Doctor X

acronos:

Oh . . . well . . . if you are going to nitpick. . . .

--J.D.

acronos

I'm not the one claiming to be God, nor that the perfection of my writings it is proof of my divinity. There are errors in the bible.

If you prefer, change (2 Sam. 21:6) to (2 Sam. 21:8).

Godless Wonder

Thanks for posting this, that site is very very interesting. I especially like the author's astute observation that the only evidence that seems to be remotely acceptable to true-believers is evidence from within the Bible itself, an observation which he uses to strictly direct his energies. He does seem to take a "comprehensive" approach, including contradictions which seem at times, trivial, and these can occasionally swamp the more substantial problems he finds. But overall, a pretty excellent site, I thought.

judge

IOt was from a web site but I cut and pasted it so long ago now that I am not sure where from

Quote:

It clearly appears from the two lines of posts that what you posted was not an accurate translation of Jerome.

Probably right. It may be an alternate translation. It is not uncommon for there to be more than one translation of ancient texts.
Are you aware how it reads in the original greek(?)?

Are you aware how many translations of the original were done?

Quote:

Please explain the translation differences as well as your take on the arguments for another Matthew.

One would need the original writing and an expertise in the language to do this.
I think the case for another Matthew that has not survived anywhere are extremely small. To argue merely on the basis of what we have seen here that there existed another Matthew is a long stretch.

First you will have to show which greek Jerome referred to.

You will have to show which Hebrew text he referred to.

You will have to show that he had no vested interest in pushing his claim that Matthew more closely followed the hebrew. I doubt you wiull be able to show this.
I'm pretty sure , as I mentioned earlier , he wanted the hebrew to be used as the basis for a translation rather than the greek, and met opposition here.

Was he fudging the figures to get his way?

judge

I have presented a translation that is differentiayes between Joseph in verse 19 and the Joseph in verse 16.
This version clearly indicates two different Josephs.

http://www.peshitta.org/pdf/Mattich1.pdf

gregor

Judge

Thanks for responding.

While I am certainly a neophyte in the area of third-century latin translations from Church fathers (and I don't mean this as a personal attack), but I am somewhat nonplused at your (i) dismissal of the significant (apparent) gaff in what you posted and (ii) your self-referential appeals to authority?

I looked at your web site and didn't see a CV. I'm assuming that you are tremendously well qualified to talk about these issues, but I'm disappointed with a response of "well, I don't remember where I got this from the web, but it's probably just a translation difference."

judge

[QUOTE]Originally posted by gregor
[B]Judge

Thanks for responding.[B][QUOTE]

No problem

Quote:

While I am certainly a neophyte in the area of third-century latin translations from Church fathers (and I don't mean this as a personal attack), but I am somewhat nonplused at your (i) dismissal of the significant (apparent) gaff in what you posted and (ii) your self-referential appeals to authority? I looked at your web site and didn't see a CV. I'm assuming that you are tremendously well qualified to talk about these issues, but I'm disappointed with a response of "well, I don't remember where I got this from the web, but it's probably just a translation difference."

Well I am trying to acertain exactly where I got it from (the quote) and and come up with a good reply to the original questions.
I think it is a very good point and one I am interested in getting to the bottom of. But it is just not possible for me to do this in one day.

That is why I asked the questions I did. There are at least two versions of the LXX which have survived and at times they are different to each other.
Are they different in the places quoited by Matthew?
I don't know.
But to really get to the bottom of this issue this must be answered

You may have noticed I have posted another thread herte about the LXX. I am doing this to try to get as much information as possible to give the best answer I can.
Unfortunately it will take more than one day.

JES

When it comes to contradictions in the Bible, I don’t believe there is one ‘magic bullet’ that will cause all Christians to immediately start denying their faith. For me it was a death of a thousand cuts, numerous small things that added up to my rejecting the Bible as the inerrant Word of God. So here are a few of the ‘small’ things that I could not reconcile:

Error-free – I have run across a number of Christians (on the Web and in person) who insist that the Bible has no errors. Not just that the Bible is free of contradictions but has no errors whatsoever, this is a completely untenable position to me. I always point them to 2 Kings 19 vs. Isaiah 37. These two chapters are identical, word for word copies of each other. Explain how an omnipotent Being would allow a copyist error as big as this one to foul-up His inspired Word.

