Errors in the Bible

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 10:55 AM
link   
I have heard many people say that the Bible is full of errors due to incorrect translations, additions at a later date, and deletions at a later date. What is the consensus on this? How much of it is true?
If it IS true, then how would a Christian know what is true and what is false? How can they believe anything?
I also read about a religious conference around 300BC(?) where the Christian leaders decided which books to keep as part of the bible and which part to discard. They also decided on the divinity of Jesus(?), and "borrowed" dozens of myths from different religions to encourage converts. How much of this is true? I also read that Paul distorted alot so as to convert more and to further his own agenda. Is this true?
Are there Christians who practice some sort of "Original Christianity"? How can Christians be sure of what they read and believe if there has been so much error? Are there some parts of the Bible more suspect than others?
Thank you for your time.




posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by babloyi
I have heard many people say that the Bible is full of errors due to incorrect translations, additions at a later date, and deletions at a later date. What is the consensus on this? How much of it is true? If it IS true, then how would a Christian know what is true and what is false? How can they believe anything?

Some of the Bible translations are corrupted. If you want the original, you'd better learn som ancient Greek. But you don't need to do that, because there is a good translation of the original manuscript in English, that is the King James Version (1611).


Originally posted by babloyi
I also read about a religious conference around 300BC(?) where the Christian leaders decided which books to keep as part of the bible and which part to discard. They also decided on the divinity of Jesus(?), and "borrowed" dozens of myths from different religions to encourage converts. How much of this is true?


In Nicea in 325 AD the collection of books to be a part of the Bible were selected.

What is true about the divinity of Jesus Christ, is that he is the Son of God, that is: He is God Himself incarnated as a human being. You have probably heard people say that the story of Jesus is a copy from ancient myths. That is wrong! The fact is actually the opposite. The myths are actually derived from the Old Testament prophecies about Jesus! The virgin birth for instance, was prophecied hundreds of years before the birth of Jesus Christ.


Originally posted by babloyi
I also read that Paul distorted alot so as to convert more and to further his own agenda. Is this true?

What would that be? His writings are perfectly in harmony with the gospels and the prophets.


Originally posted by babloyi
Are there Christians who practice some sort of "Original Christianity"? How can Christians be sure of what they read and believe if there has been so much error? Are there some parts of the Bible more suspect than others?
Thank you for your time.

There are people trying, I guess. The original Christianity is to love God, and to love your neighbour. To love God is to believe in Jesus Christ, that He is the Son of God and that He died for our sins.



posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 06:42 PM
link   
The Bible is full of errors. Some are probably from bad translations. Most though, are from lack of knowledge at the time. Books written by different people. Discrepencies due to lack of contenuity. Man, there are probably 10 thousand horribly bad "mistakes" in the bible.

For instance: Try to read all 4 gospels in the new testament. Then tell me what actually happened on the day jesus rose from the dead. Tell me one story...without disregarding three other Gospels. Tell me how many apostles there were. Tell me whether or not you can see the face of God and live. Tell me whether or not we carry original sin (this is a good one).

You can't because it says one thing in one place, and a different thing somewhere else. It isnt all translation. It is more like trying to tell a giant lie over and over again...and keeping all your facts straight.



posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 07:14 PM
link   
Well, for starters, in English versions of the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament), the Hebrew word "m'khashepah" is often translated as "witch." The word actually means a female sorcerer who uses spoken curses to harm other people.
Similarly, in the English translations of the Christian Scriptures (New Testament) the Greek word "pharmakia" is often translated as "witch." It actually means a person who poisons other humans through the administration of toxic potions.

Check this site out
Forgeries in the Bible
www.religioustolerance.org...



posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 08:24 PM
link   
Greetings all,

otherwise wrote: "Some of the Bible translations are corrupted. If you want the original, you'd better learn som ancient Greek. "

No.
There are no originals - just later copies, all different from each other.

otherwise wrote: "But you don't need to do that, because there is a good translation of the original manuscript in English, that is the King James Version (1611). "

No.
The KJV is probably the worst translation of all of them. It was based on a few late manuscripts and has all sorts of weird translations.


otherwise wrote: "In Nicea in 325 AD the collection of books to be a part of the Bible were selected."

No.
The Council of Nicea did NOT chose the books of the Bible at all.
It dealt with Arius and the date of Easter, mainly.
The Creed and Canons produced at the council STILL EXISTS - you can read it here:
www.newadvent.org...

There are also numerous accounts of this meeting, you can read an excellent article about how the council did NOT decide the books of the bible here:
www.tertullian.org...


