Results 1 - 6 of 6
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Empty tomb, but witnesses didn't tell? | Mark 16:8 | katrjohnson | 85291 | ||
Hi "Mark", To tell you the truth, it is discrepencies like the different versions of the women at the tomb that make me wonder whether all of the New Testament is inspired. These are accounts written by human beings and just like 4 different people witnessing an automobile accident, you get four different views that don't always mesh on every detail. Yet part of me thinks that if every word were inspired then there would be no dicrepencies. That is why I think one must read the New Testament with the understanding of the Holy Spirit. Jesus stated in John 14:26, "But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you." I think that means we are to always pray for the Holy Spirit to give us understanding, and that the little discrepencies do not matter in light of this. I do believe that every word of the Old Testament is inspired. I have heard some say that you are to read the Old Testament in light of what the New Testament teaches, but I believe just the opposite. I think you should have a good understanding of the Old Testament and read the New with the aide of the Holy Spirit and in light of what the Old Testament says. God bless, Kat |
||||||
2 | Empty tomb, but witnesses didn't tell? | Mark 16:8 | Radioman2 | 85303 | ||
Contradictions in the New Testament? "It is discrepancies like the different versions of the women at the tomb that make me wonder whether all of the New Testament is inspired," writes one forum user. Internal Textual Contradictions In his book, "Jesus: The Evidence", British journalist Ian 'Wilson’s text is peppered throughout with casual references to internal contradictions in the New Testament. All of these “contradictions” (and hundreds more) have been answered by many excellent Bible scholars, both contemporary and in the past. I refer the interested reader especially to the 1874 classic An Examination of the Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible by John W. Haley (reprinted by Baker), or to the recent Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties by Gleason L. Archer (Zondervan). 'One example Wilson gives of internal contradictions concerns the nativity of our Lord. Wilson lists three important “contradictions” between Matthew’s and Luke’s accounts: 1) In Matthew, the announcement of Jesus’ birth is given to Joseph; in Luke, it is given to Mary. 2) In Matthew, Joseph and Mary live in Bethlehem and leave only when Herod begins the slaughter of the innocents; in Luke, Mary and Joseph leave their home in Nazareth and travel to Bethlehem for the census. 3) The genealogies in Matthew and Luke contain a number of different names; most difficult is the fact that in Matthew Joseph’s father is called Jacob, whereas in Luke his father is called Heli.7 Pages have been written by a variety of scholars answering the above objections, so I will comment here only briefly. '1) Luke does not state that the angel told Mary and that no one told Joseph. Matthew does not state that the angel told Joseph and that no one told Mary. In fact, Matthew assumes that Joseph already knew about Mary’s pregnancy before his dream, since he records Joseph as having already decided to divorce Mary quietly for her “indiscretion” before the angel explained to him the true nature of the conception. Far from contradicting each other, Matthew and Luke complement each other. '2) Matthew does not say that Mary and Joseph lived in Bethlehem before Jesus’ birth. He merely states that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, and that the family lived in a house there at the time the magi came. Luke begins his story earlier than does Matthew, explaining how Mary and Joseph came to be in Bethlehem for Jesus’ birth. While Luke gives more information about the time before Jesus’ birth, he does not mention the escape to Egypt after the birth. For this we have Matthew’s account. Again, far from contradicting each other, the two accounts complement each other. '3) The two genealogies of Jesus do not contradict each other. For something to be a contradiction, there cannot be any possible reconciliation. Several viable explanations are possible, such as this one suggested by Gleason L. Archer: 'Matthew 1:1-16 gives the genealogy of Jesus through Joseph, who was himself a descendant of King David. As Joseph’s adopted Son, Jesus became his legal heir, so far as his inheritance was concerned.... 'Luke 3:23-28, on the other hand, seems to record the genealogical line of Mary herself.... This seems to be implied by the wording of v. 23: “Jesus. . . being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph? Jesus was not really the biological son of Joseph,. . . Mary. . . must of necessity have been the sole human parent through whom Jesus could have descended from a line of ancestors. Her genealogy is thereupon listed, starting with Heli, who was actually Joseph’s father-in-law, in contradistinction to Joseph’s own father, Jacob (Matt. 1:16.... Therefore Jesus was descended from David naturally through Nathan and legally through Solomon.8 'We find, then, that each of the three “contradictions” raised by Wilson are not contradictions at all. The same is true of the other internal problems Wilson raises.' To read more go to: (http://www.equip.org/free/DJ025.htm) |
||||||
3 | The "short " ending of Mark? | Mark 16:8 | Just Read Mark | 85311 | ||
Ending of Mark. Thanks Radioman. Most of the "contradictions" you mention have not bothered me, for the reasons you state. But the explanation of the gospel genealogies is VERY interesting -- thanks. I wonder what you think about the question I raised at the start of the thread? Really, there are three elements to the question. 1) how can this gospel account be read in harmony with the others (as historical accounts)? 2) in terms of the message the gospel contains (as a narrative), why would so many copies end with the bleak ending? 3) what do you make of the textual authority of the longer versions? (After all, we hold the "original autographs" to be authoritative, no?) Yours JRM |
