Yes kosher ink on kosher parchment, but it can be scraped off. No white out
Hmm...
How come we don't use that kind of ink and paper? That sounds so much more efficient!
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
11 errors by Jesus and friends.
- Thread starter Poisonshady313
- Start date
Hmm...
How come we don't use that kind of ink and paper? That sounds so much more efficient!
Worshipper
Active Member
Actually, they often did if they were literate. Literate people like owning stuff to read. The evangelists were obviously literate, and they clearly liked religious stuff, so they probably owned plenty of religious writing.
The difference is in the cost (and therefore the durability) of the materials they owned. Poor literate people own poor books. Rich people own rich books. Still today, plenty of us are fine waiting for a new book to come out in mass-market paperbacks.
Cheaper options than illuminated parchment existed even then. Papyrus was around. So were other kinds of leaves. Bark's a good choice. Wax isn't all that bad. And if you have it copied by a discount copyist (who maybe doesn't do a good enough job), you can get a pretty cheap book.
Furthermore, not owning a book and not having access to a book are quite different things. I don't own my own copy of the Oxford English Dictionary, but I access and use it all the time. Libraries are great! And pretty ancient, too. The Library of Alexandria (a fairly decent little book-collection) was probably still around when the Gospels were written, and there were lots of Jews in Alexandria, any four of whom could have been an evangelist.
And if you were writing a gospel with ink, quill, and parchment, wouldn't you rather do it in a cozy library or scriptorium than, say, on a rock on the shores of Galilee?
But no where near as cheap! Parchment (and I'm talking real lambskin here, not the splotchy-looking wood pulp you get at Staples) is pretty costly!
But if you're using real parchment, it's not that tough to scrape off a bit of it. Just like scraping off some skin, really. Just like scraping off some skin, really.
Poisonshady313
Well-Known Member
Again... the Torah as a whole being longer than all of the book of Isaiah takes less than a year.
There actually is a maximum of hours per day during which a scribe can write. This being said... it does not take years for a scribe to write the Torah, let alone Isaiah.
I refer you to Yid for a response to this.
One might hope that the people who underwent the task of writing "gospels" would have made it their business to have a text available to them, rather than try to recall events from memory. If they tried and were wrong, how could anything they write be credible? How can you claim that any given words were fulfilled if you don't even know what those words were? Either they had it in front of them and were tremendously ignorant/poorly educated... or they were semi-educated and extremely sloppy. I suppose the truth lies in the middle of the two extremes. Which would make them somewhat ignorant, rather sloppy, and semi-poorly educated.
Those issues are not mistakes. I'm not the one to explain them... though as for two creations.... it is not two creations... it's more like a recitation of the table of contents of creation... and afterward, going into more detail about some sections. And no, God didn't create animals after Adam... God took the animals He had already created and brought them before Adam to be named.
Perhaps Harmonious or Yid can help us out regarding your question about the ark.
Last edited:
Mshbar
New Member
Exactly... Jesus peace be upon him can not make such mistakes like that but the Bible was corrupted by the authors who Wrote it. u can see there r different versions and there is alot of Contradictions in the Bible. How can people believe in God by something which has Errors and different versions. Jesus is the Prophet after Moses peace be upon them and Mohammed is the last prophet peace be upon him. and they all worship 1 God.
In Quran:
[2:79] Therefore, woe to those who distort the scripture with their own hands, then say, "This is what GOD has revealed," seeking a cheap material gain. Woe to them for such distortion, and woe to them for their illicit gains.
[2:285] The messenger has believed in what was sent down to him from his Lord, and so did the believers. They believe in GOD, His angels, His scripture, and His messengers: "We make no distinction among any of His messengers." They say, "We hear, and we obey. Forgive us, our Lord. To You is the ultimate destiny."
[3:3] He sent down to you this scripture, truthfully, confirming all previous scriptures, and He sent down the Torah and the Gospel
[5:13] It was a consequence of their violating the covenant that we condemned them, and we caused their hearts to become hardened. Consequently, they took the words out of context, and disregarded some of the commandments given to them. You will continue to witness betrayal from them, excepting a few of them. You shall pardon them, and disregard them. GOD loves those who are benevolent
Harmonious
Well-Known Member
Because the slaughter of the animals, the scraping, cleaning, scoring of hide, and the individual attention required is far more work and time intensive than making paper and using printing presses.
Harmonious
Well-Known Member
Still, a Torah scroll is not complete unless it has all five books of Moses.
Both versions? What do you mean? There is only ONE version... in Hebrew. (Which story in Numbers makes you give up?)
Fair enough.
Actually, people did. It is a commandment that ALL Jewish males write their own Torah scroll, and a King of Israel has to write TWO.
The fact that not all Jewish males are capable of doing this means that it is necessary for them to pay someone to do it for them, which does count. But in the end, every Jewish family if not every Jewish male, was responsible for having such things available to be learned.
