The Bible is accurate

[Believer]

Peace all,

Here's a some excellent sites that give support for the Ressurection and the Bible's accuracy.

http://www.xenos.org/classes/papers/doubt.htm

Josephus tells how the Jews copied the Old Testament. "We have given practical proof of our reverence for our own Scriptures. For although such long ages have now passed, no one has ventured either to add, or to remove, or to alter a syllable; and it is an instinct with every Jew, from the day of his birth, to regard them as the decrees of God, to abide by them, and, if need be, cheerfully to die for them" (Against Apion, Book I, sec., 8, p. 158). Josephus statement is no exaggeration. The Jewish copyists knew exactly how many letters where in every line of every book and how many times each word occurred in each book. This enabled them to check for errors (Shelly, Prepare to Answer, p. 133). The Jews believed that adding any mistake to the Scriptures would be punishable by Hell. This is not like the modern secretary who has many letters to type and must work hard to keep their job, and consequently feels that mistakes are inevitable. Great care is exercised with scriptures when someone holds a conviction such as this.


http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/8449/two.html

The Uniqueness of the Bible
The internal evidence test reveals the Bible's amazing consistency. The Bible was written by over 40 authors, in 3 languages, on 3 continents, over a span of 1,500 years, and covers hundreds of controversial subjects. Yet, the authors all spoke with agreement; there are no contradictions. [5] From Genesis to Revelation, there is one unfolding story--God's redemption of mankind.


And here's proof of the Crucifixion:

http://www.spotlights.org/Cx-1.htm

[Omega]

http://www.spotlights.org/Cx-1.htm


That sheds a lot of light especially when there are some muslims who believe that the crucifixion is a parable.

[Alexei]

My first question about the Holy Bible accuracy:
Please explain how come that Adam lived in 3700 BC according to Genesis if we are to speak about the Bible Accuracy from Genesis to Revelations?

Thank you
Alexei

[Light]

When did Adam live according to the Qur'an Alexei?

[Alexei]

When did Adam live according to the Qur'an Alexei?

Well I asked a clear simple innocent question!
You are sure that the Holy Bible is accurate from Genesis to Revelation, then it wouldn't be hard for you to explain how did Adam, the first man, appeared on the POPULATED INHABITED earth in 3700 BC!!!


Thank you
Alexei

[webmaster]

Actually it was more than 3700bc!

[Light]

I believe what Genesis says, according to how the genealogies add up, the universe was created around the 4000 B.C mark, I'm not sure if that date is exact but it's very close, certainly according to Genesis, the creation took place within the last 6000 years.

Indeed, Adam was the first human being created and no, the earth was not populated with other people when Adam was made.

I do not believe in macro-evolution.
Micro-Evolution is another word for speciation and that is confirmed in the Bible, i.e "According to its kind"

Answer me this - When did Adam live according to the Qur'an Alexei?

[webmaster]

Why I mentioned that, which I can't find or fully remember all the details about was the story of Moses was found on stone dating around 10,000bc in egypt.

Here is a link about the The Genesis Genealogies
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/ ... ngene.html

Radiocarbon Dating
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1993/PSCF12-93Yang.html

I am not 100% sure about the 10,000 years old thingy. I need to research it futher.

[Believer]

Peace Alexei,

My first question about the Holy Bible accuracy:
Please explain how come that Adam lived in 3700 BC according to Genesis if we are to speak about the Bible Accuracy from Genesis to Revelations?

Those early geneology records aren't very accurate, to be very honest. This doesn't mean the entire Bible is to be discarded.
Adam and Eve were probably created a million+ years ago.

Do tell men, how long ago were Adam and Eve created in the Quran?
What were they created from according to the Quran? Dust? Clay? Water?

[Light]

We have differing opinions on how we interpret the genealogies, I interpret them literally.

[Naruto]

"The Uniqueness of the Bible
The internal evidence test reveals the Bible's amazing consistency. The Bible was written by over 40 authors, in 3 languages, on 3 continents, over a span of 1,500 years, and covers hundreds of controversial subjects. Yet, the authors all spoke with agreement; there are no contradictions. [5] From Genesis to Revelation, there is one unfolding story--God's redemption of mankind. "

Hello all. Sorry I haven't been around for a while. Anyway, no contradictions, huh?

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/c ... _book.html

[Alexei]

Actually it was more than 3700bc!

According to The Holy Bible, Abraham lived circa 1850 BC.
So let's do some calculation:

Date 1850 + 70 years for Tareh + 29 years for Nahor + 30 years for Serug + 32 years for Reu + 30 years for Peleg + 34 years for Eber+ 30 years for Shelah + 35 years for Arphaxad + 100 years for Shem + 500 years for Noah + 182 years for Lamech + 187 years for Methuselah + 65 years for Enoch + 162 years for Jared + 65 years for Mahalalel + 70 years for Kenan + 90 years for Enosh + 105 years for Seth + 130 years for Adam

Total = 3796 BC

So Adam the first man first appeared in 3796 BC!!!!

Indeed, Adam was the first human being created and no, the earth was not populated with other people when Adam was made.

In 3796 BC, many civilisations were in existence and were flourishing:
For example, Mesopotamia was in existence since 6000 BC, Chinese civilisation in 4200 BC, Pre-Egyptian dynasty in 5000 BC...
Even Jericho city in Palestine was in existence since 7000 BC.
The first wooden tire was invented aroud 3500 BC.

Those early geneology records aren't very accurate

I thought that the thread title is " THE BIBLE IS ACCURATE".


Thank you
Alexei

[Light]

Again Alexei, I believe what the Bible says, now, you still haven't answered this question, we answered you, answer the following.

When did Adam live according to the Qur'an Alexei?

[Light]

Mesopotamia was in existence since 6000 BC

Mesopotamia (Greek, “the land between the rivers”), area in western Asia, lying between the rivers Tigris and Euphrates, in which the world's earliest urban civilizations arose, around 3500 bc. Mesopotamia, known as “the cradle of civilization”, was the centre of Sumerian, Babylonian, Assyrian, and Chaldean civilizations. The area now forms most of modern Iraq, south-eastern Turkey, and eastern Syria.

Chinese civilisation in 4200 BC

China gave birth to one of the world’s earliest civilizations and has a recorded history that dates from some 3,500 years ago. Zhongguo, the Chinese name for the country, means “central land”, a reference to the Chinese belief that their country was the geographical centre of the Earth and the only true civilization.

Pre-Egyptian dynasty in 5000 BC...

Egypt is the offspring of the River Nile, whose waters and rich silts provided the basis for the development of one of the world’s first great civilizations, that of ancient Egypt, with a recorded history dating back to about 3200 bc.



The carbon dating method used to date the above is considered by many to be unreliable and just like the dating tools used from the 50's to the 70's, and another dating tool modified in the 80's, the current model will soon be replaced.

You know, according to Scientists back in the 50's, the earth was considered to be about 2 Billion years old, and then in the 80's, that changed to the current figure which I think is about 4.6 Billion years old.

[Alexei]

Again Alexei, I believe what the Bible says, now, you still haven't answered this question, we answered you, answer the following.

And what did the Bible say please?
And I didn't see any answer, Since the Bible is accurate, please explain how could Adam lived in 3796 BC?

When did Adam live according to the Qur'an Alexei?

Well this thread is tittled "The Bible Is Accurate", I didn't see the word "Qur'an"??
Please open a new thread and please try to criticize the date of Adam appearance according to the Noble Qur'an and I'll be happy to shock you with my answers.

Alexei

[Alexei]

Just a simple example:

Mesopotamia (Greek, “the land between the rivers”), area in western Asia, lying between the rivers Tigris and Euphrates, in which the world's earliest urban civilizations arose, around 3500 bc. Mesopotamia, known as “the cradle of civilization”, was the centre of Sumerian, Babylonian, Assyrian, and Chaldean civilizations. The area now forms most of modern Iraq, south-eastern Turkey, and eastern Syria.

The need for self-defense and irrigation led the ancient Mesopotamians to organize and build canals and walled settlements. [b]After 6000 bc the settlements grew, becoming cities by the 4th millennium bc.
© 1993-2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.[/b] (Encarta encyclopedia, CD, 2004, Mesopotamia).


Jericho is the site of the oldest settlement yet to be discovered, with significant archaeological remains dating back as far [b]as 8000 bc.[/b]© 1993-2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. (Encarta Encyclopedia, CD, 2004, Jericho).

It's not really strange when Gallileo Gallile once said:
"The Bible is here to teach people how to go to heavens, the Bible is not here to teach how the heavens go".


Alexei

[Light]

The carbon dating method used to date the above is considered by many to be unreliable and just like the dating tools used from the 50's to the 70's, and another dating tool modified in the 80's, the current model will soon be replaced.


I never said the dates were actually true, the quotes taken from encarta I used to show how there are so many different interpretations of when civilisations started.

You proved that yourself, encarta's interpretation is different to that of the one you first quoted.

[Alexei]

Beginning in about 10,000 bc, humans in China began developing agriculture, possibly influenced by developments in Southeast Asia. By 5000 bc there were Neolithic village settlements in several regions of China.© 1993-2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.(Encarta Encyclopedia, CD, 2004, China).

During the 5th millennium bc a people known as the Ubaidians established settlements in the region known later as Sumer; these settlements gradually developed into the chief Sumerian cities, namely Adab, Eridu, Isin, Kish, Kullab, Lagash, Larsa, Nippur, and Ur. © 1993-2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. (Encarta Encyclopedia, Cd, 2004, Sumer)

5000 BC
Early Chinese Civilization
Civilization develops in China, near Yangshao. These neolithic farmers practice slash-and-burn agriculture, moving often in search of fresh soil. They raise dogs and pigs, make pottery, and use stone tools.
© 1993-2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. (Encarta encyclopedia, CD, 2004, Time Line, Early Chinese Civilization).

6000 BC
Mesopotamian Diet Improves
Agriculture and animal husbandry improve the diets of people in Mesopotamia. Mesopotamians eat beef, mutton, and pork, and grow lentils and peas in addition to wheat and barley. This variety of meats, grains, and legumes results in improved health and increased life expectancies.
© 1993-2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. (Encarta Encyclopedia, CD, 2004, Time Line, Mesopotamian Dit Iproves).

11,000 years ago
Humans Domesticate Sheep
People domesticate sheep in the Middle East, in a region that later becomes northern Iraq. This is among the earliest instances of human domestication of animals.
© 1993-2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. (Encarta encyclopedia, CD, 2004, Time line, Humans Domestics Sheep).

Etc.... Etc.... Etc....


Alexei

[webmaster]

Actually it was more than 3700bc!

According to The Holy Bible, Abraham lived circa 1850 BC.

You know I don't see that date nowhere in the bible?
Could you please show me the date by chapter and verse number???

Didn't think so

[Believer]

Peace Alexei,

Well this thread is tittled "The Bible Is Accurate", I didn't see the word "Qur'an"??
Please open a new thread and please try to criticize the date of Adam appearance according to the Noble Qur'an and I'll be happy to shock you with my answers.

It was a simple question that requires a simple answer, not an entirely new thread. Why are you so reluctant to answer a simple question?

When did Adam live according to the Qur'an Alexei?

[Light]

Again -

The carbon dating method used to date the above is considered by many to be unreliable and just like the dating tools used from the 50's to the 70's, and another dating tool modified in the 80's, the current model will soon be replaced.

[Alexei]

Again -

The carbon dating method used to date the above is considered by many to be unreliable and just like the dating tools used from the 50's to the 70's, and another dating tool modified in the 80's, the current model will soon be replaced.

Here's Mr Lighteinstein has transformed into an expert in radioactivity

Well what about: Potassium-Argon, Rubidium-Strontium, Thorium-230, Involving Lead, Fission-Track, rhenium and osmium isotopes etc... etc...etc....

Alexei

[Alexei]

You know I don't see that date nowhere in the bible?
Could you please show me the date by chapter and verse number???

He he he ,
I gave you the calculation in my previous reply quoted from Genesis chapter 4,5, and 11.

If you didn't see the verses number , please tell me and I'll be really pleased to offer detailed calculation so can all people see how Adam the first man first appeared on earth in 3796 BC.


Alexei

[Alpha]

Well Alexei, those different methods of dating can also be used as an advantage towards the theory of evolution and that there is no God. So if you accept these hazy ways of dating as being true to show the Bible's corruption, then why follow Islam if there is no God?

[Alexei]

Well Alexei, those different methods of dating can also be used as an advantage towards the theory of evolution and that there is no God. So if you accept these hazy ways of dating as being true to show the Bible's corruption, then why follow Islam if there is no God?

Really??
Typical Christian
C'mon stop running away and coming up with silly and shallow excuses and explain how did Adam first appeared in 3796 BC?

Alexei

[Believer]

Peace Alexei,

C'mon stop running away and coming up with silly and shallow excuses and explain how did Adam first appeared in 3796 BC?

The first man existed way before that time!
I told you, don't take those very ancient geneology records literally.
In fact, don't take everything in early Genesis so literally.
And your argument is very weak, is this what your reduced to?

However, it's interesting to point out, all ancient civilizations do not predate 3796 BC. In fact, the most ancient of civilizations began around that time.
I really wonder if the Adam and Eve story has some deeper symbolism too it.

[Alexei]

The first man existed way before that time!
I told you, don't take those very ancient geneology records literally.
In fact, don't take everything in early Genesis so literally.

Now I should take the fabulous erronous genealogies literally???
Now just when they are innacurate
And should I also take Matthew and Luke genealogies not literally? They are the almost the same found in the Old Testament??? (Of course with dropping some names, and adding some names )
Typical Christian

However, it's interesting to point out, all ancient civilizations do not predate 3796 BC. In fact, the most ancient of civilizations began around that time.

Really?
Now I should believe Mr Lighteinstein and disbelieve the most authenticated references such as Encarta and others.
Just when hearing this heresy, I began to understand why the great numbers of atheist are present in Christian societies.

I really wonder if the Adam and Eve story has some deeper symbolism too it.

Explain please what you mean by symbolism!!! It must be interesting!


Alexei

[Alpha]

Really??
Typical Christian
C'mon stop running away and coming up with silly and shallow excuses and explain how did Adam first appeared in 3796 BC?

Alexei, I would truthfully answer your question and say I do not know when Adam was on this earth.

[Believer]

Peace Alexei,

Now I should take the fabulous erronous genealogies literally???
Now just when they are innacurate
And should I also take Matthew and Luke genealogies not literally? They are the almost the same found in the Old Testament??? (Of course with dropping some names, and adding some names )
Typical Christian

The Matthew and Luke genealogies do have some minor contradictions, I guess that means the entire Bible is unreliable now and should be discarded? Maybe in your very limited and misguided mind, Alexei.
What am I saying! If your brainwashed enough to follow Islam, why not use pathetic attempts to invalidate the Bible?
Whether or not the early genealogy records are true or not does not bother me at all, it's not important in the least.

