If the Bible is inspired by God why all the contridictions?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
A

AgeofKnowledge

Guest
#21
As stated, God's Word has zero contradictions when taken in context with a proper systematic theological understanding. Enjoy this discussion by God and Science on some ramdomly chosen topics atheists often use to try and show God's Word contradicts itself (which it does not!):

False Teachings in the Bible?

Oh just as a hint atheists, stringing together large numbers of scriptures falsely asserting they constitute contradiction doesn't prove anything other than you aren't really serious about discussing it. Obviously, most Christians aren't going to answer fifty false assertions per post. Why not choose the one or two you think support your errored position the best and we'll refute them for you. Praise the Lord!
 
J

JohnKnox

Guest
#22
It never ceases to amaze me how people can find something that they've decided is as grossly erroneous as a logical contradiction, and rather than second guessing their own interpretations, they decide that the gospel writers were so sloppy as not to consult with each other, or proof-read their work.
 
P

peachetty

Guest
#23
It never ceases to amaze me how people can find something that they've decided is as grossly erroneous as a logical contradiction, and rather than second guessing their own interpretations, they decide that the gospel writers were so sloppy as not to consult with each other, or proof-read their work.
what are you saying?? they were not on the same page with eachother??
 
C

Credo_ut_Intelligam

Guest
#24
It never ceases to amaze me how people can find something that they've decided is as grossly erroneous as a logical contradiction, and rather than second guessing their own interpretations, they decide that the gospel writers were so sloppy as not to consult with each other, or proof-read their work.
And not only that, but every scribe of the last 2,000 years didn't catch the contradiction and correct it... after all, they were quick to correct all those other errors and supposedly amend Scripture to fit their doctrine, but they couldn't spot a contradiction if it hit them in the face.
 
P

peachetty

Guest
#25
And not only that, but every scribe of the last 2,000 years didn't catch the contradiction and correct it... after all, they were quick to correct all those other errors and supposedly amend Scripture to fit their doctrine, but they couldn't spot a contradiction if it hit them in the face.

there are no contradictions in the bible. give me an etc. of one. there are none.
 
J

JohnKnox

Guest
#26
there are no contradictions in the bible. give me an etc. of one. there are none.
What Credo and I are saying is that if these glaring contradictions existed, they would have to have been originally codified and copied under absurd situations.
 
P

peachetty

Guest
#27
What Credo and I are saying is that if these glaring contradictions existed, they would have to have been originally codified and copied under absurd situations.
so wait leme get this strait. ur saying that there are no contridictions and if there were wouldnt they be fixed in the beginning??
 
C

Credo_ut_Intelligam

Guest
#28
so wait leme get this strait. ur saying that there are no contridictions and if there were wouldnt they be fixed in the beginning??
Yes I was using a bit of sarcasm. Sorry for the confusion.
 

Cleante

Senior Member
May 7, 2010
280
0
16
#30
I am highly doubtful that those who say there are no discrepancies in the Holy Scriptures have studied the scriptures in the historical-critical method nor the textual criticism method. If you ever read any of the Anchor Bible Commentaries, especially the Commentary on the Gospel According to John by Raymond Brown, the discrepancies are staring you in the face when you compare the different manuscripts, such as the LXX, Codex Sinaiaticus, and the Textus Receptus. I would suggest that you read these commentaries. They do not espouse any theological viewpoints. They only show the differences between the manuscripts.

The text-book example of New Testament discrepancies is the death of IC in Mark and John. Mark was probably the first gospel to be written, possibly authored sometime around 65-70AD. The first ten chapters of Mark deal with IC' public ministry in Galilee. It is during this time that IC teaches, heals the sick, casts out demons, and confronts the Pharisees. At the end of his life he journeys to Jerusalem in order to celebrate Passover. He is arrested and crucified.

