Spurious changes to the Bible

(Some of the Internet links could not be matched exactly to the translations actually quoted.)
• BC 622-586 (approx.). Hebrew Scriptures falsified by officials.  "How can you say 'We are wise, since we have Yahweh's Law?'  Look how it has been falsified by the lying pen of the scribes!" – Old Testament, Jeremiah 8:8 (New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) (R.C. scholarly translation, ©1985).  The 1609 Roman Catholic Douay, which quotes the book's name as Jeremias, gives the second sentence as "Indeed the lying pen of the scribes has wrought falsehood."  Blaming the scribes, and possibly leaders, is the meaning of the original language. 
   The 1611 Authorised Version (the King James Version, by reformed translators), and some others dependent on it, seem to be trying to attribute the cause to the Lord!  "How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us?  Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain." – Hebrew Scripture, Jeremiah 8:8 (AV).  But the C. of E. / Anglican / Episcopal communion's Revised Standard Version (RSV), 1971 (O.T. © 1952) has come over to the majority view of translators: " But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie."
  ^ ^  Devil's gateway!  Relig-CONTENTS  Relig-Chronology 2013  Relig-Links  Relig-Books  Relig-HOME  Scripture sex  Objectionable texts  Questionable  Clergy-Abuse  v v  
• 185-254 A.D., Christian texts already corrupted.  Origen [?185-?254 A.D.] complains that the differences among the manuscripts [of the Gospels] have become great, either through the negligency of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others. – The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, by Bruce M. METZGER, 3rd edition, 1992, Oxford University Press, New York and Oxford, p 152.
• Ten to 12.5 per cent of the New Testament is possibly tainted.  "There is general agreement that 7/8 to 9/10 of the text of the NT is critically above suspicion; " – John L. McKENZIE, Dictionary of the Bible, 1968, Geoffrey Chapman, London, page 883 b.
• 1500s to 1600s AD:  Translation of Hebrew Scripture – Nose-ring became ear-ring!  Here's just one example of how the Old Testament, too, was "upgraded" by what I would call, echoing Origen of earlier centuries, "perverse audacity."  In both the Catholic Douay-Rheims and the Church of England Authorised Version (King James) translations into English, in the Bible's first book, Genesis, a servant of Abraham gave the maiden Rebekah jewellery at a well.   Genesis 24:22 in the old translations says he gave her an ear-ring (ear-rings, plural, in the Catholic Douay translation, and the word "two" embroidered Ronald Knox's 1949 Roman Catholic translation!) and bracelets.  The Hebrew original, as the newer translations show, says he gave her a nose-ring and bracelets.  See also verses 30 and 47.  In Ezekiel 16:12 the old translations changed a nose-ring into a jewel on the forehead!  (Scholars are invited to do research on whether nose rings were right out of fashion in the England of the late 1500s and early 1600s.  In the 1940s and '50s in Australia the very idea of anything but a bull wearing a nose-ring was treated as disgusting.  Fashions have changed during the rest of the 1900s into the early 2000s) – See Old Testament, Genesis 24:22; Ezekiel 16:12
   THE NEXT ITEM might have been of extra interest in the first half of 2004, because of the Mel Gibson film "The Passion of the Christ" which opened on Ash Wednesday, 25 February 2004, and had tremendous crowds from Good Friday, 9 April 2004.
• 1966/76: Did Jesus say: "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do" while he was being executed?  Well, a footnote to Luke 23:34 in the Good News Bible, Today's English Version, (GNB) (TEV) reads:  "Some manuscripts do not have Jesus said, 'Forgive them, Father! They don't know what they are doing'." (page N.T. 115).  It is also bracketed as doubtful in The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, 1969, New World Bible Translation Committee, New York, p 407.  (To find the group behind this translation, try clicking here.)
   If it is an insertion, the purpose would be to help in altering the realistic, balanced, "sin no more" Jesus into the "ever-forgiving Jesus" image that saved the Church leaders for centuries from having to routinely expel serious wrongdoers and dangerous men of violence, and allows them to "forgive" themselves for such crimes as stealing Church funds, and child sex seduction (called "abuse" by most)! – Religion Clarity Campaign, July 2003, revised February 2004, 21 Jun 2008, and 17 Dec 2010.
   And check Good News New Testament, Bible Society in Australia © 1966, Canberra, 4th edition, 1976, p 227.
• 1992: "Three Witnesses in Heaven" in 1 John 5:7 (original forgery in one form perhaps 5th century AD, hardened approx. 800) forged in Greek to confute Bible Scholar about 1520.  A whole Greek manuscript was forged, with an "inserted" verse, to confute a great Scripture scholar Erasmus Desiderius (1466-1536), and to bolster the Trinity dogma.  According to modern researcher Bruce M. Metzger, Erasmus had researched many old Greek manuscripts, and he deliberately kept out of the first editions of his Greek New Testament this verse in the 1st Epistle of John, 5:7:-
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one."
   When its omission was protested, he said that he had not seen one Greek manuscript with that verse in.  (It had been inserted into Latin translations.)  Some time later, a Greek manuscript was supposedly unearthed (now believed to have been forged around 1520 in Oxford by a Franciscan friar named Froy or Roy) which included that verse.  In his third edition, Erasmus inserted that verse, but also footnoted his suspicions that the manuscript had been prepared to confute him. (page 101)
   In the years since, of all the thousands of Greek manuscripts examined, only three others are known to contain this spurious passage. (p 101)
   The passage does not appear in manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate before about A.D. 800.  Pope Leo XIII [1878-1903] ruled that it was not safe to deny it was authentic.  But modern Roman Catholic scholars recognise that it does not belong in the Greek Testament. (p 102)
– based on The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, by Bruce M. METZGER (Professor of New Testament Language and Literature, at Princeton Theological Seminary), Oxford University Press, New York and Oxford, 3rd edition, 1992, (Dewey 225.48), pp 101-3.
   COMPLUTENSIAN:  An interesting fact is that a superior Greek version to Erasmus's, the Complutensian of 1514, appeared after Erasmus's, which however being first and becoming known as the Textus Receptus, i.e., the "received text," and being reprinted over and over, resisted all scholarly efforts to replace it. (see pp 102-3)
   Spurious verse 1 John 5:7 multiplied, quoted, now being reluctantly discarded.  From the corrupt Latin version (which the RCC leaders declare is "authentic") the spurious verse was forced into the Catholic Douay-Rheims English translation of the New Testament dated 1582.  Possibly because of the desire to bolster the trinity doctrine, and in spite of the warning footnote of Erasmus, it came into the English reformers' King James translation of 1611.
   It had been and is being used to support the Trinity doctrine, including by St Thomas Aquinas, in Summa Contra Gentiles (written 1259-1264 and used in Catholic priest-training seminaries at times for centuries), Book 4, chapter 15, section 1, on page 104 in the Image Books 1957 paperback.
   The inserted verse probably helped deceive other Christians such as the Celtic Churches of Great Britain and Ireland, and the Waldenses or Vaudois of south-central Europe who had the Bible in the ethnic language and kept the Saturday Sabbath (extermination order issued AD 1487), French bible translator Lefevre and reformer Berquin (martyred 1529), and Dr Martin Luther (1483-1546), who fought the selling of indulgences and other corrupt activities, translated the Bible into German, and was one of the most important leaders of the Reformation.  Regarding Waldenses, Lefevre and Berquin, see The Great Controversy by E.G.White, 1998, Harvestime Books, Altamont (TN, USA).
   The defective Bible versions have continued to be stolidly reprinted in many languages and sold by groups like Bible Societies, Catholic Truth Society, Gideons, etc. into the early 2000s.  Thankfully, it is rejected by the Wescott and Hort 1881 and other reputable Greek Testaments, and by modern multi-faith new translations.
   The Good News Bible (GNB) (1966 and 1975) quietly removed the spurious verse 7, by giving the number 7 to the first four words of verse 8, "There are three witnesses:", and putting the number 8 to designate the rest of the old verse 8.
   The New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) Pocket Edition (© 1985), RC, has a similar stratagem, "So there are three witnesses," to cover this embarrassing legerdemain.  Ronald Knox's Catholic translation of 1945 had footnoted it "This verse does not occur in any good Greek manuscript.  " (1957 ed., p N.T. 256), but neglected to say it occurred in only three out of hundreds of ancient Greek manuscripts !
   An excellent comment about this shabby affair is given by the notes in the Emphatic Diaglot:  "This text concerning the heavenly witness is not contained in any Greek manuscript which was written earlier than the fifth century.  It is not cited by any of the Greek ecclesiastical writers; nor by any of the early Latin fathers, even when the subjects upon which they treat would naturally have led them to appeal to its authority.  It is therefore evidently spurious, and was first cited (though not as it now reads) by Virgilius Tapsensis, a Latin writer of no credit, in the latter end of the fifth century; but by whom forged, is of no great moment, as its design must be obvious to all." Link to http://­www.­innvista.com/­culture­/religi­on/bibl­e/compa­re/trin­ity.htm . [COMMENT: Who could deny that it had been invented to give a "third" pro-Trinity proof text? – Religion Clarity Campaign, July 2003, revised 03 Feb 2004. COMMENT ENDS.]  [Head document 1992.]
   A change also in the preceding verse:  The Latin Vulgate translation and its dependent translations also have a spurious change in the preceding verse, 1 John 5:6.  The second part of the verse in the Roman Catholic Vulgate translation called Douay is "And it is the Spirit which testifieth that Christ is the truth."  The original could be translated "And it is the Spirit which testifieth that the Spirit is the truth."  (See the footnote on page 256 in The Holy Bible, Monsignor Ronald KNOX, 1957, Burns & Oates / Macmillan & Co, London.)  But the more natural translation is "And the spirit is that which is bearing witness, because the spirit is the truth."  (The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, 1969, International Bible Students Association, Brooklyn, p 1062)
   The English reformers' King James translation has something like the correct wording.  But check it also in the NIV and Young's Literal Translation, Darby's, etc.
   One could ask:  Why was this change from "Spirit" to "Christ" made by the Latin Church?  An internet version of the whole verse in the Vulgate Latin is at: 1 John 5:6:
hic est qui venit per aquam et sanguinem Iesus Christus non in aqua solum sed in aqua et sanguine et Spiritus est qui testificatur quoniam Christus est veritas
   The original language, Greek, has "pneuma" (i.e. "spirit") in the place where the RC Vulgate has the second "Christus".
   Who benefited?  By the way, what does the original correct version really mean? – Religion Clarity Campaign, July 2003/Feb 2004/Apr 2004. Head document 1992.
• Other familiar passages that don't belong in the Bible. By using square brackets, [an author] Bowyer marked in his text not a few familiar passages which lack the support of good manuscripts; for example, the doxology of the Lord's Prayer (Matt. vi. 13) 1, the pericope de adultera (John vii. 53 - viii. 11) 2, the comma Johanneum (1 John v. 7-8) 3, and single verses (such as Acts viii.37 4 and xv.34 5) and words throughout the New Testament. (p 116) – Read Bruce M. Metzger, 1992.
FOOTNOTES SUPPLIED BY: Religion Clarity Campaign, July 2003
(1.) "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." Matt 6:13
(2.) The story of the woman taken in adultery, and Jesus supposedly saying at John 8:7 "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her".  According to the Good News New Testament, this story is not in many manuscripts and early translations.  In addition, it appears in various places in different documents:  sometimes after John 21.24, after Luke 21.38, and one has it after John 7.36. (Good News New Testament, Bible Society in Australia ©1966, Canberra, 4th edition, 1976, p 257.) John 7:53 - 8:11
(3.) The pro-Trinity forgery described above. 1 John 5:7
(4.) In the episode of Phillip and the Ethiopian eunuch, an addition where Phillip extracts a statement of faith from the eunuch before he agrees to baptise him. The Acts 8:37
(5.) "Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still." The Acts 15:34

   For more discussion on various Bibles' treatment of these and other disputed verses, visit http://­www.­innvista.com/­culture­/religi­on/bibl­e/compa­re/add.­htm
• Has Mark's Gospel had a post-death ending added?  Well, TWO forged endings, it may be.  Check Good News Bible, Today's English Version (GNB), also known as The Bible in Today's English Version (TEV), and read the Introduction to Mark's Gospel, N.T. page 44:  "The two endings to the Gospel, which are enclosed in brackets, are generally regarded as written by someone other than the author of Mark."
   The "longer ending" is Mark 16:9-20, beginning "After Jesus rose from death early on Sunday, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, "  The "shorter ending" is of just two verses (in this version just numbered 9 and 10, that is, a duplicate 9 and 10) beginning:  "The women went to Peter and his friends and gave them a brief account "  Read pages N.T. 72-73.  Well, no-one told us in Christian Doctrine classes or in Sunday School that St Mark didn't write these post-resurrection and ascension stories! Who did?
   Other references:
   Knox's 1945 RC translation (which received RC authorisation) stated that verses 9-20 were not part of the original Mark (footnote 5 on page N.T. 52).
   The New Bible Commentary, F.DAVIDSON, A.M.STIBBS, and E.F.KEVAN (eds), 1959 (2nd edition), Inter-Varsity Fellowship, London, p 839 a-b.  "The epilogue (xvi.9-20).  These last twelve verses present one of the major textual problems of the New Testament. The two Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit the whole section, Four other MSS of less weight supply an alternative and much shorter ending [] Mary Magdalene is introduced as a stranger in verse 9, despite her appearance in verse 1.   "
   Good News Bible, Today's English Version (GNB), © 1966, 1971, 4th edition 1976; 1976 edition, The Bible Society in Australia, Canberra; pages N.T. 44, and 72-73. (See above)
   The New International Version (NIV), © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society (Colorado Springs, USA), Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids; Library of Congress Card 73-174297:  Note in page 722:  "(The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20)
   The New Jerusalem Bible (NJB Pocket Edition), RC, notes © 1990, footnote (a) to 16:8 on page 1204 re verses 9 to 20, Pocket Edition 1990, Darton Longman & Todd, London; Nihil obstat Anton Cowan, Imprimatur Rt Rev John Crowley V.G., Bishop in Central London, Westminster, 4th September 1989.  "Originally Mk probably ended abruptly on this note of awe and wonder.  The next 12 verses, missing in some MSS, are a summary of material gathered from other NT writings."
   (Previously, an exposure entitled "The Spurious Endings of Mark" from the Internet, complete with footnotes to scripture authorities such as St Jerome, was inserted on this Webpage.  This explanation to Webpage 04 Feb 04, improved 02 Mar 04)
"Believers will pick up snakes in their hands and be unharmed should they drink deadly poison." (Mark 16:18)  Do you "believe" that?  Well, you don't have to, because its part of the disputed ending.  If only those strange U.S. sects which handle serpents, and every now and then make it into the news through a death by snakebite, could read this webpage! (To WWW 24 Feb 04)
"Go out to the whole world; proclaim the gospel to all creation," and " whoever does not believe will be condemned." Mark 16:15-16.  Now, if only those fundamentalist Christians who are making themselves unpopular in the occupied Muslim country of Iraq now (February 2004) could read this exposé, that these verses are part of a disputed section!  And what about the RC Church, trying early in 2004 to start a patriarchate in the Orthodox country of Ukraine?  And in February 2004 sending a prelate to Moscow to try for unity with the Russian Orthodox Church, and being snubbed?  (Do the Orthodox Churches have as many forgeries as Rome and its imitators?)  If the fundamentalists, whether evangelistic or Roman, realised the texts were doubtful, they could all go home, and leave it to the Lord to do the evangelising and unifying, couldn't they?  And, in past centuries, how many "infidels", Jews, and "heretics" were killed on the basis of "whoever does not believe will be condemned", I wonder? (To WWW 24 Feb 04)
• Must people BELIEVE to be saved? In contrast to Mark 16:16, read this (in a disputed book): " we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those who believe." (1 Timothy 4:10).  Saviour of "all men."  That looks like a contradiction of the Mark text to some people!  (This text was found by KJJM of Perth, W. Australia, around 27 April 2005.)
• John's Gospel also seems to have TWO conclusions.  The whole of chapter 21 of St John's Gospel is probably an "addition."  Quietly read the last two verses of chapter 20, verses 30-31.  Doesn't it look like a conclusion, an ending on a farewell note?  So is it any surprise when scholars tell us that chapter 21, i.e., the rest of the "gospel," wasn't written by St John?
   The New Bible Commentary, F.DAVIDSON, A.M.STIBBS, and E.F.KEVAN (eds), 1959 (2nd edition), Inter-Varsity Fellowship, London, pp 895 b and 896 b, though trying to defend this interloper chapter, says:  "EPILOGUE. xxi. 1-25.  Many commentators believe that this chapter was not written by the evangelist. [] Conclusion (xxi. 24,25) The last two verses of the Gospel are added by unknown persons "
   John L. McKENZIE, Dictionary of the Bible, 1968, Geoffrey Chapman, London, page 447, writes: "There are two conclusions, 20:30 f; which suggests that 21 is not part of the original Gospel."
   New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) Pocket Edition, R.C. (footnotes © 1990), is more subtle.  Above chapter 21 is inserted a heading, "Epilogue," which is footnoted (page 1272) as follows: "Added by the evangelist or one of his disciples."  Hmm!  (To WWW 24 Feb 04, improved 02 Mar 04)
Did Jesus single Peter out to feed his lambs / sheep?  Well, not really.  It is printed at John 21:25-27, but that is part of the "additional" non-John ending.  So it is virtually worthless as scripture.  But it has helped those who wanted a strong central authority in their synthesised religion, and went down the road of "Peter" and his supposed successors, the Bishops of Rome (that is, the Roman Popes.  Yes, Rome is not the only city with a "pope" of an ancient sect). (To WWW 24 Feb 2004, revised 17 Dec 2010)
Was the forged ending to John's gospel done, 1. To centralise power, and 2. to harmonise the dates of the ascension?  Chapter 21 to the end contains a post-crucifixion story of Jesus giving Peter and about six others a huge catch of fish at the Sea of Tiberias (Sea of Galilee), and the "Feed my lambs, feed my sheep" episode with Peter.
   These are elements of the little tweaks added to manuscripts, translations, and footnotes to counteract the anti-monarchism teachings such as The Acts 8:14 " the apostles sent unto them Peter and John," plus the texts showing Peter as lacking understanding of the Jesus message, denying Jesus, and later giving in to the Judaising members in the Christian community and as a result being "withstood to the face" by Paul (Galatians 2:11).  And Peter at one stage is reported as saying to "tell James and the brothers" (The Acts 12:17).  James seemed to give the final verdict in the council about Gentiles' rights (The Acts 15:13 and 19).  (Even in that passage some of the old verse 18 is evidently a forgery, now being omitted from new translations.)
   However, the footnotes seen even in C. of E. books that "Rome" is meant by "Babylon" in N.T. references shows the long-term power of the "tweakings" mentioned above to give Peter / Rome supposed authority over Christians.
   Possibly another reason for chapter 21 was to add a Galilee story to give more credence to gospel statements Jesus was going there before the apostles, and the associated contradiction between the ascension dates implied in Luke 24:50-53 (the evening of the resurrection) and Acts 1:3 (40 days after the resurrection).
• Variant readings in John's first chapter. In the Gospel of John, at 1:13, the "were" of most Bibles might be a "was."
" 13 who wereb born not from human stock or human desire or human will but from God himself."
See Jerusalem Bible, John 1:13, page 1243, footnote "b": Some MSS have the singular 'was', which would refer to Jesus' divine origin. (Found by K.J.J.M. of Perth, W. Australia, 29 July 2004)
   In the RC Douay-Rheims, the word "are" is used instead of "were." Koine Greek verb tenses and moods are quite difficult.
• Wescott and Hort version praised.  1881 most noteworthy critical edition of the Greek Testament ever produced by British scholarship Westcott and Hort The New Testament in the Original Greek. (p 129) – Bruce M. Metzger, 1992.   (However, other scholars claim that Wescott and Hort relied far too heavily on two disputed manuscripts, almost ignoring the thousands of other manuscripts, and gave very little credence to ancient writers' quoting of the sections or words they left out of their Greek version, or changed.)
• John 7:53 - 8.11: The "woman taken in adultery" story:  Metzger's statement.  Later in the Metzger book, he writes that John vii.53-viii.11 is lacking in the best Greek manuscripts, and is not in these translations:  Old Syriac, Arabic of Tatian's, Old Coptic, Diatessaron, Old Gothic, and several Old Latin translations.  No Greek-language Church Father for 1000 years after Christ refers to the episode, even those like Origen, Chrystostom and Nonnus who dealt with the entire Gospel verse by verse (p 223).  The story was in different places in the Bible (p 225).  The story contains the paralysing verse "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." (John 8:7)
– Adapted from The text of the New Testament, by Bruce M. Metzger, 1992.
   [COMMENT: This story might have been added to support the "always-forgiving Jesus" slant that overcame the "Jesus is coming soon to reward the good and to punish the wicked" of the earliest preaching.  However, an alternative view is given by other scholars. COMMENT ENDS]
• 1982:  Dean John William Burgon claims that the pericope de adultera, i.e., "the woman taken in adultery," WAS quoted by ancient writers, but there were scruples against it from people who believed that the punishment for adultery ought to be very severe, and so some people who copied John's Gospel left it out.  (From page 79 (chapter 6), written by Edward F. Hills, we learn that Dean John William Burgon was born on August 21, 1813, and wrote books defending the Traditional Text of the New Testament.)  The following is from the book: 
   Which Bible can we Trust? 1982, Les Garrett (compiler), Christian Centre Press, Gosnells (Western Australia), pp 105-06.

