11 errors by Jesus and friends.

[sojourner]

the bible is book of errors yet believed by the half of the world as the holy book from god, is the greatest wonder. Iam sure u must have got these errors from the website THE BIBLE DECODED
anyway i came to know the real truth about bible from this website.

Could someone please enlighten me as to the subtle differences between "real truth" and "pretend truth?"

 

[tennis_hero]

37"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing. 38Look, your house is left to you desolate. 39For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'"

 

[Jeremy Mason]

Could someone please enlighten me as to the subtle differences between "real truth" and "pretend truth?"

One has more truthiness. :yes:

 

[tennis_hero]

Perhaps when you respond, you could pick one to focus on.


1.
Matthew 23:35
...that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the Sanctuary and the altar.

It is strange that Jesus could not tell the difference between one Zechariah and another.

Zechariah the son of Barachiah was not murdered.
Zechariah the son of Jehoiada was.

II Chronicles 24:20-21
Then the spirit of G-d took possession of Zechariah the son of Jehoiada the priest;...and they conspired against him, and by the command of the king they stoned him with stones in the court of the House of the L-rd.

Now I know Jesus was going on a whole rant and rave (just because the Pharisees wouldn't accept him - how mature) and in anger couldn't think straight hence the error.

Being so I didn't take it as he was THAT bad. Yet then I came across another one of Jesus' rants and from here I began to understand where all this was coming from...Let us further examine -

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/matt2335.html


[SIZE=+1][FONT=Times, Times New Roman, Serif][SIZE=+0]"In the Gospel the Nazareans use, we find 'son of Johoiada' instead of 'son of Barachia.[/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT]

2.
Mark 2:25--26
And he [Jesus] said to them: "Have you never read what David did, when he was in need and was hungry, he and those who were with him; how he entered the House of G-d, when Abiathar was high priest,..."

I Samuel 21:2
Then David came to Nob, to Ahimelech the priest, and Ahimelech came to meet David trembling, and said to him: "Why are you alone, and no man with you?"

Ahimelech was high priest at that time. Only after his death (I Samuel 22:18) did his son, Abiathar, succeed him:

I Samuel 30:7
And David said to Abiathar the priest, the son of Ahimelech....

Apparently Jesus wasn't all that fluent in scripture and chose followers who weren't either all that knowledgeable. Let us examine.

Read the actual verse.

In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread [mark 2:25]

Jesus did not say Abiathar "was" the high priest, he said in the days of Abiathar's time.

Let me give you an example, if i said "in the days of paul the apostle, he used to torment the Christians" you might assume that after Paul was saved he was tormenting the others, but no- its just in his lifetime

now let us read about the context of it all

Custardy: The Days of Abiathar the High Priest

Saul finds out that Ahimelech helped David, and has that group of priests massacred. Well, all of them, except one, who escapes to tell David. Abiathar, son of Ahimelech (who then becomes high priest by virtue of being the only survivor). In fact, the conservation between David and Abiathar suggests that Abiathar had been there when his father had helped David (1 Samuel 22:22). Abiathar, being priest to David, ends up much better known than his father ever was. He gets 27 mentions by name in the Old Testament; his dad Ahimelech gets 11.

Now what was Jesus trying to point out here by mentioning this- he was trying to show that sometimes everyone broke the law of the Sabbath (in an extreme case like starvation) he was also showing them that in their vehement strict hypocritical law following that they would let people die, rather then do good works for Yahweh.

Also note that Luke and Matthew both wrote of this event and neither mentions Abiathar, so it is entirely possible that it is something Jesus never said... but ifyou go by the view that he did say it, then as shown above, he didn't say anything in error. so it is you who put words into his mouth to discredit him

3.
II Samuel 5:6--7
And the king and his men went to Jerusalem against the Jebusites....David took the stronghold of Zion, the same is the city of David.

Ah yes, Luke - not even a Jew writes -

Luke 2:4--5
And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be enrolled with Mary, his betrothed wife who was with child.

Jerusalem, not Bethlehem, is called the "city of David."

