Bible inconsistencies

117 posts / 0 new
Last post
Rohan M.'s picture
I don't need them to be

I don't need them to be addressed. I have already read the Bible myself, and that is, in fact, THE main reason why I reject your religion.

Oh, and about what you said about a lot of the OT laws only applying to Israelites: I have seen many people in my home country (America) who are always talking about how some of its laws also apply to non-Israelites (almost everyone in America), e.g. the ones about homosexuality, divorce, and premarital sex, just to name a few. Also, if I remember correctly, don't the Ten Commandments of Moses also apply in the NT? Furthermore, I've seen the link you gave me for the pork thing, and it is an article about roundworms- something that is not necessarily a problem if the pork isn't undercooked. And I quote from that article, and uppercased the word "undercooked" to punctuate my point:

"When humans eat UNDERCOOKED meat containing trichinella larvae, the larvae mature into adult worms in the intestine over several weeks."

Notice that it doesn't say anything about properly-cooked pork/bacon. And also, I myself have eaten pork/bacon countless times throughout my lifetime, and I haven't gotten a single roundworm infection even once.

Sky Pilot's picture
Why wasn't Amnon cursed for

Why wasn't Amnon cursed for raping his sister Tamar in accordance with Deuteronomy 27:22?

Cognostic's picture
SHIT! When God told me to

SHIT! When God told me to write that verse, he specifically told me to make sure I mentioned Amnon was cursed with arm pit camel smells from his mouth and ears. Damn!!! I forgot to put that in there. Would you all take out your bibles and pencil that in for me. I will make the correction in the next printing. Apologies!

Imprecise's picture
In my view, Matthew's take on

In my view, Matthew's take on Christianity is that it was the true successor to historic Judaism following the destruction of the Temple. To Matthew, Jesus was the Jewish Messiah. This meant two things: that followers of Jesus were obligated to obey Jewish Law; and that Jesus was King Messiah, destined to rule over a liberated Israel. Matthew’s rivals for ‘hearts and minds’ were Pauline Christianity, which was opposed to the Law, and rabbinic Judaism, which denied that the Messiah had come.

Luke sided with Pauline Christianity and also saw in Matthew’s stressing the Kingly nature of Jesus an unhealthy reminder of the disastrous Jewish Revolt. Luke’s Gospel opposed these themes in Matthew at virtually every opportunity.

Luke’s genealogy was about as opposite to Matthew’s as could be and made Jesus a universal figure, de-emphasizing the exclusively Jewish and kingly aspects.

Luke shifts attention away from Joseph through whom Jesus gets the essential Davidic lineage and toward Mary, who he makes into a real human being instead of the cardboard prop she is in Matthew.

Luke throws out the story of the Magi paying homage to a king and has the newborn Jesus visited by humble shepherds instead.

Luke begins his story saying that it took place in the time of Herod and never mentions Herod again. Instead he ties the birth of Jesus to a tax census that took place long after Herod was dead. That taxation led to a revolt and the formation of the Zealots, who played a major role in instigating the Jewish Revolt of 66-73 CE. But while the violent Zealots were being born, the birth of Jesus was being accompanied by angels singing of peace.

Matthew has Jesus be the new Moses, escaping death at the hands of Herod/Pharaoh who killed all those children, then coming out of Egypt and delivering the Law in the Sermon on the Mount. Luke omits the ‘Slaughter of the Innocents’ and the sojourn to Egypt and turns the Sermon on the Mount into the very different Sermon on the Plain.

Matthew has Joseph and Mary start off in Bethlehem – messianic birthplace or so thought Matthew – and end up in Nazareth, where Mark had already placed him. Luke has them start in Nazareth and return to Nazareth. The census was an excuse to turn Matthew upside down.

Matthew has Jesus spend much time in Galilee and surrounding regions. But Galilee is a hotbed of revolution. And so Luke has Jesus focus on traveling to Jerusalem early on. Matthew’s resurrection story has Jesus and the disciples go back to Galilee. Luke has them all stay in Jerusalem.

There is more, but this post is already big enough.

David Killens's picture
As far as I am concerned, the

As far as I am concerned, the bible is rife with written inconsistencies. But what stirs my pot are the logical fallacies. When one reads a bible passage, then stop and really think it through, it creates a lot of questions. My favorite is the birth scenario.

