those words were not added to clarify something. They were added by someone because they thought it should be added. There is a difference. To say that EVERYTHING in the bible is 100% but to say not everything was actually there when it was written doesn't make sense.
As for your last comment...talk about drawing conclusions. You are the one that has said that if anything in the bible were wrong then all of Christianity would crumble, not me. I have no problem understanding that the book was not written by god, but by man. I have no problem in reconciling facts of science with my creation without turning by cheek to either. I have no problem admitting that what we are or where we came from is beyond my understanding whether I have a belief one way or the other.
UPSMAN isn't the only one with an extremist view on here guys. May not be the same extreme view, but its extreme none the less.
Happyboy,
You don't think they were added for clarity, I think they were. Here are some more examples: I have highlighted the additional words for clarity.
Romans16:24[the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.] This was found in some of the copies not all so it was put into brackets.
1 John 5:7-8 [7]For there are three that testify: [8] the spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. My translation has omitted the clarify statement explaining who the three are.
Mark 3:16-17 [16] and He appointed the twelve: Simon (to whom He gave the name Peter), [17] and James, the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James (to them He gave the name Boanerges, which means, "Sons of Thunder");The statements above do not appear in all transcripts or where added for clarity to others. I don't believe that that makes for an error. An example might be that Judas betrayed Jesus in three of the Gospels but in the fourth that John Betrayed Jesus. That's an error.
You said - "To say that EVERYTHING in the bible is 100% but to say not everything was actually there when it was written doesn't make sense."
Sure it does, How much do you know about translation of ancient text? I myself do not know that much, but what I have read is that as more and more research into the geopolitical, historical events are giving us a clearer picture of what life was like back than. As we increase in this knowledge, we gain understanding, with more understanding we can better translate the ancient words into something we would understand today. In my Bible any added text is [ ] or ( ) or
Italicized to show that they are in some manuscripts but not all.
I use a NASB here is what they say:
Alternative Readings: In addition to the more literal renderings, notations have been made to include alternate translations, reading of variant manuscripts and explanatory equivalents of the test. Only such notations have been used as have been felt justified in
assisting the reader's comprehension of the terms used by the original author. Emphasis mine.
Italics - Italics are used in the text to indicate words which are not found in the original Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek but implied by it.
They also give you their Principles of Translation.
You last paragraph are you referencing a question that I asked you? Here is what I said
QUOTE
"are you saying that because words where added to clarify a point that the rest of the Bible supports, that the whole book should be thrown out or isn't valid."
Emphasis mine. I have admitted that there are typos and mistranslations. My statement about throwing the whole thing away "IS" in reference to them ever finding a box with JESUS bones in them. The Bible we have today is almost 100% of what they had almost 2,000 years ago.
Please take 5-10 minutes and follow this link to read about the Bible, it speaks more clearly than I do.
http://www.carm.org/bible/no_originals.htmhttp://www.carm.org/questions/rewritten.htmPlease allow me to quote you. "I have no problem understanding that the book was
not written by god, but by man." emphasis mine, I'll show my work.
Man wrote the Bible. [inspired or not]
The Bible has Errors. [copyist or other wise]
The Bible is mistranslated [wrong use of words]
The Bible has added words in some translations [added for whatever reason]
Those Errors show that God could not convey his message to man. [by not keeping his word TRUE/PURE]
God allowed his Word to be changed [Implies that God changed]
Therefore God is weak.
Don't believe the Bible
My side:
God put the words in Man head to write down the original. 100% of Gods intended message.
Though time originals were damaged and copies made.
Copies of copies where made and a few typos/copyist errors exist.
With over 5,000 copies of the ancient manuscripts, we can tell where the typos/copyist errors are.
Therefore there is a God, His Word is the Bible, we can believe it.
Hopefully that makes sense. If I misunderstood your position please clarify.
You are implying that an extreme view is the wrong view. You also have stated that Upsman has an extreme view. Studies would indicate that both of our views are currently main stream in America. I guess I shouldn't us the studies that my Pastor quoted and gave reference from as I don't have them at my disposal. Take it on Faith. USA Today did one not long ago where 80% of Americans claim to be Christians. To bad they didn't ask how many believe the Bible is true, that would have been very telling. Don't you agree?
To recap my position:
There is a God
Jesus is God in the Flesh
Jesus died on the cross for our sins
Buried and rose on the third day
The Bible is the inerrant Word of God.
What extreme position have I taken that isn't supported in the Bible. These are not extreme in the Christian community, these are the tenets of Faith by millions of Christians world wide.
I'm not even upset that you think I'm and extremist.
The hardest verse in the bible
In the Beginning GOD created the heavens and the earth.Smitty