* * *
4.     THE WOMAN TAKEN IN ADULTERY (John 7:53-8:11)
   The story of the woman taken in adultery (called the pericope de adultera) has been rather harshly treated by the modern English versions.  The R.V. and the A.S.V. put it in brackets; the R.S.V. relegates it to the footnotes; the N.E.B. follows Westcott and Hort in removing it from its customary place altogether and printing it at the end of the Gospel of John as an independent fragment of unknown origin.  The N.E.B. even gives this familiar narrative a new name, to wit, an Incident in the Temple.  But as Burgon has reminded us long ago, this general rejection of these precious verses is unjustifiable.
(a) Ancient Testimony Concerning the Pericope de Adultera (John 7:53-8:11)
   The story of the woman taken in adultery was a problem also in
ancient times.  Early Christians had trouble with this passage.  The forgiveness which Christ vouchsafed to the adulteress was contrary to their conviction that the punishment for adultery ought to be very severe.  As late as the time of Ambrose (c. 374), bishop of Milan, there were still many Christians who felt such scruples against this portion of John's Gospel.  This is clear from the remarks which Ambrose makes in a sermon on David's sin.  "In the same way also the Gospel lesson which has been read, may have caused no small offense to the unskilled, in which you have noticed that an adulteress was brought to Christ and dismissed without condemnation Did Christ err that He did not judge righteously?  It is not right that such a thought should come to our minds etc."30
   According to Augustine (c. 400), it was this moralistic objection to the pericope de adultera which was responsible for its omission in some of the New Testament manuscripts known to him.  "Certain persons of little faith," he wrote, "or rather enemies of the true faith, fearing, I suppose, lest their wives should be given impunity in sinning, removed from their manuscripts the Lord's act of forgiveness toward the adulteress, as if He who had said 'sin no more' had granted permission to sin."31  Also, in the 10th century a Greek named Nikon accused the Armenians of "casting out the account which teaches us how the adulteress was taken to Jesus saying that it was harmful for most persons to listen to such things."32
   That early Greek manuscripts contained this pericope de adultera is proved by the presence of it in the 5th-century Greek manuscript D.  That early Latin manuscripts also contained it is indicated by its actual appearance in the Old Latin codices a and e. And both these conclusions are confirmed by the statement of Jerome (c. 415) that "in the Gospel according to John in many manuscripts, both Greek and Latin, is found the story of the adulterous woman who was accused before the Lord."33  There is no reason to question the accuracy of Jerome's statement, especially since another statement of his concerning an addition made to the ending of Mark has been proved to have been correct by the actual discovery of the additional material in W.  And that Jerome personally accepted the pericope de adultera as genuine is shown by the fact that he included it in the Latin Vulgate.
   Another evidence of the presence of the pericope de adultera in early Greek manuscripts of John is the citation of it in the Didascalia (Teaching) of the Apostles and in the Apostolic Constitutions, which are based on the Didascalia.
to do as He also did with her that had sinned, whom the elders set before Him, and leaving the judgment in His hands departed.  But He, the Searcher of Hearts, asked her and said to her, 'Have

30 Vienna, vol. xxxii, pp. 359-360.
31 Vienna, vol xxxxi, p. 387 J
32 'S.S. Patrum' J.B. Cotelerius, Antwerp, 1698, vol. i, p. 236.
33 MPL, vol. 23, col. 579.

• 1982: Which Bible can we Trust?  The New Testament's "Western Version" ancient manuscripts had a number of different wordings to the Byzantine (i.e., the Orthodox Received Text) in the East or the Textus Receptus in the West, including the Gospels in a different order.  And there was an Alexandrian set of manuscripts, differing yet again in many places.  And consider the ancient Peshita (Syrian Church) and Gothic translations.  Some of the manuscripts have sections from one of the three main "versions" in one place, and from another version in another place.
   "In these eight passages, therefore, it is just as easy to believe that the Traditional reading is the original and that the other texts have omitted parts of it as to suppose that the Traditional reading represents a later combination of the other two readings." (p 201)
   See the following: "The traditional New Testament Text", by Edward F. Hills, chapter 11 in Which Bible can we Trust? 1982, Les Garrett (compiler), Christian Centre Press, Gosnells (Western Australia), pp 194-202, March 1982.

194                               WHICH BIBLE CAN WE TRUST
text.  This naturalistic view, however, is contrary to the evidence, as we shall endeavour to show in the following paragraphs.
(a) The Evidence of Codex W
   In demonstrating the antiquity of the Traditional Text it is well to begin with the evidence of Codex W, the Freer Manuscript of the Gospels, named after C.L. Freer of Detroit, who purchased it in 1906 from an Arab dealer at Gizeh, near Cairo.  It is now housed in the Freer Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C.  In 1912 it was published under the editorship of H.A. Sanders.[1]  It contains the Four Gospels in the Western order, Matthew, John, Luke, Mark.  In John and the first third of Luke the text is Alexandrian in character.  In Mark the text is of the Western type in the first five chapters and of a mixed "Caesarean" type in the remaining chapters.  The especial value of W, however, lies in Matthew and the last two thirds of Luke.  Here the text is Traditional (Byzantine) of a remarkably pure type.   According to Sanders, in Matthew the text of W is of the Kappa 1 type, which von Soden (1906) regarded as the oldest and best form of the Traditional (Byzantine) Text. [2]
   The discovery of W tends to disprove the thesis of Westcott and Hort that the Traditional Text is a fabricated text which was put together in the 4th century by a group of scholars residing at Antioch.  For Codex W is a very ancient manuscript.  B.P.Grenfell regarded it as "probably fourth century."[3]  Other scholars have dated it in the 5th century.  Hence W is one of the oldest complete manuscripts of the Gospels in existence, possibly of the same age as Aleph.  Moreover, W seems to have been written in Egypt, since during the first centuries of its existence it seems to have been the property of the Monastery of the Vinedresser, which was located near the third pyramid.[4]  If the Traditional Text had been invented at Antioch in the 4th century, how would it have found its way into Egypt and thence into Codex W so soon thereafter?  Why would the scribe of W, writing in the 4th or early 5th century, have adopted this newly fabricated text in Matthew and Luke in preference to other texts which (according to Hort's hypothesis) were older and more familiar to him?  Thus the presence of the Traditional Text in W indicates that this text is a very ancient text and that it was known in Egypt before the 4th century.
(b) The Evidence of Codex A
   Another witness to the early existence of the Traditional Text is Codex A (Codex Alexandrinus).  This venerable manuscript, which dates from the 5th century, has played a very important role in the history of New Testament textual criticism.  It was given to the King of
1 The Washington Manuscript Of The Four Gospels,' by H.C. Sanders, New York: Macmillan, 1912.
2 Idem., p. 41.
3 Idem, p. 134.
4 Idem, p. 3-4.

England in 1627 by Cyril Lucar, patriarch of Constantinople, and for years was regarded as the oldest extant New Testament manuscript.  In Acts and the Epistles Codex A agrees most closely with the Alexandrian text of the B and Aleph type, but in the Gospels it agrees generally with the Traditional Text.  Thus in the Gospels Codex A testifies to the antiquity of the Traditional Text.  According to Gregory (1907) and Kenyon (1937), Codex A was probably written in Egypt.  If this is so, then A is also another witness to the early presence of the Traditional Text upon the Egyptian scene.
(c) The Evidence of the Papyri
   When the Chester Beatty Papyri were published (1933-37), it was found that these early 3rd century fragments agree surprisingly often with the Traditional (Byzantine) Text against all other types of text.  "A number of Byzantine readings," Zuntz (1953) observes, "most of them genuine, which previously were discarded as 'late', are anticipated by Pap. 46."  And to this observation he adds the following significant note, "The same is true of the sister-manuscript Pap. 45; see, for example Matt. 26:7 and Acts. 17:13."[5]  And the same is true also of the Bodmer Papyri (published 1956-62).  Birdsall (1960) acknowledges that "the Bodmer Papyrus of John (Papyrus 66) has not a few such Byzantine readings."[6]  And Metzger (1962) lists 23 instances of the agreements of Papyri 45, 46, and 66 with the Traditional (Byzantine) Text against all other text-types.[7]  And at least a dozen more such agreements occur in Papyrus 75.
(d) Traditional (Byzantine) Readings in Origen
   One of the arguments advanced by Westcott and Hort and other naturalistic critics against the early existence and thus against the genuineness of the Traditional (Byzantine) Text is the alleged fact that "distinctively" Traditional readings are never found in the New Testament quotations of Origen and other 2nd and 3rd-century Church Fathers.  In other words, it is alleged that these early Fathers never agree with the Traditional Text in places in which it stands alone in opposition to both the Western and Alexandrian texts.  For example, in Matt. 27:34 the Traditional Text tells us that before the soldiers crucified Jesus they gave Him vinegar mingled with gall, thus fulfilling the prophecy of Psalm 69:21.  Hort thought this to be a late reading suggested by the Psalm.  The true reading, he contended, is that found in Aleph, B, D etc., wine mingled with gall.  Burgon (1896), however, refuted Hort's argument by pointing out that the Traditional reading vinegar was known not only to Origen but also to the pagan philosopher Celsus (c. 180), who used
5 'The Text Of The Epistles,' G. Zuntz, London: Oxford University Press, 1953, p. 55.
6 JTS, n.s., vol. 11 (1960), p. 381.
7 "Lucian and the Lucianic Recension of the Greek Bible," by B.M. Metzger, NTS, vol. 8, (1962), pp. 202-203.

196                               WHICH BIBLE CAN WE TRUST
the passage to ridicule Jesus.[8]  In his treatise Against Celsus Origen takes note of this blasphemy and reproves it, but he never suggests that Celsus has adopted a false reading.  "Those that resist the word of truth," Origen declares, "do ever offer to Christ the Son of God the gall of their own wickedness, and the vinegar of their evil inclinations; but though He tastes of it, yet He will not drink it."[9]
   Hence, contrary to the assertions of the naturalistic critics, the distinctive readings of the Traditional (Byzantine) Text were known to Origen, who sometimes adopted them, though perhaps not usually.  Anyone can verify this by scanning the apparatus of Tischendorf.  For instance, in the first 14 chapters of the Gospel of John (that is, in the area covered by Papyrus 66 and Papyrus 75) out of 52 instances in which the Traditional Text stands alone Origen agrees with the Traditional Text 20 times and disagrees with it 32 times.  These results make the position of the critics that Origen knew nothing of the Traditional Text difficult indeed to maintain.
   Naturalistic critics, it is true, have made a determined effort to explain away the "distinctively" Traditional readings which appear in the New Testament quotations of Origen (and other early Fathers).  It is argued that these Traditional readings are not really Origen's but represent alterations made by scribes who copied Origen's works.  These scribes, it is maintained, revised the original quotations of Origen and made them conform to the Traditional Text.  The evidence of the Bodmer Papyri, however, indicates that this is not an adequate explanation of the facts.  Certainly it seems a very unsatisfactory way to account for the phenomena which appear in the first 14 chapters of John.  In these chapters 7 out of 20 "distinctively" Traditional readings which occur in Origen occur also in Papyrus 66 and/or in Papyrus 75.  These 7 readings at least must have been Origen's own readings, not those of the scribes who copied Origen's works, and what is true of these 7 readings is probably true of the other 13, or at least of most of them.  Thus it can hardly be denied that the Traditional Text was known to Origen and that it influenced the wording of his New Testament quotations.
(e) The Evidence of the Peshitta Syriac Version
   The Peshitta Syriac version, which is the historic Bible of the whole Syrian Church, agrees closely with the Traditional Text found in the vast majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts.  Until about one hundred years ago it was almost universally believed that the Peshitta originated in the 2nd century and hence was one of the oldest New Testament versions.  Hence because of its agreement with the Traditional Text the Peshitta was regarded as one of the most important witnesses to the antiquity of the Traditional Text.  In more recent times, however, naturalistic critics have tried to nullify this testimony of the Peshitta
8 'The Traditional Text Of The Holy Gospels,' Burgon and Miller, London: Bell & Sons 1896, Appendix II, "Vinegar," pp. 254-255.
9 Berlin, 'Origenes Werke.' vol. 2, pp. 164-165.

by denying that it is an ancient version.  Burkitt (1904), for example, insisted that the Peshitta did not exist before the 5th century but "was prepared by Rabbula, bishop of Edessa (the capital city of Syria) from 411-435 A.D., and published by his authority."[10]
   Burkitt's theory was once generally accepted, but now scholars are realizing that the Peshitta must have been in existence before Rabbula's episcopate, because it was the received text of both the two sects into which the Syrian Church became divided.  Since this division took place in Rabbula's time and since Rabbula was the leader of one of these sects, it is impossible to suppose that the Peshitta was his handiwork, for if it had been produced under his auspices, his opponents would never have adopted it as their received New Testament text.  Indeed A. Voobus, in a series of special studies (1947-54),[11] has argued not only that Rabbula was not the author of the Peshitta but even that he did not use it, at least not in its present form.  If this is true and if Burkitt's contention is also true, namely, that the Syrian ecclesiastical leaders who lived before Rabbula also did not use the Peshitta, then why was it that the Peshitta was received by all the mutually opposing groups in the Syrian Church as their common, authoritative Bible?  It must have been that the Peshitta was a very ancient version and that because it was so old the common people within the Syrian Church continued to be loyal to it regardless of the factions into which they came to be divided and the preferences of their leaders.  It made little difference to them whether these leaders quoted the Peshitta or not.  They persevered in their usage of it, and because of their steadfast devotion this old translation retained its place as the received text of the Syriac-speaking churches.
(f) The Evidence of the Sinaitic Syriac Manuscript
   The Sinaitic Syriac manuscript was discovered by two sisters, Mrs. Lewis and Mrs. Gibson, in the monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai, hence the name.  It contains a type of text which is very old, although not so old as the text of the Peshitta.  Critics assign an early 3rd-century date to the text of the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript.  If they are correct in this, then this manuscript is remarkable for the unexpected support which it gives to the Traditional Text.  For Burkitt (1904) found that "not infrequently" this manuscript agreed with the Traditional Text against the Western and Alexandrian texts.[12]  One of these Traditional readings thus supported by the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript is found in the angelic song of Luke 2:14.  Here the Traditional Text and

9 Berlin, 'Origenes Werke,' vol. 2, pp. 164-165.
10 'Evangelion Da-Mepharreshe,' vol. 2, p. 5.
11 'Investigations into the Text of the New Testament used by Rabbula of Edessa,' Pinneberg, 1947.
'Researches on the Circulation of the Peshitto in the Middle of the Fifth Century, Pinneberg, 1948.
'Neue Angeben Ueber, die Textgeschicht-Zustande in Edessa in den Jahren ca.' 326-340, Stockholm, 1951. '
Early Versions of the New Testament. Stockholm,' 1954.
12 'Evangelion Da-Mepharreshe,' vol. 2, p. 225.
Streeter, 'Four Gospels,' p. 115.


GOTHIC GOSPELS (St. Matt. vi. 9-16). – Sixth Century.
(Upsala, University Library.)

Portions of the Gothic Version of the Gospels by Ulfilas or Wulfilas, Bishop of the Mœsian Goths, who died A.D. 388.  The MS. is written in uncial letters in silver and gold on purple vellum, and is known as the "Codex Argenteus."

the Sinaitic Syriac read, good will among {toward) men, while the Western and Alexandrian texts read, among men of good will.
(g) The Evidence of the Gothic Version
   The Gothic version also indicates that the Traditional Text is not a late text.  This New Testament translation was made from the Greek into Gothic shortly after 350 A.D. by Ulfilas, missionary bishop to the Goths.  "The type of text represented in it," Kenyon (1912) tells us, "is for the most part that which is found in the majority of Greek manuscripts."[13]  The fact, therefore, that Ulfilas in A.D. 350 produced a Gothic version based on the Traditional Text proves that this text must have been in existence before that date.  In other words, there must have been many manuscripts of the Traditional type on hand in the days of Ulfilas, manuscripts which since that time have perished.
(h) The "Conflate Readings"
   Westcott and Hort found proof for their position that the Traditional Text was a "work of attempted criticism performed deliberately by editors and not merely by scribes" in eight passages in the Gospels in which the Western text contains one half of the reading found in the Traditional Text and the Alexandrian text the other half.[14]  These passages are Mark 6:33; 8:26; 9:38; 9:49; Luke 9:10; 11:54; 12:18; 24:53.  Since Hort discusses the first of these passages at great length, it may serve very well as a sample specimen. Mark 6:33 And the people saw them departing, and many knew Him, and ran together there on foot out of all the cities,  (Then follow three variant readings.) (1) and came before them and came together to Him.  Traditional Reading. (2) and came together there.  Western Reading. (3) and came before them.  Alexandrian Reading.
   Hort argued that here the Traditional reading was deliberately created by editors who produced this effect by adding the other two readings together.  Hort called the Traditional reading a "conflate reading," that is to say, a mixed reading which was formed by combining the Western reading with the Alexandrian reading.  And Hort said the same thing in regard to his seven other specimen passages.  In each case he maintained that the Traditional reading had been made by linking the Western reading with the Alexandrian.  And this, he claimed, indicated that the Traditional Text was the deliberate creation of an editor or a group of editors.
   Dean Burgon (1882) immediately registered one telling criticism of this hypothesis of conflation in the Traditional Text.  Why, he asked,

13 'Handbook To The Textual Criticism Of The New Testament', by F.G. Kenyon, London: Macmillan, 1912, p. 240.
14 'N.T. In The Original Greek,' vol. 2, pp. 363-376.

"SEA OF TIME" GRAPHIC (p 200) – some wording in the graphic, and caption:
   Ancient Authors committed their books to the Sea of Time.
   Accident, Mutilation, Faulty Copying, Neglect and Loss, False Emendation, Destruction of Manuscripts.
   Sailing over the treacherous waves of time the books finally arrive in modern times and reach the hands of textual critics.
   Textual Criticism Endeavours to Discover and Repair the Damage Incurred During the Voyage Over the Sea of Time.
   [Caption] The texts of many ancient human books have been lost or severely damaged during their voyage over the Sea of Time.  The text of the Holy Bible has been preserved in its purity by the Special Providence of God.

if conflation was one of the regular practices of the makers of the Traditional Text, could Westcott and Hort find only eight instances of this phenomenon?  "Their theory," Burgon exclaimed, "has at last forced them to make an appeal to Scripture and to produce some actual specimens of their meaning.  After ransacking the Gospels for 30 years, they have at last fastened upon eight."[15]
   Westcott and Hort disdained to return any answer to Burgon's objection, but it remains a valid one.  If the Traditional Text was created by 4th-century Antiochian editors, and if one of their habitual practices had been to conflate (combine) Western and Alexandrian readings, then surely more examples of such conflation ought to be discoverable in the Gospels than just Hort's eight.  But only a few more have since been found to add to Hort's small deposit.  Kenyon (1912) candidly admitted that he didn't think that there were very many more.[16]  And this is all the more remarkable because not only the Greek manuscripts but also the versions have been carefully canvassed by experts, such as Burkitt and Souter and Lake, for readings which would reveal conflation in the Traditional Text.
   Moreover, even the eight alleged examples of conflation which Westcott and Hort did bring forward are not at all convincing.  At least they did not approve themselves as such in the eyes of Bousset (1894).  This radical German scholar united with the conservatives in rejecting the conclusions of these two critics.  In only one of their eight instances did he agree with them.  In four of the other instances he regarded the Traditional reading as the original reading, and in the three others he regarded the decision as doubtful.  "Westcott and Hort's chief proof," he observed, "has almost been turned into its opposite."[17]
   In these eight passages, therefore, it is just as easy to believe that the Traditional reading is the original and that the other texts have omitted parts of it as to suppose that the Traditional reading represents a later combination of the other two readings.
(i) Alleged Harmonizations in the Traditional Text
   According to the naturalistic critics, the Traditional Text is characterized by harmonizations, especially in the Gospel of Mark.  In other words, the critics accuse the Traditional Text of being altered in Mark and made to agree with Matthew.  Actually, however, the reverse is the case.  The boldest harmonizations occur not in the Traditional Text but in the Western and Alexandrian texts and not in Mark but in Matthew.  For example, after Matt. 27:49 the following reading is found in Aleph B, C, L and a few other Alexandrian manuscripts:  And another, taking a spear, pierced His side, and there flowed out water and blood.  Because this reading occurs in B, Westcott and Hort were unwilling to

15 'The Revision Revised,' p. 262, note.
16 'Handbook,' p. 302.
17 TU, vol. 11 (1894), pp. 97-101.


A Map of the Ancient New Testament Versions.

