• 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!

"Word of God" & discrepancies???

benign6

Member
(1) Mark 5:1-2 tells of Jesus being met by one man possessed by an unclean spirit. But, the parallel passage in Matthew 8:28 tells us that there were two with unclean spirits
(2) Jesus was son of God -or- a son of man ??? John:1:51”And he saith unto him,Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man” & this is in RED ink in Red-Letter-Bible
(3) Mark 10:46-47 tells us that one blind man Bartimaeus was crying out to Jesus for help & an unclean spirit. And in Matthew 20:29-30 we read that there were two blind men & devils (pleural).
(4) Read Matthew 27:9 and notice the quotation Jeremiah. But the quote is actually found in Zech. 11:12-13 and not found in the book of Jeremiah at all. Did Matthew get his Old Testament mixed up?
(5) James 2:20-24 tells us that Abraham was justified by works and Gal. 2:16 clearly says a man is not justified by works. Which is it?
(6) I Kings 6:1 says that Solomon began building the temple 480 years after the Exodus from Egypt. But, in Paul's message in Acts 13:16-22, he gives a time span in the history of Israel of 573 years for the same events. Where are the missing 93 years?
(7) MT 12:40, John:1:51, Was Jesus son of man -or- son of God ???
(8) II Chron. 22:2 says Ahaziah was 42 when he began to reign. Yet, II Kings 8:26 says he was 22 years old when he began to reign. Which is it? 22 or 42?
(9) 1 John 5:7 – (AV)"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the FATHER,
the WORD, and the HOLY GHOST: and these three are one." has been removed in revised
version (RSV) --------------- so it comes closer to Quran (Quran:4:171)
(10) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only BEGOTTEN son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16 - AV) , Now word “BEGOTTEN” has been removed from in revised standard version saying that it was interpolation. ------------ Same as Quran said 1428 years back.(Quran:19:88--92) & (112:3)
(11) Every Bible in every language, prior to 1952(when the RSV first appeared), had these verses:-
"So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was TAKEN UP INTO HEAVEN, and sat down at the right hand of God."(Mark 16:19)
"While he blessed them, he parted from them, and was CARRIED UP INTO HEAVEN." (Luke 24:51)

These verses(regarding ascension) were converted to mere footnotes in RSV published in 1952 (i.e. NOT considered part of bible). & Mark 16 was made to end at verse 8.
Then again they changed RSV & brought those verses back to their previous position.
It is an old, old game. The Jews and the Christians have been editing their "Book of God" from its very inception.


(12) “Scofield Reference Bible" thought it appropriate to spell the Hebrew word "Elah" (meaning God) alternatively as "Alah" in English translation, but decided to use one “L”. Later they removed this term “Alah” from "Scofield Reference Bible”.
====================
(13) They used to write “according to” in beginning of chapters e.g., “The Gospel According to St.Matthew” BUT Matthew was not the author of the first Gospel which bears his name.

Matthew 9:9 "And as Jesus passed forth thence, HE (JESUS) saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and HE (JESUS) saith unto HIM (MATTHEW), follow ME (JESUS) And HE (MATTHEW) arose, and followed HIM (JESUS)." ---- WHY “He” & NOT “I” so a third person is writing, NOT Matthew.

ST. JOHN 21:24. This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things:
and we know that his testimony is true.

ST. JOHN 19:35. And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe --- 3rd party account, NOT St John himself writing it.
 

benign6

Member

(14) the word "Bible" is unknown within the pages of the Bible. God forgot to give a title to "HIS" books
(15) Isaiah 37 & 2 KINGS 19 ditto copy of each other. They fused verse 16 into 15 in 2Kings 19 to keep some difference, though words are same. Who stole from whom?
(16) I CHRONICLES 21:Satan made David number Israel. No No No it was LORD II SAMUEL 24:1 How could the Almighty God have been the source of these contradictory "INSPIRATIONS?" In which religion is the DEVIL synonymous with GOD?
(17) II SAMUEL 24:13:Seven years of famine, I CHRONICLES 21:11:No it’s Three years.
(18) 2 Chronicles 36:9: JEHOIACHIN was "eight" years old when he began to reign.
2 Kings 24:8 added 10years to make him old enough to face God’s anger.
(19) 2 Chronicles 36:9:JEHOIACHIN reigned 3 months &10 days.2 Kings 24:8:No only 3 months.
(20) II SAMUEL10:18: Seven hundred -or- Seven Thousand I CHRONICLES 19:18:were killed???
(21) II SAMUEL10:18:40 Thousand Horsemen -or- Footmen I CHRONICLES 19:18:were killed???
(22) 1 King 7:1: 13years -or- 20years to build house:2 Chronicles:8:1.
(23) 1 Kings 7:26: 2000 baths in Solomon’s palace -or- 3000 baths: 2 Chronicles 4:5
(24)2 Chronicles 9:25:Solomon had 4000 stalls of horses -or- 40,000:1 Kings 4:26
 