What's important is that Jesus came from the house of David, that's all that matters.

[Light]

The Matthew and Luke genealogies do have some minor contradictions,

No, no, no, the Hebrew line of Jesus’ descent is recorded in both Matthew 1.2-16 and Luke 3.23-38. There is no difference between these two records from Abraham to David but thereafter they diverge considerably. Matthew traces the line of Jesus’ genealogy through David’s son Solomon while Luke takes it through his son Nathan. From there on the two accounts are very different.

Why? - Two lines of ancestry

Matthew records Joseph's ancestry line.

Luke records Mary's ancestory line.

Joseph was descended from David through Solomon while his mother Mary was descended from the same ancestor through Nathan. Thus there is no contradiction between them.

[Believer]

Peace light,

Matthew records Joseph's ancestry line.

Luke records Mary's ancestory line.

That's really cool, I never knew that.
God bless you!

[Light]

Every child has two genealogies, people often forget that Joseph was the legal guardian and registered father of Jesus (although not his natural father).

[Lady Fatima]

Peace Light,

Why? - Two lines of ancestry Matthew records Joseph's ancestry line. Luke records Mary's ancestory line.

Why Mary? Does the Bibe say Mary? One list ends with Jesus, and the other Jesus. There's no Mary insight!

[Light]

Matthew records Joseph's ancestry line.

Luke records Mary's ancestory line.

[Lady Fatima]

Peace Light,

Bring your evidence from the Bible, where Luke is for the genealogy of Mary!

[Light]

Matthew makes it plain that he is recording the line of Joseph.

Matthew 1.16 - And Jacob begot Joesph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ

Throughout the first two chapters of his Gospel we find Joseph to be the central character. Each appearance of the Angel Gabriel recorded here is to Joseph. In Luke’s Gospel, however, Mary is always the central personality and only the appearance of Gabriel to her is mentioned.

Luke himself states specifically that Jesus was the son, "as was supposed", of Joseph (Luke 3.23) and it is in this little expression that the key to Jesus’ genealogy in his Gospel is found. Unlike Matthew he mentions no women in Jesus’ ancestry and, to maintain the general practice of outlining the masculine order only, Luke records Joseph as the supposed father of Jesus. He very carefully qualified Joseph’s role so that it would be clear that he was not recording the genealogy of Jesus through his representative father but rather his actual genealogy through his real mother Mary.

[Lady Fatima]

Peace Light,

I beg to differ. I found this explanation on a Catholic website, who admit that Luke was also for the geneology of Joseph and NOT Mary. However, they offer another "excuse" to cover up the blatant contradiction:

THE GENEOLOGY OF JESUS

The genealogy of Jesus is traced through Joseph, but Joseph had nothing to do with Jesus' conception. The following explanation sheds light on what seems to be a confusing issue.

We have two genealogies of Jesus- Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38. Because there are so many substantial differences between these two (for example, many of the ancestral names don't match), they have given scholars a headache through the ages. For example: Who was Joseph's father? Was it Jacob (according to Matthew), or Eli (according to Luke)?

One answer is: both lists are family records, but Matthew is giving us Joseph's record, and Luke is giving us Mary's. But that answer goes against the text - Luke makes it clear that he is tracing Jesus' descent through Joseph. Nor does it fit with what we know of ancient middle eastern peoples. A genealogy traced through the mother would not have been normal at that time and place in history.

We have to remember that Israel's origin was tribal. The clan leader was, of necessity, a dominant male. The individual's survival depended on being able to claim membership within the tribe. Since in real life many things could happen to a bloodline, a number of supplementary laws and customs developed. A person could become a member of a clan without actually being born into it. One way was by adoption. Another was to be born of a woman who was married to a man of that clan. Even when the husband was not the child's biological father, he was still officially the legal father, simply because he was husband to the child's mother.

In the Bible, genealogies can serve different purposes. Besides establishing identity, they can also be used to structure history into epochs and to authenticate a line of office-holders. That's why an individual can be accorded two or more genealogies according to the purposes for which they were drawn up. Rarely do ancient biblical genealogies afford us a list of strictly biological ancestry.

What were Matthew's and Luke's purposes in giving Jesus a genealogy? They list different ancestors but agree totally on the most important fact: Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus. To see how Matthew made a strong statement about this, read slowly Matthew 1:1-17. Let the repeated, rhythmic phrases "A the father of B," "B the father of C," and so forth, almost lull you to sleep. What happens when you get to verse 16? The lilting, fixed pattern is suddenly altered: "Jacob was the father of Joseph the husband of Mary. It was of her that Jesus who is called the Messiah was born." By using his genealogical list in this way, Matthew was able to proclaim both that Jesus was virginally conceived and that he was also legitimately a "son of David, son of Abraham" (1:1). For Matthew's Jewish Christian audience this was like calling Jesus the Messiah.

Luke proclaims our Lord's virginal conception when he speaks about Jesus as being - so it was supposed - the son of Joseph in 3:23. He then takes his genealogy back to Adam and even to God himself. In doing this he is stating that Jesus is nothing less than the Son of God. Because neither evangelist was principally concerned with Jesus' biological ancestry, the lists could differ, and each evangelist could present a different popular tradition suitable to his own specific purpose.

So we see that Joseph was not Jesus' biological father, but he was his legal father. The two genealogies make that point emphatically. Because of that, all of us can now proclaim with the Scriptures that Jesus was, indeed, son of David, son of Abraham, and Son of God.

http://www.disciplesnow.com/catholic/ht ... le327.html

Peace and Blessings be to the Believers

[Light]

I beg to differ. I found this explanation on a Catholic website, who admit that Luke was also for the geneology of Joseph and NOT Mary. However, they offer another "excuse" to cover up the blatant contradiction:

Do you actually think that those who collected the books of the New Testament, and who believed it was inerrant, were unaware of this blatant differentiation in genealogies?


They do not admit that Luke's Gospel was for the geneology of Jospeh, they admit that it is a confusing matter and in that, they offer an explanation.

However I am Catholic and I do not agree with that explanation,
(Luke 3.23), the "as was supposed" verse and Luke's focus on Mary underlines for me and many others the fact that it is in fact Mary's geneology.

To discuss this in full, we'd have to start a new topic, also, I went to the official catholic site, a sub-site I think, and it says in a nutshell that the confusion is only about how many possibilities there are as to how one should read and interpret the geneologies, the end result is the same.

Just a note of interest, Luke was not written to the Jews, Matthew was, and Joseph was not the physical father of Jesus but he had to be regarded as his father for the sake of his genealogy as all Jews reckoned their genealogies through their fathers.



Do you actually think that the Christians were so dense that they were unaware of the differences in the genealogy lists, closed their eyes and put the gospels into the canon anyway hoping no one would notice?

Not at all. They knew the cultural context and had no problem with it knowing that one was of Joseph and the other of Mary.

[oneGOD]

The bible is inacurate :

1)The total elapsed time between Adam and the flood was only 1656 years.

2) According to Genesis another ten generations elapsed from the time of the flood until the time of Abraham and that time is 520 years betwen Abraham and the flood.

The funny thing is that this would mean that all of Abraham's ancestors reaching back as far as Noah's son Shem would still have been alive at the birth of Abraham.

Biblical numbers are nowhere near reality, whether you take those numbers literally or not I still believe that if those people who wrote those scriptures down were inspired by God then no such error should occur.

3) Another evidence that shows the bible isn't inspired by God :

THE RAINBOW: The rainbow was the sign in which no flood would ever happen again. Of course thinking that the rainbow didn't exist before the flood is just can not be comprehended. For those of you who never read it the rainbow is the sign of the covenant that no flood would take on the whole world ever again.

4) something interesting also:

I Kings 6:1 assigns 480 years to the period between founding of Jerusalem Temple in King Solomon's fourth regnal year and the Exodus of Egypt. Solomon's fourth year was close to 960 BCE which would place the Exodus at 1440 BCE. Counting 430 years for the period of the Israelite sojoum in Egypt we move back to 1870 BCE. To this date are added the 215 years demanded by the total of Abraham's age upon entering Canaan (74 according to Genesis 12:4 in sync with Gen 11:26); 25 additional years before the birth of Isaac (Gen 21:5); 60 more years to the birth of Jacob and finally the appearance of Jacob before the Pharaoh at the age of 130. These 215 years added to the previous total yield a date of 2085 BCE for the entrance of Abraham into Canaan and a date of 2160 BCE for his birth.

As nice as it might appear it leaves out numerous chronological notices tucked away in other biblical texts (which proves that it was written by several authors at different periods of times and those authors though inspired by God failed to come with matched numbers, so even if you don't take the numbers the way they are supposed to be taken they don't even match in other texts)

1) the 480 years between the Exodus and the fourth year of King Solomon must include ALL of the following
a) the wilderness wanderings 40 years
b) the career of Joshua and his immediate succerssors
c) the judges
d) the long career of Samuel
f) the life, times and reign of David

In other words the biblical Numbers DO NOT SQUARE WITH EACH OTHER AT ALL

So if these numbers were not to be taken literaly we also find that they do not agree with each other with leave you guye with another problem.

[Preecha]

"Understanding the Genesis genealogies requires a systematic understanding of the nature, style, and purpose of genealogies in the Bible. Even a cursory study of Biblical genealogies shows that Biblical genealogies are very different from their modern counterparts. Looking closer, we find that Biblical genealogies are commonly telescoped by leaving out less important names and that it is usually impossible to tell if a genealogy is complete simply by looking at it."

Taken from a website...

[oneGOD]

It's not about this only, read my post again please

[Believer]

Peace OneGOD,

Biblical numbers are nowhere near reality, whether you take those numbers literally or not I still believe that if those people who wrote those scriptures down were inspired by God then no such error should occur.

You have to be a very shallow-minded person to judge the validity of the Bible based on old chronological records and ancient geneologies.
The Bible could very well exist without any of that, those things are very unnecessary.

1) the 480 years between the Exodus and the fourth year of King Solomon must include ALL of the following
a) the wilderness wanderings 40 years
b) the career of Joshua and his immediate succerssors
c) the judges
d) the long career of Samuel
f) the life, times and reign of David

Oh yes! This is very possible.
Alot of things happened between the Exodus and Solomon's reign.

THE RAINBOW: The rainbow was the sign in which no flood would ever happen again. Of course thinking that the rainbow didn't exist before the flood is just can not be comprehended. For those of you who never read it the rainbow is the sign of the covenant that no flood would take on the whole world ever again.

This was a massive and amazing miraclous rainbow, not some daintly little thing you see after a drizzle.


OneGOD, you judge the bible based on what is fundementally worth nothing.
Read through the writing of the Prophets, the Psalms, proverbs, Sirach, Ecclesiasties, Esther.
The Quran lacks all of these amazing books.
Don't be so incredibly shallow-minded, be more open to the Bible and not so quick to judge and dismiss based on an irrelevent premises.
Read through Isaiah and tell me it isn't full of amazing prophecies for jesus Christ! You are missing out on so many things, do me a big favor and read through the Bible with an open heart, okay.

[oneGOD]

The Bible could very well exist without any of that, those things are very unnecessary.

But it doesn't.

Oh yes! This is very possible.
Alot of things happened between the Exodus and Solomon's reign

It took about 630 years to go through all this and it says 480, come on now.

This was a massive and amazing miraclous rainbow, not some daintly little thing you see after a drizzle.

Maybe you should read it and you will find it is not.

The Quran lacks all of these amazing books.

We are not talking about the Quran here.

It is not about when Adam was created, it is about how numbers that don't square at all. I am fine if you say that those numbers meant somethig else to those ancient people but when they also don't square together then something is wrong here.

You said the bible is accurate and it has been shown to you it is not, now try to prove us wrong otherwise your faith could be considered blind(no offense intended).







[/quote]

[Believer]

Peace OneGOD,

You said the bible is accurate and it has been shown to you it is not, now try to prove us wrong otherwise your faith could be considered blind(no offense intended).

Again, you have to be very shallow-minded and pathetic to judge the Bible as wrong based on some numbers.
I challenge you, read through the Bible with an open heart and don't be so intent on disproving it because you're getting very pathetic.

[Alexei]

The Quran lacks all of these amazing books.

Well can someone please tell me where can I find the following amazing books:

The Book Of War:
Wherefore it is said in the book of the wars of the LORD, What he did in the Red sea, and in the brooks of Arnon, [Numbers 21:14]

The Book Of Jasher:
(Also he bade them teach the children of Judah the use of the bow: behold, it is written in the book of Jasher.) [2 Samuel 1:18] and [Joshua 10:13]

The Book of Manners of the Kingdom:
Then Samuel told the people the manner of the kingdom, and wrote it in a book, and laid it up before the LORD. And Samuel sent all the people away, every man to his house. [1 Samuel 10:25].

The History of Samuel the Seer, The History of Prophet Nathan & The Book of Gad the Seer:
Now the acts of David the king, first and last, behold, they are written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer, [1 Chronicles 29:29].

The Book of Shemiah, the Prophet, The Book of Iddo, the Seer:
Now the acts of Rehoboam, first and last, are they not written in the book of Shemaiah the prophet, and of Iddo the seer concerning genealogies? And there were wars between Rehoboam and Jeroboam continually. [2 Chronicles 12:15].

The Prophecy of Ahijah, The Visions of Iddo, the Seer:
Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, first and last, are they not written in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the visions of Iddo the seer against Jeroboam the son of Nebat? [2 Chronicles 9:29]

etc.....etc.......etc.......

And please can you give me the exact NAMES of the "inspired" men who wrote each book of the Holy Bible??? I need names not nicknames!!

Thank you
Alexei

[oneGOD]

Believer, I believe you find it hard to stick to the subject. the subject is about the accuracy of the bible as you claim, the Quran has nothing to do with the accuracy of the bible and the accuracy of the bible has nothing to do with how great the stories in the bible are. So, since you claimed that the bible is accurate and it has been proven to you that is it not then you gotta try and defended otherwise I still believe that you just believe because you want to believe believer

[Believer]

Peace Alexei,

Yeah, there are some Old Testament books that are lost to us.
Although it's a shame we don't have them, they're no big loss.
You have plenty of amazing boks in the Bible and they tell us all we need to know.

And please can you give me the exact NAMES of the "inspired" men who wrote each book of the Holy Bible??? I need names not nicknames!!

Moses, Jeremiah, Ezekial, Elijah, Isaiah, Baruk, Joel, Hosea, Zechariah, and Amos to name a few.
I'd say the prophets were inspired men.
Now some books were completed by the prophets' trusted disciples.
Some books like Chronicles and Kings were written by inspired scribes, I don't know their names, but that's irrevelant.
The Spirit of the LORD was on them, and that is what matters.


