Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Torn veil of Mat 15.38 the literal veil? | Matthew | ThuggishSplicer | 212696 | ||
... | ||||||
2 | Torn veil of Mat 15.38 the literal veil? | Matthew | Morant61 | 212705 | ||
Greetings Thuggish! Here is the actual text of the two passages. Matt. 27:50 - "50 And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit. 51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split." Luke 27:44 - "It was now about the sixth hour, and darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour, 45 for the sun stopped shining. And the curtain of the temple was torn in two. 46 Jesus called out with a loud voice, ‘‘Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.”" Matthew is the only text which gives a definitive chronological statement. He says that at the moment Jesus gave us the Spirit, the curtain was torn. Luke does not give a clear chronological connection between his two statements. In what possible way is this a contradiction? It would only be a contradiction (by definition), if Luke were to say specifically that the curtain was torn 'before' Jesus gave up the Spirit. He does not say that, so it is not a contradiction. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
3 | Torn veil of Mat 15.38 the literal veil? | Matthew | ThuggishSplicer | 212707 | ||
... | ||||||
4 | Torn veil of Mat 15.38 the literal veil? | Matthew | Morant61 | 212710 | ||
Greetings Thuggish! Thanks for the response! Allow me to touch upon your points! 1) You are exactly correct about my logic. One cannot simply assume that statements are necessarily chronological based upon their order of occurrence. Suppose someone was describing the infamous events of 9 11. They might say: People died! Buildings fell! Terror rained from the sky! Nothing in this text would mandate that these events are being listed in chronological order. In the same way, one cannot assume that Luke's statement are meant to be chronological. 2) You have a point here! I was in a hurry and just consulted the NIV. The Greek says, 'and behold'. This phrase doesn't necessarily indicate chronology, but it could and most translations reflect this point. However, let's assume that 'and behold' is not meant to be taken chronologically. This would only strengthen my argument. :) 3) This is an example of what I call 'hyper-criticism'. Why would it be an inconsistency for two different authors to write their narratives in their own unique manner? Must each writer list every detail in exactly the same order, using exactly the same words, mentioning exactly the same details? If you were to describe an event, you would most likely describe it very differently than would I. Say that the letters A B C D E and F all represent events which took place on a certain occasion. One writer describes A B C D E and F. One writer describes A D and E. Another writer describes only F. Another writer describes F and A. These are all consistent and non-contradictory accounts. It would be hyper-criticism to expect each writer to mention A B C D E and F and only in that order. Yet, this is what people do to the Bible all the time, and then they try to claim that the differences in detail represent a contradiction. 3a) I could not follow the logic of your last line. Why would we not be able to touch the Bible if it is infallible? Have a great day! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||