Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
50,000 errors in Bible
11-16-2009, 03:50 PM
Post: #1
50,000 errors in Bible
The Jehovah's Witnesses in their "AWAKE!" Magazine dated 8 September, 1957, carried this startling headline — "50000 ERRORS IN THE BIBLE?" (See below for the reproduction).

http://www.jamaat.net/bible/AwakeArticle(1957).html

What the christians have to say in this, is still remaining or they are removed? if removed? how many remaining now?

Then how come it becomes word of God?
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-16-2009, 04:09 PM (This post was last modified: 11-16-2009 04:10 PM by Zagreus.)
Post: #2
RE: 50,000 errors in Bible
The article is mainly citing errors in translation contained within the King James Bible, which as the article states, is nearly 400 years old. The article states that modern translations are more accurate as modern scholars have removed most of these errors.

Maybe in the original languages the books of the Bible are the word of God. Are you saying every translation of the Qur'an is necessarily accurate, or are they based on the interpretation of the translator?

You must remember that Jehovah's Witnesses also have their own agenda for saying their versions of the Bible are right. There aren't any references for these 'scholars' opinions' or any mention of who these scholars are.

Interesting article though, thanks.
I've also just noticed that article is from 1957, so it's not exactly up to date scholarship being discussed.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-16-2009, 05:01 PM
Post: #3
RE: 50,000 errors in Bible
(11-16-2009 04:09 PM)Zagreus Wrote:  The article is mainly citing errors in translation contained within the King James Bible, which as the article states, is nearly 400 years old. The article states that modern translations are more accurate as modern scholars have removed most of these errors.

Maybe in the original languages the books of the Bible are the word of God. Are you saying every translation of the Qur'an is necessarily accurate, or are they based on the interpretation of the translator?

You must remember that Jehovah's Witnesses also have their own agenda for saying their versions of the Bible are right. There aren't any references for these 'scholars' opinions' or any mention of who these scholars are.

Interesting article though, thanks.
I've also just noticed that article is from 1957, so it's not exactly up to date scholarship being discussed.

Its not related to translative errors , or errors caused by traslation, the errors means errrors inside originnal bible, whether you take original HEBREW, GREEK or Samaritan BIBLE.
If you mean errors are removed, it certify that errors were there in Bible, whhich means it cannot be God's word.
Further, its easy to understand Quran, as arabic can be learned easily, and no errors of such kind is found in Quran, also we are discussin Bible here, not QuranSmile
It does;nt matter its upto date or not, versions of Bible clearly shows that many things are added, removed, altered , by different sects.

If stil you persist, I can mention some of the errors, which doe;snt count as translation error, but it shows, that this can;t be from God.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-16-2009, 05:09 PM
Post: #4
RE: 50,000 errors in Bible
(11-16-2009 03:50 PM)TruthWon Wrote:  The Jehovah's Witnesses in their "AWAKE!" Magazine dated 8 September, 1957, carried this startling headline — "50000 ERRORS IN THE BIBLE?" (See below for the reproduction).

http://www.jamaat.net/bible/AwakeArticle(1957).html

What the christians have to say in this, is still remaining or they are removed? if removed? how many remaining now?

Then how come it becomes word of God?

The 50,000 'errors' referred to are probably the total number of differences between all the ancient manuscripts. That kind of scholarship was going on around 1957 when the article was written. These differences include spelling errors, word or line transpositions, and the changes in the way the Greek alphabet was used that took place in the early centuries CE. But the mass media being what it is, stories like this get wilfully misinterpreted and blown up to gigantic size.

That being said, there are a significant number of intentional alterations that took place in the scriptures over the years to bolster one theological view or another. The ones cited in the article are real changes.

