Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Chris Weimer · 08-04-2005, 01:38 AM

JP Holding is not near worthy enough to dignify anyone.

JoeWallack · 08-04-2005, 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pervy

Fair enough. Some English translations say "Holy Spirit" (or even "Holy Ghost") and some say merely "Spirit". It tends to depend on whether they are taken from the Textus Receptus or the more "Alexandrian" Westcott-Hort text.

JW:
Ya know I'm just fascinated by people's fascination here with (the) identification of use, misuse and abuse of (the) definite article in (the) 1001 Errors In (The) Christian Bible rather than just using it to consider potential errors in Acts which is why I introduced it here. On the other hand I appreciate all the free publicity. As Otis said in the classic Animal House, "So hit it!"

Okay, so now you know that there is nothing "holy" in W-H. It's really more than W-H as I'm sure you know. It's also NA and UBS and Bible scholarship for the last 100 years.

You could complain here that this is a textual issue and not a translation issue and you would have some point to make. Earlier in the 1001 list I often indicate that what I consider is likely original is based on manuscript evidence. I had no idea that so many people would start at error #666 instead of at the beginning. Didn't anyone ever tell you not to start at the ending? It'll ruin the whole book (unless it's the original "Mark"). Maybe I should color code these errors like SAB to indicate the Type of error. When I make it into a book I'll add more explanation (I guess I don't need to ask Peter Kirby if he wants to be an Editor).

For Acts 6:3 I see mixed evidence of how much textual variation there is. The ICC commentary doesn't mention any and they normally do even for the definite article. My guess is that generally the Byzantine has it but not much else earlier does. I'll just have to wait for Kirby's website on the subject.

What I wonder is HOW much manuscript evidence does there have to be before a Translation issue should be described as a Textual issue? Say if my guess is right here and it's really primarily the Byzantine that has "holy". Am I still Skeptic honor bound to always identify it as a Textual issue? If the Byzantine says Jesus tells swine to jump off a bridge at Gergesenes does that mean you should consider jumping off a bridge at Gergesene the majority reading?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perve

The oldest English translation I can find is the beautiful Wycliffe translation - which is older than either the 1550 Stephanos TR or the 1881 Westcott-Hort text. That one is taken from the Latin Vulgate and uses "Holy Ghost" (well, it actually uses "Hooli Goost" - you've got to love that 14th century spelling!)

JW:
The Vulgate's not much use in determining the original Greek if there is a related theological issue. Jerome knew that the Long Ending of Mark wasn't original but put it in anyway just like he would have done for anything similiar with a theological motivation. By the way, I've been meaning to ask. What does someone have to do here to become a Moderator. Volunteer?

Joseph

TRINITY, n.
In the multiplex theism of certain Christian churches, three entirely distinct deities consistent with only one. Subordinate deities of the polytheistic faith, such as devils and angels, are not dowered with the power of combination, and must urge individually their clames to adoration and propitiation. The Trinity is one of the most sublime mysteries of our holy religion. In rejecting it because it is incomprehensible, Unitarians betray their inadequate sense of theological fundamentals. In religion we believe only what we do not understand, except in the instance of an intelligible doctrine that contradicts an incomprehensible one. In that case we believe the former as a part of the latter.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Errors...yguid=68161660

http://hometown.aol.com/abdulreis/myhomepage/index.html

andrewcriddle · 08-04-2005, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pervy

I think that argument would be stronger if the passages were less closely related.

If passage A mentions 'X', and passage B mentions something close to 'X', then a harmonising scribe is indeed likely to assume that they are talking about the same thing and 'correct' one or the other as you say.

However, here we are looking at two sentences within the same passage where the second sentence is a clear answer to the first.

The first has the Twelve saying "You need seven people with quality 'X'", and the second - the sentence immediately after the statement - says that the people thought the statement was a good idea and that they chose Stephen because he had quality 'X'.

These sentences are so close together in context - with the second directly following, addressing and answering the first - that unless there is a clear indication that one of them is a later interpolation, I do not see how anyone could reasonably conclude that they were originally talking about different things but were "harmonised" to make them the same.

It seems far more likely to me that they were originally the same and that a word was later skipped during copying.

Note that I am not ruling out the possibility of the word being added to harmonise the sentences - indeed, I mentioned it in my previous post - I merely think that given the context it is far less likely to have happened than for a word to have been accidentally skipped.

I entirely agree that Spirit in one verse and Holy Spirit in the other are referring to exactly the same thing (or person).

Using Holy Spirit twice clarifies the passage and avoids any possible misunderstanding. However, the fact that this is certainly the clearer smoother reading does not IMO suggest originality, rather the reverse.

Andrew Criddle

Dean Anderson · 08-05-2005, 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

I entirely agree that Spirit in one verse and Holy Spirit in the other are referring to exactly the same thing (or person).

Using Holy Spirit twice clarifies the passage and avoids any possible misunderstanding. However, the fact that this is certainly the clearer smoother reading does not IMO suggest originality, rather the reverse.

Andrew Criddle

Fair enough - then we will have to agree to disagree.

In either case, though, we agree that the two verses are referring to the same thing regardless of the exact wording.

As such, to point to the variation in wording in different translations of them and call those variations "errors" (or even "potential errors") when it is clear that said variations in wording in no way change the meaning of the text is a stretch to say the least.

JoeWallack · 08-05-2005, 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

I entirely agree that Spirit in one verse and Holy Spirit in the other are referring to exactly the same thing (or person).
Using Holy Spirit twice clarifies the passage and avoids any possible misunderstanding. However, the fact that this is certainly the clearer smoother reading does not IMO suggest originality, rather the reverse.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perve

Fair enough - then we will have to agree to disagree.
In either case, though, we agree that the two verses are referring to the same thing regardless of the exact wording.
As such, to point to the variation in wording in different translations of them and call those variations "errors" (or even "potential errors") when it is clear that said variations in wording in no way change the meaning of the text is a stretch to say the least.

