Show Mobile Navigation
 
Religion

Top 10 Misconceptions About The Bible

It is almost impossible to mention religion without some debate issuing forth. Fundamentalist Christians like to use the Bible as their sole source of “revelation” and will argue for hours from its pages. Over history, people have developed strange misconceptions about the Bible and the tales it tells. This list hopes to put down some of the more obvious misconceptions people have about the Bible.

10

Adam and Eve’s Fruit

Titian.Adameve

Contrary to popular belief, Adam and Eve did not eat an Apple in the book of Genesis. The fruit is not actually named at all – it is referred to only as the fruit of “the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil”. The reason this misconception has come about is most likely due to the fact that in Middle English, the word “apple” was used to refer to all fruit and nuts (except berries). Over the centuries, this word has stuck in reference to the Genesis fruit. [Genesis 2:17]

9

Devilish Serpent

29182-Large

The serpent that convinced Eve to take the fruit from the tree of Knowledge and Evil is not referred to as Satan in Genesis. He is known only as the serpent who was “more subtle than any of the beasts of the earth”. Additionally, the term “Lucifer” used in reference to Satan comes from the Vulgate translation of Isaiah 14:12 – at no point in the Bible is Satan directly referred to by the name Lucifer. [Genesis 3]


8

Noah’s Ark

Picture 1-27

We all know that the “animals went in two by two”… right? Wrong! In fact, all clean animals went in in groups of seven, and unclean animals in groups of two. According to Jewish dietary law, there are far more clean animals than unclean, so the majority of creatures entering the ark went in as a group of 7. [Genesis 7:2-3]

7

The Ten Commandments

Commandments

Considering the importance of the ten commandments to so many people, you would think they would have a clear idea of how they are defined, but most people do not. The Bible does not list a consistent set of 10 commandments at all. In Exodus, the list includes 14 or 15 “statements”. Though the Bible does refer to a set of “10” rules, it does not mention them in the same sections as the list commonly known as the ten commandments. Different Christian sects have divided the list of commandments up differently. The Catholic Church combines the first 3 statements in to one commandment, and the Protestants combine the final two in to one statement. You can see a complete list of the differences here. To add to the confusion, there is also another set of 10 commandments called the Ritual Decalogue which includes laws such as “Do not cook a kid in its mother’s milk”. [Exodus 20]

6

The Immaculate Conception

Annunciationgrazia

The immaculate conception is not a reference to Jesus being born without sin, but to his mother Mary. Most Christians believe that all people are conceived with original sin (the sin inherited from Adam and Eve) but that Jesus was not. Additionally, the Catholic Church teaches that Mary was also conceived without sin and this is where the term “Immaculate Conception” has come from. [Luke 1:28]

The Immaculate Conception is the conception of Mary, the mother of Jesus without any stain of original sin, in her mother’s womb: the dogma thus says that, from the first moment of her existence, she was preserved by God from the lack of sanctifying grace that afflicts mankind, and that she was instead filled with divine grace.

You can read more about this on Wikipedia.

5

The Three Kings

Magi1

No doubt most of us have heard the Christmas Carol “We three kings of Orient are;” but in fact, the three “kings” are never referred to as Kings in the Bible. Additionally, they are not referred to as a group of three. The only reference to the number ‘3’ is the number of gifts they carried. [Matthew 2:7-11]


4

Mary Magdalene’s Career

Ivanov3A-1

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. In fact, she is barely mentioned at all. Aside from her presence at the ressurection, the only other thing that the Bible does say is that she was possessed by seven demons. [Luke 8:2]

3

The Prodigal Son

The Return Of The Prodigal Son

Contrary to popular belief, “Prodigal” means “characterized by a profuse or wasteful expenditure” – it is not a reference to leaving or returning. [Luke 15:11-32]


2

Emperor Constantine and the Bible

Nicaea-Sistine

The Emperor Constantine did not define the canon of the New Testament at the first Council of Nicaea in 325AD – in fact, the Council did not even make mention of the Biblical canon. It was already defined by common use by the early 2nd century in the form in which it is still found in Catholic Bibles. Another little known fact is the Emperor Constantine had no voting power at the council – he was there merely as an observer. [Canons of the Council of Nicaea]

1

Changing Text

Ms231

Some people believe that over the centuries, the Bible text has been altered to suit the ideologies of the editors. In fact, there are only a very small number of textual alterations that modern philologists and critics consider intentional changes; most are simply errors in spelling or copying. Bart D. Ehrman (a New Testament textual critic) says:

“It would be a mistake. . .to assume that the only changes being made were by copyists with a personal stake in the wording of the text. In fact, most of the changes found in our early Christian manuscripts have nothing to do with theology or ideology. Far and and away the [sic] most changes are the result of mistakes, pure and simple—slips of the pen, accidental omissions, inadvertent additions, misspelled words, blunders of one sort or another.”

Aside from the removal of a number of books in the 16th Century, the text of the books that now comprise the full canon of the Bible, is essentially the same now as it was in the 2nd century.

[EDIT:] Due to some comments, I thought it would be useful to add these notes:

The Old Testament was decided by the apostles and Jesus as they both used the Septuagint (LXX):

“Though the Early Church used the Old Testament according to the canon of the Septuagint (LXX), the apostles did not otherwise leave a defined set of new scriptures; instead the New Testament developed over time.” [Wikipedia]

The New Testament as it is found today in the Catholic Bible (not the Protestant bible – such as the King James Version – as they removed books in the 16th century):

“Thus, while there was a good measure of debate in the Early Church over the New Testament canon, the major writings were accepted by almost all Christians by the middle of the second century.” Ibid.

For those who doubt the fact that changes have not been substantially made, I would suggest a comparison of the Vulgate (5th Century) with the Douay Rheims – Challoner edition (18th Century) which is the official English version of the Catholic Bible. You can find the Vulgate here, and the Douay Rheims here.

Listverse Staff

Listverse is a place for explorers. Together we seek out the most fascinating and rare gems of human knowledge. Three or more fact-packed lists daily.

Read More: Twitter Facebook YouTube



  • Kreachure

    Nice informative list.

    But I'm really sorry to tell you this: #1 is simply false.

    From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

    [i]"THE FORMATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON (A.D. 100-220)

    The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament existing from the beginning, that is from Apostolic times, has no foundation in history. The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes withdoubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council."[/i]

    Both the Old Testament and New Testament went under extensive processes of selection of canon books (see these pages for the whole story:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_O… andhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_N… ).

    Due to the amount of contradictions found throughout passages of the Old Testament, the "Documentary Hypothesis" was put forward, which says that the first five books of the Old Testament were a product of the influence of four independent sources, which were combined and edited into the final versions. (Don't take my word for it: read these pages and their sources:http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/2/Judaism/jepd.html orhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothes… )

    So, the statement 'the Bible is essentially the same now as it was in the 2nd century' is not true and in fact is misleading, because both the Old testament (before and during the 2nd century) and the New Testament (after the 2nd century) had several alterations such as book add-ons and removals as canon, and insertions of passages that contradict other passages.

    Not to mention the many critical changes done with official versions and translations throughout history (so if you compare the King James Version which is the most common in the world today with older versions, you'll find many changes in names and words which disfigure the original meanings).

    Again, I'm sorry to be such a pain in the neck with this, but if people have misconceptions as evident as the ones on this list, then it's easy to feed them even more misconceptions, and I'm simply not up for that.

    PS. It's fair to say that I'm no expert in Biblical studies, yet I was able to discern all this within a few hours of investigation on the Internet. It's also fair to say that I'm not Christian/Catholic/etc. It's also fair to say that I love Jamie and this site in a very platonic manner.

    • Jeff Elvis

      Thanks for the links they are very helpful.

    • Anthrax Boy

      Alterations? Revisions?

      To add another vein in the lines of Kreachure (‘though I am so late in reading this list), let me mention as examples 1 John 5:7 and Mark 16:9-20 in the King James Version.

      Higher textual criticism, archaeology, and philological studies have done great strides since 1611…

    • Leonard

      What you say here is incorrect. The Catholic church is not who decided what was canon. The first century Christians already knew what was from God as soon as it was distributed. If you read what Peter wrote, you’d see that Peter acknowledged Paul’s writings as “scripture” and he was a contemporary of Paul’s. Paul also in the book of 2 Timothy, says that all scripture is given by God. In the end of the book of Mark, it tells us that there were signs and miracles that were used to confirm the word. That means that they were able to tell what was to be considered “canon” and what wasn’t as soon as they received it. It is a misconception perpetuated by the Catholic church that they determined what was canon in some council meeting. Christians have known what was from God since the beginning of the church in the first century.

  • DiscHuker

    cthulhu: i agree with your point that satan isn't a main character in the OT. the israelites screw enough up themselves without his help. however i did have one question…what do you mean, when refering to satan that it is "not even clear that he's supposed to be evil"? what's not clear?

    he contradicts God's word, goes after a blameless man, kills and destroys all that is dear to him and then afflicts him with boils to the point where sitting in ashes and scraping the skin with broken pottery is a relief.

    sounds pretty clear to me.

    • Christian

      I would agree with the earlier poster that the Satan we find in Job is not clearly evil. He’s not burning in or presiding over a kingdom of the damned. He’s just some guy who’s been out walking through the earth and upon it (or some other quirky phrasing), who pops into heaven for a bit to talk to God. And God is perfectly happy to hand Job over to Satan to settle a bet. It seems that God is at least as evil as Satan in the Book of Job. So sure, we could say that afflicting someone like Job with the horrors he had to go through is an evil act, but the interactions between Satan and God would suggest that the former is not meant to be seen as the Epitome of All Evil in this particular story.

      • LoneQuietus

        It makes sense in Bible Logic. Jesus didn’t commit suicide because he let himself die, it doesn’t count because it wasn’t his effort. Similarly, God, in Job, is abdicated from blame because, hey, Satan did the bad junk, not God. He just ‘let’ it happen.

  • carpe_noctem

    Actually speaking of which, that's something that most people tend to overlook, Jesus was Middle Eastern… I have yet to find a single picture of Jesus in a church that doesn't have him as a brown haired, pasty white boy…

    • cat

      Haha in mine he has a nice tan ?

    • Sinner

      Hi there is a Dark face, the holy face of lucca Italy, or loot santo. Look it up.

    • randellearl1985

      true jesus was born earth to a middle eastern woman. but news flash middle eastern people are just very tan caucasions. middle eastern people who are born in say england parts of the u.s etc tend to be lighter skinned middle eastern people who are born in hotter climates such as israel, jordan, egypt etc. tend to be very tan

  • carpe_noctem

    Good list, these religious lists are really interesting. I love the one about the random bible stories, god knows what the hell they were thinking when they wrote some of those… Being fairly atheist, it’s always interesting to look at religion from an external perspective, i think a lot of Christians will view this list very differently to other people…

  • me: I think that truth is truth regardless of what we believe – if a tree falls in the forrest, you can choose not to believe it, but the reality is – it fell. Objective truth is what this is called. I am not saying that is the case with the IC, but regardless of who believes it – if it is true – it is true :) Some aspects (or all, or none) of Catholic Dogma may be true – but whatever aspects are true – ARE true – whether we believe or not.

    Here is the Wikipedia take on objective truth:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objective_truth

    • I am the way, the truth, and the life =) The truth is all there is.

    • Reasoningdoubt

      Do you ever shut-up?!

  • carpe_noctem: I predict a war :)

  • carpe_noctem

    haha, it’s always interesting watching people from completely different countries fight… religious lists always spark the most controversy!

  • warrrreagl

    I can’t believe there are peope who didn’t realize immaculate conception referred to Mary. And I can’t wait to ding somebody on the “prodigal” one.

  • warrrreagl: I didn’t know it until about 5 years ago! I was very surprised when I found out :)

  • NN

    Hm, it’s amazing that most of this isn’t new to me. Although, #1 gave me a bit of an epiphany.

    Great list, otherwise!

  • Randall

    Jamie, showing off his seminary school learning again. ;-)

    Nice list. The bible is always a rich vein to mine.

  • DiscHuker

    thanks for posting lists like this jayfray. i predict war as well, but i’m willing to bet the first shot comes in the form of “i can’t believe any rational person would believe anything written in the bible” or something similar.

    btw, in revelation 12 is where satan is identified as “the ancient serpent”.

    • roostertree

      KJV Revelations 12:9 – And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan…

      This doesn’t not mean Satan was the same serpent that was in the Garden. That Satan was ‘the great dragon’ implies there were other, lesser dragons/serpents.

  • JT

    Another two common misconceptions are that Jesus was born on December 25th and that Christ was his surname. The amount of Christians I’ve met who believe both those is worrying.

  • Ghidoran

    The Noah’s Ark thing should be way higher on the list.

  • JT: hahaha – I haven’t heard that one (Christ being his surname) – that is hilarious!

  • carpe_noctem

    JT: I knew that some people continue to think he was born on December 25th, but the other one is priceless!

    Ghidoran: It’s probably one of the most well known assumptions on the list, but the fact that we miscounted animals shouldn’t really edge out the fact that it’s entirely likely we were meant to have more rules to life rather than the 10 we recognise today, plus Jesus’s friend/wife/thing wasn’t actually a prostitute, in edition to the fact that the bible today is exactly as it was back in the time before people came up with the notion of ‘you’re clothes are cleaner than mine, you’re a witch…’ Witch-belief was actually a step-up from these people. So personally, I don’t feel that Noah chucking on a few more animals than he may have let on deserves a higher spot than it does (but Jfrater, it’s still interesting!)

  • Ginger Lee

    Another Biblical misconception- the books in the New Testament are in order of which there are written. I know many people who say that Mark, John, Luke and Matthew all wrote their books when they were alive when the Four Gospels were actually written *after* books like Acts and Thessalonians.

    And correct me if I’m wrong I think Revelations was written earlier than the Four Gospels.

    I was planning on emphasizing in the Gnostic and forgotten gospels in college. The Book of Judas is one of my favorite pieces of Christian literature.

    • Another misconception! It's Revelation, lol.

    • DGMdragunov

      I believe that Revelations was written before two of the gospels.

  • kiwiboi

    “…Christ was his surname”

    I’m still trying to figure out what the ‘H’ stands for in his middle name :)

  • Cthulhu

    Number 9 should probably be a little higher. Many people tend to overestimate the presence of Satan in the Bible, especially in the Old Testament. He’s barely mentioned there, and his biggest role happens to be in the Book of Job, where it’s not even clear that he’s supposed to be evil. It wasn’t until the New Testament that he was identified as the ultimate evil, and even then he was mostly confined to the Revelation.

  • DiscHuker

    kiwi: the “h” is just to look important like harry “s” truman. doesn’t stand for anything, just makes him look more respectable. after all, when being the son of God isn’t good enough, just get a more distinguished name.

  • islanderbst

    While I was sort of vaguely aware of most of these, (not religious, sorry), the Noah’s Ark misconception threw me for a loop. Another day at LV, another thing learned. Thanks!

    oh and some people think that “H.” is Jesus’ middle name :)

  • kiwiboi

    DiscHuker – you’re probably right. I figured it might stand for “Horatio” or “Hubert” or something… :)

  • DiscHuker

    kiwi: well, being that he was middle eastern it was probably something like “habib” or “hassan” or “hakim”. :)

  • Bass

    This very well might be the start of List War II

  • Mom424

    Now guys, how did you not know the H is for Harold? You know
    “Our Father who art in heaven, Harold be his name”

    I could never understand the prodigal son story. How the hell can a shit-head who reforms be more worthy of grace than the fellow who does the right thing consistently?

    I didn’t know Mary was Immaculately conceived, I thought that was just Jesus. Interesting List!

    • LovesParables

      Luke 15:31-32 (in response to the angry son)
      ‘My son,’ the father said, ‘you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’

      The other brother had already been given his part of the inheritance and lost it. It makes no mention of the father dipping into his other sons inheritance to pamper the other. Sure he may have slain the fattest calf for him, but a man with that much money will easily have another. He tells the faithful son 'everything i have is YOURS' Point is: this was a celebration of a son coming to his senses. Just because the faithful son isn't IMMEDIATELY rewarded doesn't mean he isn't properly compensated when the proper time comes.

  • Mythbusterette

    Great List!!

    What I find even more fascinating, inspiring really, is that this is a religious debate where no one has bitten anyone’s head off. Yet. One can only hope that the comments that follow these are as civil and open-minded.

