Interpret literally? I find it hard.

Nobby · Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2003 9:58 am Post subject:

Just A thought about your witnesses & the bank robbers. They may have been standing it different areas Therefore seeing somethinge entirely different. One may have seen the getaway car moving slowly down 3rd St. The other may have been in a position to see the car turn the corner & speed down Oak Street! Wink

_________________
Much Love Nobby
CVP Smilies
dictionary Bible

mijt1 · Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2003 10:33 am Post subject:

mijt1,

I am most definitely and sincerely interested in hearing what convinces you the Bible is the
word of God.

Eddy
I misunderstood at first Eddy, I thought you were someone who didn’t believe in the bible until you made it clear that you do. I doubt I can tell you anything about the bible you dont know already but I’ll tell what convinced me anyway.

One of the first books I studied with Jehovah’s witnesses was called The Bible, God’s Word Or Mans? I learnt ever such a lot from this book.
First that the Bible is made up off 66 books written by 40 men over a period of 1600 years.

These men were of totally different backgrounds, from Fishermen to Kings. The world that Moses knew would have been totally different from that of the Apostle John and yet this book follows one harmonious theme from genesis to revelation. The vindication of god’s
sovereignty by means of God’s kingdom. What is also amazing about this harmony is that some bible writers admitted they did not understand what they were writing about. Daniel and John for instance.

It’s a miracle that the bible survived ar all. The churches, being used by Satan did everything they could to stop the bible being available to ordinary people. People were burned at the stake for even owning a bible. Bible translation into other languages was strictly forbiden.
Hundereds of thousands of bibles were burned by the clergy eager to stop it getting into the hands of the people. Despite this the bible is an all time best seller available to 98 per cent of
the population.

The bible doesn’t claim to be a science text book but when it does touch on science it is acurate. In fairly recent history it was thought the earth was flat and rested on an the back of a tortoise or whatever. Job 26:7 says God is hanging the earth upon nothing. Isaiah 40:22
says “There is one dwelling above the circle of the earth”

Then there are bible prophecies. Some for our time , some ancient that have been fulfilled. The destruction of Babylon, Tyre, Jerusalem etc. I have more information on these prophecies if you want it.The prophecies of revelation are fascinating. (Although christendom doesn’t agree with the JW interpretation of these prophecies) The emergence
of the Anglo American world power, and the United Nations etc.

I dont know if you are familiar with the first prophecy in the bible? Genessis 3:15 . I find it amazing that this prophecy that sets the theme of the bible can flow harmoniously through a book written by 40 men over a period of 1600 years.

If you want me to continue I will but I dont want to bore you if you are already familiar with it.

Eddy Tiner · Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2003 1:17 pm Post subject:

Van · Posted: Sat Dec 20, 2003 1:29 pm Post subject:

Atheists assert that the Gospel accounts cannot be reconciled or harmonized without making unreasonable assumptions. But upon closer inspection, most if not all of the alleged “disagreements” are not in the text but in the skeptic’s interpretation. For example:

Who carried the cross to the place of execution? Matthew, Mark and Luke say Simon, but John says Jesus. But is this what the text says? No. John says that Jesus started to carry the cross (probably the cross piece, light enough to carry if you have not been beaten to a bloody pulp) to the destination. It does not say He arrived at the place of execution still carrying the cross. So it seems a manufactured disagreement to support the contention that the bible is unreliable.

What were the exact words on the sign about Jesus head?
Mark, “The King of the Jews”
Matthew, “This is Jesus The King of the Jews”
Luke, “This is the King of the Jews
John, “Jesus the Nazarene the King of the Jews.”

