(May 20, 2024 at 6:07 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: So, there are linguistic changers, errors, additions, etc, but the Gospels 'haven't been tampered with'. How do you reconcile these statements?
I know Monmouth is wrong, because there is no evidence - historical, archeological, linguistic - that corroborates what he says. The lack of supportive evidence for Monmouth is positively Biblical in scope.
Boru
Are the errors significant? Lets look at English for a moment. For many centuries there was no agreed upon standard for how words ought to be spelled. So if one Bible says, "I am the way the trueth and the life" does the spelling of the word truth really change the meaning of the text?
Yes modern scholars have determined that the story of the woman caught in adultery was added by comparing later copies to earlier ones. That's what the process of scholarship is there for. My only question is weather or not this story is true. Beyond that we have the fact that it has been effectively canonized by the ancient church. So the real question is weather or not the Holy Spirit would not approve of such an addition. Don't know why but I don't feel like Jesus, the main character of said story, is losing sleep over its addition to the Gospel of John.
As it is written, "There are also many other things which Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that not even the word itself could contain the books that would be written. Amen"
When we compare one copy to another we can find the errors rather easily. Mistakes will be made, but they won't be made in the exact same places. Consider my earlier example.
The cat leaped.
The dog jumped.
A cat jumped.
Can you determine the original message?
