Other Topics

The New 3 "Rs"

Thanksgiving - Origin

Christmas - Origin

Truth, Integrity & Ethics

Science and Religion

Famous American Quotes


Whale Evolution (Macro)






Misc. Areas of Interest

Reviews (Books)

Reviews (Movies)


Josephus & Christianity

Christians Need Evolution

Why did Jesus not return?

Why evidence is not effective




Science & Religion links

Science-Religion Conflicts

 Human Migration

Adam & Eve - Genomics

The Church & Evolution

Intelligent Design

Young Earth Creationism

Theistic Evolution

Christianity & Evolution




Macroevolution is true

Human evolution is true

Scriptures are not inspired

Theism not believable

It's not about the evidence

World Views In Collision


Why Care?



Feelings.  Red pill - Blue pill


Vestigial Structures


DNA Evidence - Insertions

 1. ERVs   2. Transposons

Human Chrom. 2 Fusion


Human Lice & Evolution

Why did they say that?

Old Testament


    Old Testament Narratives

    Biblical Genocide

    Noahian Flood

    "Firmament" - Flat Earth

Document Changes

Scriptural Contradictions

Who Wrote The Bible?




Veritas Super Omnia 



Scriptural Document Changes  1


"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book."

~ Revelation 22: 18 - 19. 


"You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you."

~ Deuteronomy 4: 2.



1. Ecclesiastes  - 1:1 and 12: 9 - 14.


"Because if you were paying attention, then you noticed a major shift in person and voice at verse 9. Suddenly it is clear that someone other than Qoheleth is speaking. Indeed, the Teacher is referred to in the third person. So it looks like the Teacher's last word on this book came in verse 8, where in both the original Hebrew and in the English translation the very last word is "Phhhht!" In literature this is called an "inclusio" because it ends the book the same way it began. If you compare Ecclesiastes 1:2 with 12:8, then you will see that those two verses are nearly word-for-word identical. Hence, the Teacher's final sentiment is that Hebrew word we looked at in the first sermon of this series: that throat-clearing word hevel, which I've been loosely translating as "Phhht" throughout this series.


But that's hardly a hopeful way to end a book! So at some point some scribe or some editor or some monk who was copying this book in a monastery somewhere, tacked on verses 9-14. Since "Phhht" did not seem like a proper way to end a biblical book, this unknown person decided to round things out with the more pious sounding sentiment of "Behave, or else!" We end on a note of law, a note of "trust and obey for there's no other way." We end with a reminder of judgment as a goad to spur people to lead moral lives.


But that it is not the way Qoheleth himself wanted this book to end".


Source: Hoezee, Scott. Ecclesiastes 12 "Days of Youth". Calvin - Christian Reformed Church.  Link.



2. Mark 16: 9 - 20


The most famous example of a well meaning scribe or other person changing scripture because they did not like the way it was written is the ending to Mark.  Mark ends at 16:8, but having the women fleeing the tomb afraid did not seem like a good way to end this gospel, so someone changed it. Most Bible translations have verses 9 - 20 bracketed with warnings that "Some of the earliest manuscripts do not include 16: 9 - 20".  It is clear from the ESV and other commentaries that this section was added later.  Although a few older manuscripts have them, they are not found in older and reliable Greek manuscripts such as Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, early Latin, Syriac, Armenian, and Georgian manuscripts. Early church fathers such as Origen and Clement of Alexandria do not mention them.  Eusebius and Jerome mention that these verses are missing in most manuscripts.  The versus themselves contain various Greek words and expressions uncommon in Mark and there are stylistic differences here compared to Mark. [Source: ESV commentary, end of Mark]


One of the most exhaustive reviews of this is Richard Carrier's 2009 article, "Mark 16:9 - 20 as Forgery or Fabrication".  It is difficult after reviewing this how any Christian can hold that the ending of Mark was not forged. Since it was, then the Bible cannot be inerrent, and there must be other areas that were changed whether we can identify them or not.


