Jump to content

Errors in the Bible

Recommended Posts

Anyway, to get back on track: i'm listening to an audiobook of Bart Ehrman's 'Jesus Misquoted', in which he explains how and why the bible we read today has so many errors. I'll try to quote a few excerpts when i get the chance. One of the interestimg facts he reveals is that a medieval scholar, John Milll, analysed 100 different biblical texts and identified 30,000 discrepancies between them.

 

Ehrman makes the point that christianity is a scriptural ideology whose original scriptures are no longer available. What we now think of as christian theology is what has evolved through centuries of scriptual alteration. He also states that most modern biblical scholars accept that the bible has more errors than actual words!

 

I would be interested to hear one or two specific examples when you have them. I think people too easily pass up on bible for this reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is indeed an interesting point, something I mulled over 6 years ago, and lingers.

 

I came to the conclusion, that either one account was right, or neither, because the same one angel (a messenger) could not possibly give different messages about the same God.

 

Interesting indeed. I recommend looking at some of the differences between how Gabriel appears to Mary, what Gabriel said to her in both the bible and Koran, then looking at how Gabriel appeared to Muhammad, and what Gabriel did and said to him, and how it made Muhammad feel afterwards. Then ask yourself, 'is this the same angel?'

 

Then ask yourself (even if you don't believe) if there really were angels from God, would you hope that they made you feel fearful, of comforted?

 

You make good points, and remind me that the main reason for becoming an unbeliever was actually reading the Bible and Qu'ran rather than just have the Bible read to me.

 

I hate generalisations, but I find it hard to believe that many theists have actually read their books from cover to cover. Those that have must lack the intellectual ability to empathise with the characters like one normally does when reading a book. If you use the normal empathatic imagination that you use when reading any other book ... it just doesn't make sense.

 

For example, we keep asking for evidence and yet we are supposed to believe from reading the Bible that the characters in it were provided with evidence by the bucket full. The Egyptians and Israelites were provided with miracle, after miracle, after miracle to "prove" his existence and power. Unbelievable stuff, the sea parting, manna from heaven, a pillar of fire by night and a pillar of smoke by day, etc etc. But as soon as his back's turned the Israelites say "ah, bugger that god we'll make our own god."

 

Really? I mean REALLY? Are we supposed to believe this?

 

Can theists today, who will accept the existence of god based on faith in this book and hearsay, really put themselves in the shoes of the Israelites and admit that given that evidence they too would reject it as well? Of course not. It's laughably unbelievable. It's not that today we're not privy to the same sort of miracles that the characters in the Bible were shown, but there's actually no good reason that they were shown any miracles at all. That is the only possible explanation for how they actually behaved. Everything about these stories points to fairytale and mythology.

 

So the biggest error in the Bible is that the characters don't actually behave as you would expect if the story was real, so it wasn't real.

Edited by quisquose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would be interested to hear one or two specific examples when you have them. I think people too easily pass up on bible for this reason.

 

Well, ones that come to mind are the last 12 verses of Mark, which were added to the text in the second century at the earliest, the story about Jesus and the woman taken in sin (in John, i think) which was also a later addition, the story of Jesus and the leper (earlier texts had Jesus angry witha leper for begging to be healed, later texts were amended to make Jesus more compasionate)....that's just off the top of my head now (sitting on a train, typing on a phone).

 

Look up Bart Ehrman (and Dr Robert Price) for more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I already have experience of baptist services, and I've come across a few sermons on line which I've found not to my taste, yet as I think there is a place for the contribution of evangelism, I'm reluctant to discredit the bold and controversial bible-bashers entirely.

I'm not attempting to discredit all evangelicals on the grounds that the Southern Baptists convention was founded to defend slavery. I simply cited that example to show that Christianity is flexibile and perfectly compatible with things you don't like be it slavery or Nazism.

 

So you've completely ignored the conversation we had about the SBC and gone back to your starting position after conceding how groundless your position is. How very theistic of you.

 

Lots of Christian groups preach anything but what Id recognise as 'love' for their neighbour be it the he SBC on blacks or the pre 1945 Catholic church on Jews.

