1001 Errors in the Bible, split from Chris Price: Genre, Historicity, Date, and Authorship of Acts

[Peter Kirby]

Joe,

I took a look at that website. The first two "errors in Acts" that I saw were:

# 672

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.


# 673

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.

To call these errors in Acts is ridiculous. The author has evidently needed padding to round out his 1001 figure.

best wishes,
Peter Kirby

[JoeWallack]

Joe,
I took a look at that website. The first two "errors in Acts" that I saw were:
# 672
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.

# 673
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.

To call these errors in Acts is ridiculous. The author has evidently needed padding to round out his 1001 figure.

best wishes,
Peter Kirby


JW:
Peter,
I took a look at the above. To say "To call these errors in Acts is ridiculous. The author has evidently needed padding to round out his 1001 figure." is ridiculous. The author has evidently needed an excuse not to look at the other 999 errors.

best wishes,
Joseph

INTERPRETER, n.
One who enables two persons of different languages to understand each other by repeating to each what it would have been to the interpreter's advantage for the other to have said.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Errors_In_The_Christian_Bible/?yguid=68161660

http://hometown.aol.com/abdulreis/myhomepage/index.html

[Peter Kirby]

JW:
Peter,
I took a look at the above. To say "To call these errors in Acts is ridiculous. The author has evidently needed padding to round out his 1001 figure." is ridiculous. The author has evidently needed an excuse not to look at the other 999 errors.

best wishes,
Joseph
Of course, what I wrote isn't ridiculous. It is true that I am a busy person who estimated it to be a "Crap AOL Website" after clicking through to that page and seeing the first two items I looked at to be, well, crap. If you'd like, I will start a new thread that goes through all of the claimed errors in Acts on the site and estimates how many of them are actually errors--which should be a positive number, I think. Would you like that?

best wishes,
Peter Kirby

[JoeWallack]

Of course, what I wrote isn't ridiculous. It is true that I am a busy person who estimated it to be a "Crap AOL Website" after clicking through to that page and seeing the first two items I looked at to be, well, crap. If you'd like, I will start a new thread that goes through all of the claimed errors in Acts on the site and estimates how many of them are actually errors--which should be a positive number, I think. Would you like that?
best wishes,
Peter Kirby


JW:
Well since we are being honest Peter I think Price's article is shit and he is a [edited - mod] for Jesus. More Amazing to me though than the supposed Resurrection is why you are accomodating to people who promote superstitous nonsense like Price and reserve your Irish Ire for people like Abdul Reis who courageously risk bodily harm to publicize all errors in the Christian Bible including ones like translation issues not normally discussed.

I don't consider Price's article serious scholarship anyway but specific claimed errors in Acts is directly relevant to this thread and exactly what Price has dishonestly avoided in his article. I'm busy right now with Hoffman's dissertation on P.22 (it may not have occurred to you that I'm busy also). But I welcome your attention to the 1001 list here or in a new thread. I really do think your criticism above is ridiculous and I'll tell you why when we get to those errors.

I've had many Apologists come to my site and do just what you did, cite 1 or 2 claimed errors as ridiculous and then conclude that all 1001 are as well. Even though I've never had any censorship at my site none of these Apologists have ever stayed to argue more than about 20 errors. If your primary objective here is to discredit me than come to my site and do it in front of my minions. That's what it's there for.



Joseph

"I though I made an error once but it turned out I was wrong." - JoeWallack

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Error...?yguid=68161660

http://hometown.aol.com/abdulreis/myhomepage/index.html

[Toto]

Gentlemen, please moderate your language to befit this Upper Forum.

Thank you.

[Vinnie]

Joe,

I took a look at that website. The first two "errors in Acts" that I saw were:




Peter, Peter, Peter. What are you doing wasting your time? I clicked the link too. As soon as I saw "1,001 errors in the Bible" it was obvious that pressing the little x at the top right hand corner of the screen was my top priority....

More Amazing to me though than the supposed Resurrection is why you are accomodating to people who promote superstitous nonsense like Price and reserve your Irish Ire for people like Abdul Reis who courageously risk bodily harm to publicize all errors in the Christian Bible including ones like translation issues not normally discussed.

Abdul "courageously risks bodily harm?" A Greek Romance in the works.... :notworthy If his neighborhood is that bad, tell him to pack his stuff and move. If he is financially unable to, instead of wasting countless hours with this list a second job would have been in order.

Furthermore, you write:

1) Someone has come up with a list of 109 Errors in "Acts" based on a majority of the available evidence:

You throw out a big number and a link and then try to fluff the assertion with a basing in "the majority of the available evidence." The website doesn't do what you claim and itself poses a glaring caveat:

Primary purpose of the 1001 Errors In The Christian Bible List is to briefly identify potential errors in the Christian Bible.

Potential. These aren't even "errors" by the creators own admission. Surface anomalies is more like it.

More Amazing to me though than the supposed Resurrection is why you are accomodating to people who promote superstitous nonsense like Price

Kirby runs websites on Christian Origins which feature scholarly comments and he hopes, articles attentive to detail. At least 90% of the field consists of self-identified Christians. Is he supposed to have a website composed of Grant, Carrier and Doherty quotes only?



So, can we actually come up with a listing of errors in Acts? I'll start with my basics:

1) Anything supernatural cannot obviously be taken as history.
2) The connection with Luke is a start. Since Mark has lots of problems and Luke used Mark we obviously have a whole lot of problems if we try to view Luke as historical. We must not commit guilt by association though. Luke may have in fact been a part of those "we" passages and it probably should be granted that details which overlapp with those found in the Pauline corpus should be granted as accurate in so far as Paul represents contemporary primary data.

3) Some//Most//All(?) of the speeches in Acts look like creation (speech making was quite popular at the time wasn't it?).

Sanders and Davies SSG: "Ancient historians regularly supplemented their narratives with freely created material of various kinds. They paid especial attention to the creation of suitable speeches for their heroes. Staying with Josephus, we may comment especially on the great speech which he attributes to the rebel leader Eleazar just before he and other defenders of Matsada committed suicide rather than be captured (War 7.323-336, 341-389). Eleazar's speech holds up the ideals of Josephus himself (though Josephus did not live up the them); and this, the concluding event of the last battle of the great revolt, is marked by suitable oration, though Josephus could not have known what Eleazar had actually said." (SSG)

4. It also cannot be dismissed that Luke wrote a "ficticious history". This is especially possible in light of Luke, which is a long way from being "historically accurate".

Whatever historical core may or may not have been there, Luke certainly got things right and he certainly created and embellished. The real question is determining what is history and what isn't. In my view:

Miraculous gets nixed.
Speeches are suspect.
Luke has a tendency to smooth things over (e.g. chuirch conflict) and pretend it was all or more unified from the beginning than it actually was.
What Paul shares with LK is strong tradition.

Aslo one major point of church accuracy that can be tested in Luke occurs early and that pertains with the "twelve". Is the twelve historical? Was Judas replaced right away? I think a good case for fiction can be made right here at the beginning and thats not good for claims about Acts overall historicity since Luke starts out of the gate doing church apologetics....

Vinnie

[JoeWallack]

Peter, Peter, Peter. What are you doing wasting your time? I clicked the link too. As soon as I saw "1,001 errors in the Bible" it was obvious that pressing the little x at the top right hand corner of the screen was my top priority....


JW:
Yes, let's just accept your Testimony on Faith that "1001 Errors In The Christian Bible" should Sumerianally be dismissed without detailed discussion. Isn't that how this Hole Christianity thang got started in the first place?


Abdul "courageously risks bodily harm?" A Greek Romance in the works.... :notworthy If his neighborhood is that bad, tell him to pack his stuff and move. If he is financially unable to, instead of wasting countless hours with this list a second job would have been in order.


JW:
I may be overly sensitive here since most of my relatives were murdered about 65 years ago by a Country where Christianity was the dominant religion.
So when will you be appearing on Letterman to explain that Christianity is superstitious nonsense?