But do any of the Gospels say that there account is exclusive, or could other words be on the sign? Note that Mark says “the king of the Jews, Luke adds, this is and Matthew adds Jesus, and John drops “this is” and adds the Nazarene. So if the sign read, “This is Jesus the Nazarene the King of the Jews”, then all four accounts would be in agreement. So it seems that the accounts of the inscription are not necessarily in disagreement, just differing based on what the author chose to include. Mark says the charge against him (Jesus) included the inscription “the king of the Jews”, but does not rule out the possibility that the inscription included some reference to Jesus (i.e. Jesus, or this is, or Jesus the Nazarene or a combination thereof). A similar observation can be made concerning Matthew, Luke and John. Also, John tells us the inscription was Aramaic, Latin and Greek, while the other Gospels do not include this detail. Again, a difference but not a disagreement, and if the words were not identical among the three languages, it is possible that Matthew, Luke and John quoted differing versions, with Mark making reference to the “charge” only and did not include the reference to Jesus in one or more of the versions.

What did the Robbers say?
Mark, they both hurled insults.
Matthew, same as Mark
Luke, one hurled insults, the other sided with Jesus.
John, nothing was recorded.

According to Matthew, both robbers were casting this insult, “He trusts in God, let Him deliver Him now, if He takes pleasure in him, for He said, I am the Son of God.” The insult recorded by Mark is, “Let this Christ, the King of Israel, now come down from the cross, so that we may see and believe.” Luke says one of the robbers says “Are you not the Christ, save yourself and us”. The other robber then says, “Jesus remember me when you come in your Kingdom” demonstrating a faith in God. I think it is possible that the second robber wanted Jesus to prove he was the Christ and thus initially participated in hurling a challenging insult, but did not want to escape just punishment because of remorse based on his belief in the Father and so he rebuked the first robber. Again a difference in the accounts but not a disagreement. The difference in the words recorded could just be a difference in the wording of a repeated insult, all concerning the same point (save yourself and prove you are God) and the absence of the detail in John could be the result of John choosing to leave it out and include other details.

What were Jesus’ last words?
Mark, Jesus cried out, but the words if any were not recorded. (Mk. 15:37)
Matthew: Same as Mark (Mt. 27:50)
Luke: Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.” (Lk. 23:46)
John: “It is finished” (Jn. 19:30)

Obviously Matthew and Mark could be referring to the same outcry as Luke. And if John is recording a prior statement because it ties in with the assignment acknowledged in John 17, then no disagreement is apparent. Jesus could have said, It is finished bowed his head and cried out, “Father into your hands I commit my spirit.” Again, the difference being in what the gospel author chose to include, but not creating a disagreement in the account.

Who went to the tomb with spices to prepare Jesus’ body.
Mark: 3 women on Sunday Morning just after sunrise.
Matthew: No record.
Luke: 4 or more women on Sunday morning very early while still dark.
John: Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus on Friday before sundown.

Before we jump into this difference, lets review the texts concerning the women witnesses. Matthew (27:55) says that many women who had followed Jesus from Galilee witnessed the crucifixion. John says Mary, the mother of Jesus’ was a witness. He says Mary Magdalene was a witness. He says Mary, the wife of Clopas, was a witness. He says the sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus, was a witness. Now Mary the wife of Clopas may be the mother of James the younger and Joses. And the sister of Mary (mother of Jesus) may be Salmone, the mother of James and John. Additional ladies may also have been witnesses such as the mother of the sons of Zebedee if Salome is not she and Joanna.

On Friday, Jesus is taken down from the cross and placed in a nearby tomb. This is done by Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus. They put spice on the body and wrap Jesus’ body with linen. Luke (23:55-56) says the women who had followed Jesus from Galilee witnessed the body of Jesus either as it was being prepared or after it was prepared, and that among these unspecified number of women were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses. After this they go and prepare spices and perfume to take back to the tomb on Sunday morning. It appears they decided to obtain more spices on Sunday morning because Mark says Mary Magdalene, Mary mother of Joses and Salmone purchased spices on Sunday morning.