JW:
First, I agree with Andrew above but for many more reasons than what he gave:

1) Idiotic, er I mean idiomatic usage probably would have caused variation in the use of "holy" all by itself. The transmission process is more likely to harmonize idiomatic variation than create it.

2) Something happened in early Fourth century that made this kind of variation regarding possible reference to (The) spirit holy an important issue to Scribes.

Secondly, I disagree with the general statement that if the meaning of the original and translation is clear then there couldn't be any error. You could, for example, have a spelling error (or other grammatical error) in the original
so that the meaning is still clear but there is an error (spelling). You may be limiting your assertion above though to only originals with no grammatical error.

As long as there's a Literal difference between "spirit" and "holy spirit" it's reasonable to claim an error on some basis, even if it's a technical, literal, nit-picking basis. I've said before though that in my 1001 list I generally don't list trivial errors unless I think there is some theological reason behind them. Obviously "spirit" and "holy spirit" Could have a different meaning in the Greek.

Let's look at the offending passages again:

NIV
6:3 "Brothers, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them 4 and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word."
5 This proposal pleased the whole group. They chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit; also Philip, Procorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas from Antioch, a convert to Judaism."

Let the Reader understand that neither use of "spirit" above has an underlying "the" in the Greek before it. The author is singling out Stephen as an important character and previously indicated that the holy spirit would do the talking when necessary (same as with the burning Bush and Rove). It probably was most important to the author here to make a distinction between Stephen and the others by giving him a little extra Something (holy). On the other hand of god, after Nicea, it was more important to the TransMissionists to always properly identify this spirit, holy, the, thing, guy, mister, whatever.

Errorsgo, as the 1001 Errors go, I think this would be a relatively minor error and possbily not any type of error but I think I Am performing a valuable public service in Identifying the Issue that TransMissionists may sometimes have their TransMissions affected by what they think is Meant for Theological reasons at the expense of what the Author intended.

Joseph

TRINITY, n.
In the multiplex theism of certain Christian churches, three entirely distinct deities consistent with only one. Subordinate deities of the polytheistic faith, such as devils and angels, are not dowered with the power of combination, and must urge individually their clames to adoration and propitiation. The Trinity is one of the most sublime mysteries of our holy religion. In rejecting it because it is incomprehensible, Unitarians betray their inadequate sense of theological fundamentals. In religion we believe only what we do not understand, except in the instance of an intelligible doctrine that contradicts an incomprehensible one. In that case we believe the former as a part of the latter.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Errors...yguid=68161660

http://hometown.aol.com/abdulreis/myhomepage/index.html

JoeWallack · 08-06-2005, 02:19 PM

JW:
I Am really groovin on the obsessive diss-cuss-ion here of whether claiming that (the) dishonest usage of (the) Greek definite article by Christian TransMissionists is a dishonest usage of (the) Greek definite article by Christian TransMissionists is a ridiculous error but I would like to digress for a moment, if Possible, to my original reason for introducing the 1001 Errors list to The Price Is Wrong article:

Price:
Abdul, here is my list of 101 potential accuracies in Acts.

Abdul:
Price, here is my list of 1001 potential inaccuracies in Acts.

Now that we've had introductions all around how about some specifics.

For the most part, at this point, the detail of Price's article isn't much more than a compilation of what Price considers accuracies in Acts. This is similar to the 1001 Errors list being nothing more than a complilation of what the author considers inaccuracies in the Christian Bible. The difference is that the 1001 Errors list doesn't claim to be anything other than 1001 Errors while Price concludes that his list of supposed accuracies means Acts as a whole is primarily accurate. This makes Price a Counselor For Christ (thought I'd get the phoenetics working here Toto).

Continuing where I left off here are General reasons to doubt that Acts is primarily history:

1) Impossible claims.
This is a characteristic of Fiction. It also creates doubt as to the historicity of Possible claims. Comparing Acts to Paul's letters here it should be noted that Paul's letters generally don't have Impossible claims concerning Paul. History. Acts on the other hand does. Fiction.

2) No Provenance for the Author.
This is a characteristic of Fiction.

3) Credibility of the Author.
This author also apparently wrote "Luke". "Luke" is filled with the Impossible. "Luke" copied most of "Mark" without indicating such and appeared to edit "Mark" for theological reasons.

4) Language.
The author wrote in Greek and appeared to use Greek sources. The primary subjects in the related stories would have spoken Aramaic. Maybe no big deal when you still have sources in the original language, but when you don't?

5) Religious Genre.
"Luke"/Acts is in the genre of religious writing, maintained and Edited by a Biased Religious institution.

6) The difference in Style of Act's Paul and Paul's Paul.
Act's Paul is well-spoken and clearly communicates. Paul's Paul is often disorganized, contradictory and unclear. Read "Romans", probably Paul's most important theological work, in the Greek, before English sanitation, and it's often unclear what the hell Paul is trying to say.

Now let's add another one for Price to Ignore and Vinnie to Copy:

7) According to the author of Acts one needs (the) spirit holy to properly understand religious history. This is a potential conflict with the usual rule, outside of religion, that in order to properly understand history, one needs history. Believers will claim of course that the context is limited to Interpreting actual history but once someone accepts that (the) (holy) spirit can tell them something they otherwise wouldn't know they are closer to potentially accepting what is not historical.

More importantly this Creates a Cathechism-22:

One needs (the) holy spirit in order to accept Jesus but you have to first accept Jesus in order to receive the holy (spirit).
Now let's go to the 1001 list for a few non-ridiculous potential errors that Price has been told by (the) (Holy) (spirit) to ignore in just the first 5 chapters:

# 649

Acts 1: (KJV)

4 “And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.�?

Compare to Mark 16: KJV)

7 “But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.�?

“Luke’s�? Jesus tells his crew to tarry in Jerusalem. “Mark’s�? Jesus’ crew is told to go to Galilee for further instruction.

# 651

Acts 1 (KJV)
1 “The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,
2 Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:
3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:
4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.
5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.�?