   [COMMENT: "Why do we need further witness?" (Christian Scriptures, Luke 22:71).  The map just about says it all. With these conflicting versions to choose from, we may join in the thought on page 201 in the book, " it is just as easy to believe that the Traditional reading is the original and that the other texts have omitted parts of it as to suppose that the Traditional reading represents a later combination of the other two readings."  Yes, it is just as easy to believe - or to believe the opposite of what the author is trying to prove.  That is why it is pointless to continue the sentence at the bottom of page 201 by publishing p 203 on this Webspace.
   An example of the author's desire to convince was on page 194, in "(a) The Evidence of Codex W", the Freer Manuscript. He writes:
" it seems to have been the property of the Monastery of the Vinedresser, which was located near the third pyramid.[4]  If the Traditional Text had been invented at Antioch in the 4th century, how would it have found its way into Egypt and thence into Codex W so soon thereafter?"
The answer of the Religion Clarity Campaign is – it could have been a gift from one highly-placed civil or religious leader to another, just as Codex A, (Codex Alexandrinus) was gifted from the Universal Patriarch Cyril Lucar to the King of England in 1627, if pages 194 to 195 are to be believed.  Or, it could have been stolen by individuals or an army, and/or it could have been purchased.  The ancients, whether honest or dishonest, did transport valuable "tender" articles for long distances.  And the evidence of the handwriting style is no proof of location – a scribe with a certain regional style of writing could have gone voluntarily or involuntarily to Egypt, or been transferred there if he was a monk or a scribe in royal or other such service. COMMENT ENDS.]
   [GRAMMAR NOTE: "Idem" in page 194's footnotes means "in the same author," i.e., in the same book or article by the same author or compiler.  It has a similar meaning to "Ibid." or "Ibidem". ENDS] [March 1982]

• 2002: Cuts off the point about causing children to stumble.  The Church of England's Authorised Version (King James Bible, 1611) in the well-known "millstone hung around his neck" passage about causing little ones to stumble (Matthew 18:6, Mark 9:42, Luke 17:2) leaves out the main element.  The Roman Catholics translated it "scandalises" one of the little ones.  It means to trip them up.  But read Matthew 18:6, King James version:
   "6. But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea."
   An ordinary hearer might wonder what all the fuss is about – "offend" a child merits a horrible drowning death?  The real meaning had been ferreted out by the Catholics, in their Douay translation of 1582, but they didn't get it into smooth English, really just using a technical term in "shall scandalize one of these little ones."  However, their school Christian doctrine lessons used to clearly explain the meaning at least until around the mid-1900s.  The original Greek, σκανδαλιση – skandalisē – means to trip up, to cause to stumble, coming from a word meaning a snare or stumbling block.  That's why the Esperanto translation 1927 uses "igos fali," i.e., "cause to fall," Revised Berkeley 1945* "is an occasion for stumbling," Knox 1945 (RC) "hurts the conscience," Good News 1966 "cause to lose his faith," New World Translation (literalists) 1984 "stumbles" (a rare use of the verb in the active voice), and New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) Pocket Edition (RC) 1990 "is the downfall."
   The King James a verse or two later goes on talking about "offend you," but the real translation is closer to this:  "If then, your hand or your foot is making you stumble, cut it off and throw it away from you; Also, if your eye is making you stumble, tear it out and throw it away from you." (Matt. 18:8).  In other words, the King James version removed the "pointy end" of the meaning (causing to stumble) that the Gospel was trying to convey in two contexts. – adapted and enlarged from "Non-marital carnal activity of Church workers," Faith Purification Programme, possibly Apr 2, 2002.
   MORE INFORMATION found supporting the point on February 15, 2006:  In the United States there was a revision of a revision of the Authorised Version.  The volume consulted is Revised Standard Version (RSV), 1971, Collins' Clear-Type Press, London, Toronto, Sydney, and Auckland.  The New Testament second edition is Copyrighted © 1971.  The revision was done by 32 scholars, consulting with 50 Churchmen of various sects.  In its earlier version its publication was authorised in 1951 by the Churches of Christ, United States of America.  In it, Matthew 18:6-7 read:
6 but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.  7 "Woe to the world for temptations to sin!  For it is necessary that temptations come, but woe to the man by whom the temptation comes! "
   And it continues on similar lines with the rest of the passage quoted above about cutting off and plucking out.  This RSV translation suffers the same problem as many another – interpreting the words, instead of translating them.  The Greek word means to "cause to stumble," not "tempt to sin."  It is safer to give readers the meanings, not the translators' interpretations.  Each preacher or reader can work out what Jesus might have meant.  But, certainly, the Authorised Version (King James) of 1611 is far worse in its mealy-mouthed translation "offend."
* The New Testament, with Psalms and Proverbs, The Revised Berkeley Version, ©1945 Gerrit Verkuyl, revised 1969, 1982 edition, Gideons International, Canberra City. [Apr 2, 02]

• 2003: Extra word "prophet" added to John the Baptist quote, both Catholic and Church of England.  PERTH: A letter was sent to a few Perth religious and academic notables on April 7, 2003 asking why did many high-volume New Testaments have an inserted word "prophet" in a verse quoting Jesus speaking about John the Baptist (Luke 7:28).  In the Catholic Douay version it is:
28. For I say to you:  Amongst those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist.  But he that is the lesser in the kingdom of God is greater than he.
And it is similar in the English reformers' King James version.
The real translation might be:
28. I tell you, among those born of women there is none greater than John; but the least one in the kingdom of God is greater than he is.
   The word "prophet" is not in this verse in The New Testament in the Original Greek compiled by Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort (orig. 1881).  It doesn't appear in the fresh translation by Gerrit Verkuyl in the Revised Berkeley Version (orig 1945, which sadly inserted the word "person"), nor in the Catholic Knox version 1954 (inserted the word "sons"), nor in the Good News New Testament (orig 1966) 4th edition 1976 (no words inserted), nor in the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (NWT) 1984 revision (no words inserted), nor in the widely-respected New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) Pocket Edition (© 1985, which, inserted the word "children;" RCC).  What then is the correct text?
   The writer of the April 7 letter wrote: "In case some people can't see the effect of this reference [the insertion of 'prophet'], it is obvious from this verse and other scriptures overall that Jesus of Nazareth did NOT consider His holy mother to be the greatest human being ever born.  Adding the limiting word 'prophet' here gave the Mary-cult supporters a let-out if any doubting Christian questioned the hugeness of the cult."  In other words, because Mary is not generally listed as a prophet, the word "prophet" might have been inserted, to contradict people who argued that John the Baptist was greater than her.
   From the Perth religious and academic notables only one reply (very helpful) was received, but naturally nobody can explain or excuse such a sacrilegious forgery. – "He" becomes "she," and "person" becomes "prophet," Anonymous, Apr 7, 03, revised and linked 03 Feb 2004. [orig. Apr 7, 03]
• OLD TESTAMENT legerdemain, again
Rome's official Bible had "she" instead of "he" for hundreds of years.  In the first book of the Bible, at Genesis 3:15, in the passage where God condemns the serpent for tempting Eve to eat the fruit, Rome's Latin Vulgate translation has "she" instead of "he."
inimicitias ponam inter te et mulierem et semen tuum et semen illius ipsa conteret caput tuum et tu insidiaberis calcaneo eius
   The Catholic Douay translation of the Vulgate into English reads:
   "15. I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed:  she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel."
   In the English reformers' Authorised (King James) version, which aimed to translate from the original Greek, the verse is:
   "15. And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."
   A Jewish translation, A Hebrew - English Bible, According to the Masoretic Text and the JPS 1917 Edition, © 2003 by Mechon Mamre for the HTML version, gives it in Hebrew, and shows the English as:
15. And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; they shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise their heel.
   The Jewish inventor of Esperanto, Dr Lazarus Louis Zamenhof, 1927, translated Genezo 3:15 as:
15. Kaj mi metos malamikecon inter vi kaj la virino kaj inter via idaro kaj ŝia idaro; ĝi frapados vian kapon, kaj vi pikados ĝian kalkanon.
And I will put enmity between you and the woman and between your seed and its seed; it shall be hitting your head, and you shall be stabbing at its heel. (tr. by J.C.Massam)
   The correct translations from the Hebrew are probably "he" and "his," meaning probably the "descendants" of the woman, so that is why some translators use "they" or "it".
   So, everyone was out of step except the Latin-Rite Church of Rome!
   On April 22 2003 a letter was sent to the Catholic premier Archbishop in Australia, Dr George Pell of Sydney, pointing out that in the Catholic Church sermons were preached on the incorrect translation.  Also, it seemed to be the basis for images of Mary (the mother of Jesus) treading on a serpent's neck, with the serpent's head rearing up.  The sermons mentioned the fiction that "she" would crush the serpent's head (when the original Hebrew and the Greek translations said "he").
   On 7 May 2003 Dr Pell replied, among other things: "In the particular example set out in your letter I do not think it is of great significance whether the masculine or feminine pronoun is used."
   [COMMENT:  This reply is deplorable.  It is quite unacceptable, let alone considering the breach of honesty.  Contrast this reply with Rome's insistence it has Divine authority to distinguish male and female rights and responsibilities in all sexual, marriage, and clergy matters, but is happy in this matter to reverse the "he's" and the "she's". COMMENT ENDS.]
   An answer was sent on 13 May stressing the need for truth in Bible translations.  No reply was received. Another letter was sent to Dr Pell on 28 June after the writer discovered that the false translation had been used in a 1909 book for Catholic religion teachers, to support the then relatively new (1854) doctrine of the "Immaculate Conception" of Mary.
   On Aug 17 2003 a letter similar to the one to Dr Pell was sent to the Papal Nuncio (Pope's representative) in Canberra.  On August 25 he replied:  "In Latin, 'stirps' is feminine.  This explains the concordance.  But you may consult your parish priest on the matter."  The nuncio's claim that a Hebrew word's gender can be reversed because of a preceding Latin word sent a cold shiver down the back of the receiver of this un-scholarly excuse.  On Aug 28 the writer wrote to his clergyman and the RC Perth archbishop, and followed up with requests for replies on Sep 16.  The local clergyman's reply was received on Sep 22, and the archbishop's on Sep 23, 2003.  None of the letters received so far answered the six questions. -- This section has been adapted and updated, originally arising from: "'She' Instead Of 'He' For More Than 1500 Years" [the 1500 years might be mistaken], Anonymous, (replies dating to Sep 22 03) April 22 2003
   [COMMENT: Who can deny that this serious change was due to "Mary piety"? COMMENT ENDS]

   [EPILOGUE: On Nov 8 2003 "Anonymous" was shown the U.S. "Confraternity of Christian Doctrine" translation, from Genesis to Ruth, originally 1953.  In that, Gen 3:15 was translated correctly with "he" and "his," and a footnote stated that the "seed" was Jesus Christ.  That Bible has the Catholic Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur, so is supposedly authentic from an RC standpoint.
   Therefore, anyone who read that and other truthful versions might surmise that the "seed" was Christ, but if he had not read it, the general practice of the Latin Rite of the self-same Catholic Church would be telling him it was Mary, with pictures, statues, sermons, and quotations in Christian doctrine books.  Both Douay and Confraternity translations and footnote sets are "authentic," and incidentally, the footnotes are probably just as wrong as each other.  What was that about having "One doctrine," and "Everywhere and in every age teaching everything that He taught"?  Keep reading, please. EPILOGUE ENDS]

   [WORD MISSING: On February 3, 2004, an internet search of the Latin Vulgate translation in Genesis chapter 3 failed to turn up the Latin word stirps that in August 25 2003 the Papal Nuncio in Canberra had given as the explanation of "he" becoming "she."  A letter was prepared the same day, giving His Excellency the whole of chapter 3 in Latin, and some of it in Hebrew.  For the letter's wording click http://www.johnm.multiline.com.au/religion/pronoun.  No reply came from His Excellency, nor from the other levels of the Papal Church, nor the successor to the Nuncio, up to October 26, 2010.  A reminder had been posted around January 2005.  ENDS.]

• Bible Gateway for a searchable website with several Bible translations.  For instance, you can check that Luke 7:28 does NOT have the word "prophet" in most all-new translations, even though it is in the RC Douay and in the King James version and "descendant" translations, and had worked its way even into Dr John Wycliffe's translation of 1388.  (Inserted 04-08 Aug 03, improved 05 Feb 04)
• Is the Bible the letters of the Father to his children, or the product of tradition?  Let us compare what earlier Catholics said, with one of today's.  According to Cardinal Bernard Griffin, Archbishop of Westminster, England, writing in 1955, the First Vatican Council declared that the Scriptures "being written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost they have God as their author and, as such, have been delivered to the Church herself."  In the words of Pope Pius XII, he continues, Almighty God has "most providently sent us these books from the seat of His Majesty, as the letters of a Father to His own children." – The Holy Bible, Douay Version, 1956, Catholic Truth Society, London, Preface by + Bernard Cardinal Griffin, 1st page, 2nd paragraph.
   But what does Australia's premier Catholic Archbishop, being elevated to a Cardinal, think of the Bible?  In a letter of May 7 2003 he writes:  "I think it is important to be clear that the bible is the product of tradition, " – + George Pell, Archbishop of Sydney, letter regarding a scripture translation fraud brought to his attention, May 7 2003.
• Miracles, magic, or metaphors? Resuscitation or Resurrection? PERTH: A series of seminars at (Anglican) St Mary's Parish Hall, South Perth, Tuesdays in September 2003, 7.45 - 9pm: Sep 9: Atonement – born or die? Mthr Christine Simes (Rector, City Beach). Sep 16: Virgin Birth – gynaecology or theology? Dr David Wood (Rector, Joondalup). Sep 23: Miracles, magic or metaphors? Dr John Shepherd (Dean of Perth). Sep 30: Resuscitation or Resurrection? Dr Peter Carnley (Archbishop of Perth). – The Anglican Messenger, "Credible Christianity" advertisement, Sep 2003, p 18
   A similar series is being organised again. – April 2004
Transgender Scriptures! Genesis unmasked? PERTH, W. Australia (October 16, 2003):  This can serve as an open letter to the Catholic Church dignitaries I have addressed regarding a simple Scripture question I first raised by letter on April 22, 2003, with the premier Australian RC Archbishop, Most Rev. Dr George Pell (about to be made a cardinal), and continuing up and down the hierarchy.
   Sex change operation: In Genesis 3:15, the Catholic translations say:  "15. I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed:  she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel." (Catholic Douay)  The correct translations from the Hebrew are "he" and "his."  None of the answers, from Apostolic Nuncio in Sydney to local parish priest, admitted that a misleading change had been made, leading to the innovative doctrine, with sermons, pictures and statues, of Mary trampling on the serpent's neck, and the serpent trying to strike her heel.  How can we can expect the world community to take us seriously when we pontificate against homosexual ordinations and "marriages" and contraception, and support celibacy, but we can't even separate the He's from the She's in scripture?
   Trinity trick:  A whole Greek manuscript was forged in 1520, with an "inserted" verse, to confute the great Scripture scholar Erasmus Desiderius (1466-1536), and to bolster the Trinity dogma.  According to modern researcher Bruce M. Metzger, Erasmus had researched many old Greek manuscripts, and he kept out of his Greek New Testament the old verse 7 of chapter 5 in the 1st Epistle of John, 5:7. – Adapted from "Transgender Scriptures!" Letter to Catholic Church international newspaper L'Osservatore Romano as an Open Letter through the chain of command from the local Parish Priest to the Bishop of Rome, Oct 16, 03
• Pregnancy the aim – Bad Latin and following versions 'multiply' Eve's CONCEPTIONS in Genesis 3:16
Pregnancy the aim – Bad Latin and older English translations ‘multiply’ Eve’s CONCEPTIONS in Genesis 3:16
   Religion Clarity Campaign, by Demi Griffin, February 6, 2005
   AUSTRALIA: Did you know that the RC Douay Bible and the Church of England Authorised Version both claim that God punished Eve (Genesis 3:16) by saying that her pregnancies would be multiplied or increased, even though this is not what the Hebrew words say?  (And, of course, she had not had any pregnancies at the time!)
   Did these wrong translations arise from a "high population" twist put on the words by sex-skewed and imperialist people of about 1600 to 1700 years ago?  Or by fundamentalists who took the anti-female bias of the Bible as needing a bit more intensity?
   (For the moment, do not fret unduly over the "man-boss" ending to verse 16, but recognise what the whole verse means, as falsely translated – the woman must submit to her man's sexual desires, and have as many pregnancies as come her way.  No matter if her body and/or mind cannot take the strain.  Remember, also, polygamy was accepted as quite normal by the alleged writer of this bible book!)
   Genesis 3:16, in date order:
   HEBREW ORIGINAL (we trust), some time B.C.E.: Translated in modern times, into English:- "Unto the woman He said: 'I will greatly multiply thy pain and thy travail; in pain thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.' {S}" www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0103.htm#16 (A Hebrew - English Bible According to the Masoretic Text and the JPS 1917 Edition)
   Septuagint translation into GREEK, ? 285 - 132 B.C., for Judaists in the Greek-speaking world:  The Septuagint or LXX, we hope is in the traditional Orthodox Church's Bible, say at <http://­www.­myriobiblos.gr/­bible/d­efault.­asp>, in Greek.
   Vulgate ? A.D. 384 - ? 405, translation into LATIN, for Western Christians: "16  mulieri quoque dixit multiplicabo aerumnas tuas et conceptus tuos in dolore paries filios et sub viri potestate eris et ipse dominabitur tui"   http://­speedbible.com/­vulgate­/B01C00­3.htm#­V16
   Douay 1609, ENGLISH translation, for Bishop of Rome: "16  To the woman also he said:  I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions.  In sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband's power, and he shall have dominion over thee." <http://­www.­latinvulgate.com/­verse.a­spx?t=0­&b=1&c=­3#3_16>, (with Latin Vulgate alongside.)
   Authorised Version (AV, King James Version) 1611, ENGLISH translation, Post-Reformation scholars, for King James I of England (James VI of Scotland): "16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." http://­www.­biblegateway.com/­passage­/index.­php?sea­rch=gen­esis%20­3:16&ve­rsion=9
   The Authorised Version is really similar to the Douay, in its telling Eve (and all women) that their pregnancies will be greatly multiplied.  Now, read the following to see that modern English translations do NOT have the "multiplication of pregnancies".
   Good News Bible (GNB) 1976: 16  And he said to the woman, "I will increase your trouble in pregnancy and your pain in giving birth.  In spite of this, you will still have desire for your husband, yet you will be subject to him."
   New International Version (NIV) 1983: 16 To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children.  Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." www.­biblegateway.com/­passage­/index.­php?sea­rch=gen­esis%20­3:16&ve­rsion=31
   New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) Pocket Edition © 1985: 16 To the woman he said:  I shall give you intense pain in childbearing, you will give birth to your children in pain.  Your yearning will be for your husband, and he will dominate you.
   Other modern translations that don't give Eve (or all women?) an INCREASE in pregnancies include L. L. Zamenhov's Esperanto translation La Sankta Biblio 1927, Ronald Knox's English translation 1954, and the New World Translation (NWT) into English 1984.
   What is truth?  The Hebrew and Greek, or the false LATIN and false 1500s and 1600s ENGLISH translations?  Which is correct, multiplying pregnancies, or not?  Did this change to the scriptures help cause Western Christianity's condemnation of contraception for centuries?  What results has this had on the world's ecology? prosperity? history of warfare and conquests? - Demi Griffin, February 6, 2005.

   [COMMENT: So, the anti-sex but pro-childrearing (by other people) brigade was in full swing by the time that the translations into Latin were cobbled together by Jerome and/or anonymous translators and "correctors" before and after him.
   Together with the various Christian Churches' complete inability to understand the episode of Onan, this mistranslation led to centuries of suppression of family planning among Christians, spreading as they spread, and thus added to the world's heavy population of the 20th and 21st centuries.  In most "Christian" countries of the Western world, it was illegal to advertise contraceptives until various times after World War II (1939-45).
   It might be particularly galling to people like victims of clergy child sexual abuse, and clergy sex abuse of women and men, to realise the facts here disclosed.  RC clergy, while deftly avoiding the responsibilities of fatherhood, want to "multiply" the problems of women and men, while behind closed doors they seduce children, teenagers, and grownups.
   (Read a critique of English translations http://­www.­holy-trinity.org/­liturgi­cs/nrsv­.html
   (A remarkable list of on-line Bibles is at http://­aggreen.net/­bible/b­iblstdy­.html .) [Feb 6, 05] COMMENT ENDS.]