Bethlehem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The city is the birthplace of David and the location where he was crowned as the king of Israel.

it appears that Luke who was not a Jew knows more about the Jewish King David then certain Jews do. you were correct in saying Jeruselem was the city of David, but you were innocorrect in assuming that was the only city of David, because Bethlehem is "literally" the city of David, since thats where he was born.

4.
Genesis 11:26
When Terah had lived seventy years he became the father of Abram....

Genesis 12:4
...Abram was seventy--five years old when he departed from Haran.

Genesis 11:32
The days of Terah were 205 years and Terah died in Haran.

Acts 7:4
Then he [Abraham] departed from the land of the Chaldeans, and lived in Haran. And after his father died, G-d removed him from there into the land [in which] you are now living.

Abraham left Haran when Terah was 145 (70+75), which was sixty years before Terah died (205 - 145). Were the Apostles familiar with math?

Let us analyze your points

point number one Gen:11:26

26 After Terah had lived 70 years, he became the father of Abram, Nahor and Haran

Where does the text say Abram was the first born:clap. You might Argue of course Abraham was the first born because he was mentioned first- tell me something, which of those 3 brothers is most important? i'm just curious....

Lets re-do your math

205 (Terah's age when he died in Haran, Gen 11:32)
- 75 (Abraham's age when he left Haran, Gen 12:4)
= 130

Terah was 130 when Abram was born. no contradiction

Looking Unto Jesus - How old was Abraham when he left Haran? - Limestone Church of Christ, Kingston, Ontario, Standing for New Testament Christianity, Bible, faith, Bible study, word of God, Christianity, Christian, church, truth, atheism, answers, g

5.
Genesis 46:27
And the sons of Joseph, who were born to him in Egypt, were two souls; all the souls of the house of Jacob that came into Egypt were seventy.


Acts 7:14
And Joseph sent and called to him Jacob his father and his kindred; seventy--five souls.

Acts 7 - Stephen’s Sermon to the Sanhedrin

How can Genesis 46:27 say there were seventy all together of the family of Israel, when Stephen in Acts 7:14 says it was 75? Stephen is quoting from the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, which says 75. The number in the Septuagint is not wrong, just arrived at in a different way, specifically adding five more sons (or grandsons) of Joseph born in Egypt.

6.
Joshua 24:32
The bones of Joseph, which the children of Israel brought up from Egypt, were buried in Shechem, in the portion of ground that Jacob bought from the sons of Hamor, the father of Shechem, for one hundred pieces of money; and they became the inheritance of the children of Joseph.

Let us see what Jesus' follower says

Acts 7:15--16
And Jacob went down into Egypt, and he died, he and our fathers, and they were carried over to Shechem and laid in the tomb that Abraham had bought for the sum of money from the sons of Hamor of Shechem.

Only Joseph was buried in Shechem, and Jacob bought the plot, not Abraham.

Jacob was buried in the plot Abraham had bought IN HEBRON.

Apologetics Press - The Bible Contradicts Itself?

First, both men could have bought the field. Jacob was in the area more than 150 years after Abraham. Abraham could have bought the field, sold it back, and Jacob could have bought the field many years later. The United States has been in existence only a little over 200 years. Imagine your great grandfather buying a field before the Civil War. In order for you to gain possession of the field today, you might have to buy it. Another possibility is that Abraham bought the tomb in Shechem, but Jacob bought a field. The Bible does not say that Jacob bought a tomb, just a field (Genesis 33:19, Joshua 24:32)


time permitting i will go through the other contradictions 7-11 in due course, by the grace of the Lord Jesus.

please be aware, most of your supposed contradictions have already got answers (just one google click away ) if you really want the answers

 

[Poisonshady313]

Lets re-do your math

205 (Terah's age when he died in Haran, Gen 11:32)
- 75 (Abraham's age when he left Haran, Gen 12:4)
= 130

Terah was 130 when Abram was born. no contradiction

Genesis 11:26
When Terah had lived seventy years he became the father of Abram...

That was in the post you quoted.