Compare to:

John 20 (KJV)
17 “Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
18 Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the LORD, and that he had spoken these things unto her.
19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
20 And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the LORD.
21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.�?
22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

According to Acts Jesus did not give the Apostles the “holy spirit�? here but said the Father would give the Apostles the “holy spirit�? after Jesus departed for Parts Unknown. “John�? couldn’t wait this long and had his Jesus give the Apostles the “holy spirit�? himself while he was here and not there.

# 652

Acts 1 (KJV)

18 “Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.�?

Compare to Matthew 27: (KJV)

5 “And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.�?

Acts says that Judas purchased a field with the reward of iniquity while “Matthew�? says Judas gave the money to the Temple. Doesn’t sound like the author of Luke/Acts used “Matthew�? as a source here. “Mark�?, representing a more primitive Christian theology, has no demise of Judas (Jews) story and if “Luke�? copied “Mark�? “Luke�? would be free to add this anti-Jewish touch. Lukee! Ya got sum splainin ta do.

# 653

Acts 1 (KJV)

18 “Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.�?

Compare to Matthew 27: (KJV)

5 “And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.�?

According to Acts Judas died from spontaneous comburstion while according to “Matthew�? Judas died from hanging. Apparently, the author of Acts, writing later, decided that hanging was too good for her Judas.

# 654

Acts 1 (KJV)

18 “Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.�?

No one in Jerusalem had any idea where the hell this supposed “field of blood�? existed outside of the imagination of “Luke�? until a fourth century pilgrim chose where it was. If this “field of blood�? is fiction then it’s logical that it’s “location�? could only be identified by the imagination of a pilgrim not from the area as opposed to the real memories of the historical inhabitants.

# 655

Acts 1 (KJV)

18 “Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.
20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.�?

The closest you can find is:

Psalms 69: (JPS)

26 “Let their encampment be desolate; let none dwell in their tents.�?

The context of the Psalm is totally different and even the quantity doesn’t agree. In Christian theology this is known as X-uh-Jesus, also known as LYING.

# 656

Acts 2 (KJV)

16 “But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:�?

Not only did Joel never say this it doesn’t even agree with the tongues talking preceding it. As Madlein Kahn said in the classic “Young Frankenstein�?, “No tongue.�? The original stories regarding the early Christian proselytizers likely used the literary license of describing them as speaking in tongues merely to poetically portray them as being able to communicate effectively in the foreign languages of the converts. Subsequent Christianity took it literally that they had received a gift from God that really let them speak a foreign language without first studying it. Ironically, in the process of using the foreign language of Greek to convert the non-Jews the apostles appear to have forgotten their native Aramaic/Hebrew in the process as we have absolutely nothing from any apostle/disciple written in Aramaic/Hebrew, not even Jesus name for Moses’ sake. As they say, the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away.

# 657

Acts 2 (KJV)

16 “But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:�?

After 2,000 years I think it’s safe to say this is another false prophecy. Christianity has failed to deliver the after-life it promised as well as end the natural life it promised to stop. Could be a relationship there.

# 658

Acts 2 (KJV)

21 “And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.�?

Compare to Matthew 7: (KJV)

21 “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.�?

According to “Luke�? all you have to do to be saved is ask/demand to be saved. According to “Matthew�? that’s not enough. We see the transition of Christian theology here from the “Matthew�?/Jewish position that deeds must be done in order for reward to the “Luke�?/Pagan position that all you have to do is ask “god�? to wave a magic wand and you’ll be saved. This type of huge difference in basic doctrine is excellent evidence that the supposed acts of the apostles were never the historical acts of the apostles but the imagination of subsequent Christianity as to what the acts of the apostles should have been.

# 659

Acts 2 (KJV)

25 “For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved:�?

Here’s the applicable Psalm:

Psalms (JPS)
16:1 “Michtam of David. Keep me, O God; for I have taken refuge in Thee.
16:2 I have said unto the Lord: 'Thou art my L-rd; I have no good but in Thee';
16:3 As for the holy that are in the earth, they are the excellent in whom is all my delight.
16:4 Let the idols of them be multiplied that make suit unto another; their drink-offerings of blood will I not offer, nor take their names upon my lips.�?

Turns out David did speak of Jesus here, “their drink-offerings of blood will I not offer, nor take their names upon my lips�?, but David associates the drink offering of blood of Jesus and the replacement of God’s name with Jesus’ as Evil.

# 660

Acts 2 (KJV)

30 “Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;�?

Compare to Luke 1: (KJV)

34 “Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.�?

KJV has dishonestly added “Christ�? to 2:30 where no christ exists in the Greek (kind of says it all). The implication of 2:30 is that Jesus was from the seed of David but Luke 1:34 explains that Jesus was not from anyone’s seed. Nice evidence that the original Gospel stories such as “Luke�? were closer to Judaism having a natural birth for Jesus as the heir of David and were subsequently changed in a Pagan direction exchanging a natural birth for a supernatural one. In “Luke�? and “Matthew�?, after the infancy narratives claiming supernatural births, which don’t agree, and is very good evidence that there was no supernatural birth, the rest of the stories have no reference to a supernatural birth. This observation is consistent with the theory that the original stories had no supernatural births. The Reader is also invited to consider that “Mark�?, the original Gospel, and “John�?, have no reference to a supernatural birth and that this could mean that neither author believed Jesus had a supernatural birth.

# 661

Acts 2 (KJV)

34 “For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,�?

Here is the quote from Psalm110: (JPS)

1 “A Psalm of David. HaShem saith unto my lord: 'Sit thou at My right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.�?

There are not two “Lord’s�? in the Hebrew. The Hebrew word translated as “HaShem�? above is used to refer exclusively to God. The following Hebrew word translated above as “lord�? (adonai) is a title and could refer to God or a person. The Greek uses the same word for both, “kurios�?, which is a title and means “lord�?. The first use of kurios here in the Greek is a misquote of the Hebrew since the Greek word for God “Theon�? should have been used. Either the original Greek author or a later editor used “kurios�? in both places to deceptively try and equate Jesus with God. Most moderns now put the first use of kurios in capital letters “LORD�? to reflect the meaning of the underlying Hebrew. The KJV still uses the exact same word for both to maintain the deception but the NJKV has corrected the error and now uses “LORD�? for the first word. Seeing as how KJV has now corrected its own error I’m still waiting for KJV inerrantists to explain how this was not an error in the original KJV.