John the Baptist – Some of the most compelling evidence for me of a flawed Bible is the comparison of accounts between the 4 Gospels. The typical Christian response is that the Gospels are like 4 witnesses to a car accident. They all describe the same event but from a different viewpoint, a nice analogy but not applicable to the Bible. Christians insist that the Bible is divinely inspired and that every word written is exactly what God wants written. If the same story is told across the Gospels and there are contradictions then it can’t be inspired and therefore the Bible is not from God. Case in point, the accounts of John the Baptist in the Gospels.
In Mark 1, John baptizes Jesus, the heavens tear open, a dove descends and there is a voice, John is thrown in prison afterwards.
In Matthew 3, John says that he’s not worthy of baptizing Jesus, Jesus insists, heavens open, dove descends, a voice, John is thrown in prison. Then in Matthew 11 John, still in prison, sends his disciples to Jesus to make sure Jesus is really the One. Why would he do that if he saw what happened at the baptism?
Luke 1 tells us that John and Jesus are related and that John, in-utero, recognizes Mary’s voice and that she will be the mother of Jesus. One can assume that if they were related they saw each other on occasion as they grew-up. Luke 3 tells us that John was thrown in prison and then Jesus was baptized, it isn’t clear if John was the one who did the baptizing or not. The heavens opened, a dove and a voice. Luke 7 tells us John sent disciples to ask if Jesus was the one, which makes more sense if John did not baptize Jesus and see the ‘miracles’.
John 1 tells us that everyone thought John the Baptist was the Christ, which he denies. It then says that John did not know who Jesus was (how could that be if they’re related?) until a dove came down and a voice told him and only him. John didn’t even baptize Jesus in this version. John 3 has Jesus in the same area as John the Baptist while he’s baptizing but again Jesus was not baptized.
These accounts are not told by ‘eyewitnesses’ with slight variations and they’re certainly not inspired by a Supreme Being. There are many such accounts in the Gospels (see the birth narratives and resurrection accounts).

Jesus is perfect – Another contradiction is the nature of Jesus vs. stories of Him in the Gospels. Jesus cannot make a mistake, He is God and therefore perfect in every way. Christians go through all types of contortions to make sure that every story concerning Jesus reflects this view. An example that calls this belief into question is the story found in Mark 2:25-26. Jesus is making a point to the Pharisees about breaking the law by picking grain on the Sabbath. Jesus told them the story of David found in 1 Samuel 21, unfortunately Jesus seems very confused. If you read the OT story you will find David on the run from Saul who wants to kill him. He goes to Ahimelech, the high priest, and asks for provisions. David says he’s on a secret mission from Saul and his men are somewhere else. It’s pretty plain to see that has he no men with him and is making up a story to not look too suspicious. If you read until the end of 1 Sam 21 you see David acting insane in front of King Achish and no men are with him. Two things that Jesus gets wrong; one is that he believes Abiathar is the high priest, Abiathar is Ahimelech’s son and doesn’t become high priest until Saul later kills Ahimelech (read Matthew 12 to see that this error is omitted in his version). And two, that David’s men actually eat the bread when it’s obvious that David is lying about his ‘mission’ and his men. No way can Jesus be considered omnipotent if he makes such mistakes.

There are dozens of other examples that cast doubt on an inerrant, inspired Bible and therefore cast doubt on its claims. Just my two cents.

Godless Wonder

Actually, it's not a word for word copy. There are some slight differences in wording starting from verse 14. Some minor words are changed (verse 14, "of" vs. "from"), the total number of verses in each differ by one, 2 Kings 19:15 is broken into 2 verses in Isaiah 37:15 and 37:16. Not only is it a copy, it is a defective copy. (edit to add: I'm looking at the King James Version.)

Infidelettante

How nice to see someone mention this wonderful little book. It was what set me on the return to sanity after the twenty years of maddness that was fundamentalism. Ten years in and another ten fighting to surface out of of it. I loaned that copy away years ago and of course it didn't come back. It's still doing great things no doubt. Thanks Mageth

JT