»

New Chick Tract

More of a tangential tract complaining about Bibles with alleged missing verses.

About Taner Edis

Professor of physics at Truman State University

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/03034292023591747601 PersonalFailure

    So . . . angels have really big hands? Interesting.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/10563649474540441597 atimetorend
  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/10776020782944629808 Jay

    Ah, Jack Chick, always good for a laugh. Unfortunately, those tracts are very popular at the grassroots level- it's not uncommon for me to see them lying around in bookstores and libraries.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/07559081710058635050 Pulse

    Dear Mr. Chick Tract,

    Please give equal angry commentary to those items that have been added to the Bible as you have given to those items that have been deleted from the Bible. Of the three warnings from God that you quoted, only the first and last warn against taking away from God's words, but all three clearly protest human additions.

    Here are some suggested items for you next Chick Tract.

    When Revelation 22 was written, Mark chapter 16 ended at verse 8. Clearly verses 9-20 resulted in many plagues being cast upon their author.

    When Proverbs 30 was written, Jesus was not yet alive. Clearly Jesus and all those who wrote Gospels and letters about him were reproved and found liars.

    Deuteronomy 12 was written, it was part of only five books (the Pentateuch or Torah) that made up the sum total of all of God's words. Clearly the entire rest of the Bible goes against God's early command.

    I look forward to reading you next publication.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/01475980562742243007 pboyfloyd

    Geez, I wonder which one ol' Jack considers the original 'Word of God' and by what criteria he considers himself 'correct'?

    What a load of horseshit.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/05211466026535549638 Bradley Bowen

    My oh my, what a shit head! The first example given of a "publisher" deleting words from the Bible is the absence of the word "yet" from John 7:8-10. No publisher made any such decision.

    This was a decision made by textual scholars and translators who study the existing ancient greek manuscripts from which our English NT is derived. The evidence from the available greek manuscripts is conflicting on this point. Some ancient manuscripts have the greek word for "not" and other ancient manuscripts have a slightly different word which means "not yet". Most scholars side with the more difficult reading (a basic maxim of textual scholarship) which is "not". That is why so many translations "leave out" the word "yet".

    This majority of scholars includes even conservative evangelical commentators, such as Leon Morris, who in his commentary The Gospel of John (revised edition), states, "If the original read ovπw [Omicron, Upsilon, Pi, Omega = not yet], why should anyone alter it to ovx [Omicron, Upsilon, Chi = not]? I cannot find any convincing answer, so I incline to the reading ovx." (p.354).

    The only way to avoid adding words or subtracting words from the original greek text of the NT is for textual scholars to carefully analyze the available ancient greek manuscripts, compare them to identify differences, formulate plausible hypotheses about how the differences came about, and then judge which reading is earlier on the basis of criteria that textual scholars have developed over the past few centuries (such as to prefer the more difficult reading).

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/05211466026535549638 Bradley Bowen

    Correction:

    The title of the commentary by Leon Morris is: The Gospel According to John.