In your opinion is the entire Bible "inerrant" or "infallible" as it relates to scripture?

[biblestudent78]

Here is my view about biblical inspiration:

Those who view the biblical canon as inspired by God disagree about what this means. Some people speak as though God dictated every word of the Bible to the human writers, which causes many atheists to be confused, because they do not realize that the dictation theory has several caveats, such as that it refers to the original manuscripts (which we do not have) correctly interpreted. And the key to correct interpretation is NOT viewing the Bible as a modern science or history textbook, but rather as concerned with communicating God’s will to humanity regarding His requirement for salvation: THAT is what is inerrant!

The salvationist view of inspiration seems more logical than the dictationist view according to the following train of thought: Suppose God Himself wrote the inerrant message to humanity: “Thou shalt not lie, steal, murder or fornicate.” Suppose the first manuscript copier accidentally left out the comma between lie and steal. Would that invalidate God’s commandment? No, but it is still a mistake and no longer perfectly inerrant.

Now suppose an evil copier intentionally changed the word fornicate to fumigate. Would that invalidate God’s commandment? Not all of it; only the changed word. How could we know which word or words were correct and not changed? We would need to compare the commandment with other statements purported to be inspired by God in order to see what is the overall or consistent message, so that we can acquire sufficient evidence to have reasonable belief that the word fumigate should be discounted.

Finally, suppose that no one changed God’s original commandment. How could we know absolutely or infallibly that it was inerrant? We could not; we walk by faith. We would still need to compare it with the totality of truth in order to discover whether there were any inconsistencies. Thus, a completely inerrant Bible is not needed, as long as there is sufficient consistency in God’s messages to humanity via the creation (TOJ #4), the scriptures (TOJ #3), the incarnate word (TOJ #186) and logic (TOJ #182) for souls to discern God’s requirement for salvation.

Inspiration is like a river: God determines its banks so that the overall revelation each generation along its banks has includes truth sufficient regarding salvation (kerygma), but God allows the river of revelation to have eddies or discrepancies or minor errors that do not prevent God’s purpose from being accomplished (Isa. 55:10f, 1Pet. 1:10-12, Heb. 11:2-12:2).

Here is my view about biblical inspiration:

Those who view the biblical canon as inspired by God disagree about what this means. Some people speak as though God dictated every word of the Bible to the human writers, which causes many atheists to be confused, because they do not realize that the dictation theory has several caveats, such as that it refers to the original manuscripts (which we do not have) correctly interpreted. And the key to correct interpretation is NOT viewing the Bible as a modern science or history textbook, but rather as concerned with communicating God’s will to humanity regarding His requirement for salvation: THAT is what is inerrant!

The salvationist view of inspiration seems more logical than the dictationist view according to the following train of thought: Suppose God Himself wrote the inerrant message to humanity: “Thou shalt not lie, steal, murder or fornicate.” Suppose the first manuscript copier accidentally left out the comma between lie and steal. Would that invalidate God’s commandment? No, but it is still a mistake and no longer perfectly inerrant.

Now suppose an evil copier intentionally changed the word fornicate to fumigate. Would that invalidate God’s commandment? Not all of it; only the changed word. How could we know which word or words were correct and not changed? We would need to compare the commandment with other statements purported to be inspired by God in order to see what is the overall or consistent message, so that we can acquire sufficient evidence to have reasonable belief that the word fumigate should be discounted.

Finally, suppose that no one changed God’s original commandment. How could we know absolutely or infallibly that it was inerrant? We could not; we walk by faith. We would still need to compare it with the totality of truth in order to discover whether there were any inconsistencies. Thus, a completely inerrant Bible is not needed, as long as there is sufficient consistency in God’s messages to humanity via the creation (TOJ #4), the scriptures (TOJ #3), the incarnate word (TOJ #186) and logic (TOJ #182) for souls to discern God’s requirement for salvation.

Inspiration is like a river: God determines its banks so that the overall revelation each generation along its banks has includes truth sufficient regarding salvation (kerygma), but God allows the river of revelation to have eddies or discrepancies or minor errors that do not prevent God’s purpose from being accomplished (Isa. 55:10f, 1Pet. 1:10-12, Heb. 11:2-12:2).

If you accept God dictated the words of the Bible which books did He dictate? The candidates are 66, 73 and 81. Did God then inspire the Jewish scholars who converted God's dictated Hebrew words into Greek as this forms the basis for every word we read? Did God also dictate the words translated from Greek to German and then again to English? Did God then dictate the complete Bible that has been translated into over 800 languages. For context, the New Testament is available in over 1,800 languages, and smaller portions exist in more than 3,400 languages. Are we assuming that God only dictated His Word into English? As anyone who has ever learned a foreign language knows there is seldom any exact word meaning in one language that has that single word meaning in another. The best anyone can hope for is that when one language is translated to another only nuances are lost. Unfortunately that is not how it works.

As every teenager knows (and those who remember those years) that while Dad might be very explicit in what he wants you do not "hear" the same thing. We listen to accomplish our own purposes. Thus the accuracy of God's word is largely determined by what we have been trained to "hear." While you can make a case God's Word is sufficient "for souls to discern God's requirements for Salvation." I wish that were true. Unfortunately, there is almost nothing Christian Sects disagree about more than what God's requirement for what salvation includes. How long it is good for, what are the differing definitions of key salvation words and passages, etc.

