Wednesday, November 19, 2025
Monday, November 17, 2025
"Jesus and the gods"
The Internet has no shortage of informative videos and documentaries on any subject imaginable. The problem with so much of this information, is the rhetoric, poured forth from various opposing ideologies. You have to swim through an ocean of deceit to find a nugget of truth. In this post, I'm going to try to swim for a while in this ocean and see if we can find a nugget of truth.
Our search is going to be around a video posted on YouTube a few weeks ago. The channel describes itself as a place to find truth, stating, “we go beyond blind belief and emotional narratives to investigate the truth using critical thinking, historical context, and philosophical insight.” After looking at their content, it is obvious they don't investigate or us critical thinking, nor historical context, but are either blinded by their hatred of Christianity or live in the bubble of their critical circles.
They begin their video stating, “The virgin birth, the miracles, the 12 disciples, the resurrection was not original, not even close, but a near carbon copy of a god worshiped in Ancient Egypt over 3,000 years before the New Testament was even written. Because that is exactly what the evidence suggests. When you examine the myth of Horus, the falcon-headed deity whose life narrative mirrors that of Jesus so precisely, it forces you to wonder, is Christianity founded on truth or plagiarism?” That statement is made as objective truth, it is not. It says the myth of Horus narrative mirrors that of Jesus precisely, so precisely that when examined you are forced to entertain the idea that the Gospel is a plagiarism. It does not, that is the simple truth.
 |
While elements of both stories resonate with common archetypes found in mythologies worldwide, the suggestion that the story of Jesus emerged directly from the story of Horus lacks substantial scholarly support. Each narrative is rich and complex within its own cultural setting, and understanding them requires appreciating their unique historical, theological, and societal contexts.” Now that we understand that A.I. knows nothing of their supposed precise narrative and direct connections, let's do some research and critical thinking for ourselves.
Our truth tellers boldly states, “Horus. . .was said to have been born of a virgin mother. His birth was heralded by a star in the east, and he was visited by three kings. At 12, he began teaching in temples, astonishing the elders with his wisdom. At 30, he was baptized in a river by a figure named Anoot the Baptizer.” Britannica mentions nothing concerning any of the features they listed in their entire description, the only phase that could remotely be a biblical phrase was, “Horus, an ancient Egyptian religion, a god in the form of a falcon whose right eye was the sun or morning star, representing power and quintessence, and whose left eye was the moon or evening star, representing healing.” — Britannica. Horus's right eye was call the morning star, and his left eye the moon. But that is hardly a precise comparison of the biblical morning star and moon.
World History Encyclopedia has an enormous amount of information on Horus. None of which supports the statements made by the video produces above.
Historian Jimmy Dunn suggests, “Horus is the most important of the avian deities” who takes on so many forms and is depicted so differently in various inscriptions that “it is nearly impossible to distinguish the 'true' Horus.”
The Cult of Isis became so popular that worship of the goddess traveled through trade to Greece and then to Rome where it became the greatest challenge to the new religion of Christianity in the 3rd-5th centuries CE. It would be difficult for Christianity to emerge from this cultish religion when it didn't even come into contact with Christianity till more than 300 years after Christ.
According to World History Encyclopedia, “The book The Pagan Christ by Tom Harpur (2004) makes this very claim, however, and has given rise to the so-called Horus-Jesus Controversy also known as the Son of God Controversy. Harpur claims that Christianity was invented wholly from Egyptian mythology, and that Jesus Christ is simply Horus re-imagined. To support his claim, Harpur cites `experts' on the subject such as Godfrey Higgins, Gerald Massey, and Alvin Boyd Kuhn, all writers from the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries, none of whom were biblical scholars or Egyptologists. Higgins was an English magistrate who believed all religions came from the Lost City of Atlantis; Massey, a self-styled Egyptologist, was an English spiritualist who studied available inscriptions at the British Museum; Kuhn was a self-published author whose primary focus was promoting his Christ Myth Theory which was essentially just a re-write of the work done by Higgins and Massey.
Harpur presents these `experts' as though they had uncovered something miraculous and unheard of when, in reality, their observations are often inaccurate re-treads of earlier works (such as those of Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius) or wildly speculative theories presented as though they are brilliant insights. The Dying and Reviving God motif had existed for thousands of years before the apostle Paul began his evangelical efforts c. 42-62 CE, and the concept of eternal life through personal dedication to a god was equally well established. Harpur's book presents a number of very serious problems to any reader acquainted with the Bible, Christianity, and Egyptian Mythology and history, but his most serious offense is the claim that Horus and Jesus share “remarkable similarities”.