 

"Love your neighbour" is flexible in terms of what you mean by "love" and who you regard as your "neighbour" and you know it.

 

Maybe they did. It’s a bit of a ‘why’ for me.

Perhaps for some of the same reasons that the Catholic Church has so abjectly failed to "love" it's Jewish, Protestant, pagan, Cathar... "neighbours" over the centuries?

 

By your tone I suspect you hold individuals responsible for faults of a whole. Although, I’d rather only be responsible for my own faults, as I wouldn’t want anyone else to be responsible for mine because I think I’m in deep **** on judgement day.

This is beyond unfair, I challenge you to provide a single quote suggesting that I believe in collective guilt. I believe in individual responsibility for individual actions, one of my many objections to Christianity is that it is founded upon the notion of inherited guilt.

 

To point out the obvious truth that Nazism and Christianity were all too compatible is in no way to say that all Christians are in any way Nazis.

 

As we know, the Christian church is historically somewhat fragmented, but I think catholics speaking to protestants speaking to atheists who speak to methodists who speak to mormons who speak to protestants who speak to orthodox presbyterian refomists of the seventh day whoevers et.c is all good and should give each other a good brotherly talking to more often.

 

And no I don’t like to be associated with the Nazis, because I wonder if I could have been one if I was born into an 'aryan' family at a certain time, and when I think about that, I consider the Nazi in me.

 

And then I turn my back on it, recognising that I’ve been born into a time of hinsight, and environment which presented me with the facts which allowed me to make my own mind up.

 

And for the record: I think that they were brainwashed at best, followed by the deluded, and then worse.

 

And then I see how fortunate I am, so I feel like I owe thanks to something, and I call him God. And I can't find a better alternative for Jesus.

:huh: So does Jesus also get the credit for all those people who were born a few decades earlier and either becade the Nazis or who's lives were affected by Nazis?

 

Anyway I note that you have dodged my main point which was that practically all Christian's ignore/creatively interpret "everything Jesus said about Camels passing through the eyes of needles and how you should sell all you own and give the proceeds to the poor" do you claim that all who do so aren't Christians. If not then it's hardly consistent for you to claim Nazi Christians have ignoring/creatively interpreting "love your neighbour" magically stops them being Christians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway I note that you have dodged my main point which was that practically all Christian's ignore/creatively interpret "everything Jesus said about Camels passing through the eyes of needles and how you should sell all you own and give the proceeds to the poor" do you claim that all who do so aren't Christians. If not then it's hardly consistent for you to claim Nazi Christians have ignoring/creatively interpreting "love your neighbour" magically stops them being Christians.

 

As an aside - I think Jesus didn't quite lay all the details down in black and white. He made a point of telling the rich young ruler that he needed to sell all he had and give it to the poor, but he was happy with Zacchaeus's offer of 50% too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As an aside - I think Jesus didn't quite lay all the details down in black and white. He made a point of telling the rich young ruler that he needed to sell all he had and give it to the poor, but he was happy with Zacchaeus's offer of 50% too.

The bible contradicting itself from page to page aside how many Xians even get close to 50%?

 

My point remains untouched. Nazi Xians failing to 'love their neighbour' in a way metaphoria understands no more means they aren't Xians allowing metaphoria to deny the compatibility of Xianity & Nazism. Than metaphoria's failure to give up 100% or 50% of their wealth means s/he isn't a Xian.

 

Nobody does everything it says in the bible it's literally impossible because as you point out the bible contradicts itself a good deal. metaphoria's argument is nothing but a no true scotsman fallacy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The bible contradicting itself from page to page aside how many Xians even get close to 50%?

 

Wouldn't it only be a contradiction in this case if he had said that to sell all and give to the poor was an absolute standard for everyone? obviously selling, giving and sharing with the poor is a standard he referred to, but he didn't make a law out of it. how many christians get close to 50%? probably not many.