You throw out a big number and a link and then try to fluff the assertion with a basing in "the majority of the available evidence." The website doesn't do what you claim and itself poses a glaring caveat:
Primary purpose of the 1001 Errors In The Christian Bible List is to briefly identify potential errors in the Christian Bible.
Potential. These aren't even "errors" by the creators own admission. Surface anomalies is more like it.


JW:
I added potential to recognize that just because I think they are all errors some may not be and as an invitation to try and convinnie me otherwise. Strangely, most criticisim has been along the lines of what you and Peter have offered so there aren't very many that I've changed my mind on so far.

One objective is to emphasize the quantity of errors. Statistically, you would take the probability of each individual error and add them all up. I haven't even listed all the potential errors that are think are less than 50%. Even if you rate all of the 1001 as having a probability of less than 50% the sum is still going to be pretty big huh? Most people (including you and Peter apparently) have no idea just how many errors there are. Does advertising this hurt or help the Skeptical cause? If you and Peter convince me that some are not errors and I have to change my Title to "999 Errors In The Christian Bible" so what? That's what it's there for, discussion. Does Carrier discredit himself because he changed his mind on the MJ issue?


Kirby runs websites on Christian Origins which feature scholarly comments and he hopes, articles attentive to detail. At least 90% of the field consists of self-identified Christians. Is he supposed to have a website composed of Grant, Carrier and Doherty quotes only?


JW
Kirby has an excellent website and I applaud his effort. I also understand that he thinks he can do more for the Skeptical effort by being Polite to Christians. My point is that he is giving Price a courtesy that is not deserved based on the article. Price has neglected to provide evidence that Acts is not historical while implying that he has made a thorough investigation. This is a serious problem. Claiming that Christian English translations have mistranslated (the) spirit/holy is not. You should know by now how many Lawyers for Jesus are going to parrot Price's article as Gospel.


In General Price has the following serious problems with concluding that Acts is primarily history which he Ignores/Minimizes:
1) Impossible claims.
This is a characteristic of Fiction. It also creates doubt as to the historicity of Possible claims. Comparing Acts to Paul's letters here it should be noted that Paul's letters generally don't have Impossible claims concerning Paul. History. Acts on the other hand does. Fiction.
2) No Provenance for the Author.
This is a characteristic of Fiction.
3) Credibility of the Author.
This author also apparently wrote "Luke". "Luke" is filled with the Impossible. "Luke" copied most of "Mark" without indicating such and appeared to edit "Mark" for theological reasons.
4) Language.
The author wrote in Greek and appeared to use Greek sources. The primary subjects in the related stories would have spoken Aramaic. Maybe no big deal when you still have sources in the original language, but when you don't?
5) Religious Genre.
"Luke"/Acts is in the genre of religious writing, maintained and Edited by a Biased Religious institution.
6) The difference in Style of Act's Paul and Paul's Paul.
Act's Paul is well-spoken and clearly communicates. Paul's Paul is often disorganized, contradictory and unclear. Read "Romans", probably Paul's most important theological work, in the Greek, before English sanitation, and it's often unclear what the hell Paul is trying to say.



So, can we actually come up with a listing of errors in Acts? I'll start with my basics:
1) Anything supernatural cannot obviously be taken as history.
2) The connection with Luke is a start. Since Mark has lots of problems and Luke used Mark we obviously have a whole lot of problems if we try to view Luke as historical. We must not commit guilt by association though. Luke may have in fact been a part of those "we" passages and it probably should be granted that details which overlapp with those found in the Pauline corpus should be granted as accurate in so far as Paul represents contemporary primary data.
3) Some//Most//All(?) of the speeches in Acts look like creation (speech making was quite popular at the time wasn't it?).
Sanders and Davies SSG: "Ancient historians regularly supplemented their narratives with freely created material of various kinds. They paid especial attention to the creation of suitable speeches for their heroes. Staying with Josephus, we may comment especially on the great speech which he attributes to the rebel leader Eleazar just before he and other defenders of Matsada committed suicide rather than be captured (War 7.323-336, 341-389). Eleazar's speech holds up the ideals of Josephus himself (though Josephus did not live up the them); and this, the concluding event of the last battle of the great revolt, is marked by suitable oration, though Josephus could not have known what Eleazar had actually said." (SSG)
4. It also cannot be dismissed that Luke wrote a "ficticious history". This is especially possible in light of Luke, which is a long way from being "historically accurate".
Vinnie

JW:
Claiming that going through a list of 1001 Errors In The Christian Bible is a waste of time in a Forum devoted to Errors In The Christian Bible doesn't upset me so much because I just assume that you are also the Type of person who doesn't like to eat during meals or grind out ernies in the WC. On the other hand of God, when people read my posts and copy some of my ideas without mentioning my post...I just go Berserk!



Joseph

WARNING - The Skeptical General has determined that the 1001 Errors In The Christian Bible contains dangerous amounts of Tarivial and Nitpicotine. Skeptics should be advised that using it in order to convince a Fundie to count to ten before murdering an abortion provider because murder is always a sin, could be Hazardous to your credibility.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Error...?yguid=68161660

http://hometown.aol.com/abdulreis/myhomepage/index.html

[Vinnie]

Yes, let's just accept your Testimony on Faith that "1001 Errors In The Christian Bible" should Sumerianally be dismissed without detailed discussion. Isn't that how this Hole Christianity thang got started in the first place?

Yes, let me just find a huge list with obvious elements of simplicity and liberal application of nitpicking such as "there is no holy in the original". How does that even relate to the historicity of the ontent of Acts?

I am sure many of those are in fact discrepanis and I am sure that many of them are the author grasping at straws. But anytime a skeptic or apologists posits a huge list on the internet, scholarly methods are not evident.

I may be overly sensitive here since most of my relatives were murdered about 65 years ago by a Country where Christianity was the dominant religion.
So when will you be appearing on Letterman to explain that Christianity is superstitious nonsense?

Not anytime soon since 99% of the world believes superstitious nonsense to be true: whether its religion, astrology or the act of being superstitious. All humans are prone to magical thinking at times. So when I get up there and criticize Wade Boggs and a thousand other professional athletes for their "superstition" beliefs, when I criticize anyone who accepts astrology, believes you can communicate with the dead, accepts alternative medicines, thinks miracles happen, believes in witches or gods and goddesses and mysterious forces (pagans of wiccans) or the Pygmies living in Africa who posit their forest as God and so on....

The fact is that virtually everyone I know is prone to some form of magical thinking and in my everyday experiences I see people make countless leaps in logic and fallacies throughout the day. But I generally know that these superstitious people, are good decent, trustworthy people, despite their tendency to believe obvious falsehoods (as exposed by modern science).

Plus not all xianity is SN. I don't merely define a religion by "the facts of fact literal western Christians ca 2005" but as in the whole of Christianity ranging from uintellectual beliefs, to devotion, to their ethical systems and so on. I would never be as mean or as dismissive to someone in IRL as I can be on the internet or as many posters here are. Maybe thats because evoltuion has not pre-conditioned me to deal with impersonal human reactions on tiny screens where I am anonymous and separated from a person by thousands of miles. I am conditioned to be more pleasant in person because kindness, generosity and reciprocal altruism have been a part of human life for so long which was largely centered around face to face contact. Its too easy to reduce someone to "believes x-y and z" or reduce a religion down to that then infer "such and such is stupid". Those games are silly and are for people who hide behind the internet.

Claiming that going through a list of 1001 Errors In The Christian Bible is a waste of time in a Forum devoted to Errors In The Christian Bible doesn't upset me so much because I just assume that you are also the Type of person who doesn't like to eat during meals or grind out ernies in the WC. On the other hand of God, when people read my posts and copy some of my ideas without mentioning my post...I just

See? Your post is filled with same type of magical thinking and superstition you criticize. My fallacy detector is buzzing. When did I ever say going through contradictions is not appropriate for this forum? I also simpyl agreed with some of your six general points. It was only your "specifis points" that warranted critique.