This claim, which is quite obviously false to anyone who knows the stories of the two figures, has become the best known of the book. Unfortunately, many readers who do not know the original stories take Harpur's claims as legitimate scholarship when they are not. To cite only a few examples, Harpur asserts that both Horus and Jesus were born in a cave: this is false, Horus was born in the Delta swamps and Jesus in a stable; both births were announced by an angel: also false, as the concept of the angel, a messenger of God, is absent from Egyptian beliefs; Horus and Jesus were both baptized: this to is false, baptism was not practiced by Egyptians; both Horus and Jesus were tempted in the wilderness: also false, Horus battled Set in many regions, including the arid desert while the gospel stories make clear that Jesus was tempted in the desert or the wilderness; Horus and Jesus were both visited by Three Wise Men: also false, Horus is never visited by wise men and, even more damaging to Harpur's 'scholarship', there are not 'three wise men' mentioned in the Bible which only references `wise men' who bring three kinds of gifts; Horus and Jesus both raised the dead back to life: again false, Horus had nothing to do with raising Osiris or anyone else from the dead.”
I cannot judge the intent of the producers of this video, they certainly are not friendly to Christianity. Their entire channel is dedicated to its destruction. However, they may sincerely believe the information they are presenting, but it is obvious if they are ignorant of the truth, and are purposely researching within their own bubble or circles of affiliates. It was not difficult for me to find information on Horus and the other myths, as they are well documented. It appears they were only repeating the false information stated in the book “Pagan Christs”.
I also researched World History Edu which affirms nothing that is stated in the promoted video. I examined Ancient Egypt online which states, “Critics of the history of Jesus say that the parallels between the ideology of Horus and that of the story of Jesus indicates that they are the same story, just different time periods. However, this idea fails to take into account that the belief in Horus is one that spans thousands of years and many versions. Each era of belief in Horus would have believed in different versions of the god, none of which match up with the accounts of Jesus.”
I further researched Anthropology Review and the information they had on Horus to find no support for the video production. I have already addressed this issue myself back in 2022. You can read that review also at Theology Confused which is also written in response to a video sent by this same friend. I presented the accurate research then as I have now, but he simply ignored it or didn't read it and has sent it out again.
They are not content in their own unbelief, but are determined to deprive those of faith from their hope. They produce podcast using difficult passages where they corner precious people, yet not very knowledgeable Christians to mock and make fun of them in their ignorance. Most of Christianity consist of very kind people who do not know a lot about theology, but their faith is precious to them.
These podcast take these precious people who are bold enough or foolish enough to call into their programs and they try to destroy their faith. Perhaps they think, after having their faith destroyed, they will have the freedom they themselves boast of in their unbelief. They don't consider the damage that can occur to a person who has hope of seeing a loved one again, and the comfort that can bring to their grief. Yet they would rip that hope and comfort from them in the name of what they perceive as their truth. And to be fair, it's not just Atheist podcast that spread false information, I have recently seen a video in my YouTube feed promoting evidence that researchers have found Pharaoh's Chariots in the bottom of the sea. It was presented as absolute proof the Bible is true. This is a false narritive that has been making circles online for several years and keeps getting promoted.
The internet is a swamp of false information, unless you are reading or listening to a source that has in the past proven itself truthful, one has to be skeptical about anything they read or hear. Even if the source is trust worthly, it still warrens investigation before you embrace it as truth. The Scriptures continuedly warn not to be deceived, even if you do not believe the Scriptures, that is well advised.
For those who are convicted because of their past, live with a feeling of guilt, the Gospel is there for you. You don't have to pay pentance, or work you way to a free concience. Christ came and stood in you place, he took your guilt and bore it on the cross. He was raised again from the dead as evidence his sacrifice was acceptable and divine justice had been met. If you can believe that and it gives you hope and peace with God, don't let anyone rob you of your faith.
David
Monday, November 10, 2025
Difficulty of Deuteronomy 22:13-21
{Claims by Christians
1. The Bible is the Word of God.
2. God is a loving and just God.
3. God is an all-knowing God.
The Word of God (the Bible), as it says in Deuteronomy 22:20-21: a woman on her wedding night is found to be without evidence of her virginity (no bleeding). Then the men of her town shall bring her out to the entrance of her father's house and stone her to death because she committed a disgraceful act in Israel by prostituting herself in her father's house. The “proof” of virginity was traditionally understood to be a bedsheet with bloodstains from the wedding night.