  • CRE

    What is your source for the Immaculate Conception? It is always referred to as the Immaculate Conception of Christ, so how is it not in reference to Jesus? Mary was found by God to be graceful, which was how she was chosen to be the Virgin Mother, which also extended to the belief that she remained a virgin her entire life (Chris Rock does an excellent routine about this bit, incidentally). The biggest misconception regarding the IC is that it refers to Jesus being conceived without sex. I would also question #2, the Bible was more or less established by the Council of Nicea, but the council made cononical the Bible at that time, rejecting some books that were not universally taught (such as the Shepherd of Hermes). As for the Noah’s ark bit, that’s only a misconception because, like so many “Christian” teachings, it is not something many people actually pick up a Bible and read. It;s not even ambiguous, although it is worth noting that there are actually 2 stories of the ark, so it really depends on which you believe. As for Saan not being evil, the earlier post was in reference to Job, in which Satan is refered to as the Deceiver. He doesn’t really lead Job astray, God does. Most everything else looks good, though, however I question your omission of the Rapture. Considering how much money has been made off of that concept, it would be worth noting that it is nowhere in the Bible. Also, the Bible doesn’t say that the earth is 6000 years old, another of my favourite misconceptions.

    • cat

      Haha I agree with you , Jesus ha bortheta and sisters … And it doesn’t say anywhere in the bible that Mary was born with out sin. It’s sad. How many people believe this misconception an it’s because they’ve only heard it by word of mouth :P

  • CRE

    Sory, that should have been pvisit harm upon Job, not lead him astray. Him not being led astray was the point of the story. Also, pay no mind to the typos. Also, I don’t mean to imply that Noah’s ark is not a Christian story, just that many Christians never bother to read the Bible to find the truths of things for themselves.

  • Einar

    I don’t have the exact chapter and verse, but from what I’ve been hearing, the movie series “Left Behind” is a complete misinterpretation of the end times. Just throwing this out there.

  • Gravy

    Another thing about the febidden fruit: in Latin, the word for apple is “malum” which is one letter away from the word bad, malus. These words follow two different inflection patterns which essentially make them the same word, only different in their gramatical structure. this is why it was thought that the apple was the forbidden fruit.

    • Yes, it's a very confusing word @[email protected] Also, it is the knowledge of ALL good and ALL evil… basically, a poetic way of saying the knowledge of everything. Hebrew class r fun for lerningz these things.

  • Kreachure: You are right in a sense – but the fault is my wording (which I have fixed) – the part about it being the same as the 2nd century is meant to be a reference to the TEXT of the books we consider to be the Canon – not to the list of books included. Having said that, the KJV is not the most widely used Bible – there are more than twice as many Catholics in the world than protestants and Catholics never use the KJV – they use Catholic Bibles which retain the books removed by the protestants in the 16th century. So – basing the argument on the Catholic bible, you can compare the Vulgate (5th century) to a modern Catholic Bible (such as the Douay Rheims) and you will find that there are no additions or removals (in the Canon and in the text of the Books).

    • Rich C

      What about changes made before the Latin Vulgate was written? I notice you mentioned Bart D. Ehrman in the list. His book "Misquoting Jesus" states that certain verses that are very important to the concepts of the Triune God (1 John 5:7), not judging other people (Gospel of John 8:7 and 8:11), and the Eucharist (Luke 22:20) (among others) were not in the earliest known versions of the New Testament manuscripts but were later scribal additions. Ehrman also says that most of the accidental mistakes happened in the early centuries after the original writings (before the Vulgate), when copies were being made by amateur scribes instead of professionals. The way he characterizes it is to say that each new copy contained the last scribe's errors plus the current scribe's errors, until we reached a point where there are more differences between the remaining ancient manuscripts of the New Testament writings than there are WORDS in the New Testament. Even if most of the differences are irrelevant copyist errors, I think the claim that the text "is essentially the same now as it was in the 2nd century" might be misleading to some readers.

  • CRE

    Woo hoo, self-correcting. I have consulted the other most holy and revered text in my life and learned that, indeed, the IC refers to Mary, not Jesus. Here is the link to said infallible text from on high. http://www.snopes.com/holidays/christmas/immaculate.asp

  • CRE: when is it referred to as the immaculate conception of Christ? Even a simple google suggests you are wrong:

    “immaculate conception of Christ” – 7,130
    “Immaculate conception of Mary” – 28,000

    And Wikipedia:

    The Immaculate Conception is, according to Roman Catholic dogma, the conception of Mary, the mother of Jesus without any stain of original sin, in her mother’s womb: the dogma thus says that, from the first moment of her existence, she was preserved by God from the lack of sanctifying grace that afflicts mankind, and that she was instead filled with divine grace.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_conception

    Also, CRE, read the Canons of the Council of Nicaea (I posted the link in the article) – it does not mention the Canon of the Bible :)

  • CRE: ah – we crossed posts :) I see you already found the IC thing :)

  • Ginger Lee: the Apocalypse (Revelations) was written after the Gospel of John (if you believe John wrote the gospel) because it was also written by John and it was written when he was on the Island of Patmos at the end of his life – I believe he was about 90.

    • Revelationnnnn :P Singular. One lifting of the veil.

  • carpe_noctem

    Aww, that was so close to starting an argument…

  • Cthulhu

    DiscHuker: while Satan ends up doing some cruel things to Job, keep in mind that all of it is done with God’s express permission. Satan doesn’t ruin Job out of spite, but to see if he would remain faithful in foul weather as well as fair. Also of note is God’s speech towards the end.

  • Csimmons

    Damnit jamie! Here goes another bible tales list….I wonder if BibleDude shall come back?

  • Shem

    jfrater-that doesn’t mean that the canon of the Bible was made before the Council, just that it wasn’t decided there. The canon and the Council of Nicaea were both a part of the attempt to suppress Arianism in the early church. The canon wasn’t set in popular use until the later half of the 5th century. Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon#Christian_canons

    This article also takes Bart Ehrman out of context. He does agree that most of the errors were a result of misspellings, but he would definitely take issue with the idea that there weren’t that many, or that the ones that were there are inconsequential. He even wrote an entire book, “Misquoting Jesus,” about the numerous purposeful alterations of the Bible and the effect that they have had on the history of the Christian church.

  • Kreachure

    I’ve heard there’s something in the Bible about forgiveness :), so I forgive you, and thanks for the correction.

    But thank goodness you got well before posting this list, Jamie… I don’t think commenters will stop poking on this list as much as an ‘Origin of the Species’ book would in a creationists convention!

  • Kreachure: I am still hella sick – but better than the last two days that’s for sure!

  • Insaniac

    Ok.. I see a typo! “Adam and Even…” in #10.

  • Wolter

    #8 is wrong as well, but I can’t blame you completely because the Genesis account itself is inconsistent:

    2 Of all clean beasts take seven and seven, the male and the female. 3 But of the beasts that are unclean two and two, the male and the female. Of the fowls also of the air seven and seven, the male and the female: that seed may be saved upon the face of the whole earth.

    VS

    8 And of beasts clean and unclean, and of fowls, and of every thing that moveth upon the earth, 9 Two and two went in to Noe into the ark, male and female, as the Lord had commanded Noe.

  • Tonny SS

    I already knew all of them except the #5.

    I knew they are not Kings, and the translation only goes for wise men. What I totally missed is the number. What a surprise, all these years I thought they were 3 ‘wisemen’.

  • Chris

    “I am a false prophet and God is a superstition!” –There Will Be Blood

  • Wolter: could the later verse be describing the manner in which they entered? Ie, two abreast? If so, that is not a contradiction – it is describing two different things: 1. the number of beasts, 2. the order of beasts entering the ark.

  • Ginger Lee

    jfrater: I wasn’t sure…can’t remember who told me that…probably when I was dozing off in seminary.

  • ms_design_geek

    Another misconception about the Noah’s ark story is that Noah went around and herded all the animals into the ark, when actually the passage says that the “Pairs of clean and unclean animals, of birds and of all creatures that move along the ground, male and female, came to Noah and entered the ark”.

  • Shem:

    1) The Old Testament was decided by the apostles and Jesus as they both used the LXX:
    “Though the Early Church used the Old Testament according to the canon of the Septuagint (LXX), the apostles did not otherwise leave a defined set of new scriptures; instead the New Testament developed over time.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon#Christian_canons

    The New Testament as it is found today in the Catholic Bible (I use Catholic because the protestants removed books in the 16th century and the Catholic Bible is still using the larger canon):

    “Thus, while there was a good measure of debate in the Early Church over the New Testament canon, the major writings were accepted by almost all Christians by the middle of the second century.” Ibid.

    2) I would suggest a comparison of the Vulgate (5th Century) with the Douay Rheims – Challoner edition (18th Century) which is the official English version of the Catholic Bible – no additions, no extractions.

  • Oh – and just for fun: Tomorrow at 14:00 GMT I will pick ONE random comment (registered users only) to win a Douay Rheims Bible valued at $44.95 http://www.angeluspress.org/oscatalog/item/6736/bible-douay-rheims

  • Kreachure

    Either you’re totally serious, or your ‘getting drunk’ cure against the flu is showing ‘some’ side effects… :P

  • Csimmons

    jfrater: Oh fuck you! I will lose by one and you know it!

  • Kraeg

    dischuker: of course- all you describe about satans actions can also be said about god.
    Mom424: as a child, my mother thought JC’s middle name was Harold, specifically because of the line you quoted from the lord’s prayer.

  • Kreachure: totally serious about the prize? Of course I am! Getting drunk against the flu has nothing to do with it :) The competition is real and I will definitely deliver the prize.

    Csimmons: cross your fingers and hope for the best :)

  • Csimmons

    jfrater: Thats what that damn gypsy said on the bible tales list, and we all know how that turned out…

  • bigpeeler

    Noah’s Ark was in fact, an ark. Not a boat as is depicted so many places. The rectangular, 3 times long as it is wide formula is actually stated in the Scriptures. The rectangular shape was far more space efficient than a normal boat-shape.

  • me

    its that the animals walked IN 2×2 not that there were 2 of each. people just dont pay attention.

    and “according to Roman Catholic dogma…” about the whole immaculate conception thing. yeah umm… Im pretty sure that means you have to be Roman Catholic for this to be “truth” right?

  • Mom424

    Kraeg; When I was a little kid, like pre-school age, I thought elemen was one letter. aitch eye jay kay elemen oh pee.

    I agree, god is a much crueler bastard than the devil. His/her tests of faith are just a little over the top.

  • kiwiboi

    “if a tree falls in the forest, you can choose not to believe it, but the reality is – it fell”

    jfrater – actually the objective truth is something to do with Britney flashing her bare ass every time a tree falls in the forest :)

  • Koshari

    In deciding several aspects of the New Testament, such as “is “Christ” a surname, and the birth myth (3-kings, Dec 25th, and ‘bright star'”, you must research this from a much older perspective and source. Horus, the falcon-headed god of ancient Egypt, parallels Jesus’ life to a degree far beyond coincidence. They both were born to virgin mothers (Isis/Mary), in a manger, surrounded by farm animals on Dec. 25, the birth being announced by a ‘bright’ star (Sirius), visited and gifted by 3 kings. The ‘3-kings’ is the name of the 3 stars in the belt of Orion which points at Sirius for the first time on 12/24, and which point to the location of the morning sunrise on the 25th.
    HOrus was called the ‘annointed one” or Krst (Egyptian Hieroglyphics do not use vowels). And the parallels continue.
    Research, People

  • Sidereus

    Good list. These are indeed some of the more common misconceptions about the Bible. No.10 especially is so ridiculous because people eat apples all the the time. Clearly the “forbidden fruit” no longer exists in this world.

    Prepare to take a lot of heat from Catholics regarding No.6.

  • Sidereus

    Oh, about IC. I just remembered from history class that in the middle ages, people generally believed that sin was transferred only through the father, so Jesus having no earthly father would therefore be free of sin. That could be part of the reason for this idea.

    • Kind of moot, since Jesus said that we do not inherit sins from our fathers… I remember translating that explicitly, but I'm too lazy to look up whether it was in Mark or Matthew. The apostles asked him what some people's ancestors must have done to deserve their fate… and he told them that was ridiculous, of course.

  • koshari: Isis (according to mythology) had sex with a golden phallus – resulting in the birth of Horus – this is only a virgin birth in the sense that there was not a living male involved – however, Isis is hardly a virgin when a miraculous phallus seeded her. The Egyptians considered Horus to be the TRUE son of Osiris – a virgin birth has no father.

    As for KRST: KRST is the word for “burial” (“coffin” is written “KRSW”), but there is no evidence whatsoever to link this with the Greek title “Christos” or Hebrew “Mashiah.”

    The name “Iusa” simply does not exist in Egyptian. The name “Jesus” is Greek from a universally recognized west Semitic name (“Jeshu’a”), borne not merely by the central figure in the New Testament but also by many other people in the first century.

    This is according to W. Ward Gasque who holds a Ph.D. from Manchester University (UK). A graduate of Harvard University’s Institute for Educational Leadership (1993), he is President of the Pacific Association for Theological Studies.

    You can read more of that here: http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/HORUS.htm

    I would recommend that you take your history from research, not movies :)

  • Siderius: why would there be heat from Catholics over number 6? It is actually an explanation of the Catholic view.

  • cambrexia101

    As a person who by birth is Jewish, but by choice is Agnostic,
    I have to say, a few of these weren’t even misconceptions for me,
    because I hadn’t even ever heard of the Misconception in the first place!

    Though in my opinion, the one about Noah’s Ark is the most interesting!

  • Shem

    jfrater-the fact that the four gospels were accepted by most early Christians doesn’t mean that much in light of the historical situation. Most of the books and epistles produced in the early church were likewise accepted as true. It wasn’t until later, when the arguments over canon began to heat up, that their accuracy began to be disputed. The fact that some of the current books have been accepted for most of the Church’s history speaks not at all to the tremendously heated controversy over the subject of the canon in the 5th century. A good book about the subject is “When Jesus Became God,” by Richard Rubenstein. He describes the religious war that took place concerning which books would be viewed as authoritative and, by extension, whether the Arian or Trinitarian view of Christianity would become dominant.

    2) Leaving aside the wisdom of using the Vulgate as your translation guide when the Vulgate itself is not even an accurate translation of the Greek and Hebrew texts (the Vulgate of the “horned Moses?”http://sumsekel.blogspot.com/2008/03/mistranslation-in-vulgate-gives-moses.html) your argument that one is unchanged from the other still fails immediately. Even if it didn’t though, it would fail because the 5th century Vulgate is in Latin, while Douay Rheims – Challoner is in English. Not only are the two not the same (ask anyone who can read two languages; nuance is lost in translation no matter what) even if a first edition copy of the 5th century Vulgate was used in translation it still doesn’t mean that much in terms of other errors. Say I make 11 copies of the Constitution, 10 with alterations and one that is exact. I then give away each copy to a different person for their own use in interpreting the law. The fact that the last one is exact doesn’t make the other, incorrect ones any more accurate. Nor does the existence of a clean copy prevent them from making errors when they use their adulterated ones.

  • kiwiboi

    “Our Father who art in heaven, Harold be his name”

    Mom – that, of course, is the Japanese version :)

    As for the Prodigal Son thing (“How the hell can a shit-head who reforms be more worthy of grace than the fellow who does the right thing consistently?”) I think that Jesus was making the point to those who were told by the religious big cheeses of the day that they were beyond the grace of God, that they were not; moreover, he was saying that such people, upon repentance, would receive a special welcome back into the fold.

    Caveat…that’s from memory; a remnant of a Catholic upbringing and education (and I didn’t pay too much attention at school) ;) If I’m wrong, I’m sure somebody will point it out…

  • Solid list, Sure to bring even more visitors.

    Have you thought about page counters on the site?

  • good list. i agree with crimanon

  • Shem: my point on the vulgate/DR is that substantially, comparing phrase by phrase, the modern Catholic Bible is an accurate reflection of the 5th century vulgate. Ask anyone that knows two languages – you can compare them for accuracy of translation :)

    As for the Horns of Moses -this is why we can’t just learn a language and make our own declarations on the meaning of the Bible. Any person that has a deeper knowledge of Jewish culture, and (more importantly) the culture of the time of Jerome, would know that “horns” have other meanings – if you are a fundamentalist you may be disturbed by Jerome referring to Moses as being horn’ed because you are obliged by your views to consider it a literal statement, but in fact, horns have frequently been used as a metaphor for other things.