If this is the quality of your responses, don't waste your time. You do a better service to your position by saying nothing.

 

[Poisonshady313]

First, both men could have bought the field. Jacob was in the area more than 150 years after Abraham. Abraham could have bought the field, sold it back, and Jacob could have bought the field many years later. The United States has been in existence only a little over 200 years. Imagine your great grandfather buying a field before the Civil War. In order for you to gain possession of the field today, you might have to buy it. Another possibility is that Abraham bought the tomb in Shechem, but Jacob bought a field. The Bible does not say that Jacob bought a tomb, just a field (Genesis 33:19, Joshua 24:32)

What kind of insane nonsensical drivel is this?

Person A buys X
Person B buys Y

To declare that Y was bought by A is wrong. To declare that X was bought by B is wrong.

ABRAHAM bought the TOMB in HEBRON. JACOB bought a FIELD in SHECHEM.

All of this "could have" stuff is moronic garbage.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself for your post. If I could take frubals away from you, I would.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Bethlehem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The city is the birthplace of David and the location where he was crowned as the king of Israel.

it appears that Luke who was not a Jew knows more about the Jewish King David then certain Jews do. you were correct in saying Jeruselem was the city of David, but you were innocorrect in assuming that was the only city of David, because Bethlehem is "literally" the city of David, since thats where he was born.

The city where you're born isn't your city. David is of the city... the city is not of David. It's like calling Long Island "New York City".... it certainly is in New York, but it certainly isn't New York City. Luke apparently wasn't too bright either.

 

[Poisonshady313]

please be aware, most of your supposed contradictions have already got answers (just one google click away ) if you really want the answers

The answers don't exist, otherwise the contradictions wouldn't be contradictions. I've shown you how there most clearly are contradictions... which means any answers provided by google will be more insane ridiculous answers like the ones you've given me so far.

 

[Elessar]

The city where you're born isn't your city. David is of the city... the city is not of David. It's like calling Long Island "New York City".... it certainly is in New York, but it certainly isn't New York City. Luke apparently wasn't too bright either.

In the Indoeuropean sense of the audience to whom Lukah was writing, it most certainly is. In Greek, in almost every Indoeuropean language, the usage Lukah does is absolutely correct. It is incorrect in Hebrew, yes, and in a Jewish sense, yes. But Lukah was writing for gentiles in Greek. Not for Jews, and not in Aramaic or Hebrew.

 

[tennis_hero]

Genesis 11:26
When Terah had lived seventy years he became the father of Abram...

That was in the post you quoted.

If this is the quality of your responses, don't waste your time. You do a better service to your position by saying nothing.

you are hilarious... can you read, have you ever read the Torah? seriously... or are you trying to be deceitful?

by don't you write WORDS WHERE YOU SNEAKILY PUT THE DOTS (let me help)

כו וַיְחִי-תֶרַח, שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה; וַיּוֹלֶד,
אֶת-אַבְרָם, אֶת-נָחוֹר, וְאֶת-הָרָן.

26 And Terah lived seventy years, and begot Abram, Nahor, and Haran.

did he beget them all at 70 years of age? lets work out how that happened, that must have been 3 early term pregnancies at 4 months (and boy his wife must've been busy- 3 babies in a year), in biblical times, which MIRACULOUSLY all survived if we believe your opinion.... but guess what, i happen to disagree with your opinion

 

[tennis_hero]

What kind of insane nonsensical drivel is this?

Person A buys X
Person B buys Y

To declare that Y was bought by A is wrong. To declare that X was bought by B is wrong.

ABRAHAM bought the TOMB in HEBRON. JACOB bought a FIELD in SHECHEM.

All of this "could have" stuff is moronic garbage.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself for your post. If I could take frubals away from you, I would.

you're missing the point entirely

What did Jacob buy, a field?

do you understand what a CONTRADICTION is

2 statements both cannot be true at the same time- that is a contradiction

now what 2 statements have you got?

