Volume 8 Issue 12: Fill & Download for Free

Ted McCartin·19m agoWell, Dean, your answer is eloquent and well thought through, but it is wrong.However, I am not going to argue about it with you. Contention is the spirit of Satan, not The Lord.There are more scriptures supporting being saved by Faith, Grace, AND Works, than Grace alone.There are 40,000–45,000 Christian denominations all claiming that their interpretation of whichever Bible version they are using, is the one which will get you into Heaven and avoid Hell.The KJV Bible has 31,102 verses.The average length of a verse is 25.2 words.If we were translating the KJV Bible into Spanish, some Spanish words can have up to ten meanings. (From my Quoran friend Toby Dillon who studied Spanish in high school).Common words in English such as “the”, “an”, “a” can’t be misunderstood,Please refer toMost common words in English - WikipediaWord lists by frequency - WikipediaOxford English Corpus - Wikipedia(OEC contains nearly 2.1 BILLION words from the UK, the United States, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, the Caribbean, Canada, India, Singapore, and South Africa).Dolch word list - WikipediaThose words in Spanish: the = los; an = un; a = una;Thus not every word will have 10 meanings.However, if you have the computer programming skills and the time to delete from the 2.1 BILLION words in OEC the most common words which can’t be misunderstood go for it.For simplicity sake, we have 10*25.2*31,102* 40,000 (minimum number of Christian denominations) = 313,508,160,000 interpretations of Biblical scripture.Michael Hickenbotham•29m agoB.S. in Engineering & Religion, Brigham Young University (Graduated 1973)How can a Christian not believe in Biblical inerrancy when Jesus clearly affirmed it in places such as Luke 24:44, John 10:35 and Matthew 4:4?As many here have pointed out, this is circular reasoning. Bible inerrancy and infallibility is a Protestant belief that actually has no real foundation in scripture. Let’s start with your scriptures:Luke 24:44He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”The Lord is saying all the O.T. prophecies written about him will be fulfilled. That’s not the same as inerrancy.John 10:35If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside—I don’t believe setting aside scripture is equivalent to inerrancy. And what was scripture in that day? — only the Old Testament.Matthew 4:4Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”Still not inerrancy. I just commented on this scripture at: Michael Hickenbotham's answer to Regarding Biblical inerrancy, infallibility, and literalism, do you believe that the words Jesus spoke that were never written down would not add to nor take away from the meaning of canonical scripture?Now just to prove biblical inerrancy is a myth, let me give a few examples of errors in our modern King James Bibles. Before I do so, let me reassure you I believe the Bible is the word of God. It has gone through many hands and errors have crept into it but as it was revealed, it was the word of God. Now a few errors:1. Number of Israelites killed by a plague - Num. 25:1, 9; 1 Cor. 10:82. Sisera's death - Jud. 4:21-22; 5:25-273. Jepthah's burnt offering - Jud. 11:30-40; see Ex. 20:134. Evil spirits from the Lord - 1 Sam. 16:14-16, 23; 19:95. Saul's death, a suicide or murder? - 1 Sam. 31:4-5; 2 Sam. 1:10; 21:126. Number slain of David - 2 Sam. 10:18; 1 Chron. 19:187. God or Satan provoked David - 2 Sam. 24:1; 1 Chron. 21:18. Dead arose - 2 Kin. 19:35; Isa. 37:369. God creates evil - Isa. 45:710. Lord makes us err and hardens our hearts - Isa. 63:16-1711. Differences in the genealogies of Christ - Matt. 1:6-16; Luke 3:23-31; see Jesus the Christ, pp. 85-9012. The Lord leads us into temptation - Matt. 6:12; Jam. 1:1313. Man or men with an unclean spirit - Matt. 8:23-34; Mark 5:1-18; Luke 8:26-3914. The sign of Jonas (2 or 3 nights) - Matt. 12:40; 28:1; Mark 15:42; 16:1-215. Christ baptized - John 3:22; 4:216. Blind man or men healed at Jericho - Matt. 20:29-34; Mark 10:46-52; Luke 18:35-4317. Mother or apostles request - Matt. 20:20-29; Mark 10:35-4518. Death of Judas - Matt. 27:5; Acts 1:1819. Misattribution - Matt. 27:9-10; Zech 11:1320. Crucifixion inscriptions - Matt. 27:37; Mark 15:26; Luke 23:38; John 19:1921. Christ's last words - Luke 23:40; John 19:3022. Angels at the tomb - Matt. 28:2; Mark 16:5; Luke 24:4; John 20:1223. Mistranslations of Hebrew words:a. Book (Gen. 5:1; Ex. 17:4; etc.) - scroll or tabletb. Brass (Gen. 4:22; Ex. 25:3; etc.) - possibly copperc. Oak (Isa. 1:29; Ezek. 27:6; etc.) - possibly elmd. Whale (Gen. 1:21; Job 7:12; etc.) - large fish24. Mistranslations of Greek words:a. Virtue (Mark 5:30; Luke 6:19; 8:46)b. Parable (John 10:6) - should be allegoryc. Easter (Acts 12:4) - should be Passoverd. Charity (1 Cor. 13:1-4, 8; etc.) - should be lovee. Hell (Matt. 10:28; 11:23; etc.)Proponents of Bible inerrancy often make extravagant claims about the accuracy and consistency of Bible manuscripts in existence today. Although it is true that we have more than 5000 Greek manuscripts containing all or part of the New Testament, it is also true that no two manuscripts are identical. Scholars continue to debate the authenticity of various Bible passages and the reliability of different texts. Those defending the Bible's accuracy often insist that differences do not affect doctrinal issues and are therefore minor. It is interesting to note that when Mark 16:16 is cited as proof that baptism is essential to salvation, the same people will point out that "most reliable early manuscripts" do not contain the last 12 verses of Mark. Thus, more than half of the last chapter of Mark is considered by many Protestant scholars to be of questionable authority. The fact that one of these verses states: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" (Mark 16:16) blatantly defies the doctrinal irrelevancy assertion. To this example we could add many other similar passages. Four of the more obvious examples include John 7:53-8:11; Acts 8:37; 9:5-6; and 1 John 5:7-8. Each of these passages has been omitted from one or more New Testament Bible translations because early Greek manuscripts do not contain these verses. We should also note that some scholars even question the authenticity of the final phrase of the Lord's Prayer ("For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." - Matt. 6:13; see also Luke 11:2-4 and Answers to Gospel Questions, 3:133-135). These discrepancies are more often the rule than the exception. This author has noted more than 100 New Testament verses where all or part of the verse is missing in some manuscripts and more than 100 other passages where significant wording variations occurred between the Nestle Greek text and the King James Received text.Discrepancies between texts are not just found in the New Testament. The Old Testament contains similar examples of textual variances. Scholars note that the Septuagint translation, which was used by early Christians, omits 1 Samuel 17:12-31, 41, 50, and 55-58. While this might seem to be a mistake, the story of David and Goliath becomes less contradictory and reads more smoothly when these verses are left out. It is quite possible these verses were added later (Rediscovering the Book of Mormon, ed. John L. Sorenson and Melvin J. Thorne, p. 17).Matthew 5:18, 24:35, Mark 13:31, and Luke 21:33 are also cited as proof that the Bible will be preserved by the Lord. There is no doubt that the Lord preserved the scriptures and especially Christ's words, but we cannot assume that all of his words or even all scriptures have been preserved. The scriptures are, according to John, incomplete in the details of Christ's life (John 21:25) and the manuscripts we have today differ in many of the details they do contain. Although Christ did state that not "one jot or tittle shall... pass from the law, till all be fulfilled" (Matt. 5:18), this in no way refers to preservation of scripture. The law spoken of is the law of Moses and "all" seems to refer to the prophetic symbolism represented in the law of Moses. Therefore, the law of Moses could not be changed until Christ fulfilled "all things" pertaining to his life and mission represented in the law, as well as in the prophets and the psalms (Luke 24:44). After the law had been fulfilled (Gal. 5:14), it was changed (Heb. 7:12; 8:8-13). As Paul states, "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come we are no longer under a schoolmaster" (Gal. 3:24-25). Thus, it was only the law of Moses which was preserved and then only until Christ came. This passage in no way justifies a claim that the Bible or any scripture will be preserved without error. Note that the above explanation also applies to Psalms 19:7.Modern Christians who refuse to admit the fact that God can reveal scripture today as he did anciently have devised a God who is not the same yesterday and today. By refusing to live by every word which proceeds forth from God they are falling into the same trap as the Jews of Christ's day. The Jews in that day used their Old Testament scriptures to show that Christ's teachings went far beyond the revelations of the prophets. In so doing they refused the New Testament blessings available to those who accept Christ and his teachings. Modern Christians are using the Bible as their sole standard while rejecting the Book of Mormon and other modern revelation. In so doing they are refusing not only the additional understanding these scriptures bring but most importantly, the blessings of exaltation available only through the restored priesthood and church of God.The above inconsistencies and errors do not shake the faith of Latter-day Saints for several reasons: first, we have modern scriptures as well as Joseph Smith's inspired revision of the Bible which restore many plain and precious portions of the gospel that were lost (see 1 Nephi 13:24-26); second, we have the additional witness of modern prophets and apostles to help us; and third, we have an assurance that the Holy Ghost will guide us in understanding not only the scriptures but "all truth" (John 14:26; 16:13; Moroni 10:4-5; D&C 121:26). Other Christians today have no such assurance because they rely solely on the Bible for all truth. They have also chosen to ignore all of God's word revealed in these latter days and have denied the need for a restoration of God's priesthood power through which the gift of the Holy Ghost is given (4th and 5th Articles of Faith). As Paul taught, no man knoweth the things of God except the Holy Ghost reveal it unto him (1 Cor. 2:10- 13). Though members of the various Catholic and Protestant denominations may gain an understanding of many gospel truths by the inspiration of the Spirit, they will not be guided to "all truth" without receipt of the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands from those authorized to bestow it. (excerpted from my book entitled Answering Challenging Mormon Questions.See also:Mormonism and the Bible/InerrancyHunter's Fav Church StuffRetrieved Monday 2/11/2020Regarding Biblical inerrancy, infallibility, and literalism, do you believe that the words Jesus spoke that were never written down would not add to nor take away from the meaning of canonical scripture?Michael Hickenbotham•1h agoB.S. in Engineering & Religion, Brigham Young University (Graduated 1973)This is an excellent question but it starts off with a few erroneous assumptions. Bible inerrancy, infallibility, and literalism is a Protestant belief that actually has no foundation in scripture. To keep my answer a bit shorter, I will skip over that misconception for now and get to your real question.When tempted by Satan, the Lord answered, “It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” (Matthew 4:4) Couple that with Amos 3:7 which tell us, “Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets” and you have most of the answer you seek. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints seem to be unique among Christians today in that they believe God "will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God" (9th Article of Faith). The Lord has revealed his word to modern prophets in our day.Revelation 22:18-19 is often cited to show that the scriptural canon is complete. This passage cannot reasonably be interpreted to mean that no further scripture will be revealed by God for several reasons:1. If prohibiting further revelation was the intent of these verses, then the Saints of John's day and for more than a thousand years after misunderstood this scripture. The book entitled "The Revelation of John" was a separate document for hundreds of years before it was assembled with other writings into the scriptural library we call the Bible. The word Bible comes from the Greek "ta biblia" meaning "the books" (see LDS Bible Dictionary - Bible). Thus, John was referring only, as he states it, to "the words of the prophecy of this book,” or in other words, only to the book called "The Revelation of John" (Rev. 22:18-19). It seems apparent that John was concerned that men would change his prophecies and thereby alter and destroy the truths they contained (1 Nephi 13:26-34).2. This injunction specifies only that "man" shall not add to or take away from these revealed words (Rev. 22:18; D&C 20:35). God may add and does add to his word as he desires. Modern LDS scripture was written "by way of commandment" from the Lord and was given "by the gift and power of God" (Book of Mormon Title Page; D&C 1:1, 6; 45:60-61).3. Deuteronomy contains essentially the same prohibition in Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32. Does this invalidate all scripture given after the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament)? All would agree that it certainly does not. Why then should a similar statement found in a New Testament book invalidate all modern scripture?4. Evidence indicates that John himself wrote additional scripture after his own "Revelation.” Bible scholars generally agree that John recorded his book of "Revelation" at about 95 or 96 A.D. on the Isle of Patmos. The Gospel of John is dated to 96 to 104 A.D. and was thought to have been written at Ephesus. John's 3 epistles were thought to have been written at about the same time as the Gospel of John (96 to 104 A.D.). See Daniel-Rops, L'Eglise des Apotres et des Martyrs, pp. 304-306; 1952 Melchizedek Priesthood Manual (The Divine Church by James L. Barker, p. 11, 17) Thus, the book of "Revelation" was not intended to be the end of revealed scripture but only a warning of future events.5. The Bible itself speaks of the coming forth of additional scripture (Isa. 29; Ezek. 37) and future revelations (Matt. 17:11; Luke 10:22; John 16:12-15; Jam. 1:5). Even the book of Revelation itself alludes to future prophets and revelations from heaven (Rev. 11:3; 14:6).Though the Bible indicates that revelation is part and parcel of the true church (Amos 3:7; 1 Cor. 14:29-33, 37-39), many denominations today teach that revelation has ceased. Some go one step further and condemn those who believe in modern revelation. Hugh Nibley has observed that anti-Mormon literature generally shows a "singular lack of variety and imagination in accusations, all of which can be readily reduced to one standard indictment, monotonously repeated and mechanically transmitted from one writer to the next: the crime of believing in continuous revelation. Claims to the possession of prophetic powers, to exclusive knowledge of the true gospel and the priesthood that goes with it and to all the other charismatic gifts, are simply corollaries of the basic proposition that God still speaks to men" (Hugh Nibley, The World and the Prophets, p. 284).The Book of Mormon contains an interesting prophecy concerning the day when that book (the Book of Mormon) would come forth (i.e. the early 1800's). It declares: "Wo be unto him that shall say: We have received the word of God, and we need no more of the word of God for we have enough! For behold thus saith the Lord God: I will give unto the children of men line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little; and blessed are those who harken unto my precepts, and lend an ear to my counsel, for they shall learn wisdom; for unto him that receiveth I will give more; and from them that say, We have enough, from them shall be taken even that which they have" (2 Nephi 28:29-30). The Lord adds, "Wherefore, because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my words; neither need ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written" (2 Nephi 29:10). As soon as the Book of Mormon had been published many began to say, "A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible" (2 Nephi 29:3). They had no idea that in so doing they were fulfilling one of the prophecies this new book of scripture contained.The Book of Mormon is another testament of Jesus Christ and as such, it contains more of the words Jesus spoke. In John 10:16, Jesus told his disciples, “And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.” Remember Jesus was sent only to the House of Israel, so who were these other sheep? The Book of Mormon records the answer in 3 Nephi 15:21–24 and 16:1–3:21 And verily I say unto you, that ye are they of whom I said: Other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.22 And they understood me not, for they supposed it had been the Gentiles; for they understood not that the Gentiles should be converted through their preaching.23 And they understood me not that I said they shall hear my voice; and they understood me not that the Gentiles should not at any time hear my voice—that I should not manifest myself unto them save it were by the Holy Ghost.24 But behold, ye have both heard my voice, and seen me; and ye are my sheep, and ye are numbered among those whom the Father hath given me.1 And verily, verily, I say unto you that I have other sheep, which are not of this land, neither of the land of Jerusalem, neither in any parts of that land round about whither I have been to minister.2 For they of whom I speak are they who have not as yet heard my voice; neither have I at any time manifested myself unto them.3 But I have received a commandment of the Father that I shall go unto them, and that they shall hear my voice, and shall be numbered among my sheep, that there may be one fold and one shepherd; therefore I go to show myself unto them.:Joseph Fielding McConkie has pointed out an interesting parallel between the Jews of Christ's day and Christians today. He states that:Though their nation professed to be the true believers, both pious and devout, there were but few of the people in Jesus day who listened to and believed his words. It was the religious leaders, the Sadducees and Pharisees, who bitterly opposed Christ and his teachings. The Sadducees professed a belief in the Torah (the first five books of Moses), declaring them to be absolute, immutable, and not open to new interpretations. The Pharisees also accepted the Torah, but added to it their beliefs in the traditions of the fathers. Both effectively rejected the principles of living prophets and continuous revelation. For them the heavens were sealed, revelation had ceased, and they warred with vigor against any who opposed their views. They put Christ to death and sought the lives of his followers. Stephen was stoned to death on the pretense that he rejected Moses -- even though his dying testimony was that he accepted Christ because Moses had prophesied of him. (Acts 6:9-15; 7:1-53)So it is in our day. The names of the religious sects have changed, but the "war of words and tumult of opinions" remains the same. While the so-called Christian world piously professes allegiance to the Bible, few have actually listened to and believe the book for which they have professed such reverence. The Bible makes no profession to being a comprehensive, exhaustive, or even systematic apology of the gospel -- for such it is not! As Paul testified, "Our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance." (1 Thessalonians 1:5) All the Bible professes to be is an account of some of God's dealings with some of his children in some of the ages past. The essence of its message is that whenever God has had a people that he acknowledged as his own, he communicated his will to them by revelation, both on a personal basis and through his prophets. Well might those who, like the Sadducees of old, hold to the Bible as absolute and immutable, remind themselves that the experiences that the apostles shared with Christ during the three years of his mortal ministry, and of which we have preserved for us only a fragmentary account, were not sufficient to fully convert them. Their conversion came in large measure from those teachings and sacred experiences they shared with Christ after his resurrection, teachings they felt to be too sacred to preserve for us. How, then, are we to be converted by a partial account of those experiences which did not convert the apostles? (Seeking the Spirit, pp. 52-53; see also Teachings, pp. 61, 327; and Mormon Doctrine, pp. 82-83, 421-423)The church established by Jesus Christ was not governed according to the Bible. The New Testament as we know it today did not exist until hundreds of years later. The Bible did not then and does not now contain the power and authority to baptize or give the gift of the Holy Ghost. It likewise cannot heal the sick or bestow the gifts of the Spirit. It is only a record of those who had this power conferred upon them. The early church was governed by revelation received by apostles and prophets. Inspired leaders recorded the word of God revealed to them so that all members of the church would benefit thereby. The same Spirit that influenced these leaders also witnessed to the truthfulness of their teachings to the members in that day. We must in like manner seek that same Spirit as a witness of truth today. (Excerpted from my book entitled Answering Challenging Mormon Questions)See also:How can a Christian not believe in Biblical inerrancy when Jesus clearly affirmed it in places such as Luke 24:44, John 10:35 and Matthew 4:4?Michael Hickenbotham's answer to Regarding Biblical inerrancy, infallibility, and literalism, do you believe that the words Jesus spoke that were never written down would not add to nor take away from the meaning of canonical scripture?Retrieved Monday 2/11/2020Mormonism and the Bible/Inerrancy< Mormonism and the BibleFairMormon Answers Wiki Table of ContentsMormonism and the concept of biblical inerrancyJump to Subtopic:• Gospel Topics: "As the Bible was compiled, organized, translated, and transcribed, many errors entered the text"• Question: Is the Bible without error?• Question: Does the Bible itself claim to be inerrant?• Question: What evidence demonstrates that the Bible has been altered?• Question: Are Biblical textual variants significant?• Question: What did early Christians think about alterations to the scriptures?• Question: Do Mormons believe that the Bible has less value because it contains errors?• Question: Is any book of scripture perfect?Gospel Topics: "As the Bible was compiled, organized, translated, and transcribed, many errors entered the text""Bible, Inerrancy of," Gospel Topics on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,The Latter-day Saints have a great reverence and love for the Bible. They study it and try to live its teachings. They treasure its witness of the life and mission of the Lord Jesus Christ. The Prophet Joseph Smith studied the Bible all his life, and he taught its precepts. He testified that a person who can “mark the power of Omnipotence, inscribed upon the heavens, can also see God's own handwriting in the sacred volume: and he who reads it oftenest will like it best, and he who is acquainted with it, will know the hand [of the Lord] wherever he can see it” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 56).As the Bible was compiled, organized, translated, and transcribed, many errors entered the text. The existence of such errors becomes apparent when one considers the numerous and often conflicting translations of the Bible in existence today. Careful students of the Bible are often puzzled by apparent contradictions and omissions. Many people have also been curious about references by biblical prophets to books or scriptural passages that are not currently in the Bible.[1]Question: Is the Bible without error?The textual evidence before us makes an inerrant Bible text untenableSome Christians claim the Bible texts, at least in their pristine form, were inerrant. Therefore, it is incorrect for Joseph Smith to teach that the Bible contains errors, mistakes, or omissions.The textual evidence before us makes an inerrant Bible text untenable. Furthermore, the doctrine of inerrancy is not a Biblical doctrine, and so can only be imposed upon the text from outside, not drawn out of the teachings of the purportedly "inerrant Bible."The Latter-day Saint stance of honoring the Bible and seeking to understand it, while appreciating that it is the Word of God only insofar as fallible humans have faithfully transmitted that Word to us, is consistent with both Biblical teaching and the evidence available to us.Insisting on Biblical infallibility is a theological and ideological presupposition, not a natural consequence of Bible teachings.Question: Does the Bible itself claim to be inerrant?The Bible nowhere makes the claim that it is inerrantAs Blake Ostler observed of the "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy":[2]The doctrine of inerrancy is internally incoherent. In my opinion, numerous insuperable problems dictate the rejection of inerrancy in general and inerrancy as promulgated in the Chicago Statement in particular. First, the Chicago Statement is self-referentially incoherent. One cannot consistently assert that the Bible is the basis of his or her beliefs and then assert that one must nevertheless accept biblical inerrancy as asserted in the Chicago Statement...This statement contains a number of assertions, propositions if you will, that are not biblical. Inerrancy, at least as recently asserted by evangelicals, is not spelled out in the Bible. Nowhere do the words inerrant or infallible appear in the Bible. Such theoretical views are quite alien to the biblical writers. Further, inerrancy is not included in any of the major creeds. Such a notion is of rather recent vintage and rather peculiar to American evangelicalism. Throughout the history of Christian thought, the Bible has been a source rather than an object of beliefs. The assertion that the Bible is inerrant goes well beyond the scriptural statements that all scripture is inspired or "God-breathed." Thus inerrancy, as a faith commitment, is inconsistent with the assertion that one's beliefs are based on what the Bible says. The doctrine of inerrancy is an extrabiblical doctrine about the Bible based on nonscriptural considerations. It should be accepted only if it is reasonable and if it squares with what we know from scripture itself, and not as an article of faith... However, it is not and it does not.The Chicago Statement can function only as a statement of belief and not as a reasonable observation of what we find in the Bible. The Chicago Statement itself acknowledges that we do not find inerrant statements in the Bible, for it is only "when all facts are known" that we will see that inerrancy is true. It is very convenient to propose a theory that cannot be assessed unless and until we are in fact omniscient. That is why the Chicago Statement is a useless proposition. It cannot be a statement of faith derived from the Bible because it is not in the Bible. It cannot be a statement about what the evidence shows because the evidence cannot be assessed until we are omniscient.