What constitutes a "minor errors" is disputed by virtually every Christian denomination and non-denomination. Some claim there are no errors of any kind. Some read the bible as a mystical collection of ancient stories with a clearly different God in the Hebrew Bible and a New and Better God in the New Testament. Some read the Bible like a scholar would approach reading and studying an ancient anthology of stories bound together. Some read the bible looking for hope and perhaps the formation of some faith. Some scholars treat the bible as a gold mine. They continually mine the biblical prospecting for gold knowing that not everything they mine is gold.
Some read the bible for bricks that they convert into theologic walls to keep out the infidels and other Christian claimants. Many read only proof texts extracted from the bible by unknown ancient people who somehow they trust with their eternal lives.

 

[dkontner]

Amos 8:11-12​

11 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord:
12 And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord, and shall not find it.

 

[biblestudent78]

Maybe, but more accurately inerrancy refers to belief the Bible contains no errors,
and infallibility refers to popes or others having no mistaken interpretations of the Bible.

GWH
I recognize that many believe the Bible contains no errors although those who have actually read the entire bible cover to cover is a miniscule percent of those making those claims. Thus one wonders where that confidence comes from. If we are honest, it comes from a long history of secular Christian history in which icons of the 13th-18th century made claims which we must defend. These "no error" claims are ancient human theology, not personal experience. This recognizes that long before there was a "bible" Christianity flourished even though there was a very wide degree of variation of theology and religious practice. Strangely, they still had unity. Perhaps they long ago knew something we no longer accept. That the community of Christians was vastly more important to them any different beliefs, traditions and practices. The love of Jesus bound together free and slave, Jews, Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Armenians, men and women and children. Until Rome cooped the Church, unity in love including respect for differences was the common experience. Once Christianity became the State, priorities changed. Only the official State religion was allowed and the dictates of that religion was in accord with the goals of the State. Christianity became an US vs Them religion as it remains to this day.

Perhaps if God's servants had the love of Jesus in our hearts and were intent on sharing that love with those God gives us to serve, exegesis and "my way or the highway" religion would break down from the legalistic sect-centered pale Christianity we experience today.

 

[CS1]

If you accept God dictated the words of the Bible which books did He dictate? The candidates are 66, 73 and 81. Did God then inspire the Jewish scholars who converted God's dictated Hebrew words into Greek as this forms the basis for every word we read? Did God also dictate the words translated from Greek to German and then again to English? Did God then dictate the complete Bible that has been translated into over 800 languages. For context, the New Testament is available in over 1,800 languages, and smaller portions exist in more than 3,400 languages. Are we assuming that God only dictated His Word into English? As anyone who has ever learned a foreign language knows there is seldom any exact word meaning in one language that has that single word meaning in another. The best anyone can hope for is that when one language is translated to another only nuances are lost. Unfortunately that is not how it works.

As every teenager knows (and those who remember those years) that while Dad might be very explicit in what he wants you do not "hear" the same thing. We listen to accomplish our own purposes. Thus the accuracy of God's word is largely determined by what we have been trained to "hear." While you can make a case God's Word is sufficient "for souls to discern God's requirements for Salvation." I wish that were true. Unfortunately, there is almost nothing Christian Sects disagree about more than what God's requirement for what salvation includes. How long it is good for, what are the differing definitions of key salvation words and passages, etc.

What constitutes a "minor errors" is disputed by virtually every Christian denomination and non-denomination. Some claim there are no errors of any kind. Some read the bible as a mystical collection of ancient stories with a clearly different God in the Hebrew Bible and a New and Better God in the New Testament. Some read the Bible like a scholar would approach reading and studying an ancient anthology of stories bound together. Some read the bible looking for hope and perhaps the formation of some faith. Some scholars treat the bible as a gold mine. They continually mine the biblical prospecting for gold knowing that not everything they mine is gold.
Some read the bible for bricks that they convert into theologic walls to keep out the infidels and other Christian claimants. Many read only proof texts extracted from the bible by unknown ancient people who somehow they trust with their eternal lives.

Well this is nothing new. There has always been two positions as a normative in Christian teaching

1. liberal Christian theology. Teach, the bible contains the word of God but is not fully the word of God.
2. Fundamentalist/ Evangelicals Christian theology Hold to the Bible is fully and completely the word of God without error and infallible.

The watering down of the word of God is nothing new. This is why we have the battle of morals vs ethics, Facts vs truth, and right vs wrong.

The understanding of God starts with humbleness and reverence and fear of the Living God. Respect and desire to k now him.

The Word of God has stood. Even with AI, and perversion.

 

[CS1]

If you accept God dictated the words of the Bible which books did He dictate? The candidates are 66, 73 and 81. Did God then inspire the Jewish scholars who converted God's dictated Hebrew words into Greek as this forms the basis for every word we read? Did God also dictate the words translated from Greek to German and then again to English? Did God then dictate the complete Bible that has been translated into over 800 languages. For context, the New Testament is available in over 1,800 languages, and smaller portions exist in more than 3,400 languages. Are we assuming that God only dictated His Word into English? As anyone who has ever learned a foreign language knows there is seldom any exact word meaning in one language that has that single word meaning in another. The best anyone can hope for is that when one language is translated to another only nuances are lost. Unfortunately that is not how it works.