Approximately 63% of women do not bleed the first time they have sex, according to a study published in the British Medical Journal. This figure is supported by multiple sources indicating that a significant majority—between 63% and 80%—of women do not experience bleeding during their first intercourse.
Considering the information above, how can anyone state God is a just, loving, and all knowing God? God didn't know all women don't bleed the first time they have sex? Stoning to death women who were innocent but found guilty on false evidence is okay with God?}
Most unbelievers couldn't care less about a statement lodged somewhere in the Old Testament literature, but others take offense in the character of the Christian God and statements like this made in the scriptures. It is presented in most cases as a gotcha question. However, there is nothing unloving or unjust in the scripture being presented. Those who present this as an argument, by doing so, demonstrate they don't know the God of the Bible. They present to you a god of their own making, one who is not loving and one who doesn't know the physical properties of the woman he created.
They say they don't believe in the God of the Bible, yet to refute Him and make an argument against Him, they invent one they can criticize. The God of the Bible choose this people referenced here in Deuteronomy out of slavery, delivered them by mighty signs and wonders. (Exodus Chapter 7 through 11) He divided the sea for the people to walk through on dry ground and drowned the Egyptians who tried to pursue. He brought water out of a rock in abundance enough to supply a whole nation of people. Yet, the critics present to you a god who can't even regulate the breaking of the female hymen. If He can control wither a female egg is fertilized, He can certainly control the breaking of the hymen at the appropriate time. [Gen 30:22 ESV] 22 Then God remembered Rachel, and God listened to her and opened her womb. It would certainly be understood in the text sighted, no misjudgment would be made in the system God had instituted for this people. I'm sure the 63% to 80% statistic has merit in today's society, but the account they are critiquing is within the confines of a supernatural environment created by God for a special people, purpose, and time.
[Deu 22:13-14 ESV] 13 “If any man takes a wife and goes in to her and then hates her 14 and accuses her of misconduct and brings a bad name upon her, saying, 'I took this woman, and when I came near her, I did not find in her evidence of virginity,'
Here we have either an unfaithful wife, or a lying husband. [Deu 22:13-17 ESV] 13 “If any man takes a wife and goes into her and then hates her 14 and accuses her of misconduct and brings a bad name upon her, saying, 'I took this woman, and when I came near her, I did not find in her evidence of virginity,' 15 then the father of the young woman and her mother shall take and bring out the evidence of her virginity to the elders of the city in the gate. 16 And the father of the young woman shall say to the elders, 'I gave my daughter to this man to marry, and he hates her; 17 and behold, he has accused her of misconduct, saying, “I did not find in your daughter evidence of virginity.” And yet this is the evidence of my daughter's virginity.' And they shall spread the cloak before the elders of the city. It is the father, not the husband, who is the Plaintiff that takes the case to court to defend his daughter's honor as well as the honor of his family. “I gave my daughter to this man to marry, and he hates her; 17 and behold, he has accused her of misconduct”. The Jewish commentary in the Tanakh states this to be symbolic. “And they shall spread the garment. This is a figurative expression, meaning: they shall clarify the matter as [“clear”] as a [new] garment. — [Sifrei 22:92, Keth. 46a]”. וּפָֽרְשׂוּ הַשִּׂמְלָה. הֲרֵי זֶה מָשָׁל, מְחֻוָּרִין הַדְּבָרִים כַּשִּׂמְלָה (שם; כתובות שם):
Gill's English commentary also acknowledges this: ''Indeed there are some Jewish writers, that interpret this cloth in a parabolical and allegorical sense, and understand by it witnesses that; would make the case as clear and plain as the spreading out of a cloth or garment. They suppose that before the damsel was lain with she was examined by several matrons, who declaring her to be a virgin, gave it under their hands in writing to her parents, which they were capable of producing in court when there was occasion for it; so Jarchi says, this is a parable; the meaning is, they made things as clear and as plain as a new cloth; with which agrees the Talmud which he seems to have taken it from, where on these words, and they shall spread the cloth, this remark is made; but the literal sense seems best.”
