Black Spirituality Religion : Old and New Testament Guidance

Okay, I went back and researched David Rohl and his works, and to be quite real...the guy was shabby. He has done what I call "selective research", much like people who have "selective hearing", you know; "people who only hear what they want to hear"...well he has done the same with his research.

He attempts to use the works of Josepheus Flavious as a reference when deeper research would reveal many of Josepheus's works to be forgeries. He does quote from Immanuel Velikovskies (hope I spelled that right) works, but had he studied more of his works he wouldn't have relied on just the one he quoted by him.

Once I saw that he had quoted Immanuel's works and Ipewer's works, I was seriously looking for him to give me a complete break down of the 10 plagues that supposedly struck Egypt, but he didn't. He just washed out on that. In my forth coming book I do exactly what "HE DID NOT DO"...as the so called plagues were a world wide event and was not just confined to the remote area of Egypt, David Rohl has revealed himself to be at best, a third class researcher...meaning that everything he says has to be researched again.

He was on point with the Hyksos/Hebrew connection and yet missed the critical point that " someone was writing history that did not belong to them and was applying it to themselves as if it was theirs". This I also document and prove...thereby destroying his "Biblical/Egyptian connection".

To understand what I am saying is to research everything, not some things. For example: Where did the story of pharoah's army being washed away come from?

It came from the rulership of Hatshepsut. There was large scale disorder in what we now call the middle east (being that it was a colony of Egypt at that time) and Hatshepsut dispatched troops there to stabilize the rebellon. As her troops were crossing the red sea, Mt. Thera erupted causing a tidal wave to wash all of her troops away.

The question now becomes, "what conniving, devious, underhanded person would be shrewed enough to take that "historical event" and then apply it to the Moses story as if the two were related?"

I'm just letting you know that a lot of study has to be done if you intend on reaching any semblance of truth historically or biblically. Too much dirt has been done by people in the past and by the priesthood to gain power and the control of the masses. Jerimiah's father in the Bible is one of them. A joker making up his own books which Jerimiah exposed.

Bottom line: More research brother.

Peace !
 
Keita said:
Okay, I went back and researched David Rohl and his works, and to be quite real...the guy was shabby. He has done what I call "selective research", much like people who have "selective hearing", you know; "people who only hear what they want to hear"...well he has done the same with his research.

He attempts to use the works of Josepheus Flavious as a reference when deeper research would reveal many of Josepheus's works to be forgeries. He does quote from Immanuel Velikovskies (hope I spelled that right) works, but had he studied more of his works he wouldn't have relied on just the one he quoted by him.

Once I saw that he had quoted Immanuel's works and Ipewer's works, I was seriously looking for him to give me a complete break down of the 10 plagues that supposedly struck Egypt, but he didn't. He just washed out on that. In my forth coming book I do exactly what "HE DID NOT DO"...as the so called plagues were a world wide event and was not just confined to the remote area of Egypt, David Rohl has revealed himself to be at best, a third class researcher...meaning that everything he says has to be researched again.

He was on point with the Hyksos/Hebrew connection and yet missed the critical point that " someone was writing history that did not belong to them and was applying it to themselves as if it was theirs". This I also document and prove...thereby destroying his "Biblical/Egyptian connection".

To understand what I am saying is to research everything, not some things. For example: Where did the story of pharoah's army being washed away come from?

It came from the rulership of Hatshepsut. There was large scale disorder in what we now call the middle east (being that it was a colony of Egypt at that time) and Hatshepsut dispatched troops there to stabilize the rebellon. As her troops were crossing the red sea, Mt. Thera erupted causing a tidal wave to wash all of her troops away.

The question now becomes, "what conniving, devious, underhanded person would be shrewed enough to take that "historical event" and then apply it to the Moses story as if the two were related?"

I'm just letting you know that a lot of study has to be done if you intend on reaching any semblance of truth historically or biblically. Too much dirt has been done by people in the past and by the priesthood to gain power and the control of the masses. Jerimiah's father in the Bible is one of them. A joker making up his own books which Jerimiah exposed.

Bottom line: More research brother.

Peace !
As I said, “the works are not based on the Word of GOD”. You are confusing my research with my faith. They are two totally different things; you speak as if you expect me to defend Rohl. Rohl is not my faith.
My Faith is GOD, HIS Specific Words.
My research is the examination of GOD from other points of views.
Two totally different things, that’s why I gave the books and the author so that one can go read for yourself and make your own conclusions as to it’s meaning.

If you have a question about The Bible as to the Will of GOD and HIS Teachings, I would be more then happy to try in answer them with the Word of GOD.
 
My question then becomes, "which Bible"? Because I was taught that "God's Word Never Changes", I guess I have a choice of Bibles to read.