[3]Question: What evidence demonstrates that the Bible has been altered?The current evidence of Biblical manuscripts demonstrates unequivocally that corruption and tampering with Biblical texts is the rule, not the exceptionOld TestamentEmmanuel Tov[4], J. L. Magnes Professor of Bible at Jerusalem's Hebrew University, and editor-in-chief of the Dead Sea Scrolls publication project wrote:• "All of [the] textual witnesses [of the OT] differ from each other to a greater or lesser extent."• "There does not exist any one edition [of the OT] which agrees in all of its details with another."• "Most of the texts—ancient and modern—which have been transmitted from one generation to the next have been corrupted in one way or another." (emphasis in original)• "A second phenomenon pertains to corrections and changes inserted in the biblical text. . . . Such tampering with the text is evidenced in all textual witnesses."• "Therefore, paradoxically, the soferim [scribes] and Masoretes carefully preserved a text that was already corrupted."• "One of the postulates of biblical research is that the text preserved in the various representatives (manuscripts, editions) of what is commonly called the Masoretic Text, does not reflect the 'original text' of the biblical books in many details."• "These parallel sources [from Kings, Isaiah, Psalms, Samuel, etc.] are based on ancient texts which already differed from each other before they were incorporated into the biblical books, and which underwent changes after they were transmitted from one generation to the next as part of the biblical books."• "S[eptuagint] is a Jewish translation which was made mainly in Alexandria. Its Hebrew source differed greatly from the other textual witnesses (M[asoretic], T[argums], S[amaritan], V[ulgate, and many of the Qumran texts]). . . . Moreover, S[eptuagint] is important as a source for early exegesis, and this translation also forms the basis for many elements in the NT."• "The importance of S[eptuagint] is based on the fact that it reflects a greater variety of important variants than all the other translations put together."• "Textual recensions bear recognizable textual characteristics, such as an expansionistic, abbreviating, harmonizing, Judaizing, or Christianizing tendency."• "The theory of the division of the biblical witnesses into three recensions [Masoretic, Septuagint, and Samaritan] cannot be maintained . . . to such an extent that one can almost speak in terms of an unlimited number of texts."• "The question of the original text of the biblical books cannot be resolved unequivocally, since there is no solid evidence to help us to decide in either direction."• "We still have no knowledge of copies of biblical books that were written in the first stage of their textual transmission, nor even of texts which are close to that time. . . . Since the centuries preceding the extant evidence presumably were marked by great textual fluidity, everything that is said about the pristine state of the biblical text must necessarily remain hypothetical."• "M[asoretic] is but one witness of the biblical text, and its original form was far from identical with the original text of the Bible as a whole."• "As a rule they [concepts of the nature of the original biblical text] are formulated as 'beliefs,' that is, a scholar, as it were, believes, or does not believe, in a single original text, and such views are almost always dogmatic."• "During the textual transmission many complicated changes occurred, making it now almost impossible for us to reconstruct the original form of the text."• "many of the pervasive changes in the biblical text, pertaining to whole sentences, sections and books, should not . . . be ascribed to copyists, but to earlier generations of editors who allowed themselves such massive changes in the formative stage of the biblical literature."• "It is not that M[asoretic text] triumphed over the other texts, but rather, that those who fostered it probably constituted the only organized group which survived the destruction of the Second Temple [i.e., the rabbinic schools derived from the Pharisees]."The Dead Sea Scrolls also indicate that the text differed, and this was not unique to Qumran, where they were discovered:There is nothing in the biblical texts [found at Qumran] to suggest that they are specific to Qumran or to any particular group within Judaism. In fact, everything we know about the biblical text prior to the end of the first century C.E--for example, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Septuagint, Philo, Josephus, the New Testament, Rabbinic quotations--indicates that the text was pluriform. The Samaritan Pentateuch, the Septuagint, and Josephus demonstrate bountifully that there were variant literary editions of the books of Scripture in the late Second Temple period (emphasis added).[5]New TestamentA similar situations confronts us with the New Testament. Leon Vaganay and Christian-Bernard Amphoux[6] wrote in An Introduction to New Testament Criticism:• "They [ancient methods of rhetorical interpretation] are used to reveal a secret code, only accessible to the learned or initiated. If the 'Western' text is seen from this perspective, it becomes less of a product of a certain theology than of a certain system of meaning. . . . But this sophisticated kind of coded writing is not suitable for general circulation. For wider distribution, the text had to be adapted to the mentality of the people who were going to receive it, it had to be revised and changed so as to make it acceptable to an audience who were not expecting to have to look for hidden meaning."• "The wide stylistic gap between the two main New Testament text types, the 'Western' on the one hand and all the other types on the other hand, cannot have arisen by chance."• "In AD 178 the secular writer Celsus stated in polemic against the Christians: some of the believers . . . have changed the original text of the Gospels three or four times or even more, with the intention of thus being able to destroy the arguments of their critics.' (quoted in Origen, Contra Celsum, SC 132, 2, 27). Origen does not deny the existence of such changes." Indeed, Origen wrote, "It is an obvious fact today [third century A.D.] that there is much diversity among the manuscripts, due either to the carelessness of the scribes, or to the perverse audacity of some people in correcting the text, or again to the fact that there are those who add or delete as they please, setting themselves up as correctors."• "It is therefore not possible to reconstitute with certainty the earliest text, even though there is no doubt about its having existed in written form from a very early date, without a preparatory oral stage."• "In the period following AD 135, the recensions proliferated with a resultant textual diversity which reached a peak before the year 200."• "Thus between the years 150 and 250, the text of the first recensions acquired a host of new readings. They were a mixture of accidental carelessness, deliberate scribal corrections, involuntary mistakes, a translator's conscious departure from literalness, a reviser's more systematic alterations, and, not least, contamination caused by harmonizing to an extent which varied in strength from place to place. All these things contributed to diversification of the text, to giving it, if one may so put it, a little of the local colour of each country."Who made the changes?Christian writers often accused heretics (such as Marcion of the second century AD) of altering the Bible text. However, there is another more disturbing finding for those who insist on an inerrant Bible text:...recent studies have shown that the evidence of our surviving manuscripts points the finger in the opposite direction. Scribes who were associated with the orthodox tradition not infrequently changed their texts, sometimes in order to eliminate the possibility of their "misuse" by Christians affirming heretical beliefs and sometimes to make them more amenable to the doctrines being espoused by Christians of their own persuasion.[7]Thus, the "orthodox" Christian tradition required the original texts to be reworked to support their views or oppose the views of those with whom they disagreed. It seems strange, then, to now accuse those who do not wholly accept the "orthodox" view of "violating scripture," since that very scripture was originally tampered with by those we now label 'orthodox,' which is merely another way of saying that they won the battle to define their view as the 'proper' one.As Bruce Metzger observed:Odd though it may seem, scribes who thought [for themselves] were more dangerous than those who wished merely to be faithful in copying what lay before them. Many of the alterations which may be classified as intentional were no doubt introduced in good faith by copyists who believed that they were correcting an error or infelicity of language which had previously crept into the sacred text and needed to be rectified. A later scribe might even reintroduce an erroneous reading that had been previously corrected. …The manuscripts of the New Testament preserve traces of two kinds of dogmatic alterations: those which involve the elimination or alteration of what was regarded as doctrinally unacceptable or inconvenient; and those which introduce into the Scriptures ‘proof’ for a favorite theological tenet or practice....[8]Question: Are the Biblical textual variants theologically significant?Non-LDS scholar Kenneth Clark addressed this notionNon-LDS scholar Kenneth Clark addressed this notion.[9] Each citation has the specific page number in brackets following it.• “It is important to know what the original text and the original meaning were, but it is also important to recognize the subsequent revision of text and thought in the course of the church’s history. In the current edition of the Nestle NT, for example, we have more than a single text, for in the apparatus criticus we are confronted with thousands of textual variants that involve a difference of form and interpretation” (2).• “Although a variant which is a departure from the original text may be described as spurious, yet every intentional and sensible variant has a claim to authenticity in the history of Christian thought. It will be valuable to form a judgment, in the light of all modern textual discoveries and researches, of the extent to which the Greek text of our NT has been subject to revision and made to carry differences of thought” (2).• “About 250 years ago, John Mill of Oxford… [in which it was] reported that his manuscript sources revealed 30,000 variants” (2, citing Mill, Novum Testamentum… (Oxford 1707). “A hundred years ago F. H. A. Scrivener [A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, I.3] estimated that the text of the Greek NT showed variance ‘at least fourfold that quantity,’ i.e., 120,000” (2).• “In 1886 Benjamin Warfield estimated between 180,000 and 200,000 ‘variant readings’ [Warfield, An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, 13]” (2-3).• “And in 1937 Vaganay acknowledged a range of 150,000 to 250,000” (3).• “Now in our time, the International Greek New Testament Project can report on 300 manuscript collations of Luke, and the estimate for the entire NT perhaps 300,000 variants” (3). He quotes several scholars from 1700 to his own day, that not one variant affected the fundamentals of Christian faith: Richard Bentley, Daniel Whitby, Benjamin Warfield, FHA Scrivener, Vaganay, Frederic Kenyon, FC Grant, Harold Greenlee, Kee-Young-Froelich NT introduction (3-4).• “There has been, of course, a contrary opinion. Hort himself admitted that ‘it is true that dogmatic preferences to a great extent determined theologians, and probably scribes, in their choice between rival readings….’ [Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek., 2.283]” (4).• “Recently CSC Williams has expressed the judgment that textual alteration derives ‘no less frequently from dogmatic than from other motivation’ [Williams, Alterations to the Text of the Synoptic Gospels and Acts (1951): 7]” (4).• “In reality, the amount of textual variation is a considerable portion. Of course it is true that the great bulk of text shows little or no record of variation…. So in the NT text it is the doubtful portion that stands in need of refinement. Its importance far exceeds its fractional size” (4).• “How shall we measure the theological clarification derived from textual emendation where a single word altered affects the major concept in a passage? …. By calculating words it is impossible to appreciate the spiritual insights that depend upon the words. We would not contend that even the most theological of variants create a doctrine or cancel out a doctrine, but it is defensible to maintain that variants do ‘affect’ or ‘alter’ or ‘modify’ doctrine” (4-5).• “The only objective and justification of textual criticism is that its emended text should give access to a clearer insight and a deeper faith. Textual variation does not imperil belief in God but it can and does contribute to elucidation of the character of God and of his relation to man…. There is far more in Christian doctrine than a brief creedal summation, and the exegesis of variant texts contributes to the enrichment of doctrine” (5).• “We can agree with Hort that ‘perceptible fraud’ is not evident in textual alteration, that ‘accusations of willful tampering…prove to be groundless,’ and that dogma has not motivated ‘deliberate falsification’ [Hort, 282f]…. Willful and deliberate, yes. But not tampering, falsification, and fraud. Alteration, yes; but not corruption. Emendation, yes; but not in bad faith. These denials of evil or unethical intention can well be sustained, but such intention is not a proper allegation by the textual critic. He must analyze the text constructively to understand the theological value of any variation, and its place in historical theology” (5).• “It is also a false assurance, offered by many, that textual criticism can have no effect upon Christian doctrine” (5). “Let us no longer implant the belief that Christian doctrine is unaffected by textual emendation, whether for better or worse. The earliest intentional changes in the text of the Gospel of Mark are still to be seen recorded in the Gospel of Matthew and Luke, revising the sense” (6).• Marcion made revision of the text of Luke at many points, for the sake of reinterpretation…. At Luke 18.19 he adds pater…. Although Origen also adds this word, Epiphanius makes clear the deliberate motivation on the part of Marcion. It is Jerome who explains Marcion’s omission in Gal 1.1 of the phrase ‘and God the Father,’ so as to read: ‘…through Jesus Christ who raised himself from the dead.’ In Rom 1.16 Marcion excinded proton, thus repealing the priority of the Jews: ‘the gospel is the power of God for salvation…to Jew and Greek’—a reading followed even by Tertullian and later preserved in Vaticanus and in the Sahidic version” (6).• “So also Origen revised the primitive text at points, although with greater caution and restraint…. In John 11.25 Jesus speaks: ‘I am the resurrection and the life;’ but Origen dropped the latter term, recording rather: ‘I am the resurrection,’ and his revision is retained by Cyprian and in P45 and also in the Sinaitic Syriac codex” (6). “Tatian also made revision in the NT text…. Mark 1.41…. ‘Jesus was moved with pity [splagchnistheis]’ Tatian reports however that ‘Jesus was moved with anger [orgistheis],’…. Tatian introduced a different interpretation at Matt 17.26” (6-7).• “In the recently acquired gnostic Christian documents of the second century there are instances of textual alteration which revises the meaning in highly important aspects” [Gospel of Thomas 55 & Luke 14.26; GosTho 109 & Matt 13.44]…. It does illustrate the freedom with which the account in Matthew was treated from the beginning” (7).• “Thus far we have recalled only a few of the many examples of textual revision within a century after the recording of the gospel—revision made by fellow evangelists, in patristic interpretations of second-century fathers, and in a pseudonymous gospel of gnostic color. These revisions clearly were made with deliberate intent and, furthermore, they do alter the sense of the text and affect the interpretation” (7).The paper then discusses the differences between the RSV and the comparable Catholic edition, both agreed upon by the Catholic Church and the National Council of Churches:• “This English translation as originally produced by Protestant American scholarship is basically acceptable to Catholic scholarship as well. The extent of revision in the CE is minimal, amounting to only forty-five changes in the entire NT: thirty-three occurring in the gospels and twelve in the Pauline epistles. Eighteen instances are accounted for by the single change to ‘brethren’ instead of ‘brothers,’ all instances intended in the original RSV to refer to blood brothers of Jesus [CE changes occur in Matt 13.55; Mark 12.31 ff., par; J 2.12; 7.3f; Acts 1.14; I Cor 9.5]” (8).• “Besides the alterations in the English text, the CE introduces nineteen new footnotes. Eleven of these refer to the value of money…. Another footnote is found six times in I Corinthians, to the effect that parthenos means ‘virgin.’” (9).• “It is of greater importance, however, to comment on those alterations in the CE which involve change in the critical Greek text itself. There are only sixteen such places, all of them in the gospels. Eight of these readings are in Luke, of which six are found in the account of the resurrection. All sixteen variants represent the same textual attitude; that is, they are restorations of passages which were present in the King James and Rheims-Douai versions but have been omitted from the RSV. They are all present in the Textus Receptus but rejected by Westcott-Hort and Nestle…. The formula used in both the RSV and the CE is similar, but the textual judgment is reversed. The RSV omits the passage from the text and in the footnote reports its presence in ‘some ancient authorities;’ whereas the CE returns each passage to the text (as does Knox), and a footnote reports that ‘other ancient authorities omit. Notably these sixteen restorations include the traditional ending of Mark and the Johannine pericope adulterae; and both these textual phenomena are fully and accurately explained in footnotes. To restore the pericope adulterae to its traditional position within the Gospel of John would appear to be erroneous, especially against the fresh testimony for omission by both P66 and P75. The CE note on p. 239 acknowledges that the passage ‘is not by St. John’ but is held to be inspired and canonical” (9).Regarding the Long ending to Mark:• “Before the middle of the second century, Justin in his ‘first’ Apology [1.45] writes a short passage notably verbatim with Mark 16.20 which looks like a direct quotation. Similarly, Irenaeus quotes from Mark 16.19 [AH 3.10.6]. Tatian’s text had the long ending. The earliest translations—Latin, Syriac, and Coptic—all possess it” (9-10).• “What theological relevance is to be recognized in the textual alteration of the CE? First, it may be said that few Catholic-vs.-Protestant issues are apparent. Rather, the difference is one of scholarly judgment. Further, there is no consistent theological tendency in the textual revision” (10-11).• “There are two other restorations in the CE which, on the other hand, probably were interpolations into the original text [Mark 10.24: ‘for those who trust in riches.’ And Luke 8.43: woman who spent her money on physicians]” (10-11).• “The most impressive alteration in the CE which involves the Greek critical text is the series of six readings in the account of the resurrection in Luke 24.6, 12, 36, 40, 51, 52. These are all valid scholarly alterations, in which no theological tendency is to be found” (11). Another major undertaking currently in progress is the International Greek New Testament Project, whose objective is the publication of a new apparatus criticus…. In the preparation of the initial volume, on the Gospel of Luke, the texts of approximately 300 MSS have been collated completely, and this is the most massive attack ever made upon the problem of textual variation…. The master file for the Gospel of Luke contains, it is estimated, about 25,000 variants of all sorts…. Variants of substantial alteration [yields] about 2 per cent, much higher than the earlier estimates of Hort, Ezra Abbot, and others” (11-12). “But the effect upon exegesis is hardly to be measured by such statistics, when we consider the theological implication of a single letter as in eudokias of Luke 2.14; or the addition of theon in 2.12, where Gregory Thaumaturgus speaks of the ‘swaddled God;’ or the omission of a full verse at Luke 23.34, thus losing the prayer of Jesus: ‘Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do’” (12).• “…about 500 variants of more substantial character…. It would seem to be more meaningful to consider longer passages which contain clusters of textual alterations” (12).• Luke 1.26-35. “…city of Galilee” although Sinaiticus et al state that this city was in Judea, and Bezae e al omit to name Nazareth in particular” (12) others mentioned.• “Such freedom of treatment is quite incongruous with a traditional conception of Scripture. With many of the variant forms, it is easy to recognize primary and secondary text, and yet all the variant forms become part of the narrative in the history of the church” (12). Luke 2.1-7: ‘in those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus. “An Old Latin MS of the fifth century omits the explanation ‘that all the world should be enrolled.’ The Protevangelion reports instead that the residents of Bethlehem must register, whereas Bezae reports the residents of Jerusalem, and Codex Boreel the residents of Judea” some mss say they went to enroll, each to his own polis; some to a man’s patris; others to his chora; an Old Latin ms of his regionem. The manger becomes a cave (13).• Luke 2.16-22: the shepherds ‘went hurrying,’ becomes in one ‘went believing.’ (13).• Luke 2.33-35: his father and his mother marveled at what was said.’ ”Origen protests that Joseph is not properly called father, and accordingly a second-century variant would remove the earthly father and refers instead to ‘Joseph and his mother.’ On the other hand, some Byzantine scribes simply wrote ‘his parents.’…. Some manuscripts omit the prediction: ‘this child is set for the fall and rising of many in Israel” (13).• Luke 9.18-23: ‘it happened that as he was praying alone the disciples were with him.’ Bezae says nothing of praying, Vaticanus reports that the disciples rather came up to join him. ‘Who do the people identify as the Son of man?’, at least, that is the record in Justin’s Dialogue. …Peter’s response is variously reported: ‘the messiah’; ‘God’s Messiah;’ ‘Messiah God;’ ‘Messiah, Son of God’; ‘Messiah, Son of man;’ ‘Son of the living God; or simply ‘Son of God’. A patristic omission is the clause’ ‘rejected by elders, chief priests, and scribes.”” (133-4).• “So our inquiry could be greatly extended, passage by passage, to demonstrate the freedom of alteration and interpretation, the substantial portion of the text involved in variation, and the theological quality of many textual alterations…. Extended analysis could demonstrate the theological quality of each individual witness and distinguish the threads woven into the larger pattern” (14).• “If we should now concentrate upon one Ms, Papyrus 75, we find further evidence that variation in the text and alteration in the sense appeared early…More than a thousand differences between the two manuscript copies [P75 and P66], and about a hundred of these are of greater importance” (14). John 4.14; 6.5; 6.69; 8.57 “the Jews do not query, ‘Have you seen Abraham?’ but rather, ‘Has Abraham seen you?’; 9.17; 12.8;. Such alterations are early, and many, and are neither errors nor heresy. Many of them are mild changes, but they all form a cumulative exegetical mood” (14-5).• “The Gospel of Luke in P75 we have selected about 125 substantial variants out of about 1500 differences from the TR” (15). “In Luke 11.11 there appears a unique reading heretofore unreported: ‘if a son should ask his father for bodily strength, the father will not give him a serpent in place of a fish.’ 15.24: “’my son was dead and has come alive, he was lost and then was found; and the father became joyous’” (15).• 17.14; 22.62-23.23: ‘Judas went out and wept bitterly,’ and also that his captors ‘beat Jesus.’” (15). 24.26: ‘Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his kingdom?’ The last word is the unique term, and it was later altered by a corrector to the term now usual to us: his ‘glory.’” (15). “The papyrus vividly portrays a fluid state of the text at about AD 200. Such scribal freedom suggests that the gospel text was little more stable than an oral tradition, and that we may be pursuing the retreating mirage of the ‘original text.’” (15).