Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me
On-line study group

TOPIC:

Re:The truth and errors in the Bible. 22 Jul 2011 13:44 #4705

  • Joan
  • Joan's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Moderator
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 665
  • Thank you received: 50
We know from Jesus' teachings that God, our Heavenly Father, sees, hears, and knows our thoughts. Jesus' disciple, Stephen, wrote a very good message about it here. So since God can see and hear us, then how does he keep track of who we are... knowing that He has created over 6 billion children with thousands of babies being born every day? Well, this information is recorded in the Book of Lives.

In the Bible, this verse refers to that book:

Philippians 4:3 - And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and [with] other my fellowlabourers, whose names [are] in the book of life.

And we learn from James Padgett's father, John, that at the time of his writing this message, his work was to consult that book when finding soulmates.

"Yes, as I told you many years ago, there is of record in the Heavens a Book of Lives, as I might call it, which contains the names of those who are decreed by God to be one through all eternity. And when I want to know who is the soulmate of one who desires to know his or her soulmate, I consult that book, and there I find who the soulmate is."
John Padgett Tells About Finding Soulmates in the Book of Lives

Please Log in to join the conversation.

Re:The truth and errors in the Bible. 25 Jul 2011 17:03 #4711

  • MichaelD
  • MichaelD's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Senior Member
  • Senior Member
  • Rev. Dr. Michael DD
  • Posts: 44
  • Thank you received: 3
I would like to comment on the errors of the bible. There are about 1750 known translation mistakes in the KJV of the bible. Also there are over 100 different versions currently in print. According to Jesus, many things were written that he never said. So how come such a book with all it's mistakes has directed so many lives for so many centuries? Well it's easy to see how a simple word can be translated incorrectly and change the entire meaning of a scripture. Bellow is a example about the Virgin Mary misconception that I found...


..."As we have seen earlier, in the hypothetical Scripture Q there is no mention of a Virgin Birth. It seems not to have been a subject of interest, and this is strange, because the idea of a Virgin Birth is totally strange to Judaism. It would have caused sensation and curiosity. This early silence can be interpreted as a non-existence of the mentioned doctrine.
Later, Hellenist influences led to the inclusion of the Virgin Birth theme into the Gospels (not all of them, some evangelists did not deem it worth to mention). As they scrutinized the Old Testament for prophecies concerning Jesus, they found the following passage:

Isaiah 7:14: "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: the virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel." (NIV)
"Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." (ASV)
Most liberal theologians believe that the author of the Gospel of Matthew, or rather a later reviser, scanned an unknown ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. He found what he believed to be a reference to Jesus' birth. It was in Isaiah 7:14 (listed above). This has since become a famous passage; it is often recited at Christmas time. He simply copied it into Matthew (1:23) as a method of showing that prophecies in the Hebrew Testament were fulfilled in Jesus' life.

Unfortunately, the Greek translators had made a mistake (for a more detailed explanation, click here). When they were translating the Septuagint, they converted the Hebrew word "almah" into the Greek equivalent parthenos, meaning virgin. "Almah" appears several other times in the Hebrew Scriptures; in each case it means "young woman". When the scriptures referred to a virgin (and they do over many times) they always used the Hebrew word "bethulah". So, Isaiah was referring to a young woman becoming pregnant (a rather ordinary event).

Some English translators are accurate to the original Hebrew:

Revised English Bible: "...a young woman is with child..."
Revised Standard Version: "...a young woman shall conceive..."
James Moffatt Translation: "...a young woman with child..."
New Revised Standard Version: "...the young woman is with child..."
Others completely mistranslated the Hebrew and referred to the woman as both pregnant and a virgin - a miracle had occurred. This neatly settles the conflict that would otherwise occur between Isaiah and Matthew 1:22-23.

New International Version: "...the virgin will be with child..."
The Living Bible: "...a child shall be born to a virgin..."
Contemporary English Version: "...a virgin is pregnant...".
In a footnote, they say that the "Hebrew word did not imply a virgin birth". They give "young woman" as an alternate.

Others went part way. They mistranslated the Hebrew and said that the woman had been a virgin. However, they imply that the woman might have been a virgin, who engaged in sexual intercourse and then became pregnant:

American Standard Version: "...a virgin shall conceive..."
Amplified Bible: "...the young woman who is unmarried and a virgin shall conceive..."
King James Version "...a virgin shall conceive..."
New Living Translation: "...the virgin shall conceive a child..."
New Century Version: "...the virgin will be pregnant...".
They also admit in a footnote that the original Hebrew word really means "a young woman".