First, inundating someone with 1,001 errors is not a useful means of debating with someone. You don't actually discuss anything. You just drown them with more information than they can be bothered to process--regardless of how true or false it is.

Second, we are discussing specifically Acts and its historicity. You claimed the site has 109 errors in Acts. Where are they? Peter found the first two and they have NOTHING to do with the topic at hand. These textual or interpretation differences in no way reflect on the historicity of Acts. If you want to raise valid instances of errors in Acts fine, but you are raising red herrings and imagining errors not really relevant to this discussion

Third: those lists are usually more accurately described as quantity rather than quality. The nature of the proposed "errors" demonstrate this. No one believes manuscript differences or translating errors are "errors in the autograph" or are sufficient to overturn inerrancy or the Bible as God's word. I think they are right on this much at least.

You have misread what I said and basically caricatured what I wrote. And I just finished saying: "The fact is that virtually everyone I know is prone to some form of magical thinking and in my everyday experiences I see people make countless leaps in logic and fallacies throughout the day."

Keep a sober head, be respectful, and focus on the issue at hand and try to understand what your opponet is saying//where they come from and these misunderstandings won't occur as frequently.

I am genuinely sorry for you that your family has suffered losses at the hands of a system run by Christians and in that light I can understand why you are very sensitive to this stuff.

However, when God punishes humanity or holds them accountable on account of Adam's sin we think he is an unjust tyrant. Likewise, I do not feel I, a son, should be punished for the sins of my father or ancestors. I am responsible for my own actions. It is because of this that you should drop the guilt by association fallacy. Chris did not persecute your family and would probably be against physically persectuing people of different faiths and he wrote this here paper that--if nothing more--deserves to be critiqued in the same conciliatory manner that it was written in.

Vinnie

[Peter Kirby]

Peter found the first two

Nota bene, they were the first two I found, not the first two.

Joe seems to think that my "primary objective here is to discredit [him]" and invites me to some other site where he has "minions." His assumption is egotistic and his approach agonistic, so I won't be analyzing the "1001 list" with him.

best wishes,
Peter Kirby

[Toto]

I have split this off. If anyone wants to go through the errors in Acts, they appear to start on page 103 (http://hometown.aol.com/thenewporphyry/myhomepageindex103.html) of the website.

[JoeWallack]

JW:
I wasn't planning on posting anything here because it all belongs in the related "The Price Is Wrong Thread" but I just love the Irony that a thread which indicates it was started by Peter Kirby won't actually have anything in it posted by Peter Kirby.

Okay, this thread will be dedicated to considering potential errors in "Acts", with the objective of evaluating the significance of these errors to "Acts" supposed historicity. This thread is necessary because in Price's related article he has concluded that Acts is accurate even if it is not accurate and errancy can be evaluated without evaluating errancy.

Regrettably both Peter Kirby and Vinnie have communicated to me that they will not be posting here. Vinnie has received several death threats because of his disrespectful "Was Jesus Gay" article so he is changing it to "Was Jesus Bi-Sectual?". Peter is busy changing all 1001 of his Avatar mottos from "Always Learning" to "Always Learning (Except from JoeWallack)". Just as well though. Until relatively recently both believed that god sacrificed himself to himself, thereby conquering death by dying and putting an end to a Law which was Eternal.

Fortunately, for the rest of us, someone has already itemized a list of all potential errors in Acts no matter how small, trivial or likely to give Snobbish Skeptics Strokes:

http://hometown.aol.com/thenewporphyry/myhomepageindex102.html

Now, where to begin, hmmm...how about the beginning?:

#666

"Acts" has no intermission, popcorn or Guides wearing funny hats. Just kidding (it does have Guides wearing funny hats).

# 648

"Acts 1: (KJV)

2 “Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:�

No “the� before “holy spirit� in the Greek."


JW:
Okay, just the Type of error that offended Peter and Vinnie. Let me just say that in my opinion this is more than just a trivial error. Christian English translators are adding "the" to try and strengthen the appearance of (the) spirit holy as a Separate Entity. Darby normally puts something like this in parenthesis (God bless them). Brown explains that this is exactly the Type of thing KJV does in his "The Birth Of The Messiah" which misleads the English reader. This goes straight to the issue of the credibility of the Church. If English translators are playing this game what does that say about the Latin translators and the Greek translators and the Church as a whole? The Christian Bible is much more than whatever was originally written (which obviously we don't have anyway). It consists of selecting original writings, copying, editing, translating, presenting and God knows what else. Just like nicotine is harmless when it is left alone to grow wild so too would the original "Acts" have been harmless until someone cultivated it, put it in an attractive package, marketed it, been motivated by Prophets, and telling people that consuming it in large doses was good for your Physical/Spiritual health. But in order to minimize subsequent whining let's move forward to a more substantial potential error:

# 649

"Acts 1: (KJV)

4 “And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.�

Compare to Mark 16: KJV)

7 “But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.�

“Luke’s� Jesus tells his crew to tarry in Jerusalem. “Mark’s� Jesus’ crew is told to go to Galilee for further instruction.


JW:
For a book that primarily claims to be a link between Jesus and the subsequent Church it gets off to a bad start. "Acts" implies that the disciples were instructed to wait in Jerusalem after Jesus died. "Mark", a primary source for the author of "Acts", indicates that the disciples were instructed to go straight to Galilee after Jesus died. So "Acts" appears to significantly contradict a primary source of "Acts". How does that affect its supposed historicity? Will Price ever deal with questions like this or will he first write another article claiming that "Revelation" is historical?

As Vinnie's Gay Jesus would say Price, "Deal with it."



Joseph

ACKNOWLEDGE, v.t.
To confess. Acknowledgement of another's faults is the highest duty imposed by our love of truth.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Error...?yguid=68161660

http://hometown.aol.com/abdulreis/myhomepage/index.html

[Toto]

JW - could you check the abdulreis webpage? It is missing some links to later pages, and I could only get up to error # 737, referring to Acts 17. I think there are more errors than that in Acts. ;)

And it really needs a comprehensive index page.

I suspect that Peter Kirby was more put out by the technical ineptitude of the web work than your theology. :)

PS - you can't copy and paste one of the shortened links that vBB creates.

[Vinnie]

Vinnie's gay Jesus article was a spoof of modern scholarship...

[Dean Anderson]

# 672

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.


# 673

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.



There is a delicious irony in the fact that these two adjacent "contradictions" contradict each other (as can be seen from the bolded portions).

So does "πνευματος αγιου" (used in both verses) mean "Spirit" or "Holy Spirit" then? The commentary for verse 3 says that there is no "holy", but the commentary for verse 5 says it is "spirit holy".

[JoeWallack]

# 672

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.


# 673

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.



There is a delicious irony in the fact that these two adjacent "contradictions" contradict each other (as can be seen from the bolded portions).

So does "πνευματος αγιου" (used in both verses) mean "Spirit" or "Holy Spirit" then? The commentary for verse 3 says that there is no "holy", but the commentary for verse 5 says it is "spirit holy".


JW:
My prayers have been answered. First of all, let me to say to anyone who may become suspicious at how this comes out that I don't know Pervy and I have never worked with him before. That being said the only rule I follow here is never to argue with moderators.

Rather than just blurt out the answer though let's give Pervy some clues so he can try and solve the delicious irony of this potential error in 1001 Errors:

1) My translation above is KJV (always the best clue).

2) The Blue Letter Bible shows the Greek based on the KJV!

3) Here is the NIV translation:

Acts 6:3 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society

3 "Brothers, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them"


JW:
Now why would NIV translate "spirit" if the underlying Greek is "holy spirit"? Please, no help from Peter or Vinnie. Bede, Pearse, jump right in.



Joseph

Vinnie's Gay Jesus. Person. The fleshy part of the trinity.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Errors_In_The_Christian_Bible/?yguid=68161660

http://hometown.aol.com/abdulreis/myhomepage/index.html

[Dean Anderson]

1) My translation above is KJV (always the best clue).

