It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Distortions and Lies in Christian Text

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 05:44 PM
link   
#1
Modern Bible scholarship is in broad agreement that Mark was the first Gospel written yet Matthew is always listed first in Christian Bibles. My claimed error is that because "Mark" was written first it should be presented first in the Christian Bible. The Christian Bible implies that "Mark" and "Matthew" are the testimony of witnesses. Readers can see and the Church has always taught that there is dependence between the two. Common sense and legal procedure require that the testimony which was either relied on to some extent or even just available to another witness be presented first as this is what readers or jurys will assume if not told otherwise. The problem this would create for Christianity with "Mark" being first is why is there no mention of the "virgin birth", any description of a transition from Jesus to the subsequent Church or post resurrection sightings or communications? The Church has always explained that because "Matthew" was written first "Mark" didn't need to cover these topics.
#2
The first Gospel listed in Christian Bibles, Matthew, was written anonymously. The title
"Matthew" was added by the Church long after the Gospel was written.
#3
Christians have added chapter designations to the Bible which were not used by the original authors.
#4
Matthew 1
KJV)
"4 And Aram begat Aminadab"
According to I Chronicles 2:10 it was Ram that begat Aminadab, not Aram. The earliest extant Greek manuscripts have the Greek equivalent of the English "Aram" for Matthew 1:4. (so presumably the KJV is correctly translating Matthew's error). The NIV has changed "Aram" to "Ram" correcting Matthew's error. The LXX states that Aram begat Aminadab so it's likely that Matthew made his error by simply copying from the LXX as he apparently was not fluent in Hebrew and so could not check the original Hebrew language. Some Bible scholars do theorize that the LXX was changed in some places to conform to the Gospels and that this is one of those instances. In any case Matthew's apparent use of "Aram" does not agree with any known Hebrew text and in the absence of any evidence that the Hebrew use of "Ram" was the result of any change would be an error by Matthew.
#5
Matthew 1
KJV)
“5 And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab”
The only Rachab mentioned in the Tanakh was the Rachab of the Conquest who lived about two hundred years before Boaz. Every significant Church Father who commented on Matthew 1:5 assumed that Matthew was referring to the Rachab of the Conquest.
#6
Matthew 1: (KJV)
“7…Abia begat Asa; :8 And Asa begat Josaphat”
Generally, the oldest extant Greek manuscripts such as the Sinaitic and Vatican codices have the Greek equivalent of the English “Asaph” instead of “Asa” who according to the Tanakh should be in this location. The NASB has a footnote for Matthew 1:7 indicating that the Greek word was the equivalent of the English “Asaph”. Most of the older Greek manuscripts indicating “Asaph” were unknown to the translators of the KJV.
#7
Matthew 1: (KJV)
“8…Joram begat Ozias”
According to I Chronicles 3:11 (JPS), Joram begat Ahaziah so Matthew has omitted Ahaziah from his genealogy.

#8
Matthew 1: (KJV)
“8…Joram begat Ozias”
According to I Chronicles 3:11 (JPS), Joram begat Ahaziah who begat Joash so Matthew has also omitted Joash from his genealogy.
#9
Matthew 1: (KJV)
“8…Joram begat Ozias”
According to I Chronicles 3:11 (JPS), Joram begat Ahaziah who begat Joash who begat Amaziah so Matthew has also omitted Amaziah from his genealogy.
#10
Matthew 1: (KJV)
“10…Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias”
Generally, the oldest extant Greek manuscripts such as the Sinaitic and Vatican codices have the Greek equivalent of the English “Amos” instead of “Amon” who according to the Tanakh should be in this location. The NASB has a footnote for Matthew 1:10 indicating that the Greek word was the equivalent of the English “Amos”. Most of the older Greek manuscripts indicating “Amos” were unknown to the translators of the KJV.
#11
Matthew 1: (KJV)
“11 And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:”
According to I Chronicles 3:15 (JPS), Josiah (Josias in KJV) begat Jehoiakim who begat Jeconiah (Jechonias in KJV) so Matthew has omitted Jehoiakim from his genealogy.
#12
Matthew 1: (KJV)
“11 And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:”
According to the Tanakh Jechonias only had one brother.
#13
Matthew 1: (KJV)
“13 And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim”
According to the Tanakh (JPS), I Chronicles, 3:19-20, Abiud was not one of the eight children of Zerubbabel (“Zorobabel” in KJV).
#14
Matthew 1: (KJV)
“17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations”
Matthew has omitted four generations from his genealogy between David and the Babylonian exile. Even without them he still has fifteen chronological names.

