Misquoting the Old testament

[Dominic67480]

In Acts chapter 7 Stephen retells the story of Joseph's relatives being called to Egypt. This story is also told in Genesis 46:27, Exodus 1:5, & Deuteronomy 10:22.

Although Acts 7:55 states that Stephen was "filled with the holy ghost" he gets part of the story wrong.

In Acts 7:14 Stephen states that Seventy-five of Joseph's relatives were called to Egypt. However, Genesis 46:27, Exodus 1:5, & Deuteronomy 10:22 ALL say that SEVENTY of Joseph's relatives were called to Egypt.

Futhermore, Stephen states in Acts 7:16 that Abraham purchased a tomb from the sons of Emmor, which contradicts Genesis 50:13. Genesis 50:13 states that Abraham bought the tomb from EPHRON the Hittite.

Next, we have Jesus misquoting the old testament. In Mark 2:25-26 Jesus retells the story of David asking the priest Ahimilech for five loaves of bread. (1 Samuel 21:1-6 However, Jesus states that Abiathar, the SON of Ahimilech, was high priest during this time.

So, Stephen who was "supposedly filled with the holy ghost" and Jesus who was supposedly the son of God (and also God himself) misquote the "old" holy book.

It seems rather difficult to believe that people can base their faith off of a system supposedly from god, that includes even ONE contradiction. Unfortunately, these are just three of many.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Thing is, the whole thing rests on a contradiction, namely the existence of this ludicrous entity:

1 John 4:8 (NLT) - "God is love." 1 Corinthians 13:4 (NLT) - "Love is not jealous." Exodus 20:5 (NLT) - "I the LORD thy God am a jealous God

And that's even before you get into the non-existence of Adam and Eve, upon whose alleged sin the whole sorry mess is predicated.

YHWH is a figment of the imaginations of credulous, semi-literate bronze-age nomads. Their word cannot be trusted any more than anybody else's.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Welcome to LoR, Dominic!

One of the problems of the historical development of the scriptures, which a lot of people don't realise (regardless of whether they're believers or not), is that there were many versions of the texts available to the Jews (including Jesus), which changed over time due to additions, deletions, etc. Jesus may have been quoting a different version of Samuel - or the author of Mark may have had a different version of Samuel with which to work - or had a different version of that story about Jesus...

There was no such thing as the Bible at the time - it's a Christian invention. The versions/translations of these texts we have in the Bible are not necessarily the ones they had at the time the authors of Acts and Mark - or their subsequent editors/translators - were writing/editing those texts.

The contradictory numbers and quotations are evidence of this.

Try telling this to a Literalist - what I call those who take their scripture as "The Unerring Word of God/Gospel Truth"!

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Thing is, the whole thing rests on a contradiction, namely the existence of this ludicrous entity:

1 John 4:8 (NLT) - "God is love." 1 Corinthians 13:4 (NLT) - "Love is not jealous." Exodus 20:5 (NLT) - "I the LORD thy God am a jealous God

And that's even before you get into the non-existence of Adam and Eve, upon whose alleged sin the whole sorry mess is predicated.

YHWH is a figment of the imaginations of credulous, semi-literate bronze-age nomads. Their word cannot be trusted any more than anybody else's.

When quoting from the Bible, it might be well to remember that the OT precedes the NT - the earlier texts were given a different interpretation by Jesus (including Paul, John et al), so one shouldn't be surprised at the apparent contradictions (OT-Exodus versus NT-Corinthians/John).

Sometimes they appear to be like the parable of the Prodigal Son - OT = Resentful Brother, NT = Compassionate Father.

However, I accept your primary point: the existence (or not) of a "entity", ludicrous or otherwise.

What I have found interesting, in the books I've recently been reading, is that it's likely that the earliest Jews (around the time of the first king, Saul, during the 10th/9th century BC) may well not have believed in a life after death!

Which really throws the cat amongst the pigeons!!