A virgin mother? Wait a second, she was married. Didn't they have sex on their marriage night? Right off the bat I perceive a VERY dysfunctional family. Then there's dad. He holds a decent job, being a carpenter was considered a skilled trade. But he drags his very pregnant wife around with him, and does not even have the foresight to plan places to stay each night? Once again, that's a pretty fucked up family. Maybe that is why a kid grew up, could not hold a job, and was eventually executed because he was a trouble-maker to those in power.

Scholars are seeking the site where jesus grew up. Maybe they should look for a 2018 year old trailer park. Dollars to donuts I bet jesus grew up with a mullet.

Sky Pilot's picture
David Killens,

David Killens,

Have you ever considered why Yeshua (Jesus) is depicted as he is? What is the significance of him being a carpenter or him saying that he has nowhere to lay his head (Matthew 8:20)?

The writers were giving clues that Jesus was not to be trusted. They were saying that he was a fraud. The Bible has a lot of stories where woodworkers carve wood into idols. So the carpenter gets nailed to wood and becomes an idol who can't do anything.

And the dialogue from Matthew 8:20 is directed at the idea expressed in Sirach 36:31 (CEB) =
"31 Who will trust a well-equipped robber
who travels from city to city?
Likewise, who will trust a man
who does not have a nest
and who lodges wherever night falls?"

There are countless such clues scattered throughout the Bible that shows that the writers were doing an elaborate prank on the church hierarchy. And because they wrote the book they were able to get away with it because no one knew any better. The inconsistencies are the evidence of the prank.

David Killens's picture
Thank you Diotrephes.

Thank you Diotrephes.

The stories reek of imagination. But when I assemble the pieces I perceive a religious movement gaining power, and then second or third hand accounts begin to pop up in writings. And it's obvious, the writers had an agenda. They wrote feel-good inspirational fiction in order to control the masses.

There were no first hand accounts written in the first hundred years AD. Then once this movement gained traction, it attracted a lot of writers. And they had free reign. As you stated, no one could refute their stories, and later on, any challenge would be met with a visit to the Inquisition, excommunication, or death.

And of course, there was massive revisionism. We do not know the truth because a second opinion, all of the Greco-Roman writings that criticized christian belief, were burned by over-zealous christians in later centuries.

Imprecise's picture
At the time the Gospels were

At the time the Gospels were written there was not yet a church hierarchy to pull a prank on.

The Greek word tekton refers to an artisan of any type, not necessarily a carpenter. In the small villages like Nazareth, there would not have been enough carpentry work to build a livelihood on. The nearby city of Sepphoris would offer considerably more opportunity for an artisan but mostly in stone. The 'getting nailed to wood' idea would not work very well. Nobody would get it, not even the ones who wrote the Gospels.

Connecting Matthew 8:20 with Sirach is very doubtful because they use different words, that get translated into English as ‘nest’ but actually do not have the same meaning.

Sirach uses νοσσιὰν (Strong’s G3555) which means a brood of birds and by implication the nest in which the brood would reside.

Matthew uses κατασκηνώσεις (Strong’s G2682) which means an encampment of tents. If used in connection with birds, it can mean the nest.

If there were a prank going on, it would make much more sense to use the same word. Otherwise the prank falls flat.

If one looks at the Matthew 8 passage in context, the meaning becomes obvious.

Matthew 20 (ESV)
19 And a scribe came up and said to him, “Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go.” 20 And Jesus said to him, “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head.” 21 Another of the disciples said to him, “Lord, let me first go and bury my father.” 22 And Jesus said to him, “Follow me, and leave the dead to bury their own dead.”

The theme of Jesus requiring those who would follow him in the road giving up everything else appears in numerous places in the Gospels. This is simply another example of that.

Sky Pilot's picture
OldDogNewTricks,

OldDogNewTricks,

The Greeks didn't write shit except when they translated the original Latin Bible into modern Greek. Good luck finding an original Gospel written in an ancient Greek alphabet. It is simply not going to happen. BTW, there are very few original ancient words used in any current Bible, especially the English language ones. You can easily determine the age of an "ancient" Bible by doing an etymology search on words.

A committee based in England wrote three master copies of the Bible in Latin in the late 7th Century. The Bible as a comprehensive book did not exist before then. You couldn't produce an earlier original complete Bible written before then for all of the gold in the universe.

BTW, since most people don't know what the real Ten Commandments are or how many times Moses lugged them up and down the mountain it may not be a good idea to believe what they say about the fairy tale. How, when and why does the Protestant Bible have 66 books?

