U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-21-2016, 10:15 AM
 
20,299 posts, read 15,651,035 times
Reputation: 7415

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden View Post
That isn't quite the complete story. There are contradictions in the accounts as reported by Acts:

The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, for they heard the voice but could see no one. (Luke reporting)
------

— Acts 9:7, New American Bible (NAB)

My companions saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one who spoke to me. (Paul speaking)

— Acts 22:9, New American Bible (NAB)

There is little doubt something profound happened, but the devil remains in the details. Luke apparently wasn't aware that he miswrote either with the first or second account. Given that writing on parchment may have taken days to write a one or two of our chapter divisionsor, it isn't surprising that a detail is incorrect one way or another.

It's a discrepancy in Acts, but it gives legitimacy to the human messenger writing it.

Only lawyers resort to arguing that the details condemn the entire account, and only inerrantists waste their time trying to reconcile the humanity in the writer.
That's not a contradiction. It's a matter of understanding (or of not understanding) the meaning of the Greek word - ἀκούω which is behind the English translation.

https://carm.org/paul-hear-voice

https://carm.org/bible-difficulties/...r-voice-or-not

https://rcg.org/questions/p178.a.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-21-2016, 11:12 AM
 
20,299 posts, read 15,651,035 times
Reputation: 7415
[quote=Aristotle's Child;43424085]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post

RESPONSES:

Mike posted:


RESPONSE: Do you really expect me to review all your threads for the last “few years”? Your response here is not an answer. The fact that you can’t produce it, makes it impossible to verity.
I did produce it. I posted that thread in post #48.

Quote:
RESPONSE: Passage reads John 19.27 “Then he said to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” And from that hour the disciple took her into his own home.” (NRSV) I go by the plain meaning of words.
You are reading from an English translation. The Greek does not have the word 'house.'

And as has already been pointed out to you in post #53 Mary did not leave the scene. Mark tells us that after the body of Jesus had been taken down from the cross she and Mary Magdalene were looking on to see where Jesus was laid - Mark 15:47.

Now since Mary had followed to see where the body of Jesus had been taken, she could not at the very same time have gone to the house (which is not even mentioned in John 19:27) of the apostle whom Jesus loved, at the same time.




Quote:
RESPONSE: No. Not “(actually, 'to the own.')”

(New Revised Standard Version) John 19.27 “Then he said to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” And from that hour the disciple took her into his own home.”
Online Greek Interlinear Bible

"Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own [home]. "
idia idia G2398 a_ Acc Pl Strongs Lexicon G2398 “pertaining to one's self, one's own, belonging to one's self”
Again, you are reading from an English translation. The Greek is as follows.

John 19:27 εἶτα λέγει τῷ μαθητῇ Ἴδε ἡ μήτηρ σου. καὶ ἀπ’ ἐκείνης τῆς ὥρας ἔλαβεν ὁ μαθητὴς αὐτὴν εἰς τὰ ἴδια.

The word oikoς - oikos which means 'house' is not in John 19:27.

The Berean Literal Bible correctly translates John 19:27 as
John 19:27 Then He says to the disciple, "Behold, your mother." And from that hour the disciple took her to the own.
And a translation such as the NASB has the word 'household' in italics meaning that the word does not actually appear in the original but was added in the translation.

The Greek word τὰ is the definite article in the nominative case neuter plural. It is translated as 'the' in English. And so, the phrase εἰς τὰ ἴδια. is literally translated as 'to the own.' But the meaning is that the disciple whom Jesus loved took Mary into his own care. But the verse says nothing about Mary going to the disciple's house at that very hour.


Quote:
RESPONSE: No. You have the wrong Mary. Mark 15:47 “Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses watched where he was laid.” Please read and quote all the words
Oh, son of a gun. So I do. I read it too quickly. At any rate, John 19:27 doesn't say or mean that Mary went to the house of the disciple that Jesus loved at that very hour. It simply means that Mary was placed into the care of that disciple at that time.

Quote:
Note: You quote Mark extensively. I assume you know that the writer of the gospel we call "Mark" was a Syrian Christian who was not an eyewitness to the events he describes and wrote at least 40 years after the fact. Still his gospel is the primary souce of Matthew's and Luke's gospels written 50 years after the events described and they were also non-witneses.
Of course Mark was not an eyewitness. And I said as much at the top of post #41 which was addressed to you.

Actually, a good argument can be made for all of the synoptic Gospels having been written by the early 60's, which if so, would place the writing of Mark only about 30 years after the death of Jesus. Whether Mark or Matthew was written first is debatable. And regardless of which was actually written first, as has already been stated, the writers of the Gospels had source material which included oral tradition. And in the case of Matthew and John, who were eyewitnesses, they had their own memories of the events.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2016, 12:10 PM
 
28,906 posts, read 45,227,864 times
Reputation: 45820
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules View Post
There seems to be only two views on how to address the discrepancies found between the differing gospel accounts.