In Israel, especially at that time, I don't think this would have been a problem at all.
The Temple was not the only place of worship (as Jews can pray anywhere, even if we can only bring sacrifices to the Temple), nor was it the only place Torah scrolls were kept. If people didn't have their own, there were schools to learn Torah all over the place, even if the higher learning was most famous in the Yeshivot that followed the Sanhedrin.
Plus, Jews were supposed to gather in the market place every Monday and Thursday to hear the Torah read, as well as wherever the Jews were to hear it read on Saturday morning and afternoon, and New Moon, and holiday. Really... There were all kinds of times and places for people to learn.
To whom? Not to Jews in general. If even one letter was out of place in a Torah scroll, the entire scroll is invalid. Jews are careful about making sure that all of our scriptures are uniform.
Such "small" mistakes were actually serious errors, except to people who didn't seem to share the value of the absolute holiness of the scripture. These are things educated Jews take seriously.
That isn't a mistake. There were two of every kind AND seven pairs of every clean animal.
Poisonshady was right with this one. There was one creation of the world, and a second telling of the story, as there were details that were focused on in the second telling.
I like Poisonshady's explanation of "table of contents" of sorts, and then more details later.
The way the ink is on the parchment, it can be scraped off.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
That's because some inks don't have acid in them that sink into the paper (like today).
Troublemane
Well-Known Member
I just wanted to congratulate Poisonshady on being so astute as to notice these discrepencies! I have noted that not a single person has attempted to refute the discrepencies, but have instead tried to throw blame on the authors of the books----now, heres the problem. If the authors of the NT are wrong about some things, it can be said they are not inerrant, and inerrancy is an important thing for evangelists---most I have heard talk claim the Bible (meaning the Christian Bible) is totally without error. If we find now that it actually has errors, and they are in the NT, then we must admit then the possibility that the authors of the NT did not really know what they were talking about, and may have made up the whole thing. In short, they cant be trusted as genuine sources of information.
I'm sold! *goes back to being pagan* :angel2:
I'm sold! *goes back to being pagan* :angel2:
Poisonshady313
Well-Known Member
Harmonious
Well-Known Member
Kosher ink for scroll writing purposes are made of natural materials. They don't have acid in them, that I'm aware of.
Poisonshady313
Well-Known Member
Notice also that the list I provided only covers problems with new testament figures misquoting/distorting old testament words.... there are plenty of other examples of contradictions within books of the new testament. One of the more obvious examples of that nature (aside from the standard "who showed up at the tomb" "what were Jesus' last words" etc..) is when Jesus died in relation to passover, and the failed prophecy of Jesus' sign of Jonah.
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
Gee whilikers... this is so stinking easy that it's like shooting gefilte fish in a barrell. Jesus didn't get it wrong: the OT is simply in error.
I remember back in 1971 when they first integrated the school I was in. I was the only white until they bussed in a bunch of others from across town. Then it was AMAZING what they printed every day. They reported riots that never occurred and when I was stabbed they said that I was a black stabbed by a white.
So, how are you going to prove that the OT is correct and that Jesus is wrong? You can't! It comes down to simple beliefs and nothing more. So, I vote for Jesus since I believe he was the Son of God and a was an eye witness to these events. Also, being the son of God, he has a perfect memory, unlike those who wrote the OT.
Harmonious
Well-Known Member
I vote for the Torah, as God personally dictated the Five Books of Moses to Moses.
But you are right. When it comes down to it, it is all a matter of faith, and you can't prove faith.
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
I don't believe your scriptures support this view.
Then we are both right and God will bless our faiths no matter how flawed they might be.
Harmonious
Well-Known Member
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
Please... show me where.
Worshipper
Active Member
Of course no one has tried to refute it. You can't really refute a fact, and the discrepancies are a fact.
To go from the fact that there are discrepancies to the conclusion that the NT writers were wrong is unwarranted. I realize that you're not making that jump, but it should still be said. There are a horde of other reasons that could explain these discrepancies without casting blame on the writers of either the OT or the NT. None of the original manuscripts for these texts exist anyway, and the numerous manuscript witnesses don't all agree in every particular. That's the world of manuscripts for you. There is no need whatsoever to jump to the conclusion that any of these writers was wrong based on discrepancies in the current text.
So is the infallibility important for the evangelists or for the modern worshippers? It sounds to me like it's the modern worshippers who want to insist that the text must be immune from error who present the problem. The evangelists themselves might have been perfectly content to allow some irrelevant errors here and there so long as the fundamental message got through. Just because some contemporary Christians insist that the modern Bible is perfect and completely accurate doesn't mean the men who wrote it felt that way.
Whoa! Huge jump!
If your history teacher back in school had told you that the U.S. Declaration of Independence was passed on July 4th and later you learned that it was actually passed on the 2nd, would you begin to consider the possibility that maybe the whole idea of a Declaration of Independence was just made up? That maybe the United States have always existed as an independent country? Or that they are still dependencies of the British Crown?