As every teenager knows (and those who remember those years) that while Dad might be very explicit in what he wants you do not "hear" the same thing. We listen to accomplish our own purposes. Thus the accuracy of God's word is largely determined by what we have been trained to "hear." While you can make a case God's Word is sufficient "for souls to discern God's requirements for Salvation." I wish that were true. Unfortunately, there is almost nothing Christian Sects disagree about more than what God's requirement for what salvation includes. How long it is good for, what are the differing definitions of key salvation words and passages, etc.

What constitutes a "minor errors" is disputed by virtually every Christian denomination and non-denomination. Some claim there are no errors of any kind. Some read the bible as a mystical collection of ancient stories with a clearly different God in the Hebrew Bible and a New and Better God in the New Testament. Some read the Bible like a scholar would approach reading and studying an ancient anthology of stories bound together. Some read the bible looking for hope and perhaps the formation of some faith. Some scholars treat the bible as a gold mine. They continually mine the biblical prospecting for gold knowing that not everything they mine is gold.
Some read the bible for bricks that they convert into theologic walls to keep out the infidels and other Christian claimants. Many read only proof texts extracted from the bible by unknown ancient people who somehow they trust with their eternal lives.

When man says " The bible has minor error it is man who is saying it. The same man who argues man is fallible. The error is man thinking he can say what is a "minor error" over what is not. That places man as the authenticator of the word of God and not God.

That is pride. The word of God in the KJV, NKJV, NIV, NLT, NASB, AMP have the word of God to show Salvation , holy worship to God and righteous living. Man in his carnality once to hunger for knowledge ever learning but never come to Truth..

2Tim 3:1-7
1 But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, 4 traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away! 6 For of this sort are those who creep into households and make captives of gullible women loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts, 7 always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

 

[biblestudent78]

When man says " The bible has minor error it is man who is saying it. The same man who argues man is fallible. The error is man thinking he can say what is a "minor error" over what is not. That places man as the authenticator of the word of God and not God.

That is pride. The word of God in the KJV, NKJV, NIV, NLT, NASB, AMP have the word of God to show Salvation , holy worship to God and righteous living. Man in his carnality once to hunger for knowledge ever learning but never come to Truth..

2Tim 3:1-7
1 But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, 4 traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away! 6 For of this sort are those who creep into households and make captives of gullible women loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts, 7 always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

I followed you right up to the circular logic in "Man in his carnality (wants) to hunger for knowledge ever learning but never come(s) to Truth" Are you saying that only "non-carnal man can come to the Truth so long as he does not hunger for it?

 

[BartholomewB]

every person went to the temple and were able to sacrifice their lamb, dove, or cow at the same time? Or was it done over the period of time on that day ?

Obviously not at the same moment, but on the same day, yes.

 

[biblestudent78]

Well this is nothing new. There has always been two positions as a normative in Christian teaching

1. liberal Christian theology. Teach, the bible contains the word of God but is not fully the word of God.
2. Fundamentalist/ Evangelicals Christian theology Hold to the Bible is fully and completely the word of God without error and infallible.

The watering down of the word of God is nothing new. This is why we have the battle of morals vs ethics, Facts vs truth, and right vs wrong.

The understanding of God starts with humbleness and reverence and fear of the Living God. Respect and desire to k now him.

The Word of God has stood. Even with AI, and perversion.

Strike me you are not arguing about anything I posted. Reverting to the old dialectic liberal vs fundamentalist is just jargon and a simplistic view of the real world. It works for all those who want assurance they are ok because they are not one of those boogiemen who think different than I am allowed to think. It sure cuts down on bible reading and scholarship. Religion is just black and white. Don't be part of whatever I tell you are the wrong side.

Is simplistic because there are bible scholars and bible students who are dedicated to the lifelong pursuit of insight into God's Word. The opposite is - "Here are your beliefs. Keep them safe from your own mind."

 

[BartholomewB]

A more complete framing of the points of view of when Jesus and was resurrected:
Here is a brief look at each viewpoint:

Jesus was crucified on a Friday
Early Friday: Jesus eats the Passover.
Late Friday: Jesus is crucified and buried.
Early and late Saturday (the Sabbath): Jesus is in the tomb.
Early Sunday: Jesus rises from the dead, and the women find the empty tomb.

The traditional view is that Jesus was crucified on a Friday. According to this timeline, Jesus was killed in AD 30, and the day of preparation was Passover, Friday, Nisan 14. That was the time to eat the Passover meal and to ready dwellings for the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which began the next day, Saturday, Nisan 15. The fact that Jesus was killed on Passover accords well with 1 Corinthians 5:7, which calls Christ “our Passover lamb.”

Mark 15:42 says that Jesus was crucified on “the day before the Sabbath”; proponents of the Friday view consider the “Sabbath” here to be the weekly observance held on Saturday. Immediately after Jesus was taken down from the cross, the women present followed the body of Jesus to the tomb to see where it was laid. This happened “late on Friday afternoon, the day of preparation, as the Sabbath was about to begin” (Luke 23:54, NLT). On the day after the crucifixion (Saturday, Nisan 15), the chief priests and the Pharisees met with Pilate, who agrees to have the tomb sealed and guarded (Matthew 27:62).

