'Corruption' of the earliest New Testament texts by the orthodox Church.

[Daisy]

Originally Written in Hebrew. External evidence to the effect that Matthew originally wrote this Gospel in Hebrew reaches as far back as Papias of Hierapolis, of the second century C.E. Eusebius quoted Papias as stating: “Matthew collected the oracles in the Hebrew language.” (The Ecclesiastical History, III, XXXIX, 16) Early in the third century, Origen made reference to Matthew’s account and, in discussing the four Gospels, is quoted by Eusebius as saying that the “first was written . . . according to Matthew, who was once a tax-collector but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, . . . in the Hebrew language.” (The Ecclesiastical History, VI, XXV, 3-6) The scholar Jerome (of the fourth and fifth centuries C.E.) wrote in his work De viris inlustribus (Concerning Illustrious Men), chapter III, that Matthew “composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language and characters for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed. . . . Moreover, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea, which the martyr Pamphilus so diligently collected.”​—Translation from the Latin text edited by E. C. Richardson and published in the series “Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur,” Leipzig, 1896, Vol. 14, pp. 8, 9.

It has been suggested that Matthew, after compiling his account in Hebrew, may have personally translated it into Koine, the common Greek.

Matthew, Good News According to — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

 

[Daisy]

Yes, but then the question is 'what evidence is the opinion based on'. Many times, the atheist/non-Christian belief is based on tangible and objective evidence, and the Christian/JW/Mormon opinion is based on unsupported claims.

You evidently do not know what bias is...

bi·as

prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair

bias - Google Search

 

[RAMOSS]

You evidently do not know what bias is...



bias - Google Search

Well, I am using the psychological term.. which you can find explained here >>> Bias | Psychology Today

For example, you are biased against anything that is against your intepretation of the bible, such as the concept of the trinity, Jesus being God, and you have a bias to the NT being absoltuely true.

 

[Daisy]

Well, I am using the psychological term.. which you can find explained here >>> Bias | Psychology Today

For example, you are biased against anything that is against your intepretation of the bible, such as the concept of the trinity, Jesus being God, and you have a bias to the NT being absoltuely true.

Bias is bias...:roll:

 

[RAMOSS]

Bias is bias...:roll:

You got it.

 

[Daisy]

You got it.

Yes, you do...

 

[RAMOSS]

Yes, you do...

Most people do. Of course, some people's bias are based on being rational, others are based on the unsupported claims of what ever religion they are in.

 

[devildavid]

Most people do. Of course, some people's bias are based on being rational, others are based on the unsupported claims of what ever religion they are in.

Being rational is a bias?

 

[RAMOSS]

Being rational is a bias?

Yes, yes it is. There are also biases that people THINK are rational, yet are not.

 

[devildavid]

Yes, yes it is. There are also biases that people THINK are rational, yet are not.

Then it really isn't rational. Is there a bias bias?

 

[tosca1]

Originally Posted by Somerville
So, even though Paul in his epistles was ranting about the false teachers who were causing problems in some of the early gathering, you have never understood the problem.

OK, a little education for the knowledgeable Christian. Writing toward the end of the 4th century, Epiphanius stated that there were more than 80 different groups which called themselves Christian. After the orthodox beliefs became dominant owing to support by the Empire, these 'heretical' groups were erased from history, though we have learned a bit by document discoveries during the 20th century, such as the Nag Hammadi collection found by an Egyptian farmer in 1945.

A few of the early churches:
Ebionites, the earliest group that might be seen as Christian, those trying to live as they understood the Messiah had taught while at the same time adhering to the traditional Jewish religious practices, which included male circumcision. James the Just was the leader of this group in Jerusalem.

Gnostics, those with knowledge, from the Greek gnosis. They saw the Tanakh as the work of an inferior deity and that only the Christ could lead the believers back to worship of the true God. To reach true salvation required a special knowledge that could only be understood by those who were willing to study the appropriate texts. As with other early beliefs, we know little about the Gnostics except for the attacks upon them by early orthodox writers such as Origen and Tertullian.

