HOME   People do good because they are human, not because they are religious! 

Do not give God any credit for the good they do, they did it!


The New Testament never claims to record any eyewitness evidence for what it claims about Jesus and John does but only in relation to the blood and water coming from Jesus' corpse.  Luke did say he used eyewitnesses but we don't know when he used their work and what if he made mistakes?  Using eyewitnesses is no good unless you put in their direct testimony.  Then the account only becomes hearsay.  It is clear that the possibility of the alteration of the truth in the original texts of the gospels is a more important issue than whether or not the gospels were tampered with after the authors wrote.  And an author can be divinely inspired and write down a gospel and then alter it himself and then publish the altered one.

Nobody ever read an original gospel manuscript.  Nobody ever claimed to.  Thus alteration is possible.

For Christians, God is the author of the Bible though man is its author too. One is as responsible for the Bible as the other. Ultimately, because God makes man and his powers, God is the real author. Catholics read from the Bible at Mass and the reader declares at the end of the reading, This is the Word of the Lord.  The response is Thanks be to God. If the Bible is not the word of God then it follows that Christianity is just a man-made faith. There is nothing binding about what man says. Why should we listen to what other people think instead of thinking for ourselves? We would be demeaning ourselves to think that we should let others think for us. It would follow that if the Bible is not the word of God that Christianity is oppressing people though they might not know it.
Roman Catholics have their interpretation of the Bible. Protestants have theirs which differs dramatically from the Catholic Churchs. Eastern Orthodox and Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses and Christadelphians are further proof that nobody agrees on how to interpret the Bible. Christians love to take texts out of context to manipulate people.
Christians manipulating people to accept their interpretation is very common. Interpretations are just somebody's opinion. Some Christians realised that this was a problem. To make their case more convincing, they simply changed the Bible text to back up their beliefs.
Christians admit that there are textual variants between ancient manuscripts of the New Testament but they say they don't matter. They say that they don't affect any doctrine. But even if that is true (its not!) that is not the point. It means we don't know which version of the text is the correct one. We don't know which version is the word of God. If that can happen, then clearly we cannot know if any of the variants are the word of God. God failing to keep the wording of his Bible perfectly would be a sign that maybe we are wrong to think it is his word! If variants happen then how do we know that there are no variants in the New Testament that we don't know about? What about variants that could have become part of the accepted standard text?
The variants do affect doctrine.
Some manuscripts say that Jesus became angry when he was healing a skin disease and others say he was compassionate (page 75, Conspiracies and the Cross). They say the variant does not affect any doctrine about Jesus. I would disagree. If Jesus became angry when healing it would be a sign that he was mad and sinful for unnecessary anger is a sin.
The Gospel of John does not actually say Jesus was God though many Christians imagine that it does. Yet variants of John 3:16 which in referring to Jesus have "only begotten son", "one and only Son" and "one and only God" (page 76, Conspiracies and the Cross) do affect doctrine. Begotten is taken to imply the Trinitarian idea that God projects the Son who is himself. One and only son implies the idea that Jesus was the only son of God in some way - perhaps a different way. One and only God would be the only time Jesus is called God. When a Bible can't call Jesus God except in a dodgy verse then there is something seriously wrong.
The variants show that the Church was changing the New Testament to make it fit its ideas and even to support them.
Top theologian Origen wrote in the third century that "The differences between 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."
The Christians rationalise this by saying that the text of the New Testament was so important to Origen that to him even two or three alterations were great and an unmitigated disaster! The Church was editing the New Testament to make it suit itself. And the Christians cannot give a quote from Origen to support their interpretation of him. "Making additions or deletions as they please", does not sound like Origen was thinking of copyists who were making one or two changes.

Christians like to brag about how the Dead Sea Scrolls supported the purity and the authenticity of the texts of the Old Testament as we now have it.

When pressed they will admit that there are differences but then they quickly follow that with the statement that none of these differences affect any doctrine.

The Unauthorized Version (page 196) tells us that the Books of Samuel in Hebrew differ from our Samuel books. We know this from the way the author of the books of the Chronicles went about his business and from the Dead Sea Scrolls.

When mistakes have happened how can they be so confident that no doctrine has been affected? It only takes one word to be left out or inserted for an alteration of doctrine to happen.

Hebrews 10:5,6. This quotes Psalm 40:6. In the original Hebrew the Psalm says that God has opened my ears. In the Septuagint, which is quoted in Hebrews, it says that God has got a body ready for me.