• ESDRAS IV, part of it was masquerading as Old Testament until 1546 AD, although written after AD 70.  The King James Version (AV) of 1609 quietly shows the books of Ezra and Nehemiah.  However, the alarming history of parts of the four (or five) books formerly known as Esdras 1 to 4/5 is better hinted at in the RC Douay version of 1611, Ezra being named 1 Esdras, and 2 Esdras being listed but having an alternative title of "Nehemias".  Read on:
   "In the current form of the *Vulgate I and II Esdras are St *Jerome's rendering of Ez. and Neh., treated as separate Books.  III Esdras is the *Old Latin version of Esdras A, and IV Esdras is another Book not extant in Greek.  In 1546 III and IV Esdras were rejected from the RC *Canon and in subsequent editions of the Vulgate they appear as an appendix after the NT. []
   In the *Geneva Bible (1560) and subsequent English versions I and II Esdras of the Vulgate are entitled 'Ezra' (q.v.) and 'Nehemiah', while III and IV Esdras are the '1' and '2' Esdras of the *Apocrypha. []
   "2 ESDRAS (IV Esdras of the Vulgate or The Ezra Apocalypse) is composite 3-14 is dated after A.D. 70 and not later than the reign of Hadrian (117-38) " – Elizabeth A. LIVINGSTONE (ed.), The Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 1977, Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York, p 177 b.
   The important thing is that, until 1546, part of the Latin "Holy Bible" Old Testament was a post-Christ pious fraud!  Luckily the Greek Orthodox and similar Churches were not affected by this (we hope), nor some of the other forgeries. (PS: In some manuscripts, there is even a 'V Esdras'.)
• HABAKKUK, Book of, a Minor Prophet. (Includes possible forgery.)  "Most critics agree that ch. 3 is an independent addition." – Elizabeth A. LIVINGSTONE (ed.), The Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 1977, Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York, p 228.  The possibility that chapter 3 is not part of the original writing is admitted in John L. McKENZIE, Dictionary of the Bible, 1968, Geoffrey Chapman, London, p 329.  Chapter 3 is in the form of a song composition or psalm, with choir directions in the first and last verses, it seems in the The New Jerusalem Bible (NJB), Pocket Edition 1990 (RC), Darton Longman & Todd, London, pp 1125-6.
• MICAH, Book of, another Minor Prophet. (Includes possible forgery.)  "Some of the prophecies of hope may be of later date, to mitigate the terrible threats, as also the symmetrical arrangement into four sections." – The New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) Pocket Edition, p 1113.  "The first three chapters are generally accepted as his [Micah's] work Most critics regard the rest of the book as later." – Livingstone, p 336 a.  McKenzie discussed the textual problems on pp 572 b and 573a, but seems to favour the unity of the book; however he did write on p 573 a: "4:1-5, which is duplicated in Is 2:1-4, is generally regarded as a postexilic addition to both Is and Mi."
• ZECHARIAH (ZACHARIAS) Book is partially written by people of a later age:  Chapters 1 to 8, written by Zechariah, date from 519-517 BC.  However, chapters 9-14 contain two anonymous prophecies of a different style and reflecting the circumstances of a later age. – see Elizabeth A. LIVINGSTONE (ed.), The Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 1977, Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York, p 564 b.  See also Good News Bible, Today's English Version, © 1966, 1971, 4th edition 1976; The Bible Society in Australia, Canberra; page O.T. 918.
   The New Jerusalem Bible (NJB), notes © 1990, Pocket Edition 1990, (RC), Darton Longman & Todd, London, page 1132, states that chapters 1 to 8 date from 520 to 517 BC, and that the rest probably dates from 200 years later.  Much of the second part is in poetic form.
   John L. McKENZIE, Dictionary of the Bible, 1968, Geoffrey Chapman, London, discusses in a similar way, stating that chapters 9-11 and 12-14 are written by different authors (p 950 a).  On p 949 he claims that the ascription of Zechariah 11:12 and following to Jeremiah in Matthew 27:9 and following, might possibly be explained by an uncertainty in the division of the text of the prophetic books.  (This is hardly supportive of the doctrine that the holy books were under the protection of God!)  "Modern scholars are agreed that 9-14 come from the Gk period after the conquests of Alexander [the Great]." (p 949 b).  (Discovered, and to webpage 10 June 2004)
• The historical evidence for Jesus, (Page 2 of a series.)
   Myth of Jesus webpage, < www.­mythofjesus.org.uk/>, found on WWW on 24 Jan 04.
   The situation is adequately summed up by Professor [R.] Fuller, Professor of New Testament, Union Theological Seminary, New York, in his A Critical Introduction to the New Testament:-
"Of the 27 books of the New Testament only the authentic Pauline epistles are, strictly speaking, the testimony of an apostolic witness.  And even Paulwas not a witness of the historical Jesus.  Since the earliest witnesses wrote nothing there is not a single book in the New Testament which is the direct work of an eyewitness of the historical Jesus " (p.197).
   Author Name: Fuller, R.  Title: Critical Introduction to the New Testament Binding: Paperback; Book Condition: Very Good; Size: 12mo - over 6¾" - 7¾" tall.  Publisher: Newburyport, MA, U.S.A. Focus Publishing / R. Pullins Company Incorporated, 1986, ISBN: 0715605828 (In 2004, the Rev. Brigitte Kahl, Th.D., D.Sc.Th. is the Union Theological Seminary Professor of New Testament, now, according to webpage http://­www.­uts.columbia.edu/­fac/kah­l.html as displayed on Jan 24, 2004.)
• The material of the New Testament. (Page 6 of a series.)
   Myth of Jesus webpage, <www.­mythofjesus.org.uk/>, found on WWW on 24 Jan 04
   The 3rd cent. Christian writer Origen condemned those Christians for "their depraved audacity" in changing the text and Jerome told Pope Damascus of the "numerous errors" which had arisen in the texts through attempted harmonising.  In 1707 John Mill of Oxford listed 30,000 variants in the different NT texts, and at the beginning of this century with further discoveries of manuscripts, the scholar Hermann von Soden listed some 45,000 variants in the N.T texts illustrating how they were altered.  Even in the 4th cent. Codex Sinaiticus, containing all the N.T, Professor Tishendorf, the discoverer, noted that it had been altered by at least three different scribes.
   the third century apologist, Origen.  He had 3 classes of writings - (1) Those uncontested - the 4 Gospels, the 13 letters of Paul, 1 Pet, 1 John, Acts and Rev.  (2) The doubtful - 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Heb, James and Jude.  He cited Hermas and the Didache but does not appear to have accepted them into the canon; he does list Barnabas within the N.T though.  (3) Those that were rejected.
   In Eusebius' day, the Catholic letters were still disputed and so was Rev [Revelation/Apocalypse].  Cyril of Jerusalem, ca. 350, in the 59th or 60th canon of the synod of Laodicea (after 360) and Gregory of Nazianus (d. 390) there are 26 writings - Rev being omitted.
• The Spurious Endings of Mark.
   The Rejection of Pascall's Wager. (One of a series) <http://­www.­geocities.com/­paulnto­bin/nom­ark.­html>, found on WWW on 24 Jan 2004
   Regarding the two variant endings (one of nine or ten sentences, and one of only two sentences, both shown in old standard bibles) of St Mark's Gospel, Mark 16:9-20.  (To save space, just some of the most telling sections are quoted.  All the references in the original article are shown, to assist students.)
• The early Church Fathers such as Clement of Alexandria (c150-c215), Origen (c185-254) and Tertullian (c160-c225) never quoted any verses from Mark after the eighth verse of chapter sixteen.  The omission by Tertullian is especially important when we realised that, in his writings about baptism, verse 16 would have been especially useful for him.  In fact down to the year 325 the passage from Mark 6:9-20 was quoted only once, by Ireneaus (c130-c200) in 180 CE, in the whole of Christian literature. [3]
• In the fourth century the Christian historian, Eusebius (c264-340), in his work Ad Marinum 1 that "in the accurate manuscripts Mark ended with the words 'for they were afraid' [Mark 16:8]."  This opinion is also shared by the famous fourth century theologian St. Jerome (c340-420).[4]
• In all the important and earliest extant manuscripts of the Bible, The Codex Vaticanus, the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Syriacus, the last twelve verses of Mark is [are] conspicuously missing.  All these manuscripts end at Mark 16:8.[5]
   The fact that most lay Christians are unaware of the fact that the last twelve verses of Mark is [are] bogus bids poorly for the moral integrity of the church leaders who are aware of this fact.  Perhaps, like Lagrange, they, modern day elders of the churches, believe that since the passage is "canonically authentic" there is no reason to destroy the faith of their flock by pointing out that in [a] very literal sense, this passage is a fraudulent fabrication of early Christian piety!
   It is certainly no consolation to Christians that the earliest gospel contain no account of the resurrection appearance of Jesus.

1. Nineham, Saint Mark: p439,449
2. Ibid: p450
3. Bentley, Secrets of Mount Sinai: p178
Nineham, Saint Mark: p449-450
Guignebert, Jesus: p509-510
4. Ibid: p509-510
Nineham, Saint Mark: p450
5. Bentley, Secrets of Mount Sinai: p178
Guignebert, Jesus: p509-510

6. Bentley, Secrets of Mount Sinai: p179
Martin, New Testament Foundations I: p219
7. Nineham, Saint Mark: p439
8. Ibid: p450
9. Bentley, Secrets of Mount Sinai: p145
10. Nineham, Saint Mark: p453
11. Ibid: p449
12. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: p136
["Ibid" means the book/document cited immediately previous.]

• MORE Context Free Bible Errors
   Freethought Debater, <http://­www.­freethoughtdebater.com/­tenbibl­econtra­diction­s.htm>, by P. Wesley Edwards, found on WWW 24 Jan 04
   The article has "Contradictions" and "Factual Errors"
   (Of the contradictions, how many have noticed the details of the death of Jesus during Good Friday and other Easter weekend church services?) (Notes to this webpage around Easter 2004)

• What words were displayed above Jesus as he was dying?

With Mel Gibson's film "The Passion of the Christ" opening worldwide on Ash Wednesday, 25 February 2004, did anyone notice what languages were used in the "charge," "inscription," or "title" on the cross?  Was Greek included?  Could you translate the Latin words?  John 19:20 says the charge was written in Hebrew, Latin and Greek.  (In Luke 23:38 a similar statement is possibly a harmonising forgery.)
   Many Christians would recoil in disbelief if they were told that the four Gospels disagree.  Many Roman Catholics and others, having seen crucifixes and pictures which have "INRI" above his head, firmly believe that the words that Pilate ordered for display were "Iesus Nazarenus, Rex Iudæorum," meaning "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews" (even though the last word ought to be "Judeans").  But ask yourself if some Divine influence produced four versions!
Matthew 27:37: "This is Jesus, the King of the Jews"
Mark 15:26: "The King of the Jews"
Luke 23:38: "This is the King of the Jews"
John 19:19: "Jesus the Nazarene, King of the Jews."
   Which is correct?  Or should we ask, with Pilate, "What is truth?"
   It is a bit sad to read an attempt to "explain away" the fact that the four gospels can't agree on reporting a written sign, in the booklet Are There Contradictions In the Bible? 2002, pages 42-43, by Ralph O. MUNCASTER, Harvest House Publishers, Eugene (Oregon, USA), ISBN 0-7369-0774-2.
   Well, as if that wasn't enough, if you were a screenwriter, how would you find the dramatic last words of Jesus as he was about to die?  Try reading the three versions in the four Gospels at "What were the last words of Jesus before he died?" elsewhere on this webpage in the leaflet "Are these mistakes in the Bible?"
• And that fulfilling verse Mark 15:28 "And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors" is a forgery.  (See, for example, DAVIDSON, Prof F. (ed.), The New Bible Commentary, (orig 1953) 1959, Inter-Varsity Fellowship, London, "Verse 28 should be omitted on decisive textual evidence. the interpolation is based on Lk. xxii. 37 and Is. liii.12." page 838 a
• What was the time and day of the week of the crucifixion?  The gospels don't all agree, so this is how one writer attempts to explain away the contradictions:
  • Again, John's statement that it was the "Day of Preparation" at "about the sixth hour" when Jesus was still standing "trial" presents a possible contradiction (John 19:14), since the other gospels have Jesus being crucified at the third hour on Passover.  This "Day of Preparation" can be reconciled in the original Greek in the context of the day.  As previously mentioned, this phrase had come into common parlance to mean Friday.  More importantly, since the Feast of Unleavened Bread was immediately on the heels of Passover, the day of Passover was essentially a day of preparation for the seven-day feast to follow.
  • Then, as now, this period is commonly referred to as "Passover week."  It was understood as such, so there was no need to insert "week" (sa-buo).  The "preparation of Passover" could be understood as the Friday (or day before) Passover week.
  • – MUNCASTER, Ralph O., Are There Contradictions In the Bible? 2002, p 31, Harvest House Publishers, Eugene (Oregon, USA), ISBN 0-7369-0774-2.
    • Are the letters (epistles) of Paul to Timothy and Titus genuine?
       McKenzie says "Of a vocabulary of 848 words 306 do not appear in the other 10 letters. [] it seems impossible to attribute the Pastoral Epistles to Paul in the same way in which the great epistles are attributed to him. [] They should therefore be used with caution and reserve " – John L. McKenzie, Dictionary of the Bible, 1968, pp 645-46, Geoffrey Chapman, London.
       The New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) (scholarly RC) has great doubts:  "The absence of characteristic Pauline doctrines and a certain timidity of outlook combine with a change of literary style and vocabulary to suggest either that the apostle is old and tired, or that the letters spring from another pen.  The historical data are not easy to join together, and certainly do not fit the period in Paul's life known from other sources.  It may be, therefore, that these letters were not written by Paul but were simply attributed to him as a great authority " – New Jerusalem Bible, Pocket Edition 1990, p 1372, Darton Longman & Todd, London
       Mack says that they are fictional: "The three letters were written at different times, undoubtedly during the first half of the second century.  They were not included in Marcion's list of Paul's letters (ca. 140 C.E.), nor do they appear in the earliest manuscript collection of Paul's letters (p 46, ca. 200 C.E.).  Quotations first appear in Irenaeus' Against Heresies (180 C.E.), Their attribution to Paul is clearly fictional, for their language, style and thought are thoroughly un-Pauline, and the "personal" references to particular occasions in the lives of Timothy, Titus and Paul do not fit with reconstructions of that history taken from the authentic letters of Paul. [] the author created a marvellous fiction in order to place a church manual of discipline from the mid-second century at the very beginning of the apostolic tradition." – Burton L. MACK, Who wrote the New Testament? The making of the Christian myth; 1996 first edition, HarperSanFrancisco, New York; pp 206-07. ISBN 0-06-065518-6; Dewey 225.6
    NOTES: "ca." means circa, i.e., approximately.  "C.E." means "Common Era," i.e., Anno Domini or A.D.  (Spurious nature discovered by Webmaster in March 2004, to WWW 04 Mar 04)
       [COMMENT: If the espistles to Timothy and Titus are late forgeries, the standard quotation that clergy ought to be "the husband of one wife" and have the other worthy attributes are, to me, of no authority, except as evidence that a group inside Christianity, after the original apostles had died, thought the danger of clergy adopting polygamy, celibacy, or other perverse sex lives was so great that the group forged fake "scriptures".  Fortunately, there are other New Testament texts that order marriage, saying it is for the good of people.  Who wrote the New Testament has led to a television series of the same name, which is being shown in Perth around February-March 2004. – Religion Clarity Campaign, 04 Mar 04. COMMENT ENDS>]

    • Peter's 1st letter is said to have at least three authors, and the 2nd was produced at least 100 years after his death!
       1 Peter: The first letter (epistle) of Peter is " not teaching the doctrine of a single author "  "The letter is first described by Polycarp in 135 It may perhaps be the composite work of Peter, Sylvanus, and another writer " – Ronald BROWNRIGG, Who's Who in the New Testament, 1993 paperback (orig. 1971), J.M.Dent Ltd., London, page 208 a. "Bournemann identified 1:3-5:11, the entire epistle, as a baptismal sermon, and believes that an editor added the introductory and concluding salutations " – McKenzie p 666 a.
       2 Peter: The second letter " was written and attributed to him at least a hundred years after his death." – Brownrigg, p 207 b.  It was "undoubtedly written in the 2nd century under the name of Peter The Greek style and the general tone is absolutely different from 1 Peter.  Certainly, this letter, 2 Peter, is dependent upon that of Jude." – Brownrigg, p 208 a.
       "The letter is widely accepted as dating from the 2nd century, well after Peter's death." – The New Jerusalem Bible Pocket Edition, (RC), p 1404.
       " Peter attribution Origen and Eusebius said that it was contested, and several eastern churches did not accept it.  Modern scholars are almost unanimously convinced that Peter (or the author of 1 Pt) cannot be the author of 2 Pt.  2 Pt is not from Peter." – McKenzie, p 667 b.  " Peter Second Epistle was received into the Canon with considerable hesitation.  It is prob. to be dated c. 150." – Livingstone, p 394 b.
       (2 Pet. 3:1-2) "So Peter is an apostle writing to remind his readers that they should remember the words of the apostles!  The fiction should be clear." – MACK, Burton L., Who wrote the New Testament? The making of the Christian myth, 1996 paperback, HarperSanFrancisco, San Francisco, p 213.
       Both Letters of Peter: "The so-called Petrine tradition was created in the second century by means of pseudonymous writings attributed to the Peter pictured in Paul's letters and in the narrative gospels.  There is not a shred of historical evidence to support it." – Mack p 213.
       [COMMENT: So, both the letters (epistles) from the supposed head of the apostles are suspect!  Those who put their faith in the stated successor of Peter ought to be mortified to learn this.  If there were genuine letters from Peter, wouldn't they have been carefully kept?  How could an infallible Church have three authors for one document, and be fooled into thinking that one person, Peter, wrote it?  Reformers said the Bible was the sole rule of faith – what do they say to this?
       Elsewhere on this website it is reported that Origen had noted that 2 Peter was doubtful.  See the Myth of Jesus webpage <www.mythofjesus.org.uk/>. How could a document forged about 100 years after his death trick "the pillar and ground of the truth"?  – Religion Clarity Campaign, 10 July 2004. COMMENT ENDS.]

    • "She" changed to "it", Christ became Spirit, and "Three who give testimony in heaven" vanish; Gen. 3:15; 1 John 5:6-8.
       Letter, March 12, 2004
       The Secretary, Catholic Enquiry Centre, PO Box 363, Maroubra NSW 2035
       Dear Sir/Madam,
       Please would you help me with the differences between the bibles of a few years ago, and the newer New Jerusalem Bible. When the Lord is sentencing the serpent in Genesis 3:15 the Douay Bible reads:
    15. I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed : she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.
       But in the New Jerusalem Bible, it reads:
    15 I shall put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; it will bruise your head and you will strike its heel.'
       The difficulty I see is that Douay reads "she" shall crush, and the serpent shall do something to "her" heel. But the New Jerusalem, also approved by the Church, reads "it" and "its," with the footnote saying that the Greek reads "he." (One would have thought that the meaning of the original language, Hebrew, would be a more apt footnote.)
       How could the gender change?
       And, what about these three verses in 1 John 5:6-8? The Douay reads:
       6 This is he that came by water and blood, Jesus Christ ; not by water only but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit which testifieth that Christ is the truth.
       7 And there are Three who give testimony in heaven : the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one.
       8. And there are three that give testimony on earth : the spirit and the water and the blood. And these three are one.
       But New Jerusalem translates them:
       6 He it is who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ, not with water alone but with water and blood; and it is the Spirit that bears witness, for the Spirit is Truth.
       7 So there are three witnesses,
       8 the Spirit, water and blood; and the three of them coincide.
       1st difficulty: Verse 6 in Douay says "Christ is the truth," but New Jerusalem says "Spirit"
       2nd difficulty: Verse 7 about the "Three who give testimony in heaven" has disappeared, but the first few words of the old verse 8 are put down as a remarkably short verse 7.
       How could these things be?
               Yours faithfully, [Name supplied]
       (Similar letters were also sent to the Rev Father Tim Deeter, "Dear Padre," The Record Catholic weekly newspaper, Perth; and to The Catholic Leader, 143 Edward St, Brisbane Qld 4000)
       [COMMENT: Although the letters were posted on March 12, 2004, no response had been received about 6 3/4 years later, by 6 January 2011. If you were in their shoes, how COULD you reply?  Remember, this article has been on the INTERNET during all of that time, too, awaiting a reply from anyone who finds it and doubts it. COMMENT ENDS.] [Mar 12, 04]
    • Apocrypha: A number of books, challenged from early times, have been included in the Roman Catholic Vulgate Latin and its dependent translations. They were supposedly in the Greek-language Septuagint translation, but were rejected by the main Judaist teachers around 100 AD, by a number of early Christian writers, by the Protestants, and nearly all of them by the Orthodox Churches. RC scholars call these books "Deuterocanonical", but Protestant scholars call them the "Apocrypha." (RCs use the word "Apocrypha" for other books, which Protestants call "Pseudepigrapha".) The RCC, after claiming for centuries that these books were inspired by God, rejected two of them in 1546.
       In the Christian Scriptures (New Testament), no deuterocanonical book is quoted. – see John L. McKENZIE, S.J., Dictionary of the Bible, 1968, Geoffrey Chapman, London p 119 a. © 1965 The Bruce Publishing Company. (Authentication for Roman Catholics: Imprimi Potest: John R. Connery, S.J., Praepos. Provin.; Nihil Obstat: John B. Amberg, S.J., Archdiocesan Censor; Imprimatur: + Cletus F. O'Donnell, J.C.D., Vicar General, Archdiocese of Chicago, February 18, 1965.)
       [COMMENT: Not quoted by name, perhaps, but some words that appear in some deuterocanonical books are in at least one New Testament book.]
       In the early centuries, these books were opposed by Melito of Sardis (+ about 193), Athanasius (+ 373), Cyril of Jerusalem (+ 386), Hilary of Poitiers (+ 366), Jerome [the Bible scholar] (+ 420), Rufinus (+ 410), and Gregory of Nanzianzen (+ 390). – see McKenzie p 119.
    • The disputed books defined: Church of England: "They comprise (in the order of the AV): 1 and 2 *Esdras, *Tobit, *Judith, the Rest of *Esther, the *Wisdom of Solomon, *Ecclesiasticus, *Baruch with the Epistle of *Jeremy, the *Song of the Three Children, the History of *Susanna, *Bel and the Dragon, the Prayer of *Manasses, and 1 and 2 *Maccabees." – Elizabeth A. LIVINGSTONE (ed.), The Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 1977, Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York, p 27 a. [Each asterisk * means there is an article on that subject in the book.]
       Roman Catholic: "The Alexandrian Gk translation made by Jews in the 3rd-2nd centuries BC (LXX; cf SEPTUAGINT) contains in addition [to the Hebrew canon] 1-2 Mc, Tb, Jdt, BS, WS, Bar, and some additional parts in Dn and Est (cf DANIEL; ESTHER). These books are called deuterocanonical." [by RCs] – McKenzie, p 118 b.
    • 185-254 A.D., Gospel already corrupted. Origen [?185-?254 A.D.] complained that the Gospels' texts had already become corrupted. – Bruce M. METZGER, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 3rd edition, 1992, Oxford University Press, New York and Oxford, p 152.
    • 383/4 A.D. onwards. Jerome's name misused; Revision after revision. "The origin of the old Lt [= Old Latin] versions is unknown.   [McKenzie, p 916 b] Jerome a revision of the Gospels done 383-384 the existing Vg NT is indeed a revision, and it has gone under Jerome's name since 450 but the rest of the NT authors and provenance are unknown.   [p 917 a] He [Jerome] had already adopted the view that the books which are not found in Hb are not canonical (cf CANON). [p 917 b]
       "The problems of the Vg can be said only to have begun with its production. It was multiplied by careless copying, and the recensions of Cassiodorus (570), Alcuin (800), Theodulf (821), Lanfrac (1089), and Stephen Harding (+ 1134) failed to establish a reliable text.   Paris text far from faithful to the original.   printed by Gutenberg at Mainz 1450-1452,   Dissatisfaction with the text led to Sanctes Pagnini and Cajetan to undertake new Lt versions in the early 16th century." [p 917 b] – McKenzie, article "Vulgate", pp 916-7. (Also see Livingstone, article of the same name, pp 543-44)
    • 5th to 15th century: "CORRECTORY. In the Middle Ages, a book containing a set of variant readings for 'correcting' the corrupted text of the Latin *Vulgate Bible." – Livingstone p 132 a.
    • 800 A.D.: The "Three Witnesses" doubtful pro-Trinity verse, 1 John 5:7 in traditional English translations (the comma Johanneum), supposedly appeared in Latin in one form around the 5th century, and then differently about 800 AD. – see Metzger, p 116.
    [These disputed words which "prove" the Trinity, found their way also into the Church of England Authorised Version, i.e. "King James Version," 1611.]  
    Page 1 of http://www.johnm.multiline.com.au/religion/spurious.htm#vulgate
    Page 1 of http://www.johnm.multiline.com.au/religion/spurious.htm#vulgate