What complicates this a little is the Jewish interpretation of time. The day begins at sundown. Therefore, the sabbath starts Friday evening at sundown and continues until the next day, which is sundown on Saturday evening. Before the Passover meal, the Jews would travel to Jerusalem to purchase a lamb from the temple and have it slaughtered by the priests on the Day of Preparation. The meal was prepared during the afternoon and the meal was eaten at night, which was the beginning of the next day and in this case Passover.

In Mark 14:12, His disciples ask Him where they should prepare for the passover meal in the evening and they are given instructions. It is during this meal that IC takes the bread, breaks it and declares, "This is my body." After the meal is concluded he took the wine cup and said, "This is my blood of the covenant, that is poured out for many." This occurs in Mark 14:22-25.

After the meal, they go out to the Garden of Gethsemane to pray. Judas brings the soldiers and performs his act of betrayal. IC is then taken to stand trial before the Jews and spends the night in jail. The next morning He is tried by Pontius Pilate who condemns him to die on the cross. Mark tells us that He is crucified that same day, at nine o'clock in the morning. Therefore, according to Mark, IC dies on the day of the Passover, the morning after the Passover Meal.

This Gospel of John is at odds with the story told in the Gospel of Mark. Other than the fact that IC travelled to Jerusalem to celebrate the Passover feast, there is very little similarity. According to John, the disciples to not ask IC for instructions on where to prepare the feast, nor does IC provide them with any instructions. There is a last meal, but according to John, IC does not mention that the broken bread is His body or that the wine is His blood. Instead of this, IC washes his disciples feet, something that is found in no other Gospel. (John 13:1-20)

After they eat, they go out and IC is betrayed by Judas. He appears before the Jews and spends the night in Jail. He is tried by Pontius Pilate who condemns him to die by crucifixion. It is here where Pilate says, "It was the Day of Preparation for the Passover; and it was about noon." This is found in John 19:14.

This directly contradicts Mark's Gospel. IC lived through the Day of Preparation. He had his disciples prepare the Passover meal. They ate it, he was betrayed. He was then arrested, taken to jail, tried by Pilate and condemned to death the next morning and was executed at nine o'clock in the morning on the passover day. However in the Gospel according to John, IC dies a day earlier on the Day of the Preparation for the Passover, sometime after noon.

The most common way people seek to reconcile these differences is to say that Mark indicates that Jesus died on a day that is called "the Day of Preparation" which is found in Mark 15:42. While this is true, Mark does say this, the readers fail to notice that Mark tells us what he means by the phrase. It is the Day of Preparation for "The Sabbath." In other words, this is not the day before the Passover Meal but the day before the Sabbath. It is called the day of preparation because Jews had to rest on the sabbath and therefore had to prepare the meals the day before the sabbath.
 
A

AgeofKnowledge

Guest
#31
Scripture's divine inspiration implies the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy sets forth the doctrine or inerrancy this way:​

"Holy Scripture, being God's own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by his Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which
it touches... Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God's acts in creation about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God's saving grace in individual lives."​

God's absolutely trustworthy nature and moral integrity (John 17:3; Romans 3:4) and his direct supervision of the original autographs (2 Tim. 3: 16; 2 Peter 1: 19-21) resulted in scriptural text that-when correctly understood and properly interpreted-is free of all error (historically, scientifically, moral
and spiritually).​

Theologian John Jefferson Davis notes: "All Scripture is the direct prouct of the omnipotent and omniscient God who is not subject to error.' Jesus Christ himself taught that Scripture came from the mouth of God and is therefore error free (Matt. 5:17-18; John 10:35). As a result, evagelical Protestants view the doctrine of biblical inerrancy as a necessary implication."​

The biblical authors (prophets and apostles) were aware that they were speaking and subsequently writing the words of God (see Exod. 34:27; Deut. 18:18; 1 Cor. 2:12-13; 1 Thess. 2:13; 1 Peter 1:11-12). Some of the apostles of Jesus even placed their New Testament writings on par with the Old Testament (see 1 Tim. 5: 18b, which quotes Luke 10:7 and Deut. 25:4 together; 2 Peter 3:16; Rev. 22:18-19), which they recognized as sacred Scripture (Rom. 3:1-2).​