Fair enough. Some English translations say "Holy Spirit" (or even "Holy Ghost") and some say merely "Spirit". It tends to depend on whether they are taken from the Textus Receptus or the more "Alexandrian" Westcott-Hort text.

The oldest English translation I can find is the beautiful Wycliffe translation - which is older than either the 1550 Stephanos TR or the 1881 Westcott-Hort text. That one is taken from the Latin Vulgate and uses "Holy Ghost" (well, it actually uses "Hooli Goost" - you've got to love that 14th century spelling!)

2) The Blue Letter Bible shows the Greek based on the KJV!

That's nice for you. What does the "Blue Letter Bible" have to do with anything?

3) Here is the NIV translation:

Acts 6:3 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society

3 "Brothers, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them"


JW:
Now why would NIV translate "spirit" if the underlying Greek is "holy spirit"?

Because the NIV is primarily taken from the Westcott-Hort text which misses out the word "αγιου".

The question we need to ask ourselves is whether in this particular pair of verses (and note that we are here talking specifically about the accuracy of this particular pair of verses - not making sweeping general statements about the TR vs the W&H text), the W&H text or the TR is more likely to be accurate to what was written by the author of the passage.

Normal textual criticism issues would tend to indicate that the "simpler" of the two is more accurate - but in this case we are not talking about a story having details added and being exaggerated over time. We are talking about a difference of a single word.

It is reasonably easy for a scribe to accidentally add a word that he thinks should be in the manuscript he is copying but which he does not find.

However, it is far easier for a scribe to accidentally skip a word whilst copying.

This does not particularly narrow down which version is more accurate in this case, but looking at the context of the passage, it is obvious that the two verses (verses 3 and 5) are referring to the same thing. Verse 3 says to find a person "full of the [Holy] Spirit", and verse 5 says that Stephen was found and was "full of the Holy Spirit".

Since verse 5 is obviously a mirror of verse 3, indicating that Stephen is exactly the sort of person that verse 3 is talking about, the context leads us to think that both verses should have the same wording.

Therefore, in this particular case, the TR probably has it right (since it has the same wording in both verses) and the W&H probably has a skipped word.

[andrewcriddle]

The question we need to ask ourselves is whether in this particular pair of verses (and note that we are here talking specifically about the accuracy of this particular pair of verses - not making sweeping general statements about the TR vs the W&H text), the W&H text or the TR is more likely to be accurate to what was written by the author of the passage.

Normal textual criticism issues would tend to indicate that the "simpler" of the two is more accurate - but in this case we are not talking about a story having details added and being exaggerated over time. We are talking about a difference of a single word.

It is reasonably easy for a scribe to accidentally add a word that he thinks should be in the manuscript he is copying but which he does not find.

However, it is far easier for a scribe to accidentally skip a word whilst copying.

This does not particularly narrow down which version is more accurate in this case, but looking at the context of the passage, it is obvious that the two verses (verses 3 and 5) are referring to the same thing. Verse 3 says to find a person "full of the [Holy] Spirit", and verse 5 says that Stephen was found and was "full of the Holy Spirit".

Since verse 5 is obviously a mirror of verse 3, indicating that Stephen is exactly the sort of person that verse 3 is talking about, the context leads us to think that both verses should have the same wording.

Therefore, in this particular case, the TR probably has it right (since it has the same wording in both verses) and the W&H probably has a skipped word.
IMO the argument works the other way. The fact that one would expect the same usage in verses 3 and 5 would make scribal harmonisation very likely.

In general a difference in phraseology between two adjacent passages is an indication that this is probably the original reading before later harmonising copyists got to work.

Andrew Criddle

[Dean Anderson]

IMO the argument works the other way. The fact that one would expect the same usage in verses 3 and 5 would make scribal harmonisation very likely.

In general a difference in phraseology between two adjacent passages is an indication that this is probably the original reading before later harmonising copyists got to work.

Andrew Criddle

I think that argument would be stronger if the passages were less closely related.

If passage A mentions 'X', and passage B mentions something close to 'X', then a harmonising scribe is indeed likely to assume that they are talking about the same thing and 'correct' one or the other as you say.

However, here we are looking at two sentences within the same passage where the second sentence is a clear answer to the first.

The first has the Twelve saying "You need seven people with quality 'X'", and the second - the sentence immediately after the statement - says that the people thought the statement was a good idea and that they chose Stephen because he had quality 'X'.

These sentences are so close together in context - with the second directly following, addressing and answering the first - that unless there is a clear indication that one of them is a later interpolation, I do not see how anyone could reasonably conclude that they were originally talking about different things but were "harmonised" to make them the same.

It seems far more likely to me that they were originally the same and that a word was later skipped during copying.

Note that I am not ruling out the possibility of the word being added to harmonise the sentences - indeed, I mentioned it in my previous post - I merely think that given the context it is far less likely to have happened than for a word to have been accidentally skipped.

[Chris Weimer]

Might I add that trying to navigate through that is horrible, and I couldn't even find 1001 errors, the last time I checked. However, when you have pneuma hagion and it's translated as the Holy Ghost more than one time, it's still only one error. It's one error repeated many times, yet only one error. Moreover, it isn't even an error since the gospels often left out definite articles where one should have been, a key characteristic of Biblical Koine.

I do want to say though that for all its faults, there is some good in the site, and has pointed out to me many of the more minor features that I would have otherwised missed. I just wish the person who made the site would dedicate a little more energy to it so it isn't so much of a hell-hole.

[Toto]

JP Holding dignifies the 1001 Errors in the Christian Bible site by attacking it here (http://www.tektonics.org/uz/wally01.html)

[Chris Weimer]

JP Holding is not near worthy enough to dignify anyone.

[JoeWallack]

Fair enough. Some English translations say "Holy Spirit" (or even "Holy Ghost") and some say merely "Spirit". It tends to depend on whether they are taken from the Textus Receptus or the more "Alexandrian" Westcott-Hort text.


JW:
Ya know I'm just fascinated by people's fascination here with (the) identification of use, misuse and abuse of (the) definite article in (the) 1001 Errors In (The) Christian Bible rather than just using it to consider potential errors in Acts which is why I introduced it here. On the other hand I appreciate all the free publicity. As Otis said in the classic Animal House, "So hit it!"

Okay, so now you know that there is nothing "holy" in W-H. It's really more than W-H as I'm sure you know. It's also NA and UBS and Bible scholarship for the last 100 years.

You could complain here that this is a textual issue and not a translation issue and you would have some point to make. Earlier in the 1001 list I often indicate that what I consider is likely original is based on manuscript evidence. I had no idea that so many people would start at error #666 instead of at the beginning. Didn't anyone ever tell you not to start at the ending? It'll ruin the whole book (unless it's the original "Mark"). Maybe I should color code these errors like SAB to indicate the Type of error. When I make it into a book I'll add more explanation (I guess I don't need to ask Peter Kirby if he wants to be an Editor).

For Acts 6:3 I see mixed evidence of how much textual variation there is. The ICC commentary doesn't mention any and they normally do even for the definite article. My guess is that generally the Byzantine has it but not much else earlier does. I'll just have to wait for Kirby's website on the subject.

What I wonder is HOW much manuscript evidence does there have to be before a Translation issue should be described as a Textual issue? Say if my guess is right here and it's really primarily the Byzantine that has "holy". Am I still Skeptic honor bound to always identify it as a Textual issue? If the Byzantine says Jesus tells swine to jump off a bridge at Gergesenes does that mean you should consider jumping off a bridge at Gergesene the majority reading?


The oldest English translation I can find is the beautiful Wycliffe translation - which is older than either the 1550 Stephanos TR or the 1881 Westcott-Hort text. That one is taken from the Latin Vulgate and uses "Holy Ghost" (well, it actually uses "Hooli Goost" - you've got to love that 14th century spelling!)