Some versions are vague and can be interpreted in many ways:

New World Translation: "...the maiden herself will actually become pregnant..."
The Jerusalem Bible: "...the virgin is conceiving"
I shall not discuss here if this prophecy refers to Jesus or not. I just mention it for an extraordinary example of later insertion in the original Gospel.
The writer(s) of the Gospel of John deny the Virgin Birth: Some liberals believe that the Gospel of John was written by a group of authors. The writers(s) did not mention the virgin birth, because, as presently is assumed, the Gospel was written in Palestine or adjacent regions, and grew from an originally Jewish group, that later suffered from conflicts with traditional Judaism. Nevertheless, they were not open to that kind of Hellenistic ideas, reflected also in the omission of the account concerning the institution of the Eucharist. In John 1:45 they refer to Jesus specifically as "the son of Joseph." John 6:42 repeats the phrase: "Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?"

The writer(s) of the Gospel of Thomas is Silent: This Gospel was possibly written about the same time as Mark, about 70 CE. It was in wide use among various Christian communities at the time, but never made it into the official canon. It is silent about any miracles associated with Jesus' birth. Its silence is not proof that the virgin birth was unknown to the author(s). Thomas is a "sayings gospel" which deals primarily with the parables and conversations of Jesus.
In conclusion the most likely scenario, as interpreted by many liberal Christians is:

The writer(s) of the Gospel of Q, circa 50 CE, seem to have been unaware of the virgin birth
Paul (who died about 64 CE) was similarly unaware
The writer of the Gospel of Mark, circa 70 CE hadn't heard of it either
If any of the above writers knew of a virgin birth, they would almost certainly have realized that it was a miraculous event and would have incorporated it into their writings.
Sometime between 70 and 90 CE, the story was invented, probably to strengthen the authority of Jesus' teachings by stating that his birth was miraculous. This was a time of great change, as the Roman Army had demolished Jerusalem and its temples and scattered some of the Jews throughout the Roman Empire. There, they would come into contact with many stories of virgin births of various politicians and deities from Pagan religions. In fact, it would have been unusual if the developing story of Jesus' birth did not include many of the features found in mythical figures of other religions.

By the 90's, the belief was widespread. The authors of Luke and Matthew incorporated it into their Gospels.
As J.S. Spong, Episcopal Bishop of Newark, NJ, wrote:

"In time, the virgin birth account will join Adam and Eve and the story of the cosmic ascension as clearly recognized mythological elements in our faith tradition whose purpose was not to describe a literal event but to capture the transcendent dimensions of God in the earthbound words and concepts of first-century human beings."

What do the messages tell us:

Yes, I am here again to write you on the truths of the New Testament, and this time a few thoughts on the Gospel of Luke, dealing with the supposed virginity of my mother. As a matter of fact, the entire conception of the virgin birth was not new in the New Testament days, and as I have pointed out previously to you, the Greeks conceived of gods born in supernatural ways and without benefit of mortal fathers, and this idea goes back to the Buddhist religion. In their writings dealing with Buddha, it is described how Buddha's mother was transported to a mythical heaven and there impregnated in a mysterious way with the child Buddha, without the aid of a husband. The writer of the Gospel which is called the Gospel of Luke was very much affected by this story, and wishing to give me the status of God, ascribed to me events analogous to what he found in the writings on Buddha.

Revelation 35: The virgin birth; fasting; temptation by the devil; washing of the Divine Love
From: New Testament Revelations

In addition, the later New Testament writers turned to Greek mythology or some of their tales regarding my miracles and in that way they read that Poseidon, the god of the sea, walked on the water, which was sufficient for their imagination to have me also walk on the water. And in this way they secured the idea for making my mother a virgin by their reading of the Greek legends that told of a number of goddesses who gave birth to sons although they themselves were virgins, and I can name such instances of Demetrius and Danae who gave birth to Perseus without the benefit of a mate, and several others.

Revelation 48: The ancient origins of some of the miracles found in the New Testament
From: New Testament Revelations

I would like to express myself about some of the Messianic passages found in Isaiah, the prophet, and one of these is the passage dealing with the so-called virgin who would give birth to a son who would eat honey and butter, and who is supposed to represent me.
Now, the truth is that this message is Messianic in nature, and although it would be applied to one of the prophet's sons, yet it also has a far-reaching meaning which could be applied to the coming of the Messiah. The word which is translated by some churches to mean virgin simply means a young woman, and the meaning was that a child was to be born who would be simple and ingenuous, without sin, and that this child, called Emmanuel, would have the faith in the Heavenly Father which King Ahaz did not have. So that, while a child was meant who could have been a child of the prophet, one who, because of the invasion of the Assyrians would be compelled to live in the country, yet the utterance had a wider meaning to indicate the birth of a child with certain qualities which went beyond those of the child which Isaiah may have had in mind when the passage first came to him.