The final verses of Mark are a mystery. They are clearly not original. But the idea of the Resurrection is all over Paul's letters, which were written decades before any of the Gospels. It would therefore be perverse to claim that Mark did not believe in it, especially since he clearly buys into the rest of the Pauline theology. Matthew and Luke each borrowed much material from Mark and they have stories corresponding to the added verses at the end of Mark. Why the conceptual (if not detailed) correspondence? Did the original last verses get lost and somebody rewrote them from memory? Did the dog eat them? Whatever really happened, it does not seem that it would have any significant effect on theology. That part of the Jesus story was already solidly ensconced.

Even in the legitimately original material, it is necessary to keep in mind that the several authors each had an individual point of view they were trying to sell to a particular audience in certain circumstances. The scriptures need to be studied from that standpont to be properly understand.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-16-2009, 05:23 PM
Post: #5
RE: 50,000 errors in Bible
(11-16-2009 05:09 PM)Parousia Wrote:  
(11-16-2009 03:50 PM)TruthWon Wrote:  The Jehovah's Witnesses in their "AWAKE!" Magazine dated 8 September, 1957, carried this startling headline — "50000 ERRORS IN THE BIBLE?" (See below for the reproduction).

http://www.jamaat.net/bible/AwakeArticle(1957).html

What the christians have to say in this, is still remaining or they are removed? if removed? how many remaining now?

Then how come it becomes word of God?

The 50,000 'errors' referred to are probably the total number of differences between all the ancient manuscripts. That kind of scholarship was going on around 1957 when the article was written. These differences include spelling errors, word or line transpositions, and the changes in the way the Greek alphabet was used that took place in the early centuries CE. But the mass media being what it is, stories like this get wilfully misinterpreted and blown up to gigantic size.

That being said, there are a significant number of intentional alterations that took place in the scriptures over the years to bolster one theological view or another. The ones cited in the article are real changes.

The final verses of Mark are a mystery. They are clearly not original. But the idea of the Resurrection is all over Paul's letters, which were written decades before any of the Gospels. It would therefore be perverse to claim that Mark did not believe in it, especially since he clearly buys into the rest of the Pauline theology. Matthew and Luke each borrowed much material from Mark and they have stories corresponding to the added verses at the end of Mark. Why the conceptual (if not detailed) correspondence? Did the original last verses get lost and somebody rewrote them from memory? Did the dog eat them? Whatever really happened, it does not seem that it would have any significant effect on theology. That part of the Jesus story was already solidly ensconced.

Even in the legitimately original material, it is necessary to keep in mind that the several authors each had an individual point of view they were trying to sell to a particular audience in certain circumstances. The scriptures need to be studied from that standpont to be properly understand.

I agree as what you have said, and you provided valuable amount of remarks in this.
But, almost 80-90% of Christians dont know these details, and much more of this, some of them even dont know complete Bible, some of them even dont know all diciples name, they dont kow who was Paul, etc.

In any case, how can we refer this book as God's word. If Jesus imself wrote it, we may take that , but through unknown writers, its not possible in any means.

Rest the base of Christianity, Trinity, Crucifiction, is based on this Bible, if its wrong, means that base is also weak, and not correct.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-16-2009, 06:17 PM
Post: #6
RE: 50,000 errors in Bible
(11-16-2009 05:23 PM)TruthWon Wrote:  I agree as what you have said, and you provided valuable amount of remarks in this.
But, almost 80-90% of Christians dont know these details, and much more of this, some of them even dont know complete Bible, some of them even dont know all diciples name, they dont kow who was Paul, etc.

In any case, how can we refer this book as God's word. If Jesus imself wrote it, we may take that , but through unknown writers, its not possible in any means.

Rest the base of Christianity, Trinity, Crucifiction, is based on this Bible, if its wrong, means that base is also weak, and not correct.

The modern idea of the Bible as sola scriptura, the one and only source of knowledge about Christianity, only dates from the advent of Protestantism in the 16th century. Before that the Catholic Church also relied on tradition. The Protestant break away from the central authority of Rome required some new basis for authority and the Bible was the obvious choice.

