Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
What could you possibly mean by "According to whom?". |
According to YOU, the highlighted words of a red-letter Bible are authoritative... even though there are competing red-letter bibles, they're no less subject to dispute than the recent Bibles they're based upon (which frequently include parables and quotes that simply did not exist in earlier texts), the canon of those Bible were selected from among many conflicting accounts hundreds of years later, the "original" manuscripts were translations and copies of translations of the claimed accounts, the accounts themselves were handed down by oral tradition for at least decades... and the results are selectively interpreted to fit your personal beliefs anyway.
Originally posted by Flash:
What you need to do is get a Harmony of the Gospels. It lays out Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in series side by side as BOTH 4 separate stories and as 1 single story. You can do all the comparison you wish from each author and discern all your bullsh!t discrepancies between the 4. In the end, I don't care who you use, NIV, KJ, New Jereselum, there isn't enough difference between them to matter - certainly not to me. A thee or a thou or some other extraneous piece of crap that you want to wage a war over is absolutely BS.
Different scholars, different Bibles, same words. How can that be if there is all this manmade infusion of error? |
Well then let's just take a peek, shall we? It's hardly surprising that the first three would generally coincide given that Matthew was an elaboration OF Mark (there's no mention of virgin birth or the Lord's Prayer in Mark, for example), and Luke was written from both Mark and Matthew. John has Jesus preaching for three years (vs. one in the other three gospels), mainly in Judea (vs. Galilee), and in essay format (vs. parables and one-liners). Those are big discrepancies on the most basic historical accounts, yet we're supposed to think direct quotes are reliable? "In the gospel of John, the account of the Last Supper has no mention of Jesus taking bread and wine and speaking of them as his body and blood; instead it recounts his humble act of washing the disciples' feet." That's a huge distinction for those who take communion! The single most important miracle in John (the one that prompted his crucifixion) was raising Lazarus from the dead. Find that anywhere in the other three gospels.
Far from meaningless discrepancies, biblical contradictions extend right to the core principles of religion. Protestants often believe in salvation by faith alone, yet the Epistle of James directly contradicts that claim to the extent that Martin Luther considered it a forgery. They prefer Paul's declaration that faith alone is enough, yet Paul demanded that people heed his words over those of an angel from heaven. Anybody see a problem with that? |
First you know full well that your post is NOT what I am talking about. I am talking about several different bibles translated by different scholars with the SAME words in each. Same books same stories same words attributed to the teacher. Same same same. How can that be if man is so egregious in his error. How can different scholars translate different bibles and come up with the same words?.
According to your argument there should be errors galore. Intentional mythologic errors. But alas they are absent. Strange eh? |