Docetics, a belief mirrored in John 1 that Jesus existed before becoming human. There were several groups falling into this category: those who believed the Jesus they knew was only an image, what we would call a hologram, then there were those who believed Jesus entered into a human body at the time of the baptism by John and left the human during the crucifixion. Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34.
One offspring of the Docetics were those we know as Adoptionists, what they called themselves we don't know. The Jesus who walked the roads of Judea and preached was a human who had been 'adopted' by God and who really did die on the cross. The Jesus seen after the crucifixion was the image and not a physical being.

Marcionites, created by Marcion of Sinope. "Marcion believed that Jesus was the savior sent by God, and Paul the Apostle was his chief apostle, but he rejected the Hebrew Bible and the God of Israel. Marcionists believed that the wrathful Hebrew God was a separate and lower entity than the all-forgiving God of the New Testament.

Marcionism, similar to Gnosticism, depicted the God of the Old Testament as a tyrant or demiurge (see also God as the Devil). Marcion was the son of a bishop of Sinope in Pontus. About the middle of the second century (140–155) he traveled to Rome, where he joined the Syrian Gnostic Cerdo.[2]

Marcion's canon, possibly the first Christian canon ever compiled, consisted of eleven books: a gospel consisting of ten sections drawn from the Gospel of Luke; and ten Pauline epistles"

Arians, believed that Jesus was neither man nor God but instead more of a heavenly being greater than any angel but less than the supreme deity. Not quite adoptionism but almost - because what true deity could actually suffer a physical crucifixion. Origen of Alexandria, seen as one of the earliest expositors of Christian theology, wrote that Jesus was less than his Father, a belief of many early Christians before the development of trinitarian theology.

It's no secret that there were heretics at the time - Paul had talked about them.

What's your point now about those heretic "Christian" religion you listed above?
Are they any different to other heretic "christian" religions today?

 

[tosca1]

The reply to my list of early Christian sects was the following


My answer
The matter of interpolations is far more difficult to discern though there are instances where modern scientific methods have been able to find erasures and interpolations in ancient manuscripts.

Now changes from the oldest manuscripts that are known today just require a bit of comparison.

The two oldest 'complete' New Testaments are found in the Codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, both of which are dated to the first half of the 4th century CE. The Codex Alexandrinus is believed to have been written during the 5th century. All three have multiple differences from the text most Christians know today.

Though there may be differences, nothing though has actually changed with the core message conveyed.

"In any event, none of [the original manuscripts of the books of the Bible] now survive. What do survive are copies made over the course of centuries, or more accurately, copies of the copies of the copies, some 5,366 of them in the Greek language alone, that date from the second century down to the sixteenth. Strikingly, with the exception of the smallest fragments, no two of these copies are exactly alike in their particulars. No one knows how many differences, or variant readings, occur among the surviving witnesses, but they must number in the hundreds of thousands."
The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, Bart Ehrman, pp. 27

:roll:

So he said. Lol. Since you're offering Bart Ehrman as your source, we have to know who Ehrman is!


Ehrman is a contemporary of William Lane Craig, and both of them were under the same professor in the same college that they both attended!
Here is William Lane Craig on Ehrman:


"The Many Errors and Flaws of Bart Ehrman (William Lane Craig)

Historian and scholar William Lane Craig offers a refutation of Bart Ehrman, a critic of Christianity who is often mistaken as a historian".

 

[tosca1]

Examples:
Codex Vaticanus: Verses not found in this codex that are present in the KJV
Matthew 12:47;16:2b-3;*17:21;*18:11;*23:14;
Mark 7:16; 9:44.46;*11:26;*15:28
Luke 17:36,22:43–44
John 5:4,Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53–8:11);
Acts 8:37; 15:34, 24:7; 28:29;
Romans 16:24.
1 Peter 5:3.

Can you be specific and actually state the differences in each of those differences you stated? It's kinda cumbersome to look them up.

