My absolute favorite read. It’s in our recommendation list.
Yes, if changes from the original transcript were propagated in the period where things were in flux, and the "settled" version included those changes, it absolutely changes future translations.
This book is a worthwhile read on how we can see and find many of these changes and even reverse some of them by comparing different manuscripts and through knowledge of the original languages and their sources: https://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060859512
I recommend it, if you're curious about the topic.
Bart D Ehrman Misquoting Jesus and Jesus Interrupted would be a valuable place to start.
There are also some videos on youtube of related lectures or debates.
Edit, I would add Dale Allison's book, The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus.
How do you know it recorded a ministry of any person, period?
Do you have proof of this alleged characters death, burial, and resurrection? If not, I assert Rand Al'Thor as the avatar of the creator.
Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why https://www.amazon.com/dp/0060859512/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_GsRiDbSWBQ8GX
> No, they don't.
> But we might just have to agree to disagree about that. In any case...
No, the only thing I'll agree to is that both you and Ehrman are totally wrong.
>Either way, let me just ask you: does faith in the God of the Bible produce any measurable (by a non-believer) effect that faith in some other god does not? If so, what is it? If not, then in what sense can such a god be said to exist?
You're asking the wrong question. The only effect my faith in God produces is my personal salvation, which is not testable. But is there good evidence that the God of the Bible is the one true God? Yes, there is very good evidence of that. One of the most powerful of these is fulfilled prophecy.
Posted by: K******5
> The same techniques that lead us to suspect the ending of Mark might not be genuine show us that the vast majority of the New Testament exists largely unchanged from the original manuscripts, save for the odd spelling error.
No, they don't.
But we might just have to agree to disagree about that. In any case...
> I believe only in the God of the Bible.
With or without Mark 16:17-18?
Either way, let me just ask you: does faith in the God of the Bible produce any measurable (by a non-believer) effect that faith in some other god does not? If so, what is it? If not, then in what sense can such a god be said to exist?
Posted by: l****r
You're asking the wrong question. The main effect my faith in God produces is my personal salvation, which is not testable. But is there good evidence that the God of the Bible is the one true God? Yes, there is very good evidence of that. One of the most powerful of these is fulfilled prophecy.
>The main scholarly and intellectual tradition in Western Europe was operated and controlled by the Catholic Church
For territories said war culture conquered, for indoctrination. As Christianity depends on illiteracy and ignorance? Yes, you're right. Same "Universities" say the same thing, using 'savage' as thats key word for slavery and colonization for the RCC.
Citation on said celebration of ignorance over education is somewhere on page 50ish in this book, which I know you don't care if I citation anyway.
We can see how much they actually cared about education when it came to Gallileo.
Is /r/badhistory Christianized history? I don't want to waste my time by reading it.
>So I guess you never heard how that story goes?
According to whose interpretation? There's more than just one, because, like most of these religions they depend upon syncretism and re-interpreting 'divine revelation' over and over again.
Example: You're ignoring the ambiguous word, 'all' being fulfilled, -- which clearly, the law was not and god's eternal promise to "Israel" is broken otherwise, making God a liar. Thus the end times cults, who are just as right as you can be -- by re-interpreting that divine revelation the way they want it.
>But seriously, Jesus directly undermines OT cleanliness laws in chapter 15 by saying that what a person eats doesn't make them unclean. He also did things that went against the letter of the OT law like "working" on the Sabbath. If you reductionist interpretation of Jesus' comments on fulfilling the law was true, the author would have been contradicting himself within mere pages of chapter 5. That does not seem like a plausible we explanation.
That because the most plausible and occums razor explanation is the fact that the bible is a work of pious fiction and we should expect direct contradictions (as we know and now observe easily on multiple websites). Not your explanation.
If there is a creator, or creators plural, it's not a geocentric/hymen/male focused one.
We know the NT has been edited, changed, redacted, with more overall changes in the NT total, than words combined. 
Something you refuse to accept. Protip: It's a crock of shit.
Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why by Bart D. Ehrman -this is the place to start with New Testament history
The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts by Israel Finkelstein & Neil Asher Silberman
I don't know how into learning about this kind of stuff you are, but I read a book about the legitimacy of the bible which I thought was really amazing.
It's called "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart D. Ehrman. The author was a very religious man who was going to become a priest/minister. He studied greek and latin so that he could read the bible in the original languages. As he began to trace back translations of the bible and how it has changed over the centuries, he completely lost his faith and now writes about the bible from a nonreligious perspective. Very interesting.
Ehrman has a very nice overview of the different techniques used to trace the origin of manuscripts, the bible included. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible, and Why .
Some of his other books may also be of interest. He's a historian of religion specializing in bibles and ancient scripture. Very readable, reasonable length books.