Results 1 - 7 of 7
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Mathew,Mark,luke which written 1st | NT general Archive 1 | MJH | 177163 | ||
Most consider Mark first, but I personally subscribe to Matthew being first and orginally written in Hebrew, not Greek. Either way, there is strong evidence for an earlier writting no longer in existance that predates Mark, Matthew, and Luke. Some call this "Q". Luke was obviously not first since he says so in the first verse. A good read is, "Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus" which is a short book but very insightful and does deal some with this topic. MJH |
||||||
2 | MJH: Matthew in Hebrew and "Q" Document? | NT general Archive 1 | Hank | 177165 | ||
Good evening, MJH. What credible evidence do you have (1) that Matthew was the first Gospel written and that it was originally written in Hebrew; and (2) that a "Q" (from German Quelle: source) document ever existed? --Hank | ||||||
3 | MJH: Matthew in Hebrew and "Q" Document? | NT general Archive 1 | MJH | 177173 | ||
Matthew being first, I don't recall at hand and it's too late to think that hard, plus I really don't care if Matthew or Mark was first right now. Sorry. Originally in Hebrew. Again, there is not credible evidence other than looking at how the Greek is written and linguistically it seems likely to have been written in Hebrew first. Also, the evidence that Hebrew was the common spoken language of the people in the Galil is so over whelming that it baffles the mind that anyone would think otherwise. Every form of evidence favors Hebrew as the spoken language, and yet since Aramaic was also spoken and since the Jews were in captivity in Arabic speaking nations, most pastors still hold to the Arabic language as the common tongue. Given that theory, then in 2000 years the historians then will claim that the people living in Israel now are speaking anything but Hebrew. After all, they were spread all over the globe among other languages for not 70 or 400 years, but 1,900 years! They couldn't have preserved their language no matter what Archeology and the written texts from the time show. Right? Sorry for the sarcasm, but this topic with me on this forum is getting too old and I am in the minority still. Oh well, I still love all you people who are wrong. hee hee. The 'Q' is just a theory that people have of which I do not have any opinion on. I only tossed it out there for information...that some believe. Sorry Hank, I could go into the Matthew being in Hebrew and being first, but I just don't have the energy right now. MJH |
||||||
4 | MJH: Matthew in Hebrew and "Q" Document? | NT general Archive 1 | Hank | 177175 | ||
MJH - Well, it is interesting to say the least that you downgrade the "Q" document issue from "strong evidence" in your initial post on the subject to "theory" in your second post. At least we seem to be progressing toward a more accurate representation of the matter :-) --Hank | ||||||
5 | MJH: Matthew in Hebrew and "Q" Document? | NT general Archive 1 | MJH | 177185 | ||
Well, actually "strong evidence" and "theory" are the same thing. A theory is something that can not be "proofed" but there is a lot of evidence to support the idea. I do think there is strong evidence to support a 'Q' of some sort, if not in writting, then certainly in oral transmision. But it is still just a theory. MJH |
||||||
6 | MJH: Matthew in Hebrew and "Q" Document? | NT general Archive 1 | Hank | 177190 | ||
MJH - I disagree that "strong evidence and theory are the same thing." They are no more the same thing than hearsay and heresy. I give you a case in point. The "theory" of evolution has never been able to present "strong evidence" that it is valid. Theories are theories, that and nothing more; but strong evidence is something else. Mere theories don't carry weight in a court of law but strong evidence certainly does. Strong evidence has substance; it is something you can sink your teeth into. Theory is really nothing more than opinion, and even though in some instances it may be "educated" opinion, it is nevertheless opinion. Theories that are postulated before all the pertinent facts are in are merely assumptions. --Hank | ||||||
7 | MJH: Matthew in Hebrew and "Q" Document? | NT general Archive 1 | kalos | 177220 | ||
Hank, Another example of an unsupported theory is this: "strong evidence and theory are the same thing". Grace to you, John |
||||||