By: Daniel B. Wallace , Th.M., Ph.D.

I. Why So Many Versions?
"Breaking up is hard to do," as the song goes. Ma Bell did it--creating a glut of long distance companies almost as numerous as brands of deodorant.

The Bible did it, too. Before the year 1881 you could read any version you wanted--as long as it was the King James Version. But since 1881, scores of new translations have been printed.

How did the King James get dethroned? Which translation is best today? Are any of the modern translations really faithful to the original? These are some of the questions we'll be looking at in this essay. But initially, we'd just like to get a bird?s eye view. We simply want an answer to the question, "Why are there so many versions of the Bible?"

There are three basic influences which have given birth to a multitude of translations.

First, in 1881 two British scholars published a Greek New Testament which was based on the most ancient manuscripts then available. This text, by Brook Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort, made several notable departures from the Greek text which King James translators used. For the most part, the Westcott-Hort text was a shorter New Testament. That's because the older manuscripts (MSS) which they used did not contain passages such as the longer ending of Mark's gospel or the story of the women caught in adultery. The Greek MSS which the King James translators followed included these and many other passages.

At the same time the Westcott-Hort text made its debut, the English Revised Version of the New Testament appeared. A new era was born in which translations of the New Testament now used the few ancient Greek MSS rather than the many later ones.

Second, since 1895 many archeological and manuscript discoveries have been made which have which have pronounced judgment on some of the renderings found in the King James. The single most important discovery was that of the Egyptian papyri. In 1895, Adolf Deissmann published a volume, given the unassuming title, Bible Studies (Bibelstudien), which revolutionized NT scholarship. Deissmann discovered that ancient papyrus scraps, buried in Egyptian garbage dumps some 2,000 years ago, contained Greek which was quite similar to the Greek of the NT. He concluded that the Greek of the NT was written in the common language of the day. It was not the dialect which only the most elite could understand. Since Deissmann's discovery, translators have endeavored to put the NT into language the average person could comprehend--just as it was originally intended. Not only that but the papyri have helped us to understand many words--words which were only guessed at by King James translators.

Finally, there have been philosophical influences. That is, the theory of translation is being revamped today. Missionaries have made a significant contribution toward this end--because they are eager to see a particular tribe read the Bible in its own language.

These three differences--textual, informational, philosophical--have been the parents of a new generation of Bible translations. But are these translations any good? Are they any better than the King James?

For the rest of the essay, we will examine each of these influences and then, finally, try to see which translation is best.

II. The Text of Modern Translations
Where have all the verses gone? The modern translations seem to have cut out many of the most precious lines of Scripture. They end Mark's gospel at the 8th verse of chapter 16; they omit the reference of the angel of the Lord stirring the waters at the pool of Bethesda (verse 4 of John 5); and, most notably, they excise the story of the woman caught in adultery in John 8.

Besides omissions, these modern versions make significant changes in the text. For example, in I Timothy 3:16, the King James reads, "God was manifest in the flesh," but most modern translations read, "He was manifest in the flesh." In Revelation 22:19 the King James speaks of the "book of life" while virtually all modern versions speak of the "tree of life." Altogether, there are hundreds of textual changes between the King James and modern translations.

In this brief essay we cannot determine who is right. But we can make a few observations.

First, the textual changes in the modern translations affect no major doctrine. The deity of Christ, virgin birth, salvation by grace alone--and all the rest--are still intact. Though certain passages are omitted or changed, the doctrines are not. There are evangelicals who prefer the King James and there are some evangelicals who prefer the modern translations.

Second, the textual changes in these modern translations are based on the most ancient MSS of the Greek NT. These MSS date from early in the second century A.D. But the Greek texts behind the King James belong to a group of MSS--called the Byzantine text--which are much more recent. On the other hand, although these MSS are more recent, they comprise at least 80% of the 5000+ MSS of the NT that we presently have. It is theoretically possible that, at times, these MSS point to an early tradition as well.

Third, the King James NT did not always follow the majority of MSS. Actually, the Greek text behind the King James was based on only about half a dozen MSS. Now it just so happened that these MSS belonged to the Byzantine text. But on a few occasions there were gaps. And the compiler (a man named Erasmus) had to fill in those gaps by translating the Latin NT back into Greek. There are, therefore, some readings in the King James--such as 'book of life' in Rev 22:19 or the wording of I John 5:7-8, which are not found either in the majority of MSS or the most ancient MSS. No serious student of the Bible would call them original (though many popular Bible teachers do).