• “The amount of textual change that involves theological alteration is a small proportion but it is a nugget of essential importance for interpretation…. In the course of transmission thousands of textual alterations have appeared in the legitimate lineage of theological interpretation, and all of these must be taken into account in exegesis and doctrinal exposition” (15).• “We may well begin to ask if there really was a stable text at the beginning. We talk of recovering the original text, and of course every document had such a text. But the earliest witnesses to NT text even from the first century already show such variety and freedom that we may well wonder if the text remained stable long enough to hold a priority.” (16, (emphasis added)).• “The NT text and the theology of each church father, of each regional text such as fam. 13, or of each major recension such as the Caesarean text—especially where departures from the common text are notable” (16).Question: What did early Christians think about alterations to the scriptures?Early Christians complained that the scriptures had been alteredJustin Martyr, a second-century Christian author, complained that the Jews had altered scripture:And I wish you to observe, that they [the Jews] have altogether taken away many Scriptures from the translations....[10]Origen, a third-century Christian author, bemoaned the problem of poor textual transmission even in his era:The differences among the manuscripts have become great, either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they make additions or deletions as they please.[11]Textual scholar Bruce Metzger quoted this passage, and then observed:Origen suggests that perhaps all of the manuscripts existing in his day may have become corrupt....[12]The Book of Mormon describes how "plain and precious things" (1 Nephi 13:28) were removed from the Bible—Origen here complains of "deletions," from the scriptures, which would be the hardest changes to detect. An alteration may be detectable, but a deletion is simply gone forever.Corinthian bishop Dionysius complained in the second century:When my fellow-Christians invited me to write letters to them I did so. These the devil's apostles have filled with tares, taking away some things and adding others. For them the woe is reserved. Small wonder then if some have dared to tamper even with the word of the Lord himself, when they have conspired to mutilate my own humble efforts.[13]Question: Do Mormons believe that the Bible has less value because it contains errors?Latter-day Saints revere the Bible as Holy scriptureThe 8th Article of Faith states:We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.The proviso that the LDS believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly seems to shake some persons' confidence in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a Bible-believing church. There is no reason that this should be, for it is hardly a matter of dispute that when men translate words from one language to another they can easily err, and have often done so. Simply comparing different English-language versions of the Bible should demonstrate conclusively that some people understand ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek (the source languages of the Old and New Testaments) quite differently in some cases.Latter-day Saints spend 50% of their Sunday School curriculum studying the Old and New Testaments, and the other 50% studying the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants. The Bible clearly receives the majority of attention.Latter-day Saints wish to defend the BibleWhile not believing that the Bible—or any book—is inerrant, the Latter-day Saints are far more concerned with defending the Bible's value than in denigrating it. Harold B. Lee observed, in 1972:I believe that the problem of our missionaries in our day too might be not so much to prove that the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price are indeed the word of the Lord, but that the Bible, which is generally accepted as the word of God, is being doubted as having been derived from the words of inspired prophets of past generations.In this day when the Bible is being downgraded by many who have mingled philosophies of the world with Bible scriptures to nullify their true meaning, how fortunate that our Eternal Heavenly Father, who is always concerned about the spiritual well-being of His children, has given to us a companion book of scriptures, known as the Book of Mormon, as a defense for the truths of the Bible that were written and spoken by the prophets as the Lord directed....It is only as we forsake the traditions of men and recover faith in the Bible, the truth of which has been fully established by recent discovery and fulfillment of prophecy, that we shall once again receive that inspiration which is needed by rulers and people alike.[14]Question: Is any book of scripture perfect?No book of scripture is "perfect"Latter-day Saints do not subscribe to the conservative Protestant belief in scriptural inerrancy. We do not believe that any book of scripture is perfect or infallible. Brigham Young explained:When God speaks to the people, he does it in a manner to suit their circumstances and capacities.... Should the Lord Almighty send an angel to re-write the Bible, it would in many places be very different from what it now is. And I will even venture to say that if the Book of Mormon were now to be re-written, in many instances it would materially differ from the present translation. According as people are willing to receive the things of God, so the heavens send forth their blessings.[15]So while the Book of Mormon has come down to us with fewer doctrinal errors and corruptions than the Bible, even it could be improved if we were ready to receive further light and knowledge.Infelicities of language are also to be expected when produced by revelators with little education, said George A. Smith:The Book of Mormon was denounced as ungrammatical. An argument was raised that if it had been translated by the gift and power of God it would have been strictly grammatical.... When the Lord reveals anything to men, he reveals it in a language that corresponds with their own. If you were to converse with an angel, and you used strictly grammatical language he would do the same. But if you used two negatives in a sentence the heavenly messenger would use language to correspond with your understanding.[16]To see citations to the critical sources for these claims, click hereNotes1.• "Bible, Inerrancy of," Gospel Topics on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.• • On the Chicago Statement, see Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, rev. and exp. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1986), 181–185.• • Blake T. Ostler, "Bridging the Gulf (Review of How Wide the Divide? A Mormon and an Evangelical in Conversation)," FARMS Review of Books 11/2 (1999): 103–177. off-site (italics in original)• • These examples are taken from William J. Hamblin and Daniel C. Peterson, "The Evangelical Is Our Brother (Review of How Wide the Divide? A Mormon and an Evangelical in Conversation)," FARMS Review of Books 11/2 (1999): 178–209. off-site. References to Tov's original work may be found in footnotes 26–49.• • Eugene Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible (Eerdmans, and Leiden 1999) 9–10• • These examples are taken from William J. Hamblin and Daniel C. Peterson, "The Evangelical Is Our Brother (Review of How Wide the Divide? A Mormon and an Evangelical in Conversation)," FARMS Review of Books 11/2 (1999): 178–209. off-site. References to Vaganay and Amphoux's original work may be found in footnotes 52–58.• • Bart D. Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (HarperSanFrancisco, [2005] 2007), 53. ISBN 0060859512. ISBN 0060738170.• • Bruce Metzger, The Text of the New Testament. Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (second edition 1979; first edition 1964), 195, 201.• • Kenneth W. Clark, “The Theological Relevance of Textual Variation in current criticism of the Greek New Testament,” Journal of Biblical Literature 85 (1966): 1-16.• • Justin Martyr, "Dialogue with Trypho," in Chapter 71 Ante-Nicene Fathers, edited by Philip Schaff (Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1886)1:234. ANF ToC off-site This volume• • Origen, Commentary on Matthew 15.14 as quoted in Bruce M. Metzger, "Explicit References in the Works of Origen to Variant Readings in New Testament manuscripts," in Biblical and Patristic Studies in Memory of Robert Pierce Casey, ed. J Neville Birdsall and Robert W. Thomson (Freiburg: Herder, 1968), 78—79; reference from Erhman, 223.• • Bruce Metzger, The Text of the New Testament. Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (second edition 1979; first edition 1964), 152; citing Metzger, “Explicit references in the works of Origen to Variant Readings in New Testament Manuscripts,” in Biblical and Patristic Studies in Memory of Robert Pierce Casey, ed. J.N. Birdsall (1963): 78–95.• • Cited in Bart D. Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (HarperSanFrancisco, [2005] 2007), 53. ISBN 0060859512. ISBN 0060738170.• • Harold B. Lee, Teachings of Harold B. Lee (Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1996), 158-159.• • Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 9:311. [13 July 1862]• George A. Smith, Journal of Discourses 12:335. [15 November 1863]Mormonism and the Bible/InerrancyRetrieved Monday 2/11/2020It’s time for Mormons to talk about JesusA lot has happened in religious scholarship over the past 100 years, but the LDS Church doesn’t officially talk about it (yet).Jon OgdenMay 11, 2018·20 min readMore than a decade ago, I decided to read the Old Testament the whole way through in a summer.When I told a friend (a well-read and active Mormon) about my goal, her response surprised me. She said, “Yeah, maybe I should read it the whole way through too.” But then she quickly changed her mind, saying, “Actually, to be honest, I don’t think I ever will. There are too many other books on my list.”There are too many other books on my list.At the time, I thought, “Of course you should read it the whole way through. It’s one of the few books on Earth directly inspired by God. There are few books more important to read before you die.”And then I read it the whole way through and realized she may have had a point.If you’ve studied the Old Testament in detail, you know it’s a mixed bag. It contains some beautiful moments, such as the story of David weeping over the death of Absalom or the story of Ruth’s commitment to Naomi. But it also contains an abundance of horrors, many which are directly attributed to God.In the story of Judges 19–21, for instance, the Israelites say that God tells them to unrelentingly pursue a civil war to the point that they kill every woman, child, and animal in all of Benjamin.Equally horrific, the narrator in Numbers chapter 16 claims that God burns alive 250 rebellious priests, and when the people complain that burning humans alive is a cruel thing to do, God kills 14,700 of them with the plague.There are so many more examples. In fact, altogether, the death count attributed to God in the Old Testament is nearly three million people.After reading the Old Testament cover to cover, I was struck by how much the text feels like a product of its time, written long ago by tribal men who couldn’t make sense of a brutal world — a world with drought, earthquakes, and floods — and who therefore attributed the brutality to an angry God.As the writer Michael Ash says, “The scriptures relate the stories of God’s people, but not everything these people did was instructed by God — even though they may have thought it was at the time.”Importantly, this doesn’t mean that the entire Old Testament isn’t “true” (a statement that is too vague and sweeping for a book containing dozens of different authors, ancient wisdom, glimpses of history, lengthy poetry, and folklore).However, it does mean that we have to read the Old Testament in the context of the time it was written and recognize that the text consists of a mix of bloody history and brutal folklore, a mix of historical fact and literary metaphor. We have to take a measured approach instead of viewing the text as the infallible word of God or as a work of complete falsehood.We have to remember that the book was written by people who had their own points of view and their own lessons to teach.But what about the stories of Jesus? What can we say about them?Discovering JesusSeveral years ago, I had a Sunday School teacher who recommended a series of books to me about recent New Testament scholarship. He also taught this content openly in his Sunday School class, which consistently brought some of my most spiritually profound moments that year.I quickly discovered that while I’d studied the New Testament my whole life, I knew very little about the historical Jesus. I also discovered that this information about Jesus has been known for many decades even though it hasn’t yet made its way into most Mormon Sunday School lessons.MLK was initially troubled by religious scholarship, but eventually used his knowledge to help others. Photo: Creative CommonsFor instance, Martin Luther King Jr. learned about these topics when he got his PhD in theology, and at first these topics troubled him. He said, “My college training, especially the first two years, brought many doubts into my mind. It was then that the shackles of fundamentalism were removed from my body. More and more I could see a gap between what I had learned in Sunday school and what I was learning in college. … This conflict continued until I studied a course in Bible in which I came to see that behind the legends and myths of the Book were many profound truths which one could not escape.”King held onto these profound truths to fight for greater justice and love.In a similar vein, I’ve found the information about the historical Jesus to ultimately be more inspiring than devastating, more motivating than aggravating. I believe it can help all people better unite around goodness.Before we dive into details, I should say that in some sense the scholarship on the historical Jesus shouldn’t be controversial within Mormonism since Mormons “believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly” — a statement that indicates Mormons already believe that parts of the Bible aren’t completely accurate.But which sections aren’t accurate? Is there even one verse in the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible that we can say for sure doesn’t belong?Fortunately, we can answer those questions today.To date, historians have collected more than 20,000 complete or fragmented ancient biblical manuscripts written in a multiplicity of languages. By studying a range of characteristics (including the materials the manuscripts were written on and the way the text was written), scholars have pinned down which centuries these manuscripts were written in.Here is what they’ve found:Most existing manuscripts were written after 900 ADFull manuscripts written from 200–800 AD are incredibly rareNo manuscripts exist from 30–125 AD that we know ofWhat this means is that we don’t have any of the original New Testament manuscripts. We also don’t have the copies of the originals. In fact, as biblical scholar Bart Ehrman notes, “We don’t even have copies of the copies of the copies of the originals.” All we have are copies that, in most cases, were transcribed hundreds of years after the originals were written. And scholars have located 200,000 to 400,000 differences among all the various copies.Because of all these differences, we don’t know for sure which single manuscript is the most accurate. However, we do know one thing for sure: It isn’t the KJV. Although the language in the KJV is beautiful, it’s based on subpar twelfth century manuscripts and therefore contains a range of transcription errors and verses that were added by early scribes.For instance, 1 John 5:7 didn’t exist in the earliest manuscripts. Mormons might be glad to know that this verse was added later since it seems to support the concept of the Trinity:For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.Here’s another example, from the story of Jesus healing people at the pool of Bethesda, found in John 5:3–4:In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water. For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.Everything in italics — all the stuff about the angel seasonally troubling the waters — surfaced only in later manuscripts. Someone likely thought it should be added, and other copyists agreed or didn’t know better. Then it made its way through the medieval manuscripts into the KJV.There are so many more examples. Let’s look at just one more here.The KJV includes Mark 16:9–20 even though the earliest and most reliable manuscripts don’t have those verses. They were added later. Originally, the book of Mark ended at 16:8. In that version, the final verses tell of Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome visiting the tomb and seeing an angel who tells them that Jesus has risen from the grave.6. And he said unto them, “Be not afraid. Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He is risen! He is not here. Behold the place where they laid Him.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.”8. And they went out quickly and fled from the sepulcher, for they trembled and were amazed; neither said they any thing to any man, for they were afraid.That’s hardly a satisfying ending, is it? The three women all run away and don’t tell anyone what the angel said. It’s certainly not solid proof that Jesus was resurrected, which was the main contention in early Christianity. So someone came in later and added Mark 16:9–20, which says that other people saw the risen Jesus and that Jesus told his followers to do missionary work and essentially start a church. That ending was much more satisfying to believers, and it ended up being the one that made it into the mainstream manuscripts going forward.At some level, whenever we open the Bible we’re reading work influenced and interpreted by scholars. Photo Credit: Tamara MenziHere’s the point: Certain verses were added to later manuscripts. Contemporary biblical scholars agree on this front so universally that when you look at modern translations of the Bible (including those used widely by evangelical Christians), the added verses have footnotes openly acknowledging that the verses were late additions.“But that’s just what the scholars say,” someone might assert. “Why should we trust them?”We have to recognize that when it comes to reading the Bible, in all cases we’re trusting scholars. The people who translated the KJV were scholars; the people who analyze biblical passages today are scholars. The difference is that contemporary scholars have far greater access to manuscripts and metadata than scholars during the reign of King James did.In other words, during the 400 years since the KJV was completed, we’ve uncovered more manuscripts and learned more about language and history. Our understanding is still flawed, but it’s better than it was back then. Why not trust today’s scholarship more? We don’t trust medical science from the 1600s. We should be similarly wary of other scholarly efforts from that era.We have to recognize that when it comes to reading the Bible, in all cases we’re trusting scholars. The people who translated the KJV were scholars; the people who analyze biblical passages today are scholars. The difference is that contemporary scholars have far greater access to manuscripts and metadata than scholars during the reign of King James did.Compiling the GospelsTo really understand how the New Testament came to be, we must travel back much further than the 1600s. We must understand how the Gospels themselves were compiled.First, we must note that we have no record of anything written by Jesus or anything written about him while he was alive. The earliest writings we have about Jesus were written roughly 20 years after his death by someone who never met him: Paul of Tarsus.Second, the Gospels were written to prove that Jesus was the Messiah, the person who would liberate the Jews. During this era, several people— including Simon of Perea, Athronges, and Judas of Galilee— tried to liberate the Jews and were swiftly executed by the Romans. The Gospels, to a degree, were written to establish that the other messiahs weren’t legitimate and that Jesus was the one and only true Messiah.Third, the Gospels were based on the oral traditions of Jesus’s earliest followers. These early followers were almost certainly illiterate since they were part of the peasant class. It wasn’t until Christianity gained a number of educated converts that the traditions were written down. The first Gospel chronologically is named after Mark and was written roughly thirty years after Jesus’s death, while the last Gospel, named after John, was written roughly 70 years after Jesus’s death.The chronology looks like this:Mark: 60–70 AD BUT as Peter was the main source for Mark, and Peter and Paul were crucified in 68 AD, 60 AD or earlier id more reasonable.Matthew: 70–80 AD BUT should be 34 - 41 ADLuke: 70–80 ADJohn: 90–100 AD BUT should be 43 -68 AD except for Revelation, which was written about 90 AD.Several other Gospels were also written around the same era, including the Gospel of Mary and the Gospel of Judas, but only four — the four we have today — were deemed legitimate by an early Catholic pope.What’s more, during the approximately 40 years between Mark and John, many things changed about the story of Jesus (some of which are directly contradictory). In certain cases we have to look at what the original manuscripts said because later manuscripts were altered to bring uniformity to the narratives.The general trend is that the narratives get more and more grand as time goes on. Mark’s Gospel is pretty straightforward and brief. Matthew and Luke used Mark as their source material (along with another source that is now lost) and made the story a little grander and more miraculous. Most miraculous of all is the Gospel of John, which (unlike Mark) refers to Jesus as God.Some people might not want to accept the discrepancies in the texts because it means the truth is far more complicated than they once supposed. It requires figuring out which verses are legitimate, which is potentially a lot of work.Plus, it opens up a rabbit hole.If you accept that even one verse isn’t legitimate, then you accept the possibility that other verses aren’t legitimate either. Where does it end?More Than Literal MeaningThe only way forward is to keep in mind that the Gospels weren’t meant to be pure historical documents and so finding the exact truth about what happened isn’t what is most critical. In reality, each Gospel writer had an agenda and therefore each Gospel contains large portions that are metaphorical rather than factual.In other words, just as Jesus taught with parables, so did the writers of the Gospels. As biblical scholar John Dominic Crossanputs it, “Parables by Jesus became parables about Jesus.”Biblical scholar Marcus Borg adds that these parables have a “more than literal meaning” that can change our lives in powerful ways, completely independent of factual validity — the same way beautiful poetry can change lives.To illustrate, take the first stanza of Emily Dickinson’s poem “Because I could not stop for Death”:Because I could not stop for Death —He kindly stopped for me —The Carriage held but just Ourselves —And Immortality.By personifying death and immortality and putting them both in a carriage, Dickinson makes them less terrifying and incomprehensible — perhaps helping us calm the existential anxiety they bring.It’s true that death is not really a stagecoach driver and immortality can’t fit in a carriage. But that doesn’t mean the poem itself is “false.” The poem has a more than literal meaning. It functions in the realm of beauty instead of the realm of fact.It’s the same with many verses of the Gospels. The writers readily mixed history and poetry to illustrate their points, which continually got grander and grander as time went on.Let’s look at three instances of this more than literal meaning and how we can still find meaning in the text even if we give credence to the work of biblical scholars.1. Visions and DreamsIn the ancient world, when people wanted to tell a story about someone they believed was larger than life, they invented a birth narrative that involved the gods. For instance, Caesar Augustus (the emperor of Rome during the early life of Jesus) was said to have been conceived when Apollo impregnated Augustus’s mother, Atia, as she slept. Then Atia’s husband dreamed that the sun would rise from her womb, a dream that several other people claimed to have had as well.Visions, dreams, and the Son of God. We can see these same themes in the Gospels, themes that were meant to convey the more than literal meaning that Jesus was someone particularly gifted — just as it had meant for Augustus. As Martin Luther King Jr. said, “The people saw within Jesus such a uniqueness of quality and spirit that to explain him in terms of ordinary background was to them quite inadequate. For his early followers this spiritual uniqueness could only be accounted for in terms of biological uniqueness. They were not unscientific in their approach because they had no knowledge of the scientific. They could only express themselves in terms of the pre-scientific thought patterns of their day.”Several additional signs suggest that the Nativity story is metaphor. To start, none of the earliest Christian writings mention anything about the virgin birth. Even Mark doesn’t mention anything about it. It isn’t until Matthew and Luke (around 40 years after the death of Jesus) that we get the first narratives about the virgin birth, and these narratives differ widely.To persuade the Jews to believe that Jesus was born of God, Matthew echoes a scripture from Isaiah about a young woman conceiving a child. The original Hebrew verse in Isaiah referred to a young woman, but Matthew incorrectly pulled from a mistranslated Greek version of the text that interpreted the word as “virgin.”Matthew also traces Jesus’s lineage to King David, who was a messiah in the Jewish community. He then positions Jesus as the new Moses by channeling the first part of Exodus. In Matthew, Herod slaughters male infants just as Pharaoh did. Also, in parallel with Moses and to echo a verse in Hosea (“out of Egypt I