The biblical doctrine of inspiration is exemplified by the apostle Paul's statement, "All Scripture is God-breathed" (2 Tim. 3:16). The Greek word
theopneustos, used to describe Scripture, implies that it is the product of the creative breath of God, not unlike how God produced the universe and the first human being.​

In addition, the apostle Peter declares that "no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation... but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:20-21). The inspiration of the Bible may therefore be defined as the divine act whereby God superintended human authors to ensure their writings reflected his intended revelation.​

God nevertheless produced the authorized text while using the genuine contributions of human authors ( confluent inspiration). They brought their backgrounds, educations, vocabularies, and styles to the writing task but God produced the inspired Scripture through them (see 2 Tim. 3: 16; 2 Peter 1 : 19-21).​

Theologian Bruce Milne notes, "The words used were consciously the free composition of the authors and at the same time the very Word of God." This divine inspiration extended not only to the precise wording (verbal inspiration) chosen by the authors but also to the whole Bible itself (plenary inspiration). Theologian Louis Berkhof provides an explanation for how God inspired the biblical authors: "The Holy Spirit illumined their minds, aided their memory, prompted them to write, repressed the influence of sin on their writings, and guided them in the expression of their thoughts even to the choice of their words." The Bible, though written by human beings, is nonetheless the inspired Word of God because of the Holy Spirit's unique power and supervision. The Scriptures must be responsibly and objectively interpreted (e.g. hermeneutics).​
 

Cleante

Senior Member
May 7, 2010
280
0
16
#32
Scripture's divine inspiration implies the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy sets forth the doctrine or inerrancy this way:​

"Holy Scripture, being God's own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by his Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which
it touches... Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God's acts in creation about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God's saving grace in individual lives."​

God's absolutely trustworthy nature and moral integrity (John 17:3; Romans 3:4) and his direct supervision of the original autographs (2 Tim. 3: 16; 2 Peter 1: 19-21) resulted in scriptural text that-when correctly understood and properly interpreted-is free of all error (historically, scientifically, moral
and spiritually).​

Theologian John Jefferson Davis notes: "All Scripture is the direct prouct of the omnipotent and omniscient God who is not subject to error.' Jesus Christ himself taught that Scripture came from the mouth of God and is therefore error free (Matt. 5:17-18; John 10:35). As a result, evagelical Protestants view the doctrine of biblical inerrancy as a necessary implication."​

The biblical authors (prophets and apostles) were aware that they were speaking and subsequently writing the words of God (see Exod. 34:27; Deut. 18:18; 1 Cor. 2:12-13; 1 Thess. 2:13; 1 Peter 1:11-12). Some of the apostles of Jesus even placed their New Testament writings on par with the Old Testament (see 1 Tim. 5: 18b, which quotes Luke 10:7 and Deut. 25:4 together; 2 Peter 3:16; Rev. 22:18-19), which they recognized as sacred Scripture (Rom. 3:1-2).​

The biblical doctrine of inspiration is exemplified by the apostle Paul's statement, "All Scripture is God-breathed" (2 Tim. 3:16). The Greek word
theopneustos, used to describe Scripture, implies that it is the product of the creative breath of God, not unlike how God produced the universe and the first human being.​

In addition, the apostle Peter declares that "no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation... but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:20-21). The inspiration of the Bible may therefore be defined as the divine act whereby God superintended human authors to ensure their writings reflected his intended revelation.​

God nevertheless produced the authorized text while using the genuine contributions of human authors ( confluent inspiration). They brought their backgrounds, educations, vocabularies, and styles to the writing task but God produced the inspired Scripture through them (see 2 Tim. 3: 16; 2 Peter 1 : 19-21).​

