More proof that the Bible is just a book.

BBC News has a story about the Codex Sinaiticus, which is believed to be the oldest known Bible. A digitizing and translation project is under way that will make the Codex available to anyone online, and is scheduled for completion in July of 2009.

Unfortunately for our Fundie friends, the Codex differs significantly from the modern-day Bible.

From the article, here are some of the discrepancies:

The Codex - and other early manuscripts - do not mention the ascension of Jesus into heaven, and omit key references to the Resurrection, which the Archbishop of Canterbury has said is essential for Christian belief.

Other differences concern how Jesus behaved. In one passage of the Codex, Jesus is said to be "angry" as he healed a leper, whereas the modern text records him as healing with "compassion".

Also missing is the story of the woman taken in adultery and about to be stoned - until Jesus rebuked the Pharisees (a Jewish sect), inviting anyone without sin to cast the first stone.

Nor are there words of forgiveness from the cross. Jesus does not say "Father forgive them for they know not what they do".

In addition, the Codex contains two books in the New Testament - the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas - that are conspicuously absent from the modern-day Bible.

All of this raises the obvious question: how exactly can the Bible be "the inerrant Word of God", when there are such obvious differences? Which Bible is the inerrant one, and how can that choice be justified?

If there are any theists lurking, I'd appreciate hearing from you on this one.

Great New Book

I was at the library today and there on the shelves was a fantastic new autobiography: Still Growing by Kirk Cameron. It looks great, especially the "Teen Atheist" chapter and the reading list. I want everyone here to rush right out and either buy it, or get it from your local library. Now!