# 662

Acts 2 (KJV)

38 “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.�?

Compare to Matthew 28: (KJV)

19 “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:�?

In Acts Peter, speaking to Israel, says to be baptized in Jesus’ name. “Matthew’s�? Jesus says to be baptized in the name of Jesus, God and holy spirit. Based on the testimony of Church Fathers it’s likely that “Matthew�? originally agreed with “Luke�? and was later changed by Trinitarians but the manuscript evidence supports the trinitarian formula. Ironically, Israel in these end days being primarily Jewish with some Muslims and as the Brits would say, “Not at all Christian.�? doesn’t have anyone being baptized in Jesus’ name. Maybe it’s because Peter didn’t start his speech with “Simon says�?.

# 663

Acts 2 (KJV)

6 “Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk.�?

The Greek is “the Nazarene�? and not “of Nazareth�?. In “Luke’s�? time Jesus may have been referred to as “the Nazarene�? and later Christianity thought, “the Nazarene�?, “what the hell does that mean?�?

# 664

Acts 3 (KJV)

18 “But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled.�?

I think we’d all agree (except for the unknown author of “Luke�? of course) that no one could demonstrate that every prophet from the Tanakh prophesied that the Messiah would suffer

# 665

Acts 4 (KJV)

6 “And Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest, were gathered together at Jerusalem.�?

Pretty much everyone agrees that Caiaphas would have been high priest at the time and not Annas. Good evidence that the author of “Luke�? was not personally familiar with the details of Jerusalem for this time period and either did not have access to anyone who was or was unwilling to check with them. Obviously “Luke�? spoke Greek so she could have read Josephus to know that Caiaphas was high priest at this time but didn’t bother to. Unfamiliar with the details of the area you are writing about, failure to inquire of those with such knowledge and unwillingness to research written sources available. These are not good qualities for a historian to possess. And this from someone who said they had “carefully investigated�?.

# 666

Acts 4: (KJV)

8 “Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel,�?

Even though almost all moderns translate “the�? before “holy spirit�? there is no “the�? in the Greek. Simon didn’t saay. Ya can’t, fool, the children of the Pharasaic Revolution, no, ya, can’t, fool, the children of the Pharasaic Revolution. (We can all agree though that Peter was indeed filled with Holy Something).

# 667

Acts 4: (KJV)

10 “Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.�?

“Jesus Christ of Nazareth�? in the Greek is “Jesus Christ the Nazorean.�? Most moderns have “of Nazareth�?. The Greek spelling of “Nazorean�? is one letter different than it should be if it was meant to be “of Nazareth�?. Also, the definite article, “the�?, is before “Nazorean�?. The construct of the sentence has this “the�? in declinable form meaning it could be used or unused depending on the context. Later in “Acts�? though the author makes perfectly clear that this phrase means “the Nazorean�? by context. Related to this you have the issue that there is no evidence outside of the Christian Bible for any town in Israel named “Nazareth�? for this time period which helps explain why Jesus would not be referred to as “of Nazareth�? (there was no Nazareth). Obviously, modern Christian translators preferred the term “Jesus Christ of Nazareth�? over objectively translating the phrase.

# 668

Acts 4: (KJV)

10 “Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.
11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.
12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.�?

Compare to Tanakh (pick a page, any page, say)

Isaiah 45: (KJV)
20 “Assemble yourselves and come; draw near together, ye that are escaped of the nations: they have no knowledge that set up the wood of their graven image, and pray unto a god that cannot save.
21 Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.
22 Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.
23 I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.
24 Surely, shall one say, in the LORD have I righteousness and strength: even to him shall men come; and all that are incensed against him shall be ashamed.
25 In the LORD shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory.�?

According to Acts salvation only comes through Jesus’ name while according to Tanakh salvation only comes through God’s name. “Assemble yourselves and come; draw near together, ye that are escaped of the nations: they have no knowledge that set up the wood of their graven image, and pray unto a god that cannot save.�? Set up the wood of their graven image? C’mon goys, how much clearer did Isaiah need to be? Now that’s a prophecy of Christianity!

# 669

Acts 4: (KJV)

25 “Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things?�?

The manuscript evidence supports “David said by spirit holy�? which a majority of moderns have except that almost all moderns have “the�? before spirit holy. Mistranslation. Presumably KJV supported by the minority manuscript evidence deleted David speaking through spirit holy because “Luke�? made such a big schpiel about spirit holy being given to the disciples after Jesus died (the first or second time).

# 670

Acts 5: (KJV)

36 “For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought.�?

The incident “Luke�? is describing is known to have occurred in the 40’s of the first century. The problem is that the evidence for the time of 5:36 in Acts based on “Luke�? would be in the 30’s. Another in a seemingly endless line of anachronistic touches. Irenaeus, the most important Church Father of his time and one of the most important fathers of all time thought that Jesus died in his fifties and Acts 5:36 would have been evidence for Irenaeus that Jesus died after the 30’s.

# 671

Acts 5: (KJV)

37 “After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed.�?

It’s also well known that the Judas of Galilee episode happened long before the Theudas episode. If “Luke�? was a real historian the Theudas episode would have been easily available in Josephus. Not a good combination, claiming the impossible and not checking major reference sources. Apparently “spirit holy�? was not a very good substitute. What is good is the evidence that “Luke�? didn’t know Jesus, didn’t know anyone who knew Jesus and was unfamiliar with the history of Jerusalem for that time period. Hmmm, “Judas�?, “Galilee�?, “rose up�?, “many as obeyed�?, “perished�?? Vehhy interesting.

JW:
Now for Christ's sake Price, deal with this before Gibson makes a holy seequel to The Passion of (The) Christ, "The Passion Of (The) Acts Of (The) Christ" based on The Delorius Daily Passion Of (The) Christ and Price's article. I see it now, a promotional review saying:

Bill and Ted and Peter Kirby - "Excellent".