Peace OneGOD,

So, since you claimed that the bible is accurate and it has been proven to you that is it not then you gotta try and defended otherwise I still believe that you just believe because you want to believe believer

If the Bible was corrupted, then the many prophecies supporting the Christrian testament of Jesus Christ would have been lost.
That was not the case, fortumately.
It would be very impossible for the Bible to be corrupt and yet have prophecies for Jesus Christ fully intact.
The Bible has not been corrupted.

Now that is proof the Bible is not corrupt, will you accept this?

You still might not want to accept the Bible, why?
Maybe it's because you don't want to believe what it says.

[786]

if the bible is accurate then how do you explain this

And Abram was fourscore and six years old, when Hagar bare Ishmael to Abram.
genesis 16:16

abaraham was 46 years old when ishmael was born

then in genisis 17:24-26

And Abraham was ninety years old and nine, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin.
And Ishmael his son was thirteen years old, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin.
In the selfsame day was Abraham circumcised, and Ishmael his son.

abarham was 99 years old and ishmael was 13 when they had their circumcision done

i think ishmael should have been around 57 years old when his father was 99 dont you think?

whatever faith you choose and why is up to you

believer today you get your apology
i am truly sorry for what i said to you back in the past
it was very un Islamic of me peace
Abdur Rasheed

[Believer]

Peace 786,

Genesis 16:16
Abram was eighty-six years old when Hagar bore him Ishmael.


This Bible says otherwise, and 86+13=99.
Numbers aren't what bothers me anyways, I look deeper than numbers.

I accept your apology Abdur, may God bless you.
Let us put behind the past.
Sincerely, Believer.

[oneGOD]

If the Bible was corrupted, then the many prophecies supporting the Christrian testament of Jesus Christ would have been lost.
That was not the case, fortumately.
It would be very impossible for the Bible to be corrupt and yet have prophecies for Jesus Christ fully intact.
The Bible has not been corrupted.

Now that is proof the Bible is not corrupt, will you accept this?

You still might not want to accept the Bible, why?
Maybe it's because you don't want to believe what it says.

Heh, again the subject was about the BIBLE'S ACCURACY not about the prophecies of Jesus in the bible which in fact most of them are taken out of context.

If there were mistakes in the bible about numbers for example, would this make it a book of God? of course not because the word of God can not be altered.

Stick to the subject and defend the ideas presented about the bible's inaccuracy.

[Believer]

Peace OneGOD,

Heh, again the subject was about the BIBLE'S ACCURACY not about the prophecies of Jesus in the bible which in fact most of them are taken out of context.

If there were mistakes in the bible about numbers for example, would this make it a book of God? of course not because the word of God can not be altered.

Stick to the subject and defend the ideas presented about the bible's inaccuracy.

First of all, this is my thread so don't tell me what I can't post!
Secondly, my previous post has every bit to do with accuracy.
Jesus Christ's life was accurately backed up in prophecies.
If the Bible was altered or corrupted, the prophecies would have been corrupted or lost, and we would have nothing to back up our faith.
That is final, the Bible was not corrupted.
Numbers are very irrelevant, prophecies are a 1000% more important.

[Jeesus]

The Bible was written by a group of Arabs who were smoking chronic and heat-stricken under the Sun. They got together and wrote the best-selling drug-induced piece of fiction.

[Preecha]

I have yet to read a book by a drug endused writer, where being humble, giving, hopeful, and loving was commanded of the reader. Not to mention, a book written by over 30 authors who all are on the same drug and agreeing with each other about such issues. Nice try man!

[Aineo]

Peace Light,

Bring your evidence from the Bible, where Luke is for the genealogy of Mary!

Well, Lady Fatima here is your evidence:

Luke 3:23

And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

[Thirty years of age] This was the age required by the law, to which the priests must arrive before they could be installed in their office: see Num 4:3.

[Being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph] This same phrase is used by Herodotus to signify one who was only reputed to be the son of a particular person: toutou (NT:5127) pais (NT:3816) nomizetai (NT:3543), he was supposed to be this man's son.

Much learned labour has been used to reconcile this genealogy with that in Matthew, Matt 1, and there are several ways of doing it; the following, which appears to me to be the best, is also the most simple and easy. For a more elaborate discussion of the subject, the reader is referred to the additional observations at the end of the chapter.

Matthew, in descending from Abraham to Joseph, the spouse of the blessed virgin, speaks of sons properly such, by way of natural generation: Abraham begat Isaac, and Isaac begat Jacob, etc. But Luke, in ascending from the Saviour of the world to God himself, speaks of sons either properly or improperly such: on this account he uses an indeterminate mode of expression, which may be applied to sons either putatively or really such. And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed the son of Joseph-of Heli-of Matthat, etc. This receives considerable support from Raphelius' method of reading the original oon (NT:5607) (hoos (NT:5613) enomizeto (NT:3543) huios (NT:5207) Iooseeph (NT:2501)) tou (NT:3588) Heeli (NT:2242), being (when reputed the son of Joseph) the son of Heli, etc. That Luke does not always speak of sons properly such, is evident from the first and last person which he names: Jesus Christ was only the supposed son of Joseph, because Joseph was the husband of his mother Mary: and Adam, who is said to be the son of God, was such only by creation. After this observation it is next necessary to consider, that, in the genealogy described by Luke, there are two sons improperly such: i.e. two sons-in-law, instead of two sons.


As the Hebrews never permitted women to enter into their genealogical tables, whenever a family happened to end with a daughter, instead of naming her in the genealogy, they inserted her husband, as the son of him who was, in reality, but his father-in-law. This import, Dr. Pearce has fully shown, nomizesthai (NT:3543) bears, in a variety of places-Jesus was considered according to law, or allowed custom, to be the son of Joseph, as he was of Heli.

The two sons-in-law who are to be noticed in this genealogy are Joseph the son-in-law of Heli, whose own father was Jacob, Matt 1:16; and Salathiel, the son-in-law of Neri, whose own father was Jechonias: 1 Chron 3:17, and Matt 1:12. This remark alone is sufficient to remove every difficulty. Thus it appears that Joseph, son of Jacob, according to Matthew, was son-in-law of Heli, according to Luke. And Salathiel, son of Jechonias, according to the former, was son-in-law of Neri, according to the latter
(from Adam Clarke's Commentary, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1996 by Biblesoft)

The reason we have 2 genealogies for Jesus is to show one that He is descended through the royal line of David on His father's side and therefore would be legally eligible to inherit the throne as inheritance is through the male line; two to show that He was an ethnic Jew since Jewish ethnicity is proven through the female line. The Jews are a matriarchal society.

As to rainbows:

1 : an arc or circle that exhibits in concentric bands the colors of the spectrum and that is formed opposite the sun by the refraction and reflection of the sun's rays in raindrops , spray, or mist

Prior to the flood the requirements for a rainbow could not be met since the earth was surrounded by water vapor, which would not have allowed the light refraction required to produce a rainbow.

What I find interesting is that Muslims and other non-Christians seem to think that the only way to discredit Christianity and the Bible is by the use of empirical science. The Bible is not a science textbook; it is a book that teaches us the character, nature, and purposes of God. A literal acceptance of Genesis 1 is fairly recent phenomena among Christians dating back to about the middle of the 1800’s. What is interesting about Genesis 1 is the order of creation follows the same order found in science. DNA has shown that every human being on the face of the earth is descended from the same woman and the same man (our microcondrial parents). The Bible states the earth is round, hung in space, David wrote about streams in the oceans long before we knew about the Humboldt Current and other such currents in the oceans, etc. There is enough anecdotal evidence in the Bible to satisfy most skeptics.

Archeological discoveries over the last 150 or so years have verified many locals and incidents recorded in Scripture that were previously thought to be myths.

[oneGOD]

Where did Jesus tell his disciples to go after his resurrection?
Mt.28:10
"Then said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid: go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me."
Mk.16:7
"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."
He told them to tarry in Jerusalem.
Lk.24:49
And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high."
Acts 1:4
"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."

Did Jesus ascend from Bethany or Mount Olivet?
Lk.24:50-51
"He led them out as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them. And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven."
Acts 1:9, 12
"And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.... Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet."

How did Judas die?
He hanged himself.
Mt.27:5
"And he [Judas] cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself."
He fell down and died.
" Now this man [Judas] purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out."

Where was Jacob buried?
Jacob was buried at Machpelah.
Gen.50:13
"For his sons carried him into the land of Canaan, and buried him [Jacob] in the cave of the field of Machpelah."
Jacob was buried at Shechem.
Acts 7:15-16
So Jacob went down into Egypt, and died, he, and our fathers, and were carried over into Shechem, and laid in the sepulchre."

Who bought the sepulcher in Shechem from the sons of Hamor?
Jacob
Jos.24:32
"And the bones of Joseph, which the children of Israel brought up out of Egypt, buried they in Shechem, in a parcel of ground which Jacob bought of the sons of Hamor."
Abraham
Acts 7:16
"So Jacob went down into Egypt, and died, he, and our fathers, and were carried over into Shechem, and laid in the sepulchre that Abraham bought for a sum of money of the sons of Hamor."

Did the men with Paul hear the voice?
Yes, they heard the voice.
Acts 9:7
"And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man."
No, they didn't hear the voice.
Acts.22:9
"And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me."

Is Salvation by faith alone?
Salvation is by faith alone.
Rom.3:28
"A man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law."
Acts 16:30-31
"Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house."

Salvation is not by faith alone
Ps.62:12
"For you render to each one according to his works."
Jer.17:10
"I the Lord ... give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings."
Jas.2:14
"What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?"
Jas.2:17
"Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead."
1 Pet.1:17
"The Father, who without pariality judges according to each one's work."

Very accurate indeed.

[Alexei]

Well let’s first start by comparing the wonderful genealogies in The Holy Bible so you can see to what degree they are reliable:

Well in Matthew genealogy, he cited that between the Exile of Babylon and Jesus there are 14 generations, however if you count them you’ll only find 13!!! Oops!
Where did the fourteenth name disappear?

Further more, Matthew dropped a couple of people's names (Joash, Amaziah, Azariah) to fit the scheme!!!

Well in Luke genealogy, Luke inserts someone by the name of Cainan into the mix, between Arphraxad and Shelah!!!

Really reliable genealogies!!!

Let’s compare in details the genealogies in 1 Chronicles, Matthew, and Luke, and please look and compare the bold name and question marks in the genealogies:

1 Chronicles:
Adam, Seth, Enoch, Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah, Shem, Arphraxad, ?????????????, Shelah, Eber, Peleg, Reu, Serug, Nahor, Terah, Abraham, Issac, Israel, Judah, Perez, Hezron, Ram, Amminadab, Nahshon, Salmon, Boaz, Obed, Jesse, David, Solomon/Nathan, Rehoboam, Abijah, Assa, Jehosaphat, Jehoram, Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah, Azariah, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, Manasseh, Amon, Josiah, Jehoiakim, Jehoikain, Shealtiel, Pedaiah, Zerubbabel.

Matthew:
Abraham, Issac, Israel, Judah, Perez, Hezron, Ram, Amminadab, Nahshon, Salmon, Boaz, Obed, Jesse, David, Solomon, Rehoboam, Abijah, Assa, Jehosaphat, Jehoram, Uzzaih, ?????????????????????, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, Manasseh, Amon, Josiah, ????????????????, Zerubbabel, Abiud, Eliakim, Azor, Zadok, Akim, Eliud, Eleazar, Mathan, Jacob, Joseph, Jesus.

Luke:
Adam, Seth, Enoch, Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah, Shem, Arphraxad, Cainan, Shelah, Eber, Peleg, Reu, Serug, Nahor, Terah, Abraham, Issac, Israel, Judah, Perez, Hezron, Ram, Amminadab, Nahshon, Salmon, Boaz, Obed, Jesse, David, Nathan, Mattatha, Menna, Melea, Eliakim, Jonam, Joseph, Judah, Simeon, Levi, Metthat, Jorim, Eliezer, Joshua, Er, Elmadam, Cosam, Addi, Melki, Neri, Shealtiel, Zerubbabel, Rhesea, Joanan, Joda, Josech, Semein, Mattathias, Maath, Naggai, Elsi, Nahum, Amus, Mattathias, Joseh, Jannai, Melki, Levi, Heli, Joseph, Jesus.

Notices:
1) Abiud is not mentioned in Chronicles as a son of Zerubbabel!!!

2) If one trace back the years back to Adam, he’ll found out that Adam first appeared in 3796 BC!!!

3) If one trace back the years back to Noah, he’ll found out that the Biblical Universal flood took place around 2000 BC!!! Oops!

I didn’t get enough into details, because things will become really complicated and absurd!!!
I think, that after looking, even superficially, anyone can notice that something is wrong somewhere!!! Oops!

But Luke, in ascending from the Saviour of the world to God himself, speaks of sons either properly or improperly

Proves please!!!

After this observation it is next necessary to consider, that, in the genealogy described by Luke, there are two sons improperly such: i.e. two sons-in-law, instead of two sons.

Proves please!!!

As the Hebrews never permitted women to enter into their genealogical tables, whenever a family happened to end with a daughter, instead of naming her in the genealogy, they inserted her husband, as the son of him who was, in reality, but his father-in-law

Why should we believe that Luke meant Mary with its genealogy? Are we to believe Mary is an exception? Proves please!!!

The two sons-in-law who are to be noticed in this genealogy are Joseph the son-in-law of Heli

Proves please!!!

Just for correction: Please note that there are no parentheses in the Greek text. This is added by the translators, for better or worse. When Luke writes "the son (as was supposed) of Joseph," he goes on to state without a break, "of Heli, of Matthat, of Levi" and so son. The word "of" in the English translations is indicative of a genitive case in the Greek, which amounts to saying in English: " The son (as was supposed) of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, which was the son of Matthat and so on… Clearly, the evidence in this context says this genealogy is based on Joseph and not on Mary. It cannot be, by any stretch of the imagination, the genealogy of Jesus through his mother.

A literal acceptance of Genesis 1 is fairly recent phenomena among Christians dating back to about the middle of the 1800’s.

I thought that Genesis was written by Moses through inspiration, and Moses lived in the 13 century BC!!! How come now that you are talking about 1800's???

The Bible states the earth is round

May be you would have to prove that Isaiah meant circle (Chwug) in the sense of sphere. Plates and disks are circular in shape as well as spheres. Circlres are two dimensional geometric forms, and we still talking about the circular flat earth!

hung in space

You meant on pillars please as in (Job 9:6)


Alexei

[Aineo]

Job 26:7
7 "He stretches out the north over empty space,
And hangs the earth on nothing.
NAS

Prov 8:27
27 "When He established the heavens, I was there,
When He inscribed a circle on the face of the deep,
NAS

Have you seen photo's of the earth taken from space? The earth is a circle.