called my son”), Mary, Joseph, and Jesus wander from Egypt to Israel early in Matthew’s text. It’s an echo of former Jewish heroes, and it meets the community’s expectations of what was required to be a messiah.Almost everything differs in Luke. To start, Luke’s genealogy doesn’t match the one Matthew outlines. In addition, unlike Matthew, Luke contains stories about the birth of John the Baptist, the announcement to Mary, traveling to Bethlehem, the stable, the shepherds, and the singing angels. In Luke’s version, Mary, Joseph, and Jesus don’t go to Egypt. Instead, they go straight from Jerusalem back to Nazareth.Because of the differences and contradictions, the use of archetypal birth-story themes, and the fact that the earliest texts mention nothing about the Nativity, mainstream biblical scholars overwhelmingly agree that the birth stories told in Matthew and Luke are metaphorical rather than historical. In fact, the scholar E. P. Saunders said that when it comes to stories about Jesus, “the clearest cases of invention are in the birth narratives.”The nativity carries metaphors from other traditions—metaphors we’re generally not aware of today.The first time I learned this, I didn’t want to accept it. Celebrating the Nativity at Christmas is tied to many of my more spiritually profound experiences, and I didn’t like the idea that those experiences were tied to a metaphor. However, over time I realized that spiritual experiences based on metaphor are still legitimate spiritual experiences. The feelings of generosity and love that those experiences produce are real, and that’s what matters.The narrative of a baby born to heal all wounds is powerful, and I still feel at peace when I sing hymns about it even if the Nativity story is metaphorical.There is power in stories with a more than literal meaning.2. Blood in GethsemaneThe idea that Jesus bled from every pore in the Garden of Gethsemane powerfully illustrates his inner torment. The only problem is that it isn’t found anywhere in the Gospels.Mark and Matthew mention nothing about physical pain, nothing about blood in the garden. In these narratives, Jesus experiences spiritual anguish and prays in Gethsemane for God to remove the cup from him. After his prayer he tells his disciples, “Behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.”In other words, according to Mark and Matthew, Jesus prayed that God might prevent the betrayal and crucifixion. No one reading Mark or Matthew alone would have any reason to think that Jesus bled from every pore and atoned for everyone’s sins in the garden.In John, there’s no mention at all of a prayer in Gethsemane. Jesus and his followers go to the garden and are immediately betrayed by Judas. That’s all that happens in the garden according to John.The only mention of blood in Gethsemane is found in Luke 22:43–44: “And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him. And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.”First, it’s important to note that the verse isn’t saying that Jesus was bleeding. It’s saying that Jesus was sweating profusely. “As it were” means “like” — a simile. Sweat dripped in drops like blood from an open wound. No literal blood.Second, Luke 22:43–44 wasn’t included in the earliest and most reliable manuscripts, indicating that it was likely added later to emphasize Jesus’s anguish. This, combined with the fact that the only mention of blood appears in Luke, makes these verses far less reliable than other New Testament verses.Third, if Jesus had bled from every pore, his clothes and body would have been covered in blood. A terrifying sight. And yet no one in any of the narratives makes note of this. The disciples don’t notice it, the Roman soldiers don’t notice it, Judas doesn’t notice it when he betrays Jesus with a kiss, Pilate doesn’t notice it, and so on. In every narrative, no one mentions that Jesus’s clothes are soaked in blood.In other words, since blood in the garden is mentioned only in an unreliable verse in Luke and only then in a simile, it’s unlikely that the Gospel writers had any notion that Jesus bled from every pore. Instead this idea surfaced later, though it’s hard to pin down when it surfaced. One thing is certain: John Gill, an English Baptist pastor, published an exposition of the Bible in 1763 where he recounted reports of people sweating blood through their pores and said he figured that must have been what Jesus experienced. The gravitas and authority of Gill’s enormous work likely influenced other religious thinkers who followed him — including Joseph Smith, who shared the belief about God bleeding from every pore.In sum, what happened in Gethsemane was embellished over time. In the earliest texts, Jesus prayed that he wouldn’t be betrayed and crucified, while in some interpretations after the late 1700s, Jesus bled from every pore. The latter interpretation is at odds with the earlier texts.3. Metaphor Became DoctrineWhen Augustus defended the Roman Empire from civil war, people called him the Son of God and the Savior of the World. They even said that he brought with him the good news, the euaggelia in the Greek (which is the same root word for gospel in modern English). A governor in Ephesus even went so far as to say that Augustus“restored order when everything was disintegrating and falling into chaos and gave a new look to the whole world, a world which would have met destruction with the utmost pleasure if Caesar had not been born as a common blessing to all.”Augustus was said to be the literal Son of God—far superior to mere mortals. His admirers thought it was impossible for someone so great to not be born of the gods.Again, we see these same themes surface in the Gospels, even though the phrase “Son of God” was originally meant metaphorically. As Marcus Borg relates, “Son of God began as a relational metaphor. Within Judaism by the time of Jesus, it had a number of meanings. In the Hebrew Bible, it could be used to refer to the king on the day of his coronation: ‘You are my son; today I have begotten you’ (Ps. 2.7). It could also be used to refer to Israel as a whole: ‘When Israel was a child, I loved him and out of Egypt I called my son’ (Hos. 11.1). According to Jewish traditions near the time of Jesus, this metaphor could be used to refer to other Jewish persons.”Borg goes on to say, “What all of these have in common — the king, Israel, a Spirit person — is a relationship of intimacy with God. Thus to call Jesus Son of God was to speak of an intimacy of relationship between Jesus and God.”And yet as time went on, the Gospels made the status of Jesus grander and grander. For instance, Jesus speaks of God as his father three times in Mark and more than one hundred times in John. From the time of his death to the Nicene Creed in 325 AD, Jesus went from being thought of as someone who had a powerful connection to God to being God himself. As Marcus Borg puts it, “Metaphor became doctrine.”The Beauty of the TruthWhy does any of this matter?Because there are many verses that end up being divisive if we take them literally.For me, learning about the nuances of the New Testament has been a beautiful discovery. It has freed me up to the possibility that I don’t have to blindly accept everything in the Gospels as, well, the gospel truth.With this knowledge comes the freedom to not internalize the New Testament’s cruelest and most divisive sentiments. I don’t have to divide the world into sheep and goats, where I am a sheep and the people who don’t share my beliefs are goats. I don’t have to harbor anxiety that I might never be forgiven in this world nor in the world to come for denying the Holy Ghost, a sin so vague that millions of Christians have worried at some point whether they’ve committed it — or have thought that someone they didn’t approve of had committed it (again, leading to divisiveness).I also don’t have to subscribe to the view that the world is about to end and that God is waiting to set a certain class of human beings on fire. There are people in literally every single generation since the time of Jesus (including the generation of Jesus) who adamantly preached that they were part of the last generation on earth, and in a vast number of cases these people brought about horrible fruits. In recent decades, I can think of Jim Jones, Marshall Applewhite, Warren Jeffs — all men who gathered tight-knit communities together by speaking incessantly about the end of the world and who then brutalized their followers. The whole notion of the Apocalypse promotes a terrible “us versus them” mentality. It either fills people with the anxiety that they’re sinners and will be burned forever or it makes people proud when viewing the lives of those who aren’t part of their in-groups. A belief in the Apocalypse is simply antithetical to a generous worldview. It is not the good news.And then there are the 2,000 pigs Jesus is said to have sent to their deaths, the fig tree he kills, and all of the passages where he portrayed as mean-spirited and (if I dare say it) un-Christlike. He says, “Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell” and “He that believeth not shall be damned.”Every time I have gone on a self-righteous tirade, thinking I’m justified because I’m reprimanding evildoers just as Jesus did, I have felt guilt and regret.By contrast, I have never regretted following the most generous impulses of the New Testament, many of which are found in the Sermon on the Mount:“Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.”“For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? … And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others?”“Judge not, that you be not judged.”“Why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?”“Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.”“Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.”There are so many more.In conclusion, it’s clear that the Bible contains verses that are products of their time as well as many verses that are far ahead of their time — verses we still haven’t internalized over 2,000 years later. The Bible also contains many verses that have more than literal meaning and are powerful on the level of beauty even if they are not literal.The Bible can divide us, or it can bring us together and fill us with love for one another.I hope we choose the latter.It’s time for Mormons to talk about JesusRetrieved Thursday 5/11/2020PART 9: UNDERSTANDING THEBIBLE—Inerrant and infallible?While we unite in supporting our brothers and sisters when such tragedies occur, we still squabble amongst ourselves about Biblical interpretations. Even the Christian Reformed Churches cannot agree on the age of baptism: infant baptism or not infant baptism? Alternatively, should baptism occur at an age of greater mental understanding, such as the Latter-day Saint age of eight (8), the Baptist age of twelve (12) or the Amish age of twenty-one (21).Sometimes we have to ask the question: which Bible are you using? I have eight (8) Bibles, one (1) Tanakh, and three (3) New Testaments.Is the Bible really the inerrant infallible Word of God, when there are so many variants? With so many variants, the Bible can be used to prove or disprove any theological proposition.For example, the words homosexual and homosexuality did not appear in any Bible translation pre-1946. Former Rugby Union player Israel Folau quoted from the Bible that homosexuals were going to Hell. Yet, in the Greek Interlinear New Testament 1 Corinthians 6:9, malakoi is from malakos = effeminate in Luther’s and the KJV translations. Effeminate is used in the sense of men who grew their hair long like women and daily shaved off their beards. This made them “soft” and “weak”. On the other hand,“Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.” [1 Corinthians 11:14-15]In 1 Timothy 1:10 the Greek word arsenotoikos refers to men who were abusers of themselves with men i.e., men who sexually abused their youthful male slaves. Luther translated this word as pederasts (= paedophiles)Turning now to Romans 1, we have another set of verses, often used to condemn homosexuals. However, is this interpretation correct?16 For I am not ashamedof the gospelof Christ: for it is the powerof God unto salvationto everyone that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.17 For therein is the righteousnessof God revealed fromfaith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.18 For the wrathof God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, whoholdthe truth in unrighteousness;19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest inthem; for God hath shewed it unto them.20 For the invisiblethings of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternalpowerand Godhead; so that they are without excuse:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolishheart was darkened.22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptibleGod into an imagemade like to corruptibleman, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.24 Wherefore God also gavethem up to uncleannessthrough the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.26 For this cause God gavethem up unto vileaffections: for even their womendid change the natural use into that which is against nature:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lustone toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.28 And even as they did not like to retainGod in their knowledge, God gavethem over to a reprobatemind, to do those things which are not convenient;29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedientto parents,31 Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but havepleasurein them that do them.Author Keith Giles in his article “Why Romans Doesn’t Condemn Homosexuality”, April 23, 2018, Why Romans Doesn’t Condemn Homosexualityexplains what Paul was actually writing about:*People denied God;*Those people worshipped idols;*They worshipped idols by engaging in male/female sex acts;*God gave them over to shameful lusts for the use of sexual intercourse as part of the worship of created things, or idols.Thus, Romans 1 is a condemnation of sexual intercourse in pagan temples, which was quite common in the worship of idols.It is only from the Old Testament under the Law of Moses that we know that homosexual acts are a serious sin.Let us look at another problem with the Bible: the Resurrection of the Lord as described in the four Gospels."What were the last words of Jesus? Three gospels give three different versions.Who buried Jesus? Matthew says that it was Joseph of Arimathaea. No, apparently it was the Jews and their rulers, all strangers to Jesus (Acts).How many women came to the tomb Easter morning? Was it one, as told in John? Two (Matthew)? Three (Mark)? Or more (Luke)?Did an angel cause a great earthquake that rolled back the stone in front of the tomb? Yes, according to Matthew. The other gospels are silent on this extraordinary detail.Who did the women see at the tomb? One person (Matthew and Mark) or two (Luke and John)?Was the tomb already open when they got there? Matthew says no; the other three say yes.Did the women tell the disciples? Matthew and Luke make clear that they did so immediately. But Mark says, “Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.” And that’s where the book ends, which makes it a mystery how Mark thinks that the resurrection story ever got out.Did Mary Magdalene cry at the tomb? That makes sense—the tomb was empty and Jesus’s body was gone. At least, that is the story according to John. However, wait a minute—in Matthew’s account, the women were “filled with joy.”Did Mary Magdalene recognize Jesus? Of course! She’d known him for years. At least, Matthew says that she did. However, John and Luke make clear that she didn’t.Could Jesus’s followers touch him? John says no; the other gospels say yes.Where did Jesus tell the disciples to meet him? In Galilee (Matthew and Mark) or Jerusalem (Luke and Acts)?Who saw Jesus resurrected? Paul says that a group of over 500 people saw him (1 Cor. 15:6). Sounds like crucial evidence, but why don’t any of the gospels record it?Should the gospel be preached to everyone? In Matthew 28:19, Jesus says to “teach all nations.” However, hold on—in the same book he says, “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans” (Matthew 10:5). Which is it?Contradictions in the Resurrection AccountThis is all I can tell you right now in response to the above questions:1.The tomb was owned by Joseph of Arimathaea.2. I do not know who took the Lord's body down from the cross, but it would have been in accord with Jewish custom at that time, especially as the Lord was naked. However, the scriptures say that Joseph of Arimathaea went to Pontius Pilate and asked for the Lord’s body.3. Jesus was crucified naked. Paintings showing a loincloth are because of reverence for the Lord, and the fact that European artists did not know how to paint circumcised penises.4. The Lord was crucified on Wednesday, not Good Friday. Each of the seven (7) Jewish Feasts/Festivals was followed by an extra Sabbath day observance. Thus, the Lord arose from the dead sometime after Saturday sunset. According to the scriptures, He appeared about dawn on what we would call Sunday morning. He was definitely in the tomb for three WHOLE days, not the 36 hours that a death on Friday would allocate. The Lord said that He would destroy the Temple and after three (3) days, He would rebuild it. Furthermore, Jonah was in the belly of a great fish — presumed to be a whale — for three days and three nights. (Jonah 1:17)5. ALL of the women went to the tomb at first to anoint His body with spices.6. When they arrived, the tombstone was rolled away and His body was absent.7. They were frightened and ran away, fearing that the Romans had stolen His body.8. Mary Magdalene, who was the Lord's wife, came back to the tomb alone.9. There were two angels, according to the Law of Witnesses.10. There was no earthquake needed to roll away the tombstone. Jesus taught that a person with Faith equal in size to a mustard seed could move mountains if it was God's will. As the Lord had the power within Himself because of His Priesthood to raise Himself from the dead, He did not need, nor did any angels need, an earthquake to move the tombstone.11. When He appeared to Mary Magdalene she did not recognise Him because the glory of His resurrected body obscured His facial features.12. The Lord had a tangible glorified immortal body of flesh and bones. Mary Magdalene could have touched Him, but He told her that she could not touch Him until after He reported to Heavenly Father in the Celestial Kingdom, the highest degree of Heaven.13. While Jesus's body was in the tomb, His spirit went to the Spirit World. One of the reasons was to organise the preaching of the Gospel to the spirits who were in the Spirit Prison. He did not go to the Celestial Kingdom as of yet. (1 Peter 3:19-20)14. Mary Magdalene then returned to the other women and ten (10) of the eleven (11) Apostles and reported what she had seen.15. At the time of the Lord's ministry, He came to preach to the Jews ALONE. Hence the exhortation to GENERALLY not preach to the Samaritans and the Gentiles, although He did speak with the Samaritan woman at the well, and spoke the parable of “The Good Samaritan”. He also healed the child of the Syro-Phoenician woman after she constantly begged Him to do so.I have received further revelation to help me understand the narrative of the three (3) Synoptic Gospels, but I am not inclined to share the information because it will only stir up evil against me.I waited for 18 months to be able to borrow the following book from my local library:The Last Week: What the Gospels Really Teach About Jesus’s Final Days in Jerusalem, Marcus J. Borg and John Dominic Crossan, HarperOne, , New York, NY, 2006, ISBN 978-0-06-087260-1.At least I can say I read it. However, it is so full of false interpretations of scripture that it is no use to either you or me.As I have seen the Lord eight (8) times, I think that I am in a better position to know Him than many scholars and students of the Holy Bible.Dom is a Catholic priest and monk, and Marcus is a Lutheran who married and had children. They have co-authored other books including The Heart of Christianity and The Historical Jesus.Dom and Marcus have chosen the Gospel of Mark as their textual foundation for the book. They state in the Preface:“We have chosen Mark for two reasons. The first is that Mark is the earliest Gospel, the first narrative account of Jesus’s final week. Written some forty years after the life of Jesus, Mark tells us how the story of Jesus was told around the year 70 [AD/CE]….It is the story of Jesus “updated” for the time in which Mark’s community lived.”“Scholarship [i.e., Intellectualism] for the past two hundred (200) years has reached a fairly massive consensus not only that Mark was the first of the four (4) New Testament Gospels, but also that Matthew and Luke used it as their major source and that probably, John used those earlier versions as his major source.”“But there is also a second and equally important reason for choosing Mark. Namely, Mark alone went out of his way to chronicle Jesus’s last week on a day-by-day basis, while the others kept some but not all of those indications of time.”As I mentioned previously:4. The Lord was crucified on Wednesday, not Good Friday. Each of the Jewish Festivals was followed by an extra Sabbath day observance. He arose from the dead sometime after Saturday sunset. According to the scriptures, He appeared about dawn on what we would call Sunday morning.Therefore, Mark’s timing —as interpreted — is wrong.It has been suggested that Peter is the main source for Mark, but in 68 AD/CE both Peter and Paul were crucified. So why would Mark wait until two (2) years after Peter’s death to write his Gospel? Nevertheless, although Mark may not have been the first Gospel written, it was the first Gospel to survive and read often at church services.Mark contains seven percent (7%) original material, but if John copied the other three Gospel writers, why does John’s Gospel contain ninety-two percent (92%) original material?Matthew and John were two of the original twelve (12) Apostles, and were first-hand witnesses. Mark and Luke were not first-hand witnesses.Luke was a physician born of Gentile parents who became acquainted with Paul, and was Paul’s travelling companion. Luke is the author of his Gospel as well as the book of Acts. Acknowledging that Luke drew from Mark’s Gospel, he also used additional eyewitness sources and other manuscripts for his Gospel. As Paul is still alive at the end of Acts, Luke’s Gospel and Acts were written prior to 68 AD/CE, making Mark’s Gospel written in the early 60s AD/CE.Henry St. John Thackeray (1869–30 June 1930) who was a British biblical scholarat King's College, Cambridge, suggests that Luke may have referred to The Antiquities of the Jews by Titus Flavius Josephus (Yosef ben Matityahu = Joseph ben Matthias). However, Antiquities of the Jews, was written around 93–94 AD/CE, which is too late a time for the writing of Luke. – Wikipedia RETRIEVED Tuesday 31/03/2020Although Matthew was an eyewitness to events in his Gospel, he relied heavily on the Gospel of Mark, and nearly ninety percent (90%) of Mark is repeated in Matthew. Matthew also incorporated other information not in Mark, such as the parables of·the tares (weeds) among the wheat 13:24-30, 36-43,·the treasure in the field 13:44,·the pearl of great price 13:45-46,·the net 13:47-50,·the unforgiving/unmerciful servant 18:23-35,·the laborers in the vineyard 20:1-16,·the two sons 21:28-32,·the wicked husbandman 21:33-44,·the ten maidens (virgins) 25:1-13,·the ten (10) talents 25:14-30,·the sheep and the goats 25:31-46.Matthew also lists the siblings of the Lord: four (4) brothers: James “the Just”, Joses (Greek = Ιωσης (Ioses); English = Joseph), Simon and Judas (Jude) and notes that the Lord has “sisters”. (Matthew 13:55-56)The Lord’s brother James is said to have been the Bishop of Jerusalem, and died in 62 AD/CE by stoning.Thus, the epistle of James was earlier in chronology than its position in the New Testament indicates.Additionally, if Mark was the Gospel written first, in 70 AD/CE, why does none of the other Gospels mention the destruction of the Temple by the Romans under Titus Vespasian in 70 AD/CE?According to the Blue Letter Bible website,7 Matthew Was Always Believed to Have Been Written FirstWe now go a step further by considering Matthew’s gospel. According to the unanimous testimony of the early church, Matthew was the first gospel written. The church father Eusebius places the date of Matthew’s gospel in A.D. 41. If the ancient testimony is true, and there is no reason to doubt it, then we have a third independent source about the life of Christ written during the eyewitness period.When Were the Four Gospels Written? by Don StewartCONTENT DISCLAIMER:The Blue Letter Bible ministry and the BLB Institute hold to the historical, conservative Christian faith, which includes a firm belief in the inerrancy of Scripture. Since the text and audio content provided by BLB represent a range of evangelical traditions, all of the ideas and principles conveyed in the resource materials are not necessarily affirmed, in total, by this ministry.The Blue Letter Bible website has a huge amount of resources for Bible Study, Theology, and Ministries.The most disconcerting things about Dom and Marcus’s book are1.that they deny Jesus was the propitiation for our sins (compare Isaiah 43:11, Isaiah 53:5, Romans 3:25, 1 John 2:2),2.that He did not need to die to reconcile us to God the Father because of the Fall of Adam and Eve (compare Matthew 20:28, Acts 4:12, Romans 5:10, 1 Corinthians 15:22, Titus 1:2, Hebrews 5:9, Hebrews 9:12, 1 Peter 1:20, 1 John 2:1, and3.that His resurrection was not necessary for our spirit to be reunited with our body after physical death. (see pp. 153-163; compare Luke 24:39).They use the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible. So I go back to the question: which Bible are people using to support their theology?Dear reader, the above is essentially a denial of “Salvation 101” for Christian disciples and Bible students.Colton Burpo states in Heaven is for Real, Chapter 20, p. 123:“Well, Jesus told me He died on the cross so WE could go see His Dad again.” (Emphasis added).Another problem with the Bible’s text is found in Revelation 7:4-8. There is an error in the list of the twelve tribes of Israel. The tribe of Dan is missing, and Manasseh is listed separately from Joseph.There is a footnote in the Catholic Action Bible (1960) stating that there is a traditional Jewish belief that THE Anti-Christ will come from the tribe of Dan.Those who believe in British-Israelism have claimed that the Celts and Danes belong to the tribe of Dan.Next, as the tribe of Joseph is listed, Manasseh should be omitted. Manasseh should also be omitted because the “birthright blessing” was given to Joseph’s younger son Ephraim.Finally, in Exodus 22:18 it states “Thou shalt not suffer a witch [i.e., a sorceress or sorcerer] to live.”According to Joseph Smith’s Inspired Translation of the Bible, it should read “murderer”.In my copy of the Tanakh, it also reads “witch”. However, until 1985, the Tanakh in English was taken directly from the KJV Bible translation.The witch trials in Europe (and later the USA) from 1200 to 1750 AD/CE is interesting, though an appalling and misogynistic, topic. Germany bore the brunt of the persecution of mostly women. I cannot find a figure that historians agree on for witch deaths.