Joseph
Counselor - One skilled in circumvention of The Law.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Errors...yguid=68161660

http://hometown.aol.com/abdulreis/myhomepage/index.html

JoeWallack · 08-07-2005, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

JW - could you check the abdulreis webpage? It is missing some links to later pages, and I could only get up to error # 737, referring to Acts 17. I think there are more errors than that in Acts.

JW:
Hi Toto. I haven't had much time for the 1001 Errors list in a long time. My top priority is completing the list so what time I have is spent adding to the list. I'm now up to # 798 (think of the incomplete but still functional Death Star from Star Wars). When I've finished the list I'll improve/create conviences. Besides, I love the gag where people like Peter, Vinnie and JP complain that they only see 737 Errors and ask where the other 264 are and I respond, "In the Christian Bible". As you can see the 1001 list is still a convenient resource when dealing with Errors for a Part of the Christian Bible, such as Acts.

When I complete the list and add 21st century conveniences I plan on adding arguments, pro and con, to the site. I'd like to have a comprehensive list of all arguments and identification of who is for and against Error and why. I think something like this is needed by II. Say 10 guaranteed or your soul back Errors by well know Skeptics with equal space given to well known defenders. The Internet is going to put Religion in its last throes as it is pure intellect and it will no longer matter how many people repeat the same argument and how loud they do it.

Maybe I should have a separate Forum here for the 1001 Errors list called "Comelics" (comedy/polemics) that is below BCH so hard core Skeptics don't feel like it's a distraction but above Humour so it could still have serious discussion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

And it really needs a comprehensive index page.

JW:
I have good news and bad news on that. The "good news" is that a Lubbavitcher Rabbi has offered to create an index for me (for some reason Jews are much more accepting of the 1001 list). The bad news is he still thinks Schneerson is Moshiach.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I suspect that Peter Kirby was more put out by the technical ineptitude of the web work than your theology.

JW:
No, Kirby's a straight shooter. I'm sure he thought that claiming any type of error involving possible misuse of the definite article was ridiculous. I've found that in general veteran and active Skeptics, like Till, tend to have this attitude. That identifying trivial errors is counter-productive as it takes away emphasis from important errors and hurts the credibility of the Skeptical effort. I think what people like Peter and Vinnie don't properly appreciate because of their expert knowledge of religion is that the average person out there and probably even the average reader of II have no idea that there is any type of issue involving the definite article. Looking at Former Believer testimony I think it's mixed as far as what effect quality and quantity of Errors they come to accept had on their decision to give up the pernicious superstition.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

PS - you can't copy and paste one of the shortened links that vBB creates.

JW:
Thanks.

Joseph

EXCEPTION, n.
A thing which takes the liberty to differ from other things of its class, as an honest man, a truthful woman, etc. "The exception proves the rule" is an expression constantly upon the lips of the ignorant, who parrot it from one another with never a thought of its absurdity. In the Latin, "Exceptio probat regulam" means that the exception tests the rule, puts it to the proof, not confirms it. The malefactor who drew the meaning from this excellent dictum and substituted a contrary one of his own exerted an evil power which appears to be immortal.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Errors...yguid=68161660

http://hometown.aol.com/abdulreis/myhomepage/index.html

Peter Kirby · 08-07-2005, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

When I complete the list and add 21st century conveniences I plan on adding arguments, pro and con, to the site. I'd like to have a comprehensive list of all arguments and identification of who is for and against Error and why.

Joe, now you are talking. I am only a dabbler in the field of Biblical Errancy, but I have been thinking about something like this for a while now. And now that I've found someone else who's been thinking the same thing, perhaps we can do a collaborative effort in this arena. I don't know how much I would be writing about errors, but I would be happy to donate my mad skillz at programming to create a web site that could go platinum (beyond the SAB, eat your heart out Tektonics).

What I am thinking about is this formula: ( Bible Software + ( SAB * 1001 Errors) ) ^ ( Wiki Technology ) = 666 = The Errancy Site that Will Rock Your Flipping Socks Off.

No, seriously, what I've envisioned for some time now is a Wiki-style site organized by Bible verse where possible contradictions and other errors can be discussed by anyone for each verse.

Obviously there is the potential for vandalism, so I suggest that the first rule be that each "Error" page be divided into two sections, Pro and Con, and that you can only edit in the section area that you support. There might also be a Neutral category for loosely relevant data.

Tell me what you think and whether you would consider letting me plag^H^H^H^Hcopy your 1001 site over into the new site. I would, of course, make you an administrator. We would also need someone like Gakusei Don (reasonable Christian) as an administrator.

Quote:

No, Kirby's a straight shooter.

Thank you for that. I want to apologize for my earlier scatalogical comments. For what it matters, I didn't know that you were connected to Abdul Reis's site.

And, thanks for your review of "The Empty Tomb" on Amazon.

yours truly,
Peter Kirby

The Grammar Police* · 08-08-2005, 12:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

EXCEPTION, n.
A thing which takes the liberty to differ from other things of its class, as an honest man, a truthful woman, etc. "The exception proves the rule" is an expression constantly upon the lips of the ignorant, who parrot it from one another with never a thought of its absurdity. In the Latin, "Exceptio probat regulam" means that the exception tests the rule, puts it to the proof, not confirms it. The malefactor who drew the meaning from this excellent dictum and substituted a contrary one of his own exerted an evil power which appears to be immortal.

I'm sorry to butt in here - but you have the wrong etymology for this idiom.

It has nothing to do with the exception "putting the rule to the proof/test". You are confusing it with the similar phrase - the proof of the pudding is in its eating. That second phrase uses the word "proof" in the manner in which you mean.

The "exception proves the rule" did indeed start out as a Latin phrase. It was part of mediaeval English law. However, you only quoted part of the Latin out of context. The whole phrase was exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis, which means "the exception confirms the rule in the cases not excepted".