Fourth, the charge that the more ancient MSS or the men who embrace them are unorthodox is a faulty charge. It is true that in certain places the ancient MSS do not explicitly affirm the deity of Christ--such as in I Tim 3:16. But neither do they deny it! Besides this, in some passages these ancient MSS make Christ's deity explicit where the King James does not! In John 1:18, the modern versions read "the unique one, God" while the King James has "the only begotten Son." Futhermore, the majority of evangelical scholars embrace this critical text. Even the men who edited the New Scofield Reference Bible of the King James Version personally favor the critical text!

Fifth, at the same time, there are some scholars today who are strong advocates of the Byzantine text--most notably, Zane Hodges and Arthur Farstad. Together they edited The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text and Dr. Farstad was also the senior editor of the New King James Bible. Thus, it is possible to be intelligent and still embrace the Byzantine text, just as it is possible to be evangelical and embrace the modern critical text. (I happen to disagree with the resultant text that Firsthad and Hodges have produced,1 but I respect their scholarship.)

Finally, we ought to quit labeling one another as heretics or idiots in the ongoing discussion. There needs to be charity on both sides. One of my college professors frequently said, "The Christian army is the only army in the world that shoots its wounded!" Unfortunately, this is especially true when it comes to translations of the Bible.

III. Deissmann and the Papyri
In1895 a German pastor by the name of Adolf Deissmann published a rather innocent-sounding volume: Bible Studies. Yet, this single volume started a revolution in NT scholarship--a revolution in which the common man was the winner.

In the 1800s Deissmann began reading ancient Greek MSS. But not the great classical authors. He was reading private letters, business transactions, receipts, marriage contracts. What were these documents? Merely scraps of papyrus (the ancient forerunner to paper) found in 2,000-year-old Egyptian garbage dumps. In these seemingly insignificant papyri, Deissmann discovered a key to uncover the NT! For these papyri contained the common Greek language of the first century A.D. They were written in the vocabulary of the NT.

What's so revolutionary about that? you ask. It is revolutionary because up until 1895, biblical scholars had no real parallels to the language of the NT. They often viewed its Greek as invented by the Holy Spirit. They called it "Holy Ghost Greek." Now it is true that the ideas--even the words--were inspired by the Holy Spirit. But it's another thing to say that the language of the NT was unusual--that its grammar and vocabulary were, in a word, unique. If this were true, only the spiritual elite could even hope to understand the NT.

Deismann's discovery burst the bubble on this view: the Greek of the NT was written in the language of the common man.

There are two implications of what Deissmann did for the Bible translations:

First, if the apostles wrote in easy-to-understand terms, then translations of the Bible should reflect this. We ought not to translate with big 50 cent religious-sounding words if the original was not written that way. The King James word 'propitiation,' for example, basically means 'satisfaction'--that is, God is satisfied with Christ's payment for our sins. Our Lord's final word from the cross, "It is finished," has been found on papyrus business documents--on receipts, if you will. It means "paid in full."

In other words, Bible translations need to be clear. One of the obvious proofs of this is that the gospel offends people. And it cannot be offensive unless it is understood!

Second, the papyri discoveries have helped us to understand words which the King James translators merely guessed at. For example, in the King James version of John 3:16, the Greek word translated 'only begotten' really means 'one and only' or 'unique.' The Bible, then, does not say that Jesus was the begotten Son of God--which might suggest that he had a beginning--but that he is the unique Son of God.

But there is another implication of the papyri discoveries, though not related to Bible translations. Rather, it is related to preaching. Preachers of the Word of God need to make themselves understood. As one of my seminary professors was fond of saying, "We are not called to feed giraffes--we are called to feed sheep!" This does not mean that a sermon should be sloppy or inaccurate--just that it should be clear.

Deissmann has done a service for scholar and layman alike. He has shown that the language of the NT was understandable to the common man on the street. The ironic thing is that when the King James Bible was first published in 1611, it was condemned by many for being too easily understood! But after 400 years, the English language has changed. I, for one, invite the new translations because they give the gospel back to the people.

IV. Dynamic Equivalence Vs. Formal Equivalence
Most laymen today think that a faithful translation of the Bible means a word-for-word translation. If the original has a noun, they expect a noun in the translation. If the original has sixteen words, they don't want to see seventeen words in the translation. We might call this translation "formal equivalence." The King James, old American Standard, and the New American Standard come closest to this ideal.

On the other end of the spectrum is a "phrase-for-phrase" translation, or a dynamic equivalence translation. It is not so concerned about the grammatical form of the original language as it is of the meaning of the original. A dynamic equivalence translation is more interpretive--but it is also easier to understand. The New International Version (in part) and the New English Bible follow this philosophy.