Now lets review Sunday Morning. It appears the ladies may have left for the tomb before sunrise, while it was still dark but perhaps very near first light. Mark 16:1 says Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James (the Younger) and Salome went to the tomb. While on their way, just after sunrise, they wonder who will roll the stone away because they had seen Joseph put it in place. Matthew’s account meshes well with Mark’s account. Matthew says Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (mother of James the Younger and Joses, and wife of Clopas) at dawn went to the tomb. The fact that Matthew only mentions two ladies does not indicate that others were not present. Luke (24:1) says an unspecified number of women took spices they had prepared, and went to the tomb. John 20:1 says while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb. John indicates she was not alone in verse 2 with the phrase “we do not know where they have put him.”

In summary, the number of women is indeterminate but included at least three. There is no disagreement concerning the time of day or concerning the spices and perfumes.

What happened to the rock that sealed the tomb? Again, the accounts do not conflict. The rock was removed when the ladies returned to the tomb. Matthew (28:2) does not say the ladies saw the rock being removed, the text only implies that by the sequence of the information provided, that the rock was rolled away while the ladies were on the way to the tomb. Mark (16:4) says the rock had been rolled away and as they approached to enter the tomb they see what they thought was a young man sitting on the right side (perhaps on the rock). Luke says nearly the same thing except that his account also includes a second man gleaming like lightning. It also appears that the at least one of the men talked to some of the ladies while they were wondering about how the tomb became open but before they entered the tomb. (Luke 24:4) It also seems Mary Magdalene had already entered the tomb and did not get the message. Otherwise, why would Mary Magdalene say, “we don’t know where they have put him”? Also note that perhaps due to the conflicting information (Mary Magdalene’s account differs from some of the others) the apostles did not believe them because their words seemed like nonsense (Luke 24:11). Consistent with this understanding is Matthew 28:8, which says that while on their way to the disciples, Jesus appeared to some of the women. Again, it seems Mary Magdalene was not with them. But then John finishes the account (John 20:10) and tells how Mary, after being in tears with perplexity as to the whereabouts of Jesus, is restored to well being after returning to the tomb with the disciples. After the disciples had left, Jesus appears and says, “Woman, why are you crying”. I think this is the timeless message of the resurrection for all Christians, “Why are you crying?”

Did the ladies enter the tomb? Mary Magdalene certainly did, otherwise how did she know it was empty but not get the angel’s message? Luke indicates that some of the ladies may not have entered the tomb after being told Jesus is not there. Mark is consistent “as they entered, they saw a young man…” probably indicating some of the group entered and some stopped when the young man addressed them. Some of these that stopped probably entered as requested by the young man, while others may have remained outside. The text simply does not say.

How did the disciples react to the mixed message of the women? Why didn’t Mary Magdalene learn of the message from the others? Possibly because they were so afraid they did not talk among themselves (Mark 16:8 ). Did the disciples believe the women?
Matthew does not describe the initial encounter with the women returning from the empty tomb for the first time. Mark also does not describe the encounter. Luke says the disciples did not believe the message. John says Peter and John believed only after seeing the empty tomb that Jesus was not there. So if the women who had seen Jesus on the way to the disciples had told the disciples, Peter and John did not believe them, which of course is consistent with all the other gospel accounts.

To whom did Jesus first appear?
I think his first appearance was to some of the women initially returning from the empty tomb (Matthew 28:8 ), then to Mary Magdalene after returning to the tomb with Peter and John. I discount Mark 16:9-20 because the passage may be an addition because it does not appear in early manuscripts of Mark. Luke does not mention the appearance with the woman, but places chronologically the appearance to Cleopas as occurring later.
John does not mention the appearance of Jesus with the woman initially returning from the empty tomb, but places the appearance to Mary Magdalene chronologically later.

Final Thoughts

The Gospel accounts contain differences, and the above attempt to reconcile the differences may be in error, but nothing I have seen in the accounts causes me to believe that are not completely reliable.