As to the genealogies; if you took the time to read what I posted your explanations are found. However,

In Mattew, where unquestionably we have the genealogy of Joseph, we are told (1:16) that Joseph was the son of Jacob. In what sense, then, could he be called in Luke "the son of Heli"? He could not be by natural generation the son both of Jacob and Heli. But in Luke it is not said that Heli begat jospeh, so that the natural explanation is that Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli, who was, like himself a descendant of David. That he should in that case be called "son of Heli" (son is not in the Greek, but rightly supplied by the translators) would be in accord with Jewish usage. (cf 1 Sam 24:16). The conclusion is therefore inevitable that in Luke we have Mary's genealogy; and Joseph was "son of Heli" because espoused to Heli's daughter. The genealogy of Luke is Mary's, who father Heli, was descended from David.

From note on Luke 3:23 Scofield Reference Edition KJV)

Onegod, the Bible is clear we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. The reference you posted from Romans is dealing with the Torah, (we are not saved by works of the Law Romans 3:28 ). However Paul goes on in Ephesians to state this:

Eph 2:10
10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. NAS

What are good works? This has nothing to do with not working on the Sabbath, not eating pork, not planting multiple crops in the same field, not wearing clothes of mixed fibers; but has everything to do with "loving your neighbor as yourself". James is teaching the same principle. However, James is more pragmatic and direct and states the faith without works is dead. Or to put in more plainly, any man or woman who claims a faith in Christ and does not feed the poor, minister to the sick, etc. does not have a true faith in Christ.

Genesis 33:19-20
19 And he bought the piece of land where he had pitched his tent from the hand of the sons of Hamor, Shechem's father, for one hundred pieces of money. 20 Then he erected there an altar, and called it El-Elohe-Israel.
NAS

Acts 7:16

16 And were carried over into Sychem, and laid in the sepulchre that Abraham bought for a sum of money of the sons of Emmor the father of Sychem. KJV

Acts 7:16
16 "And from there they were removed to Shechem, and laid in the tomb which Abraham had purchased for a sum of money from the sons of Hamor in Shechem. NAS

MACHPELAH

(mak-pe'-la) (ha-makhpelah, "the Machpelah"; to diploun, "the double"): The name of a piece of ground and of a cave purchased by Abraham as a place of sepulcher. The word is supposed to mean "double" and refers to the condition of the cave. It is translated "double cave" (to diploun spelaion) in the Septuagint in Gen 23:17. The name is applied to the ground in Gen 23:19; 49:30; 50:13, and to the cave in Gen 23:9; 25:9. In Gen 23:17 we have the phrase "the field of Ephron, which was in (the) Machpelah."

1. Scriptural Data: The cave belonged to Ephron the Hittite, the son of Zohar, from whom Abraham purchased it for 400 shekels of silver (Gen 23:8-16). It is described as "before," i.e. "to the East of" Mamre (verse 17) which (verse 19) is described as the same as Hebron (see, too, 25:9; 49:30; 50:13). Here were buried Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebecca, Jacob and Leah. (Compare however the curious variant tradition in Acts 7:16, "Shechem" instead of "Hebron.")
(from International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Electronic Database Copyright (c)1996 by Biblesoft)

As to why Stephen is recorded at stating Shechem (Sychem) in lieu of Machpelah see:

Josh 24:32

32 Now they buried the bones of Joseph, which the sons of Israel brought up from Egypt, at Shechem, in the piece of ground which Jacob had bought from the sons of Hamor the father of Shechem for one hundred pieces of money; and they became the inheritance of Joseph's sons.
NAS

; as a possible explanation.

You will find some apparent discrepancies in the Gospels, which can be accounted for by the fact you find 4 accounts by 4 unique individuals. The minor differences do not in any way change or detract from Biblical doctrine.

Really, if all you want to do is nit pick locations and minor details this just shows the weakness of your own faith in your religion. If you can't defend your doctrine except by attempting to destroy others beliefs your religion lacks substance.

[oneGOD]

You will find some apparent discrepancies in the Gospels, which can be accounted for by the fact you find 4 accounts by 4 unique individuals. The minor differences do not in any way change or detract from Biblical doctrine.

well since they are supposedly inspired by God those apparent discrepancies should not exist. The doctrine of the NT is way different from the OT, don't want to change the subject here anyway. We were talking about accuracy of the bible, well it's not accurate as demontrated above.

One more thing, even if the numers in the bible don't represent how we perceive numbers nowadays they still don't add up right or square with each other.

Again, the subject here is not about a doctrine, it is about accuracy.

Here is another example for you:

To whome did Peter deny knwoing Jesus
In Matthew 26:69

1)A servant girl.
2)Another girl.
3)Then a crowd of people.

Mark 14:66

1)A servant girl.
2)The same girl again.
3)Then a crowd of people.

Luke 22:44

1)A servant girl
2)A man
3)Then another man.

John 18

1)A girl
2)Several anonymous persons
3)One of the high priest's servants

Thanks

[carol_au]

{s interesting that for every so called falsification of the Bible you can show me, I can and have sent in the past, examples of falsification of the Quran. But, others writing here are correct. How does it profit any arguement for us to go through each others holy books and point out every so called discrepancy.

What is much more important is the message each of the books present, and so let me show you some important things to be aware of in relation to the Bible and it's so called problematic texts, and then maybe some of you Muslims could do the same with the Quran.

The charge that the Torah and Gospel have undergone textual change remains unsubstantiated and contains serious flaws, based on four major areas... theological, (the word of God must reflect who God is) scientific (the manuscripts give evidence of the reliability of scriptures) ...rational (the falsification of the scriptures does not make sense) .....biblical (the scriptures need to be read as they were intended).

I'll start with the first one only in this post, so that others have chance to discuss it.

The Word of God MUST reflect who God is

Razi, a Muslim theologian has written that it is unlikely that the Biblical text has been falsified. He says that "God is truthful and so must His word be." If God had let his very word become unreliable, his truthfulness would be undermined. He also says that that successive transmission of the Bible, and it's dessemination over the world, has been handed down inturruptedly, . He believes, as the Surah states, that it's falsification is inconsistent with the character of God, but is more an indication that the Jews have concealed the teachings as also stated in the Suras. (Sura 6:34, 10:64 and 18:27)

This same principle is found in the Bible Psalm 119:89, 1 Peter 1:24-25.

To suggest that God's word has been falsified contradicts God's own faithfulness, power and wisdom as well as his truthfulness and reliability. God is faith ful to his word as he says in Dueteronomy 7:9 and He himself gurarantees it's realiability in Isaiah 55:10-11


This view is consistent with the Bibles teaching of itself.

As the rain and the snow come down from heaven and do not return to it without watering the earth and making it bud and flourish, so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater, so is my word that goes out from my mouth: it will not return to me empty but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.

God is faithful to His word and to His people. He revealed his word through the prophets and promised to use it to achieve his purposes. If we as mere humans are more concerned over discrediting his very word.. what does it say about our understanding of His nature, His attributes and His character? Are we greater than God Himself?

And please don't reply that man changed the word and so God sent a new revelation.. that is NOT what he said he would do.. He said that the Torah, the Psalms and the other books of the prophets, (I have left out the New Testament book claims about themselves on purpose) would achieve the purpose that THEY were sent for... Please LET GOD BE GOD. He promises to watch over His every word...Be very careful how you speak of the very word He sent and don't trivilise it. When you question His ability to maintain and watchover His own Word, you question God Himself.

[Aineo]

The Bible is inspired by God, and written by men in the power of the Holy Spirit. Each of the gospel writers brought their own experience and thoughts to his gospel. That is why Matthew pictures Christ as the son of man; Mark as the servant of God; Luke as the King; and John focuses on Christ as God.

Now, if you want to critique the Bible why not focus on doctrine and what it teaches, not the differing perspectives of 4 different men? The only thing you are showing is you have not really studied the Bible and are attempting to nit pick what you see as discrepancies and I see as reliable records of witnesses, and since no two human witnesses will document identical scenes, this validates (in my opinion) Biblical truth. I would be more likely to challenge the Bible is the four gospels were in total agreement done to the last stroke of the pen, since that would indicate a collaboration not divine inspiration.

[oneGOD]

Let me clear the Muslim perspective about the bible:

We believe that parts of the OT is indeed the word of God, however we also believe that people wrote texts and added that and claimed it to be the word of God. There are so many beautiful things in the OT which reflects who God is and his prophets. As for the NT we believe that a gospel was handed to Jesus. The books in the NT are not at all the word of God, it may contain some correct things of what Jesus said but as a whole it's not the word of God.

{s interesting that for every so called falsification of the Bible you can show me, I can and have sent in the past, examples of falsification of the Quran

This is not the subject here carol.

What is much more important is the message each of the books present

Again this is not the subject here.

and since no two human witnesses will document identical scenes, this validates (in my opinion) Biblical truth. I would be more likely to challenge the Bible is the four gospels were in total agreement done to the last stroke of the pen, since that would indicate a collaboration not divine inspiration.

To make the point clearer and how you the correct reasoning:

First the gospel writers depended on account witnesses, secondly if they were inspired by God to write them and had the holy spirit supporting them, at least they would come with identical stories through a different language style or perspective. For example, none of the gospels really agree on what Jesus said before he died or you can check the examples about Peter denying Jesus or the story of people hearing or not hearing the voices, we see that they did not describe the same event identically in which shows two things :
1) they depended on account witnesses
2) not inspired by God since they never agree on so many occasions on alot of events.

In other words, it would be common sense for them not to have identical texts but it would matter if they disagreed on FACTS that happened in Jesus's life for example.

This response : "it doesn't matter what matters is the doctrine" has always been the typical answer to avoid answering such questions about the NT.

Do you know that the Gospels were chosen out of 24,000 documents?
do you trust the people who made the decision on which gospels to choose? would they not choose the ones that fits their doctrine?Did you know that they all had to be greece and no Hebrew one was to be chosen? Did you know about all those sects who believed in Jesus as a prophet just like all the other prophets.

Recently new documents were discovered in Syria of a sect believed in Jesus as a prophet who never died on the cross, and those documents dated 40 years after the ascension of Jesus.

If you can't prove that the bible isn't accurate then it is basically isn't, running away from the asnwer and saying all what matters is the doctrine would not be the coorect answer.

Thanks

[Alexei]

Have you seen photo's of the earth taken from space? The earth is a circle

Of course I did, and it's a sphere. A circle is 2 dimensional geometric form. We stll talking about the Circular flat earth

In 1939, George DeHoff wrote a biblical apology entitled "Why We Believe the Bible". An entire chapter was devoted to the scientific-foreknowledge argument in which he cited Job 26:7 as supporting evidence, (p. 50):

Astronomers have discovered that there is a great empty space in the North. It contains no moving planets and shining stars. By turning their telescopes to the South, the East and the West, men may behold countless millions of stars invisible to the naked eye but when the telescope is set exactly to the North there is a great empty space. For this, astronomers have been unable to account. They did not know until recently that there was such an empty space, yet Job declared, "He stretcheth out the North over the empty places [sic] and hangeth the earth upon nothing," (Job 26:7).

DeHoff's conclusion was that "Job could not have written by guess. It must be that he wrote by inspiration of God."

For years, this scripture was cited from Church-of-Christ pulpits as compelling evidence that the Bible was divinely inspired, but there was just one thing wrong with it. The premise on which it was based wasn't true. There is no "empty place" in our northern space. Everywhere astronomers look, they find space filled with galaxies and stars, interstellar material. That includes our northern space too. So wherever DeHoff got this argument, he didn't get it from science, and he will find no support for it in scientific circles.
Inerrancy advocates in the Churches of Christ are now admitting that they erred in using Job 26:7 as an example of scientific foreknowledge in the Bible. In the September 1989 issue of Reason & Revelation, Dr. Bert Thompson summarized the traditional DeHoffian interpretation of Job 26:7 and then said this, (p. 35):

This writer has so used the verse himself in the past, but does so no longer, because of problems associated with such interpretations. For example, if we attempt to convince people that this verse is to be taken literally, how do we then consistently deal with statements in the chapter which are obviously figurative (such as verse 11: "The pillars of heaven tremble, and are astonished at his reproof")? Further, there seems to be no empty space in the north. Instead, "billions of stars and galaxies extend outward in all directions," (Donald B. DeYoung, Astronomy and the Bible).

In Mattew, where unquestionably we have the genealogy of Joseph, we are told (1:16) that Joseph was the son of Jacob. In what sense, then, could he be called in Luke "the son of Heli"?

Does a "CONTRADICTION" sounds familiar to you?

He could not be by natural generation the son both of Jacob and Heli.

But he could be by a flagrant contradiction

so that the natural explanation is that Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli

Proves please!!!

The conclusion is therefore inevitable that in Luke we have Mary's genealogy; and Joseph was "son of Heli" because espoused to Heli's daughter

We have NO indication whatsoever, anywhere in the NT, that this Heli was Mary's father. Christians using this argument are grasping at straws.

Alexei

[carol_au]

OneGod,

Thankyou for your response..It's always interesting that whilst Muslims delight in telling Christians about the problems with the biblical texts, they appear to not realise that there are plenty of textual errors in the Quran.

I purposefully didn't include all those in this discussion. I have spent two years in Bible college studying the Bible, looking at the controversies and reading the manuscripts. I have learned how the Bible in it's form now eventuated and studied the different historical christian councils in detail and can if you wish spend many a post discussing and explaining the various passages you have all shown us.

None of the controversial numbers or passages are unknown to us as Christians. Do you think any of us truly haven't looked into the so called discrepencies in detail? I'm sure many of us have.

But as I said in my previous post, and this is something we all need to agree on.. God says this is His Word, not part of it, and not just the parts that Muslims or even Christians say are HIS word.. God Himself declares it IS His word and HE HIMSELF WILL accomplish with it, the purpose it was spoken.

Now any human who denies that God is able to ensure that what He says He will do, He will actually accomplish is slurring the character of God and I would encourage you to read the words of the tempatation of Adam and Eve in Genesis 3 when Satan asked Eve "Did God really say". and the end result of throwing doubt on His word or in the last chapters in the book of Job when God Himself answering the cynicism of Job's friends and in answering Job's questions says "brace yourself as a man and answer these questions... where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth."

You see, it IS the subject of this discussion. As soon as we discredit the Word of God in any form, we are discrediting God Himself. Be very sure that you who say you worship and obey God, know exactly what you are doing when you attempt to discredit any part of His Word.