Actually, anyone who has ever learned a second language knows that a word-for-word translation is impossible much or most of the time. Idioms in one language need to be paraphrased. Even the King James translators realized this. In a couple of places in the OT, the Hebrew text literally reads, "God's nostrils enlarged." But the King James has something like, "God became angry"--which is what the expression means. In Matthew 1:18 the King James says that Mary was found to be with Child. But the Greek is quite different--and quite graphic: "Mary was having it in the belly"! And in many places in Paul's letters, the King James reads, "God forbid!" But the original has neither "God" nor "forbid." Literally, it says, "May it never be!" (as most modern translations render it!)

Therefore, when we speak of faithfulness in translation, we need to clarify the question: Faithfulness to form? or faithfulness to meaning? Sometimes faithfulness to one involves lack of fidelity to the other. There are problems with each of these. The King James, with its attempted fidelity to form, in some passages makes no sense. And in 1611 they made no sense! The New American Standard, likewise, is often characterized by wooden, stilted English.

On the other hand, dynamic equivalence translations sometimes are too interpretive. The NIV, in Eph 6:6, tells slaves to "Obey (their masters) not only to win their favor. . . ," but the word "only" is not in the Greek and I suspect that Paul did not mean to imply it, either. This reveals one of the problems with dynamic equivalence translations: the translators don't always know whether their interpretation is right.

But some versions don't interpret--they distort. Some are notorious for omitting references to Christ's blood, or for attempting to deny his deity. In these instances, the translators are neither faithful to the form or the meaning. They have perverted the Word of God.

Yet, dynamic equivalence translators who are honest with the text often make things very clear. In Phil 2:6, for example, the NIV tells us that Jesus was "in (his) very nature God." But most formal equivalence translations state that he was in the form of God. The problem with these formally correct translations is that they are misleading: the Greek word for 'form' here means essence or nature.

Dynamic equivalence versus formal equivalence: two different philosophies of translation. A formal equivalence translation lets the reader interpret for himself. But too often, the average reader doesn't have the background or the tools to interpret accurately. The net result is that he often badly misunderstands the text.

On the other hand, a dynamic equivalence translation is usually clear and quite understandable. But if the translators missed the point of the original--either intentionally or unintentionally--they will be communicating an idea foreign to the biblical text.

There are pros and cons of each philosophy of translation. In the next section, we will see which translations have done the best jobs.

V. Which Translation Is Best?
In this essay we've been looking at the differences in Bible translations. We have noted that the Greek text behind the King James NT is different from the Greek text behind most modern translations. We have seen that the discovery of the papyri at the turn of the century has shed much light on the meaning of biblical words. And we have found that Bible translations, by-in-large, are either word-for-word or phrase-for-phrase translations and that there are pros and cons with each of these. Today, we want to look briefly at five or six popular translations and discuss their values.

But before we look at these translations, I'd like to make three general comments. First, you might think there is no hope of ever knowing what the Word of God really says. There are so many translations that read so differently! How can anyone who does not know Greek or Hebrew really know what the Bible says? I am personally convinced that the Holy Spirit is sovereign over even the worst translations. Even in extremely biased or sectarian translations, all the major doctrines can be found. And if you know which translations are best, then you will be much better off!

Second, one of the best safeguards you can follow is to stay away from the sectarian translations or those done by an individual. The New World Translation, by the Jehovah's Witnesses, is the best known sectarian translation. We will speak about this translation a little later. Translations by individuals include Moffatt's, Weymouth's, J. B. Phillips, The Living Bible, Kenneth Wuest's Expanded Translation, and the Berkley New Testament. To be sure, there is much merit in each of these--especially the last four. But the idiosyncracies and theological biases of a translation are far more apparent when it is produced by one man.

Third, to the question "Which translation is best?", there can be no singular answer. I suggest that every Christian who is serious about studying the Bible own at least two translations. He should have at least one dynamic equivalence translation (or phrase-for-phrase) and one formal equivalence translation (that is, word-for-word translation). In fact, it would be good to have two dynamic equivalence translations--because in this type of translation, the translator is also the interpreter. If his interpretation is correct, it can only clarify the meaning of the text; if it is incorrect, then it only clarifies the interpretation of the translator!

Now, for the translations.

King James Version
The King James Bible has with good reason been termed, "the noblest monument of English prose" (RSV preface). Above all its rivals, the King James Version has had the greatest impact in shaping the English language. It is a literary masterpiece. But, lest anyone wishes to revere it because it was "good enough for St. Paul," or some such nonsense, we must remember that the King James Bible of today is not the King James of 1611. It has undergone three revisions, incorporating more than 100,000 changes! Further, there are over 300 words in the King James that no longer mean what they meant in 1611. If one wishes to use a Bible that follows the same Greek and Hebrew texts as the King James, I recommend the New King James Version.2

Revised Standard Version
The RSV was completed in 1952 and was intended to be, in part, a revision of the King James. Of course, it used the ancient MSS of the NT, resulting in the omission of several verses and words. But the wording was still archaic. The RSV attempts to be a word-for-word translation where possible. The NRSV follows the same principle of translation, though has now become more "gender-inclusive" in its approach. At times this is very helpful; at other times, it is misleading.