    In Ancient Egyptian mythology, horns were often used to symbolize a person in touch with divinity – and there can be no doubt that the Bible tells us that Moses was in direct contact with the divine. This was a type of imagery which was well known in the times of Jerome.

    This actually proves the opposite of your presumption – Jerome did not make an error in translation, he gave a translation that has a far richer and deeper understanding of Moses; Moses “touched” God, and in one word Jerome was able to give a clearer understanding of that to the people of his time. The people of the 5th century understood the symbolism of the horns – modern day fundamentalist Christians can’t cope with it due to a lack of understanding of the times.

    This is one of the best examples of why fundamental Christianity is flawed – you simply can’t take every word at its literal meaning – you must understand the times and you almost need to know what the people of the times knew. Fortunately there are some great biblical scholars who have spent their lives finding this information out; and unfortunately it matters not to fundamentalists (who tend to have the loudest voices) – their ignorance of history and the nuances of the classical period and its languages is a serious road block to a true understanding of the Bible.

    Oh – and the DR also refers to Moses’ horns – which at least verifies my point that phrase by phrase, the Vulgate (5th century) and the DR (18th century) are substantially the same.

    • It is not the fundamentals; only the individuals who press falsehoods not in line with the Truth.

  • Kiwiboi: I think your comment on the prodigal son is excellent. Well said!

  • kiwiboi

    jfrater – praise indeed :)

  • kiwiboi: consider yourself lucky :)

  • Shem

    Substantially the same with each other, but not with every Hebrew source in existence. The proper translation is “shown,” that is, Moses’ face was glowing when he came down the mountain. You can present Jerome’s translation as coming from a more nuanced place, but the fact is that the nuanced view, the one that conforms with just about every educated scholar of Hebrew from 2500 BCE when the text was written down up to the present day, says that Jerome was wrong and *everyone else* was right. Glowing, not horned.

    And my points still remain; first that the Vulgate was an incorrect translation of the source material and second that even if the Vulgate and the DR are the same, it still doesn’t mean that much, because you still haven’t proven that the copies of the Vulgate made in the interim period matched the modern translation and the one done in by Jerome, rather than just being an example of Challoner altering Douay and Rheims’s text to conform with Jerome.

    I also find it funny that you assume that anyone who challenges you is automatically coming at you from a Fundamentalist viewpoint. How someone can (apparently) read Bart Ehrman and still have that point of view is interesting.

  • Shem: I didn’t mean to sound like I presumed everyone was a fundamentalist – so my apologies if that is the case :)

    As for the horns (again!) – Jerome did not incorrectly translate anything – he used the term “horns” to describe having touched God (or having been touched by God) – yes – many translations say “glowing” – but it meant the same thing – though Jerome connected it to a deeper image – it is about imagery – he did not say that Moses was not glowing – he said that he was horned, which meant glowing from having touched (or been touched) by God – it is a more beautiful and deep translation – you can’t say it is wrong because it isn’t – it means the same thing in the context of the time in which he wrote it.

    As for the DR – of course it was made to conform with Jerome – the Vulgate was “canonized” by the Catholic Church – in that the Church declared that it contained absolutely no errors at all – any Catholic bible translation made MUST conform to the vulgate because it is the ONLY copy of the Bible that the Catholic Church considered to be completely free of any errors.

    I am confused about part of your statement: ” it still doesn’t mean that much, because you still haven’t proven that the copies of the Vulgate made in the interim period matched the modern translation and the one done in by Jerome” – there is an extant copy of the vulgate penned by Jerome – there is only ONE vulgate – the one written by him – what are these other copies you refer to?

    Additionally, Jerome had access to texts which we no longer have -texts which pre-date any other Jewish text – we simply cannot compare his translation to modern texts because we have only more recent translations of what he had. This tends to make it difficult to debate – except on the level of linguistic nuances which you seem to not wish to do :)

    I think, frankly, that this discussion has gone beyond the realms of website comments – we neither of us can provide online the necessary documentary evidence to support our views – so it is probably better for us to agree that this is a deep topic requiring a great deal of knowledge (that I certainly don’t have – though you may have – I don’t know) and we should just be glad that at least people know there were 7 animals and not 2 that went in to Noah’s ark :)

  • Moses

    haha, wow… too exciting!

  • Jimbo78934

    There’s really no getting around the fact that the Bible is constantly misinterpreted, often resulting in sectarian clashes and unfortunately, violence. I made the decision to get away from all that nonsense and find a steady, peaceful religious path for my life. PRAISE ALLAH

  • Mom424

    Kiwiboi; ha ha, I had to say it a few times out loud, but I get it. It must be the fever, my mental acumen is low.

    jfrater; I am jealous, your flu is leaving you much quicker than mine. There is ample evidence that your booze cure may work. There was a woman here in Canada with Necrotizing Faciaitis (flesh eating disease) who refused amputation. They got her tanked, like just this side of death, and kept her that way for a week. Killed the bacteria, and she got to keep her arm.

    What happens when scholars find evidence that books they excluded for whatever reasons are found to be ancient or older than ones that were incorporated? I’m thinking of the book of Enoch. I somehow can’t imagine the church saying – Whoa, lets back up a bit here, We made a mistake.

  • kiwiboi

    “I made the decision to get away from all that nonsense and find a steady, peaceful religious path for my life. PRAISE ALLAH”

    Jimbo – droll. Very droll :)

  • Mom424: regarding books like Enoch I, II, III, IIII; because Jesus and the apostles used the Septuagint (LXX), that is the “official” version of the Old Testament in the Church. The LXX excludes the books of Enoch therefore they are not part of the Canon. Also, it is important to note that age was not the deciding factor in the canon – the OT was already defined when Christianity began (LXX), and the NT was defined in the few hundred years following.

    As for the New Testament, even the Epistle of Clement (fourth Pope – 1st century AD) which was often read in Churches in the early Church was not allowed in to the Canon even though it is known to be an authentic writing by an early Pope who was even mentioned in one of the letters of Saint Paul: Philippians 4:3. Essentially, if you go older than the current canon of the New Testament, you are going back before the time of Christ and that excludes the writing from the NT.

    Anyway – on to much more important subjects – my flu and alcohol – I am seriously thinking that the demon drink has cured me! I have never had a flu move so fast through me and I have never drunk so much with the flu before! There must be a correlation! I am also taking lots of paracetemol, and aspirin, etc. that might be helping a little :)

  • Kreachure

    lol, Jamie.

    So, “What the Devil giveth, the Devil taketh away”!

  • Kreachure

    Or, in other words, I kinda like your version of ‘spirit-ual healing’! XD

    OMG I’ll shut up now.

  • Shem

    jfrater-I suppose that is all that can be done. Well argued.

  • Kreachure

    Yeah, all that stuff I said would’ve been funnier if you realized I was talking about your ‘miraculous’ cure, not Islamic Extremism…

  • carpe_noctem

    Mom424: Are you serious about the necrotizing fasciitis? That’s amazing, it sounds like something an Irish person would come up with: ‘We don’t know what to do, fuck it, let’s get him smashed…’ And incidentally, I think the alcohol thing may well work, the whole feed a cold and starve a fever or whatever the hell it is, only results in well-fed or hungry sick people…

    I feel very uneducated on all these religious matters, i’m meant to be catholic, but we go to church once a year on christmas eve so that my mum doesn’t feel guilty, and I usually go to the pub with my family afterwards and get trashed with them until midnight. Christmas is fun in Australia… But in regards to listverse spreading the light and educating, praise Frater for providing further insight into our world!

    Jfrater: God doesn’t want you to use synthesised drugs, stick to the alcohol!

  • Ido (Israel)

    1.This list rocks
    2.about satan – according to the bible, it was the snake who seduced Eve and made trick Adam into eating the only forbidden tree in the garden – shit.
    3.I find that most people are usually oblivious to these little pieces of information and are commonly very argumentative about this kind of stuff.
    4.In my opinion such arguments are a waste of time as ALL RELIGIONS ARE A PACK A FUCKING LIES designed to give the messes some guidance in their scary, unsecured lives. governments and other organizations take advantage of that too.

    • Steve

      2. I'm pretty sure Eve didn't trick Adam. She was just like, hey eat this, and he's like, alright. No tricking, no Adam arguing over it being from the forbidden tree, just a passive passive man.

  • Mom424

    carpe-noctem; Yes I am serious. She already, I can’t remember why, had either no or limited use of the other arm. She refused surgery, the antibiotics were ineffective (damn over-use of antibiotics, I’ll cover that on the health list I’m thinkin’ about writing), it was the court of last resort. Of course it would work, make it inhospitable to the bacteria (fevers that everyone is in a big hurry to treat have a similar effect). She really was kept near death from the alcohol. It isn’t something that you can self-administer.

  • carpe_noctem

    Ido: For starters, if some people need guidance in their lives, what gives you the right to attempt to take away their belief in a system that seems right to them? I’m completely unreligious, the only religion that seems anywhere close to what I might believe in is Buddhism of Taoism, both of which submit the belief system that it’s entirely probable they’re incorrect, but if you’re willing to believe in our religion, well done you, you might get into heaven, which may or may not exist. There’s the famous saying: ‘God creates dinosaurs. God destroys dinosaurs. God creates Man. Man destroys God.’ Or you could just look at it from the perspective of man creating religion, and hence God never really existed except in the minds of men. I purport that we’re all atheists at heart, I just believe in one fewer god than some people. When you don’t understand why people don’t believe in your god, ask yourself why you have rejected every other god, and maybe you will see.

    Mom: Yeah, i can’t imagine heading off the the pub 4 nights a week would cure flesh-eating bacteria, so it makes sense it was a doctor-administered dosage. The two most common sustained and preventable illnesses within hospitals are infections caused from over-exposure to germs, and drug fever, where the cocktail of different antibiotics they pump into the patient as they’re bounced from ward to ward serves to prolong, or even cause symptoms of disease. I think too many doctors today try to solve problems by inundating the patient with drugs (incidentally, i want to be a neurosurgeon, maybe one day i’ll make a difference!)

  • Puxley

    Wow this is quite a good list… possibly one of the best, definitely the best religion one so far.

    jfrater, very good explanation on the misconception regarding the IC, also very interesting to see someone using the Duoay Rheims… tis a real pity that so few Catholics still use it nowadays (myself included). I’d like to one day be proficient enough to read the Vulgate, but alas, I am merely a first year Latin student hahaha.

  • DiscHuker

    mom, kiwi, et. al: the point of the story of the prodigal son wasn’t that one son was an ass and the other was perfect. it comes in the context of 3 parables that Jesus is telling to two groups “tax collectors” (the unrighteous) and pharisees (the supposed righteous)

    the lazy son is a picture of someone who abuses the grace of God only to find that His arms are still open. the “good” son is a picture of someone who tries to earn God’s love by hard work only to find that God places no price on His free grace.

    both are terribly in need and God is mighty to save.

  • edwf

    A lot of the misconceptions about Adam and Eve come from Milton’s paradise lost which is mostly from his own imagination. In his story the devil is the serpent, and most historical and/or famous events that were written about in famous literature have their fact and fiction intertwined.

  • Einstein217

    Jesus H. Christ 12 letters
    Elvis Presley 12 letters

    Coincidence, I think not.

  • carpe_noctem

    Eistein: Clearly your nickname is true! That’s brilliant!

  • Very fascinating list! I was unaware of a lot of these misconceptions. I think the comments will continue to get more interesting!

  • kking

    Something wrong with the formatting…#4-1 is missing and is replaced with comments.

  • Sidereus

    Odd.. I keep getting logged out when I try to view this list.

    The important thing to remember with these is that the love in your heart matters more to God than a perfect interpretation of the Bible.

  • Sidereus

    jfrater: My bad. I guess I need to read more carefully!

  • DiscHuker

    jayfray: i don’t know if we have discussed this before, but, what is the scriptural reference to mary being sinless? i see the luke 1:28 you have posted above but in reading that, i’m not quite sure that is the most logical reading of the passage (saying that mary was sinless).

  • cedestra

    I always thought that the “H” in Jesus H Christ stood for “Holy”.
    I hope this sheds some light for some people. Wasn’t Jesus’ born name “Joshua” anyway?
    Thanks for the info- I can now safely say that the Christians have their religion and I have mine and the proof each of us has for our’s being the correct is about equal. We both have crazy stuff going on.

  • allredeemed

    hi jamie!
    ive been subscribing to your rss feed for a while. it is very informative. you present a variety of topics in a very open-minded

    way. the reason i first subscribed was because you posted a list about christianity or the bible, and i found it very insightful.

    it appears we are both students of the scriptures, and we might both have knowledge we can share to our greater benefit.

    regarding the current list: #10 is right on! i never knew that in middle english the word “apple” applied to pretty much any fruit.

    very kewl.

    and #9 is equally kewl. i have always associated the serpent in the garden with the satan, but now i see there’s no direct

    connection at all. but is it possible he might be a henchman of satan, since its unlikely he was on the side of god?

    regarding #8: the 7/2 ratio is lost on a lot of people because most people dont care about those kinds of details. but the

    scriptures are clear: the ratio of clean to unclean animals entering the ark was definitely 7 to 2. the only suggestion i will make

    about this is that ive read somewhere that the numbers 7 and 2 actually referred to *pairs* of 7 and 2. so the animals would still

    enter the ark in pairs- the clean entered in pairs of 7 and the unclean entered in pairs of two. but ive not fully checked this out

    yet.

    #7 is interesting. 10 is a nice round number. if we could just have ten simple commandments that we could live by then that would

    make things a whole lot easier. of course, speaking for myself, i find any version of the “ten commandments” impossible to live by.

    we read dozens of commandments in the book of leviticus. so i try to hold to the two commandments that jesus gave: to love god with

    all my heart and to love my neighbor as myself. these are still difficult, but its a lot simpler.

    #6: again you enlighten me. i always thought the immaculate conception was about the birth of jesus. (im not catholic)

    #5: the three kings. ive known about this for a while, and its nice to hear the truth repeated.

    #4: ive always assumed, due to “common knowledge” that mary magdelene was a prostitute. the fact that this is never mentioned in

    the scriptures is interesting. if we go by what has been written, theres no reason to convict this woman of such a sin. however, if

    she was possessed by seven demons, what are the chances she was selling her body? her prostitution may be “folk lore”, but

    sometimes the folk might get it right.

    #3: the prodigal. you have taught me once again. i beleived that “prodigal” meant “leaving”. curiously, considering the true

    meaning of the word “prodigal”, the prodigal son didnt even need to leave town. he could have stayed there and spent his

    inheritance locally. i feel a new parable coming on! (:

    #2: i was not aware that the emporer constantine held so little power. i thought he basically forced christianity on the entire

    roman empire at that time, converting pagan rites into “christian holidays”. it appears that catholic canon predated him

    substantially, and he had very little power.

    #1: i wanted to find fault with catholic doctrine here, but in this case i cannot. the claim is that “It would be a mistake. . .to

    assume that the only changes being made were by copyists with a personal stake in the wording of the text. In fact, most of the

    changes found in our early Christian manuscripts have nothing to do with theology or ideology.” this may be true for the catholic

    translation. however, i myself have found certain ideological “differences” in the kjv. i went to judges 18:30 for the acid test to

    see if the catholic bible held up. in the kjv it says that jonathan (an idolatrous priest of dan) was the grandson of manasseh.

    this is not true. it is based on the fact that the kvj translators didnt have the resources we have today, and combined with their

    lack of knowledge of the greek language they actually got several things wrong. jonathan was actually the grandson of moses, as the

    catholic bible states. (kudos) i will consider the catholic translation in all of my further studies, as well as the youngs literal

    translation and others. however, a few things are keeping me from converting to the catholic church at this time are:

    worship of mary (a mortal woman)
    worship of the “host” which is supposed to be jesus incarnate in a piece of bread, waiting to die *again*
    worship of saints (mortals)
    worship of the pope (mortal)
    the belief that the members of the roman catholic church are the only true church of christ
    the belief that there are different levels of sin- some which can be atoned for, others not
    the belief that you can attain salvation through works (although many protestant denominations are guilty of this)
    the belief in eternal punishment

    so i subscribe to none of the above. im a believer who is not catholic or protestant or any of the popular sects that are out

    there. i have studied the scriptures in depth and have come to the conclusion that everyone will be saved in their time. and it

    wont be by a particular church. it will be jesus, and him alone. he is the only true power and savior.