Here's one that I found: regarding Resurrection of Jesus from the tomb. Mark 16:1-20
King James version is a lot longer than the Codex Sinaiticus. The Codex wrote only up to verse 8......however, it confirms the same thing: that Jesus had risen from the dead.



Mark 16

6 And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him.

7 But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.

8 And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.


Like I've said - nothing really changed the core message. Both versions are stating that Jesus had risen from the dead.

 

[tosca1]

The reply to my list of early Christian sects was the following


My answer
The matter of interpolations is far more difficult to discern though there are instances where modern scientific methods have been able to find erasures and interpolations in ancient manuscripts.

:roll:

Do I hear Ehrman in there, Sommerville?

And yet, the accuracy of the wording of the original New Testament is now 99% established - which means, only 1% remains uncertain!

How many Greek words in the New Testament? about 138,000!
So, only about 1,400 words remain uncertain today! Do they change anything as far as core message go? NO!

That doesn't come nowhere anywhere near what atheists or Ehrman are trying to say: that the whole New Testament is incredibly uncertain
because it is incredibly corrupt!

Ehrman has been debunked.

 

[RAMOSS]

Then it really isn't rational. Is there a bias bias?

That is being redundant.

 

[tosca1]

Thinking about what I wrote in the bolded sentence, I realised that it is poorly phrased. What I should have written is more like this -- These and other verses missing from the oldest texts were evidently viewed by the interpolators and editors as providing insufficient justification for the beliefs of the group we might designate proto-orthodox. We also have multiple texts, many dated to the 2nd century, which were later deemed heretical as they supported the beliefs of the Gnostics, Docetics and other early sects. Some were declared non-canonical but useful in establishing worship practices while others were so heretical, various bishops ordered all copies destroyed.

However......missing verses can be supported elsewhere in the Bible!
Like the example you gave of the missing part of The Lord's Prayer.


The missing verses from the codex as compared to the longer version.

The Lord’s Prayer (Matthew 6:9–13)
Father, Hallowed be thy name,
Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so upon earth.
Give us day by day our daily bread
And forgive us our sins, as we ourselves also forgive every one that is indebted to us.
And bring us not into temptation.



and here's the addition in the KJV version:


.........but deliver us from evil:
For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.





Let me ask you:

What part of the longer version of the Lord's Prayer contradicts, is incompatible.......... or isn't supported anywhere in the Bible?



I can see support for the added deliverance from evil:

Ehesians 6:10-18
10Finally, be strong in the LORD and in his mighty power. 11Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes.

12For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world
and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.



1 Peter 5:8. "Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour."



As for the rest, isn't it more of glorification of God (as in the very first sentences of the prayer)?

How is it changed, really?

 

[Somerville]

It's no secret that there were heretics at the time - Paul had talked about them.

What's your point now about those heretic "Christian" religion you listed above?
Are they any different to other heretic "christian" religions today?

The earliest gathering which called itself followers of the Christ were those we know as the Jerusalem church under the leadership of James, "Brother of the Lord", and Peter. They believed that only those who followed all the laws of the Pentateuch could be true believers.

Saul, who renamed himself "Paul" after his 'experience' on the road to Damascus (Acts 9) or was it the 'experience' on the same road that we find in 2 Corinthians 12. Nevermind, we all 'know' the Bible is inerrant.

I would say that today's Christianity is quite different from the early Jerusalem 'Christianity', of course, there is also the fact that Judaism at that time was also split into several groups.

What we don't know today, because the winners destroyed the evidence that would tell us, is why there were so many early splits in the beliefs of the earliest followers. IF Paul was preaching the story of the Christ within just a few years of the resurrection, why were those who said he didn't know what he was talking about able to convince people that they were the ones who knew the TRUE Christ? Paul himself wrote: But when God, who had set me apart before I was born and called me through his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son to me,[e] so that I might proclaim him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with any human being, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were already apostles before me, but I went away at once into Arabia, and afterwards I returned to Damascus.