Rohan M.'s picture
How exactly do you know that

How exactly do you know that it was a prank? I thought that the Bible was supposed to be “God’s Word”.

And also, your assertion does not account for all of the countless other contradictions in the Bible (yes, there actually are many more inconsistencies than just the one you tried to explain away).

arakish's picture
Hell, mailman, let's look at

Hell, mailman, let's look at what you thought were The Ten Commandments: Exodus 20:3-17.

[1st] {3} “You shall have no other gods before me.”

Why not?

[2nd] {4} “You shall not make for yourselves an idol, nor any image of anything that is in the heavens above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: {5} you shall not bow yourself down to them, nor serve them, for I, Yahweh your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and on the fourth generation of those who hate me, {6} and showing loving kindness to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.”

Yet Christians possess more idols than any other person. Look at all those damned crosses you wear around your neck. Those "Mary" candles the Catholic Latinos are always buying. Look at those idols within your churches. When it comes to idol worship, you Christians take the cake...

[3rd] {7} “You shall not misuse the name of Yahweh your God, for Yahweh will not hold him guiltless who misuses his name.”

I ain't never heard anyone ever say "Yahweh this" or "Yahweh that". All I've ever heard is "god" damnit. Ain't no one ever ever misued his name. Besides Yahweh is not a name. The Tetragrammaton (יהוה (YHWH)) is a only a descriptive statement: "I AM WHO I AM." The Christian's deity's name is Jealous! Exodus 34:14 “For thou shalt worship no other God: for the LORD, whose name is "Jealous", is a jealous God.” Any person can say the same. "I AM WHO I AM and my Screen Name is Arakish." The Christian deity says, "I AM WHO I AM and my name is Jealous." To hell with your god damned god.

[4th] {8} “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. {9} You shall labor six days, and do all your work, {10} but the seventh day is a Sabbath to Yahweh your God. You shall not do any work in it, you, nor your son, nor your daughter, your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your livestock, nor your stranger who is within your gates; {11} for in six days Yahweh made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day; therefore Yahweh blessed the Sabbath day, and made it holy.”

Why should I remember the day your deity pooped out and had to rest, and hold it to be holy? I am more powerful than the Christian deity. There was once when I had to work 34 straight days with NO day off. And about a third of those days I had to work double shifts. Yet your deity is pooped after only 6 days. "What a maroon," as Bugs Bunny would say.

[5th] {12} “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land which Yahweh your God gives you.”

This goes without saying. Don't need any stupid retarded "commandment."

[6th] {13} “You shall not murder.”

Yet Christians have murdered more people than ANY other ideology EVER.

[7th] {14} “You shall not commit adultery.”

Yet more Christian marriages fail due to infidelity than any other reason.

[8th] {15} “You shall not steal.”

Christians have stolen more than ANY other ideology EVER. Just look in the vaults of the Vatican, if they let you. Hell, look at the Vatican itself. All those treasure they have stolen, then show off the fact by hanging and placing them all over the place. Talk about arrogance.

[9th] {16} “You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.”

Yet more Christians be more than ready to lie about their neighbor than any other persons, especially if they have a different ideology.

[10th] {17} “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.”

Yet, look at who covets more treasures than a Christian. No one.

Now I am wondering if mailman will be back...

rmfr

EDIT: Just now realizing I put this in the wrong thread. But I am going to leave it. Others can discuss why these AIN'T The Ten Commandments.

Imprecise's picture
Diotrophes

Diotrophes

I suppose Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus all written in old style uncial Greek, not the miniscule Greek that would be used later on, and all dated to the 4th and 5th centuries were forgeries deliberately written with minor differences of content as part of an elaborate prank, right? And the forgers were so good that they made the OT quotes as they appeared in the pre-Christian Greek Septuagint and even arranged for word play in the Greek that does not appear in the Latin. And then there are the numerous 4th century letters of Jerome describing how he translated the NT into Latin from Greek sources.