Revelation 43: Messianic passages from Isaiah
From: New Testament Revelations"

Now you can see how the meaning of a word changed everything. Add in the fact that the translators were Greek trying to understand Hebrew and on top of that, understand what Jesus was even talking about or anybody else from that time and it's a wonder the scriptures were even translated. History also tells us that the Roman Catholic Church was famous for distorting the scriptures, leaving many out and adding in what they wanted. Just try convincing a bible christian that the book is man's conception and not God's word.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

Re:The truth and errors in the Bible. 25 Jul 2011 20:45 #4712

  • Brianna
  • Brianna's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Junior Member
  • Junior Member
  • Posts: 22
  • Thank you received: 0
Hi Michael,

So the Virgin Mary is false. I tried to read your thread, but it was hard to comprehend whether you were supporting the theory that Virgin Mary was false or not. :S

Love,
Brianna
A proud spiritual lycanthrope. Forever a wolf at heart.

Part "normal", part autistic, all human.

The number one desperate secret wish I have in my heart is to go to the Great Wilderness in the Celestial Heavens, reunited with my Master, my "pack" of angels, and feel the welcoming, sweet embrace of my heart's desire. May you all find the Divine Love. God bless.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

Re:The truth and errors in the Bible. 25 Jul 2011 21:26 #4713

  • MichaelD
  • MichaelD's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Senior Member
  • Senior Member
  • Rev. Dr. Michael DD
  • Posts: 44
  • Thank you received: 3
Yes Brianna, Mary was not a virgin like the Orthodox religions would have you believe. There is a message in the Padgett messages, from Mary where she explains that Joseph and her were married and he is Jesus' biological father. My post is showing how a wrong translation of a single word has caused so much controversy over the years.

Mary writes that Jesus was the natural son of Joseph and Mary

Please Log in to join the conversation.

Re:The truth and errors in the Bible. 26 Jul 2011 16:31 #4722

  • Joan
  • Joan's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Moderator
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 665
  • Thank you received: 50
Those of us who have read the Bible, or who have heard of many of the stories, know the one about Lazarus. As it is written in the "word of God," Lazarus was dead and Jesus brought him back to life.

Here's one Bible verse that refers to this.

John 11:11-14 After saying these things, he said to them, “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep, but I go to awaken him.” The disciples said to him, “Lord, if he has fallen asleep, he will recover.” Now Jesus had spoken of his death, but they thought that he meant taking rest in sleep. Then Jesus told them plainly, “Lazarus has died."

To dispute this obvious fabrication of the truth, Lazarus wrote through James Padgett the following:

"I was the one whom Jesus called from the grave. I merely want to say that I was not dead when I was resurrected, but had on me the sleep of death. But I was not entirely a spirit separated from my body. I know this, because if I had been a wholly separated spirit, Jesus could not have brought me to life again. No spirit, once entirely liberated from the body, can ever return to it and reanimate the body. I know the Bible says, or the inference from what it says is that I was dead, but this is not true as I have above stated.

Lazarus says he was not dead when he was raised by Jesus. Confirms that Jesus writes through Mr. Padgett

Please Log in to join the conversation.

Re:The truth and errors in the Bible. 26 Jul 2011 18:05 #4723

  • MichaelD
  • MichaelD's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Senior Member
  • Senior Member
  • Rev. Dr. Michael DD
  • Posts: 44
  • Thank you received: 3
The following is taken from a "help file" that I have found. I hope that you all find it interesting. Credit goes to Dr. Johann Radax who made a very informative research file.


By speaking of the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John, I do not pretend to affirm that the named persons really wrote those Gospels as they exist today. The original documents may have been written by the persons whose names they bear, but they suffered extensive redaction in later times.
Most Christians who do not care to study the development of the early Church or who do not show much interest in archaeology, believe that the writings we find in the New Testament of the Bible are the only scriptures of the beginning era of Christianity. They believe that the Apostles or authors of the Gospels and epistles sat down to render their eyewitness account of the occurrences during Jesus' ministry and gave a clear instruction concerning his teachings.