    • LOL you have some serious misconceptions about the Catholic faith, yourself. I can't even begin to describe how off the mark you are.

      I recommend study of actual Catholic beliefs coupled with a good grounding in yoga and truth.

    • Justin

      worship of mary (a mortal woman)
      >>Not a mortal woman; chosen by the Lord to bear His earthly form.

      worship of the "host" which is supposed to be jesus incarnate in a piece of bread, waiting to die *again*
      >>This is a ritual reenactment of the Last Supper; are we not all disciples of the Son of God?

      worship of saints (mortals)
      >>Veneration of the saints, not worship. They are a medium through which one may direct his/her prayers to God; similar to telephone operators.

      worship of the pope (mortal)
      >>No one "worships" the Pope; he is the Holy Father and leader of the faith. Mind you that Jesus gave Peter the keys.

      the belief that the members of the roman catholic church are the only true church of christ
      >>Yeah. That's correct… How did the divergent Christian sects start? Political reasons.

      the belief that there are different levels of sin- some which can be atoned for, others not
      >>What?? The principal teaching is that the only true judge is the Lord.

      the belief that you can attain salvation through works (although many protestant denominations are guilty of this)
      >>UHM. WHAT? It's not that "you can attain salvation through works," it's FAITH AND WORKS. Faith and works cannot be separated. See http://thiscatholicjourney.com/2006/11/salvation-

      the belief in eternal punishment
      >>I think all Christian sects pretty much believe in this.

  • materkb

    allredeemed –

    Roman Catholics do not worship Mary, the saints or the Pope. They venerate them, but they do not worship them.

    The official line held by Roman Catholics is not that they are the only true Church of Christ. John XXIII’s Ecumenical Council, and the efforts of all his successors to date, stress the prayed-for unity of all Christian sects.The other Christian churches are recognized and acknowledged.

    Technically, even a mortal sin can be forgiven by God. God is all forgiving, and no sin prevents a penitent sinner from seeking absolution.

    Eternal damnation – Roman Catholics are not the only Christians who believe this; in fact, some of the others think eternal damnation can be a consequence of being Roman Catholic.

    But what is wrong with salvation through works? Christ recommends it several times.

  • whoopie

    “#1” is completely wrong. i do so hate when semi-informed opinioneering is prefaced with “in fact”

  • Kreachure

    As always, Wikipedia enlightens:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_H._Christ

  • atarijedi

    Another misconception is Hell, except for the last book (Revelations), the whole lake of fire concept of hell didnt exist, Dantes Inferno was the first instance of the hell we know today.

    Hell was either Sheol which means “Under the ground, void of Gods love” or Gehenna, which is an actual physical place outside jeruselam where they dump garbage, also happens to contain fire and a flammable sulphurous rock (brimstone).

  • poptart

    This list is great! I wish I had time to read through all of the comments and read the other misconceptions.

    Also, I always thought ‘immaculate conception’ meant that Jesus was conceived w/o having sex — God was just like “poof, Mary’s knocked up.”

    A lot of good my Catholic schooling did :).

  • JwJwBean

    I have not read the comments yet, but I wanted to say that this is a very interesting list. I remember learning certain stories in church as a little girl and they are very adamant in the way they teach them. How do you go back to your sunday school teacher and say remember how you said…Well you were wrong.

  • jesse

    jfrater, this list is badass, but out of the corner of my eye i thought it said the word “microscopic” and that gave me the idea that you should make a list of scary microscopic images, or close ups of insects, or something like that, i dont think you have a list that explores the tiny’s in our world.

  • sue

    Very interesting.Lists about religion seem to be my favourite thus far

  • jesse: that is a great idea! Thanks. I have made a note of it :)

    sue: glad you liked it! I find them interesting lists to write as well.

  • jasontimmer

    Don’t know if anyone’s mentioned this yet, but I’ve seen several people bring up the fact that the birth of Christ is celebrated on the 25th of December. The most frequent explanation I’ve heard for that is the fact that December 25th was popular among pagan traditions around the time of the proliferation of Christianity, and making the birth of Christ fall on that day made it easier to convert the “heathens.”

  • measy peasy

    It’s funny how many people take the bible literally. How many people know that when the bible was written, Mary was referred to as an “almah,” which at that time meant simply a young woman. Through the translation to Greek, the definition was construed to mean “a virgin.” That’s right, the original texts never even referred to Mary as a virgin. It’s possible that this change came about in an attempt to more closely align the bible with Pagan belief of the time, in order to ease the conversion of the dirty Pagans. Just one example of how completely incorrect number one on this list is.

  • measy peasy

    Wow, amazing timing, jason.

  • jasontimmer

    yeah that’s kinda bizarre. Comments really slow down at these times.

  • measy peasy: obviously you are referring to the Old Testament (because the New Testament does not use Hebrew). If what you say is true, why is it that even Jewish scholars translating the OT in to Greek translate almah as parthenos which is Greek for “virgin”? The term almah and the other related term bethulah were synonymous (though this may no longer be true in modern use of Hebrew). So in fact, “virgin” is an appropriate translation. Additionally, this only matters if you consider Isaiah 7:14 to be a reference to Mary – obviously Jews do not.

    Despite all of that, the “virgin birth” is not really reliant on Isaiah 7:14 – because whether it means a virgin or not, it still speaks of the “messiah” being born of a young woman – and Mary was that (so both translations would work). Additionally, if Jesus were God (as was believed by the authors of the New Testament and the early Christians) – how exactly could Jesus be born in any manner other than through virgin birth? Surely that would mean that God (the Father) would have to have manifested himself in the flesh. A rather ludicrous image and certainly not one supported by any Old Testament writing :)

  • jasontimmer: I think that most modern scholars do not consider the pagan festival Natalis Invicti as the source of the date of Christmas. Natalis Invicti was begun in 247AD, and the first written record of Christmas being celebrated on the 25th of December is from 243AD. The most likely choice of December 25 is that it is 9 months after March 25th which was already considered by the Christians to be the date of the conception of Jesus (Christmas was a late festival – others were already well established by that time). Also – keep in mind that Christianity was suffering persecution – they were not likely to have too many public festivals in order to help with conversions – at least not in the Roman Empire :)

  • astraya

    #8 There are *two* flood stories, with different instructions. Gen 6: 19-20 says “two”. Gen 7:2 says “seven clean and two unclean”.
    All of the above discussion has missed the obvious point, and that is: How did Noah know which animals were clean and unclean? The cleanliness rules were given by any reckoning a long time later.
    #5 The Greek word is “magus” pl “magi”. The word is most closely related to “magic”, but translating it as “magician” would be misleading. The only other time the word is used is in Acts 8:9, where it is translated “sorcery”.
    #4 Mary is often confused with two other women, who are not given names. The first mention of her (Luke 8:2) comes immediately after Jesus has been anointed by a “woman who was a sinner”, but it does not specify that it was Mary, and does not specify what her sin was. (Compare Matt 26:3 and Mark 14:1-9, where, if this is the same incident “a sinner” is not specified. (A similar is told in John 12:3, where the woman is identified as Mary of Bethany, a different woman.)) The other woman appears in John 8:1-11. “Being caught in adultery” is not the same as “being a prostitute” . (BTW where was the man she was having adultery with?)

    jfrater (117) The reason that “March 25th … was already considered by the Christians to be the date of the conception of Jesus” is that that date is close to the (northern) spring equinox. Either way, Christmas is dated from a pagan festival.

    Various people have mentioned Is 7:14. The whole passage, read in context, makes it quite clear that, whether it means “young woman” or “virgin”, and whoever it is talking about, it is *not* talking about Mary and Jesus.

    Here’s another one: Jesus was not born in the stable of a commercial inn. Luke uses the word pandocheion (“inn”) in the story of the good Samaritan (10:34-35). In 2:7, he uses kataluma, the same word he uses in 22:12, which is always translated as “upper room” ie the guest room of a private house. Jesus was born in the “garage” of a private house.

    I am meant to be organising my wedding reception, so I can’t get involved (much) here.

  • notacceptable

    Yo Jfray. I know you meant it in jest because of the smiley face you put at the end of it, but your generalized comment to Jimbo is just not acceptable bro. Didn’t take you for such narrow-mindedness. You have to be aware of others sensitivities bro.

    Disappointed :(

  • notacceptable: You are right – thank you for reminding me about that comment – I have deleted it in the interests of good manners.

  • astraya: great additions! Thanks :)

  • kiwiboi

    jfrater – shame. That clown godisimaginery posts all manner of inflammatory anti-Christian dross which remains on the site, and yet we appease cowardly Jihadists by deleting an innocuous attempt at humour? :roll:

  • DiscHuker

    materkb: post #101, the problem of salvation by works is that it completely negates the concept of grace.

    ephesians 2:8-9 – “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
    not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.”

    if you can earn salvation then the cross was unnecessary. so i would say that it is pretty important.

  • Levi

    At first glace, I expected this list to be biased against Christians. But I was totally wrong. This list is neutral, Objective, and informative. It is published and worded in such a way that I see no reason why any christian would get offended over it. Wonderful Job!

  • DiscHuker

    atarijedi: post #104 – to say that the teaching of hell only shows up in the book of revelation is just outright not true. Christ talks about hell on numerous occasions. and while the entire concept isn’t wrapped neatly some place in the OT, all the pieces are there. it isn’t until the NT that an entire, cohesive doctrine is formed. what is called “progressive revelation”

    also you aren’t entirely clear about the use of geÑenna. while it was a place where trash was burned it was used as a reference for hell because all the people knew this was where all the filth and dead animals of the city were thrown.

  • longball

    I agree with Levi – there is nothing to fight about…:( lol

  • Bob

    Great list, especially the last part.

    Ugh, why do people also think the Bible we have in English (whatever version) is a translation of a translation of a translation? Answer: people don’t understand the difference betweent textual transmission and translation.

  • Ed

    How about probably the most prevalent misconception of the Bible: No one in the Bible was ever baptized using the words “in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”.

  • kiwiboi

    “the most prevalent misconception of the Bible”

    Ed – first I’ve heard of this one. “Most prevalent” ? I don’t think so.

    I note, though, that you are referring to an actual baptism; because, as you will know, the injunction to baptise in the name of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit is clear in Matthew 28:19.

  • PeteFloyd

    Biggest misconception about the bible: that it’s true.

  • JT

    jfrater: The December 25th date was chosen because it coincided with the Pagan celebration of the winter solstice, which during the time it was adopted was on the 25th of December. This was firstly to try and fit in with pagans in an inconspicuous manner as to avoid persecution, and later used to try and convert pagans by presenting their festival as similar to the pagans (Justin the Martyr writes a lot about this)

  • seeker

    Great list, but I have some clarifications and comments to add ;)

    10. Adam and eve’s fruit

    The main reason the fruit is thought of as an apple is because Milton’s Paradise Lost called it that, I think.

    9. The serpent…is not referred to as Satan in Genesis

    However, theologically speaking, this serpent was probably Satan speaking through a possessed serpent.

    Concerning the temptation of Eve, Christian writer and expositor J. Oswald Sanders writes:
    ‘It has been suggested that just as the speaking of Balaam’s ass was a divine miracle, so the speaking of the serpent was a diabolic miracle.’

    The association of Satan and serpentine metaphor can be seen elsewhere througout scripture, including:

    Revelation 12:9, 20:2
    ‘And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world.’

    8. Noah’s Ark

    Nice job on that one. Check out How Large Was Noah’s Ark?

    7. The Ten Commandments

    Correct. In fact, you left out that, not only are there different lists for Catholics and Protestants, the Jews have their own list. Check out the explanation at Display the ten – you can also buy any or all of the ten commandments on t-shirts there.

    6. The immaculate conception

    Part of the reason this (heretical) doctrine of Mary’s sinlessness arose (since it is not in scripture) in Catholic doctrine is that the Catholic Church was heavily influenced by (erroneous) Aristotalian dualism, thinking of the body as bad and the spirit good. This, coupled with the doctrine of original sin, forced Catholic theologians to come up with some way to have Jesus born without inheriting original sin and a sinful ‘body of flesh.’ But in this case, I think that they made stuff up to solve a mystery that was not intended to be solved.

    5. The three kings

    Yes, the three kings were ‘Magi’ – court advisors, sort of like Daniel in the bible. “Wise men” is an accurate description, though. I discussed the fact that they were pagan astrologer wise men in The Truths and Myths of the Christmas Story.

    4. Mary Magdelene not a prostitute

    Part of the confusion arises because, in 591, Pope Gregory conflated the following passages describing Magdelene, Mary of Bethany, and the ‘sinful woman’ who wiped Jesus feet (which Mary of Bethany also did) as the same woman, even though scripturally, they can be viewed as separate. (In 1969, the Catholic Church restored them to three separate individuals.)

    – Magdeline – Mark 15:4-41, Matthew 27:55-56, Luke 8:2
    – Mary of Bethany (Lazarus’ sister) – John 11:1-3
    – Sinful woman – luke 7:37, mark 14:3, Matthew 26:7

    3. The meaning of ‘prodigal’

    You mean people actually think that ‘prodigal’ means returning? That is common? Sheesh, i didn’t know that our command of the language had gotten so poor. What’s even a better misconception about this story is that it is about only one son, when in reality, as John MacArthur’s new book details, it should be called A Tale of Two Sons.

    2. Constantine and the Canon

    Very good point, but what you did not mention is why Constantine is thought to have influenced the Canon at all – Constantine called the Council of Nicea, primarily because he feared that disputes within the church would cause disorder within the empire.

    1. Alterations in the text

    Again, thank you for making this point, and for quoting Bart Erhman, who is both a scholar AND critic of the New Testament, who has gained notariety because he has become an agnostic, though he remains a New Testament scholar at Princeton.

    Your note on the removal of books by Protestants, however, is misleading. The Catholics included many non-canonical books in their bible (the Apocrypha), which were considered historically important, but not inerrant or authoritative. The Protestants did not remove any of the canonical books, only the apocrypha.

  • JayArr

    I was always told that the ‘H’ in “Jesus H. Christ” stood for Hosanna (or Hoshana for our orthodox folks).

  • seeker

    PETEFLOYD WROTE: Biggest misconception about the bible: that it’s true.

    What makes you think so? Is it because you doubt that miracles occur, or is it because you have never researched the archaeology that supports it, or because you just don’t like the content?

  • seeker

    JAYARR WROTE: I was always told that the ‘H’ in “Jesus H. Christ” stood for Hosanna (or Hoshana for our orthodox folks).

    I thought is stood for ‘hella’ ;)

  • seeker

    Or perhaps like our modern-day messiah, ‘h’ stands for Hussein ;)

  • Rylan

    I think it stands for “hoax.” :)

  • Rylan

    “Biggest misconception about the bible: that it’s true.”

    Obviously!

  • measy peasy

    Astraya, I’m glad you mentioned the fact that 7:14 might not even be talking about Mary, since this early “prophecy” is one of the ways christians try to convince me that the bible is in fact “God inspired.”

    JFrater: Ok, how about the usage of “Elohim” in one of the creation stories. Is Elohim not plural? Well, more precisely, WAS Elohim not plural, before the interpretation changed to accomodate more modern beliefs?

  • Sue

    Most of this list most would know, if they actually, you know, read the Bible. I think it is funny that the citation most often used in some of these posts is wikipedia. People, wikipedia is not an academic source and should never be used to back up an argument because academics,like me, will laugh you out of the room. Also, you might want to look at real academic sources, and not popular books such as “When Jesus Became God” or some such nonsense.

  • Sue: you are welcome to laugh me out of the room – but before you do – give citations that show the Wikipedia quotes are all wrong. Wikipedia may not be as “academic” as someone like you might like, but if it is right, it is right. If you don’t agree, you have no place in academics.

  • kiwiboi

    “I think it is funny that the citation most often used in some of these posts is wikipedia.”

    Sue – wikipedia is an accessible source; not to mention that it compared relatively well when compared to britannica in a study recently. moreover, nobody is asserting that wikipedia is the holy grail of all knowledge. If you take exception to something whose source is wikipedia, make the correction.

    “wikipedia is not an academic source and should never be used to back up an argument because academics,like me, will laugh you out of the room. Also, you might want to look at real academic sources”

    ROFLMAO…oh, the sheer self-importance and pomposity of this statement!

