1001 Errors in the Christian Bible

Acts -- Errors 664-670

#664

Acts 4 (KJV)

6 “And Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest, were gathered together at Jerusalem.”

Pretty much everyone agrees that Caiaphas would have been high priest at the time and not Annas. Good evidence that the author of “Luke” was not personally familiar with the details of Jerusalem for this time period and either did not have access to anyone who was or was unwilling to check with them. Obviously “Luke” spoke Greek so she could have read Josephus to know that Caiaphas was high priest at this time but didn’t bother to. Unfamiliar with the details of the area you are writing about, failure to inquire of those with such knowledge and unwillingness to research written sources available. These are not good qualities for a historian to possess. And this from someone who said they had “carefully investigated”.

# 665

Acts 4: (KJV)

8 “Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel,”

Even though almost all moderns translate “the” before “holy spirit” there is no “the” in the Greek. Simon didn’t saay. Ya can’t, fool, the children of the Pharasaic Revolution, no, ya, can’t, fool, the children of the Pharasaic Revolution. (We can all agree though that Peter was indeed filled with Holy Something).

# 666

Acts 4: (KJV)

10 “Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.”

“Jesus Christ of Nazareth” in the Greek is “Jesus Christ the Nazorean.” Most moderns have “of Nazareth”. The Greek spelling of “Nazorean” is one letter different than it should be if it was meant to be “of Nazareth”. Also, the definite article, “the”, is before “Nazorean”. The construct of the sentence has this “the” in declinable form meaning it could be used or unused depending on the context. Later in “Acts” though the author makes perfectly clear that this phrase means “the Nazorean” by context. Related to this you have the issue that there is no evidence outside of the Christian Bible for any town in Israel named “Nazareth” for this time period which helps explain why Jesus would not be referred to as “of Nazareth” (there was no Nazareth). Obviously, modern Christian translators preferred the term “Jesus Christ of Nazareth” over objectively translating the phrase.

# 667

Acts 4: (KJV)

10 “Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.
11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.
12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.”

Compare to Tanakh (pick a page, any page, say)

Isaiah 45: (KJV)

20 “Assemble yourselves and come; draw near together, ye that are escaped of the nations: they have no knowledge that set up the wood of their graven image, and pray unto a god that cannot save.
21 Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.
22 Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.
23 I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.
24 Surely, shall one say, in the LORD have I righteousness and strength: even to him shall men come; and all that are incensed against him shall be ashamed.
25 In the LORD shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory.”

According to Acts salvation only comes through Jesus’ name while according to Tanakh salvation only comes through God’s name. “Assemble yourselves and come; draw near together, ye that are escaped of the nations: they have no knowledge that set up the wood of their graven image, and pray unto a god that cannot save.” Set up the wood of their graven image? C’mon goys, how much clearer did Isaiah need to be? Now that’s a prophecy of Christianity!

# 668

Acts 4: (KJV)

25 “Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things?”

The manuscript evidence supports “David said by spirit holy” which a majority of moderns have except that almost all moderns have “the” before spirit holy. Mistranslation. Presumably KJV supported by the minority manuscript evidence deleted David speaking through spirit holy because “Luke” made such a big schpiel about spirit holy being given to the disciples after Jesus died (the first or second time).

# 669

Acts 5: (KJV)

36 “For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought.”

The incident “Luke” is describing is known to have occurred in the 40’s of the first century. The problem is that the evidence for the time of 5:36 in Acts based on “Luke” would be in the 30’s. Another in a seemingly endless line of anachronistic touches. Irenaeus, the most important Church Father of his time and one of the most important fathers of all time thought that Jesus died in his fifties and Acts 5:36 would have been evidence for Irenaeus that Jesus died after the 30’s.

# 670

Acts 5: (KJV)

37 “After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed.”

It’s also well known that the Judas of Galilee episode happened long before the Theudas episode. If “Luke” was a real historian the Theudas episode would have been easily available in Josephus. Not a good combination, claiming the impossible and not checking major reference sources. Apparently “spirit holy” was not a very good substitute. What is good is the evidence that “Luke” didn’t know Jesus, didn’t know anyone who knew Jesus and was unfamiliar with the history of Jerusalem for that time period. Hmmm, “Judas”, “Galilee”, “rose up”, “many as obeyed”, “perished”? Vehhy interesting.

© 2001-2006 1001 Errors in the Christian Bible ®™ All rights reserved.