JW:
The Vulgate's not much use in determining the original Greek if there is a related theological issue. Jerome knew that the Long Ending of Mark wasn't original but put it in anyway just like he would have done for anything similiar with a theological motivation. By the way, I've been meaning to ask. What does someone have to do here to become a Moderator. Volunteer?



Joseph

TRINITY, n.
In the multiplex theism of certain Christian churches, three entirely distinct deities consistent with only one. Subordinate deities of the polytheistic faith, such as devils and angels, are not dowered with the power of combination, and must urge individually their clames to adoration and propitiation. The Trinity is one of the most sublime mysteries of our holy religion. In rejecting it because it is incomprehensible, Unitarians betray their inadequate sense of theological fundamentals. In religion we believe only what we do not understand, except in the instance of an intelligible doctrine that contradicts an incomprehensible one. In that case we believe the former as a part of the latter.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Errors_In_The_Christian_Bible/?yguid=68161660

http://hometown.aol.com/abdulreis/myhomepage/index.html

[andrewcriddle]

I think that argument would be stronger if the passages were less closely related.

If passage A mentions 'X', and passage B mentions something close to 'X', then a harmonising scribe is indeed likely to assume that they are talking about the same thing and 'correct' one or the other as you say.

However, here we are looking at two sentences within the same passage where the second sentence is a clear answer to the first.

The first has the Twelve saying "You need seven people with quality 'X'", and the second - the sentence immediately after the statement - says that the people thought the statement was a good idea and that they chose Stephen because he had quality 'X'.

These sentences are so close together in context - with the second directly following, addressing and answering the first - that unless there is a clear indication that one of them is a later interpolation, I do not see how anyone could reasonably conclude that they were originally talking about different things but were "harmonised" to make them the same.

It seems far more likely to me that they were originally the same and that a word was later skipped during copying.

Note that I am not ruling out the possibility of the word being added to harmonise the sentences - indeed, I mentioned it in my previous post - I merely think that given the context it is far less likely to have happened than for a word to have been accidentally skipped.
I entirely agree that Spirit in one verse and Holy Spirit in the other are referring to exactly the same thing (or person).

Using Holy Spirit twice clarifies the passage and avoids any possible misunderstanding. However, the fact that this is certainly the clearer smoother reading does not IMO suggest originality, rather the reverse.

Andrew Criddle

[Dean Anderson]

I entirely agree that Spirit in one verse and Holy Spirit in the other are referring to exactly the same thing (or person).

Using Holy Spirit twice clarifies the passage and avoids any possible misunderstanding. However, the fact that this is certainly the clearer smoother reading does not IMO suggest originality, rather the reverse.

Andrew Criddle

Fair enough - then we will have to agree to disagree.

In either case, though, we agree that the two verses are referring to the same thing regardless of the exact wording.

As such, to point to the variation in wording in different translations of them and call those variations "errors" (or even "potential errors") when it is clear that said variations in wording in no way change the meaning of the text is a stretch to say the least.

[JoeWallack]

I entirely agree that Spirit in one verse and Holy Spirit in the other are referring to exactly the same thing (or person).
Using Holy Spirit twice clarifies the passage and avoids any possible misunderstanding. However, the fact that this is certainly the clearer smoother reading does not IMO suggest originality, rather the reverse.



Fair enough - then we will have to agree to disagree.
In either case, though, we agree that the two verses are referring to the same thing regardless of the exact wording.
As such, to point to the variation in wording in different translations of them and call those variations "errors" (or even "potential errors") when it is clear that said variations in wording in no way change the meaning of the text is a stretch to say the least.


JW:
First, I agree with Andrew above but for many more reasons than what he gave:

1) Idiotic, er I mean idiomatic usage probably would have caused variation in the use of "holy" all by itself. The transmission process is more likely to harmonize idiomatic variation than create it.

2) Something happened in early Fourth century that made this kind of variation regarding possible reference to (The) spirit holy an important issue to Scribes.

Secondly, I disagree with the general statement that if the meaning of the original and translation is clear then there couldn't be any error. You could, for example, have a spelling error (or other grammatical error) in the original
so that the meaning is still clear but there is an error (spelling). You may be limiting your assertion above though to only originals with no grammatical error.

As long as there's a Literal difference between "spirit" and "holy spirit" it's reasonable to claim an error on some basis, even if it's a technical, literal, nit-picking basis. I've said before though that in my 1001 list I generally don't list trivial errors unless I think there is some theological reason behind them. Obviously "spirit" and "holy spirit" Could have a different meaning in the Greek.

Let's look at the offending passages again:

NIV
6:3 "Brothers, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them 4 and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word."
5 This proposal pleased the whole group. They chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit; also Philip, Procorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas from Antioch, a convert to Judaism."

Let the Reader understand that neither use of "spirit" above has an underlying "the" in the Greek before it. The author is singling out Stephen as an important character and previously indicated that the holy spirit would do the talking when necessary (same as with the burning Bush and Rove). It probably was most important to the author here to make a distinction between Stephen and the others by giving him a little extra Something (holy). On the other hand of god, after Nicea, it was more important to the TransMissionists to always properly identify this spirit, holy, the, thing, guy, mister, whatever.

Errorsgo, as the 1001 Errors go, I think this would be a relatively minor error and possbily not any type of error but I think I Am performing a valuable public service in Identifying the Issue that TransMissionists may sometimes have their TransMissions affected by what they think is Meant for Theological reasons at the expense of what the Author intended.



Joseph

TRINITY, n.
In the multiplex theism of certain Christian churches, three entirely distinct deities consistent with only one. Subordinate deities of the polytheistic faith, such as devils and angels, are not dowered with the power of combination, and must urge individually their clames to adoration and propitiation. The Trinity is one of the most sublime mysteries of our holy religion. In rejecting it because it is incomprehensible, Unitarians betray their inadequate sense of theological fundamentals. In religion we believe only what we do not understand, except in the instance of an intelligible doctrine that contradicts an incomprehensible one. In that case we believe the former as a part of the latter.


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Errors_In_The_Christian_Bible/?yguid=68161660

http://hometown.aol.com/abdulreis/myhomepage/index.html

[JoeWallack]

JW:
I Am really groovin on the obsessive diss-cuss-ion here of whether claiming that (the) dishonest usage of (the) Greek definite article by Christian TransMissionists is a dishonest usage of (the) Greek definite article by Christian TransMissionists is a ridiculous error but I would like to digress for a moment, if Possible, to my original reason for introducing the 1001 Errors list to The Price Is Wrong article:

Price:
Abdul, here is my list of 101 potential accuracies in Acts.

Abdul:
Price, here is my list of 1001 potential inaccuracies in Acts.

Now that we've had introductions all around how about some specifics.

For the most part, at this point, the detail of Price's article isn't much more than a compilation of what Price considers accuracies in Acts. This is similar to the 1001 Errors list being nothing more than a complilation of what the author considers inaccuracies in the Christian Bible. The difference is that the 1001 Errors list doesn't claim to be anything other than 1001 Errors while Price concludes that his list of supposed accuracies means Acts as a whole is primarily accurate. This makes Price a Counselor For Christ (thought I'd get the phoenetics working here Toto).

Continuing where I left off here are General reasons to doubt that Acts is primarily history:

1) Impossible claims.
This is a characteristic of Fiction. It also creates doubt as to the historicity of Possible claims. Comparing Acts to Paul's letters here it should be noted that Paul's letters generally don't have Impossible claims concerning Paul. History. Acts on the other hand does. Fiction.

2) No Provenance for the Author.
This is a characteristic of Fiction.

3) Credibility of the Author.
This author also apparently wrote "Luke". "Luke" is filled with the Impossible. "Luke" copied most of "Mark" without indicating such and appeared to edit "Mark" for theological reasons.

4) Language.
The author wrote in Greek and appeared to use Greek sources. The primary subjects in the related stories would have spoken Aramaic. Maybe no big deal when you still have sources in the original language, but when you don't?