Written by EDMOND MACARAEG.Exposing Those Who Contradict25 Irrefutable Reasons Why the New Testament Was Not Originally Written in Greek.BY EDMOND MACARAEG. 15/04/19This is a very shocking article that goes contrary to what is commonly taught and popularly believed in the modern Christian world.But before making a prematurely negative judgement, please lay aside any bias and prejudice,and open-mindedly examine the FACTS that will be presented here in a logical and objective manner - backed-up overwhelming solid evidence, both eternal and external.In this regard, let us wisely and patiently apply the advice of King Solomon when he said:“He who answers a matter before he hears it, it is folly and shame to him. Proverbs 18:13.Not only that,but most may have already been influenced- sadly and unwittingly by the strong effect of the statement:“A lie repeated often enough is eventually believed as true.” Whether factual or not, this quote is commonly attributed to Adolf Hitler’s propagandist, Joseph Goebbels.NOTE: Unless you have already read it, please READ FIRST the fully documented article on this website as a suggestied primer: “The Amazing Hebrew Language History Since Eden”. This will give you a solid understanding of the God - inspired history of the Semitic languageHere now are the 25 Solid Facts Proving that Greek cannot Be The Original New Testament language:God’s Nature and Character Is ConsistentGod talked to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden in what later became known as the Hebrew language. God used this language to speak to all the Israelites at Mount Sinai. It’s the language in which the Ten Commandments were written by God’s own finger. It’s also the language He used to speak to all the patriarchs and prophets. He even had the Old Testament written primarily in this language. Is it now logical to believe that God (for no apparent reason) suddenly changed His mind (Malachi 3:6) and surprisingly began to use Greek - a completely foreign language- to write the New Testament? Such absurd thinking presents lots of problematic difficulties.2. Josephus Disdained the Greek languageJosephus (Hebrew name: Yosef Ben Matityahu (AD. 37–100). The first century Jewish priest-historian , reflects the commo negative attitude of the Jews toward the Greeks when he said :“I have taken a great deal of pains to obtain the learning of the Greeks, and understand the elements of the Greek language…{yet} I cannot pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness; for our nation does NOT encourage those that learn the language of many nations…because they (the Jews) look upon this sort of accomplishment as common.(very lowly) …. But they give him the testimony of being a wise man who is fully acquainted with our (Jewish) laws… (in contrast) as there have been so many who have done their endeavors with great patience to obtain this (Greek) learning, there have yet hardly been so many as two or three that have succeeded therein who were immediately well rewarded for their pains. (Emphasis mine). Antiquities of the Jews, XX, XI.3. Jews Had Aversion Toward the GreeksThe great Jewish aversion toward the Greek (especially on religous matters) is reflected and recorded by the gospel writer histotians Luke is that violent incident where an angry Jewish mob developed upon the false report that Paul “brought Greeks with him in the his temple worship during his last visit to Jerusalem (Acts 21:27–29). This led to Paul’s arrestand imprisonment.4. Hebrew - Aramaic Was Actually the Comon Language in First - Century Judea.All honest historians agree that Christ and his diciples commonly spoke in Aramaic (a sister dialect to Hebrew), which was also the common language in all Judea and surrounding regions in the first century, Sadly, (popular Christian teaching deceitfully wants us to believe that Greek was their common language, which is also the false reason given to support the erroneous belief that Greek was the original language of the New Testament.5. Aramaic Was Christ’s Native LanguageTwo relatively recent movies - in consultation with noted top historians to precisely recreate the original scenario in Jerusalem at the time of Christon earth - used Aramaic in their movie dialogue. The two stated Christian films were “The Passion of Christ” and “Risen”.6, Hebrew - Aramaic was Also the Native Language of all Christ’s disciplesALL of Christ’s disciples were Hebrews who spoke Aramaic. And we’ve alrady seen that the native language of Yahshua (Jesus) was Aramaic. It is absolutely illogical and unreasonable for them to syddenly write to their fellow Hebrew audience in a foreign hated language (Greek)! It’s like a true blooded American writing to a large American audience using the Russisn language.7. Christ’s Disciples Were NOT Knowledgeable in GreekLet us remember that even the top four most - often named discioles {Peter.Andrew, James, and John} were plain fishermen and were derisively derided by the Sanhedrin as “uneducated and untrained men” (Acts 4:13). HOW then can such ignorant men write in Greek? Impossible.8) There is no Evidence That the Disciples Ever Studied GreekThere is absolutely no record or evidence that the disciples (even after Christ’s resurrection) ever ventured to find a school or tutor to study Greek. If ever they did study first, HOW could they fulfill Christ’s commission to go and preach? And since both the Jewish and Roman persecution came early, they obviously would have already been dead before they were able to learn Greek.9. The “Oracles” (or Words) of God Were Committed to the Jews.The apostle Paul says that “the oracles (words, NIV) of God were : committed to the Jews - NOT to the Latin speaking Romans, and also NOT to the Greeks. (Romans 3:1–2). sadly, this biblical fact is hidden or ignored by some historians and theologians in an effort to rewrite history. This false but popular claim that Greek was the original language of the New Testament is already clearly debunked by this one verse only! Remrmber, God has absolute power to cause His Words to be fulfilled to the letter!10. The Apostles Wrote Early Due to the Impeding PerdecutionsLogically piecing all the facts together (and contrary to common teachings), it is believed that before leaving Jerusalem to fulfill Christ’s commission for them to go find the “lost sheep of the House of Israel” (and never to return due to their martyrdom in far-off lands). the apostles and disciples wrote first. This was done shortly after receiving the mighty power of God’s Holy Spirit on the Day of Penecost (and while the facts were still fresh in their minds) and before the Roman persucution began. Those apostles (like Matthew and John) and disciples (like Mark and \\luke) who were gifted in writing and familiar with all the events surrounding Christ’s life wrote their accounts (now called “gospels”). The later letters of John, James, Jude and Peter came shortly thereafter. Paul’s epistles were last. All these accounts and letters were written in their native Hebrew - Aramaic Language while they were still residing in Jerusalem. After all those writings were done, God inspired such original autographs to be duolicated and multiple copies by many of the existing Hebrew Scribes (and priests).in Jerusalem who eventually became zealous converts by then (Acts 6:7; 12:24).11. The Apostles Then Went to Seek the “Lost Sheeo of Israel”Unknown to, or simply ignored by most historians and theologians, those faithful apostles followed Christ’s instructions to them to the letter. in obedience to Christ’s command, they left Jerusalem and. went to find the “lost sheeo of the House of Israel” (Matthew 10:5,6; 15:24) These “lost sheep of Israel” also spoke and understood Hebrew and Aramaic. It was to them (the scattered sheep outside of the Judean fold) (John 19:16) that the Gosepel message and apostolic letters were primarily addressed to first, because being very far fron Judea, they needed comforting messages more, Many centuries later, those original writings (apostolic autographs) were copied and translated into Greek, Latin, and many other languages.NOTE: Appendix 1 explains more detail to be added Commission to the apostled. Appendix 2 details the extent of knowledge about the Gospel then.Leadersip at the Early Jerusalem CongregationExcept for Peter and John (among th original twelve who stayed behund to head the Jerusalem Congregation), assisted by James (Christ’s half brother, though not among the twelve, but was considered a pillar in the faith). (Galatans 1:18,19: 2:19) the rest of the apostles eventually went to seek the “lost sheep of the House of Israel”. While most of the Jerusalem members began to scatter soon after the stoning of Stephen, the apostles still stayed behind (Acts 8:11) Why?Two Important Reasons Why They Still Stayed.From Luke’s account , we can figure out that the apostles waited until after the Jerusalem Conference to be able to help decide on the very important doctrinal issue presented then. Plus, more importantlly, to also finish their apostolic writings and duplications thereof. (Acts 15:2b).more details on the very big topic of “Where Did the Apostles Go?” is detailed in the article written by Dr. Herman Hoch.[NOTE: Appendix 3 details the Territorial Preaching Boundries of the original apostles)12. The Romans Failed to Destroy Those Hebrew -Aramaic WritingsThe Romans actually did a double major campaign to destroy all Hebrew-Aramaic writings. After the massive destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in AD 70, the first massive attempt to try to destroy all Hebrew-Aramaic writings was precipitated by the violent Bar Kokhba Revolt (A.D. 132–135). After the bloody suppression of that revolt, in his anger, Roman emperor Hadrain proclaimed the rooting out of Jewish Nationalism in Judea, which he saw as the cause of the repeated rebellions. He then prohibited Torah law, the Hebrew Calendar, executed Judaic scholars, and the sacred scrolls of Judaism were ceremonially burned. In an attempt to erase ant memory of the name Israel, and in utter contempt he erased and replaced the name Israel, off the map with “Syria Palastine”. (from the original word “Philistine”thr traditional longstanding chief enemy of the Israelites.The second attempt was undertaken during reign of Emperor Dioclet who ruled from A<D>284–305. This was called the Diocletanic persecution *303- 11), described as the empire’s last, largest,bloodiest offical persecution of Christianity .But an wise advanced planner, God is always ahead of men’s evil plan. For example, when Herod planned to kill all the male children in an effort to elimate the Christ-chuld, Joseph was instructed earlier to bring his family to Egypt, and stayed there until Herod was dead.God’s fourfold advanced steps concerning the preservation of the Apostolic writins were:The original apostles wrote their writings before Roman persection began.Many copies of these were made and brought to regions beyond the Roman Empire.These “lost sheep of the House of Israel” preserved those Hebrew -Aramaic writings.These writings staed there until there was a change in the climate of persecutions.These developments explain why the apostolic writings in the Hebrew-Aramaic language escaped even the double massive Roman Campaign to destroy them. Of course, these scattered Israelite tribes were already in long possession of what is called the Old Testament Scriptures (Acts 15:21) And as God’s miraculous back-up plan, most of these Old Testament Scriptures were providentially hidden in earthen jars at the Qumran caves neaar the shores of the Dead Sea, better know as the Dead Sea Scrolls. Indeed, God is never late in doing what needs to be done, and He is never outwitted nby men’s evil plans (Pslam 3:1–5).13 The Roman Empire’s Split Protected the Aramaic WritingsThe major division of the Roman Empire happend during the reign of Constantine the Great. Because the eventual focus shifted on the rivalry between the Western Latin and the Eastern Greek - factions of the empire, the Hebrew - Aramaic writings of the apostles were left undisturbed.sonme notable changes during Emperor Constantine’s reign were:Persecution of Christians evevtually stopped when he adopted Pseudo Christianity.Pseudo - Christianity was made the official state religion of the Roman empire.Pseudo Christianity started to split into the Western and Eastern factions when Constantine divided Rome into Western and Eastern Empires starting in A>D 330.According to bibkical scholar Henry H. Halley, this great division was finally cemented by A.D 395 when Rome officially adopted the Latin language for the Western Empire versus Constantinople (named after Constantine instead of its old name Byzantium) when it also adopted Greek as the official language for the Eastern Empire (“church History,” Halley’s Bible Handbook, H.H. Halley, Zondervan, p. 795)This (about 1,600 years) old political and religious divide exists until today between the Ronan Catholic Church of the West, and the Greek Orthodox Churcn of the East. This rivalry actually focuses more highly on the language competition between Latin and Greek.NOTE: This great competition to become the first and more dominate beteen the Western Latin Church and the Eastern Greek Church explains why the Latin Vulgate was the first to be printed by Johannaes Getenberg in the early 1500’s compared to the still conflicting Greek manuscripts which appeared very much later, surprisingly still called after Latin names! (Sources Wikipedia Moveable Type).14. Dsturbing Conflicts Among Existing Greek ManscriptsThis is not to say that the Latin version has no problem. But when the Greek translated manuscripts evevntually appeared, none of them agreed with eac other! WHY?first very obviously, they were NOT translated from one original sourcedocument, but from various corrupted copies1Secondly, all these Greek manuscripts had surprisingly Latin names! this fact alone clearly goes against what the apostle Paul stated as the strong marker for originality where he wrote thw “oracles” (words( of God were committed to the Jews” - not to the Latin Romans nor even to the Greeks (Romans 3:1–2)Thirdly, consider the places where these Greek manuscripts were found. They all had a long=standing history of Anti-Semitism (hatred against the Hebrew people). The following are the present popular versions called”Codex”, and namrd after the places where they were fond:Codex Alexandrinus (found in Alexandria, Egypr).Codex Sinaiticus (found in Arab Terrority )Codex Vaticanus (found in Rome)We have one more version, whih was the basis of the KJB Version - the Texitus Receptus (Received Text or majority text).Westcott and Hort on the Textus ReceptusWhie most Christians became well-settled with the King James Version, the New Testamentportion of which was translated from the Greek Textus Receptus, to noted theologians rocked the boat of stability when they pioneered a new study called Textual Criticism, which requestioned all assunptions and ventured to revise even the Textus Receptus Greek translation!These two controversial figures were Wescott and Hort, who in 1881, published theit own New Testament in the original Greek (coded:: WH). In their work, these two scholars instead favoured the Vatican and Sinaiticus manuscripts combined with Codex Bazae plus the Old Latin and the Old Syriac texts. But surprisingly and disturbingly, a newer version, the Nestle - Aland (Coded : NU) contain 558 differences from the WH text. So, which version is now to be belived?The Resulting Babel of Philosophies on Bible Translationtoday, we have a plethora of comprting snd sdmewhat disagreeing Bible translations. On this regard, it is importsnt to know the reasons Why such translations were made. For an exhaustive commentary on this Babel-like phenomenon, their background and an evaluation of each translation, you may want to read the PDFversion of a 281 page book “Modern Bible Translations Unmasked”.16. Anti-Semitism Clouded Bible Translation AccuracyThe Re-Arrangement of the Books in the New Testament. Most honest Bible Scholars know this fact. And frankly, Anti-Semitism and Antinomianism are two of the hidden agenda why this re-arrangement was made. Please note that after the Gospel accounts, the writings of the original apostles (who were actually called first) should follow the Book of Acts tather than being placed last )1 Corinthians 15:8,9). Did not the Bible say, “to the Jews first and then to the Greeks/Gentiles (or “Arameans” AENT, HRB)”? (Romans 1:16; 2:10) . In effect, God also offered salvation to the Jews first, not to the Gentiles (or Greeks) (John 4:19–22).NOTE: AENT - Aramaic English New Testament, HRB- Hebrew Roots Bible)2. Ignoring the original Language of the Gospel AccountsAnother sign of Anti-Semitism is ignoring, denying, and changing the original language of the Gospel accounts. Below is an authoritative testimony..“The materal of our four Gospels is all Israeli and the language in which it was originally written is Aramaic, then the principal language of the land.”Quoted from our Translated Gospels, p.ix (1936) by Dr. Charles Cutler Torrey (one of the most capable Peshitta Scolars) AENT, p. 723.More details on New Testament Anti-Semitism, now it developed and who mainly caused it is described in greater detail in the Appendix section , page 915 of the AENT.Since All Greek Manuscripts Do Not Agree With One Another, What Then Was the Correct Original Manuscript Versions?17. There’s Proof that the Hebrew-Aramaic Language was the OriginalThe Khabouris Codex is the oldest Peshitta Aramaic text availablr. it is not a translation, but the language Christ spoke in His day (NOTE: Peshitta simply means common, plain, simple, or straightforward).NOTE: When the Kharbouris Codex was found, the news article “US Library Gets an Ancient Bible” appeared in the New York Times on March 26, 1955 reporting on the oldest known New Testament Bible written in :the language used by Christ.” The article says that it was taken to the White House where then - President Dwight Eisenhower viewed it, together with the then - Secretary of State John Foster Dulles. It was escorted via police motorcade and armed guards, along with much pomp to the Library of Congress. This. Codex was said to have been insured for “an hour and a half” in the amount of $1,500,000 US Dollars. This copy stayed in the Library of Confress until 24 June 1986, when it was transferred to the Western Theological Seminary in Holland, Michigan, where it remains to this day.Andrew Gabriel Roth, noted historian scholar, and authority on Hebrew and Aramaic languages, stated in part the introduction to the Aramaic English New Testament, (AENT).“It is common knowledge that Y’shua (Christ) and his original followers spoke Hebrew and Aramaic , but up until now the vast majority of Bible students have only had access to translations and versions of Greek text.”NOTE: Andrew Gabriel Rorth has access and studied the most ancient Aranaic text (in Hebrew letters) which were derived from the Khabouris Codex, one of 300 manuscripts that make up the Eastern Peskitta family. He said that present Aramaic English translation of the volume is as literal as possible to the Aramaic and including many footnotes that address significant differences between the earliest Aramaic and Greek versions. The AENT is the most definitive English New Testament translation in nearly two thousand years.Background Information on the Aramaic TextAuthenticity : Age: The AENT website says “The Khabouris Manyscript is a copy of a second century New Testament which was written in approximately 165 A.D.(intrnally documented as 100 years after the great persecution of the Christians by Nero). Carbon dating has found this copy of the New Testament to be approximately 1,000 years old. Given its origins, this would make a copy of the oldest known New Testament manuscipt”Resources: 1. Unpublished writings of Abbott Gerrit Crawford, Ph.D, MSJ, Western = Rite Syrian Orthodox Church in America; 2). Fr. Michael Ryce.N. D., D.C.P.” Additional testimony is in http//hebrewnewtestament.com/khabiuris,ltm,Now, here is Irrefutable Internal Evidence on the Hebrew-Aramaic as the Original Language in the New Testament:18. Nanes of Places in Israel Were in Hebrew-AramaicJohn 1:28 - Bethnay (Beth-Anya or Bethabare). The word “Beth” is simply the Hebrew word for “house”. There are over 50 geographic places starting with “Beth” Israel, which clearly shows that the language of the whole nation has always been Hebrew.John 19:13 - Gannatha (Griptha) *Hebrew and Aramaic for judgement Seator pavement)John 19:17 - Golgotha (Gagultha) (Aramaic word for place of the skull).Acts 1:19 AKel Dama (“Khagel-Dema” in the Aramaic word /phrase for “field of blood”)Historical Events were in the Hebrew -Aramaic LanguageJohn 18:20 - sign on the stake was written in Hebrew, Greek, LatinJohn 20:16 - Mary Magdalene exclaimed: “Rabboni” (Aramaic for Great Teacher)Acts 21:40 - Paul spoke in Hebrew to the accusing Jerusalem crowd.Acts 22:2- Crowd became very quite when Paul began to speak in Hebrew.20. Internal Eidence of Aramaic Names, Phrases, and IdiomsThe following words and phrases simply do NOT occur in the Greek language at all, and thus needed to be explained usin another language by the use of parenthesis to be understood:Abba (Aramaic for Father, Daddy) (Mark 14:36; Romans 8:15; Galatians 4:6).Bar Yone (Bar Jonah, Aramaic for son of Jonah. (Matthew 16:17)Benai Regesh (Boanerges, Aramaic for sons of thunder) (Mark 3:17)Cephas (Aramaic “Keefer” meaning “stone” (John 1:42; 1. Corinthians 1;12 etc)Kurbuno (Corban Aramaic meaning an offering for God) (Mark 7:11).Momuno (mommom, Aramaic meaning riches)(Matthew 6:24)Moron etha (Maranatha, Aramaic for our Lord comes soon) (1 Corinthians 16:23)Nathan a el (Aramaic for God gave) IJohn 1:47)Raca (Aramaic “rega” meaning empty-headed, fool) (Matthew 5:22)Tabitha (or Dorcas, Aramaic for gazella)(Acts 9:36)Talithocumi (Aramaic for “little girl,” I say to you, arise) (Mark 5:41)21. Christ spoke in Aramaic in His last moments of Agony.The final clincher PROOF was when Christ Himself was on the stake,. Near His last moments of agony, Christ spoke in the Aramaic dialect of Hebrew when He said “Eloi, Eloi, Lama Sabachthani” (Matthew 27:46; Mark 15:34)NOTE: The original native speech of any man normally comes out at the moment of the most extreme crises - where. all pretenses are cast aside. Here Christ clearly spoke in Aramaic!22. The Voice From Heaven Still Spoke to Saul/Paul in Hebrew!Many years later, when the still unconcerted Saul/Paul was travelling with campanions yo Damascus to imprison believers there, at noonday, he was struck bt a brilliant light, which blinded him, and threw him and his companions to the ground. And he heard a voice from heaven calling his name and which spoke to him with many instructions in the Hebrew language. (Acts 26:14).23. Clues : The Rest of the New Testament Had Aramaic Originals.