    • 1000 A.D.: The "Adulterous Woman" of John 7:53 - 8.11 according to Metzger did not appear in Latin Vulgate translations until about 1000 AD, although this is denied by others. The disputed episode is known in Latin as the pericope de adultera (or pericope adulterae). – see Metzger, p 116.
    This episode contains the paralysing words "Let he who is without sin among you cast the first stone."  Its intent, similar to the words at Luke 23:34, presumably was to counter the texts recommending a severe attitude to people who become Christians and then commit serious sins (Matthew 12:32, and 18:8, John 14:23 and 24, 1 Corinthians 5:7 and 16:22, 2 Cor. 13:2, 2 Thessalonians 3: 6 and 14, Hebrews 6:4-6, 1 John 5:16 and 18, 2 John 9-11, plus the verses in the possibly-forged 1 Timothy 5:20-21).  There had been disputes for centuries about forgiveness.  Easing up allowed the clergy to overlook and/or forgive each other serious sins, and allowed repeat sinners to remain "in communion" provided they made amends by penances such as making donations, waging war for the faith, fasting, etc.  The softer line helped support the introduction of dogmas such as Confession and Indulgences.  The "Adulterous Woman" episode was adopted also into the Church of England AV (KJV) Bible, 1611.
    • After 1517: Protestants rejected Apocrypha.  Protestant reformers refused the status of inspired scripture to the Apocrypha.  Dr Martin Luther, however, put most of those books into an appendix to his translation into German. – see Livingstone, p 28 a.  Publishers of Protestant Bibles in English sometimes leave them out, and sometimes put them in a special section.
    • 1546-48: Esdras: Two books that had been in the Roman Catholic Bible for centuries were removed in 1546.  "In 1546 III and IV Esdras were rejected from the RC Canon and in subsequent editions of the Vulgate they appear as an appendix after the NT." – Livingstone (ed.), article "Esdras, Books of," p 177 b.  The Council of Trent in 1548 insisted on retaining the Apocrypha, except for 1 and 2 Esdras, and the Prayer of Manasses. – see Livingstone, p 28 a.  Read also articles on Apocrypha and Jerome.  Also, carefully compare with the RC author McKenzie, article "Apocryphal Books," items "1 Esdras" on page 42 b, and "4 Esdras" also called 2 Esdras, p 44 a.
    • 1571, the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England say that the Apocryphal books should not be used to establish doctrine. – see Livingstone, p 28 a
    • 1592: Centuries of "corrections", but bible reprinted with 3000 changes.  Printing by moveable types having been used since around 1450-52 (Gutenberg's Vulgate Bible), Pope Sixtus V hurried an edition (the Sixtine Bible) of the Latin Vulgate in 1590.  It was withdrawn and suppressed two years later by Pope Clement VIII, supposedly for the inaccuracy of its printing.  This Pope issued Latin Vulgate editions in 1592, 1593 and 1598 (the Clementine Bibles), differing from Pope Sixtus's edition in about 3000 places. – refer: New World Bible Translation Committee, The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, 1969, International Bible Students Association, Brooklyn, New York, page 28.
       "The Council of Trent prescribed a new and corrected edition of the Vg in 1546.  begun at Louvain [Pope] Sixtus V (1585-1590) forced its completion by his personal intervention.  His own work, however, was judged unfit for publication; it was revised immediately after his death, and the Clementine Vg (Clement VIII) published 1592-93, has remained in common use.  A commission was appointed by St Pius X in 1907 to prepare a critical edition; the work is carried on by the monks of the Benedictine monastery of St Jerome in Rome." – McKenzie pp 917-18.
    • 1672: Eastern Christians (Orthodox and similar Churches) rejected all but four of the Apocryphal books.  " at the Synod of Jerusalem in 1672 it was decided that Tob., Judith, Ecclus. and Wisd. were alone to be regarded as canonical." – Livingstone, p 28 a.
    • 1870: RCC leaders at the First Vatican Council repeated the decision of the Council of Trent by again endorsing what that council had retained of the Deuterocanonical or Apocryphal books, that is, all but two of them. – see Livingstone, p 28 a
    • 1907: A commission was appointed by Pope St Pius X in 1907 to prepare a critical edition of the Vulgate. – see McKenzie, p 918 a
    CHANGES TO THE ROMAN 'AUTHENTIC' VULGATE LATIN BIBLE ©2004 composed by Religion Clarity Campaign May-June 2004, last revised on 16 May 2005
       [COMMENT: If Jesus and the apostles did not quote from the Deuterocanonical books, why should anyone use them to support doctrines?  How can there be sincere oecumenical dialogues with hope of progress if such fundamentals are defied? COMMENT ENDS.]
       GREEK MOST USED:  According to John L. McKenzie's book, "Greek was the common language of the early Church, as it was the common language of the Roman Empire." McKenzie 916 b.  This is important, because many Westerners, including film-maker Mel Gibson in The Passion of the Christ, imagine that Latin was the language of the "Romans" who played a part in the crucifixion.  Equally important, when a section of the Christians moved away from Greek to Latin, it was more likely to have been a rebellious move than a move to put the Liturgy into the language of the people.  How can we guess this?  The Latin part of the Roman Church then ossified its Liturgy in Latin until the 1960s!  No worries about "people's language" for more than a thousand years!
       JEROME'S TRANSLATION PRIVATE ENTERPRISE:  "The translation was a private enterprise and received no official sanction before the Council of Trent " - McKenzie p 917 b.  I'll bet that was not impressed on the young minds at RC schools!  No wonder a Correctory was produced!
       OTHER MOVES TO RATIONALISE:  There had been moves originally led by Marcion from about 140 AD to remove ALL of the Old Testament from being considered as scripture by Christians.  He went even further, declaring an edited Gospel of Luke and ten Epistles of Paul as the only canonical scriptures.   His followers spread in organised communities.  He was excommunicated in 144, and died around 160. – see Livingstone, p 321 a.  Another sect, the New Church (or Swedenborgians), also has declared many of the traditional books are NOT holy scripture.
    Old Testament:- • Lord fought Moses. " The LORD met Moses and tried to kill him."  (Exodus 4:24) (God's Word Bible).  See also Jacob's night wrestle, Genesis 32:24.
    • King Saul's throne age mixed up.   In 1 Samuel 13:1 (1 Kings 13:1 in RC Douay) the old manuscripts are confused.  The Roman Catholic Douay has an absurd translation (1 Kings 13:1): "Saul was a child of one year when he began to reign, and he reigned two years over Israel." 
    • Numbers contradiction.  Read 2 Samuel 10:18 (Old RC bibles: 2 Kings 10:18) "David killed seven hundred of their charioteers."  But in 1 Chronicles 19:18 (1 Paralipomenon 19:18) "David killed seven thousand of their charioteers."  Read about it in When Skeptics Ask, by Norman Geisler and Ron Brooks; ©1990, 1996 edition, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids (Michigan), ISBN 0-8010-1141-8, page 173.
    • Measurement of a huge round bowl for worship.  This is called a "laver" or "sea" in different translations.  Read 1 Kings 7:23 (3 Kings 7:23 in old R.C. bibles):- "He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high.  It took a line of 30 cubits to measure around it" (NIV).  Primary school children could use π = "pi", i.e., ~ 22/7, to calculate the circumference as approximately 31 and 3/7 cubits.  (see discussion on this point in Geisler and Brooks, page 165.)
    • Was King Jehoiachin eighteen, or eight?
    Compare 2 Kings 24:8 (4 Kings 24:8) "Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he became king" with 2 Chronicles 36:9 (2 Paralipomenon 36:9) "Jehoiachin was eight years old when he became king." (Geisler and Brooks, p 173)
    New Testament:- Thirty pieces of silver – Prophet Jeremiah was mistakenly put into Matthew 27:9-10 !  The supposed prophecy of the betrayer Judas returning 30 pieces of silver, and the purchase of a field, in Matthew's Gospel 27: 9-10, is given in the 1611 British reformed scholars' King James Bible, i.e., the Authorised Version (and similarly in the 1582 Catholic Douay N.T. translation).
       Read Matthew 27:9-10: - Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value;  10.  And gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me.
       BUT, the prophecy wasn't really from "Jeremiah," "Jeremy," or "Jeremias" !  Read on:
    • A London 1956 edition of the Catholic Douay quietly footnoted the clause containing the error (Jeremias in Catholic circles then) as "Zach 11:12" (N.T. page 43)  (Zach. for Zacharias was known as Zech. for Zechariah in other Churches' bibles.)  (Footnote not shown on the internet version linked above.)
    • According to a footnote to the Catholic Ronald Knox's 1957 version (N.T. page 30), "This seems to be, not a direct quotation, but a combination of Jer. 32. 7-9 with Zach. 11. 12-13.  " (COMMENT: However, in the Jeremiah/Jeremias passage the field cost 17 silver shekels, not 30!  The Zechariah "prophecy" does not fit the outcome, either.  COMMENT ENDS.)
       Other translations that have tried to quietly sidestep the New Testament mistake include: The Good News Bible (GNB) 1966/1976 (p 927);  The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (NWT) 1984 revision (p 1254);  and, The New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) Pocket Edition 1990 (p 1180).
       Metzger's 1992 book says that St Augustine (354-430 A.D.) tried to claim that Jeremiah did not appear in all the manuscripts, "and that some of them state simply that it was spoken 'by the prophet'."
    • The "virgin" prophecy gave the name Emmanuel, but what happened?
    Isaiah 7:14: "Behold, a young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Emmanuel."  (Compare with Isaiah 9:6)
    Matthew 1:21: "And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS : for he shall save his people from their sins." (AV)
    Matthew 1:22-23: "Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us." (AV)
    Luke 1:31: "And behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS." (AV) (see also Luke 2:21)
       How can the prophecy be "fulfilled," when instead of EMMANUEL a completely different name, JESUS, was ordered by an angel to Joseph (or Mary)?  And read the next verses in Isaiah – did the child born to Mary feed on curds and honey?  There is also the other more important matter of the word shown in the New Testament as "virgin," whereas the Old Testament Hebrew word meant "maid," i.e., an unmarried female.
    Page 1 of http://www.johnm.multiline.com.au/religion/spurious.htm#mistakes
    Page 1 of http://www.johnm.multiline.com.au/religion/spurious.htm#mistakes

    • Are women allowed to pray aloud or prophesy in the faith meetings?  And veiled?  Well, 1 Corinthians 11:5 says they must be veiled if they pray or prophesy; the latter is most likely to be in the company of other people.  Yet 1 Corinthians 14:34 says that they are not to speak in the congregation, and are to be "in subjection" (Is this defying Galatians 3:28 ?).
       Veils, hair length, church art:  Is it authentic Jesus teaching to discuss ordering women to wear veils, at 1 Corinthians 11:10 (using the term "a sign of authority") and 1 Corinthians 11:13, and about hair lengths for women and men, at 1 Corinthians 11:14-15 ?  If men ought to wear their hair cut short, where did the painters, sculptors, and theatrical people for centuries nearly all get the idea that Jesus had long hair?
    • What should the high priest's name have been in Mark 2:26 ?  Read that verse on page 1186, and contrast it with 1 Samuel 21:1-7 on page 273, in the New Jerusalem Bible Pocket Edition (1990).  [Jesus said:] Have you never read what David did in his time of need when he and his followers were hungry – 26 how he went into the house of God when Abiathara was high priest, and ate the loaves of the offering which only the priests are allowed to eat, ? (Footnote on page 1186: 2a In fact his father, Ahimelech, was high priest, 1 S 21:1-7.)  [Discovered by KJJM of Perth, W. Australia, around 14 Apr 2004.]
    • Twelve Apostles chosen by Jesus. Write down and contrast the lists of names at Matthew 10:2-4, Mark 3:14-19, and Luke 6:13-16. 
    • Sequencing Problems? Temptations of Jesus.  Matthew 4:5-7 indicates that the second temptation of Jesus is Satan's enticement to jump from the pinnacle of the Temple – relying on God's angels to save Him.  Luke 4:5-12 makes the temptation of "world empire" number two and the pinnacle temptation number three. – MUNCASTER, Ralph O., Are There Contradictions In the Bible? 2002, page 26, Harvest House Publishers, Eugene (Oregon, USA), ISBN 0-7369-0774-2. (COMMENT: It would seem to Religion Clarity Campaign that the outrageous "world empire" temptation, logically, ought to have been the last.)
    • At what hour, of what day, was Jesus crucified?  The first three gospels say he was crucified at the third hour (see Mark 14:25) on Passover, and read Matthew 27:45 and Luke 24:44 which say that while he was suffering darkness came over all the land from the sixth to the ninth hour.  However, John's gospel 19:14 says he was still standing trial about the sixth hour on the Day of Preparation(The "third hour" possibly meant about 9 a.m., sixth was noon, and ninth was about 3 p.m.)
       Was it on Passover, or on the Day of Preparation ?  Contradiction in what day it was has been further confused by mainstream Churches commemorating Jesus' death on "Good Friday," yet anyone can see that from Friday to Sunday is not three days and three nights.  Jesus supposedly stated this (Matthew 12:40), using a Hebrew scripture story about Jonah.  If anything is true, he was probably crucified on a Wednesday.
    What words were written at Pilate's orders above Jesus' head at his execution?
    Matthew 27:37: "This is Jesus, the King of the Jews"
    Mark 15:26: "The King of the Jews"
    Luke 23:38: "This is the King of the Jews"
    John 19:19: "Jesus the Nazarene, King of the Jews."
    What were the last words of Jesus before he died?
    Matthew 27:46 and 50:
    46 And about the ninth hour, Jesus cried out in a loud voice, 'Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?' that is, 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?'
    50 But Jesus, again crying out in a loud voice, yielded up his spirit. (New Jerusalem Bible).
    Mark 15:34 and 37: At three o'clock Jesus cried out with a loud voice "Eloi, eloi, lema sabachthani", which means, "My God, my God, why did you abandon me?"  37  With a loud cry Jesus died. (Good News Bible).
    Luke 23:46: And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I com­mend my spirit:  and having said thus, he gave up the ghost. (Authorised Version = King James Bible).
    John 19:30: Jesus, therefore, when he had taken the vinegar, said : It is con­sum­mated And bowing his head, he gave up the ghost. (Douay-Rheims RC Bible).
       Three different "last words"!  There are more than 1000 million people who are said to believe that these scriptures give the history of God's dealings with humanity, and the redeeming heaven-opening life and death of Jesus, and were written under the inspiration of God !  Get a Bible from a lending library or second-hand shop !  Or click: <http://­bible.crosswalk.com/­OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi­?word=John+1­9%3A30&sec­tion­=0&­version=­rhe&new=1&showtools=1&oq=­&Na­vBook=mr&NavGo=­15&NavCurrentChapter=15>, and widen your search from there.
    ARE THESE MISTAKES IN THE BIBLE? © Religion Clarity Campaign, July 2003, last rev. 12 Apr 2013

    • Judas and prophecy mix-up:  Let's face reality.  Is the New Testament misquotation about Judas and the 30 pieces of silver at Matthew 27:9-10, an error by the gospel-writer, or is it a bungled forgery by a "pro­phecy-hungry" rewriter?  Did Judas suicide and the priests buy the field, or not?  And are the variations in the Old Testament translations part of a wider problem?
    • The first silver - who got it? The Zechariah "prophecy" in the Hebrew Scripture (Old Testament) is translated differently by various groups.  Was that silver transferred to a "potter," a "temple treasury," a "smelter," or a "craftsman" ?
    Good News Bible, Zechariah 11:13, page O.T. 926, footnote (a); Some ancient translations Put them in the temple treasury; Hebrew Give them to the potter.
    New Jerusalem Bible Pocket Edition, Zechariah 11:13, page 1139; Throw it in the smelter Temple of Yahweh for the smelter.
    • Knox Translation, Zacharias 11:13, page 852; Throw it to the craftsman yonder in the Lord's temple, I threw the craftsman my thirty pieces of silver.
    • Judas' death, and the field.  (Returning to Matthew chapter 27.)  In Matthew 27:5 Judas "hanged himself," and in verse 7 the chief priests used the silver to buy the potter's field, later named Hakeldama and/or the Field of Blood.  But in The Acts of the Apostles, 1:18, Judas himself used the silver to get a field (unnamed), and afterwards he "fell from a height" and his belly burst open and he was disembowelled.
       Potential converts are entitled to ask: "Is the Bible the holy mistake-free word of God?  Is the Bible the sole rule of faith?  Do Church leaders give infallible guidance about the Bible and about how to live our lives?"

    • HAIR LENGTH, but check BEARDS, TATTOES: In the Greek Christian Scripture (the New Testament), as shown in the leaflet "Are these mistakes in the Bible?", there is a rule that women ought to have long hair, and men short hair (1 Corinthians 11:14-15). 
       But what about the beard and tattoo rules in the Hebrew scriptures (Old Testament), Leviticus 19:27-28 ?   "Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head,or clip off the edges of your beard.  28  Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on youselves.  I am the Lord."

    Yes, "Hole-y" with doubts.  Bookmark your Bible, and ask why.
    HEBREW SCRIPTURE (Old Testament)
    • EZRA – ESDRAS IV masqueraded as a pre-Jesus Old Testament scripture in the West until AD 1546, although part of it was written after AD 70.  Scholars of the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin languages, and the Protestant and Orthodox Churches, reject this book and most of the other Apocryphal books.  The Roman Catholic leadership trailed after:  "In 1546 III and IV Esdras were rejected from the RC *Canon and in subsequent editions of the Vulgate they appear as an appendix after the NT ESDRAS (IV Esdras of the Vulgate or The Ezra Apocalypse) is composite 3-14 is dated after A.D. 70 and not later than the reign of Hadrian (117-38)." – Elizabeth A. LIVINGSTONE (ed.), The Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 1977, Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York, page 177 b.
    • ISAIAH (ISAIAS) is by at least THREE authors!  Most serious bible commentaries give the names Deutero-Isaiah (Second Isaiah) to chapters 40 to 55 (written 150 years afterwards), and Trito-Isaiah to chapters 56 to 66 (written even later).
    See Good News Bible, Today's English Version, © 1966, 1971, 4th edition 1976, The Bible Society in Australia, Canberra, page O.T. 665; The New Jerusalem Bible, ©1985, Pocket Edition 1990, Darton Longman & Todd, London, p 879; and Livingstone p 265 a. "Most of the book of Isaiah does not come from the prophet Isaiah It is a 'collection of collections'." – John L. McKENZIE, Dictionary of the Bible, 1968, Geoffrey Chapman, London, p 397 a.  He wrote that Doederlein in 1775 and Eichhorn in 1782 were the first to suggest multiple authorship (McKenzie p 400 a).
    • JEREMIAH (JEREMIAS / JEREMY), also has parts written after the author's death.  The longest book of the bible, it has striking differences between the Hebrew (Masoretic text) and the Septuagint Greek (LXX).   "LXX is shorter by about 1/8, 2700 words the oracles against the nations are arranged in a different order." – McKenzie p 421 a.  " most critics attribute a great part of it to editors and date the promises of restitution and the giving of a New Covenant (chs. 30-1) to an author living after the return of the exiles to *Jerusalem (537 B.C.)." – Livingstone p 270 a.  The book itself at Jeremiah 8:8 states " Yahweh's Law Look how it has been falsified by the lying pen of the scribes!"
    • MICAH (MICHAEAS), Book of, a Minor Prophet.  "The first three chapters are generally accepted as his [Micah's] work Most critics regard the rest of the book as later."
    – Livingstone, p 336 a. And see New Jerusalem Bible Pocket Edition, p 1113.
    • HABAKKUK (HABACUC), Book of, another Minor Prophet.  "Most critics agree that ch. 3 is an independent addition." – Livingstone, p 228.
    • ZECHARIAH (ZACHARIAS) also has at least THREE different authors.  The first part is dated 520-517/8 B.C.  "The second part (chh. 9-14) probably dates from 200 years later." – New Jerusalem Bible Pocket Edition, page 1132.  Chapters 9-11 and 12-14 are written by people other than Zechariah. – see McKenzie, p 950 a.  "Chapters 9-14 contain two anonymous prophecies of a different style and reflecting the circumstances of a later age."
    – Livingstone, p 564 b.  And see Good News Bible, page O.T. 918.
    • MARK'S GOSPEL 16:9-20.  Two endings added to it.  "The two endings to the Gospel are generally regarded as written by someone other than the author of Mark." – Good News Bible p N.T. 44.  The forgery contains the doubtful teaching "whoever does not believe will be condemned." (Mark 16:16), and the dangerous nonsense "Believers will have the gift of tongues; they will pick up snakes in their hands and be unharmed should they drink deadly poison" (Mark 16:17-18). See also New Jerusalem Bible Pocket Edition, footnote 16a on p 1204; Monsignor Ronald KNOX's translation, The Holy Bible, 1957, Burns & Oates / Macmillan & Co, London, footnote 5 on page N.T. 52; Gerrit VERKUYL ©1945, (Italicised as doubtful) The New Testament, with Psalms and Proverbs, The Revised Berkeley Version, revised 1969, 1982 edition, Gideons International, Canberra City, p 95; and F.DAVIDSON, A.M.STIBBS, AND E.F.KEVAN (eds), The New Bible Commentary, 1959 (2nd edition), Inter-Varsity Fellowship, London, p 839 a-b.
    Page 1 of http://www.johnm.multiline.com.au/religion/spurious.htm#holey
    Page 1 of http://www.johnm.multiline.com.au/religion/spurious.htm#holey
    THE HOLEY BIBLE © - Page 2
    • LUKE: Word "prophet" added to John the Baptist quote in Luke 7:28.  Through Latin forgeries (presumably) this made its way into the Roman Catholic and Church of England English-language versions, but is being omitted from modern translations.  It tends to remove or lessen doubts of "superhuman Mary" doctrine-making.
    • LUKE, again:  Did Jesus say: "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do" as he was being executed?  It is doubtful.
    See a footnote to Luke 23:34 in the Good News Bible, page N.T. 114, and The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, New World Bible Translation Committee, 1969, International Bible Students Association, Brooklyn, p 407.
    • In JOHN'S gospel, the angel disturbing the pool of Bethesda (John 5:3b-4) or Bethsaida is missing in the most important manuscripts and is generally regarded as secondary. – see McKenzie p 447 a.
    The angel phrases are omitted from New Jerusalem Bible Pocket Edition p 1248, and the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, ©1984, 1989 edition, International Bible Students Association, Brooklyn (New York), p 1333 b.  Italicised as doubtful by Verkuyl, p 164 b.
    • JOHN, again:  The "Adulterous Woman" story of John 7:53 - 8.11 (the pericope de adultera or pericope adulterae) according to Metzger was absent from Latin "translations" until about 1000 AD.  It found its way into traditional English-language Protestant and Catholic bibles.  The Greeks and other Orthodox have been spared (we hope) its much-loved but paralysing words at John 8:7: "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."
      Read Bruce M. METZGER, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 3rd edition, 1992, Oxford University Press, New York / Oxford, p 116; McKenzie p 447 a. Italicised in Verkuyl pp 172-3.
    • JOHN'S gospel, like Mark's, has a probable "added" ending.  "There are two conclusions (20:30 f; 21:24 f) which suggests that 21 is not a part of the original Gospel." – McKenzie, p 447 a.  See also New Jerusalem Bible Pocket Edition, p 1272.  It contains a lakeside story of Jesus and the "Feed my lambs, feed my sheep" episode with Peter.  It tends to support one-man rule, countering group decision-making reported in The Acts 1:15, 23, and 26; and 15:6, 22.
    • EPISTLES, TIMOTHY 1 and 2, and TITUS:  Are they genuine letters by Paul?  Impossible, very doubtful, or fictional.
    Read New Jerusalem Bible Pocket Edition p 1372; McKenzie pages 645-46; or Burton L. MACK, Who wrote the New Testament? The making of the Christian myth; 1996 first edition, HarperSanFrancisco, New York; pp 206-07. (Telecast in Australia, 2004.)
    • PETER'S TWO EPISTLES SUSPECT:  The first of Peter's letters is suspected of having about three authors.
      (Ronald BROWNRIGG, Who's Who in the New Testament, 1993 paperback (orig. 1971), J.M.Dent Ltd., London, page 208 a; and McKenzie p 666 a). The second was possibly composed around AD 150, well after Peter's death.  It was rejected with the cognate Jude by some Churches in the East. (Read New Jerusalem Bible Pocket Edition, p 1403, and see p 1404; Brownrigg p 207 b and 208 a; McKenzie p 667 b; Livingstone p 394 b). 1 and 2 Peter were possibly prepared to try to contradict the belief that Jesus's brother James was the leader in Jerusalem.  Notice that the reporting of Peter's doings faded (Antioch, Babylon), and Paul rose to be the ongoing hero in the Epistles and The Acts.
    • 1ST EPISTLE OF JOHN:  The "Three Witnesses", 1 John 5:7 (the comma Johanneum) in the traditional Roman and Protestant bibles appeared it seems in the West around the 5th century, and in its present form around 800 AD:  "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit : and these three are one."  It was unknown in the original New Testament Churches.
      Read Livingstone p 274 a, the Knox translation page N.T. 256, and how a forged manuscript was written to deceive Erasmus (Metzger p 116).  Notice that the Good News Bible and the New Jerusalem Bible disguise their omission of this deception by quietly renumbering a handful of words from the genuine text as verse 7.
    • JUDE'S EPISTLE.  This quotes words from suspect books rejected by all known Churches. – see McKenzie p 463 b.  It was not accepted in the West until the 4th century. – see McKenzie p 464 a.  Second century authorship is suggested, with verse 17 showing confusion in the historical placement of the supposed author. – see Mack pp 210-11.

