1001 Errors in the Christian Bible
Home
Dedication
Matthew
Mark
Luke
John
Acts
Contact Us
John -- Errors 643-646
#643
John 20: (KJV)
25 “The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen
the LORD. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print
of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust
my hand into his side, I will not believe.”
The problem is that it is now universally agreed that no one was crucified
with nails through the hands because it wouldn’t support the weight
of the body. It’s arguable that the underlying Greek word for “hands”
can on rare occasion refer to a wider area around the hands including
the wrists but the dominant Christian understanding of the verse (including
their prohibited graven images) has always been that “hands”
meant “hands”.
Anachronistic touch here. The best evidence to Jesus’ supposed audience
that Jesus was Jesus would not be “Mark’s” on his hands.
For anyone who actually knew Jesus the best evidence would be his face
or maybe the answers to some carefully selected questions such as “What’s
yer favorite color?” or “What’s the air speed velocity
of a swallow?”. The supposed hands evidence would be better for the
author’s audience and not Jesus’ audience as they never met
Jesus and wouldn’t know what he looked like.
# 644
John 20: (KJV)
27 “Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold
my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be
not faithless, but believing.”
Compare to John 20: (KJV)
17 “Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended
to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto
my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.”
Touch me, don’t touch me. Uh, uhh, Peter Simon didn’t say.
# 645
John 21: (KJV)
15 “So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon,
son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea,
Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.”
The textual evidence sez “Simon, son of John”, which a majority
of moderns have. Problem with that is:
Matthew 16: (KJV)
17 “And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon
Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father
which is in heaven.”
“Barjona” means “son of Jonas”. So “John”
and “Matthew” don’t even agree about who Peter’s father
was. Obviously later Christian scribes changed “John’s”
“son of John” to “son of Jonas” to make “John”
agree to “Matthew” which means “You can lie like Hell and
I’ll swear it’s true.”
# 646
John 21: (KJV)
24 “This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and
wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.”
Let’s see what we’ve got here. Unidentified people testifying
that what an unidentified author wrote based on the testimony of an unidentified
disciple is true. I’m convinced, Phil?
Phil: I’m outraged.
Me: Well gee whiz Phil the unidentified author just told us that
unidentified people testify that what the unidentified disciple said was
true. What do you want me to do, torture them? He he he he.
Phil: I suggest a comprehensive Oral exam of Jewish Law by The
Rabbis. If “John” is what it claims to be then there should
be no problem, should there?
The envelope please. Best testimony for Jesus, and the winner is: Not
Peter! Not Peter!