Jacob bought a field in Shechem

could Abraham have bought a tomb in Shechem (he lived and traveled through Shechem) on that land in a different time period, and still make Jacob buying a field true?

yes.

in fact, Abraham could have owned only the tomb, and the 2 statements would both be compatible and valid. Jacob only ever owned a field

when you try and make contradictions, at least point out 2 statements that CONTRADICT one another- thats kinda the idea of contradictions

where is your contradiction?

 

[Berachiah Ben Yisrael]

LOL, I love seeing truth debacle lies, misunderstandings and disinformation.

 

[Poisonshady313]

you are hilarious... can you read, have you ever read the Torah? seriously... or are you trying to be deceitful?

by don't you write WORDS WHERE YOU SNEAKILY PUT THE DOTS (let me help)

כו וַיְחִי-תֶרַח, שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה; וַיּוֹלֶד,
אֶת-אַבְרָם, אֶת-נָחוֹר, וְאֶת-הָרָן.

26 And Terah lived seventy years, and begot Abram, Nahor, and Haran.

did he beget them all at 70 years of age? lets work out how that happened, that must have been 3 early term pregnancies at 4 months (and boy his wife must've been busy- 3 babies in a year), in biblical times, which MIRACULOUSLY all survived if we believe your opinion.... but guess what, i happen to disagree with your opinion

Being incredulous is only impressive if you're right.

The sentence gives us two achievements of Terah... he reached the age of 70... and by that time, he had three sons. Which is to say, none of the sons were born after Terah turned 71.

 

[Poisonshady313]

you're missing the point entirely

What did Jacob buy, a field?

do you understand what a CONTRADICTION is

2 statements both cannot be true at the same time- that is a contradiction

now what 2 statements have you got?

Jacob bought a field in Shechem

could Abraham have bought a tomb in Shechem (he lived and traveled through Shechem) on that land in a different time period, and still make Jacob buying a field true?

yes.

in fact, Abraham could have owned only the tomb, and the 2 statements would both be compatible and valid. Jacob only ever owned a field

when you try and make contradictions, at least point out 2 statements that CONTRADICT one another- thats kinda the idea of contradictions

where is your contradiction?

You're using random hypotheticals to hope that you're right. There is no evidence that Abraham bought anything in Shechem. In fact, there is nothing in all of Jewish literature to suggest the notion that Abraham bought anything in Shechem.... which leads us to: Abraham didn't buy anything in Shechem. This statement up against the statement which asserts Abraham bought a plot in Shechem is a CONTRADICTION.

Oh yeah... how about the fact that Jacob was buried in Hebron, not Shechem?

Jacob bought the field in Shechem, and JOSEPH was buried in it.



Do you really expect me to take you seriously after this series of posts?

 

[Elessar]

You're using random hypotheticals to hope that you're right. There is no evidence that Abraham bought anything in Shechem. In fact, there is nothing in all of Jewish literature to suggest the notion that Abraham bought anything in Shechem.... which leads us to: Abraham didn't buy anything in Shechem. This statement up against the statement which asserts Abraham bought a plot in Shechem is a CONTRADICTION.

Oh yeah... how about the fact that Jacob was buried in Hebron, not Shechem?

Jacob bought the field in Shechem, and JOSEPH was buried in it.



Do you really expect me to take you seriously after this series of posts?

I doubt a banned user can expect anything anymore. As far as I can see, you have continually failed to respond to my points in this thread.

 

[Poisonshady313]

In the Indoeuropean sense of the audience to whom Lukah was writing, it most certainly is. In Greek, in almost every Indoeuropean language, the usage Lukah does is absolutely correct. It is incorrect in Hebrew, yes, and in a Jewish sense, yes. But Lukah was writing for gentiles in Greek. Not for Jews, and not in Aramaic or Hebrew.

If there hadn't been an instance in which a particular city were specifically designated as the city of David, this wouldn't be an issue to begin with. Gentiles wouldn't be impressed with David being from Bethlehem. Unless you want to chalk this up to translation error, I'm inclined to believe Luke had a poor grasp of scripture.

