Accusation #4 Each group represented a different tradition. Each had different ideas about God, society, and morality. And their writings were woven together into what we now think of as a single narrative. Take the two creation stories in Genesis. The first describes a structured 7-day creation where God speaks everything into existence. The second is far more human centered, with God molding Adam from dust and forming Eve from his rib. These contradictions aren't mistakes. They're evidence that two different traditions were combined into one text, preserved side by side, even though they don't agree.
Answer #4 I think we are beginning to see that honesty is not the intent of this documentary. The portion of scripture they are referring to is Genesis 1:1 through 2:3 and Genesis 2:4 through 2:25. See (Genesis) Of these two portions of scripture, they make the most embarrassing statement, “These contradictions aren't mistakes. They're evidence that two different traditions were combined into one text, preserved side by side, even though they don't agree.” That is the most ridiculous statement one could possibly make. I could say, “Friday I went and purchased a motorcycle, Saturday I noticed the seat was uncomfortable, so I replaced the seat with another one.” Using their accusation, that couldn't possibly be the same bike or person. The two statements don't agree and contradict each other.
I suggest you read the passages of scripture referred to by clinking on the “Genesis” link above. You will clearly see what a ridiculous statement they have made. Obviously, they were counting on the fact their listener's would never actually go and read the text, but simply take their word. Comparing the two portions of scripture side by side, you find not a single contradiction. They don't agree word for word because they are talking about two different aspects of creation. The first speaks of Creation in general, the second speaks of the creation of man in specific. This documentary was not created to inform, but to miss-inform and deceive the listener.
Accusation #5 And then we get to the New Testament, which is even more complicated. Most people assume the Gospels were written by the disciples of Jesus, but that's simply not the case. None of the gospels were written during Jesus' lifetime. They were composed decades later in Greek, not in the Aramaic that Jesus actually spoke.
Answer #5 This is actually a fairly accurate statement. The Gospels were not signed by their authors as far as we know, tradition only assigns authorship to each of the Gospels. It is also true the accounts were written after the death of Christ and before the end of the 1st Century. The basic reason why Greek was chosen for the New Testament instead of Aramaic was that the writers wished to reach a broad, Gentile audience, not just a Jewish audience. The spoken tongue used by both the disciples and Christ was likely Aramaic. However, Greek was the leading written and spoken language of the eastern Mediterranean world when Rome ruled the world during the New Testament period. Our host in the documentary takes these facts and attempts to present them with a negative connotation, demonstrating his purpose is not to inform but mislead.
Answer #6 “A man who never met Jesus?” Really? [Act 9:4-5 ESV] 4 And falling to the ground, he heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?” 5 And he said, “Who are you, Lord?” And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.” [Act 13:9 ESV] 9 But Saul, who was also called Paul. . .
“In many ways, Christianity is Paul's invention.” Really? [Gal 1:11-12 ESV] 11 For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man's gospel. 12 For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. All you have to do to critique their false statements is simply read the scripture, but obviously the audience they are targeting are expected to never do so. They would probably refute that answer because it's found in the Bible, but their accusation is found nowhere except in their own conjectures.
It is emphatically stated in their accusation, “Some were written by him. Others were written later by followers pretending to be him.” It is stated as matter of fact when it is only opinion based on letter structure and word uses by some scholars. It is true those differences exist, but it proves nothing emphatically, it is well-known that amanuensis were used during this time period, who penned a letter as the author was dictating the message to him. As a result, different style of writing would emerge between individuals. It would have been an honest statement to draw attention to the fact that some scholars question their authenticity as a result of certain anomalies, none of which are conclusive. But they were not interested in being honest.
Hope this was helpful,
David