The Friday view has Jesus in the tomb for three days by reckoning part of a day as a full day: Jesus was buried late in the day Friday (Day 1) and was entombed Saturday (Day 2) and the first part of Sunday (Day 3). Another argument for Friday points to verses such as Matthew 16:21 and Luke 9:22, which say that Jesus would rise “on the third day.” Sunday is the third day from Friday.

According to the Friday view, the “three days and three nights” prophecy of Matthew 12:40 was fulfilled in that both Jesus and Jonah were “confined” in difficult situations where they could not move about freely for three periods of darkness (night) and three periods of light (day). The three nights of confinement for Jesus were His arrest on Thursday night and His time in the tomb Friday night and Saturday night (or, as reckoned in the Jewish method—in which a day begins at sunset—early Friday, early Saturday, and early Sunday). The three days for Jesus were all day Friday, all day Saturday, and part of Sunday.

Jesus was crucified on a Thursday
Late Thursday: Jesus is crucified and buried.
Late Thursday through early Sunday: Jesus is in the tomb.
Early Sunday: Jesus rises from the dead, and the women find the empty tomb.

One point to be made in favor of the Thursday view is that Jesus’ prophecy of the sign of Jonah specifically includes three nights as well as three days (Matthew 12:40). If the crucifixion occurred on Thursday afternoon, the three days and three nights are all accounted for.

As for Luke’s statement that Jesus was taken down from the cross because “the sabbath was about to begin” (Luke 23:54), the Thursday view points out that there were actually two Sabbaths that week, the first Sabbath starting at sundown Thursday, followed by the regular Sabbath starting at sundown Friday. In fact, John’s account says that “the next day was to be a special Sabbath” (John 19:31); Passover was considered a special Sabbath (see Leviticus 16:29–31; 23:7, 24–32, 39).

Further, Matthew 28:1 says that the resurrection occurred “after the Sabbaths” (Berean Literal Bible)—the plural sabbaths being in the original, confirming there were multiple Sabbaths between the crucifixion and the resurrection. So, the “Passover” Sabbath was followed immediately by the “weekly” Sabbath, making the first opportunity to prepare the body for burial on Sunday at first light—and the women came to the tomb to do just that.

Thursday advocates also point to several passages that indicate the number of days between the crucifixion and the resurrection. For example, in John 2:19, Jesus says, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.” Three days from Thursday is Sunday. In addition, when Jesus appears to the two men on the road to Emmaus on resurrection Sunday, they state that “it is the third day since all this took place” (Luke 24:21). A natural reading of this sentence would place the crucifixion on Thursday.

Advocates for a Thursday crucifixion consider the “Preparation Day” to be the day before the Passover, the High Sabbath (John 19:14). Preparation day was the day that the Passover lamb was killed prior to the Passover meal that evening—which, according to Jewish reckoning, was the beginning of the next day (Mark 14:12). It is clear from the Old Testament instructions on the Passover (Exodus 12:6; Leviticus 23:5) that the lamb was to be slaughtered late in the day on the 14th day of the Hebrew month of Nisan—which was Thursday afternoon in AD 32. Thursday advocates point out that at the same time Israel was slaughtering their Passover lambs on Nisan 14, Jesus, the “Lamb of God” (John 1:29) was dying on a cross. Thus was fulfilled the prophetic symbolism of the Passover (1 Corinthians 5:7).

Based on this timeline, Thursday proponents also argue that the Last Supper, eaten on Wednesday evening, was not the Passover meal. The main course at Passover was a lamb, and there is no lamb mentioned at the Last Supper. Only bread and wine are mentioned.

Jesus was crucified on a Wednesday
Late Wednesday: Jesus is crucified and buried.
Early Thursday (Passover) through Late Saturday (Sabbath): Jesus is in the tomb.
Friday (between the two Sabbaths): the women buy and prepare the spices.
Early Sunday: Jesus rises from the dead, and the women find the empty tomb.

Those who argue for a Wednesday crucifixion agree with the Thursday view that there were two Sabbaths that week, but they separate them by a day. The first Sabbath, in this view, was the Passover Sabbath starting Wednesday evening following the crucifixion (Mark 15:42; Luke 23:52–54). Then came a non-Sabbath day (Friday) and then the weekly Sabbath starting Friday evening. The women purchased spices after the Sabbath, according to Mark 16:1—meaning the Passover Sabbath. Luke 23:56 says that, after the women saw where Jesus was buried, “they went home and prepared spices and perfumes. But they rested on the Sabbath in obedience to the commandment.” The Wednesday argument states that the women could not purchase the spices after the Sabbath and prepare those spices before the Sabbath unless there were two Sabbaths that week, separated by a day.

Supporters of the Wednesday viewpoint see theirs as the only explanation that does not violate the biblical account of the women and the spices and holds to a literal understanding of Matthew 12:40. The “three days and three nights” of Matthew 12:40 are reckoned as follows: early Thursday (Day 1), late Thursday (Night 1), early Friday (Day 2), late Friday (Night 2), early Saturday (Day 3), and late Saturday (Night 3).