“The writers of the New Covenant first made known the heavenly wrds to the Jews…in they tongue, and afterward in the Greek language, but in doing so retained everywhere a flavour of Syriac (Aramaic).AENT, p.725The “codeword” (password) of. Paul is the Aramaic and Moran etho” (Maran Athe), not only to authenticate his authorshipwith sufficient prooof that the speech of the first-century believers was then predominantly Aramaic (Prof. Neubuer, p.54).AENT, p. 725.Other Clues:Use of “Abba” to the Gentile congregation in Rome (Romans 3:15)Use of “Abba” to the Gentile congregation in Galatia (Galatians 4:6).Use of “Maranatha” to the Genile congregation in Corinth (1 Corinthians 16:22)Mention of observing (Kosher) “food or drink, festival, new moon, or Sabbath” among the Gentile congregation of Colossae is proof that these people. were not. only familiar with understanding the Hebrew Scriptures bu were actually practicing these biblical (Hebrew) customs even during the “New Testament” period, and still being encouraged by Paul (Colossians 2:16).Use of the equivalent of “Maranathe” (“ even so, came Yahshua Yahweh (HRB”) as previously addressed to the Seven Churches in Asia Minor (Revelation chapters 2 and 3 and in Revelation 22:20) is also proof that they understood Hebrew-Aramaic.Likewise, as another proof, Luke clearly tells us that Moses (the Torah or the Hebrew Scriptures)was being read every Sabbath in all synagogues in every city for a long time prior to, and even during the first century A.D. (Acts 15:21)24 Mistranslated Accounts Based on the Greek text But correct in the Aramaic original.Camel thru the eye of a Needle?The Aramaic word “Gamala” refers to a “heavy rope” rather than a “camel” which is both spelled : gimel-meem-lamed-alep. Greek scholars puzzeled. over this physical impossibility! The “heavy rope” lesson teaches the metaphorical need to “unravel” one’s fortune strand by strand first before one is able to enter Gog’s kingdom. (Matthew 24:19; Mark10:25; Luke 18:25).Did Simon the “Leper” Host a Party at His Hme?Matthew 26:5–7 talks about “Simon the Leper” hosting Christ together with many visitors for a meal at his home, where a woman also anoints Chist with a very expensive oil (perfume). This is an impossible scenario because in Christ’s day, lepers are outcasts from society (Leviticus 13:45–50). The simple solution to this puzzel is again a Greek misreading of the Aramaic word spelled : gimel-resh-beyt-alaph (GRBA). Since Hebrew and Aramaic have no vowels, it can be pronounced both as “gar-bah” which means “leper” or “gar-ah-bah” which means “jar maker”. Obviously, this Simon was a successful “jar maker” “rather than an outcast “leper”.23. There are More Examples of such Greek Textual Problems.The 424 page book “Was the New Testament Really Written In Greek?” written by Raphael Lataster compiles at least 152 specific discrepancies between the original Aramaic and the Greek text! You may access the website at http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com.There are also many other eminent Peshitta Aramaic Scholars. Among some noted ones are Dr. George Lamsa, Dr.Rocco Evrico, Dr. James Trimm, Glen David Bauscher, Don Espoito, Andrew Gabriel Roth, Paul David Younan, Rob Vanhoff plus many other unnamed ones.Summary of the EvidenceLet us be reminded that:The original apostles took Christ’s instrctions serioously, including going to the “Lost Sheep of the House of Israel”(Matthew 10:6). Christ mentioned about having “other sheep” which means not of that (Judean) fold then but will listen to His voice (John 10:16) to them, the apostles brought Christ’s message in their own Hebrew-Aramaic language to their distant lands.ALL the New Testament writers were Hebrew by blood, language and culture, They went to their own fellow Hebrew-Aramaic speaking peoples, like Luke was actually a Semitic greek, who long adopted the Hebrew way of life, and was also deeply converted. Otherwise, God would not have used him in such very special and powerful roles. His life was always associated with the Hebrew apostles and has been a consistent travelling companion of the apostles, especiallt Paul. Thus all the New Testament writers wrote in Hebrew-Aramaic.The original New Testament recipients of the writings were Hebrew God-fearers even if they dwelt in various far uff nations of the known world then (Acts 2:5–11). Therefore, why woukd a Hebrew, writing to another Hebrew write in a completely foreign language? Since such is definitely illogical, the writings were obviously in the Hebrew Aramaic language.The original believers of (God-fearing) from nations in the know world then often visited Jerusalem which means they were familiar with the Hebrew-Aramaic language in that city. One special incident recordrd by the gospel writer -historian Luke was on the Day of Pentecost when there was nuch more than a dozen nations and language groups gathered in Jerusalem (Acts 2:5–11)The Epistle of Paul were also addressed and sent to the original cre of early belivers wg=ho were of Hebrew background, and therefore he wrote to them in their native Hebrew -Aramaic language, Paul’s letters were centuries later translatef into Greek for the later generations, and for the restof the world.Internal evidence shows that the preponderance of original Aramaic names of person, places, phrases, and idioms needed to be interpreted into the Greek language. This clearly shows that Greek was NOT the original language used then.Comparing the Aramaic text with the Greek translation, the Aramaic is more accurate. Example : “Camel through the eye of a needle” and “Simon the leper, “ etc.ConclusionWe have just conclusively shown through this long article and its various links that indeed, the original language used in the New Testament was Hebrew-Aramaic as evidenced by many historial documents, plus numerous pieces of internal biblical evidence.Therefore, the popular belief commonly taught that Gteek was the original language of the New Testament is shown to be completely WITHOUT any basis or evidence whaysoever!Appendix 1.One Added Commission (Matthew 28:19, 20)“Go and make diciples of all nations, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you (plus a promise…)NOTE: The “making” and “teaching” of disciples in all nations, was obviously only their writings as we can see now. It was simply impossible for all of them )with each facing impending martyrdom, to physically go into all nations on earth (when not even all nations were formed yet). The word “even” is added, and the word “age” is substituted by the translators .COMMENT: The “formula” for baptizing in the name of the ‘trinity” is a spurious (fake) addition invented by the Roman Catholic Chuech and inserted only toward the end of the secon century. For full docunentation of this fact, citing more than 50 pieces of historical evidence , please read the article on this website Has the Bible Been Tampered to Support a Certain Doctrine?Appendix 2Christ’s Life, Death, and Resurrection were Known in Judea.Concerning the Life, Death and Resurrection of Christ, the people oj Jerusalem and Judea were already familiar with those events, concerning events surrounding Christ’s birth, it was “widely known abroad” (Luke 2:17 KJV). Also, the events surrounding His miraculous deeds , His crucifixion, death, and resurrection became the talk of the town in Jerusalem when they happened, even as commented upon by a relative/diciple of Christ, naned Cleopas. (Luke 14:14,18).Detailed Focus on Those Significant Events.Consider these surprising facts: When Christ was born in the middle of the night, as commanded by the angels, the angels, the shepherds had to go virtually from door to door inquiring for a baby that was born in a manger? (Luke 2:12). And when He resurrected long-dead saints miraculously arrived at many g]homes in Jerusalem, causing great unbelivable wonder to find out the main course of this unusal event in the whole city that day. (Matthew 27:52,53)!Likewise, the coming of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost caused “devout men from every nation under heaven” dwelling in Jerusalem that day to spread the news far and wide (“noised abroad”) about the day’s event. (Acts 2: 5, 6 KJV).Known Even to te Top Roman AuthoritiesWven the highest level of the Roman government at that time, Paul mentioned that King Agrippa was an expert in all customs and questins which have to do wt the Jews” (Acts 26:3). Considering the efficent intelligence - gathering-arm of the Roman goernment, Paul further stated before (King Agrippa saying, “I am convinced that none of these things escapes his (King Agrippa’s) attention, sinxe this thing was not done in a corner” and that Paul is somehow convinced that the King believes the prophets (Acts 26:26,27).Appendix 3Where Did the Israelite Tribes Go?The clue is Revealed in the Letters of Peter and James:James addressed his general letter “to the twelve tribes scattered abroad” (James 1:1).Peter’s apostolic letter reveals where the “lost tribe of Israel” were locatef:“Peter an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the pilgrims of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bitthynia,” (1 Peter 1:1)If you look at most Bible maps, these regions are in the northern part of what is know as Asia Mnor, located at the Southern shores of the Black Sea. That geograpgical area is now part of modern -day Turkey.Peter also greeted the scattered Jews left or those who preferred to remain) in Babylon who also spoke the Hebrew and Aramaic language (1 Peter 5:12–14).But Paul Preached Only in Southern GalatiaNOTE: Please knoew that there are two “Galatia” mentioned: the nothern and the southern. Paul preached in Southern Galatia area only in the cities of Icumium, Lystra, and Derbe (Acts 14)Paul’s three missionary journeys did not include those Northern region of Asia Minor. In fact, there was one attempt of Paul to visit Mysia (in the northern region), but the Holy Spirit prevented him (Acts 16: 7,8). Why?Administratively, God designated the original apostles to concentrate on the “lost sheep of the House of Israel” (located in the northern regins). while apostle Paul ‘s focus was on the Gentile lands (located in southern region) (Galatins 2:9. In his letter to the Romans , Paul said he was careful not to work in Israelite territory (Romans 15:20)NOTE: Peter’s letter included the descripitive word ‘pilgrim’ which meand those Israelite tribes were strangers in those lands where they settled in (as Abraham was also a stranger in the land of Canaan). Further, Peter also used the descriptive word ‘Dispersion’ which means those Israelite tribes werethose previously uprooted from their native land of Israel by the Neo-Assyrians conquest many centuries earlier (2 Kings 17:23b).The phenomenon exactly fulfils the prophecy of Balaam where the tribes of Israel continued to reain as ‘sttangers and pilgrims’ in the lands where they went to occupy when he said:“From thr rocky peaks I see them, from the heights I view them. I see a people who live apart and do not consider themselves one of them one of the nation. Numbers 23:9 NIV.More details on thi big topic are obtained in this article, “Where Did the Twelve Apostles Go? by Dr. Hermann L. Hoeh.Added reference to the above article. As my New Testament was written in **Aramaic** and not **Greek ** my New Testament is the AENT; this article gives reference as to the 25 Irrefutable Reasons Why the New Testament Was NOT Originally Written in Greek | Biblical Truths (25 Irrefutable Reasons Why the New Testament Was NOT Originally Written in Greek | Biblical Truths) Edmond Macaraeg, Author at Biblical Truths (Edmond Macaraeg, Author at Biblical Truths) BY EDMOND MACARAEG (Edmond Macaraeg, Author at Biblical Truths)ON APRIL 15, 2019 (25 Irrefutable Reasons Why the New Testament Was NOT Originally Written in Greek | Biblical Truths)***This is a very shocking article that goes contrary to what is commonly taught and popularly believed in this modern Christian world. ***But before making a prematurely negative judgment, please lay aside first any bias and prejudice, and open-mindedly examine the **FACTS**that will be presented here in a logical and objective manner — backed-up by overwhelming **solid evidence,**** **both **external** and **internal**.In this regard, let us wisely and patiently apply the advice of King Solomon when he said:“He who answers a matter before he hears it, it is folly and shame to him.”~Proverbs 18:13Not only that, but most may have already been influenced — sadly and unwittingly — by the strong effect of the statement: “A lie repeated often enough is eventually believed as true.” Whether factual or not, this quote is commonly attributed to Adolf Hitler’s propagandist, Joseph Goebbels.NOTE: Unless you have already read it, please READ FIRST the fully documented article on this website as a suggested primer: “The Amazing Hebrew Language History Since Eden.” This will give you a solid understanding of the God-inspired history of the Semitic languages.Here now are the 25 Solid Facts Proving that Greek Cannot Be the Original New Testament Language:1. God’s Nature and Character Is ConsistentGod talked to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden in what later became known as the Hebrew language. God used this language to speak to all the Israelites at Mt. Sinai. It’s the language in which the Ten Commandments were written by God’s own finger. It’s also the language He used to speak to all the patriarchs and prophets. He even had the Old Testament written primarily in this language. Is it now logical to believe that God (for no apparent reason) suddenly changed His mind(Malachi 3:6) and surprisingly began to use Greek — a completely foreign language — to write the New Testament? Such absurd thinking presents lots of problematic difficulties.2. Josephus Disdained the Greek LanguageJosephus [Hebrew name: Yosef ben Matityahu (A.D. 37-100)], the first-century Jewish priest-historian, reflects the common negative attitude of the Jews toward the Greeks when he said:I have also taken a great deal of pains to obtain the learning of the Greeks, and understand the elements of the Greek language … [yet] I cannot pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness; for our nation does NOT encourage those that learn the languages of many nations … because they [the Jews] look upon this sort of accomplishment as common [very lowly] … But they give him the testimony of being a wise man who is fully acquainted with our [Jewish] laws … [in contrast] as there have been many who have done their endeavors with great patience to obtain this [Greek] learning, there have yet hardly been so many as two or three that have succeeded therein, who were immediately well rewarded for their pains (emphases mine).~Antiquities of the Jews, XX, XI3. Jews Had an Aversion Toward the GreeksThe great Jewish aversion toward the Greeks (especially on religious matters) is reflected and recorded by the gospel writer and historian Luke in that violent incident where an angry Jewish mob developed upon the false report that Paul brought Greeks with him in his temple worship during his last visit to Jerusalem (Acts 21:27-29). This led to Paul’s arrest and imprisonment.4. Hebrew-Aramaic Was Actually the Common Language in First-Century JudeaAll honest historians agree that Christ and his disciples commonly spoke in Aramaic [a sister dialect to Hebrew], which was also the common language in all Judea and surrounding regions in the first century. Sadly, popular Christian teaching deceitfully wants us to believe that Greek was their common language, which is also the false reasongiven to support the erroneous belief that Greek was the original language of the New Testament.5. Aramaic Was Christ’s Native LanguageTwo relatively recent movies — in consultation with noted top historians to precisely re-create the original scenario in Jerusalem at the time of Christ on earth — used Aramaic in their movie dialogue. The two stated Christian films were “The Passion of the Christ” and “Risen.”6. Hebrew-Aramaic Was Also the Native Language of All Christ’s DisciplesAll of Christ’s disciples were Hebrews who also spoke Aramaic. Their primary audience were also Hebrews who also spoke Aramaic. And we’ve already seen that the native language of Yahshua (Jesus) was Aramaic. It is absolutely illogical and unreasonable for them to suddenly write to their fellow Hebrew audience in a foreign hated language (Greek)! It’s like a true-blooded American writing to a large American audience using the Russian language!7. Christ’s Disciples Were NotKnowledgeable in GreekLet us remember that even the top four most-often named disciples [Peter, Andrew, James, and John] were plain fishermen and were derisively derided by the Sanhedrin as “uneducated and untrained men” (Acts 4:13). HOW then can such ignorant men write in Greek? Impossible!8. There Is No Evidence That the Disciples Ever Studied GreekThere is absolutely no record or evidence that the disciples (even after Christ’s resurrection) ever ventured to find a school or a tutor to study Greek. If ever they did study first, HOW could they fulfill Christ’s commission to go and preach? And since both the Jewish and Roman persecutions came early, they obviously would have already been dead before they were able to learn Greek.9. The “Oracles” (or Words) of God Were Committed to the JewsThe apostle Paul says that “the oracles [words, NIV] of God were committed to the JEWS” — NOT to the Latin-speaking Romans,and also NOT to the Greeks (Romans 3:1,2). Sadly, this biblical factis hidden or ignored by some historians and theologians in an effort to rewrite history. This false but popular claim that Greek was the original language of the New Testament is already clearly debunked by this one verse alone! Remember, God has absolute power to cause His words to be fulfilled to the letter!10. The Apostles Wrote Early Due to the Impending PersecutionsLogically piecing all the facts together (and contrary to common teachings), it is believed that before leaving Jerusalem to fulfill Christ’s commission for them to go find the “lost sheep of the House of Israel” (and never to return due to their martyrdom in far-off lands), the apostles and disciples wrote first. This was done shortly after receiving the mighty power of God’s Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost [and while the facts were still fresh in their minds] and before the Roman persecutions began. Those apostles (like Matthew and John) and disciples (like Mark and Luke) who were gifted in writing and familiar with all the events surrounding Christ’s life wrote their accounts (now called “gospels”). The later letters of John, James, Jude, and Peter came shortly thereafter. Paul’s epistles were last. All these accounts and letters were written in their native Hebrew-Aramaic language while they were still residing in Jerusalem. After all those writings were done, God inspired such original autographs to be duplicated in multiple copies by many of the existing Hebrew Scribes (and priests) in Jerusalem who eventually became zealous converts by then (Acts 6:7; 12:24).11. The Apostles Then Went to Seek the “Lost Sheep Of Israel”Unknown to, or simply ignored by most historians and theologians, those faithful apostles followed Christ’s instructions to them to the letter. In obedience to Christ’s command, they left Jerusalem and went to find the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew 10:5,6; 15:24). These “lost sheep of the house of Israel” also spoke and understood Hebrew and Aramaic. It was to them [the scattered sheep outside of the Judean fold] (John 10:16) that the Gospel message and apostolic letters were primarily addressed to first, because being very far from Judea, they needed these comforting messages more. Many centuries later, those original writings (apostolic autographs) were copied and translated into Greek, Latin, and many other languages.[NOTE: Appendix 1 explains more details to an added Commission to the apostles. Appendix 2 details the extent of knowledge about the Gospel message then.]Leadership at the Early Jerusalem CongregationExcept for Peter and John [among the original twelve who stayed behind to head the Jerusalem congregation], assisted by James [Christ’s half-brother, though not among the twelve, but was considered a pillar in the faith] (Galatians 1:18,19; 2:9), the rest of the apostles eventually went to seek the “lost sheep of the house of Israel.” While most of the Jerusalem members began to scatter soon after the stoning of Stephen, the apostles still stayed behind (Acts 8:1). Why?Two Important Reasons Why They Still StayedFrom Luke’s account, we can figure out that the apostles waited until after the Jerusalem Conference to be able to help decide on the very important doctrinal issues presented then. Plus, more importantly, to also finish their apostolic writings and duplications thereof (Acts 15:2b).More details on the very big topic of “Where Did the Twelve Apostles Go?” is detailed in the article written by Dr. Herman L. Hoeh.[NOTE: Appendix 3 details the Territorial Preaching Boundaries of the original apostles.]12. The Romans Failed to Destroy Those Hebrew-Aramaic WritingsThe Romans actually did a double major campaign to destroy all Hebrew writings. After the massive destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in A.D. 70, the first massive attempt to destroy all Hebrew writings was precipitated by the violent Bar Kokhba Revolt (A.D. 132-135). After the bloody suppression of that revolt, in his anger, Roman Emperor Hadrianproclaimed the rooting out of Jewish nationalism in Judea, which he saw as the cause of the repeated rebellions. He then prohibited Torahlaw, the Hebrew calendar, executed Judaic scholars, and the sacred scrolls of Judaism were ceremonially burned. In an attempt to erase any memory of the name Israel, and in utter contempt, he erased and replaced the name Israel off the map with “Syria Palaestina” (from the original word “Philistine,” the traditional long-standing chief enemy of the Israelites).The second attempt was undertaken during the reign of Emperor Diocletian who ruled from A.D. 284-305. This was called the Diocletanic Persecution (303–11), described as the empire’s last, largest, and bloodiest official persecution of Christianity.But as a wise advanced planner, God is always ahead of man’s evil plans. For example, when Herod planned to kill all the male children in an effort to eliminate the Christ-child, Joseph was instructed earlier to bring his family to Egypt and stayed there until Herod was dead.God’s four-fold advanced steps concerning the preservation of the Apostolic Writings were:The original apostles wrote their writings before the Roman persecutions began.Many copies of these were made and brought to regions beyond the Roman Empire.These “lost sheep of the house of Israel” preserved those Hebrew-Aramaic writings.Those writings stayed there until there was a change in the climate of persecutions.These developments explain why the apostolic writings in the Hebrew-Aramaic language escaped even the double massive Roman Campaigns to destroy them. Of course, these scattered Israelite tribes were already in long possession of what is called the Old Testament Scriptures, being read by them every Sabbath (Acts 15:21). And as God’s miraculous back-up plan, most of these Old Testament Scriptures were providentially hidden in earthen jars at the Qumran caves near the shores of the Dead Sea, better known as the Dead Sea Scrolls. Indeed, God is never late in doing what needs to be done, and He is neveroutwitted by man’s evil plans (Psalms 2:1-5).13. The Roman Empire’s Split Protected the Aramaic WritingsThis major division of the Roman Empire happened during the reign of Constantine the Great. Because the eventual focus shifted on the rivalrybetween the Western Latin and the Eastern Greek factions of the empire, the Hebrew-Aramaic writings of the apostles were left undisturbed.Some notable changes during Emperor Constantine’s reign were:Persecution of Christians eventually stopped when he adopted Pseudo Christianity.Pseudo Christianity was made the official state religion of the Roman Empire.Pseudo Christianity started to split into the Western and Eastern factions when Constantine divided Rome into the Western and Eastern Empires starting in A.D. 330.According to biblical scholar Henry H. Halley, this great division was finally cemented by A.D. 395 when Rome officially adopted the Latinlanguage for the Western Empire versus Constantinople (named after Constantine instead of its old name Byzantium) when it also adopted Greek as the official language for the Eastern empire (“Church History,” Halley’s Bible Handbook, H.H. Halley, Zondervan, p. 795).This (about 1,600 years) old political and religious divide exists until today between the Roman Catholic Church of the West, and the Greek Orthodox Church of the East. This rivalry actually focuses more highly on the language competition between Latin versus Greek!NOTE: This great competition to become the first and more dominant between the Western Latin Church and the Eastern Greek Church explains why the Latin Vulgate was the first to be printed by Johannes Gutenberg in the early 1500s, compared to the still conflicting Greek manuscripts which appeared very much later, but surprisingly still called after Latin names! (Source: Wikipedia: Movable Type)14. Disturbing Conflicts Among Existing Greek ManuscriptsThis is not to say that the Latin version has no problems. But when the Greek translated manuscripts eventually appeared, none of them agreed with each other! WHY?First, very obviously, they were NOT translated from one original source document, but from various corrupted copies!Secondly, all these Greek manuscripts had surprisingly Latin names! This fact alone clearly goes against what the apostle Paul stated as the strong marker for originality where he wrote that the “oracles [words] of God were committed to the Jews”—not to the Latin Romans nor even to the Greeks (Romans 3:1,2).Thirdly, consider the places where these Greek manuscripts were found. They all had a long-standing history of Anti-Semitism (hatred against the Hebrew people). The following are the present popular versions called “Codex,” and named after the places where they were found:Codex Alexandrinus (found in Alexandria, Egypt)Codex Sinaiticus (found in Arab territory)Codex Vaticanus (found in Rome)We have one more version, which was the basis for the King James Bible version — the Textus Receptus (Received Text or Majority Text).Wescott and Hort on the Textus ReceptusWhile most Christians became well-settled with the King James Version, the New Testament portion of which was translated from the Greek Textus Receptus, two noted theologians rocked this boat of stability when they pioneered a new study called Textual Criticism, which questioned all assumptions and ventured to revise even the Textus Receptus Greek translation!These two controversial figures were Wescott and Hort, who in 1881 published their own New Testament in the Original Greek (coded: WH). In their work, these two scholars instead favored the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts combined with Codex Bezae plus the Old Latinand the Old Syriac texts. But surprisingly and disturbingly, a newer version, the Nestle-Aland (coded: NU) contains 558 differences from the WH text! So, which version is now to be believed?15. The Resulting Babel of Philosophies on Bible TranslationsToday, we have a plethora of competing and somewhat disagreeing Bible translations. On this regard, it is important to know the reasons whysuch translations were made. For an exhaustive commentary on this Babel-like phenomenon, their background, and an evaluation of each translation, you may want to read the PDF version of a 281-page book, “Modern Bible Translations Unmasked.”16. Anti-Semitism Clouded Bible Translation Accuracy1. The Re-Arrangement of the Books in the New TestamentMost honest Bible scholars know this fact. And frankly, Anti-Semitismand Antinomianism are two of the hidden agenda why this rearrangement was made. Please note that after the Gospel accounts, the writings of the original apostles (who were actually called first) should follow the Book of Acts rather than being placed last. Paul’s letters should be placed last (1 Corinthians 15:8, 9). Did not the Bible say, “to the Jew first and then to the Greeks/Gentiles [or “Arameans” AENT, HRB]”? (Romans 1:16; 2:10). In effect, God also offered salvation to the Jews first, not to Gentiles [or Greeks] (John 4:19-22).[NOTE: AENT = Aramaic English New Testament; HRB = Hebrew Roots Bible]2. Ignoring the Original Language of the Gospel AccountsAnother sign of Anti-Semitism is ignoring, denying, and changing the original language of the Gospel accounts. Below is an authoritative testimony:The material of our four Gospels is all Israeli and the language in which it was originally written is Aramaic, then the principal language of the land.