"The sacred text that people revered in the past was not the same one we study today."

There are 2 Comments

Andrew K.'s picture

From the article:

For many Jews and Christians, religion dictates that the words of the Bible in the original Hebrew are divine, unaltered and unalterable.

"Unalterable"? How does that make any sense at all, given all the alterations we see?

I wish they would have people writing these things who actually knew what they were talking about instead of ones who try to build hype and controversy.

In another example, this one from the Book of Deuteronomy, a passage referring to commandments given by God "to you" once read "to us," a significant change in meaning.

Not sure which passage they are referring to, but the inclusion or exclusion of Moses doesn't strike me as especially significant. I highly doubt Moses assumed he was free to break the commandments.


RPittman's picture

Tis passing strange how the rationality and logic of man is selectively semipermeable. Although texts of the Greek NT have been snipped, transposed, amalgamated, cut, and pasted since the days of Westcott and Hort, our "Fundamentalist scholars" and seminary profs have assured us that the OT text was pretty well fixed and set. Now, it is readily apparent that they were wrong. It makes one wonder if our scholars were simply dispensing pabulum for their students and the laity or if they really could see no further than the end of their bifocals.

There is, I think, often the seeds of self-destruction in an apparently harmless and innocuous idea. Twice in Scripture, Paul used the metaphor that "[a ] little leaven leaveneth the whole lump (I Corinthians 5:6; Galatians 5:9)." Although not readily apparent at the onset, the leaven works to ferment and produce corruption until the whole spoils. Perhaps our Fundamentalist forefathers failed to recognize the rationalistic leaven in the Lower Criticism (i.e. modern textual criticism beginning with Westcott-Hort) as they did in the Higher Criticism.