benign6

Member
Discrepancies in the Bible proofs of its untrustworthiness and of its merely human origin.

CHRISTIANS CONFESS
Dr. W. Graham Scroggie of the MOODY BIBLE INSTITUTE, Chicago, one of the most prestigious Christian Evangelical Mission in the world, answering the question — "Is the Bible the Word of God?" (also the title of his book), under the heading: IT IS HUMAN, YET DIVINE. He says on page 17:
"Yes, the Bible is human, though some, out of zeal which is not according to knowledge,have denied this. Those books have passed through the minds of men, are written in the language of men, were penned by the hands of men, and bear in their style the characteristics of men." (Emphasis added).
Another erudite Christian scholar, Kenneth Cragg, the Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem, says on page 277 of his book, "The Call of the Minaret":
"Not so the New Testament . . . There is condensation and editing; there is choice, reproduction and witness. The Gospels have come through the mind of the Church behind the authors.

Both these Doctors of Religion are telling us in the clearest language humanly possible that the Bible is the handiwork of man, all the while pretending that they are proving to the contrary.
=========================
The Jehovah's Witnesses in their "AWAKE!" Magazine dated 8 September, 1957, carried this startling headline — "50000 ERRORS IN THE BIBLE?"
=========================
The "Holy Bible" lends itself to all kinds of contradictory interpretations. This is the Christian boast! "SOME CLAIM AND RIGHTLY SO, THAT BIBLICAL PASSAGES HAVE BEEN CONTINUOUSLY MISUSED AND MISAPPROPRIATED TO JUSTIFY ALMOST EVERY EVIL KNOWN TO MAN" (From: "The Plain Truth" an American-based Christian Journal under the heading: "THE BIBLE — World's Most Controversial Book." (July 1975).
=================================================
"AND NO MIRACLE WOULD PROVE THAT TWO AND TWO MAKES FIVE, OR THAT A CIRCLE HAS FOUR ANGELS; AND NO MIRACLES, HOWEVER NUMEROUS COULD REMOVE A CONTRADICTION WHICH LIES ON THE SURFACE OF THE TEACHINGS AND RECORDS OF CHRISTIANITY." — (Albert Schweizer), from his book: "In Search of the Historical Jesus." Page 22.
==================================================
“Scofield Reference Bible" thought it appropriate to spell the Hebrew word "Elah" (meaning God) alternatively as "Alah" in English translation, but decided to use one “L”. Later they removed this term “Alah” from "Scofield Reference Bible”.
===========================================
Mrs. Ellen G. White, a "prophetess" of the Seventh Day Adventist Church, in her Bible Commentary Vol. 1, page 14, has this confession to make “WHEN COPIES OF IT WERE FEW, LEARNED MEN HAD IN SOME INSTANCES CHANGED THE WORDS, THINKING THAT THEY WERE MAKING IT PLAIN, WHEN IN REALITY THEY WERE MYSTIFYING THAT WHICH WAS PLAIN, BY CAUSING IT TO LEAN TO THEIR ESTABLISHED VIEWS, WHICH WERE GOVERNED BY TRADITION."
===========================================================
Jehovah's Witnesses. On page 5 of their "FOREWORD" of "New World Translation of the CHRISTIAN GREEK SCRIPTURES,", they confessed:
"IN COPYING THE INSPIRED ORIGINALS BY HAND THE ELEMENT OF HUMAN FRAILTY ENTERED IN, AND SO NONE OF THE THOUSANDS OF COPIES EXISTANT TODAY IN THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE ARE PERFECT DUPLICATES. THE RESULT IS THAT NO TWO COPIES ARE EXACTLY ALIKE"
Then later removed ALL 27 pages of their foreword.
================================================
Could somebody make me understand this ???"Yes, it is adulterated, but pure" "It is human, yet divine." Do words have any meaning in their language? Yes, they have in their courts of law, but not in their theology. They carry a "poetic license" in their preaching. For no amount of tampering will "APPRECIABLY AFFECT THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE BIBLE" (?)
====================
 

Darkness

Psychoanalyst/Marxist
I have come to realize that you can squirm your way out of just about any inconsistency, by taking everything to the extreme.