This is one of a multitude of false claims which turn up in NT studies - it AMAZES me that people can repeat this.


The rest of your post is just as wrong as the first parts...


Iasion


[edit on 2-1-2005 by Iasion]



posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by LadyV
Well, for starters, in English versions of the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament), the Hebrew word "m'khashepah" is often translated as "witch." The word actually means a female sorcerer who uses spoken curses to harm other people.


Please tell me how female sorcerer and witch differ.


Originally posted by LadyV
Similarly, in the English translations of the Christian Scriptures (New Testament) the Greek word "pharmakia" is often translated as "witch." It actually means a person who poisons other humans through the administration of toxic potions.


'Pharmakia' means more than that. It is the Greek word where we get the English word 'Pharmacy.' As you might guess, what the Bible termed a witch was someone who induced visions and such in people through the use of drugs. I am sure poisons came under their pervue, but definitely not the only thing they did.

LadyV, I like the fact that you have been researching the language of the Bible. It is something that helps me a great deal when I am studying.



posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by babloyi
I have heard many people say that the Bible is full of errors due to incorrect translations, additions at a later date, and deletions at a later date. What is the consensus on this? How much of it is true?
If it IS true, then how would a Christian know what is true and what is false? How can they believe anything?
I also read about a religious conference around 300BC(?) where the Christian leaders decided which books to keep as part of the bible and which part to discard. They also decided on the divinity of Jesus(?), and "borrowed" dozens of myths from different religions to encourage converts. How much of this is true? I also read that Paul distorted alot so as to convert more and to further his own agenda. Is this true?
Are there Christians who practice some sort of "Original Christianity"? How can Christians be sure of what they read and believe if there has been so much error? Are there some parts of the Bible more suspect than others?
Thank you for your time.


Babloyi, I don't know as much about how the books of the Bible were chosen, but I will tell you this:

There are no contradictions in the Bible. When something like that is brought up, it is usually by someone who has misinterpreted or misunderstood whatever passage they are reading. It is easy to do. I have done it myself many times. It simply takes study and prayer to sort things out.

The Bible is the written word of God. If there are mistakes or inconsistencies in the Bible, then we can say that God is not perfect. If God is no longer perfect, then how can we really be sure that anything said by Him is true? In short, the Bible is either whole and accurate or it is simply an amusing collection of stories.

But God is perfect, so His written word is also. It was written by man at the inspiration of God. The translation works the same way. The word 'Christianity' simply means Christ Like. As we study, pray and grow in faith and closeness to God, we change to become more likle Him. Thus, we are Christians. There is no Original Christianity, so there is not a church that practicies it. Some claim there is and others claim to practice somethings that the 'original' church practiced, but I don't buy into it.



posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 09:16 PM
link   
The best commentary on biblical inconsistencies that I know of comes from a former priest whose web-site

www.liberalslikechrist.org...

has a huge following.

He also constructed a side-by-side analysis of the teachings of Jesus versus the teachings of the apostle Paul. Very informative.



posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 09:18 PM
link   
How does one know what is true and what is false?

Read and study; compare and contrast; reckon and reason.

And pray for clarity; and it will come to you.


The best commentary on biblical inconsistencies that I know of comes from a former priest whose web-site

www.liberalslikechrist.org...

has a huge following.

He also constructed a side-by-side analysis of the teachings of Jesus versus the teachings of the apostle Paul. Very informative.



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by otherwise

Originally posted by babloyi
I also read that Paul distorted alot so as to convert more and to further his own agenda. Is this true?

What would that be? His writings are perfectly in harmony with the gospels and the prophets.

One thing I heard (and I could be wrong about this) is his hatred for women.



There are no contradictions in the Bible. When something like that is brought up, it is usually by someone who has misinterpreted or misunderstood whatever passage they are reading. It is easy to do. I have done it myself many times. It simply takes study and prayer to sort things out.

The Bible is the written word of God. If there are mistakes or inconsistencies in the Bible, then we can say that God is not perfect. If God is no longer perfect, then how can we really be sure that anything said by Him is true? In short, the Bible is either whole and accurate or it is simply an amusing collection of stories.

But God is perfect, so His written word is also. It was written by man at the inspiration of God. The translation works the same way. The word 'Christianity' simply means Christ Like. As we study, pray and grow in faith and closeness to God, we change to become more likle Him. Thus, we are Christians. There is no Original Christianity, so there is not a church that practicies it. Some claim there is and others claim to practice somethings that the 'original' church practiced, but I don't buy into it.

But how do you seperate those books that were "Godly inspired" with those that some guy just wrote and pretended were from God?