Haley suggests that it may have been an error in the Septuagint or the translators thought that the change would make the verse make sense to people who could not understand Hebrew so it was not roguish (152). This is absurd as saying that a translator should change cat in a book to dog for people who don’t know what cats are.

Haley then says that the Hebrew version means that, “You God have made me obedient through listening to you with my physical ears”, and that the Septuagint version means, “You have given me a body to obey you and hear you.” This is a transparent attempt to make it seem that though the words are different the meaning is the same and that the meaning is that a body was given to hear and obey.

If you have an all-powerful God he might give a spirit invisible ears only and no other material component.

Also the opening ears in the Hebrew is just a metaphor for listen and such usage is universal over the globe. A spirit can listen without physical ears.

Matthew 27:9, 10. A quotation of prophecy from Zechariah was wrongly attributed to Jeremiah by the gospeller.

Haley says that the prophecy belonged to the section of the Prophets which started off with the book of Jeremiah. Since Jeremiah was first, Matthew calls the whole collection Jeremiah. (153). This is unlikely for Matthew would have wanted you to look up the prophecy when he said it came from Jeremiah. Otherwise, he would have been more specific. What is the point of giving a reference if you can’t say exactly what book it came from? Nobody would do that. You don’t say a quotation from Exodus is to be found in Genesis just because Genesis is the first book in the section of the Bible where Exodus is, the Torah. Plus the arrangement Haley has in mind wasn’t standard and may not have existed.

Others say that the prophecy was made by Jeremiah and quoted by Zechariah. There is no evidence for this and it presupposes that Matthew miraculously knew who made the prophecy. This would be a silly miracle. God would not show him that when all he needed to do was quote Zechariah and say so and the theory is just a conjecture. Besides, what evidence is there that Matthew had supernatural clairvoyant powers? If they are right then Occam’s Razor is wrong.

Haley says that the names might have been abridged. Jeremiah would be Iriou and Zriou. Then he says that this could have led to a mistake in one letter. So, a mistranslation for which is there is no evidence is given as a last resort. Yet Haley says that steps were taken to ensure that the true text would not be lost. He said that the best manuscripts would soon have prevented any corrupting. So, if he is right, a mistake that made its way into most Bibles would be unlikely. Even if other mistakes crept in elsewhere, it is still more likely that this is not a mistake.

Matthew 2:23. Matthew says that Jesus lived in Nazareth in fulfilment of the prophet who said, “He shall be called a Nazarene” (AB). But, this prophecy does not exist.

It is thought that Nazarene means branch so Matthew’s quotation would have to be from Isaiah 11:1 which says that a branch will come out of the roots of Jesse and grow and be fruitful. But Jesus is the branch in the sense that he grows new people for God like leaves so the verse has nothing to do with Nazareth.

Matthew invented the prophecy. He had no right quoting it when it was not in any book that people could look up.

In Archer’s Encyclopaedia of Bible Difficulties, Archer gives a totally unconvincing explanation for why the New Testament writers preferred to use the inaccurate Septuagint, or Greek Old Testament. He says that since the Jews of the Diaspora brought this version into every part of the Roman Empire it was best to use it instead of the Hebrew Bible. This was to ensure that the readers would use their own Bible to check up on the New Testament. If the Hebrew accurate one had been quoted they would have been disillusioned at finding something different in their own Bible. What use is a corrupted and mistranslated Bible? The people with the Septuagint must have known that it was a loose translation at many places anyway.

Archer would be the last to admit it, but what he is really doing is accusing the New Testament writers of conscious attempted fraud. The Gentiles should have been told that the Septuagint was not always accurate. They probably mostly knew this anyway because the book was only a translation. Finding quotations in the gospels from a Bible that differed from the original would have upset them and put them off the Gospels. The real reason the Septuagint was used was because it fitted Christian understandings of the Old Testament better than the real Old Testament. It provided them with some fake proof texts. That was extremely fraudulent. They could have translated the Hebrew text themselves with the help of experts instead of using a corrupted version. If the authors could find no experts then it is plain that they were only ordinary men and not the leaders and theologians of the Church that tradition says they were.

The use of the Septuagint proves that the New Testament is not inspired by God or the work of honest people. Men who really care about God and what God has said would use the Hebrew Bible and translate that and get their dogma from it.

