treat the same verse.

Let's take a few examples. The first comes from Elizabeth who said to try the following verse if I was feeling immature. So of course, I had to read it:

Ezekiel 23:20

• New American Standard: 18-21 She uncovered her harlotries and uncovered her nakedness; then I became disgusted with her, as I had become disgusted with her sister. Yet she multiplied her harlotries, remembering the days of her youth, when she played the harlot in the land of Egypt. She lusted after their paramours, whose flesh is like the flesh of donkeys and whose issue is like the issue of horses. Thus you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when the Egyptians handled your bosom because of the breasts of your youth.


• King James: For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses.


• God's Word: She lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose semen was like that of horses.

The Resurrection Never Happened

Neece posted on the Codex Sinaiticus a few weeks ago. I've been digging around, reading it (a little) and about it, and was formulating a reply to add to her article. After a bit of writing, I decided I should just make it a separate article.

Let me start with a little background information. Many Christians mistakenly assume that the four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, & John) are independent accounts of the life of Jesus. Thus they assume that four corroborated eyewitnesses prove his existence, and the validity of every story told of him. Several facts knock this premise on its ear; but somehow Christians hold fast to their belief still.

First, Luke starts his book by stating that he is drawing up accounts "as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses" (in case that is too cryptic, he is admitting these were the stories told to him; that he was not an eyewitness). Second, we have historical and archeological information that indicates the new testament books were written after 45 CE at the earliest; most were after 90 CE. Third, we have in depth analysis and research that has resulted in plenty of proof that three of the four copy from another. Yet still many Christians think them all perfect accounts of the life of Jesus. Even his existence cannot be proven absolutely.

Most scholars agree that Mark was written first, and the other three had a copy or version of Mark they built their work from. The most common hypothesis currently is that Matthew used Mark or a version of Mark (M) in conjunction with the Q document (an as-yet undiscovered document). Luke used Mark and the Q document; as well as at least one other source (L), possibly two (J). The gospel of John came last, in addition to being very obviously written by a Greek (when original versions are examined). "The Gospel [of John] certainly does not appear to have been written by an uneducated fisherman from Galilee, which is who John the disciple is portrayed as in Gospel stories." John appears to use Matthew, Mark, and Luke; but takes many liberties by using "eloquent Greek prose for the speeches of Jesus" instead of just translating. [SOURCE]

Most of you probably knew this, or knew of it in general, so I'll get on with the "new" information.

Don't Eat The Weasel = Don't Have Oral Sex

Leviticus 11: [29] These also shall be unclean unto you among the creeping things that creep upon the earth; the weasel, and the mouse, and the tortoise after his kind, [30] And the ferret, and the chameleon, and the lizard, and the snail, and the mole.

Neece posted on the Codex Sinaiticus a few days back. One of the books or letters that made it into the Codex is the Epistle of Barnabas.

In the era of early Christian writing, instead of ignoring the old testament laws, he is set on reinterpreting them. Vorjack over on Unreasonable Faith has a funny article on it; and I just couldn't resist sharing the weasel excerpt:

Conversations With christians - Beth 3 - Where Do We Go From Here? EDIT

I got another email from Beth! We are still on the topic of cherry-picking, but deal with a few more issues. Here you go, my friends. Your comments are always welcome.

EDIT: Johnny and GMNightmare commented below and I agreed completely with what they said. So I sent her another email a minute ago with that information as an addendum. Since I felt it was important and also sent it to Beth, I wanted to add it to the post, because it all fits right in. Thanks, guys, you're so awesome!

This "cherry picking" issue is really starting to bug me, honestly. I always viewed cherry picking as using only certain parts of things instead of incorporating the whole for your own convinence. If that is the case, I can assure you I am not. It would only be such if I were to view the Bible as entirely true and without flaws, which I do not. If I were honestly picking and choosing for my benefit then I would be saying all of it was authentic, but then excluding parts of it that redefined the selected part. For example, saying that Jesus was a real man who lived and taught as described in the New Testament does not change anything in the Old Testament. Jesus never stated that the Old Testament laws were the laws of the God he was referring to. I do not mean to sound rude, but I study the Bible very often and it baffles me where you heard such a thing. He does speak of Moses, however that is about the only specific reference that points to the earlier books. He also reads from Isiah, but that does not deal with the law of God, it is mainly about his nature.

Cherry-Pick: Verb: to choose the best items from a selection for oneself, often in an unfair manner.

And what part of selecting choice bits of the bible that you see fit to use, and discarding the rest is not cherry-picking? It's the very definition thereof. But no amount of definitions, or explanations or logic can budge you from your worldview, so let's move on. It doesn't matter why you choose choice bits and throw the rest out, the fact is that you do, at your personal discretion.

Jesus refers to the law of the old testament and the prophets:
Matthew 5:17-18 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
~ Jesus says he approves of the old testament laws and the prophets. He has no objection to the cruelties of the old testament, and he says those laws are binding on everyone forever.

Codex Sinaiticus: The Oldest Bible Holds Surprises

The Codex Sinaiticus, which means 'the Sinai Book' holds a special place in history. And now the whole world has access to it for free. Here, let the website explain. This is from their about page:

Codex Sinaiticus, a manuscript of the Christian Bible written in the middle of the fourth century, contains the earliest complete copy of the Christian New Testament. The hand-written text is in Greek. The New Testament appears in the original vernacular language (koine) and the Old Testament in the version, known as the Septuagint, that was adopted by early Greek-speaking Christians. In the Codex, the text of both the Septuagint and the New Testament has been heavily annotated by a series of early correctors.

The significance of Codex Sinaiticus for the reconstruction of the Christian Bible's original text, the history of the Bible and the history of Western book-making is immense.

First, the many corrections are quite telling, spanning the centuries. Letters, words and whole sentences are added or removed. The books are in a different order, and there are some books in there that have since been removed. The codex is dated to the middle of the 4th century. This is one of the earliest manuscripts. The only other is at the vatican, so therefore out of the reach of the public.