50,000 errors in Bible

TrueReligion · Post by **TrueReligion** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 5:40 pm

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?

Wyvern · Post by **Wyvern** » Fri Nov 27, 2009 1:02 pm

TrueReligion wrote:
Wyvern wrote:
It hardly matters since according to your simple rule of authentication ALL holy books with the possible exceptions of the book of mormon and dianetics must be rejected.
Its for christians who claim that Bible is word of God,and never change and without any errors,
As you are not a christian,soit does;nt matter to you,because you dont believe in God and in any religious scripture.
Who has said that I am not christian? I stated that according to your simple rule of authentication nearly every religion would have to reject their holy books. That includes christianity, islam, hinduism, buddhism and many others. In fact using your simple rule of authentication it would appear only mormonism and scientology would be the last two religions standing.
You are christian and you are rejecting your own Bible? and accepting it as a book full of errors and contradictions?

Who said I was christian? By your own logic you as a muslim must reject the koran because Mohammed did not authenticate it himself.

TrueReligion · Post by **TrueReligion** » Fri Nov 27, 2009 2:16 pm

Wyvern wrote:
TrueReligion wrote:
Wyvern wrote:
It hardly matters since according to your simple rule of authentication ALL holy books with the possible exceptions of the book of mormon and dianetics must be rejected.
Its for christians who claim that Bible is word of God,and never change and without any errors,
As you are not a christian,soit does;nt matter to you,because you dont believe in God and in any religious scripture.
Who has said that I am not christian? I stated that according to your simple rule of authentication nearly every religion would have to reject their holy books. That includes christianity, islam, hinduism, buddhism and many others. In fact using your simple rule of authentication it would appear only mormonism and scientology would be the last two religions standing.
You are christian and you are rejecting your own Bible? and accepting it as a book full of errors and contradictions?
Who said I was christian? By your own logic you as a muslim must reject the koran because Mohammed did not authenticate it himself.

Just now you said that you are christian,and now you are sayying that you are not, y always your statements are contradicting same like Bible.
We dont need to reject Quran, becauseMuhammad authenticate it, and every1 knows there is no contradiction in it.

Wyvern · Post by **Wyvern** » Fri Nov 27, 2009 3:29 pm

TrueReligion wrote:
Wyvern wrote:
TrueReligion wrote:
Wyvern wrote:
It hardly matters since according to your simple rule of authentication ALL holy books with the possible exceptions of the book of mormon and dianetics must be rejected.
Its for christians who claim that Bible is word of God,and never change and without any errors,
As you are not a christian,soit does;nt matter to you,because you dont believe in God and in any religious scripture.
Who has said that I am not christian? I stated that according to your simple rule of authentication nearly every religion would have to reject their holy books. That includes christianity, islam, hinduism, buddhism and many others. In fact using your simple rule of authentication it would appear only mormonism and scientology would be the last two religions standing.
You are christian and you are rejecting your own Bible? and accepting it as a book full of errors and contradictions?
Who said I was christian? By your own logic you as a muslim must reject the koran because Mohammed did not authenticate it himself.
Just now you said that you are christian,and now you are sayying that you are not, y always your statements are contradicting same like Bible.
We dont need to reject Quran, becauseMuhammad authenticate it, and every1 knows there is no contradiction in it.

Do you understand english? You first accuse me of not being a christian then you accuse me of being a christian. I on the other hand did not confirm one way or the other, you are reading into your accusations what you want to hear. How could Mohammed authenticate the koran when he was illiterate and on top of that was dead when the koran was finally put together.

FinalEnigma · Post by **FinalEnigma** » Fri Nov 27, 2009 3:43 pm

TrueReligion wrote: Just now you said that you are christian,and now you are sayying that you are not, y always your statements are contradicting same like Bible.

His statements aren't exactly contradictory. they make contradictory implications, but aren't in themselves contradictory. What he's doing is avoiding being labeled, like myself.

We dont need to reject Quran, becauseMuhammad authenticate it, and every1 knows there is no contradiction in it.

(bold mine)
I don't know that.