#15
Matthew 1: (KJV)
“17…and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.”
Almost 600 years separate the birth of Shealtiel from the birth of Jesus resulting in an average of 46 years per generation. This average is contradicted by all known averages for this period outside of Matthew. Luke’s average would be 27 years and Josephus’ average would be 25 years.
#16
Matthew 1: (KJV)
“18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise:”
The Greek word for birth here, “genesis” is exactly the same Greek word used in Matthew 1:1, “a record of the genealogy” and has a wide range of meaning such as “birth”, “creation” and “genealogy”. Church Fathers generally used the Greek word “gennesis”, which has a more limited meaning of “birth” to describe the nativity. Thus, it is extremely unlikely that the same author would have used the exact same Greek word in Matthew 1:1 and 1:18 to describe a genealogy and a birth. The genealogy and birth stories are probably from two different sources.
#17
Matthew 1: (KJV)
“18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise:”
Most extant manuscripts have this wording but a few don’t have “Jesus”. The name is omitted in Irenaeus’ reference to 1:18. The position of “Jesus” in the sentence varies in Greek manuscripts which is often the sign of a scribal addition. There is no other uncontested instance of an article preceding “Jesus Christ” in the Christian Bible. Thus it is likely that “Jesus” is a scribal addition to Matthew 1:18.
#18
Matthew 1: (KJV)
“18… she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.”
Literally, the Greek reads “having in the womb” and not “with child”. In any case, there is no definite article, “the”, in front of “Holy Ghost” in almost all Greek manuscripts. The best translation would be “found to be pregnant through Holy Spirit”. Christian translators have provided the “the” in English translations (found to be with child of the Holy Spirit) in order to support their belief that the Holy Spirit is a separate person.
#19
Matthew 1: (KJV)
“18..When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. 19 Then Joseph her husband,”
Mary has gone from engaged to married after a mere thirteen words, a record that would stand until Liz Taylor two thousand years later.
#20
Matthew 1: (KJV)
“19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.”
The word that KJV has translated as “privily” is normally translated as “quietly”. Under Jewish law at the time Joseph would have had to deliver a writ of repudiation before two witnesses so it would have been tough to keep it “quiet” unless the witnesses Joseph had in mind were the blind and mute men of Chapter 9.
#21
Matthew 1: (KJV)
“20… fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife”
The literal translation of the Greek is, “do not be afraid to take Mary your wife” which is an incomplete sentence making the meaning ambiguous. Does it mean take as in sexually, take as in accept or take as in bring home? Most of the main Christian Bibles have added words in their translations to give the appearance of a complete sentence (the relatively newer RSV being the exception):
NIV “do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife”
NASB “do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife”
RSV “do not fear to take Mary your wife”
Darby “fear not to take to [thee] Mary, thy wife”
YLT “thou mayest not fear to receive Mary thy wife”
WE “do not fear to take Mary to be your wife”