    Compare translations at: Bible Gateway <www.biblegateway.com>
    THE HOLEY BIBLE ©2004 – Religion Clarity Campaign, June 13 2004, last revised on 08 Jun 05
    • To compare various translations, try: Bible Gateway www.biblegateway.com , and/or Bible Crosswalk <http://­bible.crosswalk.com>.
    • ISAIAH (ISAIAS) – additional notes:  Doederlein in 1775 and Eichhorn in 1782 were the first to suggest multiple authorship. – McKenzie p 400 a.
       Before asking how long the Churches have had to disclose the pre-Christian deceit and make an apology, ask yourself how long has Judaism!
    • JUDE'S EPISTLE. This quotes words from the Pseudepigrapha / Apocrypha, i.e., the Book of Enoch (14 and following), the Assumption of Moses, and the Testament of the 12 Patriarchs (6 f) – see McKenzie p 463 b.  These books have been rejected by all known branches of Christianity. This is one of the reasons the Epistle of Jude has been rejected and/or suspected from early times.
       "The content suggests second century authorship. The author says his readers 'must remember the predictions of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ.' [verse 17] confusion in the historical placement of the implied author Jude is simply a matter of sloppy literary production." – Mack pp 210-11.
       "With 2 Pt it was rejected by a number of eastern churches. It was accepted in the western church in the 4th century." – McKenzie p 464 a. (That's about 300 years too late to be a genuine part of the "deposit of faith"!)
    • MATTHEW'S gospel:  Some manuscripts do not have 16:2b-3 "In the evening you say it will be fair weather but you cannot read the signs of the times." (Matthew 16:2b-3). – Good News Bible p N.T. 23. See Verkuyl p 32 (italicised), Kingdom Interlinear Translation pp 103-04 (double bracketed), and New World Translation p 1236 (double bracketed). (Found by J.C.M. of Perth, W. Australia, 25 Oct 04.)
    • IF JESUS WAS GOD, why is it stated that he learned obedience?  And why was it someone else who could save him, not himself?  And, how could he (if God) be "made perfect"?
       "7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;
       "8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
       "9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;" – Hebrews 5: 7-9
    (Authorised Version 1611, English reformers') (Found in May 2005 by K.J.J.M.)
    • PROMISES of Jesus (around A.D. 24)
       "7  Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and you shall find; knock, and it shall be opened to you." (Matthew 7:7, and see Luke 11:9; Douay-Rheims 1582)
       "20 I assure you that if you have faith as big as a mustard seed, you can say to this hill, 'Go from here to there!' and it will go.  You could do anything!" (Matthew 17:20, Good News Bible 1976)
       " 21 Jesus answered, 'In truth I tell you, if you have faith and do not doubt at all, if you say to this mountain "Be pulled up and thrown in the sea," it will be done.  22 And if you have faith, everything you ask for in prayer, you will receive."  (Matthew 21:21-22, New Jerusalem Bible Pocket Edition 1985)
       "17  And these signs shall follow them that believe : In my name they shall cast out devils.  They shall speak with new tongues.  18 They shall take up serpents.  And, if they shall drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them.  They shall lay their hands upon the sick ; and they shall recover. (Mark 16:17-18, Douay-Rheims)
       " 10 For everyone who asks receives, everyone who searches finds; everyone who knocks will have the door opened." (Luke 11:10, and see Matthew 7:8, NJB Pocket)
       " 13 However, when the Spirit of truth comes he will reveal to you the things to come." (John 16:13, NJB Pocket) (Inserted May 6, 2005)
    • Prophecies Of A Quick Return by Jesus, and/or The End, made around A.D. 24

    and/or THE END, made around A.D. 24

       Matthew 16:28  Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. (Authorised Version = King James version, English reformers' translation, 1611)
       Luke 9:27  But I tell you of a truth : There are some standing here that shall not taste death till they see the kingdom of God. (Douay-Rheims version, Roman Catholic, N.T. 1582)
       Luke 21:27 and 32 –   27 And then they will see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. 32 Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away till all has taken place. (Revised Standard Version, inter-faith translators in the Tyndale-King James Bible tradition, 1971)
       John 1:49-51 –   49 Nathaniel answered, 'Rabbi, you are the Son of God, you are the king of Israel.' 50 Jesus replied, 51  'In all truth I tell you, you will see heaven open and the angels of God ascending and descending over the Son of man.' (New Jerusalem Bible Pocket Edition, Roman Catholic scholarly translation, 1990)
       John 5:25  Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.
       The Acts 17:30-31  30  And God, indeed, having winked at the times of this ignorance, now declareth unto men that all should everywhere do penance.
       31  Because he hath appointed a day wherein he will judge the world in equity, by the man whom he hath appointed ; giving faith to all, by raising him up from the dead.
       Hebrews 1:2 in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son (RSV, 1971)
       Hebrews 9:26 But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the age to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
       Hebrews 10:25  Do not absent yourself from your own assemblies, as some do, but encourage each other; the more so as you see the Day drawing near.
       Hebrews 10:37  For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry.
       James 5:8  Be you therefore also patient and strengthen your hearts ; for the coming of the Lord is at hand.
       1 Peter 1:20  He was destined before the foundation of the world but was made manifest at the end of the times for your sake.
       1 Peter 4:7  The end of all things is near.  You must be self-controlled and alert, to be able to pray.
    (Good News Bible, inter-faith translation, 1976)
       1 Peter 4:17  For the time has come for the judgement to begin at the household of God; (NJB Pocket, RC 1990)
       Revelation (Apocalypse) 1:1  THE Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass.
       Revelation (Apocalypse) 22:10, 12, and 20 –   10  And he saith to me : Seal not the words of the prophecy of this book ; for the time is at hand. 12  Behold, I come quickly 20  He that giveth testimony of these things saith : Surely, I come quickly.  Amen.  Come, Lord Jesus. (Found by KJJM and JCM)
       (Five translations, dating from 1582 to 1990, have been checked for this article, about half of the quotations being from reformed Western Church translations, and the rest being Roman Catholic.  The texts quoted are part of the reason why some authors, even those who are NOT sceptical of the Christian Churches' doctrinal claims, write that the early Christians fully expected the return of Jesus Christ at any moment.  For texts trying to soften this expectation, see Matthew 24:42, 25:13, Mark 13:35, Luke 21:36, Acts 20:31.  – Demi Griffin kaj filo, January 9, 2009)
       (To read about yet another item of a MODERN "The end is nigh" campaign, with fearsome forecasts of "The Rapture," "The Great Tribulation," and catastrophes of the "End Time," click: <http://­www.­johnm.multiline.com.au/­religio­n/relig­books.h­tm #her­e_he_co­mes> OR <http://­www.­multiline.com.au/~johnm/­religio­n/relig­books.h­tm #her­e_he_co­mes>.  Interestingly, some members of another world religion a few years ago imagined that they had to rise up to fight other religionists because the end was near.

    • Raised BY GOD from the dead, NOT rose by his own power.  The Greek original generally says Jesus "was raised" by God; (that is, in the passive voice) and in places says "God raised him" (active voice).  On the contrary, the major Churches and most smaller ones write and act as if Jesus, of his own power, raised himself from death, and then add that this proves that Jesus is more than human, in fact, God.
       However, careful Bible scholars have an opinion contradicting that; for example: 
    Many apologetic writers have presented the resurrection exclusively as the convincing demonstration of the claims of Jesus or of his divinity.  Whatever may be the merits of this approach, it is not the NT approach to the resurrection. []
       The redemption, especially in the Pauline writings, is the work of the Father; and it is the Father who raised Jesus from the dead.
      (And then follow 11 New Testament citations to show this) – John L. McKenzie, 1968, Dictionary of the Bible, Geoffrey Chapman, London, p 733 a.
       Nearly every New Testament author wrote as if only the Father, God, could raise creatures from the dead.  But many TRANSLATIONS and many Church teachings have gone down a different path.
       The Church Creeds (statements of belief) seem to say or imply that Jesus rose (by himself) from the dead.  Most Christians think that the Creeds they recite are very ancient.  If s/he recites the so-called Apostles' Creed, the average Christian might think it was composed by the apostles.  Wrong! (see Elizabeth A. Livingstone (ed), 1977, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Oxford and New York, Oxford University Press, p 29)
       The so-called Nicene Creed is said or sung in Greek, Latin, English, etc., and the pewfillers think it was created at the Council of Niceae of AD 325.  Wrong!  (It possibly dates from AD 381 or 451 – see Livingstone 1977, p 357)  It was recited in the East (Greek) at Eucharists from about the 5th century [i.e., the 400s], but it was not adopted at Rome until 1014 (Livingstone p 135) – nearly 700 years after its alleged composition! 
       Why are they named giving a wrong idea of their age and authors?
       The Nicene Creed, as recited in many Churches, in the English has "He rose", but the orginal language, Greek, of the New Testament said he "was raised."  Only God can raise someone from the dead – and the New Testament in most relevant quotes tells us just that – God raised Jesus.  Traditional Christians who have been brought up to believe that Jesus is God find it hard to get their heads around this.
       The reality is that in nearly every relevant verse the N.T. writers carefully AVOIDED saying that Jesus rose. 
       Although many translators skilfully changed meanings from "was raised" to "rose," here and there a true translation was made.  By COMPARING enough different translations, the truth is revealed.
       As some might suspect, mistranslating was part of the slow promotion – in the minds of many over-pious or doctrinaire people – of Jesus from a preacher not authorised by the Judaist religious leaders to, eventually, eternal God, and Creator of the Universe!
    Contradictions arise in the official line.
       See in 1 Corinthians 15:12, 15, how several translations contradict themselves inside of four verses, trying to push the theory that Jesus "rose" (i.e., he rose by his own power) in verse 12, but then in verse 15 that he was "raised up" by God.
       The Greek originals mainly got their story pretty clear, namely, that Father God raised Jesus.  The Greco-Roman Church later headed away from that, towards deifying Jesus, and the successor Churches have nearly all fallen for the same mistake.
       It is a sorry story of deceit in the mistranslations of the Christian Scriptures by nearly every Church.  They have told their followers to believe that Jesus rose from the dead himself, and that this proves he is God.   Hymns, paintings, stained-glass windows, sculpture, lesson-books, sermons, and orders of worship all say it – but in nearly every case the earliest responsible writings we know of do not say it.
    Jesus and disciples. Microsoft Clip Art
    Raised BY GOD from the dead, NOT rose by his own power
    The Greek-language Christian scriptures, in the main, say that Jesus WAS RAISED BY GOD, not "rose" by his own power.  Mainstream Churches, however, say that Jesus rose by his own power, and they argue, illogically, that this proves Jesus was God.  This paper will help to enlighten people who have recited the usual confession of faith or creed and sung the usual hymns, by seeing that this truth peeps through in translations from various traditions.  Some of the original Greek words will be shown with a few of the texts:-
       From then onwards Jesus began to make it clear to be put to death and to be raised up on the third day. (Bible, Matthew 16:21, New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) Pocket edition, RC, 1985), εγερθηναι = egerthēnai, = literally "to be raised up."  It had been incorrectly translated by the Roman Catholics who made the Rheims-Douay (or Douay) Version of the New Testament, dated 1582, as "rise again."  The reformers in England, who later made the Authorised Version (AV), also called the King James Bible, in 1611, correctly translated it as "and be raised again the third day."
       but three days later he will be raised to life. (Matthew 20:19, Good News Bible (GNB), a.k.a. Today's English Version (TEV), United Bible Societies, 1976.   εγερθησται = "he will be raised up."  Douay and AV: "he shall rise again."
       He isn't here!  God has raised him to life, just as Jesus said he would. 7 he has been raised to life and is on his way to Galilee. (Matthew 28:6-7, The Bible for Today (CEV), American Bible Society, 1995).   And see the Kingdom Interlinear Translation (KIT) © 1969.
       "For a fact the Lord was raised up and he appeared to Simon!" (Luke 24:34, KIT) ηγερθη
       This then was the third time Jesus appeared to the disciples after he was raised from death. (John 21:14, GNB 1976, and see KIT.  This is in a disputed section of St John's Gospel.   Greek: εγερθεις = "having been raised up").  Contrast with Douay, AV, and NJB Pocket.
       God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact. (The Acts of the Apostles, 2:32, New International Version (NIV), reformed and evangelical scholars, 1983 revision)
       And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses. (The Acts, 3:15, Authorised Version (AV), 1611)
       yet on the third day God raised him to life we have eaten and drunk with him after his resurrection from the dead (The Acts 10:40-41, NJB Pocket)
       he hath raised him from the dead. (The Acts 17:31, AV 1611)
       It will be reckoned to us who believe in him that raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, 25 who was put to death for our trespasses and raised for our justification. (Romans 4:24-25, Revised Standard Version (RSV) ©1971; noted in McKenzie p 733.)
       Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father 9 since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again (Romans 6:4 and 6:9, NIV 1983)
       In the same way you, my brothers, through the body of Christ have become dead to the Law and so you are able to belong to someone else, that is, to him who was raised from the dead to make us live fruitfully for God. (Rom 7:4, NJB Pocket 1985)
       And, if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you ; he that raised up Jesus Christ from the dead shall quicken also your mortal bodies, because of his Spirit that dwelleth in you. (Rom 8:11, Douay 1582; noted in McKenzie p 733.))
       So you will be saved, if you honestly say, "Jesus is Lord," and if you believe with all your heart that God raised him from death. (Rom 10:9, CEV, 1995; noted in McKenzie p 733.)
       Christ died and he lived in order that he might be lord of the dead and the living. (Rom 14:9, literal translation deduced from KIT.  "And lived again" is in the RSV, 1971.  However, "and came back to life" is in God's Word Translation, 1995 and 2003, and "returned to life" in TNIV 2001, 2005.)
       God will raise us from death by the same power that he used when he raised our Lord to life. (1 Corinthians 6:14 CEV, 1995; noted in McKenzie p 733.)
       that he was buried and that he was raised to life three days later, as written in the Scriptures." (1 Corinthians 15:4, Good News Bible (GNB) or (TEV) 1976.  Greek εγηγερται = egēgertai = "he has been raised up."  See it again in verses 16, 17.)
    ( Page 1 of http://www.johnm.multiline.com.au/religion/spurious.htm#raised )

    Raised BY GOD from the dead, NOT rose by his own power, page 2
       CONTRAST the true Bible translations of that verse (1 Corinthians 15:4) with this:  And the third day he rose again, according to the scriptures. – The Nicene Creed, from a Roman Catholic mass-book, The Missal in Latin and English; Being the text of the Missale Romanum with English rubrics and a new translation, 1949, Burns Oates and Washbourne, London, page 717.  In Latin, Et resurrexit tertia die, secundum Scripturas. - page 716.  And see pp 697, 696.  (Thanks TB for knowing the scripture text.)
       PLEASE NOTE: The Nicene Creed was not composed at the Council of Nicaea in AD 325 (see Elizabeth A. Livingstone (ed), 1977, p 357).  And the apostles did not compose the Apostles' Creed! (same book, p 29).

       Christ has been raised from the dead 15 God raised Christ from the dead (1 Cor 15:12, 15; and read verses 16, 17, 20, New International Version (NIV) 1983, and see NJB Pocket, 1985.)
       he who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus and bring us with you into his presence. (2 Cor 4:14, RSV, 1971; noted in McKenzie p 733.)
       Although he was weak when he was nailed to the cross, he now lives by the power of God. (2 Cor 13:4, CEV, 1995; noted in McKenzie p 733.)
       Paul appointed by Jesus Christ, and God the Father who raised him from the dead (Galatians 1:1, R.C. Knox version, 1957; noted in McKenzie p 733.)
       he raised him up from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places. (Ephesians 1:20, New World Translation of the Holy Scripture (NWT), 1984; see McKenzie p 733.)
       Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, (Philippians 2:9, NIV 1983; noted in McKenzie p 733.)
       God, who hath raised him from the dead.  (Colossians 2:12, AV 1611)
       And to wait for his Son from heaven (whom he raised up from the dead), Jesus, who hath delivered us from the wrath to come. (1 Thessalonians 1:10, RC Douay 1582; noted in McKenzie p 733.)
       For if we are believing that Jesus died and he stood up (1 Thessalonians 4:14, see KIT 1969).
       Remember that Jesus Christ was raised up from the dead (A disputed Epistle, 2 Timothy 2:8, NWT 1984, and see NIV)
       Through him you now have faith in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory (Another disputed Epistle, 1 Peter 1:21, NJB Pocket; discovered by KJJM 26 Jun 2005; noted in McKenzie p 733.)
       For Christ also died for our sins In the body he was put to death; in the spirit he was brought to life.  (1 Peter 3:18, The New English Bible (NEB), revised, © 1961, 1970.)
       EPILOGUE, based on Burton Mack (Feb 2, 2006):  The Religion Clarity Campaign director in February 2004 bought Who wrote the New Testament? 1995, by Burton L. Mack (and watched some of the television series) that had as its theme that the early groups of Jesus-believers had various beliefs about whether he was an inspiring uplifting man, a Teacher or Rabbi, a Prophet, and/or that he was a Messiah or Christ, or a Kyrie or Lord, or that he had been promoted by God and worked miracles.  Others said Jesus was a pre-existing spirit being who became man, and/or was or became the Son of God, while others then or later claimed that he had been part of the original godhead ("If you have seen me, you have seen the Father") being Son of God, and Creator too.
       This paper, once the blinkers were removed, required research, but enlightenment followed.  The two main conclusions are:  (1) The N.T. AUTHORS in nearly every case carefully AVOIDED saying that Jesus rose of himself, and instead gave God all the credit.  (2) However, the mainstream Churches' TRANSLATIONS have bent over backwards in many places to foster the "Jesus rose from the dead and therefore is God" theory (that is, Christolatry), which also supports the cognate pressure in some major Churches to promote Mary from mother of Jesus, to mother of God (that is, Maryolatry). 
  • Elizabeth A. LIVINGSTONE (ed), 1977, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York.
  • Burton L. MACK, 1995, Who wrote the New Testament?  HarperSanFrancisco, New York. 225.6.
  • John L. McKENZIE, 1968, Dictionary of the Bible, Geoffrey Chapman, London. 220.3.
  • Ralph O. MUNCASTER, © 2002, Are there contradictions in the Bible? Harvest House Publishers, Eugene (Oregon, USA). 220.1.
  • Raised BY GOD from the dead, NOT rose by his own power © 2005-10, composed by: Religion Clarity Campaign, June 28, 2005; revised and enlarged Feb 02, 06; enlarged again June 06, 06; re-revised 09-10 Jan 09; an addition and other changes 09-11 May 09; more texts added to epilogues, 1 and 19 Nov 2010

