In a recent discussion, an habitual doubter repeated some of what I consider myths about the oldest surviving "complete Bible." Primary among these is the inference that because it is the oldest collection of (virtually) the whole Bible, but omits a few key verses (primarily regarding Jesus' post resurrection) it casts the whole Gospel message into serious doubt.
Having briefly researched it via the link provided by the answerer, it is clear that the inferences are very misleading, and merely underscore the old adage that "a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest".
There are many many manuscripts that are significantly older than the Sinaiticus Codex that do contain the missing verses, and the implication that the gospels were "sexed up" with fictional miracles at a much later date is groundless anti-christian rhetoric.
It is interesting that atheists often accuse believers of having closed minds, when in fact (almost by definition) their minds are far more closed, and deliberately blind, than any body's. Most will remain this way, but I pray not all. For Christians I would say take everything they say with a huge pinch of salt, and do a little research on the subjects before being discouraged by their misleading poison and half truths.
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AhaqDq9ifXicwPu_3aFaRi8gBgx.;_ylv=3?qid=20100512130308AAkaT9z&show=7#profile-info-0wRG3Cccaa
Maurog III - there are thousands of manuscripts significantly pre-dating the Sinaiticus. Not fragments, but entire "books" of the Bible. And these do include the verses in question.
The Sinaiticus is positively modern compared to the 1st - 3rd century record. It is simply the oldest compilation of the entirity plus some apochrypha.
So the fact that in compiling the book, the scribes of this monastery or sect omitted some elements that perhaps did not agree with their beliefs/agenda is of little relevance to our key beliefs. This is a matter of simple logic.
Having briefly researched it via the link provided by the answerer, it is clear that the inferences are very misleading, and merely underscore the old adage that "a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest".
There are many many manuscripts that are significantly older than the Sinaiticus Codex that do contain the missing verses, and the implication that the gospels were "sexed up" with fictional miracles at a much later date is groundless anti-christian rhetoric.
It is interesting that atheists often accuse believers of having closed minds, when in fact (almost by definition) their minds are far more closed, and deliberately blind, than any body's. Most will remain this way, but I pray not all. For Christians I would say take everything they say with a huge pinch of salt, and do a little research on the subjects before being discouraged by their misleading poison and half truths.
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AhaqDq9ifXicwPu_3aFaRi8gBgx.;_ylv=3?qid=20100512130308AAkaT9z&show=7#profile-info-0wRG3Cccaa
Maurog III - there are thousands of manuscripts significantly pre-dating the Sinaiticus. Not fragments, but entire "books" of the Bible. And these do include the verses in question.
The Sinaiticus is positively modern compared to the 1st - 3rd century record. It is simply the oldest compilation of the entirity plus some apochrypha.
So the fact that in compiling the book, the scribes of this monastery or sect omitted some elements that perhaps did not agree with their beliefs/agenda is of little relevance to our key beliefs. This is a matter of simple logic.