#22
Matthew 1: (KJV)
20…”for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.”
Same error as #18. There is no “the” before “Holy Ghost” in the Greek. Of the major translations only Darby acknowledges this, “for that which is begotten in her is of [the] Holy Spirit”.
#23
Matthew 1: (KJV)
20…”for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.”
In the Greek “spirit”(ghost) comes before “holy” and is separated by the verb “to be”. A literal translation is “for that which is conceived in her from spirit is holy”.
No mention of this in the major Christian translations. Again, Christian translators are creating support for their idea of the holy ghost as a separate person in their translations.
#24
Matthew 1: (KJV)
21 “And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.”
False prophecy. Everyone agrees that for two thousand years most Jews have died not believing in Jesus and therefore, according to Christian theology, were not saved from their sins.
#25
Matthew 1: (KJV)
22 “Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.”
If you’re trying to make a list of 1001 errors in the Christian Bible then Matthew 1:22-23
is, as Banta said to Jerry Seinfeld, “Gold, Jerry! Gold!”. The “prophecy fulfillment” of sentences 22 and 23 is out of place as the fulfillment happens in the following sentences 24 and 25. Joseph is just dreaming in sentences 20 and 21 and wakes up from this dream in sentence 24. It’s likely that sentences 22 and 23 were later additions to the original text. Since the time of Irenaeus Christian commentators have “explained” that the formula citation was spoken by the angel of sentence 21.
#26
Matthew 1: (KJV)
23 “Behold, a virgin shall be with child,”
It’s undisputed that the Hebrew text has the definite article “the” instead of “a” before “young woman” (KJV’s “virgin”). A slim majority of major Christian translations now have “the” here instead of “a”. The use of the definite article “the” means that the woman in question was known to the speaker of the prophecy, Isaiah, and could not be referring to someone who lived about 700 years later.
#27
Matthew 1: (KJV)
22 “Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 23 Behold, a virgin”
Matthew 1:23 uses the Greek word “parthenos” which has a primary meaning of “virgin”. The Hebrew word from Isaiah 7:14 that Matthew is referring to is “almah” which has a primary meaning of “young woman” according to all Jewish Bible scholars, virtually all Hebrew/English dictionaries, most Christian Bible scholars and the majority of modern Christian Bible translations. The Greek word “neanis” has a primary meaning of “young woman”. When the RSV first translated Isaiah 7:14 as “young woman” it was burned in several parts of the country by Christian fundamentalists. On a humorous note, even though the Catholic translators of the NAB had decided to translate Isaiah 7:14 as “young woman”, the American Bishops voted to use “virgin” instead. I guess they thought “it was the Christian thing to do.”
#28
Matthew 1: (KJV)
23 “Behold, a virgin shall be with child”
In the Hebrew, the verb for “shall be with child”, “harah”, is in the present tense. The proper translation of Isaiah 7:14 from Hebrew should be, “Look, the young woman is with child”.

#29
Matthew 1: (KJV)
23 “Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel”
The phrase above, “they shall call”, in the Hebrew is in the third person feminine form and should be translated, “she will call”. It’s likely that “Matthew” intentionally changed the phrase because in verse 21 Joseph was instructed to “call his name Jesus”.
#30
Matthew 1: (KJV)
23 “Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.”
The phrase “call his name”, which Matthew has translated from the Tanakh is a Semitic expression meaning to name. The phrase “call his name” would be redundant in Greek or English as one would say either, “call him” or “name him”. As the phrase in Hebrew refers to an actual name and not a description of someone Matthew has presented a false prophecy as no one ever called Jesus by the name “Emmanuel”.
#31
Matthew 2: (KJV)
5 …”for thus it is written by the prophet, 6 And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda,”
The Greek would translate literally as “And thou Bethlehem, land of Juda.”. That would be like saying “And thou Chicago, land of Midwest”. According to my third grade Greek teacher, Mrs. Soukoupoopalis, that’s bad grammar in Greek, Chicago or anywhere else. Codex Bezae and the Old Latin changed the phrase to “Bethlehem of the land of Judea”.
#32
Matthew 2: (KJV)
5 …”for thus it is written by the prophet, 6 And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda,”
In addition to bad grammar in the Greek virtually all translations of the Micah verse that “Matthew” is referring to say “Bethlehem Ephratah” such as KJV:
Micah 5:2 “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah”
So Matthew has chopped off “Ephratah” from the words of the Prophet.
#33
Matthew 2: (KJV)
6…”art not the least among the princes of Juda”
Instead of “art not the least” the Masoretic text says “small to be”. Even the Christian Greek translations of Micah generally say, “are too small to be”. “Matthew” has changed the quote in the Tanakh to avoid any description of Bethlehem as insignificant.
#34
Matthew 2: (KJV)
6…”art not the least among the princes of Juda”
Instead of “princes” the Masoretic text says “clans” (literally, “thousands”). Christian Greek translations of Micah generally say “thousands”. The consonants of the Hebrew word (lpy) can mean “clans” or “rulers” so Matthew could have chosen to ignore the Hebrew tradition of “clans” even though it was accepted by the early Christians. In any case, using “princes” creates an error in Matthew’s sentence structure because after deleting “Ephratah” in the first part of the sentence he is then referring to a city, Bethlehem, and not a clan, Bethlehem-Ephratah, so saying a city “is not least among princes of Juda” makes no sense.
#35
Matthew 2: (KJV)
6… “for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.”
The Masoretic text and Christian Greek translations of Micah say, “for out of thee shall come forth for me a ruler”. “Matthew” has omitted “for me”, apparently so as not to give the appearance that Jesus is ruling on behalf of anyone else. Notice that KJV (also NKJV) has capitalized “governor” even though the original Hebrew of Micah gives no indication that this ruler would be divine. I’m not calling this an error because KJV is the only major translation which capitalizes “governor” (or “ruler”).