Theologian Bruce Milne notes, "The words used were consciously the free composition of the authors and at the same time the very Word of God." This divine inspiration extended not only to the precise wording (verbal inspiration) chosen by the authors but also to the whole Bible itself (plenary inspiration). Theologian Louis Berkhof provides an explanation for how God inspired the biblical authors: "The Holy Spirit illumined their minds, aided their memory, prompted them to write, repressed the influence of sin on their writings, and guided them in the expression of their thoughts even to the choice of their words." The Bible, though written by human beings, is nonetheless the inspired Word of God because of the Holy Spirit's unique power and supervision. The Scriptures must be responsibly and objectively interpreted (e.g. hermeneutics).​
An interesting point when you use 2 Timothy 3:16 is to remember the time it was written and the time the New Testament was finally Canonized. The Second Epistle to Timothy was written by St. Paul the Apostle in the First Century AD. Now, the New Testament was not Canonized until the Council of Carthage in 397AD.

Council of Carthage said:
It was also determined that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in the Church under the title of divine Scriptures. The Canonical Scriptures are these: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two books of Paraleipomena, Job, the Psalter, five books of Solomon, the books of the twelve prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezechiel, Daniel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees. Of the New Testament: four books of the Gospels, one book of the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of the Apostle Paul, one epistle of the same [writer] to the Hebrews, two Epistles of the Apostle Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude, one book of the Apocalypse of John. Let this be made known also to our brother and fellow-priest Boniface, or to other bishops of those parts, for the purpose of confirming that Canon. because we have received from our fathers that those books must be read in the Church. Let it also be allowed that the Passions of Martyrs be read when their festivals are kept.
How is it possible for St. Paul to refer to something that did not exist until 397AD? It is my opinion and the opinion of most scholars that St. Paul was referring to the place of the Old Testament scriptures in Christianity. It was and still important to not carelessly throw away the Old Testament.

"Modern interpretations of the commandment in the Torah reflect this individualistic attitude. The first commandment is that you love God with all your mind, all your soul, and all your strength, and the second is that you love your neighbor as yourself. The only way you can prove you love God is by loving your neighbor, and the only way you can love your neighbor in this world is by endless forgiveness. So, "love your neighbor as yourself." However, in certain modern editions of the Bible, I have seen this translated as, "You shall love your neighbor as you love yourself." But that's not what it says."
—Fr. Hopko (From an essay on forgiveness)

I am not questioning the meaning of the scriptures. No matter the differences between the gospels, the essential meaning is the same. IC XC is Lord and died for many so that sins may be forgiven. What I am merely saying is that scripture can and has been edited throughout the years to stress things that the editor wanted to stress. For example, the Hymn of the Logos was a pre-existing hymn and the portions that pertained to John the Baptist were inserted at a later date. This isn't a contradictoin, but it does show that scripture has been edited in the past.
 
A

AgeofKnowledge

Guest
#33
I've got some big fish to fry right now Cleante but the point you made in response to my post is a red herring imo though I don't believe it was dishonest or intentional of you. The logic you are employing that "All [authentic] Scripture is God-breathed" (2 Tim. 3:16) cannot apply to all authentic scripture is fallicious. It itself is authentic scripture and surely does apply to authentic scripture, not to be confused with what we now classify as non-cannonical (e.g. forgeries, heretical books, etc...), and authentic scripture was true at the time it was written. Authentic scripture did not remain false until a council could get around to cannonizing it. Hence your reasoning is fallicious. No disrespect brother.
 
C

Credo_ut_Intelligam

Guest
#34
Cleante,

Your examples of “contradictions” are simply due to naivety.

For instance:

According to John, the disciples to not ask IC for instructions on where to prepare the feast, nor does IC provide them with any instructions. There is a last meal, but according to John, IC does not mention that the broken bread is His body or that the wine is His blood. Instead of this, IC washes his disciples feet, something that is found in no other Gospel. (John 13:1-20)
You assume that because something is not mentioned that we are intended to infer that it did not happen.

Take a modified example that I gave in some other thread (I think it was in another thread… hard for me to keep track): I tell my wife “I’m going to the grocery store to get eggs and milk” and when I come back from the store my wife, who wasn’t really paying attention and forgot what I had said, asks where I was. I respond “I went to the grocery store.”