The context of this is that, for example, if you see a sign that says "No drinks served on Sunday", then you can reasonably infer from this exception that drinks are served during the rest of the week.

In other words - the existence of the stated exception to the rule can be used to prove (in the legal sense, not the logical sense) that the rule exists.

I must apologise to those who think that this digression is off topic for this thread, but it is an ideal demonstration of how easily an "error" can be seen in a translated phrase because the person who sees the "error" has a faulty understanding (or a lack of context) of the version in the original language.

JoeWallack · 08-10-2005, 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

Joe, now you are talking. I am only a dabbler in the field of Biblical Errancy, but I have been thinking about something like this for a while now. And now that I've found someone else who's been thinking the same thing, perhaps we can do a collaborative effort in this arena. I don't know how much I would be writing about errors, but I would be happy to donate my mad skillz at programming to create a web site that could go platinum (beyond the SAB, eat your heart out Tektonics).

What I am thinking about is this formula: ( Bible Software + ( SAB * 1001 Errors) ) ^ ( Wiki Technology ) = 666 = The Errancy Site that Will Rock Your Flipping Socks Off.

No, seriously, what I've envisioned for some time now is a Wiki-style site organized by Bible verse where possible contradictions and other errors can be discussed by anyone for each verse.

Obviously there is the potential for vandalism, so I suggest that the first rule be that each "Error" page be divided into two sections, Pro and Con, and that you can only edit in the section area that you support. There might also be a Neutral category for loosely relevant data.

Tell me what you think and whether you would consider letting me plag^H^H^H^Hcopy your 1001 site over into the new site. I would, of course, make you an administrator. We would also need someone like Gakusei Don (reasonable Christian) as an administrator.

JW:
Now wait just a minute Peter. This a very important decision. One that could affect the course of my entire life. I shall need time to think about it...I'll do it! Sabu, champagne!

Joseph

WARNING - The Skeptical General has determined that the 1001 Errors In The Christian Bible contains dangerous amounts of Tarivial and Nitpicotine. Skeptics should be advised that using it in order to convince a Fundie to count to ten before murdering an abortion provider because murder is always a sin, could be Hazardous to your credibility.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Errors...yguid=68161660