Although the four Gospels and the letters of Paul were accepted by virtually everyone from the mid 2nd century on, there was no widespread agreement on exactly which other books would be considered canonical until the end of the 4th century. In any event Luther decided to use a different list.

The scriptures were originally just things that would be read aloud from during church meetings. The idea of needing a canonical list did not even happen until the mid 2nd century when Marcion started his own quasi-Gnostic variation of Christianity and made his own very short list (Luke and Paul).

So in the very early days, there was no such thing as 'The Bible' yet the basic ideas of Christianity show up in the writings of those persons commonly called the Church Fathers. Although the passage in John that supposedly justifies the Trinity may have been inserted many centuries after the fact, we nonetheless know that in the early years the idea of the Trinity was already there and there was much heated debate on what it meant. The exact accuracy of whatever edition of the Bible you want to use is not terribly relevant to the legitimacy (or not) of Christian concepts. They were around since the early days.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-17-2009, 02:24 AM
Post: #7
RE: 50,000 errors in Bible
Lets talk about the guy who burned all the Original Qur'ans and rewrote it in his own Words!

"Hidden underneath the stoned cold surface of every Pious Person lays buried a Kinky Pervert, Stop bringing shovels, Where not digging!"-Azrael
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-17-2009, 04:16 AM
Post: #8
RE: 50,000 errors in Bible
(11-17-2009 02:24 AM)Azrael17 Wrote:  Lets talk about the guy who burned all the Original Qur'ans and rewrote it in his own Words!

Can we have a source for this please Azrael? That's pretty offensive to Muslims, so I suggest you might want to support the claim with evidence.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-19-2009, 03:03 AM (This post was last modified: 11-19-2009 03:06 AM by TruthWon.)
Post: #9
RE: 50,000 errors in Bible
[/b]
(11-16-2009 06:17 PM)Parousia Wrote:  
(11-16-2009 05:23 PM)TruthWon Wrote:  I agree as what you have said, and you provided valuable amount of remarks in this.
But, almost 80-90% of Christians dont know these details, and much more of this, some of them even dont know complete Bible, some of them even dont know all diciples name, they dont kow who was Paul, etc.

In any case, how can we refer this book as God's word. If Jesus imself wrote it, we may take that , but through unknown writers, its not possible in any means.

Rest the base of Christianity, Trinity, Crucifiction, is based on this Bible, if its wrong, means that base is also weak, and not correct.

The modern idea of the Bible as sola scriptura, the one and only source of knowledge about Christianity, only dates from the advent of Protestantism in the 16th century. Before that the Catholic Church also relied on tradition. The Protestant break away from the central authority of Rome required some new basis for authority and the Bible was the obvious choice.

Although the four Gospels and the letters of Paul were accepted by virtually everyone from the mid 2nd century on, there was no widespread agreement on exactly which other books would be considered canonical until the end of the 4th century. In any event Luther decided to use a different list.

The scriptures were originally just things that would be read aloud from during church meetings. The idea of needing a canonical list did not even happen until the mid 2nd century when Marcion started his own quasi-Gnostic variation of Christianity and made his own very short list (Luke and Paul).

So in the very early days, there was no such thing as 'The Bible' yet the basic ideas of Christianity show up in the writings of those persons commonly called the Church Fathers. Although the passage in John that supposedly justifies the Trinity may have been inserted many centuries after the fact, we nonetheless know that in the early years the idea of the Trinity was already there and there was much heated debate on what it meant. The exact accuracy of whatever edition of the Bible you want to use is not terribly relevant to the legitimacy (or not) of Christian concepts. They were around since the early days.[b]

I disagree with you here, there is no proof , or direct mesages from the diciples about the real concept of trinity. its made lately.
Also, many sects of christianity, to date stilll dont believe in trinity, and make it a false claim, some of them dont even consider Jesus as God, as other christians do,
There is much differeces in christian sects regarding the concept of Jesus, as either God, or either son.
(11-17-2009 02:24 AM)Azrael17 Wrote:  Lets talk about the guy who burned all the Original Qur'ans and rewrote it in his own Words!