Van · Posted: Sat Dec 20, 2003 2:18 pm Post subject:

Each of the four Gospels presents Jesus in a little different light. Some parts of the history of Jesus only appear in one or two Gospels. Several parts of the account appear in three of the Gospels. But what are the elements that appear in all four Gospels?

Matthew Mark Luke John
1. Jesus preaches in Galilee. 4:12-17 1:14-15 4:14-15 4:43-45
2. Jesus feeds five thousand. 14:13-21 6:30-44 9:10-17 6:1-15
3. Jesus rides into Jerusalem. 21:1-11 11:1-11 19:28-44 12:12-19
4. Jesus at the Last Supper. 26:20-30 14:14-26 22:14-30 13:21-30
5. Jesus is betrayed and arrested. 26:47-56 14:43-52 22:47-53 18:1-11
6. Peter denies knowing Jesus. 26:69-75 14:66-72 22:54-65 18:25-27
7. Jesus stands trial before Pilate. 27:11-14 15:2-5 23:1-5 18:28-37
8. Pilate hands Jesus over. 27:15-26 15:6-15 23:13-25 18:38-19:16
9. Jesus led away to be crucified. 27:32-34 15:21-24 23:26-31 19:17
10. Jesus placed on the Cross. 27:35-44 15:25-32 23:32-43 19:18-27
11. Jesus dies on the Cross. 27:45-56 15:33-41 23:44-49 19:28-37
12. Jesus is laid in a tomb. 27:57-61 15:42-47 23:50-56 19:38-42
13. Jesus rises from the dead! 28:1-7 16:1-8 24-1-12 20:1-9

Eddy Tiner · Posted: Sun Dec 21, 2003 7:14 am Post subject:

Van,

That's quite a post. Let me address some of the specifics in future notes, but make a couple of general comments, here.

First, I'm not sure why you lead off with your comment about atheists. I am most assuredly not atheist. I believe God created the heavens and the earth. I acknowledge Christ as my Lord and Savior. I thought I was rather clear on that in previous postings. I have read things written by atheists, and I must admit that in some cases I've discovered that they are right and we are wrong. That's a large part of what I'm talking about. When that occurs, the credibility of our entire message is at stake.

Second, to be honest I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or disagreeing with me. If your point is that the gospel accounts were written by humans, and that we must explore them deeply to ascertain and understand the actual truth, then we are saying the same thing. If however, you are maintaining that the Bible is true and correct in every detail, without any error, then it's a worthy exercise for us to continue examining the matter, because that's definitely not what I believe.

Finally, let's back up and look at a less complex passage.

Van · Posted: Sun Dec 21, 2003 10:28 am Post subject:

Eddy Tiner · Posted: Sun Dec 21, 2003 1:53 pm Post subject:

It's a bit unclear to me how you can both imply that you're not sure what my position is, but conclude that it's without merit, but for the sake of clarity, I will state it:

My former denomination (the one in which I grew up; the one that led my to know Christ; the one in which I was baptized; the one in which I've been active for the better part of four decades) has a position statement that says of the Bible "It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter."

I can no longer in good conscience say that I believe that. There IS error in the Bible. Much of what it has to say we should interpret figuratively. And yes, some of its ideas we should ignore, since they are the thoughts and words of man, not of God.

To attempt to claim otherwise involves using semantic and interpretive contortions that stretch, if not destroy, the very credibility of the scriptures themselves.

Consider a portion of your explanation above. You say that "It appears the ladies may have left for the tomb before sunrise." I assume that you are referring to John 20:1. Allow me to quote several different translations of this verse.

All of these versions are clearly talking about Mary's ARRIVAL at the tomb. Which version are you citing that makes reference to the ladies' leaving their home(s)?