http://hometown.aol.com/abdulreis/myhomepage/index.html

08-06-2005, 02:19 PM	#26
JoeWallack Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Nazareth Posts: 2,357	Ruth Christ's Stauros House JW: I Am really groovin on the obsessive diss-cuss-ion here of whether claiming that (the) dishonest usage of (the) Greek definite article by Christian TransMissionists is a dishonest usage of (the) Greek definite article by Christian TransMissionists is a ridiculous error but I would like to digress for a moment, if Possible, to my original reason for introducing the 1001 Errors list to The Price Is Wrong article: Price: Abdul, here is my list of 101 potential accuracies in Acts. Abdul: Price, here is my list of 1001 potential inaccuracies in Acts. Now that we've had introductions all around how about some specifics. For the most part, at this point, the detail of Price's article isn't much more than a compilation of what Price considers accuracies in Acts. This is similar to the 1001 Errors list being nothing more than a complilation of what the author considers inaccuracies in the Christian Bible. The difference is that the 1001 Errors list doesn't claim to be anything other than 1001 Errors while Price concludes that his list of supposed accuracies means Acts as a whole is primarily accurate. This makes Price a Counselor For Christ (thought I'd get the phoenetics working here Toto). Continuing where I left off here are General reasons to doubt that Acts is primarily history: 1) Impossible claims. This is a characteristic of Fiction. It also creates doubt as to the historicity of Possible claims. Comparing Acts to Paul's letters here it should be noted that Paul's letters generally don't have Impossible claims concerning Paul. History. Acts on the other hand does. Fiction. 2) No Provenance for the Author. This is a characteristic of Fiction. 3) Credibility of the Author. This author also apparently wrote "Luke". "Luke" is filled with the Impossible. "Luke" copied most of "Mark" without indicating such and appeared to edit "Mark" for theological reasons. 4) Language. The author wrote in Greek and appeared to use Greek sources. The primary subjects in the related stories would have spoken Aramaic. Maybe no big deal when you still have sources in the original language, but when you don't? 5) Religious Genre. "Luke"/Acts is in the genre of religious writing, maintained and Edited by a Biased Religious institution. 6) The difference in Style of Act's Paul and Paul's Paul. Act's Paul is well-spoken and clearly communicates. Paul's Paul is often disorganized, contradictory and unclear. Read "Romans", probably Paul's most important theological work, in the Greek, before English sanitation, and it's often unclear what the hell Paul is trying to say. Now let's add another one for Price to Ignore and Vinnie to Copy: 7) According to the author of Acts one needs (the) spirit holy to properly understand religious history. This is a potential conflict with the usual rule, outside of religion, that in order to properly understand history, one needs history. Believers will claim of course that the context is limited to Interpreting actual history but once someone accepts that (the) (holy) spirit can tell them something they otherwise wouldn't know they are closer to potentially accepting what is not historical. More importantly this Creates a Cathechism-22: One needs (the) holy spirit in order to accept Jesus but you have to first accept Jesus in order to receive the holy (spirit). Now let's go to the 1001 list for a few non-ridiculous potential errors that Price has been told by (the) (Holy) (spirit) to ignore in just the first 5 chapters: # 649 Acts 1: (KJV) 4 “And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.�? Compare to Mark 16: KJV) 7 “But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.�? “Luke’s�? Jesus tells his crew to tarry in Jerusalem. “Mark’s�? Jesus’ crew is told to go to Galilee for further instruction. # 651 Acts 1 (KJV) 1 “The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, 2 Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen: 3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God: 4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. 5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.�? Compare to: John 20 (KJV) 17 “Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. 18 Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the LORD, and that he had spoken these things unto her. 19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. 20 And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the LORD. 21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.�? 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: According to Acts Jesus did not give the Apostles the “holy spirit�? here but said the Father would give the Apostles the “holy spirit�? after Jesus departed for Parts Unknown. “John�? couldn’t wait this long and had his Jesus give the Apostles the “holy spirit�? himself while he was here and not there. # 652 Acts 1 (KJV) 18 “Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.�? Compare to Matthew 27: (KJV) 5 “And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.�? Acts says that Judas purchased a field with the reward of iniquity while “Matthew�? says Judas gave the money to the Temple. Doesn’t sound like the author of Luke/Acts used “Matthew�? as a source here. “Mark�?, representing a more primitive Christian theology, has no demise of Judas (Jews) story and if “Luke�? copied “Mark�? “Luke�? would be free to add this anti-Jewish touch. Lukee! Ya got sum splainin ta do. # 653 Acts 1 (KJV) 18 “Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.�? Compare to Matthew 27: (KJV) 5 “And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.�? According to Acts Judas died from spontaneous comburstion while according to “Matthew�? Judas died from hanging. Apparently, the author of Acts, writing later, decided that hanging was too good for her Judas. # 654 Acts 1 (KJV) 18 “Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. 19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.�? No one in Jerusalem had any idea where the hell this supposed “field of blood�? existed outside of the imagination of “Luke�? until a fourth century pilgrim chose where it was. If this “field of blood�? is fiction then it’s logical that it’s “location�? could only be identified by the imagination of a pilgrim not from the area as opposed to the real memories of the historical inhabitants. # 655 Acts 1 (KJV) 18 “Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. 19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood. 20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.�? The closest you can find is: Psalms 69: (JPS) 26 “Let their encampment be desolate; let none dwell in their tents.�? The context of the Psalm is totally different and even the quantity doesn’t agree. In Christian theology this is known as X-uh-Jesus, also known as LYING. # 656 Acts 2 (KJV) 16 “But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; 17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:�? Not only did Joel never say this it doesn’t even agree with the tongues talking preceding it. As Madlein Kahn said in the classic “Young Frankenstein�?, “No tongue.�? The original stories regarding the early Christian proselytizers likely used the literary license of describing them as speaking in tongues merely to poetically portray them as being able to communicate effectively in the foreign languages of the converts. Subsequent Christianity took it literally that they had received a gift from God that really let them speak a foreign language without first studying it. Ironically, in the process of using the foreign language of Greek to convert the non-Jews the apostles appear to have forgotten their native Aramaic/Hebrew in the process as we have absolutely nothing from any apostle/disciple written in Aramaic/Hebrew, not even Jesus name for Moses’ sake. As they say, the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away. # 657 Acts 2 (KJV) 16 “But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; 17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:�? After 2,000 years I think it’s safe to say this is another false prophecy. Christianity has failed to deliver the after-life it promised as well as end the natural life it promised to stop. Could be a relationship there. # 658 Acts 2 (KJV) 21 “And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.�? Compare to Matthew 7: (KJV) 21 “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.�? According to “Luke�? all you have to do to be saved is ask/demand to be saved. According to “Matthew�? that’s not enough. We see the transition of Christian theology here from the “Matthew�?/Jewish position that deeds must be done in order for reward to the “Luke�?/Pagan position that all you have to do is ask “god�? to wave a magic wand and you’ll be saved. This type of huge difference in basic doctrine is excellent evidence that the supposed acts of the apostles were never the historical acts of the apostles but the imagination of subsequent Christianity as to what the acts of the apostles should have been. # 659 Acts 2 (KJV) 25 “For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved:�? Here’s the applicable Psalm: Psalms (JPS) 16:1 “Michtam of David. Keep me, O God; for I have taken refuge in Thee. 16:2 I have said unto the Lord: 'Thou art my L-rd; I have no good but in Thee'; 16:3 As for the holy that are in the earth, they are the excellent in whom is all my delight. 16:4 Let the idols of them be multiplied that make suit unto another; their drink-offerings of blood will I not offer, nor take their names upon my lips.