The 66 books in the Protestant bible as opposed to the 73 books of the Roman Catholic bible resulted from the omission of 7 of the books that appear in the Septuagint but not in the Jewish Bible as canonized in the 2nd century CE. The reason Luther gave for separating them and for later Protestants to omit them entirely was that they were left out of the Jewish scriptures. This strikes me as strange reasoning since NONE of the NT books are recognized by the Jews. Of course it was more complicated than that, including such issues as some of the other 7 books could be used to support the Catholic idea of Purgatory and all that selling indulgences business.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Old Dog

@ Old Dog

Heads up re Diotrephes

Mate, I know, but Dio is as convinced of his idea as any theist on these forums. Been down that road......but apart from this idee fixe of his, he knows a lot about the bible and so I just don't argue with him. He's also got a few more very strange ideas, most of us just nod and smile at it now, hes not a bad bloke.

Sky Pilot's picture
OldDogNewTricks,

OldDogNewTricks,

You may want to take some time to learn about your favorite ethnocentric Middle Eastern religious fairy tale. Right now you are embarrassing yourself with your inaccuracies.

The Jerome Bible? It doesn't exist. Just like "Jerome" didn't exist.

Codex Sinaiticus? It is a hoax. The con man who "found" it admitted that he was pulling a con. Besides that, it is written using the Modern Greek alphabet. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/Sinaiticus_text.jpg

Codex Vaticanus? It is also a hoax, written using the modern Greek alphabet. https://www.facsimilefinder.com/facsimiles/codex-vaticanus-b-facsimile#&...

Codex Alexandrinus? It is also a hoax, written in the modern Greek alphabet.
http://public.media.smithsonianmag.com/legacy_blog/12_17_2012_codex-alex...

Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus? If you can read this trash you have excellent eyesight.
https://alchetron.com/Codex-Ephraemi-Rescriptus

One thing all of the fakes have in common is that they are poor quality images that prevent or hamper a good examination. You will never find a good, clear image of any of the fakes.

Luther did not delete any books from his Bible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther_Bible

There are several apparently fake sites claiming that the Vatican deleted 14 books in 1684. I call bullshit on that.

The Protestants, led by 2 English nutters = Westcott & Hort = got a bug up their butts and deleted the Apocrypha when they wrote a new Bible version in the 1870s. It was officially deleted in 1885 so Protestants think that it was never in the Bible but added to the Catholic Bible. So the Protestant Bible versions with 66 books has only existed for 133 years.

http://rockingodshouse.com/why-were-14-books-apocrypha-removed-from-the-...

"Up until the 1880’s every Protestant Bible (not just Catholic Bibles) had 80 books, not 66! The inter-testamental books written hundreds of years before Christ called “The Apocrypha” were part of virtually every printing of the Tyndale-Matthews Bible, the Great Bible, the Bishops Bible, the Protestant Geneva Bible, and the King James Bible until their removal in the 1880’s! The original 1611 King James contained the Apocrypha, and King James threatened anyone who dared to print the Bible without the Apocrypha with heavy fines and a year in jail. Only for the last 120 years has the Protestant Church rejected these books, and removed them from their Bibles. This has left most modern-day Christians believing the popular myth that there is something “Roman Catholic” about the Apocrypha. There is, however, no truth in that myth, and no widely-accepted reason for the removal of the Apocrypha in the 1880’s has ever been officially issued by a mainline Protestant denomination."
https://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/index.html

The bottom line is that the Bible as a comprehensive book did not exist before a committee of story tellers,writers, and artists in England in the late 7th Century crafted three master copies in Latin = the Codex Amiatinus = in an attempt to counter Uthman's Koran. Con men have been pushing the lie about earlier Bibles but they are all fakes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Amiatinus

Imprecise's picture
@ Old Man

@ Old Man

I know my subject matter very well indeed. Strange ideas are no crime. Ignoring large quantities of factual data is.But I will take your advice

Imprecise's picture
Diotrephes, or Nourished by

Diotrephes, or Nourished by Zeus if you prefer

Dio: You may want to take some time to learn about your favorite ethnocentric Middle Eastern religious fairy tale. Right now you are embarrassing yourself with your inaccuracies
***

Insults are the hallmark of the conspiracy theorist who needs to have emotional backing for his arguments, since facts are insufficient.

Dio: The Jerome Bible? It doesn't exist. Just like "Jerome" didn't exist.
***

A lot of people seem to think otherwise, even to the extent of publishing his letters.
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Saint-Jerome
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08341a.htm
https://books.google.com/books?id=NQUNAAAAIAAJ

Do you have proof otherwise? Or an explanation of just why such an incredible amount of forgery could take place?