~Quoted from Our Translated Gospels, p. ix (1936) by Dr. Charles Cutler Torrey (one of the most capable Peshitta scholars), AENT, p.723More details on New Testament Anti-Semitism, howit developed and who mainly caused it is described in greater detail in the Appendix section, page 915, of the AENT.Since All the Greek Manuscripts Do Not Agree With One Another, What Then Was the Correct Original Manuscript Version?17. There’s Proof that the Hebrew-Aramaic Language Was the OriginalThe Khabouris Codex is the oldest Peshitta Aramaic text available. It is not a translation, but the language Christ spoke in His day [NOTE:Peshitta simply means common, plain, simple, or straightforward].NOTE: When the Khabouris Codex was found, the news article “US Library Gets an Ancient Bible” appeared in the New York Timeson March 26, 1955 reporting on the oldest known New Testament Bible written in “the language used by Christ.” The article says that it was taken to the White House where then-President Dwight Eisenhower viewed it, together with then-Secretary of State John Foster Dulles. It was escorted via police motorcade and armed guards, along with much pomp to the Library of Congress. This Codex was said to have been insured for “an hour and a half” in the amount of $1,500,000 US dollars. This copy stayed in the Library of Congress until 24 June 1986, when it was transferred to the Western Theological Seminary in Holland, Michigan, where it remains to this day.Andrew Gabriel Roth, noted historian, scholar, and authority on Hebrew and Aramaic languages, stated in part in the Introduction to the Aramaic English New Testament (AENT):It is common knowledge that Y’shua (Christ) and his original followers spoke Hebrew and Aramaic, but up until now the vast majority of Bible students have only had access to translations and versions of Greek texts.NOTE: Andrew Gabriel Roth has access and studied the most ancient Aramaic text (in Hebrew letters) which were derived from the Khabouris Codex, one of 360 manuscripts that make up the Eastern Peshitta family. He said that the present Aramaic English translation of the volume is as literal as possible to the Aramaic and includes many footnotes that address significant differences between the earliest Aramaic and Greek versions. This Aramaic English New Testament is the most definitive English New Testament translation in nearly two thousand years.Background Information on the Aramaic TextAuthenticity: The article from the New York Times, March 1955 issue says: “Scholars had examined the manuscript for the Library of Congress and pronounced it authentic.”Age: The AENT website says “The Khabouris Manuscript is a copy of a Second Century New Testament, which was written in approximately 165 AD (internally documented as 100 years after the great persecution of the Christians by Nero, in 65 AD). Carbon dating has found this copy of the New Testament to be approximately 1,000 years old. Given its origins, this would make it a copy of the oldest known New Testament manuscript.”Resources: 1) Unpublished writings of Abbott Gerrit Crawford, Ph.D., MSJ, Western-Rite Syrian Orthodox Church in America; 2) Fr. Michael Ryce, N.D., D.C.P.” Additional testimony is in Hebrew New Testament Kabouris codexNow, here is Irrefutable Internal Evidence on the Hebrew-Aramaic as the Original Language in the New Testament:18. Names of Places in Israel Were in Hebrew-AramaicJohn 1:28 — Bethany (Beth-Anya or Bethabara). The word “Beth” is simply the Hebrew word for “house…” There are over 50 geographic places starting with “Beth” in Israel, which clearly shows that the language of the whole nation has always been Hebrew.John 19:13 — Gabbatha [Griptha] (Hebrew and Aramaic for judgment seat or pavement)John 19:17 — Golgotha [Gagultha] (Aramaic word for the place of the skull)Acts 1:19 — Akel Dama (“Khagel-Dema” is the Aramaicword/phrase for “field of blood”)19. Historical Events Were in the Hebrew-Aramaic LanguageJohn 19:20 — Sign on the stake was written in Hebrew, Greek, Latin)John 20:16 — Mary Magdalene exclaimed: “Rabboni” (Aramaicfor Great Teacher)Acts 21:40 — Paul spoke in Hebrew to the accusing Jerusalem crowdActs 22:2 — Crowd became very quiet when Paul began to speak in Hebrew20. Internal Evidence of Aramaic Names, Phrases, and IdiomsThe following words and phrases simply do NOT occur in the Greek language at all, and thus needed to be explained using another language by the use of parenthesis to be understood:Abba [Aramaic for Father, Daddy] (Mark 14:36; Romans 8:15; Galatians 4:6)Bar Yona [Bar-Jonah, Aramaic for the son of Jonah] (Matthew 16:17)Benai Regesh [Boanerges, Aramaic for sons of thunder] (Mark 3:17)Cephas [Aramaic “Keefas” meaning “stone” (John 1:42; 1 Corinthians 1:12; etc.)Kurbuno [Corban, Aramaic meaning an offering for God] (Mark 7:11)Momuno [mammon, Aramaic meaning riches] (Matthew 6:24)Moran etha [Maranatha, Aramaic for our Lord comes soon] (1 Corinthians 16:22)Nathan a el [Aramaic for God gave] (John 1:47)Raca [Aramaic “reqa” meaning empty-headed, fool] (Matthew 5:22)Tabitha [or Dorcas, Aramaic for gazelle] (Acts 9:36)Talitha cumi [Aramaic for “Little girl, I say to you, arise”] (Mark 5:41)21. Christ Spoke in Aramaic in His Last Moments of AgonyThis final clincher PROOF was when Christ Himself was on the stake. Near His last moment of agony, Christ spoke in the Aramaic dialect of Hebrew when He said, “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani” (Matthew 27:46; Mark 15:34).NOTE: The original native speech of any man normally comes out at the moment of the most extreme crises — where all pretenses are cast aside. Here Christ clearly spoke in Aramaic!22. The Voice From Heaven Still Spoke to Saul/Paul in Hebrew!Many years later, when the still unconverted Saul/Paul was traveling with companions to Damascus to imprison believers there, at noonday, he was struck by a brilliant light which blinded him and threw him and his companions to the ground. And he heard a voice from heaven calling his name and which spoke to him with many instructions in the Hebrewlanguage (Acts 26:14)!23. Clues: The Rest of the New Testament Had Aramaic OriginalsThe writers of the New Covenant first made known the heavenly words to the Jews … in their native tongue, and afterward in the Greek language, but in doing so retained everywhere a flavor of Syriac [Aramaic].~AENT, p. 725.The “codeword” [password] of Paul is the Aramaic“Moran etho” [Maran atha], not only to authenticate his authorship amidst many spurious claims then, but also to demonstrate with sufficient proof that the speech of the first-century believers was then predominantly Aramaic(Prof. Neubuer, p. 54).~AENT, p. 725.Other Clues:Use of “Abba” to the Gentile congregation in Rome (Romans 8:15)Use of “Abba” to the Gentile congregation in Galatia (Galatians 4:6)Use of “Maranatha” to the Gentile congregation in Corinth (1 Corinthians 16:22)Mention of observing [kosher] “food or drink, festival, new moon, or Sabbath” among the Gentile congregation of Colossae is proof that these people were not only familiar with understanding the HebrewScriptures but were actually practicing these biblical [Hebrew] customs even during the “New Testament” period, and still being encouraged by Paul (Colossians 2:16).Use of the equivalent of “Maranatha” (“even so, come Yahshua Yahweh [HRB]”) as previously addressed to the Seven Churches in Asia Minor (Revelation chapters 2 and 3; and in Revelation 22:20) is also proof that they understood Hebrew-Aramaic.Likewise, as another proof, Luke clearly tells us that Moses [the Torah or the Hebrew Scriptures] was being read every Sabbath in all the synagogues in every city for a long time prior to, and even during the first century A.D. (Acts 15:21).24. Mistranslated Accounts Based on the Greek text But Correct in the Aramaic OriginalCamel Thru the Eye of a Needle?The Aramaic word “Gamala” refers to a “heavy rope” rather than a “camel” which is both spelled: gimel-meem-lamed-alap. Greek scholars puzzled over this physical impossibility! The “heavy rope” lesson teaches the metaphorical need to “unravel” one’s fortune strand by strand first before one is able to enter God’s Kingdom (Matthew 24:19; Mark 10:25; Luke 18:25).Did Simon the “Leper” Host a Party at His Home?Matthew 26:6-7 talks about “Simon the Leper” hosting Christ together with many visitors for a meal at his home, where a woman also anoints Christ with a very expensive oil (perfume). This is an impossible scenario because even in Christ’s day, lepers are outcast from society (Leviticus 13:45-50). The simple solution to this puzzle is again a Greek misreading of the Aramaic word spelled: gimel-resh-beyt-aleph (GRBA). Since Hebrew and Aramaic have no vowels, it can be pronounced both as “gar-bah” which means “leper” or “gar-ah-bah” which means “jar-maker.” Obviously, this Simon was a successful “jar-maker” rather than an outcast “leper.”25. There Are More Examples of Such Greek Textual ProblemsThe 424-page book, “Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?” written by Raphael Lataster, compiles at least 152 specific discrepancies between the original Aramaic and the Greek text! You may access the website at http://www.aramaicpeshitta.comThere are also many other eminent Peshitta Aramaic scholars. Among some noted ones are Dr. George Lamsa, Dr. Rocco Errico, Dr. James Trimm, Glenn David Bauscher, Don Esposito, Andrew Gabriel Roth, Paul David Younan, Rob Vanhoff, plus many other unnamed ones.Summary of the EvidenceLet us be reminded that:The original apostles took Christ’s instructions seriously, including going to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew 10:6). Christ mentioned about having “other sheep” which were not of that [Judean] fold then but will listen to His voice (John 10:16). To them, the apostles brought Christ’s message in their own Hebrew-Aramaic language to their distant lands.ALL the New Testament writers were Hebrews by blood, language, and culture. They went to their fellow Hebrew-Aramaic speaking peoples. Luke was actually a Semitic Greek, who long adopted the Hebrew way of life, and was also deeply converted. Otherwise, God would not have used him in such very special and powerful roles. His life was always in association with the Hebrew apostles and has been a constant traveling companion of the apostles, especially Paul. Thus, all the New Testament writers wrote in Hebrew-Aramaic.The original New Testament recipients of the writings were Hebrew God-fearers even if they dwelt in various far-off nations of the known world then (Acts 2:5-11). Therefore, why would a Hebrew, writing to another Hebrew, write in a completely foreign language? Since such is definitely illogical, the writings were obviously in the Hebrew-Aramaic language.The original believers (God-fearers) from nations in the known world then often visited Jerusalem which means they were familiar with the Hebrew and Aramaic language in that city. One special incident recorded by the gospel writer-historian Luke was on the Day of Pentecost when there was much more than a dozen nations and language groups gathered in Jerusalem (Acts 2:5-11).The Epistles of Paul were also addressed and sent to be read to the original core of early believers who were of Hebrew background, and therefore he wrote to them in their native Hebrew-Aramaic language. Paul’s letters were centuries later translated into Greek for the later generations, and for the rest of the world.Internal evidence shows that the preponderance of original Aramaic names of persons, places, phrases, and idioms needed to be interpreted into the Greek language. This clearly shows that Greek was NOT the original language used then.Comparing the Aramaic text with the Greek translation, the Aramaic is more accurate. Example: “Camel Through the Eye of a Needle” and “Simon the Leper,” etc.ConclusionWe have just conclusively shown through this long article and its various links that indeed, the original language used in the New Testament was Hebrew-Aramaic as evidenced by many historical documents, plus numerous pieces of internal biblical evidence.Therefore, the popular belief commonly taught that Greek was the original language of the New Testament is shown to be completely WITHOUT any basis or evidence whatsoever!Appendix 1One Added Commission (Matthew 28:19,20)Go and make disciples of all nations, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you [plus a promise…]NOTE: The “making” and “teaching” of disciples in all nations, was obviously possible only thru their writings, as we see now. It was simply impossible for all of them then (with each facing impending martyrdom), to physically go into all nations on earth (when not even allnations were formed yet). The word “even” is added, and the word “age” is substituted by the translators.COMMENT: The “formula” for baptizing in the name of the “trinity” is a spurious (fake) addition invented by the Roman Catholic Church and inserted only toward the end of the second century. For full documentation of this fact, citing more than 50 pieces of historical evidence, please read the article on this website: “Has the Bible Been Tampered to Support a Certain Doctrine?”Appendix 2Christ’s Life, Death, and Resurrection Were Known in JudeaConcerning the Life, Death, and Resurrection of Christ, the people of Jerusalem and Judea were already familiar with those events. Concerning events surrounding Christ’s birth, it was “widely known abroad” (Luke 2:17 KJV). Also, the events surrounding His miraculous deeds, His crucifixion, death, and resurrection became the talk of the town in Jerusalem when they happened, even as commented upon by a relative/disciple of Christ, named Cleopas (Luke 24:14,18).Detailed Focus on Those Significant EventsConsider these surprising facts: When Christ was born in the middle of the night, as commanded by the angels, the shepherds had to go virtually from door to door inquiring for a baby that was born in a manger? (Luke 2:12). And when He was resurrected, long-dead saints miraculously arrived at many homes in Jerusalem, causing great unbelievable wonder to find out the main cause of this unusual event in the whole city that day (Matthew 27:52,53)!Likewise, the coming of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost caused “devout men from every nation under heaven” dwelling in Jerusalem that day to spread the news far and wide (“noised abroad”) about the day’s event (Acts 2:5,6 KJV).Known Even to the Top Roman AuthoritiesEven at the highest level of the Roman government at that time, Paul mentioned that King Agrippa was an “expert in all customs and questions which have to do with the Jews” (Acts 26:3). Considering the efficient intelligence-gathering-arm of the Roman government, Paul further stated before King Agrippa saying, “I am convinced that none of these things escapes his [King Agrippa’s] attention, since this thing was not done in a corner” and that Paul is somehow convinced that the King believes the prophets (Acts 26:26,27).Appendix 3Where Did the Israelite Tribes Go?The Clue Is Revealed in the Letters of Peter and James:James addressed his general letter “to the twelve tribes scattered abroad” (James 1:1).Peter’s apostolic letter reveals where the “lost tribes of Israel” were located:“Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the pilgrims of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,”~1 Peter 1:1If you look at most Bible maps, these stated regions are in the northern part of what is known as Asia Minor; located at the southern shores of the Black Sea. That geographical area is now part of modern-day Turkey.Peter also greeted the scattered Jews left (or those who preferred to remain) in Babylon who also spoke the Hebrew and Aramaiclanguage (1 Peter 5:12-14).But Paul Preached Only in Southern GalatiaNOTE: Please know that there are two “Galatia” mentioned: the northern and the southern. Paul preached in southern Galatia area only in the cities of Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe (Acts 14).Paul’s three missionary journeys did not include those northern regions of Asia Minor. In fact, there was one attempt of Paul to visit Mysia [in the northern region], but the Holy Spirit prevented him (Acts 16:7,8). Why?Administratively, God designated the original apostles to concentrate on the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” [located in the northern regions], while the apostle Paul’s focus was on the Gentile lands [located in the southern regions] (Galatians 2:8). In his letter to the Romans, Paul said he was careful not to work in Israelite territory (Romans 15:20).NOTE: Peter’s letter included the descriptive word “pilgrims” which means those Israelite tribes were strangers in those lands where they settled in (as Abraham was also a stranger in the land of Canaan). Further, Peter also used the descriptive word “Dispersion” which means those Israelite tribes were those previously uprooted from their native land of Israel by the Neo-Assyrian conquest many centuries earlier (2 Kings 17:23b).This phenomenon exactly fulfills the prophecy of Balaam where the tribes of Israel continued to remain as “strangers and pilgrims” in the lands where they went to occupy when he said:From the rocky peaks I see them, from the heights I view them. I see a people who live apart and do not consider themselves one of the nations.~Numbers 23:9, NIVMore details on this big topic are contained in the article: “Where Did the Twelve Apostles Go?” by Dr. Herman L. Hoeh.

ANCIENT TEXTSIn the year 3102 B.C.[1] an eighteen days long historical war known as MahaIndia was fought on fertile lands of northern India. Kurukshetra, a modern day district of Haryana is known as location of the war. Two families of Kuru[2] clan – Pandav and Kaurav with their allies were facing each other. All were ready with an impression of thousands casualties and losses.This war has extreme significance on India since ancient time. As it draws close, Arjun, third of five Pandav brothers, realised that he would have to kill his family members, teachers and dearest. He looked at Lord Krishn, who became his charioteer at that time, for his exhortation. C. Rajagopalachari[3] noted this account in his book.Krishna's exhortation to Arjun at this juncture is the Bhagavad Gita, which is enshrined in millions of hearts as the Word of God. The Bhagavad Gita is acknowledged by all as one of the supreme treasures of human literature. Its gospel of devotion to duty, without attachment or desire of reward, has shown the way of life for all men, rich or poor, learned or ignorant, who have sought for light in the dark problems of life.[4]Srimadbhagavadgita is a philosophical divine dialogue between Lord Krishn and Arjun. Infinite knowledge, truth and moral teachings in it have power to raise human life from lowest depth of ignorance and suffer to highest glories of divine being. There is no book in whole range of the world’s literatures so high above all as the Srimadbhagavadgita, a treasure-house of dharm, which is not only for Hindus but for mankind.[5] In early moments of first day of the war, Lord Krishn was dispensing holy preaches on questions raised by Arjun. On this occasion, Lord himself proclaimed a shlok who defines Indian sense of secular or secularism.In whatever form and whatever way a devotee chooses to worship me, in that very form do I stabilise that devotee’s faith.[6]This is how secularism in India was instituted in noble war. India - land of search, knowledge, wisdom and enlightenment had declared centuries ago ‘it is One Existence that the wise speak in diverse’. Complete shlok read as ‘they hail Him as Indr, as Mitr, as Varun, as Agni, also as that divine and noble winged Garutman, it is One Existence that the wise speak in diverse, whether as Agni or as Yam or as Matarisvan’.[7]There are four Ved known to be earliest manuscripts of the mankind. The oldest Ved is Rigved points to a settled people, an organised society and a full grown civilisation. The Rigved is root of entire tree of Indian thoughts with its ramifications into many sects, schools of philosophy and systems of worship.[8] It says let noble thoughts come to us from every side.[9] History stands witness that Indian society has never refused to listen to those have had welfare of this society by heart.The tradition of this glorious saga has been derived by a heritage known as shastrarth - an old method which always results advanced thoughts. A regular organisation of conference was patronised by Kings of that time. Besides residential schools, academics for advanced study and circles of philosophical disputants, a great imputes to learning come from the assemblies of learned men gathered together by Kings. These conferences are narrated in Shatapath Brahman.Shastrarth aimed at highest knowledge of the soul and absolute self-realisation. A typical example of it was organised by King Janak of Videh[10]. To which he invited all learned scholars of Kuru and Panchal[11]. The leading figure was Yajnavalkya to whom difficult metaphysical problems were put by eight leading philosophers. Satisfactory solutions presented by Yajnavalkya sworn him palm of supremacy among the philosophers.[12]In the subsequent ages, India came across lively shastrarth among key schools of Sanatan Dharm – systems of philosophy of which Shaiv, Vaishnav, Vedant, and Shakti are based. Each of these schools has bequeathed to posterity a vast literature defending its own position. There were many conferences held among the sects within each school following the same pattern.[13] Language was not always refined, quite often it was harsh and occasionally downright derisive. In the long history of shastrarth we do not come across single instance of any school calling for suppression of any other school and mobilising its adherents to stage street riots in its support and against other.AGES OF TIRTHANKAR MAHAVIR TO GUPTA EMPIREThe sixth century B.C. was a period of two great remarkable events – first is the birth of Tirthankar Mahavir in 599 B.C. and Gautam Buddh in 563 B.C.; second is both achieved omniscience of infinite knowledge respectively in 556 B.C. and 528 B.C. They both have number of similarities: they were born in the royal comforts; they abandoned their families to live an ascetic life; they travelled across the country for seeking true path of human life; and finally they discovered the enlightenment.This era has one more importance because contemporary Greek Kings of the Tirthankar and Gautam used the word ‘Hindu’ with geographical sense that anyone from inside or beyond the river Indus. From the centuries, this Hindu country was flourishing with the greatest ideas of mankind. Now with the ancillary knowledge and teaching of Tirthankar and Gautam, this country has become more alive and prosperous. This is also a fact that different philosophies or faiths of Hindu people got the patronage from the Kings of different time. But the Kings did not choose to impose their personal faith on their people. King’s only care was that there should be growth in the essence of the matter in, and respect for, all people living in the Indian country.Alexander, King of Macedonia invaded the Indian territories in between 327 to 326 B.C. In this period, he fought many battles with small Kingdoms situated on the northern hilly border of India. During the campaign, he had come to the banks of river Beas; next to invade plain lands of the country, but his army revolted here and denied to move further. So he decided to leave India in 325 B.C. Thus, the invasion had opened the door to the western Empires or Kingdoms for the first time fairly accurate accounts of the Indian and its inhabitants.These invasions mark the beginning of a new epoch of India’s history with the establishment of spacious Maury Empire of Magadh[14]. In 324 B.C. Chandragupt Maury established the Maury Empire[15] under guidance of Kauṭily, a teacher, a political and economic strategist of Taxila[16]. He is known as the first Emperor in Indian history to have achieved real unification of India as one State. During his reign, a Greek representative, Megasthenes visited royal Court. He had some frequent interviews with Emperor Chandragupt. Megasthenes has written an account of India and also that of Chandragupt’s reign in his book entitled ‘Indika’ including Santan Dharm and its philosophies.God is with them the word – by which them they do not mean articulate speech, but the discourse of reason, whereby the hidden mysteries of knowledge are discerned.[17]Since, ancient India to the Megasthenes, through this eternal way we had secured many achievements in evolution of human. There was only one consideration for all philosophies and sects - progress of world. One after the other rishi – philosopher or teacher, King and even the God’s Incarnation made considerable additions in the stock of knowledge custom of India.The grandson of Emperor Chandragupt, Ashok succeeded to Throne of Maury Empire in 273 B.C. He was the first Emperor who ruled almost the entire country. A third Emperor of Maury Empire, Ashok became follower of the philosophy of Gautam Buddh in 265 B.C. The Emperor’s faith change made it amply felt in the domain of his personal life and habits. Most of the time honoured customs and institutions of the royal households were abolished as being contradictory to the spirit of his new faith and others more in consonance therewith were substituted in their place.[18] Indeed, one of Ashok’s edicts frankly expects that ‘men should give up their old way’[19].Indian society has always accepted every well intentioned advice and tried its best to reform and renew itself. Emperor Ashok started tours for public awareness by visiting people of the Magad with instruction in dharm and discussion of that dharm. This journey was aimed to change only mal-habits of its people. For example, he ordered that in the capital Patliputra that ‘no animal should be slaughtered for sacrifice’. All works in his Empire, he extended the principle of non-violence from the world of men to that the lower dumb animals and birds. The full extension of the principle took place later in his reign in about 242 B.C. when an ordinance of decree was issued, prohibiting the slaughter of numerous birds and beasts specified, besides ‘all four footed animals which are neither utilised nor eaten’[20].Ashok’s personal philosophy was in Buddhism, but he never disallowed liberality to Brahmans which he always emphasised as a public duty[21] and unseemly behaviour to them equally condemned.