    BTW…you *do* realise that listverse is not an academic conclave, but an entertainment website ? LOL

  • seeker: the books WERE removed by the protestants because up until that time, all Christians believed them to be a part of the Canon and they are part of the Canon defined in the early Church. It is actually funny that you say that Catholics included many non-canonical books – the Catholic Church CREATED the Canon – therefore, the books they include ARE the canon – you can’t say they included non-Canonical books. Jesus himself used the books (he and the apostles used the LXX which matches the Catholic canon).

    Regarding your point 6 (on the immaculate conception) – the Catholic Church believes that the SOUL is tainted with sin from the moment of conception – there is no concept of evil body good spirit in the Catholic Church – so I think you may be a little confused on that issue.

    Aside from that, your points are excellent and well presented – thanks!

  • measy peasy: that question is easy peasy :) God is the triune God – he is three persons in one God – he can be referred to in the singular, OR the plural (which gives the deeper insight in to his plural nature). This is, of course, not to be confused with the utterly ridiculous translation made by the inventor of the Jehovah’s Witness religion who gave us this awful line: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a God” – pluralism taken to the extreme of paganism with its many gods!

  • Boy oh boy – why do I write lists like this? I invariably end up spending far more hours in front of the computer as a result than I should be!!!

    I would like to just take a moment to say thanks to all for the comments – this has been yet another list where extremely sensitive topics have been able to be discussed with intelligence and charity.

  • Competition Winner By using a random number generator, the winner of the Bible is carpe_noctem – who must be congratulated for winning this prize so soon after winning a prize on the obscure sci-fi list! I know your address carpe_noctem, I will get the Bible sent off ASAP.

  • SlickWilly

    About Wikipedia: I think it is important to point out that most if not all wikipedia articles include a sources cited portion that lists the sites where the information originated from. Depending on the article, sources often include reputable academic journals and articles by well-respected academics in the field under scrutiny. Wikipedia might get you laughed out of the room at a roundtable conference, if the other participants are pretentious and self-important blowhards (of which there are *many* in academia, as our friend Sue has been kind enough to demonstrate), but it is more than adequate for citing information on a website of top 10 lists.

  • DiscHuker

    jayfray: btw, i received my movie and bible from you from winning on other lists. thanks for your generosity.

  • SlickWilly

    Another thing to say about Wikipedia is that the articles are most often neutral and non-biased, making it a great source for religious information and other controversial topics. I would believe something I read on wikipedia over anything on a website catering to young earth creationists, or divisive, dogmatic atheists (in the vein of Dawkins).

  • carpe_noctem

    jfrater: thanks so much mate, this is by far my favourite website at the moment; information, arguments, and free stuff! love it, thanks for being so generous!

  • DiscHuker: you are welcome! I hope you get much use out of both :)

    Slick: best comment of the day :)

  • SlickWilly

    carpe: What…you mean it isn’t your favorite website *ever*? Blasphemy! Treason! We used to deal with your kind in our country by hanging you high, against the wind. For now we’ll settle for a good verbal thrashing and taking away your privilege to win contests.

  • Bob

    “The main reason the fruit is thought of as an apple is because Milton’s Paradise Lost called it that, I think.”

    One assumes Milton’s use of the word (assuming he *did* use the word–I don’t recall and I don’t have PL at hand here at work, of course, and I can’t be bothered to look it up!) comes from the usage the list gave.

    jfrater, saying the “Catholic church” (by which you mean, of course the Roman Catholic church) determined the canon of the NT doesn’t make a lot of sense since the RC church didn’t exist at the time the canon was acknowledged.

  • SlickWilly

    jfrater: You my boy, Blue.

  • carpe_noctem

    slick: i’m 18 in australia, we could shoot the fucking queen and the worst they’d do to us is slap us on the wrist and take away our right to go to the rugby and get trashed… mind you, that would be quite the punishment… if you’re going to get pissy just because i won, at least you have the other book to look forward to! and don’t worry, this is my favourite website! i feel like the youngest person here, is there anyone else remotely in my age group? it seems like most people are 14 year olds with no life, people at home with not a heap to do, or people pretending to work. other than the 14 year olds, that sounds like a pretty awesome fan base…

  • kiwiboi

    “One assumes Milton’s use of the word”

    PL Book 9

  • Ms. B

    One more big one you missed, and this is one I learned about in Jewish confirmation classes.

    When God split Adam to create Eve, most think that he took Adam’s “rib.” In fact, the word “rib” and “side” were identical in meaning in Aramaic, so the correct translation would say that God took Adam’s “side.” This makes more sense when considering the Hebrew meaning of Adam’s name is “world”, and implies that Adam was originally genderless and was split in half to form man and woman.

    My rabbi told me this.

    • Yeah. The Bible makes a shitton more sense when you think of it in the original cosmological metaphors and not plain damn English.

  • SlickWilly

    carpe: No, Csimmons has you beat in age (I’m pretty sure). I fall under the “pretending to work” category.

    I’d be pissed if I couldn’t get hammered and attend sporting events as well. I’d go to a rugby match, but over here it’s just plain futbol americano. Bunch of pad-wearing pussies.

  • kiwiboi

    “Bunch of pad-wearing pussies.”

    LOL, that’s what I jokingly say to the Americans I work with.
    They take it in good spirit :)

  • kiwiboi

    “I don’t have PL at hand here at work”

    Oh, and Bob…you don’t feel kinda naked not having your copy of PL at work ? Dunno what I’d do without mine :)

  • carpe_noctem

    slick: I wasn’t sure about him, i think he’s still in school, and i’m going to university as soon as i get home from france, which is in like january… I think i got into medicine, so that’ll be fun! and don’t worry, if i was working somewhere right now, i’d be here too! Rugby isn’t particularly big over in america is it? I never understood the value of watching padded men run into each other repeatedly until the ball suddenly goes flying somewhere and someone wins something somehow (i may have overused the prefix some- there). I’m a rugby boy at heart for sure!

  • Bob: you may want to check your history books – or read the early Church fathers, who supported the Eucharist, the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, Bishops, Deacons, and other standard Catholic things in the first 2 centuries after Christ. Here are a few basic quotes:

    “1 Clem. 42:4 So preaching everywhere in country and town, they appointed their firstfruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons unto them that should believe.” This is Clement (the fourth Pope) who is mentioned in Philippians 4:3.

    I recommend reading the Didache (from the late 1st century) which refers to the Eucharist, to baptism in the formula as used by the Catholic Church, and to the Bishops and deacons.

    If you don’t believe that the Catholic Church was the first Christian Church, you are obviously not Anglican, Catholic, Orthodox, or Lutheran, therefore you must be a protestant – where are your Bishops and deacons?

  • kiwiboi

    Ms. B – interesting.

  • Oh – further to my last comment:

    A four gospel canon (the Tetramorph) was in place by the time of Irenaeus, c. 160, who refers to it directly

    Iraeneus referred to the canon as we know it – what else did he say?

    In his writing against the Gnostics, who claimed to possess a secret oral tradition from Jesus himself, Irenaeus maintained that the bishops in different cities are known as far back as the Apostles — and none of them was a Gnostic — and that the bishops provided the only safe guide to the interpretation of Scripture. He emphasized the unique position of authority of the bishop of Rome, though in an obscure passage.

    Who is the Bishop of Rome? The Pope. Who considers him an authority? The Roman Catholic Church.

    You simply cannot deny, after reading history and the writings of the early Church, that the Roman Catholic Church was the first Christian church and that the apostles were the first Catholic Bishops and Pope (St Peter). Only the most bizarre religious sects (read Jack Chick) deny this historical fact. this is not a matter of religious belief or Biblical interpretation – it is matter of fact.

  • Ed

    kiwiboi: If these words are simply repeated over a baptismal candidate, the baptizer is not doing what Jesus said to do, he is just repeating the words. Note that in every account of New Testament baptisms after the resurrection of Jesus, it was always performed “in Jesus Name”. The apostles did not invent this tradition; they were obeying Jesus’ words. That is because they understood the Oneness of the Godhead, not multiple personalities, but one identity manifested in many ways. Someone else on this board referred to the use of the term “Elohim” as used in the creation account in Genesis. It is indeed plural, but as used by the author Moses, who was certainly monotheistic, it’s usage was plural intensive. This means that multiple attributes were assigned to the subject. In other words, the singular God had many different and wonderful manifestations. The concept of the Trinity was not belived or taught by the early church, and the idea did not come into doctrine for several centuries afterward, about the time that the mode of baptism was changed. There were several Antipopes throughout the history of the Catholic church; an Anitpope is one who for whatever reason, was removed from office because of inappropriate actions or heretical beliefs. The very first Antipope,was removed from his post at least partly because he promoted the original teaching of the Trinity, or the concept of mulitple persons in the Godhead. Hippolytus was his name, and there may be some doubt about whether he was actually the first antipope, but he was surely one of the earliest. The fact remains that the Triune godhead and baptism were teachings that were not espoused by the original church.

    • God is referred to as Elohim many times; in the very first Hebrew sentence of the Bible, he is referred to as a plurality and a singularity at the Same Time! Plural noun, singular verb. Lol. I don't get why people have such a goddamn hard time resolving the concept of both oneness and individuation being compatible. The Hindus do it really well.

  • Tony Brooklyn

    Do not cook a kid in it’s mothers’ milk ?? Only Dolly Parton has that much milk !!

  • carpe_noctem

    I think it makes more sense if you interpret kid as baby goat. Otherwise the inclusion of that in the bible is right up there amongst reasons not to follow Christianity. It’s like including a rule against not murdering mice at the 5th hour of the 3rd day of every month. Whoever came up with that rule has clearly experienced cooking of children/baby goat’s in thier own mother’s milk faaar too many times…

    Tony Brooklyn: Then again, maybe that’s why they called the first cloned sheep Dolly.

  • kiwiboi

    Ed – thanks…interesting information but, sorry to say, I’m not knowledgeable enough on this to debate the theology or the history. My response to you was simply on the basis of your statement about “the most prevalent misconception of the Bible”.

  • SlickWilly

    A bit of unnecessary information about myself: I work as a municipal code editor. My job is to edit and organize city ordinances and resolutions into a coherent and user-friendly reference structure. Occasionally I’ll run across some of those really old, really daft city laws like, “It is unlawful to carry an icecream cone in your back pocket,” or, “It is hereby declared unlawful to allow your horse to ride in the front seat of an automobile,” or, “Citizens are prohibited from bathing or otherwise washing themselves on Sundays.” Some of the rules from the Old Law in Judaism, like the one Tony pointed out, strike me as kind of similar. An arbitrary law that was passed because someone engaged in the activity at one point and caused a whole heap of trouble. And that’s the best part…with those really stupid, specific laws…it’s because someone actually *did* it in the past. :D

  • carpe_noctem

    I think it’s best not to think about the fact that people definitely did these things in the past… There are some weird laws in america, i think in hawaii you aren’t allowd to serve alcoholic beverages to a moose, and in one of the eastern states, you aren’t allowed to bring a lion to the cinema. That last one does make sense, but it seems somewhat superfluous…

  • kiwiboi

    ““It is hereby declared unlawful to allow your horse to ride in the front seat of an automobile,””

    Slick – these here rules; they don’t, erm, mention anything about sheep and a car’s back seat now, do they ? And if so…what about if it’s your special, personal sheep ?? :)

  • SlickWilly

    kiwi: Well, I deal with city laws, and very rarely tangle with state law, as most of the time the code books have a single ordinance like, “We, the citizens of the undersigned city, move to adopt the Such-and-such state book of codes as if it were copied in full herein.” Things like barnyard animals riding in cars are regulated by state law, under proper transportation of non-domesticated animals. I would imagine that having your sheep in the backseat of your car would be illegal in most states, whether or not you were doing anything morally questionable with it. But *I* say, if it tastes good, eat it, and if it feels good…do it! Especially if you are in a committed relationship with your special, personal sheep. :)

  • astraya

    The poem “Adam Lay I-bounden” uses “apple”. That dates from the 15th century, before Milton.
    Moses didn’t write Genesis. Moses probably didn’t write anything.
    My favourite whacky law is the one that prohibits you from carrying an ice-cream cone in your pocket. (One US state.)

  • kiwiboi

    Slick – whoa…the relief :)

    Seriously, though, sounds like an interesting job. I have a few books somewhere on antiquated laws, some of which remain in force (in the UK). Fascinating stuff.

  • davo

    obviously number 1 on the list should be the popular misconception that any of these events actually happened ;) though why its popular astounds me.

  • SlickWilly

    Astraya: We found one of those in Lexingon, KY. :)

    kiwi: No, not interesting in the slightest (thanks, though).It’s kind of a sleeper job, which is why I’m top commenter. Very easy for someone with half a brain, but tedious and boring. That’s why I remember those really dumb laws…they add a little humor to my day.

  • carpe_noctem

    slick: that actually sounds like a damn interesting job! see, when you’re in school they don’t give you these options, not many little boys want to become the manager of an unsuccessful shrimp company, but there has to be someone that does it…

    and i love how these conversations weave in and out of the topic we’re meant to be talking about

  • davo
  • seeker

    The books WERE removed by the Protestants, but to my knowledge, the Catholics considered them non-canonical, but included them, as they do today, as apocrypha and not canon.

    In fact, I thought that the Roman Catholic Church officially added the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonicals to their Bible at the Council of Trent in the mid 1500’s A.D., primarily in response to the Protestant Reformation, in order to support some specific Catholic doctrines.

    Were there other books removed by the Protestants other than these?

    the Catholic Church believes that the SOUL is tainted with sin from the moment of conception – there is no concept of evil body good spirit in the Catholic Church – so I think you may be a little confused on that issue.

    Probably I am confused. The Catholic Encyclopeida makes it clear that catholics believe that the immaculate conception involves the soul, as you said.

  • Csimmons

    Hey, is it just me or is Adam coppin’ a feel in the picture for #10?

  • seeker: definitely not – the Catholic Church considered them fully a part of the Canon – and still does. Jerome (who translated the Vulgate) was unsure, but he included them because the Church had decided that they were to be included already – I posted a comment earlier on about that I believe – you can see his argument about it. The so called “apocrypha” or “deuterocanonicals” exist in the vulgate AND the DR (17th century) and there is no mention of them being outside the canon. Wikipedia has this to say:

    In 405, Pope Innocent I sent a list of the sacred books to a Gallic bishop, Exsuperius of Toulouse. When these bishops and councils spoke on the matter, however, they were not defining something new, but instead “were ratifying what had already become the mind of the Church.” Thus, from the fourth century, there existed unanimity in the West concerning the New Testament canon (as it is today)

    Also, keep in mind, the Old Testament (which is where the books were removed by the protestants) was never questioned from day 1 – it was the septuagint (containing all of the books considered canon by the Catholic Church) which Christ and the apostles used. The Catholic Bible today still contains all of the books of the LXX – the protestant Bible has fewer books because they decided to go their own way and reject the Bible as it was used by the Apostles. The Catholic Church does not have an apocrypha and never has – it has the Bible in full and the writings of the early Fathers of Christianity (Polycarp, Ignatius, Clement, etc.)

    The council of Trent confirmed the canon – but it was the very same Canon that had been in use since the beginning of Christianity. It is a common error to believe that the Catholics added at Trent, because it would be an obvious fault if the protestants admitted that they were taking a large number of books out of the Bible in use until then. It is probably worth mentioning that Luther ALMOST removed the Book of James from the New Testament (in the end he only removed parts of the old testament) – the reason? James refutes the idea of salvation by faith alone (“faith without works is dead”) – he called it the epistle of straw. Other diplomatic protestants knew they could get away with changing the old testament, but would never get away with changing the new, so Luther finally gave in and left James in.

    I hope that all makes sense – I am writing in a hurry as I am busy packing up to move to New Zealand! It has been a hectic week indeed!

    Anyway – I strongly recommend you read the writings of the early Church fathers – they are incredibly interesting because they describe the formation of the early church – something that is not really detailed a lot in the canonical Bible. Even from just a historic perspective it is fascinating stuff :)

  • Dave

    Iam a protestant so I’ll not touch the “Immaculate Conception of Mary” but I was in training to be a preacher so I do have a little insite on the Immaculate Conception of Jesus.
    From what I was tought this referes to Jesus having been born from a virgin which caused him to be without original sin.
    It has been believed that Original sin is passed down through the fathers. Romans 5:12-21 and 1 Corinthians 15:22 both seem to suggest this also Exodus 20:5,Exodus 34:6-7 and Deuteronomy 5:9 all have the phrase “visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations” (or words to that effect) in them, which leads us to believe sin is passed down from the Father.
    Since Jesus didnt have an earthly father he couldnt have had Original sin which is the natrual side effect of the Immaculate Conception.