5) Religious Genre.
"Luke"/Acts is in the genre of religious writing, maintained and Edited by a Biased Religious institution.

6) The difference in Style of Act's Paul and Paul's Paul.
Act's Paul is well-spoken and clearly communicates. Paul's Paul is often disorganized, contradictory and unclear. Read "Romans", probably Paul's most important theological work, in the Greek, before English sanitation, and it's often unclear what the hell Paul is trying to say.

Now let's add another one for Price to Ignore and Vinnie to Copy:

7) According to the author of Acts one needs (the) spirit holy to properly understand religious history. This is a potential conflict with the usual rule, outside of religion, that in order to properly understand history, one needs history. Believers will claim of course that the context is limited to Interpreting actual history but once someone accepts that (the) (holy) spirit can tell them something they otherwise wouldn't know they are closer to potentially accepting what is not historical.

More importantly this Creates a Cathechism-22:

One needs (the) holy spirit in order to accept Jesus but you have to first accept Jesus in order to receive the holy (spirit).
Now let's go to the 1001 list for a few non-ridiculous potential errors that Price has been told by (the) (Holy) (spirit) to ignore in just the first 5 chapters:

# 649

Acts 1: (KJV)

4 “And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.�

Compare to Mark 16: KJV)

7 “But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.�

“Luke’s� Jesus tells his crew to tarry in Jerusalem. “Mark’s� Jesus’ crew is told to go to Galilee for further instruction.


# 651

Acts 1 (KJV)
1 “The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,
2 Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:
3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:
4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.
5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.�

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.
18 Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the LORD, and that he had spoken these things unto her.
19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
20 And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the LORD.
21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.�
22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

According to Acts Jesus did not give the Apostles the “holy spirit� here but said the Father would give the Apostles the “holy spirit� after Jesus departed for Parts Unknown. “John� couldn’t wait this long and had his Jesus give the Apostles the “holy spirit� himself while he was here and not there.


# 652

Acts 1 (KJV)

18 “Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.�

Compare to Matthew 27: (KJV)

5 “And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.�

Acts says that Judas purchased a field with the reward of iniquity while “Matthew� says Judas gave the money to the Temple. Doesn’t sound like the author of Luke/Acts used “Matthew� as a source here. “Mark�, representing a more primitive Christian theology, has no demise of Judas (Jews) story and if “Luke� copied “Mark� “Luke� would be free to add this anti-Jewish touch. Lukee! Ya got sum splainin ta do.


# 653

Acts 1 (KJV)

18 “Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.�

Compare to Matthew 27: (KJV)

5 “And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.�

According to Acts Judas died from spontaneous comburstion while according to “Matthew� Judas died from hanging. Apparently, the author of Acts, writing later, decided that hanging was too good for her Judas.


# 654

Acts 1 (KJV)

18 “Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.�

No one in Jerusalem had any idea where the hell this supposed “field of blood� existed outside of the imagination of “Luke� until a fourth century pilgrim chose where it was. If this “field of blood� is fiction then it’s logical that it’s “location� could only be identified by the imagination of a pilgrim not from the area as opposed to the real memories of the historical inhabitants.


# 655

Acts 1 (KJV)

18 “Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.
20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.�

The closest you can find is:

Psalms 69: (JPS)

26 “Let their encampment be desolate; let none dwell in their tents.�

The context of the Psalm is totally different and even the quantity doesn’t agree. In Christian theology this is known as X-uh-Jesus, also known as LYING.


# 656

Acts 2 (KJV)

16 “But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:�

Not only did Joel never say this it doesn’t even agree with the tongues talking preceding it. As Madlein Kahn said in the classic “Young Frankenstein�, “No tongue.� The original stories regarding the early Christian proselytizers likely used the literary license of describing them as speaking in tongues merely to poetically portray them as being able to communicate effectively in the foreign languages of the converts. Subsequent Christianity took it literally that they had received a gift from God that really let them speak a foreign language without first studying it. Ironically, in the process of using the foreign language of Greek to convert the non-Jews the apostles appear to have forgotten their native Aramaic/Hebrew in the process as we have absolutely nothing from any apostle/disciple written in Aramaic/Hebrew, not even Jesus name for Moses’ sake. As they say, the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away.


# 657

Acts 2 (KJV)

16 “But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:�

After 2,000 years I think it’s safe to say this is another false prophecy. Christianity has failed to deliver the after-life it promised as well as end the natural life it promised to stop. Could be a relationship there.


# 658

Acts 2 (KJV)

21 “And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.�

Compare to Matthew 7: (KJV)

21 “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.�

According to “Luke� all you have to do to be saved is ask/demand to be saved. According to “Matthew� that’s not enough. We see the transition of Christian theology here from the “Matthew�/Jewish position that deeds must be done in order for reward to the “Luke�/Pagan position that all you have to do is ask “god� to wave a magic wand and you’ll be saved. This type of huge difference in basic doctrine is excellent evidence that the supposed acts of the apostles were never the historical acts of the apostles but the imagination of subsequent Christianity as to what the acts of the apostles should have been.


# 659

Acts 2 (KJV)

25 “For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved:�

Here’s the applicable Psalm:

Psalms (JPS)
16:1 “Michtam of David. Keep me, O God; for I have taken refuge in Thee.
16:2 I have said unto the Lord: 'Thou art my L-rd; I have no good but in Thee';
16:3 As for the holy that are in the earth, they are the excellent in whom is all my delight.
16:4 Let the idols of them be multiplied that make suit unto another; their drink-offerings of blood will I not offer, nor take their names upon my lips.�

Turns out David did speak of Jesus here, “their drink-offerings of blood will I not offer, nor take their names upon my lips�, but David associates the drink offering of blood of Jesus and the replacement of God’s name with Jesus’ as Evil.


# 660

Acts 2 (KJV)

30 “Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;�

Compare to Luke 1: (KJV)

34 “Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.�

KJV has dishonestly added “Christ� to 2:30 where no christ exists in the Greek (kind of says it all). The implication of 2:30 is that Jesus was from the seed of David but Luke 1:34 explains that Jesus was not from anyone’s seed. Nice evidence that the original Gospel stories such as “Luke� were closer to Judaism having a natural birth for Jesus as the heir of David and were subsequently changed in a Pagan direction exchanging a natural birth for a supernatural one. In “Luke� and “Matthew�, after the infancy narratives claiming supernatural births, which don’t agree, and is very good evidence that there was no supernatural birth, the rest of the stories have no reference to a supernatural birth. This observation is consistent with the theory that the original stories had no supernatural births. The Reader is also invited to consider that “Mark�, the original Gospel, and “John�, have no reference to a supernatural birth and that this could mean that neither author believed Jesus had a supernatural birth.


# 661

Acts 2 (KJV)

34 “For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,�

Here is the quote from Psalm110: (JPS)

1 “A Psalm of David. HaShem saith unto my lord: 'Sit thou at My right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.�

There are not two “Lord’s� in the Hebrew. The Hebrew word translated as “HaShem� above is used to refer exclusively to God. The following Hebrew word translated above as “lord� (adonai) is a title and could refer to God or a person. The Greek uses the same word for both, “kurios�, which is a title and means “lord�. The first use of kurios here in the Greek is a misquote of the Hebrew since the Greek word for God “Theon� should have been used. Either the original Greek author or a later editor used “kurios� in both places to deceptively try and equate Jesus with God. Most moderns now put the first use of kurios in capital letters “LORD� to reflect the meaning of the underlying Hebrew. The KJV still uses the exact same word for both to maintain the deception but the NJKV has corrected the error and now uses “LORD� for the first word. Seeing as how KJV has now corrected its own error I’m still waiting for KJV inerrantists to explain how this was not an error in the original KJV.