The Christians abused the Old Testament. “When Christians quoted those old prophecies, they used Greek translations which were untrue to the Hebrew originals: they ran separate bits of a text into one, they twisted the sense and reference of the nouns (Paul at Galatians 3:8, is a spectacular example); they mistook the speaks and the uses of personal pronouns (John 19:37 or Matthew 27:9), they thought that David or Isaiah had written what they never wrote (Acts 2 or Acts 8:26); they muddled Jeremiah with Zechariah (Matthew 27:9); they reread the literal sense and found a non-existent allegory (Paul, to the Galatians at 4:21-3). There are errors in the famous speech which the Acts author gives to Peter at Pentecost: Peter tortures bits of Psalms 16 and 132, mistakes their meaning and context, and quotes them in poor Greek translation, though Greek was not the historical Peter’s mother tongue and most of his supposed audience would not have understood a word of it” (page 339-340, The Unauthorized Version). Even worse, Psalm 16 which Peter used to prove that Jesus rose from the dead doesn’t mention a resurrection but only a recovery from illness!
The prologue of Luke's Gospel says that it is an orderly account of what happened - ie literally true. But the gospel is very disordered. This indicates that somebody had been tampering with it and upsetting the order after it was completed.




Very early Church Father, Origen told unbelievers that Christians respected their scripture texts and did not change them. But when speaking to fellow Christians he said they did: “They make additions or deletions as they please.”
The founders and heads of modern Christianity are prone to dishonesty. They don’t treat their own Bible as the word of God. They were and are no better than Mormon leaders who change and lie about their scriptures the Book of Mormon.  In one sense it does not matter if the Bible was altered or not.  God inspiring a man to write and not making sure the original or at least it first copies are still around is an insane idea and really an insult to God.  God would not turn his revelation into mere hearsay.  A lot of hearsay does not look like hearsay so it is conclusive: Christianity disrespects the word of God for it is hearsay about the word that it loves.  Worse it is hearsay about hearsay ad infinitum!  People who care about what they want to believe not what they want to know pollute everything including history.  In court, we get people to swear to tell the truth but what we mean is not that they can tell the truth but tell the facts as they see them which is why we must examine what they say.  We really ask for the best honesty they can produce.
A Summary of Christian Doctrine, Louis Berkhof, The Banner of Truth Trust, London, 1971
A Test of Time, David Rohl, Century, London, 1995
Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible, John W Haley, Whitaker House, Pennsylvania, Undated
An Act of God, Graham Philips, Sidgwick and Jackson, London, 1998
Answers to Tough Questions, Josh McDowell and Don Stewart, Scripture Press Bucks, 1988
Attack on the Bible, John R Rice, Sword of the Lord, Murfreesboro, 1965
Belief and Make-Believe, GA Wells, Open Court, La Salle, Illinois, 1991
Biblical Exegesis and Church Doctrine, Raymond E Brown, Paulist Press, New York, 1985
But the Bible Does Not Say So, Rev Roberto Nisbet, Church Book Room Press, London, 1966
Catholicism and Christianity, Cecil John Cadoux, George Allen & Unwin Ltd, 1928
Catholicism and Fundamentalism, Karl Keating, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1988
Conspiracies and the Cross, Timothy Paul Jones, FrontLine, Florida, 2008
Creation and Evolution, Dr Alan Hayward, Triangle, London, 1994
Does the Bible Contradict Itself? Radio Bible Class, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1986
Encyclopaedia of Bible Difficulties, Gleason W Archer, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1982
Essentials, David L Edwards and John Stott, Hodder & Stoughton, London, 1990
Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Vol 1, Josh McDowell, Alpha, Scripture Press Foundation, Bucks, 1995
Free Inquiry, Fall 1998, Vol 18, No 4, Council for Secular Humanism, Amherst, New York
God and the Human Condition, F J Sheed, Sheed & Ward, London, 1967
God Cannot Lie, David Alsobrook, Diasozo Trust, Kent, 1989
God, Science and Evolution, Prof E H Andrews, Evangelical Press, Herts, 1985
God’s Word, Final Infallible and Forever, Floyd C McElveen, Gospel Truth Ministries, Grand Rapids, 1985