TrueReligion · Post by **TrueReligion** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 3:43 pm

Wyvern wrote:
TrueReligion wrote:
Wyvern wrote:
TrueReligion wrote:
Wyvern wrote:
It hardly matters since according to your simple rule of authentication ALL holy books with the possible exceptions of the book of mormon and dianetics must be rejected.
Its for christians who claim that Bible is word of God,and never change and without any errors,
As you are not a christian,soit does;nt matter to you,because you dont believe in God and in any religious scripture.
Who has said that I am not christian? I stated that according to your simple rule of authentication nearly every religion would have to reject their holy books. That includes christianity, islam, hinduism, buddhism and many others. In fact using your simple rule of authentication it would appear only mormonism and scientology would be the last two religions standing.
You are christian and you are rejecting your own Bible? and accepting it as a book full of errors and contradictions?
Who said I was christian? By your own logic you as a muslim must reject the koran because Mohammed did not authenticate it himself.
Just now you said that you are christian,and now you are sayying that you are not, y always your statements are contradicting same like Bible.
We dont need to reject Quran, becauseMuhammad authenticate it, and every1 knows there is no contradiction in it.
Do you understand english? You first accuse me of not being a christian then you accuse me of being a christian. I on the other hand did not confirm one way or the other, you are reading into your accusations what you want to hear. How could Mohammed authenticate the koran when he was illiterate and on top of that was dead when the koran was finally put together.

Muhammad verified it, wats the point of him being illetrate? can't he verify and confirm what the companions wrote Quran in front of him?
Ofcourse he dictate them every single verse, and many muslims in his time memorize Quran.
A seperate group of companions was available in Masjid-Nabwi in Medina, who memorize Quran all the time, and make new students, and Muhammad always listen and verify it. So your point that Muhammad didnt authenticate it is void ,

Also, the Quran was completly compiled in life of Muhammad, and 1 copy was with Hafsa, his wife, which was later user to distribute as the authentic Quran .

Any more confusions?

TrueReligion · Post by **TrueReligion** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 3:46 pm

FinalEnigma wrote:
TrueReligion wrote: Just now you said that you are christian,and now you are sayying that you are not, y always your statements are contradicting same like Bible.
His statements aren't exactly contradictory. they make contradictory implications, but aren't in themselves contradictory. What he's doing is avoiding being labeled, like myself.

We dont need to reject Quran, becauseMuhammad authenticate it, and every1 knows there is no contradiction in it.
(bold mine)
I don't know that.

We are discussing for bible here, and I would prefer keeping the replies as per the post and thread,

TrueReligion · Post by **TrueReligion** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 3:52 pm

Alterations in the Text of the Bible
It should be noted in the beginning that there are three acknowledged versions of
the Old Testament:-
1. The Hebrew version which is acknowledged equally by the Jews and the Protestants.
2. The Greek version which was recognized as authentic by the Christians up until the seventh century. Until that time the Hebrew version was considered by the Christians to be inauthentic and distorted, the Greek version is still held to be authentic by the Greek and Eastern Churches. The above two versions include all the books of the Old Testament.
3. The Samaritan version which is recognized by the Samaritans. This is in fact the
Hebrew version with the difference that it consists of only seven books that is, the five books of the Pentateuch which are ascribed to Moses, the Book of Joshua and the Book of Judges. This is because the Samaritans do not believe in, or acknowledge, any of the other books of the Old Testament. Another difference is that it includes many additional phrases and sentences that are not present in the Hebrew version.
Many Protestant scholars and theologians like Kennicott, Hales and Houbigant
recognize it as authentic and do not accept the Hebrew version which they believe to have been distorted by the Jews. In fact the majority of Protestant scholars prefer it to the Hebrew version, as you will see from the following pages.

Alteration No. 1: The Period from Adam to the Flood
The period from Adam to the flood of Noah, as described by the Hebrew version, is
one thousand six hundred and fifty-six years, while according to the Greek version, it is two thousand three hundred and sixty-two years47 and the Samaritan version gives it as one
thousand three hundred and seven years.

Wyvern · Post by **Wyvern** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 6:17 pm

Muhammad verified it, wats the point of him being illetrate? can't he verify and confirm what the companions wrote Quran in front of him?