In this second retelling of where I was, did I intend for her to infer that I did not go to get eggs and milk simply because I omitted them? No, of course not.

So we can dismiss this entire paragraph as being evidence of contradiction since it’s obviously fallacious (the argument from silence fallacy) to infer that because a thing is not mentioned that it must not have happened (or from the histiographical vantage, that because a thing is not recorded the author does not believe/know it happened).

After they eat, they go out and IC is betrayed by Judas. He appears before the Jews and spends the night in Jail. He is tried by Pontius Pilate who condemns him to die by crucifixion. It is here where Pilate says, "It was the Day of Preparation for the Passover; and it was about noon." This is found in John 19:14.

This directly contradicts Mark's Gospel. IC lived through the Day of Preparation. He had his disciples prepare the Passover meal. They ate it, he was betrayed. He was then arrested, taken to jail, tried by Pilate and condemned to death the next morning and was executed at nine o'clock in the morning on the passover day. However in the Gospel according to John, IC dies a day earlier on the Day of the Preparation for the Passover, sometime after noon.

The most common way people seek to reconcile these differences is to say that Mark indicates that Jesus died on a day that is called "the Day of Preparation" which is found in Mark 15:42. While this is true, Mark does say this, the readers fail to notice that Mark tells us what he means by the phrase. It is the Day of Preparation for "The Sabbath." In other words, this is not the day before the Passover Meal but the day before the Sabbath. It is called the day of preparation because Jews had to rest on the sabbath and therefore had to prepare the meals the day before the sabbath.
Mark tells us that the phrase “Day of Preparation” refers to the Sabbath in the Passover week. John 19:14 says “Now it was the day of Preparation of the Passover…” and for some reason you think this means “Preparation for the Passover…” but that’s not what it says and that John intends for us to understand this as the day of Preparation that occurred on Passover is made obvious by verse 31: “Since it was the day of Preparation, and so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath...”

Thus, clearly John uses “Day of Preparation” in the same way that Mark does and they both indicate the same sequence of events.

Now, you could try and list many other alleged “contradictions” and say “Well what about this and what about this…” and we could go through that. [For example, you could say “what about John 16:5 that I mentioned in post # 15?” Well, as C.K. Barrett points out in his commentary The Gospel According to Saint John, Jesus uses the present tense verb ἐρωτᾷ, not ἐπερωτάω, indicating that the point is the disciples immediate reaction to the words he has just spoken. So again, no contradiction.] But in the end you’d just be doing the same thing that Sutra did when she opened this thread and so I might as well just say that if you really want to know how those aren’t contradictions go do some studying. Get books that are devoted to these types of questions, like the one I mentioned earlier or Blomberg’s The Historical Reliability of the Gospels or any other number of resouces that come to the text with more conservative pressuppositions. You mentioned AYB commentaries. I like the AYB resources and I use them a lot myself. But I also realize that often the authors are working with non-Christian presuppositions. You claim they don’t espouse any theological viewpoints, but again that’s just naivety poking through. Everyone comes to the text with presuppositions, even theological presuppositions, and works from there.

Beyond this there are many important epistemological issues relating to our view of inspiration and I think such a low view of Scripture that allows such blatant errors is built upon a foundation of sand and I could easily knock your entire castle over. (After all, if the disciples were wrong about anything or fudging about anything, it was probably the miraculous events not the mundane historical facts.) But I don’t have time for that now.

I think your suggested contradictions illustrate exactly what John Knox said, it's amazing that you wouldn't simply second guess your own interpretation... especially since these particular harmonizations aren't that difficult.
 
Last edited:
R

Ricke

Guest
#35
Supra
There are no contradictions in God's Holy Word. What there always is; lack of Spiritual discernment by those who try to use a Carnal Mind and Worldly Wisdom to figure things out in Spiritual matters. It does not work that way. Read Luke 24 v 47 to see who gives out the needed Wisdom. God Bless...
 