New American Standard
The NASB is something of an evangelical counterpart to the RSV. It, too, was intended to be something of a revision of the King James. There are three major differences between the RSV and the NASB: first, the NASB is less archaic in its wording. Second, its translators were more conservative theologically than the RSV translators. Third, because of the translators' desire to adhere as closely to the wording of the original, often this translation is stilted and wooden. Still, the NASB is probably the best word-for-word translation available today.

New English Bible
The NEB was completed in 1971, after a quarter of a century of labor. It marks a new milestone in translation: it is not a revision, but a brand new translation. It is a phrase-for-phrase translation. Unfortunately, sometimes the biases of the translators creep into the text. The REB (Revised English Bible) follows the same pattern: excellent English, though not always faithful to the Greek and Hebrew.

New International Version
The NIV was published in 1978. It may be considered a counterpart to the NEB. It is more a phrase-for-phrase translation than a word-for-word translation, and the scholars were generally more conservative than those who worked on the NEB. I personally consider it the best phrase-for-phrase translation available today. However, its major flaw is in its simplicity of language. The editors wanted to make sure it was easy to read. In achieving this goal, they often sacrificed accuracy (in particular, in the NT, sentences are shortened, subordination of thought is lost, conjunctions are deleted).

New World Translation
Finally, a word should be said about the New World Translation by the Jehovah's Witnesses. Due to the sectarian bias of the group, as well as to the lack of genuine biblical scholarship, I believe that the New World Translation is by far the worst translation in English dress. It purports to be word-for-word, and in most cases is slavishly literal to the point of being terrible English. But, ironically, whenever a sacred cow is demolished by the biblical writers themselves, the Jehovah's Witnesses twist the text and resort to an interpretive type of translation. In short, it combines the cons of both worlds, with none of the pros.

Then to make things worse

Bible errors

Jesus said the end of the world would be in his generation

Jesus said that believers could handle snakes and drink poison

Problems with the Exodus story

Jesus' primitive astronomy

Problems with the Jonah story

Garden of Eden was not a fair test

Joshua makes the Sun stand still in the sky

Nebuchadnezzar has a flat earth dream

Ahaziah was 2 years older than his father

The Bible claims there are 4-legged insects

The Bible claims rabbits (hares) chew their cud

God draws a flat circle on the water to make the earth

Problems with the Tower of Babel story

Jesus incorrectly states that Moses wrote of him in his law

Jesus incorrectly states that no one has ascended to heaven

Author of Matthew miscounts his generations

Jesus quotes a scripture that does not exist in canonized bible

Problems with Paul's signs of the last days

Problems with Jesus' signs of the last days

Problems with Satan tempting Jesus

Sorcery forbidden and yet practiced in the Bible

Jesus incorrectly states no man can serve two masters

Peter misquotes an Old Testament verse

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

Jesus is talking of signs that will happen before the end of the world to his disciples)

(Notice: Jesus probably thought the stars were little lights attached to a solid rotating sky dome like everyone else at that time)

(Mat 24:29 NRSV) "Immediately after the suffering of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; *the stars will fall from heaven*, and the powers of heaven will be shaken.

(Mat 24:30 NRSV) Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see 'the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven' with power and great glory.

(Jesus now says to his disciples that their generation will not pass away before the end of the world)

(Mat 24:34 NRSV) Truly I tell you, *this generation will not pass away* until all these things have taken place.

(Their generation did pass away, but the world didn't end)

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

Jesus tells his disciples that those "who believe" can heal, handle snakes, cast demons out, speak in tongues, and drink poison.

(Mark 16:17-18 NRSV) And these signs will accompany those who believe: by using my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues;

they will pick up snakes in their hands, and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover."

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

The Exodus story is almost certainly a fabrication or at least extremely exaggerated.

The bible says 600,000 men (hopefully accompanied by an equal number of women), children, and a "mixed" crowd supposedly left Egypt.

(Exo 12:37-38 NRSV) The Israelites journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about *six hundred thousand men* on foot, besides children. A mixed crowd also went...

This is somewhere around 1.5 million people (more than live in the city of Dallas).

It is very unlikely that the Egyptians kept 1.5 million people enslaved, controlled, and fed.

It is also very unlikely that hundreds of thousands of Israelites wandered around on foot in a desert region with little food or water for 40 years after they left.