    At Least thats what I have always believed…could be wrong though

  • DiscHuker

    ms. b: your rabbi was wrong.

    it doesn’t matter what it means in aramaic as it was written in hebrew. the word we translate “rib” is “Tsela'” means rib when talking about a person. besides the fact that in genesis 2:21 it says that God took “one” of his ribs.

    and adam means, in its most general sense, “mankind” not “world”.

    you give away your hermeneutic, by the way, by saying that something is “implied”. use scripture to interpret scripture. a great general rule of interpretation.

    • Adam means earth =) It's a very. Very broad word. Open up your interpretations. And not just with Adam.

  • Ms. B

    DiscHuker- It may not have been aramaic, as it’s been about five years since that class. In addition, it is reform Judaism, which leaves the word of God open to more interpretation by the scholar. The problem with the written word is that it is the invention of “fallen man”, and God can’t be interpreted through the invention of that which is not God. God’s word is up for interpretation by each scholar; in fact, the first five books in Islam, Christianity, and Judaism are virtually identical, but those religions have become so radically different. Either way, the Bible is a living document, designed to grow and change to the modern day.

    And it was mistranslated, it is “side,” not “rib.”

    Mind you, I’m not a believer anymore, but I don’t particularly like the justification of man’s dominance over woman through “God’s Word.” Certainly, there are verses in the Christian Bible that say that woman is lower than man, but since I’m Jewish, those verses are irrelevant.

  • Einstein217

    carpe_noctem
    Thanks for the compliment.

    What’s going on in footy this year??

    Adelaide Crows #1

  • Clues

    Does anyone else see the bible as a book of fables that leaves you with an opinion or map of right and wrong? I have learned many things from the bible but I have also so learned many things from LV. (Hey Jay want to start a new religion?)

  • DiscHuker

    ms. b: rib was mistranslated according to who? i’m pretty sure that every major translation uses “rib”.

    i think it is funny that you say that the WORD OF GOD is open for interpretation. it means what it means. if you say that your foot hurts, that is your word on the matter and it is not up for how i feel about it. on this same note, i don’t want the Bible to grow and change to our modern day. our modern day sucks and i sure hope that God’s way of dealing with us isn’t based on our current world view.

    so if some verses are irrelevant, how do you decide which ones to follow? by what you ALREADY believe? seems like you should throw out the whole thing if it is only used to support what you already do. if this is the case you don’t need any justification for your actions.

  • Ms. B

    DiscHuker; You misconstrued what I said about the “irrelevant” verses. Let me rephrase it;

    Those of the Jewish faith do not believe the so-called “New Testament” is the word of God but instead those of a false Messiah. Therefore, verses in the “New Testament” are not law in the Jewish faith. Just because I do not believe them doesn’t mean you don’t have to.

    And major translations? Let me sum those up this way; bah. The Bible, all of it, has been put through so many filters and different languages across the past two centuries (minimum) that some of the smaller details could easily have been lost. When I went through confirmation and took a course on sex and sexuality in the Bible, the rabbi explained that some scholars have found the translation of the original word to be closer to “side”.

    You don’t have to believe me. This is my viewpoint, I have my justifications. I doubt I’m going to convince you, nor will you change my mind.

    Bottom line is, I know a thing or two about religion, but I’m not a believer in it. Clearly, you are, and who’s to say which one of us is right or wrong? Let’s leave it at that.

  • DiscHuker

    ms. b: what’s the point of having a comment board if we just say we are different and let’s leave it at that?

    tell me why i am wrong or you are right. this is why we have the ability to communicate.

    btw, as someone mentioned earlier, it is a false inference to say that the bible has gone through so many “filters and different languages” and has therefore led to a loss of anything. when scholars sit down to work on a translation, they don’t pick up the latest copy published and work from that. they go to the originals. a version translated in 2 B.C. is not inherently any more accurate than one done next month.

  • Ms. B

    DiscHuker; I’m not one for big arguments, and I may have gotten in a little over my head. I’m usually not this assertive, but this is a topic I feel strongly about.

    In terms of Bible translation, I read somewhere that most early translations of the Bible were done by Catholic sects, which would cause the translation of God’s word to go through a slight slant based on ambiguities in the definition of certain words and the beliefs of a flawed man. Certain versions of the Bible claim to be closer to the non-flawed originals than others. For example, from what I’ve read, Baptists believe that the 1611 KJV Bible is the only one to be believed.

    It all comes down to this; God is perfect, man is imperfect. No man can recreate a work of perfection.

  • DiscHuker

    rest assured, i am not angry and i don’t perceive you as being overly assertive.

    what are your sources for what the catholics have done or what the baptists believe?

    absoultely, God is perfect, which means that we should take all care, effort and energy to understand Him.

  • Ms. B

    Admittedly, my main knowledge about the mistranslation in the Bible comes from reading Chick tracts, which are little comic books designed to convert readers to Christianity (specifically, Baptist.) Jack Chick makes a big point of saying to read the right Bible. It may be a biased source, but since the Catholic church is the earliest form of the modern Christian church, it was in charge of the earliest translations of God’s perfect word.

    While the argument of Protestantism and Catholicism is just a great deal of meaningful but unimportant noise to me, Catholics were still the first Christians to translate the Bible.

  • jasontimmer

    Ms. B- I disagree that it “all comes down to this.” Your statement is still a very secular one. As a Zen student, I can say that all man’s works are perfect, as is every person. Everything is as it should be, indeed, the only way it can be. As far as god goes, well we don’t talk about that much. :)

  • astraya

    SlickWilly (167) I used to work for a legal publisher in Australia. We did legislation and commentary, reports of important court decisions, and books. I have a collection of wacky miscellaneous legal bits.

    One of the difficulties with any discussion such as this is that people have already made up their minds as to what the bible is or isn’t. Someone who says “infallible word of God” and someone who says “book of fables” aren’t going to have much of a discussion.

    I recently stumbled on a factoid that is tangentially related to this discussion. The cathedral church of the Bishop of Rome (aka the Pope) *isn’t* St Peter’s; it is St John Lateran. St Peter’s is used for major occasions because it is bigger. St John’s is older even than the original St Peter’s.

  • kiwiboi

    “The cathedral church of the Bishop of Rome (aka the Pope) *isn’t* St Peter’s”

    astraya – indeed. Perhaps because St Peter’s isn’t a cathedral; it is a basilica ;)

  • astraya

    kiwiboi – Non sequitur. Many basilicas *are* cathedrals. St Mary’s, Sydney and St Patrick’s, Melbourne are basilicas as well as cathedrals. “Basilica” has two meanings: one a purely architectural term and the other an ecclesiastical term. A building can be either or both (or neither).

  • astraya

    How can you italicise text in these comment boxes? I’ve been using * *, but kiwiboi has italics.

  • astraya: use HTML code – <i> – same with b for bold, and a for hyperlinks.

  • Oh – don’t forget to close your tags with </i>

  • kiwiboi

    astraya – your words implied that St Peter’s is a cathedral; it is not.

    The fact that there is more than one context in which the word basilica may be used is irrelevant here, as your comparison was limited not only to ecclesiastical buildings, but to two in particular.

  • Alejandro

    The most common Bible misconception has to be that it is a good moral guide.

  • DiscHuker

    alejandro: what do you mean? it seems that most people would agree that it is a good moral guide. they would just disagree that it is the actual Word of God.

    what moral standards does it suggest that you disagree with?

  • Mom424

    Alejandro; I agree with DiscHuker, The New Testament has lessons about humility, charity, kindness, and a bunch of other good stuff. I don’t agree that it is the “word of god” it was written by men after all, but that doesn’t mean it to be without moral value. C’mon. Take it back.

  • dann

    hah never knew that the 10 commandments were actually statements and not rules…..hmmm ever watched George Carlin – Defrags the 10 Commandments??

  • Pingback: Na Mosca - Contra Indicado Em Caso De Suspeita de Dengue! » Blog Archive » Top 10: Enganos a Respeito da Bíblia()

  • astraya

    kiwiboi: I can’t see anything in my comment that implied that St Peter’s is a cathedral.
    I misread your comment to mean “St Peter’s is not a cathedral because it’s a basilica”. That does not follow. It is also not what you said.

  • Csimmons

    Wow, no Bible list part II? Shocker.

  • leonbrown

    im to lazy to read the above comments but there is a good one more of a typo than anything, moses never parted the red sea, he parted the reed sea. no lie

  • kiwiboi

    I can’t see anything in my comment that implied that St Peter’s is a cathedral.

    astraya – your words (quoted verbatim from post #192) :

    The cathedral church of the Bishop of Rome (aka the Pope) *isn’t* St Peter’s; it is St John Lateran.

    But, whatever…

    I misread your comment to mean “St Peter’s is not a cathedral because it’s a basilica”. That does not follow. It is also not what you said.

    Ok, if you misread what I wrote, then…fine. I was mystified about where you were seeing a non sequitur; makes a little more sense now.

  • David.Seth

    Do you know what the mark of the beast is?? Do you think it’s 666? If so, then you would be wrong, just like I was (not to mention the thousands of heavy metal bands that affiliate with that number). In 2005, a piece of papyrus with a section of Revelation written on it had the number 616 instead of 666. And it happens to be the earliest the earliest version of Revelation ever discovered.

  • Alejandro

    There is nothing in the Bible about moral character that you can’t find on other books. While Jesus seems like a change from the Old Testament god(s), he still doesn’t reject slavery, racism and other vile things. Worse yet, he introduces hell:
    “It was reserved for the New Testament to make known the frightful doctrine of eternal pain. It was the teacher of universal benevolence who rent the veil between time and eternity, and fixed the horrified gaze of man on the lurid gulfs of hell. Within the breast of non-resistance was coiled the worm that never dies.”
    – Robert Ingersoll

    I agree that we are sometimes harsh on the character of Jesus . If he indeed existed, he was a progressive guy, but he was still a man of his time. His message and ideas were also corrupted later, mostly by Paul.
    I disagree that charity and kindness are such great values, specially when they are ill-defined. If kindness means tolerance but not relativism, then yes, it is a good value. Better than charity is a sound public policy. In a just society (utopic I know) there should be no charity. Humility is at times used as a value against science and knowledge. Doubt and skeptism are better values than humility.

    What I should have said is:
    “The most common Bible misconception has to be the best moral guide.”
    The funny thing is most people don’t really read the Bible, are ignorant of what it says or only read the “good, non-evil” parts. Even so, “just 42% of US Americans could identify him (Jesus) as the person who delivered the Sermon on the Mount” (http://www.theologicalstudies.citymax.com/page/page/1572910.htm

  • listlover

    It’s Revelation…no “S” and The Book of Judas is NOT Christian Literature. It’s bunk.

  • Scuba Steve

    The Bible is in my top 5 favorite works of fiction. Right behind Cat in the hat.

  • kiwiboi

    “The Bible is in my top 5 favorite works of fiction. Right behind Cat in the hat.”

    Gee, Scuba Steve, I’m sure you’ll be able to add to that list when you leave elementary school.

  • Stephen

    the worst misconception must be that some people, quite a lot in fact, believe this collection of books to be the literary truth.

  • tonyoraing

    I think Adam and Eve are not the only first people in the world because if ever they were, then why is it that people in this world have different faces and colors?Actually, I’m a born ROMAN CATHOLIC but honestly I don’t believe the bible because of what the church did in the past oppressing non- Catholics.I do believe that, the bible has plenty of changes just to sway non believers,the same like a recipe, you must have to put more spices just to obtain a tasty result.And also I know Vatican is hiding plenty of things to the people.

  • tonyoraing: I imagine even Adam could get a tan. Why is it so hard to believe that after they were banished that they adapted to their surroundings? Logically speaking.

  • tonyoraing

    crimanon:I’m not a scientist but I don’t agree on you about the adaptation of sorroundings.How could the environment change the physical appearance most especially the face of every race?It’s a little bit funny but I think there were other pairs of adam and eve in every continent respectively.I still believe not all but most of the writings in the bible are just a mere fiction…

  • Africans: larger brows to prevent damage to the eye due to excessive sunlight, same with the skin tone.

    Anglo/caucasian/europeans: Windier conditions, sleek facial structures and facial hair

    Asians: less predominant eyes, another adaptation to sunlight, tighter forest canopy no need for extra hight.

    ___

    there is however something to be said about the numerous creation myths. If it could happen in one place why wouldn’t God plant a few more crops?

  • Mom424

    Crimanon, Tonyoraing; It took humanity a helluva long time to populate the globe. We had plenty of time to adapt to different living conditions. All evidence points to humanity beginning in Africa – no winter. We were probably all black to begin with.

  • Pingback: i r cab » Blog Archive » let this ponder you()

  • Mom:: Why come at me? I never said anything to the contrary. ” All evidence points to humanity beginning in Africa”… Duh. When those scientists “Discovered” this fact, I laughed, I Could’ve told them that

    I was merely making a point about genetic variation and possible reasons why we look the way We do.

  • Mom424

    Crimanon; I wasn’t coming at you. I was making a light-hearted comment. I figured you knew, I just forgot the smiley face :)

  • Mom: Just on the defensive. Way too many people, it seems, have been taking my comments either too seriously or dismissing it entirely without researching. Just grates my nerves that no one else argues all points. Eh, what can ya do?

  • Mom424

    Crimanon; no harm – no foul

  • Rylan

    “Way too many people, it seems, have been taking my comments either too seriously or dismissing it entirely without researching. Just grates my nerves that no one else argues all points. Eh, what can ya do?”

    Pull the plug on your Internet connection. That’s about it. :)

  • Engaging in “Random” acts of violence is nice too. Catch you later, Rylan. ;)

  • Rylan

    Crimanon: Engaging in “Random” acts of violence is nice too. Catch you later, Rylan.

    You might make it onto one of the “most evil” lists with that tactic.

  • Fluffy

    Just reading posts and couldn’t resist an answer to 15.
    I think Herbert is the H in Jesus H Christ

  • Rylan: You’ve got to have something to strive for!

  • Scuba Steve

    Did I offend you kiwiboi? Hmmm, you say I am still in elementary school and you spell “boy” as “boi”? You go read your bible and I’ll read my Cat in the hat. I bet I can pull more facts from mine.

  • Alejandro

    Jesus H. Christ = Jesus Hussein Christ.

  • avi

    15-stands for harold

  • Hellbound Alleee

    I think the biggest misconception about the particular Flood story that people know is that it was constructive in some way.

    Lord, what didst thou accomplish by such an act? I know you felt bad about it, but you could have just started over by clicking your giant fingers or something; then no one would know the difference. You had to know that Noah and his family were already under the curse of original sin, since I heard you knew everything and all. You already knew how faithful and obediant Noah was, too. I have to assume that you knew Noah was into the Drink a bit, and liked to pass out naked, which seems almost like the wickedness that pissed You off in the first place. But, Lord, why did you kill the puppies and the kitties? What did they ever do?

  • DocOnDrugs

    Maybe somebody already said that( i didnt read the whole debate) but Eve was not the first woman , the first was Lilith she later joined with the deamons and stole infants(Lullaby(Lilith-be-gone) was sang to keep her away). After her God created Eve from a part of Adam(he&Lilith were created from mud/clay and given life) to simbolize his dominance over her.(one of the reasons Lilith rebeled was Adam expected the same servitude he later got from Eve)
    Thats no secret btw, its in the bible( old testament)

    Appologies for my english its not my native tongue.

  • DocOnDrugs: that is very interesting, but unfortunately, wrong. The story of Lilith originally comes from Mesopatamian mythology, in which she is a night demon believed to prey upon children. As the story later became incorporated into Jewish legend, Lilith became the runaway wife of Adam who vowed revenge upon the descendants of Adam and Eve. Out of pious superstition, some Jews, past and present, put amulets around the necks of their children to protect the children from Lilith’s murderous designs.