||||||
4 | The "short " ending of Mark? | Mark 16:8 | Pastor Glenn | 85329 | ||
JRM, I wanted to address your points. 1) how can this gospel account be read in harmony with the others (as historical accounts)? Verses 9-20 of Mark 16 are bracketed in NU-Text as not original. They are lacking in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, although nearly all the other manuscripts of Mark contain them. (NU-Text These variations from the traditional text generally represent the Alexandrian or Egyptian type of text, as found in the twenty-sixth edition of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament (N) and the United Bible Societies' third edition (U), hence the acronym, "NU-Text".) The above information is from my study bible. (Life Application Bible, Tyndale) I admit that there are definite differences between the four Gospel accounts. But, these differences enhance the truth of the heart of the story: Jesus rose from the grave and showed Himself alive to many witnesses. If the accounts were too much alike the skeptics would say "collusion"! 2) in terms of the message the gospel contains (as a narrative), why would so many copies end with the bleak ending? "bleak"??? The man who was called the Messiah, Christ, the Holy one of Israel had just risen from the dead! What do you see as bleak? 3) what do you make of the textual authority of the longer versions? (After all, we hold the "original autographs" to be authoritative, no?) As long as we are made aware of the longer and shorter versions we can have a better view of the entire story. We still do not know whether the original secretary returned to finish the job or what. I also like to see italic words that were not in original so that we are free to compare the meaning of verses after praying. Notice also how Nicodemus (John 3) did not understand the concept of being born again after studying and memorizing the scriptures all his life from the original Hebrew documents. Scripture also speaks of those that are dull of hearing and seeing. We must deal with the glaring imperfections in our hearts before we can really understand God's word. John 3:9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be? John 3:10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things? John 3:11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness. John 3:12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things? Matthew 13:15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. Acts 28:27 For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. Hebrews 5:11 Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing. There is more manuscript support for the New Testament than for any other body of ancient literature. Over five thousand Greek, eight thousand Latin, and many more manuscripts in other languages attest to the integrity of the new testament. Pastor Glenn |
||||||
5 | The "short " ending of Mark? | Mark 16:8 | Just Read Mark | 85386 | ||
As Narrative. Thanks, Pastor Glen (and Radioman, 2). Let me clarify this aspect of my question. I used the word "bleak" simply because the very last words of the shorter version has the women confused, afraid, and silent. This is bleak, compared to the resounding proclamation of good news we find in the other gospels. The notes in my Bibles (NIV and NRSV) say something like: "The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have the longer ending..." In many other manuscripts, the ending is there, but is marked as questionable. So, assuming the accounts can be harmonized historically (which I believe they can) -- my question is not "Did Jesus really rise?" or "Did the women eventually get over their shock and spread the news?" My question is: what was THIS Gospel trying to say, by ending in such an abrupt and shocking way? I believe, in reading the gospels, we need to pay attention to the structure (what comes after what, the sequence of stories, etc...) So, somehow, this ending carries some meaning. So, any suggestions? Yours JRM PS. -- I, too, am appreciative of the longer ending. I am glad to be able to read it, and acknowledge the wisdom in it -- even if it seems to be a later addition. (I think those "snake handler" churches might have some re-thinking to do, however.) I am not seeking to throw passages out of the Bible. |
||||||
6 | The "short " ending of Mark? | Mark 16:8 | Pastor Glenn | 85440 | ||
JRM, The accepted key verse of the entire book of Mark is: 10:45 For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. Christ's servanthood had been accomplished and Mark had shown this. While this was the first Gospel written, the full story was well known from the testimony of many living witnesses, including these same women of Mark 16. First Corinthians has the full resurrection story and was already written even before this gospel: 1Co 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 1Co 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 1Co 15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: 1Co 15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. 1Co 15:7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. 1Co 15:8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. 1Co 15:9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. Writing books was not cheap or easy even for a hand written copy. Paul shows how much he valued the books and parchments: 2Ti 4:11 Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry. 2Ti 4:12 And Tychicus have I sent to Ephesus. 2Ti 4:13 The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments. This also shows that Mark was around a long time. There was plenty time to publish an update of his Gospel and there is nothing wrong with that, so I would not discredit the long version. As for the snake handlers, they should do some rethinking whether or not they accept the long version of Mark. However, they still have similar scripture in Luke 10. Pastor Glenn |
||||||