Dio: Codex Sinaiticus? It is a hoax. The con man who "found" it admitted that he was pulling a con. Besides that, it is written using the Modern Greek alphabet. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/Sinaiticus_text.jpg
***

Tischendorf did not forge the Codex Sinaiticus, nor did he or anyone else ever say such a thing in the era when it was found. The truth is that he had great difficulty getting it away from the monastery that had it. Here is the real story.
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bible-versions...

The picture of Codex Sinaiticus you linked is very plainly in uncial Greek as would have been the practice in the 4th and 5th centuries. This is very obvious in that it is all upper case and lacks accent marks and especially by the use of scriptio continua, no spaces between words.

Modern Greek, or a close approximation of It, can be found in the Stephanus Greek New Testament of 1550.
https://hejlchristianantiquitarianarchive.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/st...

Dio: Codex Vaticanus? It is also a hoax, written using the modern Greek alphabet. https://www.facsimilefinder.com/facsimiles/codex-vaticanus-b-facsimile#&...

Codex Alexandrinus? It is also a hoax, written in the modern Greek alphabet.
http://public.media.smithsonianmag.com/legacy_blog/12_17_2012_codex-alex...
***

Again, both are in ancient uncial form as can be plainly seen in your links, not modern Greek form. You really do not know anything about ancient texts, do you?

Dio: Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus? If you can read this trash you have excellent eyesight.
https://alchetron.com/Codex-Ephraemi-Rescriptus
***

Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus is difficult to read because it is a palimpsest, that is, the pages were washed to remove earlier writings and written over. It is the earlier writings that are of interest. It has been deciphered enough to determine what portions of which books of the bible are represented and what textual differences there are from other versions. If this were a forgery, why bother (a) writing in uncial, (b) washing it to remove most of the ink and (c) writing over it?

Here is what Ephraemi looks like.
http://www.katapi.org.uk/images/MSS/CE-f177v-Prov1-2-Rot-600w.jpg

Exactly how was this forged? And why?

Dio: One thing all of the fakes have in common is that they are poor quality images that prevent or hamper a good examination. You will never find a good, clear image of any of the fakes.
***

These ancient texts have been examined in fine detail. This is not easy because of their extreme age. But it has been done. For example, you can compare the codex pages and the transcriptions of Codex Sinaiticus here.
http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=33&lid=en&side=r&...
Use the slider tool to zoom in on the manuscript and the navigation arrows to move around.

Dio: Luther did not delete any books from his Bible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther_Bible
***

I never said Luther deleted any books. I said he separated them. He put seven of the Old Testament books in a separate section at the end of the Old Testament that he labeled "Apocrypha, that are books which are not considered equal to the Holy Scriptures, but are useful and good to read."

In addition, Luther moved four books of the New Testament (Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation) to the end of the New Testament, labeling them Antilegomena (‘disputed’) and argues against their genuine canonicity. However, he did not label them as a separate section, and their canonicity does not appear to have been questioned subsequently. However, we can see from Luther’s comments in the link below that his quarrel with them was mostly theological. For example, in the case of James, Luther objects to the emphasis on works, contrary to his Sola Fide principle.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/antilegomena.html

Dio: There are several apparently fake sites claiming that the Vatican deleted 14 books in 1684. I call bullshit on that.
***

I concur.

Dio: The Protestants, led by 2 English nutters = Westcott & Hort = got a bug up their butts and deleted the Apocrypha when they wrote a new Bible version in the 1870s. It was officially deleted in 1885 so Protestants think that it was never in the Bible but added to the Catholic Bible. So the Protestant Bible versions with 66 books has only existed for 133 years.
http://rockingodshouse.com/why-were-14-books-apocrypha-removed-from-the-...

"Up until the 1880’s every Protestant Bible (not just Catholic Bibles) had 80 books, not 66! The inter-testamental books written hundreds of years before Christ called “The Apocrypha” were part of virtually every printing of the Tyndale-Matthews Bible, the Great Bible, the Bishops Bible, the Protestant Geneva Bible, and the King James Bible until their removal in the 1880’s! The original 1611 King James contained the Apocrypha, and King James threatened anyone who dared to print the Bible without the Apocrypha with heavy fines and a year in jail. Only for the last 120 years has the Protestant Church rejected these books, and removed them from their Bibles. This has left most modern-day Christians believing the popular myth that there is something “Roman Catholic” about the Apocrypha. There is, however, no truth in that myth, and no widely-accepted reason for the removal of the Apocrypha in the 1880’s has ever been officially issued by a mainline Protestant denomination."
https://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/index.html
***

The reference to 14 books in the first link about and to 80 books in the second link clearly shows that the respective authors are actually ignorant of the subject matter. The correct numbers are 7 and 73 for the Roman Catholic bible that Luther would have used and for the Protestant bibles that contained the Apocrypha. The 14 and 80 numbers apply only to the Orthodox church. The extra 7 books never appeared in any Protestant bible regardless of date. Anyone who more than skimmed the surface of the subject would know that. These authors did not.

