« “The Bible Was Only Written by Men...and Men Make Mistakes.” | Main | Book Giveaway Today on the Radio Show »

February 19, 2010


Nicely written Melinda. Thank you.

You say that the Codex is not a "Bible" but a collection of Books. When you state that what are you saying? The reason being is that I know that someone could come back and say that the Bible is also just a collection of books. I assume you are speaking about authority here, but I want to be sure.

Back when this article first came out, I had someone throw it at me as "proof" that the resurrection accounts were added later. Fortunately, the article also includes a link to the Codex Sinaiticus Project site. So I was able to go there and directly compare what's in the Codex Sinaiticus to what we have now.

The resurrection accounts are in Matthew 28, Mark 16:1-8, Luke 24, and John 20. The only portion missing from those passages in the CS was John 20:14:

Having said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, though she did not know it was Jesus.
(John 20:14 HCSB)

As you can see, the inclusion or exclusion of this verse doesn't make any difference whatsoever to the actual gospel claims that there was a resurrection.

The site is actually quite cool. You can find it here:


That CNN article is actually a great example of false claims of evolution of the Bible's text which do not bear up under scrutiny. In fact, just including the link to the CS site essentially was the article's suicide pill.

What are the 7 old testament books that are not in the Bible? If you're referring to what Protestants call the apocrypha, it's a big claim since more Christians in the world belong to a faith with them in than removed.

Rodrigo: I don't know if the number of Catholics in the world is greater than the number of Protestants. There is a chance you are correct about this. However, even if it were true, that would do nothing to prove that the apocrypha is actual scripture. If the truthfulness of a claim were only dependent upon how many people believed the claim, then before Copernicus became a scientist the earth really was the center of the universe.

It seems to me that the supernatural option doesn't negate the possibility of "lost books". Who is to say that all of God's prophetical writings are in the Bible? Couldn't He have spoken to prophets whose writings haven't yet been included? If we found additional writings couldn't such findings be part of God's plan?

Rodrigo, yes, the 7 books are part of the apocrypha: 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, and Sirach

I agree Michael, that just because the majority of Christians are Catholics, and the Catholic Church didn't remove those 7, that the 7 don't necessarily belong there. My point was that was a big claim to be made.

What do you think of the synod of Hippo in 393AD, the three Synods of Carthage (393, 397, 419) and the Council of Rome in 382 AD all including those 7 books?

Doug, here's the problem I have; everything we have availible in the New Testiment must be sufficent for teaching in righteousness. If God had left stuff out until now what kind of salvation would that be?

"Dear people, I sent my son, I told those guys about it. They're all dead now. I know it's 500 years later but by the way, please do this too and don't do that other thing. Love, God"

"God, what about those other folks who didn't hear about that?"

God "oh, whoops."

I think the Bible was compiled right in time because the authority of the eyewitnesses was beomcing second and third generations removed.

Someone with more time could probably put this argument into clearer terms.

These are just my thoughts off the top of my head. Critique away!


Aren't the following propositions at least conceivable:

1. A controversy will arise in the 22nd century that has not been considered so far.

2. God will allow the book of III Corinthians to be discovered at that time.

3. The book of III Corinthians will resolve the controversy without conflicting with any prior teachings.

4. Parts of III Corinthians would be difficult to understand apart from the controversy it resolves.

God wouldn't come across as quite as much of a dunce in that case, would He?

Of course, I'm not arguing for the so-called lost books of the Bible, like the Gospel of Thomas. These books were lost because they were rejected by the Church for excellent reasons. Nor am I arguing for any post-apostolic revelation like the Book of Mormon. I'm just saying that the canon should remain open, at least in principle, to the future addition of newly discovered apostolic writings.

I must have stared at Codex Sinaiticus for an hour while I was at the British Library. I don't know Greek, but just being able to see such an ancient copy of the Scriptures was fascinating. The ink looks pretty faded, and it's written in all caps which seems unusual to me but I guess that was the style of the day.

Let me throw a real spanner into the works!

Jay P Green Sr (+John W Burgon) have written 4 scholarly books called "Unholy Hands on the Bible" I, II & III (last one not in print) + "The Gnostics, The New Versions and the Deity of Christ".

In a nutshell, the MAJORITY texts which have supernatural agreement go to make the Textus Receptus (Received Text). Only KJ, Geneva, & Jay P Green's Literal stick to the Textus Receptus + NKJV uses this Greek + makes notes about the next 3 I mention.

HOWEVER: Hort & Wescott gathered these 3 - Vaticanus, Sinaiticus & Alexandrius* (called Minority Texts) with 6,000 + variations to make their Greek NT. MOST of the modern translations use H&W.

*Alexandrius came from the 'spiritual descendents' of those that argued against the gospel in Acts 6:9. These had a Gnostic bent and opposed the Deity of Christ.

I note with interest that both Unitarians and Jehovah's Witnesses accept the 1901 ASV translated exclusively from H&W - and their doctrines of the 3 in 1 and Deity of Christ suffer accordingly.

Bill Oliver
Australian in Malaysia


I thought that the newer translations used the Nestle-Aland text type. Is that a descendant of H&W's work?

I'll note that if their goal was to diminish the Deity of Christ they didn't do very well. It still shines through brightly.

I tend to use the NASB, not for any considerations of its text type, but because of its reputation for being the closest translation short of a scholarly work like Green's.

The comments to this entry are closed.