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 04:55 AM
link   
Well, for starters the Bible got through at least three "big" translations that left their mark: the first one is the so-called "Septaginta" or translation of the Seventy-two (from the number of wise men who reportedly worked on it) from Aramaic to Hellenistic Greek. The second one is the "Vulgata", from Greek and Aramaic to popular Latin (attributed to St. Jerome, it was actually made by two very learned ladies). The Vulgata was the mainstay of European Christianity for centuries, until "national" translations began to sprang up, following the Luther's Reformation and the English Schism, with "King James' Version" being the most popular nowaday. Each time the Bible was translated there were huge mistakes, misused words and deliberate "stylistic" alterations. That's why the Qum-Ram manuscripts are so valuable, that's why more and more learned men are turning to the least known versions (for example the Armenian or Coptic translations, closer to the original Septaginta) and that's why the discovery of ancient Aramaic and Hebrew texts in an Egyptian synagogue was hailed as one of the most important Biblical finding ever. Of course, there are deliberate and willing manipulations in the Bible, especially the N.T. For example, Matthew 28, 19 (Go and teach to all the people and baphtize them in the name of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost) is a later false. It was already proven so in the XVIII century and it has been recognized as such by all the modern researchers (Ackermann, Lohmeyer, etc). It's a fascinating subject and I will probably return on it later.



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 05:06 AM
link   
Read your KJV 1611 version; other versions have flaws that range from inconvenient to catastophic.

If you stick to the 1611, there are no errors in the book, only errors in comprehension created by not having the Holy Spirit with you while reading.



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 05:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Read your KJV 1611 version; other versions have flaws that range from inconvenient to catastophic.

If you stick to the 1611, there are no errors in the book, only errors in comprehension created by not having the Holy Spirit with you while reading.


Finally, a person with some actual wisdom. "U-da-man".

Human arrogance is also a problem with many misunderstandings. That voice in your head saying "that can't be right" isn't the Holy Spirit.



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 05:42 AM
link   
LOL! Thanks, Doc.

It is "natural" (natural for carnal man) to either want the word to be in error or to mean something that will allow for our selfishness. That is a hard thing to fight and an easy excuse use to deny God and His word.



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 05:43 AM
link   
well the viewpoint from the non-believer of a neither spiritual nor religious devinity of the bible would be mine. the other viewpoint would be that of a chrisitian, and most of what im going to say, they would probably disagree.

the four gospels, matthew, mark, luke and john, were written decades after jesus died. argue all you want because that is the truth. those four gospels that show jesus' life were written by people that lived after jesus died, and that also never met the messiah himself. paul the founder of christianity wrote luke, and this was the first of the four to be written. the next was 'matthew', this book was written after 'luke' for the reason that the person, who wrote matthew, didnot believe that the book 'luke' told the 'true' story of jesus in its entirity. in some parts of matthew, mark and john, which were all different versions of luke, sometimes copy word for word from luke and hold so many contradictions that we cannot get a clear idea of jesus' life from these four gospels.

the virgin birth was a stolen hindu legend, where krishna, was born to a virgin 'devaka' in the fulfilment of a prophecy, and was also visited by wise men, who were guided by a star. from that legend we can see many parallels to the nativity/virgin stories of jesus.

(Ps 91:1) You who dwell in the shelter of the Most High, who abide in the shadow of the Almighty, say to the Lord, My refuge and fortress, my God in whom I trust. God will rescue you from the fowlers snare, from the destroying plague FOR GOD COMMANDS THE ANGELS TO GUARD YOU IN ALL YOUR WAYS. With their hands they shall support you, lest you strike your foot against a stone.
This meant that God would command angels to guard the messiah. However, this did not happen to Jesus because was not the messiah. i know people will say 'but if jesus didnt die for our sins etc etc'. well im not talkin about jesus had to die for our sins. from ps 91:1, it clearly says that the messiah will be saved, whether or not jesus had to die for our sins...he should have been saved.

after the final books of the old testament were completed, it is easy to see some sort of gap from then, until jesus was born. when the new testament books were chosen, and put together there was a long process that many could not agree on. nobody living today has ever set eyes on original texts of the bible. like it or not you have to take the say-so of the church that these bibles we pick up today are in fact 100% how they were written originaly.

Shocking as it may be to most Christians, Jesus wasn't the founder of Christianity, and to make matters worse, most Christian doctrines such as claims of divinity, Original Sin, and the Trinity rely not only on Paul but also heavily on John, who was a Greek. Jesus was a Jew and taught Judaism. The books that reflect those teachings are the Synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and James.