#36
Matthew 2: (KJV)
6… “for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.”
The Masoretic text says, “from you there will come forth for me one who is to be a ruler in Israel”. (Early Christian Greek translations generally say, “”a leader of Israel”). “Matthew” has changed the prophecy of a leader of the country Israel to a leader of the people Israel. At the time that “Matthew” wrote he likely realized that Jesus was never a ruler or leader of the country Israel.
#37
Matthew 2: (KJV)
9 “When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.”
By modern, astrological standards such an event would be impossible (the location of a star identifying the location of an individual house.) But claiming an error here based solely on modern standards would reflect an anti-supernatural bias. However, according to Matthew, this star moved from the East to Jerusalem, then south to Bethlehem and then stopped over Bethlehem. There were non-Christian astrologers around this time who recorded all unusual astrological phenomena and none of them mention this event which easily would have been the most unusual they would have reported.
#38
Matthew 2: (KJV)
15 … “that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.”
“Matthew” is referring to Hosea 11:1 (JPS):
“When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and out of Egypt I called My son.”
Hosea chapter 11 is referring to the history of Israel and is not a prophecy. Hosea 11:2 (JPS):
“The more they called them, the more they went from them; they sacrificed unto the Baalim, and offered to graven images. 3 And I, I taught Ephraim to walk, taking them by their arms; but they knew not that I healed them. 4 I drew them with cords of a man, with bands of love; and I was to them as they that take off the yoke on their jaws, and I fed them gently.”
Christian Greek translations of Hosea 11:1 generally acknowledge the plural subject of Israel by translating: “Out of Egypt have I summoned his children”.
#39
Matthew 2: (KJV)
15 … “that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.”
As the KGB agent said to Clint Eastwood in the classic movie, “Firefox”, “Your papers, they are not in order.” “Matthew” gives a prophecy fulfillment claim that Jesus was called out of Egypt in verse 15. But up to verse 15 Jesus is still in Egypt. Jesus doesn’t leave Egypt until verse 21.
#40
Matthew 2: (KJV)
16 “Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under”
In his excitement to report this dastardly deed “Matthew” neglects to tell us exactly WHAT was sent forth by Herod. Some translations fill in obvious choices such as “orders” and “men”. A careless omission by Matthew and also a grammatical error.
#41
Matthew 2: (KJV)
16 “Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under”
No historian writing close to this time mentions any such massacre. The author of Luke doesn’t mention it either. Josephus thoroughly documented the brutal deeds of Herod during Herod’s final years yet makes no mention of this incident which easily would have been Herod’s worst. Christian apologists estimate that there would not have been much more than 20 such murders of baby males in Bethlehem by Herod based on assumed population and birth rates thereby arguing that such a low number may have escaped Josephus’ attention. Even 20 murders of babies would have been Herod’s worst act. The apologists ignore that the text also says “and the regions all around it” (in all the coasts thereof). The early Church assumed that according to Matthew thousands of male babies were killed in the “massacre”.
#42
Matthew 2: (KJV)
17 “Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying,
18 “In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.”
The real tragedy here is that I can only count this quote as one error. The context of the quote above in Jeremiah is that Rachel is mourning for the captivity of the ten northern tribes in general and the tribe of Ephraim (the main northern tribe) specifically. Rachel was the mother of Joseph who was the father of Ephraim. She is not mourning for anyone’s death or for the tribe of Judah which was a southern tribe and not in captivity at the time that Jeremiah wrote the above.

