The grass withers, the flower fades...

...but the Word of our God will stand forever.
Isaiah 40:8

Saw today in the "Weird & Wonderful" section of the BBC News website, that "about 800 pages of the earliest surviving Christian Bible have been recovered and put on the internet", under the headline "Historic Bible pages put online".

Now, initially, I was just going to point this out to readers just for something interesting. However, I spotted a link named "What is missing from the Codex Sinaiticus?" by a guy named Roger Bolton. Written in 2008. He writes this:

"For those who believe the Bible is the inerrant, unaltered word of God, there will be some very uncomfortable questions to answer. It shows there have been thousands of alterations to today's bible."

The Codex, probably the oldest Bible we have, also has books which are missing from the Authorised Version that most Christians are familiar with today - and it does not have crucial verses relating to the Resurrection"

This has led me on a little late night journey investigating the views and responses. I will not hide what I read has made me think.

I then though maybe I wouldn't blog upon this topic any more!

However, upon reflection, (and as WLC mentions later in the blog post) I know from my personal experience Jesus Christ is living, and the Holy Spirt lives within me. I followed this through, looking for answers. As Michael Ots said in our Events Week (2009) recently, he/we/I have no desire to believe and follow something that is not true. I am -and was sure that there was more to it than this. I couldn't turn a blind eye and write them off as rubbish. I am ans was sure that what we read in the Bible is true. That Jesus rose from the dead, and the glorious rest of it.

So, here is my brief search to find out if there is any truth in Bolton's claims. Many of my thoughts as this has taken place have now escaped me, for it is hard to put momentary thoughts down here fast enough. So give me credit for any jumps in reasoning, questioning, or whatever. Remember that thinking in the moment is easier and more extensive than I am able to convey here over an hour later. So here goes...

Firstly in response to Bolton's claims that "the Codex - and other early manuscripts - omit[s] some mentions of ascension of Jesus into heaven, and key references to the Resurrection". I opened up www.codexsinaiticus.org and went to the end of Luke. Just because I like Luke, and it seemed a good place to start.

Luke 24:1-9 -according to the Codex Sinaiticus, says thus:

24:1 But on the first of the week, very early in the morning, they came to the sepulcher, bringing the spices that they had prepared.

2 And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulcher;

3 but entering, they found not the body of the Lord Jesus.

4 And it came to pass as they were perplexed about this, behold, two men stood by them in bright clothing

5 and the women being afraid and bowing their faces to the earth the angels said to them: Why see among the dead for him that lives?

6 He is not here, but has risen. Remember how he spoke to you while he was yet in Galilee,

7 saying of the Son of man that he must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and rise on the third day.

8 And they remembered his words,

9 and returned from the sepulcher and told all these things to the eleven and to all the rest.

Ressurection? It seems the Codex Sinaiticus would agree... (notably pretty similar the Bible I have in front of me, if you'll excuse the changing of the word 'sepulcher'...) If it was not 12:47 then I would continue to find more references (I am now tempted to go find another...yes 2 Corinthians 5:21, and all the wonderful rest of it either side, is there! Haha! Christ is Lord! He made Him who knew no sin, to be sin for us, so that in Him, we might become the righteousness of God! See left picture to prove it!)

There are more questions Proffeser Erhman raises (who is cited by Bolton), which do indeed need answering, relating to why anti-sematic books such as the Epistle of Barnabas is found collated alongside the rest (which initially makes me think how by the time it was produced, more such 'Epistles' could well have been written. But see the later point* for more on the) but my next step was looking up a bit about who Bart Ehrman is (Via his Wikipedia page!), and found there a debate transcript between William Lane Craig. And here I find that I can rest assured there are answers to Bolton/Erhman's comments.

http://www.holycross.edu/departments/crec/website/resurrection-debate-transcript.pdf

As mentioned earlier, Craig speaks:

"As a result of my studies, I became even more convinced of the historical credibility of that event. Of course, ever since my conversion, I believed in the resurrection of Jesus on the basis of my personal experience, and I still think this experiential approach to the resurrection is a perfectly valid way to knowing that Christ has risen. It’s the way that most Christians today know that Jesus is risen and alive. But as a result of my studies, I came to see that a remarkably good case can be made for Jesus’ resurrection historically as well"

This quote fills me with confidence, it rings so true of the thoughts in my head and heart.

And reading on, he says this about Erhman and his arguments:

"I was stunned to discover that the philosophical argument he gives for this claim is an old argument against the identification of miracles which I had studied during my doctoral research and which is regarded by most philosophers today as demonstrably fallacious. So as not to steal Dr. Ehrman’s thunder, I’ll wait until he’s presented his argument before I show where the fallacy lies."

I look forward to reading the rest of the debate. As I skim through, I see that again Erhman has some good points. Though some pretty shocking ones too. I encourage you to have a read to.

*On second read, while Bolton does argue that this is a big problem for us, see this quote from him later on in the article:

"But the picture is complicated. Some argue that another early Bible, the Codex Vaticanus, is in fact older. And there are other earlier texts of almost all the books in the bible, though none pulled together into a single volume."

This is not exactly 'the oldest manuscript' but the 'largest AND oldest' manuscript. Not exactly what he made out at the start -"probably the oldest Bible we have". There are older copies, just not all together as this seems to be. This is not therefore, the 'be-all and end-all' as it is made out to be.

So, after this search, I -and hopefully you- have increased in my confidence in Hebrews 4:12, that the word of God is living and active, it is trustworthy, and we can pray with confidence, as I feel compelled to now...

Thank you Father, that you loved us so much that you gave your Son, so that we might be reconciled to you. Thank you that You live -you came and died and rose again- and that I can be so sure of that, through the Bible and your Holy Spirit. Thank you... :D