There is no record anywhere of Egypt ever enslaving the Israelites. There is no archaeological evidence to support the Israelites being in Egypt.

It is well established that the Egyptians themselves built all their cities and monuments during the off season (farming).

There is no record in Egypt of 1.5 million people suddenly getting up and leaving (The Egyptians were meticulous record keepers).

There is no archaeological evidence of anything more than a few scattered encampments in the wilderness where supposedly at least hundreds of thousands wandered and died in the bible.

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

Jesus was just a mortal man who had no special knowledge of modern cosmology. Here are some verses that indicate this:

(Jesus is talking about the end of the world) (Mat 24:29 NRSV) "Immediately after the suffering of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; *the stars will fall* from heaven, and the powers of heaven will be shaken.

Jesus is obviously talking about stars (to him little lights) falling from the sky (to him just a few miles up) down to earth.

This was entirely feasible to people of his time as they did not know that the stars are huge objects like our sun (many, many times larger than the earth) that were unimaginably distant.

We know today that stars are suns that are at such distances that light takes dozens to hundreds of thousands of years to travel to us.

Even if they could travel instantaneously to earth, they could not "fall to earth" as they are up to millions of times larger than the earth.

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

Here is the certainly mythical story of how Jonah lived inside of a fish for three days:

(Jonah 1:17 NRSV) But the LORD provided a large fish to swallow up Jonah; and Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.

Lets assume that the story was talking about a whale that was incorrectly identified as a fish by this tale and that the whale would have some interest in swallowing a person whole, let's look at some of the other ways this is fiction:

a) No oxygen.

b) Lot of poisonous digestive juices.

c) No drinkable water.

d) A whale has an enormously fast digestive system.

The Bible goes on to tell of how God "talks" to the "fish" and the "fish" "spews" the man on to dry land.

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

The test in the Garden of Eden myth, was not a fair test considering it requires the knowledge of good and evil to not do something evil, yet this is what eating the fruit was supposed to give to the couple.

(Gen 2:25 NRSV) And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed.

(After eating the forbidden fruit)

(Gen 3:10-11 NRSV) (Adam) He said, "I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself."

(God) "Who told you that you were naked?

Not knowing good from evil (Gen 3:5), they did something evil so God punished them...

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

The bible's primitive astronomy provides a longer day to complete the killing of all the Amorite men, women, and children.

Joshua realized that he wasn't going to have enough time to completely slaughter all of the Amorites (even with God helping by throwing boulders from the sky to crush the people that were fleeing) so he commanded the Sun to stand still in the sky over Gibeon and the Moon to stand still over the valley of Aijalon.

The author of Joshua like everyone else in his day was unaware of the earth's rotation and thought the Sun went around the earth and that the Sun and Moon were only a few miles up in the sky, hence the command to make them stand still over certain topographic features of the earth.

These same verses were used by the Church against Galileo when he suggested that the earth turned instead:

(Josh 10:12-13 NRSV) On the day when the LORD gave the Amorites over to the Israelites, Joshua spoke to the LORD; and he said in the sight of Israel, "Sun, stand still *at Gibeon*, and Moon, *in the valley of Aijalon*."

And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stopped in midheaven, and did not hurry to set for about a whole day.

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

Here is a dream of Nebuchadnezzar as the author of the book of Daniel imagined it. The author imagined a tree growing from the center of a flat earth and it reaching the sky that in his day was thought to be just a few miles high. The tree was visible to the "ends" of the flat earth.

(Dan 4:10 NRSV) Upon my bed this is what I saw; there was a tree at the center of the earth, and its height was great.

The word Hebrew word for earth here is ara:

772. 'ara', (Chald.), ar-ah'; corresp. to H776; the earth; by impl. (fig.) low:--earth, inferior

(Dan 4:11 NRSV) The tree grew great and strong, its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the ends of the whole earth.

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

According to the bible, Ahaziah was 2 years older than his father Jehoram.

(Jehoram was inflicted with a disease from God that killed him after an eight-year reign)

(2 Chr 21:20 NRSV) (Jehoram) He was *thirty-two* years old when he began to reign; he reigned *eight years* in Jerusalem. ... They buried him in the city of David...

So Jehoram died at the age of forty.

(2 Chr 22:1 NRSV) The inhabitants of Jerusalem made his *youngest* son Ahaziah king as his successor; for the troops who came with the Arabs to the camp had killed all the *older* sons. So Ahaziah son of Jehoram reigned as king of Judah.

(2 Chr 22:2 NRSV) Ahaziah was *forty-two* years old when he began to reign; he reigned one year in Jerusalem. ...

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

The bible incorrectly says there are 4-legged insects. There are no insects anywhere that have 4 legs.

