Please explain this clear Bible error.

Again, Terry, this is just not so. The earliest copies of the Gospels are 4th century. The earliest extant scraps of papyrus are c. 180. The "church fathers" (e.g. Papias, whose work is lost, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus) wrote 60-100 years or more after the earliest gospels. They are not testimonials as to authorship or accuracy of the texts we now have.

It's probably fair for you to say this, depending on what Terry meant by "date back almost to the originals," but... I think there are fragments of John dating back to 120, but that's just a technical point. I don't understand this statement. Of course they are, and they are used that way all the time, especially concerning the accuracy of the texts we have now. Am I missing something in what you are saying?Someone on this board said that the 21st chapter of John's Gospel was a late addition. My immediate reaction was to look through the fathers to see when the earliest quote of John 21 is found. The earliest of the fathers (such as Ignatius) don't quote John 21. I can't remember now who was the earliest, but it was late enough for me to agree it's possible ch. 21 could be a late addition.This applies to authorship, because it's only in ch. 21 that any authorship is claimed. No scholar would suggest that ch. 21 was added without first doing what I did, consulting the earliest fathers to see if it's quoted.The fathers are also decisive on say, 1 Jn 5:7, which we have been discussing. That verse would be very pertinent to arguments about who the Son was, yet it's not quoted, not even by early 3rd century writers like Tertullian, who wrote Against Praxeas, on a subject that 1 Jn 5:7 directly applies to. The fathers are used in this way all the time.

I think it safe to assume he meant the same thing he meant when I objected the last time...that there are no errors in the NT because our source material is so good. Oops, missed a spot. "Extant scraps" withdrawn, to be replaced by "reasonable fragment", in which case I'm giving the most generous date. But the point is, indeed, a technicality. What I mean is that the Church fathers are not primary, they cannot be held as independent verification of what the Gospels say, nor can the tell us who the authors are.

1st: There is no consensus for such an early date.2nd: There is no consensus supporting authorship by the apostle John. So, for example:

quote:

---

Critical analysis makes it difficult to accept the idea that the gospel as it now stands was written by one person. John 21 seems to have been added after the gospel was completed; it exhibits a Greek style somewhat different from that of the rest of the work. The prologue (John 1:1-18) apparently contains an independent hymn, subsequently adapted to serve as a preface to the gospel. Within the gospel itself there are also some inconsistencies, e.g., there are two endings of Jesus' discourse in the upper room (John 14:31; 18:1). To solve these problems, scholars have proposed various rearrangements that would produce a smoother order. However, most have come to the conclusion that the inconsistencies were probably produced by subsequent editing in which homogeneous materials were added to a shorter original.

​

Other difficulties for any theory of eyewitness authorship of the gospel in its present form are presented by its highly developed theology and by certain elements of its literary style. For instance, some of the wondrous deeds of Jesus have been worked into highly effective dramatic scenes (John 9); there has been a careful attempt to have these followed by discourses that explain them (John 5; 6); and the sayings of Jesus have been oven into long discourses of a quasi-poetic form resembling the speeches of personified Wisdom in the Old Testament.

​

The gospel contains many details about Jesus not found in the synoptic gospels, e.g., that Jesus engaged in a baptizing ministry (John 3:22) before he changed to one of preaching and signs; that Jesus' public ministry lasted for several years (see the note on John 2:13); that he traveled to Jerusalem for various festivals and met serious opposition long before his death (John 2:14-25; 5; 7-8); and that he was put to death on the day before Passover (John l8:28). These events are not always in chronological order because of the development and editing that took place. However, the accuracy of much of the detail of the fourth gospel constitutes a strong argument that the Johannine tradition rests upon the testimony of an eyewitness.

​

Although tradition identified this person as John, the son of Zebedee, most modern scholars find that the evidence does not support this. [reformatted for emphasis - CA]

​

- see New American Bible: John - Introduction

---

3rd: There is no bases for presuming the content of an 'original' John. In fact, the John that we know is widely presumed to be the object of Christian interpolation.[This message has been edited by ConsequentAtheist, 03-29-2004]

This is pure atheist revisionist/Talibanic fraud/nonsense.Do you really think an atheist will ever admit to anything that supports Church doctrine ?Of course not !Atheism today simply declares that the apostles/disciples never wrote the N.T.; that they are all forgeries written by literary miscreants using the pseudonyms of the apostles/disciples.There is no evidence supporting this fraud and only "scholars" who do not believe in the existence of miracles subscribe to this blasphemy.How could atheist scholars, or why would atheist scholars ever be trusted to report anything truthful about a religion that they live to destroy ?Atheism today, led by Satan's most productive lie factory, Burton L. Mack, are rampaging against orthodox Catholicism and Protestantism as payback/revenge for pre- 1920's harrassment.Atheists were relentlessly bullied by the Church and now that the pendulum has swung the other way they will out-perform their nemesis and rage against theist machinery at its sources (manuscripts) to exact their demonic revenge.