       2nd EPILOGUE, based on John McKenzie (passage found on June 6, 2006):  Further confirmation of this paper's main thrust (God, not Jesus, caused Jesus to be resurrected) is provided by the Jesuit John L. McKenzie, Dictionary of the Bible, 1968, at page 733 a and b, in the article "Resurrection": 
    "The redemption, especially in the Pauline writings, is the work of the Father; and it is the Father who raised Jesus from the dead (Rm 4:24; 8:11; 10:9; 1 Co 6:14; 2 Co 4:14; 13:4; Gal 1:1; Eph 1:20; Phl 2:9; 1 Th 1:10; 1 Pt 1:21). The resurrection of Jesus places Him in a new life, and this new life comes from the Father who is the source of all life. [] Christ was raised from the dead in order that we might bear fruit to God (Rm 7:4)."
       (Because five of these texts were not in the above pamphlet, they were added on Jan 10, 2009.  One, Phl 2:9, was deemed to be marginal and so was omitted at that time.  It has been included now on 10 May 09.
       3rd EPILOGUE:
       Jesus commanded them saying: "Tell the vision to no one until the Son of man is raised up from the dead." – Matthew 17:9, Kingdom Interlinear Translation (KIT), New World Bible Translation Committee, 1969), εγερθη = egerthe = "should be raised up."  But the RC Douay has "be risen," and the reformers' KJV has "be risen again," as if he was going to rise through his own power, and not BE RAISED by some other power, the Father's.  NJB Pocket "has risen"; NIV "has been raised"; God's Word Translation 1995, 2003 "brought back to life".
       and the third day he will be raised up. Matthew 17:23, KIT, 1969), εγερθησεται = egerthesetai = he will be raised up. KJV has it right, "he shall be raised again."  NJB Pocket "will be raised up"; NIV "he will be raised to life."  The RC Douay has the verse as 17:22, and another wrong translation "he shall rise again."
       (The third epilogue, two texts, were checked and put on this webpage on Nov 1, 2010)
       4th EPILOGUE:
       30  And God, indeed, having winked at the times of this ignorance, now declareth unto men that all should everywhere do penance.
       31  Because he hath appointed a day wherein he will judge the world in equity, by the man whom he hath appointed ; giving faith to all, by raising him up from the dead. – The Acts 17:30-31, Douay-Rheims version, Roman Catholic, 1582.
       the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, and those who are dead in Christ will stand up first. – 1 Thessalonians 4:16, adapted from KIT.
       He appeared in a body, was believed on in this world, was taken up in glory. – A disputed Epistle, 1 Timothy 3:16, NIV.
       (The fourth epilogue, three texts, was checked and put on this webpage on Nov 19, 2010)
    • [Major Church taught that the Resurrection was by Jesus, and that His action proved he was God.]
       Catholic Family Catechism, by Father B. James H. Tierney, B.Sc., Dip. Ed., M.A.C.E., Priest Director, Cardinal Newman Catechist Centre (Parramatta, NSW, Australia), pp 63-64, 1981
       SYDNEY (NSW) Australia: According to an official Roman Catholic catechism book of 1981, children were to be taught that Jesus Christ really rose from the dead, and that proved that his claim to be God is true.  Both of these propositions have been challenged over the centuries.
    *120. Did Jesus Christ really rise from the dead?
    Jesus Christ really rose from the dead:  the stone was rolled back and the tomb was empty; the Apostles and holy women saw him, spoke with him, touched him and ate with him.
    Page 63

    *121 When did Jesus Christ rise from the dead?
    Jesus Christ rose from the dead on the third day, Easter Sunday.
    *122 What does the miracle of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ prove?
    The miracle of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ proves that his claim to be God is true.
    Page 64
    Catholic Family Catechism, Pocket Edition, 1981, B.J.H.Tierney, Cardinal Newman Catechist Centre, Parramatta, pp 63-64.
       Nihil Obstat: John Thornhill, S.M., Censor deputatis; Imprimatur: + Patrick Murphy, D.D., Vicarius generalis, Archbishop of Sydney. Sydney, 2nd February, 1981.
       The Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur are a declaration that a book or pamphlet is considered to be free from doctrinal or moral error.  It is not necessarily implied that those who have granted them agree with the contents, opinions or statements expressed.
       COMMENT: See previous entry for demonstrations that Jesus did not rise of his own motion, but was raised from death, by God. END. [Feb 2, 1981]

       Readers will realise that there is a difference between Jesus saying he will be three days and three nights dead, before God raises him again, and Jesus saying he will be raised by God on the third day.  It is an important difference.
       And the major Churches seem to have got it wrong, again.  They nearly all go along with the idea that the Death and Resurrection of Jesus ought to be celebrated from Friday to Sunday.  You know, died on Good Friday, "rose again" in the early hours of Easter Sunday.
       But, do the Christian Greek Scriptures say this?  Matthew 12:40: For just as Jonah was in the belly of the huge fish three days and three nights, so the Son of man will be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights. (KIT )  (The RC Douay says it was a whale, a minority opinion that took hold of the public fancy.)
       The main point is that Jesus prophesied that he would be three days and three nights in the earth.  Yet, as other scripture quotes (given above) show, he also prophesied that he would be raised on the third day.  For both these prophecies to be correct, he would have had to be executed on Wednesday, being dead all Thursday, all Friday, and all Saturday, and the nights of Wednesday-Thursday, Thursday-Friday, and Friday-Saturday.  The New Testament is pretty clear that when people came on the "first day of the week," that is, Sunday, it is written that Jesus was not in the tomb.
       So, why do most Churches go along with the Friday to Sunday idea?  Could this be another pagan idea adopted in order to win converts?
       ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The idea to look into this came from a book by John T. Klassek, 2010, Hope of the Resurrection, ISBN 978-0-646-53966-9, MessageWeek Ministries, www.­message7.org , www.­messageweek.com , PO Box 777, Northam, WA, 6401, Australia. Pages 35-38.  Office tel. 08 9822 2771 
       In this book he proposes the theory that Jesus was executed on Wednesday.  He writes: " once you understand that the annual Passover week featured two annual Sabbaths interspersed by a weekly Sabbath, then the events of that time make remarkable sense."
       (Composed and to this webpage Nov 1, 2010.)
    • Was 'The Cross' Two Crossed Timbers, Or Just A Plain Pole?
       The two-beamed cross of Church symbolism and art might have originated as a T-shape from the letter Tau, according to W.E.Vine.  The use of Tau had its origin in ancient Chaldea, as the symbol of the god Tammuz.  By the 3rd century of the Christian era, the ecclesiastics assisted the work of receiving pagans into their ranks by allowing them to keep their pagan signs and symbols.  The T-shape was adapted by lowering the cross-piece.  But the words of the Gospels are that Jesus was executed on a pole or stake.
       (Reproduced below is part of a page from a book explaining this.  This book combines in one volume Vine's An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, 1952, and Unger and White's Nelson's Expository Dictionary of the Old Testament, circa 1980.)

    * * *

    A. Noun.
       STAUROS ( σταυρός ) denotes, primarily, an upright pale or stake.  On such malefactors were nailed for execution.  Both the noun and the verb stauroō, to fasten to a stake or pale, are originally to be distinguished from the ecclesiastical form of a two beamed cross.  The shape of the latter had its origin in ancient Chaldea, and was used as the symbol of the god Tammuz (being in the shape of the mystic Tau, the initial of his name) in that country and in adjacent lands, including Egypt.  By the middle of the 3rd cent. A.D. the churches had either departed from, or had travestied, certain doctrines of the Christian faith.  In order to increase the prestige of the apostate ecclesiastical system pagans were received in the churches apart from regeneration by faith, and were permitted largely to retain their pagan signs and symbols.  Hence the Tau or Τ, in its most frequent form, with the cross-piece lowered, was adopted to stand for the cross of Christ.
       As for the Chi, or Χ, which Constantine declared he had seen in a vision leading him to champion the Christian faith, that letter was the initial of the word "Christ" and had nothing to do with "the Cross"
       – An Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, ©1984, (OT orig. ? 1980, NT orig 1939), W.E.Vine (M.A.), Merrill F. Unger (Th.M., Th.D., Ph.D.), and William White, Jr. (Th.M., Ph.D.), Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville / Camden / New York; ISBN 0-8407-5357-8; Dewey reference 220.440321; page 248. (discovered by JCM July 2005)
       The Greek letter Chi = Χ (like latin X) is the initial letter of Χριστός (Christos) = Christ (see page 182 of the same book) [1939]
    • Was crux two beams at right angles, or a post?
    Was crux two beams at right angles, or a post?
    Crux Simplex, as in Justus Lipsius book; Kingdom Interlinear Translation;  50.6kb What about the Latin word crux, which Church leaders translate "cross"?  In serious Latin dictionaries crux means a "tree, frame, or other wooden instrument of execution" on which criminals were impaled or hanged.
       Crux in the writings of Livy, a Roman historian of the first century before Christ, meant a stake, pale, post, or pole.  Such a single stake was called a crux simplex (presumably to distinguish it from a frame, for example).
       Such an instrument of torture is illustrated by the 16th century Roman Catholic scholar, Justus Lipsius.  The illustration herewith is from his book De Cruce Liber Primus, page 647, column 2. – Adapted from The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, 1969, by the New World Bible Translation Committee; International Bible Students Association, Brooklyn, pages 1155-57.
       If Christians are amazed that the translations of the Latin word crux have probably been changed, why not study the original language, Greek?  In addition to the Vine, Unger and White book quoted elsewhere on this page, check the Greek words defined in the New Strong's Concordance (page Greek 83) for the instrument on which Jesus was killed.
       4716. σταυρός staurŏs. stŏw-ros'; a stake or post (as set upright), i.e. (spec.) a pole or cross (as an instrument of capital punishment); fig. exposure to death cross.
    The New Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, ©1996 (orig. over 100 years before), by James Strong, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, ISBN 07852-5055-7, Dewey 220.2033.
       Not bad, eh!  The word staurŏs is thought to have come from a basic root meaning "to stand", it means a post or pole, one of the verbs formed from it means to surround with a paling fence, and it ends up being put in bibles as "cross" and depicted in this shape, .  Thereafter we have bibles, sculptures, paintings, church layouts, schools, gravestones, crosses, crucifixes, religious books, holy pictures, Stations of the Cross, hymns, plays, and films illustrating Jesus on TWO pieces of timber, crossed.  It has even affected our languages, with such words as "crossroads."
       XULON or XYLON:  There is a second Greek word to examine.  It is explained in An Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, ©1984, (OT orig. ? 1980, NT orig 1939), By W.E.Vine (M.A.), Merrill F. Unger (Th.M., Th.D., Ph.D.), and William White, Jr. (Th.M., Ph.D.), Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville / Camden / New York, (p 1165), like this:
       2. XULON (ξύλον), wood, a piece of wood, anything made of wood (see STAFF, STOCKS), is used, with the rendering "tree," (a) (b) of the Cross, the tree being the stauros, the upright pale or stake to which Romans nailed those who were thus to be executed, Acts 5:30 ; 10:30 ; 13:29 ; Gal. 3:13 ; 1 Pet. 2:24 ; (c)
       What about Constantine and his vision before a successful battle, seeing a symbol and the words "By this sign thou shalt conquer" in the sky?  In contradiction to what many publications say, read this:
    Says that monthly publication for the Roman Catholic clergy, The Ecclesiastical Review, of September, 1920, No. 3, of Baltimore, Maryland, page 275:  "It may be safely asserted that only after the edict of Milan, A.D. 312, was the cross used as the permanent sign of our Redemption.  De Rossi positively states that no monogram of Christ, discovered in the catacombs or other places, can be traced to a period anterior to the year 312.  Even after that epoch-making year, the church, then free and triumphant, contented herself with having a simple monogram of Christ: the Greek letter chi vertically crossed by a rho, and horizontally sometimes, by an iota.  The oldest crucifix mentioned as an object of public worship is the one venerated in the Church of Narbone in southern France, as early as the 6th century."
    The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, p 1155.
       NOTES: Greek letters: Chi = Χ, Rho = Ρ, Iota = Ι.  These are the first three letters in the Greek word ΧΡΙΣΤΌΣ (Christos) which in English is "Christ." NOTES END.
    http://www.johnm.multiline.com.au/religion/spurious.htm#crux , Page 1
       Yes, the Constantine symbol was NOT a cross.  It was, instead, a Greek letter Chi (Χ), if the medals struck at the time are genuine, and if the first report we know of is true.  Lactantius, the tutor of Constantine's son Crispus, wrote:
    Commonitus est in quiete Constantinus, ut cœleste signum Dei notaret in scutis, atque ita prœlium committeret.  Fecit ut jussus est et transversâ Χ literâ summo capite circumflexo, Christum scutis notat.  Quo signo armatus exercitus capit ferrum. – Lactantius, De mortibus Persecutorum, 44, pp. 565, 566. (as quoted, footnote in page 202, in (Rev.) Alexander Hislop, 1858, The Two Babylons, A & B Publishers Group, Brooklyn, ISBN 1-881316-36-x)
       Hislop's translation gives us the puzzling phrase "the transverse letter Χ circumflecting the head of it."  (Yes, and a possible translation for "ferrum" is "sword.")
       Hislop also quotes Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, describing the battle-standards of Constantine as:  "Labarum, hoc est Christi sacratum nomine signum," which he translates:  "The Labarum, that is, the ensign consecrated by the NAME of Christ." (p. 203)  It is said to be in a letter by Ambrose to the Emperor Theodosius.  But keep reading.
       In the Roman catacombs, on a Christian monument to Simphonia and her sons, there is a distinct allusion to Constantine's alleged vision.  And, at the head of the inscription is:
    – Hislop, p 203.
       Eusebius, who wrote when superstition and apostacy were bubbling up, tried to make out that the staff and crossbar used by Constantine for battle standards were representations of Christ's gibbet, but that argument won't convince – the vexillum in previous pagan times had the same crossbar, to carry a banner which could flap. (Hislop pp 203-4)
       In other books it is stated that an even earlier symbol of Christianity was a fish, possibly because of some letters in the Greek word for fish being made up of letters that could be used as initials of a Christian phrase, or because Jesus told some fishermen Apostles that they would become "fishers of men".
       Anyway, there is another possible explanation as to how the letter Χ (chi) could be gradually turned about 45 degrees and its new down leg lengthened.  If some of these writings are correct, perhaps for some time the first two or three letters of the Greek word for Christ (Χ Ρ Ι Σ Τ Ό Σ, Christos) were used by some highly-placed people in the Roman Empire as a symbol of the Christian religion.
       Try writing the first two letters, one over the other.  This gives a reasonably pleasant monogram.  To put an iota (= Ι) sideways over the other two letters (ΧΡ) would seem strange, but stranger things happen in this world.
       Perhaps later some artistic person might have thought it was cluttered, and wanted to simplify it.  Perhaps they cut it down to an X and a sideways I (ending up with something like the Union Jack basic pattern on, perhaps, a square or round background).  And, it is possible that, because Constantine made the day of the Sun a public holiday, some around him might have seen the simplified symbol as representing the sun with its rays coming out.  (The two-letter monogram ΧΡ was the symbol and badge of a Roman Catholic society for men, the Holy Name Society, for years and years until it was shut down by the Church after the Second Vatican Council of the 1960s.)
       Or did the two-piece cross arise from a successful move to make it easier for the followers of the god Tammuz, whose symbol was said to be the Tau (T shape) to join, or was it adopted from the Egyptian religious symbol of immortality, the Ankh (an oval with a crossbar below it and a down-piece below that – something like a loop with a "T" below it)? (see also Hislop, p 201)
       Or was it a combination of all these various influences that helped change the symbol from a fish, to the XP or XPI monogram, to † ? – JCM, July 14, 2005; Hislop's material added April 1, 2006.
    http://www.johnm.multiline.com.au/religion/spurious.htm#crux , Page 2

    • There was no confusion between the Sabbath and the first day of the week for three centuries
       For the first three centuries of the Christian era the first day of the week was never confused with the sabbath ; the confusion of the Jewish and Christian institutions was due to declension from apostolic teaching.
       (Reproduced below are extracts from a book explaining this.  This book combines in one volume Vine's An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, 1952, and Unger and White's Nelson's Expository Dictionary of the Old Testament, c. 1980.)

    * * *

       1. SABBATON (σαββατον) or SABBATA : the latter, the plural form, was transliterated from the Aramaic word, The O.T. regulations were developed and systematized to such an extent that they became a burden upon the people (who otherwise rejoiced in the rest provided) Two treatises of the Mishna (the Shabbāth and ‘Ērūbin) are entirely occupied with regulations for the observance ;

    * * *

       The Lord's attitude towards the sabbath was by way of freeing it from these vexatious traditional accretions by which it was made an end in itself, instead of a means to an end (Mark 2 : 27).
       For the first three centuries of the Christian era the first day of the week was never confounded with the sabbath ; the confusion of the Jewish and Christian institutions was due to declension from apostolic teaching.

    * * *

       – An Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, ©1984, By W.E.Vine (M.A.), Merrill F. Unger (Th.M., Th.D., Ph.D.), and William White, Jr. (Th.M., Ph.D.), Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville / Camden / New York; ISBN 0-8407-5357-8; Dewey reference 220.440321; pages 983-84. (discovered by JCM July 2005, inserted July 11, 2005)
       By "The Lord's attitude" the author means Jesus's attitude.
       "Declension" in one of its meanings is "3. a bending, sloping, or moving downward: " (Urdang, L. (ed.), Random House Dictionary of the English Language, College Edition, 1968, Random House: New York, p 345). END. [1984]

    • [Did the God of the Hebrews condone cutting off the thumbs and big toes of a prisoner of war?]

       After the death of Joshua the Israelites asked the LORD. "Who will be the first to go up and fight for us against the Canaanites?"
       2 The LORD answered.  "Judah is to go; I have given the land into their hands." []
       4 When Judah attacked, the LORD gave the Canaanites and Perizzites into their hands []
       6 Adoni-Bezek fled, but they chased him and caught him, and cut off his thumbs and big toes. – (Bible, Book of Judges, chapter 1, verses 1-2, 4, and 6; New International Version, 1983 revision.)
       [COMMENT: Is this cruelty to a captured king really what the divine being would condone?  (Found by KJJM on May 25, 2006) COMMENT ENDS.]
       [CAREFULLY CONSIDER:  The Judahites had taken the Benjaminites to help them on this raid.  It is quite amazing that the end of verse 7 claims that these invaders took king Adoni-Bezek to Jerusalem, and he died there.  Verse 8 says the men of Judah attacked Jerusalem also and took it, put the city to the sword and set it on fire.
       However, verse 21 says that the Benjaminites failed to dislodge the Jebusites, who were living in Jerusalem.  The verse continues: "To this day the Jebusites live there with the Benjaminites."  Can you work out what happened?
       (Go over it again in your mind – This chapter tries to claim that the raiders took the mutilated king Adoni-Bezek to Jerusalem, which they captured – but they had not dislodged its occupiers!  Also, besides this contradiction, verse 8 and verse 21 seem like direct contradictions.)
       In addition, many scholars suggest that the Israelites-Judahites did not capture and occupy Jerusalem until a few years into the reign of King David, many decades later.  Genuine scholars will use a concordance and find that David reigned in Hebron so many years, and that he reigned in Jerusalem so many years.  It's all in the Book! (See 2 Samuel 4:5-8. For a report of cutting off hands and feet, no connection with savagery of the thumbs and big toes, see 2 Samuel 12.)
       Anyone wishing to be even more surprised ought to start reading again at chapter 2, verse 6 onwards, which begins: "After Joshua had dismissed the Israelites, they went to take possession of the land, "  But, 1:1 starts off "After the death of Joshua " and so on reporting quite a few campaigns.  So, 1:1 is AFTER he has died, in 2:6 he is alive, and in 2:8 he dies!  Was this a second death?  (A copy of the text is also on Religion / Difficult). ENDS.]
    [~ May 25, 06]

    • List of Doubtful and Non-Authentic parts of the Bible. 


       Religion Clarity Campaign, January 20, 2008
       As part of "THE HOLEY BIBLE" 2004 paper attempted to show, the Bible seems to have quite a few books or parts of books that are not genuinely from the period they are set in, or were not written by their supposed authors.  This list is to provide a quick reference to such texts, and to some reference books that consider them spurious or doubtful, etc.  (The Old Testament might be checked later.) The bible books are shown in ALPHABETICAL order below.

       Colossians: (Mack page 183.)
       Ephesians: (Authorship disputed: New Jerusalem Bible Pocket edition, p 1308.  Mack p 183.  See Livingstone p 174 a.)
       Hebrews (Internal evidence marks it as not by St Paul: Livingstone p 233 a.  Authorship is unknown: NJB Pocket p 1382 b.)
       James: (Mack p 203)
       John's Gospel, 7:53-8:11 (Forgery: The adulterous woman: McKenzie p 447 a.  Also Good News Bible page N.T. 128-9.)
       John's Gospel, chapter 21: (A conclusion following the conclusion: McKenzie, p 447 a.  Carefully read NJB Pocket p 1271, and footnote "a" of p 1272.)
       1 John, Epistle 5:7: (Forgery, Three that bear record in heaven, Father, Word, and Holy Ghost: Metzger pp 101-3.  Rejected from NJB Pocket p 1411 b.)
       Jude: (Quotes from suspect books: McKenzie p 463 b.  Verse 17 shows historical misplacement: Mack pp 210-11.  Not accepted in the West until the 4th century: McKenzie p 464 a.)
       Mark's Gospel, 16:9-20: (Generally regarded as not written by Mark, and missing from nearly all of the oldest reliable manuscripts.  "Mary Magdalene is introduced as a stranger in verse 9, despite her appearance in verse 1": The New Bible Commentary 1959, p 839.  The verses "are a summary of material gathered from other NT writings": NJB Pocket.  Also GNB, and New International Version.
       1 Peter (see McKenzie p 664 a.)
       2 Peter (Livingstone p 394 b.  The author of 1 Peter is probably not the author of 2 Peter: McKenzie p 667 b.  It "was written at least a hundred years after his death": Brownrigg, p 207 b)
       Romans, Epistle, chapter 16: it is suggested that ch. 15 and 16 are later insertions. (p 1857).  This chapter may not have formed part of the original epistle. (Footnote 16 a, p 1889, The New Jerusalem Bible Pocket Edition, 1990, Roman Catholic scholarly translation, Published by Doubleday, New York; Henry Wansbrough, general editor, Ampleforth Abbey, York, England; © 1985 Darton, Longman & Todd, Ltd. and Doubleday. ISBN 0-385-14264-1)
       2 Thessalonians: (Not written by Paul: Mack p 112.  See McKenzie p 885 b.)
       1 Timothy: (Mack pp 206-07.  McKenzie pp 645-46.  NJB Pocket p 1372.)
       2 Timothy: (Ditto)
       Titus: (Ditto)

    [Gathered January 20, 2008; To WWW July 17, 08; Enlarged 26 Oct 2010]

    • Abraham bought Hebron, not Shechem, tombsite.