    The Jewish story of Lilith has its roots in the anonymous medieval document The Alphabet of Ben-Sira, some interpret the Bible’s mention of the wife of Adam in the first creation story (Gen. 1) to refer to Lilith and the Bible’s mention of the wife of Adam in the second creation story (Gen. 2) to refer to Eve. Such an interpretation is unsupported by Jewish rabbinic tradition, and can be considered an instance of eisegesis (i.e., reading into Scripture what one wishes to find).

    You may want to read this article on the subject: http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/Shokel/950206_Lilith.html

    That tale is a Jewish superstition of the middle ages.

  • DocOnDrugs

    jfrater:All the stories actually originate from older civilization and their mythology from stories of Eden,The G.Flood(etc) down to the birth(and death) dates of gods(sun-god was supposedly the original,but there are a lot and J.C. is at the back of the list) )It only depends how far back u want to take the argument.

    Since the title is miscoceptions about the Bible i thought it worthy to mention the truth about Eve not being first.I didnt check the Wikipedia before but read it in the old testament(i found it in many other books too) now u decide which interpretation to belive.
    Dont take this the wrong way, i think Wikipedia and such encyclopedias are(limited but) fine, and i suggest reading books to further your knowledge.
    You acuse me of eisegesis yet you apparently belive the site you posted as a reply is the only truth u can find.Always demand more information, brother.

  • DocOnDrugs: the link I posted is from a university article by an expert on the Talmud and Rabbinical studies – you just said you have done no research – just looked in the old Testament. I know which one I will believe :) Additionally, Wikipedia also states that the earliest reference to her being the Wife of Adam is in The Alphabet of Ben-Sira (700-1000 AD). And finally, the only mention of her in the Bible is in Isaiah 34:14 and has no relation to Eden or Adam and Eve. It is a medieval myth that she was the first wife of Adam and it is not supported by the Bible or any texts earlier than the ones I mentioned above.

    It is not a matter of taking an argument further back – this is misconceptions in the Bible – and as I have said, Lilith has one mention and it has no relation to Adam.

  • TeaBug

    It amuses me that some people think Jesus’ middle name is Harold because of “Our Father who art in heaven, Harold be his name” when the saying is actually “Our Father who art in heaven, Hallowed be his name”.

    Just an interesting tidbit, no harm intended.

  • Lini-Oh??

    Wow.. what a broad collection of viewpoints!
    Jfrater: you seem pretty well read and i applaud you for your well researched and presented arguments! Well Done!

    I was baptised a Catholic and for the most part have been trying to lead a good christian life.. i do have a few comments (not that i want others to comment on them, just makes me feel a little better that i have put my two cents in and stood up for my faith).

    Firstly: in direct response to Allredemmeds comments coming in at #100. It seems that most protestants refrain from converting to catholicism through they’re own lack of understanding and knowledge of Catholic teachings. i’m unable to identify any of those statements you made about the catholic church as being correct. If you have something to substaniate the claims, please let me know–i am constantly striving for truth! :o)

    Also.. Hell is not eternal punishment. it is a “place” (or rather, state of being) that is entirely without God. There is nothing worse than this, The decision to choose Hell of Heaven is not to choose the flaming depths over the land of milk and honey, but rather to forsake god.

    In response to Seeker’s comment #130 regarding the IC of Mary: what do you mean it’s not in the Bible? please, if you have drugs.. send them my way!! :)

    excerpt from site: http://www.catholicapologetics.org/aptoc.htm#ap080500
    provides some intereting reading..

    The salutation of the Angel Gabriel is different from the usual angelic greeting. It indicates that Mary was exceptionally “highly favored with grace” (Greek: charitoo, used twice in the New Testament, in Lk 1:28 for Mary – before Christ’s redemption; and Eph 1:6 for Christ’s grace to us – after Christ’s redemption).
    Lk 1:28 And coming to her (Mary), he (the angel Gabriel) said, “Hail, favored one (kecharitomene)”

    Eph 1:4-6 (God) chose us in him (Jesus), before the foundation of the world, to be holy and without blemish before him. In love he destined us for adoption to himself through Jesus Christ, in accord with the favor of his will, for the praise of the glory of his grace (echaritosen) that he granted us in the beloved.
    Note that the angel’s salutation preceded Mary’s acquiescence. Mary was already highly favored. God’s grace was not given in time after Mary accepted the angel’s word. The Church believes that this grace was given from the very beginning of Mary’s life. It is clearly grace because at the time of Mary’s conception she could have done nothing to earn it.

    • I agree. Hell is a state of being. And it is eternal. But only so long as you let it be eternal.

  • TheJakkke

    the term “original sin” is never in the Bible. aside from that note, im surprised “lent is never mentioned in the Bible” isnt on this list. i was expecting it.

  • TheJakke: original sin is a non-Bible doctrine taught by the apostles but not specifically mentioned in their writings in the Bible. Lent also evolved from the same basis – Church Tradition rather than written tradition. Of course, fundamentalists will reject these as they reject all facets of Christianity (including those from the earliest Christians) except those that support their Bible only view of religion.

  • rgrant

    First of all the “Immaculate Conception” of mary is Roman Catholic dogma, even by your own sources.

    their are no Bibles that exist that say Mary was without “Sin” – says she is highly favored ect –
    Luke 1:28-33.

    she was not born through “Immaculate Conception”.

    mary as something “other” than highly favored person of GOD starts with – Archbishop of Canterbury (1033-1109)

    If you pray to mary as some catholics do, You are committing Sin.

  • psychosurfer

    The “forbidden fruit” was clearly a psychoactive substance (maybe a mushroom) which broadened the narrow minds of those two and heightened their conscience to “god levels”. Thats why it was prohibited.
    There´s a lot of interesting research on the subject .

    • Maybe a mushroom, or perhaps just the dawning of self-awareness. It makes perfect sense that it comes along with the punishment of painful childbirth, being that when we suddenly evolved larger brains, we evolved ourselves into a weird area wherein we sacrificed our own safety during childbirth.

  • Pingback: Subnetmask - das Blog » BlogArchiv » Links [27.03.2008]()

  • Pingback: vonFlankenstein.net()

  • Mark

    Here is what is missing.
    1. The Bible is meant to be taken literally.
    2. God wrote the Bible.
    3. The Bible fell out of the sky, ink still wet from God writing it.
    4. The Bible says pi=3.
    5. Jonah is non-fiction.

    I’m a Catholic, by the way.

  • Jules

    I just thought I would add a comment or two to this debate. My understanding and recollection of the Bible and all its works is that the first page has always been mis-interpreted from the original Greek. I am led to believe by several schoalrs that in fact what it shoudl say is;

    “For my darling life partner Hercules and our love slave Norman”

    “All characters, character names and artwork displayed are © of Greek Love Entertainment. The names of all characters are fictitious. Any similarity to a living or dead person(s) is coincidental. Any similarity between the events in the book and real life situations are purely accidental.”

    Also for all of you New Zealanders and Welsh people out there I would like to introduce you to the largest web dating portal catering to your needs.

    http://www.adultsheepfinder.com

  • Pingback: Top 6 Incestuous Relationships In The Bible - Offtopicz()

  • Pingback: Jesus Allah all are equal » Blog Archive » Top 6 Incestuous Relationships In The Bible()

  • Mike

    Very interesting list. I just have one question. For number 8, I pulled up the link and read the passage from the Bible. You are absolutely right about God telling Noah to get 7 of the clean animals. However, in the next section, it say that all the animals, clean and unclean, came in twos. It seems a little unclear. Could you explain this to me?

    Also, I’m glad you pointed out the Mary Magdeline thing. Everybody has been saying that she was a prostitute, but I always wondered where they were getting their information from. Is there some other old text that implies that she was a prostitute? Because it doesn’t say anything like that in the bible.

  • holy cra

    yer it is realy good i like stuf like tis
    ps worship satin

  • McSquida

    Worship satin, holy cra?

    Hilarity. Why would I worship a material?

  • McSquida: hahahahah – brilliant – I didn’t even notice his error. I must confess that occasionally I worship velveteen – but only when it keeps me warm in winter :)

  • Velvet is nicer :-D

  • …..

    there is no god =D
    religion is made up to give bishops and such power over people and to make money… alot of money

  • …..

    cant you see all theses misconception suggest that god is just chinese whisper =D
    people make up things to keep it alive
    buddhism is the only true religion =D
    god killed way too manypeople in the bible than satan did

  • Sophie

    I suggest that everyone here look at these books for yourselves and then pass a judgement one way or the other. The Bible does have gaps in it whether someone believes that or not. The Lord did say that the scribes and pharisees will try to take knowledge away and that YOU on your own will need to seek what was not given to you by them.

    Remember this, people like to blame all of their problems on God and with that they unknownly find aquaintance with satan, fact is if you are angry of have malice in your heart towards God, He that created you, God that is the beginning and the end Alpha and Omega, Father God in heaven the one true God, then satan is with you, and satan really hates you with a passion. He would like to see you lose touch with the Lord and not seek knowledge and would like to see as many people go to the lake of fire with him as he can persuade.

    Oh, satan and his devils and demons are real but because people can’t physically see the spiritual they assume all the evil in the world is, just because, and then when they can’t find the actual reason because they either didn’t know or didn’t want to know they choose to blame God because He is the only one that they can find to blame, after all God has NEVER hidden Himself from anyone, but satan has many times in the past and in the present. Sad very sad.

    http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/apo/index.htm

    http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/fbe/index.htm

    http://www.pseudepigrapha.com/LostBooks/infancyall.htm

    http://www.pseudepigrapha.com/

    http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/pjc/index.htm

    http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/boe/

    • If God is the beginning and the end Alpha and Omega, Am That Am, omnipresent, then he is Satan too, so Satan loves me =)

      • Satan is a created being. God is all that is good – evil is the privation of good.

        • What are you trying to say? That there is no such thing as evil? =) You're on the right track; and Taoism agrees, too. It is ultimately an illusion.

          Unless you're not saying that, and you still identify with ideas of good vs. bad, and think that Satan is evil-and-exempt-from-good, which might be implied here- though you didn't expressly say so- in which case, whatever made you think that created beings are separate from an OMNIpresent creator in Whom all things are One? Remember your etymology.

          How could Satan possibly, possibly be separate from God, if God is real? =)

          Or maybe you mean some third thing… why don't I just let you explain :D

  • Child_Abuser

    im not christian so i aint got much to say.

  • Amanda

    I think people shouldn’t worry so much about the fine text and “gaps” or “misconceptions” about the Bible. You don’t have to be a literature scholar to know right from wrong. If you learn anything from the Bible at all, learn the basics: don’t lie, cheat, steal, hurt, etc. If people had just the basic morals, this world would be in much better shape. I’m not religious anymore, but I admire “Sophie” on comment 250 for standing up to disagree with the majority. That takes some guts :)

  • Parker

    i always thought the imaculate conception was when Jesus was conceved and mary still was able to stay a virgin. atleast thats what they told me in church history… but they also told me that being born was compleatly random and a mistake.. isnt that wonderful?

  • Steve

    to item #10: there are actually 2 versions of the creation story in the bible. The second version is actually the older of the two. There are many differences, including how man was made, how woman was made, and how long God took to make everything. Quite intresting.

    This is also true of the “Christmas Story” (found in primarily in Matthew and Luke). The common version of the story is actually a blending of the two, with many things in one book, and very few things in both books.

  • Steve

    to item #9: the Devil isn’t really a big force in the Torah (Old Testament). He is a big force in the New Testimate, and, as we all know, Rock & Roll.

  • KK

    …. – then what about denominations of the church that don’t use bishops and have a pope and all that jazz?
    That only really is relevant to catholics.

  • Andrew In Essex

    I was expecting the myth that Delilah cut off Samson’s hair; according to the Bible, a servant did it.

  • jussayin

    A lot of these misconceptions come from people trying to dumb down these stories so you can remember them as children, and putting them in books, movie, even teaching it in schools. Because in all truthfulness, the Bible is a long ass boring book filled with big words and contradictions and most people aren’t really feeling that…

    And then people want to believe BS anyway. Like trying to make Mary into a perpetual virgin after giving birth. Even though the Bible says Jesus has brothers and sisters. Even though the woman was married so there would be no reason for her not to be fruitful and multiply like other parts of the Bible encourage….

    If God knows all, why didn’t he know that people would be so ignorant and worse, so content to be ignorant….If this was supposed to be some learning process, it failed. If we are just supposed to suffer, then that sucks.

  • SnarkySallyPantsTheGreat

    There may not be any evidence that blatantly says that she Mary M. was a prostitute, but there are plenty of inferring evidences, especially considering it is widely accepted that Mary of Bethany and Mary of Magdela could be the same person….I prefer to think about her as a reformed hooker.

  • Pingback: Os 10 Maiores Enganos a Respeito da Bíblia | Super Listas - As melhores listas 10, tops e curiosidades()

  • Cybogen

    We must realize this as a reality for the battle of good angels against evil angels is continuously happening though we cannot see it. This is Gods will to save us from the temptations of sin that can lead mankind to the eternal torments of hellfire. The Holy Angels battle against the snare of demons to work at saving our souls for heaven with all their strength. The deciding factor on the victory of good against evil is how we choose to react to tempmtation. My friends please do not be misled that these angels are not for real but they are there and are very strong and indeed working our in our desires and we must pay heed to them through our hearts and conscience to save our souls to the committment of God almighty.

  • a sinner

    A healthy and mutually amicable discussion about the bible is always good as long as we remember that Jeshu’a is the only way to eternal salvation and his followers need to step up their game, so to speak, and make sure we spread the word to everyone as instructed by our Lord and Savior.

  • a sinner

    I know I will get flack for that statement, but I can’t deny what I know, by faith, to be true. Something to think about for unbelievers….What if i am right???

  • Utna

    QUOTE: For those who doubt the fact that changes have not been substantially made, I would suggest a comparison of the Vulgate (5th Century) with the Douay Rheims – Challoner edition (18th Century) which is the official English version of the Catholic Bible. You can find the Vulgate here, and the Douay Rheims here.
    END OF QUOTE

    Hello, as far as I am informed, the Douya Rheims is a translation from the Vulgata – So it is normal, that you will find no difference. As you point to Wikipedia, you will find the first sentences from the following article interersting:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douay-Rheims_Bible

    I would like to show you, that dogmatic christian relevant passages in the bible, are as wrong as possible. NOT by purpose (maybe), not by scribes that copied the bible, but by official jewish translators.

    Matthew 1:18-25 (KJV) is about the announcement of the birth of Jeshua. Important is verse 22+23. Matthew is quoting Isaiah 7:14 as being fulfilled prophesy: “Behold a virgin shall be with child”. You will find by comparing different bible versions, that it says “virgin” some time, some times it is “a young woman”, and in some versions you will find “maid”. This alone is curious, because at least for the roman-catholics it is dogma, that Miriam conceived Jeshua as a virgin and even stayed a virgin after giving birth.
    Now one thing is very clear: Isaiah IS a Jewish source, so it is the first place to look up, what the Tanakh (Jewish Holy Scriptures) tell. Very simple, because the “Old Testament” is not the original source (Of course there is no “original” Tanakh).
    The Tanahk hebrew-english version tells us in Isaiah 7:14 “Look, the young woman is with child”. So, clearly the source tells nothing about a “virgin”; not even, if we read the wohle paragraph. In its context it is not even a prophecy, at least not for some far away future, but for the period of time that King Ahaz of Israel lived.

    So we need to delve deeper. This means, we must check, what the Hebrew says. And this is the word “ALMAH”. You can check this even in Strong’s or Young’s concordance. The Hebrew word for a “virgin”, that is a woman that did “not know a man” – as is quoted by Matthew being also the words of Miriam. This word is “BETHULAH”. “ALMAH” is a description for a period of lifetime in a females life. It expresses the time from her menarche (first menstruation) till the birth of her first child”. If the female would become a nun, she would by this definition be an “ALMAH” her whole life. The word “ALMAH” is found 4 times in the Holy Scriptures, “BETHULAH” is found 50 times in the Holy Scriptures. We don’t have to follow the discussions in the Judaic or Catholic Encyclopedia. Especially the Catholic Encyclopedia tries to explain, that although Isaiah knew the difference between “ALMAH” and “BETHULAH” – because he uses both words – that the fact had to be, that he ment “BETHULAH” nevertheless, because the CE sees Isaiah 7:14 as a prophecy for Jeshua birth. Another question is, why the “prophecy” says, that she would call her son “Immanuel” or “Emmanuel”, but the ANgel in Matthew says they have to call him Jeshua (Jesus) and Josef decided to call him so.

