The Bible has errors?

Well one well known example is  the story of the woman caught in adultery.  Where Jesus (peace be upon him) reportedly says 'let him who is without sin cast the first stone'.  (paraphrasing)

Bible scholars know that this story is absent from the earliest manuscripts and is a later insertion.  You can read more about this here: http://www.bible-researcher.com/adult.html

Now, who added it?  When?  What else did they add or subtract? How can anyone rely on such a book - the NT?

Mauri wrote: Hi rubies, You said: Bible scholars know that this story is absent from the earliest manuscripts and is a later insertion.  You can read more about this here: http://www.bible-researcher.com/adult.html The site does not say that Bible scholars KNOW that.  It says that NEARLY ALL Biblical scholars agree on that.  Another site says:  It is not in the earliest manuscripts (with one exception);  Here's the link:  http://www.tektonics.org/af/adulterypericope.html

Stephen Turkel (Patirck Holding), in his usual obfuscation of the point, did not actually prove that the story is "not" a later addition. The link is to one of many of his sophomric works which takes any critical reader for a ride.

The link is a real waste of time, like 99% of Turkel's site.

For an indepth look at the different languages of the manuscripts, divisions and subdivisions see http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09627a.htm

The NT has been shown to have numerous insertions to help with the creative interpretations gooing on in the first 400 years of your faith. It seems, from all of the evidence we have, that you faith was not a single entity with everyone professing the same beliefs. What we find are numerous sects, each debting hard with the other to prove its personal ideas of very basic things like who and what Jesus was, and the nature of Gd. The result are numerous "creative editing" that took place from the hands of your early Christians in order for them to show to the other how the word of Gd agrees with them.

Lets not ignore the fact that hundreds of narrative accounts existed in the first 300 years, and were all destroyed save the four you have in your NT, and a few that have miraculously survived. The Gospel of Peter was more widely read, believed, and followed than that of Mark, which to date, has three different endings.

We must be careful how we paraphrase, lest we be found guilty of misrepresentation (false witness).  After your paraphrase, you asked:  Now, who added it?  When?  What else did they add or subtract? How can anyone rely on such a book - the NT? If I posted in the same spirit, I might well ask:  Now, why did rubies misrepresent the facts?  What else has she misrepresented?  How can anyone rely upon such a person? Btw, the oldest OT manuscripts are all fragmentary: The Dead Sea Scrolls: date from 200 B.C. - 70 A.D. and contain the entire book of Isaiah and portions of every other Old Testament book but Esther. Geniza Fragments: portions the Old Testament in Hebrew and Aramaic, discovered in 1947 in an old synagogue in Cairo, Egypt, which date from about 400 A.D.

You said that �Stephen Turkel (Patirck Holding)�did not actually prove that the story is "not" a later addition�.

Am I to understand that you believe the other site did actually prove that the story was a later addition?  Or, are you merely pointing out that it is a draw�a difference of opinions?

To clarify, I have not taken issue with the passage in question. But with the way a position was presented�as fact that Bible scholars know something, which, if you want to read farther about it, go to this site, when the site does not state or even support the �fact� at all. 

The issue I have is with how we communicate.  Honest communication does not rely upon �coloring� the facts with opinion.  For example, it is one thing to state that Patrick Holding did not actually prove that the story is "not" a later addition�.  But, when you add that he does it �in his usual obfuscation of the point,� you move into manipulation�trying to discredit whatever he says, based upon your personal opinion.  You do it again when you say, �The link is to one of many of his sophomric works which takes any critical reader for a ride�.

You give the appearance of having read much of Holding�s work.  Have you, really? 

And, on the contrary, a critical reader is not as likely to be taken for a ride by Holding, you or rubies, because a critical reader is not so easily influence by rhetoric as by facts. For instance, a critical reader will recognize  �The link is a real waste of time, like 99% of Turkel's site� as �yellow journalism� designed to influence opinion rather than share information.

The NT has been shown to have numerous insertions to help with the creative interpretations gooing on in the first 400 years of your faith

On what do you base that assertion?  What is an �insertion� to you?  Something that was not previously written?  Clarification? 

What do you mean by �creative interpretations�?  Imagined?  Evolutionary, developing?

It seems, from all of the evidence we have, that you faith was not a single entity with everyone professing the same beliefs.

No, faith is not a single entity, if you mean faith is devoid of progression.  Faith is progressive.  The progression is from hope to faith to knowing and then to doing.  And, there are stages of progression within each of those. 

What we find are numerous sects, each debting hard with the other to prove its personal ideas of very basic things like who and what Jesus was, and the nature of Gd

Are you suggesting that that is wrong?  �that we should not debate to prove our personal ideas of very basic things, like who and what Jesus was and the nature of God?   

I contend that if we do not argue the point and prove whether our personal ideas of very basic things are just, that we have nothing!

The result are numerous "creative editing" that took place from the hands of your early Christians in order for them to show to the other how the word of Gd agrees with them.

Let�s go with that.  Show me what you consider to be �creative editing,� and I will show you, if you are willing to see, the progression. 

Lets not ignore the fact that hundreds of narrative accounts existed in the first 300 years, and were all destroyed save the four you have in your NT, and a few that have miraculously survived.

Were they all destroyed?  Why do you think those 4 were not?  And, what are the few that you say miraculously survived?

 The Gospel of Peter was more widely read, believed, and followed than that of Mark, which to date, has three different endings.

That is news to me, mainly because I have never heard of the gospel of Peter.  I am aware of  two epistles of Peter.  It would even be news to me to hear that his epistles were more widely read, believed, and followed than that of Mark.  As far as the three different endings of Mark, please consider that ALL of the older manuscripts (NT or OT) were fragmentary.

The DSS, the Septuagint, and the masoretic differ from one another one certain chapters. All manuscripts differ from one another.  That is what distinguishes them as different manuscripts. 

The Sanhedrin never left a record as to how they chose a book for their cannon. It is all conjecture.  

Wow!  I never knew the Sanhedrin had a cannon!  Please inform me.

It is all conjecture.

What is all conjecture?