Three years passed from the 'experience' to Paul's first meeting with the leaders in Jerusalem - Why? We don't know. But three years in a time of turmoil in the Empire and Judea was a ripe environment for a group of non-literate preachers to wander around telling others what they 'remembered' about their time with Jesus.

 

[tosca1]

Continuing my 'attack' on those who believe the Christianity they know today has been around since the very beginning.

In the earliest gatherings of those who followed Jesus, women were seen as the equals of the male believers. By the middle of the 2nd century, the sect which became the Church were beginning to attack the idea of female equality.

The earliest copies we have of the Pauline letter to the Corinthians don't have the following verses: 1 Corinthians 14:33-36

1 Corinthians 14:33-36
As in all the churches of the saints, 34 women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says.
35 If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.
36 Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only ones it has reached?




There's the key phrase: THE LAW! What law was Paul referring to?


Gen 2: 18-23
Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him." Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.
The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him. So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place.
The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.
The man said, "This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man."


1 Corinthians 11:1-34
1) Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ. 2) Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.
3) But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.

In virtually all cases, Paul uses the term "law" to refer to rules or regulations with a prescriptive intent, and it can be substantiated that this usually meant the Mosaic Covenant or Scripture (the Old Testament).

a) The phrase "the law says" in 1 Corinthians 14:34 is found in only two other instances, Romans 3:19 (see Rom 3:10-19) and 1 Corinthians 9:8 (see 1 Cor 9:8-10).


In attempting to understand 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, one is forced to reconcile and harmonize their interpretation with 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. Because Paul never clearly states the problems afflicting the Church at Corinth, the interpreter is left with the difficulty of examining the problematic attitudes Paul addresses for clues of the root problems.

One clue is found in two passages where Paul uses the Greek term "aischron" which means "shame, dishonorable, disgrace."
For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head. (1 Corinthians 11:6)

If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church. (1 Corinthians 14:35)
In 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, Paul refers to man as "head" and in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, he speaks of "submission." Paul is clearly concerned with what is shameful for women within the context of how they are to relate to men of the church.

In the case of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, as Paul emphasizes the headship of men, the issue is doing something that would dishonor the role of men as leaders of the church. It isn’t that women are praying and prophesying in public, but whether their dress and demeanor affirm the headship of men.

In a similar fashion, the Corinthian problem alluded to in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is not whether women have the ability to speak, but whether what they were saying was appropriate and consistent with the demeanor he spoke of in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16.

Examining the authenticity of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35… a review of various interpretations


continuation.......

 

[COTO]

Continuing my 'attack' on those who believe the Christianity they know today has been around since the very beginning.

I agree with you that a study of biblical hermeneutics isn't inherently an attack on Christianity. (Quite the opposite, such studies help us establish the truth of the Word of God, discerning the wheat from the chaff.)

You do have to carefully explain, however, that you're not using the study as the basis to (metaphorically) throw scripture away or conclude that the truth of what was written and what can't be reasonably deduced. This is, e.g., MrWonka's deeply flawed argument.

It's also important to emphasize the remarkable degree of agreement between texts, lest people get the mistaken expression that contested verses, words, orderings, etc. are the exception and not the rule.

I'm not sure if this is the basis on which "It's just me." is criticizing you, but it's my $0.02 nevertheless.

 

[tosca1]

Continuing my 'attack' on those who believe the Christianity they know today has been around since the very beginning.

In the earliest gatherings of those who followed Jesus, women were seen as the equals of the male believers. By the middle of the 2nd century, the sect which became the Church were beginning to attack the idea of female equality.

The earliest copies we have of the Pauline letter to the Corinthians don't have the following verses: 1 Corinthians 14:33-36

As in all the churches of the saints, 34 women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says. 35 If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. 36 Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only ones it has reached?​

In some early texts, these verses are found following verse 40.

Some scholars see this interpolation as an early effort to reduce the role of women in the Church. Even so, there are some verses which show that women did have a major position in various congregations as may be read in Romans 16

1 I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church at Cenchreae, 2 so that you may welcome her in the Lord as is fitting for the saints, and help her in whatever she may require from you, for she has been a benefactor of many and of myself as well.