The strange ending of Mark and why it's important: James Tabor - Link


A glaring omission - Vati Leaks - Link



3. Ehrman's Top Ten NT Verses that were later added to the original scriptures.  These are examples of NT verses that are known to not be a part of the original text, but added by later scribes. **


1) 1 John 5:7

2) John 8:7

3) John 8:11

4) Luke 22:44

5) Luke 22:20

6) Mark 16:17

7) Mark 16:18

8) John 5:4

9) Luke 24:12

10) Luke 24:51


 ** From: Ehrman, Bart D. Misquoting Jesus. 2005. page 265 - 266.


4. John 7:53 - 8:12


This story of the woman caught in adultery, saved by Jesus, and the scribes and Pharisees brought to humiliation by Jesus was not in the original gospel.  How do scholars know this?  The story is not found in the oldest manuscripts, it's writing style is very different, if it is left out it the writing in that section flows better, and it includes a large number of words and phrases not present in the gospel.  According to the Law of Moses both the man and woman were to be stoned.  Where's the man? In addition, other scribes inserted it after John 21:25 and still others after Luke 21:38.**  If the bible is the inspired word of God and some say inerrent, is it not disturbing that (1) we have here clear evidence of tampering with the original by later scribes and (2) why are translators leaving it in?  The ESV in it's commentary states, "There is considerable doubt that this story is part of John's original Gospel, for it is absent from all of the oldest manuscripts.  But there is nothing in it unworthy of sound doctrine. It seems best to view the story as something that probably happened during Jesus's ministry but was not originally part of what John wrote in his Gospel." Not unworthy? It probably happened? This part of the gospel is proven to be corrupted and yet it is rationalized to leave it as is?  Is this scholarly theological integrity?



5. Codex Vaticanus margin note - Heb. 1:3


Most manuscripts open the book of Hebrews with the phrase, "Christ bears all things by the word of his power". In Codex Vaticanus, one of the finest old manuscripts we have, dating from the fourth century, the original scribe changed the word 'bears' to 'manifests'.  The Greek words are close.  Several centuries later a second scribe changed the word back to 'bears'.  Several centuries later a third medieval scribe noticed the alteration and he changed the word again back to 'manifests'.  He then added a scribal note in the margin directed against the second scribe that translates, "Fool and knave! Leave the old reading, don't change it!" ** Ehrman has a picture of the page in his book (pg 44). Saying that Christ reveals all things by his power is different from saying that he keeps the universe together by his word.


6. Ancient scholars complained that copyists were changing the early scriptures **


     a. Third century church father Origen:  "The differences among the manuscripts have become great either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they make additions or deletions as they please".


     b. Pagan critic Celsus: "Some believers, as though from a drinking bout, go so far as to oppose themselves and alter the original text of the gospel three or four or several times over and they change its character to enable them to deny differences in face of criticism".


     c. Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, complains that some christians are changing his writings as they have more sacred texts: "When my fellow-Christians invited me to write letters to them I did so.  These the devil's apostles have filled with tares, taking away some things and adding others. For them the woe is reserved.  Small wonder then if some have dared to tamper  even with the word of the Lord himself, when they have conspired to mutilate my own humble efforts."


7. The translation changes to Romans 16:7.  


"Greet Andronicus and Junia, my relatives who were in prison with me; they are prominent among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was."


"Junia is a woman’s name and it just wouldn’t do to have people reading about a woman who was an apostle — let alone one who was “prominent among the apostles.” For patriarchal Christians who insisted on a male-only hierarchy, Junia was intolerable. So they got rid of her. They translated her into an imaginary man with an imaginary name.


Politics — specifically, the political desire to control women — shaped the translation of that text. The translators changed the words of the Bible to make it seem like it supported their political agenda. They changed the words of the Bible so that others reading it would not be able to see that its actual words challenged and contradicted their political agenda."


[from the article referenced below]


8. Exodus 21:22 changed recently to fit a political agenda:


"Here is how Exodus 21:22-25 read in the New American Standard Bible’s 1977 revision of its 1971 original translation:


And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is not further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.


But here’s the same passage in 1995 in the updated current version of the NASB:


"If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."


“So that she has a miscarriage” has been replaced with “so that she gives birth prematurely.”


"That’s new. That’s not at all how this passage was translated for centuries."


"The New American Standard Bible translated this passage that same way up until 1977. But something changed between 1977 and 1995 — something that had nothing to do with scholarship, language, accuracy, fidelity or readability.


American politics had changed between 1977 and 1995. It had polarized and radicalized millions of American Protestants, rallying them around a single issue and thus, as intended, rallying them behind a single political party.


In 1977, the sort of American Protestants who purchased most Bibles couldn’t be summed up in a single word. But by 1995, they could be: “abortion.”


And for anti-abortion American evangelicals, Exodus 21:12-27 was unacceptable. It suggested that striking and killing an unborn fetus was in a separate category from striking and killing a “person.” Strike and kill a free person, you get the death penalty. Strike and kill an unborn fetus, you get a fine."



~ Biomed