(Lev 11:20-21 NRSV) All winged insects that walk upon all fours are detestable to you.

But among the winged insects that walk on all fours you may eat those that have jointed legs above their feet, with which to leap on the ground.

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

The bible incorrectly states that rabbits (hares) chew their cud.

(Deu 14:7 NRSV) Yet of those that chew the cud or have the hoof cleft you shall not eat these: the camel, the hare, and the rock badger, because they chew the cud but do not divide the hoof; they are unclean for you.

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

Here again the bible seems to be saying that the earth is flat.

Here are more verses describing it as God "drawing" a flat 2 dimensional circle on the *face* of the waters to make the earth.

(Prov 8:26-27 NRSV) when he had not yet made earth and fields, or the world's first bits of soil. When he established the heavens, I was there, when he drew a circle on the face of the deep,

(Job 26:10 NRSV) He has described a circle on the face of the waters, at the boundary between light and darkness.

(Isa 40:22 NRSV) It is he who sits above the *circle of the earth*, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to live in;

The Hebrew word for circle here is chuwg

2329. chuwg, khoog; from H2328; a circle:--circle, circuit, compass

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

Problems with the story of the tower of Babel (A myth to explain why there are different languages).

(Gen 11:4-7 NRSV) Then they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower with its top in the heavens,

(Like most people in their time, the authors of Genesis thought that the sky was a dome that was just a few miles up)

and let us make a name for ourselves; otherwise we shall be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth."

(If they don't make a name for themselves they will be scattered, this sounds fairly contrived so far)

The LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which mortals had built.

(The Lord had to "come down" cause he was "up" in heaven not omni- present, but imagined as anthropomorphic to this author. Also he had to come down because he *couldn't see the city and the tower* from where he was?)

And the LORD said, "Look, they are one people, and they have all one language; and this is only the beginning of what they will do; nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them.

(God is afraid of these people when all they are doing is building. Look at the pyramids in Egypt and Central America, and the structures *high* in the Andies mountains by the Incas, and the skyscrapers we build today. There hasn't been any apparent divine intervention to spoil these projects yet)

Come, let us go down, and confuse their language there, so that they will not understand one another's speech."

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

Jesus incorrectly said that he was mention by Moses in his law.

(Luke 24:44 NRSV) Then he said to them, "These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you--that everything written about me in the law of Moses,...

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

Jesus incorrectly states that no one has ascended into heaven except the "Son of Man".

(John 3:13 NRSV) No one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.

(John 3:15 NRSV) that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.

(here is Elijah *ascending* to heaven)

(2 Ki 2:11 NRSV) As they continued walking and talking, a chariot of fire and horses of fire separated the two of them, and Elijah *ascended in a whirlwind into heaven*.

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

The author of Matthew says there are 42 generations from Abraham to Jesus.

(Mat 1:17 NRSV) So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David to the deportation to Babylon, fourteen generations; and from the deportation to Babylon to the Messiah fourteen generations. (3 x 14 = 42)

The number of generations he actually lists is instead 41.

Matthew 1rst chapter:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Abraham Isaac Jacob Judah Perez Hezron Aram 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Aminadab Nahshon Salmon Boaz Obed Jesse King David.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Solomon Rehoboam Abijah Asaph Jehoshaphat Joram Uzziah 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Jotham Ahaz Hezekiah Manasseh Amos Josiah Jechoniah

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Salathiel Zerubbabel Abiud Eliakim Azor Zadok Achim 8 9 10 11 12 13 Eliud Eleazar Matthan Jacob Joseph Jesus

14+14+13 = 41

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

Jesus quotes another scripture that doesn't exist in the canonized bible.

(John 7:38 NRSV) and let the one who believes in me drink. As the scripture has said, 'Out of the believer's heart shall flow rivers of living water.'"

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

Paul gives a list of things that supposedly indicate the "last days", but the things he listed are things that are continually going on all the time.

(2 Tim 3:1-5 NRSV) You must understand this, that in the last days distressing times will come.

For people will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy,

inhuman, implacable, slanderers, profligates, brutes, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, holding to the outward form of godliness but denying its power. Avoid them!

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

Jesus lists things that supposedly indicate the "last days", but his list is of things that are continually going on throughout history..

(Matthew 24:3-14)

When he was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?"

Jesus answered them, "Beware that no one leads you astray. For many will come in my name, saying, 'I am the Messiah!' and they will lead many astray. And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars; see that you are not alarmed; for this must take place, but the end is not yet. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be famines and earthquakes in various places: all this is but the beginning of the birth pangs. "Then they will hand you over to be tortured and will put you to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of my name. Then many will fall away, and they will betray one another and hate one another. And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray. And because of the increase of lawlessness, the love of many will grow cold. But the one who endures to the end will be saved. And this good news of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the world, as a testimony to all the nations; and then the end will come. ...