#43
Matthew 2: (KJV)
19 “But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, 20 Saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead which sought the young child's life.”
The above states “THEY are dead” but the antecedent is Herod (singular). The excerpt
“for they are dead which sought the young child's life” is almost the exact same wording from Christian Greek translations of Exodus 4:19. Apparently it was more important for the author of Matthew here to try and recreate exact wording from the Tanakh than it was to write a grammatically correct narrative.
#44
Matthew 2: (KJV)
22 “But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod”
“Reign” implies that Archelaus was the King but Josephus and extant coins indicate that Archelaus was an ethnarch and not a king.
#45
Matthew 2: (KJV)
23 “And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.”
This prophecy fulfillment claim is unique in that Christian Bible scholars generally agree that there is no such prophecy in the Tanakh. Christian apologists are reduced to guessing what the author of Matthew meant.
#46
Matthew 3: (KJV)
1 “In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea,
2 And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”
After 2,000 years I think it’s safe to say that this was a false prophecy.
#47
Matthew 3: (KJV)
3 “For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
The quote from Isaiah in the Masoretic text is: (JPS 1985)
3 “A voice rings out: Clear in the desert A road for the LORD! Level in the wilderness A highway for our God!”
The author of Matthew has quoted word for word from the LXX of Isaiah 40:3 (surprise)
except for substituting the usual reference to Yahweh with a personal pronoun normally used to refer to Jesus. The context of Isaiah before and after chapter 40 indicates that Isaiah was referring to the Babylonian exile and subsequent return.
So other than changing the general wording of Isaiah chapter 40, specifically changing the reference to the coming of Jesus instead of Yahweh and ignoring the context of the author’s work, “Matthew” has made a perfect match.
#48
Matthew 3: (KJV)
10 “And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.”
False prophecy. I realize it doesn’t rain much in the desert but surely the axe head would have rusted off after 2,000 years. On the other hand, maybe it would take 2,000 years to chop down a tree using only an axe handle.
#49
Matthew 3: (KJV)
11…”he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:”
In the Greek there is no “the” before “Holy Ghost”. Of the major translations, only Darby acknowledges this. Once again Christian translators are projecting their pre-conceived (pun intended) belief that “the” Holy Ghost is a separate, definite person of God. Simon says “Holy Ghost”. Holy Ghost. “The Holy Ghost”. The Holy Ghost. Uh, uh, Simon didn’t say.

#50
Matthew 3: (KJV)
14 “But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? 15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.”
The Greek word that “Matthew” uses for “fulfill” is generally the same word used by Matthew to claim fulfillment of prophecies from the Tanakh. There is no prophecy in the Tanakh that the Messiah would be baptized in a river. As far as performing a commandment from the Tanakh there is no commandment requiring baptism in a river as a general type of atoning or purification ritual. A related question is, “who baptized John with water?”
#51
Matthew 3: (KJV)
16 “And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water:”
The author of Matthew likely copied the story of Jesus’ baptism either from “Mark” or from the same source Mark used. This is the related sentence in Mark:
Mark 1: (KJV)
9… “and was baptized of John in Jordan.10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened”
Mark indicates that immediately after Jesus came out of the water the heavens opened. In the Greek Matthew’s sentence structure has joined the adverb “straightway” with the verb “went up” so he is saying that immediately after the baptism Jesus came out of the water. Generally, coming out of the water would signal the end of the baptism. Why would anyone stay in the water after the baptism? Maybe to go swimming or take a bath?
#52
Matthew 3: (KJV)
16… “and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him”
In the Greek there is no “the” before “Spirit”. Apparently, whenever Matthew does not say “the” spirit of God/holy spirit Christian translations say “the” spirit of God/holy spirit.
#53
Matthew 4: (KJV)
8 “Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;”
It would not be possible to see all the kingdoms of the world of a spherical world no matter how high the mountain was. Apparently the author, like most people of his time, mistakenly believed that the earth was flat.
#54
Matthew 4: (KJV)
12 “Now when Jesus had heard that John was cast into prison, he departed into Galilee; And leaving Nazareth, he came and dwelt in Capernaum, which is upon the sea coast, in the borders of Zabulon and Nephthalim: That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying,
The land of Zabulon, and the land of Nephthalim, by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles;
The people which sat in darkness saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up.”
Misquote. “Matthew’s” translation doesn’t agree with the Masoretic text or Greek translations of the Tanakh. Isaiah 8: (JPS 1917)
“23… Now the former hath lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but the latter hath dealt a more grievous blow by the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan, in the district of the nations.
9.1 The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light; they that dwelt in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined.”
Isaiah Chapter 8, JPS translation, is referring to the destruction of the kingdom of Israel by the Assyrians. The “former” and “latter” of 8:23 refers to the Assyrians and Samarians:
7:1 “And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin the king of Aram, and Pekah the son of Remaliah, king of Israel, went up to Jerusalem to war against it; but could not prevail against it. And it was told the house of David, saying: 'Aram is confederate with Ephraim.”
All of Isaiah, chapter 8(JPS), is written in prose. Isaiah chapter 9(JPS), starts out being written in synonymous parallelism poetry:
“The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light;
they that dwelt in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined.
Thou hast multiplied the nation,
Thou hast increased their joy;
they joy before Thee according to the joy in harvest,
as men rejoice when they divide the spoil.”
Even though Isaiah 8:23 and 9:1 of JPS refer to different subjects and have different writing styles Christian translations have combined them into the start of Chapter 9 because of Matthew’s misquote which attempted to combine them into evidence of prophecy fulfillment.
#55
Matthew 4: (KJV)
17 "From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."
False prophecy.
#56
Matthew 5: (KJV)
31 “It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: 32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.”
The author of “Matthew” previously had Jesus say:
5:18 (KJV) “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”
Regarding acceptable causes for divorce the Law of Deuteronomy states the following:
24:1 (JPS) “When a man taketh a wife, and marrieth her, then it cometh to pass, if she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some unseemly thing in her, that he writeth her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house, and she departeth out of his house, and goeth and becometh another man's wife, and the latter husband hateth her, and writeth her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, who took her to be his wife; her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled;”
So Jesus stated that he would not change the Law but he did change the Law regarding acceptable causes for divorce.