Take a look around you, what does your world look like? Are the crimes committed by a great unknown deity or fallen human beings? The God of the Bible has looked upon a world that hates Him, Atheist that malign Him, and all manner of people that commit depraved acts of debauchery continually every moment of every day. For no reason other than His own glory and goodness, He has provided redemption through the work of Christ and made an offer of eternal life to all who would simply believe and turn from their wicked ways.
Hope this was encouraging,
David
Monday, November 3, 2025
Who wrote the Bible? (Was the Bible edited? Part 4)
Answer #8 Gene's comment on my last post challenged my assessment that the Bible wasn't edited. He stated,“Do you believe there wasn’t any editing in that process? Even changing one word would be editing”. Gene's comment demonstrates the difficulty in debate between two opposing ideas. The minds are in opposition one against the other, therefore what one says is not what the other hears. Defining words are a necessity, defining context is equally important. Let's define edit and set the context.
The editing process can involve correction, condensation, organization, and many other modifications performed with an intention of producing a correct, consistent, accurate and complete piece of work. In this context I will agree with Gene, yes, the Bible has been and continues to be edited. However, it can also mean to alter, adapt, or refine especially to bring about conformity to a standard or to suit a particular purpose. This is the context in which it was applied in the documentary. They were not implying it had been edited to accuracy, but edited by malicious means against the original intent to achieve and be conducive with their conflicts, human politics, and human imagination. It is to this definition and context I made the statement in the previous post.
To prove that assessment I presented the translation of manuscript P52 which is dated around the 1st century. I then compared that reading with the reading of our modern ESV English Bible. With the two readings side by side, I simply asked, does that look like editing to you? The verses preserved on manuscript P52 were written around 1,900 years ago, yet we still have the same reading in our modern Bibles. That is just one example, it remains true throughout thousands of our old manuscripts, so yes, the statement made in the documentary is false, it is not a true.
Is it a horse or an infant? Of the thousands of ancient Greek copies of the New Testament that exist, do they all say the same thing? Absolute not, and that is where the critics and skeptics have their heyday. One example is [1Th 2:7 ESV] 7 But we were gentle among you, like a nursing mother taking care of her own children. One manuscript has ἵπποι (“horses”) instead of ἤπιοι (mild or kind:—gentle), very similar in spelling but very different in meaning. This would translate, But we were horses among you, like a nursing mother taking care of her children. Anyone reading this copy would immediately recognize it didn't make sense and do a correctional edit. Yet another copy has νήπιοι (“infants”) which would translate we became infants among you, like a nursing mother taking care of her children. Spelling still close, but this time it would not be so obvious, for infants does seem to fit the text somewhat. So what did Paul actually say in 1st Thessalonians? That is where the science of textual criticism comes in.
It is a known fact among scholars that less than 1% of the textual variants offer any change in the meaning of the text. However, that 1% still amounts to hundreds of meaningful and viable varants. Of that 1% it is never once stated, we don't know what it says, but it is always either a choice of A, B, or C. Like the illustration above, we know it was either gentle, infant, or horse. We know this because of the thousands of manuscripts in existence, those are the only choices. Bart Ehrman admits as much in his book “Misquoting Jesus”, where he states, “This oldest form of the text is no doubt closely (very closely) related to what the author originally wrote, and so it is the basis of our interpretation of his teaching.” — Bart Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus, page 62.
In the specific edition of “Misquoting Jesus” that includes a Q&A section, Dr. Ehrman states, “The position I argue for in ‘Misquoting Jesus’ does not actually stand at odds with Prof. Metzger’s position that the essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.” — Bart Ehrman Misquoting Jesus, p. 252.
Would Bart Ehrman agree that the New Testament text has been edited, revised, translated, debated, and censored over centuries. You would conclude by his book “Misquoting Jesus” he would. Yet, when pressed upon the facts of how serious these variants have effected what has been transmitted through the centuries, he admits there are no variant readings that affect any essential Christian belief. The Christian faith has been faithfully transmitted to us today.
The Council of Nicaea in 325 A. D. is most commonly referred to as the Council to do this. It is true that the Council did debate which books the church should recognize as authoritative. But this is not the scenario the skeptics would have you believe. We find difficulty in understanding this history because of our modern way of life. Bart Ehrman wrote “Misquoting Jesus” and within 3 months he had sold over 100,000 copies. This was not the world of the New Testament.