 

[Poisonshady313]

It is interesting to think that some people believe that Jesus was a Rabbi who astounded the Pharisees, given his tendency to be wrong about scripture.

The same goes for Paul who is claimed to be a Pharisee who learned with Gamaliel.


I have 11 examples of where Jesus & pals got it wrong. This should be an interesting discussion. Perhaps when you respond, you could pick one to focus on.


1.
Matthew 23:35
...that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the Sanctuary and the altar.

It is strange that Jesus could not tell the difference between one Zechariah and another.

Zechariah the son of Barachiah was not murdered.
Zechariah the son of Jehoiada was.

II Chronicles 24:20-21
Then the spirit of G-d took possession of Zechariah the son of Jehoiada the priest;...and they conspired against him, and by the command of the king they stoned him with stones in the court of the House of the L-rd.

Now I know Jesus was going on a whole rant and rave (just because the Pharisees wouldn't accept him - how mature) and in anger couldn't think straight hence the error.

Being so I didn't take it as he was THAT bad. Yet then I came across another one of Jesus' rants and from here I began to understand where all this was coming from...Let us further examine -

1. This one is pretty easy - scribal error. A scribe, writing down the text, or possibly even Mattiyahu himself, writing it down initially, or what have you, and mistook the rather minor priest "Z'kharyah" Yeshua was speaking of to be the more important prophet of the same name, and thus wrote down Ben Berekhyah rather than Ben Y'hoyada.

You'd think he'd have checked up on such a thing. The fact that Jews today remember the difference every year when Tisha B'av rolls around means that this wasn't a mystery.

A few conclusions can be drawn: He wasn't concerned with the truth/figured his audience wouldn't know the difference (a problem of credibility for the author of one of the books Christians consider holy)... This author apparently wasn't divinely inspired (contrary to a claim commonly made by Christians).

It's strange that centuries of scribes making copies of this book wouldn't have corrected the error, considering how frequently we're told how Jewish the first Christians were. Were they all really that ignorant? Or did they just not care?

2.
Mark 2:25--26
And he [Jesus] said to them: "Have you never read what David did, when he was in need and was hungry, he and those who were with him; how he entered the House of G-d, when Abiathar was high priest,..."

I Samuel 21:2
Then David came to Nob, to Ahimelech the priest, and Ahimelech came to meet David trembling, and said to him: "Why are you alone, and no man with you?"

Ahimelech was high priest at that time. Only after his death (I Samuel 22:18) did his son, Abiathar, succeed him:

I Samuel 30:7
And David said to Abiathar the priest, the son of Ahimelech....

Apparently Jesus wasn't all that fluent in scripture and chose followers who weren't either all that knowledgeable.

2. The latter is a simple scribal error. The name, I mean. Mistaking two closely related, relatively peripheral, historical figures of centuries past is easily done. If I had a nickel every time I read in a history book, no less, a mixup of Louis XIV and Louis XVI, both major, documented historical figures who lived a century apart and, and one was the great-great grandson of the other, I'd be a millionaire. And these also have the source right there. There is still no error.

When you've got the book right in front of you, there's no excuse. The statement "when Abiathar was high priest" is a direct contradiction of what's written in Samuel. Maybe it was a scribal error... maybe it was Jesus' error.

If I told you that President Lincoln died of natural causes, when it's well documented that he was shot in the head by John Wilkes Booth, how credible would I be in your eyes? Why would you believe anything I said? What would it say about my intelligence, especially if I was writing a biography about Lincoln and had the records concerning him in front of me?

We're not talking about two people of the same name anymore. This Louis XIV and Louis XVI business might have been more meaningful when discussing Zechariah.

It most certainly is an error.

3.
II Samuel 5:6--7
And the king and his men went to Jerusalem against the Jebusites....David took the stronghold of Zion, the same is the city of David.

Ah yes, Luke - not even a Jew writes -

Luke 2:4--5
And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be enrolled with Mary, his betrothed wife who was with child.

Jerusalem, not Bethlehem, is called the "city of David."