#57
Matthew 5: (KJV)

33 “Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:”
Contradicted by Deuteronomy 6:13 (JPS)
“Thou shalt fear HaShem thy G-d; and Him shalt thou serve, and by His name shalt thou swear.”
#58
Matthew 5: (KJV)
38 “Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.”
Contradicted by Deuteronomy 19:18 (JPS)
“and the magistrates shall make a thorough investigation. If the man who testified is a false witness, if he has testified falsely against his fellow, you shall do to him as he schemed to do to his fellow. Thus you will sweep out evil from your midst; others will hear and be afraid, and such evil things will not again be done in your midst. Nor must you show pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.”
#59
Matthew 6: (KJV)
1 “Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.”
Contradicted by Matthew 5: (KJV)
16 “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.”
#60
Matthew 8: (KJV)
1 “When he was come down from the mountain, great multitudes followed him.
And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. And Jesus put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will; be thou clean. And immediately his leprosy was cleansed. And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.”
Regarding a mountain near Jerusalem (shew thyself to the priest) I think “Matthew” is making a mountain out of a mohel. Anyway, Jesus tells the man not to tell anyone in order to keep the healing secret but someone has forgotten about the “great multitude” which was following Jesus in the previous connected sentence.
#61
Matthew 8: (KJV)
16 “When the even was come, they brought unto him many that were possessed with devils: and he cast out the spirits with his word, and healed all that were sick: That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses.”
Here’s the quote from Isaiah Chapter 53: (JPS)
4 “Surely our diseases he did bear, and our pains he carried; whereas we did esteem him stricken, smitten of G-d, and afflicted.”
“Matthew’s” quote of Isaiah 53:4 doesn’t agree with the Masoretic text and doesn’t even agree with Christian translations of 53:4. Isaiah 53:4 states that the subject would bear the diseases while the story by Matthew only says that Jesus made other people’s diseases go away.
#62
Matthew 8: (KJV)
21 “And another of his disciples said unto him, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father. But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead.”
Deuteronomy 5: (JPS)
16 “Honour thy father and thy mother”
The Tanakh has several verses indicating that lack of a timely burial is an insult so Jesus has contradicted one of the ten commandments here.
#63
Matthew 8: (KJV)
26 “And he saith unto them, Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith? Then he arose, and rebuked the winds and the sea; and there was a great calm. But the men marvelled, saying, What manner of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him! And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes,”
The text implies that Jesus has just reached the other side of the lake and Gergesenes was on the eastern coast of the Sea of Galilee. The problem is that Gergesenes is almost certainly not the name of the city originally identified here by the author of “Matthew”. Mark (who Matthew and Luke both probably copied from) and Luke both identify the city as Gerasa which was 33 miles from the Sea Of Galilee. Matthew, knowing that Gerasa was too far away, likely changed the name of the town to Gadara which was six miles from the lake. Matthew 8:28 of the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus say the town was Gadara. Origen was the first Church Father who recognized that neither Gerasa or Gadara was next to the lake. Let’s see how our friendly Christian translators have handled this:
New International Version (NIV)
When he arrived at the other side in the region of the Gadarenes,
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
When He came to the other side into the country of the Gadarenes,
Revised Standard Version (RSV)
And when he came to the other side, to the country of the Gadarenes
NIV formatted (NT only) (NIV-IBS)
When he arrived at the other side in the region of the Gadarenes
Darby Translation (DARBY)
And there met him, when he came to the other side, to the country of the Gergesenes,
Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
And he having come to the other side, to the region of the Gergesenes,
Worldwide English (NT only) (WE)
Jesus came to the other side of the sea, to the country of the Gadarene people.
New King James Version (NKJV)
When He had come to the other side, to the country of the Gergesenes,
The Church of the Middle Ages changed Matthew 8:28 to “Gergesenes” from “Gadara” recognizing that Gadara was not on the lake. A majority of modern Christian Bible translations now recognize that “Matthew” probably originally used “Gadara” in 8:28 indicating that the author was not overly familiar with the geography of Israel.




posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 05:46 PM
link   
ok, also take into account how many books did not make it in the bible thanks to the catholics who thought those didnt glorify god enough to make it


the aprocryphal books leave much to be read

it is man who put the bible together and translated it



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by adamkratt
 



#41
Matthew 2: (KJV)
16 “Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under”

Herod was an Idumian and should never been allowed to be King so he was always concerned about legitimate heirs of the former ruling Dynasty. Herod was married to the daughter of the former king and he would have known the identity of every member of the old Hasmonian Dynasty.

Josephus thoroughly documented the brutal deeds of Herod during Herod’s final years yet makes no mention of this incident which easily would have been Herod’s worst.

Josephus was a sycophant to the ruling elite and would not have recorded every one of Herod's evil deeds, Herod being given sanction by the Roman Emperor, in person, in Rome. The Romans did this sort of thing all the time but you may not necessarily find it in a contemporary history.

Even 20 murders of babies would have been Herod’s worst act. The apologists ignore that the text also says “and the regions all around it” (in all the coasts thereof). The early Church assumed that according to Matthew thousands of male babies were killed in the “massacre”.

Back in the times that Josephus wrote about, they were having wars between advancing armies from the North and from the South and as one army advanced, they would kill every inhabitant of the cities they found in their path.
So huge massacres were rather commonplace, to Josephus and the one described in the Gospel would have been unremarkable, plus it would have happened a hundred years before he wrote his histories.


[edit on 11-7-2008 by jmdewey60]



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 07:22 PM
link   
You do realise that the Tanakh doesn't actually mention a virgin, the word means directly and is most commonly translated as "young woman", but was mistranslated to "virgin" in the translated versions of the bible.



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 01:34 AM
link   
reply to post by adamkratt
 



#45
Matthew 2: (KJV)
23 “And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.”
This prophecy fulfillment claim is unique in that Christian Bible scholars generally agree that there is no such prophecy in the Tanakh. Christian apologists are reduced to guessing what the author of Matthew meant.

Apparently the Jews of the Time of Christ recognized prophesies other than what is in the official Old Testament.
There was a culture that was basically obliterated and we can not fully understand what was going through these people's minds.
They may have had some way to tie together Nazareth with Nazarene.

#46
Matthew 3: (KJV)
1 “In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea,
2 And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”
After 2,000 years I think it’s safe to say that this was a false prophecy.

This statement reveals where you are coming from.
This whole biblical treatise has the object of discrediting the Christian Religion.

#53
Matthew 4: (KJV)
8 “Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;”
It would not be possible to see all the kingdoms of the world of a spherical world no matter how high the mountain was. Apparently the author, like most people of his time, mistakenly believed that the earth was flat.

Obviously, even if the world was flat, you would not be able to see all the glories of the kingdoms of the earth.
The devil gave Jesus a vision and it happened to be on a mountain, for affect.

[edit on 12-7-2008 by jmdewey60]



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join