Does it Matter That Scribes Changed the Bible or That it has Contradictions

Instead of saying there is a religion called "Christianity," it might more helpful to say there is a "Christian System." The Christian system works like this. Believers are expected to always defend the Bible no matter how much evidence there is questioning what it says.

When there are conflicting accounts of the Crucifixion, one is to say they all happened. When there are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus alive after he was dead one is to claim there were multiple eye witnesses.

For the thousands of variations that came along from thousands of scribes editing as the copied, the standard rebuttal is to say there were changes but no important changes. Here the question of the word "important" is, well, important.

For example, the personality of Jesus is different in different parts of the Bible. In the Gospel of Mark he is an angry man. In other places not so. Also in the Gospel of Mark the disciples do not see Jesus after he is alive. These issues will not change believers, but to many scholars they are important.

We've discussed the Trinity here several times. The Trinity is explained only once, in the book of John. Scholars believe that passage was not in the original writing but added much later. This alteration of original writing will not change the views of believers but is it unimportant? I think not.

That details of the faith changed over time cannot be blown off as totally unimportant. Believers have no choice but to defend that which cannot be defended.