A difficulty with the Wednesday view is that the disciples who walked with Jesus on the road to Emmaus did so on “the same day” of His resurrection (Luke 24:13). The disciples, who do not recognize Jesus, tell Him of Jesus’ crucifixion (verse 20) and say that “today is the third day since these things happened” (verse 21). Wednesday to Sunday is four days. A possible explanation is that they may have started their count on Wednesday evening at Christ’s burial, which begins the Jewish Thursday, and Thursday to Sunday could be counted as three days.

These various understandings of the Gospel narratives demonstrates that Christians of good will can disagree on important issues with equal scriptural validation.

I have never seen any reason to cast doubt on the traditional timing. The Last Supper was on the Thursday evening, the arrest in Gethsemane was around midnight or in the small hours of Friday morning. Jesus was crucified on Friday and taken down from the Cross later the same day. He was placed in the tomb on Friday afternoon or evening and the Resurrection occurred before daybreak on Sunday morning.

 

[rewriter]

rewriter
1. This is the original text. It contains the first five books of the Hebrew Bible (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy). It is the foundational story of the Jewish people and the laws given by God to Moses.

2. The Oral Torah (Torah Shebe'al Peh)
For thousands of years, this existed as spoken instructions. It includes the explanations, details, and traditions that explain how to follow the laws in the Written Torah. For example, the Written Torah says to rest on the Sabbath but doesn't define what "work" means. The Oral Torah provides those rules. This was eventually written down in books called the Talmud and Midrash.

3. Physical Formats (Sefer Torah vs. Chumash)
The text itself can be presented in two different material ways:
Sefer Torah: This is a large, handwritten scroll used in the synagogue. It is made of animal skin and written with a feather. It is strictly for public reading.
Chumash: This is a bound book. It comes from the Hebrew word for "five." It is the version people use at home or school for daily study. It often includes translations and commentaries along the sides

Which of three variant written texts called "the Torah" is original though?

The oral Torah might have existed for as long as 1500 years from roughly the time of Moses into the early CE period, hardly thousands though, more likely it appears to have evolved in the early 2nd century BCE after the temple was defiled and evidence of strict following of the Torah laws first appears. And we cannot be certain that there not written records of the various rabbinic rulings did not exist earlier, to claim that they did not is an argument from silence. Both the Talmud and the Mishnah are very specific as to what rabbi issued which specific rulings, which would be far more likely if pulling from assorted written records and compiling them all in one place. Also the existence of the Book of Jubilees argues against this longstanding oral tradition as it is often referred to as the "little Genesis", a written expansion of Genesis even if not formally recognized.

 

[CS1]

I followed you right up to the circular logic in "Man in his carnality (wants) to hunger for knowledge ever learning but never come(s) to Truth" Are you saying that only "non-carnal man can come to the Truth so long as he does not hunger for it?

I am saying secular humanism and post modernism were formed in the world system which is of the devil. Therefore one can not understand the context of the word of God without salvation and the Holy Spirit. The carnal mind has to be renewed by the word of God which is done in the sanctification process.

Romans 12:2

2 And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God

and Eph 4:23-24

23 and be renewed in the spirit of your mind, 24 and that you put on the new man which was created according to God, in true righteousness and holiness.

 

[rewriter]

A more complete framing of the points of view of when Jesus and was resurrected:
Here is a brief look at each viewpoint:

Jesus was crucified on a Friday
Early Friday: Jesus eats the Passover.
Late Friday: Jesus is crucified and buried.
Early and late Saturday (the Sabbath): Jesus is in the tomb.
Early Sunday: Jesus rises from the dead, and the women find the empty tomb.

The traditional view is that Jesus was crucified on a Friday. According to this timeline, Jesus was killed in AD 30, and the day of preparation was Passover, Friday, Nisan 14. That was the time to eat the Passover meal and to ready dwellings for the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which began the next day, Saturday, Nisan 15. The fact that Jesus was killed on Passover accords well with 1 Corinthians 5:7, which calls Christ “our Passover lamb.”

Mark 15:42 says that Jesus was crucified on “the day before the Sabbath”; proponents of the Friday view consider the “Sabbath” here to be the weekly observance held on Saturday. Immediately after Jesus was taken down from the cross, the women present followed the body of Jesus to the tomb to see where it was laid. This happened “late on Friday afternoon, the day of preparation, as the Sabbath was about to begin” (Luke 23:54, NLT). On the day after the crucifixion (Saturday, Nisan 15), the chief priests and the Pharisees met with Pilate, who agrees to have the tomb sealed and guarded (Matthew 27:62).

The Friday view has Jesus in the tomb for three days by reckoning part of a day as a full day: Jesus was buried late in the day Friday (Day 1) and was entombed Saturday (Day 2) and the first part of Sunday (Day 3). Another argument for Friday points to verses such as Matthew 16:21 and Luke 9:22, which say that Jesus would rise “on the third day.” Sunday is the third day from Friday.

According to the Friday view, the “three days and three nights” prophecy of Matthew 12:40 was fulfilled in that both Jesus and Jonah were “confined” in difficult situations where they could not move about freely for three periods of darkness (night) and three periods of light (day). The three nights of confinement for Jesus were His arrest on Thursday night and His time in the tomb Friday night and Saturday night (or, as reckoned in the Jewish method—in which a day begins at sunset—early Friday, early Saturday, and early Sunday). The three days for Jesus were all day Friday, all day Saturday, and part of Sunday.