3. Luke was not written for Jews, but for goyim, and the historical, religious connotations of "City of David" meaning Yerushalayim would not make sense to goyim - who would be used to the convention of a man's city being where he was FROM, as the royal house names of Europe ("House of Normandy", "House of Habsburg", "House of Hohenzollern") and not where he ruled or came to live. Also, since the census called for each clan to go to its origin point, the House of David would be assigned Beitlechem, not Yerushalayim, as the Romans were goyim, not Jews.

To the goyim, it would be completely irrelevant why Joseph went to Bethlehem... if they were going to be told that the Messiah had to be born in Bethlehem, all that mattered is that he went to Bethlehem.

The fact is, it wasn't just a silly cultural quirk that called Jersualem the city of David. The Bible had already called Jerusalem the city of David. If the goyim were expected to blindly accept certain assertions made by the Tanach despite them having no meaning for them, they might as well have been accurate.

4.
Genesis 11:26
When Terah had lived seventy years he became the father of Abram....

Genesis 12:4
...Abram was seventy--five years old when he departed from Haran.

Genesis 11:32
The days of Terah were 205 years and Terah died in Haran.

Acts 7:4
Then he [Abraham] departed from the land of the Chaldeans, and lived in Haran. And after his father died, G-d removed him from there into the land [in which] you are now living.

Abraham left Haran when Terah was 145 (70+75), which was sixty years before Terah died (205 - 145). Were the Apostles familiar with math?

4. The person recorded as speaking here - Stephen - was on trial at the time of this account. He was not cross-checking sources. Many, many people who are not close scholars of the Torah do not know these facts, and the fact that Abraham suddenly left Haran is consistent, culturally, with the death of his father. Though it was an error, it was a reasonable assumption that he left when Terach died. I bet if you asked average Jews, most would guess that Terach died before Avraham avinu left for Kena'an.

No, it wasn't a reasonable assumption that he left when Terach died. The first mention of God speaking to Avraham was telling him to leave his country, his relatives, and his father's house. That last bit... his father's house, would seem terribly redundant if his father was dead.

I'd take your bet and I'd double it. Children are taught that Abraham left his father's house, which is to say, he wasn't dead yet.

I find it hard to believe that Stephen knew specifics about verse 31, but was ignorant of verse 32. Since there was no such thing as verses in those days, that means he carefully read one sentence, skipped a few lines, and carefully read some more.

5.
Genesis 46:27
And the sons of Joseph, who were born to him in Egypt, were two souls; all the souls of the house of Jacob that came into Egypt were seventy.


Acts 7:14
And Joseph sent and called to him Jacob his father and his kindred; seventy--five souls.

5. This is an error in the same vein as the last one - a man speaking under prosecution is likely to have slips of the tongue, such as this

Maybe. Jews are generally good with numbers... 10 commandments, 40 days and nights, 12 tribes of Israel... Who would have come up with 75 when the number is 70? That's like saying "A man speaking under prosecution mentioned the 15 tribes of Israel."

 

[Poisonshady313]

6.
Joshua 24:32
The bones of Joseph, which the children of Israel brought up from Egypt, were buried in Shechem, in the portion of ground that Jacob bought from the sons of Hamor, the father of Shechem, for one hundred pieces of money; and they became the inheritance of the children of Joseph.

Let us see what Jesus' follower says

Acts 7:15--16
And Jacob went down into Egypt, and he died, he and our fathers, and they were carried over to Shechem and laid in the tomb that Abraham had bought for the sum of money from the sons of Hamor of Shechem.

Only Joseph was buried in Shechem, and Jacob bought the plot, not Abraham.

Jacob was buried in the plot Abraham had bought IN HEBRON.

6. Again, a statement while under prosecution before a court. Not cross-checking with the Torah; slips of the tongue and slight errors are quite possible.

I think I was ten years old when I learned that Abraham bought the cave in Hebron. This isn't scholarly stuff... this is basic stuff.

I'd like to know why the author didn't take a moment in the narrative to explain that Stephen was nervous and somewhat mistaken, especially if this was written for goyim, not Jews who are expected to know better.