[Believer]

Peace OneGOD,

Do you know that the Gospels were chosen out of 24,000 documents?

Where did you get that from? An Islamic site?

For example, none of the gospels really agree on what Jesus said before he died or you can check the examples about Peter denying Jesus or the story of people hearing or not hearing the voices, we see that they did not describe the same event identically in which shows two things :
1) they depended on account witnesses
2) not inspired by God since they never agree on so many occasions on alot of events.

So the three Gospels disagree on two of the people that Peter denied Jesus to which is very irrelevant.
The Gospels all have the messages and parables of Jesus.
They all show Him to be the Messiah, the Son of God the Father.
They all record the Passion, Death, and Ressurection of Jesus Christ.

Also, inspiration by the Holy Spirit--which you wouldn't believe anyways because you don't recognize the existence of the Holy Spirit--is different from direct dictation.
Direct dictation does not requite accounts of eyewitnesses, and has no discrepencies.
The Gospelers where moved by the Spirit to people who knew the life of Jesus.

Now the book of Revelation was written by a certain John under the direct dictation of an angel, so there are no errors or discrepencies of any kind in that book.

If you can't prove that the bible isn't accurate then it is basically isn't, running away from the asnwer and saying all what matters is the doctrine would not be the coorect answer.

It's accurate on what's important, not very minute things like who Peter denies Jesus to.

Now the Quran isn't very accurate for a very good reason.
It "borrows" things from various sources.
Whoever wrote it had copies of the Infancy Gospels and the Talmud in addition to the Bible.

[oneGOD]

Hello Carol

they appear to not realise that there are plenty of textual errors in the Quran.

Anyway, this is not the subject, but there is no errors at all. All those websites that talk about these errors used the folllowing:

The problem with alot of the translations in the Quran is that sometimes they translate it word to word which would yeild to a totally different meaning. I read so many of them and I compare it with the Arabic Quran and I see the big difference of meaning. Also, certain phrases in Arabic if translated without explanation would also yield to a misunderstanding of the text, the problem is that the language style of Arabic and the way things are perceived if those texts are put in a certain order would yield to a totally different meaning sometimes. I will quote what Alexie wrote one time :

Hortwig Horchfeld wrote in his book entitled "New Researches into the Composition and Exegeses of the Quran":
The research workers of the modern age agree on the point that the present version of the Qur'an is the exact copy if the original script which was written by Zaid Bin Sabit as its text is exactly the same as was given by Muhammed.

It is stated in the Encyclopedia Britannica, under the heading Qur'an:
All efforts of the European research workers to prove later additions in the Quranic text have proved absolutely futile

Sir William Muir writes in his book entitled "ife of Muhammad:
Otherwise all sorts of external and internal evidence in there to prove that we have exactly the same Qur'anic text which Muhammed gave (to his followers) and used himself.

John Burton said:
The single vigorous Qur'an text that throughout the ages has successfully withstood the assaults of both the exegetes and the usulis, stoutly retaining its textual identity in the face of countless attempts to insinuate interpolations through exploitation of the alleged codex of this or that Companion, is none other than the unique text of the revelations whose existence all their tricks betoken, the text which has come down to us in the form in which it was organized and approved by the Prophet... (Collection of the Qur'an, 1977).

R. Bosworth Smith said:
In the Koran we have, beyond doubt, the exact words of Muhammad without subtraction and without addition (Muhammad and Muhammadanism, 1874, p. 21)

and can if you wish spend many a post discussing and explaining the various passages you have all shown us.

Please do

But as I said in my previous post, and this is something we all need to agree on.. God says this is His Word, not part of it, and not just the parts that Muslims or even Christians say are HIS word.. God Himself declares it IS His word and HE HIMSELF WILL accomplish with it, the purpose it was spoken.

Indeed, God's word didn't change, but the NT is not the word of God at all. The case maybe different in the OT.

it IS the subject of this discussion

See, since the bible is accurate why don't you then answer what has been claimed?

Hi Believer:

Where did you get that from? An Islamic site?

No, ask carol she knows since she studied it.

So the three Gospels disagree on two of the people that Peter denied Jesus to which is very irrelevant.

So far, every claimed contradiction enlisted you called it irrelevant.....then how is the bible accurate? You said the bible is accurate...well it has been shown IT'S NOT regarding the points enlisted above.

It's accurate on what's important

LOL... then change the title of this thread to :
THE BIBLE IS ACCURATE ON WHAT IS IMPORTANT

Now the Quran isn't very accurate for a very good reason.
It "borrows" things from various sources.
Whoever wrote it had copies of the Infancy Gospels and the Talmud in addition to the Bible.

I wonder why you change the subject.

Later

[Believer]

Peace OneGOD,

LOL... then change the title of this thread to :
THE BIBLE IS ACCURATE ON WHAT IS IMPORTANT

I would change it, honestly.
I was too vague, my fault.
You should reread the beginning on this thread:

http://www.jesus-christ-forums.com/home/viewtopic ... highlight=

I was trying to illustare the over all integrity of the bible is accurate.
Also, Josephus tells us something very interesting, why don't we discuss that?

[Alexei]

Geographical Errors Within The New Testament


It is well known that the gospel of Mark contains numerous geographical errors. This is summed up in Kummel's classic, Introduction to the New Testament:

[T]he considerations against this assumption [that John Mark, companion of Peter, wrote the gospel of Mark] carry weight. The author obviously has no personal knowledge of Palestinian geography, as the numerous geographical errors show. He writes for Gentile Christians, with sharp polemic against the unbelieving Jews. He does not know the account of the death of the Baptist (6:17 ff) contradicts Palestinian customs. Could a Jewish Christian from Jerusalem miss the fact that 6:35 ff and 8:1 ff are two variants of the same feeding story? The tradition that Mk was written by John Mark is therefore scarcely reliable. The reference to I Pet 5:13 ("The elect of Babylon and my son Mark also greets you") does not account for the tradition, but only the subsequent linking up of the author of Mk with the preaching of Peter. Accordingly, the author of Mk is unknown to us.[1]

In fact, one of the reasons why many scholars doubt that the anonymous author of Mark was a Jewish individual and a native of Palestine is precisely due to the presence of a number of geographical errors, mistakes and confusions in this gospel. If the author was a native of Palestine and a Jew, then how was he so ignorant regarding the region's geography?

Essentially, the arguments against John Mark, a Jewish resident of Jerusalem and later the companion of Paul and also of Peter, writing this Gospel are that he does not appear to be familiar with the geography of Palestine in the first century (Mark 7:31; 11:1) or with Jewish customs, overgeneralizes about the Jews (7:3-4), from whom he seems to distance himself, and does not reflect the theology of either Paul or Peter as a companion might (Phlm 23; cf. Col. 4:10; 2 Tim 4:11).[2]

To give an example, we read in the gospel according to Mark the following account:

"As they approached Jerusalem and came to Bethphage and Bethany at the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two of his disciples, saying to them, "Go to the village ahead of you, and just as you enter it, you will find a colt there which no one has ever ridden. Untie it and bring it here. If anyone asks you,'Why are you doing this?' tell him, 'The lord needs it and will send it back shortly.'" They went and found a colt outside in the street, tied at a doorway. As they untied it, some people standing there asked, "What are you doing, untying the colt?" They answered that Jesus had told them to, and the people let them go. When they brought the colt to Jesus and threw their cloaks on it, he sat on it. Many people spread their cloaks on the road, while others spread branches they had out in the fields. Those who went ahead and those who followed shouted, "Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Blessed is the coming of the kingdom of our father David! Hosanna in the highest!" Jesus entered Jerusalem and went to the temple. He looked around at everything, but since it was already late he went out to Bethany with the twelve." (Mark 11:1-11)

In Mark 10:46 however, we read that Jesus was in Jericho. The sentence above shows that Jesus and his group were travelling from Jericho to Jerusalem via Bethphage and then Bethany. This, however, is quite impossible. Bethany is further away from Jerusalem than Bethphage is. The Biblical theologian, D.E. Nineham, comments:

The geographical details make an impression of awkwardness, especially as Bethphage and Bethany are given in reverse order to that in which travellers from Jericho would reach them...and we must therefore assume that St Mark did not know the relative positions of the two villages on the Jericho road...[3]

The missionaries would obviously deny the above glaring error in Mark with their multiferous explanations. However the author of Matthew fully realised that Mark, who was supposedly "inspired", had made a gross factual error. Matthew, who copied Mark changed this passage to remove the error:

"When they had come near Jerusalem and had reached Bethphage, at the Mount of Olives..." (Matthew 21:1)

Note that Matthew had removed the reference to Bethany completely from Mark's account. Again the most likely explanation is that Matthew noticed Mark's error and tried to correct it. As Randel Helms informs us:

Mark writes on the basis of a vague knowledge of Judaean geography, not knowing that one approaching Jerusalem from the east on the road from Jericho would reach first Bethany and then Bethphage, not the reverse order he indicates. However, the important location is the Mount of Olives; typology, not history, is at work here. The typological fiction continues on the basis of Zech. 9:9 LXX:

'Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Sion; proclaim it aloud, O daughter of Jerusalem; behold, the king is coming to thee, just and a Saviour [sozon, "saving"]; he is meek and riding on an ass, and a young foal [polon neon, a "new (unridden) foal"].'

It is only with this passage that we can understand why Mark has Jesus specify that his diciples obtain a "colt [polon] which no one has yet ridden" (Mark 11:2). Mark ignores the danger and unlikelihood of riding on an unbroken, untrained animal, assuming its miraculous tractability; typology rather than history is operative here.[4]

Who is correct, Matthew or Mark? Was Mark "inspired" or was Matthew "inspired" as far as the above passage is concerned?

Bruce M. Metzger makes mention of several internal and geographical errors within the New Testament in which later scribes attempted to clear away:

A few scribes attempted to harmonize the Johannine account of the chronology of the Passion with that in Mark by changing 'sixth hour' of John xix. 14 to 'third hour' (which appears in Mark xv. 25). At John i. 28 Origen 1 altered in order to remove what he regarded as a geographical difficulty, and this reading is extant today in MSS. 33 69 and many others, including those which lie behind the King James version. The statement in Mark viii. 31, that 'the Son of man must suffer many things...and be killed and aftee: three days rise again', seems to involve a chronological difficulty, and some copyists changed the phrase to the more familiar expression, 'on the third day' . The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews places the golden altar of incense in the Holy of Holies (Heb. ix. 4), which is contrary to the Old Testament description of the Tabernacle (Exod. xxx. 1-6). The scribe of codex Vaticanus and the translator of the Ethiopic version correct the account by transferring the words to ix. 2, where the furniture of the Holy Place is itemized.[5]

Another Christian scholar, Raymond E. Brown, notes the inability of the author of Mark to identify the geographical places in ancient Palestine. He says

That the author of this Greek Gospel was John Mark, a (presumably Aramaic-speaking) Jew of Jerusalem who had early become a Christian, is hard to reconcile with the impression that it does not seem to be a translation from Aramaic,82 that it seems to depend on traditions (and perhaps already shaped sources) receieved in Greek, and that it seems confused about Palestinian geography83 (The attempt to claim that Mark used geography theologically and therefore did not bother about accuracy seems strained).[6]

In the footnote 83, Brown had in fact revealed another instance of the gospel author's unfamiliarity with ancient Palestine geography. He states that

Mark 5:1, 13 betrays confusion about the distance of Gerasa from the sea of Galilee (n. 17 above). Mark 7:31 describes a journey from Tyre through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee in the midst of the Decapolis. In fact one goes SE from Tyre to the Sea of Galilee; Sidon is N for Tyre, and the description of the Sea of Galilee in the midst of the Decapolis is awkward. That a boat headed for Bethsaida (NE side of the Sea of Galilee) arrives at Gennesaret (NW side: 6:45,53) may also signal confusion. No one has been able to locate the Dalmanutha of 8:10, and it may be a corruption of Magdala.[7]

Though Brown attempts to explain away these geographical errors by stating that "one must admit that sometimes even natives of a place are not very clear about geography"[8], he does not deny their presence in the text. In another footnote, he states that

Many other examples of improbable reconciliations could be offered. Since Matt has a Sermon on the Mount and Luke has a similar Sermon on the Plain (Matt 5:1; Luke 6:7), there must have been a plain on the side of the mountain. Since Matt has the Lord's Prayer taught in that sermon and Luke has it later on the road to Jerusalem (Matt 6:9-13; Luke 11:2-4), the disciples must have forgotten it, causing Jesus to repeat it. Mark 10:46 places the healing of the blind man after Jesus left Jericho, while Luke 18:35; 19:1 places it before Jesus entered Jericho. Perhaps Jesus was leaving the site of the OT Jericho and entering the site of the NT Jericho![9]

Furthermore, the Gospel according to Luke, another anonymous gospel, also contains a number of geographical errors that have led scholars to the conclusion that its author was not from Palestine. Brown comments:

What happens when Jesus goes to a deserted place (Luke 4:24-44) exhibits typical Lucan universalizing, since the people rather than Simon and his companions come to seek out Jesus. Compared to Mark 1:39, which has Jesus going through the synagogues of all Galilee, Luke 4:44 localizes the synagogues in Judea. That may illustrate the vagueness of Luke's ideas of Palestinian geography, since in the next verse (5:1) Jesus is still in Galilee, at the Lake. Or does Luke's Judea simply mean "the country of the Jews"?[10]

Brown presents another example of Luke's confusion with Palestinian geography:

3. Last Stage of Journey till Arrival in Jerusalem (17:11-19:27). This begins with the uniquely Lucan cleansing of the ten lepers, including the thankful Samaritan (17:11-19). Jesus has been travelling toward Jerusalem since 9:51, and in 9:52 his messengers entered a Samaritan village. That at this point in the story he is still passing between Samaria and Galilee tells us that the journey is an artificual framework (and also that Luke may not have had a precise idea of Palestinian geography).[11]

G. A. Wells in his The Historical Evidence for Jesus makes mentions a number of geographical errors within the gospel according to Mark together with quoting other Biblical scholars admiting the presence of these errors and confusions in this gospel:

Mark makes serious mistakes in his geographical references to Palestine. He knows the Galilean place names and the general relative positions of the localities, but not specific details. Hence he "represents Jesus as travelling back and forth in Galilee and adjacent territories in a puzzling fashion" (Kee, 117, pp 102 - 3). To go (as Jesus is said to in Mk. 7:31) from the territory of Tyre by way of Sidon to the Sea of Galilee "is like travelling from Cornwall to London via Manchester" (Anderson, 2, p 192). Again, Mark's "references to movements across the Sea of Galilee are impossible to trace sequentially. Mention of specific location near the sea are either unknown sites, such as Dalmanutha (8:10), or are patently inaccurate, as in the designation of the eastern shore of the lake as the country of the Gerasenes (5:1)" (Kee, loc cit). Gerasa is more than thirty miles souteast of the lake, too far away for the setting of the story which demands a city in its vincinity, with a precipitous slope down to the water. Probably all that concerned Mark, collecting and adapting pre-existing stories about Jesus, was that the lake and its surrounding territories, some Jewish and some mainly Gentile, was an ideal setting for journey's of Jesus and his disciples, showing how both Jews and Gentiles responded to him with faith. That place names in Mark caused perplexity among early readers is shown by the wide range of variants in the textual tradition where names occur in the gospel. Perplexity is also evidenced by Matthew, who changed Mark's Gerasenes to Gadarenes (Mt. 8:28), Gadara being a well-known spa only eight miles from the lake.[12]

Michael T. Griffith makes note of this confusion between Gerasenes and Gadarenes, and says that

According to most modern versions of the Bible, Mark 5:1 refers to the Sea of Galilee's eastern shore as the country of the Gerasene:

"They [Christ and the disciples] came to the other side of the sea, to the country of the Gerasenes" (RSV; so also the NIV and the New American Bible).