(Here is the only specific thing Jesus says and it is right before the specific "coming on the clouds of heaven")

(Matthew 24:29) "Immediately after the suffering of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of heaven will be shaken.

(Again vague nonspecific things that have been going on throughout all history (except for the Messiah statement which has only been going on since the Babylonian Exile ~2500 years ago)

Preachers have been using vague "signs" ever since Jesus to claim that their generation will be the last one. This has been going on for centuries and is being claimed today.

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

Here is Satan telling Jesus (who was supposed to be God and owner of the world according to christian religions) to worship him and he will "give" him the world?

(Mat 4:8 NRSV) Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor;

(Only possible on a flat earth, which the authors of the synoptic Gospels must have imagined)

(Mat 4:9 NRSV) and he said to him, "All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me."

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

The Deuteronomist outlaws foreign sorcery, but the bible authors use a multitude of their own sorcerers (called prophets) to contact a supernatural power (their god) and to attempt to determine the future.

(Deu 18:10 NRSV) No one shall be found among you who makes a son or daughter pass through fire, or who *practices divination*, or is a soothsayer, or an augur, or a *sorcerer*,

"Sorcerer practices" or "Divination and Magic" From Holman's Bible Dictionary:

An attempt to contact supernatural powers to determine answers to questions hidden to humans and usually involving the future.

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

Jesus here is simply wrong, a man can serve several masters and hate all of them or love all of them.

Even though this is just an analogy, an analogy is suppose to draw a parallel from something that makes sense.

(Mat 6:24 NRSV) "No one can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other. ...

(Mat 6:24 NRSV) ... You cannot serve God and wealth.

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

The Apostle Peter (like the author of Matthew does many times) takes an Old Testament verse out of it's context to try to make it seem as though it was forecasting a future event.

Some observers see people acting funny, speaking in tongues that they are not capable of (this feat is never duplicated in modern day Assembly of God churches) during their "filling of the Holy Spirit" at the "Pentecost".

They then conclude they are all drunk.

Peter tells them that they aren't drunk, but they are filled with the Holy Spirit, that is why they are acting strange.

(Acts 2:15-16 NRSV) Indeed, these are not drunk, as you suppose, for it is only nine o'clock in the morning. No, this is what was spoken through the prophet Joel:

(Peter then goes on to quote the prophet Joel, claiming that this filling of the spirit means they are in the "last days" before the coming of the "great day of the Lord".

A) The prophet Joel was making another vague prediction about how Judah and Israel are going to get back together and of a great war that the Jews would have with many nations of which only they will survive (this is Joel's "Lord's great and glorious day"). Of course this prophecy failed because it never happened. (Joel 2:28 - 3:21)

B) Peter was wrong as this has nothing to do with the Pentecost or Jesus.

C) Peter takes this prediction and turns it into a validation that they were in the last days before Jesus was to come back which was his "Lord's great and glorious day" (because it mentions a "filling of a spirit" and "prophesying".

D) It was natural for Peter and the Apostle Paul in his letters to assume this because Jesus himself said he would come back before all of the disciples had died. (Mat 16:28)

E) Jesus never came back, not then, and not in the almost 2000 years since, so Peter was wrong about them being in the "last days".

(Acts 2:17 NRSV) 'In the last days it will be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall ...

...

(Acts 2:19-20 NRSV) And I will show portents in the heaven above and signs on the earth below, blood, and fire, and smoky mist.

The sun shall be turned to darkness and the moon to blood, before the coming of the Lord's great and glorious day.
 
Keita said:
My question then becomes, "which Bible"? Because I was taught that "God's Word Never Changes", I guess I have a choice of Bibles to read.
It wouldn’t be much of a study of GOD if you restricted yourself to one book, now would it. I use the KJV Bible, Tanach, Pentateuch and a barrage of software Bibles in English, Hebrew and Greek. I would like to give you a word of warning. Newly translated Bibles have been corrupted because we live in a time as to where man has lost the fear and respect of GOD. They have now started translating the Bible to make it be more in harmony with their own religious ideals and belief system, stick to the older translations, the older the better. And pay no attention to little titles and side notes man has placed in the text.

And it is true The Word of GOD doesn’t change, man does.
 

Donate

Support destee.com, the oldest, most respectful, online black community in the world - PayPal or CashApp

Latest profile posts

HODEE wrote on Etophil's profile.
Welcome to Destee
@Etophil
Destee wrote on SleezyBigSlim's profile.
Hi @SleezyBigSlim ... Welcome Welcome Welcome ... :flowers: ... please make yourself at home ... :swings:
Back
Top