6 Greet Mary, who has worked very hard among you. 7 Greet Andronicus and Junia,[c] my relatives[d] who were in prison with me; they are prominent among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.​

The verses in Romans 16 along with the non-canonical Acts of Paul and Thecla were used by some of the early heterodox sects as justification for women being elevated to the highest positions in their gatherings.

By the late 2nd century, we have Iranaeus writing his Adversus Haerases as the first complete attack on the heterodox sects, which is kind of support that there were multiple early differences in Christianity.

continuation...….



1 Cor 11 from the codex sinaiticus support that.


1 Corinthians 11
1 Become imitators of me, as I also am of Christ.
2 But I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things, and hold fast the traditions as I delivered them to you.
3 But I wish you to know that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of every woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God.
Etc......


1 Corinthians - The New Testament Codex Sinaiticus


So...…..

In a similar fashion, the Corinthian problem alluded to in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is not whether women have the ability to speak, but whether what they were saying was appropriate and consistent with the demeanor he spoke of in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16.

Examining the authenticity of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35… a review of various interpretations


And, that's supported and proven.....after all, didn't women prophesy and held positions in the early church?


See?
You can pick and choose verses that are either missing or added - but like I've said, they're supported elsewhere in the Bible! :shrug:



Therefore...….

Your attacks mean nothing! They're pathetic! They're based on ignorance of the Scriptures.

 

[Somerville]

Though there may be differences, nothing though has actually changed with the core message conveyed.


:roll:

So he said. Lol. Since you're offering Bart Ehrman as your source, we have to know who Ehrman is!


Ehrman is a contemporary of William Lane Craig, and both of them were under the same professor in the same college that they both attended!
Here is William Lane Craig on Ehrman:


"The Many Errors and Flaws of Bart Ehrman (William Lane Craig)

Historian and scholar William Lane Craig offers a refutation of Bart Ehrman, a critic of Christianity who is often mistaken as a historian".

(cut video link)

That "core message" is THE reason the text has been changed - "corrupted"

Yep, Craig and Ehrman both attended Wheaton College and Ehrman at that time and Craig still today were evangelical "True Believers". Ehrman was such a devout Christian that he was surprised at just how 'liberal' he found Wheaton College faculty and students to be after he had attended the Moody Bible Institute for three years. At Wheaton, Ehrman began his studies of the New Testament in Greek and with the encouragement of a professor at Wheaton, he decided to go to Princeton Theological Seminary where he could study under Professor Bruce Metzger, who was seen as the world's pre-eminent New Testament scholar. As he studied the Greek New Testament and the Hebrew Tanakh, Ehrman began to question, at first his evangelical,"fundamentalist" beliefs and then Christianity itself. Professor Craig is still a fundamentalist believer in the inerrancy of the Bible and has debated Prof. Ehrman several times. I find it rather interesting that Craig can produce a video saying Ehrman is not a historian but was unable to do so while face to face before an audience. In fact, Prof. Craig always tries to use his theology as arguments against history.

 

[Somerville]

continuation...….



1 Cor 11 from the codex sinaiticus support that.


1 Corinthians 11
1 Become imitators of me, as I also am of Christ.
2 But I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things, and hold fast the traditions as I delivered them to you.
3 But I wish you to know that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of every woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God.
Etc......


1 Corinthians - The New Testament Codex Sinaiticus


So...…..



Examining the authenticity of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35… a review of various interpretations


And, that's supported and proven.....after all, didn't women prophesy and held positions in the early church?


See?
You can pick and choose verses that are either missing or added - but like I've said, they're supported elsewhere in the Bible! :shrug:



Therefore...….

Your attacks mean nothing! They're pathetic! They're based on ignorance of the Scriptures.