Paul would write a letter to a Church, and it would take days, or weeks for that one letter to arrive. None of the other churches would have that letter, but over time word would eventually reach another church and they would want a copy. Another handwritten copy would be made, and now two churches would have this letter. Over the next few decades, this very slow process would produce multiple copies over different areas of evangelism and the existing churches. It is easy to conceive, even after years of existence, churches would exist with different copies of these letters that were being passed around. It is also understandable if they were skectical of the letters they were not so familiar with. However, the copies they did have they considered to be authoritative for governing the Church.
First Timothy was likely written between A.D. 64 or 65, we know by then the Gospel of Luke was considered scripture because Paul quotes from Luke saying, [1Ti 5:18 ESV] 18 For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.” (Luke 10:7) We know Peter considered Paul's writings as scripture from [2Pe 3:15-16 ESV] 15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.
These Churches possessed different books at different times, each considering the ones they had as scripture. The fact they did not recognize quickly the books they were not familiar with as authoritative is a positive attribute. It demonstrates they were very careful about accepting just any book, it had to be proven to meet certain criteria before they would consider it.
The documentary stated,“gospels like the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary, and many others were excluded, not because they were less divine, but because they didn't fit the agenda of the church leaders in power.” There are no grounds to support that statement, nothing in history supports that view. These books came into existence in the 2nd and 3rd century, long after the Biblical text. In all the Patristic Fathers writings, they never quote from any of these sudo Gospels or sudo Apostolic letters. They were not included into the Cannon authorized at Nicaea because they were never consider authoritative. If the scenario the documentary was presenting were true, history would demonstrate that the church was using and quoting these unauthorized books. However, that is not what you find in the historical record.
To achieve their view of history, they sight events, councils, and the corruption within the Catholic Church which eventually led to the great schism in 1046, and later the Reformation. They convolute this history with the early church history to form their current narrative. This may not have been a purposeful effort by the documentary produces, but it is how they arrive at their view of history. But when we are talking about the formation of the Biblical Canon, we are talking about a time in Church history long before those events. You as a reader have a difficult choice, are the skeptics right or are the Biblical scholars right? I don't expect you to go and study 2000 years of Church history, I myself have read 5 volumes and only got a brief overview. Nor do I expect you to read the writings of the Patristic writers, it is estimated they quoted the New Testament over a million times. What you can do is apply basic logic, if all they say is true, how is it that Bart Ehrman, probably the most knowledgeable atheistic critic in the world today, ends it all by saying, “the essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.” Above that, if you are inclined to research, you can use some online tools and actually translate the old manuscripts yourself and read them. You don't have to just accept what they or I say, you can go and read them for yourself. If you are familiar with the biblical text, you will recognize the old manuscripts as such when translated.
Hope this was helpful,
David
Sunday, November 2, 2025
Who wrote the Bible? (Part 3)
Accusation #7 The Bible wasn't just written. It was edited, revised, translated, debated, and censored over centuries.
Answer #7 This statement is simply not accurate. Even Bart Ehrman who is one of today most hostile critical scholars of the New Testament would not agree with that statement. It is here I would have previously appealed to the dishonesty of the producers of the documentary. However, as I have been corrected in the comments of the first series post, it was my assumption. I don't know what their intent was, I can't read their minds. I have been just as guilty of passing on mis' formation because I trusted the sources. I am reminded of what Reagan once said, “Trust but verify”.There are certainly textual variants in the Thousands of New Testament manuscripts we have, evidenced by the study of textual criticism. But edited, revised, translated, debated, and censored is hardly the conclusion of that area of study. If you can read the Greek manuscripts, you can discover this for yourself first hand, many of the old manuscripts have been photographed and digitally posted online for study. There are online tools available as well where you can access the manuscript and read the translation of it's content and compare it with our modern English versions of the Bible. Below, I have comprised such a comparison, as you can see, their accusation is far from the truth.
Papyrus 52 Date: 100-125 A.D. Discovered: Fayum or Oxyrhynchus, Egypt Location: Manchester, England; John Rylands University Library.
P52 Jhn 18:31 Pilate therefore said to them, “Take him yourselves, and judge him according to your law.” Therefore the Jews said to him, “It is illegal for us to put anyone to death,” 32 that the word of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spoke, signifying by what kind of death he should die. Dated 100AD
[Jhn 18:31-32 ESV] 31 Pilate said to them, “Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law.” The Jews said to him, “It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death.” 32 This was to fulfill the word that Jesus had spoken to show by what kind of death he was going to die. Dated 2001
P52 is translated from a fragment dated around the 1st century, the second is from John, as translated in our modern ESV translation some 2,000 years later. Hard to see any editing, revising, or censoring.