Darkness said:
There are many blasphemous people out there which claim Charlie's Angels (2000) contains inconsistencies. Besides me being blindsided by the utter insanity of those remarks, I want to give you examples of why it does not have inconsistencies.

Quote:
When the Angels are fighting the "Creepy Thin Man," right before Drew Barrymore lifts up Lucy Liu to spin her around and kick the thin man, to get Lucy's attention, Drew hollers out "Lucy!" even though Lucy Liu's character's name is "Alex."

This is simple and not blasphemous. Lucy is either her middle name or a nickname. No contradiction.

Quote:
When the girls found Knox in the room, they had to break down the door because it was bolted from inside. Now wouldn't that be suspicious? He's in a room where the only way out is through a door that was bolted from the inside...

Simple, Knox was merely testing them to see how strong their faith was. No contradiction.

Quote:
When the girls all order their food at the drive through they get their food but never pay.

Charge Holy Angels for food, I think not.

Quote:
After the Angels come out of the sea, they start walking towards a cave, dumping their rucksacks behind them and strip to their waists. Very attractive, and a dramatic view, but in the next shot they're crouched on the beach, getting equipment out of the backpacks they just dropped. If they needed stuff from out of them, why did they dump them and keep walking?

Obviously for holy, dramatic effect.

Quote:
When Lucy Liu is climbing a rope up the walls of the bad guy's castle lair, you can clearly see that she is wearing shoes without heels. But later on when she's fighting various bad guys, she's wearing four-inch heels.

We were merely not allowed to see her change shoes. Must the film include ever last detail?
 

Ronald

Well-Known Member
Just a question. How many men from different countries using differrent languages handled these defective verses?

Now, find that many in the Torah. guarded faithfully over the centuries, with everyone and his dogs trying to erase the word of God.
 

xexon

Destroyer of Worlds
The word of God is not a piece of paper.

It's not written down somewhere. And what is written down is a poor representation at best. Yet, you start wars over what these pieces of paper tell you to do.

Have you been so busy with your mouths open in prayer, that you have not heard God yet? Have you been so busy hunting for verses of scripture, that the book is all you can see?

It is little wonder you cannot see God. Instead, you've reduced yourselves to fighting over the symbols you've assigned to represent God.

It is a pitiful sight.



x
 

benign6

Member
OK then learn the leason that Genesis chapter 38 has to teach.
Genesis 38 teaches how things can get messed up by marrying outside the faith.

No u missed THE LEASON. Read carefully. This book tells that God killed a person for NOT bearing illigal child with wife of his brother....... Read again & u'll know.


In other words, if he would have "completed" sleeping with his brother's wife till the passage of SEED , then, according to this leason, God would be happy with him (God forbid).
 

nutshell

Well-Known Member
No u missed THE LEASON. Read carefully. This book tells that God killed a person for NOT bearing illigal child with wife of his brother....... Read again & u'll know.


In other words, if he would have "completed" sleeping with his brother's wife till the passage of SEED , then, according to this leason, God would be happy with him (God forbid).

Can you repost and correct the misspellings. I'm not sure what you want to say.
 

benign6

Member
Can you repost and correct the misspellings. I'm not sure what you want to say.
There is NO mis-spelling. I mean just read Genesis 38 again carefully & u'll realize that God killed a person for NOT donating his sperm(seed) to his brother's wife.

I mean that this is an IMMORAL leason. How can a real book from God teach such an immoral leason ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
 

kmkemp

Active Member
It was a direct act of disobedience according to what God had told him to do. While radical and often overlooked, the lesson is anything but immoral. I haven't read the Quran, but I am guessing that Allah taught similar lessons about obedience.
 

lew0049

CWebb
It was a direct act of disobedience according to what God had told him to do. While radical and often overlooked, the lesson is anything but immoral. I haven't read the Quran, but I am guessing that Allah taught similar lessons about obedience.