 

My point remains untouched. Nazi Xians failing to 'love their neighbour' in a way metaphoria understands no more means they aren't Xians allowing metaphoria to deny the compatibility of Xianity & Nazism. Than metaphoria's failure to give up 100% or 50% of their wealth means s/he isn't a Xian.

 

Sure - wasn't trying to touch your point.. I don't know enough about the nazi christians you refer to to pass any comment.

 

Nobody does everything it says in the bible it's literally impossible because as you point out the bible contradicts itself a good deal. metaphoria's argument is nothing but a no true scotsman fallacy.

 

yes - there are contradictions. at the same time i'd say that the new testament is a set of narratives of jesus' life, plus a bunch of letters, which carry the spirit of christianity, not a series of rules to follow. so that jesus was happy with 50% from one, advised another to sell all and give it away - yet another to merely tell his friends about what god had done for him - is ok. because he knew what each one needed to do - and although for each it was different, it was all shot through with the same themes - love, giving, testimony, forgiveness, healing, humility...

 

as i say though - wasn't making a comment about metaphoria's point/fallacy/whatever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, ones that come to mind are the last 12 verses of Mark, which were added to the text in the second century at the earliest, the story about Jesus and the woman taken in sin (in John, i think) which was also a later addition, the story of Jesus and the leper (earlier texts had Jesus angry witha leper for begging to be healed, later texts were amended to make Jesus more compasionate)....that's just off the top of my head now (sitting on a train, typing on a phone).

 

Look up Bart Ehrman (and Dr Robert Price) for more.

 

We have only recently discovered the Dead Sea scrolls and if scholars discovered anything previously unknown then I for one would have no objection to it being included in Scripture almost 2000 years later.

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyway, to get back on track: i'm listening to an audiobook of Bart Ehrman's 'Jesus Misquoted', in which he explains how and why the bible we read today has so many errors. I'll try to quote a few excerpts when i get the chance. One of the interestimg facts he reveals is that a medieval scholar, John Milll, analysed 100 different biblical texts and identified 30,000 discrepancies between them.

 

Ehrman makes the point that christianity is a scriptural ideology whose original scriptures are no longer available. What we now think of as christian theology is what has evolved through centuries of scriptual alteration. He also states that most modern biblical scholars accept that the bible has more errors than actual words!

 

This is a pretty devastating review in the Review of Biblical Literature of Price's book Jesus is Dead.

 

A nice summary lol:

While this book may be attractive to the reading populace at large, it has little to commit itself to the scholarly field of New Testament studies. The writing is not a serious discussion of the issues among one’s scholarly peers but rather comes across as an extremely bitter rant against conservative Christianity and those who subscribe to it. There is a lot of heat in this book, but at the end there is no light.

 

Making it up as he goes along it seems:

While Price rejects the historicity of Jesus, he strangely enough is willing to grant the historical existence of John the Baptizer (89). But on what grounds can Price dismiss the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth while granting the historicity of John the Baptizer while using the same source materials that mention the two: the Gospels and Acts? If John can be shown to be historical from the New Testament, why cannot the same criterion apply to Jesus? Price never answers this.

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We have only recently discovered the Dead Sea scrolls and if scholars discovered anything previously unknown then I for one would have no objection to it being included in Scripture almost 2000 years later.

 

If you have no objection to the Christian Canon being updated in the light of new discoveries, which ecclesiastical authority do you consider to be the most suitable to implement this process?

Edited by carosio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing the BIBLE refers to is ALPHA OMEGA, - first and last. When OMEGA

strikes the denizens of Sheffield heading for a certain restaurant, the Greek letter suddenly changes from Oh-migger to O-meeger.

This lack of knowledge extends to TV. Even the ad for O-meeger 3 fish is also flawed. It does seem that the reverends know what it should be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you have no objection to the Christian Canon being updated in the light of new discoveries, which ecclesiastical authority do you consider to be the most suitable to implement this process?

 

One of the safeguards is that translation of original contemporary documents is done by scholars from various backgrounds, so no one person or body would be appropriate as any newly discovered documents would be of academic interest to people from a wide range of disciplines. :)

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.