Are we discussing Quran here ? do we see Quran anywheere in this post?
We are discussing Bible contradictions, and errors, as reportedd by christian scholars, so bbring your proof if you say bible is without errors.
Thanks

And be polite always, your attitude shows which religion you belong to, and the teaching you get from your relgion.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-19-2009, 06:29 AM
Post: #10
RE: 50,000 errors in Bible
(11-19-2009 03:03 AM)TruthWon Wrote:  I disagree with you here, there is no proof , or direct mesages from the diciples about the real concept of trinity. its made lately.
Also, many sects of christianity, to date stilll dont believe in trinity, and make it a false claim, some of them dont even consider Jesus as God, as other christians do,
There is much differeces in christian sects regarding the concept of Jesus, as either God, or either son.

We can see the idea of the trinity being formed in the Gospels to address emergent circumstances, most notably competition from other religious movements and the ever increasing delay in what was expected to be an imminent eschaton (end of days). As with several other topics, I wish I had the time to address this fully, but here is the briefest of outlines.

God the Father = The Jewish Yahweh

Proto-Gnostic competition was denying that Yahweh was the ultimate god. They saw Jesus as being or representing the ‘real’ God. Proto-orthodox Christianity was originally a thoroughly Jewish movement and therefore obviously embraced the idea of Yahweh. In addition, new cults were a dime a dozen in the Roman Empire. Ancient roots, or the claim thereof, was necessary to be considered seriously.

God the Son = Jesus

There were other competing movements at the time, such as the new Rabbinic Judaism and various Jesus followers who remained very Jewish in their outlook and thought of Jesus as a human Messiah. We see the trappings of divinity gradually being applied to Jesus as the Gospels progress as a means of conferring authority to the proto-orthodox movement.

In Mark, the first Gospel written, Jesus can still be considered merely human, albeit a very special human. Here, and in the other Synoptic Gospels, God calls Jesus his son at the Baptism. This need not be taken literally. Son of God or child of God can be taken to indicate a holy person. (See the Sermon on the Mount usage of “children of God”.)

Matthew and Luke take this idea further, having Jesus be the literal offspring of God by Mary. Part of Matthew’s community and most of Luke’s community were Hellenized gentiles and the idea of a god fathering a child would resonate with their cultural background.

John makes Jesus a genuinely divine figure as the Logos who has existed with God forever. Jesus as the divine messenger of God with authority of his own is reiterated over and over in John. By this time, Christianity has become fully distinct from Judaism and John seeks to maximize its legitimacy. John also makes clear the continuing presence of Jesus in the form of the church, a way of addressing the now greatly delayed return of Jesus.

Throughout the Gospels, Jesus refers to God as another person, yet he is also considered divine in his own right.

God the Holy Spirit

The spirit or ‘breath’ (ruach) of God appears in the Jewish scriptures but not in the sense of a separate person. Rather this represents the unseen workings or power of God as distinct from the explicit presence, as in parts of Exodus for example. Matthew and Luke utilize the Holy Spirit in a key role in fathering Jesus. Luke (in Acts) uses the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost as a way of providing the continuing presence of God in the church. This is Luke’s way of addressing the delay of the Second Coming. This separation of the idea of the presence of God from the future physical return of Jesus leads naturally to the notion of the Holy Spirit and Jesus as separate persons. Yet they are also both divine.


The historic Jewish emphasis on the Oneness of God, yet the need for three different aspects of God that are not simultaneously present would over time develop into a formal doctrine of the Trinity, with numerous details to be hammered out. But that of course is another story…
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Great list of MANY errors/contradictions, take a look. SomewhereInND 259 12,615 05-18-2017 12:10 PM
Last Post: Caesar Saladin



User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)