7.
Exodus 14:22
And the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea on dry land; the waters were a wall to them on their right side and on their left.

Paul (the supposed expert in the Torah) wrote

I Corinthians 10:1
I want you to know, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized to Moses in the cloud and in the sea....

One is baptized in water, not under a cloud, and the Jews stood on dry land, not in the sea itself.

7. While I do not generally recognize Paul as the best of scholars -- he was sent to the goyim, and not to the Jews, and thus was preaching Messianic Noahidism/Christianity, as opposed to Messianic Judaism -- this is possibly a metaphor invented by Paul, or, quite possibly, an oral tradition that some Jewish group or another held (remembering that the oral law wasn't standardized and redacted until over a century later), that the people used the Sea of Suf as a mikvah to immerse and purify themselves at some point after the miraculous crossing.

It's a stretch... but this is probably the most reasonable answer you've given so far.

Impossible to verify, if we're saying that this is an oral tradition that was lost before it could be compiled into the Talmud.... but somewhat reasonable.

8.
Numbers 25:9
And those that died by the plague were 24,000.

Paul (a man who claimed to be a Pharisee) wrote -

I Corinthians 10:8
We must not indulge in fornication as some of them did, and 23,000 fell in a single day.

8. Remembering my previous objections to Paul, most of his letters were, according to the letters themselves, written out by others and then signed by Paul - the scribe could have easily written 23,000 though Paul dictated 24,000.

And Paul wasn't around to proofread? Nobody responsible for copying the text caught this in 2000 years?

9.
Paul (a self fashioned ex-Pharisee) wrote-

Galatians 3:16
Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his seed. It does not say, "and to his seeds," referring to many, but, referring to one, "and to your seed," which is Christ.

The Hebrew word zera (seed) is invariably used in the singular when referring to progeny, whether one person or many are meant. For example, wherever G-d promised to bless Abraham's "seed," his descendants were intended:

Genesis 13:16
I will make your seed as the dust of the earth; so that if one could count the dust of the earth, then your seed would also be counted.

Genesis 15:13
Then the L-rd said to Abram: "Know for sure that your seed will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs, and they will be slaves there, and they will be oppressed for four hundred years."

Genesis 26:4
...and I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and will give to your seed all these lands...

Genesis 22:17
...I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and as the sand upon the seashore; and your seed shall possess the gate of their enemies; and through your seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because you have hearkened to My voice.

9. Again, remembering my previous objections to Paul, this is obviously his interpretation of a passage into Greek. He was probably quoting a Septuagint, not a sefer Torah, which had translated it in the singular in Greek, when, in Greek, a plural form would be called for. This is a translation problem on the part of the Septuagint, and then Paul's theory based on this translation problem.

He's making a theological assertion, not calling attention to a mistranslation. He should have known better, and not let himself be swayed by the greek version of a text he knew was less accurate than the original Hebrew.

10.
Exodus 24:6-8
And Moses took half the blood and put it in basins; and half the blood he sprinkled on the altar. Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read in the hearing of the people; and they said: "All that the L-rd has spoken we will do and obey." And Moses took the blood and sprinkled it upon the people, and said: "Behold, the blood of the covenant that the L-rd has made with you in accordance with all these words."

Let us see what Jesus' follower has to say...

Hebrews 9:19-20
For when every commandment of the law had been declared by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled on both the book itself and all the people, saying: "This is the blood of the covenant which G-d commanded you."

The Book of the Covenant was not sprinkled with blood.

10. You've fallen into something yet again - the fact that the Torah does not explicitly state that the blood was also sprinkled on the "Book of the Covenant" (in this translation), does not mean it was not - oral traditions the unknown author of Messianic Jews was referring to may have existed at the time which believed this.

You've fallen into the same position of "would have/could have" as our friend tennis_hero. The Torah, in general, is very specific about where blood was sprinkled. I'm less willing to believe that something like that would have been left out.