I recently came across this explanation, I just want to see what others think:* In 2 Chronicles 16:1, the phrase "the kingdom of Judah" was implied, yet omitted. Therefore, this verse can appear a little misleading. Here is another rendering of it: "In the 36th year (of the Kingdom of Judah), in the reign of Asa, Basha the King of Israel came up against Judah . . ." This verse is not indicating that it was the 36th year of Asa's reign. It tells us that it is the 36th year of the Kingdom of Judah. Incidentally, Baasha's death is not mentioned in 2 Chronicles and after chapter 16, he is not mentioned again.* 1 Kings 16:6-8 indicates that Baasha died in the 26th year of Asa's reign. It also tells us about Baasha's successors and more about Asa's reign and the timing of everything.

Does this explain the discrepency(if there is one.)I haven't referred to the "Seder Olam" as yet which implies a difference of dating from different perspectives,different nations?.Maybe someone could enlighten further.Checking the Seder Olam on the web.The statement at 2Chronicles 16:1 that Baasha came up against Judah in the thirty-sixth year of the reign of Asa has caused some question, since Baasha’s rule, beginning in the third year of Asa and lasting only 24 years, had terminated about 10 years prior to Asa’s 36th year of rule. (1Ki 15:33) While some suggest a scribal error and believe the reference is to the 16th or the 26th year of Asa’s reign, the assumption of such error is not required to harmonize the accounts. Jewish commentators quote the Seder Olam, which suggests that the 36th year was reckoned from the existence of the separate kingdom of Judah (997B.C.E.) and corresponded to the 16th year of Asa (Rehoboam ruling 17 years, Abijah 3 years, and Asa now in his 16th year). (Soncino Books of the Bible, London, 1952, ftn on 2Ch 16:1) This was also the view of Archbishop Ussher. So, too, the apparent difference between the statement at 2Chronicles 15:19 to the effect that, as for war, it did not occur down to the thirty-fifth [actually, the fifteenth] year of Asa’s reign, and the statement at 1Kings 15:16 to the effect that warfare itself took place between Asa and Baasha the king of Israel all their days, may be explained in that once conflicts began between the two kings they were thereafter continuous, even as Hanani had foretold.2Ch 16:9.

If you'd bothered to read the whole thing properly you'd have noticed that the quote is taken from the New American Bible, the introduction to John in particular.I'm at a loss as to how you can describe the following statement as heresy/atheistic Does that sound like an atheistic statement to you? Calm down and read it more carefully and read the whole thing which you'll find at the link supplied by ConsequentAtheist.

I see you found the site, Cromwell. Glad you made it. Do you have a link for what you posted?

This reference is taken from a book source (and a bit of acquired knowledge).Another good source is from John Gills bible chronology.Msn search.Type in seder olam baasha.Trixie are you who i think you are from the other forum..64?

Got it in one, Cromwell!!! Thanks for the info, will nip off to do a bit of reading. I have to admit that while I'm familiar with the content of the Bible itself, I'm on much shakier ground with regards to context and the history. Any help gratefully received.

what impact does this mistake, if it actually is one, have on the plan of salvation? How many errors are there in dates denoting human history accounts? History, being a set of lies everyone agrees upon, according to Napoleon.
Rather than concentrate on the beauty of Christ, we frazzle over meaningless details.

Thanks for giving me the info to find this forum.
I can help on any info on biblical context,as i have fairly good back-up information and not from the net.But my understandings of the scriptures are not in line with conventional mainstream religions and giving my idealisms of the scriptures will only serve to make disagreements between us all,no matter how i feel that i can back up my assertions.So i keep those opinions to a minimum.I'm totally computer ignorant,inferior,idle and only just manage to use it because i know my alphabet.How do you get smileys up and how do you become a member?

I think it is because the general concensus is that Christians are saying that the bible displays the whole truth.We are implying that it is from an infallible source.So the non believer will want to try to prove that it is not infallible.From all angles.As we are infallible humans we can't defend purity too easily.We all make mistakes.Science and evolution is not infallible either,so we all get heated when we challenge each other for believing in what we do.
As you say trivialities mean little.The context,the message and the meaning is what is important.What i can't agree with is is the sweeping statements that some of the more arrogant ones say that the bible is nothing more than dusty old scrolls and why on earth we believe in an eternal omnipotent being that cannot be proved to exist,considered to be unscientific and thus unreal.The belief is ridiculed.The endless universe and the realm beyond cannot be proved to end in its "unscientific" state.It is so unreal.The knowledge and thoughts that space go's on indefinately,yet that undeniable fact is not ridiculed.If you compare the incomprehensible eternal God to the incomprehensible infinate universe.This tangible seemingly impossible one we see above us undeniably exists,you begin to get an understanding that if one exists the other can...God.

There are so many variables applying to existence, to look down one's nose at those that do not please us, is arrogant for sure. Infallible is one of those words we should not even use, since it implies perfection and their isn't any to be found. The Bible also gives an account of peoples living a long time ago. Gee, haven't lifestyles changed since then, eh? Look around you on this planet these days and you will still find 'styles' so totally opposed from ours in this country, for instance, it's amazing 'these' people live in the same century we do. Not forgetting that 'odd' is extant here as well.
But the unbeliever sees what he wants and uses what he wants to ridicule as you say, and it is a power issue, he has the power to do so. It is an immature expression of an infantile personality that cannot allow others to prosper according to the choices they have made. Like schoolyard bullies. In this I include Christians - many of which look down their nose at what they find disagreeable - forgetting that Christ said, "sheep have I that are not of this flock." "Many are called, few are chosen", and those not chosen are the judgmental, unkind, unforgiving.....etc.