Illiterate means you can not read, if you can't read how can you verify what is written? As far as we actually know he may have said I like dogs but the writers could have wrote down god is great and since he could not read he would not have known the difference. Before you say it, and I know you will I don't think this actually happened.

Ofcourse he dictate them every single verse, and many muslims in his time memorize Quran.
A seperate group of companions was available in Masjid-Nabwi in Medina, who memorize Quran all the time, and make new students, and Muhammad always listen and verify it. So your point that Muhammad didnt authenticate it is void ,

I am not arguing whether a number of people would memorize what was orally communicated to them, that opens a whole different can of worms in that oral traditions are the worst manner of trying to keep anything consistent which is probably why after the death of Mohammed Uthman brought all the passages of what would become the koran together and purged what did not agree with his understanding in order to stay the disintegration of the forming unified caliphate. This also led to the great schism within islam and the formation of shia and sunni sects

Also, the Quran was completly compiled in life of Muhammad, and 1 copy was with Hafsa, his wife, which was later user to distribute as the authentic Quran .

The koran was dictated by Mohammed but it was not brought together as one volume until after his death. At least with the mormons Joseph Smith he dictated the book of mormon and could read what was written and he was the one to bring it together as one volume. Notice how the author was able to verify at each step what was written as opposed to islam where Mohammed dictated to scribes but could not read what was written nor was he alive when it was finally brought into one volume. Mind you the bible is even worse than that. Jesus would speak and an unidentified time later his followers would write down what they remembered what was said and only after christianity was an established religion within the crumbling roman empire was it brought together as one volume.

So when it comes to authenticity with the three religions I listed only mormonism actually would pass your rule of authenticity.

TrueReligion · Post by **TrueReligion** » Sun Nov 29, 2009 5:07 am

Wyvern wrote:
Muhammad verified it, wats the point of him being illetrate? can't he verify and confirm what the companions wrote Quran in front of him?
Illiterate means you can not read, if you can't read how can you verify what is written? As far as we actually know he may have said I like dogs but the writers could have wrote down god is great and since he could not read he would not have known the difference. Before you say it, and I know you will I don't think this actually happened.

Ofcourse he dictate them every single verse, and many muslims in his time memorize Quran.
A seperate group of companions was available in Masjid-Nabwi in Medina, who memorize Quran all the time, and make new students, and Muhammad always listen and verify it. So your point that Muhammad didnt authenticate it is void ,
I am not arguing whether a number of people would memorize what was orally communicated to them, that opens a whole different can of worms in that oral traditions are the worst manner of trying to keep anything consistent which is probably why after the death of Mohammed Uthman brought all the passages of what would become the koran together and purged what did not agree with his understanding in order to stay the disintegration of the forming unified caliphate. This also led to the great schism within islam and the formation of shia and sunni sects

Also, the Quran was completly compiled in life of Muhammad, and 1 copy was with Hafsa, his wife, which was later user to distribute as the authentic Quran .
The koran was dictated by Mohammed but it was not brought together as one volume until after his death. At least with the mormons Joseph Smith he dictated the book of mormon and could read what was written and he was the one to bring it together as one volume. Notice how the author was able to verify at each step what was written as opposed to islam where Mohammed dictated to scribes but could not read what was written nor was he alive when it was finally brought into one volume. Mind you the bible is even worse than that. Jesus would speak and an unidentified time later his followers would write down what they remembered what was said and only after christianity was an established religion within the crumbling roman empire was it brought together as one volume.

So when it comes to authenticity with the three religions I listed only mormonism actually would pass your rule of authenticity.

Sorry wyvern, we are discussing Bible errors here, so be on topic if you want discussion, otherwise dont discuss out of topic please. You will not be answered.

Wyvern · Post by **Wyvern** » Sun Nov 29, 2009 11:03 am

Sorry wyvern, we are discussing Bible errors here, so be on topic if you want discussion, otherwise dont discuss out of topic please. You will not be answered

Are you going to abandon your religion then? You have to if your rule of authenticity is true. Don't you understand if your rule of authenticity is valid then discussing errors in the bible is useless, in one sentence you invalidated the entire book along with nearly every other holy book on the planet.