Good grief, you apparently can't even comprehend an evangelical's attempted defence of one serious contradiction in one epistle. "one is forced to reconcile and harmonize their interpretation" instead of looking at the passages and saying "Whoa! Doesn't this look like an interpolation in order to defend changes in church leadership as the faith grew?" Ya know, kinda the point of this thread.

My "attacks" are meant to spur a bit of thinking on the part of those who read what I and others have posted here. 'Thinking' seems to be something that some find to be a bit difficult.

Using the Bible to support the Bible is not the way forward.

 

[Somerville]

However......missing verses can be supported elsewhere in the Bible!
Like the example you gave of the missing part of The Lord's Prayer.


The missing verses from the codex as compared to the longer version.

The Lord’s Prayer (Matthew 6:9–13)
Father, Hallowed be thy name,
Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so upon earth.
Give us day by day our daily bread
And forgive us our sins, as we ourselves also forgive every one that is indebted to us.
And bring us not into temptation.



and here's the addition in the KJV version:


.........but deliver us from evil:
For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.





Let me ask you:

What part of the longer version of the Lord's Prayer contradicts, is incompatible.......... or isn't supported anywhere in the Bible?



I can see support for the added deliverance from evil:

Ehesians 6:10-18
10Finally, be strong in the LORD and in his mighty power. 11Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes.

12For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world
and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.



1 Peter 5:8. "Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour."



As for the rest, isn't it more of glorification of God (as in the very first sentences of the prayer)?

How is it changed, really?

Looks like you are totally 'missing the point'. "Corruption of the text" can and does have many reasons. Reasons ranging from simple scribal errors to deliberate interpolations and revisions to support the "orthodox" view and to remove support for the various "heretical" beliefs. We simply don't know all of the time because we DON'T HAVE THE ORIGINALS, As Ehrman has said, we have copies of copies of copies of copies for an unknown number of transmissions.

Yes, one can find 'support' for the theological views one holds by going to other verses, but that is exactly the point being made about 'corruption' and the differences and contradictions which are throughout the text - Why are there differences in what is supposed to be an inerrant writing?

Why did Paul use Genesis 2 to support the subordination of women to men? Is the call for the submission of women original or are these passages interpolations How much of that requirement for submission was societal and not scriptural? What's wrong with Genesis 1, other than the fact it's not the same Creation tale?

NRSV Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.”

So God created humankind in his image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.​

KJV And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.​

 

[it's just me]

I agree with you that a study of biblical hermeneutics isn't inherently an attack on Christianity. (Quite the opposite, such studies help us establish the truth of the Word of God, discerning the wheat from the chaff.)

You do have to carefully explain, however, that you're not using the study as the basis to (metaphorically) throw scripture away or conclude that the truth of what was written and what can't be reasonably deduced. This is, e.g., MrWonka's deeply flawed argument.

It's also important to emphasize the remarkable degree of agreement between texts, lest people get the mistaken expression that contested verses, words, orderings, etc. are the exception and not the rule.

I'm not sure if this is the basis on which "It's just me." is criticizing you, but it's my $0.02 nevertheless.

He claimed that several versions of Christianity existed in the first century, I pointed out that those heresies had been exposed and discarded even before the Nicene council, to wit he replied that history had been written by the winners, as if that made it wrong.

 

[Daisy]

Good grief, you apparently can't even comprehend an evangelical's attempted defence of one serious contradiction in one epistle. "one is forced to reconcile and harmonize their interpretation" instead of looking at the passages and saying "Whoa! Doesn't this look like an interpolation in order to defend changes in church leadership as the faith grew?" Ya know, kinda the point of this thread.

My "attacks" are meant to spur a bit of thinking on the part of those who read what I and others have posted here. 'Thinking' seems to be something that some find to be a bit difficult.

Using the Bible to support the Bible is not the way forward.

I disagree...when one considers there are 66 books, written by 40 something different men, over a period of 1,600 years, and yet those writings are in full harmony with one another, and focus on one theme throughout their writings...God's kingdom...it most certainly is a valid reason to use the Bible to support the Bible...no other book can make those claims...for good reason...the writings are inspired by God...