1. They are actually different events, or they are told from different perspectives. (orthodox/fundamentalist)

2. They prove that the writers were making it all up, getting their facts confused. (skeptic)

Neither of these views really makes sense. Which is why I think the truth is something like this:

3. They are intentional, and the writers were highly educated. Their purpose is to tell the reader that the stories are not factual, in case they were unable to gather that from the clues within the text themselves. There is a deeper meaning that the writer is trying to convey. If the reader is not smart enough to catch the clues, then perhaps the differences will get his attention.

What do you think of this third view?
You're missing a very strong fourth possibility. The authors of the Gospel recounted the events decades after the fact and were subject to the caprices of memory.

As one example, let's take the Crucifixion. All the Synoptic Gospels describe Christ's death and his last words. In one, Christ's last words are, "Into your hands I commend my spirit." In another, it's "It is finished." And the third, and most disturbing, "My God, why have you forsaken me?" In each of these accounts, Christ speaks his last words and then dies.

Three different passages, which completely and utterly have different takeaways. One is about the fulfillment of mission, another about trust, and the third is about doubt.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2016, 12:26 PM
 
Location: Denver, CO
8,591 posts, read 5,118,701 times
Reputation: 3917
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
That's not a contradiction. It's a matter of understanding (or of not understanding) the meaning of the Greek word - ἀκούω which is behind the English translation.

https://carm.org/paul-hear-voice

https://carm.org/bible-difficulties/...r-voice-or-not

https://rcg.org/questions/p178.a.html
Quite interesting. I'm sure most fundamentalists delight in understanding how Greek words and cultural situation impact English texts--when it supports their idea of a divine bible.

I only wish they would be so accepting of the same kind of Greek word interpretations and context impact how they improperly view homosexuals.

But then consistency is never a problem for fundamentalism because it's find what sounds good and publish it.

Since I really don't have any interest in studying about Paul's experiences, and because he converted despite how anyone views details (the BIG picture), it's not worth spending an afternoon researching.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2016, 12:37 PM
 
Location: Southern Oregon
15,551 posts, read 7,004,990 times
Reputation: 1604
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
That's not a contradiction. It's a matter of understanding (or of not understanding) the meaning of the Greek word - ἀκούω which is behind the English translation.

https://carm.org/paul-hear-voice

https://carm.org/bible-difficulties/...r-voice-or-not

https://rcg.org/questions/p178.a.html
CARM (according to my computer) does not use a supported platform so I didn't go there, but I am curious; Regardless of the nuances of the word translated heard or understood or sensed, one place says they did and the other place says they didn't, so what are you saying?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2016, 02:35 PM
 
20,299 posts, read 15,651,035 times
Reputation: 7415
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
That's not a contradiction. It's a matter of understanding (or of not understanding) the meaning of the Greek word - ἀκούω which is behind the English translation.

https://carm.org/paul-hear-voice

https://carm.org/bible-difficulties/...r-voice-or-not

https://rcg.org/questions/p178.a.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by nateswift View Post
CARM (according to my computer) does not use a supported platform so I didn't go there, but I am curious; Regardless of the nuances of the word translated heard or understood or sensed, one place says they did and the other place says they didn't, so what are you saying?
Simply this. First, here are the two verses in question, both are the NASB translation. Note how the NASB provides the correct meaning of Acts 22:9 by translating the phrase φωνὴν οὐκ ἤκουσαν as 'did not understand, rather then did not hear. Many Bible translations in fact translate it this way as can be seen at the following site - Acts 22:9 My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me.
Acts 9:7 The men who traveled with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one. [NASB]

Acts 22:9 "And those who were with me saw the light, to be sure, but did not understand the voice of the One who was speaking to me. [NASB]
The issue being is that whether the word akouó - ''hear, listen'' is translated into English - as ''hear'' or ''understand'' depends on whether the word which accompanies it - φωνή - ''phóné, sound, voice'' is in the Genitive case - φωνῆς as it is in Acts 9:7, or if it is it the Accusative case - φωνὴν as it is in Acts 22:9.

Since in Acts 9:7 φωνή is in the Genitive case, the word akouó is translated as 'hear.' But since in Acts 22:9 φωνή is in the Accusative case, the word akouó is better understood as 'understand.'

Stanley D. Toussaint, Th.D, who did the commentary on Acts in the Bible Knowledge Commentary writes
9:7 An apparent discrepancy stands between verse 7 and 22:9. In 9:7 Luke recorded that the men who traveled with Saul . . . heard the sound (phōnēs), but in 22:7 Luke wrote that ''they did not understand the voice'' (phōnēn). Literally, that clause in 22:9 may be translated, ''They did not hear the sound.'' The NIV correctly translates the verse, because the verb ''to hear'' with the genitive case may mean ''to hear a sound'' and with the accusative case ''to hear with understanding.'' The genitive case is employed in 9:7, and the accusative is used in 22:9. So the travelers with Saul heard the sound (9:7) but did not understand what Christ said (22:9).