    So, we now have the case, that the quote in Matthew does NOT correspond with Isaiah. So we still have to delve deeper.
    We would expect the person, that wrote the Gospel of Matthew (it was NOT the apostle Matthew), to have double-checked before he wrote this passage. But we should remember, that the Gospel of Matthew was NOT written at Jeshuas life time, but some time after the destruction of Jerusalem, so at least 40 years after Jeshua died.
    So what sources could the author of Matthew have read? The Scrolls in the synagogue, the epistles by Paul, because all epistles were written before Paul died in Rome in 62 BC. BUT there was another source: The Septuagint. And now the big shock comes. In 250 BC 72 (not 70) interpreters did translate the hebrew Holy Scriptures into “KOIN Greek”. And at the point, where they had to translate Isaiah 7:14 they had a problem. There is NO greek word for “ALMAH”!! In 250BC there was no dogmatic problem available. For jewish believers there was not such a thing as “virgin birth”. In the neighbour countries, the “Gentiles”, they had many Gods and Saviours, that were born by virgin mothers, like Mithra, Dionysios, and others. Different sources give you 16 to 32 “virgin births of sons of Gods”.
    So, the interpreters may have said, that a female that conceives her first child is a “Bethulah” till that moment, and the took the greek word for “BETHULAH”, which is “PARTHENOS”.
    And that is the way, that an “young woman” became a “virgin”.

    This makes clear that the author of Matthew used the greek Septuagint and NOT the hebrew Holy Scriptures. One can conclude, that this author may have been unable to read hebrew, which was at that time already a “dead language”.

    So, this is the story how a simple jewish girl called Miriam became a (perpetual – roman catholic dogma) virgin, that conceived by the Holy Ghost, and became – many years later – the mother of the Son of God, Jesus.

  • his biggest role happens to be in the Book of Job, where it’s not even clear that he’s supposed to be evil. It wasn’t until the New Testament that he was identified as the ultimate evil, and even then he was mostly confined to the Revelation.

  • Jack MF

    Although the bible has not been fully rewritten to suit the 'editor'. It has been translated many times; causing lots of differences from the original. For example the 'thou shall not commit adultery' commandment is a mistranslation from a word that meant you should not 'give your self selfishly' in Latin.

  • alex

    I think it's interesting how Paul, who never met Jesus and used to be opposed to Christianity, wrote the majority of the new testament.

  • lmoreno

    9. Devilish Serpent

    The serpent in Genesis IS in fact Satan the Devil.

    "And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, call the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him." -Revelation 12:9 (KJV)

  • Great job! Though, prodigal originally only meant something "driven away", in Latin. I suppose the son could have driven himself away? And all of his earthly wealth. Perhaps the priests meant to make a pun? The luxuriant, wasteful, driven-away son… though, of course, this word doesn't appear in the Bible anyway.

  • a son of YAHWEH

    The writer of this article is no better than those who attempted to change the scriptures. On the subject of "changing text" the writer of the article failed to disclose that in fact the HOLY and ONE TRUE name of GOD is YAHWEH, (YHWH) in Hebrew spelled YOD, HE, WAV, HE does not appear in the Vulgate nor Douay Rheim. In fact to use the name jesus or any name beginning with the letter "j" JAY is in grave error. Because the letter J did not come into existence until 1400's and was used in print for the first time in the 1600's. WOW! SHEESH! If you are going to do an article about misconception of the Bible don't create further misconceptions by stating half truths.

  • o3_

    Hum.
    I see the biggest misconception was left out of the list.

  • J. Methvin

    The Bible states that the animals went into the ark two by two, the male and his female. If there were seven clean males then there had to be seven females. That means four unclean and fourteen clean animals.

  • JRJ

    What about the translation from Hebrew. Adamane not adam

  • choptop

    #10- They believe it was a fig since that's the only thing there was proof of in the garden.

    • Jay

      PROOF?

  • Pingback: Why does Islam portray women as inferior? - Page 7 - Christian Forums()

  • Dan

    Are there other sources besides Wikipedia?

  • KingslaveofAllah

    If Bible is not Corrupted then why Today Bible available in Church is not similar to 1600 yrs old bible .

    http://islamgreatreligion.wordpress.com/2011/02/08/oldest-bible-goes-online-which-one-is-original/

  • James

    Unfortunately your corrections of the misconceptions contain at least two errors:

    First, #9 Devilish Serpent
    You are correct that Genesis does not refer to the serpent as Satan, or the Devil, but you are wrong to say that it is a misconception that the Bible supports that belief. Several other places in the Bible connect the devil to the serpent, perhaps most notably Revelation 12:9, where several aliases for the devil are listed together: the great dragon, the ancient (or “original” in some translations) serpent, devil, or Satan. Also, the devil is repeatedly referred to by terms that would link him to lying serpent: the father of the lie, the adversary, etc. While you may not accept (what appears to be the overwhelming) evidence for this position, at best, it is incorrect to refer to the position as a misconception.

    Second, #8 Noah’s Ark
    The Bible _does_ , in fact, tell us that Noah _was_ instructed to take the animals into the ark in twos. The Bible gives us two descriptions of these instructions that differ slightly. The first record of the instructions occurs not in Genesis 7, which you cite, but in Genesis 6, in verses 18-20, which clearly state that Noah was to take “two of every kind of animal.” No difference in the requisite quantity for clean or unclean animals is recorded here. The second record of the instructions occurs in the passages you cite, in chapter 7. But you made a minor mistake or omission in your representation of these verses. Chapter 7 clearly indicates that it is not 7 _individuals_, but 7 _pairs_ that are to be taken of every clean animal, and 1 pair of every unclean animal. In both cases, then, the animals were to be taken in pairs, or couples, male and female; the second account simply further details that there were to be 7 pairs of clean animals. This makes sense, because presumably the reason to have pairs would be for the sake of procreation of the animals (note that there were 4 pairs of humans) and people would be allowed to begin eating meat after the flood, but only the meat from “clean” animals, which would require greater numbers.

  • BARBARA

    LORD HELP US .WHEN SATAN USE’S PEOPLE TO SPREAD A LIE THAT MARY WAS SINLESS .THEIR WAS ONLY ONE PERSON THAT WAS SINLESS AND THAT WAS JESUS CHRIST . I DONT KNOW WHAT BIBLE THOSE PEOPLE ARE USING. AND GOD WORD SAYS THE ANIMALS CAME TWO BY TWO NOT SEVEN BY SEVEN .BUNCH OF LIARS EXCUSE ME FOR THAT TONE . THE POST ON THE BIBLE THAT I JUST READ WAS’T TRUTH IT WAS GIVEN STRAIGHT FROM THE MAN DOWNSTAIRS AND GOD DONT LIVE DOWNSTAIRS . SATAN DOES .AND GOD CHILDREN NO THAT .BUT THATS OK THEY WILL STAND BEFORE CHRIST AND HIS FATHER ONEDAY TO GIVE ACCOUNT OF CHANGING GODS WORD. AND GOD HOLY BIBLE SAYS HE WILL PUNISH THOSE THAT CHANGE HIS WORDS . AMEN . PLEASE PEOPLE DONT LISTEN TO SUCH GARBAGE AND LIES ITS NOT TRUTH .JESUS WAS’NT BORN ON CHRISTMAS SO WHAT .ITS OK TO CELEBRATE THE KINGS OF KING BIRTHDAY. THEY HAVE SATAN A DAY .NO ONE COMPLAINS ABOUT THAT DO THEY. BLESSED BE THE NAME OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST . .OK HAVE A BLESSED DAY TO MY SISTER’S AND BROTHER’S IN CHRIST AND TO THOSE WHO DONT BELIEVE IN THE LORD JESUS HAVE A BLESSED DAY ANYWAY. GOD’S WORD SAYS THAT EVERYONE’S A SIN .AND IF YOU SAY THAT YOUR NOT IT SAYS YOUR A LIAR.. .

  • roro

    who ever wrote this is terrible and is wanting ppl to turn away….the concept of 10 commandments is given in the pentetuche one by one and jesus is born without sin just like isaih said he would be; u seemed to have missed that part:) and the rest is seriously not worth mentioning bcos you really dint do a good job……..not going to apologise…

  • Pingback: Top 6 Incestuous Relationships In The Bible - sex is NOT badwhat does sex means to you? » sex is NOT bad()

  • ajb

    One thing I find interesting is that some Bible translations include an actual name for God, while others substitute titles like Lord. (Check Psalm 83:18, for example.)

  • Cool.

  • Elfeujun M. Sampaga

    The serpent mentioned in Genesis 3 is Satan, He entered the body of that serpent that deceived Eve. In Revelation 12:9 and 20:2 says that the serpent is called “the devil and Satan.”

    In John 8:44, Jesus told the false religionists, “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.” The beginning of which Jesus is speaking cannot refer to the beginning of God who had no beginning, and does not refer to the beginning of Satan since Ezekiel 28:15 says of Satan, “Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee” (thus indicating that Satan was not a sinner from the very beginning of his having been created). Jesus can only be referring to the same beginning of which Genesis speaks. It is the beginning of this universe; the beginning of the heavens and the earth and the human race. Satan was a liar from that beginning.

    In I John 3:8, the Apostle adds to this when he writes, “for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.” Here the Bible puts this beginning in the era of man and this creation for it is here that the Son of God was manifested.

    And then, Ezekiel 28:13 says of Satan, “Thou hast been in Eden the Garden of God,” although this may be referring to a happier time with Satan before his fall, somewhere else in a blissful place with God before the creations of the heavens and the earth. What does Historic Christian Orthodoxy make of these Scriptures?

    Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/1827464

  • Roger H Lucas.

    True, but many think it (Revelation) was given to John by Jesus, some an Angel(one did”send”-cause it to go as opposed to deliver – and” signified it” -express/mark it as important. Did you know it was given – spoken – to John by a dead early church believer,(Rev 19:10.) if having the testimony of Jesus means being killed for your witness then he was a martyr.

    God gave it to Jesus (“him” v.1 “to show unto his servants” those who believe and are followers but not as yet friends knowing what the Father is going to do next. I am as I type recalling John 15 which caused those words to flow out like that(all of it memorized years ago thank goodness)

    :15.”henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth” this was the disciples knowing what He’d been told up to that point by His Father in regard to what was going to happen at that time.”…for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.”

    God gave it to Jesus who gave it to an Angel who gave it to a dead man who gave it to John-who was not only his ” fellowservant ” but also of the dead mans ” brethren” Rev 19:10.

    As to Jesus being seated at the right hand of god, do you know He’s not always?

    The prospect of the alternative is wonderful for us who are ready for it,and truly spine tingling. Seek and you will find it.

  • Pingback: Tree of Life()

  • Pingback: 10 Biblical Facts That Everyone Gets Wrong « mbakniera()

  • islam religion belief

    the truth will be get by people that look for it.
    islam religion belief

  • Koko

    It’s kind of interested that you left out the fact that there were actually two trees in Garden Eden. One of Knowledge and the other one was the tree of Good and Bad .)

  • Kepha

    Actually, the books Protestants removed were from the Old, not the New Testament. The same 27 books of the New Testament recognized by Rome are recognized by all Protestants.

    And, by the way, Hieronymus, who gave us the Vulgate Latin version, also thought the apocryphal books were of a lesser status.

  • Mr.Cool

    In relation to the clean and unclean animals in Noah’s ark, it’s a major flaw in the bible, what animals are clean and unclean was only set out in the
    Mosaic laws later on!

  • Scholar

    Just an FYI, #2 is way off. Yes, Constantine didn’t define the canon himself (he couldn’t have cared less about what it actually said), but he was the driving force behind it. He put his main religion fellow, Eusebius, on a mission to find a definitive text that he could place throughout all the churches, for political unification purposes. This text didnt exist, so he surveyed the churches to find a general consensus (which did not include Revelation! Constantine, alone, is the reason Revelation was included.. He liked it). The idea that there was already a “definitive canon” is simply not true, and it’s just absurd to say it was so in the early second century. That was absolutely not the case at all.. In fact, apart from Eusebius’ primary list of Scripture that was eventually “canonized,” there didn’t emerge a “definitive canon” until somewhere around the 7th century. Early Christians did not share the same understanding as Greco-Romans when it came to uniformity, so they had no business desiring a “canon” of Scripture. That was done because of a cultural infusion and political maneuvering, very much at the hand of Constantine.

    See:
    Constantine’s Bible – David Dungan;
    The Biblical Canon – LM McDonald.

  • ava wilson

    i is a self diagnose moron buts agrees wit u

  • ava wilson

    I agrees with alls of yous. I am a self diagnose asspbugers moron with no high school deploma. I hate christiuns and take every oppupptunity to show it. Why do i have all dese lines under my words?
    I do not wurk and live off the governement. i spend all my time on the computer and i am all dat.
    if u have a problem i work as da supu moderater at the compassion pit. i can lissen to you and help you wif your problums.
    come see me here. http://www.compassionpit.com/forum/member.php?u=4209

  • BreakingDawn

    You forgot the biggest misconception…that we should take the bible seriously and not like a giant work of fiction that it is. Of course religious zealots who take this seriously might get angry…

  • mac

    listen only to the word of GOD. read the KJV only. stay away from newer copies. i love GOD with all my heart.

  • Ewok

    Genesis 7:2-3 “Of every clean beast you will take seven males and seven females and of the beasts which are not clean, two, the male and his female; and of the birds of the air, seven males and seven females, so that their seed may still be living on the face of the earth.” (Bible in Basic English) you have written ‘all clean animals went in groups of seven and unclean animals in groups of two’ it should read either ‘all clean animals went in groups of fourteen and unclean animals in groups of two’ or ‘all clean animals went in pairs of seven and unclean animals in a pair’.

    • R.H.Lucas.

      Very well observed, it just goes to show again that it’s humans that err but the Word is correct with instructions that by there very nature show that there must be a reason unknow to us at present. Why this, why that?
      Only those in the know can explain and when it’s mans instruction rather than Gods there is often no time or need to explain, especially to those whose minds are not excercised enough to work things out.
      Hence endless fruitless debating and “striving about words to no effect.”

      An example is the specific instruction to circumcise male children on the eighth day – now known “medically” to be a unique day on which the blood clots faster in the developing body than at any other time.

  • Where in the bible does it say that clean animals entered the Ark in groups of seven? Another misconception is that the bible is the word of God….Come on people, get a clue…Every religion makes that claim of their holy book…The bible is a work of fiction sold by the Cathodick Church.

  • Rastus79

    Aside from the removal of a number of books in the 16th Century, the text of the books that now comprise the full canon of the Bible, is essentially the same now as it was in the 2nd century……I think this depends on what literature you look up and study,many hundred of years will always distorte some if not alot of the text and intrepetation,remember these writings were based on outlooks prior to the scientific age,just my opinion

  • Rastus79

    Kreachure I think hit the nail,several hundred years always distorts translation,even with the best of intentions

  • Jon K.

    great list. God bless and btw you know your stuff.

  • Bianca

    Everyone knows about the Immaculate Conception and Mary Magdalene. What’s so new about them -.-? Maybe this is from your experience, but it doesn’t apply to everyone. You can rarely find a Catholic or Christian who would confuse the Immaculate Conception and Mary Magdalene. Also, other facts here are not even trivias or news -.- They’re known throughout the world of Christianity.

  • Pingback: The Garden of Eden: or Why They Didn’t Actually Eat the Apple | Torture()

  • Pingback: 10 Deleted Chapters that Transformed Famous Books | Viral KittyCat()

  • Pingback: Top 10 Misconceptions About The Bible — axel2s WordPress()

  • Pingback: 10 Biblical Facts That Everyone Gets Wrong | WoWthology()

  • Pingback: The Garden of Eden: or Why They Didn’t Actually Eat the Apple | Overboard()

  • Pingback: 10 Ways to Read and Understand the Bible - poweringrace()

  • Pingback: The Garden of Eden: or Why They Didn’t Actually Eat the Apple | Busy Mums Magazine()

  • Pingback: The Garden of Eden: or Why They Didn’t Actually Eat the Apple – Busy Mum's Magazine()

  • Pingback: 10 Biblical Facts That Everyone Gets Wrong – Para-SciFi()

  • Pingback: Top 10 Misconceptions About The Bible | Civil Attorney Team()