Jesus was crucified on a Thursday
Late Thursday: Jesus is crucified and buried.
Late Thursday through early Sunday: Jesus is in the tomb.
Early Sunday: Jesus rises from the dead, and the women find the empty tomb.

One point to be made in favor of the Thursday view is that Jesus’ prophecy of the sign of Jonah specifically includes three nights as well as three days (Matthew 12:40). If the crucifixion occurred on Thursday afternoon, the three days and three nights are all accounted for.

As for Luke’s statement that Jesus was taken down from the cross because “the sabbath was about to begin” (Luke 23:54), the Thursday view points out that there were actually two Sabbaths that week, the first Sabbath starting at sundown Thursday, followed by the regular Sabbath starting at sundown Friday. In fact, John’s account says that “the next day was to be a special Sabbath” (John 19:31); Passover was considered a special Sabbath (see Leviticus 16:29–31; 23:7, 24–32, 39).

Further, Matthew 28:1 says that the resurrection occurred “after the Sabbaths” (Berean Literal Bible)—the plural sabbaths being in the original, confirming there were multiple Sabbaths between the crucifixion and the resurrection. So, the “Passover” Sabbath was followed immediately by the “weekly” Sabbath, making the first opportunity to prepare the body for burial on Sunday at first light—and the women came to the tomb to do just that.

Thursday advocates also point to several passages that indicate the number of days between the crucifixion and the resurrection. For example, in John 2:19, Jesus says, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.” Three days from Thursday is Sunday. In addition, when Jesus appears to the two men on the road to Emmaus on resurrection Sunday, they state that “it is the third day since all this took place” (Luke 24:21). A natural reading of this sentence would place the crucifixion on Thursday.

Advocates for a Thursday crucifixion consider the “Preparation Day” to be the day before the Passover, the High Sabbath (John 19:14). Preparation day was the day that the Passover lamb was killed prior to the Passover meal that evening—which, according to Jewish reckoning, was the beginning of the next day (Mark 14:12). It is clear from the Old Testament instructions on the Passover (Exodus 12:6; Leviticus 23:5) that the lamb was to be slaughtered late in the day on the 14th day of the Hebrew month of Nisan—which was Thursday afternoon in AD 32. Thursday advocates point out that at the same time Israel was slaughtering their Passover lambs on Nisan 14, Jesus, the “Lamb of God” (John 1:29) was dying on a cross. Thus was fulfilled the prophetic symbolism of the Passover (1 Corinthians 5:7).

Based on this timeline, Thursday proponents also argue that the Last Supper, eaten on Wednesday evening, was not the Passover meal. The main course at Passover was a lamb, and there is no lamb mentioned at the Last Supper. Only bread and wine are mentioned.

Jesus was crucified on a Wednesday
Late Wednesday: Jesus is crucified and buried.
Early Thursday (Passover) through Late Saturday (Sabbath): Jesus is in the tomb.
Friday (between the two Sabbaths): the women buy and prepare the spices.
Early Sunday: Jesus rises from the dead, and the women find the empty tomb.

Those who argue for a Wednesday crucifixion agree with the Thursday view that there were two Sabbaths that week, but they separate them by a day. The first Sabbath, in this view, was the Passover Sabbath starting Wednesday evening following the crucifixion (Mark 15:42; Luke 23:52–54). Then came a non-Sabbath day (Friday) and then the weekly Sabbath starting Friday evening. The women purchased spices after the Sabbath, according to Mark 16:1—meaning the Passover Sabbath. Luke 23:56 says that, after the women saw where Jesus was buried, “they went home and prepared spices and perfumes. But they rested on the Sabbath in obedience to the commandment.” The Wednesday argument states that the women could not purchase the spices after the Sabbath and prepare those spices before the Sabbath unless there were two Sabbaths that week, separated by a day.

Supporters of the Wednesday viewpoint see theirs as the only explanation that does not violate the biblical account of the women and the spices and holds to a literal understanding of Matthew 12:40. The “three days and three nights” of Matthew 12:40 are reckoned as follows: early Thursday (Day 1), late Thursday (Night 1), early Friday (Day 2), late Friday (Night 2), early Saturday (Day 3), and late Saturday (Night 3).

A difficulty with the Wednesday view is that the disciples who walked with Jesus on the road to Emmaus did so on “the same day” of His resurrection (Luke 24:13). The disciples, who do not recognize Jesus, tell Him of Jesus’ crucifixion (verse 20) and say that “today is the third day since these things happened” (verse 21). Wednesday to Sunday is four days. A possible explanation is that they may have started their count on Wednesday evening at Christ’s burial, which begins the Jewish Thursday, and Thursday to Sunday could be counted as three days.

These various understandings of the Gospel narratives demonstrates that Christians of good will can disagree on important issues with equal scriptural validation.