The only reference to 14 apocryphal books is in the 39 Articles of Religion issued by the Anglican Church in 1563, and also used by Calvinists. But again, the full 14 books were not identified by Luther as the Apocrypha or ever appeared in any Protestant bible, or in the Roman Catholic bible for that matter. Only the usual 7 were. The 39 Articles, composed after fanatically Catholic and vicious persecutor of non-Catholics Mary I died, was a clear statement that anything and everything of ANY flavor of Catholicism was not welcome in England.
http://gavvie.tripod.com/39articles/art1.html

Prior to the outright removal of the Apocrypha from Protestant bibles, there was ongoing activity to remove it from consideration.

The Church of England in the 1646 Westminster Confession of Faith stated that the Apocrypha has no authority.

Chapter 1
III. The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings.
https://reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/

In addition, there appears to have been some ‘guerilla’ activity going on to get rid of the Apocrypha.

“There is some evidence that the first decision to omit apocryphal books entirely from the Bible was made by Protestant laity rather than clergy. Bibles dating from shortly after the Reformation have been found whose tables of contents included the entire Roman Catholic canon, but which did not actually contain the disputed books, leading some historians to think that the workers at the printing presses took it upon themselves to omit them. However, Anglican and Lutheran Bibles usually still contained these books until the 20th century, while Calvinist Bibles did not.”
http://textus-receptus.com/wiki/Biblical_canon#Luther

The original Geneva Bible of 1599 had the Apocrypha separated just as Luther did. An interesting thing about this bible was that it had numerous cross references to other parts of the bible, including the Apocrypha. But subsequent printings had fewer and fewer references to the Apocrypha until they vanished altogether.
http://www.handsonapologetics.com/Geneva_Bible.htm

Luther does not appear to have been interested in deciding what should be canon based on historical or critical factors. If he had he would surely have put 2 Peter into that group. The legitimate canonicity of that book was questioned by even Catholic sources as late as the 16th century. But Luther was interested in theology and the books he labeled as apocryphal contained theology contrary to his own views.

Here is a nice analysis of that.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_395.cfm

Dio: The bottom line is that the Bible as a comprehensive book did not exist before a committee of story tellers,writers, and artists in England in the late 7th Century crafted three master copies in Latin = the Codex Amiatinus = in an attempt to counter Uthman's Koran. Con men have been pushing the lie about earlier Bibles but they are all fakes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Amiatinus
***

Your link says that the Codex Amiatinus was a copy of Jerome’s Vulgate. Nowhere in the link does it say anything about it being the first ever bible or a counter to the Quran. In fact, you have provided no evidence in support of your thesis and dismiss the mass of evidence against your thesis as the work of con men. We may note here that there are portions of the bible found in manuscripts dating to the 2nd century, quotes from the bible and lists of proposed canon going back to that era as well. I suppose those are all forgeries as well, even to the extent of being paleographically correct for the era – right kind of material, right lettering style and so forth. Amazing, the extent of the conspiracy…

Let’s face it, you are wrong about this.

In fact, with the exception of the Vatican BS with which I concur, you have been wrong about everything in your post.

Sky Pilot's picture
OldDogNewTricks,

OldDogNewTricks,

Good detailed attempt at a refutal.

You can compare the letters in the hoaxes and you will see that the con men used the modern Greek alphabet = http://www.ancientscripts.com/greek.html

The Apocrypha are the most interesting books in the Bible because they are mainly secular in nature. It is no wonder that the religious nuts were eager to dump them.

The Bible was written in the late 7th Century. It did not exist before then.

Did you miss the article about the fake Dead Sea scrolls? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45948986

Religion is a gigantic business that employs countless people. So all of those people have a financial stake in it and work tirelessly to keep the money coming in. They will lie, cheat, and steal to keep their income streams.

