Should be interesting read!
Not to mention words have changed meanings over the last 2000 years.
The author is mistaking the Masoretic Text, a 4th-century publication with the actual bible.
Following the death of Christ and the destruction of the Temple, the Jews held a council at Jamnia to decide why God would unleash such horrific punishments apon the Jews as they were then suffering. They decided that Jesus had exposed the dangers of Hellenistic thought creeping into Judaism, so to obliterate any traces of what they considered the heresies which led to Jesus, they removed the portions of the bible which most directly pointed to Jesus.
But the real Old Testament did consist of the three parts mentioned. The three parts are referred to as the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. And among the Writings existed the books which the Jews expunged.
This article is less a “revelation” of the Bible as it is an exercise in post-Christian Jewish numerology combined with a rather extensive assortment of historical errors, half-truths and inaccuracies. Thanks anyway.
Most of Paul’s epistles were actually written prior to the Gospels, and Luke is the author of Acts.
Many religious scholars believe that John is a somewhat inauthentic Gospel with little or no actual words of Jesus.
Also, other Gospels were excluded, likely in order to make the theology what the authorities wanted it to be.
And even those were in part translated, as Jesus and his disciples spoke Aramaic, not Hebrew or Greek.
James was the head of the Church in Jerusalem. And what evidence is there that Peter ranked below him? That's exactly the opposite of history.
And I think modern scholarship about Markan priority actually supports that. Mark writes Peter's teaching, and then Matthew or one of his disciples...who it will be remembered already had a collection of sayings (logia) of Christ...then adds the teaching of Peter in Mark's Gospel to his own testimony, thus producing what we know as the Gospel of Matthew.
This is sheer foolishness. The "added" books were in the Septuagint, they were in Jerome's Vulgate, they were widely considered canonical both before and after the 5 century councils which settled the canon of the NT (all of which agreed on the "apocrypha").
And there aren't 11 such books, there are 7, making the total 73, not 77.
If the author can't get trivial facts like these right, why should we trust him anywhere else?
Let’s play “pin the tail on the heterodoxy”, Google on names and buzzwords and try to figure out where this guy is coming from.
Before he translated the OT...he read it in the language it was written in for a number of years before he translated it. He grasp with an understanding those languages...which I think makes for a great translation.
Book-mark for later reading (bmflr).
Hey, I want to thank you for getting the CATHOLICS in on defending the Scripture. This is going to be fun...
I’d be interested in the writer’s evidence that Hebrews was written by Timothy. It’s something that has always puzzled me. The King James attributes it to Paul, but later translations don’t identify an author.
In English it sounds like something Paul could have written, but one of my pastors once told me a major reason it is no longer attributed to Paul is that the style of writing in the original Greek is very different from the Pauline epistles.
You might like to look at
http://www.biblewheel.com