If Luke was the historical narrative then why are most of the events in John never mentioned but Luke basically agrees with Matthew/Mark? John didn't exist when Luke was written, and is the real core of the Christian religion. Without John and Book of the Revelation, there would be no Christianity, just an odd sect of Judaism and a cult founded by Paul. That is all Christianity should have been.

The books Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy were written in four different view points. The four different views preach the fact that God works in different ways from one to the other. These four ideals were combined together, which are now the five beginning books we read in the bible.

Alternate gospels have been found. in 1940 in egypt, they came across the 'dead sea scrolls'. they threw orthodox christianity in to a scare, which is why they were never added to the bible. constantine adopted christianity, and was the first person to employ scholers to copy the hebrew text in to latin. another edit was still yet to come when king james wanted the bible to be copied in to english. the first people, who attempted to copy the bible and put it in to english, were hunted down and murdered.

with all these edits, all these changes, all these inconsistancies, it is hard to change from a non-believer in to a believer who has total faith in their lord. however, if you start out a believer and learn some of this knowledge i have shown here then it is hard to comprehend when you have built up so much faith in the bible and god. this is why most christians will not accept what i have said. however, all of the above is fact, not here-say...it is all factual evidence.



[edit on 3-1-2005 by shaunybaby]



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 05:51 AM
link   
You are coprrect in that a Christian would not agree with what you have pasted here as it is in error from the start.

Most shocking, aside from non-Christians attempting to explain away Christianity with erroneous "information", is that anyone would actually disagree with moi!




Don't worry, in what will seem like a few short years to both of us, we will know the truth.



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 05:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby

the four gospels, matthew, mark, luke and john, were written decades after jesus died. argue all you want because that is the truth. those four gospels that show jesus' life were written by people that lived after jesus died, and that also never met the messiah himself. paul the founder of christianity wrote luke, and this was the first of the four to be written. the next was 'matthew', this book was written after 'luke' for the reason that the person, who wrote matthew, didnot believe that the book 'luke' told the 'true' story of jesus in its entirity. in some parts of matthew, mark and john, which were all different versions of luke, sometimes copy word for word from luke and hold so many contradictions that we cannot get a clear idea of jesus' life from these four gospels.

[edit on 3-1-2005 by shaunybaby]


okay, I stopped reading right here, because this was wrong and I did one of those totally human things of just assuming all the rest was wrong. Mark is the oldest gospel.



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 06:04 AM
link   
Shaun-baby it is sad you are so misinformed. Each paragraph you wrote is just, well, silly.

To simplify..........the first five books were written by the same person -GOD and written down by Moses.

The "gospels" were written after Jesus death. Each from a different human viewpoint but providing the same message........Jesus is the source of "eternal" life.

Yes, Christ was and is Jew that follows the teachings of his father. Many modern "christian" churches have been corrupted and are being "decieved". Read the bible for yourself. Ask God to provide you with wisdom....the answers will come.



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by otherwise
You have probably heard people say that the story of Jesus is a copy from ancient myths. That is wrong! The fact is actually the opposite. The myths are actually derived from the Old Testament prophecies about Jesus! The virgin birth for instance, was prophecied hundreds of years before the birth of Jesus Christ.



I'm afraid that I'd have to disagree. The Old Testament contains much that derives from even older religions. Babylonian texts that predate the OT by thousands of years prove this beyond a doubt. The Virgin birth may have been prophesised in the Bible but it was also a "myth" that existed thousands of years before the OT was compiled.

As for the KJV of the Bible? I'm afraid that I'd have to disagree yet again. It does contain errors. There is no avoiding this fact and it has been proven to be so. This does not make it worthless and I do not denigrate the book in any way by stating this. But man was involved in the writing of this book, and unfortunately, man isn't infallible.
I believe that the KJV is the best version of the Bible that we have freely available though.

By the way. It's not possible for Moses to have written the first 5 books of the Bible. In those books Moses' death is discussed. How does a dead man write about his own death? Whatever some may argue, Moses was a man and a man is not able to predict the events surrounding his death. And nowhere does the Bible state that God informed Moses of his demise which would be the logic. The first five books were probably written by at least 4 different authors. This is the opinion of the most respected scholars on the subject and you can find the details here - ccat.sas.upenn.edu...

Incidentally, there is a lot of Babylonian myth contained within those first 5 books - ie: The Epic of Gilgamesh/Noahs Flood.

[edit on 3-1-2005 by Leveller]



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 06:28 AM
link   
I believe GOD pre-dates Babylon. Similar text has two possible sources. One is pre-flood earth which leads yet again back to GOD, or Satan laying ground work to "trick" man. Most likely the later is true.





top topics
 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join