Think about the ancient world. There were con men selling assorted religions because it gave them power, money, and status and they didn't have to do any manual labor. So they were always cooking up new lies to keep the gullible on the hook. They told fancy stories about their favorite deities, built impressive temples, and created elaborate rites. At some point maybe a guy wrote down the oral story. But it was never mass produced because there was no infrastructure to do such a thing. In addition there were always wars and all kinds of disasters. So if a guy wrote something in Athens the chance of it appearing in Antioch, Tyre, Jerusalem, and Rome was zero.

When the Arabs came along and started invading the Christian lands the Christians realized that they needed a book similar to the Koran that would inspire the country bumpkins to fight the muslims and Islam. So they had a committee create a book and it was the Bible. And then they created the lie that some crazy guy named Moses wrote the first five books of it a couple of thousands ago.

A lot of people believe that BS just like they believe the Shroud of Turin. How stupid do you have to be to believe that crap? Use your common sense and stop believing in lies told by con men who don't even know what the real Ten Commandments are.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Old dog

@ Old dog

I love typing this...'I told ya so!' Facts have no place in Dio's ideology. Neither does evidence for his fanciful committee... which he has consistently failed to produce.

But as I say his knowledge of the bible verses is amazingly good. Just that most else is crazy person talk.

Sky Pilot's picture
Old man shouts ...,

Old man shouts ...,

I respect your opinions on most things but on this issue you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground. You say that you don't believe in the fairy tale but you defend it and think that the myth behind its creation is completely true.

So, which one of the hoaxes is the source document for all of the subsequent Bibles? Is it the one the con man found in a room with all kinds of dusty forgotten manuscripts? Is it the one written over another fairy tale? Or is it the one stashed with the Vatican porn collection?

If any of those were legit why is there only one copy of them? How many churches were scattered around the area but not one of them had any copies of those manuscripts? Maybe it was because they were BS hoaxes.

As I said before, you will never see any clear full page images of the hoaxes. That is because they are hoaxes.

Use your common sense and think like a rational person. I hope you don't think that the Shroud of Turin is legit.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Dio

@ Dio

We have had this same discussion multiple times. You make the same unevidenced assertions.

Just produce your evidence for the committee of english people, otherwise you are making the same sort of unevidenced nonsensical claims as any christian apologist, with no evidence whatsoever.

Have a great day my friend. But no, I don't believe you.

Sky Pilot's picture
Old man shouts ...

Old man shouts ...

Are you familiar with the Codex Amiatinus? Do you think one guy raised a herd of 2,000 cows, slaughtered them and turned them into vellum all by himself and then wrote and decorated three 75 pound books all by his lonesome? It was a group project that was done in what is now England. So yes, a damn committee did in fact write the Bible just like a committee wrote the KJV in 1611 and just like a committee wrote the Koran in the 630-640s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Amiatinus

So you must think that loony Moses was wandering around the desert and wrote what is now the first five books of the Bible. It was nice of him to write about his own death and burial. What a miracle.

How many times a day do religious con men and plain ignorant people spout off lies about what the Ten Commandments are? So if people lie about such a basic thing why wouldn't they lie about the history of the Bible when their incomes, power, and status is dependent on it? Do you accept the fact that the Ten Commandments are found in Exodus 34:11-28? If you do then ask some preachers where the Ten Commandments are found in the Bible. If they says something else than that then you know that you are talking to liars who shouldn't be trusted about anything they says about the Bible.

I really wish you would use your rational thinking ability on this issue. If you could see the original committee writing the Bible would you say that they writing something else, like a cookbook?

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Dio

@ Dio

"Do you think one guy raised a herd of 2,000 cows, slaughtered them and turned them into vellum all by himself and then wrote and decorated three 75 pound books all by his lonesome? It was a group project that was done in what is now England. So yes, a damn committee did in fact write the Bible just like a committee wrote the KJV in 1611 and just like a committee wrote the Koran in the 630-640s".

That is not evidence.

Sky Pilot's picture
Old man shouts ...,

Old man shouts ...,

Get back to me when you can produce a clear legible original authentic copy of the Bible that predates 692 A.D. There are excellent cameras today so it should be easy for the curator to take beautiful pictures of each page for our continuing education.

arakish's picture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus

And if all you want is the OT, then there are copies dating back to circa 650 BCE.

rmfr

Sky Pilot's picture
The Codex Sinaiticus is a

The Codex Sinaiticus is a hoax = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_Simonides

As I've been saying, you can't produce an authentic original copy of the Bible that was written before 692 A.D. on this planet.

arakish's picture
@ Dio

@ Dio

Just the OT: Dead Sea Scrolls.