[22] A Ceylon (Sri Lanka) tradition represents Asoka as daily feeding 60,000 Brahmans for three years.[23] He stated in his Edicts that the King does reverence to men of all sects.I devote my attention to all communities, for the followers of all denomination are honoured by me and the honour is paid in various forms. Nevertheless, showing personal regard for them is the chief thing in my opinion.[24]Some historians believed that Emperor Ashok tried to spread the noblest ideas of humanism which are the essence of all philosophies of Hindus including teachings of Gautam Buddh. He described code of duties of Santan Dharm in his various Edicts. Dharm of the Edicts was not merely practical; it was distinguished by several characteristic doctrines and philosophical positions, bringing out the originality of Asoka’s idea of moral and social reforms.[25]“Kindness[26], Liberality[27], Truthfulness[28], Gentleness[29], Saintliness[30], Moderation in spending and saving[31], Self-Control[32], Purity of heart[33], Gratitude[34], Inner and outer purity[35], Firm devotion[36], and Attachment to morality.”[37]People at large, he regarded and declared as his own children for whose welfare he was constantly working. He insisted tolerance as an absolute duty in a land of many philosophies. His Edicts breathe consistently a very high spirit of toleration among the different sects which were all but offshoots of the same central faith.The root of toleration is restraint of speech, refraining from speaking well of one’s own faith and ill of others. On the basis toleration among the followers of different faiths will grow and it should be further promoted by making them know of one other’s doctrines, so that the follower of one sect may be able to appreciate the other sects and will be a bahusruta. Out of this width of knowledge will spring the width of outlook, charity and toleration and purity of doctrines, the essence of sar of all religions.[38]Ashok’s moral ideas were simple and practical. Toleration and respect is often recorded in the Edicts and he was not the champion of any particular creed but of a way of life. He is often thought of as a Buddhist Emperor, as if he was thus no longer a Hindu. Emperor Asoka was merely a Hindu belonging to a particular sect, for the separateness of Buddhism from the mainstream of Hindu thought was, in the eyes of its contemporaries, only as sectarian as the various faces of Christianity today.[39]After the Maury Empire, the next largest Empire who ruled India was the Gupt[40]. Chandragupt I established the Gupt Empire in 320 A.D. The Gupt Emperors themselves were orthodox follower of Vaishnavism but treated all philosophies equally. The principle philosophies of the time were Vaishnavism, Saivism and Buddhism. Gupt Emperors were catholic enough not to have enforced their personal philosophy as the official philosophy of the Empire. They encouraged equally the promotion of all philosophies. Therefore, in the Gupta Empire, people were enjoying a golden age in engineering, infrastructure, art, science, medical, mathematic and etc.In the beginning of the fourth century A.D. rise of this Empire started a new era in the history of India. One of most celebrated Emperor of Gupt was Chandragupta II – Vikramaditya. He succeeded to the Throne in 375 A.D. and takes the title of Paramabhagavata which is a Vaishnavism title. Vikramaditya was religiously a very tolerant monarch. He never persecuted the Buddhists, Jains or followers of any other philosophies.Vikramaditya’s inscription refers to a grant, in form of a village or an allotment of land and a sum of money, by his prominent Buddhist Minister to Buddhist monks belonging from Sanchi. One of Udayagiri Caves bears an inscription of another Minister of Emperor who was a devotee of Lord Shiv. It recorded that the caves were excavated as a Temple of Lord Shiv.[41] It articulates that everyone in his Court was free to encourage their own philosophy without sloping others. Such prosperity and peace-loving in Gupta Empire initiated a Golden Age of India.Masterpieces of sculpted panels - Udayagiri Caves and Ajanta Caves were architected in Gupta Empire. Notable mathematician and astronomer, Aryabhata[42] discovered the number Zero and value of Pi during this age. The man of letters, Kalidasa credited with having written the best kavyas such as Raghuvamsa and Kumarasambhava; dramas such as Sakuntala and Vikramorvasi; and lyrics poem like Meghaduta is belonged to this period.Gupta Emperors ruled over an Empire which executed from the peninsula of Kathiawad in the west to eastern Bengal, from the Himalayas to river Narmada. The efficiency of Gupta administrative was demonstrated by the material and moral progress of the people of which glimpse are given in the record of travel undertaken in country by Chinese Buddhist monk, Fa-Hien between the years 399-414 A.D. He took 15 years in the whole of his journey and reached China in 414 A.D. Out of these 15 years, he spent 7 years in India alone. For three years, he was in Patliputra, learning Sanskrit and writing his memoirs of the journey.Fa-Hien very keenly felt that the Buddhist disciplines were very imperfectly known in China. He organised a joint mission with several Chinese scholars. Across difficult rivers and mountains, the party came at Khotan[43] where the monks were mostly attached with Mahayana sect of Buddhism. They were accommodated in a monastery known as Hindu name of Gomti, where at the sound of gong, 3,000 monks assembled to eat. There were fourteen such large monasteries on Khotan.[44]Covering all the way through the deserts came up to Peshawar and after crossing the river Ganga he came to Patliputra (Patna). He everywhere witnessed the wealth and luxury of the people, and economic condition was very satisfactory. The trade and commerce flourished and the people followed various arts and crafts. The period also ushered in a tremendous intellectual and religious revival, accompanied by wonderful achievements in art and architecture.[45] The chief credit for all this undoubtedly belongs to Gupta Emperors. Fa-Hien has some interesting observations on the Magadha and its civilisation.Of all the countries in central India, this has the largest cities and towns. Its people are rich and thriving and emulate one other in practising charity of heart and duty to one’s neighbour. As their festivals such as procession of images of four wheeled cars in five storeys, the Brahmans come to invite Buddhists and were thus quite catholic in their religious outlook.[46]Nalanda University centre of learning was built by Kumara Gupta[47]. The Nalanda, the renowned University of the time were confined to all philosophies and sects of Hinduism. Subjects as the Vedas, Hetuvidya (logic), Sabdvidya (grammar and philology), Chikitsavidya (medicine), Sankhyanyaya and Yogsastra were learned there. Nalanda had the true character of a University for it stood for freedom of knowledge and welcomed knowledge from all quarters. It was a genuine University in the universal range of its studies not a mere sectarian and denomination school[48].Another Chinese traveller, Hiuen Tsang travelled India between the years 630 to 644 A.D. Tsang himself studied at Nalanda for several years, during which he completed a study of all collection of Buddhist books as well as the sacred books of Brahmans. Inspired by atmosphere of learning, he left a short but impressive account of its magnificence.There were thousands of similar institutions in India but none comparable to Nalanda grandeur. There were 10,000 students who studied not only Buddhist literature in all its branches but even other works such as Vedas, logic, grammar, medicine, sankhya philosophy etc. The day is not sufficient for asking and answering profound questions. Form morning till night they engage in discussion; the old and the young mutually help one other.[49]In Nalanda, student differing widely and radically in doctrines and practices, followers of all possible sects and school of thoughts gathered together in a common fellowship in the quest of truth, the supreme object of a University. They were all busy pondering, urging, objections, raising doubts, resolving them, giving etymologies, disputing, studying and explaining. Truth was indeed sought to be seen here from every conceivable viewpoint.[50]The religion which included worship of God as embodied in respect of everyone, harmony in society and unity of country. Consistency in all section of society resulted advanced thoughts and extensive literature which is visible product of rational education system of Gupta Empire. The importance of education was realising in India from very early times and utmost emphasis was laid upon the acquisition of knowledge.[51] The other objects of education were inculcation of social duties and religious rites and above all, formation of character. The subjects of instruction, were fairly comprehensives and included not only literature, both sacred and secular, with its accessories, grammar, matrices, poetics, logic and philosophy, but also technical and scientific literature such as medicine, military science, astronomy, astrology mathematics, politics, economics as well as divination, magic and mechanical arts for all descriptions.[52]The glorious age of Adi ShankaracharyIndia, since the beginning of her history, it has been steadily maintained. Never averse to a new idea, no matter what its origin, India has never failed to put each on trial.[53] In a country where Brahmanism had been for more than thousands centuries prevalent philosophy of search, knowledge and truth, Buddhist philosophy was also became successful in about two hundred years since its birth.According to general acceptance of historians and scholars, Shankar was born in 788 A.D. When he took birth, India was wallowing in the dark pit of decadence Buddhism had lost their pristine glory. Corrupt practices had crept into the Buddhist fold; and Viharas tended to be no spiritual retreats at all.[54] Buddhism had developed elaborate superstitions which dissatisfied the people at large. Throughout its campaign it did not aim at suppression of other philosophy, but tried to suppress them. Surrounding and hospitality to imaginary stories of magic, clairvoyance, cheap marvels and ghost-seeing weakened it.[55]Shankar was a Brahmin, native of town on the coast of Malabar. He is reported to be an incarnation of Lord Shiv. He found the light while eight year of age and with the permission of his fond mother, he renounced the world and became a Sanyasi. Through renunciation he transferred the sphere of his activity from the narrow limits of his simple homestead to the wide expanse of interesting humanity and the world. He solved the national problem of the day through his philosophy which exercised a powerful, potent charm over the mind of India.[56]In a short life, Shankar travelled all over India propagating his philosophy of a rigorously consistent monism and triumphing against all rivals who met him in the Shastrarth. Challenges to public Shastrarth and test of truth of doctrines by means of ordeal, became the order of the day. Sankara was traditionalist who laboured in the cause not of any one sect in particular but of the ancient Santana Dharma as it had been developed through the centuries. The victorious termination of his universal philosophic war made him the one Acharya the one master philosopher of the land. He founded four mighty seats of learning – Matha in four corners of India[57].Empires/Kingdoms in South – six century A.D. afterwardsAs generally in all matters of spiritual culture, south India began by being heavily indebted to north; but in course of centuries it more than amply repaid the debt and made signal contributions to the theory and practice of religion and to philosophic thought in its various aspects. The founders of the three main system of Vedanta – Adi Sankaracharya, Ramanujacharya[58] and Madhvacharya[59] hailed from south India.[60] The work of poets and saints of the Pallava period was continued in the age of Cholas by the succession of poet and teachers. In the Deccan under the Chalukya and Rashtrakuta both Shaivism and Vaishnavism flourished.[61]Till the about sixth century A.D. harmony and tolerance characterised the strong relation between the different philosophies or sects. Form the north to the south everyone was following their practice without any hindrance. In the period of 606 to 647 A.D Harshvardhan[62] was the most powerful King of north India. He himself studied at Nalanda University and believed in supporting art and literature. He wrote several Sanskrit plays. In the beginning he was the worshiper of Lord Shiv but sometime later in his life, he accepted Buddhist philosophy. A true estimate of Harsh’s character must not regard him only a Buddhist. He served other communities or general public equally well. He regularly held Quinquennial convocation where he gave away in religious alms everything except the material war to about half a million of people, all classes and creeds. This is record charity and liberality which is hardly beaten in history. His daily charity amounted to feeding of 1,000 Buddhist monks and 500 Brahmans.[63] Harsha’s capital was Kannauj on the river Ganga, a cosmopolitan city where Brahmans and Buddhist were flourishing with 200 Temples and 100 monasteries.[64]In 630 A.D. Harsh faced defeat on the bank of river Narmada by Chalukya[65] King, Pulakeshin II. Pulakeshin II had established himself a paramount of south. He began his rule in the year 620. From the view point of military successes he was not only a powerful King but also regarded as one of the most benevolent administrator of India in south. Hein-Tsang also visited the Chalukya territories when Pulakesin II ruled. The foreign observer was full of praise for Pulakesin II both for his power and for his benevolence.In Karnataka and Tamil regions, Jain philosophy had more influence than Buddhist philosophy on the life of the people. The literatures of Kannada and Tamil owe the striking contributions made by Jain authors. The Jain Temples built at Aihole by Ravikirti in the reign of Pulakesin II is said to have been the abode of all excellences.[66] Pulakesin II reign began with Wars so also it concluded with Wars. He attacked Pallava, however, Mahendravarman, second King of Pallava defeated him.The Pallava were the first well known Empire in the history of south India. They should be specially remembered for their contribution to the cultural, literal, art and archaeology of India. There was an all pervasive development during this period in literature, music, paintings, religion every walk of life. The Pallava Kings warmly patronised the Sanskrit language. Kanchi became the famous seat of Sanskrit learning in the South. The Tamil literature also received patronage from the Pallava Kings. The Mattavilas Prahasana was composed in this age. The Pallava Kings were the worshippers of Lord Vishnu and Lord Shiv and they showed tolerance to other creeds as well. Many great Shaivism and Vaishnavism saints and their literatures had flourished in this age. Though Buddhism could not dominate the Pallava, Hiuen-Tsang found many Buddhist monasteries in the Pallava Empire.Another distinct feature of the Pallava was a perennial battle with the Chalukyas in the earlier part and with the Rashtrakutas in the later part of their rule. It was after the decline of the Pallava that the Chola came again to prominence. The founder of the later Chola Empire was Vijayalaya (850-875 A.D.). He defeated the Pallava and established Tanjore as his Capital. His son Aditya defeated the last Pallava King Aparajita and annexed Pallava Empire.The ancient Velgam Vehera[67] on the banks of Periyakulam tank near Trincomalee in Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) was remodelled and considerably extended and renamed Rajaraja Perumballi[68] early in eleventh century; a large size limestone image of Buddha and an inscribed bronze lampstand are among the vihara area – a clear proof of the active interest of great Chola King in the spiritual well-being of his subjects in Ceylon.[69]An important work of Tamil grammar, the Vlrasoliyam composed in Vira Rajendra’s time (1063-1070), had a Buddhist scholar for its author.[70]Hinduism has always been a house of many mansions, and the following description of the Arab geographer al-Idirlsi, who wrote at the beginning of the twelfth century, may well be taken to apply to the whole of the Deccan from the tenth to the twelfth centuries. ‘Among the principal nations of India there are forty-two sects. Some recognise the existence of a Creator, but not of Prophets; while others deny the existence of both; some acknowledge the intercessory powers of graves and stones and others worship holy stones on which butter and oil is poured. Some pay adoration to fire and cast themselves into the flames. Others adore the sun and consider it the Creator and Director of the world. Some worship trees, others pay adoration to serpents which they keep in stables and feed as well as they can, believing this to be a meritorious work. Lastly there are some who give themselves no trouble about any kind of devotion, and deny everything’.[71]In the beginning of eleventh century, the Islamic authors and travellers started to visit India in order of succession to the Greek, Roman, Chinese and Tibetan. The celebrated Muslim scholar, Alberuni left an account on India in his memoire. His most important literary work being Tarikh-ul-Hind written in Arabic gives us an account of the literature, science and religion of the Hindus of that time.The society chooses himself what will be the true path. The Hindus cultivate numerous other branches of on science and literature and have a nearly boundless literature. I, however, could not comprehend it with my knowledge.[72] Secondly, they totally differ from us in religion, as we believe in nothing in which they believe, and vice versa. On the whole, there is very little disputing about theological topics among themselves; at the utmost, they fight with words, but they will never stake their soul or body or their property on religious controversy.[73]Since the ancient time to the arrival of Islam in India ‘secularism’ word or term was never practised by any Empire. Equal respect for all philosophies and sects has been in tradition in India. That time State had its faith but was tolerant to other and never discriminated any faith. The citizens were free to follow their own faith.[1] Many modern day historians have calculated the scientific date of the Mahabharat War with their methods. Some says it was fought in 5561 B.C. and some reckoned it to be 3139 B.C. The fifth century great Indian mathematician, Aryabhatt (476-550 A.D.) calculated date of the Mahabharat War to be approximately 3102 B.C.[2] Kuru Empire encompassing modern day States of Delhi, Haryana, Uttarakhand and western Uttar Pradesh.[3] C. Rajagopalachari (1878-1972) was the last Governor General of India (1948-1950).[4] C. Rajagopalachari, Mahabharata, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan: Bombay, 1958, p. 127[5] Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Sri Bhagavadgita Rahasya or Karma-Yogasastra (English translation), volume I, Tilak Bros: Poona., 1915, p. xiii (Quoted by Madan Mohan Malaviya)[6] Srimadbhagvadgita, chapter 7, shlok 21[7] Rigved, I. 164. 46[8] Radha Kumud Mookerji, Hindu Civilization, part i, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan: Bombay, 1957, p. 84[9] Rigved, I. 89. 1[10] The Videh (Mithila) Empire was located between east of river Gandaki, west of river Koshi, north of river Ganga and south of Himalaya. In present, ancient Videh, is divided between the present day Indiaiya State of Bihar and a small part of Nepal.[11] The Panchal Kings ruled the territories to the east of the Kuru (see, f.n. 2), between the upper Himalayas and the river Ganga. It roughly corresponded to modern Budaun, Farrukhabad and adjoining districts of Uttar Pradesh.[12] Radha Kumud Mookerji, Hindu Civilization, part i, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan: Bombay, 1957, p. 131[13] Sita Ram Goel (ed.), Freedom of Expression, Voice of India: New Delhi, 1998, p. xvi[14] It is certainly not known when Magadh was established. But the description of Magadh is found in the Ramayan and the Mahabharat. In these Holy Scriptures, Rajagrah (Rajgir, Bihar) has been described as its Capital. It was one of the great sixteen Mahajanapad of the nineteen century B.C. In that era, the first influential King of Magadha was the Bimbasar and he founded the Haryank dynasty. His son Ajatashatru also ruled this glorious Mahajanapad. According to the Puran, the successor of Haryank was Shishunag dynasty and the last Ruler of this lineage was Kalashok. He was killed by Mahapadam/Mahapadapati Nand who established Nand dynasty of Magadh.[15] The Kings of Maury Empire ruled India from 322 to 185 B.C.[16] Taxila is situated in the Rawalpindi district of Pakistan. History of the city goes back to 1000 B.C. when it became a noted learning center of Ved, Grammar, Philosophy, Astronomy, Medicine and other subjects.[17] J.W. McCrindle, Ancient India as Described by Megasthenes and Arrian, Trubner: London, 1877, p. 121[18] Radha Kumud Mookerji, Asoka, Motilal Banarsidas: New Delhi, 1962, pp. 19-20[19] Pillar Edicts of Asoka, vi[20] Radha Kumud Mookerji, Asoka, Motilal Banarsidas: New Delhi, 1962, p. 21[21] Rock Edicts of Asoka, iii & ix[22] Rock Edicts of Asoka, iv and Pillar Edicts of Asoka, viii[23] Mahavamsa, volume 32[24] Radha Kumud Mookerji, Asoka, Motilal Banarsidas: New Delhi, 1962, p. 65[25] Radha Kumud Mookerji, Asoka, Motilal Banarsidas: New Delhi, 1962, p. 72[26] Pillar Edicts of Asoka, ii & vii[27] Pillar Edicts and Rock Edicts of Asoka, vii[28] Major Rock Edicts of Asoka, ii and Pillar Edicts of Asoka, ii & vii[29] Rock Edicts of Asoka, xiii, G&K and Pillar Edicts of Asoka, vii[30] Pillar Edicts of Asoka, vii[31] Rock Edicts of Asoka, iii[32] Rock Edicts of Asoka, vii[33] Rock Edicts of Asoka, vii[34] Rock Edicts of Asoka, vii[35] Pillar Edicts of Asoka, ii & iv[36] Rock Edicts of Asoka, vii & xiii, 1.5[37] Rock Edicts of Asoka, xiii[38] Rock Edicts of Asoka, xiii[39] Michael Edwardes, A History of India From the Earliest Times to the Present Day, Asia Publishing: Bombay, 1961, p. 47[40] The Emperors of Gupta Empire ruled India from 320 to 544 A.D.[41] Radha Kumud Mookerji, The Gupta Empire, Hind Kitabs: Bombay, 1948, pp. 51-52[42] See, f.n. 1[43] Khotan is located southern edge of Taklamakan desert and Xinjiang, China.[44] Radha Kumud Mookerji, The Gupta Empire, Hind Kitabs: Bombay, 1948, pp. 58-59[45] R.C. Majumdar, Ancient India, Motilal Banarsidas: New Delhi, 1952, p. 236[46] Radha Kumud Mookerji, The Gupta Empire, Hind Kitabs: Bombay, 1948, p. 63[47] Kumargupta (r.415-455 A.D.) was the son and successor of Chandragupta II. He maintained the integrity of the vast Empire which he inherited form his father.[48] Radha Kumud Mookerji, The Gupta Empire, Hind Kitabs: Bombay, 1948, p. 132[49] R.C. Majumdar, Ancient India, Motilal Banarsidas: New Delhi, 1952, p. 453[50] Radha Kumud Mookerji, The Gupta Empire, Hind Kitabs: Bombay, 1948, p. 133[51] R.C. Majumdar, Ancient India, Motilal Banarsidas: New Delhi, 1952, p. 451[52] R.C. Majumdar, Ancient India, Motilal Banarsidas: New Delhi, 1952, p. 452[53] Sister Nivedita & A.K. Koomaraswamy, Myths of Hindus & Buddhist, George G. Harrap: London, 1913, p. 2[54] Sankara the Missionary, Central Chinmaya Trust Mission: Mumbai, 1978, p. 6[55] S. Radhakrishnan, Indian Philosophy, vol. I, George Allen & Unwin: London, 1923, pp. 605-606[56] Manilal N. Dvivedi, The Imitation of Sankara, George Redway: London, 1895, p. ix[57] For the propagation of Hinduism he established four Mathas in the four directions: Jagannath Puri (east), Dwarka Puri (west), Badrinath (north) and Sringeri (south). Adi Sankaracharya at last at the young age of 32, died at Kedarnath (820 A.D.).[58] Ramanujachary was the pioneer of Bhakti Movement in India. He lived in the twelfth century A.D. He preached the essence of Vaishnavism - modesty, love and devotion, as pre-conditions for having the grace of God.[59] Madhvachary was a philosopher and the chief proponent of the Dvaita (dualism) school of Vedanta of thirteen century.[60] K.A. Nilakanta Shastri, A History of South India, Oxford University: London, 1958, p. 411[61] K.A. Nilakanta Shastri, A History of South India, Oxford University: London, 1958, pp. 425-426[62] The Pushyabhuti dynasty also known as the Vardhan dynasty, ruled parts of India in north during sixth to seventh centuries. The dynasty reached its zenith under its last ruler Harshvardhan. At the height of Harsh’s power, his Empire covered much of north and north-west India, extended east till Kamarup, and south until river Narmada.[63] Radha Kumud Mookerji, Harsha, Motilal Banarsidas: New Delhi, 1959, p. 147[64] Radha Kumud Mookerji, Harsha, Motilal Banarsidas: New Delhi, 1959, p. 165[65] The Chalukya dynasty was ruled large parts of south and central India between the Sixth to twelfth centuries. Pulakesin I was the founder of the Chalukya Empire. The Chalukyas lost their power in the eighth century when they were defeated by the Rashtrakutas. However, after the fall of the Rashtrakutas a second Chalukya Empire was set up by Tailapa at Kalyan.[66] K.A. Nilakanta Shastri, A History of South India, Oxford University: London, 1958, p. 426[67] This Temple is believed to be built during the reign of King Devanampiyathissa (307–267 B.C.), one of the earliest kings of Sri Lanka[68] Rajendra Chol I, also known as Rajendra Chol the Great, like his father Rajaraja was equally important powerful Emperor of Chol Empire. He ruled from 1012 to 1044 A.D.[69] K.A. Nilakanta Shastri, A History of South India, Oxford University: London, 1958, p. 426[70] K.A. Nilakanta Shastri, A History of South India, Oxford University: London, 1958, p. 427[71] K.A. Nilakanta Shastri, A History of South India, Oxford University: London, 1958, p. 423[72] Edward C. Sachau, Alberuni’s India, volume 1, Kegan Paul: London, 1910, p. 158[73] Edward C. Sachau, Alberuni’s India, volume 1, Kegan Paul: London, 1910, p. 19