This translation is based on the fact that the best and oldest manuscripts for this verse all read "the country of the Gerasenes." However, the Sea of Galilee's eastern shore cannot qualify as the land of the Gerasenes because Gerasa (modern Jerash) is more than thirty miles to the southeast. In addition, the account which follows verse 1 requires a nearby city with a steep slope leading down to the Sea of Galilee. This could not possibly be Gerasa. Gerasa is simply too far away, and there is no slope running all the way from that site to the Sea of Galilee.

In the KJV, Mark 5:1 reads, "the country of the Gadarenes," but this is based on inferior readings from the Greek texts. As mentioned above, the best and oldest manuscripts read "the country of the Gerasenes." In any event, Gadara, though closer than Gerasa, is still too far away to fit, since it is located about six miles southeast of the Sea of Galilee.

According to the KJV rendering of Matthew 8:28, the region in question is named "the country of the Gergesenes." This reading is based on inferior manuscript evidence and represents a scribal addition by later copyists (Metzger 1971:23-24). The best textual evidence for Matthew 8:28 reads "the country of the Gadarenes," which is how it appears in the better modern translations of Matthew. Again, though, Gadara is too far away from the Sea of Galilee. To add to the confusion, Luke 8:26 follows the geography attributed to Mark. Although the KJV reads "the country of the Gadarenes," this is another case of this version's reliance on inferior textual evidence. The better modern translations read "Gerasenes."

Lindsey Pherigo sums up the situation with regard to Mark 5:1:

The general location [of the events spoken of in Mark 5] is reported [in vs. 1] to be the E shore of the Sea of Galilee but the exact location is reported in different ways. The oldest and best manuscripts have Gerasa, but this is too far from the Sea of Galilee to fit well. Matt. changes this to Gadara ("the country of the Gadarenes," 8:28), but this, though nearer, is still too far from the water. Later copyists change both to "Gergesa," which may correspond to some ruins on the E side of the sea. It remains a problem.[13]

Conclusion

We have thus shown that the scribes of the New Testament were certainly aware of the presence of errors, in this case geographical errors, within the New Testament text. That is why they had proceeded to clear up whatever obvious errors that recur within their texts. Many of such errors were thus "corrected" over the passage of time whereas others that escape "correction" are vehemently defended by current-day missionaries with the preference to use a number of highly-imaginative mental gymnastics.

And only God knows best!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

References

[1] Kummel, Introduction to the New Testament, p. 97

[2] Lee Martin Mc Donald and Stanley E. Porter, Early Christianity and its Sacred Literature, (Nov 2000, Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.), p. 286

[3] Nineham, Saint Mark (Westminster John Knox Press, 1978), pp. 294-295

[4] Randel Helms, Gospel Fictions, p. 103

[5] Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament. Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (Third Enlarged Edition, 1992, Oxford University Press), pp. 199-200


[6] Raymond E. Brown, S.S., An Introduction To The New Testament, The Anchor Bible Reference Library (Doubleday, 1997) pp. 159-160

[7] Ibid., P. 160

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid., pp. 109-110

[10] Ibid., pp. 238

[11] Ibid., p. 251

[12] G. A. Wells, The Historical Evidence for Jesus (Prometheus Books, 1982), p. 230

[13] Micheal T. Griffith, Is The Bible Inerrant And Complete? (1994) [Online Document]

http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/Bible/Co ... -error.htm

The Holy Bible is really accurate and inspired

Alexei

[Believer]

Peace Alexei,

[T]he considerations against this assumption [that John Mark, companion of Peter, wrote the gospel of Mark] carry weight. The author obviously has no personal knowledge of Palestinian geography, as the numerous geographical errors show. He writes for Gentile Christians, with sharp polemic against the unbelieving Jews. He does not know the account of the death of the Baptist (6:17 ff) contradicts Palestinian customs. Could a Jewish Christian from Jerusalem miss the fact that 6:35 ff and 8:1 ff are two variants of the same feeding story? The tradition that Mk was written by John Mark is therefore scarcely reliable. The reference to I Pet 5:13 ("The elect of Babylon and my son Mark also greets you") does not account for the tradition, but only the subsequent linking up of the author of Mk with the preaching of Peter. Accordingly, the author of Mk is unknown to us.[1]


First of all, this has no relevance to geography.
Have you lived in 1st Palestine?
You give me this one man's spin on things, but he is not correct.

Let's take the two "contradicting" feeding story accounts.

Mark 8:1
"In those days when there WAS AGAIN a great crowd without anything to eat, He summoned his disciples and said..."

Okay, these aren't contradicting accounts of the same event, but two seperate events.
You should analyze what this man says to see if he's right or not.

[Alexei]

First of all, this has no relevance to geography.
Have you lived in 1st Palestine?
You give me this one man's spin on things, but he is not correct.

Let's take the two "contradicting" feeding story accounts.

Mark 8:1
"In those days when there WAS AGAIN a great crowd without anything to eat, He summoned his disciples and said..."

Okay, these aren't contradicting accounts of the same event, but two seperate events.
You should analyze what this man says to see if he's right or not.

Believer why don't you give up because you look totally ignorant!!!
This contradiction was admitted by Christian scholars themselves like Bruce M. Metzger. Why don't you try to read the whole picture?
Inspired and accurate? Yeah?

Well here's another contradiction committed by the "INSPIRED" Mark and admitted by Christian scholars themselves:

Washing of Hands Practised by "All The Jews"?

In Mark 7:2-4, we read the following passage:
Mark 7:2-4:
And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault.
For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.
And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.

There is a problem with this passage, however: the ritual washing of hands was obligatory only on the priests! This is attested to by Nineham when he says that:
...the evidence of the Talmud is that in the time of Jesus ritual washing of hands before meals was obligatory only on the priests.[1]

So clearly we have Mark confused with the "...Jewish practise of his own time with the Palestinian practise of forty years ago."[2]

It is hence because of this historical error by Mark which is why many scholars of the New Testament concluded that Mark was probably not Jewish. This is echoed by McDonald and Porter, who says:
Essentially, the arguments against John Mark, a Jewish resident of Jerusalem and later the companion of Paul and also of Peter, writing this Gospel are that he does not appear to be familiar...with Jewish customs, overgeneralizes about the Jews (7:3-4), from whom he seems to distance himself...[3]

Bart Ehrman, the renowned New Testament scholar and textual critic, further elaborates on the matter by stating that:
...in 7:3-4, where Mark has to explain the Pharisaic custom of washing hands before eating for ceremonial cleansing. Presumably, if his audience were Jewish, they would have known this custom, and Mark would not have to explain it. What is even more intriguing is that fact that Mark appears to misunderstand the practise: he claims that it was followed by "all the Jews." We know from ancient Jewish writings that this is simply not true. For this reason, many scholars have concluded that Mark himself was not Jewish.[4]

So the question remains, if the author was a native of Palestine and a Jew, then how was he so ignorant of the Jewish customs and made such a fundamental error regarding a practise that was only limited to the Jewish priests?


References
[1] Dennis E. Nineham, Saint Mark (Penguin, 1963), p. 193
[2] Randel Helms, Who Wrote The Gospels? (Millenium Press), p. 10
[3] Lee Martin Mc Donald and Stanley E. Porter, Early Christianity and its Sacred Literature, (Nov 2000, Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.), p. 286
[4] Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament. A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings (2nd edition, Oxford University Press, 2000), p. 74

The Holy Bible is really Accurate and Inspired

Alexei

[Alpha]

The Holy Bible is really Accurate and Inspired

Why thank you. But we already know it is:

The Bible's references to the geography of the land are accurate and reliable. But the allusions are incidental, not central to the narrative. However, if we put together the data on plant-distribution, allusions to climate and other material in the Old Testament, we find the description fits. Indeed, the evidence is reliable enough to shoe that throughout biblical times climate had been stable and the ecological zones we depict today are the same as in Old Testament times, the only differences being woodland cover, location of settlements and other such variables of human occupation.

The main geographical regions

The geographical divisions of Palestine can be seen in the map. We shall concentrate on these geographical features which influenced the course of political events in Old Testament times. The most striking distinctions are between the desert and the sown , the mountains and the coastal plains. South of a line from Aleppo to Hassetche in Syria the rainfall diminishes and turns the steppe into a desert, in a series of undulating plateaux between 300 and 1000 feet/90 and 300 m. The southern part of Palestine is also desert, the triangle-shaped Negev. The western part is a level or slightly undulating plain; the eastern sector is hilly, badly eroded and stony hammada desert. The Negev and Sinai to the South were the scene of Israel s wanderings before their settlement in the land .

The central backbone of folded limestone north of the Negev forms various low mountain chains from Judea through Samaria to lower Galilee. Upper Galilee consists of recent basalt lavas that break through the limestone cover. It is overlooked by Mt. Lebanon with its peaks rising over 3,300 feet/1,005 m and continued northwards into the Ansariye mountains. This hilly backbone was the nucleus of Israelite territory . East of these chains is the system of rift valleys, laced together by the Jordan Valley between the Lake of Galilee and the Dead Sea in the South, while the Orontes-Hama-Ghab depressions continue the geological fracture north into Syria.

The coast north of Gaza consists of a broad belt of shifting sand dunes that narrows progressively. From Jaffa/Tel Aviv northwards there is sufficient moisture to provide a vegetation cover that inhibits the further spread of dunes, and this stretch as far as the Yarkon River was Philistine territory. The plain of Sharon between the Yarkon and Crocodile rivers was swampy or heavenly forested, and formed a buffer zone between Philistia and Phoenicia, in whose sparsely settled area the tribe of Ephraim obtained a foothold. North of Mt. Carmel the coast is more rocky and indented and here the Phoenicians established their power in the natural harbors of Tyre and Sidon.

The influence of geography on events

The ecological transition between 'the land' and ' the wilderness' was of great significance in the Bible.The contrast between the Mountain 'spine' and the coastal plain was more widely important. The mountains had the slight advantage in higher rainfall, better drainage and in being more suitable for tree crops. There was a strong demand from Egypt and elsewhere for oil, wine, raisins, and dries figs this region produced. More important , the difficult terrain enabled every village to be a fortress and plenty of stone was available for building elaborate walled defenses. But on the coastal plain there was no stone, the settlements were difficult to defend, and the international highway of Via Maris built by the Egyptians remained a long time under Egyptian control. The plain was indeed the eastern border of the Mediterranean world, rather than the western fringe of Asia and its steppe peoples.
The Philistines settled on the southern part of the coast with Egyptian consent and they were guardians of the maritime highway. But the Phoenician realm began when the road left the coast to cross the Carmel range into the Plain of Jezreel. The Phoenicians appear to have respected the Philistine-Egyptian sphere of influence and did not expand further south.

When Egypt's influence waned, David and his generals deprived the Philistines of their conquests in the 'Shephelah' or foothill zone beyond the coast and confined them to the southern coastal plain. Philistia never recovered her former power. But Israel respected the Phoenician sphere of influence, since their trade was vital.

Solomon was not equipped to rival the Mediterranean power of the Phoenician merchants, though he did benefit from the direct opportunities of trade in the Red Sea ands the Indian Ocean, via his port at Ezion-geber on the Gulf of Aqaba.

But the penetration of the Indian Ocean by Israel and through her the Phoenician traders, threatened a monopoly Egypt had closely guarded. So Egypt became a centre of intrigues against Solomon, later instigating the revolt of Edom on the trade-route.

Later again Egypt backed Jerobeam's revolt which put an end to the united kingdom and terminated the menace of Judean trade in the Red Sea.

Greece, Rome and the New Testament

The rise of the Greek world in the conquests of Alexander the Great introduced a new factor. The thousand-year rule of Phoenicia was ruthlessly broken. To maintain its maritime interest, Alexander guaranteed all inland peoples their positions and rights. Greek settlers, Greek language and Greek civilization were now introduced on the Palestinian coast and remained- slightly modified by the Romans- for a thousand years. With the fall of the Carthaginian Empire in the West, Roman rule struck a final blow at the Phoenician civilization and the Roman occupation of Palestine followed.

In the New Testament we sense a contrast in atmosphere between the Judean interior with its rural village life (portrayed in the Gospels) and the civic atmosphere of Roman city life on the coast and beyond the Mediterranean Sea (depicted in letters). The fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 saw the intensive occupation of the hill lands too, with a Roman road network and Roman camps in the interior grafted on to the Hellenized world of the coastlands.

http://www.mutenasserin.net/mutenasserin/english/christ/geography%20_%20bible.htm

[Alexei]

http://www.mutenasserin.net/mutenasserin/english/christ/geography%20_%20bible.htm

Well are you trying to refute the Geographical errors, or trying to refute the Christian Scholars confession of Bible inaccuracy???

May be you chose the wrong person to send him this site, why don't you send it to your Christian Scholars who admitted these errors ? It would be better


More to come about Christian Scholars recognizing the "Accuracy" and "Inspiration" of our Holy Bible

Really Accurate and Inspired Holy Bible


Alexei

[Believer]

Well are you trying to refute the Geographical errors, or trying to refute the Christian Scholars confession of Bible inaccuracy???

May be you chose the wrong person to send him this site, why don't you send it to your Christian Scholars who admitted these errors ? It would be better


More to come about Christian Scholars recognizing the "Accuracy" and "Inspiration" of our Holy Bible

Really Accurate and Inspired Holy Bible


Alexei

I don't care what some of these scholars say.
They are not always right.
Frankly your argument is very weak.

Why don't you answer to BELIEVER'S and ALPHA'S posts, and stop giving us the same BS.

Washing of Hands Practised by "All The Jews"?

