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.
I am not a Bible scholar. I have simple faith in God and the Bible. That's it. Without faith, it's impossible to please God.
What difference would either version have on the wider context?
You could also ask "Was Revelation written for the people of John's time or for some future generation 4,000, 5,000 even 10,000 years into the future?"
And I'd ask "What difference would either version (or interpretation) have in the wider context"?
Now check out the SAME verse from three other translations:
The "knowing" is stated in the PERFECT tense. Therefore, it is not saying that they would never know. In fact, I believe God is telling His chosen exactly when for His Son cannot come as a Thief in the night to those that are watching.
I assume scholars are looking at a very ancient text of Matthew. They are reading it word for word, or character for character if you want, and they come to this verse. Now either the Son is mentioned there or He isn't. Forget about "Why is it significant?" That's not my question. My question is, "If the Son is not mentioned, why did someone insert Him? If the Son IS mentioned, why did someone remove Him?" It has to be one way or the other, and one way or the other a copier took it upon himself to alter the text in a way that dramatically affects Jesus' knowledge while He was on earth. He either knew the day and hour or He didn't and that is HUGE from a theological standpoint. One way or the other, we have some dumb scribe or copier stepping and altering sacred God-inspired scriptures and changing Jesus' nature because, I theorize, he felt that it was a bad idea to give people the notion that Jesus' Deity might be limited. And if he did it there, how many other places was it done?
It's no good for you to sweep this under the rug as some of you are trying to do. Tampering with sacred text is serious business and you are just dismissing alterations like this out of hand as an inconvenient and/or unimportant truth in an effort to minimize or eliminate the fallout.
I assume scholars are looking at a very ancient text of Matthew. They are reading it word for word, or character for character if you want, and they come to this verse. Now either the Son is mentioned there or He isn't. Forget about "Why is it significant?" That's not my question. My question is, "If the Son is not mentioned, why did someone insert Him? If the Son IS mentioned, why did someone remove Him?" It has to be one way or the other, and one way or the other a copier took it upon himself to alter the text in a way that dramatically affects Jesus' knowledge while He was on earth. He either knew the day and hour or He didn't and that is HUGE from a theological standpoint. One way or the other, we have some dumb scribe or copier stepping and altering sacred God-inspired scriptures and changing Jesus' nature because, I theorize, he felt that it was a bad idea to give people the notion that Jesus' Deity might be limited. And if he did it there, how many other places was it done?
It's no good for you to sweep this under the rug as some of you are trying to do. Tampering with sacred text is serious business and you are just dismissing alterations like this out of hand as an inconvenient and/or unimportant truth in an effort to minimize or eliminate the fallout.
Well, I agree someone should not be adding to it. But we don't know if there is an extant revision by an Apostle or someone authorized by them to make that change. I have the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew (George Howard) that also doesn't have the Son mentioned. Which to me fits with the rest of the scriptures. After all, ALL things were put into His hands. I can't think that anything would have been left out or any reason to leave it out. After all we are talking about the Lord Jesus Christ.
The only possible mistake I see in that passage, Thrill, is that it says Christ appeared to Cephas (Peter) and then to the 12. Judas I believe killed himself before the resurrection. I don't think they chose Matthias before they knew of the resurrection.
It doesn,t say when he hung himself...In fact that could be idiomatic...
Scarlet got it right below in #18. They hadn't chosen Matthias until after Jesus ascended so how could Jesus have appeared to the "12". Judas was already dead so there was only "11".
Well, I agree someone should not be adding to it. But we don't know if there is an extant revision by an Apostle or someone authorized by them to make that change. I have the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew (George Howard) that also doesn't have the Son mentioned. Which to me fits with the rest of the scriptures. After all, ALL things were put into His hands. I can't think that anything would have been left out or any reason to leave it out. After all we are talking about the Lord Jesus Christ.
Exactly. And that is my point. until we have the original text as Matthew wrote it all this is pure guesswork because among the thousands of copies and copies of copies and 40th generation copies we have as the earliest sources to go back to, all we can do is make educated guesses about which is true--one of those guesses based on what you just suggested: why should Jesus' Deity be limited while He is here on earth in human form? But some scholars are postulating that Jesus voluntarily divested Himself of certain powers and they base this on certain question and comments He said throughout His earthly ministry, this business of the day and hour being only one of them.
What is the truth? We will never know. Some scholar theorized that God would never allow the originals to be found, just as He never allowed Moses' body to be found, for fear that people would worship the documents as a sacred idol. Based upon how I've seen some people in here worshiping the King James translation I think that scholar has a very valid point.
Exactly. And that is my point. until we have the original text as Matthew wrote it all this is pure guesswork because among the thousands of copies and copies of copies and 40th generation copies we have as the earliest sources to go back to, all we can do is make educated guesses about which is true--one of those guesses based on what you just suggested: why should Jesus' Deity be limited while He is here on earth in human form? But some scholars are postulating that Jesus voluntarily divested Himself of certain powers and they base this on certain question and comments He said throughout His earthly ministry, this business of the day and hour being only one of them.
What is the truth? We will never know. Some scholar theorized that God would never allow the originals to be found, just as He never allowed Moses' body to be found, for fear that people would worship the documents as a sacred idol. Based upon how I've seen some people in here worshiping the King James translation I think that scholar has a very valid point.
I think we can know. I think once you begin to understand God and His nature, then even that which is True and important becomes your own nature and therefore comprehensible even when it may seem so obsure and hidden to others.
I think we can know. I think once you begin to understand God and His nature, then even that which is True and important becomes your own nature and therefore comprehensible even when it may seem so obscure and hidden to others.
Maybe. But the Roman Catholic Church argued from that position for over 1000 years, convinced that they understood exactly God and His nature, and murdered anyone who deviated from their position of infallibility as they claimed to understand it. The only difference between the Roman Catholic leaders of the Middle Ages and the Christian Fundamentalist Corporate apparatchik in place today is that the Christian Fundamentalist Corporate apparatchik cannot murder people like me who call them out. Otherwise there's not a dime's worth of difference between them. Carlton Pearson can tell you all about what happens to someone who is stupid enough to go against the vaunted positions and the power that the Christian Fundamentalist Corporate apparatchik. Notice I didn't use the word, "beliefs" because beliefs have nothing to do with theological positions. Theological positions are what place you and keep you in power. Beliefs are of no consequence to the Christian Fundamentalist Corporate apparatchik. If the Christian Fundamentalist Corporate apparatchik can keep 98% of Christian Fundamentalists standing on the position that eternal torment is Biblical (and universal redemption is heresy) that's all that matter to the Christian Fundamentalist Corporate apparatchik if that position keeps them in power over a dumbed-down Christian congregation.
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.
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.