The last stop for a Christian, on the way to Agnostic Atheism, will most likely be as an Ebionite.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[RichardMNixon]

Thing is, the whole thing rests on a contradiction, namely the existence of this ludicrous entity:

1 John 4:8 (NLT) - "God is love." 1 Corinthians 13:4 (NLT) - "Love is not jealous." Exodus 20:5 (NLT) - "I the LORD thy God am a jealous God

And that's even before you get into the non-existence of Adam and Eve, upon whose alleged sin the whole sorry mess is predicated.

YHWH is a figment of the imaginations of credulous, semi-literate bronze-age nomads. Their word cannot be trusted any more than anybody else's.

Don't forget gems like these, still all in the OT.

Exodus 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.
and a few chapters later in the same book
Exodus 22:18-19 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Bearing in mind the distinction between unsanctioned death (murder) and sanctioned death (execution), these paradoxical quotations are understandable - one faces a similar paradox in the USA's use of the death penalty, despite being a Christian country.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[RichardMNixon]

Greetings,

Bearing in mind the distinction between unsanctioned death (murder) and sanctioned death (execution), these paradoxical quotations are understandable - one faces a similar paradox in the USA's use of the death penalty, despite being a Christian country.

Kindest regards,

James

Where in the commandment does it say "unless the killing is sanctioned?" Is genocide sanctioned? There's plenty of that in the OT too. There was also plenty in the twentieth century when Hitler decided god sanctioned him to kill the people god had previously sanctioned, pardon my Godwin. Ending a life is not something to be dealt with so trivially.

Our laws are not Christian, and the death penalty here is a pitiful waste of life and resources (it costs more to execute someone that to keep them in prison for life).

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

My comment may have seemed to be a shrug of the shoulders over life/death - it wasn't; it was a shrug over the fact that laws sanctioning execution exist, even if they go against religious "laws" ("Thou shalt not kill".}

I agree with you that putting someone to death is a waste of both life and money - not to mention being unChristian - even so, with all the information available to those in the South ("Bible Belt"), they still tend to be more in favour of the death penalty than those in the North (they appear to put more store on the OT's "life for a life" - which is completely misunderstood - rather than the NT's "forgive and forget").

I see Utah executed someone recently - the first such in 14 years.

Please note, in saying the above, I'm not "picking on" America - I'm not "anti-American", just noting the paradoxical attitudes towards self-proclaimed "Christian values" and taking lives.

Please make no mistake - we are in agreement on this issue.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[RichardMNixon]

James

Oh no worries, I know we're on the same time. My problem is as you mentioned though, the horrible inconsistencies in the Bible - it's horrible as an ethical reference because you can have it say whatever you want it to say. Ethics from authoritative decree is a stupid way to do ethics, logic and reason should lead the way.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Oh no worries, I know we're on the same time. My problem is as you mentioned though, the horrible inconsistencies in the Bible - it's horrible as an ethical reference because you can have it say whatever you want it to say. Ethics from authoritative decree is a stupid way to do ethics, logic and reason should lead the way.

I'm glad to know that I haven't caused offence on the American issue.

I agree also with the point you make - I'm often astonished that US Christians keep quoting the OT. To me, it's a backdrop to the NT and Jesus' interpretation of the Jewish scriptures (most of the books included in the OT). Even so, I only take the Sermon on the Mount, and his parables as the basis for my Christianity - everything else in the NT, including sayings attributed to him, particularly those which appear unChristian (uncompassionate) - I take with a pinch of salt.

Your point about the "horrible inconsistencies" reminds me of one of my favourite YouTube videos.

Bishop John Shelby Spong wrote a book called The Sins of Scripture: Exposing the Bible's Texts of Hate to Reveal the God of Love - he gave the Burke Lecture in 2004 prior to the publishing of this book and made it the subject of the lecture (my surname is Burke, so it was a added reason!).

He makes some very good points on this issue - and is very amusing!

Enjoy!



Kindest regards,

James