Henry Bradshaw, a scholar, didn't believe his claims (Wikipedia).

And you say what about the Codex Sinaiticus?

rmfr

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Dio

@ Dio
Mate last questions.We have done this before.

Who was on the committee? Where is the evidence?

Sky Pilot's picture
Old man shouts ...,

Old man shouts ...,

Do you know who was on the committees that wrote the KJV or the Koran? Do you know who reformatted the Koran into numbered verses like the Bible or when he did it?

So since you don't have answers to those questions then it must not have happened, right?

The abbot Ceolfrith gets credit for producing the Codex Amiatinus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceolfrith

Imprecise's picture
Dio: You can compare the

Dio: You can compare the letters in the hoaxes and you will see that the con men used the modern Greek alphabet = http://www.ancientscripts.com/greek.html
***

That article shows the development of the earliest Greek alphabet ca. 9th century BCE and compares that to the modern Greek alphabet. That is totally irrelevant to how Greek was written around the 4th and 5th centuries. It was written in uncial form, as I have already proven by comparison of a 16th century Greek manuscript written in miniscule…

https://hejlchristianantiquitarianarchive.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/st...

and the several 4th and 5th century uncial codices you presented.

For further comparison this is from the uncial Codex Vaticanus.
http://evangelicalfocus.com/upload/imagenes/54ea3cc04e90e_codex.png

Here is a comparison of the various stages of Greek writing, including uncial and miniscule. As can be seen they are easily distinguishable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_minuscule

Your claim that the 4th and 5th century uncial codices were written with the modern Greek alphabet is simply dead in the water.

Dio: The Apocrypha are the most interesting books in the Bible because they are mainly secular in nature. It is no wonder that the religious nuts were eager to dump them.
***

The Apocrypha were part of the canon for over a thousand years before Luther segregated them. Nobody was in a hurry to dump them until Luther. The comments on why they are considered objectionable by Protestants were all about religious issues, not secular ones. Before he did his German bible, Luther had already objected to the idea of Purgatory despite the justification offered being in the canonical bible. Luther said that OT books that were not In the Jewish canon should not be considered Holy Scripture. The reasons for segregating and ultimately removing the Apocrypha as defined by Luther was either religious or technical, or one leading to the other. But nobody mentioned secular content.

The reasons Luther gave for isolating these seven books were:

The chronology in Judith seemed different from other parts of scripture.
Wisdom was attributed to Solomon but was probably not written by him.
No other scripture mentions Sirach as being a prophet,
The names in Tobit seem to be allegorical.
Baruch is too thin of a book and emphasized Jewish Law too much
1 Maccabees is not in the Jewish canon – no other reason given.
In 2 Maccabees, Razis commits suicide rather than be taken by Nicanor’s soldiers, which he intended as a severe lesson to the Jews.

These books just happen to be the ones not in the Jewish canon but present in the Septuagint. References to Purgatory and to praying to saints are found in them as well, points on which Luther quarreled with the Catholic church.

These seven books just happen to be
Dio: The Bible was written in the late 7th Century. It did not exist before then.
Did you miss the article about the fake Dead Sea scrolls? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45948986
***

The forged ‘Dead Sea Scrolls’ were bought on the antiquities (black) market by the Green family of Hobby Lobby fame for a pile of money to put in their Museum of the Bible. Even before they were put on display scholars were saying that they were probably fakes. When scholars were allowed to examine them, they were found to indeed be fakes. This has zero to do with the Dead Sea Scrolls found at Qumran.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/17/us/bible-museum-fakes/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/22/us/bible-museum-fake-scrolls/index.html

You have yet to produce any evidence to support your claim that the entire Bible was invented in the 8th century. Nor have you even attempted to counter the mountains of evidence that the contents of the Bible were known way before the 8th century. And if the Bible was invented to counter the Qur’an, why does the Qur’an refer many times to Jews and Christians as People of the Book, since according to you no such book existed?

Got any more? This is fun.

Nyarlathotep's picture
OldDogNewTricks - Got any

OldDogNewTricks - Got any more? This is fun.

Here is some more for ya!

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.