    Abraham bought Hebron, not Shechem, tombsite

       John C. Massam of Perth, Click here, March 17, 2008
       Did St Stephen (the first martyr) err, or did the writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures make an error when recording the speech of Stephen, in retelling some Hebrew Scripture stories ?  Yes, they did.  Get out a Bible and read The Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 7, verses 15 to 18.  Check the following commentary, which puts Bible words in italics:
    And were carried over into Sychem (16); i.e. Shechem.  Jacob was buried in the cave of Machpelah at Hebron (Gn. xlix. 29ff); Joseph was buried at Shechem (Jos xxiv. 32).  In the sepulchre that Abraham bought for a sum of money of the sons of Emmor the father of Sychem (16).  Abraham bought the cave of Machpelah at Hebron from the Hittites (Gn. xxiii. 16); Jacob bought the land at Shechem which he gave to Joseph (and where Joseph was buried) from the sons of Hamor (Jos. xxiv. 32).  Not only separate quotations (see verse 7n.) but separate incidents are conflated in Luke's summary of Stephen's speech. – Bruce, F.F., article author in: F. Davidson, A.M.Stibbs, and E.F.Kevan, editors; The New Bible Commentary, 1959 (orig. 1953), The Inter-Varsity Fellowship, London, p 908.
       "Conflated" is a high-flown term here for "mistakenly mixed two sets of facts."  The Acts says, wrongly, that Abraham bought a tombsite at Sychem / Shechem.
       Confused?  Get a piece of paper, and write down the important words and places in Acts 7:15-18:  "Jacob, Egypt, bodies, buried, Shechem tomb, Abraham had bought, sons of Hamor, Shechem."
       Then contrast with the following – Genesis 23:16-19:  "Abraham, Ephron, Hittites, 400 shekels, Machpelah, Mamre, wife Sarah, Mamre now Hebron." (i.e., Abraham bought Hebron)
       Genesis 49:1 and 29 and following:  "Jacob, bury, Ephron the Hittite, Machpelah facing Mamre, Abraham bought from Ephron the Hittite." (i.e., Abraham bought Hebron)
       Joshua 24:32:  "Bones of Joseph, Shechem, Jacob had bought, son of Hamor father of Shechem."  (i.e. Jacob bought Shechem)
       Conclusion: The Acts book is wrong in saying that Abraham bought Shechem.  One would have thought that those who wrote down the stories of the supposed continuation of God's dealings with humanity could have spent more time checking back to the Hebrew scriptures to get their quotations right.  This is not the only such mistake in the New Testament.

    [Composed May 18, '08; first discovered March 17, 2008]

    • Did God tell a lie?  Forbidden fruit story.

    Did God tell a lie?  Forbidden fruit story.

       "Intelligent Citizen," April 9, 2008
      PERTH, W. Australia – After explaining this Bible Old Testament point about Adam and Eve, "Intelligent Citizen" asked "Did God tell a lie?" 
       Read the Hebrew Torah, Genesis 2:16-17:
    16 But the Lord told him, "You may eat fruit from any tree in the garden, 17 except the one that has the power to let you know the difference between right and wrong.  If you eat any fruit from that tree, you will die before the day is over!" – The Bible for Today, Contemporary English Version (CEV), © American Bible Society 1991, re-published 1998, The Bible Society in Australia, Ingleburn, NSW, Australia; page 3.
       Genesis 3:2-4:
       2 The woman answered, "God said we could eat fruit from any tree in the garden, 3 except the one in the middle.  He told us not to eat fruit from that tree or even to touch it.  If we do, we'll die."
       4 "No you won't," the snake replied. CEV
       Those who know the tale remember that, far from dying that day, God assigned alternative punishments to the human pair and to the serpent, the pair were driven out of the garden, Adam "knew his wife Eve," and they had children whose names like Cain, Abel, and Seth come readily to mind.  In fact, he supposedly lived 930 years (Genesis 5:5) – a far cry from dying the same day:  "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" (Genesis 2:17, Authorised Version, i.e., King James Bible, Crown Copyright 1611).
       Want modern English?   Read: " for in the day that you eat of it you shall die." (Revised Standard Version, © 1952) 
       Not an Anglican, Orthodox, nor Reformed churchgoer?  Try Catholic readings: " For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death." (Douay-Rheims, O.T. 1609).  Or this: " for, the day you eat of that, you are doomed to die." (New Jerusalem Bible Pocket Edition, RC, © 1985)
       Original language: If you like, check the Hebrew original at < www.mechon- mamre.org/ p/pt/pt 0102.htm#17 >.  Or read a Judaist translation into English by visiting < www.torah productions. com/laam/ main.jsp >:-
    2:17   "but as for the Tree of Knowledge of good and bad, you must not eat of it; for as soon as you eat of it, you shall die."
       Or, try it in the Septuagint Greek at < http:// septuagint. org/LXX/ Genesis/ Genesis2. html >.
       International language: Check it in several other languages, or in an international auxiliary language, Esperanto, < http://­www.jesus.org.uk/­cgi-bin/bible/bible.cgi?­BIBLE=­Esperanto­&BOOK=1&­SEARCH=++&CASE=ON& ­HILITE=ON&FIRST=OK&­R1=I&­CHAP=2&SUBMIT=Read#15 >:-
       16  Kaj Dio la Eternulo ordonis al la homo, dirante:  De ĉiu arbo de la ĝardeno vi manĝu;
       17  sed de la arbo de sciado pri bono kaj malbono vi ne manĝu, ĉar en la tago, en kiu vi manĝos de ĝi, vi mortos. (Louis L. Zamenhof translation, 1927)
       Unorthodox? Or, don't fully trust the major Churches?  Try this translation:
       17 for in the day you eat from it you will positively die. (New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, 1984, New York)

       "Intelligent Citizen," a fortnight after first asking if God had lied, wondered aloud if the snake was the only one telling the truth !

    [Apr 09, 2008]

    • Paul's companions heard the voice, or did not hear the voice, during his conversion on the road to Damascus. 

    Paul's companions heard the voice, or did not hear the voice,
    during his conversion on the road to Damascus

       Bible, Acts of the Apostles, 9:3-4.  Now as he was travelling he approached Damascus, when suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him, and he fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him: "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?"
       7.  Now the men that were journeying with him were standing speechless, hearing, indeed, the sound of a voice, but not beholding any man.
       OR, 22:9.  Now the men that were with me beheld, indeed, the light but did not hear the voice of the one speaking to me. - The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures (Bible) (KIT), (literalists' translation) © 1969.
       The contradiction in the two accounts of the conversion of St Paul is shown in the Douay (RCC, 1609) and the King James (AV, 1611) translations.
       MEANING REVEALED LATE IN 20TH CENTURY: An explanation of this seeming contradiction is given on pages 133-5 in the Rev. Reuben Archer Torrey's Difficulties in the Bible, 2003 update, publisher Whittaker House, New Kensington PA (USA).  ISBN 0-88368-869-7 (pbk); Dewey shelf number 220.6.  © 1996, 2003 Whitaker House <http://­whitakerhouse.com>.  Torrey lived 1856-1928.
       Torrey says that a change from the accusative case to the genitive case of a Greek word means that the companions did not understand the message the voice was imparting.  There was one letter different in the word. (page 134)
       And, in the God's Word ® 2003 translation in 22:9 the words "but didn't understand" are there instead of "hear" - Holy Bible, 2003, God's Word to the Nations, publisher © 2003 Green Key Books, Holiday (Florida, USA).
       It is similar, "did not understand," in the NIV ® 1983 revision, International Bible Society, Colorado Springs (CO, USA), and in Today's New International Version (TNIV) ®, © 2001, 2004, which is a revision of the NIV.  And look up the word "heard" (Greek 191) in the New Strong's Concordance ™, which has one of the meanings as "understand."
       However, the traditional translation like "did not hear the voice" is in the NJB (RCC) © 1985.  And similar is in the New King James Version <http://­www.biblegateway.com/­passage/?search=Acts%­2022:9&version=NKJV> © 1982, and the RSV (Church of England tradition) © 1971. 
       In the Esperanto New Testament © 1927 the translation is "Sed ne aŭdis la voĉon"  <http://­jesus-army.com/­cgi-bin/­bible/­bible.cgi­?BIBLE=­Esperanto­&BOOK­=44&SEARCH=­vidis+ja+la­+lumon­%2C&CASE=­ON&HI­LITE=­ON&­FIRST=OK­&R1=I>.  The Greek words in the KIT © 1969 (literalists) translation are "την δε φωνην ουκ ηκουσαν".  - Demi Griffin.

    [inserted 31 Jul 2011]

       How early were the various names for God adopted by the ancient Israelites and Judahites?  In the Old Testament, Elohiym (designated 430 in Strong's Concordance, pronounced "el-o-heem"), translated "God," was used from Genesis 1:1, and appears in bible books right through to Malachi.
       At Genesis 4:26, in the New Jerusalem Bible we read: "A son was also born to Seth, and he named him Enosh [Enos, in some circles].  This man was the first to invoke the name Yahweh." (which is one modern way of representing "Yehovah", which in Strong's Concordance is Hebrew number 3068.)  (The last sentence is translated as the Greek Septuagint translation has it, but in most other translations it is different, following the Hebrew.)  Enosh (not Enoch) was a very early human, a grandson of Adam and Eve.
       (In several English translations, Yehovah is shown as "the LORD.") 
       At Genesis 15:2 another name, Adonai (Strong's 136), is translated as "the Lord."  When this Hebrew word is used as a couplet with Yehovah, the Authorised Version seems to print "Lord GOD."  Another related word, Adown or Adon (Strong's 113) appears at Deuteronomy 10.17, and is translated at Joshua 5:14 as "the LORD", though at other times it just means a title of respect like "lord" or "sir."
       However, another text says that Yehovah (yes) appeared a long time later to Abram when he was 99, and said "I am El Shaddai." (NJB.  Strong's Hebrew No. 7706; in many other Bibles translated "Almighty God") (Genesis 17:1)
       And, centuries afterwards the man Moses, whom God chose to lead the Israelites out of slavery in Egypt, asked God what was his name, and was told it was Yehovah (Yahweh, Jehovah, or I-am-who-am in various translations), and the name was to be invoked for all time. (Exodus 3:13-15)
       In a later chapter we read that God told Moses that in past ages he had manifested to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob under the name El Shaddai, but he had not made known to them his name Yehovah. (Exodus 6:2-3).  Evidently the writer of these verses did not realise that the first book of the Bible used Elohiym as a name for God, and someone had written (or perhaps, would in future write) that ages earlier only two generations after the world began a man named Enosh / Enos, was the first to invoke the name Yehovah – or "Yahweh" as in the translation of Genesis 4:26 in the New Jerusalem Bible (NJB).  Other translations make it more general, for example, "At that time men began to call upon the name of the LORD." - NIV
       At Genesis 14:18 El (Strong's, Hebrew number 410) makes its first appearance, translated as God.
    Jehovah became pre-eminent
       To return to the name Yehovah, the Judaists (Jews) adopted what seems to be an exaggerated reverence for it, insisting on pronouncing it Adonai.  (See Strong's Hebrew entry 3069 regarding a variant, Yehovih.)  Evidently the Judaists believed it was too sacred to pronounce as it was written!
       It was spelled "Jehovah" in English translations done when the "J" was being pronounced "y" in English.  The Tetragrammaton is "YHVH" (or "YHWH" in some older books), that is yod, he, vav, he, or Hebrew, reading right to left, י ה ו ה ‎ = Yehôvâh.
       Now, the reverence shown to the name Yehovah evidently continued when some Jews before Christ's time translated their scriptures and other books into Greek in the Septuagint Version (called LXX in some literature).  In recent times remains of a papyrus copy of the Septuagint has been found, dated to the 2nd or 1st century before Christ.  In these fragments the word Yehovah, written in its four Hebrew characters, is found among the Greek words in its places where it occurred in the original Hebrew-Aramaic scriptures. (See KIT, 1969, page 12.)
       And the four Hebrew letters persisted in the Christian communities.  About A.D. 128 Aquila's Greek version had the Tetragrammaton in archaic Hebrew letters (Ibid).  About A.D. 245 Origen produced the famous Hexpla, and in the second column, a transliteration into Greek, the Tetragrammaton was shown in Hebrew characters, and three other columns showed it by similar Greek characters. (Ibid, pp 12-13). 
       Jerome wrote that ignorant readers of the Septuagint imagined that the four Hebrew letters י ה ו ה ‎ were Greek, (reading from left to right as if they were π ι π ι) and actually pro­nounc­ed it "Pipi" or "Pi Pi" (Ibid p 15)
       But the Greek words κυριος = kyrios or θεος = theos began to replace Yehovah as time went on. (Ibid p 12).  The first was usually translated as "the Lord," and the second as "God." (p 17)
       So, it is no wonder that there is a religion called Jehovah's Witnesses which includes a teaching that Christians ought to specially reverence God's name Jehovah.  Although some of them believe in the "Yahweh" pronunciation, they still favour "Jehovah" because of people's familiarity with it since the 14th century (KIT p 23).  But, when "Jehovah" was put into English bibles, English speakers pronounced the "j" like we pronounce "y".  It's all very sad !
    [Aug 13 and 25-26, 2011]

       SOURCES and REFERENCES, and ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: Some can be found elsewhere on this website on another webpage Difficult # Sources and References.
    ANCHOR LIST or PARTIAL CONTENTS LIST (After reading an article, use Browser's "Back" button to return to Anchor List)
    Abraham bought Hebron, not Shechem, tombsite.  Acts 7:15-18 or St Stephen has mixed up two Patriarchs and two tombsites.  Discovered March 17, 2008
    Cast = Cast a stone at her. Is the story of the woman taken in adultery (John's Gospel 8:7) genuine?  Some books say No.  In the manuscripts, it is either omitted, or it is in one of FOUR different places in the New Testament – after John 8:6, John 21.24, Luke 21.38, and one has it after John 7.36.  1992
    Cross = On the cross, did Jesus say "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do"?  Well, it is marked with brackets as doubtful in the Good News Bible and The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures.  A possible reason is discussed.
    Crux = "Was crux two beams at right angles, or a post?"  The Latin word crux is said to have meant any wooden apparatus for executing criminals and rebels.  It could mean a stake, but more important is the Greek original word stauros, which mainly meant a post, pale, stake, post, etc.  Trace how the Christians' symbol changed from the Fish, to the Chi-Hro (XP) monogram, to the Cross †, and ask yourself "Why?"
    Cuts off the point about causing children to stumble.  The Church of England bible went soft on leading children into sin.  The Roman Catholics translated correctly, but as shown by the child sexual seduction exposures from the 1980s and 2002 onwards, all do not put the teaching into practice. 2002.
    Dean John William Burgon claims that the woman taken in adultery story was quoted by olden writers. 1982
    Did God tell a lie?  Forbidden fruit story.  The day they ate was supposed to be their day of death, but Adam and Eve lived on!  Genesis 2:16-17, and 3:2-4. April 9, 2008
    [Did the God of the Hebrews condone cutting off the thumbs and big toes of a prisoner-of-war?]  Judges, 1: 1-2, 4, and 6. ~ May 25, 2006
    Die = "What were the last words of Jesus on the cross?"  Three different versions in the four Gospels.
    Extra word "prophet" added to John the Baptist quote.  Luke 7:28. And various translations insert other words.  Most Churches had no explanation for this unauthorised inclusion or quasi-forgery. April 7, 2003
    Was the forged ending to John's gospel done, 1. To centralise power, and 2. to harmonise the contradictory dates of the ascension?
    Holey = "The Holey Bible" is hole-y with doubts.  The forged and unlikely parts that even believers don't have to believe!  Collected and written June 2004
    Intention = The intention of this webspace is not to harm religion, but to assist people to understand their own and other religions.
    John = John's Gospel ending, all of chapter 21, is probably a forged late addition.
    Lambs = Feed my lambs, Peter, feed my sheep?  Genuine or spurious?  It is printed at John 21:25-27, but that is part of the non-John ending of that Gospel.  If it is spurious, it was probably part of the move to centralise power into fewer and fewer hands.
    Last words = "What were the last words of Jesus on the cross?"  Three different versions in the four Gospels.
    List of Doubtful and Non-Authentic parts of the Bible. January 20, 2008
    Mark = Mark's Gospel ending too, 16:9-20, giving resurrection and ascension details, is spurious, according to many scholars.  Five books are quoted.
    Mark endings = Mark's additional ending (Mark 16:9-20) is spurious, according to an Internet website, which claims that early scholars did not quote from it, and that other early scholars claimed that it was not authentic.
    Mistakes = Are these Mistakes in the Bible?  (Originally headed as " the Bible" until 21 Dec 04, then "New Testament," then back to "Bible" on 09 Apr 07).  A worrying list of contradictions and mistakes. Collected April 2004 onwards.
    Must people BELIEVE to be saved?  A disputed text says God is the Saviour of all humans (1 Timothy 4:10). ~ 27 April 2005
    Names of the Old Testament God.  The Israelites seemed to have these names: Elohiym, Yehovah, Adonai, Adown, Adon, El Shaddai, and El. Aug 13 and 25-26, 2011
    Paul's companions heard the voice, or did not hear the voice, during his conversion on the road to Damascus.  Acts of the Apostles, 9:7, contrasted with 22:9. Inserted 31 Jul 2011.
    Preach = Preach the gospel to every creature?  Those who don't believe will be condemned?  Those verses, too, are in what is possibly a forged ending to Mark's Gospel, 16:15-16.
    Pregnancy the aim – Bad Latin and following versions 'multiply' Eve's CONCEPTIONS (though she had probably not had one before!)  AUSTRALIA: Did you know that the RC Douay Bible and the Church of England Authorised Version both claim that God punished Eve by saying that her pregnancies would be multiplied or increased, even though this was not the intent of the original language, Hebrew? (Genesis 3:16). – Religion Clarity Campaign, by "Demi Griffin", Feb 6, 2005.
    Prophecies Of A Quick Return by Jesus, and/or The End, made around A.D. 24. Jan 9, 2009
    Raised BY GOD from the dead, NOT rose by his own power.  The Greek texts say "raised by God," but the "Nicene" Creed says "he rose again."  © 2005-09
    Sabbath = Sabbath. There was no confusion between the Sabbath and the first day of the week for three centuries. -- An Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, ©1984.
    Serpents = Serpents or snakes harmless if believers take them into their hands, and deadly poison safe for them?  Don't believe it!  It is in the possibly spurious endings to St Mark's Gospel, at Mark 16:18.
    Shape = "Was the Cross two crossed timbers, or just a plain pole," on which Jesus was killed? -- An Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, ©1984.
    Rome's official Bible had "she" instead of "he" for hundreds of years for Genesis 3:15.  They won't apologise and withdraw the wrong translations, but keep re-publishing them.  [2003]
    Three days and three nights, or, be raised on the third day ?  Well, that means Jesus was crucified on Wednesday, not the Friday that mainstream Christians are told.  Nov 1, 2010
    Trinity = Trinity backed by doubtful "Three Witnesses in Heaven" of 1 John 5:7, and there was a forgery in 1520 to deceive Erasmus.
    Variant readings in John's first chapter. 29 July 2004
    Vulgate = Changes to the Roman 'Authentic' Vulgate Latin Bible, collected and most written Apr '04.
    Wescott and Hort version praised (1992), and criticised.
    What words were written at Pilate's orders above Jesus' head at his execution?  No two reports the same!
    Which Bible can we Trust?  Les Garrett (compiler), Western Australia, 1982
    • The "woman taken in adultery" story in John 7:53 - 8.11: Metzger's statement. 1992.
    Words = What words were displayed above Jesus as he was dying?  INRI ?  ? July 2007
    *** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is available here without profit to people who want to read it for research and educational purposes.  If you quote from this, please check (if possible) and acknowledge the ORIGINAL source. ***
    * Bible: Galatians 4:16
    If the original heading or name of an article is not used at the start of an entry, the original heading or name will be found elsewhere in the entry.
    To PRINT a leaflet such as Holey, Mistakes, or Vulgate, two-sided, put ONE sheet of paper in your Printer and switch it on.  Point the mouse pointer to the top left of the leaflet you want, hold down the left button, and drag to the bottom right corner, then release mouse.  (If it is highlighted, you have successfully "selected" the required leaflet).  Then hold down [Ctrl] and press the letter "P".  Click in the "Selection" radio button.  Press [Enter], and the printer ought to print one side and then signal it needs more paper.  Take the printed sheet, turn it over, put it back in the printer (remembering which way the head should go), and press the Resume button on the printer.  For multiple copies, take it to a firm such as OfficeWorks or Snap Print.

    Some clickable links are for network access only, so might not work for you.

    INTENTION: The intention of the "Religion" group of Webpages is NOT to HARM religion, but to assist the faithful to understand their own and perhaps other religions.

      ^ ^  Devil's gateway!  Relig-CONTENTS  Relig-Chronology 2013  Relig-Links  Relig-Books  Relig-HOME  Scripture sex  Objectionable texts  Questionable  Clergy-Abuse  v v  
     Directories:  Main 2013  Australia 2013  Esperanto  Experiments  Freedom  Georgist  Globalism  Molestation 2013  Religion 2013  Submission 2013 
     ^ ^  CONTENTS 1   23 = 2011  Translate  Links  Events  Books  HOME  v v 
    Search for
    WWW Search Engines: www.metacrawler.com  www.google.com  www.looksmart.com AVIRA Free Anti-virus
    Part of Spurious.htm is based on a 07 April 2003 item, typed with Microsoft® WordPad© on 17 July 2003 as part of Religion Contents, separated off and named "spurious.htm" on 15 Oct 03, more internet links to Bible verses added on 03 Feb 04, hope to test with more than one Browser, to be spellchecked periodically with Microsoft Word © if time permits, last modified on 11 Nov 2013
    Translations: http://babelfish.altavista.com/  www.tranexp.com/  www.alis.com/  http://lingvo.org/traduku

    "Bells" MIDI music with console 145 x 40 pixels, 16 kb, plays for 1 min 10 sec
    Console code adapted from: www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/Design/feel.htm and others

    Doc. :  http://www.johnm.multiline.com.au/religion/spurious.htm