Hard Sayings, Derek Kidner, InterVarsity Press, London, 1972
How and Why Catholic and Protestant Bibles Differ, Carolyn Osiek, RSCJ and Donald Senior, CP, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minnesota, 1983
How to Interpret the Bible, Fergus Cleary SJ, Ligouri Publications, Missouri, 1981
In Defence of the Faith, Dave Hunt, Harvest House, Eugene Oregon, 1996
Inspiration in the Bible, Fr Karl Rahner, Herder and Herder, New York, 1966
Jehovah of the Watch-tower, Walter Martin and Norman Klann, Bethany House Publishers, Minnesota, 1974
Jesus and Early Christianity in the Gospels, Daniel J Grolin, George Ronald, Oxford, 2002
Let’s Weigh the Evidence, Which Bible is the Real Word of God? Barry Burton, Chick Publications, Chino, California, 1983
Know What You Believe, Paul E Little, Scripture Union, London, 1973
Know Why You Believe, Paul E Little, Scripture Union, London, 1971
New Age Bible Versions, GA Riplinger, Bible & Literature Foundation, Tennessee, 1993
New Evangelicalism An Enemy of Fundamentalism, Curtis Hutson, Sword of the Lord, Murfreesboro, 1984
None of These Diseases, SI McMillen MD, Lakeland, London 1966
Our Perfect Book the Bible, John R Rice, Sword of the Lord, Murfreesboro, 1958
Proof the Bible is True, Rev JMA Willans BD, Dip.Theol. Vermont Press, Larne, 1982
Radio Replies Vol 3, Radio Replies Press, Minnesota, 1942
Reason and Belief, Bland Blanschard, London, George Allen and Unwin Ltd, 1974
Remarks on the New King James Version and Revised Authorised Version, DK Madden, 35 Regent Street, Sandy Bay, Tasmania, 7005, 1991
Return to Sodom and Gomorrah, Charles Pellegrino, The Softback Preview, New York, 1995
The Bible, The Biography, Karen Armstrong, Atlantic Books, London, 2007
Science and the Bible, Henry Morris, Moody Press, Bucks, 1988
Science Held Hostage What’s Wrong With Creation Science and Evolutionism, Howard J Van Till/Davis A.Young/Clarence Menninga, IVP, Downer’s Grove, Illinois, 1988
Science Speaks, Peter W Stoner and Robert C Newman, Moody Press, Chicago, 1976
Set My Exiles Free, John Power, Logos Books, MH Gill & Son Ltd, Dublin, 1967
Testament, The Bible and History, John Romer, Henry Holt and Company, New York, 1988
The Authority of the Bible, Ambassador College, Pasadena, California, 1980
The Bible Fact or Fantasy, John Drane, Lion, Oxford, 1989
The Bible is the Word of God, Jimmy Thomas, Guardian of Truth, Kentucky
The Bible or Evolution? William Jennings Bryan, Sword of the Lord, Murfreesboro, Tennessee
The Bible, Questions People Ask, A Redemptorist Pastoral Publication, Liguori Publications, Missouri, 1980
The Bible Unearthed, Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman, Touchstone Books, New York, 2002
The Canon of Scripture, FF Bruce, Chapter House, Glasgow, 1988
The Church of Rome and the Word of God, Rev Eric C Last, Protestant Truth Society, London, Undated
The Early Church, Henry Chadwick, Pelican, Middlesex, 1987
The Enigma of Evil, John Wenham, Eagle, Guilford, Surrey, 1994
The History of Christianity, Lion, Herts, 1982
The King James Version Defended, Edward F Hills, The Christian Research Press, Iowa, 1973
The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, Edited by Raymond E Brown, Joseph A Fitzmyer, Roland E Murphy, Geoffrey Chapman, New York 1990
The Theology of Inspiration, John Scullion SJ, Mercier, Cork, 1970
The Unauthorised Version, Robin Lane Fox, Penguin, Middlesex, 1992
Verbal Inspiration of the Bible, John R Rice Sword of the Lord, Murfreesboro, 1943
What is the Bible? Henri Daniel-Rops, Angelus Books, Guild Press, New York, 1958
Which Version Now? Bob Sheehan, Carey Publications, 5 Fairford Close, Haywards Heath, Sussex RH16 3EF
Who is a Fundamentalist? Dr Curtis Hutson, Sword of the Lord, Murfreesboro, 1982
Why Does God..? Domenico Grasso SJ, St Pauls , Bucks, 1970
Why People Believe Weird Things, Michael Shermer, Freeman, New York, 1997
The Amplified Bible


Final Response by Steven Carr to Dr Wilkinson

Why the Roman Catholic Arguments for the Canon are Spurious?

In Response to William Webster’s: The Canon, Why the Roman Catholic Arguments for the Canon are Spurious

Science in the Bible? Dr M Magee

Why It’s a Load of Old Cobblers, Adrian Barnett
Exposes the utter absurdity of the Noah’s Ark story in the Bible

Steven Carr, Critique of Josh McDowells Non_Messianic Prophecies This Site cannot be overly recommended. It is superb.

New Testament Contradictions, Paul Carlson

Rabbits do not chew their cud, Alleged Bible Contradictions

The Bible as History Flunks New Archaeological Tests