[Jhn 18:33 ESV] 18:33 So Pilate entered his headquarters again and called Jesus and said to him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” Dated 2001
P52 Jhn 18:37 Pilate therefore said to him, “Are you a king then?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this reason I have been born, and for this reason I have come into the world, that I should testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.” Dated 100 A. D.
[Jhn 18:37 ESV] 37 Then Pilate said to him, “So you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world--to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.” Dated 2001
P52 Jhn 18:38 Pilate said to him, “What is truth?” When he had said this, he went out again to the Jews, and said to them, “I find no basis for a charge against him. Dated 100 A. D.
[Jhn 18:38 ESV] 38 Pilate said to him, “What is truth?” After he had said this, he went back outside to the Jews and told them, “I find no guilt in him. Dated 2001
[Phm 1:13-15 ESV] 13 I would have been glad to keep him with me, in order that he might serve me on your behalf during my imprisonment for the gospel, 14 but I preferred to do nothing without your consent in order that your goodness might not be by compulsion but of your own accord. 15 For this perhaps is why he was parted from you for a while, that you might have him back forever, Date 2001
P40 Romans 1:24 Therefore God also gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to uncleanness, that their bodies should be dishonored among themselves; 25 who exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 26 For this reason, God gave them up to vile passions. For their women changed the natural function into that which is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural function of the woman, burned in their lust toward one another, men doing what is inappropriate with men, and receiving in themselves the due penalty of their error. Date 250 A. D.
[Rom 1:24-27 ESV] 24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. Date 2001
P40 Romans 2:1 Therefore you are without excuse, O man, whoever you are who judge. For in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself. For you who judge practice the same things. 2 We know that the judgment of God is according to truth against those who practice such things. 3 Do you think this, O man who judges those who practice such things, and do the same, that you will escape the judgment of God? Date 250 A. D.
[Rom 2:1-3 ESV] 1 Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things. 2 We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things. 3 Do you suppose, O man--you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself--that you will escape the judgment of God? Date 2001
P40 Romans 3:21 But now apart from the law, a righteousness of God has been revealed, being testified by the law and the prophets; 22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ to all and on all those who believe. For there is no distinction, 23 for all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God; 24 being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; 25 whom God sent to be an atoning sacrifice, through faith in his blood, for a demonstration of his righteousness through the passing over of prior sins, in God’s forbearance; 26 to demonstrate his righteousness at this present time; that he might himself be just, and the justifier of him who has faith in Jesus. 27 Where then is the boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. 28 We maintain therefore that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Isn’t he the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30 since indeed there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith, and the uncircumcised through faith. Date 250 A. D.
[Rom 3:21-30 ESV] 21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it-- 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. 27 Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30 since God is one--who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. Date 2001
P40 Romans 4 What then will we say that Abraham, has found? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not toward God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” 4 Now to him who works, the reward is not counted as grace, but as something owed. 5 But to him who works, but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness. 6 apart from works, 7 “Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, whose sins are covered. 8 Blessed is the man whom the Lord will by no means charge with sin.” Date 250 A. D.
[Rom 4:1-8 ESV] 1 What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” 4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, 6 just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works: 7 “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; 8 blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.” Date 2001
What you actually find in these ancient manuscripts text above are variant readings and spellings, but in 2000 years of transmission the scripture has been faithfully transmitted. What you do not find is that “It was edited, revised, translated, debated, and censored over centuries.” There are a few verses in Mark known as the long ending of Mark that have been added that were not in the original autographs. Also, the story of the woman caught in adultery in John was most likely added by a scribe at a later day. It would have been accurate for the documentary to state, “There are some well known edits and revisions that were made to the text in the later manuscripts. However, textual scholarship accounts for these editions based on the information gathered from the older text”. If the documentary was attempting to provide accurate and truthful information, it failed miserably.
Hope this was helpful,
David
Saturday, November 1, 2025
Who wrote the Bible? (Part 2)
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
-
"The Bible says God saw the Earth was corrupt and filled with violence and he decided to destroy what he created. If God never makes a ... -
I recently received a podcast via text with the suggestion I should listen to and consider its contents. It consisted of an interview betwee...