11.
Genesis 47:31
And he [Jacob] said: "Swear to me." And he [Joseph] swore to him. Then Israel [Jacob] bowed himself upon the head of his bed.

Let's see what Jesus' follower says.

Hebrews 11:21
By faith Jacob, when dying, blessed each of the sons of Joseph, bowing in worship over the head of his staff.

Joseph bowed upon the head of his bed, not his staff.



Let the fun begin.

11. It was referring to the time when Ya'akov blessed the sons of Yosef, not when Ya'akov was made Yosef swear to bury him with his fathers, and not in Egypt - they are explicitly, in the Torah, at different points of time:

Rather, when I sleep with my fathers, you are the carry me out of Egypt and bury me where they are buried." He replied, "I will do as you have said." He said, "Swear it to me," and he swore to him. Then Isra'el bowed down at the head of his bed.
Awhile later someone told Yosef that his fahter was ill. He took with him his two sons, M'nasheh and Efrayim.
Parashah 12:3-5/B'resheet 47:30-48:1 CJB (emphasis mine)

Nowhere between 47:31 and Jacob's death does it say that he bowed over the head of his staff.

In conclusion, you've proven absolutely nothing by your supposed "errors"

That's your opinion.

 

[Berachiah Ben Yisrael]

4.

Genesis 11:26
When Terah had lived seventy years he became the father of Abram....


Genesis 12:4
...Abram was seventy--five years old when he departed from Haran.


Genesis 11:32
The days of Terah were 205 years and Terah died in Haran.


Acts 7:4
Then he [Abraham] departed from the land of the Chaldeans, and lived in Haran. And after his father died, G-d removed him from there into the land [in which] you are now living.


Abraham left Haran when Terah was 145 (70+75), which was sixty years before Terah died (205 - 145). Were the Apostles familiar with math?

Being incredulous is only impressive if you're right.

The sentence gives us two achievements of Terah... he reached the age of 70... and by that time, he had three sons.

Which is to say, none of the sons were born after Terah turned 71.

I rather study what I read and try to put it into the correct context and make it work as it was intended. The text first states that Terah reached the age of 70 and with the following coma it goes on secondly to state that he begat the 3 boys. I like to say that it was only after he reached the age of 70 did he start fathering sons. Look at it this way…………..

Terah was 70 before he started having children.

Terah lived until he was 205.

Abram was 75 before he left Haran and it was after his father, Terah, died.

205 - 75 = 130 years old that Terah was when he had Abram.

Now did Abram leave at the same time right after Terah died or did he wait a year or three? In any case one would only need to adjust the year in which Terah had Abram. I mean you got 75 years to play with before Terah died. So like if Abram did not leave until 2 years after Terah died then Terah would have been 132 years old when he had Abram.

Now to answer your snide remarkable question of “Were the Apostles familiar with math?” my reply is as follows………….

Although there has been some debate as to this, I believe that the book of “Acts” just like unto the book of “Luke” where letters written to the same guy, Theophilus, and I, for one, do not look on the two as being inspired works. In any case, one could conclude that those writing, or speaking, on matters from so long ago could make a slip that wouldn’t be so unheard of in the same like manner as was in the Tanach. There are a number of instances in the Tanach where there has been numerical errors penned. Shall we expose those here as well?

Oh and for the record, I thought tennis_hero’s disbelief which produced his reply was very impressive even if he was wrong, though he wasn’t, just for showing that he questions things before he believes them to be true.

 

[Delamere]

Disrespectful phrases such as "claimed to be" or that Jesus had a "tendency to be wrong about scripture" are disappointing. I have never heard of anyone claim that Jesus and Saul were not both 100% Jewish, that the first disciples of Jesus were not all Jewish, or that Saul (Paul) was not a Pharisee of the tribe of Benjamin and sat at the feet of Gamaliel. Rather than beginning with slurs can we start from a position of honest acceptance of reality and then proceed. Jesus and the very first Christians were as Jewish as anyone who may contribute to this discussion.

In order to encourage a little humility, I believe it is true that but for Jesus and his "pals" the Jews would not have a homeland today called Israel.