1001 Errors in the Christian Bible

Acts -- Errors 671-676

#671

Acts 6: (KJV)

3 “Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.”

For “the Holy Ghost” above which a majority of moderns use there is no “the” or Holy” in the Greek.

# 672

Acts 6: (KJV)

5 “And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch:”

Almost all moderns translate “the Holy Ghost” above but it’s “spirit holy” in the Greek.

# 673

Acts 6: (KJV)

7 “And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith”

No one outside of Christian writings indicates that so much as a single Priest became Christian in this time period and “Luke’s” assertion would even be doubted by most Christian Bible scholars. Christian theology has long struggled with the question of which is stronger, the persuasive power of the Christian spirit or the evil resisting power of “The Jews”. The issue of Acts 6:7 is if the boys have just been given a hot dose from god, not orally, but in Veins, then how could anyone including the Jews resist? The Gospellers struggled with the same problem during the supposed passion. Jesus generates great crowds of support with his works but then they turn against him at the supposed crucifixion for no apparent reason. Doesn’t really work, does it? How do you explain Jesus being rejected by the people he was supposedly sent to and knew him best and later being accepted by the people he was not sent to who didn’t know him.

# 674

Acts 6: (KJV)

14 “For we have heard him say, that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered us.”

A majority of moderns have “Jesus of Nazareth” but the Greek likely means “Jesus the Nazorean”. For Christians who are into parade- texting steps what can we make out of “Nazorean”, “Nazor”, Nazir”, hmmm.

# 675

Acts 6: (KJV)

13 “And set up false witnesses, which said, This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place, and the law:
14 For we have heard him say, that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered us.”

Compare to

Mark 7: (KJV)

15 “There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.
16 If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.
17 And when he was entered into the house from the people, his disciples asked him concerning the parable.
18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him;
19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?”

Obviously Jesus intended to change the dietary laws here. So by its own words witnesses who the Christian Bible said were false were telling the truth. Is the opposite true as well? “Luke” and “Matthew” both had the problem of trying to copy from “Mark”, the original gospel, which has the most errors and is the poorest written:

Mark 14: (KJV)

58 “We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands.59 But neither so did their witness agree together.”

Compare to Matthew 26: (KJV)

60 But found none: yea, though many false witnesses came, yet found they none. At the last came two false witnesses, 61 And said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days. 62 And the high priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee?

Strangely, “Mark” gives a quote which is attributed to two witnesses and then concludes that these witnesses did not agree. “Matthew” realized this so he drops Mark’s conclusion that they did not agree. Ironically, the Christian Bible using the same required standard of agreement between witnesses, gives the same type of “false” testimony because of the lack of agreement between the Gospel witnesses that the witnesses gave against Jesus at the trial.

The problem for the Christian Bible is that “Luke” and “Matthew” intended their Gospels to be REPLACEMENTS for “Mark” but by having them all in the same Bible when “Luke” or “Matthew” made a change to “Mark” they risk a remaining contradiction with some other verse in “Mark”. All the Gospellers are clear that Jesus made changes to the Law but “Mark’s” changes are the most blatant so “Mark” never has supposed witnesses charging that Jesus changed the Law because in “Mark” Jesus clearly did. “Luke” downplayed the Law changes in her Gospel so in Acts when witnesses are said to be false for claiming that Stephen was preaching that Jesus changed the Law it’s merely a contradiction whereas compared to “Mark” where the Law changes are blatant, it’s absurd.

# 676

Acts 7: (KJV)

2 “And he said, Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken; The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charran,”

“Charran” is likely the same city as the Biblical Haran which a majority of moderns use. The Greek word which “Luke” uses is “Carrae”which is based on the Latin word for the city while “Charran” is based on the Semitic word. As both Greek words likely refer to the same city and therefore “Charran/Haran” and “Carrae” refer to the same city the translation error is subtle and obviously most translators wanted to clearly identify the city from the Tanakh, Haran. But, by not using the correct English equivalent, “Carrae”, for the actual Greek word which was used, translators hide the fact that the source for the Greek word was Latin and not Semitic. “Luke’s” use of the Latin version may mean nothing more than the Latin version of the word was more popular than the Semitic to “Luke’s” audience or it could mean…(insert ominous music) that as Christianity went from behind in Greek to forward in Latin…(insert expectant pause) a Latin editor inserted the word to correct an error. We’ll see that despite “Luke’s” assertion that Stephen was full of It, he continually makes mistakes regarding the Jewish history.

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