Seriously, the Quran also contains passages about forcing women to have sex with them.

Attempting to judge the Bible by finding one verse that you don't agree with in the Bible shows that you are trying justify your presupposed conclusion about the Bible.

Does the creator of mankind not also have the power/authority to kill its creation? Definitely.
 

Blindinglight

Disciple of Chaos
Attempting to judge the Bible by finding one verse that you don't agree with in the Bible shows that you are trying justify your presupposed conclusion about the Bible.
Want me to find more?
How about Jesus cursing the fig tree for not having any fruit? Did he not realise it was out season, people beat him to the fruit, or that perhaps the tree was already dead?
 

JayHawes

Active Member
Please go one by one, jumbling them all together is confusing. However what you may be getting confused on is the translation (and understanding of certain words). And the event to which certain verese reference.

Example:
(14) the word "Bible" is unknown within the pages of the Bible. God forgot to give a title to "HIS" books


Actually the word bible is in the the Bible. Matthew 1:1 starts out reading "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham"

The greek word translated book, is: bivbloß Biblos (bib'-los); Noun Neuter, Strong #: 976
  1. a written book, a roll, a scroll
__________________
Which is the same greek word that is rendered as the Bible. The word biblia means books, biblos, books. The Holy BIble only means. The Holy Books. The word actually does appear in the Bible many times, you just dont understand the translation.:eek:
 

JayHawes

Active Member
Want me to find more?
How about Jesus cursing the fig tree for not having any fruit? Did he not realise it was out season, people beat him to the fruit, or that perhaps the tree was already dead?

It is not literal. It is spiritual. You do not understand the meanig behind his actions.
 

nutshell

Well-Known Member
There is NO mis-spelling. I mean just read Genesis 38 again carefully & u'll realize that God killed a person for NOT donating his sperm(seed) to his brother's wife.

I mean that this is an IMMORAL leason. How can a real book from God teach such an immoral leason ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

You misspelled the following words:

u
Leason
illigal
u'll
leason (again)

Try again.
 

JayHawes

Active Member
(1) Mark 5:1-2 tells of Jesus being met by one man possessed by an unclean spirit. But, the parallel passage in Matthew 8:28 tells us that there were two with unclean spirits


The man in this passage was possed by a spirit names Legion, which is actually more than one spirit (devil). When Matthew 8:28 reads "Mt 8:28And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way.

The word translated two means twain, or torn apart. This verse is referring to the mindset of the possed man. That he at times acted humane, and at other times he acted as a brute beast. He was twain, torn apart, by this devil called legion. There is no contradiction.
______________________________________________

(2) Jesus was son of God -or- a son of man ??? John:1:51”And he saith unto him,Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man” & this is in RED ink in Red-Letter-Bible

The phrases 'Son of God' and 'Son of Man', have meanings. The phrase Son of Man signifies ones servitude to mankind, those who live for God. Many Prophets such as Daniel and Ezekiel were sons of man.

The phrase Son of God, specially entitled to Jesus signifies diety with God. Since God is; The Father, The Son and and the Holy Spirit. Jesus being the Son of God, is claiming diety as being God. The Jews understood that the "Son of God" was also God.

Joh 10:33 -The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

Joh 10:36 -Do you say of him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, `You blaspheme,` because I said, `I am the Son of God?`

Jesus although being God, came to serve God by serving mankind. He fulfilled both titles. This is not contradictory.
 

benign6

Member
It was a direct act of disobedience according to what God had told him to do. While radical and often overlooked, the lesson is anything but immoral. I haven't read the Quran, but I am guessing that Allah taught similar lessons about obedience.
Obedience is definitely good BUT clearly story tells that when Er died , his brother was supposed to impregnete Er's wife & when his brother did not do it & wasted his semen on ground, God slew him.


what moral lesson u get.That when wife of ur brother dies without a child , then it is ur duty to impregnate his wife, otherwise u'll be sinful ?????????


For God sake admit these r human additions/alterations & these CAN NOT be words of God.
 
Top