�? Turns out David did speak of Jesus here, “their drink-offerings of blood will I not offer, nor take their names upon my lips�?, but David associates the drink offering of blood of Jesus and the replacement of God’s name with Jesus’ as Evil. # 660 Acts 2 (KJV) 30 “Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;�? Compare to Luke 1: (KJV) 34 “Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.�? KJV has dishonestly added “Christ�? to 2:30 where no christ exists in the Greek (kind of says it all). The implication of 2:30 is that Jesus was from the seed of David but Luke 1:34 explains that Jesus was not from anyone’s seed. Nice evidence that the original Gospel stories such as “Luke�? were closer to Judaism having a natural birth for Jesus as the heir of David and were subsequently changed in a Pagan direction exchanging a natural birth for a supernatural one. In “Luke�? and “Matthew�?, after the infancy narratives claiming supernatural births, which don’t agree, and is very good evidence that there was no supernatural birth, the rest of the stories have no reference to a supernatural birth. This observation is consistent with the theory that the original stories had no supernatural births. The Reader is also invited to consider that “Mark�?, the original Gospel, and “John�?, have no reference to a supernatural birth and that this could mean that neither author believed Jesus had a supernatural birth. # 661 Acts 2 (KJV) 34 “For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,�? Here is the quote from Psalm110: (JPS) 1 “A Psalm of David. HaShem saith unto my lord: 'Sit thou at My right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.�? There are not two “Lord’s�? in the Hebrew. The Hebrew word translated as “HaShem�? above is used to refer exclusively to God. The following Hebrew word translated above as “lord�? (adonai) is a title and could refer to God or a person. The Greek uses the same word for both, “kurios�?, which is a title and means “lord�?. The first use of kurios here in the Greek is a misquote of the Hebrew since the Greek word for God “Theon�? should have been used. Either the original Greek author or a later editor used “kurios�? in both places to deceptively try and equate Jesus with God. Most moderns now put the first use of kurios in capital letters “LORD�? to reflect the meaning of the underlying Hebrew. The KJV still uses the exact same word for both to maintain the deception but the NJKV has corrected the error and now uses “LORD�? for the first word. Seeing as how KJV has now corrected its own error I’m still waiting for KJV inerrantists to explain how this was not an error in the original KJV. # 662 Acts 2 (KJV) 38 “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.�? Compare to Matthew 28: (KJV) 19 “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:�? In Acts Peter, speaking to Israel, says to be baptized in Jesus’ name. “Matthew’s�? Jesus says to be baptized in the name of Jesus, God and holy spirit. Based on the testimony of Church Fathers it’s likely that “Matthew�? originally agreed with “Luke�? and was later changed by Trinitarians but the manuscript evidence supports the trinitarian formula. Ironically, Israel in these end days being primarily Jewish with some Muslims and as the Brits would say, “Not at all Christian.�? doesn’t have anyone being baptized in Jesus’ name. Maybe it’s because Peter didn’t start his speech with “Simon says�?. # 663 Acts 2 (KJV) 6 “Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk.�? The Greek is “the Nazarene�? and not “of Nazareth�?. In “Luke’s�? time Jesus may have been referred to as “the Nazarene�? and later Christianity thought, “the Nazarene�?, “what the hell does that mean?�? # 664 Acts 3 (KJV) 18 “But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled.�? I think we’d all agree (except for the unknown author of “Luke�? of course) that no one could demonstrate that every prophet from the Tanakh prophesied that the Messiah would suffer # 665 Acts 4 (KJV) 6 “And Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest, were gathered together at Jerusalem.�? Pretty much everyone agrees that Caiaphas would have been high priest at the time and not Annas. Good evidence that the author of “Luke�? was not personally familiar with the details of Jerusalem for this time period and either did not have access to anyone who was or was unwilling to check with them. Obviously “Luke�? spoke Greek so she could have read Josephus to know that Caiaphas was high priest at this time but didn’t bother to. Unfamiliar with the details of the area you are writing about, failure to inquire of those with such knowledge and unwillingness to research written sources available. These are not good qualities for a historian to possess. And this from someone who said they had “carefully investigated�?. # 666 Acts 4: (KJV) 8 “Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel,�? Even though almost all moderns translate “the�? before “holy spirit�? there is no “the�? in the Greek. Simon didn’t saay. Ya can’t, fool, the children of the Pharasaic Revolution, no, ya, can’t, fool, the children of the Pharasaic Revolution. (We can all agree though that Peter was indeed filled with Holy Something). # 667 Acts 4: (KJV) 10 “Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.�? “Jesus Christ of Nazareth�? in the Greek is “Jesus Christ the Nazorean.�? Most moderns have “of Nazareth�?. The Greek spelling of “Nazorean�? is one letter different than it should be if it was meant to be “of Nazareth�?. Also, the definite article, “the�?, is before “Nazorean�?. The construct of the sentence has this “the�? in declinable form meaning it could be used or unused depending on the context. Later in “Acts�? though the author makes perfectly clear that this phrase means “the Nazorean�? by context. Related to this you have the issue that there is no evidence outside of the Christian Bible for any town in Israel named “Nazareth�? for this time period which helps explain why Jesus would not be referred to as “of Nazareth�? (there was no Nazareth). Obviously, modern Christian translators preferred the term “Jesus Christ of Nazareth�? over objectively translating the phrase. # 668 Acts 4: (KJV) 10 “Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. 11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. 12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.�? Compare to Tanakh (pick a page, any page, say) Isaiah 45: (KJV) 20 “Assemble yourselves and come; draw near together, ye that are escaped of the nations: they have no knowledge that set up the wood of their graven image, and pray unto a god that cannot save. 21 Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. 22 Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else. 23 I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. 24 Surely, shall one say, in the LORD have I righteousness and strength: even to him shall men come; and all that are incensed against him shall be ashamed. 25 In the LORD shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory.�? According to Acts salvation only comes through Jesus’ name while according to Tanakh salvation only comes through God’s name. “Assemble yourselves and come; draw near together, ye that are escaped of the nations: they have no knowledge that set up the wood of their graven image, and pray unto a god that cannot save.�? Set up the wood of their graven image? C’mon goys, how much clearer did Isaiah need to be? Now that’s a prophecy of Christianity! # 669 Acts 4: (KJV) 25 “Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things?�? The manuscript evidence supports “David said by spirit holy�? which a majority of moderns have except that almost all moderns have “the�? before spirit holy. Mistranslation. Presumably KJV supported by the minority manuscript evidence deleted David speaking through spirit holy because “Luke�? made such a big schpiel about spirit holy being given to the disciples after Jesus died (the first or second time). # 670 Acts 5: (KJV) 36 “For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought.�? The incident “Luke�? is describing is known to have occurred in the 40’s of the first century. The problem is that the evidence for the time of 5:36 in Acts based on “Luke�? would be in the 30’s. Another in a seemingly endless line of anachronistic touches. Irenaeus, the most important Church Father of his time and one of the most important fathers of all time thought that Jesus died in his fifties and Acts 5:36 would have been evidence for Irenaeus that Jesus died after the 30’s. # 671 Acts 5: (KJV) 37 “After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed.�? It’s also well known that the Judas of Galilee episode happened long before the Theudas episode. If “Luke�? was a real historian the Theudas episode would have been easily available in Josephus. Not a good combination, claiming the impossible and not checking major reference sources. Apparently “spirit holy�? was not a very good substitute. What is good is the evidence that “Luke�? didn’t know Jesus, didn’t know anyone who knew Jesus and was unfamiliar with the history of Jerusalem for that time period. Hmmm, “Judas�?, “Galilee�?, “rose up�?, “many as obeyed�?, “perished�?? Vehhy interesting. JW: Now for Christ's sake Price, deal with this before Gibson makes a holy seequel to The Passion of (The) Christ, "The Passion Of (The) Acts Of (The) Christ" based on The Delorius Daily Passion Of (The) Christ and Price's article. I see it now, a promotional review saying: Bill and Ted and Peter Kirby - "Excellent". Joseph Counselor - One skilled in circumvention of The Law. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Errors...yguid=68161660 http://hometown.aol.com/abdulreis/myhomepage/index.html

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-04-2005, 01:38 AM	#21
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	JP Holding is not near worthy enough to dignify anyone.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.