Cleante

Senior Member
May 7, 2010
280
0
16
#36
Cleante,

Your examples of “contradictions” are simply due to naivety.

For instance:



You assume that because something is not mentioned that we are intended to infer that it did not happen.

Take a modified example that I gave in some other thread (I think it was in another thread… hard for me to keep track): I tell my wife “I’m going to the grocery store to get eggs and milk” and when I come back from the store my wife, who wasn’t really paying attention and forgot what I had said, asks where I was. I respond “I went to the grocery store.”

In this second retelling of where I was, did I intend for her to infer that I did not go to get eggs and milk simply because I omitted them? No, of course not.

So we can dismiss this entire paragraph as being evidence of contradiction since it’s obviously fallacious (the argument from silence fallacy) to infer that because a thing is not mentioned that it must not have happened (or from the histiographical vantage, that because a thing is not recorded the author does not believe/know it happened).



Mark tells us that the phrase “Day of Preparation” refers to the Sabbath in the Passover week. John 19:14 says “Now it was the day of Preparation of the Passover…” and for some reason you think this means “Preparation for the Passover…” but that’s not what it says and that John intends for us to understand this as the day of Preparation that occurred on Passover is made obvious by verse 31: “Since it was the day of Preparation, and so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath...”

Thus, clearly John uses “Day of Preparation” in the same way that Mark does and they both indicate the same sequence of events.

Now, you could try and list many other alleged “contradictions” and say “Well what about this and what about this…” and we could go through that. [For example, you could say “what about John 16:5 that I mentioned in post # 15?” Well, as C.K. Barrett points out in his commentary The Gospel According to Saint John, Jesus uses the present tense verb ἐρωτᾷ, not ἐπερωτάω, indicating that the point is the disciples immediate reaction to the words he has just spoken. So again, no contradiction.] But in the end you’d just be doing the same thing that Sutra did when she opened this thread and so I might as well just say that if you really want to know how those aren’t contradictions go do some studying. Get books that are devoted to these types of questions, like the one I mentioned earlier or Blomberg’s The Historical Reliability of the Gospels or any other number of resouces that come to the text with more conservative pressuppositions. You mentioned AYB commentaries. I like the AYB resources and I use them a lot myself. But I also realize that often the authors are working with non-Christian presuppositions. You claim they don’t espouse any theological viewpoints, but again that’s just naivety poking through. Everyone comes to the text with presuppositions, even theological presuppositions, and works from there.

Beyond this there are many important epistemological issues relating to our view of inspiration and I think such a low view of Scripture that allows such blatant errors is built upon a foundation of sand and I could easily knock your entire castle over. (After all, if the disciples were wrong about anything or fudging about anything, it was probably the miraculous events not the mundane historical facts.) But I don’t have time for that now.

I think your suggested contradictions illustrate exactly what John Knox said, it's amazing that you wouldn't simply second guess your own interpretation... especially since these particular harmonizations aren't that difficult.
You may think that that my examples of contradictions and discrepancies are merely due to naivete, but read any commentary which actually does its job. As I have stated before, I suggest starting with the Gospel of According to John and Raymond Brown's commentary in the Anchor Bible Commentary Series. Raymond Brown was the pre-eminent Johanine Scholar in our lifetime and for you to suggest that I make errors due to naivete is insulting. It is also insulting to many of the Textual critics out there.

Let me comment on John 19:14 since you brought it up.
ἦν δὲ παρασκευὴ τοῦ πάσχα, ὥρα ἦν ὡς ἕκτη. καὶ λέγει τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις, Ἴδε ὁ βασιλεὺς ὑμῶν.


The first part, which I shall call part A, ends with Pascha. Pascha as we know it the Passover, in the Orthodox Church Pascha refers to what the Western Church knows as Easter. Παρασκευἡ is a nominal in the feminine. Now, since that it a nominal and τοῡ is a genitive article, there is no what that it could modify the Παρασκευἡ. The only choice left in part A is πἁσχα, which wouldn't decline into a genitive ending because it is a borrowed Hebrew word. Some borrowed words will decline, others will not. That is fact. Therefore, transliterated this verse would read, "Was but the preparation Of the Passover." The English translation you used got it wrong.