Who said every single Jew in 1st century Jerusalem washed his hands?
What a joke!
The Pharisees and Saducees just wanted to trick Jesus and His disciples, but Jesus turned their tricks around.
The extraordinary wisdom of Jesus's answer proves that this wasn't some fabrication.

[Alexei]

I don't care what some of these scholars say.
They are not always right.
Frankly your argument is very weak.

Why don't you answer to BELIEVER'S and ALPHA'S posts, and stop giving us the same BS.

Please send your comment to your Christian Scholars and Church

Who said every single Jew in 1st century Jerusalem washed his hands?
What a joke!
The Pharisees and Saducees just wanted to trick Jesus and His disciples, but Jesus turned their tricks around.
The extraordinary wisdom of Jesus's answer proves that this wasn't some fabrication

Re-read my post. You understood nothing.

Alexei

[Alpha]

http://www.mutenasserin.net/mutenasserin/english/christ/geography%20_%20bible.htm

Well are you trying to refute the Geographical errors, or trying to refute the Christian Scholars confession of Bible inaccuracy???

May be you chose the wrong person to send him this site, why don't you send it to your Christian Scholars who admitted these errors ? It would be better


More to come about Christian Scholars recognizing the "Accuracy" and "Inspiration" of our Holy Bible

Really Accurate and Inspired Holy Bible


Alexei

You have no reason to gloat over some Christians who think there are geographical errors. You have to remember that these things are in house debates and do not affect our salvation whatsoever. Christians are not going to agree on everything just as how there are Muslims who do not agree on everything, but share the same fundamental beliefs. And even though they call themselves Christians and they think there are geographical errors, then there must be a reason why they are still Christians. Finally, just because someone is a Biblical scholar, does not necessarily mean they are Christian. There are some Biblical scholars who are skeptics.

[Alexei]

The following verses have been added, deleted, or changed from various manuscripts of the New Testament.

ADDED VERSE: I John 5:7-8
I John 5:7-8 was most likely added in the fifteenth or sixteenth century. The earliest Greek manuscript this is found in is Greg. 88, a twelfth-century manuscript, but this verse is written in the margin in a seventeenth-century style handwriting. It is not found in any Greek manuscript dated prior to this time. [1]
"The Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth" ( I John 5:7-8 KJV).


ADDED WORDS
Some ancient manuscripts do not contain the words "the Son of God" in Mark 1:1 [2].
This traditionally reads, "The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God."

ADDED VERSE: Acts 8:37
Acts 8:37 was added in the sixth or early seventh century. It is not found in any manuscript prior to this time [3]. It reads as follows:
"Philip said, 'If you believe with all your heart, you may.' The eunuch answered, 'I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God'" (Acts 8:37).

ADDED VERSES: (John 7:53 to 8:11)
The earliest and most reliable manuscripts of the New Testament and other ancient witnesses do not have the following verses [4 ].
"Then each went to his own home. But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"
"No one sir," she said.
"Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin" (John 7:53 to 8:11).


ADDED VERSES: (Mark 16:9-20)
The earliest and most reliable manuscripts of the New Testament and other ancient witnesses do not have the following verses [5 ].
"When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had driven seven demons. She went and told those who had been with him and who were mourning and weeping. When they heard that Jesus was alive and that she had seen him, they did not believe it.
Afterward Jesus appeared in a different form to two of them while they were walking in the country. These returned and reported it to the rest; but they did not believe them either.
Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen.
He said to them, 'Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people and they will get well.'
After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God. Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it" (Mark 16:9-20).

CORRUPTED TEXT
"God is the son of Aram." [6].
This is stated in Codex 109, now housed in the British Museum. This mistake was probably made when the scribe, perhaps writing in a cold and poorly lit room, copied a text containing two columns. Instead of copying one column and continuing on to the next, he probably copied straight across the page, thus erroneously joining the two columns together as one text.

CORRUPTED WORDS?
In Revelation 13:18 we learn that the sign of the beast is 666, but a footnote states that some manuscripts read 616 [7].





[1] Metzger, B. The Text of the New Testament; Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, p.101, 3rd ed. (New York, 1992)
[2] The Holy Bible, New International Version (1985)
[3] Metzger, B. The Text of the New Testament; Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, p.52, 3rd ed. (New York, 1992)
[4] The Holy Bible, New International Version (1985)
[5] The Holy Bible, New International Version (1985)
[6] Metzger, B. The Text of the New Testament; Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, p.195, 3rd ed. (New York, 1992)
[7] The Open Bible, (New York, 1977)


Really our Holy Bible is Accurate and Inspired

Alexei

[Alpha]

The following verses have been added, deleted, or changed from various manuscripts of the New Testament.

ADDED VERSE: I John 5:7-8
I John 5:7-8 was most likely added in the fifteenth or sixteenth century. The earliest Greek manuscript this is found in is Greg. 88, a twelfth-century manuscript, but this verse is written in the margin in a seventeenth-century style handwriting. It is not found in any Greek manuscript dated prior to this time. [1]
"The Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth" ( I John 5:7-8 KJV).


ADDED WORDS
Some ancient manuscripts do not contain the words "the Son of God" in Mark 1:1 [2].
This traditionally reads, "The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God."

ADDED VERSE: Acts 8:37
Acts 8:37 was added in the sixth or early seventh century. It is not found in any manuscript prior to this time [3]. It reads as follows:
"Philip said, 'If you believe with all your heart, you may.' The eunuch answered, 'I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God'" (Acts 8:37).

ADDED VERSES: (John 7:53 to 8:11)
The earliest and most reliable manuscripts of the New Testament and other ancient witnesses do not have the following verses [4 ].
"Then each went to his own home. But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"
"No one sir," she said.
"Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin" (John 7:53 to 8:11).


ADDED VERSES: (Mark 16:9-20)
The earliest and most reliable manuscripts of the New Testament and other ancient witnesses do not have the following verses [5 ].
"When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had driven seven demons. She went and told those who had been with him and who were mourning and weeping. When they heard that Jesus was alive and that she had seen him, they did not believe it.
Afterward Jesus appeared in a different form to two of them while they were walking in the country. These returned and reported it to the rest; but they did not believe them either.
Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen.
He said to them, 'Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people and they will get well.'
After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God. Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it" (Mark 16:9-20).

CORRUPTED TEXT
"God is the son of Aram." [6].
This is stated in Codex 109, now housed in the British Museum. This mistake was probably made when the scribe, perhaps writing in a cold and poorly lit room, copied a text containing two columns. Instead of copying one column and continuing on to the next, he probably copied straight across the page, thus erroneously joining the two columns together as one text.

CORRUPTED WORDS?
In Revelation 13:18 we learn that the sign of the beast is 666, but a footnote states that some manuscripts read 616 [7].

[1] Metzger, B. The Text of the New Testament; Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, p.101, 3rd ed. (New York, 1992)
[2] The Holy Bible, New International Version (1985)
[3] Metzger, B. The Text of the New Testament; Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, p.52, 3rd ed. (New York, 1992)
[4] The Holy Bible, New International Version (1985)
[5] The Holy Bible, New International Version (1985)
[6] Metzger, B. The Text of the New Testament; Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, p.195, 3rd ed. (New York, 1992)
[7] The Open Bible, (New York, 1977)


Really our Holy Bible is Accurate and Inspired

Alexei

You know what's funny. You posted a few verse in which words like: The Father, the Word, The Holy Ghost, and Son of God were added. But what about the rest of the Bible which contains those words? Those words were added to the couple of passages you put, because when reading in the context of the rest of scripture, it is implied. Just because translaters use common sense, does not mean the Bible is corrupted.

[Alpha]

Oh, and I'm sure some of those verse were in the original manuscripts, but you know how skeptics do.

[oneGOD]

Those words were added to the couple of passages you put, because when reading in the context of the rest of scripture, it is implied

and why add to the WORD OF GOD then?

[Alpha]

Those words were added to the couple of passages you put, because when reading in the context of the rest of scripture, it is implied

and why add to the WORD OF GOD then?

Adding: 2+2=4. So I guess 2+(5-3)=4 is a corruption since you have "five" minus "three" representing the "two" instead of the "two" representing itself?

[Alexei]

You know what's funny. You posted a few verse in which words like: The Father, the Word, The Holy Ghost, and Son of God were added. But what about the rest of the Bible which contains those words? Those words were added to the couple of passages you put, because when reading in the context of the rest of scripture, it is implied. Just because translaters use common sense, does not mean the Bible is corrupted.

Adding and deleting verses in the "words of God" is funny?

In the KJV Jesus tells us HOW to cast out demons.
Matt. 17:21 [KJV] "Howbeit, this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting."
In the NIV he does not. The entire verse was omitted. Who do you suppose benifits from this omission? [Fasting is also removed in Mark 9:29 & Acts 10:30.]
R.S.V. (not included)
N.I.V. (not included)
G.N.B. (not included)
L.B.V. (not included)

In the KJV Jesus is God's Son. In the NIV Jesus is God's servant.
Acts 3:13 [KJV] "...the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus;..."
Acts 3:13 [NIV] "...the God of our fathers has glorified his servant Jesus:..."
Acts 3:26 [KJV] "...God, having raised up his Son Jesus,..."
Acts 3:26 [NIV] "...God raised up his servant,..."
Acts 4:27 [KJV] "...thy holy child Jesus..."
Acts 4:27 [NIV] "...your holy servant Jesus..."

In the KJV the Ethiopian Eunuch made a profession of faith prior to baptism.
Acts 8:37 [KJV] "And Philip said, If thou believeth with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."
In the NIV he did not. The entire verse was omitted.
[This verse is extremely important in demonstrating that a person must believe the gospel before he can be baptized].

The Trinity is clearly taught in the KJV.
1 John 5:7 [KJV] "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one."
This verse is completely omitted from the NIV.


verse Mark 9:44
K.J.V. "Where their warm dies not, and the fire is not quenched"
R.S.V. (not included)
G.N.B. (not included)
N.I.V. (not included)
L.B.V. (not included)

verse Luke 9:56
K.J.V. "For the son of man is not come to destroy men's live but to save.
R.S.V. (not included)
N.I.V. (not included)
G.N.B. (not included)
L.B.V. (not included)


verse Luke 17:36
K.J.V. "Two men shall be in the field, the one shall be taken and the other left"
R.S.V. (not included)
N.I.V. (not included)
G.N.B. (not included)


verse John 5:4
K.J.V. "For an Angel went down at a certain season into the pool and troubled water. Whosoever then after the troubling of the water stepped in was made of whatsoever disease he had"
R.S.V. (not included)
N.I.V. (not included)
G.N.V. (not included)


verse Romans 7:17
R.s.V. "I do not understand my own actions"
K.J.V. (not included)


For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. [Revelations 22:18-19].

As someone can see here, adding and deleting entire verses in the "words of God" is really amuzing and funny . so you'll never get bored because in each version you'll discover a totally NEW Holy Bible .

Really the Holy Bible is Accurate and Inspired

Alexei

[Alpha]

Alexei, how was that a rebuttal to the saying you quoted from me?

What about the passages that all those versions have in common which DO support what they do not have in common?

For example: Philippians 2:5-8

K.J.V.- Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

R.S.V.- Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.

G.N.B.- The attitude you should have is the one that Christ Jesus had: He always had the nature of God, but he did not think that by force he should try to remain equal with God. Instead of this, of his own free will he gave up all he had, and took the nature of a servant. He became like a human being and appeared in human likeness. He was humble and walked the path of obedience all the way to death his death on the cross.

L.B.V.- Your attitude should be the same that Christ Jesus had. Though he was God, he did not demand and cling to his rights as God. He made himself nothing; he took the humble position of a slave and appeared in human form. And in human form he obediently humbled himself even further by dying a criminal's death on a cross.

N.I.V.- Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature[1] God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature[2] of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death-- even death on a cross!

As we can see, these "differing" versions agree that Jesus humbled himself despite the fact he was Divine. For more on the differing Bible versions, visit: http://www.twopaths.com/faq_kjv.htm

Just because you have different Bible versions does not mean you do not have the word of God. They all teach that Jesus died for our sins, ressurrected, and you must be Born Again by following God and accepting the sacrifice of Jesus to be saved.... that is the gospel, PERIOD!!!!!!!

[Alexei]

Just because you have different Bible versions does not mean you do not have the word of God. They all teach that Jesus died for our sins, ressurrected, and you must be Born Again by following God and accepting the sacrifice of Jesus to be saved.... that is the gospel, PERIOD!!!!!!!

And what about the added and deleted verses? What if the verses that teach that Jesus died for our sins, resurrected are added? huh?

I really like the Holy Bible because in every New Verison you have something new added and something old deleted in the life of Jesus.
You'll never get bored
It's like a Windows XP update

Really the Holy Bible is Accurate and Inspired

Alexei

[Omega]

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. [Revelations 22:18-19].

The messenger is referring to the book of Revelation in this passage. As you know that they are called books!

And what about the added and deleted verses? What if the verses that teach that Jesus died for our sins, resurrected are added? huh?

And what if the Quaran added verses, ever think about that?

And actually the Birth and and resurrection is known throughout the world to be a historical fact by scholars. And that very message is vital to the salvation of ones own soul, don't you think?

[Alexei]

And what if the Quaran added verses, ever think about that?

Here's what the NON-MUSLIMS said about the Noble Qur'an:

The famous Orientalist Caroness Margaret Von Strein wrote:
Though all the Divine scriptures were revealed by God yet the Qur'an is the only scripture which has not undergone even the slightest alteration and is safe in its original form

Hortwig Horchfeld wrote in his book entitled "New Researches into the Composition and Exegeses of the Quran":
The research workers of the modern age agree on the point that the present version of the Qur'an is the exact copy if the original script which was written by Zaid Bin Sabit as its text is exactly the same as was given by Muhammed.

It is stated in the Encyclopedia Britannica, under the heading Qur'an:
All efforts of the European research workers to prove later additions in the Quranic text have proved absolutely futile

Sir William Muir writes in his book entitled "life of Muhammad":
Otherwise all sorts of external and internal evidence in there to prove that we have exactly the same Qur'anic text which Muhammed gave (to his followers) and used himself.

John Burton said:
The single vigorous Qur'an text that throughout the ages has successfully withstood the assaults of both the exegetes and the usulis, stoutly retaining its textual identity in the face of countless attempts to insinuate interpolations through exploitation of the alleged codex of this or that Companion, is none other than the unique text of the revelations whose existence all their tricks betoken, the text which has come down to us in the form in which it was organized and approved by the Prophet... (Collection of the Qur'an, 1977).

R. Bosworth Smith said:
In the Koran we have, beyond doubt, the exact words of Muhammad without subtraction and without addition (Muhammad and Muhammadanism, 1874, p. 21)

Alexei

[Alpha]

And what about the added and deleted verses? What if the verses that teach that Jesus died for our sins, resurrected are added? huh?