# 662

Acts 2 (KJV)

38 “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.�

Compare to Matthew 28: (KJV)

19 “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:�

In Acts Peter, speaking to Israel, says to be baptized in Jesus’ name. “Matthew’s� Jesus says to be baptized in the name of Jesus, God and holy spirit. Based on the testimony of Church Fathers it’s likely that “Matthew� originally agreed with “Luke� and was later changed by Trinitarians but the manuscript evidence supports the trinitarian formula. Ironically, Israel in these end days being primarily Jewish with some Muslims and as the Brits would say, “Not at all Christian.� doesn’t have anyone being baptized in Jesus’ name. Maybe it’s because Peter didn’t start his speech with “Simon says�.


# 663

Acts 2 (KJV)

6 “Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk.�

The Greek is “the Nazarene� and not “of Nazareth�. In “Luke’s� time Jesus may have been referred to as “the Nazarene� and later Christianity thought, “the Nazarene�, “what the hell does that mean?�


# 664

Acts 3 (KJV)

18 “But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled.�


I think we’d all agree (except for the unknown author of “Luke� of course) that no one could demonstrate that every prophet from the Tanakh prophesied that the Messiah would suffer


# 665

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�.


# 666

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).


# 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.�

“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.


# 668

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!


# 669

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).


# 670

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.


# 671

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.


JW:
Now for Christ's sake Price, deal with this before Gibson makes a holy seequel to The Passion of (The) Christ, "The Passion Of (The) Acts Of (The) Christ" based on The Delorius Daily Passion Of (The) Christ and Price's article. I see it now, a promotional review saying:

Bill and Ted and Peter Kirby - "Excellent".



Joseph
Counselor - One skilled in circumvention of The Law.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Errors_In_The_Christian_Bible/?yguid=68161660

http://hometown.aol.com/abdulreis/myhomepage/index.html

[JoeWallack]

JW - could you check the abdulreis webpage? It is missing some links to later pages, and I could only get up to error # 737, referring to Acts 17. I think there are more errors than that in Acts. ;)


JW:
Hi Toto. I haven't had much time for the 1001 Errors list in a long time. My top priority is completing the list so what time I have is spent adding to the list. I'm now up to # 798 (think of the incomplete but still functional Death Star from Star Wars). When I've finished the list I'll improve/create conviences. Besides, I love the gag where people like Peter, Vinnie and JP complain that they only see 737 Errors and ask where the other 264 are and I respond, "In the Christian Bible". As you can see the 1001 list is still a convenient resource when dealing with Errors for a Part of the Christian Bible, such as Acts.

When I complete the list and add 21st century conveniences I plan on adding arguments, pro and con, to the site. I'd like to have a comprehensive list of all arguments and identification of who is for and against Error and why. I think something like this is needed by II. Say 10 guaranteed or your soul back Errors by well know Skeptics with equal space given to well known defenders. The Internet is going to put Religion in its last throes as it is pure intellect and it will no longer matter how many people repeat the same argument and how loud they do it.

Maybe I should have a separate Forum here for the 1001 Errors list called "Comelics" (comedy/polemics) that is below BCH so hard core Skeptics don't feel like it's a distraction but above Humour so it could still have serious discussion.


And it really needs a comprehensive index page.


JW:
I have good news and bad news on that. The "good news" is that a Lubbavitcher Rabbi has offered to create an index for me (for some reason Jews are much more accepting of the 1001 list). The bad news is he still thinks Schneerson is Moshiach.


I suspect that Peter Kirby was more put out by the technical ineptitude of the web work than your theology. :)


JW:
No, Kirby's a straight shooter. I'm sure he thought that claiming any type of error involving possible misuse of the definite article was ridiculous. I've found that in general veteran and active Skeptics, like Till, tend to have this attitude. That identifying trivial errors is counter-productive as it takes away emphasis from important errors and hurts the credibility of the Skeptical effort. I think what people like Peter and Vinnie don't properly appreciate because of their expert knowledge of religion is that the average person out there and probably even the average reader of II have no idea that there is any type of issue involving the definite article. Looking at Former Believer testimony I think it's mixed as far as what effect quality and quantity of Errors they come to accept had on their decision to give up the pernicious superstition.


PS - you can't copy and paste one of the shortened links that vBB creates.

JW:
Thanks.



Joseph

EXCEPTION, n.
A thing which takes the liberty to differ from other things of its class, as an honest man, a truthful woman, etc. "The exception proves the rule" is an expression constantly upon the lips of the ignorant, who parrot it from one another with never a thought of its absurdity. In the Latin, "Exceptio probat regulam" means that the exception tests the rule, puts it to the proof, not confirms it. The malefactor who drew the meaning from this excellent dictum and substituted a contrary one of his own exerted an evil power which appears to be immortal.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Errors_In_The_Christian_Bible/?yguid=68161660

http://hometown.aol.com/abdulreis/myhomepage/index.html

[Peter Kirby]

When I complete the list and add 21st century conveniences I plan on adding arguments, pro and con, to the site. I'd like to have a comprehensive list of all arguments and identification of who is for and against Error and why.

Joe, now you are talking. I am only a dabbler in the field of Biblical Errancy, but I have been thinking about something like this for a while now. And now that I've found someone else who's been thinking the same thing, perhaps we can do a collaborative effort in this arena. I don't know how much I would be writing about errors, but I would be happy to donate my mad skillz at programming to create a web site that could go platinum (beyond the SAB, eat your heart out Tektonics).

What I am thinking about is this formula: ( Bible Software + ( SAB * 1001 Errors) ) ^ ( Wiki Technology ) = 666 = The Errancy Site that Will Rock Your Flipping Socks Off.

No, seriously, what I've envisioned for some time now is a Wiki-style site organized by Bible verse where possible contradictions and other errors can be discussed by anyone for each verse.

Obviously there is the potential for vandalism, so I suggest that the first rule be that each "Error" page be divided into two sections, Pro and Con, and that you can only edit in the section area that you support. There might also be a Neutral category for loosely relevant data.

Tell me what you think and whether you would consider letting me plag^H^H^H^Hcopy your 1001 site over into the new site. I would, of course, make you an administrator. We would also need someone like Gakusei Don (reasonable Christian) as an administrator.

No, Kirby's a straight shooter.

Thank you for that. I want to apologize for my earlier scatalogical comments. For what it matters, I didn't know that you were connected to Abdul Reis's site.

And, thanks for your review of "The Empty Tomb" on Amazon.

yours truly,
Peter Kirby

[The Grammar Police]

EXCEPTION, n.
A thing which takes the liberty to differ from other things of its class, as an honest man, a truthful woman, etc. "The exception proves the rule" is an expression constantly upon the lips of the ignorant, who parrot it from one another with never a thought of its absurdity. In the Latin, "Exceptio probat regulam" means that the exception tests the rule, puts it to the proof, not confirms it. The malefactor who drew the meaning from this excellent dictum and substituted a contrary one of his own exerted an evil power which appears to be immortal.

I'm sorry to butt in here - but you have the wrong etymology for this idiom.

It has nothing to do with the exception "putting the rule to the proof/test". You are confusing it with the similar phrase - the proof of the pudding is in its eating. That second phrase uses the word "proof" in the manner in which you mean.

The "exception proves the rule" did indeed start out as a Latin phrase. It was part of mediaeval English law. However, you only quoted part of the Latin out of context. The whole phrase was exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis, which means "the exception confirms the rule in the cases not excepted".

The context of this is that, for example, if you see a sign that says "No drinks served on Sunday", then you can reasonably infer from this exception that drinks are served during the rest of the week.

In other words - the existence of the stated exception to the rule can be used to prove (in the legal sense, not the logical sense) that the rule exists.

I must apologise to those who think that this digression is off topic for this thread, but it is an ideal demonstration of how easily an "error" can be seen in a translated phrase because the person who sees the "error" has a faulty understanding (or a lack of context) of the version in the original language.

[JoeWallack]

Joe, now you are talking. I am only a dabbler in the field of Biblical Errancy, but I have been thinking about something like this for a while now. And now that I've found someone else who's been thinking the same thing, perhaps we can do a collaborative effort in this arena. I don't know how much I would be writing about errors, but I would be happy to donate my mad skillz at programming to create a web site that could go platinum (beyond the SAB, eat your heart out Tektonics).