That is from the modern day Greek New Testament. But even the oldest surviving bible, the Codex Sinaiticus, would agree with me. This is taken directly from the codex itself. "
ην δε παραϲκευη
του παϲχα ωρα η
ωϲ εκτη και λεγει
τοιϲ ϊουδαιοιϲ ϊ
δε ο βαϲιλευϲ ϋμω"

Again, we see genitive case which would indicate that it was the day of preparation of the passover, not for. If the original writers wanted to use for instead of the genitive article, they knew what it was. They would have used the post-positive conjuction γἁρ which means for.

A quote from a Textual Critic Scholar Bruce M. Metzger, "In the earlier manuscripts of Mark 1:2, the composite quotation from Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 26:3 is introduced by the formula "As it is written in Isaiah the Prophet". Later scribes, sensing this involves a difficulty replaced "As it is written in Isaiah the Prophet" with the general statement "As it is written in the prophets". Since the quotation which Matthew(27:9) attributes to the prophet Jeremiah actually comes from Zechariah(11:12f), it is not surprising that some scribes sought to mend the error either by substituting the correct name or by omitting the name altogether. A few scribes attempted to harmonize the Johannine account of the chronology of the Passion with that in Mark by changing ’sixth hour’ of John 19:14 to ‘third hour’ (which appears in Mark 15:25). At John 1:28, Origen altered Bethany to Bethabara in order to remove what he regarded as a geographical difficulty, and this reading is extant today in MSS. 33 69 and many others, including those which lie behind the King James version. The statement in Mark 8:31, that ‘the Son of man must suffer many things…and be killed and after three days rise again’, seems to involve a chronological difficulty, and some copyists changed the phrase to the more familiar expression, ‘on the third day’. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews places the golden altar of incense in the Holy of Holies (Heb. 9:4), which is contrary to the Old Testament description of the Tabernacle (Exod. 30:1-6). The scribe of Codex Vaticanus and the translator of the Ethiopic version correct the account by transferring the words to 9:2, where the furniture of the Holy Place is itemized."

I also take offense to how you characterize my view of the Holy Scriptures. If you feel like you could knock over the Eastern Orthodox view and interpretation of the bible, be my guest. The Church has been around since the time of Jesus, I do not see that happening.
 
J

JohnKnox

Guest
#37
I also take offense to how you characterize my view of the Holy Scriptures. If you feel like you could knock over the Eastern Orthodox view and interpretation of the bible, be my guest. The Church has been around since the time of Jesus, I do not see that happening.

I'll bet the priests of ancient Egypt were saying that when they celebrated their trimillennial
 
A

AgeofKnowledge

Guest
#39
Reads better when one says the Church has been around since the time of Christ.

But then that doesn't sit well with the Roman or Eastern Orthodox Churches, each of which asserts that are the "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church" rather than the worldwide body of those in Christ which constituted the real church then and the real church today that Christ himself established more than 2,000 years ago.

Of course the real church includes authentic non-Catholic Christians like myself and all spiritually reborn Protestants who do not follow the Orthodox heresies, pagan ritual, and man-made teaching so prevelant in the Orthodox Catholic church today.

We could spend the rest of the year arguing just about the pagan teachings and man-made traditions based on faulty pronouncements and assertions of authority incorporated and applied by both the Eastern and Roman Catholic Churches (I use the word Catholic here in the modern denominational sense not the early universal sense of the apostolic and pre-Nicene period before so much corruption beset it leading to the need for reform) which either is not in the scripture or scripture is twisted to support the human pronouncements and decrees of the respective thrones of Eastern and Western Orthodox power mandating that these traditions are equal to the New Testament (something they have in common with the cults) which merely show how far away they are, in so many important respects, from the true Apostolic tradition they claim to cherish and represent.