When they finally learn that those writings are not simple writings of one person without later redaction, when they learn that there are much more writings, not contained in the Bible and of a contradictory and startling or even ridiculous contents, and presumably written by Apostles, as their titles show (James, Peter, Thomas, Judas, Paul etc., see the list of canonical and extra-canonical literature of the New Testament) and claiming to be Gospels or Epistles or Revelations, then they are quite surprised. And then they may ask themselves: How did these writings originate? Why is it that they are so different and contradictory?

Another question is: Are the Gospels and Acts historically reliable documents?
Let's see what Steven Craig Miller has to tell us:


In my opinion, it is important to draw a distinction between ancient historiography and modern historiography, in that most ancient historiography was "narrative" story telling, whereas most modern historiography is a "critical" assessment of sources. Because of this, most of scripture, as well as most of ancient history, has more in common with modern "historical fiction" than with most modern "history." Why? It is very simple, modern historical fiction generally attempts to tell a story in the literary style similar to the modern novel. Where as most serious modern history is often no more than a "critical" examination of the historical evidence. That is not to say one will never find a serious historian slip back into a literary story telling style for vividness. But for the most part, modern history is not made up of scenes of dialogue between historical characters. Why? Again, the answer is very simple, without tape recorders rarely is there any reliable evidence for dialogue. And in antiquity people did not generally run around with papyrus, reed, and ink well in hand, writing down statements heard from people they thought might one day become famous. They had a much simpler process, they simply fabricated what they deemed such a famous person might have said on such an occasion. For example, Thucydides, in his "History of the Peloponnesian War (1.22)," writes,

"As to the speeches that were made by different men, either when they were about to begin the war or when they were already engaged therein, it has been difficult to recall with strict accuracy the words actually spoken, both for me as regards that which I myself heard, and for those who from various other sources have brought to me reports. Therefore the speeches are given in the language in which, as it seemed to me, the several speakers would express, on the subjects under consideration, the sentiments most befitting to the occasion, though at the same time I have adhered as closely as possible to the general sense of what was actually said."

In other words, Thucydides took historical accounts and wrote fictional speeches which he thought best suited these historical accounts as he understood them. When a author today attempts to do this (e.g., "I, Claudius" and "Claudius the God" by Robert Graves; "Mary Queen of Scotland and the Isles: A Novel" by Margaret George; "August 1914" by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn; etc.) we call such works historical fiction.
M. I. Finley [1985], in writing about the speeches in such authors as Herodotus, Thucydides, Polybius, Caesar, Sallust, Livy, Tacitus, Dio Cassius, and others, wrote:

"We have no good reason for taking the speeches to be anything but inventions by the historians, not only in their precise wording but also in their substance" (13).

And Michael Grant [1995], in "Greek and Roman Historians: Information and Misinformation" (Routledge, 1995), writes:

The speeches, therefore, with which the works of the ancient historians are filled form a vital part of their historical picture. Yet, in spite of fairly frequent protestations that they must be accurately reported, they are not history in the modern sense of the word, because they are unauthentic; if they ever took place at all, they were not delivered in those terms, or even with those contents" (45).

And the canonical gospels give us evidence for the same sort of thing. Sometimes in identical stories one evangelist will re-write a saying of Jesus just a little bit, and sometimes he will completely re-write what Jesus supposedly said. Michael Grant [1995] writes:

"Of course the orations reported by the early Christians likewise bear little or no relation to anything that was actually said. In the four Gospels, for example, it can scarcely be supposed that the sayings attributed to Jesus were really and exactly his own words" (53).

Concerning Acts, Raymond E. Brown, in his "An Introduction to the New Testament" (1997), writes:

"As for provable errors, the most obvious ones are in Palestine history rather than in Christian history. Whether or not, perhaps for anti-Sadducee reasons, Gamaliel the elder advocated some tolerance toward the early followers of Jesus (Acts 5:34-39) we cannot know, but his speech is probably for the most part a Lucan creation. Luke 2:2, combined with 1:5, is inaccurate about the date of the census of Quirinius; and there is a similar inaccuracy in Acts 5:37 about the revolt of Judas the Galilean directed against that census. By the time Acts was written, the Roman cohort Italica was in Syria and could be used when needed in Caesarea; it is not impossible that 10:1e is anachronistic in positing its presence there ca. 39. But such minor inaccuracies do not mean that we can dismiss the general historicity of Acts' portrayal of early Christianity. ... Though he wrote more in a biblical style than in a classical historical style, it is not ridiculous to think that the author might have been a fitting candidate for membership in the brotherhood of Hellenistic historians ..." (321, 322).

Please Log in to join the conversation.

Powered by Kunena Forum