What I am thinking about is this formula: ( Bible Software + ( SAB * 1001 Errors) ) ^ ( Wiki Technology ) = 666 = The Errancy Site that Will Rock Your Flipping Socks Off.

No, seriously, what I've envisioned for some time now is a Wiki-style site organized by Bible verse where possible contradictions and other errors can be discussed by anyone for each verse.

Obviously there is the potential for vandalism, so I suggest that the first rule be that each "Error" page be divided into two sections, Pro and Con, and that you can only edit in the section area that you support. There might also be a Neutral category for loosely relevant data.

Tell me what you think and whether you would consider letting me plag^H^H^H^Hcopy your 1001 site over into the new site. I would, of course, make you an administrator. We would also need someone like Gakusei Don (reasonable Christian) as an administrator.



JW:
Now wait just a minute Peter. This a very important decision. One that could affect the course of my entire life. I shall need time to think about it...I'll do it! Sabu, champagne!



Joseph

WARNING - The Skeptical General has determined that the 1001 Errors In The Christian Bible contains dangerous amounts of Tarivial and Nitpicotine. Skeptics should be advised that using it in order to convince a Fundie to count to ten before murdering an abortion provider because murder is always a sin, could be Hazardous to your credibility.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Errors_In_The_Christian_Bible/?yguid=68161660

http://hometown.aol.com/abdulreis/myhomepage/index.html

[Vinnie]

""""""""Besides, I love the gag where people like Peter, Vinnie and JP complain that they only see 737 Errors and ask """"""""""

Would you mind not using my name in your posts in this manner, please? Its grown tiresome. If you want to critique something I directly stated or wrote, go for it. Otherwise leave me out of your driveby quips and potshots.

Vinnie

[Peter Kirby]

JW:
Now wait just a minute Peter. This a very important decision. One that could affect the course of my entire life. I shall need time to think about it...I'll do it! Sabu, champagne!



Joseph

WARNING - The Skeptical General has determined that the 1001 Errors In The Christian Bible contains dangerous amounts of Tarivial and Nitpicotine. Skeptics should be advised that using it in order to convince a Fundie to count to ten before murdering an abortion provider because murder is always a sin, could be Hazardous to your credibility.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Errors_In_The_Christian_Bible/?yguid=68161660

http://hometown.aol.com/abdulreis/myhomepage/index.html

Brilliant! With any luck, construction on the new site will be completed in four to eight weeks.

I'll accept applications from anyone for administrator status, including Christians and Muslims and Jews and atheists and Buddhists and transcendental universalist Thomasine post-panentheist kung fu masters. Just let me know and give a statement of intent.

best wishes,
Peter Kirby, founder of the Thomasine post-panentheist anti-defamation league

[Vinnie]

""""""""""""""What I am thinking about is this formula: ( Bible Software + ( SAB * 1001 Errors) ) ^ ( Wiki Technology ) = 666 = The Errancy Site that Will Rock Your Flipping Socks Off.

No, seriously, what I've envisioned for some time now is a Wiki-style site organized by Bible verse where possible contradictions and other errors can be discussed by anyone for each verse."""""""""""""""

Break it into categories:

External errors
--science
--history
--archaeology
--moral


Internal
--Moral inconsistencies
--Contradictions of facts with sub categories
-sub-gospels
-sub-old vs new
--theological or doctrinal contrdictions (e.g. osas, fw/pre)

If you are going to add in all manner of errors then add in a "textual errors" to external, then add in a "translation errors" to the external and if we are going this far, might as well add a hermeneutics section for dealing with interpretation issues and quote mining..

[Peter Kirby]

""""""""""""""What I am thinking about is this formula: ( Bible Software + ( SAB * 1001 Errors) ) ^ ( Wiki Technology ) = 666 = The Errancy Site that Will Rock Your Flipping Socks Off.

No, seriously, what I've envisioned for some time now is a Wiki-style site organized by Bible verse where possible contradictions and other errors can be discussed by anyone for each verse."""""""""""""""

Break it into categories:

External errors
--science
--history
--archaeology
--moral


Internal
--Moral inconsistencies
--Contradictions of facts with sub categories
-sub-gospels
-sub-old vs new
--theological or doctrinal contrdictions (e.g. osas, fw/pre)

If you are going to add in all manner of errors then add in a "textual errors" to external, then add in a "translation errors" to the external and if we are going this far, might as well add a hermeneutics section for dealing with interpretation issues and quote mining..


It would be navigable by Bible chapter or by categories. The names of the pages themselves would be standardized "Book #:#" or, in the case of multiple errors per verse, a disambiguation page would be there with "Book #:# (error title)". Contradictions and other errors that span more than one verse would have redirects to an arbitrary verse selected as the representative page.

I have registered errancywiki.com and welcome more ideas on all this.

best wishes,
Peter Kirby

[JoeWallack]

EXCEPTION, n.
A thing which takes the liberty to differ from other things of its class, as an honest man, a truthful woman, etc. "The exception proves the rule" is an expression constantly upon the lips of the ignorant, who parrot it from one another with never a thought of its absurdity. In the Latin, "Exceptio probat regulam" means that the exception tests the rule, puts it to the proof, not confirms it. The malefactor who drew the meaning from this excellent dictum and substituted a contrary one of his own exerted an evil power which appears to be immortal.


I'm sorry to butt in here - but you have the wrong etymology for this idiom.
It has nothing to do with the exception "putting the rule to the proof/test". You are confusing it with the similar phrase - the proof of the pudding is in its eating. That second phrase uses the word "proof" in the manner in which you mean.
The "exception proves the rule" did indeed start out as a Latin phrase. It was part of mediaeval English law. However, you only quoted part of the Latin out of context. The whole phrase was exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis, which means "the exception confirms the rule in the cases not excepted".
The context of this is that, for example, if you see a sign that says "No drinks served on Sunday", then you can reasonably infer from this exception that drinks are served during the rest of the week.
In other words - the existence of the stated exception to the rule can be used to prove (in the legal sense, not the logical sense) that the rule exists.
I must apologise to those who think that this digression is off topic for this thread, but it is an ideal demonstration of how easily an "error" can be seen in a translated phrase because the person who sees the "error" has a faulty understanding (or a lack of context) of the version in the original language.

JW:
At last, someone who understands what the 1001 Errors List is all about. I tell you the truth, I copied the above from Ambrose Bierce's copy and the logic didn't seem to work for me either. I just liked the way the whole thing sounded. Unfortunately, Mr. Bierce is currently unavailable for a rebuttal as he appears to have gone wherever the hell the WMDs and Jesus have been hiding for the last 2,000 years.

Ya know, I could use someone just like you for the monumental 1001 Errors In The Christian Bible project (I assume you agree that generally using the definite article means that the definite article was intended). You wouldn't happen to have a Greek cousin would you?



Joseph (worrying that perhaps my time would have been better spent here running the above through spell check than adding the following)

EDITOR, n.
A person who combines the judicial functions of Minos, Rhadamanthus and Aeacus, but is placable with an obolus; a severely virtuous censor, but so charitable withal that he tolerates the virtues of others and the vices of himself; who flings about him the splintering lightning and sturdy thunders of admonition till he resembles a bunch of firecrackers petulantly uttering his mind at the tail of a dog; then straightway murmurs a mild, melodious lay, soft as the cooing of a donkey intoning its prayer to the evening star. Master of mysteries and lord of law, high-pinnacled upon the throne of thought, his face suffused with the dim splendors of the Transfiguration, his legs intertwisted and his tongue a-cheek, the editor spills his will along the paper and cuts it off in lengths to suit. And at intervals from behind the veil of the temple is heard the voice of the foreman demanding three inches of wit and six lines of religious meditation, or bidding him turn off the wisdom and whack up some pathos.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Errors_In_The_Christian_Bible/?yguid=68161660

http://hometown.aol.com/abdulreis/myhomepage/index.html