Your pointing out various understandings of the same scriptures is marvelous. They raise the issue of how does one know what the correct interpretation of scripture is. And on this point is where I differ with so many in here. People like to use scripture to prove scripture, yet this proves that such is a very fallible approach, as the assumptions one brings in, assumptions that are not based on scripture, are actually voiding the claim of scripture interprets scripture. This is what I realized and then I concluded that the proper way to judge any interpretation of scripture is to look outside scripture to see what external support there is. My approach formally recognizes what many people do but deny with their "scripture interprets scripture" claims. I openly acknowledge archeology and other non-scriptural sources as supporting or denying my understanding of scripture. The "scripture interprets scripture" crowd may consistently use scripture to support the findings of archeology, not that hard evidence needs support, but may not use those findings to support scripture if they wish to be consistent.

Now that these outside sources sometimes contradict popular understandings of scripture is not my problem. Rather that issue is the problem of the "scripture interprets scripture" crowd who want to keep their popular understanding in the face of internal vagueness and contradictory external evidence.

 

[GWH]

If you accept God dictated the words of the Bible which books did He dictate? The candidates are 66, 73 and 81. Did God then inspire the Jewish scholars who converted God's dictated Hebrew words into Greek as this forms the basis for every word we read? Did God also dictate the words translated from Greek to German and then again to English? Did God then dictate the complete Bible that has been translated into over 800 languages. For context, the New Testament is available in over 1,800 languages, and smaller portions exist in more than 3,400 languages. Are we assuming that God only dictated His Word into English? As anyone who has ever learned a foreign language knows there is seldom any exact word meaning in one language that has that single word meaning in another. The best anyone can hope for is that when one language is translated to another only nuances are lost. Unfortunately that is not how it works.

As every teenager knows (and those who remember those years) that while Dad might be very explicit in what he wants you do not "hear" the same thing. We listen to accomplish our own purposes. Thus the accuracy of God's word is largely determined by what we have been trained to "hear." While you can make a case God's Word is sufficient "for souls to discern God's requirements for Salvation." I wish that were true. Unfortunately, there is almost nothing Christian Sects disagree about more than what God's requirement for what salvation includes. How long it is good for, what are the differing definitions of key salvation words and passages, etc.

What constitutes a "minor errors" is disputed by virtually every Christian denomination and non-denomination. Some claim there are no errors of any kind. Some read the bible as a mystical collection of ancient stories with a clearly different God in the Hebrew Bible and a New and Better God in the New Testament. Some read the Bible like a scholar would approach reading and studying an ancient anthology of stories bound together. Some read the bible looking for hope and perhaps the formation of some faith. Some scholars treat the bible as a gold mine. They continually mine the biblical prospecting for gold knowing that not everything they mine is gold.
Some read the bible for bricks that they convert into theologic walls to keep out the infidels and other Christian claimants. Many read only proof texts extracted from the bible by unknown ancient people who somehow they trust with their eternal lives.

Good points, which is why we must be content to walk by faith that Scripture is sufficient for salvation
as we celebrate living by the Spirit of the loving Lord.

 

[biblestudent78]

Your pointing out various understandings of the same scriptures is marvelous. They raise the issue of how does one know what the correct interpretation of scripture is. And on this point is where I differ with so many in here. People like to use scripture to prove scripture, yet this proves that such is a very fallible approach, as the assumptions one brings in, assumptions that are not based on scripture, are actually voiding the claim of scripture interprets scripture. This is what I realized and then I concluded that the proper way to judge any interpretation of scripture is to look outside scripture to see what external support there is. My approach formally recognizes what many people do but deny with their "scripture interprets scripture" claims. I openly acknowledge archeology and other non-scriptural sources as supporting or denying my understanding of scripture. The "scripture interprets scripture" crowd may consistently use scripture to support the findings of archeology, not that hard evidence needs support, but may not use those findings to support scripture if they wish to be consistent.

Now that these outside sources sometimes contradict popular understandings of scripture is not my problem. Rather that issue is the problem of the "scripture interprets scripture" crowd who want to keep their popular understanding in the face of internal vagueness and contradictory external evidence.

rewriter.
From my perspective the purpose of the scriptures are to 1. lead us to Jesus the Christ - heart, mind and soul. 2. To describe a new way of living and loving. If we hold real reverence for the scriptures then we know it is a personal journey of discovery, a lamp unto our feet as we learn to walk where Jesus walked, loved like Jesus loved and find peace in our souls when we truly let the Holy Spirit bring us comfort and help in our times of need. All the rest of our disputations are because we falsely believe Christianity is about theology and dogmas. That is a shame.

 

[rewriter]

rewriter.
From my perspective the purpose of the scriptures are to 1. lead us to Jesus the Christ - heart, mind and soul. 2. To describe a new way of living and loving. If we hold real reverence for the scriptures then we know it is a personal journey of discovery, a lamp unto our feet as we learn to walk where Jesus walked, loved like Jesus loved and find peace in our souls when we truly let the Holy Spirit bring us comfort and help in our times of need. All the rest of our disputations are because we falsely believe Christianity is about theology and dogmas. That is a shame.

I can agree, but does our reverence for the scriptures lead us to elevate them too high and make our personal understandings higher than all else or do we seek to ensure, by all means possible, that we correctly understand them, even if it differs with what we are comfortable with. I operate well outside my comfort zone, but I am finding lots of connections within scripture that I never saw while following more conventional understandings such as I often see in these discussions, and these new connections resolve difficult passages

 

[biblestudent78]

I am saying secular humanism and post modernism were formed in the world system which is of the devil. Therefore one can not understand the context of the word of God without salvation and the Holy Spirit. The carnal mind has to be renewed by the word of God which is done in the sanctification process.