What if humans had wings? Then we would fly! If the verses on Jesus' death and ressurection were added, then we would know. But all the versions seem to agree on that. Therefore, there is no problem. But in essence, it is not about the versions. It is about what the manuscripts say. They are used to make the english versions. The argument should not be, since the Bible has all these different versions it is corrupt. The argument should be, which of these versions are closer to the original manuscripts. And no matter which version you have, it teaches what is most important to Christianity, which is Christ's death and ressurection. That's why the evidence of Christ's death and ressurection is so overwhelming. There is so much manuscripts to support it compared to the one source of the Qu'ran to not support it. I would rather believe the testimony of many people rather than one. And I would rather believe God's first revelation rather than a false second.

[Alexei]

It is about what the manuscripts say....The argument should be, which of these versions are closer to the original manuscripts.

What manuscripts my friend? You're talking like the most conservative Christians who will don't feel the fire under their feet until they will burn!!!
You don't have any manuscripts. All you have are copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of discarded torn altered fragments pieces that you called manuscripts

Lobegott Friedrich Konstantin Von Tischendorf, one of the most adamant conservative Christian defenders of the Trinity and one who discover the Codex Sinaiticus was himself driven to admit that: "[the New Testament had] in many passages undergone such serious modification of meaning as to leave us in painful uncertainty as to what the Apostles had actually written" (Secrets of Mount Sinai, James Bentley, p. 117)

Tischendorf said he "counted 14,800 alterations and corrections in Sinaiticus." Alterations, and more alterations, and more alterations were made, and in fact, most of them are believed to be made in the 6th and 7th centuries.

And you are tlaking about the original manuscripts. What a joke!

And no matter which version you have, it teaches what is most important to Christianity, which is Christ's death and ressurection. That's why the evidence of Christ's death and ressurection is so overwhelming.

Well I thought that the thread is "The Bible Is Accurate"? Now you're saying that no matter what but the evidence of Christ death and resurrection is the essentiel and you forgot the subject.
According to Mr Tischendoef and other Christian scholars, well NOTHING is evident!

And I would rather believe God's first revelation rather than a false second.

AHHHHHH! you made me sad


Alexei

[Believer]

Peace Alexei,

What manuscripts my friend? You're talking like the most conservative Christians who will don't feel the fire under their feet until they will burn!!!
You don't have any manuscripts. All you have are copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of discarded torn altered fragments pieces that you called manuscripts

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/p ... young.html
http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/deadsea.scr ... intro.html

[Alpha]

Thank you brother Believer. There is also more evidence.

What manuscripts my friend? You're talking like the most conservative Christians who will don't feel the fire under their feet until they will burn!!!
You don't have any manuscripts. All you have are copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of discarded torn altered fragments pieces that you called manuscripts

Lobegott Friedrich Konstantin Von Tischendorf, one of the most adamant conservative Christian defenders of the Trinity and one who discover the Codex Sinaiticus was himself driven to admit that: "[the New Testament had] in many passages undergone such serious modification of meaning as to leave us in painful uncertainty as to what the Apostles had actually written" (Secrets of Mount Sinai, James Bentley, p. 117)

Tischendorf said he "counted 14,800 alterations and corrections in Sinaiticus." Alterations, and more alterations, and more alterations were made, and in fact, most of them are believed to be made in the 6th and 7th centuries.

And you are tlaking about the original manuscripts. What a joke!

My friend, I do not have to prove the authenticity of the New Testament to you. Your Qu'ran already does that by acknowledging the fact that the rumor/fact/truth about Jesus' death and resurrection was known even BEFORE Muhammed was born. Lies come AFTER the truth when dealing with divine intervention. Does God allow a lie to spread beore the truth is known? What a mighty god that is!

[Alexei]

My friend, I do not have to prove the authenticity of the New Testament to you.

Simply you CAN'T prove anything my friend

Your Qu'ran already does that by acknowledging the fact that the rumor/fact/truth about Jesus' death and resurrection was known even BEFORE Muhammed was born. Lies come AFTER the truth when dealing with divine intervention. Does God allow a lie to spread beore the truth is known? What a mighty god that is!

http://answering-christianity.com/que3.htm

"In any event, none of [the original manuscripts of the books of the Bible] now survive. What do survive are copies made over the course of centuries, or more accurately, copies of the copies of the copies, some 5,366 of them in the Greek language alone, that date from the second century down to the sixteenth. Strikingly, with the exception of the smallest fragments, no two of these copies are exactly alike in their particulars. No one knows how many differences, or variant readings, occur among the surviving witnesses, but they must number in the hundreds of thousands."
(The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, Bart Ehrman, pp. 27 ).

It was found that the verses starting from John 7:53 to 8:11 (the story of the woman taken in adultery) are not to be found in the most ancient copies of the Bible available to Christianity today, specifically, codices Sinaiticus or Vaticanus.
('Secrets of Mount Sinai' by James Bentley, Doubleday, NY, 1985).

It was also found that John 21:25 was a later insertion, and that a verse from the gospel of Luke (24:12) that speaks of Peter discovering an empty tomb of Jesus is not to be found in the ancient manuscripts.
('Secrets of Mount Sinai' by James Bentley, Doubleday, NY, 1985).

The list is tooooooooooo long

Really our Holy Bible is Accurate and Inspired

Alexei

[Alpha]

Again: Your Qu'ran already proves authenticity of the New Testament by acknowledging the fact that the rumor/fact/truth about Jesus' death and resurrection was known even BEFORE Muhammed was born. Lies come AFTER the truth when dealing with divine intervention. Does God allow a lie to spread beore the truth is known? What a mighty god that is!

[Alexei]

Again: Your Qu'ran already proves authenticity of the New Testament by acknowledging the fact that the rumor/fact/truth about Jesus' death and resurrection was known even BEFORE Muhammed was born. Lies come AFTER the truth when dealing with divine intervention. Does God allow a lie to spread beore the truth is known? What a mighty god that is!

Again: http://answering-christianity.com/que3.htm


Alexei

[Believer]

Again: http://answering-christianity.com/que3.htm


Alexei

I wouldn't trust what Islamic scholars say about Christianity or the Bible.
They're very biased and they lie profusely.
They distort things to support their religion. They're the only ones corrupting the Bible.

Simply you CAN'T prove anything my friend

We can't convince someone so hard-hearted and narrow-minded as yourself that this is true.
Here we have ancient Qumran scrolls--the earliest being written in the 3rd century BC!
And we have an acneint pre-Markan passion narrative written only a few years to a decade after Jesus's death!
There are also many ancient sources verifing that Christ was crucified.
You have to be someone very determined not to believe the Bible is true after all of this historical evidence!

[Alpha]

Alexei, Muslims cannot explain why God would "change" His revelation or allow a "corrupted" revelation to be first, because God did not allow and would not do that! That explanation on the link you gave is completely illogical. It suggests that Islam is the truth because it is "newer and the latest" revelation. That's an asinine explanation! If I go by that logic then Mormons have a better case than Muslims do.

Mormons + Muslims = Mayhem!

[Alexei]

According to Gospel Mark (16:17-18), there are following five signs that accompany those who believe in, have been baptized, and recite Lord’s Prayer

1. “In my name (Christ), they will cast out demons” -
I have never seen this happen, except in Hollywood or on Benny Hill TV show.

2. “They will speak with new tongues” -
Really?

3. “They will pick up serpents” -
Hmmmmmm! How about working in a circus?

4. “If they drank any deadly poison it shall not hurt them”
Now, I like challenge Christians if anyone of them dare to try drinking cyanide after offering his Lord Prayer and of course writing his will!

5. “They will lay hands on the sick and they will recover”
I have heard it happen to Hindus, Catholics, Protestants, Atheists and Agnostics...

Alexei

[Omega]

. “In my name (Christ), they will cast out demons” -
I have never seen this happen, except in Hollywood or on Benny Hill TV show

Benny Hinn may use trickery or maybe not but the fact remains that demon possession is very very real. When Jesus walked the earth He encountered many people possessed by demonic spirits and spirits of infirmity. Some spirits can possess unbelievers without them knowing. Such as involuntary movements which they cannot control or say things they don't recall saying!

Anyways the reason why Jesus encountered many possessed by demons was because He was the Light and the light within him exposed the hidden things of the dark. The greater the light within you, you will expose the darkness around you and therefore will encounter people possessed by demonic spirits.

When the light within you and faith within grows the more you will encounter hidden evil and demonic spirit within others. And therefore will one day be able to cast them out. Castin out demons also requires a certain amount of faith and humility. Fasting can increase this!

It is written:Matthew 17:14-21 And when they were come to the multitude, there came to him a certain man, kneeling down to him, and saying, Lord, have mercy on my son: for he is lunatick, and sore vexed: for ofttimes he falleth into the fire, and oft into the water. And I brought him to thy disciples, and they could not cure him. Then Jesus answered and said, O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? bring him hither to me. And Jesus rebuked the devil; and he departed out of him: and the child was cured from that very hour. Then came the disciples to Jesus apart, and said, Why could not we cast him out? And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you. Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.

If they drank any deadly poison it shall not hurt them”

It will surely kill those who put God to the test. If you are doing the Will of God and unknowingly ingest poison and not do it as a show of display then you won't die, if you live according to His will as the apostles did.

[Alexei]

Omega my friend, I was really touched by your last reply and I feel the need to cry

Eventhough your reply is nothing than a typical Christian romantic heresy, I am forcing to ask you why do you defend an Apocrypha using an Apocrypha?

Matthew 17:21 is considered as a later insertion and it's omitted from every new version of the Holy Bible.
In the NIV, the entire verse was omitted. Who do you suppose benifits from this omission? [Fasting is also removed in Mark 9:29 & Acts 10:30.]
R.S.V. (not included)
N.I.V. (not included)
G.N.B. (not included)
L.B.V. (not included)
So why do you use this corrupted verse to defend another corrupted verse?

With regard to Mark 16:9-20, we are, strangely enough, given a choice of how we would like the Gospel of Mark to end. The commentators of the NRSV by Oxford Press have supplied both a "short ending" and a "long ending." Thus, we are given a choice of what we would prefer to be the "INSPIRED WORD OF GOD" .

Once again, at the end of this Gospel in very small text, the commentators say:
"Some of the most ancient authorities bring the book to a close at the end of verse 8. One authority concludes the book with the shorter ending; others include the shorter ending and then continue with verses 9-20. In most authorities, verses 9-20 follow immediately after verse 8, though in some of these authorities the passage is marked as being doubtful."
(Peake's Commentary on the Bible records)

"It is now generally agreed that 9-20 are not an original part of Mk. They are not found in the oldest MSS, and indeed were apparently not in the copies used by Mt. and Lk. A 10th-cent. Armenian MS ascribes the passage to Aristion, the presbyter mentioned by Papias (ap.Eus.HE III, xxxix, 15)."

"Indeed an Armenian translation of St. Mark has quite recently been discovered, in which the last twelve verses of St. Mark are ascribed to Ariston, who is otherwise known as one of the earliest of the Christian Fathers; and it is quite possible that this tradition is correct"
(Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, F. Kenyon, Eyre and Spottiswoode, pp. 7-8)

"Nonetheless, there are some kinds of textual changes for which it is difficult to account apart from the deliberate activity of a transcriber. When a scribe appended an additional twelve verses to the end of the Gospel of Mark, this can scarcely be attributed to mere oversight"
(The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, Bart Ehrman, pp. 27-28 )

"…The gospel of Mark ends abruptly, at 16.8, and early attempts to add an ending show that it was felt to be incomplete. It is possible that the book was never finished or that it was damaged at an early stage. Yet it may be our knowledge of the other Gospels that makes us expect this one to end with appearances of the risen Lord. Certainly, it ends in an appropriate way for Mark - with fear, human failure, and the call to discipleship …"
(The Oxford Companion to the Bible, Bruce Metzger and Michael Coogan, p. 496 )

Dr. Lobegott Friedrich Konstantin Von Tischendorf was one of the most eminent conservative biblical scholars of the nineteenth century. One of his greatest lifelong achievements was the discovery of the oldest known Biblical manuscript know to mankind, the "Codex Sinaiticus," from Saint Catherine's Monastery in Mount Sinai. This was one of the manuscripts which influenced the Christian recognition of the need to produce the RSV Bible. One of the most devastating discoveries made from the study of this fourth century manuscript was that the gospel of Mark originally ended at verses 16:8 and not at verse 16:20 as it does today. In other words, the last 12 verses (Mark 16:9 through Mark 16:20) were "injected" by the Church into the Bible sometime after the 4th century. This conclusion was supported by the fact that the early Church fathers of the second century C.E. such as Clement of Alexandria and Origen never quoted these verses. Later on, it was also discovered that the said 12 verses, wherein lies the account of "the resurrection of Jesus," do not appear in codices Syriacus, Vaticanus and Bobiensis. Originally, the "Gospel of Mark" contained no mention of the "resurrection of Jesus" (Mark 16:9-20). At least four hundred years (if not more) after the departure of Jesus, the Church, by way of father Ariston, received divine "inspiration" to add the story of the resurrection to the end of this Gospel and then allow Christianity to attribute these inserted verses to "Mark."

Each time I read a newer version of the Holy Bible I discover a new event added or an old event deleted to the life of Biblical Jesus.

As I said before, Our Bible is like the Windows XP Update.

And we still find some stooges who still believing that our Holy Bible is Accurate and Inspired

Really our Holy bible is Accurate and Inspired

Alexei

[Omega]

You can go ahead and make a mockery of my God and be immature about it as usual, but your stubborness and hardheaded attitude will only lead you to condemnation. If I were you, I'd be careful not to blaspheme against the Holy Ghost.

It is written:Matthew 12:32 - And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

Furthermore you and your muslim friends are infantile, it is like babysitting.

It is almost a miracle that time and time again you fail to realize the True God, I have never encountered such spiritual blindness than what you have displayed.

[oneGOD]

Man, is this how you answer him? I mean come man...lol (not trying to be rude or sarcastic here)

When I read something against my religion I go make my research and refute it==> common sense

When I read something bad about My religiona and just ignore it==>I don't care, my religion is right no matter what.

So many things have been enlisted here in this thread about the bible inaccuracy, not one of them was answered. On the other hand every time you claim an error in the Quran and we refute it you --of course--don't accept the answer.

answer our questions in this thread. That's a better way.

Peace.

[Omega]

All the questions you guys ask has already been answered many times, if you take the time to look at the other threads you will realise that you are just asking the same question time and time again. And of course you won't except these answers being a muslim. All it takes is the Word of God alone to answer your questions with a correct response. But unfortunately people would rather rely on the man than God.

UNDERSTAND?