I'm not saying that the Bible is not reliable, Van. I'm merely saying that we must recognize that it is the work of man, and represents our collective best effort at recording the message of God -- the message he has revealed to us over time. Acknowledging that, we are then charged with understanding and implementing God's will. Hearing Christians say this should be nothing new. They are all around us. I'll bet you are one, yourself. I have never met, for example, the fellow Christian who believed Christ meant it literally when he told us to cut off our hands, feet, and eyes if they cause us to sin. (Matt 18:8-9)

Certainly, it would be easier if we just had a simple recipe book that we could read, obey, and not have to think about. But thinking is, I believe, the primary image of God in which we were created.

The Bible is a wonderful book. It's full of poetry, history, metaphor, figurative descriptions, hyperbole, and all the other things common to great works of literature. Trying to literalize it imparts a shallowness and superficiality that destroys its uniqueness. Trying to deny its errors robs it of its humanity.

That's my position.

Eddy

Eddy Tiner · Posted: Sun Dec 21, 2003 5:10 pm Post subject:

Van · Posted: Sun Dec 21, 2003 7:16 pm Post subject:

Eddy Tiner · Posted: Tue Dec 23, 2003 7:04 am Post subject:

One more comment on John 20:1. When the gospel writers originally wrote, they often used the present tense, even when referring to events of the past; it was the literary style of the day. the NASB does an excellent job of explaining this, and includes asterisks for all those verbs that should more literally be translated in the present tense. (Most modern translators use the past tense, since it sounds more natural to us.) So, a more literal translation of John 20:1 would be: "Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene comes early to the tomb, while it is still dark, and sees the stone already taken away from the tomb."

I would say that is a very UN-natural way to refer to an event that had actually occurred a couple of hours earlier, and several miles away. But, I've had my say on this passage. I'd be interested in hearing others' views.

This is but one example of parallel passages where there appears to be a factual inconsistency.

Another type of passage with which I struggle (notwithstanding Van's opposition to the "standard procedure" of "shifting the debate ever onward, posting more and more 'problems' ", I made it quite clear in my very first sentence of the very first post that there were many of these) is the kind that in and of itself doesn't appear consistent with God's general message.

For example, Deuteronomy 22:23-24 says that if an engaged virgin consensually sleeps with another man, then both of them should receive the death penalty. However, Deut 22:28-29 says that if a man rapes an unengaged virgin, she must become his wife.

What? Rape is one of the most absolutely horrific crimes man inflicts on his fellow human. And the criminal was not to be punished? (Well, admittedly, he was forced to pay the father fifty shekels of silver.) But the victim was indeed to be punished by forcing her to marry her rapist?

I cannot begin to fathom how such instruction fits into God's master plan for humanity. To me, it seems much more likely that these are the words of man, writing in an extremely male-dominated society. It's even quite likely that the author actually meant well, but simply misinterpreted or misrecorded God's guidance.

Others' thoughts?

Peace,
Eddy

RevJP · Moderator Joined: 18 Apr 2003 Posts: 7002 Location: USA

PTI, however, I am having difficulty reconciling Eddy's claim to Christianity and the fact that he does not trust that which tells him of his Christ.

How can you believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Savior if you cannot trust the book which tells you of Him? How can you have faith and belief in an Almighty God if you cannot believe in the Word He gave you?
_________________
JP's Mind - my blog

Van · Posted: Tue Dec 23, 2003 8:29 am Post subject:

Eddy Tiner · Posted: Tue Dec 23, 2003 10:37 am Post subject:

Goodness, guys. Is it too much to ask that you constrain your remarks to the topic, and limit your attacks on my faith? These aren't simply off-the-cuff ideas. They're the product of MUCH prayer, study, thought, reading, and discussion with other Christians. (And I'm pretty sure that none of my ideas are even original -- this conversation has been going on for at least two centuries that I'm aware of.)

To continue, I'd say that it appears Christ agrees with me:

Eddy Tiner · Posted: Tue Dec 23, 2003 1:39 pm Post subject:

Well, at the definite risk of belaboring the point, let me comment: