Here is an article I just read, and thought it would be worth it to post it here and see what others here think about it.

I myself don't know if any of the information in the article is correct, but if it is then, it certainly would explain why there are a lot of inconsistencies in the bible.

Link to story:
http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/NewTestament.html

I didn't take time to read the link, but my own reading has indicated that there is some textual evidence to suggest that the dramatic "cast the first stone" incident never happened, and also that Jesus did not die on the cross (You have to read the particular gospel in the original Greek, though).

This does not in any way invalidate the truth of many of the sayings attributed to him, however.

I have only glanced through it but it seems like the usual Bible 101.

I don't have time at the moment to check everything he reports but the chances are its all fairly correct and above board.

Scholars/priests have known all this for years , it just never seems to filter down to the laity.

If one takes just a little time to look into the origins of the bible then one quickly realises how simplistic and plain wrong most of what the evangelicals claim/believe is.

Oh and theologists try not to use the word 'forgery' but rather 'later interpolations' or 'misinterpretations'...

There are a bunch of different theories. A lot of them totally blow apart the whole "trinity" concept of Christianity, esp. Jesus=son of God thingy.

http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com/

I have only glanced through it but it seems like the usual Bible 101.

I don't have time at the moment to check everything he reports but the chances are its all fairly correct and above board.

Scholars/priests have known all this for years , it just never seems to filter down to the laity.

If one takes just a little time to look into the origins of the bible then one quickly realises how simplistic and plain wrong most of what the evangelicals claim/believe is.

Oh and theologists try not to use the word 'forgery' but rather 'later interpolations' or 'misinterpretations'...

All good points jack.

Now, one usually puts the horse before the cart, and you can at least get somewhere with the cart before the horse. Reading this article sounds like the author is riding in the cart with the horse beside him gleefully unaware he is going nowhere.

The revelations of ultraviolet light testing
In 1933, the British Museum in London purchased the Sinai Bible from the Soviet government for £100,000, of which £65,000 was gifted by public subscription. Prior to the acquisition, this Bible was displayed in the Imperial Library in St Petersburg, Russia, and "few scholars had set eyes on it" (The Daily Telegraph and Morning Post, 11 January 1938, p. 3). When it went on display in 1933 as "the oldest Bible in the world" (ibid.), it became the centre of a pilgrimage unequalled in the history of the British Museum.
Before I summarise its conflictions, it should be noted that this old codex is by no means a reliable guide to New Testament study as it contains superabundant errors and serious re-editing. These anomalies were exposed as a result of the months of ultraviolet-light tests carried out at the British Museum in the mid-1930s. The findings revealed replacements of numerous passages by at least nine different editors. Photographs taken during testing revealed that ink pigments had been retained deep in the pores of the skin. The original words were readable under ultraviolet light. Anybody wishing to read the results of the tests should refer to the book written by the researchers who did the analysis: the Keepers of the Department of Manuscripts at the British Museum (Scribes and Correctors of the Codex Sinaiticus, H. J. M. Milne and T. C. Skeat, British Museum, London, 1938).

Forgery in the Gospels
When the New Testament in the Sinai Bible is compared with a modern-day New Testament, a staggering 14,800 editorial alterations can be identified. These amendments can be recognised by a simple comparative exercise that anybody can and should do. Serious study of Christian origins must emanate from the Sinai Bible's version of the New Testament, not modern editions.

I stopped here and probably wont continue. So we have a modern Bible which was formed from the Council of Nicea and all that jazz.... then he goes and asserts that the Sinai Bible should be used even though it is obviously rife with forgeries.

Like I said, riding with the horse in the cart.

I mean, come on! His most-used source is from Catholic historians. Ironically, looking at the history of Catholicism it doesnt mind using obviously forged documents.

Actually I lied. I kept reading and the author gave me a shitfaced grin as I tried to tell him how to use a horsecart.... The rest of it goes on making the wild assertion that the Sinai Bible was an original document and using it to bash more modern texts completely fogetting the fact that he had already said that the Sinai text has loads of forgeries.

He's saying that the Sinai bible should be used because:

"The original words were readable under ultraviolet light. Anybody wishing to read the results of the tests should refer to the book written by the researchers who did the analysis: the Keepers of the Department of Manuscripts at the British Museum (Scribes and Correctors of the Codex Sinaiticus, H. J. M. Milne and T. C. Skeat, British Museum, London, 1938)."

He's not suggesting that you should accept the edited passages.

Perhaps I should sleep before engaging in heavy reading?

Anyway, I happened upon these:

http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/CriticalTexts/why_use.htm#A_FEW_CORRUPT
http://logosresourcepages.org/Versions/uncials.htm
http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/CriticalTexts/sinaiticus.htm

So, where can I find a copy of what the Codex Sinaiticus read under all the corrections?