Romans 12:2

2 And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God

and Eph 4:23-24

23 and be renewed in the spirit of your mind, 24 and that you put on the new man which was created according to God, in true righteousness and holiness.

I think the verses you quoted suggest something else. You are suggesting that the enemy is "secular humanism" whatever that means and "post modernism" whatever that means. However, the verses you quoted are not about battling external forces. They are about each and everyone of us being personally transformed through conforming our minds to Jesus. The perfect will of God is to love God with all you heart strength and mind and to love your neighbor as much as you love yourself. We must put on the new man, a righteous living man conforming with the love and grace by which God made us.

It has been my experience that those who call themselves Christians are big talkers about curing the world's problems, identifying all the "works of the devil" etc but pay no attention to what is called for in the 2 versus you quoted...personal renewed of a Godly loving and living human being that demonstrates via our daily lives the righteousness of a humble heart in transition.

Or we can focus our lives on pointing fingers at entire categories of people we don't personally know while avoiding real transformation, renewal and walking in love and self-sacrifice. In my opinion that is the challenge of our daily lives. Nothing in the world is powerful enough to steal you out of the hand of God, but we can walk away distracted by our personal holy wars, as if God can be defeated by human politics, movements and lifestyles so we must mount our own campaign against "evil doers" which we once were and are capable of doing again.

 

[biblestudent78]

I can agree, but does our reverence for the scriptures lead us to elevate them too high and make our personal understandings higher than all else or do we seek to ensure, by all means possible, that we correctly understand them, even if it differs with what we are comfortable with. I operate well outside my comfort zone, but I am finding lots of connections within scripture that I never saw while following more conventional understandings such as I often see in these discussions, and these new connections resolve difficult passages

rewriter - like I said living the Christian life is a journey. If we are in genuine pursuit of instruction - not argumentation- then as I approach my 80th birthday I can testify that I find new insights in the scriptures almost daily. Like all endeavors we tend to find what we are looking for. IMHO there is nothing in the scriptures that calls us to confront and dispute with other believers. We will not be part of a flock in our resurrection. Our only plea is that we conducted our lives in good conscience and in accord with our calling to be reborn in faith, humility, love and service. If you take Matthew 25 to heart, judgement is all about the faith you experienced that led you to follow in Jesus footsteps and in accordance with Jesus definition of love.

 

[rewriter]

rewriter - like I said living the Christian life is a journey. If we are in genuine pursuit of instruction - not argumentation- then as I approach my 80th birthday I can testify that I find new insights in the scriptures almost daily. Like all endeavors we tend to find what we are looking for. IMHO there is nothing in the scriptures that calls us to confront and dispute with other believers. We will not be part of a flock in our resurrection. Our only plea is that we conducted our lives in good conscience and in accord with our calling to be reborn in faith, humility, love and service. If you take Matthew 25 to heart, judgement is all about the faith you experienced that led you to follow in Jesus footsteps and in accordance with Jesus definition of love.

I do not SEEK dispute, but neither will I shirk from it and deny the truth I have discovered. Now if someone can point out error in my thought, other than that I am ignoring traditional understandings and must therefore be wrong, I will listen. But with the number of people who have told me that once they see my logic, that I make more sense and am more consistent with regards to the scriptures than anyone else they have ever encountered, and I am often talking PhD's in NT, OT, Biblical Theology and Systematic Theology among others.

 

[biblestudent78]

I do not SEEK dispute, but neither will I shirk from it and deny the truth I have discovered. Now if someone can point out error in my thought, other than that I am ignoring traditional understandings and must therefore be wrong, I will listen. But with the number of people who have told me that once they see my logic, that I make more sense and am more consistent with regards to the scriptures than anyone else they have ever encountered, and I am often talking PhD's in NT, OT, Biblical Theology and Systematic Theology among others.

Perhaps I have been unclear. To me Christianity is not about defending our thoughts or even the current status of our beliefs. Christianity is about personal conversion, personal rebirth, personal commitments and personal lifestyle.

Contemplation of theology in all its emotional and self-righteous forms is a form of one contemplating our navel.

Instruction in righteous living, confidence in Jesus our Christ, paths to humility, selflessness, loving service and forgiveness of self and of others does not generate much need for a defense.

The focus of genuine Christianity is on my needs for continuous evolution of my witness, my service and my lifelong desire to love God and my neighbor better. This is the narrow path.

The path for theological debate, strategic defense of our dogmas and the uniqueness of our sect's righteous beliefs is not the path Jesus walked. Neither should we.

 

[GWH]

rewriter.
From my perspective the purpose of the scriptures are to 1. lead us to Jesus the Christ - heart, mind and soul. 2. To describe a new way of living and loving. If we hold real reverence for the scriptures then we know it is a personal journey of discovery, a lamp unto our feet as we learn to walk where Jesus walked, loved like Jesus loved and find peace in our souls when we truly let the Holy Spirit bring us comfort and help in our times of need. All the rest of our disputations are because we falsely believe Christianity is about theology and dogmas. That is a shame.

Our perspective is our belief, theology and doctrine, so the shame is when they do not promote love and spiritual unity, with the tulip perspective being a prime example of that shame on CC.