[The Bible Knowledge Commentary, New Testament, An Exposition of the Scriptures by Dallas Seminary Faculty, p. 376]
The NIV, as Toussaint pointed out above translates Acts 22:9 as
Acts 22:9 My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me.
It's similar to the situation recorded in John 12:28-29 when a voice came from out of heaven and spoke, but not everyone understood it. To some the voice sounded like thunder.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2016, 02:54 PM
 
Location: Southern Oregon
15,551 posts, read 7,004,990 times
Reputation: 1604
Ah, I see, and Arndt and Gingrich references the idea that it is important as one variation of thought, however, in looking at what is being said, the place where you say it should be translated "understanding," the parallel thought is about a physical perception: seeing the light and then but not "perceiving" the voice. I doubt that the author would switch from physical to abstract "understanding" in one sentence.

My take. It really isn't important to me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2016, 03:11 PM
 
20,299 posts, read 15,651,035 times
Reputation: 7415
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpg35223 View Post
You're missing a very strong fourth possibility. The authors of the Gospel recounted the events decades after the fact and were subject to the caprices of memory.

As one example, let's take the Crucifixion. All the Synoptic Gospels describe Christ's death and his last words. In one, Christ's last words are, "Into your hands I commend my spirit." In another, it's "It is finished." And the third, and most disturbing, "My God, why have you forsaken me?" In each of these accounts, Christ speaks his last words and then dies.

Three different passages, which completely and utterly have different takeaways. One is about the fulfillment of mission, another about trust, and the third is about doubt.
Did it ever occur to you that Jesus said all of those things before He died, but that none of the Gospel writers recorded all of Jesus' words on the cross?

Both Matthew and Mark record the fact that Jesus said something else after He cried out, ''My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me? (Matt. 27:46; Mark 15:34).
And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His Spirit (Matthew 27:50)

And Jesus uttered a loud cry, and breathed His last (Mark 15:37).
So both Matthew and Mark state that Jesus said something else after what is recorded in Matt. 27:46 and Mark 15:34, but neither one tell us what it was that Jesus said. Luke however does tell us what Jesus' very last words were.
Luke 23:46 Then Jesus, calling out with a loud voice, said, “Father, into Your hands I commit My spirit!” And having said this He breathed his last.
And just before Jesus said, ''Father, into Your hands I commit My Spirit,'' Jesus said, ''It is finished.'' John 19:30

Jesus said other things as well on the cross before He spoke His very last words. There is no contradiction here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2016, 03:54 PM
 
20,299 posts, read 15,651,035 times
Reputation: 7415
Quote:
Originally Posted by nateswift View Post
Ah, I see, and Arndt and Gingrich references the idea that it is important as one variation of thought, however, in looking at what is being said, the place where you say it should be translated "understanding," the parallel thought is about a physical perception: seeing the light and then but not "perceiving" the voice. I doubt that the author would switch from physical to abstract "understanding" in one sentence.

My take. It really isn't important to me.

I'll provide another example in which the Greek word akouó is to be understood as 'understand' rather than as 'hear,' and then leave it at that.

1 Cor. 14:2 For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands (ἀκούει), but in his spirit he speaks mysteries.

A person can physically hear the person who is speaking in tongues, but not understand him. When someone spoke in tongues in the early church there had to be an interpreter present so that what he was saying could be understood.

And so it was regarding the men who were with Paul. While Acts 22:9 is not referring to 'tongues,' the use of the word akouó is in the sense of 'not understanding' rather than 'not hearing,' as is the case in 1 Cor. 14:2. Both Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9 state that the men with Paul heard a voice, but in Acts 22:9 Paul makes it clear that the men with him did not understand the voice.

Last edited by Mike555; 03-21-2016 at 04:24 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2016, 04:09 PM
 
4,583 posts, read 2,268,956 times
Reputation: 339
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpg35223 View Post
You're missing a very strong fourth possibility. The authors of the Gospel recounted the events decades after the fact and were subject to the caprices of memory.
As one example, let's take the Crucifixion. All the Synoptic Gospels describe Christ's death and his last words. In one, Christ's last words are, "Into your hands I commend my spirit." In another, it's "It is finished." And the third, and most disturbing, "My God, why have you forsaken me?" In each of these accounts, Christ speaks his last words and then dies.
Three different passages, which completely and utterly have different takeaways. One is about the fulfillment of mission, another about trust, and the third is about doubt.
At about 3 O'clock that day Jesus says:
" I am thirsty."
Then, " My God why have you forsaken me ? "
That shows us that God was Not comforting Jesus, but that Jesus was laying down his life for us of his own accord.
Truly No doubt, Jesus was abandoned into the hands of his enemies without God giving a helping hand.
When Jesus received the sour wine then Jesus says, " It has been accomplished " ( finished )
Finally, Jesus says," Father into your hands I entrust my spirit." Then Jesus bows his head and dies.
see also - Psalm 22:1
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top