Now regarding John 19:14:

the day of Preparation of Passover Week - NIV
the day of preparation for the Passover -NAS
it was the preparation of the passover -KJV
it was the Preparation Day of the Passover -NKJV
now it was [the] preparation of the passover -Darby

Matthew Henry Commentary complete and unabridged -fourteeth printing/June 2003 (p. 2044): "The Time, v. 14. It was the preparation of the passover,".

Tell me, how can all these bodies of world class Greek scholars be wrong Cleante? I'm at a loss here. Could it be that they are right? Of course.
 

Cleante

Senior Member
May 7, 2010
280
0
16
#40
Reads better when one says the Church has been around since the time of Christ.

But then that doesn't sit well with the Roman or Eastern Orthodox Churches, each of which asserts that are the "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church" rather than the worldwide body of those in Christ which constituted the real church then and the real church today that Christ himself established more than 2,000 years ago.

Of course the real church includes authentic non-Catholic Christians like myself and all spiritually reborn Protestants who do not follow the Orthodox heresies, pagan ritual, and man-made teaching so prevelant in the Orthodox Catholic church today.

We could spend the rest of the year arguing just about the pagan teachings and man-made traditions based on faulty pronouncements and assertions of authority incorporated and applied by both the Eastern and Roman Catholic Churches (I use the word Catholic here in the modern denominational sense not the early universal sense of the apostolic and pre-Nicene period before so much corruption beset it leading to the need for reform) which either is not in the scripture or scripture is twisted to support the human pronouncements and decrees of the respective thrones of Eastern and Western Orthodox power mandating that these traditions are equal to the New Testament (something they have in common with the cults) which merely show how far away they are, in so many important respects, from the true Apostolic tradition they claim to cherish and represent.

Now regarding John 19:14:

the day of Preparation of Passover Week - NIV
the day of preparation for the Passover -NAS
it was the preparation of the passover -KJV
it was the Preparation Day of the Passover -NKJV
now it was [the] preparation of the passover -Darby

Matthew Henry Commentary complete and unabridged -fourteeth printing/June 2003 (p. 2044): "The Time, v. 14. It was the preparation of the passover,".

Tell me, how can all these bodies of world class Greek scholars be wrong Cleante? I'm at a loss here. Could it be that they are right? Of course.
I knew I said I'd stop posting in this thread when it came to textual criticism, neither of us are going to agree. I fell compelled to address your post.

I would highly suggest you read the history of the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. To use the word Catholic in the modern-day denominational sense to describe the Eastern Orthodox Church is just plain wrong. There are many, many, many differences between the Roman Catholic Church. From the procession of the Holy Spirit, to the doctrine of Original Sin. They split in 1054AD for a reason, you know? So, please get it right when you speak of the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church. They are not interchangeable.

When you speak of human decrees and pronouncements, I believe you are speaking of papal infallibility, something not found in the Eastern Orthodox Churches.

As for Holy Tradition and dogma, the Eastern Orthodox Churches do not believe that is a dynamic being, changing to fit the times.

  • And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen (Jn. 21:25)
  • Having many things to write unto you, I would not write with paper and ink: but I trust to come unto you, and speak face to face, that our joy may be full (2 Jn. 1:12)
  • Saint Irenaeus (+202 AD) and Clement of Alexandria (+215 AD) inform us: Those who explain Scripture without the help of the Churchs Tradition cut asunder the significance of truth (Stromatis, pg 7).
  • The acts of the early Church, the witnesses of the company of the apostles, amongst whom are Saint Ignatius the God-bearer (+104 AD), a disciple of the Apostles and Saint Polycarp of Smyrna (+106 AD). These Fathers admonished the faithful of their day to safeguard themselves from the teachings of heretics and to maintain in the full only the Apostolic Tradition (Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History, Bk 2:36).
  • Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle. (2 Thes 2:15)

I don't see a disagreement between what I posted in my translation of John 19:14 and what you have posted. Other than the fact that the NAS uses for, a postpositive conjuction, instead of the Genitive case (του) article sense of belonging, of.