Yes, if someone is wrong about one thing, he might be wrong about other things. That's true. But if someone was thinking about a religious leader a thousand years in the past but accidentally calls him by the name of his son and successor when he writes it down, it's kind of silly to suggest that we ought to question whether he was right about having watched his personal guru get crucified to death only to see him up and alive again two days later. I mean, witnessing the resurrection of a very publicly killed close personal friend would be a pretty memorable sort of thing in comparison to, say, thousand-year-old historical trivia.
Say you were hearing an account of a car accident, and one of the people involved in the accident said he was listening to "I Love Rock & Roll" by Joan Jett when in fact it was Britney Spears's remake. Would you then seriously question whether he was just making up the whole story about the car accident? No! You'd think he was off on some details that really had nothing to do with the main point and you'd shrug it off.
I appreciate your desire to not believe the Christian gospels. The message seems extremely incredible. Men born of virgins don't usually get executed for philanthropy and then come back to life after being buried for a couple of days and then ascend up into heaven commanding anyone around to see it to go out and baptize the whole world for him. (In fact, of all the billions of people that have ever lived, I think this has only happened quite like this one time
). But the reason to not believe is that it's something you choose not believe not that someone somewhere might have slipped up on completely inconsequential data while transmitting the gospel message.
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
Actually, in this case I would KNOW that the man in question was drunk and that the entire accident was HIS fault. That's the ONLY way anyone could mistake Brittney for Joan Jett. In fact, he would be drunk, stoned on cocaine and a chronic liar for this to happen.
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
Neither the OT nor NT scriptures EVER claim to be inerrant.
So, you base your entire theology on traditions of men? Not for me, thanks.
There are LOTS of people who scripturally paint themselves into a corner. You can't fault the paint for their carelessness. All of these were written by men who were inspired by God. Much of the OT was handed verbally down for YEARS before God inspired some one to record the story for posterity. But then, the God who can work through imperfect men like King David can also work through a less than accurate set of scriptures. That's his trademark: only God is perfect!
Troublemane
Well-Known Member
Well, while I am pretty much convinced there was quite likely a man named Jesus Ben Joseph alive at about 33 ad, who was a Nazorite, who was probably a political activist and had at one point assembled a large group of followers (the scene in the NT with the feeding the masses-- that may have been enough cause to make the authorities worried!); and while I am of the belief that he was most likely a very pious man, I think the authors of the 4 gospels embellished the tale very liberally.
As an example, consider how the story of what happens at the tomb changes from gospel to gospel---in Mark its just a dude in white sitting there who says Jesus has risen. In Luke its two men in shining garments. John has two angels standing in the tomb. And Matthew has the whole SPFX extravaganza, Cecil B. DeMille would'a been hard-pressed to make it on film:---a huge earthquake, the angel comes down from heaven and rolls away the stone and there's lightning, etc. The whole trip. Sounds an awful lot like the fish tale thats getting more and more distorted with each retelling.
So while I believe there probably was a man named Jesus who said and did many wonderous things, I also think he was more a populist leader, whom the masses followed and not the priests, who would (as has been pointed out) have recognized the errors in Scripture and corrected them. These were written by people after the fact, trying to build up a case for Messiahship, and their audience was not to Jews but to Gentiles, in later centuries.
Thats why when I want to read of Jesus, I like to turn to the Gospel of Thomas---theres evidence it may be the source document for the canonical gospels. It has everything the canonical gospels have, and things they dont have!
The Gospel of Thomas
I rank the Gospel of Thomas up there with the Dhammapada, and Ecclesiates, and the Tao Te Ching as some of the most inspirational works in history. :angel2:
:angel2:
As an example, consider how the story of what happens at the tomb changes from gospel to gospel---in Mark its just a dude in white sitting there who says Jesus has risen. In Luke its two men in shining garments. John has two angels standing in the tomb. And Matthew has the whole SPFX extravaganza, Cecil B. DeMille would'a been hard-pressed to make it on film:---a huge earthquake, the angel comes down from heaven and rolls away the stone and there's lightning, etc. The whole trip. Sounds an awful lot like the fish tale thats getting more and more distorted with each retelling.
So while I believe there probably was a man named Jesus who said and did many wonderous things, I also think he was more a populist leader, whom the masses followed and not the priests, who would (as has been pointed out) have recognized the errors in Scripture and corrected them. These were written by people after the fact, trying to build up a case for Messiahship, and their audience was not to Jews but to Gentiles, in later centuries.
Thats why when I want to read of Jesus, I like to turn to the Gospel of Thomas---theres evidence it may be the source document for the canonical gospels. It has everything the canonical gospels have, and things they dont have!
The Gospel of Thomas
I rank the Gospel of Thomas up there with the Dhammapada, and Ecclesiates, and the Tao Te Ching as some of the most inspirational works in history. :angel2:
:angel2: